Slate's Bizbox
letter from london: The British scene.

How Blair Botched the Iran Hostage CrisisHint: Take a look at Iraq.

By Geoffrey Wheatcroft
Posted Thursday, April 5, 2007, at 3:29 PM ET

(Continued from page 1)

That's a lot to ask, but it might not be too much to wonder why Lt. Felix Carman had to address "the Iranian people" and say, "I can understand why you were insulted by our apparent intrusion into your waters." Asked if she had her own message for the Iranians, Faye Turney said, "Thank you for letting us go, and we apologize for our actions but mainly thanks for having it in your hearts for letting us go free," which likewise seems to be taking international amity a little far.

Her tale has confirmed the view of those, not all of them sexist reactionaries, who always thought that the presence of female personnel in the front line was one of the less happy achievements of the women's movement. She is indeed "the mother of a little child," as Ahmadinejad called her. When he asked, "Why should the difficult task of searching the seas be given to a mother thousands of miles from home?" he might have sounded like a kinder, gentler Borat, but he might also have had a point.

As John Bolton says, the guy has chutzpah. But then Bolton, that noisiest of hawks, cannot admit what stares most of us here in the face: This crisis illustrated the weakness of Britain's position in the Middle East—much weaker than five years ago, before the disastrous Iraq enterprise. In 1938, Churchill attacked what he thought a needless capitulation to Hitler, but he never once advocated a pre-emptive war against Germany.

Two years later, as prime minister of his embattled country, he said, "Long and hard, hazardous years lie before us, but at least we entered upon them united and with clean hands." So many of our difficulties today stem from the fact that four years ago we were a nation divided when we went to war and that Tony Blair has anything but clean hands.

VIEW AS SINGLE PAGE
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Geoffrey Wheatcroft's book Yo, Blair! has just been published in Britain.
Photograph of British naval personnel by Bruno Vincent/Getty Images. Photograph of naval personnel on Slate's home page by Tim Ockenden/AP Photo.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray:

A few people are seized during a wartime exercise by a nearby modestly hostile nation with uncertain leadership and a generally moderate populace. 14 days later, they are "pardoned" and returned without so much as a hair out of place, except for a few apologetic videos. Somehow, this is a disaster for the outgoing Prime Minister? And the end of Western influence in the Middle East? Because he didn't officially bomb Tehran/kidnap the President or force Tehran to admit he was right?

The only thing more inflated that the Brits' sense of importance in this world is their sense of offended dignity. When the British navy ruled the high seas, I'm certain from time to time a group was waylaid by a foreign sort who was bribed to permit a release. The world kept turning and will still. Iran is not a stronger country today than it was two weeks ago, nor is Britain weaker. Perhaps they are just both smarter.

--rundeep

(To reply, click here.)

These young British men and women who were captured by Iran [are] decent people and no doubt did their jobs well. But dying was never part of the deal. Yes, they knew when they were posted to Iraq that they might get sniped or blown up. But that is a risk like getting run over in the road--a reasonable risk that you take because that's just the way it is. Things do come out of the blue. Knowing that and carrying on doesn't take particular courage. Fatalism gets most soldiers, like most people in general, through that kind of danger.

What takes courage is when you're isolated and helpless and nobody has prepared you for this. As a former POW interrogator, I have some idea what happened to these fifteen after they were captured. I know that their captors did everything possible to keep them isolated, ignorant and insecure. They wanted them to be jittery; but then they also wanted to reassure them, on a selective basis, because that would teach the prisoners that their captors held the key not only to fear but also to comfort. The toughened inmates of Abu Ghraib, who knew what real torture was, might not have responded to that kind of treatment, but these fresh young things who were used to being cared for in every way had never had to tolerate prolonged dread. The way to break them was expose them to fear, then convince them that all their captors expected was an exchange of polite sentiments. See, we Iranians can be nice people! Why don't you British be nice, too? They were well-brought-up young people; why not?

So I'm not too surprised that these sailors and marines, who were sent out like security guards at a department store, and who were never taught what to expect if someone suddenly held a gun to their heads, proved relatively pliable in Iranian hands. It would be unrealistic to expect otherwise. They weren't at war. They were doing a job. Who dies for his job?

--Fritz_Gerlich

(To reply, click here.)

This entire spectacle perfectly fits an expression that is far too casually thrown around these days: Politcal Theatre. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Tony Blair co-starring in a sad little character piece written in a weekend by some hack with delusions of Beckett.

The substance of the thing is negligible since it was never about accomplishing anything concrete on one side or the other. It was all about projecting an image to the outside world.

So that leaves us with style. Ahmadinejad, for all his blustering, kept things fairly humble: The Britons intruded in our waters, we have seized them, we believe that international law is on our side. He knows that he is seen as a preening borderline lunatic who can not be trusted, and his performance played to that fact: "You already think I'm crazy so I can give a perfectly straight delivery and still have it come off as dangerous." In essence, he has tried to establish himself as the Christopher Walken of international politics.

Conversely, Blair tipped his hand early, shooting straight for the grand gesture by bringing in the UN and making all manner of veiled and clearly empty threats. Trying to go for a quiet menace, which unfortunately was as convincing as Bill Bixby stating that we wouldn't like him when he's angry.

There followed a period of mutual finger into ear insertion and overlapping choruses of "La-la-la I-can't-hear-you La-la-la" on both sides. This is, of course, de rigeur in the modern age of international relations; but considering Blair's strong opening volleys caused the entire stand-off portion of the play to come off as anti-climatic.

Finally we get to the third act. Clearly it was reaching the point where it was in everyone's best interest to bring this thing to a close. Britain couldn't follow through with much of anything. Iran similarly had few options. The ways in which a trial of the British saliors could backfire were myriad and continued inaction would run the risk of boring the audience.

Enter Iran's grand gesture (this one far more skillfully timed than Britain's UN gambit). Mahmoud Ahmadinejad handled this with a theatricality that could make him a sought after consultant in the upcoming election cycle. The pinning of the medal on the Iranian commander, the hour long lecture on British imperialism/interference and the entire grandstanding event telegraphed sabre rattling and escalation, capped with the well-timed turn: a complete "pardon" offered as a gift to British people! An Easter gift, no less!

The hypocritical little spiel about how Tony Blair needs to listen to a care more for his people sealed the theatricality and also proved that this was not meant to sway governments. People engaged in politics know how well Ahmadinejad has followed this advice. Running on a platform of domestic reform only to turn his back on his people for world-stage theatre games is really the defining action of his presidency, but do you think the British people who have lowered Blair's approval ratings to depressing levels though about that?

And what was Blair's endgame? "We took an even approach neither negotiating nor confronting." Um . . . doesn't that sound curiously like doing nothing?

--EMStoveken

(To reply, click here.)

(4/8)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Sign of the Rove
Tom Toles | John McCain likes to tell a story about the foundation of his political faith.