Crossing red lines

There are certain things that sovereign states simply do not do without severe repercussions. Under normal circumstances, kidnapping the soldiers of a foreign power without provocation and then holding them hostage is one such action. Yet, that is precisely what Iran did almost two weeks ago when it seized 15 British servicemen and women in the Shatt al-Arab waterway.

For those unfamiliar with this incident, here is some background. The border between Iran and Iraq near the Persian Gulf is the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, which before entering the sea combine into a single body of water known as the Shatt al-Arab waterway. This is where much of Iraq's oil exports are picked up and is Iraq's only port, and since there is not really any Iraqi Navy, U.S. and British forces patrol the area on Iraq's behalf. Their mission is also sanctioned by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1723.

Some time around 10:30 a.m. local time on March 23, two inflatable boats of the Royal Navy were returning from an inspection of a cargo ship when they were intercepted by up to six heavily armed Iranian gunboats. Since a single burst of heavy machine gun fire could have sunk either of the boats and since they were cut off from support, the British surrendered without a shot being fired. Iran and Britain both originally provided very similar coordinates for the incident's location, which placed the action inside Iraq, though Iran now claims that the British trespassed into Iranian territory.

Britain took the preferred route of multilateral diplomacy, relying on the old international institutions that the Bush administration is said to disdain. The response has been laughable. The U.N. Security Council refused to "deplore" the Iranian actions, which may technically represent Casus Belli, because Russia refused to potentially offend the Iranians. The European Union refused to even consider economic sanctions because that would mean that France and Germany might have to stop their lucrative trade with Iran.

To date, there have been no penalties whatsoever for Iran's actions. With all possible avenues of international response already exhausted and with Britain holding few bilateral levers, there seems little hope of resolving this crisis diplomatically in a manner that doesn't hand Iran a major victory. Since Britain won't meet Iran's ridiculous demands that they apologize for having their sailors criminally seized, how then can this crisis end?

There aren't a lot of good scenarios here. One route Britain probably won't take would be to respond with an aerial bombardment or other forms of military force. Iran targeted British rather than American sailors to avoid exactly this possibility; British rules of engagement are "de-escalatory," which pretty much ensures that they won't fight when confronted, whereas while U.S. soldiers have the responsibility to resist until dead or incapacitated. If Iran's police had tried this stunt on two boats full of U.S. marines, they would have been met with a hail of gunfire that would have resulted in casualties on both sides, an eventuality which would have necessitated punitive strikes.

Despite the fact that a military response is unlikely, fears of exactly such a strike have pushed oil prices dramatically higher. In addition to embarrassing Britain, trying to frighten the West and testing our resolve, this rise in oil prices was likely a reason for Iran's action. Like fellow intransigent oil state Venezuela, Iran is suffering from largely self-induced hyperinflation and economic decline. Without oil revenues and hatred for the West, there would be nothing to prop up Iran's religious dictatorship. The longer this crisis drags out and the longer prices stay high, the more Iran benefits. This should, but won't, put to rest the absurd notion that Iran values stability in the region.

Unfortunately, the two most likely developments here are either stalemate or an Iranian victory, both of which benefit the Tehran regime. British power will continue to decline, and our enemies will rightly see inaction as weakness. If that perception remains unchallenged, then we are likely to see more, not less, violence and idiocy out of Iran and its allies.

This is just the latest in a series of red lines that Iran has felt free to cross. Demands become meaningless when we refuse to enforce them, and Iran will keep pushing until it eventually finds the limits of our indulgence. Judging by past experience, they'll be pushing for a long time to come. Barry Caro is a sophomore from White Plains, N.Y. He can be reached at bcaro@princeton.edu.