New University: Iran Crisis Not a Failure of Western Diplomacy

The following is a response to an appalling article written by the New University's Editorial Board last week. You can read last week's article here.
------
Letters to the Editor

Iran Crisis Not a Failure of Western Diplomacy

After reading the Op-ed piece entitled “Iran Crisis Was a Failed Opportunity for West” (April 9), I was both shocked and outraged by the lack of insight and supporting evidence for many of the claims made. At the start of the article, the author writes that the resolution of the crisis was more important than its beginning. This is a completely misleading statement, because the manner in which these British sailors were captured was both illegal and purposefully inflammable. I would argue that the nature of the conflict’s resolution was sculpted by Iran’s initial actions and, therefore, they are more important and influential to the crisis. What motivation could the Iranian regime have in capturing the British sailors so quickly and without warning other than trying to be purposefully confrontational? Though it is true that the exact location of the British soldiers at the time of capture is still being debated and neither side has comprehensive evidence, isn’t that information rather erroneous? Even if a single British ship were to momentarily cross the sea boundary line separating Iranian and Iraqi waters, it would seem in Iran’s best interest to stay as disconnected as possible from the mess in Iraq. This is, naturally, because of the fear of U.S., British or Israeli intervention in Iranian activities. Therefore, it seems illogical for Iran to want to heighten tensions in the region unless it is trying to evoke a certain reaction from the West.

Regarding the issue on whether the situation was a failure for Western diplomats, the reality is that it should not have been a crisis to begin with. The author of this article states that Britain could have used this crisis to build bridges with Iran, but that would send a completely flawed message. In short, the message would acknowledge to our enemies that if they create an international crisis, we will bend over backwards to be diplomatic and give up concessions for a malicious act of aggression. In my opinion, Western diplomats handled this situation exactly as it should have been handled. After condemning the Iranian nuclear program and the U.N. Security Council passing economic sanctions against Iran, it would be nothing but foolishness to try and build bridges following the unjust capturing of 15 servicemen. Coming out and calling Iran the “bigger man” in this crisis is simply a mistake. To use your analogy of the two kids fighting, it would be like one kid stealing a toy from the other—but after the toy has been stolen, the parents force the victimized child to apologize, and then praise the aggressor when he returns the toy. Unnecessary acts of aggression should not be tolerated nor praised, and the “bigger man” is not necessarily the country that acts first.

The act of defending pseudo-kindness (forced kindness) and the pointing of fingers at ourselves has become an all-too-prevalent view in the United States. Too often, we see our own citizens and those of our allies placing all of the blame for every international crisis on their own governments. Granted, there are many instances where this is partially true, such as the Iraq War, but this crisis with the British sailors was both instigated and manipulated by Iran. Why would one believe that Iran would cooperate in diplomatic efforts to return these sailors when it has resisted virtually every single mandate passed down by the U.N. and the International Atomic Energy Agency regarding its nuclear program? Much like the infamous boy who cried wolf, Iran is long past the point of Western powers taking them seriously. At the end of the article, it states that negotiating with Iran would have made Britain appear stronger, but that is completely wrong. How does it make Britain appear stronger when a smaller power can capture their soldiers and receive a seat at the negotiating table for doing so? Answer: It doesn’t. Diplomacy is a two-way street, and Iran was taking up the entire road on this one.

Michael Moore
fourth-year political science major

Posted in: Michael Moore,New University