No, It's Not An Act Of War

A couple of days ago, I wrote that the "US Right are prepared to tie themselves into knots in their lust for a war with Iran that will redress the perceived mortal insult of the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979". A couple of rightwing pundits have since offered their opinion that I "just don't get it" - that there was nothing "perceived" about the mortal insult and the invasion of American territory (the embassy) was a blatant act of war. Their claims defy both logic and history. Clearly it couldn't have been a mortal insult and an act of war - the next four Presidents, three of them Republican, didn't go to war with Iran. QED. Likewise with any claims that Iran "invaded" US territory thereby - embassies remain part of the territory of the host nation and their extraterritorial status can be revoked by that host country. You can't invade North Korea by seizing its D.C. embassy because although the embassy is governed by the laws of North Korea, the land it stands on is still a part of the USA.

The same kind of nonsense in pursuit of war is in evidence over at the Wall Street Journal today. The editorial today "Tehran's Hostages" is subtitled "Iran's act of war against our British allies" and goes on:

In an earlier day, what Iran has done would have been universally regarded as an act of war. It was a premeditated act, carried out only hours before Britain voted to stiffen sanctions against Iran for its nuclear program in a unanimous U.N. Security Council resolution. Iran captured a smaller detachment of British forces in the same waters in 2004, claiming they had strayed across the Iranian border. It beggars belief--as well as an eyewitness account of the incident reported by Reuters--that the British would make that mistake twice, assuming they made it the first time.

Leave aside the very real possibility that the situation in the Shatt al-Arab lends itself to making such mistakes and that the chances are both sides could actually be right by their own lights or that other eyewitnesses have said that the boats were in Iranian waters. Leave aside the ridiculous supposition that the seizure of the British seamen would have made the UK more inclined to be nice to Iran at the UNSC meeting. Just read the WSJ editorial's own words later in the same aticle:

As with the 1979 hostage crisis, how Britain and the rest of the civilized world respond in the early days of the crisis will determine how long it lasts. Britain has already demanded the safe and immediate return of its personnel; they will have to make clear that its foreign policy will not be held hostage to the mullahs.

That does not require a resort to military options while diplomacy still has a chance to gain the sailors's release. Saturday's unanimous vote by the U.N. Security Council was also welcome, even if the new sanctions continue to be far too weak. Serious sanctions would target the country's supply of refined gasoline, much of which is imported.

Huh? How can the WSJ assert that the seizure of these seamen is, at one and the same time, something that should be settled by diplomacy and a blatant act of war? If it's the former, then surely it isn't the latter. That the editors can tie themselves in such a knot explains much about the WSJ itself.

More of the same is evident in the writings of a prominent National Review writer, Mario Loyola - although he contradicts the WSJ editors by saying "it wouldn't surprise me if the Iranians were actually responding, in this case, to a carefully planned provocation of our own". He's just fine with that, though - he's fine with anything that leads to war with Iran. Kevin Drum takes it apart in fine style.

Thank goodness that British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett isn't listening to the warmongers. The UK has said nothing about this being anything even close to an act of war. That's because it isn't, no matter how those with a fetish for blitzing Iran in revenge for events long past would like it to be.