Captain's Quarters -

I am suspecting something was exacted from either the Brits or the U.S.A. Call me jaded. We will find out in the next few weeks.

This exercise only shows that our governments will not learn anything from the Iranian Mullocracy no matter how long we deal with them. This has been their M.O. since the late 70's .......and .....we fail to learn.

The press is already projecting that Pelosi's visit to Syria (the belly of the beast) is responsible for this release event.

This could be as simple as the Iranian FO and the Supreme Council overriding the RG elements who apprehended and held the servicemen.

Iranian leadership is not monolithic... there are many parts with different objectives and interests and the conflicting statements coming from those different parts of the Iranian power structure are evidence that there was a wrestling match going on in the background that we were not privy to and the FO folk won with the Supreme Council throwing their weight behind freeing the servicemen.

If Iran got nothing else, it got away with taking Britons prisoner and releasing them on its own terms. That's a loss for Britain and a gain for Iran any way you cut it.

My assessment is far less sanguine.

Iran knows how to put on a PR spectacle - they, not us, are the magnanimous, merciful ones, letting out their apparently well-treated "detainees" during Holy Week without any strings. Achmadinejad was wisely muzzled, and Iran burned away a potentially nasty news week about a UN vote against their nuclear program with their choreographed release of the prisoners.

Last week I thought this would make Iran look isolated and thuggish. Instead they repudiated that image - they let go the hostages at their own choosing, not because they were afraid of what someone like Reagan or Thatcher might do.

DU

I was listening to Ollie North on my way home from work today. He said Iran will continue to take hostages, just as they've done since "79 because they know they hold the "hole" card - OIL. Oil could reach $100/barrel or better.

I don't know how the rest of the world feels, but I'd rather ride a fricking bike for the rest of my life than be held hostage by the mullahs. I'd cook over a camp fire every night if it meant they could never use this threat against my Grandchildren. I'd proudly make any sacrifice to ensure their doctrine's demise.

I see two things that people are missing. First, what is a promise from Iran worth? To paraphrase James Thurber, I'll wait to celebrate until the boobies are actually out of the hatch.

And secondly, to those who say that Iran and the mullahs have caved to western pressure of some sort, nothing could be further from the truth. Achmadinejad twitted the great powers for a couple of weeks and that's all that the rest of the world will see. There was nothing the Brits could do to get their people back. America couldn't make Iran disgorge this latest round of hostages. Achmed-did-a-job "pardons" them and they go free. There has been nothing but upside for Iran since they took their prisoners.

Cap'n Ed wrote:

If Blair had the nerve to order an attack, he would have done so almost immediately. Instead, the Brits used the language of de-escalation and compromise, especially over the last few days, signaling that they were ready to bargain.

It may well be that it isn't a question of Blair having or lacking the nerve. It may be a simple case that there wasn't a whole lot he felt that Britain COULD do, even with our help.

Consider:

GOAL: Safe and speedy return of the hostages

Option 1: Threat of military reprisals

(A) Even with US help, Britain lacks the muscle to make credible threats. Yes, they could damage / destroy Karg Island and hurt the Iranian economy, but this in itself would not get the hostages released. Indeed, it would probably see them speedily executed on whatever trumped up charges the Iranians chose.

(B) Britain would almost certainly lose the propaganda war if they attacked. First, they would almost certainly need our help, leaving them open to charges of being our lackeys. Second, there are plenty of people (some of whom post here) who are completely prepared to believe that Britain provoked the incident by having its sailor illegally intrude on Iranian waters.

(C) Unless Britain could inflict "convincing" damage on Iran, they would be exposed as paper tigers. Consider the most recent Israel / Hezbollah spat. Israel kicked Hebollah's ass, but did it in such a half-hearted way that the hezbos were able to claim victory.

(D) Britain can't invade Iran. Unless it used nukes, Britain can't destroy Iran. It may be that Blair and his military judged that they couldn't guarantee that a military solution would work.

(E) We think (hope?) that there are moderate and even revolutionary elements in Iran that will eventually depose the ayatollahs. Attacking Iran doesn't exactly help their cause.

Option 2: Diplomacy

(A) When force fails, this is all you've got left. We don't know what (if anything) the British conceeded to Iran to get the sailors back. We can only hope that Blair wasn't stupid enough to give away the store. I can't imagine that he was.

In the final analysis, the British got their sailors back. Iran may (or may not) have won a small victory, but I don't think they'll try playing this kind of game again. I certainly don't think they'll try it with the US Navy, which I think will be rather quick on the trigger if any Iranian boats get too close (i.e. leave port).

We'll see how this unfolds down the road.

They haven't gotten them back yet, as they are not to leave until Thursday.

Call me more jaded, but I believe they probably got a POW swap from the coalition who have captured Iranians in Iraq.

Amazingly, Je$$e Jack$on has been too slow in finding a way to exploit the issue.

A couple years ago there was a big news story about a female Italian journalist kidnapped by a terrorist group in Iraq. A while later she had "escaped". Not more than a few weeks later it was revealed that her freedom had been bought by the Italian government.

As one who voted twice for the current though often disappointing (on immigration or fighting back versus opponents and media propagandists) President and supports the necessity of this war I don't think the WH administration is sufficiently organized to have arranged a freedom deal any more than fried hippie poseur San Fran Nan.

It would not surprise if George Soros checkbook played a role. All he'd need to do is tell Ahmanutjob to do a little P.R. stunt for Neville Nan while she's in the region and he'd make it worth the trouble financially. A little deal that pardoned fugitive arms dealer Mark Rich might be willing to negotiate. Even the true-believer Dems know who owns their political party after Slick so there would be no surprise if Mr. Moveon.org were to entice Iran to help Neville Nan undercut our foreign policy and military efforts. No less than Johnny Huang helped grease the sales of nuclear, supercomputer and missile tech by Slick to the ChiComs back in the mid 1990s. Like John Edwards revealed trolling for sympathy cash Pelosi is aware of who is willing to play along with her to best undermine our troops and Britain's in a Faustian bargain to get angry Hillary in for 2008.

Pelosi is a defective Dorian Gray in both principles and appearance.

Iran retaliated for the 5 Iranians seized in Irbil last year.Viking if the dems are so evil, why did the american people throw out the gop in the midterms? I'll answer that for you, Bush blundered in Iraq, the gop should have changed its name to the corruption party. So if you feel like throwing stones at dems, expect to get some thrown right back at you. Dems today fight back, you keep confusing them with the lets-make-nice dems. IMHO we should have learned to fight back sooner, but better late than never.

Reading the first half of the response was sufficient for not reading the last half. No confusion here. It read just like another something expected from NPR.

Speaking of retaliation the Dems don't exactly fight back they simply get personal when disagreed with. Sorta like that rebellion against their parents during a 1960s mis-spent youth.

conservative democrat,

not much of a retaliation to take people from the wrong country prisoner and then to fit them with misshapen suits. They get much more retaliation each time one of their shaped copper "IED"s go off (which, from the latest reports, is far less often since we worked our way through their "diplomatic" computers and raided a few warehouses).

We're still holding their five "diplomats" -- all of whom were unaccredited according to the Iraqis and hence eligible for the hoosegow.

I don't see the Dem's fighting back at all -- they have learned a lot from the French on the concept of the surrender monkey, and are doing that dance big time.

In a further cost cutting initiative the red cross of St. George will be replaced with a white plus sign in the fabled White Ensign of the Royal Navy. In addition the Union Jack in the canton will be eliminated as an unnecessary expense.
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/g/gb~we.gif

Maximum Leader Pelosi plans a similar redesign of Old Glory to free up more money for spinach growers. The constellation of stars will be expanded to fill the whole field as a jester of universality to all carbon-based species. Bush is expected to invite Maximum Leader Pelosi to lunch to announce this kinder, gentler, new tone pendent.

Five years after 9/11 why are the lights still on in Iran?

Five years after 9/11 why do we permit a penny from Saudi Arabia to enter our country?

Five years after 9/11 why do we permit Muslims to enter our country?

Five years after 9/11 why do we permit Muslims to remain in our country?

What city do you think good Muslims will nuke first?