From DeMediacratic Nation: http://demediacraticnation.blogspot.com/2007/04/irans-not-so-secret-war-on-west.html

Following the revelations reported by ABC News that the U.S. government supports nefarious groups in the Middle East to weaken Iran; which is taking a page from Iranian creation of and support of fun groups like Hezbollah et al. I felt it necessary to share with the world media that Iran itself has been involved in a “secret war” with the West for three decades now.

The last few years of these war efforts have been accomplished via the assistance of the U.N.; “a timeline of the U.N. moves which have progressively emboldened Iran and like-minded terrorist entities the world over.”

Since the Iranian Revolution and the taking of Americans hostage (perhaps they were “victims of a misunderstanding”) for 444 days, Iran has been a major player in a clandestine or “secret war” with the West; a very brief summary of which from the Iran Terror Database:

“During the 1980s and 1990s, at least 90 percent of the major terrorist attacks were linked either to Tehran as the epicenter of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism or to its surrogates and agents and movements that managed to thrive only under the light of Tehran's mullahs. Some of the terrorist attacks carried out either by Tehran or fundamentalists under its hegemony and influence are:

•The occupation of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the taking of American hostages in 1979. This was, in fact, a clear declaration of war by this new phenomenon that effectively demonstrated its antiWest potential and hysteria.
•Taking Westerners, especially Americans, hostage in Lebanon in the 1980s.
•The explosion of the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983.
•The bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. The explosion of an Air France 747 passenger jet in Tehran's airport in 1983
•Several bombings in the streets of Paris in 1986, which caused many deaths and injuries among civilians
•The hanging of U.S. Colonel William Higgins, who worked for the United Nations, in Lebanon.
•The shipment of 51 packages of explosives to Saudi Arabia (which were discovered before detonation) in 1986 in order to kill many pilgrims. The massacre of more than 400 pilgrims to Mecca in 1987
•The bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires.
•The killing of antifundamentalist intellectuals and authors in Turkey. . The decree to kill Salman Rushdie.
•The killings of many Iranian dissidents, particularly the Mojahedin, in Germany, Switzerland, France, Sweden, Italy, Turkey, Pakistan, and United Arab Emirates.”

Much more can be found at this site and many others regarding the atrocities committed either by Iran or through one of its proxies.

Fast forward to the 21^st century we discover that Iran has been “secretly” working on the development of nuclear energy for the sake of “peaceful” purposes; something those with their eyes open find hard to believe considering Iran’s activities over the last 30 years.

The United Nations has been deeply involved in resolving this situation vigorously, which has ultimately resulted in a very aggressive stance through the latest; Resolution 1737, which was adopted by the Security Council during its 5612^th meeting. One following the goings on with in the U.N. can be forgiven for mistaking that this 5612^th was not in fact the 5612^th on Iran’s “peaceful nukes;” but the 5612^th of the SC itself.

The resolution led to an eventual gutsy (if you’re afraid of the U.N.), move by Tehrrorists in Tehran, which will if history reflects accurately, be known as the “15 Victims of a Misunderstanding Episode.”

Earlier today, Margaret Beckett the British Foreign Secretary made remarks regarding the efforts at gaining the release of the 15 closing with (italics mine):

“There is only one more thing I would add, some people have read a lot into the Prime Minister's remarks about not seeing progress in the next 48 hrs, he is not talking, nor intending to imply, anything about military action, we are not seeking confrontation, we are seeking to pursue this through diplomatic channels.”

These types of remarks as well as an even keeled, limp wristed and tepid response from Britain, which fails to imply any further belief in the adage of one “keeping their p*cker up,” likely led to:

“President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the 15 Britons seized 13 days ago are being pardoned for the prophet Muhammad's birthday and are being released after his news conference in Tehran today.”

The honest broker President Mahmoud “Momo” Ahmadinejad said:

"The Great Iranian people and the Islamic Republic, despite having the legal right to put these British sailors on trial, will pardon them. Their release will be given to the British population as a gift."

During his originally postponed press conference Ahmadinejad:

“awarded a medal of honour on Wednesday to a Revolutionary Guards commander for his role in arresting 15 British marines and sailors who Iran had charged had entered Iranian waters illegally last month but Britain maintained were in Iraqi territorial waters at the time of their seizure.”

I would expect some type of “medal of honor” will be bestowed upon the 15 once they are returned to their country.

As much as it sickens me to a degree to feel this way, I cannot help but believe that an opportunity to address the leadership in Tehran has been missed. A more overt action against the West by Tehran has not taken place, so I cannot imagine what they would need to do to actually rile the world as it should be. To have addressed the “misunderstanding” militarily would assuredly have had dire consequences, which I honestly would not relish. However, those days may be to come because we believe by the steps taken, that we have avoided a disaster.

In the peaceful words of the Iranian president himself regarding recent U.N. sanctions as addressed to the major world powers:

“If they want to create disturbances ... for parts of our economy, (like) banks, we will retaliate there or in other places."

Happy Birthday to the prophet Muhammad (PBUH)!

Signed,

A Civilian Chicken-Hawk Warmonger

Iran Tag Results from DeMediacratic nation:

Iran and the Peaceful Nukes

Peaceful Nukes

15 Hostages

Diplomacy

Friday Sermon from Iran

Iran

Iran and the Greater War on Terror

From DeMediacratic Nation:

From Time magazine comes an opener that is unfortunately expected:

“It's good to have the support of those close to you in times of crisis, and Tony Blair and George W. Bush have often given public succor to each other. But British diplomats involved in efforts to secure the release of 15 of their country's marines and sailors in custody in Iran since Mar. 23 may worry that the U.S. President's most recent gesture of amity recalls an old saw — with friends like these, who needs enemies?”

That damned Bush I tell ya!

John Williams who held the post of Director of News for the British Foreign Ministry and one that was involved in the 2004 Iranian taking of 8 “hostages,” said of President Bush’s referring to the 15 military people situation as “the British hostages issue,” as “utterly careless.”

It would appear that the preferred terminology is:

“victims of a misunderstanding that could be resolved."

??????????? That gets right to the root of the problem with silk gloves, which would raise my breakfast had I eaten this morning.

Not being the least bit sure of who is/was involved in the taking of the “victims of a misunderstanding,” The National Council of Resistance of Iran has claimed:

“to have information of a "meticulously concocted operation" to "win concessions from the international community and divert attention from [Iran's] nuclear projects."

Other possibilities abound as to who exactly is behind the nabbing of the “victims of a misunderstanding,” but quiet diplomacy is the remedy being used to resolve the stand off.

Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett is being careful to “avoid tough talk,” evoked this comment from the no nonsense John Bolton telling ABC News:

‘"the softly-softly approach of the British Foreign Office simply convinces the Iranians that's all there is to it."’

Former Foreign Office News Director John Williams, quoted earlier added, at least in the TIME piece:

"You can't just do low-key diplomacy when there's provocation, you have to calibrate your rhetoric against the interests of the service personnel."

This I imagine follows the Bolton remark in the article to give the Diplo-impression that ‘hey we can get tough and just might.’ As an example Tony Blair has warned the Tehrrorists in Tehran that we could be heading toward a “different phase,” including:

“a push for tougher and new sanctions.”

Uh oh!?.!? TIME reports regarding the British government and those in the public that responded to a poll (here) that – from Time:

‘“There is little appetite in Westminster or, according to opinion polls, among the British public, for any military intervention, or even for windy threats of reprisals. Sir Christopher Meyer, a former British Ambassador to the U.S., says that saber-rattling could be counter-productive. "Having taken your saber out of the scabbard, what do you do with it?" he asks. "There are a number of people out there calling for action but if you try to pin them down about what they mean, they haven't any clear ideas."’

Dear Sir Christopher Meyer, is this truly appropriate when the Tehrrorists have already been rattling their sabers? This bloodless battle (to date anyway) with “victims of a misunderstanding,” awaiting rescue IS a “saber rattling” occasion and should be responded to as such. Then consider having the nerve or metal to back it up even if you would rather not. You have already lost this “battle” whether you realize it or not.

From DeMediacratic Nation:

From the Telegraph:

“The Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and the Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, have been warned that the impasse may develop into a long-term stand-off. Privately, officials are speculating that the crisis could continue for months.”

What would months mean in the scheme of things for Tehran? What a incredibly wise move on their part thus far. They have called it and done it as they saw it and thus far it is paying off. The build-up of extremism is gaining massive points with the tick of each second. This much is very apparent when you read that according to Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett:

"Everyone regrets that this position has arisen. What we want is a way out of it. We want it peacefully and we want it as soon as possible."

I would sit back and relax if I was Ahmadinejad and make statements with confidence like this:

“plans to make a formal statement on the crisis on Tuesday. Last night, he denounced Britain's failure to apologise and decision to go to the United Nations: "This is not the legal and logical way."

According to the Republics president, Britain should not have gone to the U.N.. Doesn’t that have the ring of a crime drama to it where the kidnapper says ‘go to the police and the dame gets it.’

The formal statement from the former radical student should prove to be very, very interesting indeed. The man in charge will let us all know what it is that we have done wrong and will prescribe to us the appropriate way out of the mess created by the hostages.

Describing that what Britain has done was not “legal and logical” reveals his continuing ability to have and eat the cake that Marie Antoinette was never able to. I have often wondered what is “legal and logical” to Momo to begin with as so much that comes out of his or Substitute Friday Prayer Leaders have to do with it. This is absolutely mind-boggling to me.

A quick post by Mark Steyn at NROs The Corner addresses via the recent Telegraph poll further illustrates just what we might expect in the near future following remarks like those of FS Beckett (above):

“The seven per cent solution [Mark Steyn]

Here’s a poll to give one pause. Britons were asked about the hostage situation (I was going to say “crisis”, but, given public indifference, that hardly seems the word) and they responded as follows:

7% favour preparing for military action at this stage

26% want Britain to apologise and ask for the captives back

40% back the government’s position of continued diplomatic action stopping short of an apology

Countries that don’t mean it shouldn’t be in war zones. Only seven per cent of Britons mean it. Iran understands that.”

Who’s in charge here? Why is it the “kidnappers” have such the upper hand? I realize that at all times part of the world is upside down, but does logic have to be as well?

As Steyn said:

“Countries that don’t mean it shouldn’t be in war zones”

From DeMediacratic Nation:

Lessons, lessons, lessons! I’m tired of the experts saying we should do this, that or the other thing to teach Iran a lesson. It’s quite possible that I have actually used this word as well (although obviously I am not an expert); but that said, I wouldn’t want to use it again because at this time I am tired of it.

Now obviously Iran has learned lessons so it is not inappropriate to use the term. Provoking with “peaceful nukes,” threatening the destruction of Israel and on and on; what’s the lesson learned? Obviously that they can tweak the West with impunity and we will back down, they will earn prestige points with radicals and they will just repeat the activities. I do not personally care if they learn a different type of lesson at all. Forget about lessons, do something for the sake of doing it because it is necessary for a change on the Wests point.

Iran now holds 15 British sailors and royal marines hostage. Analysts say:

“Iran's tough stance in the the standoff over 15 captured British sailors is a demonstration of the power of hardliners unafraid to confront the West.”

Further, Iran has brushed aside:

“diplomatic overtures from the SEARCH
European Union, Japan and Turkey in recent days. And hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has taken a higher-profile role, declaring in his most extensive comments on the crisis that Britain and its allies were "arrogant and selfish" for not apologizing over what he called the Britons' incursion into Iranian waters.”

Britain and its allies are “arrogant and selfish” because they won’t apologize according to Momo Ahmadinejad. Momo and the Mullahs wouldn’t be considered arrogant and intransigent for taking 15 hostages and parading them on Iranian TV in a propaganda extravaganza intended to increase their prestige in the M.E. right?

Tehran is finding that the British are starting to come around or at least not speaking back to them militarily, which was likely expected or at least hoped for by the Republics leadership.

Responding in writing to Iran:

“in response to a note from Iranian officials, Britain agreed to consider discussions about how to avoid similar disputes in the future, said the British official. Britain's response — most of which has been kept secret — may have prompted the report Monday from Iran's state-run radio.”

Speaking tough, an anonymous spokesman in the know on government policy:

"The Iranians know our position; they know that stage-managed TV appearances are not going to affect our position. They know we have strong international support."

No, “stage-managed TV” will make no difference, nor will “strong international support.” Lessons that we should have learned is that “support” internationally is like a jock strap with no cup in place. International support is talk. Tehran is not concerned with talk as all the advantage and victory is theirs to manipulate.

Someone that could perhaps be considered a counter-part of mine and many others with my likeminded opinions might be Mahmoud Jafari, a 37 year-old Iranian teacher that said:

"For years, Britain has been doing whatever it could against Iran in various fields, such as the nuclear issue. They have to learn that it costs something."

Jafari is not a blogger, though if he were he certainly would not be one that would dare say anything anti-Iranian, because that would not be acceptable in that nation.

So here we are, roughly two weeks from the date that the 15 people were taken hostage by Iran. Britain does not want to escalate things beyond their control or ours; unfortunately, regardless of what is done is beyond everyone’s control, to think otherwise is naïve as far as I’m concerned.

I do not look upon the 15 people in captivity as being non-entities or of having no importance to themselves, family or anyone else that may be concerned. But Britain’s and the international community’s tepid response; other than playing into Tehran’s hands, is effectively placing the importance of 15 lives above and beyond that of, (to just quote a few numbers) from CIA.gov:

England – 60,609,153

France – 62,752,136

U.S. – 298,444,215

Italy – 58,133,509

Spain – 40,397,842

Germany – 82,422,299

Iran – 68,688,433

Iraq - 26,783,383

Numbers all estimates as of July 2006

There are those that will/would consider my points as the actions that would imperil us all; and rightly so, as there would be repercussions to my suggestions, just as there are and have been repercussions to doing nothing. The numbers I quote are in an effort to illustrate that not doing as I and others might suggest could have the exact same effect, only slower over time that would have quite the eventual up tick when we all decide to wake up and open our eyes.

A very interesting and thought provoking post from "Prose before Hos" with "Inside Iran: Picking through the complex US-Iranian Relations," which requires more time and patience but good brain food - good stuff

Previous posts regarding the hostages or recent developments, from this site:

“Iran – When Can We Talk?”

“The Iranian Gambit – Ours and Theirs”

“Escalation by Britain Raises the Stakes with Iran”

“A Civilian Chicken-Hawk Warmonger on Iraq, Iran, the U.S., Britain and 15 Hostages”

“In Defense of a Chicken-hawk and 15 Hostages”

“Iran, One More Step to be taken and “We Can Talk” – British Illegal Entry into Iranian Waters”

From DeMediacratic Nation:

From A Civilian Chicken-Hawk Warmonger on Iraq, Iran, the U.S., Britain and 15 Hostages:

"With four aircraft-carrier battle groups, several hundred carrier-based strike fighters, and 20 strategic bombers just minutes or hours from Iran, the United States will have assembled everything it needs to cripple the regime and wipe out the most important elements of its nuclear program."

Theses assets in place would allow us, if used if necessary to tell Iran that we will not play just a talking game. In the post I suggest as the government has often said, "no options are off the table." However, there is an option that may be on the table but we appear to have to intention of using.

I feel this is a mistake and I have suggested in a previous post around the time that the U.S. agreed to work with Iraq in meeting with area nations like Iran and Syria as:

"assistance to the Iraqi government’s initiative for talks. This is acceptable to a point and is “diplomacy” in “action.”

As of yet these meetings have not taken place. Now as everyone knows the Iranians have 15 military members held in captivity with Iran parading them on television, likely coercing confessions that mean nothing while suggesting the 15 may be tried in an Iranian "court."

In my late February post I suggested softening various economic targets in Iran as a means of communicating that now we are willing to talk. In my "Chicken-hawk" post, with the taking of British hostages it is now, more than ever the time to take action. Talk can continue as it always does, but talk is not something the Iranians nor many others think much of as it has only allowed them time to continue their "peaceful nuclear" projects. Considering as well Irans efforts to create and/or add to the chaos that can be Iraq and we're talking about a very nasty player indeed.

Iran flaunts and taunts and all that can be said are things like "oh, this will not do;" "return the people," and look to the UN to condemn, which they eventually oblige in their usual tepid manner so as not to offend someone that might go off half-cocked; as if they haven't already

All this is leading to a response to my "Chicken-hawk" post from March 30, which called for a more "coercive diplomacy" which intails using military assets (not ground troops) to let Iran know we are not interested in the usual games.

From a comment to the post:

"After which the Iranians would probably have a couple dozen more hostages- captured American pilots. And they might not be in a mood to negotiate after we just bombed the sh*t out of 'em!

Use your head."

This comment is without doubt a possible outcome. Captured pilots, deaths and perhaps an Iran that is in no "mood to negotiate after we just bombed the sh*t out of 'em!" It's a scenario that did not escape my thoughts, yet it is, whether we like it or not an integral part of what using a military for what a military is for.

The commenters remarks are the very same that have led us to this point that we have arrived at. Bush aside, we have been fighting in Iraq with too much concern about avoiding the inevitable consequences of fighting to win. Now Iran wants to play too.

If they are in no mood (oh dear I hope they won't be too angry with us), to negotiate so be it. We can continue to pummel them or should I say uptick our military response to their intrangicence.

My commenter thinks upsetting Tehran and their taking more captives is something that should keep us from doing anything. That's what Iran has and is counting on since 1979.

To this, I say, "use your head."

From DeMediacratic Nation:

Someone recently said regarding the 15 British hostages taken by Iran:

“Even if it is an act of war, what do you want the UK to do? Begin bombing Iran?”

Simply put, I would like the UK with our support to “get their courage up,” and keep a “stiff upper lip.” Verbal and pitiful UN responses are the norm. Iran can continue its gamesmanship confidently. Begin bombing Iran? Well not the whole country. It’s ultimatum time - one target for each hostage perhaps.

As Victor Davis Hanson wrote regarding the hostage taking:

“The attack coincides roughly with Iran’s announcement that it will end its cooperation with U.N. non-proliferation efforts. That announcement was in reaction to a unanimous vote to begin embargoing some trade with Teheran of critical nuclear-related substances. With that move, Ahmadinejad is essentially notifying the world that Iran will go ahead and get the bomb — and let no one dare try to stop them.”

Whether one agrees with his assessment it should give one pause for thought. Hanson also offers the paradox of the U.S.’ seeming ‘go it alone attitude’ or overt international isolation in the war on terror; Hanson:

“No European nation wishes to be seen in solidarity with the United States, so too no European force wishes to venture beyond its borders without acting in concert with the American military, whether on the ground under American air cover or at seas with a U.S. carrier group.”

So it’s not all cut and dry that it is or has been an instance of the world against the great U.S. hegemon, but more an effort in keeping the U.S. in line with the rest of the Western worlds military weakness; think of it in “Harrison Bergeron” like terms if you wish.

How else might one respond or react to the lack of any serious action against Iran, if one considers the terrible luck of the Iranians as put forth by Rich Lowery:

“When the Iranians seized 15 British sailors in a blatant hostage-taking, the commander of the British ship purred that it might be a “simple misunderstanding.” If so, Iran is cursed with terrible luck. Another such misunderstanding lasted 444 days back in 1979-81. In the latest incident, the accident-prone Iranians have had the misfortune of showing the captured British sailors on television and of telling provable lies about where they seized them.”

Back to the opening questions in this post, “Even if it is an act of war, what do you want the UK to do? Begin bombing Iran?”

Bombing? Iran would reap all sorts of benefit from an act like that, but the West has no credibility whatsoever at this point and as much as one might like to think it - it isn’t just about America’s action in Iraq/Afghanistan. It comes from being willing to allow leaders from places like Iran, who have no qualms about destroying themselves if it bruises or hurts us. The fact that the U.S. exists and is targetable verbally or physically is of benefit to Iran and others. The fact that one of the parties in the U.S. and some stragglers from the other side of the aisle see fit to do what Iran and other nations like them want with its latest resolution/legislation emboldens them further and benefits them. Whatever we do will benefit them in some way, shape or form.

Consider further thoughts on the present subject from Hanson, from an angle of actions taken by the West other than in military actions, but in using the logic of we brought it on ourselves so let’s back off and do as they say:

“Now we are in the seventh year of a new century, and even after the wake-up call on 9/11, Westerners are still relearning each day that the world is a dangerous place. When violence comes to downtown Madrid, the well-meaning Spanish chose to pull out of Iraq — only to uncover more serial terrorist cells intent on killing more Spaniards.”

“To get their captured journalists freed, Italians paid Islamists bribes — and then found more Italians captured. When Germany, Britain, and France parleyed with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (the “direct talks” that we in the states yearn for) to try to get Iran to cease its plans for nuclear proliferation, he politely ignored the “EU3.” The European Union is upset that Russian agents murder troublemakers inside the EU’s borders, and so registers its displeasure with the Cheshire Vladimir Putin.”

“The latest Iranian kidnapping of British sailors came after British promises to leave Iraq, and after the British humiliation of 2004, when eight hostages were begged back. Apparently the Iranians have figured either that London would do little if they captured more British subjects or that the navy of Lord Nelson and Admiral Jellico couldn’t stop them if it wanted to.”

Those that are concerned about the ‘Bush led evil U.S.,’ say what should we do? There is nothing we can really do but negotiate or whatever you want to call it, otherwise we’ve got a mess on our hands so just take the little slap that it is.

I agree that we have a difficult situation on our hands, but from my side I see and understand the same argument but obviously not doing the same thing and expecting different results. What can we do? We can negotiate and continue to do so, but with further options that we can use - to get the point across so to speak that we mean business.

There is a third piece to the opening questions, which is a statement:

“That would be World War III, and no one besides the terrorists wants that.”

World War III? I say we are already in World War IV as Podhoretz has theorized. It’s a World War regardless of what we like/want/believe; certainly not in the World War II or World War I sense that we can all agree is/were world wars that fit the easily graspable but wanting definition for this century.

Again, I think we’re stuck between a rock and a hard place. I don’t doubt the terrorists want a world war, regardless of the number we assign it, but I also don’t doubt that the other option of withdrawing et al is what they would like as well; which would have its own set of violent and world affecting repercussions.

I prefer the ‘we will not take this sitting down and we will hit you with all our might. We will do our damndest to avoid collateral damage, but collateral damage will happen nonetheless. We would love to avoid friendly fire incidents, but they happen and will continue to happen.’

They may want a World War, but this does not mean a World War will have their desired effect.

I do not mean hit Iran ‘with all our might’ least ways right now; but they need to be scratched so that they understand that when we say ‘all options are on the table that they do not doubt that all options are on the table and we are willing to exercise those options when deemed appropriate.’

As it stands right now the U.S. has two carriers in the Gulf with the USS Nimitz battle group preparing to departure from San Diego shortly, a French carrier, the USS Ronald Reagan a short sail away in the China Sea and finally aircraft a few hundred miles away at Diego Garcia; as laid out by Mario Loyola. Considering those assets Loyola writes:

“With four aircraft-carrier battle groups, several hundred carrier-based strike fighters, and 20 strategic bombers just minutes or hours from Iran, the United States will have assembled everything it needs to cripple the regime and wipe out the most important elements of its nuclear program. Iran needs to know that this is the only alternative to complying with the Security Council resolutions. Otherwise, in a few years, Iran could be holding all of us hostage.”

I don’t want a World War, but whether we back down or fight I believe we are in the midst of one right now. So it boils down to; do we want a slow painful death or would we rather turn the tables on the enemies and give them a humane, humanitarian quick one themselves.