Iranian Deja Vu?

The L.A. Times ran an article yesterday about the recent capture of British troops in the Shatt-al-Arab titled, "Capture of British sailors is all too Familiar" that starts with the words: "A disconcerting sense of deja vu surrounds Iran's capture of 15 British sailors and marines on smuggling patrol Friday in the Persian Gulf." Of course, the only deja vu that the article relates has to do with the capture and detention of British soldiers in 2004. As the article goes on to explain:

Three years ago, eight British servicemen traveling in small boats up the Shatt al Arab waterway near the Iranian border with Iraq found themselves surrounded by members of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, arrested and subjected to a three-day ordeal that included mock executions and a visit to what they thought would be their graves. After a few days, they were released.

Well, it's been three days and the 15 Brits are still in Iranian custody. If anything, it looks like the Iranians are not stepping back and the latest development involved the Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki claiming their illegal entry into Iranian waters and the possibility of trying them for espionage in Iran. So far the British have not been granted access to their soldiers (as would be expected in the case of POWs) and it is not at all clear that they will be released anytime soon.

It will be interesting to see how Great Britain will deal with this crisis. So far, Prime Minister Blair has convened his COBRA team (an acronym for Cabinet Office Briefing Room A) and has told the Iranians that, "there is no doubt at all that these people were taken from a boat in Iraqi waters" and that he wants the Iranians to understand that the Iranian actions were, "unjustified and wrong".

There is plenty of deja vu in the recent events, but it has little to do with the capture of British soldiers three years ago. Three years ago, the Iranians were in a far weaker position strategically and were quite happy to assist the US and UK in making Iraq safe for Shias. Three years ago discussions on Iran's nuclear ambitions had started, but it was clear that after the fiasco of Iraqi WMDs everyone was going to play the Iranian round "by the book" - even if it means years of cat and mouse games and IAEA inspections. Three years ago Mohammed Khatami, the Iranian reformer was in power and now the hard-line Ahmadinejad is the President of Iran.

No, the deja vu stems not from 2003, but rather from last summer's kidnapping of Israeli soldiers on the Lebanese border by Hezbollah. Like last summer, this recent kidnapping came on the eve of a United Nations vote for sanctions on Iran with regard to their non-compliance to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (of which they are signatories). Of course in the case of Israel, Hezbollah also managed to kill a few soldiers while lobbing a few katyushas into Israel. In both cases, Hezbollah and Iran crossed internationally recognized lines and captured soldiers in uniform. At the time Israel was roundly accused of over-reacting and using disproportionate force. It will be interesting to see how the British and the international community decide to handle this crisis.

In any case, I have no doubt that this accounts for the recent Iranian histrionics surrounding President Ahmadinejad's visa to attend the UN sanctions vote in New York. By blaming the US for being slow in getting his visa processed he has an excellent excuse for not going abroad at a time when he needs to be in Tehran to manage this crisis and leverage these British pawns into tangible concessions for Iran. No doubt the Iranians are sending a message with regards to the recent disappearance of former Iranian Deputy Minister of Defense, Alireza Asgari in Ankara or the detention and arrest of five Iranian mission staffers in Erbil for allegedly aiding Iraqi insurgents.

The decision to target Britain and not the United States is also hardly arbitrary. At this point the Iranians are still trying to avoid a confrontation with the US while at the same time demonstrating their military capabilities. Because the British are militarily stretched to the limit, it means that they have few choices but diplomacy. Moreover, the Iranians have probably rightly interpreted the British as the weaker link in the trans-Atlantic alliance. It is no secret that the British people have no stomach for war and are already finding ways to blame all of this on Bush and the "American embrace". On the other hand, it will be interesting to see if, together with the kidnapping of BBC reported Alan Johnston in Gaza on March 12, will initiate a sea change in British public opinion regarding the Middle East.

Then again, who knows? Maybe "Bush's poodle" can bite!

Putin's Path

The Washington Times in a James Zumwalt opinion piece has raised the heat in the debate started by Putin in the recent Munich security forum. At the forum, Putin stated that,

"almost uncontained use of [U.S.] military force" is causing other nations to seek out nuclear weapons to defend themselves.

This is a bit ironic if you consider the fact that Russian nuclear scientists have been instrumental in helping Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and North Korea develop the necessary technology to make weapons-grade uranium while the Russian government has kept these countries supplied in the scud missiles that could be used to deliver their payload. This too at a time when the Russian government has all but announced its intention to opt out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) so that it can once again threaten Central Europe in a balance of power game that directly threatens American interests.

As Zumwalt rightly points out:

Turning to the substance of Mr. Putin's charge, it is clear he is uninhibited by facts. His suggestion that nuclear weapon-seeking countries like Iran have felt intimidated by U.S. use of force ignores an issue of timing. Iran's quest for this capability was ongoing for 18 years before we knew about it -- when there was no basis for such intimidation. Despite Islamic extremists having taken U.S. diplomats hostage in Tehran, America's sword of retribution was never unsheathed. Similarly, there was an absence of intimidation when North Korea mounted its latest nuclear push years earlier as the United States failed to even bare its teeth.

Iran certainly has not suddenly developed the urge for nuclear technology - it has been playing cat and mouse with the IAEA for the better part of a decade. The fact that it's research facilities are scattered and buried deep underground and far from prying eyes, is a testament to the fact that the Iranians learned the lessons of the 1981 Israeli bombing of the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq. The US was unable to prevent Pakistan and India from developing nuclear arsenals and was systematically duped by the North Koreans who were clearly working on their own timetable all along.

If anything, it seems that the world is heading into a period of instability as America's misteps in Iraq and the War on terror catch up with an American public clearly lacking a desire to continue the fight. This not only emboldens America's enemies to start acting out in new new and frightening way, but creates bedfellows and threatens to solidify the international system. The outline of these emerging fault lines are becoming clear, but only time will tell how seismically destabilizing they will be.

As for the article's contention that Russia will soon be overun by Muslims, I completely disagree with the author because, for starters, I don't believe that Islam is any more monolithic than Communism was. There are definitely many Muslims in Russia, but they are the type that can be found drinking vodka and enjoying sala (fatback) with their Russian neighbors. If anything, Chechnya has proven the futility of Muslim "resistance" in Russia and clearly demonstrates that "even Muslims" have a pain threshold. It also shows that Russians are more determined and are far less inhibited than Western Europeans and Americans when confronted with existential threats.