03/27: "The Winds of War" - The Ayatollahs' Escalation

=
=

Face-off with Iran Takes Tougher Turn
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?t=235016



<B><font size=+1 color=red><center>The Ayatollahs' Escalation</font>

March 26, 2007
Human Events
Jed Babbin
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=19968 </center>
Wars have started over less. The March 23 seizure of 15 British sailors and marines by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Navy can be called many things, but spontaneous isn’t one of them. It was another in a long series of tests of Western resolve that Iran has posed and we have failed. Iran is -- cleverly and gradually -- escalating its war for control of the Middle East. </b>

In 1979 Iranian revolutionaries -- probably including a young Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- seized the American embassy in Tehran and held its staff hostage for 444 days. Diplomacy failed so in April 1980, so Jimmy Carter launched and personally micromanaged into failure a military rescue mission in which eight Americans died in an aircraft collision at Desert One.

That failure and the ones to come taught Iran that it could provoke -- even commit acts of war -- without suffering any penalty. In the years since, it has -- either directly or through its terrorist proxies such as Hizballah -- committed a long series of terrorist acts resulting in many American deaths.

For over 20 years, Iran has lied to the UN Security Council about its nuclear programs. Instead of opening them to UN inspectors, Iran has dispersed its nuclear facilities and buried them in hardened sites to prevent destruction by air strikes.

In December 2005, I was among a small group of military analysts that met with the top American commanders in Baghdad. In one briefing, we learned about the Iranian-manufactured “explosively-formed penetrator” -- “EFP” in the inevitable acronym -- which was then and is now the weapon that causes more American deaths in Iraq than any other. It is made in Iran, smuggled in by Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps soldiers, and given to militias and insurgents to kill Americans. Iran’s government has paid no price for, again, shedding American blood.

While killing Americans in Iraq, Iran’s government is escalating gradually, maintaining control of the pace and direction of its war to become the hegemon of the Middle East. Its government is a complex one. Its public face, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, probably has power to do little more than make inciteful speeches. The real power rests in “Supreme Leader” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the “Assembly of Experts” (86 Shiite clerics that control accession to the “Supreme Leader” post) and the 40-man “Expediency Council” in which policy is debated under their version of Islamic law. In our political lingo, they are an Islamofascist regime.

America has pursued a policy aimed to isolate Iran. President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice apparently believe that UN sanctions and furrowed brows can affect the course of Iran’s conquest of the Middle East. So far, Iran is so isolated that: 1) Russia is openly building and supplying its nuclear program, and has supplied Iran with sophisticated anti-aircraft missile systems that essentially preclude air strikes against the nuclear sites by all except stealth aircraft or missiles; 2) China is trading arms and technology to Iran for oil; and 3) Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez has allied his nation with Iran (and China) in hopes of gaining weapons and technology and constricting American access to oil. At this rate, isolation could soon earn Ahmadinejad a seat on the New York Stock Exchange.

In earlier times, Americans had a greater ability to deal with reality. Before Jimmy Carter caused the failure at “Desert One,” there was another plan to rescue the American hostages in Tehran. The late great Ben Rich, the genius engineer who headed Lockheed’s super-secret “Skunk Works” and inventor of stealth aircraft, once described it to me over several glasses of an adult beverage for which we shared a liking.

Ben’s plan, cobbled together in a matter of days after the Iranians seized our embassy, was elegant for its simplicity and enormous risk. There are rocket packs that can be mounted on the C-130 Hercules to assist takeoffs from short airfields. Why not, Ben explained, mount some takeoff packs on the back, and mount another set on the nose pointing forward? Ben wanted to fill the sky over Tehran with fighters, land a C-130 on the street in front of the embassy and bring it to a really, really short stop by firing the forward-mounted rockets. Out pour a couple of platoons of Marines or rangers, they shoot their way into the embassy, grab our folks, load everybody back into the C-130, and fire the backward-pointing rockets to blast out of there under heavy air cover. Think of the lesson Iran’s ayatollahs would have learned had America shot its way into and out of their capital city. Instead, they came to believe we are a paper tiger.

We should not be speaking openly of military action to rescue the British soldiers and marines now reportedly held in Tehran. That’s the Brits’ call, and if they want our help we should give it unhesitatingly. Meanwhile, we have to rethink our policy toward Iran.

Iran’s gradual conquest of the Middle East proceeds uninhibited. Its supporters, China and Russia principally, have no intention to limit Iran’s ambitions. Khamenei and his face man, Ahmadinejad, are claiming dominance over the shallow waters of the Persian Gulf. Their capture of the British troops coincided with a large naval wargame that emphasizes the point. Every neighboring nation -- including our allies such as Kuwait and Israel -- is threatened.

We need to challenge Iran to greater effect than it challenges us. To do so we need not -- openly -- go to war with Iran. But we should begin by imposing real penalties on Iran for each act of aggression. Every time an American is hurt or killed by an EFP in Iraq, Iran should pay the butcher’s bill. Every act of war, every act to subvert friendly governments in the Middle East, every attack on one of our allies by an Iranian force or proxy should be answered quickly with acts that cost Iran dearly, and assists Iranians to rebel against the ayatollahs. Each of our allies should be assured -- publicly -- that we will defend them against Iranian aggression.

People speak of “the military option” against Iran as if it consists only of a massive ground invasion, huge air attacks and an occupation like Iraq. Nonsense. We have so many options -- some of them secret -- that we should begin employing now. For example, there are ways to fry electronic systems with an electromagnetic pulse that isn’t created by detonating a nuclear device. (HUMAN EVENTS is not the New York Times. We do not leak secrets. This weapon was spoken of openly in 2003). The next time the Iranian navy sits in port one dark night, such an “EMP” weapon could render its ships inert. I’m guessing, but I think Ben Rich would have smiled at that thought.

=





<B><font size=+1 color=brown><center>Western Defense Experts ask Questions about Iran's Invisible Shehab-3</font>

March 26, 2007
DEBKAfile
DEBKA-Net-Weekly Exclusive
http://www.iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2007&m=03&d=26&a=16 </center>
A group of Western military experts, who carried out a recent in-depth study of Iran’s high-sounding war games and scary weaponry, has concluded that they are largely a show is put on to conceal a poorly-equipped, under-trained military and elite Revolutionary Guards corps. </b>

DEBKA-Net-Weekly 293 revealed on March 16 some of the eye-openers found by those experts, when they took a close look at Iran’s Great Prophet Maneuvers One and Two and the Zolfaqhar Blow war game staged at the end of 2006 and early 2007. They homed in on the dozens of rockets and missiles claimed to have been test-fired.

The Shehab-3’s cluster bomb warhead was presented by Iran as containing up to 1,400 bomblets. It was announced that this ballistic missile (1,000-1,200 km range) was tested for the first time in a live exercise, together with the Zolfaqar-73, the Scud B, the Fath-110 and the Zelzal.

DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s military sources say that no objective observer saw the actual Shehab-3 test – and certainly not the Shehab-4, which was also mentioned. The only proven firings were performed by the Shehab-2 and the Fath-110, both of which are outdated and short on accuracy. It is therefore impossible to establish whether or not the Iranian Shehab-3 lives up to Tehran’s claim that it carries a multiple-bomb warhead.

The researchers argued that, if it were true, Iran would have exhibited the missile in action.

The experts also dissected Iranian footage of the simultaneous firing of a large number of rockets and concluded that this effect was contrived by clever editing of the video film.

Furthermore, the researchers noticed that, in all their practices, Iranian commanders used the same small number of missile-launchers over and over, indicating a severe shortage of launchers.

They are also apparently short of missiles.

Iranian missiles are color-coded according to type. Shehab-3’s colors are red and brown; Shehab 2, green.

After close attention to the film released by Tehran, the analysts were quite sure that the putative Shehab-3s, whose firings were recorded, were in fact Shehab-2 missiles disguised under a coat of red and brown paint to fool viewers.

I vaguely remember some story where AT&T (?) needed to get their folks out of Teheran after the Ayatollah took over so they hired Bo (Somebody) to do it.

And he did it.

How?

Simple, he bought his way in and back out. He said on TEEVEE that nice crisp $20 bills work every time, even in the Ayatollah's Iran.

Anybody remember that?

=





<B><font size=+1 color=green><center>Tehran's Hostages </font>

March 26, 2007
The Wall Street Journal
The Wall Street Journal Editorial
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009834 </center>
Advocates of engagement with Tehran often claim that the Islamic Republic long ago shed its revolutionary pretensions in favor of becoming a "status quo" power. They might want to share that soothing wisdom with the families of the 15 British sailors and marines kidnapped Friday in Iraqi territorial waters by the naval forces of the elite, and aptly named, Iranian Revolutionary Guards. </b>

<B><font size=+0 color=red>In an earlier day, what Iran has done would have been universally regarded as an act of war. It was a premeditated act, carried out only hours before Britain voted to stiffen sanctions against Iran for its nuclear program in a unanimous U.N. Security Council resolution.</font> Iran captured a smaller detachment of British forces in the same waters in 2004, claiming they had strayed across the Iranian border. It beggars belief--as well as an eyewitness account of the incident reported by Reuters--that the British would make that mistake twice, assuming they made it the first time. </b>

In 2004, the Iranians were quick to release the captured soldiers after extracting "apologies" and marching them, blindfolded, before the TV cameras. There is reason to believe that this time the Ayatollahs might be planning a longer stay for their guests.

Earlier this month, the Sunday Times of London reported that the Revolutionary Guards newspaper Subhi Sadek suggested seizing "a nice bunch of blue-eyed blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks." <b>One possible motive:</b> The apparent defection by Revolutionary Guards commander Ali Reza Asgari, who disappeared in Istanbul last month and is said to know a great deal about Iran's nuclear program. The Iranians may now be using their hostages as payback for General Asgari's defection--<b>or as ransom for his return.</b>

<B><font size=+0 color=red>Given the Iranian regime's past success with hostage-taking--whether with U.S. diplomats in Tehran in 1979 or Westerners in Beirut in the 1980s--they may also figure that Prime Minister Tony Blair is willing to pay a steep price to secure release of the sailors before he leaves office later this year.</font></b> Or perhaps the Iranians want to bargain with Mr. Blair's successor, presumably Chancellor Gordon Brown, whom they might suspect would take a softer line at the U.N. They may also be trying to create a rift between the U.S. and U.K. by offering to trade the British troops for Iranians the U.S. has recently detained inside Iraq.

It's also possible, as Walid Phares of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies points out, that <b>the Iranian leadership may be seeking to draw Britain (and the U.S.) into limited military skirmishes that they think could shore up domestic support against widening popular discontent. </b>

<b>Another possibility:</b> sufficiently bloodying Coalition forces in Iraq to hasten their withdrawal. <u>The mullahs might even hope any fighting would embolden Democrats to do Tehran's bidding by passing legislation that forbids the Administration from attacking Iran without prior Congressional permission</u>. Such a plank was contained in the supplemental war spending bill that passed the House last week until cooler heads removed it.

As with the 1979 hostage crisis, how Britain and the rest of the civilized world respond in the early days of the crisis will determine how long it lasts. Britain has already demanded the safe and immediate return of its personnel; they will have to make clear that its foreign policy will not be held hostage to the mullahs.

That does not require a resort to military options while diplomacy still has a chance to gain the sailors's release. Saturday's unanimous vote by the U.N. Security Council was also welcome, even if the new sanctions continue to be far too weak. Serious sanctions would target the country's supply of refined gasoline, much of which is imported.

<b>It is worth recalling, however, that Iran was at its most diplomatically pliant after the United States sank much of Tehran's navy after Iran tried to disrupt oil traffic in the Persian Gulf in the late 1980s.</b> Regimes that resort to force the way Iran does tend to be respecters of it. It is also far from certain that Western military strikes against Revolutionary Guards would move the Iranian people to rally to their side: Iranians know only too well what their self-anointed leaders are capable of.

<b>Most important, the world should keep in mind that Iran has undertaken this latest military aggression while it is still a conventional military power. That means that Britain and the U.S. can still respond today with the confidence that they maintain military superiority. That confidence will vanish the minute Iran achieves its goal of becoming a nuclear power. Who knows what the revolutionaries in Tehran will then be capable of.</b>

=





<B><center>Tuesday 27th March 2007

<font size=+1 color=blue>Bahrain nuclear readiness 'poor'</font>

By TARIQ KHONJI
http://209.15.116.195/Story.asp?Article=174455&Sn=BNEW&IssueID=30007 </center>
BAHRAIN'S ability to respond to a potential nuclear catastrophe is woefully inadequate, a Shura Council member declared yesterday.

A potential nuclear threat could come from many countries, including Iran, Pakistan, India and Israel and Bahrain should invest to ensure that it can deal with it, said Dr Aisha Salim Mubarak.</b>

"We don't have any shelters in Bahrain to take cover in case something happens," she said during the council's weekly session.

"As far as we know there aren't any doctors specialised in treating victims of a nuclear disaster.

"We don't even have the equipment needed for measuring nuclear radiation."

Dr Mubarak said that these measures were especially important now that GCC countries have indicated their interest in pursuing nuclear technology.

"The GCC has shown a readiness to implement this technology for peaceful purposes, which increases the threat," she said.

"Nuclear pollution will not last mere years, but decades. This is a very serious threat that cannot be ignored."

Minister of State for Cabinet Affairs Shaikh Ahmed bin Ateyatala Al Khalifa, who was summoned to the session for questioning, said that a draft for a response plan was being worked on, which should be ready in a few months.

"A national committee has been formed consisting of representatives of concerned parties, including the country's environmental, defence, municipalities, health, interior, ports, electricity, water and commerce authorities, in addition to the Bahrain University and Bapco," he said.

"This committee has been working on this draft, which is expected to be completed in July this year," said Shaikh Ahmed.

The plan will not only cover nuclear threats, but also other man-made disasters such as aircraft crashes and boat tragedies such as the Al Dana disaster.

However, Dr Mubarak said that she was not satisfied with the answer because Shaikh Ahmed didn't go into detail.

"We don't know if the people on this committee are experts in this issue," she said.

"He also didn't mention how much authority it has. A committee like this must be given the power to take action as quickly as possible to respond to crisis."

=




<B><center>09:54, March 27, 2007

<font size=+1 color=purple>'Don't push us around,' Iran tells the world</font>

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200703/27/eng20070327_361310.html </center>
Iran's refusal to free 15 British sailors and marines seized in contested Persian Gulf waters is the country's way of telling the world that it cannot be pushed around - even with new international sanctions over its nuclear program.

The crisis, which began unfolding on Friday when the British service members were taken captive, also shows that Iran has ways of creating problems for the West - especially in Iraq - if the US and its allies make trouble for Teheran.
</b>
On Sunday, British Prime Minister Tony Blair raised the stakes in the standoff, insisting that the British were in Iraqi - not Iranian - waters and warning that Britain viewed their situation as "very serious."

"I want to get it resolved in as easy and diplomatic a way as possible," Blair said at a European summit in Berlin, adding that he hoped the Iranians "understood how fundamental an issue this is for the British government."

"This is a very serious situation," Blair said.

But Iran appeared equally resolute, suggesting the group may be put on trial for allegedly violating its waters when they boarded a merchant ship to search for smugglers at the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway.

The UN Security Council on Saturday voted unanimously to impose additional and tougher sanctions against Iran over its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment.

At the same time, Iran is under pressure from the US and Britain over allegations that Teheran is arming Shi'ite militias in Iraq. US authorities are holding at least five Iranians, identified as part of an elite Revolutionary Guard unit, who were arrested in January in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil on suspicion of funneling weapons to Iraqi factions.

On Thursday, one day before the Britons were seized, the US military announced the arrest of the purported leader of the pro-Iranian wing of the Mahdi Army militia in Iraq for his alleged role in the January 20 sneak attack that killed five American soldiers in Karbala.

Ali Askari, former head of an elite unit of the Revolutionary Guard, disappeared in Turkey six weeks ago, and Iranian media have speculated that he was kidnapped by the Americans.


<b>No swap</b>

That has led to speculation in the Middle East that Teheran may offer to exchange the British sailors and marines for Iranians and Iranian agents held by the Americans in Iraq.

But yesterday Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Mehzi Mostafavi said Iran was not aiming to swap the 15 British sailors for the five Iranians arrested in northern Iraq.

In comments read out by a newscaster, Mostafavi did not say what Iran plans to do with the British sailors, but he said they were being interrogated.

"It should become clear whether their entry (into Iran) was intentional or unintentional. After that is clarified, the necessary decision will be made," Mostafavi said.

He rejected British claims that the sailors were in Iraqi waters when the Iranian navy seized them on Friday.

Meanwhile, a senior Iranian foreign ministry official has told Britain's envoy to Teheran at a meeting yesterday that the sailors and marines are "fit and well and in Iran", a British Foreign Office official said.

"The ambassador pressed hard for details of where the detainees were being held, for consular access to them and what plans the Iranians had for their release," the official said.

In response the Iranian official "assured him the group were fit and well and in Iran. He gave no further details at this stage but confirmed they were working to resolve this issue as soon as possible," the British official said.

Source: China Daily/agencies

=





<b><font size=+1 color=red><center>Sanctions hit Iran's Revolutionary Guards</font>

March 27 2007
Posted 43m ago
By Barbara Slavin, USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-03-26-rev-guards_N.htm </center>
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is using the nuclear standoff with Iran to target the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, accused by the United States of backing extremists in the Middle East, carrying out terror attacks and arming Iraqi militia groups.
On Saturday, the United Nations Security Council agreed to fresh sanctions against Iran for refusing to halt uranium enrichment.</b>

The sanctions included freezing the foreign assets of seven top Guards officers and calling on U.N. members to restrict the officers' international travel. The resolution also forbids Iran from exporting weapons, a major source of income for the Revolutionary Guards.

The penalties in the U.N. resolution are "not against the nuclear program. This is against the Revolutionary Guards," says Mohsen Sazegara, a founder of the Guards who became a political dissident and now lives in the USA.

The Guards are the dominant military and security force in Iran. They protect its hard-line Islamic government from dissent at home while spreading Iranian influence abroad by providing weapons, training and money to groups including Lebanon's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas, both of which are considered terrorist organizations by the United States.

FIND MORE STORIES IN: Iraq | Iran | Iran | Bush administration | TEHRAN | Middle East | Guards | Revolutionary | Images file
The United States has accused the Guards of involvement in attacks that include the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, which killed 241 Americans, and the 1996 bombing of a military housing complex in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 American airmen.

In Iraq, U.S. troops have detained more than a dozen Iranians, including members of the Guards' elite Quds Force, in two recent raids. Five are still being held.

President Bush said at a news conference Feb. 14 that Iran had provided Iraqi groups with sophisticated armor-piercing explosives that have killed American troops. He said U.S. forces had the authority to capture or kill Iranians involved in such activity.

Iran denies involvement in terrorism and meddling in Iraq. It says its sponsorship of Hezbollah and Hamas is aimed at ending Israeli occupation of Arab territory.

The Guards are "an organization that is our adversary," says Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of State and the administration's point man on Iran diplomacy. "It's fair game."

The 150,000-member force was set up to safeguard Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution at a time when the new regime was concerned about the loyalty of Iran's regular armed forces. Today, the Guards wield growing political and economic influence, says Vali Nasr, an Iran expert at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a Guards veteran. So are about half the members of the Cabinet, two-thirds of Iran's provincial governors and a third of the parliament, says Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The Guards' role in Iran's nuclear program includes protecting nuclear sites and transporting materials, says Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East expert at the Congressional Research Service.

The Guards have been under pressure from many angles:

• A December U.N. resolution froze foreign assets of Maj. Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi, commander of the Guards, and Gen. Hosein Salimi, head of the Guards' air force.

• Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., has introduced a bill that would give Bush three months to decide whether to designate the Guards as a terrorist group. Such a designation would bar any financial transactions tied to the group.

• A U.S.-led effort to discourage foreign banks from doing business with Iran could affect Guards businesses. Besides arms making, its companies are involved in trade, energy and construction.

In recent weeks, Iran accused the United States of kidnapping Ali Reza Asgari, a former Iranian deputy defense minister and Guards commander in Lebanon in the 1980s. He was last seen in Turkey in February. A CIA spokesman, Paul Gimigliano said, "The agency does not, as a rule, comment publicly on these kinds of allegations, no matter how idiotic they may be."

Iran's seizure Friday of 15 British sailors and Royal Marines in the Persian Gulf might be retaliation for the pressure, Sadjadpour says.


RELATED: Tehran softens stance on U.K. soldiers

The Bush administration and its allies hope real and psychological pressure will intensify differences within the Iranian leadership and prompt Iran to back down on the nuclear issue, Sazegara says.

=





<B><font size=+1 color=brown><center>U.S. Accused Iran on Role in Iraq Before Going Public </font>

By MICHAEL R. GORDON and SCOTT SHANE
Published: March 27, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/27/world/middleeast/27weapons.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin </center>
WASHINGTON, March 26 — More than 20 months ago, the United States secretly sent Iran a diplomatic protest charging that Tehran was supplying lethal roadside explosive devices to Shiite extremists in Iraq, according to American officials familiar with the message.

The July 19, 2005, protest — blandly titled “Message from the United States to the Government of Iran” — informed the Iranians that a British soldier had been killed by one of the devices in Maysan Province in eastern Iraq.</b>

The complaint said that the Shiite militants who planted the device had longstanding ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran, and that the Revolutionary Guards and Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia had been training Iraqi Shiite insurgents in Iran and supplying them with bomb-making equipment.

“We will continue to judge Iran by its actions in Iraq,” the protest added.

Iran flatly denied the charges in a diplomatic reply it sent the following month, and it continues to deny any role in the supply of the lethal weapons. But the confidential exchange foreshadowed the more public confrontation between the Bush administration and Iran that has been unfolding since December.

In the past four months, the administration has sought to put new pressure on Tehran, through military raids against Iranian operatives in Iraq, the dispatch of an American aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf, as well as the increasingly public complaints about Iran’s role in arming Shiite militias. The American actions prompted criticism that the White House is trying to find a scapegoat for military setbacks in Iraq, or even to prepare for a new war with Iran.

A review of the administration’s accusations of an Iranian weapons supply role, including interviews with officials in Washington and Baghdad, critics of the administration and independent experts, shows that intelligence that Iran was providing lethal assistance to Shiite militias has been a major worry for more than two years.

The concern intensified toward the end of 2006 as American casualties from the explosive devices, known as explosively formed penetrators, or E.F.P.’s, began to climb. According to classified data gathered by the American military, E.F.P. attacks accounted for 18 percent of combat deaths of Americans and allied troops in Iraq in the last quarter of 2006.

Excluding casualty data for the Sunni-dominated Anbar Province, where the explosives have not been found, the devices accounted for about 30 percent of American and allied deaths for the last quarter of the year.

Some Democrats in Congress, while critical of many aspects of Bush administration policy toward Iraq and Iran, say they are persuaded by the intelligence pointing to an Iranian role in supplying E.F.P.’s. Debate remains about whether Iran’s top leaders ordered the supply of the weapons, about whether the Iranian-supplied devices can be copied in Iraq and about American policy toward Tehran.

In January, the number of American and allied troops killed by E.F.P. attacks was less than half of December’s total. That trend continued in February.

Some American officials suggest that this may be a response to their efforts to highlight the role Iran is accused of playing, but another factor may be that many Shiite militants have opted not to confront American troops. The weapon, however, is still a major danger. On March 15, an E.F.P. attack in eastern Baghdad killed four American service members and wounded two others.

<b>A Devastating Weapon</b>

E.F.P.’s are one of the most devastating weapons on the battlefield. The weapons fire a semi-molten copper slug that cuts through the armor on a Humvee, then shatters inside the vehicle, creating a deadly hail of hot metal that causes especially gruesome wounds even when it does not kill.

Many of the E.F.P.’s encountered by American forces in Iraq are both difficult to detect and extremely destructive. Because they fire from the side of the road, there is no need to dig a hole to plant them, so they are well suited for urban settings. Because they are set off by a passive infrared sensor, the kind of motion detector that turns on security lights, they cannot be countered by electronic jamming.

Adversaries have used the weapon in new ways. On Feb. 12, a British Air Force C-130 was damaged by two E.F.P arrays as it landed on an airstrip in Maysan Province, the first time the device was used to attack an aircraft, according to allied officials. Allied forces later destroyed the aircraft with a 1,000-pound bomb to keep militants from pilfering equipment.


Over the course of the war, the devices have accounted for only a small fraction of the roadside bomb attacks in Iraq; most bombing attacks and most American deaths have been caused by less sophisticated devices favored by Sunni insurgents, not Shiite militias linked to Iran. But E.F.P.’s produce significantly more casualties per attack than other types of roadside bombs.

“They were a new type of threat with a great potential for damage,” said Lt. Col. Kevin W. Farrell, who commanded the First Battalion, 64th Armor of the Third Infantry Division, in 2005, when a penetrator punched through the skirt armor of one of the battalion’s M-1 tanks and cracked its hull. “They accounted for a sizable percentage of our casualties. Based on searches of the Baghdad environment we occupied and multiple local Iraqi sources, we believed that they came from Iran.”

<b>A Gradual Realization</b>

American intelligence analysts say the first detonation of an E.F.P. in Iraq may have come in August 2003. But their view that Iran was playing a role in the attacks emerged slowly. American officials said their assessment of Iranian involvement was based on a cumulative picture that included forensic examination of exploded and captured devices, and parallels between the use of the weapons in Iraq and devices used in southern Lebanon by Hezbollah.

“There was no eureka moment,” said one senior American official, who like several others would discuss intelligence and administration decision-making only on condition of anonymity.

The entire E.F.P. assembly seen repeatedly in Iraq, including the radio link used to activate it and the infrared sensor used to fire it, had been found only one other place in the world, American officials say: Lebanon, since 1998, where it is believed to have been supplied by Iran to Hezbollah.

According to one military expert, some of the radio transmitters used to activate some of the E.F.P.’s in Iraq operate on the same frequency and use the same codes as devices used against Israeli forces in Lebanon.

More evidence came from the interception of trucks in Iraq, within a few miles of the Iranian border, carrying copper discs machined to the precise curvature required to form the penetrating projectile. Wrappers for C4 explosive, among other items, were traceable to Iran, officials say.

An important part of the American claim comes from intelligence, including interrogation of captured militia members, about Shiite militants who use E.F.P.’s and maintain close ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah.

The militant groups led by Abu Mustafa al-Sheibani have operated one of the most important E.F.P. networks. According to American intelligence reports, his network has been receiving E.F.P. components and training from the Quds Force, and elite unit of the Revolutionary Guard, and Hezbollah operatives in Iran. He is on the Iraqi most-wanted list and the Iraqi criminal court issued a warrant for his arrest in 2005.

Ahmad Abu Sajad al-Gharawi, a former Mahdi Army commander, has been active in Maysan Province. American intelligence officials say his group was probably linked to the attack on British forces that was cited in the American diplomatic protest. He is also on the Iraqi government’s most-wanted list, and an Iraqi warrant has been issued for his arrest.

In September 2005, British forces arrested Ahmad Jawwad al-Fartusi, the leader of a splinter group of the Mahdi Army that carried out E.F.P. attacks against British forces in southern Iraq. American intelligence concluded that his fighters might have received training and E.F.P. components from Hezbollah.

Mr. Fartusi lived in Lebanon for several years, and a photograph of him with Hezbollah members was discovered when British forces searched his home. In the view of American officials that may be circumstantial evidence of an Iranian connection, because American intelligence experts say Hezbollah generally conducts operations in Iraq with the consent of Iran.

Last week, American-led forces captured Qais Khazali and Laith Khazali. The Shiite militants, the American military said publicly, were linked to the kidnapping and killing of five American soldiers in Karbala in January. American officials say they have also trafficked in E.F.P.’s.


Some people who are experts on military matters but who acknowledge they do not have access to the classified intelligence have said the weapons could be made in Iraq. But American officials say they have not found any facilities inside Iraq where the high-quality E.F.P. components are being manufactured.

Nonetheless, the E.F.P. experience in Iraq appears to have, in turn, influenced developments in Lebanon. The installation of E.F.P.’s in foam blocks painted to resemble rocks, a technique first used in 2005 by Shiite militias in Iraq, appeared last summer in Lebanon when Hezbollah was battling Israeli forces. Previously, Hezbollah had generally placed the devices on tripods at the side of the road, covering them with brush to avoid detection.

“There’s almost been a cross-pollenization,” one official said.

American and British forces have been the primary targets in the E.F.P. attacks, but the devices have also been used against Iraqi security forces. In June 2005, a Japanese convoy near Samawa was struck by a roadside bomb that used a remote control firing device typically provided by Iran or Hezbollah. Concerned by the attacks, the British government protested through diplomatic channels in Tehran that year. Taking note of the British complaint, the Americans made their protest through Swiss intermediaries in Iran. As evidence of an Iranian role, the American complaint cited a May 29, 2005, E.F.P attack near Amara that killed a 21-year-old British lance corporal, Alan Brackenbury. Iran denied any involvement.

<b>Discussing Concerns Publicly</b>

After that diplomatic rebuff, American officials began to broach the topic publicly. In August 2005, Stephen J. Hadley, President Bush’s national security adviser, said allied forces were being made targets of bombs “that seem to have a footprint similar to that of devices used by groups that have historically had Iranian support.”

In October 2005, the British ambassador to Iraq, William Patey, told reporters in London that Iran was supplying lethal technology that had been used against British troops. “The particular nature of those devices lead us to either to Iranian elements or to Hezbollah,” Prime Minister Tony Blair added. At the time he expressed caution about the certainty of the link to Iran, but in February of this year he said it was clear that Iran “is the origin of that weaponry.”

Beginning in April 2006, E.F.P. attacks began to rise. With both the diplomatic protests and the public statements having failed to stop the attacks, American officials again began to discuss what to do. The changing nature of the American strategy, with its increased emphasis on challenging Shiite militias in and around Baghdad, made the issue all the more pressing.

According to officials involved in the discussion, who asked not be identified, one concern was that raiding Iranian operatives in Iraq might provoke Iran to increase lethal assistance to Shiite militants. Another worry was that it might require the American command to divert military and intelligence assets from missions against Sunni insurgents, like Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

“For many months American officials were torn between a desire to do something and a wish to avoid confrontation,” Philip D. Zelikow, a former senior State Department official, said in a recent speech. “When a government is conflicted about what to do, the usual result is inaction.”

As the Bush administration debated what to do, one issue involved the rules of engagement if American forces were to conduct raids against Iranian operatives in Iraq. After the United States Central Command submitted a plan for such raids, one option that was weighed was to declare the Quds Force that is operating in Iraq, to be a “hostile force.”

Such an order would give the military a clear legal justification for taking action against Iranian officials and operatives in Iraq, and flexibility in planning the raids.

Other officials said the Iranians were also involved in economic and social programs in Iraq. They argued for a more limited approach, saying that the United States should single out only Iranian operatives found to have “hostile intent” against coalition forces. The Bush administration decided that the raids would be carried out under the more limited rules of engagement for now.

Meanwhile, in Baghdad, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., then the top American commander, approved plans to brief the news media on the E.F.P. issue — a reversal for military officials, who had been reluctant to highlight the effectiveness of the weapons for fear of encouraging their use.

“Our intelligence analysts advised our leaders that the historical Quds Force pattern is to pull back when their operations are exposed, so MNF-I leadership decided to expose their operations to save American lives,” said Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, the chief spokesman for Multinational Forces-Iraq, as the American-led command is known.

<b>The Iran Connection</b>

Some Democratic lawmakers who are critical of the administration’s Iraq policies say they now accept that there is a connection between Iran and the E.F.P. attacks in Iraq, though they emphasize that Iran is not the primary reason for instability in Iraq.

Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat who opposed Mr. Bush’s troop reinforcement plan, said he believed that the Bush administration was using the E.F.P. issue to distract attention from the difficulties in Iraq. But he said he was persuaded that the weapons were coming from Iran, in part from extensive talks with American and British commanders during trips to Iraq.

“They want to keep us under pressure in Iraq without causing a major power reaction by us or a major meltdown within Iraq, which puts a failing state on their borders,” Mr. Reed said of the Iranians.

At a February hearing, Senator Carl Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a critic of the plan to send more troops to Baghdad, pressed Mike McConnell, the new director of national intelligence, to acknowledge that other countries in the region, too, were supplying insurgents in Iraq.

Mr. Levin, however, said he was “not surprised” by Mr. McConnell’s view that some of Iran’s leaders probably knew of E.F.P. deliveries arranged by the Quds Force, and aides say Mr. Levin believes that the administration has been too cautious about pinning the blame on Iran’s leaders.

Flynt Leverett, a senior fellow at the New American Foundation and a Middle East specialist who worked for the Central Intelligence Agency and on the staff of the National Security Council, also said he believed that Iran was supplying munitions to Shiite militias.

But Mr. Leverett said the threat to American troops from Sunni insurgents, who draw on Syria and Saudi Arabia for money and other logistical support, was “orders of magnitude” greater than that from Shiites, and he contended that the Bush administration’s public emphasis on the E.F.P.’s was part of a larger administration strategy to blame Iran “for the failure of the American project in Iraq.”

In the report it completed in December, the Iraq Study Group called for opening talks with Iran and suggested Iran could take steps to improve security in Iraq by stemming “the flow of equipment, technology, and training to any group resorting to violence in Iraq.”

“The fact that Iran may be supplying lethal equipment is all the more reason to deal with them,” Lee H. Hamilton, a co-chairman of the panel, said in an interview. “We do think it fortifies the case for engaging Iran.”

=




<B><font size=+1 color=green><center>How the Falklands War was won</font>

By Michael Novak
Last Updated: 2:27am BST
27/03/2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/27/wfalk127.xml </center>
The opening phases of the Falklands Conflict began in December 1981 when more than 40 Argentine "scrap metal workers" landed on the island of South Georgia, pointedly refusing to report to the British base at Grytviken to have their entry visas stamped.

Project Alpha was a deliberate operation designed by the new military junta of Gen Leopoldo Galtieri to test British will ahead of Project Azul, a full-scale invasion of the Falkland Islands.</b>

The Argentinians eventually left but returned on March 9, 1982 - this time raising the Argentinian flag - and the Royal Navy survey ship Endurance was dispatched to South Georgia with a small detachment of Royal Marines to eject them.

advertisement
UK media reports of Royal Navy nuclear submarines on their way to the Falklands panicked the junta into ordering a modified invasion force to depart on March 28. It was not in fact until a day later that three British submarines left Gibraltar for the south Atlantic.

The limited Argentine force, which included only 900 ground troops, was bound to be too strong for the 68 Royal Marines stationed in the Falklands capital Port Stanley.

The Argentinians landed on the morning of April 2 and swiftly overcame the British commandos, a situation mirrored in South Georgia, which fell a day later.

The initial feeling among Margaret Thatcher's advisers was that diplomacy was the only way out, sending an expeditionary force 8,000 miles south was a perilous business and one to be avoided at all costs.

But senior figures within the armed forces disagreed. Sir Henry Leach, the First Sea Lord, told Mrs Thatcher that failure to retake the islands would leave the UK impotent on the world stage and she needed little persuasion that he was right.

The popular mood was firmly behind the British prime minister. It seemed to most people that a set of tin-pot south American dictators renowned for their willingness to resort to torture were lording it over British citizens and territory and that something must be done.

Mrs Thatcher announced the dispatch of a task force to the Falklands, with the initial elements, including the aircraft carriers Hermes and Invincible, departing Portsmouth almost immediately.

The speed with which the Task Force got underway was astonishing. By April 8, the rapidly refitted cruise liner Canberra departed Southampton with 2,000 paratroopers and commandos on board, the docksides crowded with well-wishers waving the Union Flag.

Then, as now, the navy was facing extensive cuts and the assault ship Intrepid had to be brought back into commission rapidly to take part in the race south.

With the British task force heading towards the Falklands, there was a flurry of feverish but ultimately pointless diplomatic negotiations led by Alexander Haig, the US Secretary of State.

Meanwhile, British commandos and special forces retook South Georgia; the UK declared a 200-nautical mile exclusion zone around the islands; and President Ronald Reagan threw US military support behind the British.

On May 1, British special forces landed on West and East Falkland to recce landing sites while the RAF and the Fleet Air Arm attacked Port Stanley airfield, destroying four Argentinian aircraft but failing to shut down the runway.

A day later the Royal Navy submarine Conqueror sank the Argentinian cruiser General Belgrano, with the loss of 323 lives, leading Admiral Jorge Anaya to order his ships back to port.

The decision to sink the Belgrano - famously welcomed by the Sun with the headline Gotcha - caused much controversy. But there was little doubt her Exocet missiles were a threat to the British task force much of which was already in the region.

The threat from the Exocets was confirmed two days later on May 4, when the British destroyer Sheffield was hit in "bomb alley" south-east of the Falklands with the loss of 20 lives.

She was the first Royal Navy ship lost in action since 1945 and in London the successful Argentinian attack briefly rocked the war cabinet but with little choice it held firm.

Early on May 21, troops from 2 and 3 Bns of the Parachute Regiment, plus marines from 40, 42 and 45 Royal Marine Commandos landed virtually unopposed to form the main bridgehead at San Carlos on the western coast of East Falkland.

Three days later and the Argentinians enjoyed another short-lived success when the destroyer Coventry was hit by three bombs, capsized and sank with the loss of 19 of her crew while the roll-on roll-off ferry the Atlantic Conveyor was sunk by an Exocet, killing 12.

On May 26, 2 Para set off to the south to mount a surprise attack on Darwin and Goose Green and the next day 3 Para and 45 Commando headed east towards Port Stanley.

There was much attention focused back in Britain on the fact that the commandos called their forced march a "yomp" while the paras were "tabbing", making a "tactical advance to battle".

With the BBC World service announcing that a British parachute battalion was poised to take Goose Green, Lt-Col "H" Jones, the CO of 2 Para, realized all hope of a surprise attack was lost and ordered his men to attack that night.

Despite being outnumbered three to one, they won the battle but Jones was killed and was subsequently awarded a posthumous VC.

The last Argentinian success of the conflict came on June 8 when the landing ships Sir Galahad and Sir Tristram were attacked by Argentine aircraft at Bluff Cove, killing 48, mainly members of the Welsh Guards who were being landed to join the battle for Stanley.

With the Scots and Welsh Guards now joining the force, having been ferried down on the requisitioned QE2, a substantial British force of 8,000 men was now lined up against the Argentinians.

The first phase of the assault on Stanley began on June 11, with 45 Commando attacking Two Sisters, screaming the company war cry Zulu, Zulu and forcing the Argentinians to flee with the loss of only four British marines.

Meanwhile 42 Commando lost only one man in capturing Mt Harriet and Goat Fudge. The fiercest fighting came in 3 Para's assault on Mt Longdon just five miles west of the Falklands capital. The young Argentinian soldiers stood and fought.

The paras lost 18 men in the battle and when they eventually reached the top of the mountain they found one of their own Sgt Ian McKay surrounded by dead Argentinians. He was the second British soldier to be awarded a posthumous VC for his part in the conflict.

The second phase of the assault followed on June 14 with the Gurkhas taking Mount William and 2 Para attacking Wireless Ridge backed up by heavy shelling from their own artillery and naval guns. They lost only three men and found more than 100 Argentinian bodies.

But the fiercest hand to hand fighting came on Tumbledown, taken by the Scots Guards with the loss of seven men to around 30 Argentinians killed.

With the British troops now poised to take Stanley itself, the Argentinian commander Brig-Gen Mario Menendez surrendered, thoroughly vindicating Mrs Thatcher's courageous decision to ignore her advisers and retake the Falklands.

Troke said:

I vaguely remember some story where AT&T (?) needed to get their folks out of Teheran after the Ayatollah took over so they hired Bo (Somebody) to do it.

And he did it.

How?

Simple, he bought his way in and back out. He said on TEEVEE that nice crisp $20 bills work every time, even in the Ayatollah's Iran.

Anybody remember that?

Click to expand...

I think you are actually referring to Ross Perot. You can read about it in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Wings-Eagles-Ken-Follett/dp/0451163532/ref=sr_1_1/002-8474382-4815237?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174963480&sr=8-1

One Amazon reviewer wrote:

On The Wings of Eagles is destined to be a classic. It is the true life story of Ross Perot trying to save members of his corporation who are being held hostage by the Iranian government. He first tries using his clout and influence in Washington but when that does not work he hires a team of mercenaries to go to Iran to free the hostages and return unharmed to the United States.

The book reads like a fictional spy novel; however, it is a true story. Not "based on a true story" but 100% nonfiction, according to author Ken Follett. Nevertheless, this is one book that you will just not want to put down.

The maps, pictures, and cast of characters list makes the book even easier to follow.

Furthermore, the book also gives insight into the real life character, ex-presidental candidate, Ross Perot.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=blue><center>Iran keeps location of UK soldiers a secret</font>

March 27 2007 at 02:29AM
By Fredrik Dahl
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3&art_id=nw20070327015105660C414934 </center>
Tehran - Iran says the British sailors it detained are well but has not disclosed where they are being held, Britain said on Monday, as tension over their capture and Tehran's nuclear plans sent oil prices to a 2007 high.</b>

Naval Revolutionary Guards units seized the 15 sailors and Marines in the Gulf on Friday, sparking a diplomatic crisis - just a day before the United Nations imposed new sanctions on Iran over its disputed atomic programme.

Britain asked Russia, which has close diplomatic and trade ties with Tehran, and other states to help secure their release.

It also summoned Iran's ambassador in London, Rasoul Movahedian, for the third time since the crisis began. Foreign Office Minister David Triesman had "a frank and clinical discussion" with him, the Foreign Office said.

"Lord Triesman underlined the seriousness of the situation and repeated the government's demands about the whereabouts of our personnel, the embassy's request for consular access and that they should be released immediately," the office said.

Iran has said it is considering charging the Britons with illegally entering its waters. Vice Foreign Minister Mahdi Mostafavi said on Monday they were being interrogated to see if they had crossed into Iranian territory on purpose or not.

"When that is clear the appropriate decision will be made," Iranian state television cited Mostafavi as saying.

Some hardline groups in Iran suggest the case could be a bargaining chip in its nuclear and other rows with the West, exposing what analysts said were divisions with more moderate voices who want to build bridges abroad, not exacerbate tension.

"It appears there is no decision on (how to handle) this issue," said one Iranian analyst, pointing to the relatively subdued coverage in Iran's media so far.

A diplomat echoed this view. He said the incident did not appear pre-planned, so there was debate about what to do next.

Ross hired an old coot name of Bull Simons....

Google him.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=purple><center>Iran's brinkmanship may prove too costly</font>

March 27 2007 03:00
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9979668c-db...age=063fb9c2-3000-11da-ba9f-00000e2511c8.html </center>
The prospect of a military conflict between Iran and the west has been hanging over the world for months, indeed years. Most scenarios have hinged on a deliberate decision by the US to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, as a way of thwarting that country's apparent efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. But it is also possible that conflict will break out by accident. That threat is created by provocations on both sides - increasing the possibility of miscalculation.</b>

The latest example is Iran's seizure of 15 British Navy personnel - and its threat to put them on trial for illegally entering Iranian waters (allegations that are vehemently denied by the British). Tony Blair, the prime minister, was right when he said that: "This is a very serious situation." The plight of the British naval personnel is unlikely to lead directly to conflict. But it is part of a pattern of escalating tensions that looks dangerous.

It is up to Iran, above all, to take a step back and calm the situation. Even if the Iranians could prove their allegations that the British sailors had crossed into Iranian territorial waters, it is absurd to accuse them of "blatant aggression". These were military personnel operating out of Iraq under a UN mandate, not staging an amphibious assault on the Iranian coastline.

It is always difficult to make definitive statements about Iranian motives, given the fractured and obscure workings of its government. But the seizure of the British sailors could well be a response to the passage of a new UN Security Council resolution, tightening sanctions against Iran and demanding a halt to its uranium enrichment programme. If so, it is a stupid response, which should be quickly reversed. Taking hostages is illegal and the threat of a show trial is repulsive.

A deliberate decision to escalate tensions in the region also carries far more risks for Iran than for the other players in this dangerous drama. The new UN resolution passed the Security Council by 15-0. Iran received no protection from Russia or China. Outside the UN, Iran is increasingly isolated. Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan are increasingly open in their hostility. It is now in Iranian interests to promote diplomacy.

Opportunities for Iran to take the diplomatic route do exist. The hawks in Washington - who were pressing for military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities - are on the defensive. The diplomats at the State Department, who favour negotiations, want high-level talks with Iran and Syria, possibly next month. Any diplomatic opening would certainly be more limited than Iran wants. There would be no direct bilateral contacts and the talks would focus initially on Iraq alone. But, if they went well, they could surely be expanded to take in Iranian security concerns, maritime boundaries and - above all - the nuclear issue. Further brinkmanship is in nobody's interests.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=red><center>Still time for diplomacy with Tehran, says US</font>

By Daniel Dombey in Brussels
March 27 2007 03:00
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d290f1b0-db...age=fc3334c0-2f7a-11da-8b51-00000e2511c8.html </center>
Nicholas Burns, the man at the heart of the US administration's policy on Iran for the past two years, insists that Iran's leadership is divided, its nuclear programme is less advanced than many think and that the world is stepping up the pressure on Tehran.

As a result, he concludes, there is still time to reach a negotiated solution on a dispute others fear could end in military conflict.</b>

"It is not a monolithic regime; it's a cacophonous government that is fighting, we think, within itself," says the US undersecretary of state of the Iranian leadership. "We do know that there are people there who want to negotiate and we hope that they will be able to engineer a decision to do just that."

Speaking to the FT, Mr Burns swiped aside Iran's claims that by May it will install 3,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium - which if they were working perfectly would be enough to produce fissile material for a bomb within a year. Tehran insists its purposes are peaceful.

"I think the Iranians have had a considerable degree of difficulty in proceeding with their enrichment experimentation," he says. "They have made these fantastic claims . . . and yet according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, they have not been able to manage quite as well as they thought they would."

Mr Burns, a former US ambassador to Nato, shows conviction bordering on passion when defending the US policy to work with the European Union, Russia and China to persuade Iran to halt its enrichment policy - a policy that two years ago the State Department convinced President George W. Bush to adopt.

"We've patiently helped to construct this big international coalition," he says, highlighting the unanimous United Nations Security Council vote at the weekend to impose further sanctions on Iran. "I think we have time in which to work. Diplomacy, if it is to be successful, will require patience and persistence and some time if it is to play itself out."

He adds that due to the mixture of UN sanctions, US activity in Iraq and steps by third parties such as European banks that have halted financing, Iran is "clearly in a disadvantageous position internationally - much more so than where they were six months or 12 months ago." That, he says, is why diplomacy "could be an answer, not will be, but could be" for the problem of Iran.

http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=286403


The diplomatic row over the Iranian seizure of 15 British servicemen and marines entered its fourth day Monday, with Iran saying the Britons are Òfit and wellÓ and being held at a secret location until the Iranians can determine through interrogation whether their alleged entry into Iranian waters was intentional.

The U.S. and British governments say the British personnel were intercepted by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' (IRGC) naval forces March 23 after completing a search of a civilian vessel on the Iraqi side of the 120-mile Shatt al-Arab waterway leading to the Persian Gulf. The Iranian government, however, says the British servicemen admitted to illegally entering Iranian territory, and that it has the satellite tracking images to prove the "blatant aggression into Iranian territorial waters."

Iran has a track record of stirring up diplomatic spats in the oil-rich Persian Gulf in order to reassert its political and military relevance, as it did in June 2004 when it seized three British patrol boats in the Shatt al-Arab. At that time, the Iranian nuclear controversy was gaining steam as Washington attempted to transfer the issue to the U.N. Security Council while building a new government in Baghdad without consulting Iran.

This latest incident comes in the wake of a unanimous U.N. Security Council vote to tighten sanctions against Iran. Included in the resolution was a clause freezing the assets of 28 people and organizations ostensibly involved in Iran's nuclear and missile programs. Many of them belong to the elite IRGC and Quds Force (a paramilitary arm of the IRGC), which have been heavily involved in fueling the Iraq insurgency. The IRGC has evidently been displeased with the financial hit, as well as the January seizure of five Iranians -- including IRGC and Quds Force members -- in a U.S. raid in Arbil. IRGC weekly newspaper Subhi Sadek expressed this outrage, saying the IRGC has Òthe ability to capture a bunch of blue-eyed, blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks."

There are a number of reasons behind the IRGC's recent seizure of the British servicemen, but there could be more to this diplomatic row than is apparent.

While Iran and the United States have kept the media busy with diplomatic maneuverings over Iraq and threats linked to the Iranian nuclear program, Iran has been entangled in an intense covert intelligence war with the West. As part of this fight, the assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist by Israel's Mossad was met a few weeks later -- as expected -- with a retaliatory strike in Paris against David Dahan, head of the Israeli Defense Ministry Mission to Europe. Though Dahan's death was treated as a suicide, intelligence suggests Dahan was singled out by the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) in a tit-for-tat strike.

Several weeks ago, Ali Reza Asghari, a former Iranian deputy defense minister and Pasdaran commander, defected while traveling in Turkey and was turned over to the U.S. government. Asghari is undoubtedly a valuable asset for Western intelligence agencies, who likely hope to use him to dissect the Iranian defense establishment -- representing a significant threat to Iran's national security. In the course of Asghari's debriefing, he undoubtedly was grilled on his knowledge of any suspected U.S. agents operating in Iran in order to determine if any agents have been or are close to being exposed by Iranian security agencies.

With this in mind, there have been recent indications from U.S. and Israeli intelligence sources that the British MI6 was engaged in an operation to extract one of its agents from Iran, but a leak tipped MOIS off to the plan. According to an unconfirmed source, the IRGC nabbed the British personnel, as well as the agent, to use as a bargaining chip in order to secure the release of the five detained Iranians. If these negotiations go poorly for Iran, the Britons could very well be tried for espionage.

The motive behind the seizure of the British servicemen is still unclear, but the operation likely was planned well in advance by key figures within the IRGC. At this point, the Iranians are watching their backs closely, and are willing to take the political risk of flaring up another diplomatic dispute in order to plug further intelligence leaks.

http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=13902


The intensified military buildup in the Persian Gulf poses dangers for escalation, both inadvertent and deliberate, around the Iran crisis. Last week’s Iranian decision to surround a British naval vessel and seize 15 British sailors and marines directly increases tensions in the Iran conflict (around both the nuclear issue and Iran’s intervention in Iraq).

It’s possible, though unlikely, that the British sailors were inadvertently in Iranian territory; though certainly the patrols around Iraqi offshore terminals and shipping lanes routinely bring British naval vessels right to the edge of Iranian territorial waters. (The Iraqi sea lane is quite narrow in the area of the conflict with some 200 meters of navigable water in Iraqi territory.) Whatever the case, the well-orchestrated Iranian "surround and seizure" had been planned for some time. It strikes me as a response to the United States holding of Iranian diplomats taken in Irbil several months ago—a deliberate and carefully calibrated escalation, with very limited risk for an outbreak of hostilities. Hence the extraordinary and high-level Iranian military presence quickly marshaled to the scene.

The timing of the event was surely intentional, a provocation right before the Security Council was to vote on further sanctions against Iran. The decision could only have been taken with the approval of Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would not have been allowed to take the lead on such a decision. The move further confirms that Tehran is not looking for a "diplomatic out." rather it is sending a message to the international community that Iran is prepared for a fight if necessary and that its only remaining options are increasingly unpalatable.

The Iranian decision to take British (rather than American) soldiers suggests that Tehran does not intend to release the troops immediately (though certainly they will remain safe and well looked after), but rather to use them as leverage for negotiations with British diplomats. The lack of direct channels of negotiations between Iran and the United States would have precluded this option with U.S. soldiers and could have led to significant retaliation against Iran. The most likely next step is for Iran to demand the release of its captured diplomats, and conceivably of its government property, in Iraqi territory. That’s an unlikely outcome. The incident has the capacity to significantly cool British willingness to support efforts at continued negotiations with Iran on the nuclear conflict, as well as end Iranian participation in the broader "contact group" with the United States and Britain (among others) on Iraq. And both Britain and the United States will now step up their military presence along the edge of Iran’s territorial waters, with more frequent and larger-scale patrols. That will heighten the risk of military miscues but reduce the likelihood of any surprise Iranian naval presence.

If anything, the United States and Britain took advantage of the Iranian move to push up the vote on a second resolution against Iran at the Security Council. The sanctions remain extremely limited. And as I’ve suggested above, they will have no effect on Iranian decision-making. Still, it’s worth noting that supreme leader Khamenei last week expressed Iranian intentions to proceed with "illegal" nuclear activities following any further "illegal" sanctions enacted against Iran. The importance of that statement, given IAEA documentation that Iran’s nuclear program is progressing, is that it provides greater justification for broader provocative moves against the Islamic Republic and plays into the Israeli argument for the need for an attack.

I still see Israeli security concerns as the most significant driver of likely military action. A series of Israeli war drills last week, including simulated missile attacks on Israeli urban centers and on the main Tel Aviv power station, are particularly noteworthy.

A final point. The Congress continues to push a broad spectrum of legislation against Iran, with strong bipartisan support. The most recent proposal from the Senate brings Russia into the fray, threatening to end WTO cooperation with any country found to be engaging in rather ill-defined "nuclear cooperation" with Iran. Like other similar measures in Congress, this one seems likely to pass—if in amended form. At the least, it threatens one of the few remaining areas of strong U.S.-Russian collaboration—civilian nuclear programs to purchase spent Russian nuclear fuel.

Back in the January/February issue of The National Interest, I wrote:

The United States is going to face a number of challenges and disappointments over the next two years—Iran, Iraq, North Korea, China and Russia, among others. The first reaction of many U.S. politicians is to be confrontational. Easing tensions with rogue states and with countries perceived to be opposing U.S. policies will not win the president points with those who prefer a muscular strategy. But decisions need to be made on the basis of long-term U.S. interests, not short-term sound bites.

Good advice to be following now.

Ian Bremmer, a contributing editor to The National Interest, is president of the Eurasia Group.

An early bump for today's news, Dutchman.

Y'all excuse the thread drift, please. Troke started it 8^).

They finally put up a statue of The Colonel, on the Plaza at the JFKSWC Museum where Bronze Bruce used to be till the upstarts at USASOC kidnapped ol' Brucie. Many thanks, Mr. Perot. You always knew a good man when you found one.

Well, Bronze Bruce fits better where he is now IMHO. If I were still heading in to work at JFK every day, I'd much rather say hello to The Colonel in the morning and stand to retreat under his bronze gaze in the afternoon- but I already put Ft. Bragg in the rearview mirror for the last time as a workerbee. It's still good to see that statue when I get back every once in a while though. The Colonel ought to have had a Congressional Medal of Honor and at least one star before his final retreat was sounded- Lord knows a statue is the least he deserves. 'Course, the Army doesn't give men like Simons stars these days. Stars are for the gentlemen-diplomat-scholar leaders, not kicker and shooter leaders. Simons would upset the tea party, can't have that.

Here's a tiny bit of Simons trivia for the record. On the Son Tay mission, Simon's code name was Wildroot. One author speculated that it was because of Simon's lack of hair. Nope.

Wildroot was perhaps the most famous of Army mules who ever lived at Ft. Bragg, back in the days when mules were used to haul pack artillery (WW2, BTW). And Simon's first command in combat was- guess what- pack artillery. He joked that as a lieutenant his first order in combat was to a sergeant, to help make a mule more comfortable.

The Colonel was brash and abrasive, according to those I knew who had worked for him- he was gone before I ever entered that particular arena. He had alienated his family and many of the people who knew him, Perot wound up taking care of him at his death shortly after the EDS employees were rescued from Iran.

Simons was among the greatest combat leaders the Army ever produced.

God rest ye, Colonel.

dd
=======================
http://www.specialoperations.com/Operations/sontay.html

http://www.sontayraider.com/

http://www.psywarrior.com/sontay.html

Now, back to your previously scheduled thread...

http://cbs4.com/national/topstories_story_086055555.html

Mar 27, 2007 9:28 am US/Eastern
U.S. Navy Launches Show Of Force Off Coast Of Iran

(AP) DUBAI, United Arab Emirates The U.S. Navy on Tuesday began its largest demonstration of force in the Persian Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, led by a pair of aircraft carriers and backed by warplanes flying simulated attack maneuvers off the coast of Iran.

The maneuvers bring together two strike groups of U.S. warships and more than 100 U.S. warplanes to conduct simulated air warfare in the crowded Gulf shipping lanes.

The U.S. exercises come just four days after Iran's capture of 15 British sailors and marines who Iran said had strayed into Iranian waters near the Gulf. Britain and the U.S. Navy have insisted the British sailors were operating in Iraqi waters.

U.S. Navy Cmdr. Kevin Aandahl said the U.S. maneuvers were not organized in response to the capture of the British sailors — nor were they meant to threaten the Islamic Republic, whose navy operates in the same waters.

He declined to specify when the Navy planned the exercises.

Aandahl said the U.S. warships would stay out of Iranian territorial waters, which extend 12 miles off the Iranian coast.

A French naval strike group, led by the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, was operating simultaneously just outside the Gulf. But the French ships were supporting the NATO forces in Afghanistan and not taking part in the U.S. maneuvers, officials said.

Overall, the exercises involve more than 10,000 U.S. personnel on warships and aircraft making simulated attacks on enemy shipping with aircraft and ships, hunting enemy submarines and finding mines.

"What it should be seen as by Iran or anyone else is that it's for regional stability and security," Aandahl said. "These ships are just another demonstration of that. If there's a destabilizing effect, it's Iran's behavior."

Troke said:

I vaguely remember some story where AT&T (?) needed to get their folks out of Teheran after the Ayatollah took over so they hired Bo (Somebody) to do it.

And he did it.

How?

Simple, he bought his way in and back out. He said on TEEVEE that nice crisp $20 bills work every time, even in the Ayatollah's Iran.

Anybody remember that?

Click to expand...

Troke. You're thinking about Bo Gritz. He went into Vietnam on his own looking for American prisoners of war after the war. He was the model for Rambo.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=red><center>Another Step in the U.S.-Iranian Covert War </font>

March 27, 2007
Stratfor
Stratfor Geopolitical Diary
http://www.stratfor.com/ </center>
The diplomatic row over the Iranian seizure of 15 British servicemen and marines entered its fourth day Monday, with Iran saying the Britons are "fit and well" and being held at a secret location until the Iranians can determine through interrogation whether their alleged entry into Iranian waters was intentional. </b>

The U.S. and British governments say the British personnel were intercepted by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' (IRGC) naval forces March 23 after completing a search of a civilian vessel on the Iraqi side of the 120-mile Shatt al-Arab waterway leading to the Persian Gulf. The Iranian government, however, says the British servicemen admitted to illegally entering Iranian territory, and that it has the satellite tracking images to prove the "blatant aggression into Iranian territorial waters."

Iran has a track record of stirring up diplomatic spats in the oil-rich Persian Gulf in order to reassert its political and military relevance, as it did in June 2004 when it seized three British patrol boats in the Shatt al-Arab. At that time, the Iranian nuclear controversy was gaining steam as Washington attempted to transfer the issue to the U.N. Security Council while building a new government in Baghdad without consulting Iran.

This latest incident occurred a day ahead of the widely expected unanimous U.N. Security Council vote to tighten sanctions against Iran. Included in the resolution is a clause freezing the assets of 28 people and organizations ostensibly involved in Iran's nuclear and missile programs. Many of them belong to the elite IRGC and Quds Force (a paramilitary arm of the IRGC), which have been heavily involved in fueling the Iraq insurgency. The IRGC is evidently displeased with the financial hit, as well as the January seizure of five Iranians -- including IRGC and Quds Force members -- in a U.S. raid in Arbil. IRGC weekly newspaper Subhi Sadek expressed this outrage, saying the IRGC has "the ability to capture a bunch of blue-eyed, blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks."

There are a number of reasons behind the IRGC's recent seizure of the British servicemen, but there could be more to this diplomatic row than is apparent.

While Iran and the United States have kept the media busy with diplomatic maneuverings over Iraq and threats linked to the Iranian nuclear program, Iran has been entangled in an intense covert intelligence war with the West. As part of this fight, the assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist by Israel's Mossad was met a few weeks later -- as expected -- with a retaliatory strike in Paris against David Dahan, head of the Israeli Defense Ministry Mission to Europe. Though Dahan's death was treated as a suicide, intelligence suggests Dahan was singled out by the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) in a tit-for-tat strike.

Several weeks ago, Ali Reza Asghari, a former Iranian deputy defense minister and Pasdaran commander defected while traveling in Turkey and was turned over to the U.S. government. Asghari is undoubtedly a valuable asset for Western intelligence agencies, who likely hope to use him to dissect the Iranian defense establishment -- representing a significant threat to Iran's national security. In the course of Asghari's debriefing, he undoubtedly was grilled on his knowledge of any suspected U.S. agents operating in Iran in order to determine if any agents have been or are close to being exposed by Iranian security agencies.

With this in mind, there have been recent indications from U.S. and Israeli intelligence sources that the British MI6 was engaged in an operation to extract one of its agents from Iran, but a leak tipped MOIS off to the plan. According to an unconfirmed source, the IRGC nabbed the British personnel, as well as the agent, to use as a bargaining chip in order to secure the release of the five detained Iranians. If these negotiations go poorly for Iran, the Britons could very well be tried for espionage.

The motive behind the seizure of the British servicemen is still unclear, but the operation likely was planned well in advance by key figures within the IRGC. At this point, the Iranians are watching their backs closely, and are willing to take the political risk of flaring up another diplomatic dispute in order to plug further intelligence leaks.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=brown><center>Stand-off in the Persian Gulf </font>

March 27, 2007
The Economist
Economist.com
http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8914938&top_story=1 </center>
At first blush it looks like a re-run. In 2004 Iranian forces, without provocation, snatched British sailors in the Persian Gulf. Last week Iranian forces, probably the Revolutionary Guard, did so again, detaining 15 sailors on patrol in small boats. But the later incident is proving to be the more worrying. In 2004, Iran’s government held the British sailors for a while, made them confess to crossing into Iranian waters, and let them go. This time, Iran evidently wants more. </b>

This time the British insist that there is absolutely no doubt its sailors and marines were well on the Iraqi side of the Shatt-al-Arab, the waterway dividing Iraq and Iran. They were on a routine mission inspecting an Iraqi ship, something that Iranians have often monitored them doing. Iran, in particular the Revolutionary Guards who have reportedly taken the sailors to Tehran, is in a provocative mood. Shortly before the Britons were snatched last week the country’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, commemorating the Persian new year, delivered an unusually bristling and defiant speech for that normally cheerful holiday. He gave warning that Iran would strike back with all its capabilities at any invading enemy.

He was referring to the escalating tensions over Iran’s nuclear programme. America and Israel say that Iran is building bombs, and many think that one or the other may yet use an air strike to slow or end the Iranian efforts. Others are making their frustrations plain. In December, the UN’s Security Council passed mild sanctions on Iran. When the Iranians snatched the Britons last week, the council was close to passing new anti-Iran measures, targeting arms exports, a regime-connected bank, and individuals tied to the nuclear programme. The kidnap did not help the country’s case. It may have helped swing grudging members, including two Muslim countries (Qatar and Indonesia), behind the vote.

Even the new measures will not bite hard. But Iran may worry that it is losing more ground. A report last week in the New York Times suggested that Russia will no longer deliver fuel for an Iranian nuclear-power reactor it is building at Bushehr, unless Iran suspends enrichment. The Russians quickly denied it. But there may be cracks in the Iran-Russia relationship nonetheless. Russia may be getting exasperated over late payments, not politics. (Mr Ahmadinejad’s free-spending politics, along with a febrile economy, have pushed even Iran’s oil-rich finances into shaky territory.) Whatever the reason, Iran may be risking alienating its best friend among the permanent, veto-wielding members of the Security Council.

A final reason Iran may be causing mischief is the number of its own personnel in its adversaries’ hands. In December, American troops captured five Iranians at an office in the Kurdish part of northern Iraq. America says they are Revolutionary Guard troops, clearly linked to Iraq’s Shia militants. Iran says they are diplomats. Worse for Iran, a former deputy defence minister, Ali Reza Asghari, disappeared in March while in Istanbul. Iran insists that Israel’s Mossad or the CIA snatched him. But Mr Asghari seems likely to have defected. As a former high-ranking emissary from Iran to Lebanon’s Hizbullah, he is likely to know much about Iran’s international terrorist activities, among other things western countries would like to hear about.

Iran’s seizure of the British personnel thus may be a sign that Iran is feeling squeezed. But squeezed is not the same as weak. Iran hawks believe that the Islamic Republic has “sleeper cells” in Europe, America and elsewhere standing by ready to commit terrorist acts. The kidnapping is one way of reminding negotiating partners that Iran can be a great deal of trouble when it wants to be. But the reckless move is receiving greater international condemnation than Iran’s 2004 sailor-snatching. In raising the stakes, Iran is also dangerously raising the temperature of the nuclear diplomacy.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=green><center>Blair Spokesman Downplays Iran 'Different Phase' Comments </font>

March 27, 2007
Agence France Presse
Yahoo News!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070327/wl_uk_afp/iranbritainmilitary </center>
Britain does not wish to escalate a standoff with Iran over 15 detained sailors, Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman said Tuesday, seeking to clarify a warning of the row entering a "different phase." The spokesman denied that Blair's warning -- made in a television interview -- indicated the possibility of, for example, throwing out Iran's ambassador or military action. </b>

"It's a different phase of how we're handling it at this stage," he told a daily briefing.

The spokesman reiterated that London was "utterly certain" that the 15 navy personnel were in Iraqi waters when they were detained in the Shatt al-Arab waterway Friday.

"So far we haven't made explicit why we know that because we don't want to escalate this," he said, adding: "We don't want to do that too soon because we prefer to have this ... resolved quietly."

But he added: "We may come to the stage where we have to become more explicit about why we know this."

Speaking earlier on GMTV television, Blair said that London was trying to "pursue this through the diplomatic channels and make the Iranian government understand these people have to be released.

"I hope we manage to get them to realise they have to release them. If not, then this will move into a different phase."

=





<B><font size=+1 color=blue><center>Iran, the Clash of Ambitions </font>

March 27, 2007
Frontpagemag.com
Jamie Glazov
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27564 </center>
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Houchang Nahavandi, former Minister of the last Shah of Iran. From 1974 to the time of the Revolution, he served as President of the “Iranian Problems Study Group.” He was described by Pierre Salinger as “His Majesty’s Opposition Group.” Together with a certain number of personalities, such as Amir Aslan Afshar and Adeshir Zahedi, Mr. Nahavandi opposed the departure of the Shah -- favouring instead a backing up of the army as a last and only viable resort to restoring a balance and social peace. </b>

Mr. Nahavandi was condemned to death in absentia after the Islamic revolution. The reward for his capture was the equivalent of $200,000 at the time (he thought he was worth more than that). He is the author of the new book Iran, the Clash of Ambitions.

FP : Houchang Nahavandi, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Nahavandi: It is always with great pleasure that I address the American public through you, Jamie. Thank you for receiving me.

FP : Tell us what inspired you to write Iran, the Clash of Ambitions, what it’s about and what its primary thesis is.

Nahavandi : My aim was to expose more than two centuries of Iranian history, the sources of current problems. There are more than nine hundred references in the index of the book. I tried to be totally objective about the key problems. I addressed Khomeini's life, the Savak, the history of Iranian communism, and the part that the West played in the Iranian revolution.

FP : The United Nations Security Council will most certainly vote for new sanctions against Iran for its nuclear activities. Remind us how the Islamic Republic reacted to previous sanctions and whether these measures had any effect.

Nahavandi: Previous sanctions were ridiculous and only gave the regime’s leaders a respite.

FP : So will new sanctions be of use? There are credible sources saying that Tehran’s nuclear enrichment activities are making significant progress and that they could possibly be achieved very very soon.

Nahavandi: We will shortly be presented with a fait accompli. European Union’s experts have already shown in a study that an already “integrated” fait accompli exists in Brussels’s diplomatic approach. At least diplomatic gesticulations keep the audience amused. According to confidential sources, a new resolution would strengthen nothing. The West simply has to display much more firmness.

FP : Can you elaborate a bit on the ingredients of this dangerous situation?

Nahavandi: First of all there is one principle that not a single Iranian could compromise: that acquiring and mastering atomic energy is an absolute and inalienable right of Iran. The country should have nuclear energy for its functioning. The process was already at an advanced stage way before the 1978-1979 Revolution. Without the stupidity or destructive betrayal of its revolutionary leaders, Iran would have become a leading nuclear power provider long ago. At the time the nuclear program was led in accordance with international treaties -- under the surveillance of the IAEA -- Iran had no intention to acquire nuclear weapons. That seems no longer true - hence the danger.

Tehran’s regime is subversive out of its borders, consider Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Somalia) and repressive domestically. Twenty eight years after the Islamic Revolution the evaluation is totally negative. The people are discontented. Youth rumbles. Nuclear weaponry is nothing but a means to establish the regime. Then the propaganda heads tell the public: “You may have nothing but at least you will have nuclear technology and even the bomb.” This is played as a nationalist card.

FP : Where do you think Iranians themselves stand on the nuclear issue?

Nahavandi: There is national unanimity in opposing the bomb. Iran, as a nation, is not threatened by anyone and I dare say, especially not by Israel. No threat, whether past or present. Iran, may I remind you, is not an Arab country. Israel was always, and still is, well considered by Iranians. Nevertheless we have always been involved in the defence of legitimate Palestinian rights. An independent and viable Palestinian state is a historical and political condition. The reason why Tehran’s regime aims to acquire nuclear weapons is to dispose of means of intimidation and blackmail in order to perpetuate its power within a subversive state -- a terrorist state -- protected by its bomb. Let us bear in mind the growing danger of nuclear proliferation in the area. There lies the real threat. The key factor is not just the bomb that is in the wrong hands, but most certainly to allow the main hotbed of radicalism and violence to shelter it.

FP : What are your thoughts on a U.S. military intervention or surgical strikes?

Nahavandi: That would be the worst scenario; an extremely serious political mistake. I dare say that Tehran’s leaders, with their constant provocations, seek nothing but that outcome. That would create a patriotic reaction. Do not forget that Iranians are very patriotic, and nationalist. The whole Middle East is currently dealing with religious oppositions that address anti-American ideas. What happens in Iraq and Palestine is good for them, and the fire is spreading. In North-Africa for instance. In Iran, it is quite the opposite in fact. The opinion is, in its majority, secular and democratic, and even though the elderly might still resent President Carter’s support of the Revolution, young people (60 % of the population is aged less than 25) are too young to have known that period, and are not anti-American. Washington should preserve that political value.

FP : Is Ahmadinejad isolated within the regime as some might say?

Nahavandi: I agree with John Bolton who recently expressed his analysis on BBC. If the leading figures of the regime, including Ali Khamenei, did not agree with Ahmadinejad’s dangerous policy, then that policy could not be conceived or executed. Indeed, there are arguments, but the rest is pure propaganda. The West has a taste for searching for radicals and moderates within totalitarian or even authoritarian regimes. Tehran’s skilful disinformation plays that game.

FP : Who backs that dangerous game in Europe?

Nahavandi: This is a matter of major economical interests. Identify who made good money with Tehran’s regime, and then you will understand. Now let us focus on the Left, especially in France, that supported Khomeini, and would not want to reverse its judgment. They are the same people who supported the Khmer Rouge in the first place. Also, there is a certain anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, which cannot assume itself openly, even though it exists and keeps a tender eye on Tehran and its extravagances. Some in Europe treat Islamic radicalism like they treated Hitler at the time. They had to pay tribute. If tomorrow radical Islamism badly hits North-Africa and then some European districts or entire cities, Europeans would realize their mistake, but it would be too late.

FP : Let's go back to Khomeini for a moment. Tell us a bit about who he was as a person and the evil he perpetrated.

Nahavandi: Unfortunately. many of the different works published about Khomeini's life are wrong and inaccurate. His Indian origins were ignored when he was in Paris. There is nothing wrong with being of a different origin than Persian but even now it is forbidden to talk about it in Iran.

The title 'Imam' was given to him by two French journalists, where as in shiism this title belongs only to the twelve direct descendants of the Prophet.

He was not a cultured man. Most probably you have read in some papers that he gave the order to the Iranian Air Force to destroy American satellites, and to the Ministry of Agriculture, to flood the American market with Iranian wheat so as to make the economy of the ‘Great Satan’ become totally dependent.

Khomeini was presented to world opinion as a “brilliant philosopher and theologian” who was some kind of “example for all” that even supposedly his worst enemies could never contest. The various mandates he made especially dealt with “the way to urinate and to defecate,” “purity and impurity,” and “women and their periods.” In the others, one could here and there find a few thoughts of a philosophical, religious or political order, such as:

“It is proven that the Western physicians are totally ignorant,” “Women from the Prophet of Islam’s lineage have their menopause at the age of sixty. The others at over the age of fifty.”

As for political issues:

“Islam alone is to govern.”

“Those who want to set up democracy want to drag our country into corruption and perdition. They are worse than the Jews. They must be hanged. They are not men. They have the blood of animals. Be they damned’.

“All the laws in the world, except those of the Islamic republic, come from a handful of idiotic syphilitics. They are null and void. Islam does not recognize any other law but its own in the world.”

Finally, here are a few examples from the culture of the “great theologian and philosopher’:

“Socrates, a great theologian. He learnt philosophy from Pythagoras and devoted himself totally to theology and ethic. He discarded worldly pleasures, took refuge in a cave in the mountains where he fully dedicated himself to the only God. He tried to convince people of other gods than the real one. After what he had said, the people demanded from the Sultan that he should be put to death. The latter was forced into it and poisoned him.”

“ristotle was the son of Nikomachos from Stagira, one of the greatest philosophers in the world. Avicenna said that nobody was ever able to contradict his theories. Yet, the French Descartes thought he had discovered flaws in them later on; specialists, however, can easily realize how childish and groundless Descartes’s claims in philosophical and theological matters were. Woe betide us Muslims for being intimidated by the West, for taking our own level of knowledge lightly when the Westerners will not be able to reach it before a thousand years.”

Other words, on the contrary, did not make people smile:

“We must give rise to repeated crises, and give a new and better value to the idea of death and martyrdom... If Iran disappears in the future, it is not important; what is important is to drown the whole world in a situation of crisis.”

“All the existing forms of corruption are the products of the nation and of nationalism.”

“Those who think they are Iranian and who believe they must work for Iran are wrong.”

“Blood must be spilled, for the more Iran bleeds, the more the revolution will triumph.”

“Blood must flow.”

“The mother who reported her son so that he would be tried and hanged is an example for the people. It is a model of Islam. If your children, brothers and sisters do not follow the given advice, report them so that they can be chastised.”

“Our dear pupils must keep a close watch on their teachers. The teachers must keep a close watch on themselves. The pupils, my dear children must keep a close watch on one another and report any deviation.”

“Israel must burn to ashes.”

Hundreds of other sentences could be quoted. The regime that originated in the revolution applied Ayatollah Khomeini’s ‘real discourse’ with a frightening zeal. The people with a good conscience who had shown enthusiasm for the man looked away, kept quiet and let things happen, as had been the case long ago with so many other bloodthirsty dictators.

In his interviews, Khomeini was presented as a democrat and liberal man, but the public ignored that the interviews were written by experts who just said what had to be said.

In France, all was prepared for his arrival, including transmitters in his residence. His anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist writings are even stronger than Hitler's.

When he finally arrived in Tehran from Paris with two hundred journalists in an Air France aeroplane which had been named Liberté (‘Liberty’) on the occasion. He granted an interview to the representatives of the Iranian national Radio and Television while he was on the aeroplane. The journalist asked him, among other things:

“What are Your Holiness’s feelings on finding His way back home after so many years?”

“Hitshi” (“Zilch”) “His Holiness” answered.

Everything had just been said, in substance and form. The future was to prove it.

There is much more to be said about Khomeini, and you will find lots more on him, with documents and references, in my last book "Iran, the Clash of Ambitions".

The aim of the mystification of Khomeini was to bring down the previous regime. But time has come for the truth to be revealed to history.

FP : Why do you think the Left, which is supposedly dedicated to democratic ideals, venerated this despot and leader of a death cult? It appears the Left has followed in that tradition by siding with radical Islam in our terror war. How would you explain this morbid pathology of the Left?

Nahavandi: The leftists, especially in France, had always shown sympathy to the revolutionary regimes. Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Michel Foucault were leaders of Khomeini's support committees.

Michel Foucault went to Iran twice – in September and in November 1978 – and wrote a series of eulogistic articles on Ruhollah Khomeini in the quality Western press, notably in Le Monde. He met him at least once in Neauphle-le-Château, and analysed his philosophical stands. Simone de Beauvoir also went to Iran to support the Islamic revolution. Jean-Paul Sartre contented himself with Parisian stands.

The socialist Party led by François Mitterrand proclaimed its “resolute support” to the movement. The French Socialist Party organized a public demonstration in its support and its executive office saluted the victory of the Islamic revolution on February 14, 1979: “a popular movement of an exceptional dimension in contemporary history.” Many European leftist movements sent their delegations to the international conference held in Tehran in favour of the hostage-taking operation of November 4th 1979.

Khomeini was not “a sort of social-democratic saint, a religious figure who was to be fundamentally admired,” as the American ambassador to the UNO had said [Ambassador Andrew Young]. Professor Richard Falk, who was very a popular academic from the highest spheres of Carter's power circles said: “Imam Khomeini is a miracle in the whole history of human kind, there has never been a leader who could compare, and I do not think there will be another one,” before adding that “he had made the most beautiful moment in the history of Islam come true, the model of a peaceful revolution without a bloodshed, the example of a humanist government.” These individuals’ words represented blindness, insincerity or simply hatred for their own country.

There was not the slightest regret shown on the other side of the Atlantic either. When things went wrong and when the truth broke out, none of these good souls, with the exception of one or two, expressed any regret. They looked away. They forgot everything, but they did not learn anything.

It seems that the Left, "democratic" epigone of the bloody French Revolution (600,000 dead peoples with children, women and old peoples atrociously massacred) has shed into the world and among the Nations a real mob fuelled by a sort of hysterical rage against the any idea, concept, expression related to harmony, beauty, balance, liberty, order. There is an inner principle of death that moves their "souls". One could even think that the leftists feel vaguely or precisely something already corrupted in their roots, deep into their souls. They just don't want to fall "alone", but to bring down with them the whole world into their dedicated chaos. That would then be a "transcendental" pathology. To destroy or to subvert is for the Left a challenge similar to a chess party.

FP : So what are your recommendations in terms of what to do with the Iranian theocracy's threat today?

Nahavandi: The West must be unanimous. I know that it is wishful thinking, for the moment at least. But sanctions against Tehran have to be political and should concern the leaders and spare the people. This is feasible providing we do know Iran. Moreover, we would have to give a political and media support to patriotic Iranians, whether abroad or still there; support their fight for a secular, united and democratic Iran. True opponents are not necessarily those who tell Washington what they want to hear. Give Iranian patriots a portion of support and sympathy that were given to Khomeini during his time, and the Islamic regime, corrupted from head to toe, detested by a majority of Iranians, will collapse like a house of cards, keeping the nuclear issue away. Then the East will be getting on well.

FP : The problem is, what if the regime does not fall and acquired the bomb? This is a scenario we cannot allow. A military option would have to be used at that point.

Nahavandi: The international community has already lost about four years in useless negotiations where as the result was very clear. The U.N. still continues useless negotiations. If this regimes acquires the bomb, it is not very probable that it would use it for attacking other countries because the consequences are obvious for Iran. But the bomb can allow the regime to become still more harmful. A totalitarian and terrorist state protected by the bomb. The world has two or three years to evaluate and find a political solution for changing the situation. A military intervention is the worst option.

FP : Well then we better keep our fingers crossed for a democratic opposition in Iran to overthrow the tyranny and that the U.S. can support such an opposition effectively.

Houchang Nahavandi, it was a pleasure to speak with you.

Nahavandi: Same for me Jamie.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=purple><center>Iran's Central Bank Says It's Cutting U.S. Dollar Reserves</font>

March 27, 2007
Stephanie Phang and David Yong
David Yong
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601013&sid=a54CCfg3thVw&refer=emergingmarkets </center>
Iran's central bank is cutting its U.S. dollar reserves to less than 20 percent. The country has no ``meaningful'' economic relations with the U.S., Iran Central Bank Governor Ebrahim Sheibany told reporters today in Kuala Lumpur, where he is attending an Islamic finance conference.</b>

The central bank can convert U.S. dollar reserves into other currencies, he said.

The United Nations Security Council on March 24 gave Iran 60 days to suspend any uranium enrichment program and voted to freeze assets of a state-owned bank and impose penalties on some military commanders.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=red><center>China Shifts to Euros for Iran Oil</font>

March 27, 2007
Reuters
Chen Aizhu
http://uk.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUKSP6884420070327 </center>
BEIJING -- China's state-run Zhuhai Zhenrong Corp, the biggest buyer of Iranian crude worldwide, began paying for its oil in euros late last year as Tehran moves to diversify its foreign reserves away from U.S. dollars. </b>

The Chinese firm, which buys more than a tenth of exports from the world's fourth-largest crude producer, has changed the payment currency for the bulk of its roughly 240,000 barrels per day (bpd) contract, Beijing-based sources said.

Japanese refiners who buy about 500,000 bpd of Iranian crude, nearly a quarter of Iran's 2.2 million-bpd shipments, continue to pay in dollars but are willing to shift to yen if asked, industry sources and officials said separately.

Iranian officials have said for months that more than half the OPEC member's customers switched their payment currency away from the dollar as Tehran seeks to diversify its reserves, but news of the Zhenrong change is the first outside confirmation.

The price of the oil is still based on dollar quotes.

The shift, being watched closely by foreign exchange traders, comes amid an extended row between Tehran and Washington over Iran's nuclear programme.

China, which depends on Iran for about 12 percent of its imported crude oil, has at times used the threat of its United Nations veto to blunt Western measures.

The UN imposed new sanctions on Iran on Saturday as Tehran refused to halt its nuclear programme, targeting arms exports and 28 Iranian individuals and entities.

Iran's central banker told Reuters earlier on Tuesday that Tehran had cut its holding of U.S.-dollar assets to a minimum level of around a fifth of its foreign reserves in response to U.S. hostility, still enough to handle major shocks.

CHINA SWITCHES EARLY

"Most of China's purchases have shifted to euro. It's not difficult so long as our banks can handle that," said a Chinese state oil trader.

Hojjatollah Ghanimifard, head of international affairs at the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), told Reuters last week that around 60 percent of its oil income was in non-dollar currencies as almost all of Iran's European clients and some of its Asian customers had agreed to make non-dollar payments.

Iran is China's third-largest crude supplier with daily volume of 335,000 barrels last year. Sinopec Corp. (0386.HK: Quote, Profile, Research), Asia's top refiner but a minor lifter of Iranian oil, is still paying in U.S. dollars, said a Sinopec trader.

Japanese buyers, including top refiner Nippon Oil Corp. (5001.T: Quote, Profile, Research), said they had all received inquiries from Iran to pay on non-U.S. dollar terms, but were awaiting an official request.

"We are looking at it so that we can switch the currencies any time, but we have not gotten any official requests from them (NIOC). We are doing the transactions in dollars (now)," Nippon Oil chairman Fukuaki Watari told reporters last week.

Sources with other majors refiners concurred.

Iran ranks as Japan's third-largest crude supplier so far this year with daily rate of just under 500,000 bpd.

Tokyo has cautioned world powers against including oil in sanctions they may impose on Iran for its refusal to suspend atomic work, which the U.S. says is aimed at developing a nuclear weapon, but Tehran insists is for generating electricity.

Iran's major European customers include Royal Dutch Shell (RDSa.L: Quote, Profile, Research), France's Total (TOTF.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) and Spain's Repsol (REP.MC: Quote, Profile, Research). The United States has banned imports of Iranian crude since 1995.

=





<B><font size=+1 color=brown><center>Blair Warns of "Different Phase" for Iran</font>

March 27, 2007
ITN
Headline News
http://itn.co.uk/news/2a9aea2783220f1199fe5a3f74ebb4ea.html </center>
Tony Blair has warned of a "different phase" if talks fail to secure the release of the 15 British service personnel held in Iran.

Eight sailors and seven Marines from the Type 22 frigate HMS Cornwall were carrying out a routine search of a vessel which they suspected of smuggling.
</b>
They were held at gunpoint by Iranian forces in the mouth of the Shatt al Arab waterway which divides Iran and Iraq.

Mr Blair said: "Our first concern is for their welfare and to get them released as quickly as possible. What we are trying to do at the moment is to pursue this through the diplomatic channels and make the Iranian government understand these people have to be released and that there is absolutely no justification whatever for holding them.

"I hope we manage to get them to realise they have to release them. If not, then this will move into a different phase.

"At the moment, what we are trying to do is to make sure that that diplomatic initiative works."

Mr Blair did not explain what he meant by a "different phase".

Iranian deputy foreign minister Mehzi Mostafavi said the captives were being interrogated but insisted they were not taken as pawns to be used in exchange for five Iranians held in Iraq.

In a statement released through state television, he said: "Iran has enough evidence to prove that the British forces personnel were detained in Iranian waters.

"It should become clear whether their entry was intentional or unintentional. After that is clarified, the necessary decision will be made."

=





<B><font size=+1 color=green><center>Thug Nation </font>

March 27, 2007
National Post
canada.com
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=0c780349-c646-4f05-b87c-833b752959ea </center>
Iran's brash seizure on Friday of 15 British sailors and marines shows just how dangerous the Islamist regime has become. Given the Iranian government's announcement, two days later, that it would cease to cooperate fully with international nuclear inspectors, it is clear the time for pussyfooting is over: The international community needs to impose sanctions on Iran stringent enough to make it a complete pariah state. </b>

On Saturday, the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously to widen the sanctions it had imposed on Tehran just last December over its refusal to stop enriching uranium. This may sound impressive: A 15-0 vote by the feckless international debating society is a rare and welcome event, especially when the motion calls for action against a despotic anti- Western regime. But observers should not be fooled by this show of solidarity: It was won at the cost of removing much of the bite from the new sanctions.

Where last winter's sanctions banned only trade to and from Iran in nuclear technology and missile parts, Saturday's resolution extended the ban to all Iranian weapons exports, conventional as well as nuclear, and permitted member states to seize the assets of 28 individuals and entities involved in Tehran's nuclear program, including the state-owned Bank Sepah. Still, the UN rejected a total ban on all imports and exports and the ending of non-humanitarian financing for Iran.

Whatever teeth the sanctions do have is owed in large part to Russia's recent falling out with Iran -- allegedly over the latter's arrears on nuclear materials it acquired from Moscow. The veto-wielding Russians reportedly got tired of waiting for their money and withdrew their nuclear technicians just in time to vote with the rest of the Security Council. Moscow is to be applauded for going this far: Until now, Russia had used its veto to shield Iran from harsher sanctions. Unfortunately, Russia also worked with China to keep the harshest sanctions from being imposed.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President, vowed on the weekend to continue his nation's nuclear program "without hesitation." His government then announced it would no longer be notifying the International Atomic Energy Agency when it modified or expanded its uranium processing facilities.

Tehran's seizure of two inflatable Royal Navy boats and their occupants shows it now seeks open confrontation with the West. (The Iranians insist the British boats were in Iranian waters. But this is implausible: Coalition forces have been operating routine patrols in Iraqi commercial waters since 2003. In this case, the British claim they were tailing smugglers in these same familiar waters when the Iranians abducted them.) And Iran's generals are threatening to put their captives on trial for the "illegal invasion of Iranian waters." Tehran will not permit the prisoners access to British consular staff, nor will they confirm their whereabouts.

Mr. Ahmadinejad often makes a great show of wounded national pride on the world stage, claiming that the Western world does not respect Iran's status as a member of the community of civilized nations. But what kind of nation uses wanton kidnapping as a tool of statecraft? Actions like this explain why Iran cannot be trusted with nukes. Indeed, hostage-taking is something of a habit for Tehran: Missing Israeli Air Force navigator Ron Arad, whose airplane was shot down over Lebanon in 1986, is believed to be still held by Iran or its proxies. So are two Israeli soldiers abducted during an unprovoked Hezbollah operation last year. Iran also abducted six British marines and two sailors in 2004, and subjected them to mock executions before releasing them. These are the actions of thugs, not a civilized nation.

Why is Iran gratuitously provoking the West at this particular time? There are several possible explanations. One is that the regime is looking for a fast-and-dirty way to lash out in light of the UN sanctions. Tehran could also be looking for bargaining chips to be traded for a high ranking Iranian general who recently defected to the West. But we suspect domestic forces play a large role as well. Mr. Ahmadinejad's government is deeply unpopular at home. Its international bellicosity, Holocaust denial and maniacal rhetoric are seen as an embarrassment by many Iranians. As French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy told an audience in Toronto over the weekend, Iran is probably the only country in the Muslim world where Islamists would not win if a free and fair election were held tomorrow. Goading the West into a series of military skirmishes would be a way for the Mullahs to stir up nationalistic fervour and thereby solidify their shaky hold on power.

Given that Tehran is also one of the leading suppliers of training, foot soldiers, money, weapons and safe haven to the insurgency in Iraq, the principal funder of Hezbollah's summer war with Israel and one of the main suppliers of weapons to terrorists around the world, half-way measures simply will not suffice. It is time for a full embargo on all imports, exports and financial transactions in and out of Iran. The international community needs to squeeze hard enough to ensure that Iran's powerful elites are affected, and the nation's already limping economy is hobbled.

Someday, Iranians will rise up and get rid of their Islamist oppressors. Until then, Western leaders must not give in to Tehran's thug tactics.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=blue><center>UK 'Has Proof' Sailors Were Not in Iran</font>

March 27, 2007
The Financial Times
FT Reporters
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d26b393e-db...age=fc3334c0-2f7a-11da-8b51-00000e2511c8.html </center>
The British government is preparing to release what it says is evidence demonstrating that its 15 naval personnel detained by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards last Friday were seized while in Iraqi waters and not inside Iranian territory. </b>

UK officials said if the eight sailors and seven marines were not returned in the next few days, Britain would go public with its proof, expected to be co-ordinates of their positions. The Shatt al Arab waterway dividing Iraq and Iran has been disputed territory for decades, but the UK says it is confident its personnel were on the Iraqi side of the disputed middle-ground.

The government is expected to make a statement to parliament today. One official in London played down suggestions that the crisis was about to enter a more serious phase, but he said the government was looking at ways of escalating the pressure.

The Bush administration on Monday expressed its support for Tony Blair, the UK prime minister. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino spoke of the wrong and unjustified “hostage taking”, a phrase the UK government has sought to avoid.

Oil prices on Monday rose to their highest level this year amid fears that tensions could escalate. The benchmark US crude future price gained 66 cents to $62.94 – a rise of 13.5 per cent over the past week.

“The Iranian situation has added another layer to an oil market that is tightening,” said Paul Horsnell, head of commodities research at Barclays Capital, referring to a cut in supplies from the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and slower-than-expected growth in non-Opec output, coupled with strong demand.

Meanwhile, Javier Solana, the European Union foreign policy chief, is due to talk to Ali Larijani, Iran’s top security official, about a possible resumption of negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme. This follows a unanimous vote in the United Nations Security Council at the weekend to expand sanctions on Tehran.

“Nobody is saying that we should not talk to the Iranians because of the sailors,” said a senior EU diplomat.

Geoffrey Adams, Britain’s ambassador to Tehran, visited Iran’s foreign ministry for a second time but was not told where the personnel were. The Iranians did not agree to his request that they be visited by consular officials.

IRNA, the state news agency, reported that Manouchehr Mottaki, the foreign minister, had told his British counterpart, Margaret Beckett, on Sunday that the detainees would be allowed to meet British diplomats only after Iran’s investigation was completed. Tehran says the 15 may be charged with crossing into Iranian waters.

Mehdi Mostafavi, deputy foreign minister, rejected reports that Iran wanted to exchange the detainees for five Iranians seized by Americans in Iraq in January.

“Iran feels it has the tactical upper hand,” said Mohammad Atrianfar, editor of Shargh, the reformist newspaper due to reopen in May after being banned. “But all sides should be patient.”

=




<B><font size=+1 color=purple><center>Iran says British sailors treated humanely; Britain warns dispute could escalate</font>

NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer
March 27, 2007 7:52 AM
http://www.newspress.com/Top/Article/article.jsp?Section=WORLD&ID=564988143305360575 </center>
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran said Tuesday the 15 British sailors and marines it detained last week were healthy, have been treated humanely and that the only female sailor among them had been given privacy.

The detentions have increased tensions between Iran and the West, and on Tuesday British Prime Minister Tony Blair said he hoped diplomacy would win their release but was prepared to move to a ''different phase'' if not.</b>

In Tehran, Mohammad Ali Hosseini, an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, insisted the detained Britons had been treated well: ''They are in completely good health. Rest assured that they have been treated with humanitarian and moral behavior.''

Hosseini said the 26-year-old female sailor, Faye Turney, had complete privacy. ''Definitely, all ethics have been observed,'' he said. He would not say where the Britons were being kept.

There were fears in Britain that the fate of the 15 could get caught up in the political tensions between Iran and the West, including the dispute over Iran's nuclear program and accusations of Iranian help to Shiite militants in Iraq.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Navy began its largest demonstration of force in the Persian Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, with two aircraft carriers and backed by warplanes flying simulated attack maneuvers off the coast of Iran.

U.S. Navy Cmdr. Kevin Aandahl said the U.S. maneuvers were not organized in response to the capture of the British sailors - nor were they meant to threaten the Islamic Republic, whose navy operates in the same waters.



Britain and the United States have said the sailors and marines were intercepted Friday just after they completed a search of a civilian vessel in the Iraqi part of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, where the border between Iran and Iraq has been disputed for centuries.

''I hope we manage to get them to realize they have to release them,'' Blair said in an interview with GMTV. ''If not, then this will move into a different phase.''

Asked what that meant, Blair replied: ''Well, we will just have to see, but what they should understand is that we cannot have a situation where our servicemen and women are seized when actually they are in Iraqi waters under a U.N. mandate.''

Blair's office said the prime minister was not hinting either at the possible expulsion of Iranian diplomats or military action, but that Britain may have to make public evidence proving the Britons were seized in Iraqi - not Iranian - waters, if there is no swift release of the sailors.

The spokesman said Britain had not made explicit its belief the sailors and marines were in Iraqi territory ''because we don't want to escalate this.''

The standoff helped drive up international oil prices Monday, but they fell Tuesday, reflecting hopes of a peaceful resolution.

Iran has said it is questioning the British sailors and marines to determine if their alleged entry into Iranian waters was ''intentional or unintentional'' before deciding what to do with them - the first sign it could be seeking a way out of the standoff.

With the border line in dispute, the fate of the 15 Britons may depend on Iran's interpretation of their intent and whether they strayed across the frontier by accident.

The exact path of the dividing line in the Shatt al-Arab waterway has long been disputed, in part because of shifting sands and mud in the waterway's extensive delta as it empties into the Persian Gulf.

U.S. officials said the crisis began when British sailors boarded an Indian-flagged commercial ship suspected of carrying smuggled cars through the 125-mile waterway, which the Iranians call the Arvand River.

The ship ''turned out to be not what we suspected and it was let go,'' Aandahl, the spokesman for the U.S. Fifth Fleet, told The Associated Press by telephone from fleet headquarters in Manama, Bahrain.

Aandahl said the captain of the Indian ship had provided a statement that his vessel was in Iraqi waters at the time it was stopped by the British.

He said U.S. officials knew the GPS coordinates of the ship at the time the incident occurred, but would not release them publicly.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said the personnel were seized in Iraqi waters and called for their release.

Iran has refused to allow British officials to speak with the service members. But the official Iranian news agency said Iranian officials have told the British that their diplomats can see the 15 after the investigation is concluded.

There were worries Iran might seek to use the prisoners as leverage in trying to get the U.S. to free at least five Iranians detained in Iraq for allegedly being part of a Revolutionary Guard force.

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Mehzi Mostafavi denied Iran was seeking a trade, but there were calls from elsewhere within Iran's leadership for the government to hold out for a swap.

---

=


<B><font size=+1 color=red><center>Navy Flexes Its Muscles In Persian Gulf</font>

U.S. Forces Stage Military Maneuvers; Tensions With Iran Could Increase

March 27 2007
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/27/world/main2611798.shtml </center></b>
<i>Quote

"What it should be seen as by Iran or anyone else is that it's for regional stability and security. These ships are just another demonstration of that. If there's a destabilizing effect, it's Iran's behavior."</i>

<b>(AP) The U.S. Navy on Tuesday began its largest demonstration of force in the Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, deploying two aircraft carriers and conducting simulated aerial attacks. </b>

The maneuvers, involving 15 U.S. warships and more than a hundred planes, were certain to increase tension with Iran, which has frequently condemned the U.S. military presence off its coastline.

The exercises began only four days after Iran captured 15 British sailors and marines whom it accused of straying into Iranian waters near the Gulf. Britain and the U.S. Navy have insisted the British sailors were operating in Iraqi waters.

Aboard the carrier USS John C. Stennis, F/A-18 fighter jets rocketed off the deck in one of a dozen rapid-fire training sorties against enemy shipping and aircraft.

"These maneuvers demonstrate our flexibility and capability to respond to threats to maritime security," said U.S. Navy Lt. John Perkins, 32, of Louisville, Kentucky, as the Stennis cruised about 80 miles off the United Arab Emirates.

"They're showing we can keep the maritime environment safe and the vital link to the global economy open."

At U.S. 5th Fleet headquarters in Bahrain, U.S. Navy Cmdr. Kevin Aandahl said the U.S. maneuvers were not organized in response to the capture of the British sailors — nor were they meant to threaten the Islamic Republic, whose navy operates in the same waters.

He declined to specify when the Navy planned the exercises, but added they would last several days.

Aandahl said the U.S. warships would stay out of Iranian territorial waters, which extend 12 miles off the Iranian coast.

A French naval strike group, led by the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, was operating simultaneously just outside the Gulf. But the French ships were supporting the NATO forces in Afghanistan and not taking part in the U.S. maneuvers, Aandahl said.

Overall, the exercises involve more than 10,000 U.S. personnel on warships and aircraft making simulated attacks on enemy aircraft and shipping, hunting enemy submarines and finding mines.

"What it should be seen as by Iran or anyone else is that it's for regional stability and security," Aandahl said. "These ships are just another demonstration of that. If there's a destabilizing effect, it's Iran's behavior."

The U.S. drills were the latest in a series of American and Iranian war games. Iran conducted naval maneuvers in November and April, while in October the U.S. Navy led a Gulf training exercise aimed at blocking nuclear smuggling.

In January, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the Stennis strike group was being sent to the Mideast as a warning to Iran that it should not misjudge America's resolve in the region.

Iran has grown increasingly assertive in the Gulf as the U.S. military has become bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iranian officials have publicly called on America's Gulf Arab allies to shut down U.S. military bases and join Iran in a regional security alliance.

Gulf Arab leaders have grown increasingly uneasy with the aggressive U.S. stance toward Iran, believing it could provoke an unwanted war that could bring attacks on their own soil. But none has shown interest in an alliance with Iran.

In February, then 5th Fleet commander Vice Adm. Patrick Walsh said he had assured Arab allies that Washington was trying to avoid "a mistake that boils over into war" with Iran.

The USS Stennis strike group, with more than 6,500 sailors and marines, entered the Gulf late Monday or early Tuesday along with the guided-missile cruiser USS Antietam, the Navy said.

The Stennis, which had been supporting the Afghan war, joined the strike group led by the carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, the first time two U.S. aircraft carriers have operated in the Gulf since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, Aandahl said. The Eisenhower was operating off the coast of Somalia in January and February.

Each carrier hosts an air wing of F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare aircraft, S-3 Viking anti-submarine and refuelers, and E-2C Hawkeye airborne command-and-control craft.

Also taking part were guided-missile destroyers USS Anzio, USS Ramage, USS O'Kane, USS Mason, USS Preble and USS Nitze; and minesweepers USS Scout, USS Gladiator and USS Ardent.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=brown><center>Iranian finance minister describes new UN sanctions as psychological war</font>

The Associated PressPublished: March 27, 2007
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/27/africa/ME-GEN-Iran-Sanctions.php </center>
TEHRAN, Iran: Iran's Finance Minister on Tuesday described the new sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council as a "psychological war" that will have little effect on his country, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.</b>

The newest sanctions include a ban Iranian arms exports and freeze the assets of 28 people and organizations involved in Iran's nuclear and missile programs.

"Resolution 1747 has no particular point. It is a psychological war more than anything else. Iran has been subject to similar sanctions in the past," the agency quoted the minister, Davood Danesh Jafari, as saying.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=green><center>Russia assails U.S. global policy, warns against attacking Iran in foreign strategy paper </font>

VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV, Associated Press Writer
March 27, 2007 8:05 AM
http://www.newspress.com/Top/Article/article.jsp?Section=WORLD&ID=564988160485229771 </center>
MOSCOW (AP) - Russia's Foreign Ministry on Tuesday criticized the United States for what it called over-reliance on force and warned Washington against military action against Iran.

But in a major review of foreign policy priorities, the ministry said Russia was ready to cooperate to end global crises if Washington treats it as an equal partner.</b>

The statement reflects Russia's growing confidence and economic clout, and appears to be a signal to Washington that, while the two nations can work together, Russia will not always follow the U.S. lead. It also plays to national pride in advance of parliamentary and presidential elections.

Russia criticized what it called ''the creeping American strategy of dragging the global community into a large-scale crisis around Iran,'' saying that Iran helps maintain stability in Afghanistan and Central Asia.

At the same time, the ministry's paper assailed Iran for its ''unconstructive'' stance, reflecting growing Kremlin irritation with its ally's refusal to freeze uranium enrichment, as the U.N. demands.

Russia and China, both permanent U.N. Security Council members with significant trade ties with Iran, have opposed U.S. efforts to impose harsh sanctions against the country. But years of growing international mistrust over Iran's ultimate goals led to initial U.N. sanctions in December and to tougher penalties imposed last Saturday.

Iran has remained defiant, rejecting the latest sanctions and announcing a partial suspension of cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog. It also accused Russia of caving in to Western pressure.

Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Tuesday that the latest set of sanctions was a ''call for the resumption of talks rather than an instrument of punishment'' - a statement apparently aimed both at soothing Iran and assuring Russians public that their government was not betraying its partner.

The ministry's paper emphasized the need to conduct a ''balanced course on Iran, protecting our national interests in that country while preventing violations of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.''

The ministry also hinted that Russia would tie weapons sales to Iran to its cooperation on the enrichment program. ''Military-technical ties with Iran must develop on the basis of strict compliance with Russia's international obligations while taking into account developments related to the Iranian nuclear program,'' it said.

Russia recently delivered 29 Tor M-1 air defense missile systems to Iran despite strong U.S. complaints.

The strategy paper said that arms exports would remain an important component of Russia's foreign policy.

AP-WS-03-27-07 1058EDT

=




<B><center>Middle East

Mar 28, 2007

<font size=+1 color=blue> Iran prepared to fight, if necessary</font>

By Ian Bremmer
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IC28Ak01.html </center>
The intensified military buildup in the Persian Gulf poses dangers for escalation, both inadvertent and deliberate. Last week's Iranian decision to surround a British naval vessel and seize 15 sailors and marines directly increases tensions in the Iran conflict (around both the nuclear issue and Iran's intervention in Iraq).
</b>
It's possible, though unlikely, that the British sailors were inadvertently in Iranian territory; though certainly the patrols around Iraqi offshore terminals and shipping lanes routinely bring British naval vessels right to the edge of Iranian territorial waters. (The Iraqi sea lane is quite narrow in the area of the conflict, with

some 200 meters of navigable water in Iraqi territory.)

Whatever the case, the well-orchestrated Iranian "surround and seizure" had been planned for some time. It strikes me as a response to the United States holding Iranian diplomats taken in Irbil several months ago - a deliberate and carefully calibrated escalation, with very limited risk for an outbreak of hostilities. Hence the extraordinary and high-level Iranian military presence quickly marshaled to the scene.

The timing of the event was surely intentional, a provocation right before the United Nations Security Council was to vote on further sanctions against Iran. The decision could only have been made with the approval of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. President Mahmud Ahmadinejad would not have been allowed to take the lead on such a decision.

The move further confirms that Tehran is not looking for a "diplomatic out". Rather, it is sending a message to the international community that Iran is prepared for a fight if necessary and that its only remaining options are increasingly unpalatable.

The decision to take British (rather than American) hostages suggests that Tehran does not intend to release them immediately (though certainly they will remain safe and well looked after), but rather to use them as leverage for negotiations with British diplomats. The lack of direct channels of negotiations between Iran and the United States would have precluded this option with US soldiers and could have led to significant retaliation against Iran.

The most likely next step is for Iran to demand the release of its captured diplomats, and conceivably of its government property, in Iraqi territory. That's an unlikely outcome. The incident has the capacity to cool significantly British willingness to support efforts at continued negotiations with Iran on the nuclear conflict, as well as end Iranian participation in the broader "contact group" with the United States and Britain (among others) on Iraq.

Both Britain and the US will now step up their military presence along the edge of Iran's territorial waters, with more frequent and larger-scale patrols. That will heighten the risk of military miscues but reduce the likelihood of any surprise Iranian naval presence.

If anything, the US and Britain took advantage of the Iranian move to push up the vote on a second resolution against Iran at the Security Council. The sanctions remain extremely limited. And as I've suggested above, they will have no effect on Iranian decision-making. Still, it's worth noting that Khamenei last week expressed Iranian intentions to proceed with "illegal" nuclear activities after any further "illegal" sanctions enacted against Iran.

The importance of that statement, given International Atomic Energy Agency documentation that Iran's nuclear program is progressing, is that it provides greater justification for broader provocative moves against the Islamic Republic and plays into the Israeli argument for the need for an attack.

I still see Israeli security concerns as the most significant driver of any likely military action. A series of Israeli war drills last week, including simulated missile attacks on Israeli urban centers and on the main Tel Aviv power station, are particularly noteworthy.

A final point. The US Congress continues to push a broad spectrum of legislation against Iran, with strong bipartisan support. The most recent proposal from the Senate brings Russia into the fray, threatening to end World Trade Organization cooperation with any country found to be engaging in rather ill-defined "nuclear cooperation" with Iran.

Like other similar measures in Congress, this one seems likely to pass - if in amended form. At the least, it threatens one of the few remaining areas of strong US-Russian collaboration - civilian nuclear programs to purchase spent Russian nuclear fuel.

In the January/February issue of The National Interest, I wrote:
The United States is going to face a number of challenges and disappointments over the next two years - Iran, Iraq, North Korea, China and Russia, among others. The first reaction of many US politicians is to be confrontational. Easing tensions with rogue states and with countries perceived to be opposing US policies will not win the president points with those who prefer a muscular strategy. But decisions need to be made on the basis of long-term US interests, not short-term sound bites.
Good advice to be following now.

Ian Bremmer, a contributing editor to The National Interest, is president of the Eurasia Group.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=purple><center>Moscow warns U.S. Iran policy may spark "clash of civilizations"</font>

16:28 | 27/ 03/ 2007
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070327/62693395.html </center>
MOSCOW, March 27 (RIA Novosti) - Moscow urges the United States to avoid escalating tensions around Iran over its nuclear program as it could lead to a "clash of civilizations," the Foreign Ministry said Tuesday.

Washington has been pushing for tougher international sanctions against Iran, which it suspects of pursuing a nuclear weapons program. The UN Security Council passed a new resolution Saturday introducing further sanctions on Iran.
</b>
"The international community should not risk escalating the situation around Iran and should wait for the U.S. to make a good-faith effort to normalize relations with Tehran," the Foreign Ministry said in a foreign policy review signed by the president.

The Russian ministry said the Iran crisis could have devastating consequences for relations between "civilizations," and then the U.S. would have to prove it is not preparing for a "clash of civilizations" by building up "Fortress America," separated from the rest of the world by two oceans and strict border controls.

The term "clash of civilizations" is part of a theory that people of different cultures and religions will be involved in a post-Cold War conflict. Samuel P. Huntington popularized and expanded the term in his book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order in 1996.

The Russian ministry said the U.S. was capable of reaching a compromise with Iran, and cited a visit by former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami to the U.S. in August.

"The trip of former Iranian President Khatami to the U.S. in August showed that dialogue between civilizations could become a useful channel for the Americans to establish contacts with Tehran," said the ministry review ordered by President Vladimir Putin in June.

Khatami was the most senior Iranian official to visit the U.S. outside the UN framework in more than two decades after the Islamic Revolution and the embassy hostage crisis in Iran.

Unlike the U.S., Russia, which is building a nuclear power plant in southern Iran, has opposed any tough sanctions against the Islamic Republic. Russian authorities have also been seriously alarmed by U.S. plans to deploy a missile shield in Central Europe to prevent possible strikes from Iran or North Korea.

In his outspoken address to the Munich security conference in February, President Putin said the U.S. missile defense plans could trigger a new arms race, and accused the U.S. of ignoring international law and imposing its own rules on other countries.

"We are seeing an increasing disregard for the fundamental principles of international law," Putin said, adding that Russia would amend its military strategy in response.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=red><center>Blair Urges Iran to Hand Over Sailors Before Next Stage </font>

By GRAHAM BOWLEY and SARAH LYALL
Published: March 27, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/27/world/middleeast/27cnd-iran.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin </center>
March 27 — Prime Minister Tony Blair said today that Britain is prepared to move into a “different phase” if diplomacy fails to persuade Iran to release 15 British naval personnel seized last week.

Mr. Blair did not elaborate on what he meant by a different phase, but his official spokesman later was eager to play down the notion that it might mean any kind of military intervention by Britain. </b>

Amid signs of escalating tension between the countries following Iran’s seizure of the British personnel last Friday, the United States Navy began a routine annual training exercise today in the Persian Gulf, involving two aircraft carriers and more than 100 warplanes, the Associated Press reported.

The exercise, which involved the ships and aircraft simulating air warfare, was planned long before Iran seized the British group, the AP said.

In Britain, Mr. Blair has come under pressure to take a tougher stance in securing the release of the naval personnel.

Asked today on GMTV, a British morning television show, about the captured Britons, Mr. Blair said: “I hope we manage to get them [the Iranians] to realize they have to release them. If not, then this will move into a different phase, but at the moment what we’re trying to do is to make sure that that diplomatic initiative works.”

After Mr. Blair’s public comments, his official spokesman, who speaks in return for anonymity under usual civil service rules, said that the next stage Mr. Blair was referring to could involve Britain providing more explicit evidence that the group of 15 Britons were in Iraqi waters, and not in Iranian territorial waters, when they were seized at gunpoint and taken into custody last Friday.

“We may have to get to the stage where we become more explicit about what we know,” the spokesman said. “We don’t want to do that too soon because we would prefer this to be resolved quietly.”

In the television interview, Mr. Blair said Iran had “absolutely no justification” for holding the captured Britons.

Since the Britons were seized, Britain has made repeated demands for their immediate release but Iran has refused to say where they are being held or what will happen to them.

Geoffrey Adams, the British ambassador to Iran, met with Iranian officials in Tehran on Monday, the British Foreign Office said, and was told that the 15 — eight sailors and seven marines — were in good health.

“He pressed hard for details of where they were being held, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs assured him that they were fit and well and in Iran,” a Foreign Office spokesman said. “They also said they were working to resolve the issue as quickly as possible.”

Iranian news agencies had reported earlier that the 15 Britons had been taken to Tehran.

The 14 men and one woman in the group were taken into custody on Friday after they searched an Indian boat for evidence of smuggling in the disputed Shatt al Arab waterway, which forms a border between Iraq and Iran.

Britain says the group was patrolling, as British military personnel did routinely, in Iraqi waters; Iran says the Britons had entered Iranian territorial waters in an act of “blatant aggression.”

Iranian state television quoted a government official on Monday as saying that the captives were being interrogated by Iranian officials. But the official, Deputy Foreign Minister Mehzi Mostafavi, denied that the captives were being used as pawns in a diplomatic tussle between Iran and United States forces in Iraq, where five Iranians are being held on suspicion of providing weapons and money to extremist groups.

“Iran has enough evidence to prove that the British forces personnel were detained in Iranian waters,” Mr. Mostafavi said in a statement read by a newscaster on state television. “It should become clear whether their entry was intentional or unintentional. After that is clarified, the necessary decision will be made.”

The newscaster reported that Mr. Mostafavi had “rejected claims that Iran intends to exchange British force personnel with the kidnapped Iranian diplomats in Iraq.”

The Iranian state news agency, IRNA, quoted Ebrahim Rahimpour, a Foreign Ministry official, as saying that the captives could face legal proceedings, the BBC reported.

The seizing of the group comes at a time of rising tensions with Iran over its nuclear program, among other things. On Saturday, the United Nations Security Council voted to impose additional sanctions on Iran, which has refused to comply with demands that it stop its uranium enrichment program.

In London on Monday, the Foreign Office said Lord Triesman, a top department official, had a “frank and brisk” discussion with the Iranian ambassador. And a spokesman for Prime Minister Tony Blair repeated the prime minister’s assertion that there was “no doubt whatever that our personnel were in Iraqi waters.”

He also said that while Britain’s case was bolstered with international support, particularly from the European Union, Britain was eager not to escalate the dispute.

“What we should do is work discreetly as long as possible to try to convince Tehran behind the scenes,” the spokesman said. “We are deliberately not saying very much more. Sometimes it’s better to handle these things discreetly. We don’t want a confrontation over this, and therefore it’s better to handle it diplomatically.”

The Associated Press reported that Iraq’s foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, said he had spoken to his Iranian counterpart, Manouchehr Mottaki, and insisted that the British sailors were in Iraqi waters.

Mr. Zebari told BBC radio: “We have good relations, good communications, with the Iranian government. We are going to use whatever influence, goodwill, we have to ensure that these sailors are released as soon as possible.”

=




<B><font size=+1 color=brown><center>Second carrier group enters Arabian Gulf for "dual-carrier" exercises off coast of Iran</font>

March 27 2007
http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=6285824 </center>
(AP and WAVY News) The U.S. Navy today announced that the USS John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group had entered the Arabian Gulf for what a news release described as a "dual-carrier exercise with the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group".

This comes in the wake of Iran's seizure of 15 British sailors and marines, as well as growing international condemnation of Iran for their refusal to back down from their plans to enrich uranium.</b>

Two aircraft carrier strike groups in the Arabian Gulf represents a massive amount of U.S. military firepower being within striking distance of Iran.

According to the release, two air wings from the aircraft carriers will conduct air warfare exercises while the surface components will conduct exercises in three general disciplines: anti-submarine, anti-surface and mine warfare.

The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower left Norfolk last October while the USS John C. Stennis deployed from Bremerton Washington for the Gulf of Oman in January.

Iran said Tuesday the 15 British sailors and marines it detained last week were healthy, have been treated humanely and that the only female sailor among them had been given privacy.

The detentions have increased tensions between Iran and the West, and on Tuesday British Prime Minister Tony Blair said he hoped diplomacy would win their release but was prepared to move to a "different phase" if not.

In Tehran, Mohammad Ali Hosseini, an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, insisted the detained Britons had been treated well: "They are in completely good health. Rest assured that they have been treated with humanitarian and moral behavior."

Hosseini said the 26-year-old female sailor, Faye Turney, had complete privacy. "Definitely, all ethics have been observed," he said. He would not say where the Britons were being kept.

There were fears in Britain that the fate of the 15 could get caught up in the political tensions between Iran and the West, including the dispute over Iran's nuclear program and accusations of Iranian help to Shiite militants in Iraq.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Navy began its largest demonstration of force in the Persian Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, with two aircraft carriers and backed by warplanes flying simulated attack maneuvers off the coast of Iran.

U.S. Navy Cmdr. Kevin Aandahl said the U.S. maneuvers were not organized in response to the capture of the British sailors -- nor were they meant to threaten the Islamic Republic, whose navy operates in the same waters.

Britain and the United States have said the sailors and marines were intercepted Friday just after they completed a search of a civilian vessel in the Iraqi part of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, where the border between Iran and Iraq has been disputed for centuries.

"I hope we manage to get them to realize they have to release them," Blair said in an interview with GMTV. "If not, then this will move into a different phase."

Asked what that meant, Blair replied: "Well, we will just have to see, but what they should understand is that we cannot have a situation where our servicemen and women are seized when actually they are in Iraqi waters under a U.N. mandate."

Blair's office said the prime minister was not hinting either at the possible expulsion of Iranian diplomats or military action, but that Britain may have to make public evidence proving the Britons were seized in Iraqi -- not Iranian -- waters, if there is no swift release of the sailors.

The spokesman said Britain had not made explicit its belief the sailors and marines were in Iraqi territory "because we don't want to escalate this."

The standoff helped drive up international oil prices Monday, but they fell Tuesday, reflecting hopes of a peaceful resolution.

Iran has said it is questioning the British sailors and marines to determine if their alleged entry into Iranian waters was "intentional or unintentional" before deciding what to do with them -- the first sign it could be seeking a way out of the standoff.

With the border line in dispute, the fate of the 15 Britons may depend on Iran's interpretation of their intent and whether they strayed across the frontier by accident.

The exact path of the dividing line in the Shatt al-Arab waterway has long been disputed, in part because of shifting sands and mud in the waterway's extensive delta as it empties into the Persian Gulf.

U.S. officials said the crisis began when British sailors boarded an Indian-flagged commercial ship suspected of carrying smuggled cars through the 125-mile waterway, which the Iranians call the Arvand River.

The ship "turned out to be not what we suspected and it was let go," Aandahl, the spokesman for the U.S. Fifth Fleet, told The Associated Press by telephone from fleet headquarters in Manama, Bahrain.

Aandahl said the captain of the Indian ship had provided a statement that his vessel was in Iraqi waters at the time it was stopped by the British.

He said U.S. officials knew the GPS coordinates of the ship at the time the incident occurred, but would not release them publicly.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said the personnel were seized in Iraqi waters and called for their release.

Iran has refused to allow British officials to speak with the service members. But the official Iranian news agency said Iranian officials have told the British that their diplomats can see the 15 after the investigation is concluded.

There were worries Iran might seek to use the prisoners as leverage in trying to get the U.S. to free at least five Iranians detained in Iraq for allegedly being part of a Revolutionary Guard force.

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Mehzi Mostafavi denied Iran was seeking a trade, but there were calls from elsewhere within Iran's leadership for the government to hold out for a swap.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=green><center>Pentagon denies US naval exercise in Gulf aimed at confrontation with Iran</font>

03.27.07, 12:32 PM ET
http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2007/03/27/afx3555331.html </center>
WASHINGTON (AFX) - An unusual military exercise involving two US aircraft carrier strike groups in the Arab Gulf is aimed at reassuring friends and allies, not further raising tensions with Iran, a Pentagon spokesman said today.

The spokesman also denied that the two-day exercise involving the aircraft carriers USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and USS John S. Stennis is in response to the seizure by Iran of 15 British sailors and marines.</b>

'We are not interested in confrontation in the Gulf,' said Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman.

'The fact of the matter is -- and the secretary has talked about this repeatedly -- we have interest in the stability and security in the Gulf and the United States continues to reassure our allies in the region that we are good partners,' he said.

Exercises involving two carrier strike groups are unusual because two are rarely in the same area at the same time.

President George W. Bush ordered a second carrier to the Gulf in January amid a mounting diplomatic confrontation with Iran over its uranium enrichment program and US suspicions that it intends to develop nuclear weapons.

The second aircraft carrier raised the US naval presence in the Gulf to its highest level since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

But US Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other top administration officials have repeatedly denied that the United States has plans to attack Iran.

The US Fifth Fleet, based in Bahrain, said two air wings from the aircraft carrier will conduct air warfare exercises, while warships from the strike groups practise anti-submarine, anti-surface and mine warfare.

The Brits look like they are about to run into what Redeye used to call a "sources and methods" problem.....

WHEN this ramps up it's going to go VERY fast.....

Nothing will happen. The Appeasement Gods of the West are firmly in control. I don't know what it is going to take to wake the West up. But this isn't it.

Maybe when they are knocking at our doors, handing out prayer rugs?

Iran keeps pushing on the line, and the West keeps pulling the line back. When the hell are we going to deal with these people? Ever? They are making the West look real weak. And maybe we are. We sure as hell are not showing them any strength. I can't believe how far our appeasement of them has gone.

We might as well throw up our hands, surrender now, and roll over onto our yellow bellies. This BS makes me sick. I don't want war. But I sure as hell don't want those sand ******s walking all over us. Which is exactly what they have been doing. And not just in the Middle East. But in our Own damn Countries.