Options limited in Iran stand-off
 

Options limited in Iran stand-off
By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent BBC News website



The British government is preparing to turn private into public diplomacy in an effort to get the release of the 15 sailors and marines captured by the Iranians. But its options are somewhat limited if Iran does not respond .


The British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett returned to London early from a visit to Turkey after an inconclusive phone conversation with the Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki.

Mrs Beckett will make a statement to the House of Commons on Wednesday.

And the Ministry of Defence is preparing to show evidence that the British sailors and marines were in Iraqi waters when they were taken.

However, if Britain creates a lot of sound and fury, Iran can respond. It is good at playing that game and the risk is that the Iranian government would simply exploit the incident for even longer.

The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a master of rhetoric and riposte. He has shown a ready defiance of the UN Security Council over Iran's enrichment of uranium. He thrives on a confrontation.

According to Mark Bowden, in his book "Guests of the Ayatollah" about the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979, Mr Ahmadinejad was "one of the central players in the group that seized the embassy and held hostages."

The American hostages were held for 444 days, initially as a bargaining tool for the exiled Shah, and released only on the day that President Jimmy Carter left office. Mr Carter was humiliated by the episode.

'Different phase'

There has been talk in Iran, denied by the foreign ministry, that Iran is looking for the release of five of its officials detained by the Americans in Iraq and accused of being secret agents.


The atmosphere is not conducive to compromise. It would get worse if the sailors were put on trial


Part of President Carter's problem was that he sounded weak and the American public did not like that, though he argued that his priority was the safety of the captives.

So Tony Blair might well ratchet up the language to sound tougher if this goes on. He has already said that the row will move to a "different phase" if there is no breakthrough.

So what options are open to him?

GPS data

Force is out. It is seen as counterproductive. Instead, Mr Blair could release the data, from GPS satellite locators and radar traces, which should show where the British party was when it was taken.

The British government insists that its personnel were inside Iraqi territorial waters at the time and not on the Iranian side as Iran claims. The ship the boarding party was inspecting is still said to be at the same location. Data might not convince the Iranians but it might convince the rest of the world.

The demarcation line is vague, so Iran might dispute any data. The line was supposed to have been laid down along the middle of the channel in a treaty in 1975 but this incident happened in the Gulf itself where the line peters out.

In any event, the treaty was broken when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran across the same waterway, known to the Arabs as the Shatt al-Arab and to the Iranians as the Arvandrud, the River Arvand.

Louder voices

Mr Blair could call on other countries to make stronger representations, on the grounds that the British were on the right side of the line and the right side of the law, acting under a UN resolution allowing for foreign forces to be in Iraq.

The EU has already made a statement. A Russian or Chinese comment might be more helpful but both countries are reluctant to take sides. He could turn to the UN itself.

The Iraqi government's request for the release of the detainees might also count as Iran has reasonably good relations with the Shia-dominated Iraqi government.

Britain could expel Iranian diplomats and even break off relations. That, however, could be matched move for move and might leave the UK damagingly out of contacts with Iran over the larger issue of its nuclear activities.

Domestic pressure

Such measures might help satisfy domestic critics like The Times, whose editorial line is that the British government has been "pusillanimous".

It wants a deadline set for a release and unspecified sanctions applied thereafter by the UK and its allies, including possibly the Iraqi government.

But setting a deadline is unlikely to impress Iran. It is currently ignoring a UN deadline on enrichment.

An apology by Britain might get the men and the woman sailor, now named as Faye Turney, released. The last time this happened, in 2004, the British personnel did say sorry on Iranian TV and were freed.

To an extent this is out of Mr Blair's hands. The British personnel might indicate regret on their own initiative.

It is unlikely that the British government would do so.

Relations worse

The reason for this is that things have soured with Iran since 2004. A new government is in power there and for the last 18 months the UK and the US have accused Iran, especially the Revolutionary Guards who detained the British sailors, of helping Shia guerrillas with bomb technology.

The atmosphere therefore is not conducive to compromise.

It would get worse if the sailors were put on trial.

The best the British government can probably hope for is that in due course Iran will make its point and then make the release.

The Jimmy Carter scenario is one that London does not want to think about.

Paul.Reynolds-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

From Times OnlineMarch 28, 2007

UK hits back over sailors detained by Iran

(Stefan Rousseau/PA)
Vice-Admiral Charles Style in front of nautical charts showing the exact position of the Marines and sailors when they were "ambushed"

Philippe Naughton
Britain moved to ratchet up the pressure on Iran today over what Tony Blair called its "illegal" seizure of 15 Royal Navy personnel in the Gulf last Friday, freezing all ties with Tehran until the crisis is resolved and the group released.

After five days of discreet but fruitless diplomacy, the offensive began with a press conference at the MoD at which Vice-Admiral Charles Style published satellite coordinates proving that seven Royal Marines and eight sailors were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters when they were "ambushed".

He was backed up by the Prime Minister and by Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, who told MPs that Britain was immediately freezing all bilateral ties with Iran - except for contacts directly concerning the seized personnel.

"They should not be under any doubt at all about how seriously we regard this act, which is unjustified and wrong," Mrs Beckett said.

Vice-Admiral Style, Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, displayed nautical charts showing the position of the group when they were seized. Vice-Admiral Style said that their coordinates had been confirmed by the skipper of an Indian-registered merchant vessel that the sailors had just inspected when they were seized.

Leading Seaman Faye Turney, a 26-year-old mother, was the only woman in the group andTurkey’s private CNN Turk television network today quoted Iran’s foreign minister as saying Tehran would release a woman sailor detained with 14 other British servicemen “today or tomorrow”.

“The British woman soldier detained will be set free today or tomorrow,” it quoted Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki as saying.

The Navy chief said that the group were engaged in routine anti-smuggling patrols under a UN Security Council mandate at the time, operating with the authorisation of Baghdad.

Vice-Admiral Style also accused the Iranians of having changed their story over the weekend after being told that the coordinates Tehran initially gave for the incident showed that the patrol boats were in Iraqi waters.

"It is hard to understand a legitimate reason for this change of coordinates," he said. "In any case, we unambiguously contest both coordinates given by the Iranians."

Minutes after the MoD press conference, the Prime Minister told the Commons that Britain was mobilising international support to show Iran how isolated it was. Mr Blair described the seizure as “completely unacceptable, wrong and illegal”.

Responding to a question from David Cameron, the Conservative leader, about the rules of engagement the patrols were operating under, Mr Blair said that the sailors and Marines could have used force in self defence. But he was was quite satisfied that they had taken the right decision in not drawing their arms after being surrounded by six heavily armed Iranian Republic Guard vessels.

"If they had engaged in military combat at the stage, there would undoubtedly have been severe loss of life," he said.

Mr Blair added by the time the crew of HMS Cornwall realised that the 15 had been detained and a Lynx helicopter dispatched to find them, they were already in Iranian waters - making intervention that much more dangerous.

The vice-admiral said that far from being inside Iranian waters, the two boats were 1.7 nautical miles - almost two land miles - inside the Iraqi part of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, which forms the border between Iran and Iraq.

Their exact postition - 29' 50.36" N, 048' 43.08"E - was confirmed by a Global Positioning System (GPS) on one of the small patrol boats that was displayed on the Cornwall. It had also been confirmed on a subsequent fly-past of the site.

In a statement to the Commons, Mrs Beckett said that the Government had tried to deal with the crisis through "private, but robust diplomacy". When the Iranians' mistake over the coordinates had been established, she had suggested to her Iranian counterpart that the situation "could be easily resolved" by releasing the detained Britons.

But it was now clear that a change of tack was needed. Accordingly, Britain was mobilising d Site is currently unavailable .Please come back later

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1579646.ece

Yep.....Beckett's on the case. Possibly the least competant Foreign Minister we've ever had.

So what is the next step? Maybe her and Condi could go to Iran and brow beat them to death with some girl scout cookies?

Wow, nice touch of misogyny there.

That would be a bit of a reach. Not even a reach-around...:p

Maybe he doesn't know the meaning of misogyny SG?

That or maybe you are an idiot.:rolleyes: Now how about that reach around.:D

Charming.

Now seems like a perfectly good time for nuclear armageddon.

I doubt it will come to that. The Brits strike me as being a bit more worldly and connected in the rhelm of dipomacy. Well then of course there was The Falkland Island War. :D

That's getting a lot of press with the 25th anniversary of the war coming up.

I was waiting for anyone to post what should have been obvious. First, Iran is not monolithic. It should have been obvious from details - even Iranians are infighting about what to do with these 15 Brits. Good reason to believe this was a minority response to point two.

Those in power who saw this could use it to settle early. But then we have 'big dic' attitude (ie Cheney) where the neighborhood bully must get what he wants. Upper are what strategic thinkers see. Lower 'big dics' can only see tactically and have no idea that their attitude only makes things worse.

Strategically, this trivial problem will go away with time. But if 'big dics' are not aggressively quashed, then this problem will fester.

Want to see how this plays out? Remember a silly spy plane incident? What happened once the 'big dics' were silenced? It took months because the 'big dics' in America started saber rattling.

Second, do you think this incident is isolated? Remember, the US kidnapped some Iranians who were invited into Iraq by Iraqi's government to setup what eventually was to be an emissary office (ie where Kurds can get Iranian visas). You may have forgotten them because Rush Limbaugh types were not promoting hate for their release. Iran has not forgotten their hostages held by America. Iran now has hostages to get their hostages released. This was going to happen because of American attitudes. A hostage trade that may eventually happen once the 'big dics' are held quiet long enough and so that you have forgotten about these hostages.

But again, this is really a non-event where people see a bigger picture (a strategic perspective) and saw the foolishness of America kidnapping those Iranian diplomats.

I heard this story on the radio this morning, nothing much new was said, and then the announcer said almost offhandedly that the US has sent two aircraft carrier groups into the gulf in response to this. Are there even two aircraft carrier groups in the region?

And after doing a quick google news search, I see that there are now 2 US carriers in the gulf, and a third is on its way to relieve one. There's also a French carrier there. The headlines of the mideast papers showing up in google news ask questions like, "will the US launch its attack on Iran when the 4th carrier arrives in the region?"

Yep, a nut couldn't hardly fire a missile without hitting something, something big, expensive, and flying a flag.

When Bush invaded Iraq it suited his and bin Laden's interests. It suits Ahmadinejad's interests to crank up the East / West tension to keep his people in line and I suppose the neo-cons want a mushroom cloud as well.

But notice that Mahmoud has not been running his mouth at all during this stand-off.

Has he figured out that our nuts are as crazy as his nuts?

Reminds me of a line from Hunt For Red October "Your aircraft have dropped enough sonar buoys so that a man could walk from Greenland to Iceland to Scotland without getting his feet wet..."

I'd love to see a high res picture of the gulf once 4 carrier groups are packed into it. Not to mention the commercial traffic and other military vessels.

Here's the Abraham Lincoln battle group during exercises in 2000.

I think I was reading about this on the BBC yesterday. I think the Ayatollah knows that he has to keep Mahmoud muzzled for now to prevent a full-scale blow up. Deep down, I think they're afraid that the Americans/British will whoop their asses and so they're trying to be somewhat civil.

I really think this is one of those times when diplomacy, rather than the threat of force, has more chance of resolving the issue.

Good thing the Bush administration has placed such an emphasis on diplomacy and has assembled such a large group of skilled diplomats it can choose from.

Well quite.

Tick, tick, tick.....

Can you see it? The US and Britain attack Iran from the gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Pakistan, Syria, and the Iraqi insurgents attack the rear of those forces. Who knows what Turkey might do - they're in NATO, but are an Islamic government. Maybe India will enter the conflict, just to stab Pakistan in the back. Russia is friendly with Iran....

WWIII? Armageddon? The Twilight Zone? :worried:

Yea, I read that too, here is the link:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6507451.stm

President missing

Iran officially says there is no connection between the detention of the British personnel and its own grievances.

But some hardline elements make a link between their release and other issues.


President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has faced domestic criticism
The Iranian authorities themselves are under mounting pressure domestically to ensure the release of the five Iranians held by the US military in Iraq, and hardliners are arguing that any release of the British sailors should be conditional on the release of the Iranians.

Noticeable by his absence in all this is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

From the Iranian side, the crisis has been managed by the country's Supreme National Security Council, the highest body dealing with such important matters.

Its decisions are approved by Ayatollah Khamenei, and all senior officials take part in its meetings.

President Ahmadinejad's silence may suggest that the clerical leadership is deliberately keeping him out of this matter in order to ensure that situation is not inflamed by his usual hardline rhetoric.

Pretty secular government actually. I'd bet on them sitting it out or using it as cover to kill some Kurds.

The desire of Turkey to become part of the EU is stronger than thier desire to kill Kurds outside of thier border, and they would in no way support actions directly against the US. Inside thier border they have regular oppression. I doubt that they would move past that point.

I'll add my vote for bombing them back into the stone age ... shouldn't take much, maybe just one or two suitcase nukes and it's over.

Posted in What are we doing in Iraq?.

Meanwhile an Aircraft carrier task force is really quite impotent. Its more about hype. Its attack abilities without air tanker support (land bases) is short. Its influence is mostly emotional hype - little actual destructive power. Therefore the target must be small and especially important.

You are kidding? Right?


An aircraft carrier group can launch 70 aircraft nearly every 30 seconds and launch some 5000 cruise missles, multiply that time 2.

Somehow TheMercenary actually believes those numbers are impressive? During the 1991 Gulf War, four carriers sat in the Persian Gulf. Marines that invaded Kuwait had zero air cover. Where was all that aircraft carrier might? Mythical. When Iraqis surprised the Marines on their left flank, what did the carriers do? Nothing. Marines saved their own ass. Swartzkopf personally said in that daily briefing that he "could not say enough about what the Marines did". Why? Four carriers did nothing to help Marines they were assigned to support.

Eventually, carrier forces were so pathetic as to be removed from most combat missions. Carriers consumed too much tanker support and achieved little. In fact, only 'most useful' functions in that war was an F-14 surveillance package which is why the Navy pilot "Stryker" got shot down in western Iraq, probably captured alive by Iraqis, and was never found.

OK. Carriers have improved abilities. And still its planes have limited range and are completely depended on land based tankers to achieve mission beyond a few hundred miles. What does just as good if not better? What almost toppled Saddam in 1998? Conventional ships and submarines with cruise missiles. Carriers expend so much effort just defending themselves as to be quite impotent. And without land based tankers, then carriers have extremely limited range. Well if the tankers are land based, then planes don't need carriers to launch from.

Why then have carriers? Hype. With 'big dic' thinking, those numbers sound impressive. From the strategic perspective, those carriers are less potent - have limited abilities.

Let's see. Shock and awe took out how many members of Saddam's family and the 52 most wanted characters on playing cards? Zero.

Where on a carrier is anything even approaching what an A-10 can do? Nothing. It planes have maybe ten minutes over a target when warriors need air cover that is available for four hours. Who wins a war? A '10 minute' navy plane - or the grunts? That ten minute air cover does what for those grunts?

What did all the work? Those grunts. Carriers are nothing more than support functions. Those who are easily impressed by numbers: a carrier is to be feared. Then we apply reality. Other things military are far more dangerous. How many carriers will it take to rescue 15 Brits in Tehran? How many carriers can take out bunkers where uranium is being processed? How many carriers can conquer a city or win a war? In each case, apply all the carriers and no objectives are achieved. Where is all this ability? Carriers cannot do anything that defines a military victory here. Carriers are only a support function that 'big dic' thinking never grasps.

Deja vue Nam. If we blow things up, then we will win. Well that was an outright lie promoted by those who also deny military principles from 500 BC. Carriers are nothing more than support function in the Middle East. Overhyped by 'big dics' who even and also forget the basic purpose of war. Marines had to breach Iraq lines to get into Kuwait without support from *four* carriers. How many know without first learning fundamental facts ... such as the purpose of war?

TheMercenary - for someone so enamored in military hype, why do you so easily fall for myths such as carrier power?

Because I know people who were on the ground in both Desert Storm 1 who flew off a carrier, now a Marine Col and a cousin of mine, and in the second Gulf War, numerous iterations. I have very good friends who were on the ground in the first 2 weeks of the Afgan Campaign that survived due to carrier based aircraft. The carrier based aircraft were critical in the opening weeks of both the Afgan Campaign and the first two weeks in the opening drive to Bagdad. Pretty simple, I have practical real world experience and you have left-wing talking points. Oh, and years of service on active duty, of which you don't appear to have any, unless you would like enlighten me with where you gain your fantasy wisdom.

2:1: Overt Air Strike by the United States or Israel by March 31, 2007.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200604/bombing-iran

Related anti-war positions.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200702u/not-insane

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200702u/congress-iraq

Youtube is blocked by my work filters. I can rarely see it.

Sorry to hear that, it is a good talk by Gen. William Odom.
If you get a chance you should look all of his stuff on Iraq and Iran up on YouTube, he is a smart man.

I get off work in the am, I will check it out at home. Thanks.

Because you know someone or because a relative did nuclear physics, then you are also knowledgeable in advanced nuclear physics? Bull.

There were no carrier aircraft for Afghanistan if not for tankers from some 'unnamed' land base. Again, carrier was ineffective without land bases.

General Odom's comments come from a long list of Charlie Rose guests that are all talking about Iran including former Sec of State, generals, policy analysts, and ... well its been a parade for two weeks now.

In response to what Odom suggested, another lady with tremendous 'strategic' grasp notes a problem. The nuclear club is not isolated to one country. It occurs in bursts among equivalent neighbors. If Iran has a bomb, then Turkey must have one.

Worse is what the US is now doing to promote nuclear proliferation while spinning a message about stopping nuclear proliferation. The parade of analysts noted how America may cause the nuclear club to increase from 10 to 30. Except for the one that personally advices George Jr's administration, they were all critical of how American is encouraging nuclear weapon proliferation.

What does the world see? The US will 'Pearl Harbor' any nation that does not have nuclear weapons. The message could not be clearer because of a policy unique only to the George Jr administration - preemption. No other administration for 70 years was stupid enough to promote preemption. A nuclear Iran would be another example of why preemption (promoted by 'big dic' thinking) is so destructive to world stability.

Meanwhile, knowing someone in government or military does not induce knowledge. Worse, when that claiim is made, then lack of knowledge is often replaced by a political agenda and personal bias.

You ignore my own direct connection which brings personal experience to the table. And as I asked before, what do you bring? Having personal connections to people who are on the ground or in the air in these conflicts may mean nothing to you, but I believe it beats the qualifications of someone who sits behind a computer with no real world practical experince in the issue.

This does not negate the effectiveness and superiority of the air power. It definately does not minimize the significant role played by ground support AC. I do believe the AC tanker support flies out of the US and the UK for support in both theaters of operation.

I have not seen the video so cannot comment.

Poppycock. The nuclear proliferation was propagated by Khan from Pakistan and most likely by the North Korean's. We have not been giving nuclear weapons to anyone. Both the Chinese and the Israeli's stole the technology from the US IMHO. Currently the failure of the Russian state to contain it's own resources is one of the greatest threats. The US had active programs to help the former satillite states of the USSR to dispose of thier n. weapons and those programs are well known.

Your opinion, which I do not share.

Which is exactly the position I believe you are in right at this very moment.

Experience without first learning underlying concepts and principles teaches nothing. Worse, conclusions from experience without those underlying concepts and principles results only in a political agenda - personal bias - little grasp of reality.

How many have seen a light bulb burn out when turned on? Conclusion is that turning on light bulbs causes the damage. Wrong. Completely and 100% wrong. An observation - that personal experience - without underlying science results in classic 'junk science' reasoning.

Since concepts such as tactical verse strategic are not grasped, then little was learned from that experience. Tactically the carrier is mostly a show of force - a support function that waves a big flag. Once one views what a carrier can do strategically and when one adds an underlying concept - the purpose of war, then it becomes obvious that the expensive weapon really has extremely limited abilities.

Junk science reasoning also concluded power on causes light bulb damage because of experience was confused with knowledge. "Common sense without both experience and those underlying concepts makes one his own worst enemy". Both are required to know something which is why so many with only personal experience still know so little.

The fact that you used others as proof of knowledge is a first symptom of one who never understood what is necessary to have knowledge. But then the ability to understand a bigger picture - to see the same thing strategically - only comes to some with age. After having so much experience and still not learning, they eventually discover why they were not learning from their experiences.

And again you are only posting a tactical perspective - only concluding from what you can see rather than learn why all this was happening.

Why has Russia stopped another program to minimize nuclear material proliferation? Did you know this and know why that program has been terminated? Why Russia terminated cooperation. To understand is not from simple observations about Khan. There is a far larger story here. Even America's deal with India is only promoting nuclear proliferation by those who cannot think beyond their nose.

'Big dic' thinking is typical of those who think tactically - cannot think strategically. That is why 'big dic' thinking always see solutions in preemption - even when history repeatedly demonstrates that is a politicy for long term empire destruction. Its not just opinion. It is fact that preemption is necessary even to create Armageddon.

Your comments so limited to Khan demonstrate thinking no farther than what is in front of your nose. Such thinkers are always enamored by 'big dic' solutions - preemption. The United States - mostly out of ignorance - an intellgence shortage made worse by political objectives - is promoting nuclear proliferation. To see it requires one to see more than current events.

Well of course you could also just be full of crap. Your pontifications in no way supports your contentions. You have failed once again to use the facts commonly available to anyone with a computer. An education in Military Science, a college minor, is in fact a form of formal education in the subject matter at hand. Since you have failed to provide any form of credibility to your own experience will take that as an answer to my previous inquiries that you have none. I am putting up my 20 years of active duty against your anonymous ramblings from behind a keyboard without the courtesy to share what you may bring, through your own practical experience, to this discussion. Using others as proof of knowledge is in fact how learning is passed down through the ages. For without the experiences of those who go before us we will make the same mistakes. All forms of education of about nearly any subject is gained through the sharing of personal experience from others so your premise that a "symptom of one who never understood what is necessary to have knowledge" fails in it's own right. :fumette:

And then the post continues with personal attacks rather than address is issue. But again, a symptom so common among those whose solutiosn are found in 'big dic' thinking. Attack rather than learn. Destroy what feels bad. Deal with what can be seen rather than what is really there.

Such accusations are common among those who are somehow experts only because a uncle flew jets off a carrier or a father was a doctor. Knowledge only works that way when knowledge was not obtained.

Your opinion is far from the reality on the ground. You make many assumptions in an attempt to explain that you have some form of superior understanding of the strategic objective you believe that our government should and is in the process of achieving. I believe you are deluded by your political slant that all actions by the current government are evil and based on nefarious intentions. Again, I believe you are deluded as evidenced your assessments.

“big dic” has become your obvious mantra for all things related to military action at any point in the continuum of strategic military objective. It is a straw man diversion of the subject at hand, nuclear proliferation as propagated by third world nations who have no other objective other than to see the destruction of Western Civilization as we know it. All military action, be it local or on a global sense is in fact nothing more than the projection of strategic political objectives based purely on policy as proposed by which ever government entities happens to hold power in the US at the time of implementation. To imply that Armageddon is somehow part of any equation of achieving political or military objectives is fantasy. Your inability to understand how big a role Khan played in the proliferation of nuclear technology to many third world nations, and more specifically to those that were and are empathetic to the pursuit of the Muslim caliphate is telling about your understanding of global politics in the 21 Century. People who hold similar views to your own are placing the future stability at risk. I do not believe that we are actively engaged in any process of proliferation. Quite the contrary.

I am no apologist for Bush or the current administration. I am neither a supporter of the Democratic or Republican Parties. The mess in Iraq is the fault of the Bush Administration.

Please be more specific and less cryptic in your statements concerning the other Russian “program to minimize nuclear material proliferation”. Cryptic descriptions detract from the discussion. I was specifically referring to the removal by the US of weapons grade material from Uzbekistan and other former Soviet satellite states.

Why don't you just answer the questions I have asked of you? What are your qualifications which provide you with such insight? You are obsessed with "big dicks". I have continually addressed the issues in every post. Please respond with something that lends credibility to your unique insight.

For those who have not read the history of Khan here are the links. They are really long articles.

How A. Q. Khan made Pakistan a nuclear power—and showed that the spread of atomic weapons can't be stopped
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200511/aq-khan


First Pakistan's A.Q. Khan showed that any country could have made a nuclear bomb. Then he showed—not once but three times—why the nuclear trade will never be shut down
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200601/aq-khan

Other souces on Khan's role in nuclear proliferation are readily avaliable on the web from a number of sources. I prefer The Atlantic because of thier history of award winning in depth reporting that has been recognized as having a balanced view of the issues reported.

A good summary of the current situation concerning the spread of nuclear technology

http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/re...liferation.pdf

Nothing better illustrates how,
so-called, peaceful nuclear technology can be used for military purposes than the activities of
the Khan network. Abdul Qaadeer Khan was able to build a global nuclear information
network and business which had access to supposedly secret uranium enrichment technology.
Using a mixture of legal and illegal transactions involving businesses all over the world,
ultracentrifuge enrichment technology was exported to Libya, North Korea and Iran. (5) Iran,
for example, despite being a signatory to the NPT, established a uranium enrichment
programme without informing the IAEA. So existing controls, legal arrangements and
guidelines failed to stop the export of sensitive nuclear technology.

To be fair the article does state:
Not every country with a nuclear weapons programme is a Party to the NPT. Israel, Pakistan
and India are all known to possess nuclear weapons, but none is Party to the Treaty. All three
have demonstrated the link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Yet, astonishingly,
US President George Bush has recently agreed to help India with its nuclear energy
programme, undermining the very principle upon which the treaty is supposed to be based –
that assistance with the development of nuclear energy is available only to those who say they
will eschew nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that condoning avoidance of the NPT
encourages the spread of nuclear weaponry. Japan, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa,
Argentina and many other technologically advanced nations have chosen to abide by the NPT
to gain access to foreign nuclear technology. If India can get help anyway, why bother
agreeing to do without nuclear weapons? Former US President, Jimmy Carter, called the deal
“just one more step in opening a Pandora's box of nuclear proliferation”. (9

Iranians release British sailors
---------------------------
Iranian media said the British crew 'shouted for joy' at the news
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says 15 British naval personnel captured in the Gulf are free to leave.

He repeated Iran's view that the British sailors and marines "invaded" Iranian waters, but said they were being released as a "gift" to Britain.

He said they would be taken to Tehran airport and flown home within hours.

Downing Street welcomed news of the release, while Iranian state media said the British crew members "shouted for joy" on hearing the news.

Television pictures showed the Iranian president smiling and chatting with the crew.

He joked to one: "How are you? So you came on a mandatory vacation?"

The Britons were wearing suits, rather than the military uniform and tracksuits they wore in previous pictures. The one female crew member, Faye Turney, wore a blue headscarf with dark pink shirt.

An unidentified crew member said: "I'd like to say that myself and my whole team are very grateful for your forgiveness. I'd like to thank yourself and the Iranian people... Thank you very much, sir."

Mr Ahmadinejad responded in Farsi: "You are welcome."

Mr Ahmadinejad announced the decision to release the Britons at a news conference marking Persian New Year.

He spoke at length, attacking the West over its policy in the Middle East, and it was more than an hour before he even mentioned the captives issue.

He repeated allegations that the Britons were captured in Iranian waters, and awarded medals to the Iranian commanders responsible for detaining them.

It was all part of the build up to his extraordinary theatrical gesture, says the BBC's diplomatic correspondent James Robbins.

"We have every right to put these people on trial," Mr Ahmadinejad asserted.

"But I want to give them as a present to the British people to say they are all free."

"I'm asking Mr Blair to not put these 15 personnel on trial because they admitted they came to Iranian territorial water," he added, referring to taped "confessions" made by the British sailors and marines.

Britain says the 15 were in Iraqi waters under a UN mandate when they were captured nearly two weeks ago. It says the confessions were extracted under duress.

"I ask Mr Blair: Instead of occupying the other countries, I ask Mr Blair to think about the justice, to think about the truth and work for the British people not for himself," Mr Ahmadinejad said.

"Unfortunately the British government was not even brave enough to tell their people the truth, that it made a mistake."

The Iranian leader said no concessions had been made by the British government to secure the releases, but that Britain had pledged "that the incident would not be repeated".

The solution to the crisis - freeing the Britons while rewarding the Iranian commanders of the operation - appears to be a face-saving compromise, says the BBC's Francis Harrison in Tehran.

She says speculation is likely to continue over whether it had anything to do with developments in Iraq, where an Iranian envoy has reportedly been given access to five Iranians captured by US forces, and where a kidnapped diplomat was released on Tuesday.

Earlier on Wednesday Syria revealed that it had been mediating between Iran and the UK over the sailors and marines.

A spokesman for Prime Minister Tony Blair said: "We welcome what the president has said about the release of our 15 personnel. We are now establishing exactly what this means in terms of the method and timing of their release."

The family of one of the captives, Royal Marine Adam Sperry, hailed the announcement as "the best present imaginable".

"Whoever has been in the right or wrong, the whole thing has been a political mess, so let's just get them home," said his uncle, Ray Cooper.

Thank goodness for that.
Just sabre rattling in the end.

Another article from the Daily Mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...=1766&ito=1490

Nice Government-bashing comments added by typical Hate Mail readers I see...

I noticed that. So we are not alone.

Not alone in having conservative tabloid press?
Oh no, although the Mail is the worst of them.

Tabloid press that passes itself off as mainstream. We have that in the US among many major players.

Nah, the Mail doesn't present as mainstream if you actually get to see the real paper & ink, trust me. It really is known as the Hate Mail.

I admit it's better disguised on the internet because it does carry quirky stories and mostly unbiased headline articles.

One thing this site has made me appreciate is the Guardian (aka the Grauniad - thank you Private Eye). I didn't realise having a national liberal broadsheet was a luxury.

Glad this is over.

The British were mainly at fault but the Iranians made a bigger deal out of it then it should have been.