Days of future pressed

In an on-going discussion at Talk Left about the Iraq supplemental bill, the issue of Iran came up. It was argued by some that trying to pass legislation barring an attack on Iran was bad tactically (because if it lost it would imply approval of an attack) and wrong legally (because it was clear Bush lacked such authority absent Congressional action). I agreed the former argument had merit, while cautioning "I expect that those who favor a resolution stating authorization is required are of the mind that it is a bad idea to wait until the fighting has started to try to do anything about it." But I disagreed with the latter.

It's well established both in law and constitutional principle that in certain circumstances the President in the role of Commander-in-Chief has the authority to initiate military action without first getting the approval of Congress. ...

How broad that authority is, is disputed.... But the fact that the authority exists is not in question.

More specifically, I had earlier noted that

[t]he War Powers Resolution says [the president] can initiate military action in the event of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. (Emphasis of course added.) One bit of "proof" that some Iranian forces inside Iraq fired on US soldiers, one Gulf of Tonkin-type "incident" in the Persian Gulf, and bam! there's the authority.

And 60 days later we'd be hearing how oh, we just can't cut off funds for our brave troops in the field!

Why do I bring this up now? Because of this, from the BBC for today:

Fifteen British Navy personnel have been captured at gunpoint by Iranian forces, the Ministry of Defence says. ...

The Royal Navy said the men, who were on a routine patrol in Iraqi waters, were understood to be unharmed. ...

The Ministry of Defence said: "The group boarding party had completed a successful inspection of a merchant ship when they and their two boats were surrounded and escorted by Iranian vessels into Iranian territorial waters.

"We are urgently pursuing this matter with the Iranian authorities at the highest level.

"The British government is demanding the immediate and safe return of our people and equipment."

The commander of the frigate where the men were stationed said he hoped it was "a simple misunderstanding at the tactical level," that is, a minor league dispute over whether the boats were in Iraqi or Iranian waters. This is not the first time something like this has happened: In 2004, the BBC says, eight British servicemen were held for three days after allegedly straying across the Iran-Iraq border in the Gulf.

The BBC's diplomatic correspondent James Robbins said the difference this time, and a cause of concern, is that the present Iranian government under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was much more hardline.

"The political climate is worse with Britain among those confronting Iran over its controversial nuclear programme," he added.

And also a climate (featuring a convenient "hardline" enemy) in which any minor incident can be escalated into a casus belli - and in the absence of a real incident, one can easily be provoked or even created.