I am going to defer to the more artful rhetoric of
Glenn Greenwald in his discussion of the "Second Iranian Hostage Crisis." He references a
National Review article lamenting the fact that Britain's negotiation of a release "looks like a victory for the Islamic Republic."
By committing an act of war, Iran has simultaneously made itself look peaceful and made the West look impotent.
That paradox is the apparent outcome of the crisis that began when Iran kidnapped 15 British sailors and marines on March 23. Today, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that the 15 had been “pardoned” — their supposed offense having been to trespass on Iranian coastal waters — and would be sent home. We don’t know exactly what, if anything, Britain did to bring about the release. But, at least for now, the resolution looks like a victory for the Islamic Republic.
According to eyewitness accounts and GPS data, the Britons were never in Iranian waters. Their treatment after being kidnapped was a violation of the Geneva Conventions: They were videotaped making confessions (almost certainly under duress) and otherwise humiliated. If Britain still acted like the great power it once was, it would have made clear on Day One that this was an act of war and would be viewed as such. That would not have required an immediate military response, or barred the possibility of negotiations with Iran. But it would have required telling Iran’s rulers that, unless they released the hostages immediately, they would pay an unbearable cost. The threat need not have been spelled out specifically, but could have included, among other things, an economic embargo, a naval blockade, or eventual military strikes. That message should have been delivered in public and in private. (If Britain did threaten Iran privately, it should tell the world so now.) With respect to Theodore Roosevelt, this occasion called for walking loudly and carrying a big stick.
I'm beginning to think that the time has come to say the things that people like Glenn Greenwald are too polite to say--that the folks at the National Review, above all else, need the world to know that their dicks are bigger than the Iranians'. Look at the language: "made the West look impotent," "carrying a big stick." It matters not that the Brits were released without a shot fired, having been subjected to treatment that, it would seem, Guantanamo detainees could only dream of. This is about something much, uh, bigger.
This is not, in any way whatsoever, an effort to defend Iran. Their initial actions in seizing the British sailors makes no sense except as an act of provocation, and the Brits were smart not to take the bait. The
Times of London makes some very good points:
It is difficult to conclude that Iran's actions were other than premeditated. The incident underlines the pride and prickliness in Tehran, the sense of encirclement and the willingness to make ruthless use of Iranian influence in Iraq to thwart the West, especially over Iran's nuclear policy. Tehran has, however, been forced to climb down.
In some ways, Tehran tipped its hand--it is concerned about Western presence in the Gulf (duh), but it is smart enough not to set itself up deliberately for annihilation. This must be frustrating for the neocons. Without much overt prodding, Tehran released the sailors with everything but a bit of pride intact, without any "economic embargo, a naval blockade, or eventual military strikes," as the folks at the National Review seemed to lust after. Really, how was this not a setback for Iran? A "victory for the Islamic Republic" (to quote NR again) would have been a public trial in Tehran, with London pleading to allow their own barristers in to assist. Instead, we have Iran saying "never mind."
Instead of moaning and wailing about how Britain's totally gaywad tendency to negotiate prevents them from getting to blow shit up, perhaps they should remember what one of their own once said (allegedly and anonymously) to
Ron Suskind:
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
So here is my recommendation to you neocons with your sudden
coitus interruptus feelings about not getting to bomb Iran:
1. Just call this a freakin' victory already, if you really believe you create your own reality.
2. Think of it this way--Iran backed down in the face of pencil-necked Brits carrying briefcases full of Geneva Convention transcripts. No bombs or guns even necessary!
3. You don't need massive explosions and carnage to feel better about your penis size--all you need is
confidence in yourself. And stop watching gay porn.
As a final note, isn't it a little ironic that some of the same people who called the Geneva Conventions "quaint" now demand that Iran follow them to the letter? Personally, I think everyone should follow them. Just sayin'
