WaPo - Nothing to read about here folks, move along now.

Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!

Some amplifying information on the Iranian hostage ploy. (from RedState)

If the story carried by Pajamas Media
is correct the real purpose in the seizure of 15 Royal Marines and
Royal Navy sailors by a ship belonging to the Pasdaran makes much more
sense.

Far from being a rogue initiative or an international provocation
the action probably has more in common with bargaining in a bazaar than
a political act. [...]

Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!

Interesting read (HT: CTb)

The capture of British Navy servicemen by Iranian forces is not simply an incident over sea sovereignty in the Persian Gulf. It is a calculated move on behalf of Teheran's Jihadi chess players to provoke a "projected" counter move by London and its American allies. It is all happening in a regional context, carefully engineered by the Mullahs strategic planners. Here is how:

The Iranian regime's master plan is to wait out the remainder of Tony Blair's mandate (few more months) and the remaining "real time" of President Bush (till about the end of 2007). For the thinking process in Tehran, based on their Western consultants, believe that Washington and London have reached the end of the rope and will only have till 2008 to do something major to destabilize Ahmedinijad regime. As explained by a notorious propagandist on al Jazeera today the move is precisely to respond to the Anglo-American attempt to "stir trouble" inside Iran. Anis Naccash, a Lebanese intellectual supporter of the Ayatollahs regime, appearing from Tehran few hours ago on the Qatari-based satellite and "explained" that the "US and the UK must understand that Iran is as much at war with these two powers in as much as they support the rise of movements and security instability inside Iran." He added that Khamenei is clear on the regime's decision to strike: "we will be at war with you on all levels: secret, diplomatic, military and other." Pro-Iranian propagandists in the region, via media and online rushed to warn that this movement is part of Iran's counter-strike against any attempt to destabilize the regime. Two major tracks emerge from these statements, the Iranian military maneuvers and the capture of British Navy personnel.

1) Iran's domestic front is putting pressure on the Ahmedinijad regime.

From internal reporting, dissidents and anti-Ahmedinijad forces from various social sectors are practically in slow motion eruption against the authorities. Students, women, workers and political activists have been demonstrating and sometimes clashing with the regime's security apparatus. Western media didn't report proportionally on these events over the past few weeks. In addition, ethnic minority areas have been witnessing several incidents, including violence against the "Revolutionary Guards," including in the Arab and Baluch areas. And last but not least, the defection of a major intelligence-military figure early this month to the West was, according to internal sources, a "massive loss" to the regime and a possible first one in a series.

2) The regime "needs" an external clash to crush the domestic challenge.

As in many comparable cases worldwide, when an authoritarian regime is faced with severe internal opposition it attempts to deflect the crisis onto the outside world. Hence, Teheran's all out campaign against the US and its allies in Iraq, Lebanon and the region is in fact a repositioning of Iran's shield against the expected rising opposition inside the country. Hence the Khomeinist Mullahs plan seem to be projected as follow:

a. Engage in the diplomatic realm, to project a realist approach worldwide, but refrain from offering real results

b. Continue, along with the Syrian regime, in supporting the "Jihadi" Terror operations (including sectarian ones) inside Iraq

c. Widen the propaganda campaign against the US and its allies via a number of PR companies within the West, to portray Iran as "a victim" of an "upcoming war provoked by the US."

d. Engage in skirmishes in the Gulf (and possibly in other spots) with US and British elements claiming these action as "defensive," while planned thoroughly ahead of time.

3) The regime plan is to drag its opponents into a trap

Teheran's master planners intend to drag the "Coalition" into steps in engagement, at the timing of and in the field of control of Iran's apparatus. Multiple options and scenarios are projected.

a. British military counter measure takes place, supported by the US. Iran's regime believe that only "limited" action by the allies is possible, according to their analysis of the domestic constraints inside the two powerful democracies.

b. Tehran moves to a second wave of activities, at its own pace, hoping to draw a higher level of classical counter strikes by US and UK forces. The dosing by Iran's leadership is expected to stretch the game in time, until the departure of Blair and of the Bush Administration by its political opponents inside the country's institutions and public debate.

In a short conclusion the "War room" in Tehran has engaged itself in an alley of tactical moves it feels it can control. But the Iranian regime, with all its "political chess" expertise, may find itself in a precarious and risky situation. For while it feel that it can control the tactical battlefield in the region and fuel the propaganda pressure inside the West with its Petro-dollars, it may not be able to contain the internal forces in Iran, because of which it has decided to go on offense.

The Ahmedinijad regime wishes to crumble the international consensus to avoid the financial sanctions: that is true. But as important, if not more, it wants to be able to crush the revolt before it pounds the doors of the Mullahs palaces.

And to add to the “sanctions” which adds up to nothing…

The UN Security Council, unable to come up with a consensus on meaningful sanctions measures against Iran, has settled on an effete set of measures unlikely to cause Iran to change course. In fact, UN Security Council Resolution 1747 (2007) breaks new ground when it comes to watered- down language, obfuscation and confusion. The new obligations are so trite and vague as to risk serious damage to Security Council credibility and to the future effectiveness of sanctions as a foreign policy tool.

For the first time this writer is aware of in a Chapter VII resolution, the Security Council has refrained from imposing any firm obligations on countries to actually enforce the new chapter VII sanctions measures. It merely calls on states to “exercise vigilance and restraint” when it comes to carrying out these new sanctions obligations. For example in Para 2 the resolution “Calls upon all States also to exercise vigilance and restraint regarding the entry into or transit through their territories of individuals who are engaged in, directly associated with or providing support for Iran’s proliferation sensitive nuclear activities or for the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems…” And these measures apply only to a small list of individuals, mostly members of the Iranian Armed Forces, contained in an annex to the resolution.

In Para 6 the resolution “Calls upon all States to exercise vigilance and restraint in the supply, sale or transfer directly or indirectly from their territories or by their nationals or using their flag vessels or aircraft” of a limited range of heavy military equipment including battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles or missile system.

And then there is Paragraph 7 which “Calls upon all States and international financial institutions not to enter into new commitments for grants, financial assistance, and concessional loans, to the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, except for humanitarian and developmental purposes.” What does that mean? And who determines when the grants, loans, or financial assistance is for developmental or for other purposes? I guess that means that it is still all right for China, Russia and any other country to support investment activities in Iran’s oil and gas industry. This apparently leaves on the table the Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) $16 billion investment in Iran gas field development.

So what does that leave in the new resolution that can be touted as “additional pressure” on Iran? It adds about two dozen or so new individuals and entities to the asset freeze included in Resolution 1737 (2006). And there is a new ban on buying weapons from Iran. There is also a requirement that countries now report to a Security Council committee whenever a targeted individual included in the resolution’s annex travels to their country. That's not much at all.

It is difficult to understand how these new measures, which include something less than a travel ban, something less that a financial assistance and investment ban, and something less than an arms embargo are going to dissuade Iran from continuing on its presence course.

"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"

I followed the UN votes yesterday and listened to the Iranian spokesman at the UN live...if looks could kill from the representative from England while he was spewing his outrageous lies he would no longer be with us.

The media putting this story away is for a reason...this too shall be George Bush's fault...especailly if we so something to back the Brit's...come on Israel...take out the plants!

What is sad, is a lot of people are not following this...so when something happens if it does involving our forces...this will be made to look like the big bad evil republicans...

Something must be done with Iran...now!

I am so sick and tired of all of the media.

Fox in all fairness has been covering this to an extent...so far.

This should be A-1 news right NOW! Top of the news when it comes to importance to this country...but it isn't...no tomorrow it will Anna Nicole all day again after Perper releases the autopsy report.

Sad, pathetic and outrageous.

People really need to wake up!

Before it is too late.