Escalation by Britain Raises the Stakes with Iran

From the NY Times this morning:

“Britain today escalated its dispute with Iran over the capture of 15 British naval personnel by revealing charts, photographs and previously secret navigational coordinates purportedly proving that the British sailors were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters when they were seized six days ago.”

Iran has to date offered two differing sets of coordinates, which is odd but not unexpected.

The article is an indication of an escalation at least in the paper’s chosen title and Merriam-Webster defines “escalate” as:

“intransitive verb : to increase in extent, volume, number, amount, intensity, or scope escalate into a huge ugly one -- Arnold Abrams>”

So I guess the intensifying of the issue is where this word choice comes into play because of their responding with “revealing charts, photographs and previously secret navigational coordinates,” which of course does lend itself to an intensification of the game. But I believe most people consider an “escalation” to be more in line with the example provided by Merriam-Webster; “a little war threatens to escalate into a huge ugly one.”

Providing charts, pictures and coordinates doesn’t strike me as much of a jab but Tony Blair is further raising the stakes by escalating with the following:

“It is now time to ratchet up international and diplomatic pressure.”

This type of “escalation” seems to have the same resolution-like effect of negotiating with Iran with something like, oh say “peaceful nukes.”

Tehran responds (escalates?) while quivering in their boots with:

“it has “sufficient evidence” to prove that the British sailors had penetrated 0.5 kilometers — roughly 500 yards — into Iranian waters.”

Tepid escalation as far as I am concerned and sadly what Tehran has likely been expecting. These remarks or moves are obviously part of the “diplomatic” side of what to do with this escalating situation, which would be the second piece of the Iranian puzzle necessary as put forward by “The Middle East Interest:”

“In dealing with Iran, three options appear to be necessary and sufficient: (1) financial tool; (2) diplomacy; and (3) military.”

Three steps that I agree with, steps according to X which are in line with keeping all options on the table. Unfortunately “(3) military,” is likely just a spill on the table, which can simply be wiped up and ignored once removed. I recently noted with the taking of hostages that (regarding nuclear talks):

“Iran has finally made a statement in the ongoing “negotiations,” that can and should be considered as one of their more substantive.”

In my mind (2) diplomacy and (3) military work together hand in hand, in that military options/actions are part and parcel of diplomacy. They, we and others are talking, but to truly talk with results one must speak in a different way to assist Tehran in understanding that all options are most undoubtedly on the table. Then we can allow the talks to seriously escalate.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

The Iranian Gambit - Ours and Theirs

A couple of interesting thoughts/essays on the present Persian Gulf/Middle Eastern scenario; least of which is my post earlier this morning, "Iran, One More Step to be taken and “We Can Talk” – British Illegal Entry into Iranian Waters."

Both entries into the debate acknowledge the realities apparent in the Gulf at this time; one by David Pryce-Jones, "Iran vs. Britain" which sounds to be leaning toward my earlier argument, although not as drastic, with:

"You’re challenging us, the Iranian regime is telling the West, very well, let’s have a test of strength, and then we’ll see who is the stronger."

The other, titled "High Stakes Poker in the Persian Gulf" by Mario Loyola, which goes into more of the nitty gritty or more of what is actually at stake allowing for a purposeful entry into Iranian waters by the British ship:

"First of all: Don’t necessarily believe what the British say about what those sailors were up to when they were detained. There’s probably a 90-percent chance they will tell the truth, but there is often a lot more to these international “incidents” than meets the eye."

Both reside at NRO.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Iran, One More Step to be taken and “We Can Talk” – British Illegal Entry into Iranian Waters

Back on February 28^th of this year I posted regarding “Iran – When Can We Talk.” I think that now with the taking of “hostages,” that by following the post suggestion we can now enter “real” negotiations with the Islamic Republic and speak in the language that its leadership understands.

For years now, the EU-3, UN et al have negotiated with Iran regarding their “peaceful” nuclear technology; of the problem resolution with which the UN and others are tasked, Mark Steyn said:

“If you read the paper, you’ll notice that there are a handful of places that attract the attention of everybody who matters – the UN, EU, IAEA, NGOs, the full alphabet soup. You’ll further notice that, for the fellows pressing ahead with Iran’s nuclear program or mopping up the few remaining opportunities for mass murder in Darfur, attracting the attention of the planet’s A-listers seems to make not a jot of difference. The big shot acronyms hold meetings, and the crises they’re holding the meetings over trundle along pretty much on schedule.”

As it stands now, Iran has finally made a statement in the ongoing “negotiations,” that can and should be considered as one of their more substantive. In the long line of throwaway negotiations with which Western diplomats failed to hear “nuclear power is our right and we will not negotiate on this;” this move should be respected in the comedy that is looking at Iran as it is not and will not be through words.

According to the BBC (italics mine):

“BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera said officials in the Foreign Office were stepping up their efforts to free the sailors and marines.”

“But they acknowledged that negotiations with Iran can be both delicate and difficult.”

“Delicate and difficult,” is an understatement; negotiations are small talk leading to what we have today, which was nothing until this past Friday.

“Delicate,” is also representative of the approach taken toward Iran.

According to a quote in Time by Gen. Ali Reza Afshar regarding questioning and confessions by the sailors that this is an act of:

"aggression into the Islamic Republic of Iran's waters."

Time also quotes “Ahmad Bakhshaysh, a political analyst and professor in politics in Tehran's Allameh University,” as to whether this seizure by Iran is an attempt at a “prisoner swap”:

"Iran is not after retaliation regarding abduction of its diplomats. ... However, Iran will use this opportunity to show to the world public opinion that Britons were (the) invader and Iran was victim of the Westerners bullying policy."

Why we wish to continue to play into Tehrans plans I do not know, but time should be of the essence. Years have been wasted only to bring Iran closer to its goal. Thus far I would not blame the Iranian leadership as seeing the Western response as a sign of weakness….....it is.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Track back for this post: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/6347714332417473336