New University: Iran Crisis Was a Failed Opportunity for West

The following article is simply ridiculous. Yep, capturing unarmed soldiers for no reason and threatening to try them before Iranian court is a really fair practice and we should negotiate with their kidnappers? How utterly weak and silly.

--------------------

Iran Crisis Was a Failed Opportunity for West

By Editorial Board

Set aside for a moment the issue of whether Iran’s recent detainment of 15 British naval personnel was justified. More important than how their 13-day imprisonment began is how it ended.

Obviously, the best way the situation could have concluded was with the peaceful release of the Britons; anything else would have been unthinkable. It’s just unfortunate this happy resolution had nothing to do with Western diplomacy and everything to do with Western pride.

The idea that Iran should have been dealt with respectfully and diplomatically may be a difficult thing to accept, let alone hear. We in the West are far more accustomed to kicking ass and taking names than to listening patiently and taking the moral high road.

And neither is this a condoner of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial or apparent eagerness to kick-start World War III with his aggressive stance on Iran’s nuclear program. No, this is something in between: a plea for moderation, understanding and acceptance.

The fact is, the Middle East is a mess and always has been, even before the Western world got involved. We all want peace and prosperity in the region (some more than others), but constant military intervention hasn’t proven to be the answer.

This could have been an opportunity for Britain to generate a little goodwill between the West and one of our most intractable adversaries. Instead, it quickly devolved into posturing and stubborn we-said/they-said politicking.

If this dispute were between two children fighting in the backseat of an SUV over who crossed the line into “my side,” as opposed to two world leaders arguing over an international border, almost any parent’s response would be, more or less, “That’s enough! I don’t care who started it—both of you just settle down, be quiet and play nice.”

Granted, international diplomacy is a trifle more complicated than this – for one thing, there aren’t any parents – but the principle is still valid. With no one to force civility on Britain and Iran, it was up to each side’s leader to be “the bigger man” and make the first move toward reconciliation. Why did that man end up being Iran?

Of the two sides involved, Britain is clearly in a far greater position of power. In fact, they’re so powerful compared to Iran that humbling themselves enough to sit down and talk with the Iranians, face to face, wouldn’t have reduced their influence on the world stage in the slightest. Quite the opposite: It would have been a magnanimous gesture to give Iran even a tiny bit of the respect and consideration they feel they deserve as a nation.

This, however, wasn’t an option—at least, not publicly. British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the 15 were freed “without any deal, without any negotiation, without any side agreement of any nature.” Bold words, but that only makes him look worse in light of Ahmadinejad’s release of the captives on the day of Mohammad’s birth, and in commemoration of both Jewish Passover and Christian Easter.

Think about that. Ahmadinejad, widely derided as an ultra-conservative bully and worse, captures a handful of British soldiers to win points with the Middle East. Instead, he ends up winning points with the world at large by releasing his “detainees” in a bold publicity coup that ties together the world’s three major religions.

Iran stood up to Britain—and won. Impossible as it seems, by choosing to release the 15 on his own terms (or appearing to—either way) instead of being strong-armed into it, Ahmadinejad elevated himself above the petty squabbling of the previous 13 days and proved to be, however briefly, a more capable statesman than his Western counterpart.

Imagine if Blair had taken the bull by the horns on day two and said, “It’s uncertain whether our soldiers crossed over into Iranian territory, but since that’s not as important as the lives and well-being of our people, we apologize for any misunderstanding and wish to discuss the terms of their release immediately.”

If this seems unreasonable, ask yourself this: Since when is it unreasonable for diplomats to be diplomatic? He would have acted, not reacted, and in doing so he would have controlled the situation.

Had the British government chosen to publicly negotiate, it wouldn’t have been a sign of weakness, but one of strength. The world could have pointed to Blair’s efforts and said, “He brought them home.” Instead, at whom are we pointing? Ahmadinejad.

Peace in the Middle East isn’t going to be cheap but if we have to pay for it, let’s do so in pride rather than more lives. Someone’s going to have to start making some concessions—why not us? A little respect now could go a long way later.

It was Britain today but it could be America tomorrow. If it is, let’s learn from recent events instead of repeating them.

Posted in: Editorial Board,New University