ONCE BRITAIN RULED THE WAVES. NOW IRAN DOES.

ONCE BRITAIN RULED THE WAVES. NOW IRAN DOES.Barry RubinJerusalem Post, April 3, 2007    Why is Iran being so aggressive? Why is Britain being so weak? And what is the wider meaning of Iran’s seizure of 15 British navy personnel from Iraqi waters in this new hostage crisis?     It is no accident that Teheran is doing everything possible to humiliate Britain. The two countries’ political cultures are not only out of sync, they are operating on different timelines altogether. Britain and the West may no longer believe in imperialism, but Iran–along with most Middle East regimes, opposition movements, and publics–does.     Remember the War of Jenkins’ Ear? In 1731, Spanish sailors boarded a British vessel in Spanish waters (which it was entitled to do), and cut off the ear of Captain Robert Jenkins of the Rebecca, which they were not. It was one cause of a war between the two countries.  And in 1862, after the murder of a British merchant in Japan went unpunished, the British navy bombarded the capital of the warlord responsible….    In those days, the Western powers were far stronger than those of what we nowadays call the Third World. Britain and France…were ready to remind tyrants of that fact. Sometimes, this leverage was used for…reasonable purposes; other times, it was employed for the sake of greed and territorial acquisition.… This era is long gone, and to a large extent that is a good thing. But perhaps the pendulum has swung too far into a failure to appreciate that power and force are often required, especially against “haughty tyrants,” an apt description of Iran’s rulers…     The turning point, of course, was in 1956. Who better embodied that fight against haughty tyrants than Anthony Eden, perhaps even more than Winston Churchill? Eden raised the call to battle against the fascists in the 1930s and warned tirelessly against where appeasement was leading.  It was Eden who as prime minister in 1956 secretly worked with France and Israel to overthrow the Middle East’s new—and it turned out archetypal tyrant—Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser….      For so conspiring, Eden was reviled and driven out of office. Yet, in retrospect, wouldn’t it have been better if Eden’s effort had succeeded? And isn’t there some parallel between Eden and Prime Minister Tony Blair—a man who, whatever his mistakes, has striven to uphold the cause of freedom against forces which make Nasser look mild in comparison?     What is this latest incident in retaliation for? The mutilation of a sea captain, or murder of a merchant on his way to appreciate the beauties of a Japanese temple? No, the British navy personnel were taken hostage in retaliation for the arrest of Iranian government-sponsored terrorists caught in the act in Iraq.     From the Iranian side, of course, humiliation of the West is precisely the goal. Iran is not, moreover, striving for equality, but superiority for its own side. It wants to show, as the revolution’s founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, once famously said, that the United States and the West in general “cannot do a damn thing.”    It is the radical Islamists (and remaining radical Arab nationalists) who want to show that they are the ones with the “gunboats,” or rather hijacking airplanes, to keep up with current technology, who can make explosions in Western cities without fear of suffering meaningful retaliation.     In contrast, the West seeks to prove that it is nice. It seeks to apologize, to make reparations, to act as the weaker party…   Meanwhile, imperialism has switched directions, running now from east to west. And if that is already so without nuclear weapons controlled by Teheran, what do we have to look forward to?     At least up to now, the gap in power that leaves the West the weaker side has not been technological, but rather psychological. It isn’t just a matter of gun-power, either, for the West refuses to use a force as potent as the battleship or aircraft carrier—its economic might. But economic, as well as military, supremacy is being conceded to the extremists and the dictatorships.  And thus, British navy personnel—like American diplomats a quarter-century ago—are seized and their government is to be made to apologize. The woman among the prisoners is forced to wear an Islamist headscarf to show which culture is to prevail.     The West is having trouble distinguishing between imperialism and self-defense, but this is not the first time that has happened, is it?   [Poet James]Thompson wrote: “Rule, Britannia, rule the waves; Britons never will be slaves.” But will they be dhimmis?  BRITAIN’S HUMILIATION—AND EUROPE’SCharles KrauthammerWashington Post, April 6, 2007    Iran has pulled off a tidy little success with its seizure and release of those 15 British sailors and marines: a pointed humiliation of Britain, with a bonus demonstration of Iran’s intention to push back against coalition challenges to its assets in Iraq. All with total impunity. Further, it exposed the impotence of all those transnational institutions—most prominently the European Union and the United Nations—that pretend to maintain international order.    You would think maintaining international order means, at least, challenging acts of piracy. No challenge here. Instead, a quiet capitulation.    The quid pro quos were not terribly subtle. An Iranian “diplomat” who had been held for two months in Iraq is suddenly released. Equally suddenly, Iran is granted access to the five Iranian “consular officials”–Revolutionary Guards who had been training Shiite militias to kill Americans and others—whom the United States had arrested in Irbil in January. There may have been other concessions we will never hear about. But the salient point is that American action is what got this unstuck.    Where then was the European Union? These 15 hostages, after all, are not just British citizens but, under the laws of Europe, citizens of Europe. Yet the European Union lifted not a finger on their behalf.    Europeans talk all the time about their preference for “soft power”… What was the soft power available here? Iran’s shaky economy is highly dependent on European credits, trade and technology. Britain asked the European Union to threaten to freeze exports, $18 billion a year of commerce. Iran would have lost its No. 1 trading partner. The European Union refused.    Why was nothing done? The reason is simple. Europe functions quite well as a free-trade zone, but as a political entity it is a farce. It remains a collection of sovereign countries with divergent interests…. “The Dutch,” reported the Times of London, “said it was important not to risk a breakdown in dialogue.” So much for European solidarity….     The problem is most striking at the United Nations, the quintessential transnational institution with a mandate to maintain international peace and order. There was a commonality of interest at its origin—defeating Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. The war ended, but the wartime alliance of Britain, France, the United States, China and Russia proclaimed itself the guardian of postwar “collective security” as the Security Council. Small problem: Their interests are not collective. They are individual. Take the Iranian nuclear program. Russia and China make it impossible to impose any serious sanctions. China has an interest in maintaining strong relations with a major energy supplier and is not about to jeopardize that over Iranian nukes that are no threat to it whatsoever. Russia sees Iran as a useful proxy in resisting Western attempts to dominate the Persian Gulf.    Ironically, the existence of transnational institutions such as the United Nations makes it harder for collective action against bad actors. In the past, interested parties would simply get together in temporary coalitions to do what they had to do. That is much harder now because they believe such action is illegitimate without the Security Council’s blessing… What exactly has the new multilateralism brought us? North Korea tested a nuclear device. Iran has accelerated its march to developing the bomb. The pro-Western government in Beirut hangs by a thread. The Darfur genocide continues unabated.    The capture and release of the British hostages illustrate once again the fatuousness of the “international community” and its great institutions. You want your people back? Go to the [EU] and get stiffed. Go to the Security Council and get a statement that refuses even to “deplore” this act of piracy. (You settle for a humiliating expression of “grave concern.”) Then turn to the despised Americans. They’ll deal some cards and bail you out. IRAN’S WIN-WIN TACTIC: KIDNAPPINGDavid BercusonGlobe and Mail, April 11, 2007    There are strong parallels between the seizure by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, late last month, of 15 Royal Navy personnel boarding a freighter in the Persian Gulf, and the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah along the Israeli-Lebanese border early last July. Both events were the result of prolonged and careful planning. Both events were set in motion at the precise time when the targets of the seizures were at their most vulnerable and had little or no resort to help, even though help was close by. Both events added to Iran’s lustre and strengthened the hard-line Islamists in Tehran.    In the Israeli case, the attack on an IDF patrol was carried out in one of the very few spots along the Israeli-Lebanese border where the Israelis’ surveillance equipment could not monitor their own troops. Powerful mines were planted along possible Israeli paths of pursuit. Israeli communications were monitored to determine what times the patrols were at their least observant and most vulnerable.     In the British case, similar care was taken by Iran to determine the exact moment to strike. The Iranians knew the British frigate covering the boarding operation was too far away, and in too shallow water, to intervene. They waited until the ship’s helicopter had returned to the ship, which can only mean they had mapped out the Royal Navy’s normal boarding procedures practically to the minute. They had undoubtedly timed the operation down to the second to know how much time would be available to cross quickly into Iraqi waters, seize the boarding party, then slip back into Iranian waters.    It is no coincidence that both hostage-takings were carried out either by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard or by Hezbollah, which is, in effect, a proxy of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, trained and equipped by Iran.   Nor is it any coincidence that both events occurred within days of important international meetings of countries opposed to Iran’s nuclear research.    Last July’s kidnapping came on the eve of the Group of Eight meeting in St. Petersburg and shortly before the United Nations Security Council was due to begin deliberating possible sanctions against Iran for its defiance of the International Atomic Energy Agency.   Last month’s kidnappings were carried out on the very eve of Security Council meetings to consider a second, tighter, set of sanctions against Iran….     The seizure of hostages by Iran (or Iran’s proxies) has become routine because it works…. A successful hostage-taking is a “win-win” for Iran (or Hezbollah) because it shows the Muslim world that Iran and its allies can punch the British or the Israelis (and eventually–again–the Americans) in the nose and not only get away with it, but also win (or appear to win) concessions.     In the latest case, the concessions came in the form of the apparent admission by British sailors that they violated Iranian waters. In the case of Israel and Hezbollah, the concessions will come—as they have in the past—in the form of the mass release by Israel of Arab prisoners….    There are lessons here, especially for navies that operate close to Iranian waters—including Canada’s navy. Canadian naval vessels have carried out roughly 2,000 of these boarding operations in the past half-decade alone. The lessons are, first, that because Iran has gained much from these encounters at very little cost, it will continue to carry them out, and second, that the only way to “win” a hostage-taking is to be prepared to deter it with armed force, no matter the cost.    It’s a sure bet the Royal Navy is feverishly reviewing absolutely every aspect of last month’s hostage-taking to determine all the reasons Iran was able to carry it off so successfully. Fault may well be found at just about every level of operations. But even if the Royal Navy and other militaries lay out the best of plans to deal with future Iranian hostage-taking, none of those plans will work without determined and intelligent political leadership at the very top.   Ultimately, that is where both Britain and Israel failed (David Bercuson, director of the Center for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary, is CIJR’s newest Academic Fellow.)