What would happen if one country committed a blatant act of war against another, and no one did anything about it... or worse, attempted to compromise with the attacker? Would that country's leaders feel embarrassed over their breach of protocol and apologise? Or would they feel emboldened by the soft response to commit more attacks in hope of gaining further concessions? History has taught us that the latter is far more likely. Some simply refuse to learn the lesson. It's happened before, of course, and it seems to be happening again.
On Friday, 23 March 2007, a group of British sailors and Royal Marines from the frigate HMS Cornwall were inspecting a small ship in the Shatt al-Arab waterway, which was carrying vehicles for sale in Iraq. Their inflatable boats were surrounded and captured by six heavily armed Iranian gunboats, and the 15 Brits were accused of entering Iranian territory and spying. They were moved to Tehran, and face a "trial" for espionage. But with British and American ships routinely stopping and inspecting water traffic in that area for years, why would Iran choose to act now?
It's probably no coincidence that the Brits were taken hostage hours before a critical UN vote on sanctions against Iran for refusing to halt its nuclear program, to show Iran's defiance and try to influence Great Britain's vote. It's no stretch of the imagination to see that the Iranians believe the UK will be unable to respond, with Tony Blair on his way out. This seizure may have been staged in response to the disappearance of Revolutionary Guard commander Ali Reza Asgari, who Iran suspects of defecting to the West with his detailed knowledge of Iran's nuclear program. In that case, the captured Brits would be offered in exchange for Asgari's return. The Iranian government may even plan to drive a wedge between Great Britain and America by holding the Brits hostage in return for the release of five members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard captured by Americans in Iraq. The Iranians may have decided to commit this act for any of these reasons, or all of them, or for some reason yet unknown. In any case, it's no surprise that one of the world's worst terror-supporting governments would act like terrorists themselves. After all, the Iranian regime began when revolutionaries took over the American embassy in 1979 and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.
Prime Minister Blair has warned the Iranian government that the seizure was unjustified, and that they only have "a few days" to return the Brits, but his implied threat has no teeth. Blair has already been forced to withdraw troops from Iraq by a weak-kneed Parliament. President Bush has pledged to back him, but Congress won't even support our own troops in battle, much less would they commit to aiding the British in a new fight. Some members of the Democrat-controlled Congress are trying to pass a measure that would prevent President Bush from using force against Iran without specific Congressional permission. That, too, is no coincidence -- our enemies pay closer attention to the workings of Washington than most of our own citizens.
The weakness openly displayed by the Left is now coming back to haunt us all. No one has ever attacked a country because that country looked strong. The more we try to appease and compromise with our enemies, the more they will continue to act aggressively. The only possible effective response to this act of war is a credible threat of force if the Brits are not promptly returned. And that's precisely the response both we and Great Britain are unable to make. The Iranians will, in the absence of any action on our part, keep committing minor acts of war until another major war becomes inevitable, with them many times stronger than they are now.
That's how it's always done, after all. Only this time, the enemy will start off with nuclear capability. The coming war with Iran, if not prevented by strong action while they are still only a conventional military power, will forever change the face of the world.