Mar 30, 2007

Faye Turney is Not Worth a World War

Share
British leading seaman Faye TurneyLeft: British leading seaman Faye Turney in Tehran

(Tehran) The images coming from Iran are unsettling to Western viewers, British sailors purportedly confessing their entry into Iranian waters while on an anti-smuggling mission in the Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab. With Faye Turney's scarved face now the symbol of this incident, many in the West are calling for retaliation.

There is certainly a "blast them back to the Stone Age" reaction being voiced by members of the media and throughout the blogosphere. China Confidential is exemplary of this type of rhetoric:
The choice is simple and stark: (1) mass death in Iran, or (2) mass death in Israel, the United States, and Europe, and on US bases in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East.

Either the mullahs die, or we die.
Hyperbole aside, there are voices within the Bush administration who are in agreement with these sentiments. My suspicion is that the war hawks probably fell all over themselves at the fortunate arrival of this provocative Iranian action.

The seizure of the British sailors, though, might signal a political split between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and leaders of the Revolutionary Guard. As much as Ahmadinejad has been demonized in the Western press, he is far from the most fundamentalist or war-mongering among the Iranian leadership. An attack on Iran would simply send the Iranian war hawks into the ascendancy.

Full text of letter purportedly written by the captured British sailor Faye Turney and addressed to the British people. Left: Third letter from British sailor Faye Turney; click for larger image

The third letter from Faye Turney certainly sounds like it was coached, or even coerced. There is little doubt that Turney is being used by the Iranians for propaganda and/or bargaining value, but it is important to set aside our momentary disgust and ask an important question:

Is this worth a much wider regional war, one that might lead to a worldwide conflict?

There is still time to work a deal, free the British sailors, and avoid turning a relatively minor international incident into an excuse for full-scale war in the Middle East.

Or worse.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Typical moonbat liberal apologies for Islamofascists. You're worse than Neville Chamberlin! You Commie whiners would wait until the scimitar was at your throat before you fight back, but by then you're dead.

Anonymous said...

While I think that the earlier commentor is a "typical moonbat" conservative apologist for Christianofascists, I think your analysis is pretty docile and naive, which I'm sure you're not. While this Faye girl is actually relatively attractive for a Brit, especially one in the military, you're right she's not worth even a small war; unless that's exactly what you're looking for, like the moonbat commentor prior.

historymike said...

Anonymous #1:

You throw around a lot of catchy-sounding buzzwords of the right, like "moonbats," "Islamofacsists," and so forth, but your analysis is pretty empty.

1. Equating Iran and Hitlerian Germany is laughable. I see no evidence that Iran is hell-bent on regional or international conquest, although I would agree that Iran is looking to become one of the dominant players in regional politics.

2. If you are so concerned about nukes, start first with regional powers like Pakistan, India, and Israel, all of whom are armed to the teeth with nukes.

3. "wait until the scimitar was at your throat": kudos for one of the best pieces of exaggeration I have read in weeks. You should write for Hannity.

historymike said...

Anonymous 2:

Faye Turnye's looks only tug at the heartstrings, unless she becomes "the face that launched a thousand F-16s."

No, I do not want even a small war. Exchange prisoners and get this over with.

Anonymous said...

If the towel heads hold even ONE of our sailors it's enough for a war.

SEMPER FIDELIS!

The Screaming Nutcase said...

They'll probably get released when the UK gets a new Prime Minister. Or am I just having flashbacks to the first Iranian hostage crisis?

Dariush said...

Meanwhile, five Iranian diplomats, invited into Iraq at the request of Talabani, are still being held hostage, location unknown. And probably already having received the Abu Ghraib treatment.

Peckerwoods just need to understand that their lives, their blood, are not of inherently greater worth than that of others.

liberal_dem said...

Mike- don't you love those 'anonymous' comments from dolts who don't have blogs of their own?

historymike said...

Heh.

When they arrive they tend to be right after I ping Technorati, whatever that means.

I have to admit my headline probably attracted them, though. If I had put a benign headline like "Analyzing the Shatt-al Arab Incident" they probably wouldn't have shown up in the first place.

McCaskey said...

Oh yeah, the headline drew them in. Heck, it drew ME in.

I predict this blows over, everyone acknowledges some sort of "misunderstanding", and the Brits could be home for Easter.

microdot said...

This will be resolved diplomatically.
The details of the incident are too embarrassing for Britain to stall too much. The Brits were in Iranian territory and were involved in an operation unloading Toyotas illegally.
I still have to get more details, but that was what was on French News.
There had been an incident the day before and the Iranian boats were patrolling where they normally wouldn't be expected.
Commie whiners, hah! Scmitar at your throat, jeezopizza who writes this guys material?

Peahippo said...

What does it matter, anyway? The issue revolves around Iran's sovereign right to defend its borders, assuming their GPS claims are correct. The Wicked West wants to invade Iran at any rate, so Iran's rights are just not an issue, anymore.

As I've said in another forum, some Muslim could have smacked his kid in the year 1528 in Constantinople for stealing a fig from a market cart, and the West would use that event as evidence of the unstoppable violence of Islam ... just to justify invading oil-owning Islamic states.

The whole point is to steal oil. The West has enormous fatasses who eat petro-fertilized corn products and who travel down the street in huge gas-guzzlers to get those products. They'll kill anyone to keep the cheap oil flowing. So, yes, WWIII is a possibility.

In fact, we're in WWIII right now. The history of the 20th Century could be called one long war for control of oil fields. The towelheads just happened to have a lot of it, and the Westerners spent the century trying to steal it all. That sporadic but century-long lukewarm war has now turned HOT and will obviously fill the 21st Century with as much warfare as possible to cement the now-unstoppable, Western, violent need for oil. One thing which the West was not prepared to admit was that WWIII could be conventional and continual. Look around and tell me different.