No, you are not alone.
You are alone in Europe, and you are alone in much of the rest of the
world (which should speak volumes about where to put your faith in the future);
but both the US and Australia are resolutely
standing behind you waiting for your move.
However, you have to actually make a stand for us to follow
you. Whining to the UN and to the
eurotrash isn’t going to get you anywhere, and quite frankly, you should have
known that. I’m sure everyone agrees that the Rwandans and
the people of Darfur had the moral high ground…
look what that bought them. Stop playing
for pointless morality points and do something the Iranians won’t take for
weakness. Take the lead and show the
world that the British still have a pair, because right now I’m beginning to
put you guys a few steps behind the French in the sack department.
First, I’m not going to argue over our performance in
1979. It was shameful and our standing
has suffered ever since. Are you trying
to emulate that performance?
Second, nobody is arguing sending in the SAS. This isn’t a Chuck Norris movie and the
chance of an armed rescue is essentially zero.
But nice try on the strawman, since nothing in my post argued for an
armed rescue of any kind.
I don’t mean to sound like I don’t care about your soldiers,
but the primary issue here isn’t getting your men back. The primary goal should be to make this whole
ordeal so painful for the Iranians that they would never think of repeating the
act (you know, like they’ve done 2 times now).
Your entire nation cannot be held hostage to the fate of a handful of
captured soldiers, but you cannot allow a blatant act of aggression to go unanswered.
If your well thought out, extremely deep analysis of the
situation represents the consensus position for most British citizens, you guys
should just throw in the towel. I think
it is time for you to take a bit of your own advice.
Firstly, I’m not British, but 3rd generation American. Decipher that information, as you will.
I don’t play military games, although I did before discovering “Mario Kart”.
I have often had “stupid” ideas, occasionally here at Strategy Page, but this is not one of them.
And when you call me “Mr. Genius”, you sound angry. Yes? Well, please don’t be angry with me.
I am perplexed as to your choices. Why only the situation we see unfolding, or nuclear war? Hopefully the British government has other choices, but publicly, it seems they will be forced to squirm, eat humble pie, wipe the egg off their face, apologize a dozen times, bow a few times, and agree never to trespass again.
I think that is wrong.
One not need be a rocket scientist to understand that, like a recalcitrant child, Iran will continue to do as it pleases until others make it so unpleasant, or so expensive, that they cease.
I don’t think nuclear war, or the loss of 15 British military, is necessary. I do think what “appears” to be happening now increases the likelihood of armed conflict, including nuclear war. Perhaps in the near future.
So, what are the choices?
My belief is that Iran is betting the British government, and the West in general, does not want to impact the world economy with the certain increase in energy costs a confrontation would cause.
Why wouldn’t Western governments be willing to spend more on energy in order to penalize Iran to the point of acceptable international behavior?
Western economies (G-8) could sustain the increase in energy costs, experiencing an economic slow down or even a recession. Wouldn’t either be preferable to an armed conflict? Third world countries would experience more, perhaps untold, hardship than the West, but the West could help with various economic aids.
It is true that Russia benefits greatly from increased energy costs, and China seeks a steady supply of Iranian oil to satisfy it’s stockpiling program. Russia, China, and others will impede any UN action disciplining Iran, as they have regarding Iran’s nuclear program, but even these factors can be dealt with if Western nations are willing to incur the financial costs.
It will NOT happen; IMHO, because Western politicians value incumbency and “political correctness” above all else, and $4.00 or $5.00 a gallon gasoline in America is the surest way to get “unelected”.
� 1998 -