Things just got more interesting with the 15 British soldiers who are being held hostage in Tehran. Iran decided it was best to parade the 15 on television and release a letter written by the sole woman in Iranian hands, Faye Turney, seen at right.

In the letter allegedly written by Turney, Turney writes the following:

We were out in the boats when we were arrested by Iranian forces as we had apparently gone into Iranian waters. I wish we hadn’t because then I’d be home with you all right now. I am so sorry we did, because I know we wouldn’t be here now if we hadn’t.

Today Iran claims they will release Turney, but will continue to hold the other 14 soldiers hostage. Turney was used as the spokesman for the British soldiers by the Iranians, which is unquestionably to sway public opinion outside of Iran. It’s the same tactic we saw in previous Islamic Army of Iraq videos that glorified when female U.S. soldiers died due to a roadside bomb. There is a feeling in the Middle East that the collective West is more sympathetic to females being held hostage or dying then men, which shockingly has left the entire feminist movement mute.

But the fact Iran chose to televise all 15 British soldiers being held against their will is nothing more than a public relations move designed to place pressure upon the British government and all but ends the ridiculous talk that it was a rogue element of the IRGC that took the Britons hostage.

Will the public relations move bite Iran? I doubt it. In fact, I would have advised the exact same thing if I was employed by Iran because it puts a personal touch on the hostages. Iran also did much of the same in 1979, which left the United States feeling impotent under the watch of Jimmy Carter, and the U.S. was impotent.

Yesterday I questioned what England Prime Minister Tony Blair meant by stating England would be entering a “different phase” against Iran in order to free the British soldiers. I pondered what that meant. Today we might have the answer, or at least the first answer to a question that could potentially have several.

The Royal Navy also took the highly unusual step of making public charts, photographs and previously secret navigational coordinates purportedly proving that the British sailors were 1.7 nautical miles — roughly 1.95 miles on land — inside Iraqi waters when they were apprehended at gun-point and forced into Iranian waters.

The area in which the Britons were taken hostage though is an area where both Iraq and Iran dispute the boundaries, therefore it is at least reasonable to assume both nations feel they were right. What works against Iran’s favor, however, is that most board and search operations in these waters are protected by the British navy and usually a helicopter from above. This search, for whatever reason, did not have a bird in the sky. In the absence of air cover, it raises the question if Iran’s move was intentional knowing the British navy would not fire upon the IRGC boats fearing it would injure or kill its own.

Meanwhile, Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, a British daily, cites an unknown Iranian source who claims “the decision to abduct the British soldiers had been made at an emergency meeting of the Supreme Defense Council.” The rationale for this type of move is just as has been speculated upon before, to secure the release of IRGC commanders captured in Iraq.

UPDATE: And here’s the video (below the fold):

(more…)

Bill Roggio writes on ‘Al Qaida’s Pakistan Sanctuary‘ that is well worth the read.  John C.K. Daly also notes a less publicized battle for supremacy in Waziristan concerning locals and foreigners.  A short excerpt:

Pakistani army units in the area stayed largely out of the war zone, according to one source, only observing the conflict through binoculars. Islamabad was not unhappy with the outbreak of conflict in southern Waziristan; an official of Pakistan’s Ministry of Internal Affairs said, “the current shooting means that the local elders finally quarreled with the foreign cutthroats. Without the support of the Pashtuns, the ‘Taliban’ will not last long” (Arba.ru, March 23). It appears likely that Islamabad helped instigate the conflict between the Pashtuns and the foreign Muslim extremists based in Waziristan. Earlier this year, Pakistan’s special services reportedly began to negotiate with the local Pashtun elders, promising that troops would only carry out operations against foreign Islamists. In return, Islamabad told the elders to offer the Uzbeks the option of either returning to Uzbekistan to continue their struggle with Karimov, or to lay down their weapons.

Whether or not the fight between the two groups is beneficial for Pakistan remains to be seen, and it depends entirely upon what other deal the Pakistani government will make in the Waziristan region (see Roggio).

England Prime Minister Tony Blair has warned that if diplomatic efforts fail to secure the release of the 15 British soldiers who were taken hostage by Iran then there will be a “different phase” while Blair’s official spokesman said that different phase “did not refer to any extreme diplomatic action, such as expelling Iranian diplomats from Britain or military action.”

Is it extreme to expel Iranian diplomats from England when their nation took British soldiers hostage? Apparently so, and the same spokesman also stated there is no question the Britons were in Iraqi waters yet refused to detail how “because we don’t want to escalate this.” England doesn’t have to escalate this, Iran already has.

The U.K. is using diplomatic channels to make the Iranian government understand that the eight Royal Navy sailors and seven Royal Marines “have to be released,” Blair said today in an interview with the U.K. television show GMTV.

“I hope we manage to get them to realize they have to release them. If not, then this will move into a different phase,” Blair said. “We cannot have a situation where our servicemen and women are seized.” Asked what he meant by a different phase, Blair didn’t elaborate. “We’ll just have to see,” he said. (source)

Reading between the lines, it appears Blair is just content to ramp up the rhetoric, which might be fine and dandy if there was a rational side deterred by the mere implication there might be sanctions in Tehran. However, Iranian leaders have long considered England to be a part of the Family Satan (Israel and the U.S. are also members of this prestigious group).

The hostage taking was a public relations move and probably designed to secure the release of IRGC commanders taken in Iraq. Tehran cannot and will not bend over if there is discussion of this in the United Nations Security Council. If Tehran hasn’t complied with the IAEA over the nation’s nuclear program, which they have not as evidenced by sanctions and numerous IAEA reports despite the number of times Iran claims they are fully compliant, what makes Blair think Iran will risk losing face on the streets of Tehran, Gaza and South Lebanon by simply releasing the soldiers?

Victor Davis Hansen wonders where the EU, Iran’s largest trading partner, is in this crisis.  Good question, but frankly, where is any other nation other than England.  Iraq has taken a stance and sided with England arguing the soldiers were in Iraqi waters at the bidding of the Iraqi government and in compliance with the United Nations, but elsewhere this story has seemingly been received with quiet condemnations.

Pakistani police in Waziristan engaged in a firefight and killed three suspected ‘militants’ who entered a private high school and “forced the administration to let them deliver a jihadi sermon to the students and recruit them for holy war.”

The principle of the school tried to resist the recruiting bid, but allegedly the ‘militants’ gave him an offer he couldn’t refuse and offered to give interested students same-day training in the artform of jihad.

For what it’s worth, Muqtada al-Sadr allegedly survived an assassination attempt that was called for by the Iraqi government.

Radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr narrowly avoided an assassination attempt in recent days in Kufa, south of Baghdad, according to Iraqi deputy Biha al-Araji. He told Arab newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi that elements linked to the government of Nouri al-Malkiki [sic] were behind the plot. The plan reportedly involved the killing of al-Sadr on Friday while he was preaching inside the Kufa mosque. Once the plot was uncovered the he decided not to attend the mosque that day.

I have trouble believing this report because Sadr has done wonders for the Shia block in the Iraqi government, of which al-Maliki is a part of.  It would be far more believable if there was a faction within or a group who splintered apart from the Mehdi Army due to Sadr’s alleged dual stance on the Shia militia.

A “sewage tsunami” swept through parts of Gaza after a resevoir broke, killing at least five Palestinians and creating much havoc.  Very sad indeed, but it’s worth noting what else happened after the flood.

Angry villagers are reported to have opened fire on the convoy of Hani al-Qawasmeh, the interior minister, who rushed to the scene to inspect the damage . . .

The Hamas movement, the leading partner in a newly formed Palestinian unity government, blamed the disaster on a foreign aid boycott slapped on the Palestinian Authority a year ago when the Islamist hardliners first came to power. Israel and the West consider Hamas a terrorist outfit.

In a statement, Hamas said: “The overflowing of the [reservoir] is one of the results of the suspension of international aid to our people, which is preventing the government from improving and developing infrastructure.”

Israel has offered military aid to those affected by the flooding, but it would be a cold day in Hell before that offer was accepted.

Even more interesting though is the Hamas response to the disaster.  The sewage treatment facility was 140,000 people served over capacity and there were warnings that it could fail.  Nonetheless, Hamas did nothing, and they claim the reason they did nothing was because of international boycotts over giving aid to the Hamas-run government.

Well there’s really two simple ways to end that boycott, and there have always been those two simple steps.  Hamas must denounce terrorism and recognize Israel’s right to exist.  Hamas will do neither, which is why they are grasping at straws trying to blame someone else for their own failures.  This is in Gaza, which is Hamas’ own home turf.

Meanwhile Hamas continues to carry in suitcases filled with cash that go to, well, somewhere in Palestine.  Maybe those funds are going towards a new rocket war launched against Israel?  Priorities, I know, and it does a great service to the ideology that is Hamas to allow and even perpetuate bad conditions upon the Palestinian people.

Former Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali has received death threats within the United States, just as she received death threats from Islamists in the Netherlands (via LGF).

Former MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali is now in danger in the US as well. Her security has been stepped up for the past three weeks. Because of concrete threats, she is now receiving the same level of protection as she previously needed in the Netherlands, the Volkskrant reports . . .

As in the Netherlands, the threats against her come from Muslim extremists. They are in connection with the lectures and media appearances Hirsi Ali has been making since the publication of the American version of her autobiography, “The Infidel,” in January.

I cannot say those threats surprise me one bit.  Some people just cannot take criticism, while others riot when a book gets thrown on the ground.  Sure, the Frenchman was trying to provoke, but seriously, is it that big of a deal?

The discussion over Iran’s reaction to the film ‘300′ is pertinent for several reasons, namely because it shows Iran’s own duplicity over how to react to American films with respect to their own productions.  As Steven Stalinsky has already pointed out, it is rather ironic Iran accuses ‘300′ of demonizing Persians while their own film productions have no other value than to demonize Iran’s opposition.

But in the heart of the matter, the Iranian government’s reaction to the film was one that argued Hollywood was an extension of the Bush Administration’s public relations machine and that a film regarding a battle waged thousands of years ago has modern day implications.

The state-run media outlet IRINN was openly hostile towards ‘300′ and called the film a production of the Zionist Warner Brothers company, which apparently is run by “the American Jew.”  I see Joooos everywhere (cue 1950s horror music).  IRINN postured, “this film tries to paint a violent image of Persians who are against peace in today’s world, in order to increase the international political pressure on Iran.”

It would seem to me IRINN in particular would reject any message within American movies and disregard any symbolism the movies might have.  And here I just watch movies to be entertained.  But then there’s this report compiled by John of Satellite News where he records and translates an Iranian report on IRINN on the benefits of American movies and the actors when it suits Iran’s objectives.

Moderator: Bush never imagined that even an unpretentious low-budget film would become so connected to his political life or that his dreams would turn into cinematic nightmares.

The film is “Mystic River” made by Clint Eastwood in 2003, and was nominated for an Oscar for best director. Sean Penn and Tim Robbins won Oscars as Best actor and best supporting actor, and shortly afterwards all three of them became the first opponents of Bush’s policies.

Clint Eastwood said American democracy in Iraq was broken. Tim Robbins said Bush’s war had caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and called for his resignation.

However throughout these years Sean Penn has been the most vocal Bush opponent among his fellow cast members in “Mystic River.” He has traveled to Iraq several times and went to Iran in the spring of 2005.

Film critic Seyyed Mostaghani: When he returned to America I went to my home at the hotel and saw they they had called me and said Sean Penn is in Iran, and all of these American media did not know that he had returned to America or how to convey the news to the world.

Mystic River was not exactly a low-budget production, spending an estimated $30 million to film and edit.  Aside from that, Tim Robbins has always been a critic of anything Republican, and the news of Sean Penn’s travels to both Iraq and Iran were well publicized.  It’s just that no one actually cared.

Iran is still holding 15 British sailors hostage in Tehran, and it appears as if the sailors might be tried for espionage.

A website run by associates of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, reported last night that the Britons would be put before a court and indicted.

Referring to them as “insurgents”, the site concluded: “If it is proven that they deliberately entered Iranian territory, they will be charged with espionage. If that is proven, they can expect a very serious penalty since according to Iranian law, espionage is one of the most serious offences.”

There truly is no question the abduction of the 15 sailors was intentional and it firmly appears the sailors were within Iraqi waters.  Christopher Isham reports in The Blotter the abduction was the result of a United States raid in Irbil, Iraq where five IRGC commanders were captured, and that the Iranians will use the British sailors as bargaining chips to secure the release of the IRGC commanders.

But lost in this mix is the former Iranian general Ali Reza Asghari.  Asghari was either taken hostage while in Turkey or he defected.  The exact cause as to Asghari’s disappearence, to which it is still the great unknown where he is, remains a mystery, however Iran is convinced Asghari was detained against his will.  It is Asghari who would have first-hand knowledge of how Hezbollah is constructed and what steps, if any, Iran has taken to advance the cause of Hezbollah in the event a war does break out over Iran’s nuclear program.  Asghari would be, in my opinion, the more valuable bargaining chip. And it is not unlikely Asghari is the key piece to the Iranian hostage-taking puzzle, regardless whether he defected or was taken hostage.

We’ve seen Hezbollah take Israeli soldiers hostage in hopes of a prisoner exchange as recently as this past summer.  It was the incident that culminated in war between Israel and Hezbollah and the two Israeli soldiers, assuming they are still alive, are still being held against their will.  Hezbollah’s demands were generally whitewashed by the international press and we were told rather generic demands on the behalf of Hezbollah to secure the release of the captured Israeli soldiers.  Hezbollah wanted the release of Samir Kuntar, a man who murdered an Israeli parent before his four year-old child’s eyes prior to bashing in her skull with his gun.

Asghari is not necessarily of the same ilk as Kuntar, however Asghari is widely credited with forming Hezbollah and helping it grow.  Just like the Hezbollah desire to secure the release of Kuntar only surfacing in the back channels, the fate of Asghari might be the same.

The Iraqi government has stated the Brits were acting in Iraqi waters, and the Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zibari has called for the immediate release of the British hostages.   It appears as if the IRGC violated Iraqi sovereign waters to take hostages, which could easily be seen as a declaration of war.

Then comes in British Prime Minister Tony Blair who stated the following:

At a European summit in Berlin, Blair said Iran’s claim that the sailors had crossed into Iranian territorial waters “is simply not true.”

“I want to get (the situation) resolved in as easy and diplomatic a way as possible,” Blair said, but added he hoped the Iranians “understood how fundamental an issue this is for the British government.”

Compare England’s reaction towards Israel’s reaction.  Margaret Thatcher is no longer on Downing Street.

Another day, another United States college professor who pens pro-jihadi material for an Islamist site. Dr. Hassan A. El-Najjar, professor of sociology at Dalton State College in Georgia, is the proprietor of AlJazeera.info, a website that has actually cleaned up a bit since I first checked it out last Friday.

El-Najjar penned numerous editorials, that are simply gone from the site now, including one in which he praises Kim Jong-Il, Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by calling them ‘heroes of the year.’ In contrast, leaders and figures of England, the United States and Israel were heralded as ‘villains of the year.’ It’s pretty clear to determine where El-Najjar was going in the opinion piece, but equally clear was it when El-Najjar wrote in support of radical Islamic terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I only bring up the above editorial because of how ridiculous the assertion by El-Najjar and many other Islamists like him are.  El-Najjar maintains Israel, the United States and England are waging imperialistic wars and frames that as a bad idea.  I don’t disagree an imperialistic war is a bad idea, however Islamists don’t ever bring up the imperialistic conquests of the first Islamic empire that was spread with the explicit role to expand Islam and acquire wealth.  It’s the old catch-22 that Islamists never seem to comprehend on any level, whether they are high school dropouts or, in El-Najjar’s case and the case of many others, highly educated.

Read all about El-Najjar with some other choice excerpts before he clensed the site to make it more respectable.