03/28: "The Winds of War" - PM Blair warns Iran over Navy captives

=

"The Winds of War" - The Ayatollahs' Escalation
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?t=235168




<B><center>Tuesday, 27 March 2007, 15:53 GMT 16:53 UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6498611.stm?ls

<font size=+1 color=red>PM warns Iran over Navy captives</font>

Faye Turney was interviewed by the BBC last week </center>
Efforts to secure the release of 15 Royal Navy personnel held by Iran will enter a "different phase" if diplomatic moves fail, Tony Blair has said.
Downing Street said the UK could end up releasing evidence proving the group had not ventured into Iranian waters.

Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett has called for their "speedy return". </b>

One of the 15, Faye Turney told the BBC last week: "Sometimes you may be called upon, and when you do you've just got to deal with it and get on with it".

Meanwhile, the family of Ms Turney, from Shrewsbury, Shropshire, has said this is a "very distressing time" for them.

The BBC has been told the group are being held at an Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps base in Tehran.

Iran says they were trespassing in Iranian waters when they were seized on Friday - but the prime minister said the group were in Iraqi waters under a UN mandate.

We can see no reason why they should not have contact with people from the British government

Margaret Beckett, Foreign Secretary


Britain's options limited

Mr Blair said the most important thing was the welfare of the eight sailors and seven marines from HMS Cornwall and securing their release.

The prime minister's official spokesman said Mr Blair's remarks about a "different phase" did not refer to any extreme diplomatic action, such as expelling Iranian diplomats from Britain or military action.

"We have been clearly stating that we are utterly certain that the personnel were in Iraqi waters.

"We so far have not made explicit why we know that, because we don't want to escalate this."

Britain's former ambassador to Iran, Sir Richard Dalton, said "different phase" could mean generating pressure on Iran from the international community.

"I expect he means that we shall have to step up criticism and generate additional international pressures on Iran," he said.

"It could be that they think that by dramatising the fact that these people were taken on an international mission while in Iraqi waters even further, will give Iran pause and give them a chance to rethink."



HMS Cornwall's area of operations
"These people have to be released," the prime minister told GMTV.

"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."

Good health

There is speculation that the capture was linked to the seizure of five Iranians by US forces in Iraq.

Mr Blair said the situations were "completely distinct" as any Iranian forces inside Iraq were breaching a UN mandate.

"In the end, it is a question really for the Iranian government as to whether they want to abide by international law or not," he said.

Captured female sailor Ms Turney said in an interview with the BBC last week: "My parents made sure that I was under no illusions that I could and can go to war at any time - that was the choice I made."

In a statement issued via the Ministry of Defence, sailor Ms Turney's family said they were grateful for the support they had received from everyone.

"While we understand the media interest in the ongoing incident involving Faye, this remains a very distressing time for us.

"We are grateful for the support shown to us by all personnel involved and appreciate it, but would request that our privacy is respected."

On Tuesday, an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman quoted by AP said those held were in good health, being treated in a humane fashion and Ms Turney had been given privacy.

The British foreign secretary said the UK was still pressing for consular access to the service personnel.

"If indeed they are being detained in reasonable circumstances then we can see no reason why they should not have contact with people from the British government," Mrs Beckett said.

An Iranian source has told BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner the Britons are being interrogated to find out if their mission was intelligence-gathering.

The source said the investigation involved examining tracking equipment to determine exactly where the crew was captured.

In order for the Britons to be released "every vested interest in Iran would need to be satisfied they had not deliberately entered Iranian waters, nor were they spying", the source added.

=



<B><center>Blair Warns Iran Standoff Could Escalate

<font size=+1 color=brown>British PM Says He'll Go Public With Evidence</font>

POSTED: 8:09 pm MDT March 27, 2007
http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/11408291/detail.html </center>
LONDON -- If diplomacy doesn't work, Prime Minister Tony Blair is ready to take a standoff with Iran to what he calls a "different phase."</b>

Britain and Iran are locked in a standoff over Iran's capture of 15 British soldiers and marines it claims were in Iranian waters.

But Blair said during a TV interview his government could go public with evidence the British navy crew was in Iraqi waters when it was captured over the weekend.

U.S. officials say the crisis began when British sailors boarded an Indian-flagged commercial ship suspected of carrying smuggled cars.

The ship turned out not be smuggling goods. A spokesman for the U.S. Fifth Fleet said the captain of the boarded ship provided a statement that his vessel was in Iraqi waters at the time it was stopped by the British.

=




<b><center>U.S. sends message to Iran with show of military power

<font size=+1 color=green>The war games in the Persian Gulf were meant to demonstrate U.S. commitment to stability in the region, the Pentagon said.</font>

By James Calderwood and Jim Krane, Associated Press
Last update: March 27, 2007 – 9:02 PM
http://www.startribune.com/722/story/1083849.html </center>
ABOARD THE JOHN C. STENNIS - U.S. warplanes screamed off two aircraft carriers Tuesday as the U.S. Navy staged its largest show of force in the Persian Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, launching a mammoth exercise meant as a message to the Iranians.

The maneuvers with more than 10,000 U.S. personnel, 15 warships and more than 100 aircraft were sure to heighten tensions with Iran, which has frequently condemned the U.S. military presence off its coast and which is in a faceoff with the West over its nuclear program and its capture of a British naval team.</b>

While they would not say when the war games were planned, U.S. commanders insisted the exercises were not a direct response to Friday's seizure of the 15 British sailors and marines. But they made it clear that the flexing of the Navy's military might was intended as a warning.

"If there is strong presence, then it sends a clear message that you better be careful about trying to intimidate others," said Capt. Bradley Johanson, commander of the Stennis. "Iran has adopted a very escalatory posture with the things that they have done."

F/A-18 fighter jets roared off the Stennis' flight deck all day, mounting a dozen rapid-fire training sorties against imaginary enemy ships and aircraft. A second task force with the carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower also took part in the drills.

At the headquarters of the Navy's 5th Fleet in Bahrain, Cmdr. Kevin Aandahl said the maneuvers would last several days. They were the latest in a series of competing U.S. and Iranian war games: Iran conducted naval maneuvers in November and April, whilethe Navy led a training exercise in October aimed at blocking nuclear smuggling.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the Navy routinely conducts exercises when its forces are deployed near each other. "The exercise should reassure our friends and allies of our commitment to security and stability in the region," he said. "We are not interested in confrontation in the Gulf."

=





<B><font size=+1 color=blue><center>Blair threatens force over Darfur</font>

Julian Borger
Tuesday March 27, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,,2044117,00.html </center>
Tony Blair is pushing the United Nations to declare a no-fly zone over Darfur, enforced if necessary by the bombing of Sudanese military airfields used for raids on the province, the Guardian has learned.

The controversial initiative comes as a classified new report by a UN panel of experts alleges Sudan has violated UN resolutions by moving arms into Darfur, conducting overflights and disguising its military planes as UN humanitarian aircraft.</b>

Mr Blair has been pushing for much tougher international action against Sudan since President Omar Hassan al-Bashir reneged earlier this month on last November's agreement to allow UN peacekeepers into Darfur to protect civilians.

Over 200,000 have been killed in the course of a counter-insurgency by government forces and allied Janjaweed militia, and more than 10 times that number forced to flee their homes. Humanitarian supplies to the millions of refugees in the area are tenuous and threatened by continuing violence on the Sudan-Chad border.
Talks are under way in the UN security council over a package of sanctions being pushed by Britain and the US, which includes a comprehensive arms embargo and the freezing assets of Sudanese leaders implicated in the Darfur ethnic cleansing.

Speaking in Berlin on Sunday, Mr Blair described the situation in Darfur as "intolerable" and said: "We need to consider a no-fly zone to prevent the use of Sudanese air power against refugees and displaced people."

According to Downing Street, he is pushing for a no-fly zone to be passed at the same time as the new sanctions package, in the form of a 'Chapter 7' security council resolution, allowing the use of force.

"The prime minister believes we can do them together," said a Downing Street source. "There could be an agreement in the security council that there could be a no-fly zone. If the Sudanese government broke that agreement there would have to be consequences."

The imposition of a no-fly zone, of the kind employed over Iraq before the invasion, has been widely dismissed by military experts as impractical over an area as large as Darfur, which is the size of France. But the Guardian has learned that US and British officials are considering a cheaper alternative: punitive air strikes against Sudanese air force bases if Khartoum violated the no-fly zone.

The example being considered is the Ivory Coast, where the French wiped out much of the Ivorian air force while its planes and helicopters were sitting on the tarmac, in November 2004. The air strikes were in reprisal for the deaths of nine French peacekeepers in an Ivorian raid on rebel-held areas in the north.

Mr Blair's push for tough action is likely to be given a considerable boost by a new, still classified, report in New York by the UN's panel of experts on Sudan. According to an official who has seen the report, the panel found evidence that the Sudanese government was continuing to ship arms into Darfur and conduct air force operations over the province in violation of UN security council resolution 1591, passed two years ago.

The investigators also spotted an Antonov-26 aircraft painted white and parked at a military airport. "The panel noted with concern that the plane had a UN logo painted on the top of its left wing," a UN internal document said. "It was parked on the military apron next to rows of bombs."

The panel spotted another white Antonov at a military airport on March 1. The panel is "investigating the role of both aircraft in aerial bombing" of Darfur, the document said.

Downing Street has stressed that Mr Blair would prefer to act in concert with other security council members, but Sudan's defenders at the UN, led by China, are likely to resist any resolution backed by force. Asked whether the UK and the US would attempt to rally a 'coalition of the willing' against Sudan in the event of a security council impasse, a Downing Street source said: "We'd have to judge that if we failed." The initiative for such tough action is being driven by Mr Blair himself, often in the face of scepticism in the foreign office and ministry of defence.

The MoD in particular distanced itself from the idea yesterday, and said there were no plans for British forces to get involved.

"There are absolutely no plans for any UK military action at all in Sudan or the Darfur region of Sudan," a senior British defence source said yesterday, adding: "There are no plans on the radar".

But British military officials did not exclude the possibility that the US had contingency plans to strike Sudanese airfields.

Mr Blair is said by his aides to believe the ethnic cleansing to be a defining moral issue.

"It's very important [President Bashir] doesn't believe he can renege on his agreements. We can't allow the status quo to be locked in after the ethnic cleansing there," a Downing Street source said.

"The prime minister believes in a values-driven foreign policy and believes you have to evenly apply those values to have any credibility. He sees Darfur as a test of the international community's commitment to its own values."

The prospect of a no-fly zone was welcomed by the independent International Crisis Group thinktank yesterday. "The government in Khartoum is using its air force to bomb its own civilians and to resupply its troops and allied militias killing its own people. That's a pretty good reason for a no-fly zone," Andrew Stroehlein, the ICG's media director, said.

27.03.2007: Darfur

=




<B><center>10:41, March 28, 2007

<font size=+1 color=purple>Saudi hopes to rally Arab 'moderates' at summit</font>

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200703/28/eng20070328_361715.html </center>
This week's Arab summit will crown months of intense Saudi diplomacy aimed at dousing the flames of radicalism in the region and promoting the once insular oil state as a US-backed "leader of the Arabs".

Riyadh has watched with concern as non-Arab Shi'ite Muslim Iran spreads its influence in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, where Washington's prestige has waned over the past year with its failure to pacify Iraq. </b>

Analysts say the two-day summit that opens today is a chance for US-backed Sunni Arab states to assert themselves.

Their effort will focus on a revived Arab peace initiative, a Saudi land-for-peace plan that the Arab League adopted in 2002 but which Israel and the United States ignored at the time.

Arabs across the political spectrum have long argued that the decades-old conflict is a festering wound at the heart of the region's problems, the key to marginalizing radical ideologies and developing democratic political systems.

Sunni states including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan considered "moderate" by the United States because they favor a realist policy of accepting Western ground rules for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict are keener than ever to see it end.

"Who in the Arab world is ready to go into a peace plan with Israel on behalf of everyone?" said Ahmed Shalan, a columnist in Saudi-owned Arab daily al-Hayat.

"The role of leadership in the Arab world falls on Saudi Arabia, which certainly did not seek to obtain it. This role, which is a great challenge, carries enormous consequences."

In February, Saudi Arabia brokered a deal creating a Palestinian unity government and ending months of infighting. It is also trying to mediate in Lebanon between opposition forces led by pro-Iranian Hezbollah and the Western-backed government.

Saudi-owned Arab media have heavily promoted the summit, and Riyadh is festooned with flags, flowers and slogans such as "Unity behind a just cause provides strength" and "Welcome to the country of peace and humanity".

Dubai-based analyst Mustafa Alani said Arab states were in a relatively strong position because of US difficulties in Iraq and Israel's failure to crush Hezbollah in a war last year.

All this is a far cry from the Saudi Arabia of old.

Arab nationalist and Islamist groups across the Arab world have long regarded the insular desert state with disdain as the country whose rulers have done more than any other to ensure US political and military influence in the region.

They contrast this with the power to challenge Western policy that Saudi Arabia could have wielded via its vast oil wealth and prestige from housing Islam's holiest sites.

Only once before has Riyadh hosted an Arab summit. That was in 1976 and Saudi Arabia had initially declined to host this year's summit until it reversed its decision in January.

Having outlasted Arab nationalists such as Egypt's Gamal Abdel-Nasser, Syria's Hafez al-Assad and Iraq's Saddam Hussein, the conservative rulers of US ally Saudi Arabia are emerging from the shadows to try to lead the region to a final peace.

"Saudi Arabia has been reluctant to play a leading role, and they had wanted to marginalize the Arab League," said Abdel Bari Atwan, Arab nationalist editor of the al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper.

"Now, suddenly, they changed their minds because of American pressure, not because they are willing. The US turned to them and said 'you are our ally, please do something'."

Source: China Daily/agencies

=




<B><center>DEBKAfile reports:

<font size=+0 color=red>More than 10,000 US personnel, two aircraft carriers and 100 warplanes begin biggest simulated demonstration of force in Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq
</font>
March 27, 2007, 3:50 PM (GMT+02:00)
http://debka.com/ </center>
DEBKAfile’s military sources note that the exercise was launched March 27 the day before the Arab League summit opens in Riyadh, to demonstrate the Bush administration’s determination not to let Iran block the Strait of Hormuz to oil exports from the Persian Gulf, or continue its nuclear program. </b>

Taking part are the USS Stennis and USS Eisenhower strike forces.

With Iran’s Revolutionary Guards one week into their marine maneuvers, military tensions in the Gulf region are skyrocketing and boosting world oil prices.

Intelligence sources in Moscow claim to have information that a US strike against Iranian nuclear installations has been scheduled for April 6 at 0040 hours. The Russian sources say the US operation, code-named “Bite,” will last no more than 12 hours and consist of missile and aerial strikes devastating enough to set Tehran’s nuclear program several years back.

The maneuver also occurs four days after 14 British seamen and one crew-woman were seized by an Iranian Revolutionary Guards warship, with no sign that their release is imminent.

London insists its marines were on routine patrol on the Iraqi side of the Shatt al Arb on behalf of the Iraqi government. Tony Blair has threatened “a new phase” in the crisis if the captured personnel are not speedily released.

The warplanes are flying simulated attack maneuvers on enemy shipping with aircraft and ships, hunting enemy submarines and seeking mines, off the coast of Iran.

US Navy Cmdr Kevin Aandahl declined to say when the maneuver was planned or how long it would last. He said US warships would stay out of Iranian territorial waters up to 12 miles from the Iranian coast. Tehran does not recognize this limit and claims a deeper stretch of water.

Our military sources explain the presence of the French naval strike group led by the nuclear aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle which joined the two US carriers last Friday: The group will carry out security missions in the Arabian Sea and its warplanes fly in support of NATO in Afghanistan

http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=633&language_id=1


Moscow's decision against delivering nuclear fuel to Iran's Bushehr reactor demonstrates a change in Russian foreign policy. Previously, Russia has supported Iran throughout its confrontation with the United States and with the West over its nuclear research program. Russia saw relations with Iran as positive for a number of reasons: Iran is a major purchaser of Russian arms and nuclear technology; Iran's negative relationship with the United States has encouraged Moscow to support it against U.S. ambitions in the region, which Russia sees as a threat to its interests in the Middle East and to its near abroad; and Russia, along with China, has been pursuing a policy of multipolarity in world affairs, which means that Washington's attempts to limit the ambitions of regional powers should be opposed. In light of these interests, Moscow's decision on Bushehr signifies a change in its foreign policy toward Iran.

The Kremlin has stated publicly that its decision to halt production of the reactor is due to a payment dispute. Tehran, however, denies that it has failed to complete its payments, and has blamed Russia's decision on "political reasons." Yet Reuters journalist Christian Lowe claimed that European officials had told him that Russia said it would not deliver nuclear fuel to Bushehr until Iran complies with U.N. demands to halt uranium enrichment activities.

It is not clear why Moscow has chosen to limit its involvement in Iran's nuclear program. While Moscow has stated on a number of occasions that it is opposed to Iran developing nuclear weapons, it is unlikely that this is the reason for its decision on Bushehr. From the start of its nuclear involvement with Iran, Russia has known that the technology could be used for weapons purposes. If it were not for resistance from the West, Russia would have continued its nuclear involvement with Iran and would have loaded the Bushehr reactor with fuel.

Furthermore, even after limiting involvement in Bushehr, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov still defended the country, saying that Russia "will not support excessive sanctions against Iran," and noted that the March 24 U.N. Security Council resolution that was passed against Iran was softened as a result of Moscow's negotiations. Additionally, Russia continues to arm Iran, and recently provided it with the sophisticated TOR-M1 anti-aircraft missile system, which is capable of hitting targets at an altitude of 30,000 feet. If Russia saw Iran as a potential threat, it would be unlikely to assist in Iran's military development.

Some analysts argue that Russia's decision had more to do with Western pressure. This explanation appears to be the most accepted, although it too does not seem to be entirely accurate. During the past few years, for instance, President Vladimir Putin's Russia has taken an increasingly aggressive stance on the world stage. He has pursued a number of policies that have directly contrasted with the West, yet he has not stood down in spite of Western pressure. Moscow's energy policy that resulted in the cut-off of gas flows to Europe was an extremely provocative decision that was taken in stride despite Western outrage. Therefore, it seems unlikely that Moscow would curtail its involvement with Iran's nuclear industry simply due to Western pressure.

Instead, a more realistic possibility explaining Moscow's decision is that some form of a political deal has been reached with the United States and the Europeans. As part of such a deal, Washington and Brussels would achieve Moscow's support on Iran, which would allow the United States and the European Union to better isolate the country. It is unclear, however, what Russia would receive from such a deal. There are a number of outstanding issues that Moscow hopes to resolve in its favor, from Western pressure over NGOs operating in Russia, to the status of breakaway provinces like Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

While it is unclear at this stage why Russia has chosen to cool its relations with Iran, Moscow's decision on Bushehr marks a definite change in Russian policy. Time will tell whether this is a one-time tactical decision, or if it is a long-term strategic change of direction on the part of the Kremlin.

The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is an independent organization that utilizes open source intelligence to provide conflict analysis services in the context of international relations. PINR approaches a subject based upon the powers and interests involved, leaving the moral judgments to the reader. This report may not be reproduced, reprinted or broadcast without the written permission of enquiries@pinr.com. PINR reprints do not qualify under Fair-Use Statute Section 107 of the Copyright Act. All comments should be directed to comments@pinr.com.

''Intelligence Brief: Russia Shifts Course on Iran''

Click to expand...

My azz...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/28/wisrael28.xml


# Audio: David Blair on the Saudi warning

The "lords of war" will decide Israel's future if it rejects a blueprint for peace crafted by the entire Arab world, Saudi Arabia's veteran foreign minister warned yesterday.

As leaders began gathering in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, for today's summit of the Arab League, Prince Saud al-Faisal told The Daily Telegraph that the Middle East risks perpetual conflict if the peace plan fails.

Saudi foreign minister Prince Saudi al-Faisal, right, and Amr Moussa, Secretary General of the Arab League, accept the peace plan or face war, Saudis tell Israel
Saudi foreign minister Prince Saudi al-Faisal, right, and Amr Moussa, Secretary General of the Arab League

Under this Saudi-drafted proposal, every Arab country would formally recognise Israel in return for a withdrawal from all the land captured in the war of 1967.

This would entail a Palestinian state embracing the entire West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital. Every Arab country will almost certainly endorse this blueprint when the Riyadh summit concludes tomorrow. Prince Saud said Israel should accept or reject this final offer.

"What we have the power to do in the Arab world, we think we have done," he said. "So now it is up to the other side because if you want peace, it is not enough for one side only to want it. Both sides must want it equally."

Speaking inside his whitewashed palace, surrounded by luxuriant lawns and manicured flower beds resembling a green oasis in the drabness of Riyadh, Prince Saud delivered an unequivocal warning to Israel.
advertisement

"If Israel refuses, that means it doesn't want peace and it places everything back into the hands of fate. They will be putting their future not in the hands of the peacemakers but in the hands of the lords of war," he said.

Prince Saud dismissed any further diplomatic overtures towards Israel. "It has never been proven that reaching out to Israel achieves anything," he said.

"Other Arab countries have recognised Israel and what has that achieved?

"The largest Arab country, Egypt, recognised Israel and what was the result? Not one iota of change happened in the attitude of Israel towards peace."

Israel has numerous reservations about the Arab peace plan - which was previously proposed at a summit in 2002. Israel fears any hint that Palestinian refugees would have the right to return to their homes in the event of a peace settlement.

Prince Saud is the 66-year-old son of the late King Faisal. Relieved of the need to seek re-election, he has held office for 32 years.

Flush with oil money, Saudi Arabia is playing a more assertive role in Middle Eastern diplomacy. As well as securing the Arab peace plan, the Kingdom brokered the agreement between Hamas and Fatah - the two Palestinian factions - to form a unity government.

But western diplomats in Riyadh believe this resurgence in Saudi diplomacy stems from more than the kingdom's oil boom.

The menacing spectre of Iran, the rising Shia power with nuclear-tipped ambitions for regional dominance, looms large across the waters of the Gulf.

Saudi Arabia is quietly moving to contain its bellicose neighbour. Prince Saud offered conciliatory words to Iran, laced with coded criticism. "We have no inhibitions about the role of Iran," he said. "It is a large country. It wants to play a leading role in the region, and it has every right to do so. It is an historic country. But if you want to reach for leadership, you have to make sure that those you are leading are having their interests taken care of and not damaged."

Saudi Arabia has privately urged Iran to stop enriching uranium, in compliance with United Nations resolutions and lay to rest any suggestion that it is seeking nuclear weapons. Prince Saud called for a "Middle East free of nuclear weapons" with "no exceptions for anybody, be it Israel or Iran".

Asked whether the kingdom would consider seeking nuclear weapons of its own if Iran managed to acquire a bomb, Prince Saud replied: "We have made it very clear that we are not going down that road under any circumstances."

He paused for a moment, before adding, "under any foreseeable circumstances".

Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright

bump to the front page

Unfortunately, until the PALESTINIANS sign the blueprint, it means less than the marks on my used toilet paper...

I

ntelligence Brief: Russia Shifts Course on Iran''

Click to expand...

Yes indeed...

They shifted from allying with Iran to get ahold of their oil and NG..

to (understanding that the US IS going to strike them) waiting in the wings for the aftermath to take their oil and NG..

Same ole Russia.. good to know they can be counted on..






to do only whats best for them.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2007032...70328115853;_ylt=Av0AvZMM3nhrUNKY4kr.nxpSw60A

LONDON (AFP) - Britain is freezing all ties with
Iran over the detention of 15 sailors and marines in the Gulf, Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said Wednesday.
ADVERTISEMENT

"We will ... be imposing a freeze on all other official bilateral business with Iran," she said in a statement to lawmakers on the crisis between London and Tehran.

=

<B><center>Russia

<font size=+1 color=red>Should Iran Rush into War?</font>

March 28, 2007
RIA Novosti
Pyotr Goncharov
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070328/62741920.html </center>
MOSCOW -- There are many indications that in the past 12-13 months, Iran has been intentionally escalating the military tensions surrounding its nuclear program. The rhetoric of the Iranian political and military elite has become much tougher; Tehran has been flexing its military muscle over the same issue, and has ostentatiously turned down the IAEA and UN Security Council proposals to return to the negotiating table in order to resolve the problem; and finally, the Iranian Navy captured 15 British sailors before the Security Council adopted its latest resolution on tougher sanctions against Tehran. </b>

Many experts believe that Tehran unequivocally declared its claims to regional leadership after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president in the summer of 2005. More than a year ago, he demanded that the world community recognize Iran as a "regional superpower." Positioning itself like this, Tehran placed its bets primarily on nuclear technologies, strong anti-Israeli rhetoric, and Arab support throughout the Middle East.

Tehran did not conceal its intention to reduce American prestige in Arab eyes, if not to oust the United States from the region altogether. It was convinced that the U.S. had gotten stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan, and would not bother about Iran. This was an ideal chance to portray the Big Satan as a miserable paper tiger.

Tehran, however, has clearly overestimated its potential. Its anti-Israeli and anti-American rhetoric has failed to win the unreserved support from Arabs on which it counted. The U.S. has suddenly come up with a new strategy for the region that will no longer tolerate Iran's meddling in the affairs of its neighbors. Tehran cannot fail to see that the U.S. may use Iran's notorious nuclear dossier as a very good excuse for implementing the number-one goal of its strategy, all the more so as Washington is already planning to deploy four or five carrier-based attack groups in the Persian Gulf. This weighty argument should prompt Tehran to look for ways to back down, but how can it find them without ruining its image as a "regional superpower"?

Clearly, Iran has every reason to become a regional power, and the world would welcome this if only Tehran did not hit its neighbors' sore spots. Iran has every right to develop civilian nuclear power, and nobody is encroaching on that. But Tehran claims that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is based on the presumption of innocence, but in reality it is the other way around. Experts believe that the NPT is based on the assumption that nuclear weapons are bound to be developed if all of their components are there. This premise is based on a simple truth - man is weak, but the temptation is great. The world is not sure that Iran will resist this temptation because it has failed to explain properly to the IAEA why it wants to develop its own nuclear technologies.

Iran is a master of political maneuvering. Many experts have quoted the recent seizure of the Royal Navy personnel as an example. In its usual manner, Tehran has availed itself of an opportunity to escalate tensions. But this time, its maneuver has failed. For the first time ever, the Security Council has unanimously voted for tougher sanctions against Tehran. Maybe this will compel Iran to think whether it should rush into war.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=brown><center>Khamenei Threatens to 'Strike at Them with All Our Capabilities'</font>

March 27, 2007
The Middle East Media Research Institute
MEMRI
http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD152307 </center>
The following are excerpts from a public address delivered by Iranian Leader, Ali Khamenei, which aired on Khorasan TV on March 21, 2007. TO VIEW THIS CLIP:

Ali Khamenei: "When the president of the Iranian people travels to countries in Asia, Africa, and South America, the peoples cry out slogans in his praise. They demonstrate in support of him. When the American president visits countries in South America, which is the backyard of the U.S.A, the peoples there welcome him by burning the American flag..." </b>

Crowd chanting: "Death to America. Death to America. Death to America. Death to America. Death to America. Death to America. Death to America"

[...]

Ali Khamenei: "This means the shaking of the foundations of liberal democracy, of which the West, and above all America, claim to be the standard bearer."

[...]

"They talk about democracy, about human rights, about global security, and about the war on terror, but their evil inner self reveals how warmongering they are, reveals how they trample the rights of the peoples, and reveals their great desire and insatiable appetite for the world's energy sources. The peoples see these things. Day by day, the reputation of liberal democracy and of America - the vanguard of liberal democracy in the world - is diminished in the eyes of the world. At the same time, the reputation of Islamic Iran grows. The peoples understand that the Americans are lying, when they claim to be defending human rights."

"They threaten to impose sanctions on us. Sanctions cannot harm us. Haven't they imposed sanctions on us before? We achieved nuclear energy despite sanctions. We achieved scientific progress despite sanctions. We achieved the building of our country despite the sanctions. Under certain circumstances, sanctions can benefit us, because they intensify our will for effort and activity."

[...]

"Creating a fuss in order to pressure the Iranian people in this [nuclear] issue, using the U.N. Security Council as a tool, will only harm the forces confronting the Iranian people. I must say this. If they want to use the Security Council as a tool, thus ignoring this indisputable right... So far, we have done everything in accordance with international law, but if they want to violate these laws, we too can and will violate these laws."

Crowd chanting: "Allah Akbar Allah Akbar. Allah Akbar. Khamenei is the leader. Death to America. Oh noble leader, we are prepared. Oh noble leader, we are prepared. Oh noble leader, we are prepared. Oh noble leader, we are prepared."

Ali Khamenei: <b>"Pay attention. If they want to use threats, impose [their will], and act aggressively, they should have no doubt that the Iranian people and officials will confront the enemies that want to attack us, and will strike at them with all our capabilities." </b>

=





<B><font size=+1 color=green><center>Tehran Seizure </font>

March 27, 2007
National Review Online
Michael Rubin
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25853,filter.all/pub_detail.asp </center>
<u>The Iranian government's decision to take 15 British marines hostage is an act of war</u>. The decision was both deliberate and central. The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps is not a rogue element. The regime created it to conducts the operations which the leading clerics did not trust the army to execute.
</b>
That Iranian decision makers took such a step is not the result of too little diplomacy, but rather too much. Since Germany launched its critical dialogue with Iran in 1992, European countries have showered the Islamic Republic with apologies and incentives to compromise. Rather than abandon terrorism as a tool of state or reconsider its clandestine nuclear program, the Iranian government has redoubled its efforts to defy. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's May 31, 2006 offer to engage Tehran resulted not in a suspension of uranium enrichment, but rather public gloating by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei about U.S. weakness. Nor did the British "softly-softly" approach toward Tehran or its proxies in Basra bring peace in our time. Rather, it convinced the Revolutionary Guards that the British were targets of least resistance.

While Western diplomats seek an elusive formula of concessions and incentives, the fact remains that the Iranian regime has yet to offer a single confidence-building measure. Freelance proposals by Swiss diplomats are no substitute.

The Iranian decision to take hostages is in part an outgrowth of the moral equivalency of Western diplomats and intellectuals. The Iranian government will try to construct a linkage with Iranian operatives detained by U.S. forces in Baghdad and Erbil. Such a claim is risible. The Iranian government--which has yet to apologize for its seizure of U.S. hostages in 1979--did not grant the detained Qods Force operatives diplomatic credentials until after their arrest. None appeared on Iraqi diplomatic lists. But, in a world where U.S. and British diplomats apologize for slights real and imagined, and professors see their role to advocate for their countries of study rather than pursuit of dispassionate knowledge, Tehran counts on the fact that Western intellectuals will rationalize the most irresponsible and illegal behaviors.

Tehran has grown accustomed to expecting rewards for non-compliance. It is time U.S. officials, if not their European counterparts, recognize failure. Ratcheting up pressure only enables Iranian officials to adjust. True leverage requires comprehensive sanctions which can be lifted in response to changes in Tehran's behavior. The West should abandon the illusion that factionalism within the Iranian government matters. The Office of the Supreme Leader has exercised remarkable control and coordination over its security apparatus. Presidents, whether pragmatic, reformist, or hardline, may differ in style, but have all operated toward the same goals. The White House should not differentiate between officials, power structures, and proxies and should hold the Iranian government accountable for all its actions.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=blue><center>Attack Rumor Sends Oil Prices Higher</font>

March 28, 2007
The Associated Press
orange.advfn.com
http://orange.advfn.com/news_Attack-rumor-sends-oil-prices-higher_19987286.html </center>
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates -- The U.S. military denied reports Tuesday that Iran fired a missile at a U.S. ship in the Persian Gulf. The rumors of an attack had sent oil prices soaring more than 8 percent in after-hours trading. Lt. Cmdr. Charlie Brown of the U.S. Navy 5th Fleet said all ships in the Gulf had been checked and the rumors were untrue. A Navy spokesman in Washington, Cmdr. Dave Werner, also said the Navy had no indication that any of its ships has been attacked.
</b>
Crude oil futures jumped in a matter of minutes, topping $68 as rumors of a military confrontation in the Persian Gulf spurred panic buying, Dow Jones reported.

The price eased lower to $64.10 less than two hours after the spike, but it was still above its settlement of $62.93 on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

Rising tensions between Tehran and the West have created a potentially dangerous situation in the Gulf, and markets are jumpy.

Tehran continues to hold 15 British sailors it captured Friday, giving no indications of their whereabouts despite repeated pleas for their release from Britain, the United States and the European Union.

The British government on Tuesday also denied it was involved in any action in the region.

"There have certainly been no developments on our side in the last few hours," a Foreign Office spokeswoman in London said, on condition of anonymity in line with government policy.

Meanwhile, the U.S. kicked off a military training operation in the Persian Gulf on Tuesday that commanders said was meant to send a warning to Iran. The operations are the largest show of U.S. force in the Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=purple><center>Iran in Too Deep</font>

March 28, 2007
The Associated Press
David Stringer
http://www.nypost.com/seven/0328200..._in_too_deep_worldnews_david_stringer__ap.htm </center>
LONDON -- Prime Minister Tony Blair warned yesterday that his government could make public the evidence that a British navy crew was in Iraqi waters when it was captured by Iran, saying he was prepared to take the standoff to a "different phase" if diplomacy fails to win their release. </b>

Iran said the 15 British sailors and marines were being treated well, but refused to say where they were being held or rule out the possibility that they could be brought to trial for allegedly entering Iranian waters.

"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."

Blair's spokesman 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.

Releasing such evidence could have "an up side and a down side." It could show the Iranian ships strayed into Iraqi territory, but it could also provoke a diplomatic war between the neighbors, the spokesman said on condition of anonymity.

Britain and the United States have said the sailors and marines were intercepted Friday 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.

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.

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

U.S. commanders insisted the exercises were not a direct response to the seizure of the British sailors and marines, but they also made clear that the flexing of the Navy's military might was intended as a warning to Iran.

Meanwhile, the U.S. military denied reports yesterday that Iran fired a missile at a U.S. ship in the Persian Gulf.

The rumors of an attack had sent oil prices soaring more than 8 percent in after-hours trading. Lt. Cmdr. Charlie Brown of the U.S. Navy 5th Fleet said all ships in the Gulf had been checked and the rumors were untrue.

The British government yesterday also denied it was involved in any action in the region.

The Flying Dutchman said:

=




<B><font size=+1 color=blue><center>Attack Rumor Sends Oil Prices Higher</font>

March 28, 2007
The Associated Press
orange.advfn.com
http://orange.advfn.com/news_Attack-rumor-sends-oil-prices-higher_19987286.html </center>
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates -- The U.S. military denied reports Tuesday that Iran fired a missile at a U.S. ship in the Persian Gulf. The rumors of an attack had sent oil prices soaring more than 8 percent in after-hours trading. Lt. Cmdr. Charlie Brown of the U.S. Navy 5th Fleet said all ships in the Gulf had been checked and the rumors were untrue. A Navy spokesman in Washington, Cmdr. Dave Werner, also said the Navy had no indication that any of its ships has been attacked.
</b>
Crude oil futures jumped in a matter of minutes, topping $68 as rumors of a military confrontation in the Persian Gulf spurred panic buying, Dow Jones reported.

The price eased lower to $64.10 less than two hours after the spike, but it was still above its settlement of $62.93 on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

Rising tensions between Tehran and the West have created a potentially dangerous situation in the Gulf, and markets are jumpy.

Tehran continues to hold 15 British sailors it captured Friday, giving no indications of their whereabouts despite repeated pleas for their release from Britain, the United States and the European Union.

The British government on Tuesday also denied it was involved in any action in the region.

"There have certainly been no developments on our side in the last few hours," a Foreign Office spokeswoman in London said, on condition of anonymity in line with government policy.

Meanwhile, the U.S. kicked off a military training operation in the Persian Gulf on Tuesday that commanders said was meant to send a warning to Iran. The operations are the largest show of U.S. force in the Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Click to expand...

=




<B><center>Wednesday, March 28, 2007

<font size=+1 color=red>U.S. Navy Exercise Near Iran No Coincidence</font>

March 27, 2007
ABC News
World News
http://www.iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2007&m=03&d=28&a=6 </center>
The U.S. Navy is offering a huge show of military might near the location where Iran seized 15 British sailors and marines five days ago, in what is seen as a clear effort to send a message to Iran, a senior military official told ABC News' Martha Raddatz in Bahrain. </b>

Twelve ships, 100 aircraft and 12,000 sailors are taking part in the war games designed to get the attention of Iran.

The naval exercise went on all day today and will continue Wednesday, with F-18 fighter jets roaring from the deck of both aircraft carriers in the first appearance of two U.S. carriers in the Gulf simultaneously since 2003.

U.S. naval officials in Bahrain told ABC News that the operation was hastily planned after the 15 Britons were seized Friday, yet the Bush administration would not say publicly that this is the case.

Diplomacy, Options Considered

Friday, when the sailors were first captured, there was every expectation that the men would be released within a few days, which is what happened during a similar incident in 2004.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said today that unless the sailors and marines were returned safely, the crisis could escalate.

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

The U.S. military exercise today goes well beyond the seizure of the Britons to address the overall tensions with Iran to include the transfer of Iranian weapons into Iraq and the standoff over Iran's nuclear program.

"The Navy is a very useful tool for deterring enemies," said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute. "It's a lot of power, and it can deploy just about anywhere that has a coastline."

For now, Iran is holding firm and has threatened to charge the captured sailors with illegally entering what they claim are Iranian waters — waters that the U.S. carriers will continue to monitor from very close by.

Lord, have mercy.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=brown><center>Britain Freezing Talks With Iran </font>

March 28, 2007
The Associated Press
David Stringer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6514695,00.html </center>
LONDON -- Britain said it was freezing talks on all other issues with Iran until it freed 15 Royal Navy crew members seized last week, and the British military released what it said was proof its boats were within Iraqi territorial waters when they were seized. </b>

Iran's foreign minister said meanwhile a female British sailor held captive by Iran may be released later Wednesday or on Thursday, a Turkish TV station reported.

``The woman soldier is free either today or tomorrow,'' CNN-Turk television quoted Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki as saying on the sidelines of an Arab summit meeting in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

On Tuesday, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said the woman, identified as sailor Faye Turney, 26, had been given privacy.

Britain's military said its vessels were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters when Iran seized the sailors and marines on Friday.

Vice Adm. Charles Style told reporters that the Iranians had provided a position on Sunday - a location that he said was in Iraqi waters. By Tuesday, Iranian officials had given a revised position 2 miles east, placing the British inside Iranian waters - a claim he said was not verified by global positioning system coordinates.

``It is hard to understand a legitimate reason for this change of coordinates,'' Style said.

Style gave the satellite coordinates of the British crew as 29 degrees 50.36 minutes north latitude and 048 degrees 43.08 minutes east longitude, and said it had been confirmed by an Indian-flagged merchant ship boarded by the sailors and marines.

Prime Minister Tony Blair told the House of Commons that ``there was no justification whatever ... for their detention, it was completely unacceptable, wrong and illegal.''

``We had hoped to see their immediate release; this has not happened. It is now time to ratchet up the diplomatic and international pressure in order to make sure the Iranian government understands its total isolation on this issue,'' Blair said.

British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said Britain had frozen bilateral talks with Iran on all other issues until Tehran frees the crew.

``No one should be in any doubt about the seriousness with which we regard these events,'' Beckett told lawmakers.

Blair said he believed the crew acted sensibly in not putting up fight after being confronted by six Iranian vessels.

``If they had engaged in military combat at that stage, there would have undoubtedly been severe loss of life. I think they took the right decision and did what was entirely sensible,'' Blair said.

Britain and the United States have said the crew was intercepted after completing 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.

Iran has said the 15 were being treated well, but refused to say where they were being held, or rule out the possibility that they could be brought to trial for allegedly entering Iranian waters.

The Iranian Embassy statement said: ``We are confident that Iranian and British governments are capable of resolving this security case through their close contacts and cooperation.''

In Tehran, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said the case was following normal procedures, holding out the possibility that the Britons could be brought to trial.

He said the Britons were being treated well and that the only woman among the sailors, 26-year-old Faye Turney, had been given privacy.

``They are in completely good health. Rest assured that they have been treated with humanitarian and moral behavior,'' Hosseini told The Associated Press.

In talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, Beckett demanded that British diplomats be allowed to meet with the crew to make their own assessment.

=




<B><center>Wednesday, March 28, 2007

<font size=+1 color=green>Hostage Gambit</font>

March 27, 2007
New York Post
Amir Taheri
http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly...hostage_gambit_opedcolumnists_amir_taheri.htm </center>
When in doubt, take a few hostages: This axiom of Khomeinist diplomacy was, once again, manifested in the capture of 15 British sailors in the Persian Gulf last Friday.

Tehran says the Brits had strayed into Iran's territorial waters. London says they were in Iraqi waters keeping an eye on smugglers in accordance with their U.N. mission. </b>

We may never know what actually happened. The area where the sailors were captured is at the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab, a border estuary that has caused two wars between Iran and Iraq since the 1970s. Iraq claims ownership of the entire estuary, while Iran wants it divided between the two neighbors. It is possible that the sailors thought they were in Iraqi waters while the Islamic Revolutionary Guard's Marines believed them to be on the Iranian side.

What is certain, however, is that the sailors would not have been captured without Tehran's approval at the highest level. The Brits based in Basra have often strayed into waters that Iran regards as its own; Iranians have also often passed into Iraqi waters.

In other words, these are almost daily incidents. The standard procedure is to warn the trespassers and guide them back to their own side of the water. If that procedure was abandoned this time, the reason must be someone's desire to provoke an incident.

If trespassing were the cause of the incident, one wonders why the Islamic Republic turns a blind eye to American vessels often straying into its so-called continental-shelf territorial waters. A casual boat ride in the Persian Gulf would offer the visitor countless examples of this on a daily basis.

It is possible that the mullahs don't yet wish to provoke a direct clash with the United States, and have used the incident with the Brits as a means of testing the waters. They may also hope that they could force London to press Washington to release the Revolutionary Guard commanders held in Baghdad in exchange for the British hostages.

The mullahs' move cannot be fortuitous: The Brits were captured on the eve of a new Security Council resolution, drafted by Britain, to impose harsher sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

It also came after months in which the Western powers have been exerting what is known as "proximity pressure" on the Khomeinist regime. A former deputy defense minister of the Islamic Republic, Gen. Ali-Reza Askari (Asgari), was kidnapped or defected and is presumed to be in the United States. Five senior commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, including its head of special operations, Gen. Mohammed Jafar Sahraroudi, remain under lock and key after having been arrested by U.S. forces in Baghdad.

Tehran is full of rumors about supposed secret contacts established by the Americans with several senior political and military figures with a view toward a regime change. The contacts supposedly include a former prime minister and a former defense minister.

Not surprisingly, the "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenei appears to have concluded that the best defense is to go on the offensive. In a tough speech last week, Khamenei in effect put the Islamic Republic on a war footing. He endorsed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "no compromise" position on the nuclear issue and threatened to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).

Ever since it erupted on the scene, the Khomeinist revolution has always accompanied a hardening of its position by seizing hostages. In November 1979, just eight months after seizing power, the Khomeinist regime endorsed the seizure of American diplomats as hostages in Tehran.

During the following quarter-century, the Islamic Republic was involved in seizing more than 1,000 hostages from more than 30 countries in Iran or through its Hezbollah agents in Lebanon. These included a French ambassador to Tehran, Guy Georgy, two German bankers and eight American and French journalists - plus dozens of businessmen, priests and tourists from countries as far apart as South Korea and Italy. Right now, in addition to the 15 Brits, the Islamic Republic is holding a German hostage.

Western apologists for the Khomeinist regime have already started blaming the United States for having made the mullahs nervous. The argument of the apologists is simple: Don't do anything that makes the mullahs unhappy, or else they will do more mischief.

<b>The truth, however, is that making the mullahs nervous may be the only way of persuading them to end their defiance of the United Nations and stop trying to export Khomeinism to neighboring countries. </b>

Iranian-born journalist and author Amir Taheri is based in Europe.

=





<B><font size=+1 color=blue><center>Oil Rises a 7th Day as Iran Tension Adds to Disruption Concern</font>

By Mark Shenk
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aaLr4gxdQatQ&refer=worldwide </center>
March 28 (Bloomberg) -- Crude oil rose for a seventh day, climbing close to $65 a barrel in New York, on concern that Iran's capture of British servicemen may escalate, disrupting shipments from the Middle East.

Oil jumped more than $2 a barrel, after surging $5 in seven minutes late yesterday on speculation the U.K. would mount a rescue attempt. The Middle East is responsible for about a third of the world's oil output. Prices also rose on expectations an Energy Department report today will show that U.S. gasoline inventories fell for a seventh straight week. </b>

``The recent price moves show that geopolitical factors are back front and center,'' said Nauman Barakat, senior vice president of global energy futures at Macquarie Futures USA Inc. in New York. ``Sentiment is bullish. Geopolitical tension and tightness in the gasoline market are the twin pillars of this market.''

Crude oil for May delivery rose $1.54, or 2.5 percent, to $64.48 a barrel at 9:45 a.m. on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Prices reached $64.86 during the session. Futures are down 2.4 percent from a year ago.

Prices surged from 1979 through 1981 after Iran cut oil exports. The average cost of oil used by U.S. refiners was $35.24 a barrel in 1981, according to the Energy Department, or $79.67 today's dollars.

``Whenever there is a headline about Iran people prick up their ears,'' said Justin Fohsz, a broker at Starsupply Petroleum, a division of GFI Group Inc., in Englewood, New Jersey. ``If the Iranians release the British, oil should come off quite a bit.''

Strait of Hormuz

Almost a quarter of the world's oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway between Iran and Oman at the mouth of the Persian Gulf. Relations between Iran, which sits on the world's second-largest proven reserves, and western governments were already frayed because of the country's nuclear program.

``It is now time to ratchet up the pressure,'' Prime Minister Tony Blair said in Parliament in London today. The capture of the U.K. personnel was ``wrong and completely illegal.''

Vice Admiral Charles Style told reporters in London that Iran's navy ``ambushed'' Britain's boats on the Iraqi side of the Shatt al-Arab waterway. He said GPS navigation data showed the position of Britain's ships and that Iranian officials have given two separate accounts for the location of the vessels.

Increases Concerns

``It increases people's concerns about how they would behave if they had a nuclear weapon,'' U.K. Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said in a statement to Parliament. She said she's considering whether to take the matter to the UN and to European Union foreign ministers meeting this weekend.

The United Nations Security Council on March 24 unanimously backed a resolution freezing the assets of a state-owned Iranian bank and imposing penalties on some military commanders, to push Iran to suspend production of the nuclear fuel. The package toughens sanctions approved in December.

Brent crude oil for May settlement jumped $1.48, or 2.3 percent, to $66.08 a barrel on the London-based ICE Futures exchange. Futures touched $69 a barrel yesterday, the highest intraday price since Sept. 4.

To contact the reporter on this story: Mark Shenk in New York at mshenk1@bloomberg.net .

Last Updated: March 28, 2007 09:53 EDT

=





<B><font size=+1 color=purple><center>Iran Returns to Islamic Fallback Position: Taking Hostages</font>

By Sher Zieve
Mar 28, 2007
http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_21271639.shtml </center>
In November 1979, the US Embassy in Iran was seized by militant students representing the new Muslim fundamentalist Iranian regime headed by the Ayatollah Khomeini. Under President Jimmy Carter's continuing and hopeless lack of any leadership, the Iranian hostage crisis lasted until the day President Ronald Reagan took his first Oath of Office on 20 January 1981. On that day and only a few minutes after President Reagan was sworn in as President of the United States, Iran announced its formal release of the US hostages. Prior to his election, President Reagan had vowed to gain the release of the still remaining fifty-two US captives. </b>

Although some of the hostages said they couldn't be sure, former hostages Chuck Scott, Don Sharer, William Daugherty, Kevin Hermening and William Gallegos all positively identified current Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as one of the student leaders who affected the takeover of the US Embassy. Perhaps desirous of reliving those glory days, while he and his fundamentalist regime are experiencing demands from Iranian citizens to liberalize that country, Ahmadinejad has again returned to form-taking hostages. This time it is Iran's 23 March Revolutionary Guard capture, at gunpoint, of eight British Royal Sailors and seven Royal Marines who were conducting routine inspections of merchant vessels.


Under increasing pressure and newly imposed sanctions from the United Nations to stop its development of nuclear weaponry and its own citizens' internal exigencies, the self-proclaimed leader of Islam-Ahmadinejad-has gone back to that which is tried and true for the 'religion of peace'; take hostages and commit acts of war. Islamic fundamentalists in Iran are calling for the trial and conviction of the fifteen British sailors and Marines and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Mehzi Mostafavi said:

"It should become clear whether their entry was intentional or unintentional. After that is clarified, the necessary decision will be made!" The United Kingdom is demanding the immediate release of its citizens. However, at this juncture, Iran does not appear to be inclined to do so. Instead, it is beginning to ratchet up its rhetoric by calling the sailors' inspections "aggressive behavior" and it insists that they had "illegally" entered Iranian waters.

In order to bolster sagging support from Iranian citizens, former Iran President Mohammad Khatami attempted the same sort of hostage-taking in 2004, when eight British sailors were captured, blindfolded, paraded before cameras and held by Iran for three days. Note: Of course, this was illegal under Geneva Convention rules. But, as we already know, Islamic countries are exempted from following them.


Khatami's ploy didn't work and he was replaced by the even more hard-line former mayor of Tehran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Apparently he believes that, this time, hostage taking will work to strengthen his own all-time-low popularity and stop the ever-rising protests against him at home. Ahmadinejad has publicly stated that he has met with the prophesied "redeemer" of Islam-the 12th Imam Mahdi. In order to pave the way for this leader, the current Iranian president has stated that the only way to 'bring him back', is to defeat the West by whatever means are necessary.

<b>In 2005, Ahmadinejad said: "And God willing, with the force of God behind it [Iran], we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism!" It seems that Ahmadinejad believes that taking western hostages will not only strengthen his position with Iran's citizens but, will enhance his place in the 12th Mahdi's regime. </b>

Taking him at his word, Ahmadinejad is planning the destruction of the West and all that is non-Muslim and is determined to have those plans succeed. Yet, too many in western democratic countries seem equally determined to dismiss Ahmadinejad's comments and proclamations. Note: An inane resolve to ignore "uncomfortable feelings" has become all too pervasive in multiple politically-correct societies. These same societal members also hold that denying unpleasant truths will, eventually, make them go away. It won't.


Therefore, Ahmadinejad and other Islamic terrorists' rhetoric and actions will become more pronounced and severe while the PC-crowd becomes more acquiescent to their demands. And fearful of blaming the true culprits, these appeasers blame themselves and their own governments. Then, continuing to ignore history, the submissives actually praise the oppressors! In 2005, Hollywood's representative to Iran Sean Penn not only praised that country but asked: "If the United States has nuclear weapons, then why can't Iran have nuclear weapons?" To say that these people are clueless is too kind. In a war of words or an actual war, radical Islam understands only the follow-up of aggressive and unequivocal actions. Whether we like it or not, those actions must often be brutal against barbaric societies. One of the greatest leaders in history, Winston Churchill, noted the following: "When nations are strong, they are not always just and when they wish to be just, they are no longer strong.

Victory will never be found by taking the line of least resistance. I cannot subscribe to the idea that it might be possible to dig ourselves in and make no preparations for anything else than passive defense. It is the theory of the turtle. How many wars have been averted by patience and good will?" They are equally as applicable today, as they were before and during World War II. Perhaps it's time that we heard them again.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161163,00.html

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=50558&NewsKind=Current Affairs

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1969922,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/27/ahmadinejad.reaction/index.html

http://www.answers.com/topic/sean-penn

=




<B><center>UPDATE:

<font size=+1 color=red>U.K. Freezes Bilateral Activity With Iran On Seizure</font>

By Steve Goldstein
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/N...eadlinereturnpage=http://www.international.na </center>
LONDON (Dow Jones) -- Britain is freezing all bilateral activity with Iran while 15 of its naval personnel are being held, Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said in the House of Commons on Wednesday. </b>

The personnel were seized last week while on patrol protecting Iraqi oil terminals and preventing smuggling, said Beckett. She said not only have the U.K.'s positioning devices indicated they were in Iraqi, and not Iranian, territorial waters, but that the first coordinates given by Iran also were in Iraqi territory.

The U.K. is permitted by United Nations mandates to operate in Iraqi territory.

Beckett also reiterated Prime Minister Tony Blair's remarks that the U.K. is in a "new phase" of diplomatic activity.

She said Iran told her that the seized personnel -- 14 men and one woman - wouldn't be allowed consular access until its investigation was done. Iranian officials have has told Beckett that they are "fit and well."

Iran, which also has been sanctioned by the United Nations over its nuclear- research program and has been accused by the U.S. of supporting the insurgency in Iraq, hasn't linked the seizure to the nuclear or any other issue, Beckett added.

Iran hasn't made any demands, Beckett also said.

Britain's dispute with Iran has pushed up crude-oil prices, which briefly jumped to over $68 a barrel late Tuesday. In Wednesday trading, crude futures surged to the highest level of 2007, with the May contract adding $1.74, or 2.8% , to $64.67.It was the highest price seen for that contract since Dec. 26. The dispute has also unsettled equity, currency and other commodity markets.


(END) Dow Jones Newswires
03-28-071006ET

=




<B><center>Mar. 28, 2007 15:55

<font size=+1 color=brown>United Arab Emirates won't participate in US moves against Iran</font>

By ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879198229&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull </center>
The president of the United Arab Emirates forbade the US military from using bases in his country to attack or spy on Iran as mammoth US Navy maneuvers in the Gulf entered their second day.

Sheik Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, who leads this key US ally, said Tuesday that the Emirates had assured Iran that it was not siding with Washington in its dispute over Teheran's nuclear program. </b>

Leaders of Arab nations around the Gulf have grown increasingly uneasy with the tough US stance toward Iran, believing any outbreak of war would bring Iranian retaliation on their own soil, which lies in easy reach of Iranian missiles.

On Wednesday, the US Navy continued its largest show of force in the Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, with 15 ships, 125 aircraft and 13,000 sailors taking part in an exercise that veered within a few dozen miles of Iran's coast.

The Emirates "refuses to use its territorial lands, air or waters for aggression against any other country, let alone a neighboring Muslim country with which we maintain historic and economic ties," Sheik Khalifa said in a statement carried on Emirates news agency WAM.

"We have assured the brothers in Iran ... that we are not a party in its dispute with the United States, that we will not allow any force to use our territories for military, security and espionage activities against Iran," Sheik Khalifa said.

The statement could prevent the US Air Force from flying intelligence missions over Iran with its squadron of U-2 and Global Hawk spy planes based at al-Dhafra Air Base near the Emirates capital Abu Dhabi.

The US Air Force has not altered its air operations in response to Sheik Khalifa's statement, said Air Force Lt.-Col. Mike Pierson, based in the neighboring Gulf state of Qatar.

"Our air operations continue as before," Pierson said. He declined to say whether U-2s were flying missions over Iran, but said the US Air Force only operates in international airspace or over countries that have granted permission.

The US Air Force also runs air-to-air refueling missions from the base and is engaged in training Emirates air force pilots on F-16 fighters recently purchased from the United States.

Sheik Khalifa also asked Iran to "be flexible and realistic and to respect international demands" to halt uranium enrichment, while cautioning the United States to use diplomatic means, not military action to solve the dispute.

Earlier this month, Qatari Foreign Minister Sheik Hamad bin Jassem Al Thani issued a similar message, saying Qatar wouldn't permit an attack on Iran to be launched from its soil.

Qatar is home to the enormous al-Udeid air base, from where US Air Force Lt.-Gen. Gary North commands all American air operations over the Mideast.

=



<B><font size=+1 color=green><center>UNSC inquiry into Iran's nuclear case not judicially, legally justified</font>

Paris, March 28, IRNA
Iran-Nuclear-Ahani
http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-234/0703289333170251.htm </center>
Iran's Ambassador to France Ali Ahani said the UN Security Council's inquiry into Iran's nuclear case is not legally and technically justifiable.

"The (anti-Iran) resolution 1747 was completely politically motivated and a blow to the UNSC's credit. Setting enrichment suspension as a precondition for resumption of dialogue is by no means justified," said Ahani in an address to a group of students at the conference entitled "A Glance at Iran', held at Paris 11 University late Tuesday. </b>

He said Iran does not favor war and supports dialogue.

"We do not wish to enter into war with any country even the US.

We support dialogue as a channel for settlement of Iran's nuclear case because that's the way which does not need confrontation," said the diplomat when asked how long Iran will stick to its stances.

He warned of negative consequences of war.

"We do know that Europeans too are against Americans' attempt to drag the region into another war. We hope that the US President George W. Bush will learn from his mistakes in Iraq because if we move into that direction and if any war breaks out, it will entail bitter consequences. Iran is not Iraq and its conditions are fully different from hers. In case of any war, Bush should be held accountable," he announced.

He said Iran is ready for dialogue on two issues of major concern:
recognition of its civilian nuclear right and the guarantees that its nuclear program will not deviate to military purpose.

"In Iran's nuclear case two major concerns should be taken into consideration: Firstly, Iran's right for peaceful use of nuclear technology and secondly, extension of necessary guarantees that the country's nuclear program is not weapon-grade. We are ready for unconditional dialogue on the two issues and think that the issue does not need to be settled through war and confrontation. It would be a pity if the region is pushed into another crisis or war under the US pressure," he said.

The diplomat then highlighted Iran's geopolitcal, economic and other advantages, including skilled manpower and such natural resources as oil and gas, for French enterprises.

"French entrepreneurs can count on Iran as a safe and reliable partner due to the tremendous advantages," announced Ahani, adding France can win the top rank in Europe in the field of trade.

=





<b><font size=+1 color=blue><center>Iran says British woman sailor to be freed </font>

40 minutes ago
March 28 2007
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070328/wl_uk_afp/iranbritainmilitary;_ylt=A0WTUdBjZApGN7IALhBvaA8F </center>
TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran said on Wednesday it will release "within a day or two" a British servicewoman whose detention along with 14 male colleagues has set off a major diplomatic row with London. </b>

"The woman will be released within a day or two," foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told AFP, adding that "preliminary investigations" were going on for the 14 others navy and marine personnel.

Faye Turney is the only woman among the eight Royal Navy sailors and seven marines Britain says were on a routine anti-smuggling operation in Iraqi waters when they were seized at gunpoint in the north of the Gulf on Friday.

Tehran, which is already at odds with the West over its controversial nuclear programme, says they entered Iranian territorial waters illegally.

Earlier an Arabic-language Iranian television station said it would broadcast "new footage" of the 15, whose detention has prompted Britain to freeze ties with Tehran.

Al-Alam also said it would air an interview with Turney, a 26-year-old married mother of a girl aged three.

A representative of the station said it would be shown in one or two hours.

British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett earlier announced a freeze on all official ties with the Islamic state as Prime Minister Tony Blair vowed to increase pressure on Tehran, which he said faces "total isolation."

=





<B><font size=+1 color=purple><center>Britain turns up heat on Iran, jitters hit market</font>

Peter Graff and Sophie Walker, Reuters
Published: Wednesday, March 28, 2007
By Peter Graff and Sophie Walker
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=a03a47c2-fe77-4d4c-94e2-77809f7b7655&k=8079 </center>
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain turned up the heat on Iran on Wednesday, releasing evidence it said showed 15 military personnel captured last week were operating in Iraqi waters and freezing bilateral contacts until the crisis is resolved.

Iran countered by insisting that British marines and sailors were inside Iranian waters and said the governments of both countries could settle the matter through "close cooperation."</b>

Britain's Foreign Office said however that until the detainees were returned it would halt all official visits between the two countries, suspend the issue of visas to Iranian officials and suspend support for events such as trade missions.

"We are now in a new phase of diplomatic activity. We need to focus all our bilateral efforts during this phase to resolution of this issue," British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett told parliament.

"We will therefore be imposing a freeze on all other official bilateral business with Iran until this situation is resolved," she said.

Turkey's private CNN Turk television network quoted Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki as saying Tehran would release a woman sailor detained with 14 other British servicemen "today or tomorrow." It gave no other details.

Britain's Foreign Office said it could not confirm the report.

With the United States also conducting naval exercises in the Gulf, the rising tension rattled global markets. Although both Washington and London denied talk that military operations were under way, oil prices jumped by $5 overnight to more than $68 a barrel before they settled back at around $64. Gold jumped to a four-week high on safe-haven buying before prices eased.

The British Defense Ministry said global positioning data showed the British sailors and marines were 1.7 nautical miles within Iraqi waters when they were captured by Iranian gunboats near the waterway that separates Iran and Iraq.

"The boats remained throughout well within Iraqi territorial waters," Britain's Deputy Chief of Defense Staff, Vice Admiral Charles Style, told a news conference.

The crisis coincides with a U.N. Security Council resolution passed at the weekend tightening sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program. Iran denies building atomic weapons and calls the sanctions illegal.

"WRONG AND ILLEGAL"

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the detention of the British sailors was "completely unacceptable, wrong and illegal." The Foreign Office said the Iranian ambassador, in talks there on Tuesday, was summoned for a fifth meeting on Wednesday.

They were unable to confirm comments by Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, quoted by CNN Turk television as saying that Turkish diplomats may be allowed to see the captured Britons. Britain has so far been denied access.

For the first time since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, a second U.S. aircraft carrier, the John C. Stennis, arrived in the Gulf for previously scheduled naval war games.


Iran played down the U.S. naval exercises. A headline across screens on Iranian state television read: "Iran: 'no concern about Pentagon's war games in the Persian Gulf'."

Iran's embassy in London said the British sailors and marines were 0.5 km inside Iranian waters at the time and said it had given that data to Britain.

"We are confident that Iranian and British governments are capable of resolving this security case through their close contacts and cooperation which would prevent the reoccurrence of such incidents in the area," it said in a statement.

Britain says its 15 personnel had just completed a routine search of a merchant ship in Iraqi waters, with a U.N. mandate, when they were captured. A senior Iranian military official said at the weekend the sailors had confessed to entering Iranian waters illegally.

In a similar incident in 2004, Iran freed eight British service members after holding them for three days. But since then, Iran's leadership has become more hostile to the West and tension over Iran's nuclear program has increased.

(Additional reporting by Sophie Walker and Katherine Baldwin in London, Mohammed Abbas in Bahrain and Fredrik Dahl in Tehran)

Bump

=




<B><font size=+1 color=red><center>Russian, US Presidents Discuss Iran Nuclear Dispute - Kremlin</font>

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/N...eadlinereturnpage=http://www.international.na </center>
MOSCOW (AP)--President Vladimir Putin discussed Russia's worries over U.S. plans for a missile defense system in Europe with President George W. Bush on Wednesday, along with a host of other pressing international issues, the Kremlin said.</b>

In a telephone conversation it said was initiated by Bush, the Kremlin said the two leaders also discussed growing tensions surrounding Iran's nuclear programs, with Putin saying that the recent U.N. Security Council vote on a new resolution had sent Iran a "serious political signal."

Putin also "expressed the motivations for Russia's concerns in connection with U.S. plans to create a missile defense system in Central Europe," the Kremlin said.

There has been growing tensions between Washington and Moscow over a range of international disputes. Last month, Putin angrily accused Washington of unilateralism and an over-reliance on force; the U.S. has warned increasingly of authoritarian tendencies in Putin's Russia.

The two leaders also discussed efforts to resolve the final status of Kosovo, the Kremlin said.


(END) Dow Jones Newswires
03-28-071054ET

=





<B><font size=+1 color=brown><center>Oil soars on fears of Iran conflict</font>

March 29, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21466042-643,00.html </center>
OIL prices soared by nearly $US1 in Asian trading yesterday, easing back after spiking more than $US5 a barrel on rumours that Iran had fired a missile at a US ship in the Persian Gulf.

The US military denied the reports. Still, rumours about a military confrontation spurred panic buying in after-hours trading, Dow Jones Newswires reported, sending oil prices above $US68. </b>

Rising tensions between Iran and the West have created a potentially dangerous situation in the Gulf and markets are jumpy. Prices fell back within a couple hours, although they remained higher than Tuesday's settlement price of $US62.93 a barrel.

Light sweet crude for May delivery was up US96c at $US63.89 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile exchange in Singapore.

"The major concern is that if the rumour had been true, you'd have a major disruption to supply," said Andrew Harrington, an analyst with ANZ Global Natural Resources.

"You have about a quarter of the world oil coming through the Straits of Hormuz and any military conflict would severely disrupt those supplies, which obviously sees the price spike."

The spike indicates the nervousness in markets, he said.

Traders were last night awaiting US government oil inventories data. The US Energy Department's report was expected to show a gain of 1.1 million barrels in crude oil inventories in week ending March 23.

US petrol supplies were expected to decline by an average of 1.8 million barrels, while distillate stocks - which include heating oil and diesel fuel - are expected to dip by 800,000 barrels.

But the oil data most likely would be overshadowed by continued concerns about the Middle East. Iran holds 15 British sailors it captured on Friday despite pleas for their release from Britain, the US and EU.

"A large part of the oil market, at least in the immediate future, will be very much focused on the events in the Middle East," Mr Harrington said.

AP

=





<B><font size=+1 color=green><center>The Iran Crisis Deepens</font>

March 28, 2007
United Press International
Martin Walker
http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20070328-034024-5083r </center>
PRAGUE, Czech Republic -- We have seen this movie before. One of the West's leading statesmen, and a powerful advocate for human rights, is deliberately humiliated by hostage-seizing Iranian radicals. Moreover, the Iranian radicals believe they can get away with it because they know perfectly well that the Western leaders are constrained by their own moral code to abide, as far as they can, by international law. </b>

An Iranian hostage crisis is the common factor between Britain's Tony Blair in 2007 and the humiliated U.S. presidency of Jimmy Carter in 1979 and 1980. The radicals of Tehran, whether the young student hotheads of 1979 who seized the U.S. Embassy or the middle-aged Revolutionary Guard commanders of today, believe they have stronger nerves and more political will than the leaders of the West.

They were wrong before, and they could be wrong again. Carter made a bold effort to free the U.S. hostages with a daring landing deep inside Iranian territory, with Special Forces then supposed to hijack trucks, drive to Tehran, take the embassy, free the hostages and fly out again. It was a very risky plan, and it failed at almost the first hurdle, when two helicopters collided in the dust storm thrown up by their own rotor blades, and the mission was aborted. The world remembers Carter's failure, rather than his courage in trying the plan.

Special Forces operations have come a long way since then, and Britain's elite SAS troops are among the world's best. A rescue mission will always be an option. But the West has other assets, and the entry into the Persian Gulf this week of a second U.S. aircraft carrier task force, led by the USS John C. Stennis, was a reminder to Iran of just how much force is now being arrayed against it.

This week's exercises represent the largest assembly of military force in the Persian Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. With 15 warships and more than 100 military aircraft maneuvering just off the coast of the United Arab Emirates, the message to Tehran could hardly have been clearer.

"If there is strong presence, then it sends a clear message that you better be careful about trying to intimidate others," Capt. Bradley Johanson, commander of the Stennis, told reporters. "Iran has adopted a very escalatory posture with the things that they have done," he added.

The message may have been sent. But the Iranians either refuse to hear it, ignore it, or take threats without action as yet another sign of Western weakness and disarray. They do not seem to follow the usual processes of diplomacy or logic. And Iranian officials lie routinely, as Pierre Goldschmidt, formerly deputy director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, details in "Correcting Iran's Nuclear Disinformation," a new study for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

"Iranian officials are trying to portray Iran as a victim of Western neo-colonialist attitude, arguing that the West wants to deprive Iran of its inalienable right to reap the benefits of nuclear energy. The reality is that Iran is a victim of its own specific behavior," Goldschmidt notes, citing the report of Mohamed ElBaradei to the IAEA Board of Governors, which said bluntly: "It is clear that Iran has failed in a number of instances over an extended period of time to meet its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement" and "in the past, Iran had concealed many aspects of its nuclear activities, with resultant breaches of its obligation to comply with the provision of its Safeguards Agreement."

So what do Blair and his American allies do now? Blair has talked of the crisis going into "a new phase." This appears to mean publishing the evidence from satellites and global positioning systems that demonstrate that the British sailors and marines were in Iraqi waters when the Iranians launched what looked like a very carefully planned attack in overwhelming force. The Iranians were given the opportunity to say it was all a misunderstanding and to return the sailors and boats, and they turned it down, clearly preferring escalation.

It is always useful to have a strong legal case, and it is sensible for Blair to use the platform of the United Nations to demonstrate that Iran was in the wrong. The real question is what comes next, bearing in mind that Iran has gotten away with kidnapping and humiliating British troops in the past, forcing them to make "confessions" on videotape before being freed. Having swallowed Iran's bullying tactics in the past, the British should not be surprised if the Iranians expect more craven behavior, particularly since the captured crew includes a woman sailor, Leading Seaman Faye Turney, with a 3-year-old daughter at home.

The Iranians may be misjudging the mood in Britain and in the United States. Blair does not want to be remembered like Jimmy Carter, as a nice but deeply ineffectual chap who let his country be humiliated by the radicals of a rogue state. And George Bush does not want his historical legacy to be Atomic Ayatollahs. It is bad enough that the Bush presidency turned Iran into the regional superpower by destroying Iraq, but even worse to be known forever as the man who allowed Iran to go nuclear.

The standoff over Iran's nuclear ambitions has been the world's top crisis-in-waiting for the past year and more. And the realization that military strikes would almost certainly send the oil price soaring way above a barrel has created a misleading sense of optimism that the weakened Bush administration could not take such risks. Those who know Bush best say this is a fundamental misunderstanding of his Texan character. The lurking Iranian crisis could now be coming to a head because Tony Blair does not want to pass into retirement as scorned as Jimmy Carter, and because Bush viscerally rejects the idea that he could be remembered not just as an incompetent, but as an appeaser.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=blue><center>White House denies stepped up tension with Iran</font>
(AFP)

28 March 2007
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/Display...h/theworld_March741.xml&section=theworld&col= </center>
WASHINGTON - The White House on Wednesday denied ratching up tension with Iran with increased military exercises in the Gulf region, but stressed US support for Britain as Iran holds 15 of its sailors.</b>

“These military exercises were long planned and so there is no escalation of tension on our part,” spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

“Now, we do stand with our British allies and stand behind Tony Blair as he works to get these 15 soldiers back from the Iranians,” she said.

On Tuesday, the Pentagon said the unusual exercise involving two US aircraft carrier strike groups in the Gulf is aimed at reassuring friends and allies, not raising tensions with Iran.

“We are not interested in confrontation in the Gulf,” said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman.

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

=





<B><center>3/28/07

<font size=+1 color=purple>US Efforts to Isolate Iran Economically Gaining Momentum</font>

By Mil Arcega, VOA, Washington, D.C.
http://www.payvand.com/news/07/mar/1331.html </center>
At least five states in the U.S. are following Missouri's lead with proposals to divest public pension funds of shares in companies that do business with Iran. On Capitol Hill, proposed amendments to the Iran Sanctions Act could make it harder for foreign-owned companies to invest in countries that the U.S. State Department considers "sponsors of terror." VOA's Mil Arcega reports. </b>

Iran's defiance of international demands to suspend its uranium enrichment program is creating momentum in the United States for initiatives aimed at further isolating the oil-rich country.

At a recent Congressional hearing on foreign affairs, committee chairman Tom Lantos outlined new initiatives to limit U.S. investments in companies that do business with Iran. "A variety of means will be used for this purpose from 'name and shame' for private funds to mandating divestment of public funds," he said.

Although U.S. companies are already restricted from trading or investing in Iran, Lantos' amendments to the Iran Sanctions Act would eliminate U.S. waivers given to foreign companies that pour money into Iran's energy sector.

"If Dutch Shell moves forward with its proposed $10 billion deal with Iran, it will be sanctioned," said Lantos. "If Malaysia moves forward with a similar deal, it too will be sanctioned. The same treatment will be accorded to China and India should they finalize deals with Iran."

Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida says the aim is to undermine Iran's primary source of income. "Iran's oil sector, which provides for about 85 percent of export revenues, is projected to shrink without huge injections of foreign investment, technology and expertise," the Republican congresswoman says.

"We call it, in my business, chicken soup diplomacy. It sounds good, it makes you feel better but doesn't really cure anything," says Bill Reinsch, the president of the National Foreign Trade Council. He says although the proposals are well intentioned, mixing politics with business could lead to bigger problems.

"If you're going to inject political criteria into the investment process, it's not very long before you're going to have people saying we should be divesting from China, we should be divesting from Russia," says Reinsch. "Any country that has a problematic human rights record is going to be fair game for divestment. Pretty soon there won't be any countries left to invest in."

Reinsch adds that similar divestment proposals for so-called "terror-free public pension funds" from at least five states will also hurt retirees who can expect to see smaller returns on their investments.

A recent market report shows more than 400 publicly traded companies have financial dealings with countries on the State Department's terror list. They include Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria.

Bump... Thanks for the updates Dutch

In response to the article:

White House denies stepped up tension with Iran
(AFP)

28 March 2007
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayA...=theworld&col=

WASHINGTON - The White House on Wednesday denied ratching up tension with Iran with increased military exercises in the Gulf region, but stressed US support for Britain as Iran holds 15 of its sailors.

“These military exercises were long planned and so there is no escalation of tension on our part,” spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

“Now, we do stand with our British allies and stand behind Tony Blair as he works to get these 15 soldiers back from the Iranians,” she said.

On Tuesday, the Pentagon said the unusual exercise involving two US aircraft carrier strike groups in the Gulf is aimed at reassuring friends and allies, not raising tensions with Iran.

“We are not interested in confrontation in the Gulf,” said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman.

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










Hogwash.

Grow some testicles.

It is asinine to assemble such an armada in the hottest hotspot in the world during the most tedious times in recent history and then claim to the world that “These military exercises were long planned and so there is no escalation of tension on our part.” Such statements do nothing but destroy the credibility of future statements by other officials. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see this. The statement that should be issued is “We are here, we are ready and we brought enough gun. If you try with us what you did with the Brits we will clean your clocks. This is not a drill.”

If you’ve got it… flaunt it. You cannot be the baddest kid on the block and have everyone like you. This is a fact of life.

Comparisons to Carter’s failed rescue are inappropriate. Carter was trying to top what the Israelis had done and failed dismally. Not only did he not do his homework he assembled a strike group with an obvious effort to make a social statement. He failed on all counts and doomed the mission. He also destroyed a lot of faith that existed for the capabilities of our special forces. Such antics are to be expected of politicians. Military leaders cannot and, normally, do not perform such antics. The actions presently being taken in the Persian Gulf should be left to the military and the politicians should stay the hell out of the way. Unfortunately that is not the way the world operates. When TSHTF one can only hope that the calls are being made by men experienced in military matters rather than men experienced in kissing babies.

The stakes in this matter are exceedingly high. It is no time to be making what are obviously tongue in cheek statements.

Comparisons to Eagle Claw (google it) are actually pretty valid as cautionary tales. Realize that Delta was EXTREMELY small and VERY new at the time. The strike team (and I use the term team exceedingly loosely) was an almost literal pick-up squad from across ALL of the Services. This was done so that no service felt left out....something about egos I guess.
the flight teams (130's and Stallions) hadn't worked together at all, the Stallion crews hadn't worked together with the troops, and many of the troops hadn't worked together. There was a dearth of Operators on the team.
Sand filters, required by the OPORDER weren't installed by the guy who should have installed them, and the whole thing was a lash up from jump street.

AS has been pointed out in the article, SPECOPS has come a LONG way. WE have 160 SOAR now, which acts as pretty much DELTA, SEAL, Ranger, Force Recon, XXXXX, etc's taxi service. When you have SPECWARRIORs who need to get there overnight SOAR delivers...and they have worked with virtually ALL of the Operators listed in today's Player Program. And, virtually all of our Operators have worked together, and have worked together with other agencies around the world.
While I shudder to suggest that one take ANYTHING that Hollyweird shows as even distantly resembling the truth, one facet of the TV program The Unit HAS managed to get right is the cooperation in and among the Operator Community. Or at least the friends of mine IN that community so suggest. (That is about ALL they get right, though.... LOL)

SO, mentions of Eagle Claw ARE valid, even if only to point out that there ARE pitfalls to a rapidly set up op where many decisions rest on many egos.

=

<i>To my knowledge, I have never posted news from this site before; and cannot be 'firmly certain' as to the quality of it's news sourses; or their interviews ~ Dutchman</i>




<B><font size=+1 color=red><center>Report: U.S. Sponsoring Kurdish Guerilla Attacks Inside Iran</font>

Submitted by davidswanson
Wed, 2007-03-28 19:44.
Evidence | Iran
http://www.democracynow.org
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/20561 </center>
We speak with independent journalist Reese Erlich about his report on Iranian Kurdish guerillas based among their Kurdish bretheren in northern Iraq. Erlich writes, "Kurdish and American sources say the United States has been supporting guerilla raids against Iran, channeling the money through organizations in Iraqi Kurdistan." </b>

Iran's capture of the 15 British sailors and marines took place as the UN Security Council voted unanimously in favor of further sanctions against Iran for its refusal to suspend its nuclear enrichment program. The economic sanctions target Iran's arms exports, state bank, and its elite Revolutionary Guard Corps. The Iranian government denounced the sanctions package as illegal and announced it would limit cooperation with UN nuclear watchdog agency.

Reese Erlich, an independent radio producer and journalist. He reports on Iran in the latest issue of Mother Jones and is author of the forthcoming book "The Iran Agenda: the Real Story of U.S. Policy and the Middle East Crisis."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RUSH TRANSCRIPT

AMY GOODMAN: We are going to turn now to Reese Erlich, an independent radio producer and journalist, who reports on Iran, in the latest issue of Mother Jones, and is the author of the forth-coming book The Iran Agenda: the Real Story of U.S. Policy in the Middle East Crisis. I spoke with him yesterday in San Francisco and asked what effect the Security Council sanctions will have on Iran.

REESE ERLICH: I think the newest U.N. sanctions were clearly sponsored and passed only because of U.S. pressure. They don't do a lot to actually effectively impact Iran that much. They increase the freezing of some Iranian individuals' assets, a few other things. They also, it might be noted, reiterate the U.N. call to make all of the Middle East nuclear free and that includes Israel. And I'm sure that's not something the Bush administration is going to trumpet when it talks about those latest U.N. sanctions. Again, I think in the wider context, the sanctions that passed by the U.N. are part of an escalating effort to pressure Iran to basically toe the line for U.S. interests in the area.

AMY GOODMAN: In the latest edition of Mother Jones, you have a piece where you talk about the Iranian/Kurdish guerrillas. Explain who and where they are.

REESE ERLICH: In Northern Iraq there are three Iranian Kurdish groups that operate and that have compounds and do political organizing. Keep in mind that the Kurdish people of Iran face a great deal of oppression, they're not allowed to learn in their own language in the schools. They face discrimination. They're a great deal poorer than the rest of Iran. So the Kurdish people have very legitimate grievances against the government in Tehran. The U.S. has taken advantage of that.

In the case of one group, the P.K.K. or the Kurdistan Workers Party and they are along with Israel sponsoring them to carry out guerrilla raids inside Iran and its part of a much wider plan by the United States to foment discontent and actual terrorist activities by ethnic Iranians in various parts of Iran. And when I was in northern Iraq, I was able to determine that that kind of activity is going on from Iraqi soil under the Kurdish controlled areas of Iraq, into Iran.

AMY GOODMAN: How did you get to the guerrilla camp?

REESE ERLICH: Well, it's quite interesting, two cell phone calls and a drive up into the mountains. One of the arguments by the Kurdish regional government of Iraq and of the United States is that they can't find these guerrillas because it's so inhospitable territory that no one can find them. They're operating from secret bases, et cetera. But all I did was drive up into the closest Iraqi village and asked the local driver and they say oh, yeah, which of the guerrilla camp do you want to see and we'll take you right up to them. So they are very easy to find.

AMY GOODMAN: So now, explain the difference. Explain the P.K.K. and the P.J.A.K.

REESE ERLICH: The P.K.K. is the mother organization if you will. It was founded by Oshelan, the Turkish Kurd who is now in jail, charged with terrorism. The P.K.K. by the way, is listed on the United States State Department List of Terrorist Organizations. The P.J.A.K., the Party for Free Life of Kurdistan is the Iranian affiliate. The P.K.K., about two years ago split into four parties in each of the countries where is the Kurds live. In Syria, Iraq, Turkey and Iran. So the P.J.A.K. is the Iranian affiliate. Basically they're still part of the same organization. In order to get to the P.J.A.K. interviews that I did, you had to go through two P.K.K. based camps with walkie-talkies and soldiers and guerillas and so on. For all intents and purposes they're the same thing.

AMY GOODMAN: And can you explain the U.S. relationship with these organizations?

REESE ERLICH: Well, it's very complicated. Because on the one hand, the United States is very much opposes to the P.K.K.'s actions in Turkey. On the other hand they're supporting P.K.K.'s attack on Iran. This is kind of typical of the clandestine efforts by the United States when we saw the U.S. support for the Mujahadeen against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. They sided with some pretty nefarious characters who ended up forming al Qaeda and bombing New York.

So once again, the U.S. is allying with one faction of this party, but not with the other, playing a very dangerous game and they're playing a very similar game with the Mujahadeen al-Halb, another Iranian group and with groups in Baluchestan which is near the Pakistan Iranian boarder where some revolutionary guard buses were blown up. It's a very very dangerous, duplicitous game that the United States is playing.

AMY GOODMAN: You talked about how Ochelan’s political organization, Radical Kurdistan’s Workers Party, P.K.K. is classified as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department. And then P.J.A.K.’s relationship with the party supposed to be at arms length. You had to pass through two P.K.K. checkpoints on your way to the guerrilla camps each of them relaying information up the line via walkie-talkie?

REESE ERLICH: That's exactly right. No among other Kurdish groups that I spoke to, no one thinks that the P.K.K. and the P.J.A.K. are really separate organizations. At a minimum they very clearly coordinate their activities, get funding, weapons, et cetera. But I think in practice, their function is one organization.

AMY GOODMAN: And the Kurdish organizing in the University of Sulamani?

REESE ERLICH: Well, that’s very interesting. The political parties in northern Iraq, the Iranian Kurdish political parties include the K.D.P.I. which is the Iranian Kurdish -- it's a Kurdish party of Iran – let’s try that again, K.D.P.I. is the Democratic Kurdish Party of Iran, and Komala, are two long standing organizations, they carry out political organizing among Iranian Kurds. As I mentioned, the situation is very difficult for Kurds living in Iran. They cross over into the border into Iraq sometimes. It's very easy to get across the smugglers trails. So those two parties have Peshmurga guerrilla groups, but they are not engaged in armed activity against the United States. So when you go to the University in Sulamani, the different Kurdish parties have their supporters and they organize house meetings and various kinds of political activities to support their demands within Iranian Kurdistan.

AMY GOODMAN: Reese Erlich, the Guardian newspaper recently reported that the Bush administration is scrambling to prevent Turkey from attacking Kurdish controlled areas in Northern Iraq. U.S. officials fear such an attack would open up a third front in the battle to save Iraq from disintegration. Turkish sources said special forces operations have already begun in northern Iraq to target fighters connected to the P.K.K. the Kurdish Worker’s Party.

This would not be the first time Turkey’s invaded Northern Iraq 10 years ago. Turkey sent 40,000 troops into Iraq. But there has been no large scale Turkish interventions since the U.S. invasion. The U.S. Has vowed to crack down on the P.K.K., but Turkey accuses the U.S. for playing a double game in Northern Iraq. Officials say the C.I.A. is covertly funding and arming the P.K.K. sister organization the Iran based Kurdistan Free Life Party to destabilize the Iranian government.

REESE ERLICH: That's exactly what I was alluding to earlier which is, the U.S. plays a very, very dangerous game by supporting some in the ethnic communities who have legitimate grievances against Iran. So the Turks know exactly what's going on, they don't believe the disclaimers issued by the United States. They have their own agenda to pursue. The Kurds of Turkey face a great deal of oppression, probably even worse than inside Iran. There have been horrendous crimes committed by the Turkish government against the Kurdish population and for some, the P.K.K. is seen as a legitimate resistance organization. The problem of course is it's more or less a cult formed around Oshelan and you've got two, the Turkish government on the one hand and the P.K.K. on the other, neither which offer a real alternative for the Kurdish people.

So Turkey has indeed invaded Northern Iraq in the 1990's in an attempt to wipe out the P.K.K. which was unsuccessful. At a time when the U.S. is escalating the war in Baghdad, threatening to attack Iran, suddenly Turkey could get involved in clashes with the Kurdish regional government in Iraq. So what is now a mess, will become an incredibly bigger mess.

AMY GOODMAN: And finally Reese Erlich, the relationship of Britain and Israel, both U.S. Allies with these parties.

REESE ERLICH: Israel is backing various Kurdish groups. Both among the Iraqi Kurds as well as the P.J.A.K. among the Iranian Kurds. For Israel that have a long history of supporting non-Arab countries in an effort to divide the Arab world so they supported the Shah of Iran, Hali Salasi in Ethiopia. Turkey, they were allied in Turkey for many years and they see trying to use the Kurds in the same way. You have Israeli security officials training the guards at the Arabial Airport in northern Iraq. You have training of special anti-terrorism squads. I think they're working with P.J.A.K. although this is all denied by P.J.A.K. and the Israelis are also playing a very dangerous game because they are intervening in the affairs of Iraq and causing a great deal of trouble both for Iran and now they're outs with Turkey who was their long-time ally.

AMY GOODMAN: You described in your forth coming book about Israel participating actively in -- with Mossad agents posing as businessmen setting up shop in the K.R.G. soon after the 2003 U.S. invasion, in B.B.C. TV, discovering Israeli former special forces soldiers training Kurdish security at the airport. Say more about that.

REESE ERLICH: Yeah, exactly. The B.B.C. did a very good television special in which they interviewed these former Israeli intelligence agents who are now allegedly working as private contractors, much like the C.I.A. does with it's agents around the world. So it was on TV and when I asked the Iran -- the Iraqi officials about this, they denied everything, even though they had been on TV and an obviously reputable news organization. I had talked to various people who had met with supposed Israeli businessmen who were much more interested in arms trades and intelligence and that sort of thing.

So the Israelis have significantly stepped up their activities in northern Iraq. I think if ultimately the Iraq war goes very badly for the United States, as all indications are that it will, eventually Iraq will split into three different countries including an independent Kurdistan on the north and the Israelis hope to benefit from that by having a beachhead against the Sunni and the Shiia and Arab parts of Iraq and as well as the other neighboring Arab countries. That's a long time goal of the Israelis.

AMY GOODMAN: Reese Erlich is an independent radio producer and journalist, he reports on Iran on the latest issue of Mother Jones magazine. He is the author of the forth coming book The Iran Agenda: The Real Story of U.S. Policy in the Middle East Crisis. I spoke to him in San Francisco.