Iran and Britain Moderating Tone
Nasser Karimi and Robert H. Reid write for the AP that both Iran and Britain are “backing away from tough words”. Iran’s chief negotiator Ali Larijani said that his priority “is to solve the problem through proper diplomatic channels” and that Iran is “not interested in letting this issue get further complicated.”
Britain responded by saying that both countries has a “shared desire to make early progress” in resolving the dispute as soon as possible and that – in the words of a British Foreign Office spokeswoman – “there remain some differences between us, but we can confirm we share his preference for early bilateral discussions to find a diplomatic solution to this problem.”
Funmny enough, Larijani “called for all involved to stop using ‘the language of force’.” Perhaps Larijani has to be remembered of the fact that it is Iran that kidnapped the British soldiers, that Iranian students were chanting ‘death to the British’, that it is Iran that said it was considering putting the sailors and marines on trial, andsoforth.
Jews have a good word to describe Larijani’s behavior: chutzpah.
More:
The radio did not elaborate on the supposed changes by the British. But in London, a British official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said Prime Minister
Tony Blair’s government had agreed to consider ways to avoid such situations in the future.The official insisted Britain was not negotiating with the Iranians and still wanted the captives freed unconditionally.
Sure. If Britain gives in, even one single inch it will be a disaster.
Cross posted at mvdg.wordpress.com.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
15 Responses to “Iran and Britain Moderating Tone”
The devil will be in the details. The Brits need to be very careful here – if they agree to avoid certain parts of Iraqi waters, then Iraqi sovereignty is materially weakened. If, on the other hand, they do something like set-up a hotline, or other communication to prevent “misunderstanding” then that might be acceptable.
Unless the Brits are totally lying, which is doubtful, they should in no way apologize.
As long as you don’t really care what happens to the British soldiers, I suppose. Are you afraid the Brits might give away Wales in a trade?
Hostage situations like this have occurred in the past – you might remember a similar incident with China a few years ago. After all the bluster, they’re usually released unharmed.
That is unless you react the way the Israelis did in Lebanon.
MikeF: it only encourages more kidnappings. Britain can in no way give in. As I wrote at my own blog, the most important thing is not to get the hostages back, it is to get the hostages back without giving Iran what it wants / rewarding Iran for its behavior.
I don’t expect Britain to give any concessions. All the quotes you cited –
sound like positive movement on this issue.
Michael van der Galiën is correct. Mike F seems to find taking hostages to be a relatively benign act. Does anyone remember when the taking of hostages brought about a different reaction?
It’s not a matter of whether the act is benign. It’s a question of how to resolve a matter and get the soldiers back safely.
The situation seems to be following a diplomatic course – and that’s the best means of getting them back quickly. The alternative is to start shooting, which runs a high risk of killing the soldiers involved, not to mention any others that go in to get them.
As for a similar incident, you might want to refresh yourself about this one, almost exactly 5 years ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-China_Spy_Plane_Incident
Sorry, getting the soldiers back safely is not the priority. That is why they are soldiers, to go in harm’s way for their county’s interests.
What is has to be the priority is the bigger picture. Focusing on subjugating national and international interest to save a couple of armed force’s lives is symptomatic of what is wrong with the West today. A complete unwillingness to stand tough, accept sacrifice, understand the role of soldiers, and stay firm and resolute, even when it causes unpleasant things to happen.
The cartoon if Churchill and Blair gets it perfectly.
I just watched Flags of our Fathers, and my wife, daughter and I all commented how today we could not possibly win at Iwo Jima. Within the first three to five days of fighting, the press reports of the carnage would put unbearable pressure on the political and military leadership to stop sacrificing our boys.
Are we living on the same planet here? What national and international interest do you think Tony Blair is about to subvert? You’re all attacking him, apparently solely for using diplomacy to get his troops back. As far as I can see, he’s not surrendering territory, paying ransom, or selling the Iranians weapons. Do you have some inside information that the rest of us don’t know about.
You want to start a third front in this war simply to assuage your wounded pride? If Tony Blair can get his people back in a way that simply leaves Ahmedinejad strutting around like he’s been doing for the last year, he should do it.
If you have some brilliant strategy to get the Iranian ruler to grovel at his feet, please, don’t keep it to yourself.
Unfortunately people like MikeF can’t see the real picture. You must resolve this in a way which will make it clear that it better not happen again. What in the reaction you have would make Iran think before doing exactly the same thing again Mike?
Austin, I made the same comment to my wife while watching that movie. Imagine if the reality of the Civil War were brought into every living room. Many people would conclude the suffering and loss would not be worth the gain.
When t comes to politics and war everyone has a lot of feelings and emotions but few have actual opinions. This is why I prefer to leave the war strategies to those who actually have the experience and knowledge to formulate a valid opinion. My mother and Mike F would not qualify.
And yet, here you are, giving your two cents worth to the diplomatic and military arm of the British government.
Again, none of you have given a reason for your categorical rejection of Blair’s diplomatic efforts. None of you have suggested a course of action that would be preferable (although the repeated WWII allegories suggest you think we should be bombing Iran into rubble). You simply sit back on your couches watching war movies and dreaming of glory, while cavalierly tossing aside the interests of the people who are actually risking their lives in the field.
> That is unless you react the way the Israelis did in Lebanon.
Iran didn’t also subject British miltary on Iraqi soil or many civilians in Iraq to rocketing at the same time.
What if Iran had done so?
It was said;
>You must resolve this in a way which will
> make it clear that it better not happen again.
Absolutely.
I remember overhearing a conversation on the air about when the US contractors were murdered in Fallujah, and their bodies beaten and mangled, and eventually hung from the truss bridge many of you may have seen in photos. A woman calling in said it right, even if too many people would say it’s wrong — she spoke for sounder souls who know what needs to be done in situations like this, to people who must be made to realize that the worst crimes have consequences; it was so obvious it was even tiresome for her to begin to explain:
“[sigh] Don’t play games or waste any more time. Get our people out of there, then flatten the place.”
The Israeli reaction was a failure by Israeli standards, people were calling for Olmert’s resignation after hostilities ended. Hezbollah emerged politically stronger and Israel had lost its mystique as an undefeatable rival. Last I heard the captured soldiers were still missing and possibly dead.
To paraphrase MichaelF above, the Israeli’s use of force won’t make Hezbollah think before doing exactly the same thing again. It affirmed that the tactic of kidnapping was extremely profitable.
Mike F. said:
> The Israeli reaction was a failure by Israeli standards,
> people were calling for Olmert’s resignation after hostilities
> ended. Hezbollah emerged politically stronger and Israel
> had lost its mystique as an undefeatable rival. Last I heard
> the captured soldiers were still missing and possibly dead.
All true.
My point was that if you are going to describe what Israel did, it should be in the full context — the kidnappings were not the only thing Hizballah did, and the UK would likely have acted more forcefully already had its people on Iraqi terrain been attacked.
There are one or two other distinctions that can be made (so many critics in Israel are angry Israel had played too nice and too weakly in Lebanon, they see weakness as a central liability in Olmert and in Livni and their party, etc.; Hizballah took a worse beating than how it was depicted by a biased media; the UK would not have done anything in Iran that Israel did do in Lebanon, etc.) but the main point I was making was to put Israel’s decision in the right context. There was more than kidnapping that triggered it.
> To paraphrase MichaelF above, the Israeli’s
> use of force won’t make Hezbollah think before
> doing exactly the same thing again.
The same is true for the death penalty and punishment for the crimes of anyone without conscience, without anything but present orientation, or is otherwise so defective they don’t care or conceive what happens to them. That doesn’t stop the use of force where it is appropriate to deter those who can be so reached as well as reinforce morality (punish the bad if not also reward the good) in the community at large.
> It affirmed that the tactic of kidnapping was
> extremely profitable.
if Israel doesn’t truly fight, and fight well, to win against them, it can be. It worked this time. Not due to the kidnappers but to Israel. Your point is made (again).
> Again, none of you have given a reason for your categorical rejection of Blair’s diplomatic efforts.
Well, when China’s aircraft hit ours and our people were held, and China demanded we apologize, normal Americans were outraged and we would would have supported the use of force not only to free our peopple but also to punish China, less forceful people (or at least those with ties to business so often now located in China) prevailed.
(The real issue for us in the USA is, will we go to war with China to rescue Taiwan if China attacks? I bellieve we will not.)