See, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/21/173814/137;

I don't think the UN is going to be much help.

Sanctions will work, only if the world abides by them, and I don't mucy see the "world" abiding by them, shoot I don't even see the UN security council doing much more than its typical posturing.

This situation doesn't come with any easy solutions.

I'm not sure how much we can keep out nose out of this, since we are in so deep in Iraq already. Iran isn't doing this to get Britain's attention or concessions, I think all this posturing is solely about the US.

Legion may be right that the fact that these are British sailors rather than US ones was just a coincidence, unless Iran really thinks they can use this as a wedge between US/UK relations. More likely they were the most opportune target, and the nationality of the hostages didn't matter so much (so long as they were westerners).

Actually, I think we should keep our nose out of this unless asked. The British are perfectly able to keep up their end without our help in the matter.

Right now there is so much opposition in other countries to anything and everything the US wants, politicians in those countries must also outwardly oppose US objectives, even if they personally agree with those objectives.

James,
I would suggest that the US propose unreasonably harsh sanctions against Iran, maybe even military action, then let the UK counter-propose something like you suggested. That way the UNSC members can simultaneously support the UK (the victim) and oppose the US (everyone else's evil empire). Then it might actually have a chance at passing.

I'm not sure I like the idea of banning gasoline though, that will make the population mad, but at us, not the regime. Maybe banning entertainment related items, or convenience items, or extra-cultural items. Things that will find their way easily and cheaply onto the black market, might create a culture of subverting authority to obtain things the regime might not like them having in the first place. That puts the regime in the position of either encouraging the proliferation of these items and the associated dependence on the west, or supporting the UN and enforce the ban against their own people. Either way will weaken their influence over the population. This of course hinges on the banned items being western-associated while still having demand enough to form a black market. Anybody have ideas about what items could do that (I'm not familiar with Iranian society).

Second, the importation of refined product makes a rise in oil prices less valuable to Iran then generally thought.

Third, applying rational analysis to certain regimes just doesn't seem to work. Saddam could still be in power rather than dead if he'd behaved rationally.

Britain says it has definitive evidence its personnel were in Iraqi territory. Even if they strayed into Iranian water, the fact the sailors and marines were surrounded and outgunned suggests a planned operation.

I'm leaning more towards that myself. But it raises an interesting question - were the Brits the actual target, or were they just the "lucky winners"? Were the Iranians hoping to grab USN sailors instead? And either way, what is the point of the "planned operation"? Surely nobody on either side believed grabbing a few dozen uniformed troops would really alter Bush's war plans, when an increasing majority of actual voters in his own country can't... :-)

We had a similar problem with the Iranian hostages the first time when we put the release of the current hostages ahead of reducing the chances of a future hostage taking. I don't see any clear path, but if you are looking to the UN to solve a problem, you clearly have the sticky end of the stick.