I seriously doubt that all the “would-be thugs” around the world would see the Iranian incident as a message that the West would let itself be “pushed around”. I mean, honestly, how were we pushed around? We let our soldiers get captured, and Iran became so nervous that they let them go on their own… I think that says more about the West than anything else. Its like when you were a little kid, and you did something wrong, and your parents (even if they knew you did it) waited until you got so nervous that you just confessed out of sheer terror of being discovered.

Iran, in my opinion, came off far worse for the whole ordeal. Nobody outside of the Middle East took any propaganda they generated seriously, and they sent a message to the rest of the world that they are so weak and powerless they have to result to kidnapping and lying in order to make themselves feel militarily validated. Its like if you’ve ever had a much younger brother brother who comes up and hits you as hard as he can. Do you respond by hitting him with a haymaker into the next room? I sincerely hope not. Your response is probably one of “Aww, look at that, he’s trying to fight me!” and “Wow, thats really too bad he can’t hit any harder than that. He’s gonna have a rough life.” But you certainly wouldn’t consider it a sincere threat to your well-being.

However, I think if you look at their neighbors to the east and west, I think that sends a much clearer message to the would-be thugs of the world. And yes, I am implicitly stating that there is a line somewhere which delineates when we should mobilize a military response based on the principles of freedom and when we should not. I think history has shown that where we draw this line, what our standards are, is an entirely personal one. There were many people who felt that the 9/11 attacks weren’t enough to justify military action. There are some (apparently, yourself included) who feel the Iranian kidnappings merit a response. Hell, I bet there were a few people who wanted military actions when Russia announced the resuming of their long-range bomber flights. So obviously, there’s no one line, but most people could agree that their personal line falls somewhere relatively close to other people in their same walk of life (similar people tend to think the same.)

However, I feel that where we, as a nation, as a planet, draw the line is really the result of several things. First, and most obviously, our morality. This presents the rough concepts of good and bad, essentially defining the extremes of our scale, as well as providing a rough idea of where the line is (obviously we wouldn’t do military action if someone did something nice to us, although that would be an interesting/funny idea). In some ways, religion provides a little more focus as to where the line is, but on a group scale, the differences in opinion, denomination, adherence, etc. don’t quite crystallize it as well as on a personal level. Secondly, the idea of practicality, which is tied very closely to the idea of money. Wars obviously cost a lot of money, and if you don’t have very much, you would only start a fight in the most dire of circumstances. In the Iranian situation, the American economy is uncertain, and we’re already pouring oodles of cash into Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as trying desperately to field enough soldiers to maintain a strong military presence there. Thirdly, the individual situations themselves will present unique circumstances which could “shift” the line. Have they done this before? If so, what happened? Are they a legitimate threat? What would be the repercussions from our actions in each case?

Your point, using this mechanism of explanation, would seem to be that our “line” as a society needs to be drawn a little lower. And while I agree that our principles would seem to dictate a response, its the sad truth of our world that its just not practical.

The Iranians tried this same stunt with a group of Australians, but the Australians opened fire and drove the Iranians off. No causalities there, but better, no chance for the Iranians to put out more of their propaganda.

There are people out in the world who are placing demands upon us. Our response, all to frequently, is to acquiesce to their demands lest we make trouble. That’s my lament. If the British had opened fire on the Iranians, perhaps dying in the process, there would have been an international incident; it would have been a direct causus belli against Iran. Instead of taking a principled stand against a thuggish adversary, the British Marines decided to just let the Iranians get away with the whole kidnapping bit again, sending a signal to every would-be thug around the world that the west will not stand up for itself.

However, modern warfare, using your example of the 2007 Iranian capture of Royal Marines as an example, isn’t quite so simple. In fact, more research into that incident shows its more like “Hey look, we need people to take us more seriously, so we’re gonna rough you up a little, make you say some stuff, and take some pictures of you, then you can go home and look like a hero, mmmkay?” In which case the response of “I’d rather die than be your slave!” seems a little off-the-handle. Don’t quite agree with my analysis of the situation? Well then, read on…

There are several reasons why I interpret the situation like that:

-First, when the British sailors saw the Iranians coming, they did what any good soldier does: they radioed in to headquarters. And their orders? “Spartans, ATTTAAAACCCKKK!” … just kidding. They were ordered to hold their fire, in essence, ordered to allow themselves to be captured (unless they were all skilled in hand-to-ship combat). (http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=462812007)

- Second, this situation (capture, propaganda, release) was repeated almost verbatim in 2004 with 8 British sailors.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6495761.stm)

-Thirdly, the British soldiers were not captured as enemy combatants, or prisoners of war, but as criminals. They weren’t even going to be executed: “If we admitted we had strayed, we would be back on a plane to the UK pretty soon. If we didn’t, we faced up to seven years in prison.”
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6533287.stm)

-Fourth, and this is a little less academic, but did you notice how as soon as they were captured, there was never any talk about IF they would be released, but rather WHEN? The whole thing was the geo-political equivalent of masturbation.

In short, the world no longer has any Xerxes, walking around and asking for people to either die or become their slave. That is not to say, however, that there aren’t people out there who place demands on us; the question is just much too subtle and nuanced to be responded to by “freedom or death!”