The UK has a duty, as commonly understood by secular individuals, to protect their people from harm, not expose them too it. By not responding in a way that would dissuade Iran from putting their citizens in jeopardy in the future, but instead encouraging such behavior, they have fundamentally failed their duties as interpreted by a secular individual.

HOWEVER, AC and the UK did the right thing for the wrong reasons. A peaceful resolution is one which as Christians we must pursue, even at the cost of our own lives. The UK achieved a peaceful solution, but it was not the best peaceful solution nor did they seek it for the right reasons.

What they should have done was stand firmly on the side of truth and adamantly forced the Iranians to comply through logic, reason, and love. They should have been willing to die for the right thing, but not to kill.

Instead the UK turned their tail and kowtowed to falsehoods, lies, and evil, while they did turn the other cheek, they did so in the wrong way for the wrong reasons.

True that. Sadly, Islam is profoundly Arab in its origins and assumptions (and this is particularly true of the more fundamentalist strains in both Sunni and Shia Islam). One reason that many Iranians are ambivalent about both their official religion and their official government.

The big stick certainly is at hand, and it’s being swung by a deaf-mute giant. I agree that things aren’t likely to improve quickly, and chances are certainly nil as long as both Bush and Ahmadinejad are in power.

My general argument in all of this is that the military card has been overplayed and has not been complemented by a sufficient amount of diplomacy. Yes, Libya finally came around, score one for us. What happened to the momentum from that? Was there ever any? Meanwhile, we continue to pound on things with explosives and aren’t making significant progress in terms of stemming the chaos. Opening a third battle theater in Iran is not the domino effect we should be pursuing.

Osama bin Ladin was right when he said that the Arabs respect strength.

Well, good thing Iranians are mostly Persian and Azeri.

What do you think we have been doing?

Here are the results of the enlightened and effective foreign policy of the Clinton years:

1. Nuclear arms race between Pakistan and India.
2. North Korea develops atomic weapons.
3. Massive destabilization in Israel and Palestine.
4. Loss of hundreds of American lives to Al Qaeda terrorism.
5. Rise and consolidation of the Taliban
6. Establishment of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
7. Massive Pakistani support for Taliban and Al Qaeda.
8. 9-11

Here are the results of the arrorgant and failed foreign policy of the Bush years:

1. 9-11
2. Elimination of the Taliban regime.
3. Elimination of main Al Qaeda resource and training bases in Afghanistan.
4. Reduction in Pakistani aid to Al Qaeda.
5. Libya abandons nuclear program, rejoins community of nations.
6. Massive destablization in Israel and Palestine.
7. North Korea may give up atomic weapons.
8. Overthrow of Saddam Hussein, chaos in Iraq.

I don’t list this to blame Clinton or priase Bush, but to point out that progress is virtually impossible no matter how you approach it. The Middle East has been a place of violence and oppression for hundreds of years. It won’t get better quickly, if at all. Has Bush missed opportunities? You bet. Did Clinton miss them too? Absolutely.

But, ultimately, Osama bin Ladin was right when he said that the Arabs respect strength. They pay lip service to fairness but they respect strength. That’s why Hussein was revered everywhere but Iraq. That’s why Hezbollah’s stock went up outside of Lebanon. That’s why Iran is behaving as it is.

I’m not saying we should be assholes. But appeasement is not wise. We should talk, but we should also keep the big stick always at hand. And we better make sure those we’re speaking with know we’ll use it.

This is nonsense. Let’s leave aside diplomatic action throughout the world which resulted, in among other things, Libya and Pakistan moving away from rogue state status. We’ll also avoid numerous attempts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian problem that has vexed every attempt at a solution, by anyone. Let’s just focus on Iran.

In the case of Iran, in particular, when the US invaded Iraq it could have sealed the border with Iran, refused passage for religious leaders and common folk, and responded to the nearly constant Iranian violations of Iraqi sovereignity with overwhelming force.

It did none of those.

Iran, in response to the open borders and free trade and travel, has funneled money, weapons, explosives, and advanced missiles to Iraqi insurgent and militia groups, funded Sadr’s vicious thugs, sent commando units in to kill Iraqi soliders and officials, and in every other way shown contempt for its neighbor and us.

When we finally respond by capturing its intelligence agents at work fomenting violence in Iraq, it then reacts with this latest action.

Let me ask a question. Would you trust a nation run by Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Oral Roberts to engage in rational foreign policy? Would you give them the benefit of the doubt? Iran is run by a group which makes those three look like secular atheistic pacifists. Rational diplomacy does not work with tyrants who think they are in a position of strength. They see it as appeasement.

Since we do not, in fact, like slaughtering people, we should continue to make diplomatic overtures, even to tyrants. But we must couple those overtures with forceful responses to their provocations. They don’t respect reason, kindness, or mutual interest. They misinterpret restraint as weakness. If you don’t couple diplomacy with force, they will ignore the diplomacy and assume you will never really use force. And by the time they realize their mistake you’ll have no options other than really nasty ones.

If you want to avoid the devastation of Iran, you should support a forceful response to these provocations. Because otherwise the Iranians will keep pushing, until we finally push back a final time.

I’m not at all suggesting that Iran’s actions were in any way acceptable, appropriate, or otherwise OK.

The UN has been trying to talk to them for ages, and they won’t give up their nuclear ambitions.

The UN is too broken to do much of anything right now (see also: Darfur). And given the lead-up to the current Iraq situation, it’s obvious that whatever the UN says or does, the only decisions with any relevance are being made in the Oval Office and at 10 Downing St.

[Iran's nuclear ambitions are] a serious problem. The lack of conversation at the negotiating table isn’t the UK’s fault, it is Iran’s… Kidnapping soldiers is not a valid way to start a discussion, it is a valid way to start a war.

Nuclearization anywhere is a serious problem; doubly so when it’s a regime that openly despises the existence of another heavily-armed power in the region (Israel). Both sides (the West and Iran) are being obstinate to a fault in their public posturing and general refusal to speak to one another.

Apologizing for Iran, their violations of the human rights of their own citizens, [etc.]

Who’s apologizing? I’m certainly not. Nor am I excusing Iran’s actions. I’m trying to look for an explanation of why they acted out and trying to determine if military action is the only recourse to prevent them from doing so in the future. My conclusion is that no, military action alone is not the appropriate tool in this case. Diplomacy is.

Because of its military superiority, the West has the upper-hand diplomatically. Over the last 5 years, it has used only its military in the region with no serious effort at diplomacy. If the only “negotiation” occurs with bullets, missiles, and bombs, is it reasonable to expect any real change to occur? The violence in the region (and globally) directed at Westerners and their interests will continue as long as those fomenting the violence have a means to lure people away from rational, peaceful methods of conflict resolution. Yes, the West should seek to destroy or detain those who would harm them, but if the West makes no real effort to give those would-be enemies a meaningful alternative to the hate spewed by extremists, nothing gets solved. Until substantial diplomatic efforts are made to involve regional actors (e.g., Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan) in bringing stability to the region, what are the real chances of success? That means possibly talking with unsavory characters and it means building diplomacy from the ground up, rather than enforcing it from the top down.

While invaded is the wrong word, they did cross into another countries soverign territory and abduct guests of that country while in that country’s waters. What Iran did was a blatant violation of international law.

Yes, the Iranians’ actions and methods were despicable; were they any worse than the US policy of/European complicity in extraordinary renditions? If we follow certain practices in the treatment of military prisoners, are we supposed to hold our enemies to a higher standard in their treatment of military prisoners?

While we have violated the Geneva convention, and should be held to task for it, it doesn’t give the Iranians permission to do so as well. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

To force London into a direct dialog with Tehran. With military conflicts consuming the countries on its western and eastern borders, and increasingly bellicose rhetoric from Washington, is it all that surprising that Tehran would resort to extreme measures in order to spark some sort of diplomatic conversation? Taking and releasing 15 sailors accomplishes this end while also giving the appearance (domestically) that the gov’t is in control and can deal with Western powers without being cowed.

Tehran is seeking nuclear missiles. They don’t get to kidnap people and say “We just wanted to talk!”

The UN has been trying to talk to them for ages, and they won’t give up their nuclear ambitions. This is a serious problem. The lack of conversation at the negotiating table isn’t the UK’s fault, it is Iran’s, and I completely fault them for that. Kidnapping soldiers is not a valid way to start a discussion, it is a valid way to start a war.

Apologizing for Iran, their violations of the human rights of their own citizens, flaunting of international law, and attempts to obtain nuclear weapons is ridiculous. Saying “Well we’re no better” isn’t a valid excuse for them either, we are better, and even if we weren’t, one person’s bad behavior does not excuse another’s.

Ok, so the cruise missile strikes/carpet bombings/other destruction of strategic targets begins when the Iranians take the sailors and ends when…?

Iran gives back the sailors. This situation was 100% Iran’s fault.

“Invaded?” It was an armed boarding party. Let’s not exaggerate the matter.

Yes, the Iranians’ actions and methods were despicable; were they any worse than the US policy of/European complicity in extraordinary renditions? If we follow certain practices in the treatment of military prisoners, are we supposed to hold our enemies to a higher standard in their treatment of military prisoners?

[W]hat do you think the purpose of invading Iraqi waters and seizing British commandos was?

To force London into a direct dialog with Tehran. With military conflicts consuming the countries on its western and eastern borders, and increasingly bellicose rhetoric from Washington, is it all that surprising that Tehran would resort to extreme measures in order to spark some sort of diplomatic conversation? Taking and releasing 15 sailors accomplishes this end while also giving the appearance (domestically) that the gov’t is in control and can deal with Western powers without being cowed.

[G]oal of a prompt military response by the British would be to demonstrate that the cost of unprovoked hostility is high enough that the Iranians should avoid a repeat performance.

Ok, so the cruise missile strikes/carpet bombings/other destruction of strategic targets begins when the Iranians take the sailors and ends when…?

Perhaps part of the reason no shots were fired was because this isn’t the first time this has happened.