US watching fate of British sailors detained by Iran

=


<B><center>23/03/2007 @ 14:03

<font size=+1 color=brown>US watching fate of British sailors detained by Iran</font>

http://orange.advfn.com/news_US-watching-fate-of-British-sailors-detained-by-Iran_19938440.html </center>
WASHINGTON (AFX) - The White House said today that some 15 British sailors

held by Iran had been involved in "routine" inspections in Iraqi waters and that
Washington was closely watching the situation.</b>

"They were engaged in routine boarding operations of merchant shipping in
Iraqi territorial waters," said spokesman Tony Snow. "We're keeping watch on the
situation."
Snow said the sailors "were moved into Iranian waters" and, when asked how
the United States was responding, stressed "at this point, what we're doing is
staying in touch with the Brits."

Britain's Ministry of Defense said that the sailors were seized by Iranian
naval vessels in the Gulf on Friday. It demanded their immediate release and
sought urgent clarification from Tehran.

And Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett summoned the Iranian ambassador over

the incident, which comes amid mounting tension between the Islamic republic and
the West over Tehran's nuclear plans.

"The British government is demanding the immediate and safe return of our
people and equipment," the ministry said, underlining that the sailors had been
engaged in "routine" anti-smuggling operations in Iraqi waters.

The abduction of the British servicemen came as the United Nations Security
Council prepared to vote on new sanctions aimed at forcing Tehran to curb its
nuclear program.
newsdesk@afxnews.com
afp/tw
 
=
<i>It would appear, at least to me it does. That Sen. McCain is either spineless, or clueless - Or both! ~ Dutch</i>


<B><font size=+1 color=red><center>McCain says there's little US can do about Iran seizing Brits</font>

http://www.kold.com/Global/story.asp?S=6269929 </center>
CHICAGO Republican presidential hopeful John McCain says there isn't much America can do about Iran's decision to take British military personnel into custody this morning.

But he says there is something the British can do.</b>

During a radio interview (with WLS) in Chicago today, McCain said Britain should threaten "very decisive action" for what he calls a gross violation of international law by the Iranians. And he says the United States can only provide moral support.

Officials in Britain say Iranian naval vessels seized 15 British sailors who had boarded a ship suspected of smuggling cars in the Persian Gulf off the Iraqi coast.

McCain says this incident eerily reminds him of the Iran hostage crisis -- when American citizens were taken hostage at the U-S Embassy in Iran. That lasted a year-and-a-half.
 
=




<B><font size=+0 color=green><center>IRAN: TEHRAN QUIET ABOUT DETENTION 0F 15 BRITISH NAVY PERSONNEL</font>

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Politics&loid=8.0.398340217&par=0 </center>
Tehran, 23 March (AKI) - Iran's news agencies on Friday reported the detention by Iranian forces of 15 British Navy personnel in Iraqi seas but only quoting British forces without mentioning Iranian officials either confirming or denying the news report. Iranian navy ships are since Thursday engaged in a military drill in the Persian Gulf which navy commander Sajjad Kucheki told reporters is aimed at testing the country's missiles.</b>

The British defence ministry on Friday said fifteen British Navy sailors and marines were apprehended at gunpoint by Iranian forces after they boarded a merchant ship in the Persian Gulf off the Iraqi coast which they suspected was involved in smuggling. The ministry said the British sailors and marines were carrying out routine patrols with UN permission in Iraqi territorial waters.

The British defence ministry said that the navy personnel had completed a successful inspection of the merchant ship when they and their two boats were surrounded and escorted by Iranian vessels into Iranian territorial waters

The Foreign Office summoned Iran's ambassador to demand the immediate release of the personnel.

A similar incident occurred in 2004 when the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the Pasdaran, detained eight British servicemen for three days claiming they had entered Iran's territorial waters - a claim denied by Britain.
 

PeekyBooBoo

Inactive
I understand that the Persian Gulf is huge.. but why would the Brits allow so few men to go off on their own into dangerous waters without support craft nearby?

I guess I dont get how 6 Iranian Revolutionary guard ships were allowed the time to surround these men without anyone from the coalition responding?

Are there no radios on these boats?
 
=




<b><center>March 23, 2007

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1558441.ece </center>
<font size=+1 color=blue>Comment: Diplomatic row comes amid tensions over Iran sanctions</font>

Seizure of 15 British sailors and marines by Iranian forces threatens major fall-out on eve of expected vote by UN Security Council on imposing fresh sanctions on Iran, says Richard BeestonRichard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor

The capture of 15 British troops by Iranian forces in the northern Gulf was an international incident waiting to happen. </b>

For weeks now tension has been building between Tehran and its critics in the West, both on the ground along the Iran-Iraq border area and over Iran’s controversial nuclear programme.

There is strong evidence that the capture of the Royal Marines and sailors from HMS Cornwall, on patrol in the northern Gulf, was a deliberate move by the Iranians to take pre-emptive action against its detractors.

All week diplomats have been finalising the text of a UN Security Council resolution that would impose a new set of sanctions against Iran to follow measures adopted in December.

They include: a ban on all arms exports; a freeze of assets abroad belonging to 28 people and institutions, including members of the Revolutionary Guards; and a curb on financial loans to the Iranian government.

Sir Emyr Jones-Parry, the British envoy to the UN, said he hoped the Council would pass the new resolution on Saturday.

At the same time, the US Navy has been building up its strength in the Gulf, with the arrival of a second aircraft carrier battle group. The muscle-flexing has been accompanied by warnings from Washington that the Bush Administration is still prepared to use force to stop Iran building an atomic weapon.

At the heart of the dispute is Iran’s programme of uranium enrichment, which the international community has demanded that it halts, suspecting that it could be a cover for building fissile material needed for an atomic warhead.

The Iranians have insisted that they plan to push ahead with their nuclear efforts regardless.

On Wednesday the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, gave warning that he would not hesitate to hit back if attacked. He described any UN moves as “illegal actions” and said Iran “can also carry out illegal actions and we will do that”.

His threat came as no surprise to British commanders serving in southern Iraq. They told The Times earlier this year that Iran was arming, financing and training Shia militias responsible for attacking British forces. They noted that attacks tended to peak at the same moment that diplomatic action was taken against Iran.

“We haven’t found any ‘smoking gun’ but certainly all the circumstantial evidence points to Iranian involvement in the bombings here in Basra, which is disrupting the city to a great extent,” Lieutenant-Colonel Justin Maciejewski, the commander of British forces in Basra city, told the BBC yesterday.

British officials will be hoping that the incident involving the capture of the marines and sailors can be settled peacefully. In 2004 a similar incident occurred and all British forces were freed, although their vessels remain in Iranian hands.

This time the stakes are higher and diplomatic relations far more strained.

Rasoul Movahedian Attar, the Iranian ambassador to London, is being summoned to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office later today for a dressing down by a senior official and similar protests will be made in Tehran.

The fear must be that the fate of the British servicemen will now be connected to what happens at the UN with regards to the resolution against Iran.

The incident risks turning an already tense situation explosive.
 

Steve308

Contributing Member
Considering England is one of the few allies we have, I think there is a whole lot that the US can do to help the Brits. I'm thinking we start with selected air strikes against Iranian Revolutionary Guard naval facilities and ships! Or do we wait another 444 days for Iran to release these hostages...
 

LONEWOLF

Inactive
The Brits were "baiting" Iran. Iran took the bait and ran off with it, all in time for Albeajihad to include this in his UN rant this weekend. Predictable outcomes will occur......
 
=




<B><font size=+1 color=purple><center>US 5th Fleet confirms Iran's seizure of 15 British sailors in Iraqi territorial waters</font>

The Associated PressPublished: March 23, 2007
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/23/africa/ME-GEN-Gulf-Britain-Iran.php </center>
MANAMA, Bahrain: The Iranian navy seized 15 British sailors as they finished searching a merchant ship in Iraqi territorial waters on Friday, the U.S. 5th Fleet confirmed.</b>

The Royal Navy sailors were assigned to a naval task force whose mission is to protect the Iraqi oil terminals and maintain security in Iraqi waters under the U.N. mandate of the Security Council resolutions on Iraq, the fleet said in a statement issued by its headquarters in Bahrain.

"The 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," the statement said.

The Iranians seized the Britons at 10:30 a.m. Iraqi time (0730 GMT), the statement added.

Britain's Ministry of Defense has already reported the seizure, saying that its government was pursuing the matter with Iran "at the highest level."

"The Iranian ambassador has been summoned to the Foreign Office," the Defense Ministry said in London.

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

Tom Bryceland

Senior Member
the area they they were patrolling is more of a wide river than a sea, thats why they were using such small boats.

the Iraqis and Iranians could probably wave to each other from either side of the waterway
 
The Brits were "baiting" Iran. Iran took the bait and ran off with it, all in time for Albeajihad to include this in his UN rant this weekend. Predictable outcomes will occur......

<center>:hmm:

Could you please include "supporting informations" and links to this "Baiting" premise you put forward - I, for one, would like to know....</center>
 

SouthernGal

"Don't retreat...reload"
Very interesting timing with Ahmedinijihad (whatever the spelling is) coming to the UN.

I think Iran will release the Brits unharmed. I think they've done this just to show they can.

And, what are England and America gonna do about it? All we're doing is fuming and sputtering. That's all we CAN do. And, Iran knows it.
 

Bubba Zanetti

Inactive
I believe that, according to the Law of the Sea, a nation can board ships within their territory and, if laws were violated, take the crew and equiptment.

I doubt this is what the facts are, but who knows. They are likely insurance so the Iran pres can visit the US without fear of being taken capture himself.
 
=




<B><font size=+1 color=red><center>US monitoring Iran seizure of British Navy personnel</font>
(Reuters)

23 March 2007
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/Display...h/theworld_March644.xml&section=theworld&col= </center>
WASHINGTON - The White House said on Friday it was closely monitoring Iran’s seizure of 15 British Royal Navy personnel who had searched a merchant ship in Iraqi waters.</b>

Britain’s Foreign Office summoned Iran’s ambassador and demanded the immediate, safe release of the personnel. The incident triggered a diplomatic crisis amid already heightened tensions over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

“We are keeping watch on the situation,” White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters when asked about the seizure.

Asked whether the United States was calling for the British personnel to be returned, he maintained a cautious stance. “At this point, what we’re doing is we’re staying in touch with the Brits,” he said.

The incident took place a day after Iran launched a week of naval war games along its coast, including the narrow northern reaches of the Gulf which control access to the vast oil reserves of Iraq, Iran and Kuwait.

Oil prices were up more than 60 cents over concern that the incident could escalate and perhaps disrupt shipping from the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway for exports from Saudi Arabia.
 

Moon

Veteran Member
I understand that the Persian Gulf is huge.. but why would the Brits allow so few men to go off on their own into dangerous waters without support craft nearby?

I guess I dont get how 6 Iranian Revolutionary guard ships were allowed the time to surround these men without anyone from the coalition responding?

Are there no radios on these boats?

Must be remembered that this is not the first time this has happened to us Brits....two years ago they took eight Royal Marines......

This was well planned by the Iranians....it also appears from a report on Sky that US ships where in the area and US forces were prepared to kick off over this.......however they showed restraint on this occasion as did the Royal Marines.......
 
=
note: <i>As I follow the developing sitution of the Seized British Military personal; my memory is "traveling back in time"

Does anyone remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident? ~ Dutch</i>




<B><font size=+1 color=green><center>US watching fate of British sailors detained by Iran </font>

45 minutes ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070323/pl_afp/iranbritainiraq </center>
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The White House said Friday that some 15 British sailors held by Iran had been involved in "routine" inspections in Iraqi waters and that Washington was closely watching the situation. </b>

"They were engaged in routine boarding operations of merchant shipping in Iraqi territorial waters," said spokesman Tony Snow. "We're keeping watch on the situation."

Snow said the sailors "were moved into Iranian waters" and, when asked how the United States was responding, stressed "at this point, what we're doing is staying in touch with the Brits."

Britain's Ministry of Defense said that the sailors were seized by Iranian naval vessels in the Gulf on Friday. It demanded their immediate release and sought urgent clarification from Tehran.

And Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett summoned the Iranian ambassador over the incident, which comes amid mounting tension between the Islamic republic and the West over Tehran's nuclear plans.

"The British government is demanding the immediate and safe return of our people and equipment," the ministry said, underlining that the sailors had been engaged in "routine" anti-smuggling operations in Iraqi waters.

The abduction of the British servicemen came as the United Nations Security Council prepared to vote on new sanctions aimed at forcing Tehran to curb its nuclear program.
 

Hfcomms

EN66iq
The Brits were "baiting" Iran. Iran took the bait and ran off with it, all in time for Albeajihad to include this in his UN rant this weekend. Predictable outcomes will occur......

I tend to agree with that assessment. The persian gulf area is one of the highest monitored areas in the world. We have surface, satellite and airborne platforms focused like a laser on the area. With the Aegis equipped warships we know the precise location of every ship and aircraft in the area.

How could we not detect one or more Iranian warships moving into the area towards a British naval patrol conducting boarding operations and not do anything about it?? Either it was allowed to happen or their was a gross breakdown of the system. My personal belief is we are actively seeking a pretext that will engender public support for taking on Iran. All Americans that are over 30 or 35 years old have some recollection of the Iranian hostage crisis. We have not really forgiven the Iranians for that and it certainly still resonates in the psyche of Americans of that age range or older. There's more to this incident than meets the eye IMO.
 

JUDGECAL

Deceased
Oil Rises Above $62 After Iran Seizes British Naval Personnel
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a6pcAvMZW2fw&refer=home

March 23 (Bloomberg) -- Crude oil in New York jumped above $62 a barrel after Iran seized 15 British naval personnel, heightening the prospect of conflict involving OPEC's second- biggest producer.

The U.K. demanded the immediate release of the marines after the incident that occurred in the Persian Gulf at about 10:30 a.m. Iraq time today. Signs that the United Nations Security Council will impose new sanctions on Iran to suspend its nuclear program also bolstered prices. A draft that would freeze the assets of a bank and bar some exports was presented yesterday.

``Any time tension rises in the Persian Gulf you have to be concerned,'' said Tom Bentz, an oil broker with BNP Paribas Inc. in New York. ``Worries that Iran would take oil off the market because of the nuclear dispute have been pushing prices higher for a while now. We are in a world that can't afford to have any supply taken off the market.''

(more after jump)
 
=




<B><font size=+2 color=purple><center>Britain Demands Iran Free Seized Sailors</b></font>

1 hr ago Britain Demands Iran Free Seized Sailors
2 hrs 4 ago Britain Protests Iran Seizure of Sailors
3 hrs ago Britain: Iran Seizes 15 Sailors, Marines
6 hrs ago Britain: Iran Holds 15 Sailors, Marines
6 hrs ago Britain Says 15 Sailors Detained by Iran

<b>Mar 23, 2007 3:51 PM (1 hr ago)
By JIM KRANE, AP

http://www.examiner.com/a-635630~Britain_Demands_Iran_Free_Seized_Sailors.html </center>
Commodore Nick Lambert, commander of the Royal Navy frigate HMS Cornwall, speaks aboard his ship Friday March 23, 2007in this image made from television. Iranian naval vessels seized 15 British sailors from HMS Cornwall, who had boarded a merchant ship in Iraqi waters of the Persian Gulf as part of efforts to protect the Iraqi coastline and its oil terminals, U.S. and British officials Friday March 23, 2007. The British government summoned the Iranian ambassador in London and demanded "the immediate and safe return of our people and equipment." <u>The U.S. Navy, which operates off the Iraqi coast along with British forces, said Iran's Revolutionary Guard naval forces were responsible. DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (Map, News) - Naval forces of Iran's hardline Revolutionary Guards captured 15 British sailors and marines at gunpoint Friday in the Persian Gulf - a provocative move coming during heightened tensions between the West and Iran</u>.</b>


U.S. and British officials said a boarding party from the frigate HMS Cornwall was seized about 10:30 a.m. during a routine inspection of a merchant ship inside Iraqi territorial waters near the disputed Shatt al-Arab waterway.

Iran's Foreign Ministry insisted the Britons were operating in Iranian waters and would be held "for further investigation," Iranian state television said.

A U.S. Navy official in Bahrain, Cmdr. Kevin Aandahl, said Iran's Revolutionary Guard naval forces were responsible and had broadcast a brief radio message saying the British party was not harmed.

In London, the British government summoned the Iranian ambassador to the Foreign Office, and Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said he "was left in no doubt that we want them back."

Iranian TV quoted an Iranian Foreign Ministry official as saying the top British diplomat in Tehran had been called in to receive Tehran's protest of the "illegal entry" into Iranian waters.

"This is not the first time that British military personnel during the occupation of Iraq have entered illegally into Iran's territorial waters," the unidentified official was quoted as saying.

Britain's Defense Ministry said the Royal Navy personnel were "engaged in routine boarding operations of merchant shipping in Iraqi territorial waters" and had completed a ship inspection when they were accosted by Iranian vessels.

The eight Royal Navy sailors and seven Royal Marines were part of a task force that protects Iraqi oil terminals and maintains security in Iraqi waters under authority of the U.N. Security Council.

The Cornwall's commander, Commodore Nick Lambert, said the frigate lost communication with the boarding party, but a helicopter crew saw Iranian naval vessels approach.

"I've got 15 sailors and marines who have been arrested by the Iranians and my immediate concern is their safety," he told British Broadcasting Corp. television.

Lambert said he hoped it was a "simple mistake" stemming from the long dispute between Iraq and Iran over demarcating their territorial waters just off the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab, a waterway that divides the two countries.

White House press secretary Tony Snow said the Bush administration was monitoring events. "The British government is demanding the immediate safe return of the people and equipment and we are keeping watch on the situation," Snow said.

The incident occurred as the U.N. Security Council debates expanding sanctions against Iran seeking to force Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment. The U.S. and other nations suspect Iran is trying to produce nuclear weapons. Iran denies that and insists it won't halt the program.

Iran's leaders also have denied allegations by the U.S., Britain and others that Iranians are arming Shiite Muslim militias in Iraq.

Hours before the seizure of the Royal Navy team, British Lt. Col. Justin Maciejewski told BBC Radio 4's "Today" program from the Iraqi city of Basra that Iranians provided weapons and money to militants who are attacking British troops in southern Iraq.

The U.S. military has leveled similar charges, saying Iranians send arms to Iraqi extremists, including sophisticated roadside bombs.

This week, two commanders of an Iraqi Shiite militia told The Associated Press in Baghdad that hundreds of Iraqi Shiites had crossed into Iran for training by the elite Quds force, a branch of Iran's Revolutionary Guard thought to have trained Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon.

With tensions running high, the United States has bolstered its naval forces in the Persian Gulf in a show of strength directed at Iran. A strike group led by the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis recently joined a similar force led by the carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower.

U.S. officials have expressed concern that with so much military hardware in the Gulf, a small incident like Friday's could escalate into a dangerous confrontation.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, warned this week that if Western countries "treat us with threats and enforcement of coercion and violence, undoubtedly they must know that the Iranian nation and authorities will use all their capacities to strike enemies that attack."

The seizure of two Royal Navy inflatable boats took place just outside the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, a 125-mile channel dividing Iraq from Iran. Its name means Arab Coastline in Arabic, and Iranians call it Arvand Drud - Farsi for Arvand River.

A 1975 treaty recognized the middle of the waterway as the border. Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein canceled the treaty five years later and invaded Iran, triggering an eight-year war.

"It's been in dispute for some time," said Aandahl, the U.S. Navy official in Bahrain. "We've been operating there for a couple of years and we know the lines very well. This was a compliant boarding, this happens routinely. What's out of the ordinary is the Iranian response."

In June 2004, six British marines and two sailors were seized by Iran in the Shatt al-Arab. They were presented blindfolded on Iranian television and admitted entering Iranian waters illegally, then released unharmed after three days.

Vali Nasr, a senior fellow for Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, suggested Friday's detention could be connected to the arrest of five Iranians in a U.S.-led raid in northern Iraq in January. The U.S. said the five included a Revolutionary Guard general.

"I think Iran sees this as retaliation for the arrest of their own personnel. They have repeatedly said that they want their personnel released," Nasr said. "So they are either signaling that they can do the same thing or they are trying to bring attention to it."
 

TIK

Inactive
Am I the only one not "getting it"??? Something isn't right about this. Something is just not right. This is a MAJOR MAJOR incident. The British should be FROTHING at the mouth and sailing the Invincible to the coast of Iran RIGHT NOW. No questions. If....uh oh...there's that word...IF this is really what it purports to be--getting UK MARINES out of IRAQI WATERS. But this isn't what's going on.

I think something is up...and I don't like it. I'm seeing problem--and LACK of proper REACTION. And McCain. What do you mean by what you said? There's NOT MUCH WE CAN DO!?!?!?!

HELLO!?!?!?! Outside of nuking London, I don't think the UK will EVER NOT help us. For the love of GOD...are we being led by a bunch of idiots????

I say again...my bullshit flag is going up on this news story. Something is not sitting right with me.
 

Hfcomms

EN66iq
Commodore Nick Lambert, commander of the Royal Navy frigate HMS Cornwall, speaks aboard his ship Friday March 23, 2007in this image made from television. Iranian naval vessels seized 15 British sailors from HMS Cornwall, who had boarded a merchant ship in Iraqi waters of the Persian Gulf as part of efforts to protect the Iraqi coastline and its oil terminals, U.S. and British officials Friday March 23, 2007.

Brings me back to my same question. Even if the frigate lost comm's with the boarding party why were the Iranian vessels allowed to intercept the boarding party?? The boarding party would of been on rubber boats or zodiac's launched from the Cornwall. These are very short range craft. The frigate should of been within at least a mile or so of the craft that was being inspected. That's SOP. I find it almost inconcievable that the Iranians were able to move any naval assets into place whatsoever without the coalition knowing about it. You would of thought the boarding party would of been under direct observation of the Cornwall and the helicopter would of been launced for the boarding as well to provide support. The helicopter was probably armed with at least light machine guns. Someone either fell flat on their asses or this was allowed to happen to provide a flashpoint.
 
Last edited:
Brings me back to my same question. Even if the frigate lost comm's with the boarding party why were the Iranian vessels allowed to intercept the boarding party?? The boarding party would of been or rubber boats or zodiac's launched from the Cornwall. These are very short range craft. The frigate should of been within at least a mile or so of the craft that was being inspected. That's SOP. I find it almost inconcievable that the Iranians were able to move any naval assets into place whatsoever without the coalition knowing about it. You would of thought the boarding party would of been under direct observation of the Cornwall and the helicopter would of been launced for the boarding as well to provide support. The helicopter was probably armed with at least light machine guns. Someone either fell flat on their asses or this was allowed to happen to provide a flashpoint.

Likely, the Captain was under orders - Not to start WW III! Which would have been what would happen - if any of the Iranian Craft had those RUSS ship to ship missles on board.

Quickly, the Iranian were too close to the Brit military personal for the British war ship to be able to respond as well (they'd of killed british as well as the iranians....)
 

Sid Vicious

Veteran Member
That ship made us cookies. :( Actually it was a British ship and Iran got one of their RHIB boats.

During a boarding the ship sits there and sends over a team on a RHIB, to board and search. Reason they probly didnt retailiate was 1 brit frigate against 6 different ships can make a bad day for both sides.
 

MaureenO

Another Infidel
Am I the only one not "getting it"??? Something isn't right about this. Something is just not right. This is a MAJOR MAJOR incident. The British should be FROTHING at the mouth and sailing the Invincible to the coast of Iran RIGHT NOW. No questions. If....uh oh...there's that word...IF this is really what it purports to be--getting UK MARINES out of IRAQI WATERS. But this isn't what's going on.

I think something is up...and I don't like it. I'm seeing problem--and LACK of proper REACTION. And McCain. What do you mean by what you said? There's NOT MUCH WE CAN DO!?!?!?!

HELLO!?!?!?! Outside of nuking London, I don't think the UK will EVER NOT help us. For the love of GOD...are we being led by a bunch of idiots????

I say again...my bullshit flag is going up on this news story. Something is not sitting right with me.


TIK, don't forget, we are only getting the information from the media, and that information is selective.

Because we haven't been told about it, does not mean that substantial action is not being taken--at all levels.

I agree, this is a MAJOR incident.

Mo :dstrs:
 

MaureenO

Another Infidel
This earlier from Debka:

Iranian warship seizes 15 British seamen inspecting merchant ship for terrorists and arms in divided Shatt al Arab waterway

March 23, 2007, 6:09 PM (GMT+02:00)
Charles de Gaulle nuclear carrier in Arabian Sea


Charles de Gaulle nuclear carrier in Arabian Sea


The Ministry of Defense claims Iranian vessels seized the British seamen on the Iraqi side of the waterway while they were searching merchant vessels for smuggled arms and terrorists in the Siban area near the al-Faw peninsula. An Iranian naval vessel then pulled alongside and detained them. No comment from Tehran.

The Shatt al-Arb which flows into the Persian Gulf is divided between Iran and Iraq. DEBKAfile reported exclusively Thursday that the French nuclear carrier Charles de Gaulle and its task force had rendezvoused with the USS John C. Stennis in the Arabian Sea Wednesday for joint missions in the global war on terror.

The next day, Iran launched a new naval war game in the Persian Gulf. Just before the British sailors were seized, UK commanders in Basra accused Iran of being behind 90% of the violence in S. Iraq and paying out $250 to anyone willing to attack British troops.

Amid rising tensions in the strategic Gulf waters, DEBKAfile’s military sources disclose the American-French rendezvous was timed to coincide with the UN Security Council session Wednesday to debate expanded sanctions against Iran for continuing its banned uranium enrichment program.

The Iranians were bowled over by the appearance of the Charles de Gaulle opposite their southern coast, having assumed that Paris took issue with Washington’s tough stand on their nuclear activities and was seeking improved relations with Tehran.

However, Western military circles explain that the French president Jacques Chirac decided before he leaves office in May to repair the bad impression he left in early February when he urged the world - and Israel in particular - to learn to live with “an Iranian nuclear bomb or two.”

Rafale fighter-bombers on the French carrier’s decks will fly missions over Afghanistan alongside US warplanes.

Its arrival raises to four the number of Western aircraft carriers cruising within striking distance of Iran, including the USS Eisenhower and USS Boxer.

The Charles de Gaulle is accompanied by French Task Force 473, which consists of five warships: the FNS Cassard guided missile destroyer, the FNS Tourville anti-submarine frigate, the FNS Dupleix destroyer adapted for escorting oil tankers and the FNS Marne, a command and supply vessel. Captain of the French task force is Rear Adm. Xavier Magne. Commander of the American flotilla is Rear Adm. Kevin Quinn.

http://www.debka.com/
 

Chumbucket

Inactive
That waterway is less than 2 miles across. Iran could deploy boats from shore in less than 90 seconds to target, or so it seems.
 

night driver

ESFP adrift in INTJ sea
UNLIKE us whiney, LOUD Americans, when the Brits dispatch SAS or Boats they do NOT froth at the mouth, announce dire peril etc.

THEY let their Quiet Professionals go HANDLE it.....
 
=




<B><font size=+1 color=red><center>Sailing in stormy waters</font>

Leader
Saturday March 24, 2007
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,2041795,00.html </center>
The seizure of 15 British marines and sailors by Iranian forces just outside the disputed waters of Shatt al-Arab yesterday could be, as their commodore said, a simple mistake. Or it could be something more sinister. But whether by accident or by design, the incident adds yet another potent ingredient to the explosive mixture of factors that make our dealings with Iran so dangerous. On the eve of a UN security council vote to tighten the sanctions regime over Iran's refusal to stop enriching uranium, there is now what looks like a hostage crisis.</b>

The last time six marines and two sailors were seized by the Iranians in that narrow waterway, in June 2004, the mood music was more benign. Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, had been shuttling back and forth to Tehran. A deal hammered out by the troika of EU countries - Britain, France and Germany - to freeze enrichment in return for European technology and trade was about to fall apart. But there still lingered the hope that the policy of constructive engagement could work. The captured British servicemen were paraded blindfold and made to apologise on Iranian television, but they were soon released.

This time round there are two US carrier groups in the Gulf. The security council is to vote today on a resolution that would expand the sanctions on Iran by freezing the assets of individuals and organisations involved in the nuclear programme, and imposing a ban on selling arms and giving loans to the Iranian government. The US has accused elements of the Iranian government of supplying Iraqi insurgents with explosives, and still holds in custody Iranians (whom Tehran claimed were diplomats) seized in Irbil in the Kurdish area of northern Iraq. Add to this list the disappearance, or defection, in Istanbul of Ali Reza Asgari, the deputy defence minister and former commander of the Revolutionary Guard's Quds force in Lebanon, and the dimensions of the Iranian dispute grow.

None of which has anything to do with the activities of Royal Marines and Royal Navy personnel yesterday. If their patrol was operating in disputed waters, there was no dispute that British, Australian and US forces operate under a UN mandate to provide maritime security in that region. They had just searched a merchant ship suspected of smuggling when their boats were surrounded by a number of Iranian vessels, and they were escorted into the Iranian side of the narrow waterway. Of all the western military activity taking place on either side of Iran, in Iraq and Afghanistan, these anti-smuggling patrols are relatively uncontentious, but they represent an opportunity for Iran to grasp. In today's febrile atmosphere the source of a dispute matters less than the leverage that Tehran thinks it can extract from it.

The US is not planning to become involved and the release of the servicemen will remain a matter between Britain and Iran. But yesterday US analysts were not discounting a link between increased diplomatic pressure on Iran and incidents of this nature. Iran is caught between wanting to avoid economic and political isolation and the feeling that if they acquiesce, they will invite more pressure. Seizing sailors could be exactly the sort of symbolic act that appeases the need of hardliners in Iran's power structure for action. In a speech to mark the Persian New Year, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei hinted that Iran may consider "illegal actions" if the forthcoming UN resolution was passed. This could be a reference to pulling out of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and if that were to happen it would serve the same purpose of being seen to be hitting back.

But if Washington is today congratulating itself about the efficacy of waving the big stick at Iran, no one should forget the carrot. The longer confrontation continues, the more crucial it is to leave Tehran a get-out clause, and to keep open the option of a bargain which includes an economic dividend for stopping enrichment.
 
=




<B><font size=+1 color=brown><center>Diplomatic crisis over UK marines held by Iran</font>

By Stephen Fidler and Roula Khalaf in London, Guy Dinmore in Washington and Najmeh Bozorgmehr in Tehran
March 24 2007 00:53
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c6ecb6fe-d9...uid=be75219e-940a-11da-82ea-0000779e2340.html </center>
Britain on Friday demanded that Iran immediately release 15 British sailors and marines who were seized while searching a merchant ship in the approaches to the Shatt al-Arab waterway that divides Iraq and Iran. </b>

The incident, which drove oil prices to three-month highs, was believed to be the most serious event involving allied forces in Iraq and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards since 2004, when eight British servicemen were captured by Iranian forces and released three days later. No shots were fired and no one was hurt during Friday’s incident.

“We sought a full explanation of what happened and left the Iranian authorities in no doubt that we expect immediate and safe return of our service personnel and boats,” said Margaret Beckett, UK foreign secretary, after Rasoul Movahedian, Iran’s ambassador to London, was summoned to the foreign office. US officials also called for the swift release of the sailors.

The sailors were seized as the United Nations’ Security Council was preparing to vote on a resolution to tighten sanctions against Iran over its suspected nuclear weapons programme.

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad had declared his intention to attend the Security Council session, expected to take place on Saturday. But on Friday night Iranian officials said he was unable to get there in time because US authorities had been late in issuing visas to his air crew. Manouchehr Mottaki, the foreign minister, would try to go instead.

US officials blamed the Iranians for the delay, saying they had filed incomplete applications. “Any suggestion that visa issues are the cause of President Ahmadi-Nejad’s decision not to travel to New York is false,” the US state department said. “Rather, it would appear that he is unwilling to stand before the council and take the heat for his continued defiance of the international community.”

Diplomats were concerned that Iran had seized the British patrol in retaliation for the detention of five Iranian officials by US forces in northern Iraq in January.

“The seizure of the British personnel could be a local incident, it could be opportunistic, or it could be malign,” said one western diplomat. “The Iranians have been...flexing their muscle.”

In Tehran, Iranian state television said Britain’s chargé d’affaires had been summoned to the foreign ministry over what it called the “blatant aggression” of British forces’ “illegal” entry into Iranian waters, which had happened “a couple of times” before.

The UK defence ministry insisted the sailors were on a routine patrol inside Iraqi waters.
 
=




<B><center>March 24, 2007

<font size=+1 color=green>Hostage fears over troops seized by Iran</font>

Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor, and James Bone in New York
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1560788.ece </center>
Britain’s crisis with Iran deepened last night after Tehran justified seizing 15 British servicemen by claiming that they had strayed into Iranian territorial waters “illegally”.

The announcement appeared to rule out any hope that the incident was a simple mistake that could be quickly rectified. </b>

Instead, there were growing fears that the 15 British sailors and Royal Marines were victims of a deliberate ambush on the disputed Shatt al-Arab waterway by Iranian Revolutionary Guards, perhaps seeking to use the captives as hostages in the increasingly tense stand-off between the West and Iran over its nuclear programme.

As tensions rose on the Iraqi border, the US House of Representatives set a deadline of August 31 next year for the withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq. In Baghdad, Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister, Salam al-Zubaie, was seriously injured in a suicide attack within his fortified compound.

Expert View

The fear must be that the fate of the British servicemen will now be connected to what happens at the UN with regards to the resolution against Iran

Iran blamed Britain for the border incident. “British chargé d’affaires Kate Smith was summoned to the Foreign Ministry to receive a firm protest from Iran against the illegal entry of British sailors into Iranian territorial waters,” said a statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Tehran.

“This makes a number of times that British sailors have illegally entered Iranian territorial waters at Arvand Roud. They were arrested by border guards for investigation and questioning,” the statement added.

The defiant Iranian message appeared to dismiss earlier appeals by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Iranian Ambassador in London for the British servicemen to be returned immediately with their equipment.

The incident occurred mid-morning when a boarding party left HMS Cornwall, the flagship of the multinational task force in the northern Gulf, in two small craft to inspect an Iranian merchant ship.

When the inspection was completed the British were surrounded by six larger vessels from a Revolutionary Guards naval unit.

The Iranian ships are normally armed with heavy mounted machineguns while the British had only side arms to protect themselves. The British personnel were then escorted at gunpoint into Iranian territorial waters, where they have now disappeared.

Commodore Nick Lambert, the commander of HMS Cornwall, said that a helicopter monitored the boats being moved up the Shatt al-Arab waterway, which demarcates the Iran-Iraq border, towards an Iranian base.

There were hopes that the situation could be resolved as it was in 2004 when eight Royal Marines and sailors were abducted in similar circumstances by the Iranians. The men were paraded on television and made to “apologise” but were eventually freed.

Relations with Britain have since become much more strained. British commanders in southern Iraq have openly accused Iran of arming, training and funding Shia militias responsible for attacks on British forces.

The Iranians are also angered by a build-up of US forces in the region and the arrest and detention of five of their officials in northern Iraq by the US military in January.

There are also fresh tensions over Iran’s nuclear programme. Britain is the co-author of a United Nations Security Council Resolution, due to be voted on today, that would impose sanctions on Tehran.

President Ahmadinejad, the Iranian leader who was due in New York today to debate the motion, abruptly cancelled his visit last night, citing delays in obtaining US visas for his entourage.
 
=





<B><font size=+1 color=blue><center>Diversion tactic by a nuclear menace</font>

By Con Coughlin
Last Updated: 12:28am GMT 24/03/2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/24/wiran124.xml </center>
Analysis

It's a typical Iranian tactic. The moment Teheran finds itself in a tight corner it pulls off a stunt designed to divert the world's attention away from the issue that is causing it difficulty.

So it is no coincidence that the 15 Royal Navy personnel now being held by Iran were abducted at the very moment that Teheran was under intense pressure from the United Nations Security Council to halt its uranium enrichment programme.</b>

The Iranians' natural instinct will be that they can use the British sailors as a bargaining chip to influence the deliberations of the countries responsible for deciding whether Iran should be subjected to further sanctions for persisting with its nuclear programme.

In the delicate negotiating process that is now taking place between the Foreign Office and Teheran the Iranians will let it be known that the prospects for the sailors' early release will be immeasurably improved if only the British Government could find a way to give them a little more slack on the nuclear front. From the Iranian point of view such a request is perfectly reasonable. As the Iranians never tire of reminding us, their nuclear intentions are entirely benign, and are aimed exclusively at developing an indigenous nuclear power industry.

The fact that they have deliberately concealed the existence of several of the programme's key facilities, such as the vast uranium enrichment complex at Natanz, was, the Iranians insist, the result of an unfortunate misunderstanding.

The problem for the Iranians is that no one believes them, not even the studiously neutral scientists at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna whose task it is to monitor the development of Iran's nuclear programme.

The glaring inconsistencies that the inspectors have uncovered in Iran's nuclear declarations in their regular visits to Iran have convinced the Western intelligence community that Iran has a clandestine nuclear weapons programme, and even Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA's director-general who has gone out of his way to be accommodating to the Iranians, believes there are grounds to suspect the Iranians are up to no good.

Iran's decision to commence uranium enrichment at Natanz last year was the reason sanctions were imposed in the first place: Iran's insistence on continuing with that process in the face of widespread international condemnation - particularly from Britain and America - is the reason the security council is now considering whether to strengthen the sanctions regime.

Using hostages for political leverage is a tactic the Iranians have not been afraid to use in the past. The dozens of Westerners - including British hostages Terry Waite and John McCarthy - taken hostage in Lebanon in the 1980s were abducted on Teheran's orders as part of a campaign to force the West to stop interfering in Lebanon's civil war.

The hostages were eventually released as part of deal struck between Washington and Teheran after the first Gulf war, in which the Iranians agreed to release the hostages if the US-led coalition eased Iran's diplomatic isolation.

Now the Iranians are turning their attention to southern Iraq where they hope the same sort of tactics will be successful in persuading the UN Security Council member states that it is not in their interests to get tough with Teheran.

Coalition commanders in Iraq have recorded a marked increase in Iranian activity, particularly in southern Iraq, in the year since Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad set his country on a collision course with the West over Iran's nuclear programme.

Iran has made no secret of its attempts to exert its influence over Iraq's Shia Muslims following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship in 2003, but until recently this was confined to supporting and training radical Shia groups, such as Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi army.

But in the past year Iranian meddling in southern Iraq has taken a more sinister turn, with both the British and American governments accusing Teheran of directing violent attacks against coalition forces and providing a range of sophisticated military equipment that is being used to deadly effect.

Only this week British commanders in the southern Iraqi city of Basra accused Iran of organising most of the violence against British forces and providing "sophisticated weaponry" to the insurgents, including roadside bombs.

They also said Iranian agents were paying local Shia fighters to attack the British.

More than a dozen Iranian agents - many of them officers in the Revolutionary Guards' elite Quds force - have been detained by coalition forces in Iraq since last December, and the Iranians have now retaliated by organising yesterday's abduction of 15 British sailors - by a Revolutionary Guards naval patrol.

Iran's tactics are crude, but highly effective in getting their message across to those countries, such as Britain and America, that are taking a tough line on Iran's persistent nuclear violations, which, put simply, is: "Mess with us at your peril."
 

dcamp2002

Inactive
Lots of details (from the scene)........................

Iran kidnaps Marines at gunpoint

By Terri Judd, aboard HMS Cornwall in the Persian Gulf
Published: 24 March 2007

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2387844.ece

In the black of night, our patrol boat skimmed across the Shatt al-Arab waterway, looking out for intruders on the disputed waters.

I was accompanying a Royal Marine patrol as it cruised Iraqi waters looking for suicide bombers trying to attack the two oil platforms that export 90 per cent of the country's oil. The patrol was also hunting smugglers bringing arms and contraband into the country.

Until this point, our only contact with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards had been polite, but stiff, contacts over the radio. On Thursday, when HMS Cornwall spotted an Iranian ship on the Iraqi side of the waterway, she approached to warn them off. The Iranians slunk into the blackness without demur.

All changed dramatically yesterday morning when 15 Royal Marines and Navy personnel, including one woman, approached a Japanese merchant ship suspected of smuggling second-hand cars into the country without paying tax. Suddenly, their inflatables were surrounded by boats of the Revolutionary Guards and they were overpowered and taken into Iranian national waters.

Last night, the British and Iranian governments were locked in a diplomatic row as the dispute escalated. Britain protested that its personnel had been " kidnapped" while Iranian state television insisted that UK service members were "under arrest" for entering Iranian territory.

In London, the Iranian ambassador was called in for a dressing down and told "in no uncertain terms" that the country expected its service personnel and equipment returned.

The capture has inflamed an already tense situation between the two countries over accusations that Iran is fomenting the insurgency in Iraq while defying the world over its suspected nuclear weapons programme.

HMS Cornwall remained at sea off the coast of Iraq last night, those on board all too painfully aware that 15 of their crew had not come back that night and were being held prisoner just miles away across the border by Iran's elite Republican Guard.

Only hours before I had been out on patrol with the group as they chatted to local fishermen as part of a "hearts-and-minds" operation instigated by the British when they took over command of the coalition force off the coast of Iraq three weeks ago.

The Royal Navy frigate's 300 crew stood silently as the voice of their commanding officer, Commander Jeremy Woods, echoed through the corridors and cabins: "This emphasises the seriousness of the task we are doing out here," he said. "I am very confident we will have our people home soon."

Many aboard were trying to remain upbeat, recalling that only three years ago the Iranians captured eight Royal Navy personnel, only to release them after three days. They were accused of spying and had to endure mock executions before finally being released. Their boats were never returned.

The Marines and sailors had been out patrolling near al-Faw peninsula in fast rigid-hull inflatable boats (Ribs) yesterday morning when they spotted the merchant ship. Suspecting that it might be part of the booming smuggling trade, the Royal Navy boarded the ship to speak with its captain and crew.

Lt-Cdr Phil Richardson, the pilot of a Lynx helicopter which had been providing cover, said the crew of the ship appeared co-operative and friendly so he was asked to continue reconnaissance in the rest of the area.

Suddenly, however, the two small Ribs lost contact with HMS Cornwall and the helicopter was sent back to find the crew of the merchant ship, pointing frantically towards the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab river. As the pilot and observer moved closer up the waterway, they spotted Revolutionary Guard fast-attack speedboats mounted with machine guns.

"They were stopped and I could identify the Royal Navy ensign and picked out one of our boats and four of five of the crew, obviously detained, " the pilot said.

Briefly, Lt-Cdr Richardson managed to make contact with the Revolutionary Guards, who said they had arrested the British service members for straying into Iranian waters but that they were safe. The crew were then taken to an Iranian military base.

On Thursday night, only hours before they were taken by the Iranians, the Marines and sailors had been in a jovial mood. They were patrolling waterways as part of a military operation put in place three years ago after suicide bombers in three dhows attacked al-Basra and Khawr al-Amaya oil terminals, killing three US sailors and a coastguard. A three-kilometre exclusion zone had been subsequently thrown up around the terminals.

The hearts-and-minds operation was instigated by the British Commodore, Nick Lambert. As a result, Marines in Ribs often exchange pleasantries with local fishermen and hand out small gifts such as gloves.On Thursday night, the Marines' boats were dwarfed by the giant, rusty hulk of Khawr al-Amaya oil platform as they sped towards the winking lights of fishing dhows bobbing on the horizon. Minutes later, they reached their destination.

The Iraqi and Iranian families who have fished these waters for generations work on the perimeter of the zone, frequently chancing their luck over the exclusion zone before being nosed back by the larger military vessels.

"They are pretty welcoming," one officer explained. "During the day, they can be quite brief because they are working, but at night they are happy to talk."

To prove his point, a row of smiling faces appeared on the deck and gestured to the Navy personnel to come on board.

A round of handshakes and "Salaam Alaykums" criss-crossed the gathering before the Marine officer proceeded to exchange small talk in Arabic with the ship's captain and first mate.

"We feel safe with the [Navy] ships here," one fisherman, Abdul Rahman, explained. "But it is hard to support our families," he added, looking with yearning at the giant oil structures in the distance. " It is better fishing near the platforms, better than here." While the marines inspected the vessel, the officer continued to exchange pleasantries with the fisherman as they showed of their day's catch of shrimp and offered cups of tea.

Last night, Commodore Lambert denied his men had strayed into Iranian waters, insisting they were half a mile inside Iraq around Marakkat Abd Allah. "My immediate concern is for the safety of my people and their safe return," he said. "Everything is being done ... at the highest level of the UK government and by our coalition partners to ensure that this is possible."

Officers said they hoped this was an error of judgement made by a local commander that would be resolved with negotiations. "I hope we find this is a simple misunderstanding at the tactical level," the Commodore said.

While tensions at national level have been strained lately, the British insist that they have maintained a cordial relationship with the Iranians. The border is indistinct and frequently the Iranians stray close to the coalition ships but, until now, they have moved back across the diving line without dispute.

Commodore Lambert said: "We have a healthy, professional respect. We police and patrol our side, and they police and patrol their side."

David
 

dcamp2002

Inactive
US denies delaying visas for Iranian leader

AFP
Saturday, March 24, 2007 03:17 IST

WASHINGTON: US officials on Friday denied having delayed visas for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his entourage seeking to attend an imminent UN Security Council vote on sanctions against Iran.

"As we said earlier today, all 39 visas for the Iranian president and his official party were issued and the passports returned to Iranian representatives at 10:00 am (0900 GMT) local time in Bern," deputy State Department spokesman Tom Casey said.

He added that some seven hours later, around 5:00 pm (1600 GMT), 36 extra passports with issued visas were returned to members of the Iranian delegation, after being expedited by US officials.

"These visas were able to be issued despite the fact that the completed applications for many of them were not received until this morning," Casey said.

For the rest of article:

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1086831

David
 

Martin

Deceased
Royal Navy "incident": The larger plan of Teheran's regime
By Walid Phares

The capture of British Navy servicemen by Iranian forces is not simply an incident over sea sovereignty in the Persian Gulf. It is a calculated move on behalf of Teheran's Jihadi chess players to provoke a "projected" counter move by London and its American allies. It is all happening in a regional context, carefully engineered by the Mullahs strategic planners. Here is how:

The Iranian regime's master plan is to wait out the remainder of Tony Blair's mandate (few more months) and the remaining "real time" of President Bush (till about the end of 2007). For the thinking process in Tehran, based on their Western consultants, believe that Washington and London have reached the end of the rope and will only have till 2008 to do something major to destabilize Ahmedinijad regime. As explained by a notorious propagandist on al Jazeera today the move is precisely to respond to the Anglo-American attempt to "stir trouble" inside Iran. Anis Naccash, a Lebanese intellectual supporter of the Ayatollahs regime, appearing from Tehran few hours ago on the Qatari-based satellite and "explained" that the "US and the UK must understand that Iran is as much at war with these two powers in as much as they support the rise of movements and security instability inside Iran." He added that Khamenei is clear on the regime's decision to strike: "we will be at war with you on all levels: secret, diplomatic, military and other." Pro-Iranian propagandists in the region, via media and online rushed to warn that this movement is part of Iran's counter-strike against any attempt to destabilize the regime. Two major tracks emerge from these statements, the Iranian military maneuvers and the capture of British Navy personnel.


1) Iran's domestic front is putting pressure on the Ahmedinijad regime.

From internal reporting, dissidents and anti-Ahmedinijad forces from various social sectors are practically in slow motion eruption against the authorities. Students, women, workers and political activists have been demonstrating and sometimes clashing with the regime's security apparatus. Western media didn't report proportionally on these events over the past few weeks. In addition, ethnic minority areas have been witnessing several incidents, including violence against the "Revolutionary Guards," including in the Arab and Baluch areas. And last but not least, the defection of a major intelligence-military figure early this month to the West was, according to internal sources, a "massive loss" to the regime and a possible first one in a series.

2) The regime "needs" an external clash to crush the domestic challenge.

As in many comparable cases worldwide, when an authoritarian regime is faced with severe internal opposition it attempts to deflect the crisis onto the outside world. Hence, Teheran's all out campaign against the US and its allies in Iraq, Lebanon and the region is in fact a repositioning of Iran's shield against the expected rising opposition inside the country. Hence the Khomeinist Mullahs plan seem to be projected as follow:

a. Engage in the diplomatic realm, to project a realist approach worldwide, but refrain from offering real results

b. Continue, along with the Syrian regime, in supporting the "Jihadi" Terror operations (including sectarian ones) inside Iraq

c. Widen the propaganda campaign against the US and its allies via a number of PR companies within the West, to portray Iran as "a victim" of an "upcoming war provoked by the US."

d. Engage in skirmishes in the Gulf (and possibly in other spots) with US and British elements claiming these action as "defensive," while planned thoroughly ahead of time.

3) The regime plan is to drag its opponents into a trap

Teheran's master planners intend to drag the "Coalition" into steps in engagement, at the timing of and in the field of control of Iran's apparatus. Multiple options and scenarios are projected.

a. British military counter measure takes place, supported by the US. Iran's regime believe that only "limited" action by the allies is possible, according to their analysis of the domestic constraints inside the two powerful democracies.

b. Tehran moves to a second wave of activities, at its own pace, hoping to draw a higher level of classical counter strikes by US and UK forces. The dosing by Iran's leadership is expected to stretch the game in time, until the departure of Blair and of the Bush Administration by its political opponents inside the country's institutions and public debate.

In a short conclusion the "War room" in Tehran has engaged itself in an alley of tactical moves it feels it can control. But the Iranian regime, with all its "political chess" expertise, may find itself in a precarious and risky situation. For while it feel that it can control the tactical battlefield in the region and fuel the propaganda pressure inside the West with its Petro-dollars, it may not be able to contain the internal forces in Iran, because of which it has decided to go on offense.

The Ahmedinijad regime wishes to crumble the international consensus to avoid the financial sanctions: that is true. But as important, if not more, it wants to be able to crush the revolt before it pounds the doors of the Mullahs palaces.


Dr Walid Phares is a Senior Fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington and the director of its Future Terrorism Project. Author of the newly released The War of Ideas: Jihadism Against Democracy www.thewarofideas.net

http://counterterrorismblog.org/
 
Top