Now that the British sailors have been released, it has been surmised that Ahmadinejad may “ease up” on the rhetoric and intransigence. The following is from an article in the LA Times today.

It seems like the old adage "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" proved to be true in this situation.

Should this incident serve as a lesson to the US when dealing with Iran; i.e. diplomacy seems to work more effectively than threats of aggression?

Or will it have no effect at all on the US' treatment of Iran?

bolding mine - BD

Should this incident serve as a lesson to the US when dealing with Iran; i.e. diplomacy seems to work more effectively than threats of aggression?
No, given that the Brit's, to my knowledge, didn't threaten aggression, I find the "lesson" to be nowhere in the incident, one way or the other.

Or will it have no effect at all on the US' treatment of Iran?
Oh, it will have some effect on our treatment of Iran. For one thing, if an Revolutionary Guards patrol craft gets within 500 yards of a US inspection team, it will be sunk.

What I think is most illuminating, and demonstrates that the Iranians, the LA Times, and those who choose to use this article as an illustration of objective, rational analysis, are all completely out of touch with reality is the quote that I bolded by the esteemed academic.

Give y'all three guesses why 'tis so illuminating.

How predictable.

Regardless of your rabid hatred of Middle Easterners, perception is everything. If the Iranians felt that Blair was threatening, who are you to say they didn’t? They obviously changed their tone, and the sailors were released. Would you rather have had them killed to support your jaundiced views? I suppose you would rather (and a US general said as much) that, had the situation happened with American sailors, we would have attacked Iran and started another war. Real smart – not! As for the source, the LA Times was hardly the only source who had similar things to say. Why is it that you feel you have to attack the source rather than address the success of the whole operation? Diplomacy worked where threats did not.

A couple more sources, though I’m sure they won't mean a hill of beans' difference to you.

Even FOXNews acknowledges that diplomacy worked.

What is it about a win-win situation that irritates you so, bikerdad?

Should this incident serve as a lesson to the US when dealing with Iran; i.e. diplomacy seems to work more effectively than threats of aggression?
Only if you want more of the same.

The Iranian government is the classic definition of a fascist regime. From American Heritage Dictionary





I think that Iran fits the bill in every single category.

And those that have read history have learned that using 'diplomacy' doesn't work. In fact it emboldens the fascists to make ever greater demands and more outrageous behavior. It may appear to work for a short time, but the next even more outrageous demand will shortly follow.

Diplomacy is a method that best works with rational, stable democracies. An radical, religious fascist regime regards diplomacy as another arena to continue their state of belligerency. Iran is a bully regime bent on first domination of the region and later the world.

Or will it have no effect at all on the US' treatment of Iran?
I sure hope not. The Iranians have been increasing in their use of terrorism and bullying in and out of the region.

I'm not exactly sure how we can call this a "win-win" situation, DG. The sailors are home, which is excellent of course, but this does not bode well for the future of this UN mission in the area. For one thing, Iran still holds the only two boats used for this mission, for another, obviously, what is to stop Iran from intercepting future boats in that area with impunity? I can't imagine what it will be like to hold that job from now on.

And (not surprisingly) I strongly disagree with the professor from Tehran who describes Britain's attempt to involve, and obtain support from, the UN as "aggression". In fact the statement drips with irony. I'm not sure I've ever heard that sort of action construed as "aggressive" before. Quite the contrary, especially considering this was not a British mission but a UN one.

What can be learned from this? Carrot or stick? I'm not sure at this point much can be learned on our side...it depends on what happens now, and that is the really big question. Iran on the other hand has learned quite a lot from this.

It should serve as a lesson that the Iranian government will go to great extremes to manipulate opinion in its favor. The event seems clearly staged to drive just exactly this sentiment. Saddam Hussein played this same game, rather successfully, for years, and Ahmadinejad seems even better at it.

Link to excerpts from news conference with released sailors/




First, keep in mind that evidence shows this incident clearly took place in Iraqi waters, not Iranian. Not exactly the well-wishing, peace-loving portrait they're trying to paint, is it? Note that in this issue, it was the Iranians that initiated the military action. So, we would be naive in the extreme to now suddenly feel that this incident shows conclusively that Iran is to be trusted and simple diplomacy and negotiations is the way to resolve disputes. If anything, it indicates the opposite.




I think it will have little effect. If anything, it will have a negative effect, indicating that Iran will likely respond negatively to sanctions, etc. and also casting doubt on their ability to be trusted in any negotiations.

DG, you surprise me. Normally you wait for a couple of post exchanges before gratuiously tossing charges of racism.

You are mistaken as to the basis of unreality. Whether the Iranians felt Blair was threatening or not, whether Blair was threatening, doesn't matter. Give it another shot if you'd like.

Killed to support my "jaundiced views"? No, but then I'd rather see them die today than see 1500 Brits die in two years.

Yes. There are things worse than little wars. They're called "big wars", and we are heading straight towards one. The Iranian Islamofascist regime is like a cancer. The longer you wait to deal with it, the riskier and harder the treatment.

I'm attacking the LA Times because its the example you presented. I'll gladly attack any other media outlet that's has approvingly allowed the unreality of the professor to pass unchallenged.

Really? Because it seems to me as though threats worked quite well...

for the Iranians. IIRC, you frequently encourage folks to consider the "other side". Well, if the hypothetical temporary incursion into Iranian waters was such a big deal to them, why didn't they use diplomacy? Please, give a stab at answering this question, because its very important.


Sure, similar sentiments have been voiced by Victor Davis Hanson, a leading conservative military historian, along with the warning that appeasing the mullahs was a bad ideer. Yet they have nothing to do with the unreality I've noted.

Parsi raises and interesting question though: what do they respond to? Diplomacy is pressure, or it is appeasement.

The fact that only from the perspective of a cheese eating surrender monkey, a Neville Chamberlain, or Molotov (maybe it was Ribbentrop?) can this be seen as a "win-win" situation. As I'm none of the above, it's not a "win-win" situation.

Weakness, whether from lack of strength or lack of courage, only encourages aggressors. Dress it up in whatever flowery diplomatic phrases you want, but that's the bottom line of human nature. The fundamental's of successful diplomacy were articulated quite succintly by Teddy Roosevelt: "Speak softly and carry a big stick."

If you aren't willing to use the big stick, then you might as well just surrender up front and spare everybody the drama. If it weren't for the fact that there are a lot of fine people in Europe who would be grievously harmed as a result, I'd suggest they do exactly that.

Iran likely captured these British sailors and marines as a direct result of some very effective diplomacy the US and the UK have been working on and making headway with in the UN and with other allies. IRI's fondness of kidnappings for revenge or negotiating pressure is very well known.
If we are allowed to view this use of US/UK diplomacy in the UN and with their allies then yes, all of our diplomatic measures and channels we have been using to confront Iran are working, that I agree with.

Should this incident serve as a lesson to the US when dealing with Iran; i.e. diplomacy seems to work more effectively than threats of aggression?

It should serve as a lesson naturally, but I do not agree with the analysis that diplomacy solved anything here. Lets be honest. Do we really think that Iran released these soldiers because of diplomacy? Is it even diplomacy to ask for the release of unlawfully detained UN personnel?

In my opinion, the British soldiers were released because it suited Iran's purpose to do so. With Britain backing down in the public forum, the path was clear for Iran to appear moderate. But how moderate is kidnapping?

Diplomacy is an art of compromising oneself in order to accomidate the needs of others whilst pursuing one's own gain and I cannot see how Iran has compromised itself at all in this matter. What I have seen is Iran acting on its own volition and pursuing a very clear course of action which has nothing what so ever to do with compromise and everything to do with forcing others to compromise. In other words; Iran made a ransom demand for 'diplomacy' and apparently, it worked.

I am sure Iran wants diplomacy because by this means they can get so much more lee way. Diplomacy means more time and Iran needs time. For this reason alone I would say no to any further diplomacy with Iran. The UN should move to put heavier sanctions on Iran right away for having kidnapped UN personnel. Isolate the country entirely. This won't happen of course, because the UN, consisting of many members states with belligerent self interests, is an organisation unable to stand up for its own integrity.


Or will it have no effect at all on the US' treatment of Iran?

It will most certainly have an effect I think. The time of GW Bush is coming to an end and the recent sight of Nancy Pelosi in Syria leads me to suppose that if the Democrats win the next election (and I am almost certain they must do so), they will be far more concilliatory than the current US government. I may be wrong of course but I do not see the Democrats as having the same belligerent attitude of the Republicans, and in this current stand off with Iran, I am not convinced diplomacy will serve any purpose beyond empowering Tehran. Ask yourself, what does the USA have that Iran wants? I can't think of anything except recognition despite provocation. It seems to me that in any diplomatic scenario, Iran holds the better cards because it has consistently shunned using diplomacy and thus any moves by the exterior world to diplomacy with Iran is an explicit acceptance of Iran's use of violence as a political tool.

Its political mass means Iran will inherit regional supremacy sooner or later and there is no diplomatic way to avoid this. Indeed, any diplomacy with Iran, a nation that long since turned its back on the conventions of diplomacy by attacking foreign embassies, is merely another way of empowering Tehran and bowing before the use of force it has undertaken.

In other words, the Iranians don't do diplomacy. They use violence and every one else uses diplomacy to accomidate their demands.


Edited to add:

No soooner did I write this post than I went to the BBC and read the following from Irans ambassador in London (a man who need never fear his embassy being overrun nor fire bombed by British protestors)

Link.

I rest my case...

Should this incident serve as a lesson to the US when dealing with Iran; i.e. diplomacy seems to work more effectively than threats of aggression?
The only lesson the US should take from this incident is that people are reciprocal. We capture their diplomats, they respond by capturing British sailors. I'm still trying to figure out what Iran has done that is so deplorable that requires the US to "deal with them." If wanting to provide nuclear energy for your country is a crime, then the US is just as guilty as Iran. If wanting to own a nuclear weapon to protect against hostile nations is a crime, then the US is guilty of that as well. Iran hasn't invaded a country since the 1979 revolution. The US has invaded, overthrown, occupied, or bombed at least six since that time; Lebanon, Nicaragua, Iraq, Bosnia, Panama, and Afghanistan.

Or will it have no effect at all on the US' treatment of Iran?
George W. Bush doesn't know how to change policy, even if the facts make it clear to him. He is petulant and ignorant. The US will probably change policy with Iran when there is a different person in the White House. Until then, nothing is going to change.

I'm just curious, barnaby, exactly what would Iran have to do to constitute a threat in your mind? Iran has been actively instigating terror and the overthrow (elimination) of Israel for quite some time now, and it would seem nothing short of actually carrying out their threats will convince you their intentions are not good. Wouldn't that be a bit late to start dealing with them? Further, their desire to become the dominant power in the region is fairly well documented, which naturally would work strongly against U.S. (ie-YOUR) interests. So, again...what exactly would they have to do to constitute a threat, in your mind?

I'd also be curious why you are so willing to believe that their pursuit of nuclear power is so peaceful, when it makes absolutely no economic sense, and also when their methods of going about it all point to creating nuclear weapons, as opposed to nuclear power? Again, it would seem nothing short of a mushroom cloud somewhere will convince you of anything else...and that seems awfully late to deal with them, doesn't it?

Note: Please try to answer both of these questions without ranting about U.S. policy, as that is irrelevant to the questions asked.

I can not believe you had the audacity to place Lebanon on the list of American injustices to the world in a discussion about Iran, in which you claim Iran's innocence.

The only people Iran hopes to console with the idea of a hostage trade off is it's own domestic support, this is a concern for those who support the IRI regime, the fact it is being used to defend the political beliefs and ponderings of those outside the IRI totalitarian state is just ..well I can't use the word I would in my own home, so let's just say odd logic.

Since you can't seem to figure out what objectives the IRI had for this political game on the international arena I will give you a little hint. Think my little hint also negates any argument you have that it is only the US that feels any need to "deal with Iran"

The US and the UK have hardly been Iran's only target for what you call reciprocal - I would call it revengeful- behavior. The IRI has always used kidnapping , since it's inception, as one of it's most basic components for political pressure and political threats. To argue that this type of behavior on the behalf of the IRI can be excused by the West's own instigation and aggression seems to show a lack of awareness for the actions of the IRI and a deep misunderstanding as to why Iran is so isolated and it's diplomatic relations with other states so strained.

Germany has been one state who has repetitively suffered Iran's hostage haggling. Helmut Hofer was held captive and threatened with death for the crime of having sex with a Muslim woman. The Germans feel he was being kept as a means of extortion in regards to the Mykonos assassinations.

Donald Klein, another German citizens was also held captive by the Iranian govt in hopes of adding pressure to it's political demands regarding DE's handling of the Mykonos assasination.
"Germany has on repeated occasions tried to free Klein, with German President Horst Koehler intervening unsuccessfully. Iranian diplomats have recently hinted that a release of an Iranian agent in German custody would help Klein's case." link

A French citizen who was captured with Klein was also held captive for 18 mos. even tho the French govt consistently lobbied for his release. All the while the Iranian regime spoke of it's unhappiness of the EUs involvement into the Mykonos case.

Then there is Canadian citizen Zahra Kazemi who was not only held captive in Iran but she was also tortured to death, which essentially put an end to Iranian and Canadian diplomatic relations.

This was followed with the highly publicized arrest of Canadian citizen Ramin Jahanbegloo, who is a critic of the current Iranian govt and in return for his beliefs, or what you call "reciprocal" he was arrested in Iran and spent four mos in the infamous Evin prison. His imprisonment was used as a propaganda tool for Iran to publicly criticize and threaten arrest to any of their citizens for having contact with Europeans for any cause. link pg 20

Canada's own past kidnappings lead Canada to immediately defend the UK during the latest hostage crisis, as Canada, knowing from it's own experiences, believed that Iran could very likely take hostages again and became concerned for their own patrols in the Strait of Hormuz.

Well, you know, since we basically created this Islamic state, no, we didn't basicaly start this state WE created it- the first "regime change" we engaged in was Iran, 1953- we installed the Shah of Iran.

Perhaps we need to be a little more introspective, and perhaps even apologize for our behavior there- I believe, if the iranians got a heart felt apology for the shah of Iran, the poeple there, sufferening under this theocratic regime no better than the shah's, might just spur a movement inside Iran itself.

Seriously- admitting culpability in the nastiness in thier country would quite possibly go a long way- with no real blow back on us.

Acknowledging our mistakes, well, it takes a large bite out of their leaders ability to make us villians. Even when a villian apologizes, a really nasty one, you tend to forgive a little bit- it is human nature.

That would be the first step- acknowledge that about 95% of all US foriegn policy from 1953 hasn't been about freedom or anything like that- it was pure nasty corporate exploitation. Guatamala, same thing- we weren't protecting Ameircan interests- we were protecting some special interests - interests (did I just have a Mike Myers Austin powers moment? )

America has not been a "good guy" in foreign policy , and everyone in the world pretty much knows it, except well, most US citizens

And we need, in order to re-establish ourselves as a moral force for good, our moral authority, by admitting our mistakes, and changing our behaviors.

Hobbes the BBC later aired conflicting statements which call into question the link you have provided. I'd be hesitant to use Carman's words as you have done as 'the final word' because;

• One, because of the shoddy manner in which a gag order was placed on the sailors.
• Two, the footage aired by the Iranians of the table tennis match in track suits is either worthy of an oscar for suppressed emotions by coercion OR the Iranians have taken things to absurd extremes by threatening the soldiers with death to have a good time. They look like they are having a good time to myself. What is far more likely is the article you have lead us to believe as correct was really a prepared script by their commander which you have so eagerly copied and pasted as the truth.

Furthermore, the method the British use to locate as Craig Murray avers, does not put their coordinates in particularly deep water. This means the ship would get stuck at those coordinates.

What places doubt on Carman's comments is the British provided a second set of uninspiring coordinates in the same manner the Iranians had except when the Iranians did so, they were assumed to be grasping at straws. Doublestandards time!

Your irrefutable evidence pertaining to Iraqi waters does not inspire confidence.

I don't think you should present your opinions as..well you know, conventional wisdom.

America has apologized to Iran...

But that common ground has sometimes been shaken by other factors. In
1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the
overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The
Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for
strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's
political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians
continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal
affairs.

Moreover, during the next quarter century, the United States and the
West gave sustained backing to the Shah's regime. Although it did much
to develop the country economically, the Shah's government also
brutally repressed political dissent.

As President Clinton has said, the United States must bear its fair
share of responsibility for the problems that have arisen in
U.S.-Iranian relations. Even in more recent years, aspects of U.S.
policy towards Iraq, during its conflict with Iran appear now to have
been regrettably shortsighted, especially in light our subsequent
experiences with Saddam Hussein.
SECRETARY OF STATE MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT
March 17, 2000, Washington, D.C.
link

Something Clinton is quite proud of.
"I know it is not popular for an American ever to say anything like this, but I think it's true [applause], and I apologized when President Khatami was elected. I publicly acknowledged that the United States had actively overthrown Mossadegh and I apologized for it"link
Where did that get us? Not only does the govt of Iran never seem to accept these apologies, they never seem to recognize they ever even occurred. Two years after Albright's apologies the Iranian president Mohammad Khatami still continued to demand for an American apology.
"We advise those who are pursuing war-mongering policy under the influence of certain lobbies, to get rid of the false interpretation of situation in Iran and apologize to the Iranian nation and government for the misdeeds of the past."
Others have been known to cave into the IRI's demands for apologies with the same results. Iranian Supreme Leader Khomeini demanded that Salman Rushdie apologize and once he did he only seemed to confirm his guilt and justify the calls for his death.

This is an already well proven failed course of action, it is has never done much of anything for our relations with Iran or for any others'.

Diplomacy would only work with Iran if they felt it was in their interest. The nuclear issue is a perfect example. They will have nukes unless sanctions hurt them so badly they relent or they are attacked.

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/...rrent%20Affairs

You are dead on the money. I agree with you all the way.

We have tried to negotiate, be tough etc. with Iran and nothing works. Now they say it is too late to stop them – which of course is why they rushed into enrichment. Lets see if the UN does anything – I am not optimistic.

“TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's nuclear program cannot be stopped, and any Western attempt to force a halt to uranium enrichment would be like playing 'with the lion's tail,' President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday.

In Berlin, Germany's foreign minister reported no progress in talks with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator ahead of the Group of Eight summit. And with the U.N. Security Council preparing to debate a third set of sanctions for Tehran's refusal to suspend enrichment, Britain raised the possibility of adding curbs on oil and gas investment to the limited measures against individuals and companies involved in Iran's nuclear and weapons programs.

'We advise them to give up stubbornness and childish games,' Ahmadinejad said at a news conference. 'Some say Iran is like a lion. It's seated quietly in a corner. We advise them not to play with the lion's tail.'


Diplomacy does NOT work apparently.

Added Ahmadinejad: 'It is too late to stop the progress of Iran.'
http://www.abcmoney.co.uk/news/06200783127.htm

It may not be a popular crowd to be in, but you can put me with those who say that Iran gaining a nuclear weapon isn't the huge deal that we are making it out to be. Iran enriches and weaponizes one nuclear weapon and then what? We would still outnumber them like 10,000 warheads to one. I believe it was Ron Paul during the first Republican debate who said we were able to have a detente with the USSR who was a much bigger threat than Iran could EVER be. Are we really supposed to fear that a backwards nation like Iran will be much of a threat? They are still trying to figure out technology that we first used in 1945! A 62 year lead in technology is enough for me to be honest. We (the US) are giving legitimacy to Iran's power by believing that their actions actually have any power or influence in the first place. Imagne if Bush or any other US politician said tomorrow that Iran attaining nuclear technology was insignificant in every conceivable way. How emasculated will Iran be then?

The danger of a nuclear armed Iran has almost nothing to do with our capacity to outnumber their weapons. Look to their neighbors. If Iran arms itself with nuclear weapons in direct violation to its obligations as NPT signatory, there is nothing to dissuade all of the surrounding nations throughout the Middle East, which consider Iran to be a threat, from developing nuclear arms as well. Wave goodbye to the NPT, and hello to an increased likelihood of a nuclear winter. Because the more of those weapons there are in the hands of different entities, the greater the probability that they will be employed.

But likely before that nuclear winter, a nuclear-weaponized Iran would shatter the balance of power in that region. Iran wants America out of the Middle East, so that it can control the Persian Gulf and manipulate the rest of the area through alliances and proxies. Envision a nuclear Iran allied with Hezbollah to the north and Hamas and Islamic Jihad to the Southwest and East, because that's what is likely coming and it isn't something to be desired. And (to stay on topic), they want this badly enough that mere diplomacy isn't going to discourage them because backing off isn't in their interest at the moment...unless we can come up with a large enough carrot AND stick threat that could dissuade them.

I somewhat agree with this conclusion, but not for the reasons given here. The analogy with the USSR is missing a very important aspect...we were in an arms race with them, and fighting the Cold War. With Iran, the concern is not that we might lose a nuclear confrontation with them, that is not going to happen. The concern is merely that they might use one weapon, or give it to someone who might. Merely having that capability gives them much greater power in the region -- without nuclear weapons, Iran poses no military threat to us whatsoever, with them they do. Simply possessing such a weapon changes the dynamics in the region. A much better analogy is Korea. Korea can plausibly threaten unleashing a nuclear weapon on Japan, and that fact changes the way we can repond to various situations. Consider the scenario where N. Korea invades S. Korea, and threatens to nuke Tokyo if we respond in force. If we had no troops currently there (as would be the case in Iran)...would we respond in force? Or would we let events run their course? Without the nuclear threat, the answer is that we would clearly respond in force. With the nuclear weapon, there is at least a question about it. The same issue would occur in the Middle East, if Iran were to possess nuclear weapons. They could realistically threaten Israel, and potentially even U.S. cities, if the U.S. intervened in affairs in that area. They don't have to use a nuclear weapon for it to be effective--they merely have to have one.

I certainly agree that a nuclear arms race in the Middle East is something not favorable to the international political climate, but the way that it is currently occurring is made worse by our resistance to it. Our fear of this occurrence will not prevent it from happening and we have shown that our military capacity to deal with such threats is dwindling. This gives our enemies a double incentive to continue their programs. First, they know that we do not have the military capability to decimate their programs and occupy their nations and second, they are thumbing their nose at us which increases anti-American support and gives power to the hardliners. If we can come to grips with reality for a moment and realize that the all out military option is untenable at the moment, poerhaps we can work out a real solution. If we accept what Iran is doing and bring them peacefully into the international order, we can stave off any real conflict and set a precedent for Iran's neighbors to do the same. We allow the Iranians to be a part of the international regime that governs nuclear weapons. This means not only that they will have to play by the same rules as everyone else but that they are shown the respect that is given to other nations already a member. We would be abiding by the old principle of "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" because we would be a part of the international regime together and have a mutual interest in ensuring its stability. Finally, it will decrease the likelihood of Iranian aggression because we would have had diplomatic relations improved. If we can reach a point of interdependence, then there would be no reason to fight.



What we have to do is treat Iran like an adult and stop babying them. We have to give them an honest assessment of their options and relay to them the consequences of each. We can acknowledge our superior military capability without making it the staple of our relations. We are carrying a big stick around and they do not need to be reminded of it constantly. If we treat them as a child, then that is how they will behave, constantly defying us at every turn. But if we treat them with respect, then we can find a way to work things out. We just have to put it simply: You can play by the rules like everyone else and get all the perks that go with it, or you can not play by the rules and receive nothing. If you get out of line and attack your neighbors, then we will deal with you the only way we know how. Our current policy of "we're going to attack you, I'm serious this time, we will, don't do that!" is not going to work.



We are giving Iran and NKorea a reason to dislike us. We do not fear that the Pakistani government will hand over nuclear technology to terrorists in order to attack America because they are currently our ally. Well the Pakistan regime is every bit as nefarious as Iran or NKorea. We have to think about US relations at the moment and come to the firm realization that when it comes to dealing with nefarious regimes that Iran and NKorea are the exception and not the rule. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China...all nations with poor records of human rights and political liberties, but we deal with them nonetheless. I think that the USSR is a great example of where you have to polar opposites engaging each other because of a mutual recognition of each other's significance. We don't have to like Iran, we just have to find a way to co-exist with them without the prospects of nuclear winter. And we can do that, we just have to grow up.