About 11 days ago, 15 members of a foreign naval force in uniform, bearing arms and the British flag in service of Her Majesty’s Government, had trespassed into Iranian waters. Media hype ensued and a campaign of disinformation by the British government attempted to paint it as a UN peacekeeping mission. Nevertheless, these soldiers did not bear the UN flag or the internationally recognisable “Blue Helmets” insignia. In all, it was yet another round of media spin tricks: Eisenhower and his televised denials of violating Soviet airspace with an American U-2; Colin Powel and his satellite photos of mobile WMD labs in Iraq; George Bush and his facts on Iraqi purchase of uranium in Niger.
It is international practice to warn and subsequently escort armed and uniformed forces of a neighbouring country back to the border without much formality, when such intrusion is found to be in error. However, the presence of armed soldiers foreign to the region merits a more formal process, especially as the incident is a repeat of what happened in 2004 and despite a formal undertaking of the British government. In other words, previous warnings are indisputable facts – intruders should beware.
Iranian border guards carried out their duty to protect Iranian territory. Iran demanded a prompt response from the British Embassy, alas it was answered by schoolyard bully remarks. As such, it was hardly an illegal seizure, nor can these soldiers be labelled as “hostages.”
However, one might consider the Anglo-American perspective. These two lone rangers believe that they are beyond explaining themselves, but they are authorised to act on rumours and heresy when they seize nationals of other countries anywhere on the planet for detention in secret locations!
Who is running Iran, then? The answer is obvious: the Iranian people. Iranians simply wish to manage their own affairs as a sovereign country without outside interference. But somehow, the Anglo-American duo considers such desires for independence to be “wrong and inexcusable” or that Iran ought to be punished for its refusal to capitulate. Iraqi-style drive-by shootings have been threatened. Alas, this is also another fading page from the old books. India and China were isolated for decades by such shortsighted colonialist. Their indictable “wrong doings” were their sincere pursuit of national independence in their own way.
It has been more than 27 years since Washington cut ties with Iran. The net result is that America has isolated itself from a firsthand understanding of Iran and Iranians. There are no American diplomats (or government employees) with experience or understanding of Iran. Thus, the confusion is essentially an American homemade product: a cocktail of tainted, skewed innuendoes mixed with absurd conclusions and spoon fed by ill-informed lobbies.
So, the question leads to another question: who is running policy towards Iran in Washington? The answers are pegged to first hand engagement and an objective analysis of cold facts, and such experience is not easily gained. Facing reality with an open mind, however, could be a step in the right direction.
Please e-mail PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question.
Email This Post to a Friend | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook | Email the Author
