April 4, 2007
JUST THE GUARD VS THE GUARDIAN:
Britain found a ladder for Iran to climb down (Richard Dalton, 05/04/2007, Daily Telegraph)
Those complaining from the political Right, both here and in America, about a weak response were shown to be opportunistic and out of touch. Whether it was John Bolton, the former American ambassador to the UN, complaining about European resolve in general towards Iran, or editorialists regretting that there were no Palmerstons to defend the rights of Britons, such critics never set out a credible causal link between their preferred tactics and how to get Iran to release the captives.The events shed light on the factors that anyone dealing with Iran has to keep in mind. Its diplomats and negotiators are often outflanked by radicals claiming to be true exponents of national values. They often speak of external enemies, as a way of fostering internal unity. Such revolutionary countries also have difficulty looking facts in the face and in drawing objective rather than ideologically motivated conclusions. They will be economical with the truth, to put it politely. There is lively argument among the factions and the personalities in the leadership, and it takes time to resolve them. Hence the need for patience and a thick skin.
In discussions, their representatives are dogged and determined, though they can change their line frequently and not necessarily consistently. They often think in terms of conspiracies. Their convoluted analysis of plots has to be carefully deconstructed to locate the common ground on whatever is the issue of the day.
The key insight is that the course of the entire episode was dictated by internal power struggles in Iran and had little to do with England. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 4, 2007 9:55 PM
The key insight is that the course of the entire episode was dictated by internal power struggles in Iran and had little to do with England.
Rather, the key insight might be to ponder for how long one ought ignore this Iranian good cop/bad cop routine. (And to be sure, they do it really, really well.)
Or to consider what Iran might have received in return for this well-orchestrated kidnapping (oops, I mean "internal power struggle")?
Debka offers this:
...There were moments on Monday and Tuesday when it looked as though the Khamenei line for ending the crisis, backed also by supreme national security advisers Ali Larijani, would prevail. Larijani came out Monday night with the encouraging statement that there was no need to put the captured British sailors on trial and the crisis could be solved through bilateral diplomacy. He said a delegation might come to Tehran to review the points at issue.
Tuesday, a British military delegation did indeed arrive secretly in Tehran.
Larijani's statement was the outcome of back-channel talks between Tehran and London, partly by videoconference, in which the British promised to de-escalate their tone and calm the situation, in return for an Iranian pledge that the captives would not be tried.
London allowed the 15 sailors to admit they had trespassed into Iranian waters, while Tehran agreed to suspend further television footage. London also offered to help work for the release of the five Revolutionary Guards al-Quds Brigade officers captured by US agents in Baghdad. One of them, second secretary at the Baghdad embassy, Jalal Sharafi, was indeed set free Tuesday.
The British even offered to obtain for Iran information on the whereabouts of the missing Iranian general Ali Reza Asgari, believed to have defected to the West in February.
Seems that good old internal power struggles just ain't what they used to be, eh? Ah, for the good old days....
Posted by: Barry Meislin at April 5, 2007 2:01 AMSorry. Quoted text should go all the way to "February." in the penultimate paragraph.
Posted by: Barry Meislin at April 5, 2007 2:09 AMNo serious person cites Debka.
Posted by: oj at April 5, 2007 6:19 AMWhat happened to the old rule of military personal only giving their "name, rank & serial number" and what's with the mufti? What happened to their uniforms?
This whole exercise was a temper tantrum of a brat who wasn't getting enough attention, so he acted up when grandma was visiting.
But doesn't the explanation of 'an internal power struggle' make the whole episode worse? It certainly proves the point that Iran isn't fit to be a state (as currently constituted).
Of course, the Brits don't look so good, either. And the goodbye party with Ahmadinejad seeing the captives off was just plain insane.
Posted by: jim hamlen at April 5, 2007 7:32 AMThe article's second paragraph reads as advice to Republicans for dealing with the NeoDemocrat congress.
Posted by: Genecis at April 5, 2007 8:33 AMThe article's second paragraph reads as advice to Republicans for dealing with the NeoDemocrat congress.
Posted by: Genecis at April 5, 2007 8:58 AMjim:
Exactly. Khamenei has to break the Guard and the voters will dispose of Mahmoud if the legislature doesn't beat them to it.
Posted by: oj at April 5, 2007 10:12 AMExpanding a bit on what jim said, if another country uses your military as pawns in internal political squabbles, you're not a great power anymore.
Posted by: b at April 5, 2007 10:51 AMSoldiers exist to be pawns.
Posted by: oj at April 5, 2007 1:09 PMPawns of your own politicians, not somebody else's.
Posted by: b at April 5, 2007 1:48 PMThe essence of pawnhood is expendability, that's why the Brits had them tooling around in those waters.
Posted by: oj at April 5, 2007 4:59 PM