Helpful graphic and map.. (Lowell - 3/24/2007 11:59:32 AM)
courtesy of the BBC:
My initial suspicion is that the British have been conducting aggressive patrolling either in a disputed area or even in well-defined Iranian territorial waters in order to provoke an Iranian response.
Or maybe the Brits just took their eyes off their GPS and wandered over the line when they boarded the suspected "smuggling" ship in the Gulf.
Or maybe the Iranian mullahs were looking for the first good opening to retaliate in kind for the U.S. trashing of their consular facility in Irbil, Iraq, the arrest of several Iranian officials (including some with diplomatic status) in Iraq in recent weeks, and President Bush's recent authorization to kill suspect Iranians in Iraq. Seizing British sailors who strayed into Iranian waters would send a strong signal without being as confrontational as taking U.S. troops hostage.
Or maybe all three (or other) causes are at play. Anyway, let's cool down and ascertain the reality before replaying August, 1914 or September, 1939.
Remember in this context the Vincennes incident in 1989, when a U.S. guided missile cruiser in Iranian territorial waters shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing all 290 persons on board. The initial Pentagon and media spin sought to blame the civilian airliner for having flown a "threatening" flight path. Subsequent investigation demonstrated that the Iranian airliner had done everything according to the books, was in a regular civilian air corridor, was emitting the right identifying electronic signature, and was in a normal ascent (not threatening descent) path. The fault in this case was a tragic "group think" blunder by the crew and Captain (Will Rogers, III) of the Vincennes.
Oh, and then there was that incident in the Gulf of Tonkin a while back.
And remember how Bush once suggested to Tony Blair that we could create a pretext for the invasion of Iraq by painting a U2 spy plane with UN colors and then sending it over Iraq? If the Iraqis shot at it, Bush could claim that the act was a violation of UN resolutions and a cause for war. Here is a link to a BBC story on that episode:
http://news.bbc.co.u...
Let's not allow ourselves get Tony Snowed--or Tony Blaired or George Bushed--on this one.
I know this isn't directly on point to your splendid post, except to the extent to which Bush has opened up a can of worms. Basically, Turkey could really complicate the situation if it tries to go into northern Iraq.
[query: when I've opened up a container of worms for fishing they're usually pretty docile -- maybe it is not such a good metaphor]
Yet the neocons continue to preach and pursue their discredited agenda.
Awaiting the Bush Administration's ratcheting up of the saber rattling over this incident.
I'm inclined not to put too much stock on the danger of an "incident" sparking off wars. Far more often the power structure of some country (almost always the militarily more powerful one) makes the decision to go to war and then seeks to create an appropriate pretext to lend justification to its decision. Even Hitler claimed that his forces were responding to a Polish attack when the Wehrmacht (which, of course, means "defensive force" in German) marched into Poland in September, 1939.
One would hope that at the moment the band of rogues at the White House are so consumed with saving their domestic political necks that their attention will be diverted from committing yet more blunders in the Gulf.
Of course, as you imply in your last sentence, these same rogues may calculate that another patriotically-spun blunder in the Gulf could deliver them from their domestic enemies--at least for a while.
There's way too much Wag the Dog about this Administration, but maybe all this domestic upheaval over the attorney firings and other issues might be derailing their original intentions or causing them to rethink their direction. Time will tell.
I think that we need to look at it with a little care. At first glance it shows an "Area of Operations" with a couple of circles in it, leading a quick skimmer to conclude that the seizure might have occurred well out in the Gulf at one of the circles, which in fact are oil rigs.
My suspicion is that the incident likely occurred in the Shat al-Arab to the north of the outlined area and that the sovereignty/territorial/demarcation issue will turn out to be a lot fuzzier than the British are initially claiming in their press releases. Of course, the Iranians have their own propaganda axe to grind as well.
But, as always, caveat lector.
So what's the border between the two countries? Who knows!
Good point. Ahmadinejad seems to have some of the same domestic political problems that Bush and his rogues are now facing. What I don't fully understand is the capability of Supreme Leader Khamenei to provide adult supervision. I suspect that Ahmadinejad may be viewed as something of a buffoon by Khamenei and the other key mullahs, even though Ahmadinejad is in a sense Khamenei's golem.
Khamenei appears at least to be able to think through the consequences of his actions, and he is likely the one pulling the key strings, political and military. The seizure of the Brits may well be a calculated maneuver to gain some leverage in the current eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation with the U.S.
It is interesting to watch how such confrontations play themselves out. In the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, the planet had the good fortune to have JFK and Khrushchev making the key decisions. Both were rational actors, but it was still a very near thing. Both were getting exceedingly bad, provocative advice from most of their military and political advisers. Both had the judgment and connection to reality to overrule such advisers in order to find a way out. Khrushchev pulled out his IRBM's from Cuba, and in return JFK promised not to invade Cuba and to pull U.S. IRBM's out of Turkey. Two ultimately rational leaders avoided Armageddon--but just barely.
The chilling element in this potential crisis with Iran is that Bush and Cheney have repeatedly demonstrated that they are not able to think through the consequences of their actions. Have they already given the order and timetable to strike Iran?
Indeed, Bush in his recent public appearances has become more and more reminiscent of actor Bruno Ganz in the 2005 German movie "Downfall" (a good addition to anyone's Netflix list). Can we now consider Bush and Cheney even to be rational and capable of perceiving reality? Can we consider Bush and Cheney, in other words, to be sane? I understand that Colin Powell has noted in private conversations that he considers Cheney to be "emotionally unstable." Bush's public appearances of late have given us no reason to be confident of his mental and emotional stability.
Are we approaching the territory of the 25th Amendment and the Presidential Succession Act? Must we start asking ourselves whether both Bush and Cheney are effectively "disabled" and must be removed from office for reasons of "inability" to perform their duties?
Is the vice president losing his influence, or perhaps his mind? That question, even if it is phrased more delicately, is creeping through foreign ministries and presidential offices abroad and has become a factor in the Bush administration's relations with the world."What has happened to Dick Cheney?" That solicitous but direct question came from a European statesman who has known the vice president for many years.
Interesting topic--are our leaders delusional? I'd love to see a poll on it. Last night, my oldest brother, who voted for Bush in '00 then abstained in '04, offered that Bush was over the edge mentally.
I just like havin' fun with pictures.