In a brief follow-up to April 4.1, John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., also seems to think that Iran won a political victory. This Article by Mr. Bolton was originally published on the Financial Times website, but that requires registration.
He goes so far as to say that the weak response by the U.K. makes the acquisition of nukes by Iran more likely and will contribute to greater violence in Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I still don't see it.
Iran took 15 British soldiers hostage.
The British government encouraged their safe return without negotiating with the hostage takers.
Iran turned the people loose without an admission of guilt or any concessions from the British government.
How is this different from any other criminal act of hostage taking where the hostages are safely released?
If you get your people safely back without negotiating with criminals, that's a win.
The only thing further that the British government could do is declare war on Iran... Hmmm...
Maybe an analogy will help.
Suppose someone told you they found your wallet on their lawn when you know, in fact they picked your pocket when you walked by their house. You want your wallet back, but they pause to consider whether they should give it back to you for 15 days. Then, out of the self-proclaimed goodness of their heart, they offer to return your wallet to you with the understanding that if you take it back, you acknowledge that you were illegally trespassing when they "found" your wallet (that is the nature of accepting a pardon, you are wrong about the U.K. not admitting guilt, in this regard.)
Are you telling me you would be simply happy to get your wallet back and forgive all else? What would stop them from putting you under duress, again?
How is this different from any other criminal act of hostage taking where the hostages are safely released?
That is easy. Most of the criminal acts of hostage taking in the area are not committed by countries, but by insurgents not representing any country. When criminal acts of hostage taking are committed by countries they are called "acts of war".
This is the thing, Iran used a pretense to commit an act of war against the U.K. to test their resolve. They watched the U.S. remain silent at the U.K.'s behest. They watched the U.K. not respond with any power, political or otherwise, whatsoever. After 15 days, Iran learned all it needed to know about the political will of their enemies and released the prisoners. They did it in such a way that they gained power locally.
Bolton is convinced that these events will embolden Iran's efforts to train and deploy insurgents in Iraq. The U.S. is already ignoring these actions which are rightfully acts of war against Iraq and the U.S.
He is further convinced that these events will firm their resolve to continue to defy the U.N. with regards to enrichment of nuclear material.
I don't like your analogy, it leaves out key elements. Let me try to tune it up.
Let's say your next door neighbor has a reputation for being somewhat of a hot-head and more than a little crazy. Rewind a few years back, he invited neighbors over and while they were in his house he took the wife's pocketbook. Later he said she had dropped it while trespassing, but finally he returned it. Now fast forward to today. He picks your pocket and steals your wallet. Then he calls you and tells you that someone broke into his house and he found your wallet on the floor. He says he's trying to decide whether to throw all your money in the fireplace, but he's thinking about giving it back...
Next he tells you that he's going to call all the neighbors and tell them his story (i.e. you broke into his house and dropped your wallet). Knowing how the neighbors feel about this guy and knowing that he's tried this stunt before, you're not too worried that this will soil your reputation in the neighborhood.
Finally the bad neighbor calls and tells you that he's decided to forgive you for breaking in to his house and he's put your wallet in your mailbox.
Nowhere in this scenario did you admit that you had broken into his house. You're pretty sure none of the neighbors believe you've broken into his house. You have your wallet back.
Do you:
(1) Run over and break all of his windows?
(2) Protest loudly to him and all of your neighbors that you never broke into his house?
(3) Stay quiet and hope the guy just leaves you alone?
Before you answer, remember this guy is crazy and has a long history of irrational behavior. Choosing (1) or (2) is likely to escalate the situation and next time, maybe it won't be just your wallet at risk...
Of course, this analogy ignores the fact that no lives are at risk and there is no threat of international war. Governments tend to be a little more cautious when lives are in the balance and they don't declare war too frivolously either.
So, analogies have problems here are the crucial things left out:
1) Your analogy seems to imply that this was about the U.K.'s reputation. It is not. It was about Iran discovering what it could get away with.
2) The "no admission of guilt" thing continues to disregard the meaning of a "pardon". A pardon is implicitly accepted if the benefit is received.
3) His neighbors do not look at him like a kook. Many of his neighbors see him as the more righteous guy in the conflict.
4) Iran never offered to forgive the U.K. unconditionally, just to return the Sailors.
5) Despite you having your wallet back, your neighbors just saw that neighbor get away with stealing your wallet and keeping it from you for 15 days. If we are really talking about Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Quatar, Oman Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, etc., can you think they might draw a different conclusion than the U.K. won this round?
Are you going to live in fear of your neighbor "escalating" things? What if he decides to take more of your stuff next time?
If we allow Iran to obtain Nukes, a fairly serious war with them is probably inevitable. Perhaps by knocking them down a peg with some serious negotiation or even smaller scale military action, this might be avoided.
A pardon is implicitly accepted if the benefit is received.
I don't agree with this. The governor might tell me that he was going to lock me up and throw away the key, but he decided to pardon me. I didn't do anything wrong, however I received the benefit of not being thrown in jail. Does that mean I implicitly accept his pardon?
If we are really talking about Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Quatar, Oman Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, etc., can you think they might draw a different conclusion than the U.K. won this round?
So I can only infer that you think the UK should have retaliated. Possibly sacrificing the lives of the hostages and possibly the lives of other soldiers during the fighting. I seem to remember the last time something like this happened with Iran, several people died and the hostages were held for over a year. I have to believe that this scenario was looming in the Prime Minister's memory.
As for the impression that Iran's sympathetic neighbors might have, I have to believe that they think Iran was weak. If you want to show you're justified in your actions, then you try the hostages for espionage and shoot them on TV.
Are you going to live in fear of your neighbor "escalating" things? What if he decides to take more of your stuff next time?
That's always a risk. Of course, you are making the assumption that the British government are going to do nothing. That may not be a safe assumption. Perhaps they WILL retalliate. Perhaps you may hear of this retalliation... perhaps not.
Perhaps by knocking them down a peg with some serious negotiation or even smaller scale military action, this might be avoided.
Yeah, and perhaps kicking down fire ant beds will make them go away and make them less likely to bite you...
It is inevitable that Iran (or similarly motivated people) will achieve nuclear capability. It's not a matter of IF, it's a matter of WHEN. When that happens do you want them to be convinced that you are an evil empire that needs to be eradicated at all costs or would you rather them just be somewhat disagreeable to your politics?
When you come across a hornets nest in the woods, you may not like the hornets, but you are better off to leave them alone rather than poking a stick at their nest.
Since you don't believe me, please go look up the meaning of a pardon.
You still don't seem to get my point. The Iranian government has the right to grant a pardon for anything they decide might be a crime against their country and/or people.
They can even choose to do so without benefit of a trial, which they chose to do.
However, what Iran considers a crime is not necessarily in accord with what society as a whole agrees is a crime. Nor is the validity of any pardon granted for said non-crime.
So in other words, Iran can say that they are pardoning the British sailors, but that pardon has no validity and therefore the British government is exactly right not to acknowledge it or give it any credence.
In other, other words. It's only a pardon in Iran's eyes.
In that case, you don't really know who does and who does not think it is a pardon at all, then, do you? Increasing uncertainty in international politics is unlikely to contribute to long term stability, in my opinion.
My sole point with this article was that, having pre-saged this position, one of America's most qualified individuals on the matter took up a similar and, in fact, more strident opinion.
Post a Comment