Blair told Bush to zip it, and back off

It's not news that British diplomacy played a key role in resolving the tense situation with Iran over the fate of 15 British sailors taken hostage.

As it turns out, however, according to the UK newspaper The Guardian, Tony Blair and the British were firm in asking the US to keep out of the matter.

According to the article, the US asked the British what they wished done. the list remains top secret, but reportedly one of the options was for the US to provoke the Iranians by buzzing their forward positions near the Iran/Iraq border with war planes.

The British said thanks but not thanks, and even took the step of suggesting the situation could be calmed if the US scaled back offensive efforts in the region. Tony Blair also reportedly asked the US Government to be very careful in its use of rhetoric, since excessive use of it could have ignited a confrontation.

More from The Guardian:

A senior Iranian source with close ties to the Revolutionary Guard, told the Guardian: "If this had been between Iranian and American soldiers it could have been the beginning of an accidental war."

With the crisis now over, a remarkable degree of consensus is emerging among British, Iranian and Iraqi officials about what happened over 13 nervous days - namely that the decision to seize the Britons was taken locally, and was not part of a grander scheme cooked up in Tehran.

"My best guess is that this was a local incident which became an international incident," said one British source closely involved in the crisis.

Pretty amazing.

It's certainly not news that this could (and in my opinion probably would have) led to war between the U.S. and Iran had the hostages been American. I'm still thankful and relieved this situation turned out as it did.

This is just another defeat of sorts for the Bush administration and the second traditionally close ally of the US going its own way.

Naturally, British success at negotiating the release of their hostages has sent Bush apologists into overdrive, which is pretty amusing to see. For those of you keeping score, let's take a look at the Bush scorecard. Of the three nations of Bush's Axis of Evil - Iran, North Korea and Iraq - the first two are being dealt with diplomatically, while Iraq continues to be a financial, political and loss-of-life disaster for the United States, and Iraq.

Last week, Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah (Above, with Bush at his Crawford "Ranch") called the US occupation of Iraq "illegal." Not that many people considered Saudi Arabia much of a friend anyway; 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9-11 were Saudi-born. Were it not for the brown gold under Saudi sands, we would almost definitely not consider Saudi Arabia any kind of ally.

I wonder if the Easter Bunny will drop a copy of Diplomacy for Dummies in President Bush's Easter Basket? He could use it.

Brit soldiers not given VIP treatment in Iran

Above, Left to Right: Joe Tindall, Arthur Batchelor, Chris Air, Felix Carman, Adam Sperry and Simon Massey during a press conference.

*****

Can anyone honestly say they're surprised to hear this news? It seems as if Iran didn't exactly give the VIP treatment to the 15 British soldiers that it held captive for 13 days. I can think of five reasons why I wasn't surprised to hear the news...

It doesn't take a diplomat to figure out that the British hostages weren't going to be treated, ahem, kindly while held captive in Iran. It shouldn't take a diplomat to figure out why.

Great Britain is our closest ally - in many ways, our fates are linked when it comes to the War in Iraq. Since the UK has marched in lockstep with the US during this war, that quite naturally makes British soldiers a target, as well as American GIs.

Our enemies certainly know this, and I can guarantee that not one of our enemies will ever forget the images like the ones above that came out of Abu Ghraib. As soon as I heard the news that English soldiers were taken hostage by Iran, I shuddered at the thought of the treatment they were going to get at the hands of their captors.

Earlier today, the British soldiers confirmed what many feared would be their fate while in captivity. During a press conference, seven of the soldiers discussed some of the unpleasant aspects of their captivity, including:

• Being blindfolded and subjected to interrogation
• Being told they faced seven years in prison if they did not "confess"
• The soldiers stated that Iranians entered Iraqi waters deliberately to detain them, and that fighting back was not an option
• They were 1.7 nautical miles away from Iranian waters
• Psychological pressure and mind games
• Faye Turney (the only woman held hostage) was isolated in a cell away from the rest of the crew

This kind of puts Abu Ghraib into perspective a little bit. THIS is just one of the reasons that so many people were upset when the scandal broke, including me. First and foremost, it's immoral and a national disgrace - the U.S. cannot and should never, under any circumstances that I can think of, condone such behavior from anyone in its armed forces.

But, the other argument against using such techniques against POWs, enemy combatants, or whatever you wish to call them, is that our soldiers or soldiers of our allies may also be taken prisoner. Besides being morally wrong, this is the principle reason that it's never, ever a good idea to torture prisoners - what goes around has the potential to come around.

I'm very happy and grateful that our friends across the pond are home safe and that nothing terribly bad happened to them, but all accounts I've been reading. (Although I'm quite certain that their time in Tehran was no picnic.)

This really could have escalated into an international incident, and I'm very thankful that it didn't.

A quick footnote to this incident - Tony Blair, for all of the heat he's taken for his almost blind devotion to President Bush and the U.S. War in Iraq, handled this incident exactly as an experienced, in-control politician should.

I wonder how President Bush and Dick Cheney would have handled this if the 15 captives in Iran were American soldiers. I will go to my grave believing that if Democrats would not have taken control of Congress last November, this very well could have led to war between Iran and the United States.

One last thought (at least for this post) about Abu Ghraib - I can still remember Rush Limbaugh saying this about the prison scandal:

(From a New Republic article about his comments, which refer to Limbaugh's comments on his May 5, 2004 radio show)

This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation, and we're going to ruin people's lives over it, and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You [ever] heard of need to blow some steam off?

(From Rush Limbaugh's Website)

I'm sorry, folks. I'm sorry. Somebody has to provide a little levity here. This is not as serious as everybody is making it out to be. My gosh, we're all wringing our hands here. We act like, 'Okay let's just die,' you know? 'Let's just give up. What can we do to make these people feel better? Let's just pull out of there, and let's just go. Let's just become a neutral country. Let's just do that.' I mean, it's ridiculous. It's outrageous what's happening here, and it's not -- and it's not because I'm out of touch; it's because I am in touch, folks, that I can understand. This is a pure, media-generated story. I'm not saying it didn't happen; I'm [not] saying the pictures aren't there, but this is being given more life than the Waco invasion got. This is being given more life than almost - it's almost become an Oklahoma City-type thing.

I would love for Rush to spend a few weeks in an Iranian prison camp, or better yet, one run by Al-Qaeda, and have the exact things done to him that a few of our soldiers did to prisoners at Abu Ghraib. But, he's so stupid, I doubt it would even make a difference.

It really is proof positive that regardless of the abuses and misdeeds by our federal government, as long as Republicans are in power, there is a certain element of society that will defend their every action. Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter lead the way.

British sailors heading home

I can't escape the feeling that the West got off easy today. This morning, Iran, in a diplomatic and symbolic gesture, released the 15 British sailors it took hostage 13 days go. (Above, the soldiers in Tehran, walking to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad earlier today.) I'm very thankful that this was solved peacefully, because there were some indications that this was going to lead to a military confrontation between Iran and the UK, and be extension, the US.

Of course, I question the motives of the Iranians - it's a little difficult not to - considering the timing of the hostages' release and Ahmadinejad's comments. As reported by AP:

"On the occasion of the birthday of the great prophet (Muhammad) ... and for the occasion of the passing of Christ, I say the Islamic Republic government and the Iranian people _ with all powers and legal right to put the soldiers on trial _ forgave those 15," he said, referring to the Muslim prophet's birthday on March 30 and the Easter holiday.

"This pardon is a gift to the British people," he said.

I have little doubt that Ahmadinejad timed the release and his comments to curry favor around the world for Iran, which has been slapped with some severe sanctions by the United Nations and the West.

Having said that, and I'm sure I won't read this opinion in many, if any media outlets in the west - Ahmadinejad deserves some credit, too. Clearly he does not want an armed confrontation with the West. If he did, these British sailors would still be in captivity, and he would still be ratcheting up the rhetoric and taking a much harder line than we are seeing now.

I've read and heard some reports that the US was seeking an armed confrontation with Iran. There are some totally unconfirmed reports out of Russia that the U.S. intends to invade Iran on April 6. I never truly believed it in the first place, but it even looks less credible now.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair expressed his gratitude to Iran for the decision to let the soldiers go free. He reportedly said he has "no ill will" toward the people of Iran. Okay, not much, but it's a start.

I will go to my grave thinking that this could have been the incident that would have started war with Iran had the Democrats not taken control of Congress last November. God only knows the old GOP-controlled Congress did nothing but rubber-stamp whatever the president wanted. The best part about it is that we'll never know, and that's just what everyone but the heartiest of war mongers was hoping for.

APF was reporting on Monday that U.S. Air Force jets had approached and even violated Iranian airspace, in what could only be interpreted as an act of provocation, if true. If it is true, that's outrageous and stupid. I'm all for showing force when countries are trying to bully America, but what I'm not for is provoking a confrontation. That seems to be what this administration is after.

On another note, I went off half-cocked the other day about the British hostage situation. I heard some political commentary yesterday that made me rethink my outrage at Iran having shown the British soldiers on TV. Of course, the British, and Americans, were outraged at this. I'm not saying it was right, but let's take a comparative walk down prisoner lane...

The CIA, at various Black Sites, has reportedly done the following to detainees: water boarding (which Dick Cheney, prior to the 2006 election, said publicly he supports); solitary confinement of prisoners for days, weeks and even months; physical beatings, to the point that prisoners' muscles turn to pulp; humiliation in various ways, including things that violate detainees religious beliefs; excretions on prisoners; sensory deprivation; keeping prisoners up for days on end; and suspending prisoners in extraordinarily uncomfortable positions for hours and says.

The Iranians showed the prisoners on television, evidently forced to apologize and sign confessions, in one case. I acknowledge that there many have been abuses or worse that we don't yet know about, but I'm sure that detainees at Guantánamo Bay would love to get the treatment that it appears these British 15 received.

I'm for getting information out of prisoners by any reasonable means possible, but history should have taught us one thing about torture - it's routinely unreliable when trying to get information from prisoners.

But, when you think about what can happen to British soldiers and American soldiers if they are captured, even the most die-hard, chest thumping hawk should stop and think what public knowledge of these interrogation methods could mean to our soldiers in captivity, if they are captured.

Yes, the Iranians let the UK (and the US) off easy on this one, without question. Maybe Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn't quite the monster he's portrayed to be. (Above, Ahmadinejad, second from right, meets with British soldier Faye Turney, 26, in Tehran earlier today.)

To repeat, clearly this is an indication that he wants dialogue with the West. We should sit down at the table and talk to him. Talking and dialogue doesn't = weakness. Someone needs to scream this into Bush's ear.

I'm not holding my breath while President Bush is in office.

Photos from AP

Tony Blair: We've 48 hrs. to save Brit sailors

I'm not sure how accurate this is, but I just read on a British Website that British PM Tony Blair has stated publicly, "we [England, and presumably, the U.S.] have 48 hours" to resolve the British hostage crisis.

Forty-eight hours, and then what?

This bodes watching. Yesterday, it seemed that the two sides had softened their respective positions, at least a little. This may be nothing, but it could mean this situation is coming to a head, soon.

Brits in Iran: it's getting tense

The British hostages situation in Iran is starting to turn into a pretty tense situation. As England's closest ally, we should be doing all we can to resolve this situation.

Wait, we don't talk to Iran - we never negotiation with terrorists. Let's just pretend the Iran/Contra Scandal never happened. *Cough Cough*

It's a disgrace that the Iranians put British soldiers on television yesterday. I'm not saying war with Iran should be completely ruled out, but I'm hoping it can be avoided. This reminds me of the American hostages - 52 Americans, held 444 days, from '79-'81.

Anyway, I'll offer this - if the Democrats had not taken control of Congress last November, I firmly believe that this would have been the incident that would have started a war with Iran.

Considering this administration's actions before and during the War in Iraq, who can really put up a strong argument against this line of thinking?