What Should Britain, the U.S., and Europe Do About Iran?
Michael Barone

Two interesting pieces from the London papers yesterday on this question, with recommendations you might not expect. In the Times, Gerard Baker says that Britain is doing pretty much all it should do at the moment. He reminds us that Margaret Thatcher's response to the seizure of the Falkland Islands by Argentina was not as immediately bellicose as we remember, nor did the Reagan administration immediately support Britain. Our memory of recent history tends to elide over long moments of hesitation and agonized indecision. Not everyone responded as rapidly as Franklin Roosevelt did to Pearl Harbor–and remember that we weren't able to do much after Pearl Harbor, except watch as the Philippines, Singapore, and the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) fell to Japan. The Doolittle raid over Tokyo, mostly done for morale reasons, didn't take place until four months after Pearl Harbor, the marvelous victory at Midway not till six months after, the mostly botched landings in North Africa not till 11 months later. Some things take time. Here's his recommendation:

Where does all this leave Mr. Blair and his government as it seeks to recover Britain's sailors and restore its pride? This time, thank goodness, the U.S. is firmly on our side. But it is not clear what difference that will make. The military options open to the British government look rather limited. It lacks the intelligence and the military capacity to mount a rescue mission from its meager task force in the Gulf. Though the U.S. has much more firepower and presumably better intelligence, I'm guessing the U.S. Navy does not plan to start a war with Iran in an effort to rescue 15 British sailors.

The right approach, as frustratingly dilatory as it seems, is the one the U.K. is currently taking. ...

Did you see yesterdays post?:

2007.04.01 Iran/Brit Hostage Crisis Roundup
-- Iran ready to seize British Embassy?
-- "If the Iranians hate us, let them also fear us"
-- "A Little War Goes A Long Way"
-- Power struggle in Iran over hostages
-- Euroweenies to Blair: It's A YP, Not An OP
-- British Hostages Seek Asylum in Iran

***

Brits Ready To Stick It To The Iraqis To Get Their Hostages Back
Rick Moran

Spurned at the UN when they asked for a strong condemnation of Iran for taking British military personnel as hostages and helplessly watching as the European Union denied their plea to enact sanctions, Great Britain finds itself alone – out on a diplomatic limb with nothing to do but grovel before Ahmadinejad and humiliate themselves in asking for the return of their people:

Last night, there were reports ministers are planning a compromise solution to the crisis, which would see a Royal Navy captain, commondore or special government envoy sent to Tehran to publicly assure the Iranians the Royal Navy will never knowingly enter Iranian waters without gaining permission.

Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, has called on Tehran to negotiate an end to the detention of the 15 British soldiers and Marines Iran claims strayed into its waters nine days ago. She told reporters: “The message I want to send is that I think everyone regrets this position has arisen. What we want is a way out of it.”

President George Bush called yesterday for the release of the sailors, describing their capture as “inexcusable behaviour”. He said: “Iran must give back the hostages, they’re innocent, and they did nothing wrong.”

The Shatt-al-Arab waterway, we are told, has no internationally recognized boundaries. Except the Brits are now going to recognize Iran’s claim to a portion of them by promising not to enter those waters again, clearly acknowledging Iranian sovereignty. At whose expense? The government of Iraq’s expense. By announcing to the world that Iran was correct not only in taking their sailors hostage but in delineating a boundary also claimed by Iraq (unless the Brits want to disavow their dog and pony show last weekend with the charts and GPS coordinates), then their little plan to surrender to the Iranian fanatics has dealt a huge blow to Iraqi claims of ownership of those waters.

“Mistress of the Seas” indeed. ...

***

U.K. Denounces Video of Seized Sailors

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iranian state television aired new video Sunday showing two of the 15 captured British sailors pointing to a spot on a map of the Persian Gulf where they were seized and acknowledging it was in Iranian territorial waters.

Britain's Foreign Office immediately denounced the video, saying it was "completely unacceptable for these pictures to be shown on TV."

Adding to tensions between the two countries, about 200 angry Iranian youths chanting "Death to Britain" and "Death to America" threw rocks and firecrackers at the British Embassy and tried to rush the compound but were held back by police. ...

***

Iran, The New South Africa
Ed Morrissey

Missouri took the first steps among the states to divest their portfolios of any foreign corporations doing business with Iran, a move they started last year. Now eight other states have begun to follow suit, and the latest state may make the biggest impact of all. California has just passed legislation that would transfer billions of dollars away from foreign investments: ...

***

When Britain fought back
Michelle Malkin

Reader Mark e-mails:

25 years ago today, British Royal Marines fought back when someone came to get them. See the Royal Marine Detachment at Port Stanley at the opening of the Falklands War.

The UK's Parachute Regiment hosts a page listing Falklands 25th Anniversary events.

Op-For has continuing coverage and analysis throughout the week.

Britblogger Tim Montgomerie: Blair is no Thatcher. ...

***

Iran: All sailors have confessed — but we won’t show any
more confessions; Update: Iran backs off trials for sailors?
Allahpundit

Instead they’ll just edit them into quickie montages with no audio to use as intros for clips of the sailors they’ve already shown. Like they’ve done here.

Makes you appreciate McCain’s resolve in the tiger cage that much more.

The reason they’re toning it down now is because of “positive changes” in the negotiations. The AP thinks it was the note sent from the British:

In a letter sent in response to a note from Iranian officials, Britain agreed to consider discussions about how to avoid similar disputes in the future, said the British official. Britain’s response — most of which has been kept secret — may have prompted the report Monday from Iran’s state-run radio.

Bush is playing the bad cop role to Blair’s good cop here, prompting Iran this morning to warn him to mind his own business. Is Bush the big winner politically in all this? The LA Times considers the horrifying possibility:

Whatever Ahmadinejad’s motives, this much is certain: Iran’s actions give credence to hard-liners in the U.S. who view Iran as a rogue state headed by a Holocaust denier who supports terrorism and flouts international norms, whether nuclear or maritime.

None of which was in doubt before the sailors were seized, mind you. That’s like saying that 9/11 “gave credence” to the “view” that Al Qaeda is a terrorist group whose leader wants to wage jihad on the U.S. It’s simply more evidence of a fact long since proved. The debate to be had about Iran isn’t whether they’re a rogue state, it’s how best to hurt them while minimizing damage to ourselves. The California state legislature has some good ideas about that, surprisingly. What’s the Times’s plan? ...

***

Iran: No Need to Try Captured British Personnel 

TEHRAN, Iran —  Iran and Britain signaled possible ways out of the standoff over 15 detained British soldiers Monday, with Tehran saying there was no need to put the crew on trial and Britain saying it was willing to discuss ways to avoid future boundary confusion in the Persian Gulf.

Iran's top international negotiator Ali Larijani said Iran's priority "is to solve the problem through proper diplomatic channels."

"There is no need for any trial," he told Britain's Channel 4 television news.

Earlier Monday, Iran's state-run media said all 15 British sailors and marines had confessed to illegally entering Iranian waters, but the confessions would not be broadcast because of what it called "positive changes" in Britain's negotiating stance.

In London, a British official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said Prime Minister Tony Blair's government had agreed to consider ways to avoid such situations in the future.

The official insisted that Britain was not negotiating with the Iranians and still wanted the captives freed unconditionally. ...

***

ABC News: Iran has secretly tripled its enrichment capacity
Allahpundit

Reuters put out a story earlier today in which they quoted Russia’s leading nuclear physicist laughing over the predictions about when Iran will have the bomb. He must already know, or else it’s a hell of a coincidence.

The timeframe here — a bomb by 2009 — isn’t the news here. A British think tank said that was theoretically possible earlier this year. The newsflash is that they’re on track right now to actually do it.

[...]

A few things. First, Ahmadinejad has been making noise lately about “good news” coming on the nuclear front. I guess we know now what the good news is. Second, the 2015 date is wrong. Follow the link to the USA Today piece above and you’ll see that John Negroponte thought they could have the bomb within four years. He still overshot, but not as badly as ABC makes it sound. Third and most importantly, note well that number 3,000. That’s how many centrifuges Iran said it was planning to install back on January 31, the same day they announced they were banning UN surveillance cameras from the area of the Natanz facility where the centrifuges would be located. It also happens to be a sort of magic number as far as bombmaking goes. Again, from the USA Today piece:

[...]

Another nuclear expert, Charles Ferguson of the Council on Foreign Relations, has corroborated that timetable, calling 3,000 centrifuges a “starter kit” that could produce enough material for a bomb within one year. If ABC’s right and Iran’s actually on track to make that happen by May, it’s going to escalate the crisis considerably. On the other hand, if they’re fast-tracking their nuke program to intimidate the west, why wouldn’t they want UN cameras in the centrifuge corridor recording it for propaganda purposes? One possibility is that it’s all a lie: according to diplomats interviewed by the Observer back in January, Iran’s program is actually a shambles and their announcements about centrifuge installations “will more probably be about propaganda than reality.”

Which brings us to our two exit questions.  ...

***

Don't miss Bryan Preston's excellent related post here.  (H/Tx2: Michelle)

***

Two Years Until Iran Goes Nuclear
Ed Morrissey

It seems that those darned Iranians just keep surprising people with their plucky can-do attitude. For years, Iran managed to fool everyone into thinking that it had no nuclear program at all. Once we discovered that those rascals had been burning the midnight oil to study up on applied nuclear physics, we figured that they could never master the mechanics. Even after Pakistan extended a helping hand by selling them prototype centrifuges and weapons designs, Informed Experts told us to relax -- the Iranians would need 5-10 years before they could enrich enough uranium to actually build the bombs.

Well, those enterprising little devils have managed to surprise us again!

[...]

Well, shucks! Looks like we underestimated those darned Iranians once again. Who knows how they'll surprise us next? Perhaps a mushroom cloud on the Hudson, or a series of them around Tel Aviv ...