Options limited in Iran stand-off

TheMercenary · 03-28-2007, 10:11 AM

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

TheMercenary · 03-28-2007, 10:15 AM

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

DanaC · 03-28-2007, 10:16 AM

Quote:

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.

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

TheMercenary · 03-28-2007, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC

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?

Sundae · 03-28-2007, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

TheMercenary · 03-28-2007, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

Wow, nice touch of misogyny there.

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

Aliantha · 03-29-2007, 01:12 AM

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

TheMercenary · 03-29-2007, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha

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

That or maybe you are an idiot.

Now how about that reach around.

Flint · 03-29-2007, 08:30 AM

Charming.

elSicomoro · 03-29-2007, 08:34 AM

Now seems like a perfectly good time for nuclear armageddon.

TheMercenary · 03-29-2007, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sycamore

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.

elSicomoro · 03-29-2007, 08:41 AM

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

tw · 03-29-2007, 11:09 PM

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.

glatt · 03-30-2007, 07:50 AM

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?

glatt · 03-30-2007, 07:57 AM

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?"

03-28-2007, 10:11 AM	#1
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	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 __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

03-28-2007, 10:15 AM	#2
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	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 __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

03-29-2007, 01:12 AM	#7
Aliantha trying hard to be a better person Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 16,493	Maybe he doesn't know the meaning of misogyny SG? __________________ Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber

03-29-2007, 08:30 AM	#9
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	Charming. __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio**

03-29-2007, 08:34 AM	#10
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	Now seems like a perfectly good time for nuclear armageddon.

03-29-2007, 08:41 AM	#12
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	That's getting a lot of press with the 25th anniversary of the war coming up.

03-29-2007, 11:09 PM	#13
tw Read? I only know how to write. Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 11,933	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.

03-30-2007, 07:50 AM	#14
glatt ™ Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 27,717	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?

03-30-2007, 07:57 AM	#15
glatt ™ Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 27,717	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?"

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)