The British Hostages: What Iran Wants

The Chinese business newspaper The Standard floats a balloon that makes sense of Iran's actions in taking the British marines hostage. The U.S. did the same thing to Iran. We raided an Iranian diplomatic facility and captured Iranian diplomats, none of whom have been released.

Now the pair of kidnappings are being linked in the Chinese press. It seems that obtaining the release of the British hostages relies on the release of the Iranian ones being held by the U.S.

Tony Blair has been an avid supporter of the foreign policies of this misguided U.S. administration. Let's see if George Bush will do the same for him.

Econo-Girl has always maintained that the Iranians are neither stupid nor crazy. This "exchange of hostages" idea seems to bear that out.

The End of Guantanamo, The End of Bush, The End of Blair

A British resident, Bisher al-Rawi, has been released from Guantanamo Bay prison camp. He describes the hopelessness there in the article linked to the title of this post.

The significance of his statements have less to do with the allegations than with the implication that Tony Blair allowed British citizens and residents to be treated this way. No representation. No chance to refute the charges. Abusive and demeaning treatment before any terror connection has been proved.

A country is supposed to watch out for its people elsewhere in the world, not offer them up as political sacrifices to the ideology of an unthinking cowboy.

Tony Blair did not protect his citizens. Yes, some of them are rotters, no doubt. But a stinker will out in a fair process. There is no need for such lopsided handling unless there is an equal amount of doubt that there is enough evidence to convince an impartial observer of a detainee's guilt.

When the new British government arrives, do you think they will stay quiet about this? They will not. Just in time for the U.S. election, too.

Brown vs. Blair on Terror and Iraq

Tony Blair has made Britain's alliance with the United States the hallmark of his foreign policy to a dizzying extent. In lockstep, you might say.

Blair's successor, Mr. Brown, has promised to change that approach.

Rather than increasing the number of troops in Iraq, Mr. Brown has promised to reduce them "by thousands." What this signals is not only a break with Tony Blair, but a distancing from Washington.

In Econo-Girl's opinion, it's about time.

How has it been to Britain's advantage to be so close to the U.S.? What did Tony Blair think they were getting out of it? It really is unclear.

The distance Mr. Brown proposes also comments on President Bush's leadership in Iraq and the war on terror in general. Not very favorable comments, that is. What Mr. Brown is saying is Mr. Bush's strategy has not worked. He is saying the world can expect different things from Britain in the near future.

Econo-girl eagerly awaits.