I've got to ask... What the hell is Iran doing?

[trumad]

This capture of the Brit navy crew is turning into one big game of chicken and me-thinks that when it comes time to blink-- Iran better blink.

Oh I know most will say that they have a right to defend their waters and that the British and the US shouldn't be patrolling in that area.... but please---it is it what it is and if Iran thinks it's a good idea to push a bully into a fight, well-----

[aquart]

1. Haven't you noticed? They also have a George.

[frazzledmom]

73. Bingo, their nut is as crazy as our nut...

Maybe we just all need to find a way circumvent our crazy leaders and solve our problems like adults... with brains.

[Warpy]

2. Oh, they'll blink

but they're using the crew as bargaining chips in the hope that the UK won't back the US up on Stupid's next unwinnable war.

[guntard]

3. Iran is run largely by elected politicians

This is something everyone forgets. And nothing plays better domestically than giving the finger to the Great Satan and his poodle.

[ShortnFiery]

6. And Bush and Blair are posturing just like the Imperial a**holes in the UK's past. n/t

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

24. good point

and welcome to DU! :hi:

[Firepit 462]

25. Iran's "elected" politicians,

are run by it's religious leaders. Who are very aware that the population of Iran is leaning away from a self destructive, religious based form of rule. Poking the beast with a sharp stick makes the Iranian leadership look like they are in control and should be followed.

The Iranian people don't want war, but the "elected" Iranian politicians cannot afford to let the population became to "Western Thinking" so far as it's politics go. A school yard showdown with the US keeps the illusion alive. Once Iranian people come to the conclusion that religious fanatics should not be in control of the country, Iran could be a world player. Drawing a line in the sand so to speak with the US, is the last strongest way to keep the Iranian population, thinking the same way they have been. I am guessing that if asked, no everyday Iranian is willing to see their country reduced to a smoldering physical/economic ruin like Iraq, the religious leaders are HOPING for that to happen. And no I don't think the US is capable of invading Iran, but if you don't think the US is capable of setting Iran back to the 1940's without ever setting foot on the ground, think again. The US would suffer economic hardship in a war of course, but we would still be here, Iran would be devastated.


It's a game of chicken, between two leaders who WANT to prove they won't flinch. Each has a population screaming for the madness to stop. "The Great Satan and his Poodle" are calculating the best time to destroy another Middle Eastern country, and the "elected" Iranian politicians are daring them to do it.

[Leopolds Ghost]

36. Western Thinking?

You mean Capitalism, don't you? We have something they need, they just don't know it yet, as Fareed Zakaria is fond of saying, free markets are all that matter. The existing democracy in Iran can be dispensed with.

[Firepit 462]

98. No I don't mean capitalism,

The number onen priority facing the Iranian leadership, (and I mean the religious leaders who are pulling the puppet strings of the "elected politicans") is to remain in power. What I mean more than capitalism, when I say Western thinking is the notion that the people have a real stake in the direction of the country's future. I don't believe in having religious traditions or goals steer the political course of the country. I suspect that the religious leaders of Iran will have to tighten the religious grip they have on the Iranian political atmosphere or there may be civil disobedience in Iran, which is something that won't bode well for the current "leadership".

I believe the vast majority of the people in Iran have no desire to see their country devastated by war. The "Existing Democracy" in Iran is begging the US to go to war to substantiate religious prophecy. If war comes to Iran, regardless if China, Russia, Israel or whoever jumps on board, there is only one country that will be physically AND economically destroyed....and that's Iran.

Iran is a prosperous, modern country, but if the "elected politic ans", and more importantly the religious leadership in Iran get the war they want,.. their end result will be the same as Iraq........fucked.

[Solo_in_MD]

28. BS...the mullahs run Iran and the Pasdaran

[Leopolds Ghost]

39. If so, why do you care what Ahmadinejad thinks? The mullahs wanted Rafsanjani elected.

You know, dealmaker, western-friendly, "someone we can work with" Rafsanjani.

The mullahs offered Bush a comprehensive "Nixon goes to China" peace deal.

The REAL crime of the mullahs is that, due to the nature of their religion, they are SOCIALISTS.

A lot of people seem to object to that.

This was true long before they started purging lefties and pro-Westerners from their ranks.

Oh, yeah, and they torture dissidents. Must be a government that should be overthrown. Do you advocate the violent overthrow of governments that torture people? It's an open question. Difficult to answer isn't it?

Why is Iran and Venezuela described in the Times, BBC, etc. as a "regime" but the US, China, and Britain are not?

What, you didn't notice that?

[Solo_in_MD]

78. Never said I did

Iran is not socialist, its a Muslim theocracy. Their basic beliefs and tennats are repugnant to any socialist or progressive. Islam has no place in a civilized world

[Odin2005]

42. Iran is democratic in name only, it's a de facto theocracy.

the theocrats can disqualify any candidate they don't like.

[Leopolds Ghost]

56. So they're following the U.S. model n/t

:sarcasm:

[guntard]

84. Iranian candidates are vetted by the Council of Ministers

That's what you are trying to say, as if that means Iran is no longer democratic. Well big deal. The US is not much better. Here candidates are vetted by the two big political parties, which are every bit as entrenched as Iran's Council of Ministers, and just as obsessed with holding power.

In the 48th Congressional District, next door to mine, Representative Chris Cox was bumped up to the SEC. So they had to elect a new Congressman for the district. Well, the Orange County Republican Party got together and decided to nominate John Campbell, despite a very noisy grassroots nomination campaign by Minuteman kook Jim Gilchrist. Of course, Campbell was duly elected into the house. Essentially, a council of unelected prominent Republicans selected the Representative for the 48th District. If something ever happened to my own Congressman, in the 46th District, the same procedure will take place.

Thanks to rampant gerrymandering and hugely powerful party machines, this is pretty much how it works in most Congressional districts in America, Republican or Democrat. There is really very little choice here when election day rolls around. Change only occurs at the margins.

That's democracy in America, and I don't know how this is so very different from how they do things in Iran.

And whether or not you want to argue "degrees of democracy," my initial point still stands: Ahmadinejad and the rest are elected politicians with a domestic constituency they need to pander to, and nothing works better - whether your constituents are Iranians or Americans - than rattling sabers at real or imaginary foreign enemies.

The notion that Iran is some kind of dictatorship is a myth that serves only to demonize the country in preparation for an invasion TOO MANY Democrats are itching for.

Iran is not my enemy. Neither was Iraq.

[Nevernose]

92. The US is run largely by "elected" politicians

This is something everyone forgets. And nothing plays better domestically than giving the finger to the "Arabs" and Muslims.

In short: we're screwed.

[moodforaday]

4. I too hope Iran will blink first this time

and so far it looks like they might. They are reportedly treating the captives well, and are apparently about to release the single woman there.

If they only did this to assert their territorial rights, good for them. Every time someone imagines the reverse situation - Iranian marines captured in the Gulf of Mexico or on the North Sea, while engaging in navy maneuvers in these waters, the absurdity of US/UK military presence in the Gulf becomes, hopefully, more apparent.

ed: I know I was going to spell "maneuvers" wrong!

[ShortnFiery]

7. If they don't blink and we BOMB Iran, the Right Wing will rule for another generation. n/t

[moodforaday]

8. That is certainly a danger.

nt

[cali]

12. We won't bomb over this

and they're already blinking. There is at least one report that all the brits will be released within days. And actually, the UK and Blair have been handling this in a decidedly non-confrontational manner. But don't let blind hatred get in the way of critical thinking.

In addition, if the admin bombs Iran, the converse of your pronouncement about the right wing, will be true. And bushco will almost certainly be impeached AND convicted with a large number of repukes supporting such a measure.

[Nevernose]

93. They're not blinking, and we might just bomb

New reports have them not willing to give anyone up short of a total apology, which Blair is too much of an ass to give.

And the lengthy Iran/Iraq war in the 80s began not in an all-out attack, but in a series of small-scale "border clashes." Border clashes are my real fear, what I see as the real warning sign, and not an all-out bombing.

[paparush]

27. in this case BOMB = NUKE

[rman]

76. I doubt it. Such overkill could well prove to be very unpopular

with the public.
It would just affirm the notion that the RW are crazy warmongers.
There's very little real support for that.

[Tempest]

5. Iran might be protecting its waters

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/6405

[Kutjara]

11. Yep, first thing I though of when this whole thing blew up.

Iran and Iraq never agreed on their maritime boundry. Any map purporting to show such a boundry is wishful thinking at best. Looks like the British MOD just drew a line that made damned sure the boat was on the "Iraq" side.

I'm sure the Iranians are getting very sick and tired of being a chip in someone else's poker game.

[Solo_in_MD]

29. Many more are accepting the map as genuine

[Tempest]

32. "Many more" are not responsible for creating the maritime boundaries

It's up to Iran and Iraq and they never came to any such agreement.

[Tempest]

35. Not even Britain's royal command is certain where the boundaries are at

Despite Tony Blair's adamant denial that the 15 British sailors and marines captured by the Iranians were intruding in Iranian waters, Commodore Nick Lambert, who headed the naval task force, was by no means as categorical: "There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they were in Iraqi territorial
waters." He said, but then-in a statement he probably now regrets- he continued : "Equally, the Iranians may well claim that they were in their territorial waters. The extent and definition of territorial waters in this part of the world is very complicated".

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/6396

[Kelly Rupert]

40. They're certain where the boundaries are.

The disagreement is on whose well-defined claims you respect.

[xultar]

65. Britain fucked up...they were snoopin @ chimpy's direction through poodle and got busted.

Now the UK wants to whine about it.

Bushco has tried everything in the book to provoke some shit with Iran. He finally did it. I bet the fucker slept like a baby the night the British were seized.

[pampango]

83. Britain may well have fucked up. If so the British commander

should be politely asked to seek alternative employment. If he thought it was a good idea to send 15 unsupported sailors into Iranian waters, not to launch some sneak attack, but to board and inspect a third nation's commercial vessel, he needs to find new work in a less dangerous sector. (If you are going to intentionally violate another country's territorial waters, it is probably a wise command decision to do it with enough force to keep yourself from getting killed or captured. Or, if it a small, stealthy operation, make sure the operational goal is worth the risk.)

Of course, on the other hand, perhaps the commander was not such a dunce if the whole operation took place in Iraqi waters and was a routine operation that they do every day.

Is it possible the the British commander was an idiot? Sure, but that doesn't make it so. Is it possible that some Iranian faction thought that capturing some British sailors would serve a useful political purpose, while the actual location of the operation would be difficult to prove? Sure, but that doesn't make it so, either.

[Richard Steele]

9. You do realize that Iran will not "lose" if we start a war with them, right?

Both Russia and China have made it kinda clear
that they'll take Iran's side if we escalate
our posturing into an actual war. And no one
with any sort of real military power is making
any moves to jump on the USA/Britain bus for
this one.

We cannot win such a conflict. China alone could
reduce the USA to a starving ruin without ever firing
a shot, just with some simple financial moves.

They might see their GDP growth slow abit, but their
booming economy can easily absorb such a hit.
OUR economy is a damn house of cards just waiting
for someone to get pissed off enough to blow on it.

[trumad]

13. You do realize that everybody loses in War....

Do we need more dead?

[redqueen]

19. I don't think that's how the rulers see it at all. n/t

[Richard Steele]

22. Of course you and I realize that.

But the tiny überwealthy elite who START wars
have a very different view. They and their cronies
have always GAINED tremendously from war.
You'd be hard pressed to find any conflict that
this same small group hasn't profited from.

And the B*sh cabal have been part of that small group
for several generations now. At least since WWII, when
Dubya's grandaddy made a pile of fat cash selling
fuel to the frickin Nazis.

[Virginia Dare]

50. Exactly the Iraq war has been tremendously successful...

from the profiteers point of view. From their angle, who gives a fuck if we destroy half the world? Lots of money to be made in building it back up again.

[Kelly Rupert]

60. The Iraq war is an utter failure from the profiteer's point of view.

There's money to be made in building a nation, taking its oil, and exploiting its labor. There's very little profit for anyone but security firms in Iraq right now.

[Virginia Dare]

64. That's why it's a perfect time to start a new one!...n/t

[Firepit 462]

26. You may be right,

But China's market could collapse just as fast as it grew. A freight train won't stop on a dime, and China's economy is traveling at runaway speed. To sharp a turn, or the "bump" a war would cause could have China scrambling to keep control of it's own economy.

China has ties in the world it cannot lose, just like the US. The US is far from impotent in the world market. When the dust finally settled, and everybody looked around and started putting the pieces back together, the US would be here, China would be here, and Iran would be in the shape Iraq is now,.....ruined. Ultimatley, I think the Iranians will do whatever they can to avoid being the next "testing facility" for our next generation of tactical urban weaponry.

[Kelly Rupert]

37. You are wrong on three counts.

1. China's economy is shakier than ours--in fact, a good part of our instability comes from our reliance on the overextended Asia boom. They're overheated, and they know it. If we crash, they crash harder. They have no interest in cripping us, because our economies are bound at the hip.

2. China has never claimed it would intervene on Iran's behalf. China has an interest in peace, not in damage to either Iran or America.

3. Russia has never claimed it would intervene on Iran's behalf. Russia has no interest in the EU imposing sanctions.

[Richard Steele]

46. I stopped reading at "China's economy is shakier than ours". You have a nice day! nm

[Kelly Rupert]

52. That's too bad.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/may2004/chin-m05.shtml
http://www.businessweek.com/mediacenter/podcasts/international/international_05_19_06.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25793-2004Apr19.html
http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/xw/t264660.htm
http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/chinas-economy-nearing-a-spinout-rate/2007/03/28/1174761565230.html

From a socialist web site, a conservative news site, WaPo, a Chinese bureaucrat, and the Chinese embassy. It doesn't matter who you believe; they all say the same thing.

You have a nice day.

[Richard Steele]

68. I'd actually like to retract that comment, and apologize. (except the "nice day" part)

That just was unnecesarily snarky, and I apologize.

I will respectfully disagree that China's economy
is as shaky as ours. Or rather, point out that the
CAUSE of shakiness is more important than the degree.

Imagine two human beings with equally poor levels of
motor control- equal "shakiness". Both of them have
difficulty forming words, walking a straight line, etc.

They sound like they're on a par wih each other, until
we learn that one of them is a toddler who's fairly
new to the whole "walking and talking" thing, and the
other is an 80-year-old who's been having small strokes
for the last few decades.

China's economy is shaky because it's booming; ours
is shaky because it's withering. That makes a real
difference in predicting where they'll both be years
down the road.

[Balbus]

66. Then you're ignorant by choice.

a pity.

[Richard Steele]

74. Yes, indeed.

Perhaps not so much a "choice" as a stupid, knee-jerk reaction,
but your point remains valid.

An apology has been made, and steps will soon be taken
to rectify my ignorance to whatever small degree may
be possible.

I'm going to read the info in the links provided, just
as soon as I feel less "mushy headed". I've been having
some difficulty focusing for a day or two; I've FINALLY
just realized that my brain isn't at 100% right now.

Of course, that's no excuse for being RUDE to a fellow
DUer who was trying to be helpful- hence the apology.

[Leopolds Ghost]

55. If Russia doesn't support sanctions on Iran, including weapons & nuke tech Russia is providing,

Why the hell did Russia and China vote for sanctions?

Do sanctions only apply to members of the Security Council?

[Kelly Rupert]

58. I meant, "Russia has no interest on the EU imposing sanctions"

on Russia, as would surely happen if Russia were to engage in armed conflict against Britain.

[Strelnikov_]

54. Russia and Chindia will take a pass

Russia stands to make a fortune. And if all the gulf oil goes off line, they become the worlds sole energy superpower.

It appears to me that Russia is playing both sides as Putin whispers sweet nothings into the Chimps ear as they gaze into each others eyes, while supplying the alleged 'enemy', Iran, with arms. If the status quo maintains, they sell their petroleum and natural gas and get rich. If part of the Middle East resource is lost to open war, they get really really rich.

Chindia will dig in, weather the storm, and emerge in a position to snap up all those production contracts that will no longer go to US multinationals.

Chindia is playing the long con. They know that petroleum and natural gas energy infrastructure is too fragile to hold militarily, short of depopulation. Eventually the refrain of 'Fuck you, we sell to Chindia' will be heard throughout the Middle East.

Also, all those dollars they are sitting on will go a long way to outbidding us on what remains of the world petroleum export market. So, it appears that Chindia is also playing both sides.

No, Russia and Chindia are playing the "If the enemy is destroying themselves, don't get in the way" card.


The Japanese, on the other hand, are scared shitless . . .

[Richard Steele]

61. You could very well be correct. I'll admit my current opinion is rather simplistic.

And these things are never really "simple", are they? *sigh*

Whatever China is doing, it's a safe bet that they are looking
at it in the LONG term. They may well have decided that weathering
a US/Iran war is more advantageous than weathering the economic
hit they'd take from devaluing the dollar.

I'll have to try harder to keep my "devious hat" on when considering
issues of international hegemony!

[Strelnikov_]

79. Following kinda says it all

Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.

- Sir Winston Churchill

[thoughtanarchist]

10. They haven't played the China card yet...

Iran is a big oil supplier to China, who recently switched to buying the commodity in the form of euros. China and Russia have both stressed their intention at keeping international peace with regards to US / Iranian tensions.

[Kelly Rupert]

38. There is no "China card" to play.

China does not have an interest in destroying Iran's infrastructure, nor does it have any interest in hostilities with NATO. China has an interest in there not being any war at all. And right now, Iran is acting more aggressive than Britain is.

[Malikshah]

14. Defending its territory both literally and figuratively. Yup, it is brinksmanship

and Blair better get some eyedrops--his stare is beginning to look a bit haggard.

Funny, how a country that's been dicked around with for the last century--occupied before WWI (GB/Russia) and during WWII (GB/USSR); elected govt overthrown in 1953 (US/GB); invaded in 1980 (Iraq) has to still "take one for the world team" in people's eyes.

Looks like Blair wants to put on Maggie's boots and have a little Falkland fun...all at the expense of the region and behest of the emperor.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3186132
Fake British Map...

[Forkboy]

15. We're the ones that have a tiger by the tail,not the other way around.

[ecstatic]

16. I think the whole story is fake

Or if anything, the US put on fake Iranian uniforms and staged a fake kidnapping. Wag the dog anyone?

[cali]

20. You forgot the sarcasm tag, right? n/t

[ecstatic]

21. I wish. My trust in this administration is at -100%

I don't put anything past them. Nothing at all!

[Kelly Rupert]

41. Then you're delusional.

This is Iran's doing. Do you think insane Middle-Eastern right-wing theocrats are any better than insane American right-wing theocrats?

[Codeine]

45. About half the posters here

seem to believe just that. Sadly, there is very little wisdom in the old aphorism about the enemy of your enemy being your friend; all too often he's just another enemy you've foolishly embraced.

[ShortnFiery]

69. How about "The Empires" (USA and UK) have no right to posture

with four (4x) Carrier Groups PLUS within the Persian Gulf.

:wtf: is up with that? It's the Middle Eastern Neighborhood - we have NO place there. :grr:

[Codeine]

82. If it's in international waters

then they have every right. It's incredibly stupid, but not unlawful.

I do wonder what that has to do with my post, however.

[BlameCanada12]

48. Google 'False flag operation', or 'Operation Northwoods'.

Ever hear of the "Gulf of Tonkin"?

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"


I'm not saying I believe this is a staged incident, but to say it is impossible or 'delusional' is, frankly, ignorant.

[Kelly Rupert]

51. Explain to me why the gov't of Iran would cooperate with this?

And what makes this different from the 2004 Iranian hostage situation? And I will not take "the international puppeteers that control both governments demand it" as an answer.

[Leopolds Ghost]

53. You seem to be taking offense to Iran's peaceful detainment of a hostile naval force.

They may be a bunch of bastards, but they're well within their rights.
Tell me, why the hell do you think the Brits were able to be detained?
Because they were in hailing distance of an Iranian military camp.

Those dastardly Iranians, I guess they should know that illegitimate,
nasty regimes give up their territorial sovereignty over the air and
waters the minute they fall out of US / British favor (as the torturing
Shah did when he was deposed.)

See how you like it if the Pasdaran traveled to Bermuda and boarded a vessel off the coast of Miami, in US territorial waters. Where do you think they would end up? Do you think they would be treated well, as legitimate enemy combatants? Or sent to Gitmo and tortured? You tell us.

[Kelly Rupert]

57. Britain was not "hostile."

They were conducting routine cargo inspections under UN authority in Iraqi waters.

[cali]

86. Ever hear the old saw

about two wrongs not making a right? Just because the U.S. does something wrong, doesn't make it right when someone else does the same thing. And I actually laughed when I saw your claim of peaceful detainment. Nothing whatsoever peaceful about what the Iranians did to the brits who were operating under UN MANDATE, and may or may not have been in Iranian waters. You sure as hell don't fucking know where they were, but I love how you have no problem just deciding that they were in Iranian territory with NOTHING to back up that belief except for some sort of reflexive "if it's between the nasty, evil brits and the peace loving beleaguered Iranians, the Iranians are completely in the right."

And guess what? I hate to dent your pretty little illusions, but in 2004 the brits that the Iranians captured claimed that they were put through mock executions. What?? You say the brits must be lying. Quelle suprise.

[ecstatic]

63. If Iran denied being a part of this, do you think we'd hear about it?

What news source would bring us the truth? Furthermore, we've know for years now that BushCo wants to attack Iran. So how convenient it is that we're finally being given concrete events to justify an invasion. Come on now. I'm not delusional, just (rightfully) skeptical of anything this administration says and does.

[Taxloss]

80. There are non-American news sources, you know.

Why not read what al-Jazeera says about the crisis?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1814F018-EC66-4163-B09A-79F11B213BD3.htm

[ShortnFiery]

67. And having four carrier groups tear assing around the Persian Gulf makes

The Empire Builders (UK and USA) completely innocent?

[Taxloss]

81. The military buildup makes them guilty of every loony accusation thrown at them?

No, it doesn't.

[misternormal]

17. Isn't it about time...

... for the newly elected Democratic congress to take the Chimpinator's war powers away from him???

Hmmm???

[Kelly Rupert]

59. And they will, if he looks like he's pushing for war.

Iran capturing Britons and detaining them is not equal to GWB pushing for war.

[democrat_patriot]

18. Gen. Ali Reza Asghari has defected to MI6, maybe Iran wants

a bargaining chip to get him back? Also several Generals under him.

I've heard on radio talk shows he has knowledge VERY harmful to Iran. Such as a working nuclear weapon program. Assasinations, kidnappings etc that Iran has done in Israel, Argentina etc.




Here's an article.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0308/p99s01-duts.html

Google search page:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=iran+general+defects&btnG=Google+Search

[jobycom]

23. Proving their point,

That they are a sovereign nation, that they won't back down, that we aren't as powerful as we think, that they have enough allies to make us fully commit to a war if that's what we want. And that they won't do what we order them to.

They will release the hostages, but only after they've proven they can hold them as long as they want.

[cureautismnow]

31. Let's hope they don't hold them for ANOTHER 444 days.

OTOH, we've held "hostages" in Gitmo for a lot longer than 444 days, too. We obviously live in a sick, depraved world of evil men with too much power, time, and blood on their hands. :-(

[Bluedogvoter]

70. What point are they proving?

They won't back down?

You don't prove that by kidnapping soldiers of another nation. If they are trying to prove they can attack England and hold their soldiers for as long as they want, they had better be damned sure of themselves because they will not win in a shoving match.

[Solo_in_MD]

30. Their agenda is unknown (at least publically) but is clearly is not territorial integrity

1) UN mandated inspections have been going on there for some time
2) Most of the world believes the map produced by the UK
3) The Brits were snatched by the Pasdaran, not the Iranian navy

There is a game afoot and the mullahs think they can gain something from it. Maybe its more backing from other Gulf States (which is happening) Their current public demand is that the Brits acknowledge they were in Iranian waters...not going to happen

[Bluedogvoter]

71. My thoughts as well, nice post.

[CJCRANE]

75. But Blair is smarter than them...

he knew ahead of time that this would happen...and will now use it to his advantage.

[dysfunctional press]

33. they're just playing their part of the grand illusion according to poppy's script...

the worldwide military-industrial complex needs a shot in the arm, after all- and they need a diversion to keep the serfs under control.

[BoneDaddy]

34. Total agreement Trumad

Iran is being very very stupid in this situation. I will go to bat for truth in the mideast but this is just bad politics.

[NightWatcher]

43. CNN is reporting that a US boat and heli were in the area

when the Brits were picked up.
I was wondering when we would get brought into this shit. It will be hard for us to justify attacking them unless we have a dog in the race. The Americans will not allow Busj to get up in another war for a few Brits. They will have to do something to us to get all of the Bubbas behind the pres in this matter.

[Kelly Rupert]

47. Having a US helicopter patrolling the coast of Iraq

is hardly a reason for the US to declare war on Iran.

[librechik]

44. they are showing that they don't fly off the handle in a confrontation

and shoot first without asking questions (like we would)

[cali]

87. Except there was NO confrontation except the one

the Iranians created. The brits were operating under UN MANDATE in the Shatt. If they did stray into Iranian territorial waters in tow dinghies-hardly the vessel one would choose for a confrontation- all the Republican Guard had to do to make their point was hold them for a few hours or a day. The Iranians have now held them for a week. They are the ones exasperating this little contretemps. What's more, you seem to be conflating the U.S. with GB. Yes, we would shoot, but the brits? Different story. As a matter of fact, there was an article yesterday with some commander who didn't understand why the brits didn't shoot in this situation.

[librechik]

88. I think it is political theater

with a broad audience. And the Iranians know that the Brits are our proxies. Nevertheless the Brits are more levelheaded than we are. By doing this first, Iran kind of pre-empted any Tonkin style attack on themselves by us. Iran chose its target judiciously.

Bad situation indeed.

[pitohui]

49. poker/game theory etc.

occasionally you have to do something batshit crazy to make your hand too difficult to read

iran is a small country, which may (or may not) have even one nuclear or atomic weapon, which has made an enemy of several larger and better-armed nations throughout the world

if they don't wanna get invaded a la iraq, they have to forget acting like normal secular leaders like saddam and act batshit crazy like the dude in north korea who killed more and gets to keep his country because he's too unpredictable to fuck with

the rest is detail

the usa (where game theory was invented, i believe, and where it was much studied during the cold war) also feels a need to act batshit crazy and unpredictable at times, to keep from being too easy to manipulate

it sucks but there it is

bad behavior seems called for mathematically and/or strategically all around, the universe was poorly designed, frankly

[kineneb]

89. checkmate! Chess game

Once again The West fails to comprehend that Persia has been around for a looooong time, and Islamic theocracy or not, they are the rightful heirs of 2500+ years of political intrigue. They are professionals, the Brits and the US are rank amateurs.


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IC29Ak06.html


-snip-
From the depths of their abysmal, recent historical experience, even the Arab world - which is not so fond of Persians - sees the US-orchestrated UN sanctions on Iran for what they are: the West, once again, trying to smash an independent nation daring to have its shot at more influence in the Middle East. More sanctions will be useless as China and India will continue to do serious business with Iran.

Tactically, as a backgammon or, better yet, chess move - in which Iranians excel - the Shatt-al-Arab incident may be much more clever than it appears. Oil is establishing itself well above US$60 a barrel as a result of the incident, and that's good for Iran. It's true that from London's point of view, the incident could have been arranged as a provocation, part of a mischievous plan to escalate the conflict with Iran and turn Western and possibly world public opinion against the regime.

But from Tehran's point of view, for all purposes British Prime Minister Tony Blair is a soft target. The episode has the potential to paralyze both President George W Bush and Blair. Neither can use the incident to start a war with Iran, although Blair has warned that his government is prepared to move to "a different phase" if Iran does not quickly release the sailors.

-snip-

[cgrindley]

62. Proving a point

right now all threats from the west are essentially empty. There's basically nothing the US can do about this unless it wants to start randomly dropping bombs.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

72. As I noted on the other thread,

in Iranian culture, you have to respond to a direct challenge, or you lose your "honor."

The British venture was a direct provocation, so the Iranians couldn't ignore it.

[shadowknows69]

77. Scary thought but what if China and Russia have told them

"We've got your back"

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

85. Being Extremely Stupid? They Should've Released Them That Very Same Day.

It is acts like this that make me completely question Iran's leadership's integrity.

They always try and put forth a "We're good guys, we swear!" type front, but if that was even close to being genuine these sailors would've been released that same day.

Iran is being extremely stupid here imho.

[kineneb]

90. cultural differences

Do not assume they think the same way The West does. They do not- I have lived there. It has little to do with the current regime.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

91. Stupidity Is Stupidity Regardless Of Culture.

In this case, their culture has nothing to do with the piss poor decision to continue to hold these people hostage. Stupidity and politics does.

[Nevernose]

94. How very ethnocentric of you.

To assume that -- because your (our) culture thinks a certain way -- the logical and right thing is for every other culture to feel the same way.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

95. Maybe You Mistook My Post For An Entirely Different Conversation.

Not sure where that whole 'my culture rules' accusation came from and I don't much care either, since it carries no relevance.

This has nothing to do with cultural differences therefore your attempted jab above does not apply. Inherent within every culture should be a desire to do what's right, civil and decent. Those ideals rise above cultural differences. In this case, there is no justification for their holding these people like they are. It is just quite simply wrong and their position is quite simply stupid.

Now you can continue to put forth defense of their holding decent people hostage for nothing more than political reasons and spite, but forgive me for being clear in my position that what they are doing is flat out wrong and stupid.

[Nevernose]

97. You don't think "what's right, civil, and decent" may vary from culture to culture?

You don't think "what's right, civil, and decent" may vary from culture to culture? You don't think that just maybe those things aren't open to interpretation?

I'm going by the second usual definition available, that of "a tendency to view alien groups or cultures from the perspective of one's own." Maybe Iranians think it's just swell to abduct British sailors and thereby escalate an already precarious situation. Sure, it's not really logical under our paradigm, but maybe under their's, the political posturing and promulgation of power is the more logical choice.

I wasn't trying to insult you, just asking you to realize that Iran's motivations in world affairs is probably at least a little different from our own.

[Breeze54]

96. They're doing what they know how to do.

This isn't the first time they took captives.

snip-->

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran

Iran's relations with the United States became deeply antagonistic following the revolution.
On November 4, 1979, Iranian students seized US embassy personnel labeling the embassy a
"den of spies"<25> and accused its personnel of being CIA agents plotting to overthrow the
revolutionary government, as the CIA had done to Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953.
Khomeini did not stop the students from holding embassy employees hostage and instead supported
the embassy takeover..
Women, African Americans and one hostage diagnosed with multiple sclerosis were soon released,
the remaining 52 were held for 444 days. The students demanded the handover of the shah in
exchange for the hostages, and following the Shah's death in the summer of 1980, that the hostages
be put on trial for espionage. Subsequently attempts by the U.S. administration to negotiate or
rescue the remaining hostages through such methods as Operation Eagle Claw, were unsuccessful
until January 1981 when the Algiers declaration was agreed upon.
The U.S. promised (among other things) in the accord to release Iranian assets that had been frozen,
but as of 2007 those assets still remain frozen.

See also: http://www.counterpunch.org/stanton03252003.html