The European Union declined last night to provide any substantial support to Britain in its standoff with Iran over the captured sailors and Marines. While the European foreign ministers called for Iran to release its captives, they refused to offer any sanctions on the Iranians:
European foreign ministers failed last night to back Britain in a threat to freeze the €14 billion trade in exports to Iran, as the hostage crisis descended into a propaganda circus.
Tony Blair could only issue a new statement of disgust as Iran tormented him with another sailor’s video confession and a fresh letter from the young mother detainee. …
EU foreign ministers meeting in Germany called for the sailors to be freed but ruled out any tightening of lucrative export credit rules. The EU is Iran’s biggest trading partner. British officials are understood to have taken soundings on economic sanctions before the meeting but found few takers.
France, Iran’s second-largest EU trading partner, cautioned that further confrontation should be avoided. The Dutch said it was important not to risk a breakdown in dialogue.
Well, what a shock to see the French bail out on an ally for commercial gain! Once again, Europe shows that it has no sense and no courage. That fourteen-billion-pound trade with Iran will come in handy when the mullahs get the bomb. Perhaps they’ll wait to invade Europe last. They have told Blair and the Brits that the Iranians are their problem, not Europe’s.
George Bush stood up with the UK yesterday, after keeping a low profile on the crisis. Referring to the captives as “hostages”, Bush emphatically supported Britain’s assertion that Iran invaded Iraqi waters to carry out the capture:
Bush said the sailors had been operating legally in Iraqi territorial waters in the Persian Gulf, as the British have insisted, and not in Iranian waters, and he offered support for British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s efforts “to resolve this peacefully.” But he rejected any “quid pro quo” trade of Iranians held by U.S. forces in Iraq and ducked a question about whether military force would be justified to free the captured sailors.
“The Iranians must give back the hostages,” the president told reporters at a brief question-and-answer session at Camp David after a meeting with the visiting Brazilian president. “They’re innocent, they were doing nothing, and they were summarily plucked out of the water. As I say, it’s inexcusable behavior.”
The Telegraph has concluded that Europe is useless as a foreign-policy partner as well:
It is one thing to be disliked; quite another to be despised. Iran would not have kidnapped our Servicemen without having considered our rules of engagement, our diplomatic isolation and our likely military response, and made a rough calculation of how likely they were to get away with their piracy. …
There is also, perhaps, a feeling of impotence: if we can’t invade Iran, what else can we do? Plenty of things. We can, of course, pull diplomatic and economic levers. This will involve going through Brussels, not so much because we need a favour as because we have no independent trade policy: the only way that Britain can impose sanctions on Iran is if the EU does so. At the same time, we could be seizing Iranian assets. Longer term, we could be putting pressure on the regime by sponsoring its opponents. We could launch tactical strikes at Iranian military installations.
We could even, in extremis, impose the kind of armed siege, complete with no-fly-zone, that paralysed Saddam in the years between the two Iraq wars: we already maintain large coalition garrisons on both Iran’s flanks. Limiting ourselves to trivial resolutions will be treated by the ayatollahs as a sign of weakness. If they hate us, let them also fear us.
All of a sudden, those “large coalition garrisons” look pretty strategic, don’t they? I’m always amazed by the people who claim that we screwed up the war on terror by going after Iraq rather than Iran. If people could learn to read a map, they could see what we have attempted — a military and political encirclement of Iran that no one could have dreamed six years ago. Why do people think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pulled this stunt? He wants to drive the UK out of the coalition in order to break that encirclement.
It may finally dawn on Britain that the failure to have an independent trade policy has hamstrung them politically and militarily. Iran attacked a British ship, and yet Britain cannot stop trading with Iran because Brussels controls their trade policies. When one gives up sovereignty, these are the consequences.
If Britain wants their people back, they have two choices. They can either submit to Iran, or they can escalate the conflict to the point where it damages the mullahcracy. They had better commence deciding between the two. (links via Memeorandum)
As usual, The Captain nails it on the head, this time with the comment,
“It may finally dawn on Britain that the failure to have an independent trade policy has hamstrung them politically and militarily. Iran attacked a British ship, and yet Britain cannot stop trading with Iran because Brussels controls their trade policies. When one gives up sovereignty, these are the consequences.”
America has the same issue, sort of, with Speaker Nancypelosifromsanfranciso undermining our foreign policy by going to Syria to meet with a dictator who surely has American blood on his hands, against the request of the President.
Publius
The Price of Losing Your Sovereignty
Great post on Captain’s Quarters by Ed Morrissey discussing our British cousin’s lack of options on the 2007 version of the Iranian Hostage situation. As usual, The Captain nails it on the head, this time with the comment: It may
The EU is nothing but a big lapdog for all the despots in the world.
Britain would do well to get out of this confederation of cowards and stand by itself. We are still her friend and we will stand with her if necessary.
I must say it’s looking more and more like ‘Submission Rules:’ Ministers seek deal with Iran for captives
The Brit’s aren’t even remotely near the same neighborhood as the drivers-seat, let alone the car, if they were the hostages would would be on their way home. They’ll end-up giving far more before the Mullah’s are done – it says so in Brussels Qu’ran.
Ask Jacque, he’s probably now advising the Mullahs.
I’ve been warning against bombing Iraq. This, however, is an act of war, just as the hostage crisis under Carter was.
A serious blockade is one option.
The US ought to do its best to break up the EU, and Britain should get out.
So the EU Foreign Ministers are once again pursuing “quiet diplomacy” I believe in quiet diplomacy too. Sink a couple of the Iranian submarines that have been menacing ship traffic lately. If they are submerged, no one will hear it.
That’s quiet isn’t it?
If They Hate Us, Let Them Also Fear Us
Limiting ourselves to trivial resolutions will be treated by the ayatollahs as a sign of weakness. If they hate us, let them also fear us.
The real problem is that Britain doesn’t have the military capability to do anything serious to Iran…. short of using their ballistic missile subs.
The US ought to do its best to break up the EU, and Britain should get out.
Break up the EU when our “elites” are trying to create the same thing here in North America?
Probably not.
BTW, the Flake/Gutierrez amesty plan contains a section on a “common security perimeter’ with Mexico.
With each passing day the window for military action closes a little more. Time is on Iran’s side because the fate of the prisoners will become detached from such action in the public’s mind. Given that the EU has abandoned them. The Bush Administration fears another conflict with a Congress over foreign policy because he knows that the Democratic Leadership in the House is already almost publicly standing behind the Iranian Government on both the nuclear and prisoner crises. Finally, Britain has little independent military capability. Iran knows this, Blair knows this. Unless Iran gives Britain a second chance to remedy its initial mistakes by seizing the British Embassy or striking at another Royal Navy ship, Britain must eventually surrender to Iran’s demands.
Unlike the Al Qaida idiots who run the Sunni Jihad, the mullahs have a fundamental understanding of global strategy. They know that the lynch pin of Islamic victory is not to be found in directly defeating the United States. It is the subjugation of Europe to Islamic power. Bringing down the Blair government is the key to neutering Europe because he is the last voice speaking up for Western Civilization on the Continent. When he is replaced by a new government that will shed the rest of Britain’s trappings of national power Europe, through the EU, will be firmly in Iran’s pocket. The Iranian version of Islam is on the brink of winning Huntington’s culture war with the West.
Mistake by the Brits – they should have invoked the NATO charter. It is the NATO charter which would obligate all NATO member countries to economically and militarily support a NATO member in response to an attack upon it. The EU charter has no such reciprocal obligations.
chsw
2007.04.01 Iran/Brit Hostage Crisis Roundup
— Iran ready to seize British Embassy?
— “If the Iranians hate us, let them also fear us”
— “A Little War Goes A Long Way”
— Power struggle in Iran over hostages
Shock Awe You’ll have to click the pic to go to CF and get the fulll effect on this one. Do it.
How in the _ucking world is Nancy Pelosi responsible for Iranians capturing 15 British sailors? That connection reaches to the highest point of stupidity! The Brits are big boys, they’ll figure out what to do. They know we got their back is push goes to shove. But neo-nuts, leave Pelosi out of this. She’s in power BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE REJECTED GEORGE BUSH AND HIS REPUBLICAN PARTY!You’ll get your chance to go to the polls in 08. If theres legitimate cause I’ll bash her with you, otherwise these typing fingers will DEFEND HER.
I’ll concede to conservative democrat that my connecting pelosi with this issue was weak. The point was supposed to be about undermined credibility and options when your allies or in pelosi’s case, countrymen, stab you in the back.
Having conceded that point, I’m all ears to hear conservative demo defend pelosi’s trip to meet with the Syrian Dictator and then try to alienate Turkey with this ridiculous resolution against them regarding an action by the Ottomans, and not the current government.
Ready when you are, CD.
CD:
Maybe you missed the story but the Senate passed a resolution of support for the British while Pelosi didn’t allow a similar measure to come to the House floor. Two reasons were given. The first was that a resolution wouldn’t be helpful and the second and perhaps the underlying reason is that the President would use that resolution to attack Iran.
I think the real reason that House Democrats decided against is that they want to make sure Blair pays a price for supporting President and that Iran is rewarded for their actions that have hurt him. Power is what is important and the Democrats don’t really care what happens to the country in the process of getting that power. The mullahs took a calculated risk that the Democrats could restrain Bush from helping the UK if force needed to be used. You can bet the Pelosi will let Assad know that they will restrain Bush from military action and that both Iran and Syria have a free reign in Lebanon, Iraq, Israel and the Gulf.
Good points Jerry. Pelosi is hell bent on passing a resolution condemning Turkey for Armenian genocide over 75 years ago, by the Ottoman Empire and the current Turkish government. This will drive a wedge between us and Turkey, whom we need to have influence with to restrain them from attacking Iraqi Kurds. But, Pelosi has no problem in preventing a resolution supporting our British allies.
Sometimes I side with the line of thought that 2 years of painful Democrate rule in Congress is just what this country needed to wake us up. This bodes well for the GOP in the 08 Presidential race.
The Democrat party once again is showing why they cannot be trusted on matters of national security. Better to have a good policy goal with mistakes in implemenation, than bad policy goals that are perfectly implemented.
Let’s redeploy to Okinawa, shall we?
The Price of Losing Your Sovereignty
Great post on Captain’s Quarters by Ed Morrissey discussing our British cousin’s lack of options on the 2007 version of the Iranian Hostage situation. As usual, The Captain nails it on the head, this time with the comment: It may
Correction: Last post should read “..and NOT the current Turkish government”.
I’ve quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2007/04/re-eu-to-blair-its-yp-not-op.html
EU = Entirely Useless
conservative democrat wrote (April 1, 2007 04:25 PM:
They [Britain] know we got their back is push goes to shove.
Yes, just like the Iraqis know we’ve got their backs, and the South Vietnamese knew we had their backs.
/sarcasm
In other words, we’ve got the Brits’ back right up until the point when the dems decide that its politically advantageous to claim “quagmire” and “greatest foreign policy blunder in history” and “war we never should have fought”. Maybe you guys can also claim that the British need to “stand up for themselves” rather than let us do it for them. You know: give them every bit as much support as you’ve given the Iraqis.
Who needs enemies when you’ve got friends like the democrats?
Bah!
Notes from a Culture War Battlefield
On Friday, I read a really clever post by Ferdinand, the Conservative Cat, in which he discussed the way a news report of the bad behavior of two policemen was written, pointing it out as a way that journalists can…