Friday, March 23, 2007
Iran provokes, and yet remains secure
Iran has grabbed 15 British sailors in Iraqi national waters, thereby commiting a manifest act of war against two countries at once:
Iranian naval vessels on Friday seized 15 British sailors and marines who had boarded a merchant ship in Iraqi waters of the Persian Gulf as part of efforts to protect the Iraqi coastline and its oil terminals, U.S. and British officials said.
Of course, neither Britain nor Iraq or any of their allies will actually go to war over this incident, a measure of how profoundly Iranian security has improved in recent years. That improvement is one response to the oft-heard claim that American actions since 2001 have increased Iranian insecurity and therefore its desire for atomic weapons.
The Counterterrorism Blog has many questions.
31 Comments:
By 
, at
Fri Mar 23, 03:24:00 PM:
Don't worry, I'm sure they will be willing to pay ransom to get them back.
Somehow I have Kipling's "Danegeld" running through my head....
By 
Escort81, at
Fri Mar 23, 05:12:00 PM:
I suppose it's possible either the Brits or Iranians had a malfunctioning GPS unit and didn't know which side of the line they were on, which certainly can happen more readily at sea than on land. But jeez, for less than a hundred bucks, you can get a small waterproof unit from Amazon. Maybe we should all chip in a buy a few for the Iranian Navy so they can double check their primary nav systems. I always bring my handheld unit when I'm out on the ocean.
I agree with the basic point that TH is making regarding Iranian security, but that assumes that no direct action or provocation takes place. I do think that there is some point in time, probably not much past Easter, after which there might be painful consequences for Iran if the Brits are not returned safely. I am hopeful that this will not escalate, however, primarily because I don't quite see how it makes sense for either side at this juncture.
I have to give the Iranians credit for having massive cojones. The Iranian Navy being willing to possibly take on the combination of the U.S. Navy and Royal Navy is like TH's son atttempting to jam over Dikembe Mutombo. Crazy like a fox, or just crazy?
Since colagirl nicely brings poetry into the commentary, everyone should have the benefit of the reference:
IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation,
To call upon a neighbour and to say:
"We invaded you last night - we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."
And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld
And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!
It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say:
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray,
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:
"We never pay any one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost,
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!"
Kipling certainly was a first rate author and poet.
I hope colagirl is mistaken regarding the willingness of London to pay off Tehran in this matter, unless it is clear that the Royal Navy was well into undisputed Iranian waters.
By Purple Avenger, at
Fri Mar 23, 05:57:00 PM:
Its a "test" of a chastened Blair.
By , at
Fri Mar 23, 06:18:00 PM:
By Escort81, at
Fri Mar 23, 06:23:00 PM:
Mario Loyola has a different take on the Iranian Navy actions. He states: "it wouldn’t surprise me if the Iranians were actually responding, in this case, to a carefully planned provocation of our own." Writing in NRO, he can speculate on this action and believe that it is a good thing to do. I don't see any facts in evidence at this early stage to indicate that the Royal Navy strayed deliberately into Iranian waters. Labour MPs will blow a gasket if they find out that Blair or anyone senior in his cabinet approved such an action.
By K. Pablo, at
Fri Mar 23, 06:29:00 PM:
The Iranian Navy being willing to possibly take on the combination of the U.S. Navy and Royal Navy ....
Maybe the Iranian Navy wants to try out some of these.
By Escort81, at
Fri Mar 23, 06:52:00 PM:
K. Pablo -
Wow. I had not been aware of the "Sizzler" missle and its poossible deployment outside of Russia. (I thought it was a low priced steak restaurant). The article, which characterizes it as a carrier killer, states that the Iranians "may" have purchased it from the Russians. I hope not. The Iranians would need to think long and hard before using it if they indeed have it. Successful use against a U.S. carrier would certainly change the strategic (but probably not the tactical) situation. The Argentinians effectively used French Exocet missles against the Royal Navy in the Falklands, and won that day's battle but lost the war.
By brough, at
Fri Mar 23, 07:14:00 PM:
Thatcher reportedly threatened to unleash Trident upon the Argentines if the French didn't provide the Exocet codes.
By K. Pablo, at
Fri Mar 23, 07:41:00 PM:
I'm just the Bluebird of Happiness.
By allen, at
Fri Mar 23, 07:46:00 PM:
By , at
Fri Mar 23, 07:53:00 PM:
What this incident proves (Blair is already apologizing and groveling and the price for the release of the sailors will be British immediate withdrawal from Iraq, Afghanistan, and special Sharia law for Muslims in the UK) ... is that weakness by the West, and aggression by third-rate Third World nations pays.
For now.
Ultimately if we want to keep our "stuff" i.e. wealth and laws and society that generates same we will have to go back to the USUAL state of affairs which is killing great whacking lots of uncivilized and poverty stricken maniacs. There is no "end of history" but rather just history. The long vacation from civilization vs. barbarians afforded by the Cold War is over. So is the Clinton vacation.
Iran won't be the only nation to do these things. So too will Indonesia, or Malaysia, or Yemen, or Morocco, etc. Our fantasy of comfortable middle class lives removed from reality is over.
By Habu, at
Fri Mar 23, 09:07:00 PM:
I'm unsure what is to be gained by NOT escalating this as far as possible.
The history of the past thirty years shows a rapid and steady aggression by the Islamic world toward the the West. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the Islamists have any notion of "climbing down " from there continued aggression.
There is nothing to be gained by the West in negotitating with them any further than we have. This latest "test" if negotitated to an end or capitulated to an end by the Brits will simply continue to confirm Islamic opinion that the West can simply be waited out, that they will not use all their arsenal to gain victory because their own population would not like it and doesn't have the will to back it in the first place.
In the world of realpolitik the West is losing badly. Radical Islam is a Mushariff assassination away from a nuclear arsenal. Iran continues to play for time. In Egypt the Brotherhood is getting restive and Israel cannot count on the US to save her.
In the final analysis this is bigger than the diruption of oil to the West, the collaspe of economies or even the deaths similar to WWII. It's all about the continued existence of Constitutional freedoms guaranteed to our citizenry in perpetuity not just from 1776 to 2007.
Cause make no mistake, the Islams will take away your freedoms.
By Escort81, at
Fri Mar 23, 09:39:00 PM:
Anon 7:53 PM -
Can you provide a link to the Blair comments on the taking of the 15 sailors? BBC World tonight did not have any tape of Blair. It was the lede story and the commentator used the term "kidnapped."
The UK has already announced it is withdrawing some troops (1,000 out of 5,000, roughly) from Iraq. No doubt when the Blair administration stands down later this year as planned, the new PM will announce further withdrawls. The UK troops in Afghanistan are there as part of a NATO force and I have heard nothing about a reduction there. I also don't believe that a Muslim living in the UK that did not want to be subject to Sharia law as set forth by his or her family would not have some recourse or protection from the British legal system.
Is Iran considered to be a poor country? Using a measure of, I don't know, per capita GDP, is it in the bottom quartile of nations? I suppose we could do this measure with and also ex-oil. I guess we could characterize the present leadership there as something less than civil, but pre-Iranian Persia certainly had a significant civilization while the Visigoths and Huns and Magyars were doing a great deal of whacking of their own. Anyway, Muslim theocrats of a variety of flavors see us as the barbarians, since we want to live in a nations of laws that do not derive from the Koran and Allah, but rather from elected representatives and interpreted by courts. Go figure.
I don't think the U.S. Navy is losing sleep over threats from Indonesia, Malaysia, Yemen or Morocco. Unless you count Pearl Harbor (which was a surprise attack in a yet to be declared war, with no defensive posture taken), the U.S. Navy has not lost a significant engagement in well over a century, to my knowledge, and very few throughout its entire history. The U.S. Navy is tougher to beat than Martina Navratilova in her prime. If the Iranian Navy is able to defeat the U.S. Navy and Royal Navy in a straight-up tactical naval battle in the Persian Gulf, then Mohammed is right and (the Shia) Allah must truly be on their side, and I'm ready to negotiate the terms of surrender. Furthermore, I would walk into the nearest mosque and join up. In other words, take the Navy and lay the points, and bet the ranch. But we know it won't come to that.
I am hopeful that "our comfortable middle class lives" is not a fantasy removed from reality but is a robust society built on principals our Founding Fathers spelled out in the Declaration and the Constitution.
Habu1- It sounds like you come from the Loyola school of thought which I linked to above. I think I understand the perspective of the U.S. and U.K. Explain to me why the Iranians want to take on the U.S. Navy right now, with W presumably giving the Navy carte blanche to do what it needs to do (unless, as K. Pablo implies, the Iranians have a secret weapon, which they would need a whole bunch of). What do the Iranians gain by escalating to the point of an actual engagement right now? Is it as simple as trying to distract attention from the U.N. vote, or prisoner swapping for the intelligence agents captured in northern Iraq last month? I am sure there is some linkage that I am missing, because I just don't get it. Do the Iranians fear Hillary the Warrior Queen so much that they think they are better off doing this now under W than 24 months from now?
Sharia law is not coming to the U.S. I am pretty sure it is unconstitutional.
By , at
Fri Mar 23, 11:17:00 PM:
I don't think anything was planned by the Iranians. I think the opportunity presented itself, and having had (safe) experience in taking Brit sailors captive before, it was easy enough to give the green light to do it again.
Hence Mad Mackma cancelled his trip to the UN. The Iranians are now obviously going to see what exactly they can get for these sailors and also testing the West yet again in how they we respond.
I suspect they will indeed get a ransom of some sort that will probably not be made public. It may be in the form of policy promises, cash or who knows. No doubt the Iranians are pressing for all they can get.
Perhaps the Brist reneged on the last ransom of Brit sailors and this is the response...
So much to speculate. We'll see how it ends up soon enough. Anything more than 3 days this time will however be pushing the envelope.
By , at
Sat Mar 24, 12:51:00 AM:
Time to turn IRAN into a smokong crater
By dave in boca, at
Sat Mar 24, 01:26:00 AM:
Ahmedodojihad controls the Rev Guards [as opposed to the IRanian Navy, which he might not have full control over]. This dwarf maniac should stop his games like the UN visit which was "cancelled" because of spurious visa claims. The Russians aren't buying his BS any longer and the UNSC is going to spank this naughty little monster tomorrow.
Fifty years ago, the Brits would have given these violent reactionaries the thrashing they deserve, but most of the world consists of nasty losers who hate successful Western countries, so the crazy midget might get away with it in the eyes of world opinion [But who cares about what Venzs and Cubans and leftardo Third World train-wreck countries think?].
By Habu, at
Sat Mar 24, 02:51:00 AM:
Escort81.
The question isn't why the Iranians would want to take on the US Navy right now. Now or later makes no difference to them.
The prime moving force for Islam is religious and cultural hegemony over infidels.
You might as well have asked me why they are trying to acquire nuclear capabilities or why they used children to walk across mined fields their troops would have to later cross. Why do the fund most of the terrorist organizations in the world today?
Point is for them it doesn't have to have a rationale behind it beyond the tenants of Islams and their dealing with infidel nations.
It's a culture and religious war and has been since Mohammad took the stage.
You're looking at it through the perspective of a rationale westerner, saying surly there must be more to it than simply their desire to convert all infidels.
Lose the western thought and accept the fact that for more than a thousand years they have fought everyone on earth they could get to to convert them to Islam.
All the intellectual western flatulence and sophistry pulled out of the station years ago...were in a religious and cultural war.
By , at
Sat Mar 24, 08:52:00 AM:
Maybe this is an overreaction, but I think the Brits should tell Iran, "release our soldiers and equipment, or face the consequences". Give them 24 hours. Then sink all Iranian military shipping in the Shat-al-arab region (north end of gulf), especially the warships that perpetrated this act of war.
By Jeremiah, at
Sat Mar 24, 10:02:00 AM:
Matt,
I agree 100%.
Habu is about half correct when he characterizes Western thought as flatulence and sophistry. He leaves out the part that says that Islamic thought is flatulence and sophistry. It's time to clear the methane from the air.
Without their toys, the mullahs of Iran would seem to me to be much more malleable, and much less of a force in the region. Destroying their navy in the space of 3 hours or so would make for great theater and reshuffle the deck completely. Go Tony!
By , at
Sat Mar 24, 01:07:00 PM:
Thanks, Jeremiah, for the vote of confidence. In searching the blogosphere for discussions around this story, I've come across a number of accounts of Iranian provocations. I think we (coalition) should adopt a policy of overwhelming response to these provocations. Iran has threatened to close the straits of Hormuz a number of times. They have these subs that they bought from the Russians. They have these new carrier-killer missles (also bought from the russians). I think we should use every single Iranian provocation as an excuse to seriously soften up their capabilities in the entire Persian gulf.
As a side note, years ago, my brother was the gunnery officer on the Lynde McCormick. He has stories about the oil rig symbols painted on the side of the main gun. The ship took part in the reasonably hot naval interdiction of Iran when it got to attacking shipping in the gulf during Iran-Iraq war. Oil rigs were destroyed because they were being used as platforms for fast attack boats to attack shipping.
Seems like Iran is overdue for another lesson.
By Georg Felis, at
Sat Mar 24, 01:55:00 PM:
I’d be willing to make a couple of predictions on this topic.
1) I’d bet the British rules of engagement were written so narrowly (as to avoid a shooting conflict with Iran) that the Captain of the British vessel H.M.S. Cornwall would have been in deep trouble had he sunk the Iranian patrol boats that threatened and eventually captured his men. But the *next* Iranian boat that tries this will get very short shrift.
2) I’ll bet the Iranians either turn the 15 men back over unharmed within a very short period of time, or Iran loses everything that touches the water within 50 miles of the Iraq border. Probably the first.
3) The Iranians were either acting on orders, in which case they will be publicly humiliated and privately rewarded, or without orders, in which case they will be publicly rewarded and privately punished.
In either case, the Iranians in PT boats are going to be wearing their life preservers pretty much all the time for the next couple of weeks. But it still does not completely explain why the Iranians would do anything this stupid. It’s hard to come up with a smart reason for a stupid action.
By , at
Sat Mar 24, 04:04:00 PM:
"But it still does not completely explain why the Iranians would do anything this stupid. It’s hard to come up with a smart reason for a stupid action."
The conspiracy theory would be to affect the planned Ahmadinejad's visit to NY.
There is an old conspiracy theory that U2 over USSR incident was engineered to affect the planned Ike's visit to Moscow.
There are certain similarities, as far as conspiracy theories go.
By Escort81, at
Sat Mar 24, 04:10:00 PM:
georgfelis, matt, jeremiah, habu1 et al -
Good discussion and speculation.
I am still at a loss to analyze this. The latest news is here from AP and here from BBC. The AP article spins it to sound like the Brits were on the wrong side of the line, which I interpret to mean that the Brits discussed with the Iranians what their last position was, which the Brits thought was an OK position and the Iranians thought was in disputed waters, meaning (to them) their waters. The BBC article quotes Sir Alan, who was first sea lord in 2004 when the last such incident occured, and he stated that there are tracking systems (presumably with recording devices) that showed then (and would show now) the precise location of the vessels.
Two random questions:
1) Even if the Brits had been in "disputed" waters or even slightly into Iranain waters, the overall function that they perform is what is called in economics a positive externality for the Iranians. The dhows that are interdicted and inspected could just as easily carry Sunni (anti-Shia, anti-Iranian) terrorists targeting Iranian interests as much as they could be carrying terrorists targeting Iraqi or Kuwaiti interests. The Brits and Americans are keeping everyone's oil flowing in the Persian Gulf, including the Iranians. It's not clear to me that the Iranian Navy would be capable of sustaining a mission in the PG to protect just their own interests over a long period of time. Why rock the boat now? Just get on the VHF on channel 16 and say, "yo, you need to move southwest 500 meteres or my boss is going to make me come out after you."
2) If the two RIBS that were involved in the interdiction had been U.S. and, for the sake of argument, had contained 15 SEALS (admittedly unusual for a routine interdiction), does anyone know what their rules of engagement are with respect to standing down to avoid conflict? I have never heard or read of a case of any U.S. Special Forces surrendering. I am not sure it is in their playbook. If the Iranians outnumbered the sailors in the RIBS by 5-1 in that scenario, would a battle have ensued? Back to the actual incident, how could the Iranians know what the composition of the British force was (it could have been SBS, for all they knew) and that they would stand down, even in the face of overwhelming odds? Couldn't this have developed into a shooting war rather easily? Why would the Iranians risk that?
I know Habu is going to say to stop looking at it rationally, but even he must think they are rational within their own construct. Come on Habu, you and me and nine other guys off of the street are not going to try to defend against Peyton Manning and the Colts offense. It doesn't matter how much we pray, Marvin Harrison is going to blow by us every time. That's just reality.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Mar 24, 11:46:00 PM:
This whole incident smells like a planned operation to me. I just don't buy that the British ship was suddenly surrounded and outgunned by a routine patrol that just happened by and reacted with such speed and aggression by coincidence.
My first guess is that this is retaliation for all the Iranian agents and officers who have been disappearing over the last couple of months. Some flunky somewhere in the heirarchy has had to demonstrate to his boss that they, too, can seize enemies. (even though they are operationally unimportant)
By Gary Rosen, at
Sun Mar 25, 01:53:00 PM:
My guess is the timing is related to the UN vote on sanctions against Iran.
By Purple Avenger, at
Sun Mar 25, 02:51:00 PM:
But it still does not completely explain why the Iranians would do anything this stupid.
Because they're not "rational" in the western sense of the word.
By Escort81, at
Sun Mar 25, 03:52:00 PM:
Blair: Sailors weren't in Iranian waters
The PM is refuting the Iranian version of the facts of the case without turning up the overall temperature of the rhetoric.
The Germans are also going to bat for the U.K. sailors (Germany holds the rotating EU presidency).
Another week of reasonable sounding discourse should be followed by the setting of deadlines for release of no more than a week, followed direct action / blockade against specific Iranian port targets (in concert with U.S. Navy forces). My guess is that this ends with a swap for "The Irbil 5" which is of course not a good deal (the Iranians captured in Irbil were actually in Iraq under diplomatic cover but were running operations in support of violence in Iraq, the Brits were in "disputed" waters doing routine interdiction).
Tony Blair can't go to war over this -- no British PM can ever go to war over anything ever again, in the view of much of the Labour Party base -- and the Iranians know that. He can, however, make life pretty unconfortable for Iranian forces in the PG. I agree with georgfelis that those guys better be decent swimmers and have good life vests.
Let's also keep in mind how fundamentally different naval conflicts are from land-based insurgent type conflicts. There just aren't that many places to run and hide (and forget about Iranian subs -- does anybody think that they are quiet enough to escape detection?). The Iranians are as good as anyone at what is quite effective Hezbollah-type warfare -- they trained and equipped them, after all -- but they might be a bit out of their element in taking on two of the best navies in the history of naval warfare.
By K. Pablo, at
Sun Mar 25, 08:30:00 PM:
I'm tired of hearing how "irrational" our enemies are. They are absolutely rational. Their goals might not seem logical to us, but they have an unerring sense for how power works, what they can get away with, how their actions are perceived on the world stage, how their actions manipulate leftist opinion on the world stage, and how to further their goals in the face of Western fecklessness.
If you say our enemies are irrational, I think you are an idiot.
By Escort81, at
Sun Mar 25, 09:10:00 PM:
K.Pablo -
I think there may be confusion in terminology when we use "rational" and "irrational."
I do think radical Muslims are rational within their own construct (as you have described), but it is not the same as Western Enlightenment type rationalism. Put simply, they don't play by the same set of rules we do, and they don't even really play the same game (we don't want to impose a theocracy of any stripe on the rest of the world). We are playing Sims on PS3 and they are playing Grand Theft Auto on XBox360.
The Chinese don't really follow the same Western Enlightenment construct of rationalism that we do, but the good news is that they are not sending their people (of which they have a big supply) to other countries on suicide missions.
For that matter, rationalism (or rational expectations) breaks down all the time in the west -- for, example, markets aren't perfect and aren't always priced in or near equilibrium (contrary to what one may have learned in Econ 101), investors don't always make rational trades in their own interest and to maximize profit, and people make lots of money looking for such mispricings. No one dies, however, unless it's by their own hand.
Another example would be my struggle to understand how females think.
Anyway, maybe you could walk back from the "idiot" word just a little bit. I am not sure Habu1 or Purple Avenger's comments really warranted that particular response. Cool?
By Escort81, at
Sun Mar 25, 10:55:00 PM:
georgfelis is apparently correct in his point #1 above.
See this interview with Sir Alan West (first Sea Lord in 2004) and read the section on ROEs.
By Georg Felis, at
Wed Mar 28, 11:07:00 AM:
Well, it’s nice to be right once in a while. From one of the earlier news stories it appeared that the Captain of the H.M.S. Cornwall was actually on the telephone to his direct superiors in Britain who commanded him to stand down, quite a difference from the responsibility of a British Naval Captain in the Age of Sail who could be months away from communicating with an Admiral. Another reason I’m not a Captain, I’m afraid my call would be, “Sorry Admiral, can’t talk right now, we’re sinking patrol boats” right before my court-martial.
I thought about it a bit and there is a thin line between “Risky/Stupid” and “Bold” when it comes to a military strike such as this. If the Iranians get propaganda material out of this and return the sailors fairly unharmed, it was “Bold”. If they wind up with a couple billion dollars worth of wrecked military infrastructure and bad press at home, then it was “Stupid”. Time will tell.
