The name of the Game is Coercion

The recently released British sailors admitted today to having testified under coercion on Iranian television while detained. The full statement by the teams commanding officer was released today on CNN.

When taken by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard we were well inside Iraqi territorial waters.

If we admitted we had strayed, we would be on a
plane back to the UK soon. If we didn't we faced up to seven years in
prison.

While a similar argument could be made (and the Iranians did in fact make this argument) that the British held this briefing and doctored the commanding officer’s statement, I’m inclined to believe that this course of action is less likely than the Iranians’ coercion. This assumption is purely my own opinion and is based only on the video’s I’ve seen of these soldiers’ statements. But all that really doesn’t matter. The name of the game is who can produce the most realistic statements. So, coercion or no, whichever country can use detainees statements to rally support is the country that ‘wins’. My esteemed colleague Dr. Ghost commented a while back that “no one ever really believes a confession if there's even a hint of coercion in the air.” While this statement is certainly valid (I was one of the doubters), I think that there is good reason not to believe a statement even if there is a hint of coercion, because, if there is even a hint of coercion, then the statement is probably being coerced (err…does that make sense?). Anyhow, like I said before, it’s all about saving face. Since these sailors are British, their statements sounds a lot more convincing coming from British soil than Iranian. So in this case, regardless of coercion or doctoring, the Iranians come out the guilty party.