Iran Threatens More Hostage Taking

We're not afraid because we've got Tony Blair and Margaret Beckett to stick up for us. They'll let us be kidnapped then let us strike gold by blabbing about it (allegedly). So we're quids in all round.
Reinforces my own theory that the snatch was devised to see where we would go to get them back. Like the early parts of a bullfight are so as to allow the main man bull fighter to see how the bull charges etc. The Iranians now know that we would not do a Maggy to get them back but resort to a lot of creeping around asking for sanctions - which even if they work take a long time. Blackballing them from the Caravan Club not really effective either. Iran knows that if they do go ahead with their atomic plans, we here in Britain will not do anything very positive. It also helps to convince their own people that the British Bulldog has arthritis and no teeth.


War Hero
We're not afraid because we've got Tony Blair and Margaret Beckett to stick up for us. They'll let us be kidnapped then let us strike gold by blabbing about it (allegedly). So we're quids in all round.
Is it true that the Shat-al-Arab Waterway is now unguarded against smuggling?
I read (somewhere) that all ops in the area have been stopped for the time being.
Conservative parliamentarian Amir Hassankhani, a former member of the country's Revolutionary Guard and supporter of the president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told the country's semi-official Fars news agency: "The arrest and release of the British sailors proved that if Iran's issues and demands are overlooked at the international level, the Islamic republic can create different challenges for the other side."

I'm baffled that someone in Mr. Hassankhani's position would make such a remark at any time, particularly now.

USA's got two carrier groups in the vicinity and (so I read) a third on the way. The French carrier Charles De Gaulle is in the vicinity with a couple more French warships.

The Iranian Navy was recently performing war games in the vicinity.

The Beltway Big Shots are mostly saying that they can't/won't take "any option off the table," including use of tac nukes against hardened Iranian nuclear facilities.

I get the impression the Commander-in-Chief would be delighted to "open a can of Texas whoop-ass" or some such formulation.

In the present environment it seems to me that Mr. H. is smoking cigarettes in a fireworks factory.
I read the thread title wrong, I was rather curious as to who exactly Ian was and why he was taking hostages though.

Having now read it correctly, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if more provocation of this type happened in the near future.

It's a dangerous game that they are playing though.......

The Pirates of Tehran
By Fred Thompson Posted in Foreign Affairs — Comments (151) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

“To misrepresent unpunished piracy as a victory is as Orwellian as the congressional mandate banning use of the term "the global war on terror." What are we — Reuters?”

Oil prices fell. The stock market rose. Video images of smiling British soldiers with Iranian President Ahmadinejad were everywhere. So were pictures of the 15 freed hostages embracing family members back home. The relief over the return of the Brits was so tremendous; you could almost hear birds singing.

Maybe it's because military action won't be needed or maybe it's just because the ordeal won't drag on and on, but the world is breathing easier now. A lot of folks are happy. The problem, as I see it, is that Ahmadinejad seems to be the happiest.

And why shouldn't he be? He has shown the world that his forces can kidnap British citizens, subject them to brutal psychological tactics to coerce phony confessions, finagle the release of a high-ranking Iranian terror coordinator in Iraq, utterly trash the Geneva conventions and suffer absolutely no consequences.

The UN Security Council summoned its vaunted multilateral greatness to issue a swift statement of sincere uneasiness. The EU, which has pressured Britain to rely on Europeans for mutual defense instead of the US, wouldn't even discuss economic sanctions that might disrupt their holidays. Even NATO was AWOL.

Please do keep reading . . .

Tony Blair doesn't appear to be in much of a mood for celebrating. I don't know how he could be, given the troubling spectacle of British soldiers shake the hand of their kidnapper as a condition of release. In the old days, they would have kissed his ring -- but wearing Iranian suits and carrying swag more appropriate to a Hollywood awards ceremony may have been as embarrassing. Ironically, Blair's options are fewer by the day as his own party moves to mothball the British fleet, once the fear of pirates and tyrants the world over.

Some in the West seem part of Iran's propaganda war; claiming that the release of the hostages was a victory that proves the Iranian dictatorship can be reasoned with. To misrepresent unpunished piracy as a victory is as Orwellian as the congressional mandate banning use of the term "the global war on terror." What are we — Reuters?

Ahmadinejad must be particularly pleased to see "deep thinking" journalists making the case that American actions in Iraq were the true cause of the kidnappings. To believe this, all you have to do is ignore the history of the Iranian Revolution, which has been in the extortion business ever since it took power. Between the 1979 American embassy crisis in Tehran and the seizure of Israeli soldiers last year by Iran's Hezbollah proxies, there have been more than a hundred other examples.

If you include the imprisonment of pro-Democracy dissidents and non-Shi'a Muslim minorities within Iran, the number reaches easily into the tens of thousands. The dwindling and persecuted Christian population of Iran, I suspect, found little joy in Ahmadinejad's explanation that he was freeing his victims as an "Easter gift."

It is critical that we see this incident as part of a long pattern of behavior -- that will continue as long as the current leadership is in power. More importantly, it will escalate unimaginably if Iran achieves nuclear status, and with it the ability to hold millions rather than individuals hostage.

I have no idea if Ahmadinejad and those who put him in power really believe the Shi'a Twelver doctrine that they can spur the messiah to return by triggering Armageddon. You have to admit, though, that the possibility that they look forward to entering paradise as martyrs would make them a whole lot scarier as a nuclear power than the USSR ever was.

There is hope, though. The Iranian people are not an anti-Western horde. They're an educated and freedom-loving people for the most part, and reformers there have been begging us for support and sanctions that would weaken the ruling theocracy. Instead, they've just seen the Iranian dictatorship successfully bully the West into impotent submission. This is not a good thing.

We need to understand this and use every means at our disposal, starting with serious and painful international sanctions, to prevent Iran's rulers from becoming the nuclear-armed blackmailers they want to be. Unfortunately, we are hearing demands that we abandon the people of the Middle East who have stood up to Islamo-fascism because they believed us when we said we would support them.

If we retreat precipitously, the price for that betrayal will be paid first in blood and freedom by the Iranian people, the Kurds, the Afghanis, the secular Lebanese, the moderates in Pakistan and the Iraqis themselves. And America's word may never be trusted again.

Right now, the pirate Ahmadinejad is clearly more confident about the outcome of the Global War on Terror than we are. That ought to give us pause.
Hostage taking is what the Iranians do every time they are put under pressure. It usually gets them what they want. It is very hard to defend against and once they have your people they can make demands with practical impunity.

It worked like a charm this time. Of course they'll do it again.
And again and again, next time they will go for something larger like a whole frigate and I cannot see the RN in its current state resisting.
We can expect more buzzing of patrols and IRG patrol boats harrasing our boarding parties. One thing concerns me though, HMS Cornwall is a Type 22 frigate so can operate two lynx,where was the other one? Or has the penny pinching got so bad that they only operate with one lynx now?
Moodybitch said:
I'll go if they want some more hostages, those kebabs looked great and I've run out of cigs :)
Count me in, I need a new car.

Why are we surprised that the Iranians are prepared to take more hostages? They know that once personnel have been taken, we have only two options: diplomacy or war. They also know full well that we cannot afford the latter. This just serves to improve Ahmedinajad's standing with his people and ultimately that's all he cares about. That's all any politician cares about.
I tend to agree with OldRedCap's theory and also put forward my own additional theory that this was also a diversionary tactic, but for what I cant quite decide yet and yes I think there will be another "incident" shortly.

Hostage taking is an age old tactic of this whole area. How we counter it is another matter, I am sure that Bliar will just continue too wring his hands while poodling to GWB aims of smoking the whole area as a present for the Petrol Chemical boss's!

perhaps I just need to get some Ada value tinfoil?
I could see this coming. My mate works for Millets and they have just received another order for suits from the Iran Government
I could see this coming. My mate works for Millets and they have just received another order for suits from the Iran Government
They weren't from Millets, they sourced those suits from the Burton's closing down sale in Slough. 1996 vintage I believe. Shoes were certainly clarkes.

Similar threads

Latest Threads