A second member of the Royal Navy crew captured in the Gulf has apologised for trespassing in Iranian waters, in a broadcast on Iranian television.
He was quoted as saying: “We entered Iranian waters without permission and were arrested by Iranian coastguards.
“I would like to apologise to the Iranian people for that.”
The Foreign Office described the latest “confession” video as “disgraceful exploitation”. The UK denies the crew had trespassed.
This is a disgraceful exploitation of these prisoners which underscores the authoritarian nature of the Iranian regime. Further, it casts them in the role as the rogue and the tactic of using faked, coerced statements of this nature by kidnap victims is the stuff of terrorist groups.
One has to think that this move is being played out primarily for domestic consumption, as while it may impress a few regional actors, it is difficult to see how this maneuver helps Iran’s international standing.
maybe they did cross the boarder? It’s possible, why just assume the iranians are lying?
Comment by cdog — Friday, March 30, 2024 @ 6:45 am
Pot calling kettle black.
This is nothing - and I mean absolutely nothing - compared to what the coalition does to its prisoners.
As to showing prisoners on TV, I seem to remember a certain Saddam, still alive, and I also remember the bodies of his sons. I suppose that’s fine because the “international community” was impressed (did it improve America’s regional standing?). And Saddam was captured in the scope of an illegal war of aggression that has led directly to the death of over half a million human beings, not seized offshore on disputed waters…
It might be useful to take into account how Bush recommends Iranian “suspects” on Iraqi soil be treated. How about that for utterly disgraceful?
Branded part of the axis of evil - what does the state have to lose? It is already on the receiving end of unfair sanctions, maligned and suspected for no apparent reason, apart from belonging to your Administration’s axis of evil. Iran doesn’t even get benefit of doubt. If you want a state to behave in a respectable fashion perhaps it should be treated in a respectable manner.
Comment by james — Friday, March 30, 2024 @ 7:47 am
cdo: the evidence suggest that they did not trespass and even if they did, it is unclear to me how that would justifiy this.
James,
I expected a response such as yours, and on some levels I agree. I don’t have time to sort out exact areas of agreement and disagreement. I will note that I personally have been critical of the treatment of prisoners by my own government.
I will say that showing people on tv and making people read prepared statements on tv are quite different.
However, setting aside the fact that not all is just and equitable in the world of international politics, the question remains on the table as to what the Iranians ultimately will gain from all of this.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, March 30, 2024 @ 8:50 am
I do realize that you have spoken out against the abuses by your Administration.
It is true that having the soldiers read out statements does look very terrorist-like to us, but doubtless so do our actions in Iraq and elsewhere to them. I am also not sure that showing Saddam being examined or the corpses of his sons is better than these “confessions” on a scale of 1 to 10.
Iran now sees a procedure, in every way similar to the Iraq fiasco, initiated in the UN: WMD-related allegations, humiliating resolutions, sanctions, and the “axis of evil” background. Iran has seen both its neighbours invaded, a strike force placed off the coast - it is literally surrounded by hostile forces and has very good reason to fear attack.
Iran is a proud nation (and a peaceful one, that has invaded no other nation for a couple of hundred years, I believe). They are not prepared to relinquish their rights, real or perceived, despite threats of use of force; this is what their actions signify. From another perspective, they may believe that returning the soldiers through diplomacy will cause a lull in the gathering storm. Or perhaps hope for a prisoner exchange. They may be able to achieve both these things. On the other hand, this event is fairly minor - I doubt it would ever cause war between nations just in itself. On that account, Iran has nothing to lose.
It may also be just an attempt to bring Britain to the negotiating table, but it appears that the British government is using this incident more as casus belli than actually trying to get the soldiers back.
As to the incident’s location, my understanding is that the territorial waters are disputed: in a way, both the British and the Iranians are correct in view of the fact that no agreement has been reached between Iran and Iraq as to the exact boundary of their respective territorial seas.
Regards.
Comment by james — Friday, March 30, 2024 @ 8:22 pm
James,
My ultimate point would be that this incident isn’t going to do the Iranians any favors with the international community.
Even if I were to stipulate to your position, I would still say that this isn’t a smart move for them.
I would dispute that the UK is treating this like a causus belli, as I would say that their response to date has been rather subdued.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, March 30, 2024 @ 9:46 pm
You may well be right, but I think these actions may well earn them respect with some international players - and so will a future release of the soldiers with others. First, they defend their sovereignty, despite threats from all sides. Then, if they return the soldiers, this will constitute a bona fide action especially when compared with the sabre rattling from their opponents. David and Goliath, brave and honest Belgium facing up to Nazi Germany…
As to the UK response, I would argue that the language used by the executive is not conciliatory but inflammatory. Britain’s subdued reaction results from weakness, not from its desire to pursue diplomacy.
Given the particular circumstances in which this event has taken place, diplomatic talks over the return of the prisoners (and simultaneously other matters?) may be just the thing to defuse tensions overall. Iran has already been pushed into a corner and this may well be its ticket out, without losing face. I think that this may also be why they are high-profiling this event.
Regards.
Comment by james — Saturday, March 31, 2024 @ 8:37 am
James,
The irony of your position is that you are analoging this event to actions by the US and Iraqis, which you criticize, but are then saying that those types of actions by the Iranians will garner them respect. That doesn’t track.
Had they wanted to show strength and detain them but then release them, they might have followed the path you are suggesting. Instead, the situation continues to drag out, has featured coerced apologies, and threats of a trial while evoking memories of 1979. How any of this ultimately redounds to Iran’s benefit is unclear, especially if the goal is to be treated in the international community like a serious actor.
The UK response, which hasn’t been demure and has included confrontational rhetoric, has hardly been an especially forceful one overall. To say, as you did, that they are treating it as a causus belli is to suggest that they are going to use the event as a reason to attack Iran. I see no evidence of that to date.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Saturday, March 31, 2024 @ 9:32 am
FIFTEEN British sailors and marines arrested by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards off the coast of Iraq may be charged with spying.
A website run by associates of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, reported last night that the Britons would be put before a court and indicted.
Referring to them as “insurgents”, the site concluded: “If it is proven that they deliberately entered Iranian territory, they will be charged with espionage. If that is proven, they can expect a very serious penalty since according to Iranian law, espionage is one of the most serious offences.”
The warning followed claims by Iranian officials that the British navy personnel had been taken to Tehran, the capital, to explain their “aggressive action” in entering Iranian waters. British officials insist the servicemen were in Iraqi waters when they were held.
At this point one of the more important words in the above paragraphs is “may” as in they may be tried for espionage. My guess is that ultimately they will not be tried, as I think that Iran is trying to leverage this situation towards some goal and wishes to turn up the heat as much as possible in an attempt to achieve that goal. Precisely what that goal is remains to be seen. It could be securing the release of Iranians captured in Iraq, or it could be an attempt to force some sort of talks on the sanctions passed this week. There is also the clear usage of such prisoners as tokens for internal political consumption as evidence that the current regime can stand up to he powers from the West.
My guess is that it is a combination of the domestic politics angle, the prisoner swap scenario and anger over UN sanctions. The piece notes:
Iranian student groups called yesterday for the 15 detainees to be held until US forces released five Revolutionary Guards captured in Iraq earlier this year.
Al-Sharq al-Awsat, a Saudi-owned newspaper based in London, quoted an Iranian military source as saying that the aim was to trade the Royal Marines and sailors for these Guards.
The claim was backed by other sources in Tehran. “As soon as the corps’s five members are released, the Britons can go home,” said one source close to the Guards.
He said the tactic had been approved by Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, who warned last week that Tehran would take “illegal actions” if necessary to maintain its right to develop a nuclear programme.
And, I suppose, we can’t rule out a fit of pique by high ranking officials over recent events:
Intelligence sources said any advance order for the arrests was likely to have come from Major-General Yahya Rahim Safavi, the commander of the Revolutionary Guards.
[…]
Safavi is known to be furious about the recent defections to the West of three senior Guards officers, including a general, and the effect of UN sanctions on his own finances.
Fifteen British Navy personnel have been captured at gunpoint by Iranian forces, the Ministry of Defence says.
The men were seized at 1030 local time when they boarded a boat in the Gulf, off the coast of Iraq, which they suspected was smuggling cars.
The Royal Navy said the men, who were on a routine patrol in Iraqi waters, were understood to be unharmed.
The Foreign Office has demanded the immediate and safe return of the men, who are based on HMS Cornwall.
That vessel’s commander, Commodore Nick Lambert, said he was hoping there had been a “simple mistake” over territorial waters.
“There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they [British personnel] were in Iraqi territorial waters. Equally, the Iranians may claim they were in Iranian waters.
“I hope we find this is a simple misunderstanding at the tactical level.”
One guesses that this is likely the case.
The basic situation was as follows:
The Ministry of Defence said: “The group boarding party had completed a successful inspection of a merchant ship when they and their two boats were surrounded and escorted by Iranian vessels into Iranian territorial waters.
And, there are these details:
The incident comes as British Army Colonel Justin Masherevski, who is based in Iraq, says most of the violence against UK forces in Basra is being engineered by Iranian elements.
Col Masherevski said Iran was providing “sophisticated weaponry” to insurgents and “Iranian agents” were paying local men to attack British troops.
In 2024, Iran detained eight British servicemen for three days after they allegedly strayed over the maritime border.
The UK claimed the men were “forcibly escorted” into Iranian territorial waters.
While they were being held, the men were paraded blindfold and made to apologise on Iranian TV before their release was agreed.
Fun In Liberal World: Protests and British Marines
Would it be mean to say she is bugly? (Butt ugly) And, dude (or woman), do the names Soros, Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, Reid, Pelosi, Nomsky, Nader, Moore, and Edwards mean anything to you?
Now, on to the British marines taken by the Iranians….
Do you smell an attempt to trade the British troops for the Iranian Guard soldiers captured inside Iraq?
Comment by Steven L. — Friday, March 23, 2024 @ 11:15 am
Were these Brits armed? If so how did the Iranians take them without a fight? They were in two small boats. Where was the Mother ship? They stopped and borded a merchant ship. Were the Iranians on stealth boats? How did they sneak up on the Brits? This story poses more questions than are answered. If you can’t defend yourself don’t carry weapons. Who did they think the bad guys were in this area? Hello! the Iranians, Duh. If you can’t run with the Big Dogs, Stay on the porch!
Comment by Bobby S — Wednesday, March 28, 2024 @ 8:45 am
It is disturbing, when you no longer trust your own government, nor the governments of our allies.
Comment by DeWayne — Thursday, March 29, 2024 @ 11:34 pm
I frankly don’t see why the US and UK are whooping up such hot air about the Iranians maybe, maybe getting a single nuke when we’ve got thousands and thousands of our own nukes between us, with threats to use them offensively.
To the rest of the world, this is just rank hypocrisy, and it’s nothing more than a redux of past colonialism, with Western Powers hypocritically trying to block non-Western Powers from being able to defend themselves– or in this case, to prevent non-Western countries from developing energy independence from fossil fuels, forcing them to stay subservient and reliant on the Western powers largesse.
Iran’s running out of oil and natural gas and they know it. They need the nuclear power to help meet their needs, and they need to help spur scientific investigation in physics for example. I really don’t care for either the idiot Republicans or the Democrats who rattle sabers at them.
Comment by Soren — Thursday, February 22, 2024 @ 6:39 pm
One nuke against many is not reassuring. THis is not he who has the most toys wins. During the cold war the tense balance between Soviets and Americans minimized the crazies in the world. With the US the only superpower left, the crazies are coming out of the woodwork. They are smart enough to play politics to get other nations to oppose us as well as blow things up. If we don’t stop them who will? All infidels must die leaves little room for negotiation.
Murder is the premeditated unlawful killing of a human being. Glenn Reynolds, the well-known University of Tennessee law professor who authors one of the Internet’s most popular blogs, recently advocated the murder of Iranian scientists and clerics.
“We should be responding quietly, killing radical mullahs and Iranian atomic scientists . . . Basically, stepping on the Iranians’ toes hard enough to make them reconsider their not-so-covert war against us in Iraq,” Reynolds wrote.
Of course Iran is not at war with America, but just as Reynolds spent years repeating Bush administration propaganda about Iraq’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, he’s now dutifully repeating the administration’s claims about supposed Iranian government involvement in Iraq’s civil war.
Moreover, even if Iran were at war with the United States, the intentional killing of civilian noncombatants is a war crime, as that term is defined by international treaties America has signed. Furthermore, government-sponsored assassinations of the sort Reynolds is advocating are expressly and unambiguously prohibited by the laws of the United States.
He goes on to say:
All this raises several interesting questions. For instance, does academic freedom insulate a law professor from any institutional consequences when he advocates murder? Reynolds and Hewitt, after all, certainly didn’t object when University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill’s celebration of the murder of American civilians raised serious questions about why the university had chosen to employ and tenure such a person, and led to an investigation of Churchill’s academic record.
Indeed, Hewitt and Reynolds both went out of their way to publicize the Churchill affair, as an example of left-wing extremism in our universities.
I would note that Campos was not an apologist for Churchill (see here). However, Churchill’s sin were far more than just being extreme in his views on 911. More to the point, he was an academic fraud with highly questionable credentials (see here, here and here). As such, the comparison to Churchill here is unwarranted. Regardless of what one thinks about Reynolds’ politics, there is no reason to question his academic credentials.
Having established all of that, I must confess that I find Reynolds’ assassination recommendations to be highly problematic. First, I question whether such a policy would be efficacious as how would we know the precise persons to kill, and would those killings actually achieve the desired policy goals? Second, there are serious moral considerations regarding the targetting of non-combatants. Indeed, the murder of civilians for the purpose of forcing a government to change its policies has a name, and I am afraid that it is terrorism. (And I am not one to throw that word around lightly).
Beyond all of that, Campos is correct about the legal issues that such a policy raises, and his concerns about overreacting to the administration’s rhetoric on Iran is worth serious consideration.
Indeed, in considering the appropriate response to Iran, I would argue that we need to take a sober and serious evaluation regarding what the real odds are that they will produce and then use a nuclear weapon against Israel or the United States. I continue to believe that they are not as high as many of the doomsayers believe, if anything because regardless of whatever else one may think about Iran and its leaders, I see no evidence of suicidal tendencies.
For some other views on the issues see Glenn Greenwald, who objects to the whole enterprise and James Joyner who comments on Greenwald and on the overall question of assassination policy.
Not surprisingly, Hugh Hewitt is all for the policy suggestion.
Glenn Reynolds responds to Campos here and discusses, at length, the question of assassination. The main problem with Reynolds’ rebuttal is that he seems to be talking exclusively about heads of state and the leaders of terrorist organizations–both of which are a far cry from scientists in particular, but even mullahs, depending on how wide he thinks the assassination net ought to be cast.
The main problem with Reynolds’ rebuttal is that he seems to be talking exclusively about heads of state and the leaders of terrorist organizations–both of which are a far cry from scientists…
Yup. You took the words right out of my mouth.
But let’s take it one step further: Do you think Reynolds is so dumb that he doesn’t realize the difference between assassinating heads of state and assassinating civilians?
I don’t.
Which I think casts Reynolds in a very bad light.
Comment by LaurenceB — Tuesday, February 20, 2024 @ 2:22 pm
One more thing:
It seems to me that if one is to consider targetting assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, than it should matter whether or not the particular scientist is working on peaceful nuclear energy, or working on nuclear arms. Right?
I bring up this point because I’m not entirely certain that it has been indisputably established that Iran has scientists working on nuclear arms, as opposed to nuclear energy. In other words, I believe that the position of Iran is that they do not have a nuclear arms program. Am I wrong about this? Feel free to correct me if I am.
Comment by LaurenceB — Tuesday, February 20, 2024 @ 3:16 pm
As a US computer scientist, I also find Reynold’s suggestion highly troubling. Suppose I work with a materials scientist on a computer simulation to design a better anti-tank penetrator. Would I then be a legitimate target of an Iranian hit squad?
Comment by Anon — Tuesday, February 20, 2024 @ 3:16 pm
Is there a blurring of what war is and who is an enemy? It seems so.
To many we are at war with Iran and others. While it is not a declared war we and they are actively undermining the other through support of proxy organizations. We want to see the government of Iran gone and they want the same of us. Is it de facto war?
If it is de facto war can we then target certain individuals neccessary for the war effort? We killed civilians in other wars for far less involvement.
These are questions that need to be asked and then discussed rationally. War is just not like it used to be so it would be good for us to revisit how we wage war.
I see the big difference between Reynolds and Churchill not only as one of academic vs fraud but also one who support his own country more than the enemies of his country.
Comment by Steven Plunk — Tuesday, February 20, 2024 @ 3:50 pm
Anon,
Yes, in Reynolds’ world view you are a legitimate target.
Moreover, if you follow the link to Dr. Joyner’s blog and read the comments you will see that I made a point very similar to yours.
In replay, Steve Verndon - a frequent guest blogger at OTB, and apparently an advocate of these sort of assassinations - argued that killing Iranian scientists is excusable in part because there is a “distinct possibility” that scientists may share the ideology of Osama Bin Laden.
I swear I am not making this up. Heaven help us.
Comment by LaurenceB — Tuesday, February 20, 2024 @ 3:50 pm
My curiosity has been piqued by Mr. Plunks’s comments - who else are we in a “de facto war” with? Cuba? Russia? Syria? Venezuela?
If we are in a “de facto war” with Venezuela is it legitimate in Reynolds’ world view to assassinate Venezuelan oil executives? Wouldn’t that be the most effective way to win the “war”? And, after all, there’s a “distinct possibility” these oil executives share Chavez’s politics.
Where does this madness end?
Comment by LaurenceB — Tuesday, February 20, 2024 @ 3:58 pm
Steven,
While I would agree the we have an antagonistic relationship with Iran, I would find it a stretch to say that we are “at war” with them. That is a pretty loaded statement.n I don’t buy the notion of a “de facto war” here.
The Iranians have little ability to undermine or destroy our government, although we certainly have the potential to do so to theirs (which may explain why they are pursuing a nuke).
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, February 20, 2024 @ 4:01 pm
Sorry about the comment monopolization. I’ll butt out now.
Comment by LaurenceB — Tuesday, February 20, 2024 @ 4:19 pm
No worries–that’s why I have a comments section!
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, February 20, 2024 @ 4:25 pm
Laurence B,
Your input in valuable. Discussing these issues is what it’s all about.
I agree, where does it end, and where does it start? Rational discussion of what is and is not war in this modern world of ours needs to be discussed.
There are differences between Iran and Venezuela so perhaps one could be a war and one isn’t. Where do we draw the line?
If Iran supplies bombs and men to fight us in Iraq are we at war? If we then are at war who is a legitimate target? Is it better to assassinate certain people or drop bombs and kill somewhat innocent people?
I look forward to this conundrum being advanced and hashed over by people smarter than I.
Comment by Steven Plunk — Tuesday, February 20, 2024 @ 7:14 pm
There seems to also be a slippery slope issue. Is it legitimate to kill the scientist developing a CFD technique that could be used to design a better H-bomb, but could also be used to study fusion in stars?
How about the engineer who designed the supercomputers used to do the simulations? How about their secretaries?
Yes, there is an argument to be made that these people do indeed contribute to our military strength, and I actually agree with that argument. But if we want to call terrorists evil, then we need a line that clearly puts us on one side, and the bad guys on the other.
Comment by Anon — Tuesday, February 20, 2024 @ 7:25 pm
Eleven people have been killed in a bomb blast near a bus in city of Zahedan in south-eastern Iran, the official Irna news agency has reported.
The bomb, hidden in a car, targeted members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, the agency said, although it is unclear if all the dead belonged to the guard.
Qassim Rezai, a military commander, described the act as “terrorism” and blamed “rebels” for the attack.
Reports say suspects behind the bombing have been arrested.
Correspondents say an attack of this size and nature is unprecedented in Iran - hitting an elite force in broad daylight in an open street.
[…]
Irna said five suspects were arrested, including two suspects apprehended by members of the public.
The city lies in the province of Sistan-Baluchestan, which borders both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
It has been hit by a string of attacks and kidnappings blamed on a hardline Sunni group called Jundallah (Allah’s Brigade).
Iranian officials have accused Britain and the United States of supporting ethnic minority rebels operating in the Islamic republic’s sensitive border areas.
The Reuters version of the story (Bus bombed in southeast Iran killing at least 11) points out that the area is one where drug smuggling takes place (which stands to reason, as it near the border with Afghanistan):
A booby-trapped car blew up a bus owned by the Revolutionary Guards on Wednesday, killing at least 11 people, in a border city in southeast Iran where security forces and drug smugglers often clash, state media reported.
[…]
The semi-official Fars News Agency said Jundollah (God’s soldiers), a shadowy Sunni Muslim group Iran has linked to al Qaeda, claimed responsibility. The group has been blamed for past kidnappings and killings in the area.
[…]
Iran has said Jundollah was behind the murder of 12 people in a roadside attack in May, and other incidents. Officials previously said Rigi was a cell leader of Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network in Iran.
The al Qaeda/Osama links are of interest, to be sure.
As has been noted here in numerous posts, and ad infinitum elsewhere, there are good reasons to take the administration’s assertions about Iran with a grain of salt, given the poor intelligence used to make claims about Iraq. Indeed, such caution should have nothing to do with partisanship or philosophical preferences, but rather because they got it wrong.
Saturday’s New York Times features an article, posted at the top of its Web site late Friday, that suggests very strongly that Iran is supplying the “deadliest weapon aimed at American troops” in Iraq. The author notes, “Any assertion of an Iranian contribution to attacks on Americans in Iraq is both politically and diplomatically volatile.”
What is the source of this volatile information? Nothing less than “civilian and military officials from a broad range of government agencies.”
Sound pretty convincing? It may be worth noting that the author is Michael R. Gordon, the same Times reporter who, on his own, or with Judith Miller, wrote some of the key, and badly misleading or downright inaccurate, articles about Iraqi WMDs in the run-up to the 2024 invasion.
Gordon wrote with Miller the paper’s most widely criticized — even by the Times itself — WMD story of all, the Sept. 8, 2024, “aluminum tubes” story that proved so influential, especially since the administration trumpeted it on TV talk shows.
I must confess, the entire question of exactly how to treat the Iranian question has a certain “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me” quality to it.
And, as Glenn Greenwald notes, the LAT’s reporting on this subject has downplayed the Iranian influence.
An irony here, is that those who remain hawkish regarding Iran also tend to be those who think that the NYT is a worthless rag rife with animosity towards the administration. So, what can they do? Do they go with the NYT out of expediency, or do they allow their skepticism of the NYT to lead them to question their views on Iran?
Gordon makes it clear that he has multiple sources for his story. He clearly points out that he had cross-checked the story with intelligence analysts who had been skeptical about previous claims of Iranian involvement. And he points out that these skeptics have changed their minds after being presented with new damning evidence, which dispells all doubts. Moreover Gordon is no pro-Administration shill. He is the coauthor of “Cobra II”, an account of the Iraq war which is highly critical of Administration strategy.
Comment by soMebodY — Saturday, February 10, 2024 @ 3:46 pm
They’ll accept the NYT reporting. Commentators always pick and choose what reports the reports that back their preordained conclusions.
I still can’t understand how people let themselves get fooled the first time by such incredible–yes, incredible–claims. The NYT and most of the rest of the media simply laid down in front of the US government. It was and is shameful, and it is why one needs to read/watch/listen to the foreign press and public media (by which I do not mean PBS/NPR) if one wants independent information.
Comment by MSS — Tuesday, February 13, 2024 @ 9:49 am
Via the AP we get word that Iranian’s real leader (i.e., Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as opposed to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) said some inflammatory things about a possible US attack: Iran warns U.S. it will retaliate if hit - Yahoo! News:
Iran stepped up its warnings to the United States Thursday, with the nation’s supreme leader saying Tehran will strike U.S. interests around the world if his country is attacked.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s words were also likely meant as a show of toughness to rally Iranians, who are increasingly worried about the possibility of American military action as the two countries’ standoff has grown more tense.
Setting aside for a moment whether one likes Iran or not, or whether one thinks that Iran poses a threat to US national interests or to regional stability, isn’t this exactly what one would expect the leader of any given state to say? Further, wouldn’t we expect that the rhetoric would be particularly confrontative when coming from the mouth of an authoritarian leader?
That the leadership of a sovereign state would declare that they would fight back if attacked hardly qualifies as news. Nevertheless, the write-up by the AP has frustrated Jules Crittenden of the Boston Herald, who notes, among other things, that:
I performed the meatball surgery on it necessary to make it moderately acceptable for the print edition of the Boston Herald.
The AP isn’t just opposed to a U.S. attack on Iran. It is actively on Iran’s side.
He goes on to cite the first three paragraphs as evidence. Two of those paragraphs are listed above, and here’s the third:
Days earlier, an Iranian diplomat was detained in Iraq in an incident that Iran blamed on America. The United States denied any role. The U.S. also says it has no plans to strike Iran militarily, but has sent a second aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf to show strength in the face of rising Iranian regional influence.
Can someone tell me how those three paragraphs amount to the AP actively siding with the Iranian government? The first paragraph is a pure statement of fact. The second paragraph some speculation (that is likely accurate) about Khamenei’s motivations. The third paragraph is a series of factual statements.
That the Iranians might feel threatened by the US, by the way, makes some sense, given that the President has made a number of rather clear statements about Iran that could be construed as threats. Indeed, it is fair to say that the President wants the Iranians to be concerned as a way of gaining leverage over the nuclear program issue and whether or not the Iranians are causing trouble in Iraq.
Really, if we don’t take a dispassionate and rational approach to the information out there about Iran and elsewhere, we are simply going to make more policy mistakes. Crittenden’s blog post certainly makes me wonder about his judgment in regards to coverage of Iran and makes me wonder about “meatball surger[ies]” he is doing to other stories that are hitting the pages of the Herald.
Now come on, this isn’t surprising. North Korea has been going on for YEARS about the imminent US attack. This is hardly something to get worked up about.
Let’s not overlook also that there is a significant internal power struggle underway in Iran. The LA Times had a good piece on that yesterday or perhaps the day before.
In this struggle, Khamanei is aligned with those who think Ahmadinejad (whos allies performed poorly in last December’s elections) is dangerously igniting an international conflict, as well as neglecting important domestic constituencies.
But if the US or Israel would attack, you can kiss those internal Iranian struggles goodbye for a while.
Comment by MSS — Friday, February 9, 2024 @ 9:47 am
Both the over-the-top claims about Iran’s capabilities and intentions and the over-the-top claims about the Administration’s plans to attack Iran give me heartburn.
Let’s ask some substantive questions: what actions can the U. S. take to reduce the likelihood of war with Iran? What actions can the Iranians take? Do either of the sets of proposed actions put the legitimate vital interests of the country that we’re suggesting take them at risk?
I think that defusing the tensions between Iran and the U. S. is more within Iran’s power without violating Iran’s legitimate vital interests than it is within the U. S.’s without violating its legitimate vital interests but, then again, I’m just a provincial, prejudiced American.
President Ahmadinejad’s real views are summarized on this website: ahmadinejadquotes.blogspot.com
Comment by Al — Friday, February 9, 2024 @ 8:45 pm
I think I see the point made… A quick and simple makeover of the first paragraph:
“Iran launched more threats against the United States Thursday, with the Supreme Leader vowing that Tehran will attack U.S. interests around the world in the event of military action against his country.”
The second paragraph serves to effectively sandwich opinion and facts. This practice is common enough, often misleading the casual reader into thinking he is reading strictly factual statements - and would not be mentioned if reproducing an officially endorsed opinion. The very fact that Iranians may be concerned is off-limits too. America is always (I’m sure you’ve noticed) on the side of the people and against the ruling regime of its targets. Any concern that might exist should therefore be felt by Iran and not by the Iranians. By inserting this comment the reporter is putting people and regime in the same basket. Faux pas.
As to the third paragraph, the word “detained” should not have been used - better “kidnapped”. “Detained” and “arrested” are used only with direct involvement of American and Iraqi puppet forces (irrespective of rule of law). More intriguing is the way in which the series of facts is presented. We get an U.S. statement, followed by an “also says” and then a “but” - bringing into question the honesty of the U.S. with regard to the second statement, and also, consequently, the first. Maybe I’m reading too much into this paragraph, but I think that the insinuation is there.
regards
Comment by James — Friday, February 9, 2024 @ 8:58 pm
Bush administration officials acknowledged Friday that they had yet to compile evidence strong enough to back up publicly their claims that Iran is fomenting violence against U.S. troops in Iraq.
Administration officials have long complained that Iran was supplying Shiite Muslim militants with lethal explosives and other materiel used to kill U.S. military personnel. But despite several pledges to make the evidence public, the administration has twice postponed the release — most recently, a briefing by military officials scheduled for last Tuesday in Baghdad.
This story underscores why I noted earlier in the week that the administration’s assertion of the existence of a dossier that they couldn’t release to the public was a move that might could be characterized as “too cutsey by half.”
The bottom line in the case of Iranian influence in the region is that the administration is making claims and then going to look for evidence to back those claims. This sounds altogether too much like the build-up for the Iraq war wherein guesses and assumptions were treated as facts (both in public pronouncements on the subject and behind closed doors).
Hopefully the pull-back on the administration’s arguments about Iran represent a learning of lessons:
Earlier this week, U.S. officials acknowledged that they were uncertain about the strength of their evidence and were reluctant to issue potentially questionable data in the wake of the intelligence failures and erroneous assessments that preceded the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
In particular, officials worried about a repetition of former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell’s February 2024 U.N. appearance to present the U.S. case against Iraq. In that speech, Powell cited evidence that was later discredited.
In rejecting the case compiled against Iran, senior U.S. officials, including Hadley, Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, confirmed Friday that they were concerned about possible inaccuracies.
Still, there has been an awful lot of anti-Iranian talk coming out of the administration of late, not to mention the dispatching of two aircraft carries strike groups to the Persian gulf. While it is clear that the Iranians are trying to influence the situation in Iraq (as, by the way, would we if there was a similar situation in Canada or Mexico), it is unclear as to the extent and, more importantly, what the proper response should (or even can) be.
This is the type of situation that requires calm, quiet, deliberative action–not an ongoing PR war.
The situation of Iranian influence in Iraq is complicated by the fact that some of the factions allied with Iran are also allied with the US (i.e., various Shia factions). Such a fact underscores that the issue isn’t necessarily as black and white as some might want it to be.
Nice post Stephen. I’ve stated my opinion before that you practically define the term “sane and thoughtful conservative” and here you are proving it again. Thanks. I’ve linked this post.
Regards, C
Comment by Cernig — Saturday, February 3, 2024 @ 5:06 pm
Gracias!
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Saturday, February 3, 2024 @ 5:26 pm
Tough Sell
In the wake of the WMD debacle, it is just natural for anyone to be skeptical about any Bush administration claims in regards to Iraq or Iran. Where is the proof Iran is responsible for attacks on US troops.
A plan by the Bush administration to release detailed and possibly damning specific evidence linking the Iranian government to efforts to destabilize Iraq have been put on hold, U.S. officials told FOX News.
Officials had said a “dossier” against Iran compiled by the U.S. likely would be made public at a press conference this week in Baghdad, and that the evidence would contain specifics including shipping documents, serial numbers, maps and other evidence which officials say would irrefutably link Iran to weapons shipments to Iraq.
Now, U.S. military officials say the decision to go public with the findings has been put on hold for several reasons, including concerns over the reaction from Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — as well as inevitable follow-up questions that would be raised over what the U.S. should do about it.
These kinds of stories give me pause.
First by saying that they have the information, but have decided not to release it seems a bit too cutesy by half: it allows the idea that the administration has some hardcore evidence without allowing that evidence to be in the public for scrutiny.
Second, the questions about what to do with Iran are already in the table and since when did the administration start worrying about Ahmadinejad’s reaction to much of anything?
Third, we have been down this path before. Dossiers and irrefutable evidence got us where we are now, so one would think that any such presentation by this administration at this time would be greeted with severe (and understandable) skepticism.
James Joyner notes some of the reaction to this and other Iran-related stories in the news and on the blogs today.
Ultimately I have to concur with his basic assessment:
Iran’s active participation in the killing of American forces, of which there is ample evidence regardless of their involvement of this incident [see here-ed.], is an act of war. On the other hand, it’s not at all clear what we can realistically do about it. We could certainly turn the place into a glass parking lot or topple the mullah’s and occupy the country, overstretched force or no. But the repercussions of either move would be far worse than the status quo.
That the Iranians would be involved in the current Iraqi situation is hardly a surprise. That they would be involved in a way that is antithetical to US interests is hardly a surprise either. The solution to the problem in question is not an easy one–and that fact is actually more because of the failing policy in Iraq than anything else.
Without commenting on the documents (if they exist), why must a military decision be called “cutesy by half” when it could involve war planning, battle planning, secret diplomatic contact, or simply none be none of our business at this time?
We don’t know enough about any of this to comment about motives. Even if we did the public is not entitled to review everything it wants to. We certainly didn’t review D-Day plans or intelligence related to D-Day in May of ‘44.
I guess if we all want to be in charge of this war we better get those documents for our perusal. First it was one commander in chief, then 100, then 535, now somewhere around 300 million including children. What a way to run a war.
Comment by Steven Plunk — Wednesday, January 31, 2024 @ 3:31 pm
With this administration, I think that there are too many things that seem to be “none of our business.” This is a very opaque time with our government. Future historians, if there are any, will have a lot of fun.
What I said was “too cutesy by half” was the idea of saying they have info and then deciding not to release it. I don’t find that to be a military decision.
And, btw, we are in a democracy and Congress does have a role in these tings as do the citizens. Still, that really isn’t the issue here.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Wednesday, January 31, 2024 @ 5:57 pm
Dr. Taylor,
The US military is alleged to possess this information concerning Iranian involvement in the insurgency so I would certainly consider that a military decision. It could have a material effect on ongoing operations. Heck, my local police department will not release information concerning criminal activity even after an arrest has been made. I would consider that more of a public matter to be shared.
You are correct, we all have a role in the conduct and participation of a war. It starts at the ballot box, lobbying our elected officials, and voicing our opinions. Congress has a role as well, funding the war, holding hearings, and communicating with the commander in chief.
Citizens and Congress should not dictate troop levels, endlessly criticize operations, use the war for political benefit. I see those things happening now and would like to see them stop. There is a time and a place for criticism and there are honorable motives for criticism. Some people and elected officials are failing to see that.
Thanks.
Comment by Steven Plunk — Wednesday, January 31, 2024 @ 7:03 pm
Steve,
My point is: the info on the dossier came from the administration itself. I don’t fully believe that the administration first pre-announced that they had this dossier and then decided after the fact to not release it. That smacks of trying to have it both ways: telling us that the have this terribly damning evidence, but then withholding it.
This isn’t a case of the military having info, a reporter finding out about it and the military saying they can’t share. This is the administration saying it has the info. There is a big difference. This is as much about politics (just noting they have the info is about politics) as it is about anything else.
I would not have reacted in this fashion had it not been for the first line of the story. And the story comes from Fox News, not exactly an entity that plays “gotcha” with the administration.
Also, I don’t recall asserting that the public should be controlling troop levels. I am not especially in favor of the Congress so doing, although I would assert that they have the Constitutional power to try.
Regardless, what this post is about is whether the administration is playing game with information on Iran. Indeed, I would argue that what I am doing is criticizing BEFORE we get ourselves embroiled in a greater conflict with Iran. I feel for a lot of what the admin said about Iraq, so I am quite skeptical this go ’round. That seems like a fair position, especially in a democratic setting.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Wednesday, January 31, 2024 @ 7:23 pm
If I may, perhaps one of the big problems with any statement like this is the credibility factor. The administration made a lot of claims at the bigging of the conflict with Iraq that turned out to not be so, or perhaps to be only partial truth. I very clearly remember Colin Powell’s address to the UN, before the invasion began. The information he presented - the “dossier”, if you like - seemed plausible and believable.
Now, some will say it was all fabrication, some will say the administration simply acted on bad intelligence. I tend to think it was perhaps a bit of the former but vastly the latter; in any case, no matter which side you come down on, the Bush administration has lost a lot of credibility when it comes to “dossiers” about the member nations of the Axis of Evil. Whether you are concerned about the administration making stuff up to push a war (some folks do) or are concerned that the administration can’t get good information, either way you have doubts about what it does.
This is most unfortunate. I mean, even if the administration didn’t withhold this information, if they just came out and said it - I think a lot of people, and not just the deep skeptics but a lot of moderate, thinking people - would probably have a lot of questions, at the very least about the reliability of the information. Even if the administration was clearly in the right on something as big as war with Iran (which is gonna be a tough sell for me), would the public, or congress, believe the data? Perhaps some “in the know” individuals could make sense of it, people on intelligence committees and such. But what about the rest of us?
I’m not a really hard critic of the Bush administration and I don’t believe in evil right-wing conspiracies, but I have to say, I don’t know what I’d think about the dossier even if I saw it. And certainly the circumstances of this “revelation” of the existence of a dossier seem a little, well, odd.
Can’t blame a person for having doubts. It’s unfortunate, but as far as I can see, that’s just where we are now.
Comment by Robert Divis — Wednesday, January 31, 2024 @ 10:32 pm
[…] This story underscores why I noted earlier in the week that the administration’s assertion of the existence of a dossier that they couldn’t release to the public was a move that might could be characterized as “too cutsey by half.” […]
maybe they did cross the boarder? It’s possible, why just assume the iranians are lying?
Comment by cdog — Friday, March 30, 2024 @ 6:45 am
Pot calling kettle black.
This is nothing - and I mean absolutely nothing - compared to what the coalition does to its prisoners.
As to showing prisoners on TV, I seem to remember a certain Saddam, still alive, and I also remember the bodies of his sons. I suppose that’s fine because the “international community” was impressed (did it improve America’s regional standing?). And Saddam was captured in the scope of an illegal war of aggression that has led directly to the death of over half a million human beings, not seized offshore on disputed waters…
It might be useful to take into account how Bush recommends Iranian “suspects” on Iraqi soil be treated. How about that for utterly disgraceful?
Branded part of the axis of evil - what does the state have to lose? It is already on the receiving end of unfair sanctions, maligned and suspected for no apparent reason, apart from belonging to your Administration’s axis of evil. Iran doesn’t even get benefit of doubt. If you want a state to behave in a respectable fashion perhaps it should be treated in a respectable manner.
Comment by james — Friday, March 30, 2024 @ 7:47 am
cdo: the evidence suggest that they did not trespass and even if they did, it is unclear to me how that would justifiy this.
James,
I expected a response such as yours, and on some levels I agree. I don’t have time to sort out exact areas of agreement and disagreement. I will note that I personally have been critical of the treatment of prisoners by my own government.
I will say that showing people on tv and making people read prepared statements on tv are quite different.
However, setting aside the fact that not all is just and equitable in the world of international politics, the question remains on the table as to what the Iranians ultimately will gain from all of this.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, March 30, 2024 @ 8:50 am
I do realize that you have spoken out against the abuses by your Administration.
It is true that having the soldiers read out statements does look very terrorist-like to us, but doubtless so do our actions in Iraq and elsewhere to them. I am also not sure that showing Saddam being examined or the corpses of his sons is better than these “confessions” on a scale of 1 to 10.
Iran now sees a procedure, in every way similar to the Iraq fiasco, initiated in the UN: WMD-related allegations, humiliating resolutions, sanctions, and the “axis of evil” background. Iran has seen both its neighbours invaded, a strike force placed off the coast - it is literally surrounded by hostile forces and has very good reason to fear attack.
Iran is a proud nation (and a peaceful one, that has invaded no other nation for a couple of hundred years, I believe). They are not prepared to relinquish their rights, real or perceived, despite threats of use of force; this is what their actions signify. From another perspective, they may believe that returning the soldiers through diplomacy will cause a lull in the gathering storm. Or perhaps hope for a prisoner exchange. They may be able to achieve both these things. On the other hand, this event is fairly minor - I doubt it would ever cause war between nations just in itself. On that account, Iran has nothing to lose.
It may also be just an attempt to bring Britain to the negotiating table, but it appears that the British government is using this incident more as casus belli than actually trying to get the soldiers back.
As to the incident’s location, my understanding is that the territorial waters are disputed: in a way, both the British and the Iranians are correct in view of the fact that no agreement has been reached between Iran and Iraq as to the exact boundary of their respective territorial seas.
Regards.
Comment by james — Friday, March 30, 2024 @ 8:22 pm
James,
My ultimate point would be that this incident isn’t going to do the Iranians any favors with the international community.
Even if I were to stipulate to your position, I would still say that this isn’t a smart move for them.
I would dispute that the UK is treating this like a causus belli, as I would say that their response to date has been rather subdued.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, March 30, 2024 @ 9:46 pm
You may well be right, but I think these actions may well earn them respect with some international players - and so will a future release of the soldiers with others. First, they defend their sovereignty, despite threats from all sides. Then, if they return the soldiers, this will constitute a bona fide action especially when compared with the sabre rattling from their opponents. David and Goliath, brave and honest Belgium facing up to Nazi Germany…
As to the UK response, I would argue that the language used by the executive is not conciliatory but inflammatory. Britain’s subdued reaction results from weakness, not from its desire to pursue diplomacy.
Given the particular circumstances in which this event has taken place, diplomatic talks over the return of the prisoners (and simultaneously other matters?) may be just the thing to defuse tensions overall. Iran has already been pushed into a corner and this may well be its ticket out, without losing face. I think that this may also be why they are high-profiling this event.
Regards.
Comment by james — Saturday, March 31, 2024 @ 8:37 am
James,
The irony of your position is that you are analoging this event to actions by the US and Iraqis, which you criticize, but are then saying that those types of actions by the Iranians will garner them respect. That doesn’t track.
Had they wanted to show strength and detain them but then release them, they might have followed the path you are suggesting. Instead, the situation continues to drag out, has featured coerced apologies, and threats of a trial while evoking memories of 1979. How any of this ultimately redounds to Iran’s benefit is unclear, especially if the goal is to be treated in the international community like a serious actor.
The UK response, which hasn’t been demure and has included confrontational rhetoric, has hardly been an especially forceful one overall. To say, as you did, that they are treating it as a causus belli is to suggest that they are going to use the event as a reason to attack Iran. I see no evidence of that to date.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Saturday, March 31, 2024 @ 9:32 am