« Barry McCaffrey on Iraq II | Main | The Third Islamic Invasion of Europe »

April 1, 2007

The New Iranian Hostage Crisis

Iran seized the British sailors because they believe that they can use them to achieve certain foreign policy goals and there is little chance of retaliation by Western powers. Unfortunately, they are probably right.

The main goal of the Khumeinists is to create a regional Imamate, or Shiite "superstate". They want to chase all Western powers from the region and subdue the Sunni powers. Shiites were shut out of the jihad for 13 centuries, and are in now with a vengance. More about the Khumeinists and why I call them that here and here.

Everthing I have read since the hostages were taken tells me that the Khumeinists are going to get away with their act of terror with no repercussions. What is going to happen, I think, is that Ahmadinejad or whoever's in control of this in Iran will hold the Britons for a few weeks, using them for television propaganda, then release them after Tony Blair issues what will amount to an apology. Ahmadinejad will declare that he could have tried the sailors and Royal Marines but in a grand act of mercy he will let them go. Meanwhile, diplomats and liberal editorial writers will issue soothing words about how lives were saved and "see quiet diplomacy does work."

What we will not want to notice is that Ahmadinejad and the Khumeinists mullahs will celebrate themselves, having learned the same lesson about the West that Osama bin Laden learned about the Americans after Beirut, Somalia, and the USS Cole.

It did not always used to be this way. The other day on The Corner Mark Steyn reminded us of how fast Margaret Thatcher responded to a naked act of agression in 1982

On April 2nd, the Argies seized the Falklands, which were all but undefended.

On April 5th a British task force of over 100 ships and 28,000 men sailed from England for the South Atlantic.

In three days! Talk about a rush to war, eh?

Wow. I'd forgotten how fast Maggie's response was.

Yes I know that there's a difference between the seizure of 15 sailors and Royal Marines and a piece of real estate. But on the other hand the military junta ruling Argentina was not really a threat to anyone but it's own citizens. The seizure of the Falklands was as much an attempt to divert public opinion from the failures of the junta as it was an expression of nationalism etc. Iran, or the "Khumeinist" as I think a is more accurate term, are a threat to the region and indeed the world. They are on the fast track to acquiring nuclear weapons, and if they choose to use them Western concepts of deterrance will not deter them.

Further, yes I know that the Royal Navy of today is a shell of what they had during the Cold War, to say nothing of earlier days. As Arthur Herman pointed out earlier this week, not only has the Royal Navy been dramatically cut in size, in the past few years, but "by this time next year, the once-vaunted Royal Navy will be about the size of the Belgian Navy, while its officers face a five-year moratorium on all promotions." If you don't believe me consider this chart (click to enlarge)

450px-RN_Surface_Fleet_Since_1960.JPG

At the time of the Falklands War the Royal Navy consisted of 50 frigates. Today it has 17. You get the point.

But what ultimately separates Thatcher from Blair is that the former knew that agression much be met with force or the credible threat of force immediately. You do not deal with a schoolyard bully by going to the teacher, but by whacking him with your textbook. Likewise, the Argentinians knew that while diplomats like Secretary of State Alexander Haig shuttled back and forth between London and Buenos Aires, the task force was slowly making its way south. And when it arrived, the time for diplomacy would be over. The Argentinian generals knew that the clock was ticking down to zero hour.

This time the clock is ticking upwards. The Khumeinists believe that they can keep the hostages as long as they like and there will be no military consequences. Blair has sent forth no task force and likely never will. The Argentinian generals lost their military gamble, but the truth is that it was a near-run thing that could have gone the other direction. The Khumeinists will likely not even have to risk a military gamble.

The irony is that the military balance is far more lopsided this time than it was in 1982, this despite Tony Blair's near emasculation of the Royal Navy. Although the Royal Navy has shrunk in size from times past, it is still larger and much more capable than anything the Iranians have. In addition, this time the British could most likely count on direct military support from the United States. In the Falklands War the Brits were largely on their own, with only limited logistical support from the US.

Further, there is much more that we could do today to harm the Khumeinists. Their economy is largely dependant on oil shipments, and we have many bases and a large fleet in the Persian Gulf right now. It would be very easy for us to blockade Iran.

The sad thing is that we don't even really need to resort to military force, even of the blockade type. If the European Union meant anything, they'd rally around a "member nation" and stop trade with Iran. As Mark Steyn pointed out in another editorial "the European Union is the Islamic Republic's biggest trading partner, accounting for 40 percent of Iranian exports." The EU could seriously punish Tehran if it wanted to. But it doesn't want to. One suspects that many Europeans secretly think that the British deserve this for their unholy alliance with the hated Bush.

To be sure, retaliation works the other way round too. There was not much the Argentinians could do around the world to make trouble for the British, whereas the Khumeinists can certainly give us a very difficult time.

But at least in the short run there is an awful lot we can do to punish the Iranians. We currently have the John Stennis and Eisenhower battle groups in the gulf. The French carrier Clemenceau is there as well, less capable than ours but could serve very well as a blockade enforcer. It is the British who are lacking in power. It is my understanding that the only ship they have in the region is the frigate HMS Cornwall, the very ship from which the sailors and marines are from.

What about the UN? Wasn't it supposed to resolve all these issues? Here's Steyn again in the article linked to above (hat tip LGF)

The U.N. will do nothing for men seized on a U.N.-sanctioned mission. The European Union will do nothing for its "European citizens." But if liberal transnationalism is a post-modern joke, it's not the only school of transnationalism out there. Iran's Islamic Revolution has been explicitly extraterritorial since the beginning: It has created and funded murderous proxies in Hezbollah, Hamas and both Shia and Sunni factions of the Iraq "insurgency." It has spent a fortune in the stans of Central Asia radicalizing previously somnolent Muslim populations. When Ayatollah Khomeini announced the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, it was not Iranians but British, Indian, Turkish, European, Asian and American Muslims who called for his death, firebombed bookstores, shot his publisher, fatally stabbed his translator and murdered anybody who got in their way.

So we live today in a world of one-way sovereignty: American, British and Iraqi forces in Iraq respect the Syrian and Iranian borders; the Syrians and Iranians do not respect the Iraqi border. Patrolling the Shatt al-Arab at a time of war, the Royal Navy operates under rules of engagement designed by distant fainthearts with an eye to the polite fictions of "international law": If you're in a ''warship,'' you can't wage war. If you're in a ''destroyer,'' don't destroy anything. If you're in a "frigate," you're frigging done for.

All our military power and the jihadists know that they have little to fear from most of it. As long as they refrain from acts as blatant as 9-11, they can pretty much do what they want. I hate to sound so pessimistic, but my guess is that the Khumeinists are going to get away with this with minimal consequnces and that it will lead to more and more agression on their part.

Posted by Tom at April 1, 2007 8:00 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/868

Comments

"the European Union is the Islamic Republic's biggest trading partner, accounting for 40 percent of Iranian exports."

Fact Check: According the CIA world factbook entry on Iran, the largest Iranian export partners are China/Japan, and with S. Korea, they account for 34% of exports. Top EU export partners account for 15% of exports. China alone has 11%, so I am hard pressed to re-create this information. The only citations I can find with this 40% EU figure are from the 1999-2000 time period, hardly current at all.

Continue with the EU bashing, but use real facts. The EU wields little economic control over Iran. They can just as easily sell their oil to China, Japan and Russia. As usual, worldwide oil demand negates any real affect of sanctions on oil producers. Iraq is a prime example of failed sanctions; the global demand for black gold was too high for Kofi's son to pass up, so he decided to get in on the action, just like black gold has forced us into an unholy reliance on the Saudi state, which panders to the Wahhibis while we pump their bank accounts full at the pump. Buy a Hummer, help fund terror!!!!

Posted by: jason at April 2, 2007 8:48 PM

Between PC, and lack of leadership, we've got a mess! My kingdom for another Thatcher and Reagan.

Posted by: DagneyT at April 2, 2007 8:55 PM

jason

Actually I will continue with the EU bashing because they so richly deserve it. Their behavior has been disgraceful. It looks like the 40% figure is wrong though. I should have poked around a bit.

Your point that oil is a fungible commodity is correct to a point. Crude oil from some places is more valuable than others because content makes it easier to refine. That said, yes it is pretty much fungible.

Re your comment about a hummer: Do you have figures regarding how much oil we'd save if everyone drove a Mini Cooper? How much would we save if we could reduce the average mile per gallon for our vehicles from X to Y? I've always wondered but never had time to look it all up. If you have figures I'd appreciate if you could leave them in a comment below.

Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at April 2, 2007 9:09 PM

I've tried to post a longer version of this three times, here's another try:

Hybrids would use 25 to 29% of the fuel used by Hummers, and Coopers would use 57 to 55 % of the fuel used by Hummers. Basically, if everyone drove a Cooper, we would hypothetically use almost ½ less fuel per year for personal annual travel. Hybrids would result in even greater savings. Note that the Prius gets worse gas mileage on the hwy, so if all City drivers used Hybrids, urban people (who don’t need to drive Hummers) would use ¾ of the fuel required by a city full of blockhead Hummer drivers.

FULL COMMENT:
The math (in a very aggregated sense) is fairly simple from public
data:

1. The National Household Travel Survey states in 2001 the average
American
household drove 21,000 miles per year (most recent data I could quickly
find).

2. The 2006 Census estimate has a total US pop. of approximately 300
million
(299,398,484). The 2006 average household size was 2.6, so we can
extrapolate approximately 115 million households in the US:

21,000 miles per year/household x 115 million households = 2.4 trillion
vehicle miles travelled per year.

2006 Hummer (H3): 16/20 mpg, city/hwy = 150/120 billion gallons per
year

2006 Base Cooper: 28/36 mpg = 86/66 billion gallons per year

2006 Prius Hybrid: 60/51 mpg = 40/47 billion gallons per year

Hybrids would use 25 to 29% of the fuel used by Hummers, and Coopers
would
use 57 to 55 % of the fuel used by Hummers. Basically, if everyone
drove a
Cooper, we would hypothetically use almost ½ less fuel per year for
household annual travel. Hybrids would result in even greater savings.
Note that the Prius gets worse gas mileage on the hwy, so if all City
drivers used Hybrids, urban people (who don’t need to drive Hummers)
would
use 1/4 to 1/3 of the fuel required by a city full of blockhead Hummer
drivers. Would you rather give the Saudis $25 or $100 to fund
madrahahsas? Decry the left for urging greater fuel economy, but paste
that
American flag on your Hummer, knowing full well that you help fund oil
rich
despots and their pet causes (including jihad) at a rate 4 times
greater
than hybrid drivers.


Average annual miles traveled, per household (2001):
http://nhts.ornl.gov/2001/presentations/vehicleMiles/index.shtml

2006 US population:
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-ds_name=PEP_2006_EST&-redoLog=false&-mt_name=PEP_2006_EST_G2006_T001&-CONTEXT=dt

2006 US household size:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14942047/

MPG data:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/

Posted by: jason at April 11, 2007 1:11 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)