« A380 at LAX | Main | Boeing 787 to debut on 07/08/07 »

I've seen this movie before

Hostage Taking; It's like the 'Beau Geste' of International Politics.

1. Third tier dictatorship takes Hostages.
2. "Wise old men" advise caution.
3. Third tier dictatorship increases rhetoric, engages in street theatre.
4. "Wise old men" assure their government leaders that diplomatic solution is just around the corner.
5. Public grows angrier by the day.
6. Third tier dictatorship asks for apology.
7. Months pass into years.
8. Hostages released to new administration in attempt to garner favorable negotiation stance.

In the late 1700's and the early part of the 1800's we fought two wars against the Muslims over what was essentially "Hostage Taking". It should be noted that everyone in Europe hated us for it too. We established that we do indeed require a Navy and the Marines got a stanza in their anthem out of it.

In this century, in 1968, we saw this scenario play out in the USS Pueblo incident. Europeans might be surprised to find out that during the event, we didnt attack North Korea like a bunch of "cowboys". Americans might be surprised to find out that while the crew was returned, the USS Pueblo is still in North Korean hands.

In 1978, We saw our embassy in Iran captured by Iranian "students", and we all know how that movie got picked up to be a weekly one hour series thats still running for the last 30 years with the wherewithall of the 'Law and Order' franchise.

This weeks version of the movie is a British remake, but the plot is the same and yet I suspect, that this time the ending might also be somewhat different from the American ones weve seen before.

First, Iran usually does these things through third party actors so that they can use the excuse that "it wasn't us, it was those horrible kids down the street" and then politely tell the world that they would be happy to talk to them if only we could negotiate on other things at the same time. However, this time its not "third parties" doing the evil deeds, but the Iranian goverment itself that has taken the hostages. That doesnt play well with other governments around the world. So, I'm taking this as a desperate act on the part of the Iranians.

Second is a question of timing. Why now? Isnt a week after you get voted down in the UN a bad idea to go kidnapping other people naval personnel? Again, I smell the "stink of fear" on the part of the Iranian government.

Now the Iranians surely are who they are, but so are the British. I know everyone is quick to ask "What would Maggie do?" this week and use it to condemn Tony Blair, but I'm not going to go there yet. The British have a way of doing things and this is their folks that are being used as pawns, so good or bad, I say its Mr. Blairs call to make. I caution those of you who think he should be doing more to remember that what we see in the news is not whats actually happening behind the scenes. It will be years before we find out what was going on behind the scenes right now, so dont use the headlines on Drudge to give you any sense of whats really going on right now. You can bet your bottom dollar that the English are doing what they do best at this point to resolve the issue in a very polite fashion. I also want to remind you that when it finally comes to blows, it should be very clear who's side you should be on and why.

Oh damn, I've gone and shown my hand.

Two things are becoming increasingly more likely as we move forward and they both lead to some form of state level violence between England and Iran. Yeah, It's War I'm talking about.

Oh yes, You should have no fear about our role in this. I'm sure we will get to help out and exact a little not so quiet revenge for our past issues with the Iranians. Usually when 'John Bull' decides to throw down against some little tinhorn pissant dicatorship, we usually get to stand by and hold his coat and warn off the other little smartasses who think they want to jump in and help out the cat that "John" is rightfully kicking the crap out of.

First, diplomacy only goes so far and it also has a language of its own. When the Iranians said "you must apologize" what they really said is "forget it, you dont get them back unless you come back with a much better offer". They know damn well that when they made this offer that England had already provided proof that their people werent in Iranian waters, they just told England the equivalent to "f**ck off".

They just did it diplomatically, thats all.

Second, England has already started to close off economic ties to Iran. We did this sort of thing in 1978, so dont get your hopes up that as a result of England doing this that all of a sudden they will come crawling back to the table, begging the English to give them their pretty trade credits back, because thats not going to happen. The English have just told the Iranians to "f**ck off".

They just did it diplomatically, thats all.

So were back to another remake of the same old movie. Tinhorn dictatorship holds western superpower hostage in humilition which is resolved after much talking at a much later date.

or...

This time, something else happens(maybe- a very likely maybe). Remember, timing is a factor here so pay attention. Iran needs to escalate this little action from 'hostage taking' to something much more serious. Normally, its not in the hostage takers interest to escalate the situation. They just want to get your attention, they dont want you to actually fire up the SWAT Team and come bustin in through the door.

Usually what "state level hostage takers" are after is lots of face time with the other party for the purpose of getting other political issues resolved. We in the West don't do business this way(unless youre in the waste management business in New Jersey and your name ends in a vowel), but in the Middle East, this is business as usual. (Nothing personal you see, its just business. Been going on since the Crusades probably longer, so dont get your panties in a bunch you infidels... )But the timing this time tells me they are after something else.

I think in this particular remake of 'Beau Geste', the Iranians actually want to fight the English. I think that just may be their actual goal. They are waiting for the English to overreact, they are waiting to be able to call for "world wide jihad" as the aggreived party. I think for the mullahs, that may be their only way out of their current predicament.

As of late, things are not going so well for the mullahs. "World Wide Jihad" as a franchise operation isnt exactly going where we all thought it would by this point. To be sure, it exists, but the chessboard has gone more towards our side than towards theirs. Headlines are one thing, but the mood in "the souk" of the middle east is definetly not going towards the mullahs. Add to it the fact that their "Dr. Evil operation" in North Korea has failed to produce a working atomic bomb, which means a ton of money was spent by the Iranians and "lil Kim" converted it all into warehouses of Cheap Brandy, Slim Jims and Skidoos rather than something slightly more nefarious. I take the recent report by the CIA that the North Korean bomb was a "fizzle" as one of the key factors in this hostage taking event. Its not just that the bomb itself was a "fizzle", but that the manufacturing process itself was faulty and that will take time to fix.

Time, that the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary government doesnt have.

The lack of a bomb means that nuclear extortion is probably out of the question, so there goes that line of revenue.

The lack of a full out war in Lebanon with Israel means that the "war against Zion" revenue pipeline is probably not going as well as it could be either, so there goes that line of revenue. Since the Israelis have left most of what can be called 'Palestine' they have diffused most of that anger and as a result lowered that revenue line as well.

"Outrage over cartoons that make fun of Mohammed" pipeline? I think thats at the the bottom of the charts by now.

And you know what, the kids around the campus at good old 'Tehran A&M University' have started getting that look in their eye again, you know the one the Shah and his henchmen saw in 1978 and completely ignored. The locals have all started to point out how similar things are now to those days and remind everyone how fast the Shah fell.

So I'm guessing here, but I think the Iranians actually are looking for a fight this time. The risk isnt that I'm right, because if they want a fight they will get one, the risk is that they might not be actually looking for a fight, but just might get one anyway.

To quote Fred Thompsons character Admiral Painter in "Hunt for Red October":

"This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it."

Accidents happen. Not just to our side, but to their side as well. Somewhere on the coast of Iran is a battery of Chinese made Silkworm Anti-ship missiles. All it takes is one trigger happy comamnder to fire his missiles at just the right time and things will, as they say "get out of hand". If he sinks a commercial oil tanker or a military ship no matter the Navy, its war. Not just with England, or the US, any action in the gulf is action against the ecomonies of the world.

Big time.

20% of the worlds oil comes through that little alimentary canal called the "Straits of Hormuz". That little underpaid civil servant in a green suit doesnt have to hit your ship for your ecomony to get completely plinked off the target range. He manages to sink one ship and every insurance company in the world goes absolutely ape. Every futures index goes off the charts and every company already teetering on the edge of solvency will vaporize. And remember, he doesnt have to do it on the "orders of the mullahs", he just have to think it up all by himself. One underpaid man, one imported second hand 1960's generations anti-ship missile, just one ship and a global economy falls into the gutter.All this will happen to the world because of the rash actions of one underpaid junior officer at some missile battery outside of Bandar Abbas.

And thats the risk here. It's a big risk, and its a very real risk.

My advice is to watch closely, let the English do what they gotta do, but be prepared, Admiral Painter could be in this movie too.

And then start to think about what our reaction will be if one of the targets from our friend in Bandar Abbas isnt an oil tanker, but is a United States Navy Nuclear Aircraft Carrier, of which there are two in the area. I know what the President will, but what will those who are afflicted with the last stages of BDS do while our men are being picked out of the waters of the Gulf?

If the "bad thing" happens, you wont be asking "What Would Maggie do" but "What Will Nancy and Harry do" because thats the world we now live in.

Posted @ March 28, 2007 04:26 PM | Current Affairs