Useful Idiots and Iran
Lance on Apr 07 2007 at 12:52 am | Filed under: Domestic Politics, Foreign affairs, MichaelW's Page, Military Matters, Notes on the war
In the aftermath of the Iranian Gambit, a new meme is growing: Iran right/West wrong. One facet of this meme is that the Brits deserved to to be “captured” because they were spying. Another facet is that diplomacy saved the day here, and that military options of any sort were both unnecessary and counter-productive. Part and parcel with this anti-military spin is the smug, down-the-nose sniping at those who would question the behavior of the British hostages and their government’s public reactions to the crisis. Ostriches may hide their head in the sand, but the current batch of useful idiots has chosen a darker, moister, more intimate location to firmly plant their hat-holders.
First, the “spying” facet. According to SkyNews:
The captain in charge of the 15 marines detained in Iran has said they were gathering intelligence on the Iranians.
Sky News went on patrol with Captain Chris Air and his team in Iraqi waters close to the area where they were arrested - just five days before the crisis began.
We withheld the interview until now so it would not jeopardise their safety.
[...]
The operation was mainly to investigate arms smuggling and terrorism but Captain Air said it was also to gain intelligence on Iranian activity.
He told Sky Correspondent Jonathan Samuels: “Basically we speak to the crew, find out if they have any problems, let them know we’re here to protect them, protect their fishing and stop any terrorism and piracy in the area,” he said.
“Secondly, it’s to gather int (intelligence). If they do have any information, because they’re here for days at a time, they can share it with us.
“Whether it’s about piracy or any sort of Iranian activity in the area. Obviously we’re right by the buffer zone with Iran.”
The UK Defence Secretary Des Browne told Sky News it was important to gather intelligence to “keep our people safe”.
He said: “Modern military operations all have an element of gathering intelligence.
“We need to understand as much as we can about the environment we operate in and intelligence gathering is an every day part of that.”
He added: “The UN mandate would clearly empower the military taskforce to gather information about the environment in which they were working.”
Captain Air said that fishing dhows had been robbed by Iranian soldiers on a number of occasions.
“It’s good to gather int on the Iranians,” he said.
Some are twisting the gist of this report, that the Brits were gathering intel on Iranian activities in the area, to inaccurately give the impression that Iran was fully within it’s rights to interdict the sailors. In fact, the Australian version of SkyNews itself has this headline: “Brits Spying On Iran.” I first heard the charge last night on local evening news, thrown out in an offhand, question-begging manner.
The problem, for those who haven’t caught on already, is that this is exactly the sort of media obfuscation that provides Iran with cover, and unnecessarily muddies the waters concerning who was at fault in this incident. “Intelligence gathering” while on a routine, UN-mandated, anti-smuggling mission within sovereign waters is not “spying.” As Captain Air noted, several vessels reported being boarded, and some robbed, by Iranians. Collecting information about such activities, and using the eyes and ears of those who most frequently travel the waters is just plain common sense and smart reconnaissance of the area being patrolled. By increasing the amount of information available to them, the sailors reduce the number of surprises and the chances of successfully curtailing smuggling. And none of this is to mention that if they were truly “spying” on Iran, they were doing a piss poor job of it by carrying out such a mission in Iraqi waters. (Yes, they were in Iraqi waters, despite what some useful idiots may think.)
As for the second facet of the Iran right/West wrong meme — namely that it is our (the West’s) hostile and militant behavior that leads to such incidents — anti-war types are lauding the success of cool-headed diplomacy and scolding anyone who would dare question the hostages’ behavior or that of the British government.
For example, Robert Farley conflates criticism of British behavior with a right-wing desire for bloodshed and war with Iran:
It’s obvious enough that the right side of the blogosphere would be a lot happier if there were 15 dead British sailors and marines. Stymied in their desire for a pretext to attack Iran, they seem to be turning on the sailors themselves, emphasizing how “humiliating” their behavior was to the United Kingdom, and presumably to the “West”.
Farley derisively cites the comments of Captain Ed and Jules Crittenden for his proposition, as well as mischaracterizing those of McQ:
Shorter McQ: It’s too bad they weren’t tortured.
What Farley (and his commenters) seem to misunderstand is that by the hostages prostrating themselves at the feet of their captors without the faintest sign of resistance, and the government bending over backwards to accommodate Iranian “sensitivities”, Amahdinejad and the Mullahs are provided plenty of material with which to fashion their propaganda. For those Arab and Iranian populations that do not have much in the way of a free press, this is exactly the sort of incident that is played up to make the West look weak and Iran look powerful. You can rest assured that we will be hearing about “Western transgressions” and “legitimate Iranian defense” in the future, and that the recent crisis will the centerpiece of such posturing.
Farley and friends’ knee-jerk reaction (attack the West) is harmful now, but it may have ironically devastating consequences when Iran pushes the envelope the next time. Don’t think Iran will do so? Well, why not? This latest venture not only provided Iran with highly influential PR material, it accomplished a complete cessation of the anti-smuggling mission:
Britain has suspended boarding operations in the Gulf and is reviewing rules of engagement in the area’s waters after Iran seized 15 British sailors and marines, Navy Chief Jonathon Band said on Friday.
[...]
He said Britain had halted boarding operations in the Gulf and was reviewing how they are handled in future amid disquiet over how easily the sailors were seized on March 23.
“As part of this ongoing review, the operational procedures and the rules of engagement that go with them will be reconsidered,†he told BBC Radio.
Iran still holds the only two boats used to carry out the search operations in the area.
What exactly is the downside to Iran doing something like this again? The Brits certainly haven’t presented a reason to be cautious.
Meanwhile, the media is portraying the incident as an Iranian success story, and touting the virtues of “quiet diplomacy” (emphasis added):
The sudden release of 15 British detainees held in Iran for the past two weeks was welcomed in the British press on Thursday as a triumph for old-fashioned diplomacy.
But some newspapers wondered whether a secret deal was struck behind the scenes to resolve the crisis and worried what the saga meant for the UK’s reputation in the Middle East.
The Guardian described Wednesday’s lengthy press conference in which Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that the 15 British Navy sailors and marines would be pardoned as “a sophisticated piece of political theatre, in which the president turned what had become a diplomatic disaster for Iran into something of a personal victory.”
But the real lesson of the crisis had been that “quiet diplomacy does work and can work in the future,” said the paper, suggesting that such an approach could also be employed by Western powers over the question of Iranian nuclear ambitions.
“A sword of Damocles heavier than anything Britain can fashion is hanging over Iran, and it is the conviction of hawks in Washington and the defense establishment in Israel that the only way Iran can be prevented from enriching uranium is to bomb it… But there is no substitute for direct negotiation, especially with a revolutionary Islamic regime in Iran, for whom the popularly held grievance about past American and British interference in the Gulf is as important as the issue in hand.”
Got that? Iran right/West wrong. There’s no need to memorize it or anything. You will be seeing it a lot in the coming days and weeks. They may be idiots who push this meme, but they are indeed useful.
MORE: Head-in-Hindquarters brigade.
Technorati Tags: Iran, British hostages, diplomacy, spying, media, anti-western, propaganda, meme
Sphere: Related Content6 Responses to “Useful Idiots and Iran”
Trackback URI | Comments RSS
I find it amusing that many of those now arguing that Iran had the right, perhaps duty to protect itself from "spies," found themselves on precisely the opposite side of the fence in 1967 during the Liberty incident. Back then, it was all Israel’s fault and the Liberty absolutely had a right to be where it was, doing what it was doing. So when Israel is involved, it’s the Evil Worldwide Zionist Conspiracy; when Iran is involved it is dutifully opposing evil western spies. Hmm… double standard?
I salute you for this at least; you’re willing to go much farther in arguing that the British sailors would be better dead than alive than most of your comrades on the right. It’s sick, twisted, and mind-blowingly stupid, but at least you’re clear.
Rob,
No, it is mindblowingly stupid that you think that is what this post said.
Huh? Where did I make any such argument? Much less "go much farther" in making such an argument? You should really read the entire post before commenting.
I don’t think having an expectation that captured soldiers would make it as difficult as possible for their captors to get information is anything close to hoping that such soldiers would be better off dead. Indeed, questioning the level of co-operation with the enemy and the apparent lack of any duress is done in an effort to avoid furture casualties. It may seem like a great idea to avoid any physical confrontation right now, but the lengths that one goes to in order to accomplish that will have dire consequences down the road if the enemy perceives weakness.
In short, it’s one thing to pick your battles, it’s another thing altogether to have your enemy pick your battles.
This is nothing new, just a variation of The United States, ‘always wrong’, theme that has been the Zeitgeist since the Vietnam war. America bashing has been refined into a fine art by the likes of Noam Chomsky, Nat Hentoff and others. Now that The Soviet Union and Communism are discredited. The hate America/West theme has been transferred to the conflict between modernity and those living in the tenth century. When this conflict ends, there will be another reason to hate America. For some it’s great sport.
Apparently the same place I made the "Shorter McQ: It’s too bad they weren’t tortured" argument.In the non-functional space between their greasy little ears.