An Iranian Win

The disappointment from the American right in the peaceful end of the Iranian hostage crisis is palpable. For example, John Bolton, the Bush administration's fromer UN ambassador, castigated the British government for its lack of resolve. There is little doubt that the administration would have preferred that this incident escalate if not into a shooting war at least into a protracted cold war. And the best way to do that, evidently, is to posture and to disengage-- the diplomatic equivalent of spoiled three-year old with her hands over her ears shouting "la la la la".

The ancient Iranians invented what we recognize today as the game of chess, although early forms of the game originate in India and other countries. One of the earliest literary reference to chess is found in the Persian book Karnamak-i Artaxshir-i Papakan, between the third and seventh century. Chess is a game of pure logic, where information is assumed to be equally available to both sides, where there is no bluffing, and where victory is determined on the last move. The Iranians played the hostage game like chess masters and won decisively, a conclusion I wish I didn't have to make as I consider Iran to be an exceeding dangerous country.

As in the Carter hostage crisis, the key mistake the British made, apart from the tactical errors that allowed for their capture, was to elevate the capture of the 15 sailors into a matter of national importance. This alone increased their price, as it were, allowing Iran to wring behind-the scenes concessions from Britain and the United States-- the release of a captured Iranian diplomat by Iraqi forces, the admission of violation of Iranian soveregn waters, and an agreement not to violate its borders again. In exchange, Iran gave nothing, but cultivated considerable goodwill in Europe and increased respect from its Middle Eastern neighbors for asserting its interests in the face of the British and U.S. naval forces. During the 1979-81 crisis, Iran released its hostages after 444 days, on the day that Ronald Reagan took office. I doubt that the Iranian government thought that Reagan would take immediate military action to free the hostages. Rather, as the administration changed hands, the price of the hostages dropped to zero as opportunities to further needle the Carter administration evaporated. Like rug hagglers, they played their final move at the most optimum time, effectively checkmating the Carter presidency.

One of Iran's goals is keep the United States embroiled in the Iraqi conflict while they continue to develop a nuclear offensive capacity. And why not, so long as the United States has declared a national policy of regime change and preemptive war. The bluffing and go-for-broke Texas-hold-'em poker that the Bush administration has employed cannot work in the case of Iran, for Iran will counter such techniques with its diplomatic grandmaster chess playing skills. A good example of that is the apparent leverage that Syria played in resolving the standoff, that coincided with the visit of House Speaker Pelosi. The Syrian Information Minsiter Mohsen Bilal said that "Syrian efforts culminated with the release of the British sailors." Maybe not. I also somehow doubt that Pelosi's entreaties had much to do with the situation. But Syria is a rook that Iran is using to check the United States, and Pelosi perhaps was also an Iranian pawn, due in no small part to the singular incompetence, incoherence, and ineffectiveness of U.S. diplomatic policy in the Middle East.