The case of British seapersons and marines supposedly captured in Iranian territorial waters continues to, how can I say this, roil the waters of international relations. As I understand it, last time this happened the British apologized relatively quickly and just as quickly the Iranians released the captives with cries of "go, and sin no more!" What's different this time?
Well, a few years ago Iran was helping the West. They had no use for the sunni Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and were being overwhelmed by Afghan refugees, and were glad to see the U.S. and Britain go in and clean out that country (they may be less glad now, when it's apparent that the cleansing of Afghanistan was far from complete). Today Iran and the West are hardly even talking to each other. Partly this is due to the election of President Ahmadinejad, who is not appreciated west of the Shatt al-Arab (except, perhaps, by others who have been alienated by the antics of the White House, such as Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez or, more recently, our supposed ally Saudi King Abdullah). Furthermore, we have the situation of Iranian uranium enrichment. The Iranians assert, rightly, that they have the right to enrich uranium even under the nuclear non-proliferation pact. The West insists that they must be engaging in this process for the sole purpose of building bombs. Never mind that, even if they were (they claim that they're not), (1) they're years away from a bomb — we refuse to even negotiate with them on anything until they surrender to Western demands — a current attempt to reimpose the "unconditional surrender" demands of World War II. This apparently relates to captured British seamen and marines, as well.
Latest apparent insult to Iran: when the question of sanctions was before the Security Council, the United States (according to Iran) neglected to provide President Ahmadinejad with a visa in time for him to come speak before the U.N. (The U.S. insists that the visa was prepared in plenty of time.)
The Iraq study group recommended that the United States begin to engage in direct negotiations with Iran and Syria. The White House has refused to do this so far, and apparently the British are following suit. Nancy Pelosi's trip to Damascus, which has upset the White House no end, may be a start in the right direction. Who's going to go and "open up" Tehran?
Note: just as I finished the above, I heard on TV that President Bush has now put his oar into these troubled waters, referring to the interned British seamen and marines as "hostages" — though what they are hostages for was not made clear.