Iranian Isandlwana
Britain has lost, and Iran has won.
Iran seized a British ship in Iraqi waters, kidnapped the sailors, forced bogus taped confessions out of them, paraded them before the world to illustrate their power. In the process, Ahmadinejad (one of the original thugs to authorize the taking of American hostages during the tenure of our ex-best-President, Jimmy Carter) managed to drive the price of crude oil through the roof (ever notice how Iran rattles the sabres ever time oil prices drop?), thus making lots of money for Iran , and managed to force Britain-a key partner in the coalition in Iraq-to come crawling on hands and knees, begging for their people back. Ahmadinejad even managed to look magnanimous, returning the kidnappees as an ``Easter gift``.
Britain, far from appearing mature and deliberative, simply appeared craven to the rest of the world. Throughout the Arab world, Iran`s esteem has grown high because of this. Foreign policy is all based on prestige; it was always understood that you could not afford to appear craven, or your enemies would pick your yellow carcass like vultures on roadkill. Negotiation must always be from a position of perceived strength (remember what happened to Germany at Versailles after the Kaiser abdicated and Germany sued for peace after WWI) and to be embarrassed in such a manner has assuredly emboldened our enemies. Nobody respects a pure talker; Britain needed to back up their talk with the point of a bayonette.
Actually, it looks like America backed up that talk with a a warship, and that may have been the reason for Ahmadinejad`s magnanimous act. War with the United States, as opposed to a bombing, is not in Iran`s best interest. The Iranians want to keep things in a crisis, to tire Americans of the whole rat`s nest in the Middle-East. He wants to have things drag on without resolution in the hopes that a war-weary America will vote for the peaceniks and quit the field. The key is brinkmanship; push America, but not too hard.
The Arab world sees diplomacy as war by other means, and this ``diplomatic settlement`` was a great military success for the aggressor. Why didn`t Britain act? Perhaps to avoid spoiling U.S. plans for military action against Iran?
I doubt that. We have been paralyzed into inaction by the Antenoran policies of our disloyal ``loyal opposition`` and an attack on Iran is going to require a level of committment in both men and materials on a whole new level. I don`t believe that the President could pull such an attack off at this juncture, despite the desperate need for a major assault. Lobbing a few bombs will only strengthen Ahmadinejad`s hand, turn those in Iran who now oppose the regime into allies. Our actions are going to have to be far deeper than a Clintonesque attack on aspirin factories.
At any rate, Iran has carried the day, and the Union Jack should be flying at half-staff this morning.
Iran seized a British ship in Iraqi waters, kidnapped the sailors, forced bogus taped confessions out of them, paraded them before the world to illustrate their power. In the process, Ahmadinejad (one of the original thugs to authorize the taking of American hostages during the tenure of our ex-best-President, Jimmy Carter) managed to drive the price of crude oil through the roof (ever notice how Iran rattles the sabres ever time oil prices drop?), thus making lots of money for Iran , and managed to force Britain-a key partner in the coalition in Iraq-to come crawling on hands and knees, begging for their people back. Ahmadinejad even managed to look magnanimous, returning the kidnappees as an ``Easter gift``.
Britain, far from appearing mature and deliberative, simply appeared craven to the rest of the world. Throughout the Arab world, Iran`s esteem has grown high because of this. Foreign policy is all based on prestige; it was always understood that you could not afford to appear craven, or your enemies would pick your yellow carcass like vultures on roadkill. Negotiation must always be from a position of perceived strength (remember what happened to Germany at Versailles after the Kaiser abdicated and Germany sued for peace after WWI) and to be embarrassed in such a manner has assuredly emboldened our enemies. Nobody respects a pure talker; Britain needed to back up their talk with the point of a bayonette.
Actually, it looks like America backed up that talk with a a warship, and that may have been the reason for Ahmadinejad`s magnanimous act. War with the United States, as opposed to a bombing, is not in Iran`s best interest. The Iranians want to keep things in a crisis, to tire Americans of the whole rat`s nest in the Middle-East. He wants to have things drag on without resolution in the hopes that a war-weary America will vote for the peaceniks and quit the field. The key is brinkmanship; push America, but not too hard.
The Arab world sees diplomacy as war by other means, and this ``diplomatic settlement`` was a great military success for the aggressor. Why didn`t Britain act? Perhaps to avoid spoiling U.S. plans for military action against Iran?
I doubt that. We have been paralyzed into inaction by the Antenoran policies of our disloyal ``loyal opposition`` and an attack on Iran is going to require a level of committment in both men and materials on a whole new level. I don`t believe that the President could pull such an attack off at this juncture, despite the desperate need for a major assault. Lobbing a few bombs will only strengthen Ahmadinejad`s hand, turn those in Iran who now oppose the regime into allies. Our actions are going to have to be far deeper than a Clintonesque attack on aspirin factories.
At any rate, Iran has carried the day, and the Union Jack should be flying at half-staff this morning.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 5:59 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home