http://theregalis.blogspot.com/2007/03/different-phase-new-approach-to-irans .html
"A <http://theregalis.blogspot.com/2007/03/different-phase-new-approach-to-iran s.html> Different Phase" - a new approach to Iran's actions <http://bp1.blogger.com/_5dggucnAQ6k/RgkMRZAhERI/AAAAAAAAAFY/zo27LHJ_hoI/s16 00-h/_42731703_hmscornwall_mod.jpg> Today the Prime Minister Tony Blair warned Iran that Britain's response to their illegal kidnapping of 15 British servicemen would enter a "different phase" unless Tehran releases them soon. This is to be welcomed. So far our response has been claim and level headed and this is to be commended. One would not want to imagine what could occur if we responded like our American cousins. However, whilst this approach may be commended in that respect it is not the approach we should be pursuing. Writing in the <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/arti cle1572437.ece> Times Oliver Kamm says that "From the moment British servicemen were abducted, the danger was that the Government would under react", like him I agree that we have. We are sending the wrong message to Tehran. Blair's comments may be too little too late. This is the second time in almost as many years that such events have occurred. Whilst we got our men back last time - and that should always be the main goal - Iran is still in possession of their weapons and boats. In 2004 the captured men were taken to Tehran and paraded blindfold on television, where they broadcast their apologies for a "big mistake". Such a fate is likely to await these 15 men and women. Were these servicemen American such events would never occur - regardless of whether they strayed into Iranian territorial waters. One should ask oneself why this is. The answer it seems to me is clear. Britain is clearly in the eyes of Iran the weaker of the two. The current response by our government shows this. We must give Iran more than declarations of disapproval. Whilst one must have regard to diplomatic niceties at times there is much to be advocated for a bullish American approach - our approach should be unconditionally that we get our people back, with their equipment and with an apology from the Iranians. How do we do this then? Kamm advocates a dual pronged diplomatic and economic approach. George Kennan the architect of containment said: the regime "can easily withdraw - and usually does - when strong resistance is encountered at any point. Thus, if the adversary has sufficient force and makes clear his readiness to use it, he rarely has to do so." Such pressure works. If one turns to the broader situation with Iran, Tehran has twice suspended nuclear enrichment in response to international pressure. Twice however it has recommenced it once the pressure reduced. Whilst I agree with Kamm I believe that there needs to be a third element - military force. The key difference between us and the Americans is not the availability of force but our willingness to use it. Whilst I am not trying to second guess our military commanders I do feel that our forces should stand up for themselves more. The Iranian actions were acts of international piracy and the Royal Navy was I am sure likely to have been entitled to respond with force. This point however has another effect. Kennan referred to making your intentions clear then you will not have to use them. The US already does this and Britain needs to do the same, we failed to do so last time, we must do now. The provocative stance of an insular and intolerable theocracy will not be entertained or taken seriously. Our servicemen must be released promptly and unconditionally. Finally, one must recognises that this issue has far broader implications. This is just one example of Iran sticking two fingers up at the rest of the world. Iran is a recalcitrant, untrustworthy state. The UN's response to its Nuclear ambitions must be strong and decisive lest we see an expansion of what Iran thinks it can get away with. The political tide is turning, but slowly. Tehran's actions suggest that they are concerned about their domestic political situation. This is to be welcomed but it must be made absolutely clear these actions are unacceptable and will not be allowed to happen in future. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
