I disagree with Phares. Instead this is akin to the rearmament of the Rhineland or Anschluss or seizure of Czechoslavakia.

A brilliant move by Iran to make sanctions go away and get back it's seized spies/killers in Iraq and force a retreat from the Gulf by America.

The only moves the UK has is a counter-seizure of the Iranian Embassy in London, Blair lacks the courage to do even that. Instead he gets the political drip-drip-drip of hostages tortured, abused, put on "trial" in violation of the Geneva Convention (they were all in uniform) and threatened with hanging. Perhaps even a few will be hanged on TV.

What this does is demonstrate the weakness and lack of will in the West. Blair is constrained by domestic political opinion that wants no military action whatsoever. Fundamentally no European wants to fight, rather surrender and make "deals."

So likely Gordon Brown will make a deal: immediate withdrawal from Iraq and the Gulf, pressing the US to release all Iranian killers, pressing the US to retreat from the Gulf or Britain leaves NATO, and possibly even special privileges for Muslims in the UK enforced by Iran.

Britain is too weak to respond to the Iranian aggression, lacking both will and capacity. The sailors were captured without a fight (what does that tell you) and the lack of fighting ability is matched by political taste at home for surrender.

Certainly sanctions will be lifted by Britain and they'll have to pay a lot to get the sailors back home, one at a time.

I don't see this as anything but a huge victory for Iran and a massive defeat for the West.

Jim:

First of all let me say that we really miss your series, "The Rockford Files." It was excellent. We're honored that in your retirement from crime fighting you have turned to military analysis, and find time to comment here at Seraphic Secret.

Alas, you might be right. I hope not.

America has two carriers in Persian Gulf now, plus a nuclear capable submarine, and as far as I'm concerned they could end this hostage nonsense in 20 minutes. The Iranians have been getting away with this for far too long. We know the script. We know the shots. Do we really want to play the Jimmy Carter playbook?

I think not.

This kidnapping, like the storming of our embassy 28 years ago, is an act of wat.

We should treat it as such.

As should NATO.

But hey, NATO, what am I thinking?

Let's be real. The last things the Pesians want is for America to open up with her military might. It would be devastating. They are counting on appeasement, European style.

If we go down that road, I shudder to think what will happen next.

Might as well give them the keys to Auschwitz with a nice new sign: Open for Business.

Shame we can't just send in ten thousand Spartans.

Michael:

Just need 300 to take care of the Persians. They hide behind hostages. They did it in Tehran, they did it in Lebanon. They do it now in Iraq. They fight like women.

Hey thanks Robert. Hehe.

I think Wretchard at Belmont Club has it well, the Iranians have been taught since 1979 that the West prefers to appease and has no appetite for military action.

Yes we *COULD* take out much of the Iranian assets, sinking the Iranian navy and shooting down the airforce could be done within days, anti-ship and anti-air missiles possibly a few more days.

But politically? There is no will to confront Iran. Period.

Dennis Kucinich has stated he wants Bush impeached for saying "all options are on the table" wrt Iran's nukes. House Dems offered amendments to the Iraq surrender deadline bill that required Bush to get Congress's OK before taking any action against Iran. Supposedly this is gaining traction with Pelosi and Murtha (requirement for Bush to gain Congressional assent for any action against Iran).

Seymour Hersh gave an interview on Iranian radio where he opined that Bush was conducting a "war of aggression" against Iran. A former British Ambassador gave his opinion that the Iranians were right to seize and try (as spies) the UK sailors in contravention of the Geneva Convention which forbids trying as spies those in uniform. Rosie O'Donnell has compared the seizure of British sailors to the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

These are not trivial considerations. While Kucinich does not hold great sway with Americans, his calls did not generate rebuke and ridicule from his own party. He's a candidate for the Party's nomination. Pelosi and Murtha are key Congressional leaders. O'Donnell watched by millions of voters.

Iranian leaders know that in 1979, Carter begged and pleaded and held off any military action. In 1983 Reagan blinked and ran after Beirut. And later traded arms for hostages. That Clinton apologized for Mosadegh's overthrow and did nothing in response to Khobar Towers. That there were no consequences whatsoever for the stupid and pointless murder of Buenos Aires Jews in 1994 (what exactly did Iran get out of that?)

In all cases the West has taught Iran that we respond to their aggression with surrender. So it is no surprise they continue to attack. So the move is brilliant.

Britain will break any financial sanctions and make hostage payments to keep the regime afloat AND protect Iran from any US attack to get it's people back.

Of course the real threat is Pakistan. Falling slow-motion into Al Qaeda's grasp. Levin has publicized this but has offered no course of action. What will we do if bin Laden controls Pakistan's nukes?

IMHO Dems will offer a "peace treaty."

Jim:

You might be right about America.

But Israel is heavily invested in this war against Iran. A few weeks ago, Israel assasinated an Iranian nuclear scientist. The Persians just retaliated by knocking off David Dahan, head of the Israeli Defense Ministry Mission to Europe. The Israelis put out the story that it was suicide, but everyone knows that it was the Persians.

Things are heating up, much as they did before Israel took out Iraq's nukes.

No Israeli government will allow Iran to go nuclear. No even a dolt like Olmert.

Hey, any chance you can do "Son of Rockford Files."