Monday, April 09, 2007
On the Kidnapping of Allied Military Personnel
I've been struck by the absence of any comparison between the Iranian kidnapping of British naval personnel and Hezbollah's and Hamas's kidnapping of Israeli army personnel.
Has anybody noticed that this is all one war, comprised of lots of little battles?
Nobody could properly answer the question of why Hezbollah and Hamas executed their kidnappings. Even Nasrallah acknowledged his surprise at the aggressive Israeli response. But clearly, it was a centrally managed and executed plan. Similarly, of course the seizure of British naval personnel was centrally planned. It could not have been otherwise.
So what's the point, why did Iran do it? If I had to guess, I would say it was motivated by domestic politics, mitigated by fear of a strenuous allied military response. The kidnapping provides Iran with a very cheap PR win at home -- an opportunity to boast about its "powerful" navy and its ability to defend its own (expanded definition) of its waters. Frankly, the current Iranian regime needed a win -- the recent loss and/or defection of senior IRGC personnel and some of its nuclear research staff is demoralizing. The Iranians took a chance that the British would not react aggressively and would instead make diplomatic probes first -- a risk they seem to have elected not to assume with American personnel or Israelis. In the time the diplomats needed to sort things out, they could get the TV benefit at home of parading Brits around (something most Persians probably at the margin enjoy) and then give them back.
Note: it didn't take 444 days.
I think the Iranian regime is in trouble. Though far less brinksmanlike, this has some elements of the Cuban Missile Crisis to it. And Khrushchev was out two years after the crisis. Again, it was a pointless exercise in domestic politics, a foreign policy bluff which achieved no genuine strategic advantage.
[Moved up by TigerHawk]
Has anybody noticed that this is all one war, comprised of lots of little battles?
Nobody could properly answer the question of why Hezbollah and Hamas executed their kidnappings. Even Nasrallah acknowledged his surprise at the aggressive Israeli response. But clearly, it was a centrally managed and executed plan. Similarly, of course the seizure of British naval personnel was centrally planned. It could not have been otherwise.
So what's the point, why did Iran do it? If I had to guess, I would say it was motivated by domestic politics, mitigated by fear of a strenuous allied military response. The kidnapping provides Iran with a very cheap PR win at home -- an opportunity to boast about its "powerful" navy and its ability to defend its own (expanded definition) of its waters. Frankly, the current Iranian regime needed a win -- the recent loss and/or defection of senior IRGC personnel and some of its nuclear research staff is demoralizing. The Iranians took a chance that the British would not react aggressively and would instead make diplomatic probes first -- a risk they seem to have elected not to assume with American personnel or Israelis. In the time the diplomats needed to sort things out, they could get the TV benefit at home of parading Brits around (something most Persians probably at the margin enjoy) and then give them back.
Note: it didn't take 444 days.
I think the Iranian regime is in trouble. Though far less brinksmanlike, this has some elements of the Cuban Missile Crisis to it. And Khrushchev was out two years after the crisis. Again, it was a pointless exercise in domestic politics, a foreign policy bluff which achieved no genuine strategic advantage.
[Moved up by TigerHawk]
2 Comments:
By 
Simmons, at
Mon Apr 09, 05:11:00 PM:
Are you suggesting the war on terror is WWIII? Because you could be right.
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Apr 10, 07:11:00 PM:
It would really be IV, and the Cold War III, and yeah that's been tossed around before. It didn't catch on, however.
