Magnanimous Mahmoud

The Easter pardon by Iran`s

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the 15 British sailors and
Marines, seized by Iranian Revolutionary Guards in
waters off the Iraqi coast two weeks ago, ends the
crisis.

And as the beaming smile of President Ahmadinejad
while he graciously accepted apologies from the sailors
and Marines testifies, there is no doubt as to who won
the showdown. Among Iranians, for whom love of the Brits
is an acquired taste, Ahmadinejad is the victor. His
position inside Iran, a subject of speculation, is
surely stronger today.

But his victory and that of the Revolutionary Guards
comes at a cost to Iran, which showed itself to be a
state willing to engage in hostage-taking and show
trials as a negotiating tactic. Across the Middle East,
there was no broad support of Iran. Even in Iran itself,
there was nothing like the wild enthusiasm of the

hostage crisis of 1979-1981.

As for the British military, however, it has

sustained a humiliation.

What kind of

rules of engagement were these Marines operating
under to permit themselves to be surrounded, captured
and disarmed without firing a shot? What kind of
training did they have? How was it that,

in days, if not hours, some were parroting the
storyline fed them by their captors—that they regretted
having violated Iranian territory and wished to express
remorse. As yet, there is no evidence any were abused or
tortured.

The episode reveals the

decline of once-Great Britain.

What could today`s Britain have done? Unlike the
Falklands War of 25 years ago, the Royal Navy is not
what it was, and Tony Blair is not Margaret Thatcher.
The Brits may have the nuclear weapons to destroy Iran.
In conventional power, they are like the rest of the
European Union—bantamweights, at best.

Knowledge of this must have been what the Iranians
were banking on. For, no matter the outcome, Tehran took
a risk. The Iranians were surely aware that when
Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers after a border
battle, they brought upon themselves and Lebanon five
weeks of air and ground war.

Among the risks Iran took was that the British
Marines would fight, not surrender. Blood could have
been shed, casualties taken, and Britain might have
retaliated, forcing Iran to fight. That would almost
surely bring U.S. intervention on behalf of its ally,
giving Bush an opening to do what he is contemplating,
if not preparing: launching air and naval strikes on
Iran`s nuclear facilities.

Why, then, did the Iranians seize and hold the Brits,
then suddenly let them go?

One explanation is that they are sending a message.

While they do not want war with us, they do not fear
it to such an extent that they will permit themselves to
be pushed around. You hit us, we hit back. But if you
engage us diplomatically, rather than disrespect and
threaten us, progress is possible in getting what your
want. That, at least, is what the Iranian behavior seems
to suggest.

For Iran was provocative at first, conciliatory at
the end. And if the Iranian Revolutionary Guard truly
wanted to put the Brits on trial, somebody overruled
them. The Ayatollah? Ahmadinejad himself?

The United States should test again, via back
channels, whether Iran is willing to suspend enrichment
of uranium in return for a U.S. suspension of sanctions.
For time is not on our side. Iran`s ability to enrich
uranium to weapons grade, however limited today,
improves every month. It does not diminish.

And while war would be a calamity for both countries,
incidents are increasing that could bring us to war, the
latest being the seizure of the Brits.

In recent months, U.S. forces have, on two occasions,
seized Iranians inside Iraq. Iraqis close to the U.S.
military bagged another. He was released the day before
the Brits were let go. Now, the U.S. military has
permitted Red Cross visits to five Iranians seized in
Irbil.

There have been reports of insurgent attacks on
Iranians inside Iran, in the Kurdish region in the
northwest, the Arab region of the southwest and in
Baluchistan, near the Afghan-Pakistan border. These
attacks have resulted in Iranian dead. There have been
reports of U.S. special forces operating inside Iran,
doing the intelligence for attacks on the nuclear sites.

America has, in turn, charged elements of the Iranian
military with providing extra-lethal IEDs, the roadside
bombs that have killed and wounded so many of our
troops.

So far, neither the Iranians nor Americans have
crossed a red line that would make inevitable the war

some in both countries may want, but the great
majority in both countries do not want.

Ms. Pelosi might thus hurry home from Saudi Arabia,
where she has been instructing the

Wahabis on women`s rights, and reintroduce that
House resolution declaring that, before President Bush
can take his country to war against Iran, Congress must
first authorize it.

COPYRIGHT

CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Patrick J. Buchanan needs


no introduction to VDARE.COM
readers; his book

State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and
Conquest of America,

can be ordered from
Amazon.com.