April 1, 2007

Does This Sound Familiar?

Tony Blair had better dust off his study material about the Jimmy Carter presidency. It looks like the Iranians have begun another embassy standoff:

About 200 students threw rocks and firecrackers at the British Embassy on Sunday, calling for the expulsion of the country's ambassador because of the standoff over Iran's capture of 15 British sailors and marines.

Several dozen policemen prevented the protesters from entering the embassy compound, although a few briefly scaled a fence outside the compound's walls before being pushed back, according to an Associated Press reporter at the scene.

The protesters chanted "Death to Britain" and "Death to America" as they hurled stones into the courtyard of the embassy. They also demanded that the Iranian government expel the British ambassador and close down the embassy, calling it a "den of spies."

The British say that the police presence has kept the compound secure, but that supposedly was the case in November 1979, too. As then, Iranian clerics fuel the violent protest and have attracted Iranian youths to demonstrate. This fellow here with the rock is an Iranian imam.

Given the rhetoric from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it doesn't appear as if the mullahcracy wants to de-escalate the crisis on the ground. It will not take long before the police allow themselves to be overwhelmed by the anger of the mob -- and then the Iranians will find themselves in possession of yet another Western embassy. They have seen no reason not to allow its "students" to capture the British compound, certainly not by the EU's embarrassing show of moral cowardice last night. All of this "reasonable" talk has encouraged Ahmadinejad to bolster his own domestic position by turning Britain -- Iran's trading partner and interlocutor with America -- as its new Great Satan.

A CQ reader, Lee A, posed an interesting question in response to my earlier post on this subject. Britain belongs to NATO, and even if the EU can't find the testicular fortitude to stand up to Teheran, NATO has to do so if Iran commits an act of war against a member. The capture of the sailors and Marines qualifies as such, and the capture of an embassy puts the matter beyond all doubt.

What happens if Blair goes to NATO? If NATO refuses to respond, then NATO is finished. However, the US will do its best to keep it together, and that means the US has to come to Britain's assistance. If Congress tries to block it, the Democrats will have destroyed the alliance that they insisted the Bush administration use for its efforts in the Middle East.

This could get very, very interesting.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Does This Sound Familiar?:

» Stone the Brits Open Trackbacks from Conservative Culture
Trackback with any article you want featured. Is this 1979???... Tony Blair had better dust off his study material about the Jimmy Carter presidency. It looks like the Iranians have begun another embassy standoff: About 200 students threw rocks and f... [Read More]

» UK in Direct Talks With Iran from Noblesse Oblige
Little Green Footballs goes into detail on the recent UK tack from the Cobra Committee and points out that while the Brits go hat in hand to the Mullahs, students are once again attacking the UK embassy in Tehran. ... [Read More]

» 2007.04.01 Iran/Brit Hostage Crisis Roundup from Bill's Bites
Does This Sound Familiar? Ed Morrissey Tony Blair had better dust off his study material about the Jimmy Carter presidency. It looks like the Iranians have begun another embassy standoff:About 200 students threw rocks and firecrackers at the British Em... [Read More]

» Stupid England, Bloody Stupid from bustardblog
While bloggers like Captains Quarters and Riehl World View choose to focus on the weakness shown by our allies in the Britain/Iran imbroglio (although I thought that describing how weak our team is only gave aid and comfort to the [Read More]

» "If NATO Refuses To Respond, Then NATO Is Finished" from Ed Driscoll.com
Why yes, we are back in the 1970s once again, and not just because of this. We're also in the midst of yet another Iranian hostage crisis of course; Ed Morrissey explores how it could play itself out.... [Read More]

» Iran Releases New Geneva Convention Violation Video from Pirate's Cove
Video: More British Hostages in Iran Sorry, kinda small and blurry, but, what do you expect from Iranians? Also at Youtube. More from the BBC: Iranian state television has aired new footage of two of the 15 Royal Navy personnel captured nine days ago. ... [Read More]

» Miltary Multilateralism on Iran from postpolitical
As the UK hostage crisis continues to deteriorate due to Iranian provocation, CQ asks an intriguing question: What happens if Blair goes to NATO? If NATO refuses to respond, then NATO is finished. However, the US will do its best to keep it together, ... [Read More]

Comments (31)

Posted by GarandFan [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 1, 2007 10:58 AM

Iran had better hope we don't get involved. That is if they still want a navy and air force. If that doesn't get their attention, their nuclear and oil facilities will be next.

Posted by Non Partisan Pundit [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 1, 2007 11:10 AM

The comparison of the two events is really ludicrous. Iran in 1979 was in the midst of a revolution and coup. The "government," such as it was, was in no position to protect anything.

Today things are far different. The Iranians aren't too bright at times, but their not dumb enough to allow the British Embassy to be overrun.

Posted by DUTCH [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 1, 2007 11:23 AM

I still like Newt Gingrich's idea the best:

1.) Put their single gasoline refinery out of business.


2.) Blockade any and shipments of gasoline into the country.

They'll be crying "uncle" before you know it.

We have to show some strength and resolve without an all out assault; and a gasoline blockade would achieve that very well.

As long as we continue to turn our back and bend over to them, they'll continue to press even harder.

Posted by burt [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 1, 2007 11:24 AM

"However, the US will do its best to keep it (NATO) together, and that means the US has to come to Britain's assistance." NATO couldn't care less. We would assist Britain but not because of NATO. I think going to Britain's assistance will perpetuate the status quo, i.e. our "allies" will continue to live a life of peace and leisure at our expense. I would prefer euthanasia; NATO has been senile for at least fifteen years.

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 1, 2007 11:29 AM

According to DEBKA (so take out your salt bottle); Iran WON.

Blair will "guarantee" that the Brit's pull their ships from the waters in the Gulf. And, anything the USA does. With or without Israel's help. We can expect the RED COATS hoping to do us harm. How very much like it was in the beginning.

The Brits haven't given up hope, yet, that our Republic fails.

While a lot of free people, from germany, to france, to england, to the USA. And, also in Israel. Have chosen WEAK men to run governments.

I'd be puzzled. Except that I think the "election materials are broken," and rotting away on the backs of lawyers. Who now make it a custom to use "the court system" to inflict damages on innocent men. That's just the way it is.

It's sort'a like looking at an Indian Totem Pole. And, wondering why a bunch of people, putting on feathers to their naked bodies, thought it would be a popular thing to dance around.

It seems people come and go, all the time.

While at least we can be grateful to the germans for electing Merkel. SHe can't put on hitler's pants.

Ditto for France and England. Since they're not all that much "halp" when it comes to the things you see in the Middle East. THEY BUILT THE CONTRAPTION THAT LET THE LUNATICS IN THE HOUSE OF SAUD GROW INTO THE MONSTROSITY IT IS.

Perhaps, the europeans have no intention of working out better solutions?

I keep thinking Bush will also stay INACTIVE. He's taken his worst hits. And, maybe? He's learned a thing or two from Jimmy Carter?

What's that? The costs of "saving the shah" were not there!

Sure. We walked away from Vietnam. You think this brought riches to the Vietnamese? Whatever. But I beg to differ. By walking away we accomplished a few things. We got out of an unpopular war. And, we faced the needs to still keep a pretty good military.

The Mideast isn't a bad place to PRACTICE! I'd much prefer to see bases in Iraq, than in Germany! Why should the germans get the benefits?

On the other hand? Parts of the problem come to us via the House of Saud. And, other than letting them twist in the wind, I don't see very many options for Bush.

And, according to DEBKA? This hostage round was won by iran! No question! Because Blair will fold the few cards he has. And, he will "pull out of the waters" where we are now trying to be a force.

Sure. There's a silver lining! Iraq is learning to wobbly-stand on her own two feet. She wants to emerge INDEPENDENT. And? The potential is there. You can tell the Kurds are waiting. They're not as yet even picking sides. Though they own, like Maliki, about 40% of the total population IN Iraq. And, they have ambitions, too.

While all Iran will now get is a piece of British paper; saying "they are sorry." And, they'll "never go into iranian waters without permission." The bridegroom will never be allowed to touch the bride. Happy marriage? It all depends on how you look at it.

Since, during WW2, Patton had to work around the beauracracy put into place by the British. (Even Eisenhower was not hot for the plan to start in Africa, first.) Well, Churchill and FDR were closer than most. And, the moves made in 1942 ended up "exhausting" the furor. Whom, I guess, we could call the "top seeth."

Games have their ups and downs.

I don't think "fishing" for iran makes much sense.

In this way, when you look at Jimmy Carter, you discover he didn't do all that much harm, EXCEPT TO HIMSELF. The iranians never would have thanked us for "saving the shah." They're smarter now because EXPERIENCE is the best teacher.

While, alas, we are saving the ass of Hosni.

While Israel also has weak politicians.

Seems when we go to vote we like bringing the weak ones up. Probably must have some "common sense" behind it. Because it's not an individual's taste at all. It's the WEAK, however, who can't go anywhere. They have no permission.

And, most appropriately, the pressures on Maliki at least have made him a cooperative player with General Patraeus. He's our Patton NOW!

As to saving the asses of the British hostages, I could care less. But I do see how this "adventure" profited iran! How so? Well, if you look at what was transpiring ... with condi's "halp" no less ...

You had those bastards in the House of Saud, creating a wind that was supposed to propel them to the top of the arab heap. And, iran made a few choices that scuttled that boat real good.

Anything that gives a set back to those saudis is good for America!

Nope. I don't think Bush orders a sea battle, ahead. He's got no words with which to defend himself.

He's weak. Pelosi's weak. And, the media lost the kids!

FDR, at least, understood the need to have American passions behind his ideas to finally go to war against the Axis of Evil. WE WON.

But WEAK men are much more accommodating.

Bush? LIke his dad. Can't create reputations in the Gulf. Just my opinion right now. (It fluctuates.)

Posted by Northern Neighbour [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 1, 2007 11:41 AM

Perhaps, Carol, before you take great pride in pointing out the "weak" governments of the world, you should take an inward look. I may be wrong, but I haven't heard of any western leaders visiting Syria except ......
Seems weakness isn't confined to the continent.

Iran is a bully. Eventually, there is only one thing you can do with a bully. Someone will catch on eventually.

Posted by Bender [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 1, 2007 12:14 PM

If we were to have a few judicious military strikes -- not all-out war with Iran -- is there really anything that they could do in response that they are not already doing now?

However, if we wait a few years and it turns out that war is inevitable, will they not be able to respond, and perhaps catastrophically? Perhaps now is the time to get the Arabs and Pakistanis to give their full and open support and then strike Iran hard.

Posted by Fight4TheRight [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 1, 2007 12:14 PM

I'd say that Iran overall is in deep trouble. While you could make an argument that they want nuclear weapons as a way to strike out at Israel, I believe they are more concerned with self-preservation.

Look at their neighbors: Pakistan is a mess and it appears more and more the Musharaff will probably be out in the long term - the Taliban are slowly taking over that country - The Taliban in power in Pakistan means trouble for Shiite Iran. Afghanistan is already predominantly Sunni and if the Taliban outlast NATO, well, there's another neighbor posing a huge threat to Iran. The radical Sunnis in Saudi Arabia are only a stone's throw across the Persian gulf. Which brings the picture to Iraq. Iran's "involvement" in Iraq fighting is obviously an effort for Iran to have AT LEAST ONE friendly border! A "democracy" in Iraq does them no good as the Sunnis and Kurds will not support Iran and an Al Queda capture of Iraq is huge trouble for them.

So with that all said, it's my belief that the British capture had nothing to do with Iran sending a message to Britain or the U.S. or Europe. It was Iran sending a message to its neighbors - they counted on the British apologizing immediately and then the Iranians could flaunt this action as them DEFENDING their borders, i.e. Taliban you better think twice about our borders!

Anyway...for what it's worth : )

Posted by Lew [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 1, 2007 12:17 PM

One of the real problems of getting old is that you keep looking around and seeing the same old stupidity played out over and over and over and hearing the same old excuses again and again and again. Case in point; Iran.

All during the 1930's Hitler kept provoking the so-called "Victors" of WW1 and ignoring their diplomatic protests, rearming Germany as fast as he could. Every single time he made another gambit, his critics inside his government and his detractors inside Germany would scream bloody murder that France and England would most assuredly act and intervene to stop him. The army would tell him again and again that they had no hope of opposing France and Britian, and that those two "Powers" would most likely move against Germany to defend the terms of the Versailles Treaty. Hitler's domestic enemies were in constant contact with others outside Germany screaming like crazy for some kind of action to depose the "mad man" that had siezed their country. And nothing happened - nothing!

The final result was that Hitler became utterly unassailable among the upper levels of his government, because France and Britian proved his political judgement right every time and the arguments of his opposition wrong every time. While his opponents outside the government became progressively more discouraged and disspirited by the total lack of help from the "Allies". The result was that by 1939, no one inside the government had any grounds to argue with Hitler and no one outside the government had any hope of successfully deposing him.

Look around the neighborhood today and sure enough, Ahmadinejad is doing exactly the same thing and getting exactly the same results. Why should anyone inside the government argue with him when every other country on the planet is making him look like a genious, and why should anybody outside the government expect help from a collection of enablers like France and Britian and the USA?

Like I said, it sucks getting old; everything starts looking really familiar all the time. Hang on to your wide ties guys, paisley is coming back!

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 1, 2007 12:30 PM

Well, Canada, you've also got weak leadership up there. Comes in two languages. So what?

All I'm observing is a tendency, by viewing American history backwards, to note that among the 43 presidents we've had; a few were real turkeys!

What does change? Besides the fact that people come and go. Is a realization that the world doesn't change all that often. But when it does, it's very dramatic.

WW2: Very dramatic!

The Civil War: Very dramatic.

And, in both cases, above, the presidents were strong men. Who gained in popularity, as victories became ellusive.

I'm also now really doubting that Bush will instruct our navy to do anything to iran. That's just the way it is.

Sure. Militaristically, there are opportunities. But weak men rarely take advantage of them on a timely basis.

And, pelosi is free to travel to whatever destination she likes. So far? She's leaving a record that she plows out of showroom windows, bypassing san exit strategies.

But will it amount to much.

And, what IS the best outcome?

Jimmy Carter did NOT "halp" the Shah survive. Looks bad on his record. But if we had kept on supporting the shah, you think there's anyone around who would have thanked us?

Korea? No thanks.

Vietnam. Again. No thanks.

Bosnia. You see a "thank you?" Where?

Now we're in IRaq.

And, the Iraqis are trying to figure out a better direction than the one that produced Saddam. They may yet get there.

The Brits? LOSERS!

But I'll bet'cha, here, that an American Admiral would not dare call Bush, to "report" a hostage taking!

In other words? When hostages get taken, there are countries that exact a price tag. Where the head-honcho FLIES OUT OF OFFICE!

You don't think so? You should see how Halutz flew. No airplane for him, either.

Israel's still in the "discussion" stage with what happened when Nasrallah took hostages. Those two kids are probably dead, now.

And, the "offers?" What a gimmick. The Israelis made it sound so good the arabs want the "package" without returning anybody. (They can't return anybody. Because all 3 hostages are dead.)

And, Israel stopped doing "business" the way she used to.

But it's still ALL in the hands of weak leaders.

Thanks to the germans they have Merkel. GOOD! Merkel is not hitler.

Again, the benefits of WEAK CHARACTERS.

Sure, I've wondered why.

But then I thought "why not?" I don't want to see government in my backyard. And, weak elected officials do more with pomp and ceremony than they deserve. But they also can't move the ball forward.

Richard Nixon, by the way, wanted MORE powers than were held by the Rockefellers. Just in case you wondered WHY he dropped the Gold Standard. "Why" he went to China. And, why he tried to grow government into Wage & Price Controls.

When Nixon got butt-kicked out of office, there was a sense of celebration.

Ah. Then we got Jimmy Carter. WEAK man. But only a few died in a rescue attempt to free our embassy personnel. Where was the win-win?

Not in iran. They play with "the other side."

India once played with the "other side." But then Pakistan developed nukes. And, the "gandhi eperience doesn't hold water, next to nukes.

We build bridges, alas, very slowly.

Iran "won" by snatching 15 hostages. Her first task was to DESTROY THE HOUSE OF SAUD's quest for glamour. No glamour to the tent dwellers in Riyadh. Iran pissed on their parade.

As to the pressures on Maliki, the news from America has made him much more ammenable to our presence than anythihng Paul Bremer, Chalabi, the New York Times, and the CIA ever did.

So, we've gotten a few advantages.

That the Brits are not good allies. When did you get your first clue? Because, whatever Canada has, having the queen, has been a handicap. Not one that besets America, though.

As to why we get weak candidates IN office, it has something to do with elections. And, the way voters swing "common sense" through the ballot boxes. (Even if the candidates who win are not the ones we voted for.) It doesn't seem to matter. "Weak" is a common condition, when the choices are added up.

Iran is a bully? No. Iran is a country. The bullies are in the HOUSE OF SAUD.

And, while I don't think Bush is going to "pick a fight" in the next few days; I do believe that our military is aware of the career ending nature of NOT TRAINING TROOPS WELL ENOUGH. So that ambushes can happen.

Iran keeps trying.

And, we're responding.

As to Bush and Blair? That divorce happened long ago! That we have lots of vessels at sea these days? Yup. More a plug in the bathtub that a force that will go gung ho.

Because? Where's the advantages to "gong-ho?"

Nobody can figure out what happens next, when "next" is in the future. Partially due to the fact that we don't move into the future "logically." Events happen. In hindsight?

Well, I've heard that third eye described as one people keep in their rectums. It sure turns off Monday Morning Quarterback routines.

Nothing gets more stale, by the way, than yesterday's news.

And, Iran? Found herself with the ball. And, she's on a roll. (This means the House of Saud is now ball-less.) It's a good thing. If you give it some thought.

Bush may have started out being the Realtor. But so far? Other than looking at lots of properties. The Saud's didn't buy up new neighborhoods.

And, neighborhoods they have, like egypt and jordan, are COLLAPSING.

Gazoo? Well, what do you need to know about it being a toilet?

While WEAK may just be a "front." (I don't consider Olmert weak.) I did see him, though, selecting WEAK accomplices, when he set up his victory on March 28, 2006. He's been in office a year. And, most Israelis hate him.

In a weak ienvironment, who knew this would be advantageous?

Okay. Too early to call.

But I still see "weak."

Ya know, between Andrew Jackson's leaving office in 1832. To Lincoln's election in 1860. You had a revolving door around the presidency. Everyone elected was weak. Most were southern sympathizers. And, yes. For a time it built up to a crushing crescendo. That's one of the elements in history. As history moves from war to war, since the very beginning of time.

Anyway, ahead, Bush does, or doesn't do, something differently. He's against the ropes. And? I hold him responsible for all the things he's done to get himself stuck in so much trouble.

Whose gonna learn something new, first? Bush. Or us? It's an open question. Time tells.

Paisley left? Without designs for paisley, there'd have been no computers. Growing old happens to beat the alternative by miles and miles. (Perhaps? It's just another sign of weakness, working out well.)

Posted by David2 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 1, 2007 12:41 PM

How can we in the US have a War on Terror and not strike the heart of terror, Iran? It would be like going to war with the Nazis in WW2 and ignoring the Japanese after they bombed Pearl Harbor.
Trying to establish some sort of normal life for the people of Iraq makes no sense if you leave Syria and Iran in place.
I refuse to believe we would sacrifice so many good men and women to such a futile cause. There must be a plan to deal with these vermin. Iran is encircled by the US and its allies. So is Syria. The war in Iraq cut a very evil alliance of terrorist loving dictators in half.
Iran is frantically trying to bring the two parts together again over the dead bodies of Americans and Iraqis.
But, clearly, there is no way the US is not going to deal with Iran and its allies. The only question is the timing.
Saddam took some hostages just before the shooting war started and it didn't stop it from happening.
Let the British try and get their people back. Promise not to invade their space "again". The US is not depending on the British Navy to do what has to be done. But the Iranians are going to wish they could talk to the British after the new phase has started.

Posted by Thanos [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 1, 2007 1:14 PM

I agree that the next few weeks will be interesting, and with the posters who are indicating that this is also a regional show of force, not just a jab at the Brits.
What could they do if we tried the Gingrinch plan? I would wager at the point of desperation them attempting the Straits of Hormuz gambit again. This time they have much improved missles, shore batteries, and even submarines. It could get very interesting as Ed states.


Posted by conservative democrat [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 1, 2007 2:54 PM

Iran won't just lay down, like the previous poster said they'll block the Strait of Hormuz, oil will hit $100/barrel and we'll be hit with a recession. We can bring Iran to its knees, but what will we do with it afterwards? Look at post-war Iraq, no infrastructure,civil war, foreign jihadists flooding in, Iran is 80 million, Iraq has 26 million people. You know the Iranians will fight to the death. What will we use for troops? What will bombing them into submission do? I just hope were smarter war planning Iran than we were for the fiasco in Iraq.Lets just say I'm not to confident with this administrations track record.

Posted by Davod [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 1, 2007 3:10 PM

What we have is a clear breach of diplomatic protocols followed by the usual kowtowing of Western diplomats until they crawled into a corner.

Unless the EU and NATO can find the backbone to provide mscle to the words nothing will happen.

The EU as a body is unable to commit itself to anything resembling tough action against the Iranians.

NATO will be hamstrung politically. Each member state has to agree to take action. At the very least the French will vote no.

Posted by Lew [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 1, 2007 3:24 PM

What? Attack Iran? Oh my! Oh my! Oh my! Lions, Tigers and Bears, Oh my!

For Pete's sake CD, get back on your meds and take a breath. Iran is no monster power and nobody is even dreaming of an Iraq-style invasion and occupation. They have no more capacity to blockade the Straits of Hormuz than they have to blockade the Hudson River, and they can fight to the death all they want to but they'll be hard pressed to find somebody to fight to the death with if nobody invades.

If you want a model, take a look at Libya. A couple of well-placed little gifts can make a point far more convincingly than all the invasions in the world, if all you want to do is change someone's outlook. What needs to be done is to stop making these nutbags in Tehran look like geniouses every time they spit in our faces for the crowd.

The range of viable options in dealing with Iran is huge, so stop all this panic-stricken fluttering about and get hold of yourself.

Posted by naftali [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 1, 2007 4:22 PM

This is all getting more than ridiculous. I think the Powers That Be in Iran are endlessly surprised about how easy this war is--for them.

In one week, with the cartoon protests, they blew apart a pillar (or the pillar) of western civilization, freedom of expression. They seep into Iraq and within a year or two the US congress is trying to surrender. They kidnap British navyfolk--I think just to raise money to pay the Russian nuclear bills--and they end up busting up the European Union and probably within a week or two, NATO. The UN has already been shown to do nothing but emit greenhouse gasses.

Can anyone name one institution in the western world that isn't so compromised that it can still do its job of protecting and preserving this civilization?

Posted by Sapper [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 1, 2007 5:18 PM

This thought just occured to me: Are the British hostages bargaining chips in another Iranian stall tactic against a US strike?

I blog about it here:


Posted by jerry [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 1, 2007 5:26 PM


I see a great deal of irony of your post coming so soon after Lew's. You sound just like the panic stricken leadership of Britain and France in the 1930 when Churchill was pressing those governments to step up and stop Germany. Did Lew pay you to write that post?


Posted by Northern Neighbour [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 1, 2007 6:13 PM

Carol,I don't have the time to debate all your opinions. Let me just challenge you on some of your thoughts.

First of all, Canada has just rid itself of almost 15 years of punishing left wing lunacy represented by the Liberals. Our current Prime Minister is anything but weak. He has stood up to China. He has stood up to the Arabs. He doesn't apologize for his support of Israel. With a little luck, he can get a majority government and clean up the rest of the mess the previous administration left behind. It's ironic and worrysome that the U.S. seems to be turning "hard left" at a time when some difficult decisions have to be made.

Your statement "comes in two languages" is totally irrelivant. Have you been to Florida or California lately?

The "Brits" are losers? Really.
How many bombs have been dropped on American soil? The British stood firm in the midst of terrible destruction and suffering during WW II. Thank God they did.
Do you remember the British resolve during the Falklands episode in the 80's? They sent an armada over 10,000 miles to show that their word meant something. Weak? I don't think so.

You say having the Queen has been a handicap. Nonsense. The Commonwealth opens up many more opportunities and benefits than what it costs.Incidently, although you are a republic, the British happened to leave you a few things to build on. Where do you think "rule of law" came from? Do you even know what "Commonwealth" means? (Commonwealth of Virginia or Massachusetts for example)

Iran IS a bully, totally on the outside of world standards and accepted norms. They continue to push the envelope, and sense the "West" has lost its resolve. Maybe they are right. This has happened before.

I am an admirer of the U.S. Thank God she has stood firm and fast for the past years and, overall, she has been blessed for her courage. There are, however, dark clouds on the horizon. You do well when the challenge can be met and solved in a short period, but do you still have the resolve for the long haul?

Bush had it right all along. He told you about the "axis of evil". It seems many don't believe it anymore. Your unbelief will be at your own peril.

Do you want to be loved? Is this your only concern? I suggest you "go green", or plant a tree, or save a polar bear. Show the world you care about everything , yet stand for nothing.

I do not worry about the world not loving you. I am worried about it not respecting you.

May God continue to bless America.

Posted by Bennett [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 1, 2007 6:30 PM

It is so laughable, really, well not really, it is sad but still. The EU doesn't wish to disrupt its commercial relations with Iran so it counsels patience and forbearance; and yet it is we Americans who are the greedy ones, supposedly starting wars and pillaging the planet in our insatiable need for oil and other commodities.

As I understand it, Britain didn't ask its EU family to go to war, it only wanted a strong show of unanimity, a threat of consequences that would be credible. Ah, well they were with you Britain until they weren't. But I'm not so sure this isn't the result Blair was hoping for. His government is impotent but it's not his fault, the EU (and the UN) won't let him do anything.

I do think Iran needs to come up with something new though; the "student" demonstration is banal. And 200 isn't much of a crowd, surely the government can do better than that given the rate of unemployment there.

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 1, 2007 6:51 PM

naftali wrote (April 1, 2007 04:22 PM):

Can anyone name one institution in the western world that isn't so compromised that it can still do its job of protecting and preserving this civilization?

Happily, there are a few:


The only thing that can stop them?

DNC (with the help of a few RINOs)

Cap'n Ed wrote:

What happens if Blair goes to NATO? If NATO refuses to respond, then NATO is finished. However, the US will do its best to keep it together, and that means the US has to come to Britain's assistance. If Congress tries to block it, the Democrats will have destroyed the alliance that they insisted the Bush administration use for its efforts in the Middle East.

We've seen the decay of collective security since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The UN, which has been useless for decades, was the first to fall when it was powerless to stop butchery in the Balkans and Rwanda. NATO showed its weakness next when it had to call in Uncle Sam to police its own backyard in Bosnia. The EU can't bring itself to make even the weakest show of support for Britain.

There's a line from the old Frank Capra "Why We Fight Series" that comes to mind. In "Prelude to War", Capra traces the aggressions committed by the Japanese, Italians and Germans prior to the invasion of Poland. When Japan attacked China in 1931, the League of Nations sent a fact-finding mission to investigate. They determined that Japan was the aggressor.

"The Japanese delegates, knowing that there were no guns behind the declaration, smiled, packed up their papers, and walked out of the League.

"More than the League of Nations was dead. The idea of collective security was dead."

Europe lacks the means and the spine to stand up to aggression. They are happier appeasing aggressors by paying them off and agreeing that WE are the real threat to peace. In other words, eat the Americans first.

The Chinese and the Russians are happy just to make money from whatever tinpot dictators are willing to pay for their second-rate technology. And, if they can break it off in us, that's just icing on the cake.

And now we have the Benedict Arnold Party in our own country that is industriously engineering our defeat in Iraq even as its leaders hobnob with terrorists and stab our allies in the back (anybody think Turkey will be in any hurry to help us with ANYTHING after our sanctimonious Congress gets down condemning them for events that happened ninety years ago?).

Is this what it felt like to live in 1938?

Posted by Lightwave [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 1, 2007 7:11 PM

The basis of what's going on here is this: Iran has assumed that we will not do anything to them, because the EU, the UN, and NATO will not do anything either. They do not believe we will attack them. They see us in Iraq and Afghanistan. They see the Dhimmicratic Party. They do not believe we have the will and the means to attack them in any meaningful way.

The EU and UN will not be around 20 years from now. The EU's forced socialism state will collapse under its own dead weight and the tide of dhimmitude within a matter of years. The UN will collapse as the US finally withdraws its support. Take these as truisms within this generation.

NATO is now at the tipping point. If they refuse to take decisive military action soon and bring the weight of all of NATO against Iran, they will cease to exist as well. This President will support the UK when it comes to it. Make no mistake, Iran has precious little time to prevent a costly mistake, because America will go to war.

Duncan Hunter spelled it out plainly this evening on Glenn Beck's show: If the Brits take the lead, we should destroy Iran's nuclear capability.

Posted by patrick neid [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 1, 2007 7:12 PM

if i've said it once i've said it a hundred times--we need to change the scope of this war from bottom up to top down. we are in a war on terror and the states that sponsor it or we are not. we know who the terrorists are and we know what states sponsor it. that said why are the top 100 hundred leaders of iran, syria, hamas, hezzbollah, sudan etc still alive? forget attacking whole countries, start with the leadership. think cruise missiles without warning, all on the same nite.

personally i hope they take over the embassy and parade the staff nude through the streets--something, anything to convince the majority of sane people on this planet that these repugnant people are monsters and need to be euthanized before they kill millions. clearly 300,000 dead in darfur is not enough nor is repeated talk of genocide. meanwhile pelosi goes for a photo op with the thug assad-the assassin. the rest of this low life scum parties in new york every time they use the UN for an excuse to go on a shopping spree. i think we have all gone collectively f'king mad to put up with this sh*t.

all this without the bomb. think how entertaining iran and its minions will be when they have the A-bomb.

Posted by Monkei [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 1, 2007 9:06 PM

you mean we may have attacked the "wrong" country afterall?

Posted by naftali [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 1, 2007 11:51 PM


I was hoping someone would disprove my assertion phrased as a cynical question. You named the military in the first part of your response, that the military can indeed protect and preserve this civilization, but in the second part you listed several ways the military is compromised.

And by compromised I don't mean unethical. I mean compromised like software or files are compromised. Something's not working. It can certainly be the new congress, but it can also be the insane mission of defeating the Iraqi/Baathist military and winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqis--at the same time.

I'd say we won the hearts and minds of the Japanese after WWII, but we didn't win them the day after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Same with the Germans (although recent poll numbers make this assertion pretty shaky).

And so, sadly, it seems as my pessimism and cynicism are intact. My question remains standing.

Can anyone name one institution in the western world that isn't so compromised that it can still preserve and protect western civilization?

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 2, 2007 5:51 AM

naftali wrote (April 1, 2007 11:51 PM):

It can certainly be the new congress, but it can also be the insane mission of defeating the Iraqi/Baathist military and winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqis--at the same time.

It's not an "insane" mission to try to win the peace. We DIDN'T do this after World War I, and the result was World War II.

I make no claims that the average Iraqi falls down in worship every time an American soldier goes by, but I suspect our guys have done a lot more to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis than the dems and their lackeys in the MSM would have us believe. IF Iraqis hated us as much as the Benedict Arnolds claim, we'd have lost a helluva lot more than 3000 men in Iraq, and the violence wouldn't be effectively contained to Baghdad and a few nearby cities and towns.

There's a lot of work left to do in Iraq, but with determination and patience, I don't think it's anything we CAN'T do.


It took us seven years to defeat the British, and another four to form our present government.

It took four years for the North to defeat the South and reaffirm that government, and another ten to reintegrate the South back into the Union. It then took NINETY years to begin to fully extend the rights guaranteed in the Constitution to black Americans.

It took four years to defeat the nazis and Japanese, and (IIRC) nearly ten years to hand autonomy back over to them.

We can't expect Iraq to become Switzerland overnight, but we can and should do what we can to set them on that path.

Posted by LarryD [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 2, 2007 12:28 PM

Ref docjim505 last post

It took us five years to be able to hand Japan back to the Japanese, for the Germans it was ten years. The Japanese had a failed coup attempt that aimed to abort the surrender, in the German's case there were some die-hard remnants of the SS that had to be dealt with.

Most of Iran is peaceful, and less and less of the Sunnis are willing to tolerate the "foreign fighters" (Meaning AQ and Iranian sponsored jihadis). One of the reasons Iran is making as much trouble as possible is because they know that they're high on the list of troublemakers to be dealt with next. This is a war with a lot of enemies, we have to deal with them in staged manner, we don't have the resources to take them all down at the same time.

When we do move against Iran, we'll take out all the assets they could use to close the Strait of Hormuz, and Saudi Arabia has already signaled that they have the reserve capacity to replace Iran's exports and are ready to use them.

Posted by james23 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 2, 2007 12:52 PM

NATO ceasing to exist? That would sure be the silver lining in this hostage situation.

On the other hand, I fear that, like all bureacracies, NATO will live on long past the time when it fails to function. Ditto the UN.

Posted by naftali [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 2, 2007 5:10 PM


It's not insane to win the peace, it's insane to do it at the same time you're trying to win a war. You win by demoralizing the enemy to the point that they don't want to fight anymore.

We haven't been fighting like that. That's why we had the problems in Fallujah and the problems with Sadr. That's why we had to change the rules of engagement. We certainly could have won this war in one year--even if everything went wrong.

Zarqawi might have been demoralized, but Iran certainly isn't. Iran knows that our army is politically compromised. They are confident they can defeat us, they are confident that they are more determined and their willpower is stronger. They have no evidence to the contrary--not army versus army evidence, nation versus nation evidence. They see our democracy as a weakness. They see our kindness as weakness, and they see our trying to win hearts and minds as mindless. It would take our army, if allowed, about two weeks to change their mind. They won't be allowed.

As an aside, WWI led to WWII because the tensions leading to both were never resolved. Germany need raw materials to fuel its growing industry. England and France had the colonies. Germany fought to take over these colonies. The diplomats tried to band-aid these tensions with elaborate treaties. But when Ferdinand was assassinated, the treaties went into effect like a doomsday machine.