4.02.2007

U.S. to Blame...Again

It turns out Rosie O'Donnell is not the only voice in the liberal wilderness blaming the U.S. for the British hostage crisis. She is joined by the British daily, The Independent, which claims in an article today that a botched U.S. raid ten weeks prior to the hostage incident is ultimately to blame for Iran's actions.

I'm sure Iran is really miffed that we took a swipe at the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard on his visit to Arbil in Northern Iraq. After all, I'm sure he was on a goodwill mission, delivering cookies and milk to Kurdistani diplomats there. But it stands to reason that they would send a clear message to us instead of the hopelessly mixed signals coming from Tehran at the moment. Also, nevermind the fact that evidence has been found showing Iranian involvement in resistance efforts against the U.S.; Rick Brennan covered this in a NYTimes piece two weeks ago. Nevermind Iran's repeated flouting of U.N. demands to come clean over their nuclear program. Simply forget Mad Mahmoud's eagerness to perpetrate another Jewish holocaust. It is, as always, those cowboys from the West who are to blame.

If only we wouldn't be so gung-ho. If only we would listen to the worldwide community (who, interestingly, spends most of their time listening to Iran's demands). If only we would reward bad behavior by the promise of incentives upon compliance. Then this hostage situation could have been averted. This whole Middle Eastern imbroglio might have been averted if we would have curried the favor of world opinion.

This article is, sadly, another example of a growing dhimmitude in Europe--a hope to achieve success through submission. That the UK would take so long to attempt to resolve this situation doesn't speak to patient virtue, but to indecisive weakness. There is a reason, after all, that British soldiers were kidnapped and not Americans, and The Independent never quite gets around to it. Iran's leaders know that kidnapping American soldiers would be the death knell for Ahmadinejad and his cronies. They understand the language of the strong man--that a strong man only submits to the stronger man. Unfortunately, as Tony Blair warns the Iranian government that he will move to a new diplomatic phase if pushed, British hostages are paraded, humiliated, and made a mockery of to a worldwide audience. Teddy Roosevelt said to "speak softly and carry a big stick." Thus far, the British only have the first part of that right.

Update: Allahpundit at Hot Air offers an extended debunking of The Independent's article here.

More on Britain's "quiet diplomacy" from Time.

At a Camp David press conference on the weekend, Bush reiterated his support for his friend across the Atlantic and deplored Iran's "inexcusable behavior" in "the British hostages issue." The use of the word hostages was "utterly careless," says John Williams, who in June 2004 as Director of News for the British Foreign Ministry, was involved in moves to free eight British service personnel, also detained by Iran on a stretch of the Shatt al Arab waterway. He argues that the British government must be seen to regard the current crop of detainees "as victims of a misunderstanding that could be resolved." That's a prerequisite for the kind of quiet diplomacy that prevailed back in the summer of 2004 when the eight were freed after three days.

Yes, but it is also a prerequisite for more aggressive behavior on Iran's part, as manifested in this latest hostage incident.

No comments: