Remember the Pueblo incident of 1968

We got our sailors back, so all is well. But there's a lot more to this story than the safe release of 10 American sailors who had been captured by Iranians in the Persian Gulf.

News of the capture of two U.S. Navy Riverine boats by Iran immediately brought to mind the incident 48 years ago, in January 1968, when North Korea's Navy boarded and took over the USS Pueblo. That incident also had a happy ending — sort of — after North Korea humiliated and tortured the captured crew members and exploited them with propaganda pictures and videos. One Pueblo crew member was killed as the ship was attacked by Korean ships and aircraft before it surrendered.

The crew was held captive until the following December, when a U.S. apology resulted in the crew's release. A court martial for the ship's commander was recommended, based in part on the Pueblo's failure to fight the attackers for control of the lightly armed ship, but charges were rejected by the secretary of the Navy.

What happened in the Persian Gulf was not as egregious as the 1968 incident, but there are parallels. The Riverine crews apparently made no efforts to fight the Iranian attackers, either because of a command decision or equipment failure. The boats admittedly were in Iranian waters, reportedly because of navigational error; the U.S. still claims the Pueblo was in international waters.

Navigational error suggests the crews were taking sun shots with a sextant to determine their position. That was logical in the 1800s; not today. Modern GPS navigational equipment pinpoints the exact longitude and latitude of a vessel, down to a few feet. The Navy has some explaining to do about how a navigational error could have sent the boats into Iranian waters unknowingly.

Secretary of State John Kerry says closer diplomatic dialogue with Iran made it possible for the crews to be released within 24 hours — but only after Iran took advantage of every propaganda opportunity with videos of the submissive U.S. sailors and close-ups of the sailors' identification cards.

Kerry may be right about this positive outcome, but the Navy hasn't told the whole story yet.

Never fear to negotiate — the Iran deal

Four days after the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination, I'm still channeling quotes from JFK: "Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate."

That sage advice from 52 years ago came to mind after reading about the angry objections to the deal negotiated by the United States and European powers with Iran to curb its nuclear program in exchange for an easing of sanctions. While Secretary of State John Kerry touted the deal's limits on Iran's enrichment of uranium and its openness to increased international inspections, the government of Israel and some members of Congress slammed the deal as an open door to Iranian nuclear arms.

The deal is an interim agreement, not a final treaty. In the interim, Iran agrees to stop enriching uranium beyond the 5% level and to dilute the 20% enriched uranium it already has. Along with open inspections of nuclear facilities, the agreement is intended to prevent Iran from enriching uranium to weapons grade and, thereby, prohibit Iranian nuclear arms. In return, the Western powers agree to an easing of some trade sanctions against Iran, including the release of some Iranian money embargoed in Western banks.

One can easily argue that it's an imperfect deal — Iran might find a way to expand its stockpile of 5% enriched uranium and then back out of a permanent agreement. But what international treaty was ever foolproof? The West retains its right to reimpose the sanctions that forced Iran to agree to negotiations in the first place.

Rather than imposing even harsher sanctions on Iran, as some members of Congress have proposed, the United States should recognize victory when it happens. The sanctions worked. Iran was forced to negotiate an end to any nuclear weaponry ambitions it might have had (something the regime never admitted to). The United States' purpose in imposing these sanctions was to force Iran to give up any nuclear weapon plans. That goal has been achieved, at least for the interim. Further negotiations, along with the threat of renewed sanctions, can bring that goal to full realization. Unless Congress decides that what it really wants is not a peaceful relationship with Iran but war.

If a permanent deal with Iran works, the world will be safe from the possibility of Iranian nuclear bombs, and Iranian oil will return to the world market, further stabilizing the cost of energy, with economic benefits worldwide. The United States might even re-establish a cordial international relationship with Iran, something it has not had for more than 30 years. 

International sanctions 70 years apart

Nobody, least of all the people of Israel, wants to see Iran develop nuclear weapons, but a look at recent events and 20th century history would caution us against backing Iran, or any powerful nation, into a corner. The United States and the European Union are backing harsh restrictions on Iran's ability to transfer money internationally. This could result in Iran being unable to sell its oil on the international market. The move by Western nations is aimed at discouraging Iran's apparent development of nuclear weapons, though Iran insists unconvincingly that it is developing its nuclear power for peaceful purposes only.

In response to the sanctions, Iran threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz, the entrance point to the oil-rich Persian Gulf. Iran claims the strait as its territorial waters, but it is the passageway to ports in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and other Persian Gulf nations. Closing the strait, through which passes about 20 percent of the world's petroleum supply, would immediately push oil prices sky-high and could push the world into economic panic. The United States is committed to free navigation through the Strait of Hormuz and has the power to pulverize any attempt by Iran to close the strait, but it would be a very nasty fight.

This standoff is reminiscent of a decision the United States made more than 70 years ago to close off a bellicose nation's access to the world market. The hostile nation then was Japan. In an effort to curb Japanese aggression and its dream of a Pacific empire, the United States cut off supplies of petroleum and rubber to Japan's war machine. Japanese leaders at the time would argue that this action constituted an act of war and forced the Japanese military to make a risky and fateful decision. The Japanese Navy would cripple the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, leaving the Japanese free to capture oil fields and rubber plantations in Malaysia. Japanese strategists misjudged their ability to destroy U.S. naval power and the reaction of the U.S. government to their infamous attack.

Iran in 2012 is not comparable to Japan in 1941, which had a proven army and powerful navy, but in both cases, the nations' leaders feel backed into a corner by international sanctions. Like Japan in 1941, Iran appears to be ready to fight rather than comply with the wishes of the international community. And, as in 1941, the ensuing fight could lead to an international conflagration.

He who counts the votes rules the country

One of the last of the old time county sheriffs/political power brokers told me a long time ago that he didn't care who voted, as long as he got to count the votes. He was being a little bit facetious and a little bit revelatory. The old sheriff, now deceased, would appreciate the situation in Iran, where the ruling authorities announced the results of last Friday's election just two hours after the polls closed. You should remember that the voting was done on paper ballots with no automated machines or computers to count the vote. I'm told that the last time Wilson County voted on paper ballots, in the late 1970s, the results were not in until dawn the next morning. Heck, even with a new, fully automated, fully compliant (with the Help America Vote Act) computerized voting system, Wilson County can't announce winners in two hours. By the way, last week's Iranian election involved millions more ballots than Wilson County's elections.

The problem in Iran is that much of the public doesn't believe the authorities' count of the votes. They believe their opposition candidates won. They believe their grassroots political movement has ousted fundamentalist, jingoistic President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, replacing him with a president who offers more personal freedom and economic opportunity. The photos of the post-election opposition protests are incredible and frighteningly reminiscent of the 1979 Iranian rallies that ousted the Shah and installed the ruling theocracy.

There is a disconnect, however, between the opposition's righteous protests and reality. Ahmadinejad, despite all his confrontational anti-Western rhetoric and Holocaust denials, is not the true ruler of Iran. He is, essentially, a puppet of the true rulers, the Shi'ite clerics who actually run things in this theocratic society, where every law and every policy must be approved by a council of theologians and the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Imagine a world where everything President Obama did and every law Congress passed had to be reviewed by Pat Robertson.

The Guardian Council has agreed to recount a limited number of ballots, but that does not satisfy presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi. The opposition is certain that legitimate ballots have already been destroyed.

Even if Ahmadinejad is ousted, which seems unlikely, real change in Iran won't come until the absolute power of the ayatollah and Guardian Council is broken. The possibility of that happening any time soon is nil. The best Western interests can hope for is a moderation of the ruling clerics' hard line toward international opinion and Western culture. The people on the street, many of whom are younger than the 30-year-old Islamic Revolution, care more about economic opportunity and freedom than they do about nuclear weapons. But the ruling clerics are going to continue to count the votes, and that's where the power lies, as any old county sheriff will tell you.