The British are starting to realize that their European buddies are not all that supportive in their current hostage crisis.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2047472,00.html

If the Brits would like to coordinate with their fellow coalition of the willing partner, it seems that there is a softer path which might actually get their people released and might even lead to the end of the current government.

The first thing that they have to do is get all their embassy staff and any stray Brits out or Iran. As soon as the plane carrying the last of the embassy staff gets over international water, the message should go to pre placed SAS operators to round up all the Iranian agents in southern Iraq.

Maybe the Iranians will agree to trade the British sailors for the Iranian agents. Maybe not. In any event, they won't be running around making mischief.

Next stop the smuggling of gasoline from Iraq into Iran. Do it with roadblocks and do it with UAVs firing missiles at gasoline tanker trucks crossing the border. This is definitely going to piss off some of the people in the Iraqi government who are making big bucks with this trade but it might be popular among Iraqis who have to wait for hours in line to fill up while thieves get rich selling their gasoline in Iran.

Next impose a naval blockade on gasoline going into Iran. I'm sure the US Navy would love to help out on this one. Eventually either the Brits get their sailors back or the Iranian economy collapses. Either one is fine with me.

Britain is unable to conduct an offensive war against Iran by herself. Likewise, she should assume that at the start of such fighting her hostages may be killed. The purpose of the Iran War would not be rescue.

The incompetence of Iran in recent years is interesting. Being outmaneuvered by George Bush in the United Nations is not something one would expect.

Iran has the ability to make a lot of trouble in Iraq. [1] That's a reason we should have left Iraq a while ago, and why serious thinking about an Iran War should involve leaving Iraq (except for money, guns, and air power).

An Iran War would logically end with the destruction of the ayatollish government [2], and a result less than that should not be accepted. (See what happened to Israel when they ended the fighting before the destruction of Hezbollah).

[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/08/11/leave-iraq-now.html
[2] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/03/31/winners-and-losers-of-a-violent-end-of-the-islamic-republic.html

As for the strange whankery with respect UK & EU alliance support, well, nice to imagine, these strange self-delusions.

“This would be quite comical were it not likely close to the level of cartoonish adolescent thinking that appears to pass for policy in your current Administration. In which case it is at once sad, pitiful and dangerous. Queer, you people like firing at your toes with shotguns.”

Could you rephrase?

“As for the strange whankery with respect UK & EU alliance support, well, nice to imagine, these strange self-delusions.”

What are you referring to?

Cartoonish and adolescent would be if Tony Blair (or better still, Prince William) were to break in the doors of the Iranian Embassy and personally throw the Persian Ambassador and his minions down a bottomless well. Not a particularly wise or farsighted action but definitely cool.

It would also send a signal to the Iranians that they are not the only ones who can play the Crazy Eddie negotiating ploy.

However, given the realities of British domestic politics, I don't see that as particularly likely. Maybe if the Iranians put the British sailors on trial, it might arouse some sort of passion on the part of the British but I suspect that they are too deeply lost in Bush hatred, anti-Americanism and (unjustified) despair at their own impotence.

As compared to utter paralysis and absense of imagination that passes for policy out of 10 Downing Street? The only thing that excites you people these days are the latest shenanigans of the royal family. Pot and the kettle my friend.

Under Tony Blair, Britain took the calculate decision that it would lose the ability to engage in any offensive action without the United Staets in exchnge for not having to spend as much on defense. This is understandible, if very sad.

Conversely, Australia under John Howard is ramping up to a position of equivalence with her old colonial mistress: Canberra is now able to engage in offensive action, along with the United States, throughout Australasia. This is wonderful.

Johnmc,

Britain deserves praise, from her involvement in Iraq and Kosovo to the leading role she has played, and continues to play, in liberalizing economies around the world. She is a second-rate power, and plays her cards reasonably well.