I suppose it is somewhat ironic that on the 25th anniversary of British territory being invaded by a fascist dictatorship, 15 British service personnel have been taken hostage by the Iranians. But there, the similarity ends. Whereas 25 years ago Britain responded with vigour and determination, our response to the Iranians has been muted and weak. The Iranians sense that Tony Blair is at the weakest point in his premiership and is a lame duck. They have exploited this weakness for all it is worth, and will probably continue to do so. In yesterday's Sunday Times, Michael Portillo made a chilling prediction..."There may yet be an important item to add to Blair’s tombstone. President Jimmy Carter spent the night of January 19, 1981, sleeping fitfully on a sofa in the Oval Office, longing for news that 52 US hostages seized by Iran 444 days earlier would be released during this his last day in the White House. But the ayatollahs had one more humiliation in store for him. They released the kidnapped Americans only in the afternoon, minutes after the presidency had passed to Ronald Reagan. As Tony Blair enters his last 100 days he must wonder whether Tehran plans to belittle him in the same way. Will he bluster for the next three months, and then watch from the side-lines when the 15 hostages return, to be greeted on the tarmac by a beaming Gordon Brown, newly installed at No 10? "
Wouldn't that be the ultimate sign of Britain's weakness? Picture credit Conservative Home
41 comments:
Could you clarify something, Iain? Your Thatcher/Blair : Falklands/Iran analogy seems to be implying that you want Britain to take military action against Iran in response to the capture of the fifteen personnel who may or may not have illegally entered the territory of a sovereign nation.
Is this the case? Are you seriously suggesting it's time to kill some Iranians?
Did you not hear the words of that well-known 'coward' Simon Weston on the PM programme ? Obviously not, or you would not have written this crap.
Where's wannabe Prime Minister Gordon Brown in all this.
Macavity's Cat had nothing on that cowardly shyster.
Jim, I implied no such thing. All I was saying is that the remarks, particularly by Margaret Beckett, have implied a weakness which in the long term will do us no good.
You imply you believe the Iranians. I do not.
Anonymous, it's you who's writing crap. Perhaps you'd like to share Simon Weston's words with us.
Iain
Do you really think we are in the position to start a war on a third front?
That exactly what minneabuhatethejew wants! Why on earth would you want to play into his hands?
Perhaps I'm retelling a conspiracy theory turned urban myth, but a mate of mine from the other side of the pond said that it wasn't just the Iranians who made sure Jimmy Carter was humiliated. The incoming Reagan's chums in Government made sure it woulnd't happen until their man had taken over.
beat the bogeyman - With The Sunday Times revelations - from finally getting the information from the FoI Act, yesterday that Brown knew what he was doing when he destroyed the lives of millions of people who thought they had provided for their retirement with a solid pension, I don't think this insane egoist will ever get his febrile hands on the keys to No 10.
We have two lame ducks at the head of what we still laughingly refer to as our "government". And then there's Margarett Beckett. Dear God!
[BTW, you seem not to be familiar with 'McCavity'. He wasn't a person who owned a cat. He was the actual cat.]
If the Tories can get the resolve together, they should force a general election. When Cameron wins, the Iranian loonies will set our hostages free.
I'm with Iain. Why would the Iranians suddenly turn truthful after all these years?
ps Gordon Brown is no Ronald Reagan for godssakes! Do you believe that anyone even cares about him outside the UK?
verity said...
.....Why would the Iranians suddenly turn truthful after all these years?
Why would Blair?
Iain, where did I imply that I believe the Iranians? I simply stated the fact that none of us know whether or not the marines crossed into Iranian waters. The only people who do know have a powerful vested interest in propagating a specific version of events, and cannot therefore be trusted to be truthful on the matter.
Your decision not to believe the Iranians is based entirely upon personal prejudice.
Myself? I find statements issued by a reprehensible regime, such as Iran, to be intrinsically dubious. However, I apply the same criteria to the current British government (as, incidentally, do you when it suits you) and therefore accept that I simply do not know whether or not the marines in question were in Iranian waters. Your claim that you do know, cannot be substantiated:
You imply you believe the Iranians. I do not.
Furthermore, you did imply that military action should be considered. Otherwise why point out that:
Whereas 25 years ago Britain responded with vigour and determination, our response to the Iranians has been muted and weak.
That 25-year-old "vigour and determination" was actually a major military operation. If your point isn't that the current government should act more like Thatcher (who chose war), then why bring up The Falklands at all?
hi ian
Dont get me wrong as I love Maggie.. However - Thatcher's government reduced our navy presence and emboldened the Argentines. Our military gave up almost instantly when overrun. Thatcher was negotiating constantly right up until forces arrived and the Americans were keener than anyone to see us sign a deal with the Argentinians and offered little or NO support (yet ironically seem quite vocal also on this Maggie parallel). There is no parallel here. Not to mention the fact that we took on a mainly conscript army entering open territory rather than what we would have faced with Iran - ill preprepared (all round incl the Americans). What precisely do you want Blair to do? Where has anyone had any success in this? Even Libya's loon is out and about again. Its not about giving up - its about being realistic about we face ahead - including a massive Taleban spring offensive. If we are going to have a go at anyone - perhaps we could start with NATO's rules of engagement - where, as a result of not wanting to roll their sleeves up we are are pretty much on our own out there. Only recently are there rumblings of any Australian enforcements there. We seem to be doing all the heavy lifting and taking all the flak when something goes wrong. Flack from every quarter at a time when we need cool heads and poker faces. I dont view his stand as weak. I dont rule out military action there but not now. And seriously who really cares about Gordon Brown.
As I wrote earlier, Blair has lost the moral high ground. He did that when he lied about WMD and went to war.
The Falklands was entirely different in terms of how we should and did respond because it was our territory that had been invaded, with our citizens. What followed, up to and including the Belgrano was entirely the responsibility of the Argentinians and their culpability is beyond reasonable dispute. You may recall how reticent those wonderful Americans were to lend their support.
The words "Blair" and "Weak" are synonymous.
He has unravelled the strong position we had in the EU as far as bargaining is concerned, bowed down to every loony liberal fringe and acceded to their tyrannical demands and been at the mercy of a psychotic Chancellor who he could never sack.
If WW2 was our finest hour, this era is our darkest. He deserves no less than total ignominy.
any sniff of military action and we will have 15 dead sailors to deal with.
Still want to play soldiers, and make a cheap political point while you are at it?
If it was a Tory Government in power, the same diplomatic process would be taking place. Some things are above cheap political point scoring, and this should be one of them.
What concerns me is what the Revolutionary Guard will be capable of in the region with the security of a nuclear weapon to guard against retaliation.
And as ever, if you ask that kind of question, the answer is No.
Well if you will leave Daily Mail headline/leading question things hanging around that's what you're gonna get.
C'mon Iain. that would never make it near an Ox Un chamber. You're using a cheap tabloid trick.
I think you need to put this in a wider context. This is not simply about Blair, Brown and the rest of the Islington mob. No, this is about Iran flexing her muscles as an emerging power. She is tweaking very publicly the tail of the junior member of the coalition that has occupied two Islamic countries. She is asserting her leadership of the Islamic world, and demonstrating her power. What better way than a gentle spit roast of a hostage crew in the world's media.
When sufficient mileage has been extracted a suitably humiliating (for us) compromise will be ironed out that will allow 'both sides to save face'. Of course in the real world Iran has gained considerable 'face' with its target audience.
From the regime's perspective this episode has the further benefit of shoring up their support. Its popularity was waning. The President was elected on the back of a populist platform he has not a chance of being able to deliver. Standing up to the Great and Little satans is a good way of boosting popularity.
There will be opportunities for revenge later. While I share the urge to shell the little sods back to the stone age I think we have to be clever here. War is what they want. So lets give them war but not the one they want. The best way the UK could take its revenge would be to prevent, via diplomacy, the development of the Iranian nuclear weapons program. There will be other diplomatic screws to turn too. Lets turn em all.
The problem is not the Jimmy Carter/Tony Blair experience... but the fact that the UK has bugger all influence.
We used to be a world power; alas no more. Just another star on the blue backgrounded flag, or the 51st state - either option is not where we should be. Wasnt there a song once called Rule Britannia? Or did we lose the copyright?
You had some interesting stuff going on there, druid, but then we came to the end.
"revenge".
Really? Is that how you see things?
"the little sods", "back to the stone age"?
I fear you may be stricken blind by predjuce, friend.
Why should we not believe the Iranians? Why should we believe Blair? Why would 15 service people say they were in Iranian waters when they were not? Maybe the ratings might be persuaded to say anything their captors wanted them to say but why would the "grown-ups", ie the officers, say something they did not believe to be true? Is Bliar, as a lot of writers on this site refer to him, suddenly telling the truth for a change? Just perhaps the RN crew had no idea where they were and actually did enter Iranian waters. I hope Blair gets the humiliation he richly deserves and this incident is the one to deliver it.
And as for the captured crew, not one appears to be any match for the Revolutionary Guards so why were they sent on such missions after 2004? It's surprising they were not thrown over the side of the vessel they intercepted and searched. And in future why would any vessel in that area feel inclined to stop and submit itself to a boarding? Buzz off and quit bothering!
Anonymous 7:19 "Just another star on the blue backgrounded flag, or the 51st state ...".
You should be so lucky. I am baffled that so many British people appear to think that the 51st statehood of the United States has been reserved for them and is theirs for the asking.
Both American territories Puerto Rico and Costa Rica would be ahead of you if they voted 'yes' to referenda.
OTOH, I share your depression about what Britain has sunk to over the last decade. Britain would be far better off psychologically and monetarily as a state in the United States.
Maybe this is Blairs one chance to leave ofice with dignity?
He could offer to resign in return for the hostages.
The country wouldnt lose out (the oposite)and Blair could say that he di at least one decent thing
The Hitch - Why would the Iranians buy into that? Why would they give a tinker's damn who is in office in Britain?
In fact, they may fear that someone with more resolve would be in office next.
As much as would love to see Tony Blair crawl away from office in ignominy, I can't see this as a way forward.
Scotch: Nothing again the Iranians personally. But when people make a monkey out of my country I want to see them pay. May be its old fashioned. But its how I feel. I know am increasingly alone as most people think this place is a doss house or theme park.
Little sods? Sorry but yes the government is. They are not nice. Interpol is after many of them for organising a terrorist attack in Argentina. Pack of gangsters who include 'moderates'. More
The UK has gone of its way in recent years to help rehabilitate Iran. What a waste of time its been.
I get the feeling Portillo is making trouble giving the Iranians ideas.
That said, Blair is making a mess of getting the service men back, too much he-man bluster and not enough quiet diplomacy. Someone like Douglas Hurd is really needed.
Costa Rica ?
Yak 40 - Yes. They've talked about it, although they've also talked about trying to join NAFTA, as well.
Puerto Rico is a more serious proposition.
Standing orders in the military these days is *not* to hold out on the subject of televised confessions etc. The recommendation is to go along and to ham it up as much as possible. The example of the Torando pilot and navigator in the first Gulf war is much quoted. They were paraded on Iraqi TV looking rather battered and spouting a pile of guff in bad English. Made the Iraqis look like prats.
As to fighting - well, a few years back, the iranians tried something similar on the Americans. They sent some boats in the direction of a ship that was being boarded for inspection by a team from a US warship. The captain of the US cruiser radioed them suggesting keeping a certain distance - they we rude back. So, he went to maximum power on the radar. 4 million watts. On a narrow beam. The Iranians had to ask for some help from their friends to tow their boats home - for some strange reason everything electronic had blown.....
such humiliation couldn't happen to a more deserving man
An interesting thought, although my view is that Blair simply will not hand over the reins of power while the hostages are still held by the Iranians - even if that means sticking it out until the next election. Of course, he has said that he will not be PM at the next party conference, but 'Events, dear boy..'
We should swop Blair for the hostages.
A worse fate I hope - not calling for anything extreme mind you but Jimmuh Carter has yet to SHUT UP.
He even got the Nobel Peace prize for making a nasty speech about Bush (the chairman said as much). I guess Al Gore is hoping for the same.
" Will Tony Blair Experience the Same Fate as Jimmy Carter?"
Well, if you are asking whether he is likely to get some form of agreement to move forward with the Israeli peace process, by taking risks and banging heads together to negotiate a deal as Carter did with Sadat, then I guess the answer is no. But credit to him for all his effort in Ireland.
"" Will Tony Blair Experience the Same Fate as Jimmy Carter?""
Oh, God! I hope so!!!! Jimmuh had to go back to Georgia with Rosalyn!
I will never forget their dance when they got of the plane in Atlanta. Even today, and I was a mere child at the time, it chills the blood.
"Both American territories Puerto Rico and Costa Rica would be ahead of you if they voted 'yes' to referenda."
It will be a cold day in hell before the Republican party allows two safely Democratic, Spanish speaking states to join the Union.
You mean will Blair turn into an anti-semitic scumbag who has written a book so bad several of the board of his Presidential Library resigned? I doubt it.
I thought Portaloo's analogy was in rather poor taste actually. He seemed to be relishing the fact that Blair might experience such discomfiture, irrespective of what it might do to the poor bloddy hostages.
It has been suggested that, in immediately denouncing the Iranians as having been in Iraqi water when there is reason to believe that, in an estuary of moving sandbanks, the exact frontier is a legitimate matter of disagreement, the PM had merely stirred up acrimony. Wherever the border runs the Iranians have not behaved well, but by their lights not that badly either. Perhaps we should allow diplomacy to act.
Stop the sabre-rattling, Iain. It may please the little boys in the Tory party who like to threaten everyone with the SAS (remember Portillo's embarrassing conference speech?), but it would serve no purpose other than adding more dead servicemen to a list that is already too long.
Diplomacy will resolve this without bloodshed.
And don't forget the nasty little deal that Ronnie did to get those hostages back.
Iain - while there are 500 uncharged "service people" in Gitmo - including more than 15 Iranians I wouldn't be surprised being bullish in public is really not a great idea and it isn't anyway when the release of our people is more important than throwing our country's weight around. territorial Waters at this place and all such this far off shore etc are contested and BOTH can be right. Jon Snow's exclusive interview with Iran man promising I thought.
If Iran is like the Falklands (what rot!) then coming home with the hostages and no war would show that Labour haven't forgotten for ever to be the party of peace and justice and that tories would as soon sink a battleship as listen and talk to other sovereign states in a reasonable way to (a) save lives and (b) move things on generally.
chrispaul
while there are 500 uncharged "service people" in Gitmo
If they were in fact real "service people" there would be no need for the Guantanamo Bay installation.
On the basis the Iranians have this afternoon said they will release the 15 "as a gift" then the answer to your question is undoubtedly "no"...
Cameron as Reagan? Pre-or-post Alzheimers?
Post a Comment