Redstate

but they had cropped "thr three" out. I will try to find it and post.
___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

That's not surprising at all.

Can you say propaganda photo-op?
__________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

even the conservative Washington Times has the photo shopped picture. I say the three on the right should get promotions.

Molon Labe!

Until now, I have only seen the cropped picture.

This just blows me away! At least three of them know how to act.

"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-

There are two more in the back row, just to the left of those three, and they don't seem to be waving and smiling either.

The other 10 should be exiled to France.

Disgraceful.

in the command of the Royal Navy and Marines, all the watchstanders and executive officers, the Captain, and the officers with the boarding party will be immediately relieved from duty and separated from each other and the men. They should then be charged with whatever the military version of negligent performance of duties is and told to prepare their defense. Then a real live honest to God serious investigation should be conducted.

It may well be that the Captain was constrained by overly restrictive ROE and by operational procedure because of the shallow water, but that does not go nearly far enough to explain what obviously happened here. The RN and RM need to find out why this happened.

Streiff may have sources that know more and I would love to be corrected, Anglophile that I normally am, but here's what I see:

The vessels were in inherently dangerous waters without regard to which side of a disputed line the boarding party might have been on. All the watchstanders should have been on high alert.

The boarding party approached and boarded a ship thought to be engaging in smuggling, perhaps arms smuggling.

If the bridge, the helo, and the boarding party did not know there were Iranian vessels nearby, they should have.

The only close in security the boarding party had other than their small arms was the helo.

The helo left its station to refuel and NO other security seems to have been provided. That brings some rather obvious questions: why didn't the helo have enough fuel for adequate loiter time and why was there no relief for the helo when it left station come readily to mind.

The HMS Cornwall does not seem to have taken ANY action to protect its boarding party. Even if ROE prohibited firing on the Iranian vessels, there are many steps short of firing on them that could and, to my mind, should have been taken. The record available to us shows that the HMS Cornwall was nothing more than a bystander to fifteen members of its crew and their flag being captured. I'd want some really, really good explanations for that.

And before it comes, I was never on the bridge of a warship; never even been on one except as a tourist. I'm not approaching this militarily because I'm not qualified beyond an amateur's smattering knowledge. I'm approaching this simply as a long time government manager and I'd have done this over them losing the inflatables and the weapons and thus failing to protect government property. And, frankly, if I wanted to avoid the political implications of delving into the military side of their actions, I might very well make this simply an investigation into their managerial acts concerning sortieing the helo without adequate fuel, allowing it to leave station without relief, apparent failure of the watchstanders to ascertain and engage a threat and, yeah, I probably would throw in their failure to secure government property.

To use an analogous example with which I have direct familiarity: Alaska's ferry Masters fairly frequently dispatch small boats, including fast RIBs, to aid disabled vessels or to assist in rescues from a damaged vessel or from the shore. If one of our small boats were lost in such an endeavor and its crew had to be plucked up by the USCG for example, the Master, the watchstanders, and the small boat crew would be greeted with a memo stating that they were relieved from duty and that it was alleged that they had engaged in misconduct. If we concluded that we could prove that the loss was due to negligence, somebody, maybe several somebodies, would get some quality time without pay to think about how they might do it differently next time, and if it were bad enough, somebody, probably the Master, would be looking for a new job. I am confident that I could sustain that even with unionized public employees because I have done it.

My money is that the politics will dictate that the Brits will continue to pretend that everyone was a hero and hope that everyone forgets before the next election. I'd sure like to be wrong.

In Vino Veritas

It's important that the military be broken BEFORE the Democrats vote to eviscerate the military. That way they will only be dealing with the reality of the Bush failure to protect our military forces, and protecting them from dying in a war we can't win anyway. Gees! Don't you read your morning talking points before posting?

I know he'd die before he'd give them anything.
I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, but it is hard.
It seems that even some of our allies' military doesn't truly get what is at stake here.
Sad, just sad.
_________________________________________________
The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.-Reagan

been a time when it was just assumed as Americans it was always "death before dishonor". Has children playing war in the back yard being captured by the bad guys we would die before we talked. Where's the pride? But these are Brits. I just thought they had the same mind set.

"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)

I must have missed that part. Did it come after their staged confessions and before their plea for forgiveness?

--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox

Thank goodness the Iranians didn't take the unrelated Guantanamo treatment claims as a flimsy excuse to torture them.

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

which parts of the GC were adhered to?

Parading on TV is illegal. They didn't receive a visit by the ICRC. Their interrogations which resulted in confessions was obviously beyond the bounds of the GC.

Even the inmates at Guantanamo aren't televised, they aren't put on TV to confess, and they have access to the ICRC.

Shove off.

And for heaven's sake, man, stop having kids. Think about what you're doing to the gene pool

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

at Gitmo, the Geneva Convention, as well as a whole bunch of international admiralty law, did apply to these uniformed Seamen and Marines. And the Iranians unquestionably violated it by securing the "confessions" and parading them before the cameras. Were this incident nothing more than a law enforcement action against a vessel unlawfully in a given water, the Iranians would be obligated to immediately return the crew then pursue an action at Admiralty against the Master and the owner of the offending vessel.

Further, my Troll alarm is starting to go off here.

In Vino Veritas

And Rightly So!

to contribute here.

Attitudes like yours are the reason the sun set on the British empire, and the reason your homeschooled kids may need prayer rugs to show their acceptance of "other cultures" and their respect for diversity before too long.

As the father of a US Marine, you make me sick.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

"StupidComments R Us"? You've managed three whole hours here. That's probably the high water mark.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

I would be happy that my children returned safely. Then I would wonder how, I never knew them.

Those smiling happy cheerful people in the photo gave their captives just what they wanted. They rewarded them for committing an act of war against Great Britain. They Rewarded the Iranians for kidnapping them.

I would hope mine would stand up for themselves.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

maybe out of the frame

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

______________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson

by and large, cooperated with their captors.

Let's remember that these aren't (supposed to be) your average bank customer caught in a bank robbery gone wrong. These people are supposed to trained military. They were involved in a military operation that had risk. Their conduct, especially the officers and the female sailor, is completely unacceptable. Period.

Frankly, none of the US military people I've talked to about this, both currently active and vets and all combat vets, would have been taken without a shot fired. They are throughly disgusted with the conduct of the Brit sailors and Marines.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

how did they cooperate? They did not (as far as we know) divulge any important intelligence on British forces. They did not didn't confess to any war crimes. They only thing they did was admit (under duress, we must recall) that they had entered Iranian waters, which was of absolutely no value to the Iranians since nobody outside of Iran believed that was true to begin with.

And let's examine the logic of your argument: are you really saying that any captive who cooperates with his captor in any way has disgraced himself? Heck, even John McCain signed papers confessing to so-called war crimes when the North Vietnamese forced him to do so. Is he a traitor? (McCain haters, please don't reply to that question) What about the hundreds of other Vietnam-era POWs who showed momentary weakness by confessing to things they didn't do? Are they all traitors?

And frankly, I seriously question whether you or I or anybody else on this website has any right to judge these people. Have you ever been a POW? Do you really know how you would react to this situation? If not, then get off your horse.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

And I'll start with McCain since we know I no use for him as far as POTUS is concerned.

I have no particular problem with what McCain did in N. Vietnam. He was, after all, REALLY tortured. He showed signs of that when he was released and still does. So, was he a traitor? No. At least in my opinion.

I don't think the Brits were "traitors" either. Nor did they do their duty honorably. They surrendered without a fight, gave the Iranians a whole bunch of great propaganda photoops, confirmed that they were in Iranian waters, and were generally patsies for their captors. I think it's pretty obvious from the photos that they weren't tortured. If that statement is proven wrong I'll apologize. Until then, the enlisted personnel should be discharged and the officers should be court martialed.

We are at war in the gulf, this ain't tiddly winks.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

> Have you ever been a POW? Do you really know how you would react to this situation? If not, then get off your horse.

Is this chicken hawking, which is against forum rules? If the point is that only POWs are allowed to talk about conduct of prisoners, that seems to be the same as the forbidden tactic of saying that only those who in the military or who have family in the military are allowed to speak about military issues.

to the tactic employed by many left wing bloggers and commentators to denigrate the opinions of people who support the war. The hypocrisy of this tactic stems from the fact that 99% of the time neither the one who chicken hawks nor the one being chicken hawked is actually a combatant in the war in question. It is also an anti-democratic tactic because in a democracy decisions about war and peace are left in the hands of all the eligible members of the electorate, whether they have served in the military or not.

On the other hand, it is not chicken hawking when I point out that you don't know what the heck you're talking about, which in this you don't.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

comment on how the sailors and marines behaved while in Iranian custody; I've never been hauled at gun point into a barbarian nation and really don't know how I'd handle it. That said, I remain convinced on the evidence we have before us that just about every thing that could have been done wrong was, up to and including the sailors and marines not resisting the Iranian attack. On the evidence we have, there was no secutity for the boarding party once the helo left to refuel, its own question, and the HMS Cornwall was merely a bystander to the whole affair. Maybe it was time to pass out the rum ration on the bridge.

In the world with which I am more familiar, if one of our ferry masters had lost a couple of RIBs, all their property (like guns!), and caused the crews to require "rescue," I'd have every officer in the dock and facing dismissal if he couldn't tell me a really, really good story.
In Vino Veritas

> I've never been hauled at gun point into a barbarian nation and really don't know how I'd handle it.

I haven't either, but I still know the difference between right and wrong, the correct way for a prisoner to behave. Since I've haven't been a POW, I would never claim to know that I personally am strong enough to do the right thing. But I still know what that right thing is, and expect it from our prisoners. The code of conduct is based on the real life experience of POWs who lived in captivity and under torture for many years, so it is not unrealistic. Today's prisoners are not being judged by me, but by those POWs, and by the soliders and marines who risked their lives to fight to the death instead of surrendering, and who fought side by side with their friends who died rather than be taken prisoner. It is not unfair to expect today's military to behave the same as the military did 20 or 50 years ago.

The bottom line is the behavior of some of those British prisoners was way out of line, no matter what. They didn't need to act like giddy tourists. If under threat of torture and death they felt that some cooperation was necessary, they could have done the minimum amount, and as grudgingly as possible. Like prisoners of the past, they could have repeated their "confessions" awkwardly and mechanically in order to show they were resisting and really didn't agree.

knowing what you would do are two very different things. That's the reason I don't have anything to day about what they did.

In Vino Veritas

who did not bring up the Code of Conduct. Survive with honor. While your reluctance to pass judgment is understandable and duly noted, I would point out that some of the hostages in Tehran managed to go a year and a half without cracking (and these were soldiers or ex soldiers on a diplomatic mission, not individuals who had ostensibly been trained for service in a combat zone.

Apparently the hostages were supposed to behave that way, at least according to this quote:

Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup met with the crew briefly and described them as being "happy and in good shape." He dismissed questions that the sailors and marines had behaved improperly because they took part in videos on Iranian state television in which they "admitted" trespassing into Tehran's territorial waters.

"They did exactly as they should have done from start to finish, and we are proud of them," he said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/05/world/main2650223.shtml

This British Defence website seems to say that the officer who said that the hostages behaved "exactly as they should" is the "Chief of the Defence Staff", which is equivalent to the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In other words, he is the highest ranking British military officer.

Link I forgot to include in the above posting.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/ChiefsOfStaff/Chie...

what he said is utter b.s. and worse than that, he knows it.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Let's face it, Iran won that round.

I'm not at all convinced that this is the case.

While they successfully exposed the entire British navy to now be a 'paper tiger' on par with the other "military" forces of continental Western Europe, the main thrust of this entire operation seems to have been aimed at domestic Iranian consumption. Considering that Iran seems to have gotten nothing tangeable out of this gambit, I don't see how this will benefit the Iranian Government with their restive populace.

The Iranian gov't may be shakier these days than many first thought, and while they may think they "won" this round, I'm not at all sure that they won't invite greater external pressure after this is over.

And that is something they may not be able to survive this time...

Every bit as much as the Hezbollah victory over Israel last year. It's about the propaganda value, not about obtaining material rewards. The Hezbos can tell everybody they took on the supposedly mightly Israel and lived to talk about it, and Iran can tell everybody that they punched Britian in the face and they apologized for letting their face in the way.

Besides, none of us know if they got anything tangible in exchange. It's quite possible they exacted some kind of price... we will probably never know if they did.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

three points:

1) They undermined their own position. Partially as a result of their rash actions, the UN Security Council unanimously approved new sanctions against their government in reaction to their regime's refusal to cooperate with nuclear investigators. What is even more important, by their actions they Iranians demonstrated that they are a dangerous and potentially aggressive regime. That impression is something that the U.S. and Britain can exploit to their own advantage later on.

2) Neither the U.S. nor the U.K. have forgotten about WMD's, or about the border crossings. If anything, it underlines the need to address those situations.

3) Can you possibly think of a way that this situation could have been resolved more favorably for the U.S. and the U.K.? They gave up nothing of value. They got what they wanted. Sure, it would have been better if the 15 Britons had never been captured in the first place, but they were, and the British and the Americans handled the situation exactly as they should have.

4) Lastly, I suspect that the disappointment I'm sensing from some people on this site stems from the fact that Britain and the United States did not resolve this issue militarily. Perhaps some people here hoped that the allies could use this as a pretext to launch a new war against Iran. Leaving aside the manifest practical difficulties involved in waging yet another war in the Middle East (starting with the lack of troops needed for such an enterprise), I would argue that such ill-considered opinions are more indicative of war-fatigue on the part of right-wing blogging community than genuine patriotism. The fact of the matter is that we have a job to finish in Iraq. Everyone who has been on this site for any length of time knows that I have supported that project patiently, even obstinately, since its beginning. And I still support it. The cruel truth is that finishing the job in Iraq means continuing to spend our blood and treasure in that arena. It means applying the bulk of our available military (and non-military) resources to rebuilding a war-torn nation where terrorism remains a daily reality and where success depends more on staying power and stubbornness than tactics or firepower.

And there is yet one other reality we must reckon with: we can not succeed in Iraq and topple the mullahs in Iran. That is not an opinion, but a fact. What the folks around this site have to understand is that armies do not simply materialize at the whim of the federal government. Conquering Iraq took about a quarter of a million U.S. troops. Conquering Iran, which is a larger country with a better military, would take even more troops, and holding Iran once we've taken it would require at least as many troops as we've committed to Iraq. People, divisions do not grow on trees. You can not pluck tanks from the ground like potatoes. And of course, we haven't even begun to talk about the money it would take to raise, train, and equip all the new divisions we would need to subdue Iran.

Now it is certainly true that Iran can force our hand. Iran could start a shooting war with the U.S. forces in Iraq, and if they choose to do that we would be obliged to apply all available resources to win that war. But doing so would also mean abandoning our commitment to Iraq, and that is something I will not support unless Iran literally leaves us no choice. We have all lost friends or family to this war. In times like this it is tempting to lash out; to look for a new enemy to bloody and break. But that is not our destiny. Like it or not, we have committed ourselves to a great task, a work that (if successful) will stand for ages. Yes, Iran has provoked us many times. Yes, they are trying to thwart our progress there. But if we allow ourselves to be distracted from the essential goal of protecting and preserving an independent, non-radical Iraqi government we shall loose everything we have worked so hard to achieve.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

Yes, Leverkuhn, they did - almost completely.

I was conversing with the senior nulcear counterterrorism official with whom I do my Internat'l Trade and Security research work and he expressed the same sentiment (with which I agree) - Iran could not have planned this better, beginning to end to final outcome, had they been trying for years.

Oh, they won this one. Hands-down.

Victor Davis Hanson's hypothesis interesting. Namely that Iran is in fact TRYING to get bombed, for the Iranians have a history of uniting in times of catastrophe and they would also ensure the goodwill of the rest of the Muslim world. I don't know whether or not this is true, but it is interesting food for thought, particularly if they believe the actual physical impact a strike would render to be pretty small. I think within reason you are right though, they scored points with their domestic populace and with their Islamic brethren, Shia and Sunni alike. We have a tendency to view this through the prism of our experience and our culture. In that of the Islamic world, sufficiently altered to meet the demands of state monitoring and the demands of a politically infantile society, this will be another Mogadishu, another Beirut...another example of the decadent West backing down in the face of an attack by the faithful.

I don't know who your "senior" official is, and I'm sure you won't tell me, but neither he nor you can name one substantive thing Iran has gained through all this. Your blithe assurance to the contrary, the facts simply do not support your position. They made a desperate gamble, they made outrageous demands, they got nothing for their trouble, and they retreated under the false pretence that they were being gracious to Britain.

And btw, I've long since stopped being moved by bloggers claiming to have inside knowledge from high placed Washington officials. If it doesn't impress me when the New York Times plays that game, it doesn't impress me when anybody else does it.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

big in the propaganda war. And I think you know that. Think about what is at stake and what the "religion of peace" is trying accomplish.
Come now, you know better.
______________________________________________________________
The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.-Reagan

we have always been friends, to the extent that bloggers who've never actually met can be friends. But please, do not presume to tell me what I know. I know no such thing. I only know that a lot of people on this site have expressed the belief that Iran has somehow scored a public relations coup. But none of you have produced one shred of evidence that this is true.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

my thoughts pretty well on why this was a win for the Iranians.
Jeff hit on it some too. And although hubby isn't giving up a lot right now as he is in a sandy place, he has articulated that the way this played out has not been good for us in terms of "winning the hearts and minds" of those that populate the Middle East.
And I dare say that the appearance of those 15 in the media upon their release was the icing on the cake for the Iranians.

I'm glad that you don't see this as a negative and I hope in the end you are right. But sadly, I think we have just witnessed a small bit of more that is to come.
______________________________________________________

The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.-Reagan

why I think streiff and you are wrong. No doubt there were millions of radical muslims across the Middle East who were rooting for Iran to stick it to America and Britain. No doubt they would have cheered any Iranian victory, however small. But what did Iran give them? Nothing. Unless, of course, they are going to applaud Iran's supposed act of "charity" towards Britain by returning its hostages. But that would be counterintuitive at best.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

The West ends up looking weak because their troops were easily captured, without a fight, and because of the behavior of some of the hostages.

I don't know the British code of conduct for prisoners, but I can't imagine any excuse for the way some of the hostages behaved, how the cooperated so willingly and happily with their captors. There are many examples on film of US POWs who showed that there is always a way to signal resistance, and to show the world that one is making the statement under duress. Those POWs used techniques like reading the messages awkwardly, with gaps between the words and saying the words the wrong way in order to show the world that they really weren't caving in. Some of them sent messages like morse code by blinking.

Likewise, even if the British prisoners felt their orders allowed some sort of feigned cooperations with their captors, the prisoners could have done the bare minimum needed to stay alive, and to show they were doing it unwillingly.

The West ends up looking weak because their troops were easily captured, without a fight, and because of the behavior of some of the hostages.

I don't know the British code of conduct for prisoners, but I can't imagine any excuse for the way some of the hostages behaved, how the cooperated so willingly and happily with their captors. There are many examples on film of US POWs who showed that there is always a way to signal resistance, and to show the world that one is making the statement under duress. Those POWs used techniques like reading the messages awkwardly, with gaps between the words and saying the words the wrong way in order to show the world that they really weren't caving in. Some of them sent messages like morse code by blinking.

Likewise, even if the British prisoners felt their orders allowed some sort of feigned cooperations with their captors, the prisoners could have done the bare minimum needed to stay alive, and to show they were doing it unwillingly.

> They gave up nothing of value.

No matter who in the government denies it, much of the world will see the recent actions concerning Iranian prisoners as part of a deal to release the British hostages. I mean the Iranian who was released from someone's custody in Iraq this week, the Red Cross for the first time being allowed to visit the five Iranians captured by the US in Irbil, and the possible agreement for the Iranian government to visit those 5. Many people will see all these actions taking place with 72 hours of each other as being connected.

1. Read the sanctions.

2. Maybe not, but do you think the Brits are going to aggressively enforce either border crossings of maritime inspections after this? I don't. They have been tried and found wanting. Do you think an American unit is going to be confident serving near a Brit unit now that we know they won't fight to defend themselves. I don't.

3. Ummm. They could have resisted capture. Brit papers reported that US forces were willing to go after them before they reached Iraq. The Cornwall was ordered not to launch its helicopter in pursuit. I can think of a lot better ways it could have been resolved.

4. Then you haven't been paying attention.

The Iranians don't care what you think or what the West thinks. They care what the Syrians think. And the Saudis. And the Iraqis. And the Kuwaitis. They won a huge strategic victory with that audience, one that ensures sanctions will be hollow because they know, as do we, if you won't defend your own people you won't defend strangers.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

1) I have.

2) So the Brits have been "tried and found wanting," hugh? I guess that means it's just America against all the terrorists in the Middle East, nay, in the entire world. Rot. Leaving aside the fact that so many Brits have given their lives fighting by our side, do you actually want us to fight alone? It's like you and half the people on RedState are just begging for the Brits to clear out so we can take on Al Qaeda and the Mahdi Army by ourselves. Thankfully, the Brits aren't listening to you. They have been loyal allies, not only in Iraq but in the broader war on terror as well. And you can be certain that we need them, now more than ever.

Oh, and for the record, American and British soldiers perform joint operations all the time. I can not recall any U.S. commander questioning the competence or courage of their counterparts. If you have ANY evidence to the contrary, please furnish it now.

3) That doesn't begin to address my question. The exact circumstances under which the Brits were taken prisoner remain somewhat unclear. It may turn out that their performance during that episode was deficient in some respect, although that is for the British authorities to determine, not you or I. But my question, which I believe I made explicitly clear, concerned how the British and American authorities handled the situation after the captures took place. And from that standpoint, they handled the situation superbly.

4) Sorry, but you saying something doesn't make it so. Even if it were true that the opinions of the non-Arab world don't matter in this case (a silly claim at best), you have presented absolutely no evidence that the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, or the Syrians are actually impressed with Iran's handling of this situation. And how can they be? The Iranians did not secure an apology from Britain. They did not get an admission from Britain that its troops entered Iranian waters. And they did not get what they really wanted, which was the return of their intelligence officers held by the United States. Nobody on our side caved. There was no deal. There was only Iran biting off more than it could chew.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli