03/25: "The Winds of War" - Seized Britons Face Prosecution After Tehran Claims...

=

03/24

Tehran's Power Play on the Water
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?t=234861


<B><font size=+1 color=red><center>Seized Britons Face Prosecution After Tehran Claims 'Confession' </font>

March 25, 2007
The Observer
Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2042328,00.html </center>
Iran defiantly rebuffed international demands yesterday for the release of 15 seized British naval personnel, claiming that the sailors and Royal Marines had confessed to entering its waters in an illegal act of aggression, and were now to be prosecuted in the Iranian capital. </b>

Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mohammad Ali Hosseini, claimed in a statement that the Britons were engaged 'in illegal and suspicious' activities, suggesting that Iran might claim they were spying.

Iran, the US and the UK have been involved in a tit-for-tat round of accusations. Washington and London accuse Iran of widespread interference in Iraq, including the supply of weapons that have resulted in the deaths of soldiers serving in the multinational forces there.

The West also accuses Iran of engaging in uranium enrichment to develop a nuclear weapon. Last night the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously to impose tougher sanctions against Iran in the hope of sending a strong message that it will grow increasingly isolated by refusing to abort its nuclear enrichment programme.

A senior Iranian official told the Fars news agency that the 14 British men and one woman had been taken to Tehran for further investigation. He added that 'documents and evidence existed' - including from the sailors' own GPS equipment - that demonstrated that they knew they had strayed into Iranian waters.

The claims were hotly denied by British officials and US officials, who said that the two high-powered British 'ribs' - rigid inflatable boats - were 'miles' inside Iraqi waters when they were surrounded by Iranian patrol boats on Friday.

The British claim appeared to be backed up by an eyewitness account from an Iraqi fisherman who told Reuters that he saw the capture of the servicemen, following their inspection of a ship suspected of carrying smuggled cars. The fisherman added that the ship was anchored on the Iraqi side of the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, the border between the two countries.

It was also confirmed yesterday that the men had been detained by members of the naval force of the Revolutionary Guard, the organisation accused by both the US and Britain of channelling arms and other material to Shia militias in Iraq.

In London, Foreign Office minister Lord Triesman held an hour-long meeting with Iran's ambassador, Rasoul Movahedian - the second meeting in two days between British officials and Iran's ambassador - to demand the 'immediate release' of the seized Britons. The meeting was described as 'frank but friendly'.

The demand was supported by European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who pledged 'support and solidarity' yesterday for Britain over the seizure, and said the incident must not complicate a push to impose further sanctions on Iran.

Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, says the country's nuclear programme is aimed only at generating power. The new package of sanctions targets Iran's arms exports, its state-owned bank, Sepah, and senior figures in the Revolutionary Guard.

'We are doing our utmost in co-operation with the British authorities,' Solana told journalists at an EU summit in Berlin. 'They have our support and solidarity.'

He said a second UN Security Council resolution to impose sanctions on Iran would go ahead regardless. 'The resolution will follow its course,' he said.

The demand for the men's release was echoed by Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Foreign Minister of Germany, which holds the EU presidency.

A spokesman for Iran's defence forces, General Alireza Afshar, said the 'arrest' was made by members of the Revolutionary Guard within the Iranian territorial waters on Friday, and added that the servicemen were being interrogated and were now 'facing prosecution' after confessing to an act of 'aggression' in Iranian waters.

He told Iranian radio that the arrested Britons were in 'good health' and that the 'confessions' would be made public.

I hate to play the role of "captain obvious" here but, I gotta say, this crap has huge potential of getting very ugly very quickly (and not just for iran and britain, either, but for alot of other countries as well). The iranians are playing with fire and, worse yet, they know it but they don't really seem to care. They're practically begging for a fight. I can't help but to ask myself (and, with this post, everyone else on this board) "what the crap is iran thinking and just what "ace" do they think they have up their sleeve?"


When I answer my own question, the answer I come up with is similiar to what jeff nyquists has been saying for the last few years:


I think iran is a proxy for either russia, red china or both.

I don't see England just sitting back. Not if these people are going to be tried for treason, and thatwill be the charge, then they will be killed. look out, where are the seals when we need them.
I am sure they are there or close by rewally. but this could get really messy , and fast.

I think the Iranians are suicidal. Their nuke program could fall apart now that Russia is backing out.

The Maddi is coming. The Maddi is coming.

=





<B><font size=+1 color=brown><center>UK to Avoid Escalation Over Tehran Detainees</font>

March 25, 2007
The Financial Times
Gareth Smyth and Najmeh Bozorgmehr in Tehran
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c2fac05c-da...age=fc3334c0-2f7a-11da-8b51-00000e2511c8.html </center>
The diplomatic crisis over Iran’s arrest of 15 British sailors and marines continued to simmer on Sunday as both sides contemplated their next moves. British officials have been keen not to overplay their reaction to the detention of the sailors - whom it says were on routine policing in Iraqi waters - so as not to elevate the arrests into a larger crisis that would make it harder for Iran to release them.
</b>
The UN resolution passed on Saturday that extended sanctions against Iran over its nuclear and missile programmes, has raised the political temperature. Foreign minister Manoucher Mottaki condemned what he called “an attempt to try to coerce Iran into suspension of its peaceful nuclear programme” as a “gross violation” of the UN Charter.

Jack Straw, leader of the British House of Commons and a former foreign secretary, told BBC television the matter required “very careful and intense diplomacy”.

Geoffrey Adams, the ambassador, who returned to Iran on Saturday after cutting short his holiday, faces the task of trying to gauge who in Tehran is making the running. Mr Adams was pressing on Sunday to see the 15 detainees.

The British government said on Sunday it did not know where the 15 captured British servicemen were being held.

Britain is not encouraged by the leading role taken by Iranian military officials at the expense of the foreign ministry. One diplomat found Iran’s foreign ministry “surprised” on Friday when the marines and sailors were detained, while Iran’s ambassador to London was unprepared when summoned by the British foreign office.

The rhetoric echoing round Tehran has escalated since Iran claimed on Saturday that the 15 had confessed to entering illegally Iran’s coastal waters near the Shatt al-Arab waterway dividing Iraq and Iran.

Talk on the Iranian side is increasingly laced with references to the 1980-88 war, when western countries supported Saddam Hussein, and to today’s military threat allegedly posed to Iran by the US and its allies.

Fars news agency, reporting the 15 had been taken to Tehran for questioning, quoted a senior Iranian military official, that the US would “not be able to control the dimensions and period of the war” if it attacked Iran.

Khedmat, a website close to president Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, said the government had “firm determination” not to hand over the 15 before a trial in Iran and an “official apology” from Britain. The site predicted “heavy punishment” if they were proved to have been involved in “espionage”.

Some regime loyalists now see the chance to help free five Iranians seized by US forces in northern Iraq in January.

Baztab, a leading conservative website, quoted a parliamentary deputy that “if Iranian diplomats and nationals do not have security in Iraq, there is no reason to be forgiving on those who violate Iran’s territory,” he said.

Groups of conservative students - including the Basij Islamic militia of Tehran university - have urged that the release of the 15 sailors be conditional on the release of the five Iranians held in Iraq.

Some have added other conditions - including the dropping of Iran’s nuclear file by the UN Security Council and the freeing of Ali-Reza Asgari, the former deputy defence minister who disappeared in Turkey in December and who Iran alleges may be held by the US or Israel.

=





<B><font size=+1 color=green><center>Iran Raises the Hostage Stakes</font>

March 25, 2007
The Sunday Times
Tony Allen-Mills in New York, Marie Colvin and Michael Smith
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1563919.ece </center>
The 15 British sailors and Royal Marines captured by Iranian Revolutionary Guards in a waterway separating Iran and Iraq were yesterday trapped in an outbreak of aggressive political brinkmanship that may mark a bleak turning point in the West’s relations with Tehran. </b>

Officials in London and Washington remained publicly optimistic that Iran would respond to international pressure and free them within days, despite claims by a senior military official in Tehran that the captives had “confessed” to illegally entering Iranian territorial waters on Friday in a pair of rigid inflatable boats known as RIBs.

Yet there were ominous signs from Tehran that hardline religious elements were seeking to turn the incident into a major confrontation with the West. Several conservative student groups called on the Iranian government not to release the service personnel until five Iranians detained by US forces in Iraq earlier this year were released.

The groups also called for the cancellation of United Nations sanctions imposed on Iran after a unanimous security council vote in New York last night. The new sanctions were in response to Tehran’s refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment programme, which may be used to build nuclear weapons.

Iran shrugged off the vote and vowed to pursue its nuclear goals. “Suspension is neither an option nor a solution,” said Manouchehr Mottaki, the foreign minister. “I can assure you that pressure and intimidation will not change Iranian policy.”

There was also a demonstration by 500 student radicals gathered on the Iranian shore of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, where the Britons were seized shortly after they had completed a routine antismuggling inspection of a dhow laden with vehicles. In a sinister echo of the US embassy hostage crisis in Tehran in 1979, the students chanted “Death to Britain” and “Death to America”.

The British captives were said by one Iranian source to have been moved yesterday into the notorious dungeons of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) at the Ghasre Firouzeh military complex in Tehran.

Their seizure followed a series of embarrassing military setbacks for the IRGC, founded by the late Ayatollah Khomeini after the Iranian revolution of 1979, and which now answers directly to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme religious leader.

There was widespread speculation that the seizure may have been a reprisal for the arrest by US troops of five members of the IRGC’s elite al-Quds Brigade, which has been accused by the Pentagon of arming and assisting Shi’ite militias in Iraq. The IRGC has also been stung by a series of apparent defections of high-ranking officers.

Intelligence sources in the region had warned that the IRGC may have been planning retaliation for what it claimed was a western plot to destabilise Tehran’s military command.

The Sunday Times last week quoted Reza Falker, a writer for the Revolutionary Guards’ weekly newspaper, as saying: “We’ve got the ability to capture a nice bunch of blue-eyed blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks.”

The Sunday Times article also quoted a Jordanian intelligence officer as saying: “In Iraq, the Quds force can easily get hold of American and British officers.”

The Shatt al-Arab waterway was an obvious target for a premeditated kidnap. Its waters have been disputed for centuries and were a prime cause of the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. It is still littered with the wrecks of bombed-out ships.

“The problem is that nobody knows where the border is,” said Lawrence Potter, a professor of international affairs at Columbia University, New York. “The British might have thought they were on their side, the Iranians might have thought they were on their side.”

British officials have long been aware of the area’s potential navigational hazards. In June 2004 eight sailors and marine commandos were seized in a similar incident when Tehran accused them of straying into Iranian waters. On that occasion the men were blindfolded and paraded on Iranian television, then released three days later. Tehran never returned their boats.

The British personnel seized on Friday were in Iraqi waters, according to their commanding officer, Commodore Nick Lambert of the frigate HMS Cornwall, who said he had “absolutely no doubt” about their position.

After their uneventful inspection of the dhow, the Britons were on their way out of the area when they were surrounded by six larger vessels armed with heavy machineguns. The crews of the RIBs had rifles and pistols.

A Royal Navy helicopter spotted the Iranian vessels towing the inflatables towards a military base on the Iranian shore. The helicopter made radio contact with the Iranians, and was told there had been no fighting and that nobody was hurt.

US military officials publicly supported Britain’s claim that the seized sailors and marines were inside Iraqi waters, but sources in Washington privately acknowledged it was a difficult case to prove. The Iraqi military commander in nominal charge of territorial waters cast further doubt on the British claim.

“We were informed by Iraqi fishermen . . . that there were British gunboats in an area that is out of Iraqi control,” said Brigadier-General Hakim Jassim in Basra. “We don’t know why they were there.” Yet the main concern in both London and Washington was that legal niceties would rapidly become irrelevant if the incident spirals into a stage-managed confrontation over Iran’s nuclear weapons programme and its alleged subversion in Iraq.

Yesterday’s UN resolution presents Tehran with a tougher sanctions regime, and several US analysts speculated that the Iranians may feel they have nothing to lose by precipitating a diplomatic crisis that has conveniently distracted popular attention from recent setbacks to the country’s nuclear programme, a source of intense national pride.

A Russian decision to suspend supplies of nuclear fuel to the Bushehr reactor in southern Iran had shaken confidence in the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But the Shatt al-Arab incident has “helpfully changed the subject”, said one Iranian opposition source.

The Tehran foreign ministry’s spokesman, Mohammad Ali-Hosseini, yesterday accused Britain of “illegal and interventionist” entry into Iranian waters. Kate Smith, the British chargé d’affaires in Tehran, was summoned to the Iranian foreign ministry on Friday to receive a formal protest. Geoffrey Adams, Britain’s ambassador to Iran, had been out of the country and was returning this weekend.

Most worrying for London were recent belligerent remarks by Khamenei, who was said by an Iranian source yesterday to have personally approved the order to abduct the Britons.

The fact that the IRGC has custody of the captives will further complicate efforts to find a diplomatic solution. The force, considered the elite of Iran, operates independently of Ahmadinejad’s government.

Sources in Tehran said the British prisoners were almost certain to be suffering similar conditions to those endured by the eight captives held in 2004. They were subjected to mock executions and told they would be put on trial as spies. If Tehran concludes this time that its status in the Middle East will be enhanced by a show trial of British “aggressors”, this crisis could last for months.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=blue><center>Iran 'To Try Britons For Espionage' </font>

March 25, 2007
The Times
Uzi Mahnaimi, Michael Smith and David Cracknell
http://www.iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2007&m=03&d=25&a=3 </center>
Fifteen British sailors and marines arrested by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards off the coast of Iraq may be charged with spying. A website run by associates of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, reported last night that the Britons would be put before a court and indicted. </b>

Referring to them as “insurgents”, the site concluded: “If it is proven that they deliberately entered Iranian territory, they will be charged with espionage. If that is proven, they can expect a very serious penalty since according to Iranian law, espionage is one of the most serious offences.”

The warning followed claims by Iranian officials that the British navy personnel had been taken to Tehran, the capital, to explain their “aggressive action” in entering Iranian waters. British officials insist the servicemen were in Iraqi waters when they were held.

The penalty for espionage in Iran is death. However, similar accusations of spying were made when eight British servicemen were detained in the same area in 2004. They were paraded blindfolded on television but did not appear in court and were freed after three nights in detention.

Iranian student groups called yesterday for the 15 detainees to be held until US forces released five Revolutionary Guards captured in Iraq earlier this year.

Al-Sharq al-Awsat, a Saudi-owned newspaper based in London, quoted an Iranian military source as saying that the aim was to trade the Royal Marines and sailors for these Guards.

The claim was backed by other sources in Tehran. “As soon as the corps’s five members are released, the Britons can go home,” said one source close to the Guards.

He said the tactic had been approved by Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, who warned last week that Tehran would take “illegal actions” if necessary to maintain its right to develop a nuclear programme.

Iran denounced a tightening of sanctions which the United Nations security council was expected to agree last night in protest at Tehran’s insistence on enriching uranium that could be used for nuclear weapons.

Lord Triesman, the Foreign Office minister, met the Iranian ambassador in London yesterday to demand that consular staff be allowed access to the Britons, one of whom is a woman. His intervention came as a senior Iranian general alleged that the Britons had confessed under interrogation to “aggression into Iran’s waters”.

Intelligence sources said any advance order for the arrests was likely to have come from Major-General Yahya Rahim Safavi, the commander of the Revolutionary Guards.

Subhi Sadek, the Guards’ weekly newspaper, warned last weekend that the force had “the ability to capture a bunch of blue-eyed blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks”.

Safavi is known to be furious about the recent defections to the West of three senior Guards officers, including a general, and the effect of UN sanctions on his own finances.

A senior Iraqi officer appeared to back Tehran’s claim that the British had entered Iranian waters. “We were informed by Iraqi fishermen after they had returned from sea that there were British gunboats in an area that is out of Iraqi control,” said Brigadier-General Hakim Jassim, who is in charge of Iraq’s territorial waters. “We don’t know why they were there.”

Admiral Sir Alan West, the former head of the Royal Navy, dismissed suggestions that the British boats might have been in Iranian waters. West, who was first sea lord when the previous arrests took place in June 2004, said satellite tracking systems had shown then that the Iranians were lying and the same was certain to be true now.

=



<B><font size=+1 color=purple><center>Seized Britons Face Prosecution After Tehran Claims 'Confession' </font>

March 25, 2007
The Observer
Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2042328,00.html </center>
Iran defiantly rebuffed international demands yesterday for the release of 15 seized British naval personnel, claiming that the sailors and Royal Marines had confessed to entering its waters in an illegal act of aggression, and were now to be prosecuted in the Iranian capital. </b>

Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mohammad Ali Hosseini, claimed in a statement that the Britons were engaged 'in illegal and suspicious' activities, suggesting that Iran might claim they were spying.

Iran, the US and the UK have been involved in a tit-for-tat round of accusations. Washington and London accuse Iran of widespread interference in Iraq, including the supply of weapons that have resulted in the deaths of soldiers serving in the multinational forces there.

The West also accuses Iran of engaging in uranium enrichment to develop a nuclear weapon. Last night the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously to impose tougher sanctions against Iran in the hope of sending a strong message that it will grow increasingly isolated by refusing to abort its nuclear enrichment programme.

A senior Iranian official told the Fars news agency that the 14 British men and one woman had been taken to Tehran for further investigation. He added that 'documents and evidence existed' - including from the sailors' own GPS equipment - that demonstrated that they knew they had strayed into Iranian waters.

The claims were hotly denied by British officials and US officials, who said that the two high-powered British 'ribs' - rigid inflatable boats - were 'miles' inside Iraqi waters when they were surrounded by Iranian patrol boats on Friday.

The British claim appeared to be backed up by an eyewitness account from an Iraqi fisherman who told Reuters that he saw the capture of the servicemen, following their inspection of a ship suspected of carrying smuggled cars. The fisherman added that the ship was anchored on the Iraqi side of the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, the border between the two countries.

It was also confirmed yesterday that the men had been detained by members of the naval force of the Revolutionary Guard, the organisation accused by both the US and Britain of channelling arms and other material to Shia militias in Iraq.

In London, Foreign Office minister Lord Triesman held an hour-long meeting with Iran's ambassador, Rasoul Movahedian - the second meeting in two days between British officials and Iran's ambassador - to demand the 'immediate release' of the seized Britons. The meeting was described as 'frank but friendly'.

The demand was supported by European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who pledged 'support and solidarity' yesterday for Britain over the seizure, and said the incident must not complicate a push to impose further sanctions on Iran.

Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, says the country's nuclear programme is aimed only at generating power. The new package of sanctions targets Iran's arms exports, its state-owned bank, Sepah, and senior figures in the Revolutionary Guard.

'We are doing our utmost in co-operation with the British authorities,' Solana told journalists at an EU summit in Berlin. 'They have our support and solidarity.'

He said a second UN Security Council resolution to impose sanctions on Iran would go ahead regardless. 'The resolution will follow its course,' he said.

The demand for the men's release was echoed by Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Foreign Minister of Germany, which holds the EU presidency.

A spokesman for Iran's defence forces, General Alireza Afshar, said the 'arrest' was made by members of the Revolutionary Guard within the Iranian territorial waters on Friday, and added that the servicemen were being interrogated and were now 'facing prosecution' after confessing to an act of 'aggression' in Iranian waters.

He told Iranian radio that the arrested Britons were in 'good health' and that the 'confessions' would be made public.

Ah yes, and all those bases going on alert and we're supposed to believe the nutjobs in Iran are not inviting an attack. The provocations are just beginning folks. This is round 1. There are more to come.

From DEBKA.....

DEBKAfile reports: High alert at US and UK bases, Middle East armies on the ready lest Iran’s seizure of 15 British seamen Friday is only first Iranian reprisal action

March 24, 2007, 11:20 PM (GMT+02:00)





Our military sources report that Middle East and Persian Gulf nations as well as the US and UK are bracing for further Iranian marine, air or terrorist operations in Iraq and other places in reprisal for the sanctions measure before the UN Security Council in New York. On the ready too are the Saudi armed forces and some Israeli air and naval units.

According to Iranian sources the 15 British Royal navy seamen and marines which an Iranian warship seized with their commando craft Friday, March 23, have confessed to entering Iranian waters.

London insists the UK marines routinely inspecting merchant vessels for smuggled goods were on the Iraqi side of the divided Shat al Arb waterway which flows into the Persian Gulf. Tehran accuses them of entering Iranian waters.

DEBKAfile’s military sources say the incident was but a pretext. According to incoming intelligence, Tehran plans to release a series of reprisals after sanctions are approved in New York Saturday evening, March 24.

The Islamic Republic is also cautioning its Gulf neighbors Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, whose foreign ministers meet visiting US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice in Assuan Saturday morning, not to cooperate with Washington’s regional policies and to stay neutral in the US-Iran dispute.

President Mahmoud Admadinejad’s last-minute cancellation of his appearance before the Security Council is further indication that Tehran gave up on diplomatic maneuvers for pre-empting the sanctions resolution and, assuming their approval was not preventable, turned instead to ramping up military tensions.

Thursday, DEBKAfile reported exclusively a rendezvous Wednesday between the French nuclear carrier Charles de Gaulle and its task force 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.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=red><center>Iran defies UN assets freeze, weapons ban</font>

Evelyn Leopold in New York
March 26, 2007
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/ir...eze-weapons-ban/2007/03/25/1174761281405.html </center>
THE United Nations Security Council has voted unanimously to impose further sanctions on Iran over its nuclear ambitions.

The sanctions target Tehran's arms exports, state-owned bank and Revolutionary Guards.

The Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, immediately rejected the council's demand that Iran suspend uranium enrichment. He said the program was for peaceful purposes.</b>

The resolution, passed on Saturday, bans arms exports from Iran and freezes the financial assets abroad of 28 Iranian individuals and entities, including its Bank Sepah, and the commanders and companies associated with the elite Revolutionary Guards.

It threatens further sanctions if Iran does not comply within 60 days. If it does, sanctions will be suspended.

The US representative to the UN, Alejandro Wolff, told the council that adoption of Resolution 1747 sent "a clear and unambiguous message to Iran" that the pursuit of nuclear weapons capability would "only further isolate Iran and make it less, not more, secure".

Addressing the council after the vote, Mr Mottaki said the 15-member body had been manipulated by some of its members to take unjustifiable action against Iran's nuclear program.

"I can assure you that pressure and intimidation will not change Iranian policy," he said. "Suspension is neither an option nor a solution."

Both Iran and the powers that drafted the resolution - Britain, the US, France, Russia, China and Germany - offered further talks.

The European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said yesterday he would speak to Iran's chief negotiator, Ali Larijani, to look for a way to resume negotiations.

The latest measures follow a resolution adopted on December 23 banning trade in sensitive nuclear materials and ballistic missiles, as well as freezing the assets of individuals and institutions associated with atomic programs.

In Washington, a US under-secretary of state, Nicholas Burns, said the arms embargo was most significant in that it prohibited the transfer of Iranian weapons to the Hezbollah guerillas in Lebanon, the Palestinian Hamas movement, Syria or "to any state or terrorist organisation".

Meanwhile, 15 British sailors and marines seized by Iranian naval forces have been taken to Tehran for questioning.

The Iranian Fars news agency reported on Saturday that the British personnel were being asked to explain what Iran called their "aggressive" trespass into Iranian waters on Friday.

The agency quoted a senior military official, Alireza Afshar, as saying that the British service members had "confessed" and that if the US and its allies invaded Iran, they would "not be able to control the dimensions and period of the war".

British officials insist that the sailors and marines, who were on two small patrol boats, were in Iraqi waters in the Persian Gulf conducting a routine patrol under a UN mandate.

Britain's The Sunday Telegraph reported that the CIA had warned British intelligence that Iran would seek revenge for the detention of five suspected Iranian intelligence officers in Iraq in January and might step up attacks in southern Iraq, but the British had not altered their threat levels.

Reuters; The Washington Post; Telegraph, London

I'm sure the sanctions will work just like they worked with Saddam and NK!

=




<B><font size=+1 color=brown><center>Blair says British sailors were not in Iranian waters, calls their fate "fundamental"</font>

The Associated PressPublished: March 25, 2007
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/25/europe/EU-GEN-EU-Summit-British-Sailors.php </center>
BERLIN: British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Sunday that the 15 British sailors and Royal Marines captured by Iran were not in Iranian waters and warned Tehran that Britain viewed their fate as a "fundamental" issue.

"It is simply not true that they went into Iranian territorial waters," Blair said at a news conference in Berlin, calling the situation "very serious."</b>

"I want to get it resolved in as easy and diplomatic a way as possible," he said, but added he hoped the Iranians "understood how fundamental an issue this is for the British government."

Blair's comment, at celebrations for the 50th birthday of the European Union, follows British and European Union demands for Iran to release the 15 naval personnel seized at gunpoint in disputed waters between Iran and Iraq on Friday.

Britain and the United States have said the sailors had just completed a search of a civilian vessel in the Iraqi part of the Shatt al Arab waterway when they were intercepted by the Iranian navy.

The British Foreign Office said their requests for access to the 15 Britons had been denied and officials did not know where they were being held.

Iran's Gen. Ali Reza Afshar said Saturday that the seized Britons had been taken to Tehran for questioning where they "confessed" to illegally entering Iranian waters.

French President Jacques Chirac expressed support for Britain's position. "We all affirmed our total solidarity with Great Britain," Chirac said. "It appears clear that these soldiers were not in the Iranian zone at the time."

=




<B><font size=+1 color=green><center>Intelligence chiefs told of Iran's reprisal threat</font>

Gethin Chamberlain, Tim Shipman and Kay Biouki in Teheran, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:02am GMT 25/03/2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/25/wiran125.xml </center>
British Intelligence chiefs were warned in January to expect reprisal attacks from Iran after America detained five suspected Iranian intelligence officers in Iraq.

Although the CIA alert led to the United States raising its official security threat level throughout the Middle East and elsewhere, Britain did not follow suit.
</b>
The warning came after the US received credible information that Iranian-backed extremists were plotting attacks on Western targets.

American intelligence analysts told their British counterparts that the arrest of the five Iranians would have a direct impact on southern Iraq. Crucially, they warned that there was evidence that Iran intended to step up attacks in the border area and around Basra, where British forces are based.

A security source said: "The intelligence was passed to the UK and was generally disseminated. The intelligence that led to the arrests showed that Iran was financing and facilitating operations on the border and in the South.

"But there was no raising of comparative threat levels by the British, even though the majority of casualties from Iranian weaponry have been the British, not the Americans. Perhaps we should have been more on alert."

Relations between Iran and the West have deteriorated in recent months due to the diplomatic stand off over Teheran's nuclear programme and a growing anger in Washington and London over Iranian interference in Iraq.

advertisementBoth sides have accused the other of spreading misinformation and the US and Iran have each ratcheted up their military standing in the region, with the Iranians acquiring new missile capabilities and the US moving two aircraft carriers into the Gulf.

Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is under pressure at home over his management of the ailing Iranian economy and he has been openly criticised for antagonising not just the West, but also traditional allies such as Russia, with his hardline stance on the nuclear issue.

Iran's capture of the 14 British servicemen and one servicewoman in the Gulf, close to the Shatt al-Arab waterway which separates Iran from Iraq, took the British military by surprise. Senior defence officials said the incident was unlikely to have been a misunderstanding because British and Iranian forces were well-versed in the niceties of working cheek by jowl.

"We have a non-escalatory posture with respect to the Iranians," one senior official said. "Day in, day out, working in a difficult situation, you tend to work out how to react.

"No one wants to be in a position where you get into a shooting war with somebody. Our posture towards them, and theirs towards us, is to avoid confrontation."

The sailors and marines were seized as they returned to their small rigid inflatable boats after boarding a ship suspected of being involved in smuggling in the waterway.

A defence official said they had completed their mission, which was described as "amiable", and were preparing to return to the Type 22 frigate Cornwall, from which they had been operating, when they were surrounded by Iranian gunboats.

Given the overwhelming odds, they had no choice but to go along with the Iranian demands, the official said.

The Ministry of Defence yesterday declined to explain why Cornwall had failed to spot the approach of the Iranian gunboats, or why it had not then intervened.

The five Iranian officials arrested in northern Iraq in January were accused of membership of the al Quds force, which mounts overseas operations. Two other suspected members of the group, which is the intelligence arm of the Revolutionary Guard, were picked up in Baghdad in December and expelled.

Members of the Revolutionary Guard, which owes its allegiance directly to the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, were behind both the latest seizure of British personnel and the capture of eight British servicemen in similar circumstances on the same waterway in 2004. The unit's commanders recently threatened to retaliate against what they say is a campaign of kidnapping of its officers by western intelligence.

Some sources in Teheran last night suggested that the captured Britons would be released "within a day or two". "Iranians have no intentions of creating another international dispute with the world, and it is not likely that they would allow this to escalate into a bigger diplomatic problem," one source said.

=




<b><center>03/25/2005

<font size=+1 color=blue>IRAN LAUNCHES NAVAL EXERCISE</font>

http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2007/march/03_26_4.html </center>
NICOSIA [MENL] -- Iran has launched a major naval exercise.</b>

Officials said the Iranian Navy began an eight-day exercise in the Gulf on Thursday in what marked another demonstration of Teheran's military capabilities against any U.S. strike. They said the exercise included the use of fast patrol boats and tactical mini-submarines in the shallow waters of the Gulf.

"During these maneuvers frigates equipped with missiles, warships, air-to-sea missiles and sea-to-air missiles are being used as well as tactical reconnaissance submarines," Iranian Navy commander Adm. Sajad Kushaki said.

Iranian state television said the unidentified FPBs were equipped with missile launchers during the exercise, scheduled to end on March 30. The television said the Iranian Navy "showed its defensive power in protecting the Persian Gulf."

=




<B><font size=+1 color=purple><center>US warns of tougher sanctions in face of Iranian defiance</font>

Last Update: Mar 25, 2007 9:28 AM
del.icio.us Yahoo!
http://www.nbc15online.com/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=18edf3ed-5fa3-41c4-a4a8-4ad836e9171a </center>
NEW YORK (AP) - The US is making its warning to Iran clear: Iran will be hit with tougher sanctions if it keeps refusing to end its uranium enrichment.

Acting UN ambassador Alejandro Wolff says Iran's defiance is a "grave threat to international peace and security" but he says the US will seek a "peaceful and diplomatic" solution to it. </b>

The UN Security Council voted unanimously yesterday to impose additional sanctions on Iran. The new sanctions include a ban on Iranian arms exports and a freeze on the assets of individuals and organizations involved in Iran's nuclear and missile programs.

Iran promptly rejected the demand. The foreign minister says even the harshest sanctions and threats would be "far too week" to get Iran to retreat from what he says are it's "legal and legitimate demands." He says suspending uranium enrichment is not an option. The process can be used for both energy and bombs. Iran insists its program is purely peaceful.

Ah the markets won't be dull tonight....I'll update at 0400 EDT with what I've seen while all you people who need sleep snore away.

JohnGaltfla said:

Ah yes, and all those bases going on alert and we're supposed to believe the nutjobs in Iran are not inviting an attack. The provocations are just beginning folks. This is round 1. There are more to come.

Click to expand...

Personally, (although) I *know* I have no influence with anyone. But if it was me, I would use this time to 'fill out' the nitches in my preps.

The possibility of of a regional war is now at 50%-50%! And that war, when it starts will come to CONUS this time around!

=




<B><font size=+1 color=purple><center>FM: Enemies attempt to manufacture evidence to deprive Iran of its nuclear right</font>

United Nations, New York, March 25, IRNA
Nuclear-Mottaki-UNSC
http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-234/0703256058175233.htm </center>
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said that to achieve the politically motivated and unlawful goal of depriving Iran of its inalienable right to nuclear technology, attempts have been made to manufacture evidence.

Mottaki made the remark at the United Nations Security meeting in New York on Saturday night. </b>

He pointed to a recent report in an American newspaper that most US intelligence shared with the UN nuclear watchdog has proved inaccurate and none has led to significant discoveries inside Iran.

The minister said that the same article also quotes a senior IAEA official as saying "since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that has come to us has proved to be wrong."

Mottaki noted that however, in order to enable the IAEA to reach this conclusion, Iran had to implement transparency measures outside all IAEA safeguard agreements and protocols and allow the IAEA inspectors over 20 visits to its sensitive military sites which had no connection whatsoever to its nuclear program.

"Can any member of this Council accept to do likewise? Are permanent members of UNSC even prepared to simply inform the world community of the number of centrifuges they own?" he asked.

Mottaki said, that in fact, over the last four years, the IAEA has conducted more than 2,100 person-days of scrutiny of all Iranian nuclear facilities.

"All reports by the IAEA since November 2003 have been indicative of the peaceful nature of Iranian nuclear program. The Agency confirmed in 2003, and maintained since then that `to date, there is no evidence that the previously undeclared nuclear material and activities were related to a nuclear weapons program.'
"On several occasions, the Agency concluded that all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material has not been diverted to prohibited activities," he added.

The minister said that as recently as February 2007, the IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei stated in his report that pursuant to its NPT Safeguards Agreement, Iran has been providing the agency with access to declared nuclear material and facilities, and has provided the required nuclear material accountancy reports in connection with such material and facilities.

"The same report also indicates that the IAEA is able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran.

"He also indicated to the Board of Governors on March 5, 2007 that the agency has seen no `industrial capacity to produce weapons - usable nuclear material, which is an important consideration in assessing the risk," added Mottaki.

=



<B><font size=+1 color=red><center>Blair warning over captured sailors</font>

03/25/2007
3:38pm today
http://www.thisishampshire.net/news...91.0.blair_warning_over_captured_sailors.php? </center></b>
The seizure of 15 British Navy personnel by Iran is a "very serious situation", Tony Blair said as he publicly entered the diplomatic crisis for the first time.
The Prime Minister appealed for a swift end to the "unjustified and wrong" detention of the sailors and Marines.

He warned Tehran that it was a "fundamental" issue for the UK and insisted they had not strayed into Iranian waters.

This thing is moving right along. I just hope the sheeple who are worrying about what to wear and movie to see think about whats happening. But I doubt it.
At this rate more bombs will be flying and more people dying by next month!

=





<B><font size=+1 color=red><center>Pressure Grows on Iran to Free British Naval Detainees</font>

By VOA News
25 March 2007
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-03-25-voa17.cfm </center>
International pressure is increasing on Iran to release 15 British Navy personnel seized Friday in a disputed waterway between Iraq and Iran.</b>

British officials say they again asked Iran to free the 14 men and one woman Sunday. The European Union has also demanded they be released immediately.

Britain's ambassador to Iran met with officials at the Iranian Foreign Ministry Sunday. But British officials say they still have not been able to see the detainees or been told where they are being held.

Iran says the British detainees confessed to illegally entering Iranian waters. Iranian military officials say they are in good health and are in Tehran.

Iran's navy detained the crew Friday after the British conducted a routine inspection of a merchant ship in the Shatt al-Arab waterway between Iran and Iraq.

Three years ago, Iranian forces seized six British marines and two sailors in the same area. They were released three days later.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=brown><center>Blair calls for new UN resolution against Sudan</font>

03/25/2007
12 minutes ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2007032...andarfurbritain;_ylt=A0SOwj.JjQZG9V0AcydvaA8F </center>
BERLIN (AFP) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair called Sunday for a new United Nations Security Council resolution against the Sudanese government over the crisis in Darfur. </b>

"The issue is, we need to get a new resolution to extend the sanctions regime against key individuals," he said, in a press conference held with a survivor from Darfur, without naming any Sudanese officials.

"The brutal action of the Sudanese government is completely unacceptable," Blair said, on the sidelines of 50th anniversary celebrations of the European Union's founding treaty.

Blair said that the strife-torn western Sudanese region, where some 200,000 people have been killed and at least two million have been displaced in four years of civil war, had been a major topic of discussion by the leaders at a working lunch in Berlin.

"The situation in Darfur is intolerable," he said.

Earlier, German Chancellor Angela Merkel also urged her EU counterparts to back tougher sanctions against Sudan.

"I want to state frankly that we have to consider stronger sanctions," she said.

The European Union imposed an arms embargo on Khartoum in January 2004.

The conflict in Darfur began in 2003 when an ethnic minority rose up against the Arab-dominated government in Khartoum, which then enlisted the Janjaweed militia to help crush the rebellion.

The United States has already said it will seek a United Nations resolution aimed at forcing Khartoum to let a UN-led peacekeeping force into Darfur.

Sudanese President Omar al-Beshir, who earlier this month backtracked on an agreement to let 20,000 UN-led peacekeepers into the region, accuses the West of wanting to invade his country and plunder its resources.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=green><center>UK's Blair Calls For Possible No-Fly Zone Over Darfur</font>

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/N...eadlinereturnpage=http://www.international.na </center>
BERLIN (AP)--British Prime Minister Tony Blair called Sunday for a new U.N. resolution expanding sanctions against Sudan, and said a no-fly zone over its Darfur region should be considered.

"We need to get a new resolution in the United Nations which extends the sanctions regime," he told reporters after a European Union summit. "We need to consider in my view a no-fly zone," he said, adding that "the situation in Darfur is intolerable." </b>

Blair also said Sunday that the 15 British sailors and Royal Marines captured by Iran were not in Iranian waters and warned Tehran that Britain viewed their fate as a "fundamental" issue.

"It is simply is not true that they went into Iranian territorial waters," Blair said at a news conference in Berlin, adding, "I want to get it resolved in as easy and diplomatic a way as possible."

He described the situation as "very serious" and said he hoped the Iranians " understood how fundamental an issue this is for the British government."

Blair's comment, at celebrations for the 50th birthday of the European Union, follows U.K. and European Union demands for Iran to release the 15 naval personnel seized at gunpoint in disputed waters between Iran and Iraq on Friday.

The U.K. and the U.S. have said the sailors had just completed a search of a civilian vessel in the Iraqi part of the Shatt al Arab waterway when they were intercepted by the Iranian navy.

Iran, however, says they illegally entered Iranian waters. Iran's Foreign Ministry called in U.K. Ambassador Geoffrey Adams, "to protest the illegal entry," state TV reported. It gave no details about the meeting.

The U.K. Foreign Office said their requests for access to the 15 Britons had been denied and officials did not know where they were being held.

Iran's Gen. Ali Reza Afshar said Saturday that the seized Britons had been taken to Tehran for questioning where they "confessed" to illegally entering Iranian waters.


(END) Dow Jones Newswires
03-25-071013ET

=


<center><b>Australia

<font size=+1 color=blue>Downer urges release</font>

March 26, 2007 12:00am
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21445070-662,00.html </center>
AUSTRALIA has called on Iran to release the 15 British sailors and marines captured by Iran's Revolutionary Guard.</b>

Iran's military has moved the eight Royal Navy sailors and seven Royal Marines -- at least one of whom is a woman -- to Tehran for questioning and said they had confessed to illegally entering Iranian waters.
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said last night Australia was seriously concerned for the British and urged Iran to release them immediately.

=





<B><font size=+1 color=purple><center>U.N. Chief Warns Of Collapse Of Darfur Aid</font>

Mar 25 2007
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/25/world/main2606065.shtml </center>
Head Of Humanitarian Efforts Says Aid Workers Are Being Prevented From Helping Refugees

More than 200,000 people have been killed and more than 2 million displaced in four years of fighting, and janjaweed Arab militias are accused of widespread atrocities against ethnic African civilians. </b>

(AP) The new U.N. humanitarian chief warned Sunday that humanitarian efforts in Darfur could collapse if the situation deteriorates and aid workers are prevented from doing their work.

John Holmes spoke while visiting a refugee camp on the outskirts of the town of El-Fasher in Darfur, on his first tour of the troubled region since becoming the U.N.'s top humanitarian official. Some 45,000 people have taken refuge in the camp from the region's spiraling violence.

"This humanitarian effort is fragile," he said. "If the situation deteriorates, it could collapse."

Holmes, who met with delegates of international aid groups on Saturday and Sunday during his two-day visit to Darfur, said problems such as obstruction from Sudan's government and insecurity on the ground have created an environment where "morale is fragile" and could push aid workers to pull out.

"The risk is high," he said. "It is not imminent, but if things deteriorate, people may not want to maintain their efforts."

Because humanitarian needs are "so huge," Holmes said that aid groups obviously do not want to pull out of Darfur.

"But if there is a big incident, for instance, people could be fed up," he added.

In need of aid are some 4 million people in Darfur who the U.N. says have been caught in the midst of fighting between rebels, the government and the pro-government janjaweed.

More than 200,000 people have been killed and more than 2 million displaced in four years of fighting, and janjaweed Arab militias are accused of widespread atrocities against ethnic African civilians.

The U.N. says the conflict has chased another 86,000 people from their homes so far this year and blames the vast majority of these new refugees on violence perpetrated by central Sudanese government forces or their allied janjaweed militias.

Former rebels aligned with Minni Minawi, who signed a peace deal with the government last May and has now joined forces with Sudan's central government, are also increasingly blamed for the violence.

Es Sallam, the refugee camp visited by Holmes, is one of three camps near El Fasher. It is overspilling with people, and aid workers are currently negotiating space for a fourth camp to meet the incoming flow of refugees.

Holmes said people in the camp were not starving and health conditions seemed decent.

"This shows the enormous humanitarian effort that has been made for three years," he said, referring to the international aid effort in Darfur, which is the largest in the world with over US $1 billion spent and some 14,000 aid workers in the region.

Holmes had been turned away the day before by Sudanese military police when he tried to visit a refugee camp. On Sunday, the governor of north Darfur extended apologies to Holmes for the incident.

Holmes said he accepted the apology but would nonetheless raise the issue with Sudanese officials because it illustrated the near-constant problems faced by relief workers trying to deliver aid to Darfur's population.

"...Britain is not encouraged by the leading role taken by Iranian military officials at the expense of the foreign ministry. One diplomat found Iran’s foreign ministry “surprised” on Friday when the marines and sailors were detained, while Iran’s ambassador to London was unprepared when summoned by the British foreign office. .."

Anybody still think Iran is under Central Control? I don't. The place is a snipe marsh with each snipe thinking it is charge.

The question will be: "When they build it, who will have charge of the Big One?"

Right now, I have a feeling we don't know.

ElevenO said:

I hate to play the role of "captain obvious" here but, I gotta say, this crap has huge potential of getting very ugly very quickly (and not just for iran and britain, either, but for alot of other countries as well). The iranians are playing with fire and, worse yet, they know it but they don't really seem to care. They're practically begging for a fight. I can't help but to ask myself (and, with this post, everyone else on this board) "what the crap is iran thinking and just what "ace" do they think they have up their sleeve?"


When I answer my own question, the answer I come up with is similiar to what jeff nyquists has been saying for the last few years:


I think iran is a proxy for either russia, red china or both.

Click to expand...

Eleven, you've stated exactly what I've been thinking and asked the questions I've been asking. Perhaps we'll have the answers soon??

=






<B><center>PART I Mottaki:<font size=+1 color=blue> Iran not to give up demands under any sanction, threat</font>

United Nations, New York, March 25, IRNA
Iran-UNSC-Mottaki
http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-17/0703256419190109.htm </center>
Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Saturday that no sanction or threat can make the Iranian nation retreat from its legal and legitimate demands.
</b>
"The world must know - and it does - that even the harshest political and economic sanctions or other threats are far too weak to coerce the Iranian nation to retreat from their legal and legitimate demands," said Mottaki in an address to the UN Security Council following issuance of a second anti-Iran resolution by the Council.

<b>The full text of the Minister's statement is as follows:

"Mr. President, </b>

"This is the fourth time in the last 12 months that in an unwarranted move, orchestrated by a few of its permanent members, the Security Council is being abused to take an unlawful, unnecessary and unjustifiable action against the peaceful nuclear program of the Islamic Republic of Iran which presents no threat to international peace and security and falls therefore outside the Council's Charter-based mandate. As we have stressed time and again, Iran's nuclear program is completely peaceful. We have expressed our readiness, taken unprecedented steps and offered several serious proposals to address and allay any possible concern in this regard.

Indeed, there has been no doubt for us from the very beginning, nor should there be any for the Council, that all these schemes of the co-sponsors of the Resolution are for narrow national considerations, and aimed at depriving the Iranian people of their inalienable rights, rather than emanating from any so-called proliferation concerns. In order to give this scheme a semblance of international legitimacy, its initiators first manipulated the IAEA Board of Governor and- as they acknowledged themselves- "coerced" some of its members to vote against Iran in the Board, and then have taken advantage of their substantial economic and political power to pressure and manipulate the Security Council to adopt three unwarranted resolutions within 8 months.

Undoubtedly, those resolutions cannot indicate universal acceptance, particularly when the heads of state of nearly two thirds of UN members, who belong to the Non-Aligned Movement and the OIC, supported Iran's positions as recently as September 2006 and expressed concern about policies pursued inside the Security Council. These resolutions do not even reflect the views of the Council's own 15 members, since most of them were not thoroughly informed about, let alone engaged in, the discussions held in secret meetings where only a few, among them non-members of the Council, decide for the whole Security Council.

<b>"Mr. President, </b>
"This is not the first time the Security Council is asking Iran to abandon its rights. When Saddam Hussein invaded Iran 27 years ago, this Council waited 7 days so that Iraq could occupy 30000 sq kilometers of Iranian territory. Then it unanimously adopted Security Council Resolution 479. That unanimously adopted resolution asked the two sides to stop the hostilities, without asking the aggressor to withdraw. That is, the Council -- then too -- effectively asked Iran to suspend the implementation of parts of its rights; at that time is its right to 30000 sq kilometers of its territory.

As expected, the aggressor dutifully COMPLIED. But imagine what would have happened if Iran had COMPLIED. We would still be begging the Council's then sweetheart, President Saddam Hussein, to return our territory. We did not accept to suspend our right to our territory. We resisted 8 years of carnage and use of chemical weapons coupled with pressure from this Council, and sanctions from its permanent members. In the course of the war, the United States joined the United Kingdom, Germany, France and the Soviet Union along with other Western countries in providing Saddam with military hardware and intelligence and even the material for chemical and biological weapons. The Security Council was prevented for several years and in spite of mounting evidence and UN reports, to deal with the use of chemical weapons by Iraq against Iranian civilians and military personnel.

I am confident that today, most of the permanent members of this Council, do not even want to remember that travesty of justice, the Charter and international law, let alone blame Iran for non-compliance with SCR 479. I am also confident that they do not want to remember that when the Iranian people nationalized their oil industry, they attempted to impose a resolution on this Council condemning Iran for threatening peace and security.

But they cannot coerce the international public opinion to forget that and certainly the Iranian people will never forget it. Who among you does not know - and rest assured that the international public opinion does know - that two permanent members of this Council, with full and prior knowledge of Zionist regime intention to commit aggression against Lebanon, prevented for over a month any decision in this Council, the Rome Conference and other initiatives to put an end to that regime's atrocities?

You vis-a-in the Council could not even adopt an appropriate position vis the bombardment of UN facilities in Lebanon which caused the death of your own representatives. The Security Council should be accountable not only for its unlawful actions and decisions, but indeed for its repeated failures to act against threats to international peace and security.

<b>"Mr. President, </b>

"As an organ of an international organization created by States, the Security Council is bound by law, and Member States have every right to insist that the Council keeps within the powers they have accorded to it under the Charter. The Security Council must exercise those powers consistently with the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations. Equally, the measures it takes must be consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the UN and with other international law.

Members of the Security Council do not have the right to undermine Council's credibility. There is every reason to assert that consideration by the Security Council of the Iranian peaceful nuclear program has no legal basis as the referral of the case to the Security Council and then adoption of Resolutions fail to meet the minimum standards of legality. Iran's peaceful nuclear activities cannot be characterized as a threat to peace by any stretch of law, fact or logic. Rather, certain members of the Security Council decided to hijack the case from IAEA, as the principal specialized technical organ in charge of the issue, and politicize it.

How can Iran's peaceful nuclear program be considered in the Security Council while Iran has carried out its obligations, and cooperated to the fullest extent possible, far more than it is obliged to in accordance with its treaty obligations, namely the NPT and the Safeguard Agreement? Isn't it simply because the IAEA could not find any diversion from lawful and peaceful purposes? How could one expect the IAEA to prove a negative fact?

<b>"Mr. President, </b>

"In order to achieve the politically motivated and unlawful goal of depriving Iran from its inalienable right to nuclear technology, attempts have been made to manufacture evidence. According to a recent report in an American newspaper, "most US intelligence shared with the UN nuclear watchdog agency has proved inaccurate and none has led to significant discoveries inside Iran." The same news article also quotes a senior IAEA official as saying "since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that's come to us has proved to be wrong."

However, in order to enable the IAEA to reach this conclusion, Iran had to implement transparency measures outside all IAEA safeguards and protocols and allow the IAEA inspectors over 20 visit to its sensitive military sites which had no connection whatsoever to its nuclear program. Can any member of this Council accept to do likewise? Are permanent members of this Council even prepared to simply inform the international public of the number of centrifuges they own?

In fact, over the last four years, the IAEA has conducted more than 2100 person-days of scrutiny of all Iranian nuclear facilities. All reports by the IAEA since November 2003 have been indicative of the peaceful nature of Iranian nuclear program. The Agency confirmed in 2003, and maintained since then that "to date, there is no evidence that the previously undeclared nuclear material and activities were related to a nuclear weapons program." On several occasions, the Agency concluded that "all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities."

As recently as February 2007, the IAEA Director General stated in his report that " pursuant to its NPT Safeguards Agreement, Iran has been providing the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and facilities, and has provided the required nuclear material accountancy reports in connection with such material and facilities." The same report also indicates "the Agency is able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran." He also indicated to the Board of Governors on March 5, 2007 that the Agency has seen no "industrial capacity to produce weapons-usable nuclear material, which is an important consideration in assessing the risk."

The Flying Dutchman said:

Personally, (although) I *know* I have no influence with anyone. But if it was me, I would use this time to 'fill out' the nitches in my preps.

The possibility of of a regional war is now at 50%-50%! And that war, when it starts will come to CONUS this time around!

Click to expand...

50-50? Polly!

I'll rate it 70-30 in favor of war now. And increasing daily. Those bases did not go on alert for show and tell....

"Officials in London and Washington remained publicly optimistic that Iran would respond to international pressure and free them within days, despite claims by a senior military official in Tehran that the captives had “confessed” to illegally entering Iranian territorial waters on Friday in a pair of rigid inflatable boats known as RIBs. "

unlikely that they really believe Iran will release them. more likely imo that they are delighted that Iran took the bait. now as London demands their release, they will instead be presented with the show trial, conviction and execution of said prisoners. perfect. Iran will convict itself in slow motion on global tv.

Israel went to war for less than a handful of kidnapped soldiers last summer.

i suspect Britain is about to show Iran something about pent-up Imperial power that has just been offended.

No U Turns

I tried to top out my posts at 100 but this has been building up for some time. I can no longer resist. I consider this a rant and it’s probably too long to maintain interest but I have to get it out of my system and will try not to blow off again. Here goes… my apologies up front… I will try to keep it clean:

The situation in the mid east continues with no resolution in sight. The reality is that it has been heading downhill since the Shah was run out of Iran about 1979. Lots of positive talk has taken place over the years about stability etc. but the fact of the matter is that the entire middle east hates us, our Jewish buddies and anyone who befriends us. That is not an opinion that is a cold, hard fact with the PC peeled off. Some of them tolerate us but it is only because we grease their palms in some way. The grease has come at a hefty price (no pun intended). They have their own squabbles and sometimes have used our power to sway things in their direction in their squabbles but the fact remains… they fundamentally hate our guts. Some of them hate each other but they hate us and the Jews worse. That is a fact of life, will never change and should be accepted as such. How to proceed?

All the talk about American generosity, bringing democracy to the world, uplifting downtrodden people and such makes good press and nothing more. We have made big size 14 EEE footprints over much of the world and the only respect that has been gained is that many in the world fear that those big size 14s may be placed in the a** of those non compliant with our desires. I have no problem with that policy. It works well when applied properly and in large doses. I have a great problem with taking Marines to far away places with strange sounding names and trying to use them in the roles of both Marines and social workers. Marines are designed to tear up things and kill people… nothing more. Every application of Marines in this manner that I am aware of has resulted in dismal failure. If I am wrong I will be happy to be corrected. Marines are designed for war… they make terrible cops. War is that act when the resources of one country are directed at another country in the interest of forcing the other country to surrender. This is normally always accomplished via crushing military defeat. Marines are excellent at accomplishing this task. Unfortunately, they have been and are being misused as armed social workers. Contrary to what they are being told to tell reporters Marines don’t give a rat’s a** about bringing democracy to Iraq or any other place. (For that matter neither do I.) They want to defeat the enemy (whoever that is and regardless of who that is) and get back to “the world.” I concur.

The politicians have used other people’s size 14 shoes to accomplish some tasks that are for the general benefit of the American public and for others that are more questionable. They know that America runs on oil. All the hype about bio fuels and such looks good but is not attainable to a degree that will support our present way of life. This can be argued until hell freezes over but it remains a fact. We need the oil in the mid east and other places. The BS about spreading democracy is just that… BS. The distracting BS to appease the PC world crowd is annoying but necessary to maintain what we feel is the high road. Everyone knows what we are doing although the politicians speak of other lofty goals. We need the oil and a continuing supply into the foreseeable future. If we don’t get it there will be hell to pay. That is being demonstrated every day. We are also concerned about the proliferation of nuclear arms in the mid east but that is a secondary issue and makes a damned good distraction for the general populace. The terrorist issue is also a good distraction but is additionally a viable concern. It is a dangerous world out there for Americans and I am glad we have those big 14’s with which we can kick a**. I just wish to hell they would be better cared for and allowed to do their business the way they were taught.

We are obviously in what has been described as a quagmire in the mid east. Africa and other places are calling for our attention and the stinking mess only gets worse. We have commitments in South Korea and many other places that we have to maintain and the expense is staggering. Then there is the CONUS border issue. My mind conjures up the image of Gulliver sleeping while the Lilliputians are busily securing him to the ground.

There is no clear solution. If I had one I would be whisked away to sit at the side of some throne and mouth my opinions to TPTB. I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer but I can see that any acceptable solutions (acceptable solutions in that they allow Americans to continue our present lifestyle, whether that lifestyle is considered good or bad) which arise from the quagmire that exists will only be military solutions. Agreements made with those in the mid east are not worth a tinker’s damn. For that matter not too many international agreements have been. What was that said years ago about avoiding foreign entanglements? Political solutions don’t last, military solutions do. Who wants a world war? I don’t but it certainly appears that on is fast approaching. So far we are the big dog and we have only been playing with the pawns of the other big dogs. Iraq, Iran, Somalia etc. are just pawns. If you don’t know who the other big dogs are you haven’t been paying attention for the last 60 years. Preparations?

Individual preparations are so varied by need that they can only be addressed by each person according to their personal situation. There is no broad brush solution. I think it would be prudent to be prepared for long term deprivation and disruption of everything that is presently taken for granted. Things are not exactly rosy with the economy so the immediate future will be greatly impacted by that fact. It is not necessary to elaborate. Preparations as a country are another thing. Considering the above and a myriad of other factors not mentioned it is paramount that resources be directed toward beefing up the military because it ain’t getting any better out there by a long shot. I don’t think a draft is necessary at this time. There are plenty of young folks out there who have dismal futures because of the dismal economy and military service will give them the start they need. They will only join what is clearly a winning side and don't want a guaranteed death sentence. Paying for a bigger (and better) military will require lots of bucks which are hard to come by at the moment. It is a commonly known fact that government agencies are bloated with programs and staff superfluous to the needs of the country. Bureaucrats are tripping over each other’s feet and pestering the hell out of one another as well as the general populace. Some of the most foolish programs ever conceived are in full bloom in government and are bleeding the life out of the economy and the government budget. The recent elections have so polarized the branches of government that agreements may be unattainable, therefore, the only viable means of attaining the money to pay for a bigger military is not increased taxation or hammering out where cuts will occur but to have an across the board cut of a significant percentage of all government programs with the proceeds directed toward beefing up the armed forces. The domestic programs will suffer but must. Will this happen? I seriously doubt it. America will continue to try and muddle her way through the quagmires and continue to have politicians shouting with bull horns about “success” while the whole works continues the slide into hell. I have personally had it up to my a** with the term “proactive”. Politicians are the problem… not the solution but they are permanent fixtures and either blue or red. The end result is the same with either color. I am seeing the deprivation already and expect more to follow. I dread the day of four sunrises but I fear it is on its way. There are no U Turns.



Sorry Dutch but I had to get it out of my system,

vestige,

Well spoken and thanks for saying it here. Can I encourage you to write more often??

Until the British Empire starts the Invincible Battle Group sailing towards the Gulf with a serious "get our guys out before we get there or else" resolution, just like in 1982 with Argentina, than the word games are bunch of CRAP!!!

I'm going to say it one more time...just for SOMEONE to hear me.

Islamofascisism does not...REPEAT...DOES NOT understand reason, logic, negotiation, pandering, politeness, courtesy, strongly worded statements, ultimatums, or any other "spoken or written" policy, procedure, or rule.

They WILL respond the way we want them to when we begin to destroy them. IN EARNEST.

Of course...pussy footing around playing police officer isn't the ticket either--but I know this thread isn't about Iraq so I'll save THAT rant. Iran has kidnapped British Empire forces. It's time to stop talking.

TIK said:

Until the British Empire starts the Invincible Battle Group sailing towards the Gulf with a serious "get our guys out before we get there or else" resolution, just like in 1982 with Argentina, than the word games are bunch of CRAP!!!

I'm going to say it one more time...just for SOMEONE to hear me.

Islamofascisism does not...REPEAT...DOES NOT understand reason, logic, negotiation, pandering, politeness, courtesy, strongly worded statements, ultimatums, or any other "spoken or written" policy, procedure, or rule.

They WILL respond the way we want them to when we begin to destroy them. IN EARNEST.

Of course...pussy footing around playing police officer isn't the ticket either--but I know this thread isn't about Iraq so I'll save THAT rant. Iran has kidnapped British Empire forces. It's time to stop talking.

Click to expand...

TIK,

I hear you on that. Considering the draw down that the UK has gone through and the OPFOR difference, a visible deployment of more Tornados and one of the Vanguard SSBNs to the Indian Ocean would make a bigger impression and is more doable.

Without Russia & China consenting to a "limited" conflict with Iran, can you imagine anything substantial happening militarily? I cannot. Russia & China are behind Iran, the incorrigible brat.

TIK said:

Until the British Empire starts the Invincible Battle Group sailing towards the Gulf with a serious "get our guys out before we get there or else" resolution, just like in 1982 with Argentina, than the word games are bunch of CRAP!!!

I'm going to say it one more time...just for SOMEONE to hear me.

Islamofascisism does not...REPEAT...DOES NOT understand reason, logic, negotiation, pandering, politeness, courtesy, strongly worded statements, ultimatums, or any other "spoken or written" policy, procedure, or rule.

They WILL respond the way we want them to when we begin to destroy them. IN EARNEST.

Of course...pussy footing around playing police officer isn't the ticket either--but I know this thread isn't about Iraq so I'll save THAT rant. Iran has kidnapped British Empire forces. It's time to stop talking.

Click to expand...

And IMHO that has been the biggest mistake made by the West when dealing with the mideast people. Our govts did not understand them. Perhaps they forgot history, the Bible, ect. but these people don't understand or listen to words. If they steal your goat, you need to kill their family. That kind of logic they understand very clearly.

=




<B><center>2:37 pm: <font size=+1 color=red>Iran announces partial suspension of cooperation with U.N. nuclear watchdog </font>

By NASSER KARIMI | Associated Press
March 25, 2007
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/59182.html </center>
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) _ Iran announced Sunday that it was partially suspending cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, citing the ''illegal and bullying'' U.N. Security Council sanctions imposed on the country for its refusal to stop enriching uranium.

Gholam Hossein Elham, a government spokesman, told state television that the suspension would ''continue until Iran's nuclear case is referred back to the IAEA from the U.N Security Council.''</b>

In New York, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said ''a few select countries don't have the right to abuse the Security Council.''

''The Security Council has to be aware of its own position and status. Actions that are illegal, unwarranted and unjustified will reduce the credibility of the Security Council,'' he said in Persian through a translator.

He said Iran has repeatedly sought negotiations with the powers that drafted the resolution against the Islamic republic: the five permanent council members _ the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China _ and Germany. But he accused those countries of lacking the political will to reach a breakthrough.

''If this political will existed, the other side wouldn't have imposed preconditions on the talks,'' Mottaki said, referring to demands by the U.S. and its allies that Iran first halt enrichment before they engage in negotiations on its nuclear program.

He said the world has two options to proceed on the nuclear issue: continued negotiations or confrontation.

''Choosing the path of confrontation ... will have its own consequences,'' he said without elaborating.

Elham said the Iranian Cabinet decided Sunday to suspend ''code 1-3 of minor arrangements of the safeguards'' with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Under Iran's Safeguards Agreements with the IAEA, part of its commitments under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the country is obligated to inform the agency six months before it introduces nuclear material of any kind into any facility.

Beyond that, Iran has voluntarily committed itself to informing the agency of any planned new nuclear construction beforehand _ a commitment it has not always kept. For instance, it delayed informing the agency three years ago that it was building tunnels in the central city of Isfahan to house parts of its uranium enrichment program.

The Security Council sanctions, which send a strong message that Iran's defiance will leave it increasingly isolated and warn of even harsher penalties ahead, were immediately rejected by Iran, which said it had no intention of suspending enrichment.

The country claims it needs the uranium enrichment for electricity generating purposes while the United States and its allies fear the program is used for nuclear arms making.

Elham, the government spokesman, said until now Iran's cooperation with the IAEA went beyond its requirements as a signatory to the international Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In the past Iran has kept ''promptly informing'' the IAEA under the organization's safeguards about its nuclear plans, Elham said. In 2002, Iran began voluntarily implementing the IAEA safeguards.

Sunday's decision is a response to ''Saturday night's illegal and bullying resolution by the Security Council,'' Elham said.

Former U.N. nuclear inspector David Albright said Sunday's decision could clear the way for Iran to carry out clandestine nuclear work related to enrichment _ a possible pathway to nuclear arms. Albright, whose his Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security tracks Iran's nuclear program, said that Iran may be looking to build a ''backup facility'' for enrichment that would remain undetected _ and safe _ in case of attack by the United States or Israel.

The new, moderately tougher sanctions include banning Iranian arms exports, and freezing the assets of 28 people and organizations involved in Iran's nuclear and missile programs. About a third of those are linked to the Revolutionary Guard, an elite military corps that answers to the leadership in Tehran.

They also ask countries to restrict travel by the individuals subject to sanctions, as well as arms sales to Iran and new financial assistance or loans to the Iranian government.

The measure also said all sanctions would be suspended if Iran halts enrichment and made clear that the country can still accept a package of economic incentives and political rewards offered last year if it complies.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=brown><center>Iran Warns Of Nuclear Program Confrontation 'Consequences' </font>

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/N...eadlinereturnpage=http://www.international.na </center>
NEW YORK (AP)--Iran's foreign minister on Sunday criticized the U.N. Security Council for imposing new sanctions against his country for refusing to halt uranium enrichment, warning confrontation "will have its own consequences."</b>

The council voted unanimously on Saturday to levy a second round of sanctions against Tehran for its failure to suspend uranium enrichment, a process that can be used to produce nuclear energy or weapons.

Iran immediately rejected the sanctions and on Sunday announced a partial suspension of cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog.

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference in New York that "a few select countries do not have the right to abuse the Security Council."

"The Security Council has to be aware of its own position and status. Actions that are illegal, unwarranted and unjustified ... reduce the credibility of the Security Council," he said in Persian through a translator.

He said Iran has repeatedly sought negotiations with the powers that drafted the resolution against the Islamic regime: the five permanent council members - the U.S., the U.K., France, Russia and China - and Germany. But he accused those countries of lacking the political will to reach a diplomatic solution.

"If this political will existed, the other side wouldn't have imposed preconditions on the talks," Mottaki said, referring to demands by the U.S. and its allies that Iran first halt enrichment before engaging in negotiations on its nuclear program.

He said the Iranian government will examine the resolution and issue a response in the next few days. He added the world has two options to proceed on the nuclear issue: continued negotiations or confrontation.

"Choosing the path of confrontation ... will have its own consequences," he said without elaborating.

In Berlin, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana said Sunday he wanted to immediately resume talks with Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani. He said the West remains committed to a "twin track" approach with Iran - gradually imposing tougher sanctions if it refuses to halt enrichment, while offering economic and political advantages if it falls into line.

"The door is open for negotiations, let's see if together we can go through," he told reporters.

In response to the new sanctions, Iran announced Sunday it was partially suspending cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency - the U.N. nuclear watchdog.

Gholam Hossein Elham, a government spokesman, said the Iranian Cabinet decided to suspend a provision that called on the government to inform the IAEA of any new steps and decisions made in its atomic program.

"This will continue until Iran's nuclear case is referred back to the IAEA from the U.N Security Council," Elham told state television.

On Saturday, Nicholas Burns, undersecretary for political affairs at the State Department, said the U.S. would seek a third and tougher U.N. resolution against Iran if it continues to defy the world body.

"It's a significant international rebuke to Iran and it's a significant tightening of international pressure on Iran," Burns said.

The U.S. and some of its allies fear Iran's nuclear program is a cover for producing atomic weapons.

The sanctions passed by the Security Council on Saturday ban Iranian arms exports and freeze the assets of 28 people and organizations involved in Iran's nuclear and missile programs. About a third of those are linked to the Revolutionary Guard, an elite military corps.

The new sanctions follow penalties the council imposed on Iran in December, ordering all countries to stop supplying Iran with materials and technology that could contribute to its nuclear and missile programs, and freezing the assets of 10 Iranian companies and 12 individuals tied to those programs.

Iran responded to those sanctions by expanding nuclear enrichment, maintaining it has a right to pursue a peaceful atomic energy program as a member of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.


(END) Dow Jones Newswires
03-25-071617ET