Iran playing games

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The time military action would have been most useful in this crisis would have been if the sailors mothership had been in a position to defend them. One would have thought after the first time this happened, that would have been SOP on missions like this. I'm still curious why you think people were pulling for war when a)the EU wasn't even helping the UK sanctions wise, b) they couldn't even get a strongly worded "Bad Iran!" statement from the UN, and c) they were being held in Tehran (not on the coast) limiting the ability of any military act to effect their release.

Some US rightwingers were and are for war.

Not "people".

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The RoE don't allow for opposed boardings, so nobody is equipped for or planning for that kind of use of force.

After the last time Iran did this, why not?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Because we really don't want to escalate things with the Iranians, given that we're already in FUBARs in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Better to not escalate and have a few days of theatrics, than to let the **** hit the fan in another area in the ME, especially in view of trying to get the rest of the pansies in the world lined up on the Iranian nuclear issue.

[DinoDoc]

Why would repelling an attack on your soldiers be considered an escalation?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Uh, try Fort Sumter for an example?

Once people start shooting at other people, then things tend to get out of hand.

If the Brits shoot first, the Iranians weren't "attacking" they were "investigating" or "partrolling" or even "seeing if assistance was needed"

The Iranians didn't have to shoot to take the Brit boarding party prisoner.

[Ramo]

AFAICT there is NO ambiguity about the defacto border (Any more than there is ambiguity about the route of the "green line"), and that is what the MoD map was about.

Even the Brits and Iraqis stopped asserting that. Part of the reason why the situation was resolved.

Hitchens is not persona non grata, nor did I say that Murray is. I would not however invoke Hitchens as an authority, beyond the ability of his words to convince, nor cite his credentials based on a job from which he had been fired. esp if his assertions were directed against his former employer.

That's a pretty absurd position. He was exonerated of the conduct charges, leaving only his hostility to an extremely nasty regime. I don't see how not like the Uzbek gov't nullifies any knowledge you might have wrt international law.

We asked for devolution to the cabinet, because at the time the Pal presidency was an obstacle to peace and a supporter of terrorism. The situation is now reversed.

Except that the elections where Hamas swept into power were held while Abbas was Prez.

The "coup" would be the holding of a new election, in technical violation of the Pal basic law (maybe - IIUC Fatah disputes that)

No, the "coup" is Scowcraft sending tons of arms to Fatah in hopes of an armed takeover.

Well, I thought you were talking about direct Pal-Israeli talks, not the Arab League proposal.

I wasn't aware that Olmert called for bilateral talks. Weren't you referring to some kind of regional conference? In any case, I'd expect the Pals to accept such an offer any time now, due to domestic pressures.

The AL proposal of an unlimited right of return is hardly a realistic offer either

Yes, but:

To most Palestinians, that means the right to return to their original homes inside Israel, but most Israelis fear that admitting large numbers of Palestinians would undermine the Jewish nature of the state.

Israeli officials say some Arab leaders acknowledge that their peace proposal can only be the basis for negotiation, and that a final peace will involve some flexibility on boundaries and refugees.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/31/world/middleeast/31mideast.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

The AL's actual right of return clause is pretty vague, calling for a "just" resolution to RoR, in accordance with the UN resolution (a resolution whose actual meaning Israel contests). There seems to be an implied amount of give on it.

And Olmert seems to realize that:

In an interview with The Jerusalem Post, Mr. Olmert seemed to rule out any negotiation on refugees. He would not accept any notional Palestinian “right of return” to their homes, telling the newspaper: “I’ll never accept a solution that is based on their return to Israel, any number.”

Mr. Olmert said that the refugee problem was caused by the Arab attack on Israel in 1948 and called it “a moral issue of the highest standard.” He said: “I will not agree to accept any kind of Israeli responsibility for the refugees. Full stop.”

Then he added: “I don’t think we should accept any kind of responsibility for the creation of this problem. Full stop.” He said the return of even one Palestinian refugee to Israel was “out of the question.”

While the AL should be more willing to talk, Olmert certainly shouldn't be taking a hardline stance like this. I don't know why everyone should pretend that Camp David never happened (or the various other negotiations that lead to the same basic outlines), and negotiations should start from a blank slate.

And so I dont see the current Israeli govt as an intransigent actor.

Like I was saying, things are better now after everyone's domestic politics have become basketcases, but people forget that Sharon was elected on a platform that rejected any sort of discussion, where Israel would unilaterally withdraw, leaving the Pals with less than half of their pre-'67 territories.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo

Even the Brits and Iraqis stopped asserting that. Part of the reason why the situation was resolved.

They may have chosen not to present the map again, since that was a distraction. I have not heard that they changed their mind on the issue of the de facto border.

That's a pretty absurd position. He was exonerated of the conduct charges, leaving only his hostility to an extremely nasty regime. I don't see how not like the Uzbek gov't nullifies any knowledge you might have wrt international law.

1. It was job to maintain the UK position wrt to that regime, and not to develop his own position, whatever his personal likes or dislikes. 2. Given that he is strongly motivated to oppose the policies of the UK govt, it would be best to simply indicate the international law questions at issue, and not to cite him as an authority.

except that the elections where Hamas swept into power were held while Abbas was Prez.

Are we discussing the 2005 elections, or the US pressure to devolve authority from the Presidency to the cabinet?

No, the "coup" is Scowcraft sending tons of arms to Fatah in hopes of an armed takeover.

I know of no evidence Scowcroft, who is not a member of the administration, is doing so. This must be more "research" by the ever productive Mr Hersh? In any case, providing arms to Fatah need not indicate an "armed takeover" From what I understand Mr Abbas has considered implementing new elections, which he believes he has the constitutional authority to do. Recent polls indicate Hamas would lose such elections. Hamas, perhaps out of awareness of that, asserts that such new elections would be illegal. Hamas seems to be preparing to use its own expanded militia, armed with weapons illegally smuggled into Gaza, would then oppose the elections by armed force. Abbas needs forces that would stop from Hamas from doing that.

While the AL should be more willing to talk, Olmert certainly shouldn't be taking a hardline stance like this. I don't know why everyone should pretend that Camp David never happened (or the various other negotiations that lead to the same basic outlines), and negotiations should start from a blank slate.

If everyone is willing to say Barak's offer is the basis for negotiations, with the details to be worked out, that would be fine. But thats not what Im hearing. What Im hearing is that the AL is offering basically a maximalist position - withdrawl to the green line, and at least an implicit full RoR (and yes, i need to go back and research how vague the AL offer actually is) but Israel is expected to start with the Barak offer as its starting position. And THAT is unreasonable. If the AL can assert something close to its maximal position as a starting position, than so can Israel.

Like I was saying, things are better now after everyone's domestic politics have become basketcases, but people forget that Sharon was elected on a platform that rejected any sort of discussion, where Israel would unilaterally withdraw, leaving the Pals with less than half of their pre-'67 territories.

If you mean the Israeli election of 2000, Im quite sure Sharon did NOT state that his policy would unilateral withdrawl. The Likud policy then was against unilateral withdrawl and against Pal statehood, and for Pal autonomy, with no clear lines about additional territorial concessions beyond the areas already under PA civil control under Oslo. The estimate that the PA would get 60% of the territories (not less than half, IIRC) was made AFTER Sharon was in office, when he accepted in principle the concept of a Pal state. It was connected with unilateral withdrawl only through the notion that in the case of no negotiating partner, and Israel being forced to unilateral withdrawl, he would need far more territory for security purposes.

In any case, Im not sure what Sharon's hypothetical negotiating stance in 2002, when there was virtual war and no real negotiations were possible, has to the current situation.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
I wasn't aware that Olmert called for bilateral talks. Weren't you referring to some kind of regional conference? In any case, I'd expect the Pals to accept such an offer any time now, due to domestic pressures.

My initial reference was to a regional peace conference. To which you replied as follows:


"Are you seriously trying to portray the refusal to talk as a one-sided affair? After the utter disaster in Lebanon, it's true that Olmert has been more willing to compromise."

Which i read as referring to bilateral talks between Israel and the Pals. Since Im not aware of Olmert refusing to engage in multilateral talks with AL members, or even to biliateral talks with KSA.

[lord of the mark]

oh and quibble. You refer to half of the Pals pre-67 territories. As Im sure youre aware, the West Bank was under Jordanian admin and control before 67, though Jordans claim was recognized by only a couple of states. And Gaza, though Egypt did not claim it, was under Egyptian control.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


The AL's actual right of return clause is pretty vague, calling for a "just" resolution to RoR, in accordance with the UN resolution (a resolution whose actual meaning Israel contests). There seems to be an implied amount of give on it.

Given the plain text of the UNGA resolution, and the history of Arab interpretations of it, I dont think its at all unreasonable to read the Arab League proposal as a call for an unlimited right of return. Olmert chose to read it as such, and to reassert the maximal ISraeli position (which, as a practical rather than symbolic matter, is not that far from the likely ultimate solution - and certainly from an Israeli POV it would be irresponsible not to reassert the historical fact, stated even by New historian Benny Morris, that Israeli actions in 1948 played only a small role in the Pal exodus, which was mainly the inevitable result of the war)

I note however that Depty PM Shimon Peres made somewhat softer statements. I certainly dont think Olmerts statements in one interview can be held to have the same diplomatic heft as the AL proposal itself, or the AL continued refusal to negotiate detaisl, which is, AFAIK, not merely a statement to a reporter, but the official positon of the KSA govt.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


Even the Brits and Iraqis stopped asserting that. Part of the reason why the situation was resolved.

Evidently RN Lt Carman hasnt gotten the word

'Carman had been pictured on Iranian television saying he "understood" why Iran was angry the crew had strayed into their waters. At Friday's news conference, he said the crew was nearly two nautical miles from Iran's territory — and that they had never apologized.

"Let me make this clear — irrespective of what was said in the past — when we were detained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard we were inside internationally recognized Iraqi territorial waters," he said. "At no time did we actually say were sorry for straying into Iranian waters." '

[Drake Tungsten]

Yesterday, a spokesman for the National Security Council, Gordon Johndroe, told reporters that America is negotiating a process with the Iraqi government that could lead to the release of the five Iranians, captured in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil by American forces on the morning of January 11, hours after President Bush announced a new Iraq strategy to combat the Iranian and Syrian networks in Iraq…

Mr. Johndroe’s announcement marks a change of course from earlier statements made by Mr. Bush and Secretary of Defense Gates about the captured Iranians. Mr. Gates said yesterday, “I think there’s no inclination right now to let them go.” But he also said the plan for granting access to the prisoners was being negotiated…

The Irbil five, however, are also of high value to the American military, whose commanders in Iraq have opposed efforts to hand over the men, who they say are high-ranking members of Iran’s Quds Force, to the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government.

One concern about releasing the five Iranians or transferring them to Iraqi custody, according to one administration official, is that they are knowledgeable about American interrogation techniques. “They will share this knowledge with the next batch of Quds officers that come to Iraq,” the official, who requested anonymity, said.

Another concern is that the five Iranians in American custody are particularly dangerous. The administration official described them as “paymasters” and “terrorism coaches.”

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/06/good-news-quds-force-members-captured-at-irbil-might-be-released-soon/

Iran didn't just win; they pwned the US/UK...

[MOBIUS]

For once I have to agree with DT, the US and UK were played like chumps and seeing as no one was hurt, apart from our national pride - it was funny as hell!

[Colon™]

There's nothing hilarious about the manner these people were toyed around with.

[Solly]

Originally posted by Colon™
There's nothing hilarious about the manner these people were toyed around with.

yes I'm looking forward to seeing how he squares this idioicy with his ramblings about Guantanamo..