Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday he would free 15 British sailors captured on March 23. Ahmadinejad characterized the release as a “gift” to Britain.
The blogospheres initial reaction to the release included speculation on the winners and losers in this now-defused crisis. The Captains Quarters blog noted that British Prime Minister Tony Blair was able to secure the sailors’ release without issuing an apology or shots being fired, while RedState.com wondered if Iranians captured in Iraq would be released as part of the deal.
What do you think? Has this crisis strengthened or weakened Irans position in its dispute over its nuclear program? Does this episode show that diplomacy can work if given a chance, or do you think it was the threat of military force that inspired Iran’s move? Share your comments below.
Trackback
51 comments so far
Previous | 3 | 2 | 1 | Next
at least the world has gained the advatage of watching the so called great briatain, humiliated,most people don’t know the details of the childish speech of mr president trying to depict himself as a lover of humanism,(since jesus christ no one ever spoke like that ).all they hear is the capturing of the british navy forces by the hands of iranian hardliners
- Posted by cyrus kianianRegarding the captive UK soldiers, our soldiers have also made false confessions. So I don’t agree with all the critics.
I noticed 2 different pictures that the female sailor had crossed her arms and placed her hand over her abdomen as if to signal that offensive touching or threatened rape had occurred.
As an American woman, in my youth, I had also attended school in the Middle East and I know first hand what their men are capable of. Suggestive touching - they are slimebags.
I am relieved that the British soldiers are back home.
Best Wishes
Edith Meyers
- Posted by Edith MeyersArlington, Virginia
One of the main problems in dealing with countries like Iran and North Korea is that much of what the rulers of each say is not meant to signify anything in particular but is meant simply to confuse. Often explicit liets will be used to this purpose since an opponent will expends time and energy in attempting to repudiate.
- Posted by David LongIt is in the confusion that this tactic generates that the weaker obtains an advantage over the stronger which he can choose to exploit either now or later.
This tactic also mitigates against an adversary taking a strategic step (whether military or diplomatic) since the effect of the step and even the reason for it are not clear-cut. Thus a state which adopts this tactic is also buying time to achieve its own strategic ends.
Couple this use of confusion with occasional daring deeds and a state takes on an aura of invincibility which can be important for domestic politics if a ruler’s power is not consolidated.
Anyone who has read about Hitler’s rise to power will see that he used much the same tactics while all the while consolidating his own power, both military and political. Churchill’s desire for a combined Anglo/French ultimatum to Germany to disarm, had there been a willingness by those respective governments to act, would have saved millions of lives. A similar unwillingness by certain powers to act in respect of Iran may also cost millions of lives.
So Taylor,
What you are saying is that it is ok to deal with terrorists and give in to their demands like in North Korea. It is ok for one country to threaten another with nuclear arms to coerce the six countries in talks into handing them what they want. Just wait; it is attitudes like yours that allows people like Kim Jong-il to get away with terrorism and threatening the world. Its not condemnation they need, it regime change since the people in North Korea are suffering. If we continue to give aid to North Korea, the people will not be dissatisfied enough with their leadership to revolt. Food is a very powerful motivator.
With Iraq and Iran, too bad you hate the United States for being smart and turning two enemies against each other first. Maybe you should read the art of war. Both countries have bad dictators that need to be removed.
Again the United Nations is worthless. Where are they now that the British troops are home safe? Do you think they are going to do anything about what happened when they were following UN guidelines and were in Iraqi waters? The United Nations needs to grow a pair and cut Iran off.
As far as the oil goes, the United States has more oil in its own country than any other. Read here: http://www.rense.com/general70/doro.htm At first oil would be expensive but eventually after production started in the United States, oil prices could go down to a sensible level. If you want to understand why oil prices are so high in the first place, Take a look at OPEC which is just another monopoly. Where is the UN on this one?
I agree with you that there are shady business dealings going on right now in the Halliburton case and it is shameful. They are crooks and need to be investigated and indicted.
As far as your comment that the west is addicted to oil, its not an addiction it is a requirement currently to run a successful economy. Once we find alternative fuel sources such as Hydrogen powered vehicles I doubt the United States will be leaving the Middle East any time soon after that.
If the United States stopped meddling in the Middle East their would be democracys abound? According to their democracy if you are not one of them you are an infidel and should be killed. There is no democracy in the Middle East that has not been put there by the rest of the world or the worlds need for energy. Why do people not get that people like Iranians think that infidels like us need to be exterminated?
I cannot believe that you are so biased that you would not admit that the United States is the TOP DONOR of foreign Aid. Instead you list the statistics to try to support your biased ideas on the United States. Read here everyone else: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAID
I am sure Taylor already read it since he only quoted what he thought would sway everyone elses opinion.
Just because Americans make more money does not mean we should have to bear the brunt of helping the rest of the world out. There are far better programs in the United States that could be paid for with that money than helping countries out like Europe during World War II and Iraq and Africa and many others. The rest of the world should be thankful that we donate the most and try to protect our allies. Which brings me back to my original subject of why should Americans help people who hate us? Why should we offer a missile shield to Europe and Russia?
- Posted by PaulThe U.N. should summon Britain & Iran!
1.) Though Briton has several hi-tech defense manufacturing companies that manufacture some of the finest/best military equipment in the World. There equipment could have been malfunctioning of just incorrect!
2.) Though Iran doesn’t have the world renowned title that the British defense companies hold. There equipment could be incorrect or manufactured incorrectly! If Iran has no known quality control standards. how could they manufacture a precision instrument with true military precision!I thought they bought there equipment from Russia & America? Iran probably just doesn’t know how 2 make this stuff!
Not 2 mention the Royal Navy has been navigating the SEAS of the WORLD with precision for hundreds of years! Iran does not have this kind of reputation.
Obviously the U.N. will be obligated 2 the entire world to solve & settle this matter. The U.N. has already stated that Britain was following a U.N. mandate! Britain stated this also. I also heard that this is some kind of security training 4 militaries membered in the U.N.
I never understood why countries in the middle east were not members of the U.N. don’t they receive U.N. aid? “always fight,fight,fight over there”.Couldn’t they just build some kind of cool Lasvegas in that big ole desert?
Though we do have humanitarian world standards and rules that all countries are obligated to follow. Britain has really been traumatized. I gasped when I read an AP news article that spoke about the sailors families being horrified to have a hostage release party, until they saw there British sailors face 2 face! Britain obviously had severe disruption in patrolling the Iraqi waters with there surveillance crews now captured by Iran. Will Britons equipment be returned also.
But obviously it is a disgusting & cruel act 2 treat any person working 4 the U.N. in such a manner. Obviously it’s a miracle that Iran didn’t murder these British sailors in the Iranian streets!
I also in closing would not wont 2 be a member of, nor join an organization that had no better civilized control over these countries.If the U.N. makes no attempt 2 straighten this mess out,
the U.N. internal management/representatives are obviously a serious dis-managed hazard to the world. “Who would wont 2 work 4 someone like that”? Britain did! maby Iran & Britain will form a new relationship, minus the Iranian watchdog trouser marks & news paper drewl!
sincearly,
- Posted by Todd1 hard working ultimate price paying American.
Thank God they are home!
Question: What would the US have done if they caught 15 Iranian sailors in Iraqi waters? Kindly give them directions home? Sure.
We have over 740 military bases in over 45 countries, some legally, some not. We overthrow governments and assassinate government officials on other countries. We hold prisoners in Guantanamo illegally for years. We torture prisoners. Now, we want to teach a small country how to behave.
You know what? Every small country should develop a “nukelar” bomb. It’s the only way to get some respect from the US nowadays.
- Posted by JeanThe “PROVADA” a Russian news paper said that the Brits we to be flown out of Iran at 4:30am Tehran time. It’s 6am Tehran time & I havn’t seen any new reports of there departure!!!
http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/04-0 4-2007/89082-sailors-0
Could this be why the Brits families are so terrified 2 celebrate there release until they actualy see them face 2 face!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070404/ap_o n_re_eu/iran_britain_homefront;_ylt=A0WT UdnPARRG1HgBkRCs0NUE
- Posted by ToddTourism isn’t something they’re working on!
I can’t plan a family vacation with my wife & 3 children. 2 explore the ancients of Iran.
There Iranian citizens chant “Death 2 Britain & Death 2 U.S.A.” “psychotic personalities premeditating murder”.
in this fashion, would be worse than taking my family vacation at a high security prison!!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070401/ap_o n_re_mi_ea/british_seized_iran_245
- Posted by ToddOf course Ahmadinejad planned the release to maximize political gain. But then he IS a politician.
Mike If this is the result when “western Liberals” get their way, how would you have solved the propblem? would it perhaps involve the slaughter of tens of thousands, starvation and bombing of innocents and combattants alike, torturing prisoners instead of dressing them is three piece suits and treating them like honored guests?
- Posted by harlanbecause that seems to be how western conservatives solve problems lately.
It was quite un-necessary for British and US governments to give the popularity to Iran with this episode. Knowing very well that Iranians are extremely tough on hostage issues, British government acted stupidly to allow their sailers to wander there. Nobody will ever know what was their intended mission, but legacy of americans loosing their lives in Middle east is catching up with britishers also.
- Posted by sundarMike seems that you are as radical fundamentalist christian as those you want to demonize.A bit of insight and self criticism please.You are advocating fear and clash of civilizacions, when such a risk does not exist, its fake, unreal.
Its people like you think you can stop a fire by adding more gasoline.
- Posted by Hector