Saturday, March 24, 2007

In Iranian waters or not in Iranian waters?

A commentor on my last post wrote:

"and you don't have the slightest doubt that they were not within Iranian Waters..."

Let me agree with the commenter for a second that the British sailors were in Iran's water, if that is the case everybody knows that this is against international law. Iran should have the right to protest that move.

I also strongly believe, particularly in this case, that the best way to act is not to choose to use the very last option you have. It is no secret to anybody that we are living in a very tense situation. At the moment that I am writing this, the UN Security Council is probably passing another damaging series of economic sanctions against Iran. This is a time that Iranians should put their nationalistic feelings aside and not just go after what is right at the moment, but to act in a way that ensures that we prevent a new disaster in Middle East.

So dear Commenter, since we both know that every coin has two sides, what about if the British sailors were not in Iranian waters? Is right to hold them? Will Iran benefit from this action? If Iran is wrong in this case, it will only add to the feeling of people around the world that the Iranian government is out of control. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.

I do believe that Iran is looking for ways to show that they are not joking when they say they will retaliate if they come under attack. This may mean that the Iranian government believes that the US and its allies will attack Iran..


(BTW, ET adds that there is a pretty comprehensive roundup at Slate and at Jules Crittenden

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Although I agree with you that in this tense situation there is no need for using extreme measures, the problem is the US and British part are resorting to extreme actions already.
For example, the case of apprehending several iranian military personnels (though Iran believes they were diplomats) that were in Iraq with iraq's government permission and knowledge.
Or arresting Iran's diplomat (this guy was in fact a diplomat) in Baghdad without any explanation.

So, both sides are on the nerve of each others, and as you said every coin has two sides.

Vince P said...

The only thing the UK Sailor abductions have in common with the actions against Iranian agents in Iraq is that all of them were in Iraq.

The similiarity ends there.

The Iranians in Iraq were arrested because they part of the people who are killing innocent civilians.

There is no comparasion.. in both cases, it is Iran who is on the wrong side

Anonymous said...

Vince,
%90 of those who are killed in Iraq are Shi'ites who are natural allies of Iran. And they are killed by those who come from/financed by the countries that their dictators are being supported by British and US government. It seems you tend to be ignorant of the fact that British and American forces invaded Iraq, and still occupy it.

Anonymous said...

vince, you are very well informed. Do you by any chance work with MI5 or 6 for that matter?

Anonymous said...

Doesn't really matter if they were or were not in Iranian waters. That isn't the issue. Iranian government is doing this because it can and knows that neither US or UK would 'attack' or 'invade' Iran. Besides, I think it is yet another diversion on the part of the regime in Iran, given the nuclear issue and sanctions. Perhaps, a bargaining chip. anyway, the Brits and EU do major business with a regime that they KNOW is hostile to the West. Brits and EU should their money where their mouth is and cut off all lucrative business deals with Iranian regime and see what happens! I've little sympathy, when the West does deals with the devil.

christopher said...

it's hard to see how anything good comes from this.
while this may seem like a 'bargaining chip', it is beginning to appear as though the government is on the verge of abandoning any intention of ever participating in normal diplomatic relations with mainstream first-world nations. there was once daylight in the EU and the UN for Iran, but that is disappearing quickly.
and this is all very sad.
i'm afraid that Iran is moving towards a state of diplomatic alliances with only the most lowly and isolated nations. it is beginning to become more possible to imagine a field with iran, north korea, syria, venezuela and cuba on one side. and the rest of the world on the other.
and this is sad because we have seen that all of those other countries have doomed themselves and their people to poverty and economic backwardness and quasi-dictatorships.
so how could Iran choose this path, yet realize a different fate?

Scott said...

I'm new to your blog, but enjoy the discusions.

I total agree with you on this one. People may say its in retaliation for taking of Iranians, but these actions which are small now will only get bigger.

I'm an American and do not want war, this opinion is shared by many Americans.

Vince P said...

scott: wow. brave, you dont want war. Who does?

War has been waged by Iran toward the US since 1979. Every year the cancer of the Islamic Republic spreads .. infecting Syria, Lebanon, Israel, the Gulf States, and now South America. Bringing death with it everywhere it goes.

Please tell Hezbellah you dont want war. I'm sure they'll agree to disband in the face of such cowardace.

every year the West chooses to take the easy way out, the worse the inevitable war (a war determined to by waged by the Islamic Republic) will be.

Jen said...

So, Vince the brave -

Where do we end up if we do enter into a full war with Iran? What will it take to "win" this "inevitable" war? Because things have just gone so swimmingly in Iraq. What is your solution?

Perhaps all us commoners just need to relate to each other through dialogue like this blog and without the fighting words and learn to band together to resist the culture of death that exists on both sides.

Vince P said...

Jen: Why are you putting all that on me? Just because I see reality for what it is and can a thing by its name doesnt mean I'm a future teller.

But I ask you.. when in human history has war ever been fight with less damage when the bad side is continiously appeased and allowed to get more powerful and everything is done by the good side to aoivd fighting for as long possible.

And please tell me .. how do you plan on negiotating with a Theocratic Regime WHICH WELCOMES AND IS PURSUING A POLICY OF MASSIVE DEATH?

plateau said...

Interesting discussion. From what I hear most legitimate Iranian "resistance" groups, not separatists, don't want a US attack on Iran. They want to get rid of the regime themselves, but this is a complex situation...

"vince p": take a look at my blog sometime.

Vince P said...

Everyone knows (or assumes) the general population doesn't want to attack America, but until they rise up...and very soon... America is going to finally defend herself after 20 years of humiliation.

The tension in America is building very rapidly .

Vince P said...

plateu, very interesting blog. I'll be subscribing to the feed

ShareThis