Fight or Flight - Part 2

Information Dissemination recently posted an article supporting the actions taken by the US crews in the recent Iranian seizure of our boats and their crews (1).  Well, actually, the article supported the lack of action taken since the crews offered no resistance and acquiesced to the Iranians surrender demands.

The article suggests that resistance would have resulted in grave consequences, strategically, for the US and would have set a precedent for the Chinese to act in a similar fashion in their on-going territorial disputes in the East and South China Seas.  The article goes further and states that the US lieutenant who apologized actually “forwarded America strategically”.  Ignoring that highly dubious claim, the article misses the key aspect of the affair, however, and that is history.  There is nothing in the history of our dealings with Iran to suggest that the crews, once surrendered, would have been returned as quickly as they were.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  Iran has arrested and held people indefinitely for far less. 

The recently released Americans were imprisoned by Iran for an extended period and, reportedly, subjected to torture.

The March 2007 seizure of 15 Royal Navy personnel resulted in their being held for 13 days and, upon release, Iran claimed the right to put the personnel on trial but opted to “pardon” them instead.  It is reported that equipment was not fully returned and the personnel were subjected to harsh physical treatment and psychological pressures during their confinement including threats of long term imprisonment if they failed to admit their guilt.

A 2004 seizure of 8 RN personnel resulted in their being held for 3 days during which they were forced to endure a mock execution among other physical and psychological tortures.  The RN’s boats were never returned.

The Iranian Hostage Crisis which took place from Nov 1979 to Jan 1981 resulted in 60 American diplomats and citizens being held for 444 days.

And, of course, there is always the spectre of the routine chanting of "Death to America" by both the Iranian people and their highest level leaders.  Not exactly encouraging to a boat crew contemplating surrender.

With this historical context, there was absolutely no reason to expect that the US crews, once they surrendered, would be promptly released.  In fact, history suggests that the crews would have been held for an extended period, quite possibly subjected to torture, and used as pawns in international gamesmanship.

The crews could not have had any reasonable expectation of quick release and should have had every expectation of a lengthy and unpleasant period of imprisonment.

The Information Dissemination article suggests that the lack of resistance on the part of the US crews somehow advanced America’s strategic position.  However, had this turned out as history suggested it would, the crew’s surrender and subsequent imprisonment would have caused the US severe political and strategic difficulties.

The US boats were, apparently, in Iranian territorial waters and, therefore, in the wrong, however it came to pass.  Therefore, what the crews should have done is indicated their desire to leave Iranian waters as quickly as possible and complied with Iranian efforts to remove them from their waters but not by surrendering.  Being in the wrong, the crews should not have fired first but should not have surrendered.  They should have refused to allow the Iranians to board them and should have resisted, if necessary.

Anyone who makes the argument that what the crews did was right because nothing happened is using hindsight to justify an historically unsupportable action that, at the moment of surrender, was far more likely to have turned out badly rather than well.

I also have no problem with the US apologizing after the affair was concluded and with the crews having refused to surrender.

There are some who would suggest that if the situation were reversed and Iranian boats wandered into American waters that we would have done the same.  This argument misses the same key aspect and that is history.  The US has no history of seizing and mistreating foreign sailors and holding them for extended periods.  It’s far more likely that we would have offered mechanical assistance, food, comforts, and escorted them out of our waters without ever boarding their boats.  There is a huge difference in the histories of the behaviors of the two countries.

Finally, the passive surrender by the crews simply emboldens the next unfriendly country that wants to embarrass the US and now sees that we won’t resist.  All our weapons and technology is useless and offers no deterrent value if we won’t use it.  The next incident is unlikely to end as well as this one.

(1)http://www.informationdissemination.net/2016/01/thoughts-on-farsi-island-incident.html