NationStates Jolt Archive

sooner than expected..Ahmadinejad’s surprise announcement came at a news conference shortly after he pinned a medal on the chest of the Iranian coast guard commander who intercepted the sailors and marines.

“I’m glad that our 15 service personnel have been released and I know their release will come as a relief not just to them but to their families,” Blair said outside his No. 10 Downing St. office. “Throughout, we have taken a measured approach, firm but calm, not negotiating but not confronting, either.”

Blair added, “To the Iranian people I would simply say this: We bear you no ill will.”

Iranian state television later showed the British sailors talking to Ahmadinejad at the country's presidential palace apparently minutes before they were to be freed.

The footage showed Ahmadinejad shaking hands with the sailors and smiling and chatting.

The Iranian president had said the Britons would be taken to Tehran aiport at the end of the press conference that he was addressing, but The Associated Press and Reuters news agency later reported that they would be flying out on Thursday.

The White House hailed the release. "As Prime Minister Blair just said, President Bush also welcomes the news," Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the White House National Security Council, said.

Thank goodness. :)

So he pardoned them on fake charges? What a guy. Well at least he got smart about it. It is better then the death and destruction that war would have brought to Iran if it went to far. Another near miss for Iran.

So he pardoned them on fake charges? What a guy. Well at least he got smart about it. It is better then the death and destruction that war would have brought to Iran if it went to far. Another near miss for Iran.

And he managed to drive away the last remaining support he had...well played, Ahmadinejad. Hell, if he keeps doing this we won't even have to do anything; he's doing the work for us.

here is the oil markets reaction
http://cbs2.com/business/finance_story_094170657.html

I'm happy to just smile and pretend nothing has happened lets hope Iran is too :)

It's a defeat for him. He tried to distract people from his failures in domestic politics (example (http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8896201)) and strengthen his weak position in the power structure of the country.

He had to let them go, there was no escalation and as far as we know, the Mullahs and the Parliament weren't particular convinced of the escapade.

So all in all: World - 1, Ahmadinejad - Zero.

And he managed to drive away the last remaining support he had...well played, Ahmadinejad. Hell, if he keeps doing this we won't even have to do anything; he's doing the work for us.


I really wonder what kind of crap they will pull next? I wonder if we should take bets on the next Iranian crisis.

I really wonder what kind of crap they will pull next? I wonder if we should take bets on the next Iranian crisis.
I think it's a mistake to think of him as really representing the country. He's in trouble with the Mullahs, he's in trouble with parliament and he's definitely in trouble with the voters.

Anyone bet in Vegas on the outcome of the hostage situation?

http://www.lasvegasvegas.com/business_politics/2007/03/las_vegas_bookies_now_posting.php

I really wonder what kind of crap they will pull next? I wonder if we should take bets on the next Iranian crisis.

If they can pull anything else. It's not like they have the money to do it, and given that they're not going to be exporting any oil in a few years they'd be hard pressed to stay on their present course.

And frankly, I don't think the clerics want him around anymore...

I think it's a mistake to think of him as really representing the country. He's in trouble with the Mullahs, he's in trouble with parliament and he's definitely in trouble with the voters.

Well I know what you mean but he is the representation to the world for Iran. Such as Bush is for America. It will be interesting to see if he actually stays in power. He could get ill or have an accident such as the old Soviet days. I wonder if I should consider him for the dead pool?

Anyone bet in Vegas on the outcome of the hostage situation?

http://www.lasvegasvegas.com/business_politics/2007/03/las_vegas_bookies_now_posting.php
I already won $20 vs my Father in law..
my bet was that the sailors were going to be released in less than 2 weeks.

based on this thread posts.. I have other bets to challenge you guys.. any takers?

I think it's a mistake to think of him as really representing the country.why?
.
He's in trouble with the Mullahs..que sera ..sera
.

he's in trouble with parliament..happens in a democracy..

he's definitely in trouble with the voters. wanna bet? ;)

Don't you have to be convicted of a crime to get a pardon?

wanna bet? ;)
What's your point?

We know for a fact that the things I said about the Mullahs (minister appointment dispute) and parliament (oil subsidy and economic reform) are true. We also know that Ahmadinejad's supporters have done quite badly in the last round of elections.

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=341661&rel_no=1
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/01/17/international/i114353S68.DTL

What exactly do you want to bet? Because short of provoking further escalation and moving Iran near-as-dammit to war, he's not gonna win the next election the way things are going at the moment. And before he manages that, Khamenei is gonna have his head (linky (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/World/Rest_of_World/Iran_rebukes_its_prez_over_N-policy/articleshow/1319950.cms), linky (http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Security/10403.htm)).

Don't you have to be convicted of a crime to get a pardon?

See your mistaken it for an English word. Pardon in Farsi means: We are going to let you go because you didn't do anything wrong.

Good now let's move on and not drag this along lest we inflame things.

I hope the British take this as a genuine opportunity to open up dialogue and improve relations instead of playing the politics card. Yes, in the international diplomacy scene, nations have to navigate a tricky line when dealing with each other, but isn't it nice to be open every once in a while?

Yes, the televised statements of the captured soldiers and the "letters" they "wrote" are probably fake or coerced. But either way, you know it's Iran talking. With diplomacy, it's hard to just be direct and just declare your complaints, but I feel Iran is doing it in a somewhat indirect way. "Hey! Western world! Can I get your attention? Okay? We don't like your interfering in our region. We don't like how you come and then mistreat Iraqi prisoners at Abu-Gharib. Look how we treat ours."

It's a lot of PR and maybe a lot of BS, but it's also two very different cultures clashing when they probably needn't. This episode has played out pretty well to a reasonable and successful conclusion in my opinion. I think, if you're looking for opening up a path to understanding, this could be where you start. Of course given the nuclear weapons episode we've been given this sense of how evil Iran is and how psycho their government is. But if we have it hard-wired that they are our enemies, then relations will never go anywhere. And if we don't want our relations with ALL middle east countries to progress and tensions to relax, then I don't know what's wrong with Western leadership. That doesn't appear to be the case, though.

Clearly he realized he'd lost this diplomatic contest and this is how he thinks he can make the best of the situation.

A better title would be:

Iran narrowly avoids becoming world's largest window.

Ahmadinejad lost, that is for certain.

But why did he play the game to begin with? Even if British sailors were in Iranian waters (which is HIGHLY doubtful), the revolutionary guardsmen wouldn't arrest them on a whim. A decision like this would definitely come from very high up. There really is no doubt that Ahmadinejad ordered this. But what was his goal? Was he trying to goad the British into doing something? Was he trying to act like a badass and stick it to the bad westerners?

I honestly can't see any good outcome from the decision to arrest the British sailors. Ahmadinejad really lost face with most of the world for detaining the sailors, and lost face with the rest when he released them. This was really a lose lose scenario for Iran and Ahmadinejad.

Why is everyone saying he lost? He clearly gained some ground here. He showed that he could do acts of war and get away with it. Not only that, but did you see how the Brit. soldiers thanked him and all that? That's not a win for the British, to be damn sure. This was a win for Iran and for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Why is everyone saying he lost? He clearly gained some ground here. He showed that he could do acts of war and get away with it. Not only that, but did you see how the Brit. soldiers thanked him and all that? That's not a win for the British, to be damn sure. This was a win for Iran and for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

But it also showed that the West won't back down. We gave him nothing in exchange for this and actually cost him some money thanks to the increase in oil prices. Now he looks like a complete dick who's willing to violate other countries' waters and take hostages for no reason.

He lost this one, hard.

But it also showed that the West won't back down.

Yeah, so?

Bush tried for his war, Iran continued to ignore the repeated US-UK provocations and didn't go for the bait.

Yeah, so?

Bush tried for his war, Iran continued to ignore the repeated US-UK provocations and didn't go for the bait.

Which shows that the West also isn't always dominated by the US. If anything, the fact that Bush's attempt at a war failed is a sign things are changing in regard to foreign policy.

Why is everyone saying he lost? He clearly gained some ground here. He showed that he could do acts of war and get away with it. Not only that, but did you see how the Brit. soldiers thanked him and all that? That's not a win for the British, to be damn sure. This was a win for Iran and for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

He gained ground how? The guy almost got his nation into a war. I don't see how that is a victory. He may end up losing his leadership position.

Why is everyone saying he lost? He clearly gained some ground here. He showed that he could do acts of war and get away with it. Not only that, but did you see how the Brit. soldiers thanked him and all that? That's not a win for the British, to be damn sure. This was a win for Iran and for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Because he gained absolutely nothing from this whole incident. Britain granted no apologies or concessions or anything, didn't even make the gesture of accepting Iran's bogus coordinates.

The British soldiers being courteous does not make it a win for him. He didn't get away with making an act of war against Britain. That would have required the soldiers to be tried or for Britain to give him something to get them back. Ahmadinejad realized he wasn't going to get jack shit from this except maybe a guided missile up the ass if he didn't knock it off. This game was about perception as much as anything, and if everybody's immediate perception was that he lost, then he did. Of course he's going to dress it up in language that makes it sting a little less, but it doesn't diminish the fact that he basically caved.

How did he lose? He did an act of war, and no one acted against it, and he made himself look good by letting them go with full pardons and so on. He came off looking good in this.

If anything, the fact that Bush's attempt at a war failed is a sign things are changing in regard to foreign policy.

No, the Bush Administration has known it wouldn't be able to launch an aggressive war in Iran since Iraq went to shit.

They've been trying to get Iran to do something that will give them a casus belli - thus the aggressive rhetoric, the kidnappings ("detainment") of Iranians in Iraq, and so on.

This time, Ahmadinejad didn't play into their hands.

He gained ground how? The guy almost got his nation into a war. I don't see how that is a victory. He may end up losing his leadership position.

But, he still showed that he could basically do what he wanted to, and get away with it. If the british didn't tak action after what can be considered an act of war, then why should he listen to the west in not making making nuclear tech?

Because he gained absolutely nothing from this whole incident. Britain granted no apologies or concessions or anything, didn't even make the gesture of accepting Iran's bogus coordinates.

The British soldiers being courteous does not make it a win for him. He didn't get away with making an act of war against Britain. That would have required the soldiers to be tried or for Britain to give him something to get them back. Ahmadinejad realized he wasn't going to get jack shit from this except maybe a guided missile up the ass if he didn't knock it off. This game was about perception as much as anything, and if everybody's immediate perception was that he lost, then he did. Of course he's going to dress it up in language that makes it sting a little less, but it doesn't diminish the fact that he basically caved.

It was an act of war. Wasn't the war of 1812 fought over(partially) something similar, in that soldiers were being kidnapped by a foreign power?

No, the Bush Administration has known it wouldn't be able to launch an aggressive war in Iran since Iraq went to shit.

They've been trying to get Iran to do something that will give them a casus beli - thus the aggressive rhetoric, the kidnappings ("detainment") of Iranians in Iraq, and so on.

This time, Ahmadinejad didn't play into their hands.

If the UK decided to use a military option the US would have jumped right in with them. It was the UK's show to run. If Blair would have called Bush up and said hey you in on a military strike on Iran. What do you think the answer would have been? However the UK did the proper diplomatic approach. It paid off and Iran caved. Iran knew that if they pushed the UK to far on this it would have meant a war. As far as a Casus Belli on Iran. That in my opinion has been on since 1979.

It was an act of war. Wasn't the war of 1812 fought over(partially) something similar, in that soldiers were being kidnapped by a foreign power?

Part of it was American sailors being captured and made to serve in the Royal Navy.

But, he still showed that he could basically do what he wanted to, and get away with it. If the british didn't tak action after what can be considered an act of war, then why should he listen to the west in not making making nuclear tech?

If anything it made the West the good guy by not using this immature move by Iran as a reason for war. Most people realize that it was an act of war. If things would have gone bad and lets say some of the hostages were killed while in custody then the bombs would have been flying.

If anything it made the West the good guy by not using this immature move by Iran as a reason for war. Most people realize that it was an act of war. If things would have gone bad and lets say some of the hostages were killed while in custody then the bombs would have been flying.


Well, now that we allow them to get away with this, we better not complain the next time they do it.

If the UK decided to use a military option the US would have jumped right in with them.

Of course.

However the UK did the proper diplomatic approach.

Neither Blair nor Bush have any political capital at all anymore.

That's why they need an actual reason to go to war this time.

It paid off and Iran caved.

"Caved" is not the proper word here. Iran lost nothing.

Iran knew that if they pushed the UK to far on this it would have meant a war.

Yes. They refused to take the bait.

my opinion

...is irrelevant.

The relevant opinions are those of the American and British peoples collectively, and they are not exactly eager for another war.

Well, now that we allow them to get away with this, we better not complain the next time they do it.

I think if it were to happen next time there will be some shots fired. We don't know what was said behind closed diplomatic doors here. I am sure there was a warning to Iran over this issue. Would like to hear the whole back story on this affair.

None of this changes the simple fact that if Iran really wants to, it can develop nuclear weaponry if it so chooses, and there's not really a thing anyone can do about it.

why?
.
que sera ..sera
.

happens in a democracy..

wanna bet? ;)

Iran really isn't a democracy. People vote, but candidates can (and have been, especially in the last round of voting) be disqualified through the influence of the more powerful clerics sitting on the Guardian Council. Ahmadinejad's election success was a combination of manipulation and fluke. He was, more or less, handpicked by the mullahs through their elimination of the more reformist candidates.

Also, keep in mind that around 70% of Iran's population is under 30 years of age; this means there are a hell of a lot of students, most of which lean reformist (most of the Iranian people in general lean, or are strongly reformist) - and a large segment of them boycotted the elections out of disillusionment with the ability of past reformist presidents to accomplish anything worthwhile, and to protest the lack of any real choice.

What Ahmadinejad had going for him was a lack of any credible or desirable opposition, and a subsequent mass election boycott organized by students. He also appealed to the poor demographic, making promises which he has largely left unfulfilled. Lastly, he was able to steal some of the nationalist vote, in a country where there is, understandably, fear of a Western-led attack (we're right on their doorstep... doorsteps ;/).

These were the very much undemocratic conditions that propelled Ahmadinejad into the Presidency. IF (a very important 'if') the next election offers up a remotely reformist, or even a less 'hard-line' candidate, we can expect to see Ahmadinejad be brought down.

None of this changes the simple fact that if Iran really wants to, it can develop nuclear weaponry if it so chooses, and there's not really a thing anyone can do about it.

Iran gets away with this shit - as does North Korea - largely because China and Russia seem to think this type of thing is funny.

The fastest way to stop these countries from making their nuclear threats is for the US to tell South Korea, Taiwan, Japan and Germany that they are on their own and they'd better build a few of their own bombs double time.

I imagine that would cause a sudden reversal in the rest of the world's opinion on everyone having the right to nuclear weapons.

How did he lose? He did an act of war, and no one acted against it, and he made himself look good by letting them go with full pardons and so on. He came off looking good in this.
He did it, no one went ahead and fought him, it didn't do his country any good, it didn't last for long enough for him to really get domestic support out of it, and the rest of the Iranian government told him to let them go (otherwise I don't see how he would have done it).

Iran really isn't a democracy. People vote, but candidates can (and have been, especially in the last round of voting) be disqualified through the influence of the more powerful clerics sitting on the Guardian Council. Ahmadinejad's election success was a combination of manipulation and fluke. He was, more or less, handpicked by the mullahs through their elimination of the more reformist candidates.

Not entirely true - quite a few voters simply preferred him over his openly corrupt opponents. I know multiple Iranian students that voted for him for exactly this reason, even though they would prefer change.

It was an act of war. Wasn't the war of 1812 fought over(partially) something similar, in that soldiers were being kidnapped by a foreign power?

It took place over a greater period of time. It was a continuing policy rather than a single incident.

And I can't really believe that you missed the implication that open warfare was a distinct possibility, since it was about as subtle as a sledgehammer. The reason neither side went that route is because obviously it is not in Britain's best interest to get involved in another war before acceptable alternatives have been exhausted. Ahmadinejad decided to resolve the situation before it got really ugly because he knows that a war would not benefit Iran in the slightest. And by unilaterally doing this he gets to save face by pretending he's all generous and such. Even so, the whole world knows he fucked up, and both sides of his own country are irritated with him over it. One for capturing the soldiers in the first place and making Iran look bad that way and almost starting a war, and the other for releasing them so easily and making Iran look weak.

Geez, you sure sound like you wish people were getting killed over it. You're a Christian, you should be happy that the nations involved had enough use of reason to realize that it was better to solve this issue diplomatically, rather than start a war in which nobody would ultimately benefit.

"Caved" is not the proper word here. Iran lost nothing.



But face. You don't take hostages expecting to get nothing out of the situation. Your goal is to get something out of them. Your opponent's goal is to get them back without giving you anything. No matter what, you're going to look like assholes. If you gain something, you at least have reaped some benefit, and look like someone who shouldn't be messed with. If you don't, and your opponent gets the hostages back and you get nothing, not only do you look like assholes, but you look like nincompoops as well.

Obviously, Britain got the hostages back without making even a single concession. Iran backed itself into a corner by saying they'd try the sailors for espionage, the penalty for which in Iran is probably death. Britain called their bluff and Iran knew that if it executed the sailors, some unpleasant things would likely happen.

And if you don't think this will affect Iran diplomatically, you're being foolish. This stunt will color everyone's perception of them, which wasn't that great already, making diplomacy that much more difficult.

Don't you have to be convicted of a crime to get a pardon?

Nixon was pardoned and he wasn't convicted.

How did he lose? He did an act of war, and no one acted against it, and he made himself look good by letting them go with full pardons and so on. He came off looking good in this.

He commited an act of war when his troops violated Iraqie waters, he put on a stage managed PR display which none of the world takes seriously, he had to give up and get nothing in return and the west has shown it can act without the US

Meh. I don't buy into the somewhat cliched US belligerence over the release of the prisoners, nor do I hold Blair in any greater esteem for having procured their release. Perhaps Iran might take hostage those in violation of international law in the future.

Incidentally, could we ask for reimbursement for the riots outside the British embassy?

He commited an act of war when his troops violated Iraqie waters, he put on a stage managed PR display which none of the world takes seriously, he had to give up and get nothing in return and the west has shown it can act without the US

Learn to employ the English effectively. I don't post here to see you shit on Samuel Johnson's grave.

Don't you have to be convicted of a crime to get a pardon?

Richard Nixon was not convicted of a Crime.

Ahmadinejad realized he had no case so he took the only sensible thing and released them. One of these days though he's going to make that one mistake that's going to spark something.

I just wish their parliament can throw him out of office.

Yeah, so?

Bush tried for his war, Iran continued to ignore the repeated US-UK provocations and didn't go for the bait.

Bush tried for war? WOW!!! Linky please?

How did he lose? He did an act of war, and no one acted against it, and he made himself look good by letting them go with full pardons and so on. He came off looking good in this.

You do not have a clue as to how he lost and when explained to you, you still say he did not lose. I doubt you ever will.

It was an act of war. Wasn't the war of 1812 fought over(partially) something similar, in that soldiers were being kidnapped by a foreign power?

And that was after dipomacy failed even though it technically did not fail.

You do not have a clue as to how he lost and when explained to you, you still say he did not lose. I doubt you ever will.


No one proved anything. They say he lost support in some places. Doesn't mean he lost in the long run, because it has only embolden him. I bet you we see more outrageous acts from him, because no action was taken now.

No one proved anything. They say he lost support in some places. Doesn't mean he lost in the long run, because it has only embolden him. I bet you we see more outrageous acts from him, because no action was taken now.

No action needed to be taken. There is precedent for what Britain did. Look up the Tent Affair and you'll see what I mean.

Meh. I don't buy into the somewhat cliched US belligerence over the release of the prisoners, nor do I hold Blair in any greater esteem for having procured their release. Perhaps Iran might take hostage those in violation of international law in the future.

Incidentally, could we ask for reimbursement for the riots outside the British embassy?

IMHO, some overzealous Iranian Revolutionary Guards seized the British inside Iraqi waters - then there was a clusterfuck within the Iranian government as they all argued internally over WTF to do. Each internal group with its own agenda, or lack thereof.

The British government seems to have merely waited out the clusterfuck.

IMHO, some overzealous Iranian Revolutionary Guards seized the British inside Iraqi waters - then there was a clusterfuck within the Iranian government as they all argued internally over WTF to do. Each internal group with its own agenda, or lack thereof.

The British government seems to have merely waited out the clusterfuck.

You're probably correct, however, I still maintain we should charge for the riots outisde our embassy.:D

You're probably correct, however, I still maintain we should charge for the riots outisde our embassy.:D

Submit a bill under the table. I'm sure it will be cleaned up.