We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Showing ‘goodwill’ towards Iran

Iran can called for the UK government to make a ‘goodwill gesture’ towards Iran in return for them freeing the fifteen naval personnel they abducted in Iraqi waters. This is entirely reasonable and the UK should respond by promising that if the Iranian government will keep control of the Pasdaran (a military organisation that relates to the regular Iranian military in a similar way to which the SA or SS related to the Wehrmacht), the UKGov will make sure that ‘rogue elements’ of the Royal Navy do not mine Iranian harbours or start torpedoing Iranian shipping.

Of course as Iranian weapons keep finding their way into Basra and killing British soldiers, perhaps a different sort of exchange is really needed. After all, as there are no shortage of internal opponents to the Iranian regime, surely it is well past time that UK weapons started turning up in the hands of Iranian anti-government elements as well… think of it as another way of furthering globalisation and international trade.

20 comments to Showing ‘goodwill’ towards Iran

  • Julian Taylor

    Yeah, here’s a ‘goodwill gesture’. Our rogue element Trafalgar-class SSNs stationed off your coast won’t each fire a broadside of 4 Tomahawks at your nation’s leading petrochemical export facilities. Happy Easter you kidnapping bastards and enjoy the chocolate while you can.

  • Other than the fact that the US and our allies ought to have chased Osama bin Llama from Afghanistan through Pakistan and on through Iran and into Saudi Arabia, leaving nothing behind but scorched earth (until a full and unconditional surrender by all offending death gangs is tendered) leaving Saddam alone to ponder the degree to which he should kowtow to our wishes while he wonders who’s next, leaving these nations in the dirt-poor conditions in which they existed prior to the meddlesome interventions by industrialized western business interests, we ought to leave them utterly alone to redevelop modern industrialized economies on their own. We (those of us who want) can send them the occasional Christmas card and rack of pork ribs, to indicate our good will.

  • Rob

    What makes you assume that British resources don’t end up in the hands of internal opposition to the Iranian regime?

  • What makes you assume that British resources don’t end up in the hands of internal opposition to the Iranian regime?

    I’d love to think that was true. However I suspect the current UKGov does not share Winston Churchill’s taste for covert ops and dirty tricks against manifest foreign enemies. If it was true, I’d be the first to praise the powers-that-be for getting something right at last.

  • stuart

    What makes you assume that British resources don’t end up in the hands of internal opposition to the Iranian regime?

    Because the MoD is practically incapable of keeping our own forces supplied in the field. In any case, the Iranian resistance wouldn’t want a piece of useless junk like the SA80……….

  • Julian Taylor

    What I really do find appalling is how the MSM reacts to reports that the 15 Marines and sailors were tortured (blindfolded, stuck against a wall and have a gun cocked against your neck = torture) with the response that,

    … their treatment was positively mild compared with those abused by US forces in Abu Ghraib two years ago.

    As for the MoD’s reaction (in same article) what on earth were the 15 if not Prisoners of War, hostages or kidnappees? I’m beginning to wonder if perhaps Kim Du Toit is indeed correct, that we have been ‘pussified’ beyond redemption.

  • Pa Annoyed

    “what on earth were the 15 if not Prisoners of War, hostages or kidnappees?”

    Arrested for trespassing, of course.

    Under conditions when one is not at war with a nation – and only the government ought to be deciding that, not some low-ranking marine doing customs inspections – then military are subject to the local civil law. When our troops visit serve in Germany, they are subject to German law, when they serve in the US or Canada they are subject to US or Canadian law, and if the locals want to arrest them, even illegally, they’re not supposed to resist arrest with deadly force. They can fight back if they would otherwise get killed – like if someone starts shooting at them – but they’re not supposed to shoot first. Instead, you’re supposed to go along with the arrest until the embassy can sort the mess out.

    I think part of the trouble here is that people think this is a war, that the Iranians are the enemy we are fighting, and therefore that wartime standards are applicable. Unofficially, the Iranians probably are, but we have for a variety of reasons decided not to acknowledge it officially and that’s what counts in law and diplomacy. The British position is that this was seen as a civil arrest, and therefore the fact the Iranians could do it means nothing; that as it happens the arrest was done illegally, since it was in Iraqi waters and even if in Iranian waters is not an arrestable offence, which shows the Iranians to be incompetent and us magnanimous for letting that go; that being a civil arrest the Iranians should have given them representation and consular access, which shows the Iranians to be acting further illegally and which we’ve complained about; and that while their treatment was not bad by military standards it falls far short of what we expect in the case of a civil arrest, which shows the Iranians to be in the wrong again and which we’ve again complained about.

    Military personnel are under orders when detained in civilian custody to go along with what is asked of them, so long as they don’t violate operational security, and when held prisoner by flaky third world governments, to say whatever needs to be said to get them out – because them still being prisoners and under threat costs Britain lots more diplomatically than a few unbelievable propaganda tapes. And precisely because everybody should know they’re ordered by their own chain of command to say whatever the maniacs tell them to, even to smile while doing it, what they say and do while in the custody of well-known bastards like the Iranian regime means nothing.

    The priorities are not to start a war, not to break operational security, to get as many people out alive as possible, and to end the situation as quickly as possible. They did exactly what they were supposed to. Yes, the Iranians extracted a cost from us in terms of ‘face’, which they did by acting illegally. But the British position is that this reflects more on Iranian depravity than it shows any British ‘weakness’, which we regard as forebearance.

    Now the problem is that everyone that says we should have acted differently – fighting back and issuing bellicose threats (which for all you know we may have issued behind the scenes, and which may be the real reason they backed down) – is helping the Iranian story that we are weak, and not the British story that we are playing by the rules while Iran cheats.

    Even if you think we’re weak as well (which I have to say isn’t seen as friendly by our armed forces), saying so helps the other side. The Iranians can point to all this chatter and say “Look! Even the Westerners agree! The British are a bunch of girls, especially the girls among them, and we can win if you’ll just give me a little more time to start this nuclear war with them!”

    There’s nothing I can do to stop you guys doing it, of course, but with the greatest of respect I don’t think it helps our side any.

  • John

    Perhaps the allied aircrew who made propaganda movies for the Nazis during WW2 were pussies – even though Guy Gibson V.C. didn’t think so, but, hey, maybe Gibson was a pussy too.
    And maybe the allied servicemen who made propaganda movies for the Japanese during WW2 and were shown drinking beer and eating cake and reclining in the luxury in all those lovely Japanese POW camps were also pussies.
    And maybe the allied servicemen who made propaganda movies for the Koreans and the Chinese and continued to repeat their claims about the superiority of communist society over the decadent West even when they were back in the good ol’ USA – maybe they were pussies too.
    And maybe the US LURP teams operating unsupported and captured miles behind enemy lines in Vietnam and who also made propaganda broadcasts for the Viet Cong – maybe they were pussies.
    And maybe the allied servicemen who appeared on Iraq TV during Gulf War 1 were pussies.
    And maybe the British businessmen who ‘confessed’ to blowing up their colleagues in Saudi Arabia – to spare their wives being raped by Saudi police – maybe they were pussies too.

    And if an Australian patrol boat captured an Indonesian destroyer operating under a UN mandate and paraded the crew on Australian TV and made them make statements about Indonesian foreign policy then maybe all the geniuses on this blog would say –‘ha that’s really humiliated and brought shame on the Indonesians and their crappy Navy!’

    Maybe, maybe that would happen.

    But it wouldn’t be my fault, and it wouldn’t be the fault of the Royal Navy.

    Some of the comments on this blog are an utter disgrace – I do wish you would desist.

  • Pa Annoyed

    John, getting angry and confrontational about it doesn’t help. It just makes them angry want to answer back.

    The position they take is a perfectly understandable one, it’s just based on a misunderstanding. The rules are different when you’re not at war and, whatever they might think, this isn’t an act of war. We’ll declare war when we’re ready to, not when the Iranians say.

    Like I said to someone else earlier, we want to be shooting our rhetoric towards the Iranians, not each other.

  • John

    Even if we were at war our servicemen should happily comply with the propaganda requests of their captors.

    I would.

    “Our captured servicemen should say anything they are asked to, it means nothing – force invalidates all statements.” – Ayn Rand, during another war.

  • James_C

    Don’t send them those damn SA80s. Mullahs might start thinking we’re trying to help them

  • cubanbob

    The conduct of the 15 service personnel is besides the point. What is the point is the support from the EU that the UK received. The rest of the EU was quite willing to throw Britain under the bus for a few dollars worth of trade with the Iranians. Its time for the world’s fourth largest economy to remind the the EU why the UK is far more important to the EU than Iran. But then again that would require something that appears to be in rather short supply in the UK government; patriotism and a bit of healthy nationalism. Had this happened to the French does one not get the impression economic sanctions by the EU would have started to become implemented?

  • Sunfish

    Under conditions when one is not at war with a nation – and only the government ought to be deciding that, not some low-ranking marine doing customs inspections – then military are subject to the local civil law.

    Here’s the problem: The RN/RM were in IRAQI territory. Therefore, Iranian law is irrelevant.

    Surrendering may have been tactically sound, but that doesn’t change the fact that Iran committed an act of war by invading Iraqi waters and kidnapping foreigners who were acting in support of the Iraqi government. Had Iran not engaged in an act of war none of these events would have happened. Let’s stay focused.

    As for an act of goodwill: During the embargo years in Iraq, Operations Northern Watch and Southern Watch were often enforced by destroying any Iraqi aircraft which entered the no-fly zones, and any platforms which fired on US/NATO/Coalition aircraft. I think that, if we were to level the naval base from which this unlawful and unprovoked attack on the UK was launched, a worthy item of goodwill would be if we stopped there.

    I just hope that my own government’s silence was due to Bliar thinking it a good idea, and not because of their own cowardice or battle fatigue. Odds of that, anyone?

  • Pa Annoyed

    It’s not an act of war, in the sense of being an act that leads automatically to or justifies war. Indeed, I doubt if there is any such thing any more, since war is always supposed to be a last resort, and is now subject to the UN charter.

    And if it were, it would be against the UN since it was a UN mission.

    Plus, if you wanted to claim it was illegal you would have to prove it really was in Iraqi waters. We don’t have any proof that couldn’t have been faked, we wouldn’t have had any witnesses (what with them being dead or in Iranian custody), and we don’t have all that many friends who would take our word for it if it was going to cost them money. And what would you guys have have said if Tony had got us into another war we couldn’t win without any evidence and against the UN, hmmm?

    Go ask Israel about “Acts of War”.

    A gift for the Iranians? My vote would be for one of the half-burnt, ripped-up Korans from the mosques his guys have bombed in a glass presentation case, with a subtly-worded little plaque to that effect.

  • These types talking about the fact that no war has been declared; how would they characterise the actions of the SAS in Gibraltar in the eighties?
    Or the SAS in Antrim at the same time, when JCBs containing bucket-loads of IRA gunners were driven at speed towards them?
    Should they have surrendered on that occasion as no war was declared and these people were not representative of Eire state policy?
    I would not be surprised at all(and I’m only asking, don’t infer anything else)if the Iranians were the people who were embarrassed, as they had hoped for an easy kill and ended up with prisoners they didn’t want.

  • Sunfish

    Plus, if you wanted to claim it was illegal you would have to prove it really was in Iraqi waters.

    It’s not like prepping a criminal case. Who would the judge be, in this case?

    At any rate, between fifteen RN sailors and Mahmoud Ahmadenejad, I know which I consider trustworthy. That being before the navigation and radar records of HMS Cornwall and her helicopter were taken into account.

    Indeed, I doubt if there is any such thing any more, since war is always supposed to be a last resort, and is now subject to the UN charter.

    And if it were, it would be against the UN since it was a UN mission.

    The short version is, I would lean towards trusting my own people. I could give a damn about what the UN would approve of, except I don’t.

    Iraq is a sovereign nation. The UK is a sovereign nation. The UN is not.

  • Gordon

    A Modest Proposal
    Since the Royal Navy is now “unfit for purpose” and manned by the “wrong kind of” people.
    Since also the sreets of our cities are infested with murderous scum.
    We should revive the ancient British Institutions of the Privateer and the Press Gang.
    Perhaps Iran might be a little more circumspect in its dealings with vessels carrying Letters of Marque and crewed by cutthroats?

  • Pa Annoyed

    Pietr,
    I assume you’re referring to operations in other people’s territory where military forces are told to ignore local laws. Such things can happen, but if they do it is only with political permission and oversight (usually at the highest level), and while they do not break our laws, if they get caught they can get treated as criminal by the local law, and there is no obligation for the local jurisdiction to hand them back. It’s only done in extremis. Whether they should surrender to local authorities or not depends on ROE, but as for the case of the IRA they’re not even representatives of the government. Self-defence against people trying to kill you is normally allowed in all circumstances.

    Sunfish,
    It’s worse than prepping a criminal case, you’re being tried in the court of media and international opinion. You might well believe our side rather than theirs, but most other countries won’t. Indeed, there are many people even in our own countries who are more sympathetic to the dictators and terrorists of this world than they are to our own military. A recent poll in Germany said people thought America was a bigger threat to world peace than Iran.

    Israel have faced tens of thousands of such “Acts of War” since the ceasefire in 1948, but as any response they made was seen as aggression, and resulted in threats, sanctions, and economic boycotts. It has often been said that they would collapse without US help, but then without the Arab-driven international pressure on them they wouldn’t need it. Do we really want to be in the same position? If we do, then I suggest we do some extensive preparation to be ready before we do so.

    Gordon,
    Iran would be delighted at your proposal. It would enable them to prove incontrovertably that we were engaged in an aggressive and criminal crusade against them, enabling the mullahs to consolidate their position, uniting the Arab peoples in their support. Have you perhaps heard of the twelth Imam? The messiah who is prophesied to return to re-unite the Muslims and lead them in the final battle to conquer the world and bring about judgement day? Whose arrival Mr Ahmadinejad’s particular cult believes is imminent, and whose coming is said to be presaged and indeed brought about by war and chaos? I hear Mr Ahmadinejad has been receiving personal messages from the Mahdi, and while he probably isn’t as in charge as he appears, he is influential, highly visible, distinctive, charismatic, and already widely regarded as a hero. Do you think he has… ambitions?

    The purpose of war is to break the enemy’s will to fight. If they think they’re in the right, they’ll fight as hard as we would. We have to first persuade them that they’re in the wrong, as their agents among us try to do to us. We follow the rules, we’re doing this for the right reasons, we don’t want to hurt anyone, but those fruitcakes you’ve got for leaders are the source of all the trouble – you ought to oppose them, weaken them, speak out against them, eventually, with our aid, you should depose them. And then we can all be friends.

    The evidence, and I believe the truth, is on our side; but the passionate effort is on theirs. They’re very good at this game, and can twist every point against them to speak in their favour. This is where the war is being fought. And you’d like to hand them a free gift like British pirates attacking innocent merchantmen?

    You have to bear in mind, when you try to think up these little deterrents, that these are people who cleared minefields by sending thousands of their own children to march across them. Do you think they’ll curl up and surrender because of a few pirates? Would you?

  • Paul Marks

    Oddly enough the first G.P.S. fix the Iranian regime gave for the 15 showed them to be in the waters of Iraq (when this was pointed out they changed the numbers).

    Our enemies are not supermen and do make blunders sometimes (even in propaganda operations that they had been planning for some time). This is also true of the Iranian economy, the present administration is making all sorts of silly mistakes (nothing to do with Islam – the economic policies of the Iranian administration are based more on Lord Keynes than they are on Mohammed, although it should be remembered that the late Shah was also utterly hopeless in the field of political economy – he was a wild statist).

    The Iranian regime has been at war with infidels in general and the Great Satan (the United States) and the Little Satan (the United Kingdom) in particular since it came to power in 1979.

    It has committed acts of war against us in many places in the world.

    As for getting rid of the regime:

    Things have changed since 1953 (when a pro Soviet Prime Minister was removed in Iran, in support of the ruling monarch) or 1941 (when the British and the Soviets forced the then ruling monarch to step down because they thought him too favourable to Germany).

    Iran has a vastly greater population these days, and a lot of oil money.

    Muslims in general (both Sunni and Shia) have increased in numbers (to huge degree) and tend to be interested in much more strict forms of Islam than they were back in 1953.

    On the other hand the United States is now a Welfare State (if you do not believe me check the stats on government spending on the entitlement programs, education and the rest of it) and it was not in 1953 – so American internal strength is much less than it was (civil society has rotted to some extent – and now Americans tend to turn on each other in times of trouble rather than comming together).

    One problem with the Mark Steyn plan of exporting American principles of limited government to other parts of the world is that most Americans do not believe in these principles at home (arguably this has been true since 1936 when 60% of the voters decided to reelect a man who had used the Constitution of the United States to wipe his backside on), and (at least) to talk of the United States as a place of limited government since, at least, the “Great Society” programs of the 1960’s is absurd (and these programs continue to grow every year).

    So getting rid of a hostile Iranian government is rather harder than it was in 1953. Iran (and other hostile powers) are much stronger and the United States is weaker (especially internally).

    As for Britain – sadly this power is no longer of great account (and I am British). The United Kingdom is very much weaker than it was in 1953 (or even, in spite of the recession of the time, in 1982 – a Falklands level of operation would not be possible today) – again I say this in sadness (as I have said, I am British), but the truth must be faced.

    Internal opposition to the Iranian regime is the vital factor. Of course it should be supported – but is it strong enough to overturn the regime?

    I hope so, but I very much doubt it.

  • Sunfish

    It’s worse than prepping a criminal case, you’re being tried in the court of media and international opinion. You might well believe our side rather than theirs, but most other countries won’t. Indeed, there are many people even in our own countries who are more sympathetic to the dictators and terrorists of this world than they are to our own military. A recent poll in Germany said people thought America was a bigger threat to world peace than Iran.

    I suppose I could make a comment that, historically, over the last few centuries Germany has been a far greater threat to European or world peace than anybody else (with the arguable exception of the USSR). However, that would be snarky and heaven knows I’m too much of a gentleman for that.

    That being said, most of the world may or may not be relevant in terms of their ability to throw a tantrum, but still lacks moral authority or moral credibility.

    I’m an American: I’d rather be alone than go along with something that’s not right.