A hostage here, a hostage there...

This analysis of Iran's strategy in holding British soldiers hostage is a bit misconceived:

What should truly worry Washington is that if this plan is successful, US soldiers are likely to be next in line for capture by Iran – and a manipulation of American public opinion just before the 2008 elections which would damage a Republican candidate supporting Bush’s stance would be perfect timing.

This is a plan that is already becoming more popular inside Iranian military circles, especially those belonging to the ultra-conservative Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). After the capture of four of the group’s operatives by US forces in northern Iraq, many IRGC members are eagerly waiting to settle scores with the US.

It is all too possible that the capture of the British soldiers can be seen as a trial run.

[You can practically here the creepy incidental music: Dunh-dunh-daaaaaaaah!]

We don't know exactly what happened in this incident, so it's a bit early to jump to conclusions. Iran's  normal MO is to encourage its allies, such as Hezbollah, to take Western hostages, rather than engage in that dirty business directly. The capture of the British troops is a notable break in that pattern, which makes one wonder about what's really happening here.

There are a lot of possible scenarios, many involving chance more than calculation. If factions in the Iranian regime do have a devious plan, I suspect it has more to do with convincing the chief American ally in the Iraq war, Great Britain, to withdraw earlier rather than later.

Comments

[Dave Trowbridge]

I think David Ignatius in the Washington Post has the most likely reading of this situation, that it's part of an internal power struggle in Iran:

"European officials note that the provocative move comes as speculation grows about new discussions between the United States and Iran -- a dialogue the Revolutionary Guard may oppose. Representatives of the two nations met in Baghdad this month as part of a regional conference on Iraqi security, and it was expected that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would meet her Iranian counterpart at a follow-up meeting in Istanbul in April. That meeting may be in jeopardy if the British sailors and marines aren't returned soon.

"The Revolutionary Guard may also have hoped to sabotage diplomatic negotiations over the nuclear issue. U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said several weeks ago that the United States was getting "pinged all over the world" by Iranian intermediaries who wanted a resumption of talks. Iran's chief negotiator, Ali Larijani, hinted at such a message in his recent contacts with the European Union's top diplomat, Javier Solana. But the prospect of nuclear talks may have been blown out of the water, as it were, until the British issue is resolved.

"Maybe that was the goal of seizing the sailors and marines. The Revolutionary Guard, after all, can't be happy about curbing the nuclear program that would allow it to project power even more aggressively."

[Tom Grant]

I'd agree with that. Seizing the British hostages locks the whole government into a confrontational posture with the West on several issues. But it's just speculation at this point.