Iran's Latest Game: Hold 'Em

National Review Online: Capture Of British Sailors Is Just The Most Visible Facet Of Tensions

(National Review Online)  This column was written by Mario Loyola.

---

Earlier this week, Iran's spiritual leader, Ali Khamenei, began preparing public opinion for Iran's withdrawal from the nuclear-nonproliferation regime. Today we have reports that the Iranians detained 15 British seamen. These and other incidents appear to be unconnected — but they may not be. The moment of truth in the Iranian nuclear standoff is drawing near. And the Security Council route nearly exhausted, so a big part of the standoff is about to go largely off-camera. Already, things are not what they seem.

First of all: Don't necessarily believe what the British say about what those sailors were up to when they were detained. There's probably a 90-percent chance they will tell the truth, but there is often a lot more to these international "incidents" than meets the eye. The British will say that their sailors were in Iraqi waters and the Iranians had no business being where they were. But the Iranians are unlikely to have provoked an international incident under circumstances as clear-cut as that. And in fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the Iranians were actually responding, in this case, to a carefully planned provocation of our own. As Churchill said, sometimes the truth is so precious that she must be attended by a bodyguard of lies.

Recall the context: The Security Council route for dealing with Iran's nuclear program has clearly failed. The U.S. and its partners now have few options for responding to Iran's continued belligerence besides the current, fairly massive, naval and airpower buildup in the Gulf. Iran now has a Western armada cruising just miles from its coasts, in waters well within its Economic Exploitation Zone — which means that U.S. Navy destroyers are probably waltzing around within Frisbee range of Iranian offshore-drilling platforms. The gloves are coming off. And the risk-calculation here is: If someone gets nervous and starts shooting, the timing would be more auspicious now for us than for the Iranians. Therefore, it only makes sense that American and British naval units operating in the Gulf would be in a more forward-leaning and aggressive posture than the Iranians.

In this climate, it is important to understand the threat delivered this week by Ali Khamenei. The regime's basic position is that Iran has kept its nuclear program entirely legal, but now the "illegitimate" Security Council is taking actions against Iran that are "illegal" — and therefore Iran would be justified in taking illegal actions of its own.

This is what is really going on. Under the U.N. Charter, Iran is treaty-bound to obey the commandments of the Security Council. The Security Council has commanded it to halt enrichment of uranium pending the verification of the peaceful nature of its program. Iran has rejected this decision, and indeed has arguably abrogated the U.N. Charter entirely. So it is simply untrue that Iran's program has been legal to date. Up until 2002, the main elements of the program were secret — a fact that in and of itself was a violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. And now, by refusing to obey the Security Council, Iran is once again in breach of the Treaty — and the U.N. Charter.

Now here's the rub: Iran has permitted inspections of its known nuclear facilities during the "development" phase of the full nuclear-fuel cycle. It is enriching uranium at pilot plants in miniscule quantities that are insignificant from a bomb-making point of view. Until now it hasn't been able to enrich large quantities of uranium to any level, so it has no reason to hide anything. But in a matter of months Iran will be ready to launch its commercial-scale enrichment facility at Natantz. It will then be in a position to enrich enough uranium all the way to weapons-grade to start manufacturing warheads. The one thing it will need to do at that point is expel the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who will otherwise know immediately if Iran starts enriching to weapons-grade. Therefore, if the program is to continue proceeding along the most rapid route to weapons production — as it has done for years — Iran will need to pull a veil over its big enrichment facilities as soon as they are ready to launch. Khamenei's statements earlier this week were a thinly-veiled threat to do precisely that.

The threat has military significance, and it would be both prudent and appropriate for the Americans and their allies to have responded militarily — if only by "leaning forward" a bit more. The Persian Gulf is now one big game of chicken. When the Iranians get belligerent, we have to respond in kind. Iran is getting ready to expel the IAEA inspectors. The United States needs to make it clear that the expulsion of the inspectors will be considered an act of aggression, and that we will respond appropriately.

So, long story short: It wouldn't surprise me if the British sailors were detained because the British did something to make the Iranians really angry. Khamenei dramatically upped the ante this week. We probably raised. And they probably raised back. The stakes in this nuclear poker game just got a little higher.

[samthetvcat]

(pt 1)
Haven't the boundaries of this river been in dispute between Iran and Iraq for years? So it's possible both Britain and Iran are being sincere. On the other hand, territorial lines are black and white, so one of them clearly stood to benefit by having the territorial lines defined and we didn't really see either jumping at the chance to grasp that advantage by proferring up the evidence, so who knows.

If the British GPS evidence is real, Tony Blair should have released it to the media within hours of these hostages being taken, or at least within the hour of Iran claiming they had proof that the troops were not. Now people think he's been messing with the data and it's lost it's persuasive value. Which sucks for the British troops - I tend to believe they were probably in Iraqi waters because what would have been the benefit for Britain to trickle a couple of their troops into enemy territory in a way that left them vulnerable to being abducted? People don't leave themselves vulnerable like that, and no military in the world would have sent a woman to risk capture by a country that doesn't deal.

[samthetvcat]

(pt 2)
If these abducted troops really weren't venturing into Iran then it really sucks that Blair screwed this up by waiting so long to release the evidence because international belief that they were in the right could have given him the leverage to threaten military action on Iran that could have possibly been sufficient to secure the hostages' release without actually having to act on that threat. Now what's he going to do?

[kiamichi3791]

It would be just like Bush and company to begin another war before they have to leave office for the new democratic president to have to sort out in January 2009. Wasting so much on Iraq when all the time, the problem has been Iran.

[gkc99]

Deceitful Albion! The British have ever lied when it suited their purpose. Now Bushit's lil' puppy dog Tony Blair is setting up the provocation that will the the "Gulf of Tonkin" for Iran. The Shatt al Arab is a narrow passageway on the border of Iraq and Iran. It would be easy to have some Brits "drift" across the line, then claim they were on the Iraq side. Well, Chucky, if some Cubans "drifted" in that close to Miami, I'll betcha the U.S. would have picked them up. The Iranians did the same thing. Get ready for the war.

[bill1fj]

Britain and the U.N. have already waited to long. They should have already destroyed all military boats that belong to Iran. the U.N. should have already told Iran to follow the rules and mandates or throw them out.
It seems pretty simple and it is, unless you have a bunch of professional politicians involved.
Then nothing gets done.

[twomtns]

Tony Blair has just given Bush his I'm leaving the office of Prime Minister of Britian present

now Bush can play this up & use it as an excuse
to attack Iran if you don't think so remember the reason given to attack Iraq was the non existant weapons of mass destruction the real reason of course was oil

too bad all that money spent on war in Iraq when it could & should have been used to develop alterative fuel then there would be no need for Iraqi(or any other country)oil but then again Bush his VP & all their buddys wouldn't have been able to cash in on all the money being pissed away in Iraq

[mudrose-2009]

And as for the images. If I hadn't seen with my own eyes deceptive images given to the press by our military, I'd be more apt to believe Blair.
Posted by Zoroast

Ditto, but this time the Iraqi government and fisherman in the waters also confirmed it. I may not be apt to agreeing with the Iraqi government, but the little people don't lie. No harm done and back at you with the thanks tenfold.

[zoroastor]

And as for the images. If I hadn't seen with my own eyes deceptive images given to the press by our military, I'd be more apt to believe Blair.

[marcodele]

I don't know what to think about this issue. I haven't listed to Rush Limbaugh yet today.

[gangesdak]

Tony Blair's show of global positioning is perhaps similar to Colin Powell's showing pictures (a picture is worth a thousand words!)at the UN as "proof" on Iraq's neuclear weapons.

[zoroastor]

I apologize for what I posted about your service. It wasn't an assumption, I mistakenly thought I recalled having had a discussion with you about it previously. Thank you for your service.

[mudrose-2009]

Posted by Zoroastor

Central Highlands '68. So don't assume people didn't serve and you did. The friggin Congress lies all the friggin time. You wouldn't want examples, I have them a mile long and a for instance, Pelosi lecturing Pace on morality. Like I said Blair said he's got global satellite imaging to prove where the Brits were and the Iraqi government and Iraqi fisherman said they were in Iraqi waters. So Iran is a big fat liar. Special forces would do a good job although I like your approach too.

[gangesdak]

Going by the history of US and Britain in Iran, it is hard to believe the British statement that their sailors were not on Iranian water. At least for the past 50 years US did not want anything other than a puppet government in Iran. No wander independent minded Iranian public look at the US with suspicion. To them UK is no different than US.

[zoroastor]

Further,
You are shown the global satellite images you are wanted to see. VERY few civilian operated satellites are allowed to be in REAL time. Most are 366 days old. You wouldn't be able to access current images if you wanted to. I'm not saying you are wrong, but you certainly can't site it as proof.
In addition, would you know what is Irani waters or Iraqi waters without being told?

[zoroastor]

Mudrose,
Someday yhou will figure out that name calling, decrying public education (95% of the public is educated in public schools), and angry tirads do nothing to further your cause.
Go out and do some actual research (news programs don't count - regardless of the source) and then present your argument in a rational manner. You'll be more successful.
As I usually disagree with you, one might think I'm providing you with the tools to come out on top. But, since I don't believe you are capable of taking the advice, I feel safe.

[zoroastor]

Having been a military public affairs officer, I can say that whatever the truth, we probably haven't heard it without spin, in its entirety or at all.
Now mudrose and notblue, before you go calling me a commie again (even though I've exchanged gunfire for my country and you haven't), you should know that should diplomatic routes fail, I am in FULL favor of a military and quickly.
I would, however, like to believe that with exceptions for the consideration of the safety of the troops and mission, the American public is told the truth.
My concern is that this administration has lied so many times, that I don't know if I CAN believe what I'm told.
It is obvious that something needs to be done, and done quickly. My advice as a stratigist would be to carpet bomb military and nuclear plant targets only, and keep ground troops out of that quagmire.

[sjc_1]

Iran is sitting on a sea of oil and natural gas, so they will probably not need nuclear for a long time to come. It is not clear that they have huge supplies of uranium to enrich into fuel rods. So, it is not like they have the "right" to do any of this. This is the nature of nuclear power plants that should have been obvious since the Atoms for Peace program long ago that allowed India to get the bomb.

[mudrose-2009]

Posted by karlimhof

You wouldn't know the truth if it smacked you in the face. As for fox try BBC you idiot. What you think CNN is fair and balanced. Who taught you history. You are a perfect example of public education, dumb, dumber, and dumber still. Cheez what a jacka/s/s

[karlimhof]

You will find very few American allies here.
Posted by notblue


fox is waiting, ready to tell you all the lies you love to hear - what's the saying? Truth hurts?

[notblue]

Mudrose, your at leftwing central, blame America is there mantra. These people would sacrfice your freedom all in the name of politics and there hatred for the president of the Untied States. You will find very few American allies here.