“Carterizing” Tony Blair – Iran’s Hostage Ploy
"What should truly worry Washington is that if this plan is successful, US soldiers are likely to be next in line for capture by Iran."
by Meir Javedanfar
The timing of the capture of the 15 British soldiers by Iran for allegedly crossing illegally into its territory has left many analysts and politicians in the West baffled. Why would the Iranian regime now be interested in renewed hostility between Iran and the West? And why the British?
Certainly, this kind of behavior is not new for the Iranians. It is not even the first time that Iran has captured British military personnel under this very pretext. In a similar incident in 2004, Iran detained eight British servicemen for three days, and released them after parading them in front of TV cameras.
However, that was in 2004, when Iran was more secure, enjoying improved relations with the EU and with the international community in general.
The new incident is taking place at a time when the Iranian regime is becoming increasingly isolated. With the international community lining up against Iran in the UN, one would have thought that Tehran would take a more conciliatory approach in order to reduce the pressure being applied against it.
But no — by capturing the soldiers and angering London and 25 member states of the EU, Tehran seems to be doing the exact opposite.
Why? A closer look at the political strategy the regime has taken for the last 28 years and how it has used hostage-taking provides answers.
Since its creation in 1979, the leaders of the Islamic republic have become masters of manipulating Western public opinion to their advantage. Realizing the sensitivity with which Western governments have when it comes to the kidnapping of their soldiers and citizens; the Islamic regime, almost immediately after it came to power, started to manipulate such these sensitivities in order to score political points against governments.
The earliest and most prominent example took place on November 4th 1979, when the regime wanted to punish Jimmy Carter for supporting the Shah. To achieve that goal, the US embassy in Tehran was raided and 52 hostages were kept for 444 days. Clearly, the major motivation behind the capture and holding the hostages that length of time was in order to ensure that the American people become frustrated and angry with Jimmy Carter’s inability to release the hostages, and ultimately turn against him. The plan worked brilliantly. Few will deny that the hostage crisis was one of the primary reasons why Jimmy Carter lost the 1980 elections to Ronald Reagan.
By capturing the British servicemen, Iran is using the same tactic, this time against Tony Blair – whom Tehran views as one of its main political adversaries in the West. The Islamic regime realizes that Tony Blair’s popularity is already at low ebb, and largely due to his support of the war in Iraq.
By capturing the servicemen, Tehran is hoping that the British people, particularly the majority who are already against the war in Iraq will openly blame Blair for the crisis, by saying that it is his fault for endangering the lives of troops by sending them into a conflict zone.
Such internal dissatisfaction, Tehran hopes, would subsequently deal a deadly blow to any plans Blair or his successor may have to support an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
What should truly worry Washington is that if this plan is successful, US soldiers are likely to be next in line for capture by Iran – and a manipulation of American public opinion just before the 2008 elections which would damage a Republican candidate supporting Bush’s stance would be perfect timing.
This is a plan that is already becoming more popular inside Iranian military circles, especially those belonging to the ultra-conservative Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). After the capture of four of the group’s operatives by US forces in northern Iraq, many IRGC members are eagerly waiting to settle scores with the US.
It is all too possible that the capture of the British soldiers can be seen as a trial run.
Meir Javedanfar is a Middle East analyst at the Middle East Economic and Political Analysis Company (meepas). Together with Yossi Melman, he is also the coauthor of the upcoming book The Nuclear Sphinx of Tehran – Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the State of Iran.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
13 Comments
1. curious:“What should truly worry Washington is that if this plan is successful, US soldiers are likely to be next in line for capture by Iran – and a manipulation of American public opinion just before the 2008 elections which would damage a Republican candidate supporting Bush’s stance would be perfect timing.”
Mar 27, 2007 - 12:23 pm 2. doc99:You don’t know anything about President Bush if you think that a public kidnapping of American sailors in Iraqi waters would not lead to massive retaliatory strikes against Iranian naval and air assets. The President made it very clear in his last speech that he means to launch massive military retaliation to any further escalation by Iran of their involvment in the Iraq war. Think what you will about our President, he doesn’t make threats, he makes promises.
Where is Stephen Decatur, now that we need him?
Mar 27, 2007 - 2:27 pm 3. james just:Three men in a bar can figure this one out. The Iranians kidnapped the British soldiers to drive up the price of oil because they ran out of money to pay the Russians for constructing their nuclear reactor.
Mar 27, 2007 - 2:43 pm 4. Joseph McNulty:Taking the British was a masterstroke. It was a way to hit back at America’s only real ally and put pressure on Blair to bring British troops home. Bush is politcally weakened without a direct approach. The American weakness is political, not military. This makes it more difficult for America to participate or allow Israel to strike Iran. Amazingly, uniformed seamen and a seawoman were called “spies” and taken hostage. Iran just has to hold on to them until Blair bows out of Iraq. All of our self-congradulation for our “restraint” only means that this techinique can be used again and again by Iran without cost. The British should have declared a naval blockade until the seamen and seawoman are released. Real hardball would be for Iran to excute one of the hostages — on the basis that he was the “ringleader of the spies” — while sparing the others out of “Islamic mercy” after they admited their “guilt” and apologize. They will just get long prison sentences. Welcome to the New World. Just wait until Iran can supply Al Queda with nuclear weapons — as long as their fingerprints can be obscured or disputed endlessly in Congressional debates.
Mar 27, 2007 - 3:53 pm 5. Winston:I really hope Tony wont become Britain’s jimmy. It’d be bad!
Mar 27, 2007 - 8:02 pm 6. jebuff:Or maybe, just maybe, Iran is simply defending its territory…
Things are bnever as simple as we’d like to believe… Makes for rough going from the “black or white”, “with us or again’ us” crowd.
From the Guardian :
Because the two countries have not agreed on updated charts, that means there is no universal agreement on exactly where the border line runs.
If the seizure occurred near the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab – which is likely – the issue becomes even more complicated because Iraq and Iran have never agreed on each others’ claim to Gulf waters near the mouth of the waterway.
Without such an agreement, international law requires countries not to extend their territorial waters “beyond the median line with neighboring states,” said Martin Pratt of the University of Durham in Britain.
But defining that line is difficult because of conflicting claims to rock formations, sandbars and barrier islands in the shallow waters of the northern Gulf, Pratt said.
As a result, there may be “legitimate grounds for arguing for a different definition” of those median lines, Pratt said.
Mar 28, 2007 - 3:09 am 7. winston:One wonders why British soldiers didn’t fight back and kill the bastard IRGC thugs if they were well outside of the Iranian territorial waters.
Next time they will shoot back if this happens and I am pretty sure had this happened to American marines, they would have fought back hard and killed the regime thugs. However that seems Europeans always want to learn their lessons the hard way and I am, sad to say, glad that Europeans are getting this treatment which they deserve, for supporting the mullahs for 28 long years. That will be a turning point for Europeans to see that mullahs of Iran have used them to prolong their life and misery of the Iranian people.
By the way, soldiers fight, they don’t surrender!
Mar 28, 2007 - 4:49 am 8. william jonas:Once again a spineless response to a dangerous ,provocative action. Not unexpected it seems. This ,as Sgt.Friday would say, is their MO.
Mar 28, 2007 - 7:08 am 9. Daniel Brett:Thats modus operandi to those too young to remember Dragnet.
Wouldn’t it be refreshing for the British to withdraw any personnel, diplomatic or otherwise from Iran and then seize the Iranian ambassador and all of the staff. They could hold them incommunicado and seize all Iranian funds and property until the matter is settled.
What could Iran say? Thats illegal. you can’t do that. Sure
There are several factors to bear in mind here. There were 15 naval personnel up against three Iranian gunships – resistance would not have achieved anything but bloodshed. Communications had apparently broken down between the naval personnel and the mother ship.
But what is worrying is the lack of decisive force by the mother ship. The commanding officer is likely to have been instructed not to intervene. It is therefore likely to have been a political judgement that prevented HMS Cornwall from pursuing the kidnappers.
Americans may be bemused about why the British have become suddenly weak in the face of Iranian aggression. The lack of political will is due to the power vacuum at the heart of the British government. Blair is due to step down as prime minister in a couple of months and does not appear to be willing to take any decision that could force a difficult situation on his successor (who is likely to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown). Iraq tarnished Blair and Brown probably doesn’t want to be tarnished by a messy conflict with Iran.
The problem is that this enables Iran to extend its sphere of influence over Iraqi territorial waters, which could enable Iran to close Iraq’s access to the Gulf every time the Iraqis go against Tehran’s interests. British indecisiveness in defending Iraqi territorial waters could bolster Iranian attempts to extend its influence across the Shia crescent, from Pakistan to Lebanon. This gives it a very strong regional power base to export terrorism to the West, as it has done in Iraq, Lebanon and Israel and the Arab Gulf states.
Mar 28, 2007 - 11:29 am 10. Mike H.:About two weeks ago a unit of IRGC came across the border to kidnap a Marine unit operating with Iraqis. The Marine unit responded and broke contact with the loss of an interpreter and two Iraqi soldiers. The ROE are different for the Brits and us, and the Brits are following the orders that they were given. There are NO cowards in the Brit contingent.
Mar 28, 2007 - 4:08 pm 11. LL:“But what is worrying is the lack of decisive force by the mother ship. ”
With what? There were no LOS(line of sight) for the 114mm gun and even that would risk hiting the sailors.
Like with Israel in Summer the whole case shows the diletance of the Western culture.
Mar 28, 2007 - 8:33 pm 12. RoyStatham:I suggest that we trade Jimmy Carter for the 15 Brits.
Mar 29, 2007 - 8:50 am 13. W. R. Graves:Grab their oil fields. If they’re nice, we’ll give them back. Nice means no nuclear weapons.
Mar 31, 2007 - 9:52 pm