Why Isn't The Media Talking About Iran?

Posted by Joshua White on 03.28.2007

Iran kidnapped fifteen British soldiers and nobody but me seems to care.

It always seems to happen this way. Each week I try to make my column writing responsibilities easier by writing the column earlier in the week, and then every time I try and do so, a more important column needs to be written. This week I was going to write about a man who had sex with a dead deer and another man who was the City Manager of Largo, FL until he was fired because it came out that he is a pre-op transsexual. Instead, because of the lack of legitimate reporting on behalf of the "real media" I have to write a real column, one with a serious purpose. And I'm annoyed.

Last Friday, while on patrol in Iraqi waters seven British marines and eight British sailors were surrounded by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. The Iranians drew their weapons and forced the Britons onto their ship. In the end, the fifteen British soldiers were captured and taken to an undisclosed location in Iran. I am bothered by this for two reason. One, I am disturbed by the lack of coverage in the media about what could be considered an act of war. Two, I'm astonished by the language used by Prime Minister Tony Blair when discussing the situation.

I realize that finding out how a 40 year old actress/model died is endless fascinating, but I cannot believe how little attention this story is getting. An ally of America had 15 of its citizens kidnapped and our press could care less. (Even the news columns here at 411 have ignored the story....Jason!) This could be partially because Britain doesn't seem to care either. If you go to the BBC International site, the story is barely acknowledge. And even on the British version it does not look like a "front page" story. But I ask you to think back to July of 2006. As soon as Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers the media ran the story non-stop. One of the reason I would guess is because Israel responded very seriously to this act. Within a few days they were launching rockets at Hezbollah and demanding back their soldiers in no uncertain terms.

None of this has happened with the current situation. The news will report it briefly and websites have it linked in their small, non-headline font. It shouldn't be this way. This situation is far more serious than the media is letting on.

I don't want to sound like a fear monger, but this could be seen as more than just a simple diplomatic scuffle. Dennis Prager, my radio man-crush, considers this an act of war. I can see why. According to Britain, the soldiers were in Iraqi water patrolling under the authority of UN Security Council Resolution 1723. Further, they had the right to be there given by the Iraqis. For the Iranians to capture these soldiers is an attack on the British military by the government of Iran. This was not done by some terrorist faction, but by the government proper. I would say that Britain has every right to not only demand, but threaten further consequences if their soldiers are not returned immediately. This leads me to my second problem.

When the Israeli soldiers were taken, the Israeli government was very clear as to what would happen if they were no returned. They played no games. This is not the way that Blair is handling the kidnapping of his men. As recently as yesterday Blair said that he wanted "to make the Iranian government understand these people have to be released and that there is absolutely no justification for holding them." He continued by adding, "I hope we manage to get them to realize they have to release them. If not, then this will move into a different phase, but at the moment what we're trying to do is make sure that that diplomatic initiative works."

No justification. Different phase. Ooooooooooh. Mr. Blair please don't hurt them.

In whose heart does this type of talk instill fear? I mean, what will this "different phase" be? Will they talk tougher? Will they (God forbid) threaten the Iranians?

So far, by using all of the "diplomatic initiative" he has not only looked weak to the Iranians, but he has yet to state any sort of consequences that will be had if the Iranians do not budge. This is exactly how the Iranians want this.

The Iranians know that the British government don't want war with them. They are already in an unpopular war and their citizens won't want to get into another with Iran. This is a major advantage to have.

Lastly, I have to admit that I'm surprised that the nobody has blamed this on America yet. From day one I have been waiting for this to be put on the U.S. somehow. I don't want to insinuate that I believe the following at all, but I'm shocked that nobody has mentioned the fact the British soldiers wouldn't have been in the Iraqi water had it not been for the war in Iraq. Who started the war? The United States. So because we started the war, and dragged Britain along we are the reason for all of this happening.

I truly hope that nobody ever says, or even worse believes, the above. I hope that my readers (who are the most intelligent of the 411 fans) can see that this is completely insane. It takes away all blame away from the Iranians and it stretches as far as possible to blame the Bush administration for something that it didn't cause. (Then again, this wouldn't be the first time that those on the Left have done this.)

What do you think? Are the British doing the right thing here? Is it not really national news that the Brits have been attacked like this? Are you actually convinced that the British soldiers were in fact in Iranian waters? Let me know what you think.


What? You want more?

To be fair, Mr. D.S. did briefly mention the Iranian-British situation in his column. Go read it here.

Is it just me or has Mr. Crow been less verbose than he normally is. First funny pictures of politicians and now some cartoons. Thanks for the brilliant commentary CROW! Ok, that was mean. I just miss your never-ending columns. To read his latest column, click here!


Until next time…believe nothing unless you read it here.