Durandal
06-29-2004, 09:12 AM
Article can be found here...
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/23536.htm
IRANIAN GAMBIT
By RALPH PETERS
June 23, 2004 -- THE seizure of eight British servicemen by Iran's Revolutionary Guards isn't about a border violation. It's meant to test the Coalition in Iraq, punish Britain for criticizing Tehran's nuclear quest — and recharge domestic support for Iran's hardliners.
Those eight hostages are pawns in a great strategic game for stakes far beyond the minor scale of the incident itself. Iran's hardliners are gambling. If the West — with London in the lead this time — fails to call their bluff, our weakness will virtually guarantee future conflict in the Persian Gulf.
Grabbing those British sailors and marines from three patrol boats they were delivering to Iraqi border guards wasn't an Iranian reaction to poor navigation. The seizure appears to have been planned and blessed by hardline leaders. It's a repertoire play, an attempt by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps — now a sprawling empire of repression — to recreate its greatest success on the world stage, the seizure of American embassy personnel a quarter-century ago.
Even if the hostages have been released by the time you read this, the provocation offers us insight into today's divided Iran.
Three powerful cards are in play. The hardliners hope they're all aces.
First, the Revolutionary Guards have seen their popularity and influence wane — especially with Iran's youth. Iranians have tried religious rule, and it hasn't worked; they want to return to a semblance of civilization. We play up the strength of the hardliners, but they feel under siege at home.
By snatching the Brits from the waters of the Shatt-al-Arab, the Revolutionary Guards and their allies are trying to excite Iranian nationalism, to resurrect the passions of the past. It's a desperate measure behind a mask of bravado.
It's unlikely that Iran's government leaders or the formal policy apparatus in Tehran knew about the plan to take British hostages — they wouldn't have believed it was worth the risk. The hardliners presented Iran's more rational elements with a fait accompli — now backing down will be portrayed as a betrayal of the country's sovereignty and pride.
If the situation is swiftly resolved, it will mean that more-moderate voices won in Tehran. If it drags on, it will tell us that the hardliners' gamble succeeded, at least domestically. Doubtless, tempers are flaring in Iran's chambers of government, a bitter struggle they'll never reveal to the world.
Second, this is a test of the Coalition's will to respond to provocations. It's a strategic probe disguised as a tactical incident. The Iranian intelligence services — intertwined with the Revolutionary Guards — scrutinize developments in Iraq, Europe and the United States (while supporting international terrorists and Iraqi insurgents). And they've drawn dangerous conclusions.
The Iranians know that Tony Blair's government is in political trouble. They're convinced the Brits will be unable to take a firm stand over the hostages. Tehran's hardliners believe they've identified Britain as a new weak link in the alliance.
Sadly, they may be right.
And they're testing the Coalition overall — especially Washington. The Iranians drew their own lessons from our retreat from Fallujah and our stymied efforts in Najaf and Karbala. They believe that America's on the defensive now, that we've lost our will to prosecute any fight to a conclusion, that the looming presidential election has paralyzed us.
They may be right again.
Third, the incident is a punishment, specifically for the Brits, but also intended as a warning to other European states which, after gushing about Iran's cooperation on nuclear matters, belatedly realized that Tehran is bent on building nuclear bombs. The French and Germans are paying for their treachery and cowardice on the eve of Saddamn's downfall by being dismissed as impotent.
The Revolutionary Guards have done their homework. They've decided the continental Europeans are all bluster and no substance. They believe that Britain can now be driven toward a European mode of behavior, further isolating the United States. And they suspect that, hardly a year after our devastating military campaign against Saddam's regime, our patience is running out and our will is faltering.
Hopefully, Iran's more reasonable figures will prevail and the hostage situation will be resolved before it becomes a genuine crisis. But if London strikes the wrong tone, projecting only weakness, it will play into the hands of the hardliners.
It's not a matter of seeking confrontation, but Tony Blair must show firmness.
There's a colossal disconnect just now between the way we see the situation in the Middle East and the way our enemies view it. We think we're doing OK, more or less, kinda-sorta. But they're convinced, in the wake of our recent displays of indecision, that the tide has turned, that we can be defeated.
At some point, we'll have to stop running away from our enemies and take a stand. If the Coalition's leaders were wise, this hostage situation would be that point.
But as of late even President Bush has begun to resemble Bill Clinton — always willing to say the words, but without the guts for a fight.
This seemingly minor event may be a historic turning point — although we might not realize it for years. With our short memories, we forget how many of history's most brutal conflicts began with minor naval incidents. Seizing or striking isolated vessels has long been a means of testing a potential opponent's will. The Iranian hardliners are playing an age-old hand.
Meanwhile, the Revolutionary Guards are really holding two separate groups of hostages: Eight British servicemen. And the entire population of Iran. Now they hope to make the Coalition a political hostage. Let's hope Tony Blair gets this one right.
Ralph Peters is a regular Post contributor.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/23536.htm
IRANIAN GAMBIT
By RALPH PETERS
June 23, 2004 -- THE seizure of eight British servicemen by Iran's Revolutionary Guards isn't about a border violation. It's meant to test the Coalition in Iraq, punish Britain for criticizing Tehran's nuclear quest — and recharge domestic support for Iran's hardliners.
Those eight hostages are pawns in a great strategic game for stakes far beyond the minor scale of the incident itself. Iran's hardliners are gambling. If the West — with London in the lead this time — fails to call their bluff, our weakness will virtually guarantee future conflict in the Persian Gulf.
Grabbing those British sailors and marines from three patrol boats they were delivering to Iraqi border guards wasn't an Iranian reaction to poor navigation. The seizure appears to have been planned and blessed by hardline leaders. It's a repertoire play, an attempt by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps — now a sprawling empire of repression — to recreate its greatest success on the world stage, the seizure of American embassy personnel a quarter-century ago.
Even if the hostages have been released by the time you read this, the provocation offers us insight into today's divided Iran.
Three powerful cards are in play. The hardliners hope they're all aces.
First, the Revolutionary Guards have seen their popularity and influence wane — especially with Iran's youth. Iranians have tried religious rule, and it hasn't worked; they want to return to a semblance of civilization. We play up the strength of the hardliners, but they feel under siege at home.
By snatching the Brits from the waters of the Shatt-al-Arab, the Revolutionary Guards and their allies are trying to excite Iranian nationalism, to resurrect the passions of the past. It's a desperate measure behind a mask of bravado.
It's unlikely that Iran's government leaders or the formal policy apparatus in Tehran knew about the plan to take British hostages — they wouldn't have believed it was worth the risk. The hardliners presented Iran's more rational elements with a fait accompli — now backing down will be portrayed as a betrayal of the country's sovereignty and pride.
If the situation is swiftly resolved, it will mean that more-moderate voices won in Tehran. If it drags on, it will tell us that the hardliners' gamble succeeded, at least domestically. Doubtless, tempers are flaring in Iran's chambers of government, a bitter struggle they'll never reveal to the world.
Second, this is a test of the Coalition's will to respond to provocations. It's a strategic probe disguised as a tactical incident. The Iranian intelligence services — intertwined with the Revolutionary Guards — scrutinize developments in Iraq, Europe and the United States (while supporting international terrorists and Iraqi insurgents). And they've drawn dangerous conclusions.
The Iranians know that Tony Blair's government is in political trouble. They're convinced the Brits will be unable to take a firm stand over the hostages. Tehran's hardliners believe they've identified Britain as a new weak link in the alliance.
Sadly, they may be right.
And they're testing the Coalition overall — especially Washington. The Iranians drew their own lessons from our retreat from Fallujah and our stymied efforts in Najaf and Karbala. They believe that America's on the defensive now, that we've lost our will to prosecute any fight to a conclusion, that the looming presidential election has paralyzed us.
They may be right again.
Third, the incident is a punishment, specifically for the Brits, but also intended as a warning to other European states which, after gushing about Iran's cooperation on nuclear matters, belatedly realized that Tehran is bent on building nuclear bombs. The French and Germans are paying for their treachery and cowardice on the eve of Saddamn's downfall by being dismissed as impotent.
The Revolutionary Guards have done their homework. They've decided the continental Europeans are all bluster and no substance. They believe that Britain can now be driven toward a European mode of behavior, further isolating the United States. And they suspect that, hardly a year after our devastating military campaign against Saddam's regime, our patience is running out and our will is faltering.
Hopefully, Iran's more reasonable figures will prevail and the hostage situation will be resolved before it becomes a genuine crisis. But if London strikes the wrong tone, projecting only weakness, it will play into the hands of the hardliners.
It's not a matter of seeking confrontation, but Tony Blair must show firmness.
There's a colossal disconnect just now between the way we see the situation in the Middle East and the way our enemies view it. We think we're doing OK, more or less, kinda-sorta. But they're convinced, in the wake of our recent displays of indecision, that the tide has turned, that we can be defeated.
At some point, we'll have to stop running away from our enemies and take a stand. If the Coalition's leaders were wise, this hostage situation would be that point.
But as of late even President Bush has begun to resemble Bill Clinton — always willing to say the words, but without the guts for a fight.
This seemingly minor event may be a historic turning point — although we might not realize it for years. With our short memories, we forget how many of history's most brutal conflicts began with minor naval incidents. Seizing or striking isolated vessels has long been a means of testing a potential opponent's will. The Iranian hardliners are playing an age-old hand.
Meanwhile, the Revolutionary Guards are really holding two separate groups of hostages: Eight British servicemen. And the entire population of Iran. Now they hope to make the Coalition a political hostage. Let's hope Tony Blair gets this one right.
Ralph Peters is a regular Post contributor.