Homecoming

The 15 British service members captured by Iran on March 23 have arrived back in Great Britain. That's got to be a relief to the families and friends of those 15.

Now, the questions begin in earnest. What really happened and what were the fateful decisions that were made that resulted in the capture of the 15? Was their a failure to follow the rules of engagement or did the Royal Navy follow them?

Who won and who lost as a result of the confrontation? I would lean towards Iran winning the confrontation because they've been the ones playing the media brilliantly despite the fact that their propaganda was in violation of international law.

Ahmadinejad may have won, though there are reports that suggest that others inside the Iranian government forced the release because they didn't want to get into a military encounter with the British and/or US when they know they'd get pasted heavily. It was a timing thing - they don't want to get ahead of themselves before their own capabilities are such that they can produce a standoff weapon that would make anyone think twice about military action.

Tony Blair was a loser in this. He looked weak and didn't send the right signals to the Iranians and the rest of the world that they would take decisive action if Iran didn't immediately release the 15. More to the point, the British looked weak because a closer look at the assets at their disposal shows that they were incapable of mounting a major military action on their own to rescue their service members.

Blair says he holds no ill will. He might not, but the British military should. The Iranians are certainly keeping score on this front and see that they were able to get the British to bend in the breeze.

The Royal Navy lost. What were the rules of engagement and why didn't the support ships take action to save their crew? Has the fleet been so degraded that they cannot handle missions and protect themselves from what can only be regarded as piracy?

Blair denies that the British sent a letter of apology for the incident. It may take some time, but we may eventually learn how and why the 15 were released, and I doubt it had anything to do with a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Iranians.

Meanwhile, the US is considering Iranian requests to visit five Iranians being held inside Iraq. The five were captured in Irbil and are accused of assisting the insurgency.

UPDATE:
Hot Air has a good roundup including questions over the photos taken of the 15 before they left Iran for Britain. Several of the Brits didn't smile for the pictures, and it's curious that their images were cropped from some of the photos. Journalistic and editorial choices were made, but some are lauding those Brits who didn't smile while some are wondering just how much of an effort was made to resist the Iranian demands to apologize.

UPDATE:
Jay Tea has a very good piece on how there are ramifications to the Iran-Britain situation that will not simply be papered over by apologies. Iran's mad mullahs do not work that way.

The precedent has been set: Iran has kidnapped sailors, kept them prisoner, denied them their Geneva Convention rights, used them as PR props, and then let them go in a grand ceremony -- and the world is trampling all over itself to pat them on the back. "Consequences? Why, those would be mean-spirited and punitive and not at all conducive to civil discourse! Besides, everyone is safe, so what's the problem?"

He also makes a point I've stated from early on - this incident gives Iran the mojo to claim Iraqi waters in the Shat al Arab as their own.

Iran has tried this before, and they'll learn from the experience how to do it even better the next time and the demands will be more than simply an apology. As Michelle Malkin notes, there are specific requirements for US soldiers, sailors, and Marines to resist as much as they are capable of doing for as long as possible. The US Chief of Naval Operations was quite blunt in saying that there was no way US sailors would have been taken without a fight.

That compares with the British military who dismissed questions that the Britons behaved improperly.

There are questions over how the British responded once they were in Iranian custody. Some of that will undoubtedly related back to training and preparation for the possibility of being captured. That will reflect back on the Admirals and Generals, not just on the 15. The questions will certainly intensify and take on a life of their own, not to mention become politicized, especially considering that the Royal Navy is continuing operations in the Persian Gulf and is deployed around the world.

What is the price of liberty? That's what Pajamas Media asks, and apparently Pat Dollard says it was Iranian the Iranian “diplomat” Jalal Sharafi, aka Mohammed Javad Sharaf-Zadeh, who was traded for the 15 British sailors. Eli Lake has more. As much as some on the left think that the US didn't have a role in securing the freedom of the 15 Brits, it appears that there was a quid pro quo involved. Too bad the Administration chose to provide assistance by releasing someone who provides assistance and material support to terrorists who are attacking US forces in Iraq. That said, I can understand how they could justify the release because he was a diplomat and civilized nations are supposed to respect certain rules and honor diplomatic immunity. Too bad the Iranians laugh at the idea of diplomatic immunity.

He did, however, warn of giving into the demands of hostage takers. "Once people start taking hostages or kidnapping folks on the high seas and then are rewarded for it by getting some kind of political concession or some other thing of value, that would be unfortunate," he said.

An adviser to the National Security Council and the State Department in the Reagan administration, Michael Ledeen, who himself was an interlocutor with the Iranians when America secretly sold arms to free Americans taken by Iran's proxies, Hezbollah, said yesterday, "There is always a quid pro quo, we don't know yet what it was."

Not all Iran watchers, however, believe that Iran got the best of the exchange yesterday. The deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Patrick Clawson, said yesterday, "I don't think the British gave them anything."

Mr. Clawson said, "The Iranians got very little for this.

Very little is a whole lot more than they should have ever gotten in this whole mess of their own designs.