“Unacceptable”, “wrong”, and “unjustified” – These are the words that have been murmured by Tony Blair, Margaret Beckett, and Gordon Brown among others in recent days following the abduction of fifteen Royal Navy personnel by Iranian forces on the 23rd March. Allow me to describe these events more accurately: the Iranian action was one of deliberate and calculated aggression against HM Armed Forces, and an act of war against the integrity of the United Kingdom. Period. The reaction of our government (and that of the general public) has not nearly been adequate enough.
Now, whilst I must stress (in the strongest terms) that I am not advocating that we attack Iran, it is interesting to compare the response of Israel’s IDF to the abduction of two of its soldiers last summer, with the reaction of our own armed forces to the present situation. However, I am saying (also in strong terms) that the Royal Navy/MoD failed to provide the protection to its servicemen and women that they both demand, and deserve. The Iranian vessels should have been pursued, challenged diplomatically in the first instance, and then threatened with the use of force should they not have complied. I simply disagree with those who argue that this would have been irresponsible, and that it would have resulted in major conflict. Rather, I believe, given the reluctance of the Iranian regime to provide the ‘smoking gun’ to the international community to intervene in its nuclear affairs, a minor skirmish would have resulted, at most. Further, what this would have achieved is the complete dismantling of the apparent myth that the British military can somehow be attacked with impunity, and without fear of retribution.
This is what should have happened. Alas, it did not. Therefore, the only reasonable option for the moment is continued and strengthening diplomatic pressure on Tehran. Our Armed Forces, and our government, should not allow themselves to be reduced to such childlike games of ‘Gulf tag’.
31/03/2007 at 22:46 |
Another good blog written as eloquently as usual! The fact of the matter is Iran has no right abducting and detaining any member of H M Armed Forces… and the British “government”s response is not nearly strong enough! Further the parading of them on TV intended as some kind of sick glorification and humiliation is totally unacceptable. For me this has put the final nail in the Blair/Thatcher similarity coffin. Margaret Thatcher would have never allowed this type of unprovoked aggression and would have dealt with the issue head on…Blair on the other hand is in a jumble as this situation cannot be resolved by mere spin!
31/03/2007 at 23:29 |
I don’t know about eloquent! I quite agree though Dan. The response of the public has not been forthcoming either, however! Where are the protests? The demands? The old saying ‘actions speak louder than words’ and all.
The unfortunate thing is, as i mentioned, is that the initial opportunity to reverse the Iranian action has passed, and now the British government are effectively tied to diplomatic negotiations with not much political capital to play with!
01/04/2007 at 12:49 |
It’s not that we’ve lost the opportunity for military action, it’s that our armed forces are so underfunded and overstretched that we can hardly do anything anyway!
01/04/2007 at 21:03 |
Sam Tarran has hit the nail on the head! How can will risk provoking a war with Iran if will a struggling to fight our current battles. On reflection the Iranian regime has been clever to choose this moment to ‘test the waters’!
01/04/2007 at 23:01 |
Jack definately has a point when he says that the public are just as much to blame as Blair for their seeming lack of interest/revulsion in Irans actions. I, as was pointed out in the blog, am frustrated by the governments muted and delayed response! as i have mentioned in a similar blog ( http://www.djodoherty.blogspot.com ) I believe this situation could escalate further, had the government or the navy nipped it in the bud this long fiasco could have been avoided and the sailors and their families could have been spared this ordeal. And on another side issue i quire agree with the sentiments raised by Sam and Bobby.
02/04/2007 at 00:03 |
I agree with the article on principle, but I’d like to make a few points on the practicality.
The logistics of pursuing the Iranians would have been tricky, and perhaps not immediately possible depending on the location of Royal Navy support. It might also have compromised the safety of the kidnapped troops. If their safety comes first, then perhaps pursuing the Iranians would have been counter productive? It, too, may have been seen by the public at home as an over reaction, when other diplomatic means could have been used to guarantee the safe return of the troops.
While in an ideal world, something should have been done immediately to defend the 15 personal and the integrity of the Navy, in practice, was it really possible?
Personally, I think we should have tried. But I understand why the orders were given to not retaliate.
02/04/2007 at 01:00 |
I quite agree that reasons did exist urging against immediate military action. However, Daniel, you point out that Royal Naval support may not have been available at the time – therein lies the failure, and a fundamental one at that. The 15 personnel were left stranded, with no more than their rifles to protect them, despite there being a huge task-force only miles away!
You are right to point out that the well-being of the captured personnel should be the main point of concern in the dispute. However, if the current episode, in turn, makes the entire British military presence in the Gulf (and beyond) look weak and vulnerable (which it most certainly has done), then the well-being of a far larger proportion of our military personnel has been undermined by allowing this act of war to go unchallenged. As one of the lead comment articles in The Sunday Telegraph (April 1st) argues: we avoid war when we are in a position of strength… “We become a target for tyrants when we forget that.”
02/04/2007 at 02:02 |
Agreed.