03/29: "The Winds of War" - Iran's Unacceptable Behaviour

=

03/28: "The Winds of War" - PM Blair warns Iran over Navy captives
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?t=235329




<B><font size=+1 color=red><center>Unacceptable Behaviour </font>

March 29, 2007
The Guardian
Leader
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,,2045186,00.html </center>
With each day that passes, the crisis triggered by Iran's seizure of 15 British marines and sailors in the Shatt al-Arab waterway on Friday grows. Last night leading seaman Faye Turney was paraded on Iranian television, "admitting" they had trespassed into Iranian waters. The video was heavily edited and there was no way of telling under what duress it had been filmed.</b>

The video and the accompanying letter, apologising to the Iranian people, was reminiscent of all the worst Iranian hostage dramas. Earlier, the Iranians promised British officials they would not parade crew members on television, which contravenes the Geneva convention (even if it is only deemed to apply in a state of war) and last night they broke that promise too.

The release of the video could be a precursor to the imminent release of Ms Turney and the rest of the crew. It could satisfy hardline elements in the Revolutionary Guard that national honour has been restored. But if anyone in Tehran thinks it is helping those in the United Nations who argue the case for negotiation on all the other issues clouding relations with Iran, they are wrong. This is not so much Iranian diplomacy shooting itself in the foot, as blowing itself up.

Yesterday Tony Blair announced he was freezing all contact with Iran, as Britain released positioning data which confirmed the boarding party was 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters when their two boats were surrounded by six Iranian vessels and escorted into Iranian territorial waters. There appears to be little serious doubt, outside Iran, about the positioning data. Iran's claims that the incident took place inside their territorial waters are undermined by the fact they had to change their story. The grid coordinates they originally provided on Friday and Saturday showed that the incident had taken place inside Iraqi waters.

Furthermore, the sailors were operating under a UN security council resolution which renewed the mandate of the multinational force last year and is binding on all UN members including Iran. Tehran has so far refused consular access to their detainees and failed to confirm where they are being held. Whether the seizure of the boat crews was the work of an over-zealous local Revolutionary Guard commander, or a carefully laid ambush, is now immaterial. The issue now is the crew's immediate return. Holding on to them would only increase the suspicion that they were being used as bargaining chips for the five Iranians in US custody.

The practical measures available to Mr Blair, who vowed yesterday to ratchet up Britain's response, can only be diplomatic ones. There is nothing to suggest that the prime minister or foreign secretary or indeed the boat crews who surrendered without a shot being fired, have shown themselves to be weak or pusillanimous. British diplomats have been active and as a result Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and the EU are all piling on the diplomatic pressure on Tehran.

Iran should not underestimate the damage it is doing to its own cause on the much more fundamental issue of its refusal to abandon uranium enrichment, by behaving the way it has in this episode. The hardliners are only making the neoconservative case in Washington and Israel for them. There were two US carrier groups in the Gulf out on exercises yesterday and no one is in any doubt that the Pentagon's plans for an airstrike on Iran's nuclear facilities are far advanced, should sanctions fail.

For the moment, the pragmatists in the US State Department are holding sway by arguing that diplomatic pressure on Iran has some way to run. Sanctions are not exhausted. But what better argument could you make against Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, and the effect it would have on proxies in the Middle East, than the one that is being made by Iran's conventional forces and their commanders?

=




<B><font size=+1 color=brown><center>How Britons Were Conned by Iranian Gunboat Trick</font>

March 29, 2007
The Times
Dominic Kennedy
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1582544.ece </center>
The British sailors and marines being held by Iran were ambushed at their most vulnerable moment, while climbing down the ladder of a merchant ship and trying to get into their bobbing inflatables. Out of sight of their warship and without any helicopter cover, their only link to their commanders was a communications device beaming their position by satellite. </b>

That went dead as they were captured. One theory is that it was thrown overboard to prevent the Iranians getting hold of the equipment and the information it contained.

The Ministry of Defence released the coordinates of the searched vessel yesterday to prove that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards made an unprovoked and improper attack in Iraqi waters.

The Iranians also blundered in diplomatic talks by giving the British their own compass reference for the place where they said the 14 men and one woman had been seized. When Britain plotted these on a map and pointed out that the spot was in Iraq’s maritime area, the Iranians came up with a new set of coordinates, putting the seizure in their own waters.

The speed and cunning shown by the Revolutionary Guards has raised suspicions that their action was premeditated. A senior military officer described it as “deliberate”.

It took only three minutes for the Iranians, moving at 40 knots, to move from their legitimate positions monitoring shipping in their waters to come alongside the British last Friday morning.

The sailors and marines from HMS Cornwall were in the Gulf, working under a United Nations mandate to protect Iraq from smuggling and threats to the oil industry, when an Indian-flagged vessel came under suspicion.

It was in shallow waters and the Cornwall was unable to go alongside without grounding. A boarding party jumped into two ribbed inflatable boats, or RIBs, and set out to investigate.

A helicopter hovered to observe the boarding but, after confirming that the Indian vessel was peaceful and friendly, returned to the ship. The Cornwall stayed in contact with the two launch boats via a communications link providing a GPS satellite position.

After the successful boarding of the innocent Indian vessel, the Britons began returning to their RIBs. At that moment one Iranian patrol vessel came alongside, adopting a friendly posture. As a second Iranian vessel arrived, the Revolutionary Guards turned aggressive.

HMS Cornwalllost communications with the launch boats and sent up the helicopter to investigate. The air crew watched as the small British inflatables were forced towards Iran. By now, up to four Iranian Revolutionary Guard vessels were swarming round the Britons.

Although the seizure has been widely linked to the taking of five Iranians by US forces in Iraq, Iranian diplomats have ruled this out. They say that there is no relation between the Britons’ seizure and any other bilateral, regional or international issue.

From the start, the Iranian Ambassador to London gave British diplomats a set of coordinates for the location of the confrontation.

Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, told the Iranian Foreign Minister that these compass points actually indicated a spot clearly in Iraqi waters. She tried to give Iran an exit route by suggesting that it might all be a misunderstanding that could be resolved by an immediate release of the captives.

On Sunday, the helicopter from HMS Cornwall flew back over the Indian vessel, which was still anchored and had drifted only slightly. A photograph was taken of an airman holding a GPS device. The coordinates on this picture, the MoD insists, prove that the Britons were comfortably within Iraqi waters when captured.

On Monday, Iran surprised Britain by coming up with a “corrected” set of coordinates. “The two Iranian positions are just under a nautical mile apart, 1,800 yards or so,” Vice-Admiral Charles Style, a Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, said yesterday.

Mrs Beckett told the Iranian Foreign Minister that she could not accept the Iranians’ version of events. She told MPs in the House of Commons that it was “impossible to believe, given the seriousness of the incident, that the Iranians could have made such a mistake with the original coordinates, which after all they gave us over several days”.

dkennedy@thetimes.co.uk

Outgunned

— The two Iranian patrol ships that seized the Britons were equipped with rocket-propelled grenades and heavy machine guns, enough for a small sea battle. By contrast, the Britons go lightly armed on vessels they search in the Gulf. Each man is issued with a rifle or a pistol

— The Iranians struck at a vulnerable moment when the Britons were climbing down a ladder to jump into their inflatables

— The Royal Navy does train its men in the techniques needed to fight at just such a dangerous stage. “They had all the rights available to act in self-defence under law,” a senior military officer said. But they were in an “almost impossible position”

— A similar decision to hold fire was taken by the six Royal Marines and two sailors captured by Iran in 2004 in similar circumstances. Scott Fallon, a former marine, said they did think about shooting their way free but knew it would be hopeless. He told BBC Radio 4: “They had antiaircraft guns. We would have stood no chance”

=





<B><font size=+1 color=green><center>Fury as Iran Shows Footage of Captured Sailors</font>

March 29, 2007
The Guardian
Julian Borger and Patrick Wintour
http://www.iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2007&m=03&d=29&a=4 </center>
Iran dramatically raised the stakes in its tense diplomatic stand-off with Britain last night, broadcasting a propaganda video of the British sailors and marines seized last week, including a "confession" that they had entered Iranian waters.
</b>
The Foreign Office reacted furiously to the video, calling it "completely unacceptable" and expressed "grave concerns" about the conditions under which Leading seaman Faye Turney was persuaded to admit on film that the 15-strong British naval patrol had strayed into Iranian territory last Friday.

In the next 24 hours Britain is to start moves towards a UN security council resolution condemning the seizure of the personnel and the TV screening. The soundings will be initially informal, but the defence secretary, Des Browne, said the refusal to release the sailors was unacceptable. Britain had not been planning to go to the UN until next week when Britain takes over the security council chairmanship.

Leading seaman Turney was shown wearing a headscarf and makeup, and smoking while giving an account of the incident, which was translated and voiced over in the broadcast. "Obviously we trespassed into their waters," she is shown saying against a floral backdrop. "They were very friendly and very hospitable, very thoughtful, nice people. They explained to us why we've been arrested; there was no harm, no aggression."

The video was broadcast by al-Alam, an Iranian satellite channel broadcasting across the Middle East in Arabic. It was not shown in Farsi to a domestic Iranian audience. It included footage of other marines and sailors sitting and eating in a nondescript room, showing no obvious signs of injury. It also showed a handwritten letter purporting to be by Leading seaman Turney to her parents, saying she had "written a letter to the Iranian people to apologise for us entering into their waters".

"I wish we hadn't because then I'd be home with you all right now," the letter said.

Downing Street is convinced the admissions were made under duress, and is not convinced that the screening is a precursor to the sailors' release. Number 10 said they would continue to ratchet up the pressure slowly.

"The next few days will be [used] to increase Iran's sense of diplomatic isolation," a government official said.

The Iranian embassy in London said it had handed the letter to the British government, adding that the captive crew were "in good health and condition and they enjoy welfare and Iranian hospitality".

"We understand the anxiety of their families, but they must be assured that they are in safe hands and have a better life than the risky mission in the Persian Gulf waters," the Iranian statement said.

The foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, condemned the video and the release of the letter, saying she was particularly disappointed that a private letter has been used in a way which can only add to the distress of the families.

Earlier, the Iranian foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, had suggested that Leading seaman Turney, the only woman among the 15 captives, would be released "today or tomorrow", but that is hardly likely to defuse a crisis which appeared to escalate by the hour yesterday. The broadcast of the video came soon after a British announcement that it was cutting off official contacts with Tehran on any business apart from the naval detainees.

The Ministry of Defence also issued a detailed account of the seizure of the naval patrol last Friday, with charts, map coordinates and photographs supporting Britain's insistence that it was well within Iraqi waters when it was surrounded by Iranian gunboats. Mrs Beckett also alleged that the Iranian government had changed its story over the past few days in an attempt to support its contention that the two British patrol boats had entered Iranian waters near the Shatt al-Arab waterway separating Iraq from Iran.

Britain had already begun canvassing its partners in the UN security council and the EU, seeking solidarity in the showdown with Iran. Ministers are pinning their hopes on Turkey and Germany as the main two levers on Tehran.

At an Arab League summit in Riyadh, the UN secretary general Ban ki-Moon, Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari all raised the fate of the captives with Mr Mottaki at Britain's behest.

A Foreign Office spokesman said of the video broadcast last night: "It's completely unacceptable for these pictures to be shown on TV, given the potential stress to the families. Given the nature of Leading seaman Faye Turney's statement and the apparent confession that the personnel were 'arrested after they trespassed into Iranian waters' we have grave concerns about the circumstances under which she made this statement."

Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute of Strategic Studies, said the crisis represented a counterattack by Tehran radicals after months of international pressure over Iran's nuclear programme. "They want something," Dr Cronin said. "They clearly want to change the subject. They want to go on the offensive."

There is considerable evidence that the 15 sailors and marines were captured and are being held by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, (IRGC) which represents a state within a state, with its own forces, its own political representatives and its own hardline ideology. Al-Alam, the television channel that broadcast last night's video, is thought to have ties to ultra-conservative factions in Tehran.

Iran is seeking the release of five officials arrested by US forces in Iraq in January, who the Americans claim are senior members of the IRGC. However, the Iranian foreign ministry has denied Tehran is seeking a prisoner swap.

Last Tuesday, the brother of the IRGC commander, General Yahya Rahim Safavi, was in London trying to assess the impact of sanctions on Iran. Sayed Safavi told London-based analysts he was conducting his research on behalf of his brother. The meetings took place just after the UN security council imposed financial sanctions over Iran's nuclear programme, but Mr Safavi appeared to be particularly interested in the threat of further economic sanctions by Europe, according to sources with knowledge of the meetings.

While the timing of the visit may have been a coincidence, it shows a lively interest on the part of the IRGC in the global consequences of their actions.

<b>The letter:</b>

Dear mum and dad

I am writing to you from Iran where I am being held. I will try to explain to you the best what has happened.

We were out in the boats when we were arrested by Iranian forces as we had apparently gone into Iranian waters. I wish we hadn't because then I'd be home with you all right now. I am so sorry we did, because I know we wouldn't be here now if we hadn't.

I want you all to know that I am well and safe. I am being well looked after. I am fed 3 meals a day and have a constant supply of fluids.

The people are friendly and hospitable, very compassionate and warm. I have written a letter to the Iranian people to apologise for us entering into their waters.

Please don't worry about me, I am staying strong. Hopefully it won't be long until I am home to get ready for Molly's birthday party with a present from Iranian people.

Look after everyone for me, especially Adam and Molly.

I love you all more than you will ever know.

All my love,

Faye

=





<B><font size=+0 color=blue><center>Blair Prepares to Show Iran Broke Law in Seizing 15 Britons
Tehran Says Detainees 'Violated Iranian Territory'</font>

By Mary Jordan and Robin Wright
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, March 28, 2007; Page A09
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/27/AR2007032700535.html?nav=rss_world </center>
LONDON, March 27 -- Barring a surprise early release, British Prime Minister Tony Blair is preparing to go public in Parliament as soon as Wednesday with concrete evidence that Iran violated international law in seizing 15 British military personnel, after behind-the-scenes diplomatic efforts failed, according to British and U.S. officials.

Tensions over the incident escalated Tuesday, with oil prices hitting a six-month high following suggestions by officials in Tehran that the 15 sailors and marines captured Friday by Iranian Revolutionary Guard naval units might be put on trial. Adding to the atmospherics, two U.S. aircraft-carrier battle groups began two days of military maneuvers in the Persian Gulf.</b>

Blair is expected to release Global Positioning System coordinates of the seizure, which British officials say took place in Iraqi waters, and other intelligence information on the encounter as early as his question-and-answer session in Parliament on Wednesday, British officials said.</b>

"What we are trying to do . . . 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," Blair said Tuesday.

"They have to release them. If not, then this will move into a different phase," he told Britain's GMTV television.

In Tehran, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said the British sailors and marines had "violated Iranian territory rights," prompting "legal proceedings" against them, according to the official IRNA news agency.

"Humanitarian principles are fully observed in questioning" the British personnel, Hosseini said, but he added that "provocative statements will not help solve the problem."

Britain is not yet ready to expel Iranian diplomats or engage in gunboat diplomacy, British officials said, but does want to pressure Iran publicly after it transferred the 14 men and one woman to an unknown locale, denied them consular services and interrogated them.

The British marines and sailors had just inspected an Indian boat near the Shatt al Arab waterway that divides Iran and Iraq when they were surrounded by Iranian patrol boats at gunpoint Friday. The British navy was acting under its U.N. mandate to patrol Iraqi waters and check for smuggling, British officials said.

Having tensions of its own with Iran, the United States was initially reluctant to get ahead of Britain on the crisis. But Tuesday, State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey said the Iranian action was "a violation of international law."

At the same time, officials from both the State Department and the Pentagon said they expect the United States to talk to Iran at an upcoming regional meeting of the United States and countries bordering Iraq. The State Department's Iraq coordinator, David M. Satterfield, said the meeting is expected to be convened in the next few weeks.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said in a speech in Washington on Tuesday that the Bush administration is now "open to high-level exchanges" with Tehran. He warned, however, that the United States has "no illusions about the nature of this regime or about their designs for their nuclear program, their intentions for Iraq or their ambitions in the Gulf region."

Britain's Defense Ministry has not released the names of the service members detained in Iran, but the family of the only woman, Faye Turney, 26, issued a statement saying that this was "a very distressing time."

In an interview with the BBC last week before her capture, Turney said of her tour of duty in Iraq, "Sometimes you may be called upon, and when you do, you've just got to deal with it and get on with it."

Wright reported from Washington.

=





<B><center>Tensions in the Gulf

<font size=+1 color=purple>If the Iranian/UK situation deteriorates further, oil could hit $100 or more</font>

By Myra P. Saefong, MarketWatch
Last Update: 4:28 PM ET Mar 28, 2007
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...F4C-4B79-860B-25DEB7321BDE}&dist=MostReadHome </center>
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Iran has more power than you think -- at least when it comes to influencing oil.

And while no one really believes Iran's capture of British troops in the Persian Gulf will result in an all-out war, any major escalation in the situation would have a significant impact on the oil price.

The May crude contract has risen past $64 a barrel as of Wednesday, up almost 5% following Iran's arrest of 15 British sailors in the Persian Gulf on March 23. Iran claims the sailors and marines were illegally in Iranian waters, while Britain says they were in Iraqi waters and has offered proof in support. </b>

True, the most likely outcome is a gradual resolution to the situation, without much more provocation on Iran's part, analysts said. But experts can't rule out the possibility that the situation deteriorates further - and boosts crude to record levels.

"My instincts still say this is the eighth or ninth inning, but Iran/U.K. could extend the game into extra innings," said Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at the Oil Price Information Service.

'The ease for some sort of military incident to occur has oil prices representing almost a coiled spring ready to leap at the first word of any incident.'
— John Kilduff, Fimat USA

Even an unsubstantiated rumor of a military action in the Gulf rallied crude prices to a high of $68.09 a barrel in electronic trading Tuesday night. Prices promptly lost the bulk of their gains as the speculation died down.

But "when it comes to Iran, the Strait of Hormuz, the Persian Gulf -- it's interesting prices aren't already above $70 a barrel," said John Kilduff, an analyst at Fimat USA.

Around 20% of the world's daily oil production travels through the Strait of Hormuz, which is the key shipping channel linking the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.

As this detainee crisis drags on, oil prices will see a steady climb higher until we can get "some signal that there can be some sort of diplomatic climb-down," said Kilduff.

Meanwhile, Russian military intelligence services said there's a flurry of activity by U.S. armed forces near Iran's borders, Russian news and information agency Novosti reported Tuesday.

The news agency also said the U.S. naval presence in the Persian Gulf had reached a level not seen since shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, although a representative of the U.S. Fifth Fleet said ships will keep out of Iranian waters, Novosti reported Wednesday. Read the full article.

Still, "the ease for some sort of military incident to occur has oil prices representing almost a coiled spring ready to leap at the first word of any incident," said Kilduff.

With so many military assets "knocking around so close together," there's the possibility of an "unintended military incident," said Kilduff. That could push prices to $80 a barrel, at least until the market is able to sort out the exact details, he said.

Likely scenario

With not one, but two American carrier groups and U.K. forces close at hand in the Gulf and Iraq, "it's hard to think the Iranians would be so foolish as to take violent action," said Anthony Sabino, a professor of law at St. John's University, whose practice includes oil and gas law.

So under the most likely scenario, oil prices will continue to grind higher as this situation drags on into next week, said Kilduff. By then, Iran and the U.K. are likely to orchestrate a release of the detainees and prices should come down.

James Williams, an economist at WTRG Economics, pictures Iran starting to back down in stages, with the first step being an agreement to allow the British access to the troops.

"The problem is that Iran's fractured government takes time to react," Williams said.

"Neither Iran, nor Britain, nor the U.S. have any interest in seeing this event escalate into a true crisis," said Bernard Picchi, senior managing director at Wall Street Access.

Picchi believes the Western press and oil traders are magnifying the story but that at the end of the day, quiet diplomacy will prevail.

"Notice that Iran seems to be pretty much on its own on this one," said Sabino. "No one is running to take their side."

And if things do settle down, oil prices could retreat to around $60 per barrel, Picchi said.

"The production cuts from members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries "have actually worked, world demand has held up, and depletion in the West is as serious a problem as it's ever been," he said.
Unlikely scenario

Picchi also admits that if he's wrong, the oil market may rally -- and rally hard.

As it stands, if the British sailors are not released soon, Gary Dorsch, editor of the Global Money Trends newsletter expects crude prices to climb toward $68 a barrel. And if war breaks out, "crude oil could top $100 per barrel," Dorsch said.
'Iran appears in no hurry to back down on any issue as the destabilized Middle East offers no threat to them. This is their opportunity to flex their muscles.'
— Darin Newsom, DTN

Darin Newsom, an analyst at Omaha, Nebraska-based DTN expects the tension to heat up. "Iran appears in no hurry to back down on any issue as the destabilized Middle East offers no threat to them. This is their opportunity to flex their muscles," he said.

And "if the U.S. and Britain try to interdict oil shipments out of Iran, oil prices will go vertical," Picchi said. Prices may first make a bid toward $80, then $90 -- "you get the picture."

At the same time, given the facts presented, Iran is in the position of having to defend its troops being in Iraqi waters, said Williams. "Iran invaded Iraq and performed a military option in Iraqi territory," he said.

So "what seemed to be a relatively lower risk way to divert attention from the Iranian nuclear issue has now resulted in Iran putting itself in a position to defend why it invaded Iraqi territory," he said. "It is an act of war."

The British have the legal right to retaliate, he said, though short of an all-out invasion of Iran, more extreme actions "could involve ratcheting up the level of sanctions or even interference with Iranian shipping," he said.

And, of course, the most extreme scenario would be an invasion of Iran.
"This would shut down shipping in the Persian Gulf, sending oil prices to $100 per barrel or higher as military action would likely mean the halt of shipments by other Gulf producers as well," said Williams.

With 'any skirmish in the Persian Gulf ... [it could become a] matter of how much past $100 oil we get. Look for an area north of $110, $120.'
— John Kilduff

"Even if only Iranian oil was involved, the loss of 2.5 million barrels per day of Iranian exports would erase all of the spare capacity in the world," he said.
Any skirmish in the Persian Gulf, particularly if Iran was to threaten or actually shut in some of its oil, could become of "matter of how much past $100 oil we get," said Fimat's Kilduff.

In that case, "look for an area north of $110, $120."

All the excitement aside, the oil rally is really all in a day's work for the market.
In the end, for crude oil, "the situation isn't that much different than what we saw last year," said DTN's Newsom. "The market is beginning to rally on 'what-if, could-bes and maybes,' -- just replace Iraq with Iran with the constant being Nigerian [production] problems."

=





<B><center>Oil, Guns, and Iran

<font size=+0 color=red>A flare-up with Iran has oil prices rising and traders jittery. There may be more turmoil ahead </font>

by Moira Herbst
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2007/db20070328_663022.htm </center>
It's been a dizzying week for the oil markets. Crude prices at the New York Mercantile Exchange have been on an accelerated rise since Iran captured 15 British sailors and marines last week, fueling fears of a disruption in supply from the Middle East. After settling just shy of $64 on Mar. 27, crude futures shot up more than $5 that night to trade above $68 a barrel in electronic trading after rumors of an attack by Iran on U.S. warships. The U.S. military quickly denied the speculation, slicing a few dollars off prices. </b>

"I was getting motion sickness watching the numbers jump across the screen," says Craig Pirrong, professor of finance and energy markets at the Bauer College of Business at the University of Houston. "We're in an unbelievably volatile period."

Oil prices, of course, are determined by a wide range of factors, from the weather to rising demand from China. But now geopolitics is moving to center stage. And perhaps nothing can spook traders like the unpredictable mix of politics, money, and guns. The U.N. is in a diplomatic standoff with Iran, the world's fourth-largest oil producer, and speculation over what the U.S., Britain, and Iran might do is rampant. Against this backdrop, traders react first and ask questions later. "The market cannot afford to not take anything in this part of the world seriously," says Fadel Gheit, a senior energy analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. (OPY). "If supply is threatened, there's no replacement for it. For traders holding positions, every second counts."

On Mar. 28, crude oil futures for May rose $1.15, to settle at $64.08 a barrel. Prices have surged 26% since the low of Jan. 18 and are at their highest level since Sept. 11 last year.

Paying a "Fear Premium"

Analysts estimate that a staggering $15 to $20 of the current crude price is a "risk premium," or "fear premium" as others put it, relating to geopolitics and other factors. In January the issue was weather; now all eyes are on Iran (see BusinessWeek.com, 1/10/07, "The Oil Market's Weather Obsession"). The concern is that if the current tensions escalate into armed conflict, a major hub of oil production will be cut off, reducing supply as global demand continues to rise. "Unfortunately we don't know the truth of what's happening behind the scenes," says Gheit.

Of course, the tensions with Iran could blow over. If that happens, the risk premium could shrink to a more moderate $10 per barrel. Stephen Schork, editor of the online Schork Report, a daily newsletter on oil and gas, says he sees prices remaining range-bound between $55 and $65 in the near-to-medium term. "Crude prices are comfortable there, and the markets like that range," says Schork. "The global economy can't handle oil over $65 a barrel."

Supply and demand could also bring prices down. An economic slowdown in China or the U.S. could cut into consumption and shave several dollars off oil prices. The scenario is not far-fetched: There are ongoing concerns about the health of the U.S. economy, especially in the housing sector, and speculation that Chinese growth cannot continue at current levels (see BusinessWeek.com, 3/6/07, "Stocks' Swoon Finally Hits Oil"). As for supply, China's state media said on Mar. 28 that its national oil company, PetroChina (PTR) had found an offshore field that could become China's biggest new domestic petroleum source in a decade, with reserves of 2.2 billion barrels.

For now tensions in the Middle East remain high. British Prime Minister Tony Blair said that London would move to a "new phase" if Iran does not soon provide access to the sailors and release them. Blair says the British naval ship on which the sailors were traveling was in Iraqi and not Iranian waters.


Meanwhile, the U.S. and the U.N. are also putting more pressure on Iran over its nuclear program. This past weekend the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution imposing sanctions on the country. And President George W. Bush has linked sectarian violence in Iraq with Iran and indicated he doesn't rule out any option to ensure Iran doesn't develop nuclear weapons. Analysts say the price volatility will continue as long as tensions remain high.

How Bad Can It Get?

The worst-case scenario? For the oil markets, it would be an all-out war between the U. S. and Iran, which would send prices soaring. That certainly is unlikely. But traders are thinking through every possibility these days. At issue in this scenario is not just Iran, but the key strategic gateway to the Middle East's oil supply: the Strait of Hormuz. If there's a blockage of the strait, oil from not only Iran, but also Kuwait, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia could be disrupted—potentially cutting off more than 20 million barrels of oil a day. In that case, prices could surge to $80 and only relent when demand "comes to a screeching halt," says Gheit.

Even if a full conflict doesn't break out, there's a lot of gray area between war and peace that could send oil prices higher, at least temporarily. "There are a variety of things the countries could do short of shooting at each other," says Gal Luft, co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security in Washington. Luft says for example that a rogue element within the Iranian navy could plant a bomb in the Strait of Hormuz, causing temporary panic in the market. "It could be a case of political posturing—sending a signal to the West that there would be serious consequences to the world economy if you think of using force against Iran," says Luft.

Even if tensions with Iran resolve themselves tomorrow, that won't eliminate the volatility in the oil markets of the day. "It's all very jumpy," says Luft. "Traders are responding to any rumor. But I believe this crisis will resolve, in spite of the muscle-flexing. I don't think Iran, the U.S., or the U.K. want to drive this thing over a cliff."

=





<B><font size=+1 color=brown><center>US wraps up Persian Gulf maneuvers</font>

(AP)
Updated: 2007-03-29 11:01
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2007-03/29/content_839386.htm </center>
ABOARD THE USS JOHN C. STENNIS - The United States wrapped up a massive military exercise in the Persian Gulf Wednesday, putting on a show of strength for Iran even as the United Arab Emirates became the second Gulf nation to declare it would not take part in any attack on the Islamic Republic. </b>

The US has denied any intention to attack. But the public refusals of two allies to help could affect US military options or require shifting of resources if tensions did seriously escalate.

Qatar - home to 6,500 US troops and the enormous al-Udeid Air Base, headquarters of all American air operations in the Middle East - said earlier this month it would not permit an attack on Iran from its soil.

The Gulf Cooperation Council, a loose alliance of Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the Emirates, has called on all its members not to support any US action against Iran.

The United States has close to 40,000 troops in the Gulf, including 25,000 in Kuwait, 3,000 in Bahrain, 1,300 in the United Arab Emirates and a few hundred in Oman and Saudi Arabia, according to figures from the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center.

Gulf Arab nations are increasingly uneasy with the United States' tough stance against Iran, fearing any outbreak of hostilities could bring Iranian retaliation. All lie within distance of Iranian missiles.

Also, Iran has booming trade and tourism links and full diplomatic ties with the Emirates and most Gulf countries.

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

The maneuvers were meant to show "the commitment of the US to stability and security in the region," said Rear Adm. Kevin Quinn, commander of Strike Group Three - which includes the USS John C. Stennis.


Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charlie Brown said the US Gulf maneuvers were defensive in nature, aimed at keeping open the sea lanes that carry two-fifths of the world's oil shipments.

"We're not looking for any kind of confrontation with Iran," Brown said. "The purpose of the exercise is to ensure that no one miscalculates about our commitment to security and stability in the Gulf."

But some US allies were clearly aiming to make it clear they don't want to be caught in the middle if the situation escalates.

"We have assured the brothers in Iran ... that we are not a party in its dispute with the United States," said United Arab Emirates Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyana in a statement carried on the Emirates news agency WAM. "We will not allow any force to use our territories for military, security and espionage activities against Iran."

The Emirates "refuses to use its territorial lands, air or waters for aggression against any other country," Khalifa said.

That 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 said Wednesday it had not altered air operations in response to Sheik Khalifa's statement.

Air Force Lt. Col. Mike Pierson, based in Qatar, declined to say whether U-2s were flying missions over Iran, but said the Air Force only operated in international airspace or over countries that had granted permission.

In the run-up to the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, Turkey denied access to Turkish territory, forcing US military planners to adjust their plans and to forgo opening a northern front. The refusal ushered in a tense period in Turkish-American relations.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=green><center>Furious Blair piles pressure on Teheran </font>

By George Jones
Last Updated: 2:03am BST 29/03/2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/29/niran229.xml </center>
Britain froze all official business with Iran yesterday after Tony Blair told Parliament it was time to "ratchet up'' pressure on Teheran to secure release of the 15 abducted British service personnel.

A clearly furious Mr Blair condemned their detention as "completely unacceptable, wrong and illegal".</b>

In a significant escalation of the dispute into an international incident, the Prime Minister and Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, abandoned behind-the-scenes diplomacy and authorised the Ministry of Defence to publish map co-ordinates showing the British sailors were in Iraqi waters when "ambushed".


The freeze announced by Mrs Beckett involves a ban on all visits by officials to Iran, a suspension of the issue of visas to Iranian officials, and a halt to all Government support for goodwill missions such as trade missions.

If the sailors are not released by the end of this week, Mrs Beckett is likely to ask a meeting of EU foreign ministers on Friday to adopt a similar freeze on business with Iran.

Last year Britain exported £431.4 million-worth of goods to Iran and imported goods worth £71.7 million.

After being criticised for failing to react more strongly to the seizure, Mrs Beckett admitted that Teheran had not responded to attempts "to resolve this issue quickly and quietly, through behind-the-scenes diplomacy".

She had suggested to the Iranian foreign minister this week that the whole affair appeared to be a "misunderstanding" which could be resolved by immediate release.

However, Iran then sent a "corrected" grid reference, in an attempt to prove that the frigate Cornwall had been in its waters when it was seized - in direct contradiction of its first co-ordinates, which showed the incident was in Iraqi, not Iranian, waters.

It was "impossible to believe", said Mrs Beckett, that Iran could have made such a mistake, given the seriousness of the incident.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister told the Commons that the boarding party of sailors and marines had acted "entirely sensibly'' in not resisting capture, when they were surrounded by six "heavily armed" Iranian vessels.

Had they fought back, it would "undoubtedly'' have resulted in "severe loss of life''. By the time they knew they were unlawfully detained, they were in Iranian waters, and military action would again have put lives at risk.

The Tory leader, David Cameron, backed Mr Blair's tougher stance on Iran.

=





<B><font size=+1 color=blue><center>Bush fully backs Britain in Crisis with Iran</font>

By Khalida Mazhar 'Pakistan Times' US Bureau Chief
March 29 2007
http://www.pakistantimes.net/2007/03/29/top9.htm </center>
WASHINGTON (US): US President George W. Bush fully backs British Prime Minister Tony Blair over the crisis with Iran which seized 15 British naval personnel nearly a week ago, the White House said Wednesday.

Bush held a secured video teleconference with Blair on Wednesday at which he said he "fully backs" the British leader in the affair, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. </b>

Britain on Wednesday froze official contacts with Iran in the escalating dispute as Tehran said it would soon release the only woman among the group, which it has maintained was captured after entering Iranian waters.

The two men spoke "on a variety of topics including this one. The president fully backs Tony Blair and our allies in Britain," Perino said, adding the videoconference had been programmed before the 15 sailors and marines were seized.

Amid mounting tensions, fuelled by US navy exercises in the Gulf, Blair has vowed to "ratchet up" pressure on the Islamic republic.

Britain has unveiled evidence that it said showed servicewoman Faye Turney, seven other sailors and seven marines were in Iraqi waters when detained last Friday.

Iran again rejected this and played down Britain's decision to freeze contacts with Tehran, saying ties were already "cold and inactive," the official news agency quoted a foreign ministry source as saying.

Recap

An earlier report from London said that Britain on Wednesday froze all contacts with Iran as a dispute over 15 detained sailors intensified with Prime Minister Tony Blair vowing to step up pressure on the Islamic Republic.

Britain produced evidence which it said proved that the sailors and marines were in Iraqi waters when detained last Friday in the Gulf. Iran insisted the Britons were in its territory.

A few minutes before, Blair emphasised British determination in the dispute.

"It is now time to ratchet up the diplomatic and international pressure" on Tehran, Blair told parliament, adding that "there was no justification whatever" for the detention of the Britons.

"These personnel were patrolling in Iraqi waters under a United Nations mandate. Their boarding and checking of the Indian merchant vessel was routine. There was no justification whatever, therefore, for their detention," Blair told lawmakers.●

=





<B><font size=+1 color=purple><center>Turkey steps up diplomacy in sailor crisis in Gulf </font>

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=106836 </center>
In a flurry of diplomacy, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan had talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and British Prime Minister Tony Blair yesterday in an effort to help resolve a crisis over 15 British navy personnel seized by Iran last week.

PM Erdoğan said there was a “window of opportunity” for a solution to the problems in Mideast. </b>

Erdoğan, speaking after the talks, said Turkish diplomats could be allowed to meet with the sailors, and Mottaki announced Iran would release one woman among the sailors being held. Erdoğan, who met with Mottaki before an Arab League summit in Riyadh, said later in the day that he personally requested the release of the woman sailor. He said he had met with Mottaki at the request of British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett, whom he had talks with in Ankara on Tuesday during a visit.

Mottaki said Iran would release the servicewoman soon. "The woman soldier will be freed either today or tomorrow," CNN-Türk quoted Mottaki as saying. On Tuesday, Beckett spoke to Mottaki on the phone during her visit to Ankara but decided to cut short her trip and return to Britain to report to the Parliament on the lack of progress on the issue after her conversation with the Iranian minister led nowhere vis-a-vis Britain's demand to meet with the seized servicemen. She then said contributions from third countries would be welcome to assist in securing access to the sailors.

In Riyadh Erdoğan said he requested in talks with Mottaki that the Turkish ambassador in Tehran be allowed to meet the British servicemen to assess their situation, the Cihan news agency reported. "We said it would relieve Britain of worry and he said he would respond to us after talking to Tehran," Erdoğan said.

While in Ankara, Beckett called for the speedy release of the British sailors and said London was seeking consular access to them. Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül, who also met with Beckett, said Turkey was in contact with Tehran for a peaceful solution to the dispute. Iran's Foreign Ministry has insisted the British sailors and marines were operating in Iranian waters when they were seized at gunpoint in the Shatt al-Arab waterway on Friday, while Britain maintains they were in Iraqi waters when they finished a routine search of a civilian vessel.

Iran said the 15 British sailors and Marines were being treated well but refused to say where they were being held. In protest of Tehran's refusal to release the navy personnel, Britain said it had cut all official ties with Iran. Erdoğan, however, criticized the decision, saying it was made in haste.

In Ankara the Foreign Ministry said Turkey was not involved in “mediation.” With Britain denied consular access to the captives, Beckett told Gül that London would welcome efforts by diplomats from third countries to see the servicemen and Gül said he would try to help, Foreign Ministry spokesman Levent Bilman said. “This is not mediation but an offer of assistance that came up spontaneously,” he said. Bilman added that the Foreign Ministry was unaware of any scheduled meeting between Turkish diplomats and the British servicemen.

The seizure of the British personnel has strained relations between Tehran and London at a time when Iran is already under pressure to stop nuclear enrichment as part of a nuclear program that the West suspects is aimed at producing nuclear weapons.

Erdoğan’s government, which is promoting more active involvement in Middle East politics, has urged Tehran to comply with international demands. The Arab League summit comes against a tense regional backdrop, with fears high among Arab leaders that a US-led attack on non-Arab Iran, which has refused to comply with UN demands to halt atomic work, could further destabilize their region.

Talks with Talabani, invitation to Haniya

Edoğan, who met with Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya of the Hamas movement in Riyadh, invited him to visit Ankara, according to CNN Türk. Erdoğan also met with President Mahmud Abbas. The prime minister in addition met with Iraq’s President Jalal Talabani and Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, both Kurdish. Dialogue with Iraqi Kurds has been a matter of dispute in Ankara since the military said it was opposed to talks with them, branding them as the biggest supporter of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in Iraq.

“We discussed all issues, including terrorism and Kirkuk. It was a very positive and constructive meeting, and we agreed to resolve problems through dialogue,” Talabani said after the 40-minute meeting. Asked whether new dialogue was beginning, Talabani said, “We can resolve any issue with Erdoğan through dialogue.” As part of his summit diplomacy, Erdoğan also met with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, the EU’s High Commissioner for Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana and Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.

Erdoğan, who is the first Turkish prime minister to participate in an Arab League meeting, called for an end to emerging polarization on sectarian lines in the Middle East and reiterated Turkish support for a peace plan for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that was the centerpiece of the agenda of yesterday’s Arab League meeting.

Erdoğan said there was a “window of opportunity” for a solution to the problems in the Middle East and added that it was important that all the participating countries announce support for the plan, proposed by Saudi Arabia and adopted at the 2002 Beirut Arab summit. The blueprint calls for Israel’s pullout from Arab land occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in return for the normalization of ties with Arab states.

Israel has said that Palestinian refugees can return to land in the Palestinian territories but rejects a full withdrawal to its 1967 borders. Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said Israel will be at the mercy of the “lords of war” if it does not accept the proposal. “What we have the power to do in the Arab world, we think we have done,” he said in an interview with The Daily Telegraph newspaper.

The US has pushed anew in recent weeks for regional peace. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met last week with the foreign ministers of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as well as with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

In his speech, Erdoğan also called for efforts to curb “radicalism” in Muslim societies.

He said preservation of Iraq’s unity was essential for the whole region and underlined Turkish concerns over Kirkuk, saying Kirkuk’s fate concerned all of Iraq. He also said the bloodshed that has become a daily routine in Iraq must stop and called for cooperation of the countries involved to that effect.

King Abdullah slams ‘illegitimate occupation’ of Iraq

In his opening speech at the Arab League summit, Saudi King Abdullah, whose country is a close US ally, slammed the “illegitimate foreign occupation” of Iraq. “In our beloved Iraq, blood is being shed among brothers in the shadow of an illegitimate foreign occupation, and ugly sectarianism threatens civil war,” Abdullah said.

He also said that the Arab nations would not allow any foreign force to decide the future of the region. In the past, Saudi leaders including Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal have often criticized US policy in Iraq but have never described its presence there as “illegitimate.”


29.03.2007

=





<B><center>March 29 2007

<font size=+1 color=red>Hizbollah instructors tie Iran into deaths of a dozen British soldiers</font>

IAN BRUCE, Defence Correspondent
March 29 2007
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1292852.0.0.php </center>
Iran has been training Iraqi militiamen to use the roadside bombs believed to have killed more than a dozen British soldiers in the past two years, US intelligence sources confirmed yesterday.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (RGC) has drafted in combat-experienced instructors from the Lebanese Hizbollah guerrilla movement to train Shi'ite insurgents operating in the UK sectors of Maysan province and Basra.

Ahmad Abu Sajad al Gharawi, a former Mahdi Army militia commander, was named yesterday as the leader of the main Iran-trained group in Maysan.</b>

advertisementHe is believed to have been responsible for the attack that killed Lance-Corporal Alan Brackenbury, whose death in 2005 near Al Amarah gave coalition investigators their first direct links between the lethal new booby-traps and Iran.

As revealed by The Herald yesterday, forensic evidence from the ambush site showed that an explosively-formed projectile (EFP) - a copper slug capable of penetrating the armour of a 70-tonne US Abrams tank - had been used to destroy the British Land Rover. Military-grade P4 plastic explosive traceable to Iran was also found.

Military engineers who examined the equipment said it was identical to bombs supplied by the RGC to Hizbollah militiamen fighting Israeli troops in Lebanon. Radio receivers used as back-up detonators were set to Iranian military frequencies.

Al Gharawi, who is now on the Iraqi government's most-wanted list, replaced Ahmad Jawwad al Fartusi, another Mahdi splinter group commander known to have imported EFPs for use against coalition troops before his arrest by British forces in September, 2005.

An intelligence source said yesterday: "We have known for a long time that the RGC has been stirring up trouble among the Shi'ite militias. What we lacked was - almost literally - a smoking gun to tie them to the active insurgency.

"That's now coming together, piece by piece, starting with the killing of L-Cpl Brackenbury. The use of Hizbollah as a proxy advisory group also ties the RGC to the insurgency.

"Hizbollah is bankrolled, trained and armed by the RGC and does not make a move without that group's permission."

=




<B><font size=+1 color=brown>><center>Chidiac blames 'the Syrians' for string of assassinations</font>

By Helena Forsell and Muneira Hoballah
Special to The Daily Star
Thursday, March 29, 2007
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=80951 </center>
BEIRUT: News anchor May Chidiac on Wednesday blamed "the Syrians" for a series of assassinations in Lebanon dating to the attempted murder of MP Marwan Hamadeh on October 1, 2006. "Journalism is not a profession unless it is free," Chidiac said in a lecture entitled "Journalism: A Target" at the American University of Beirut.</b>

Over 300 students poured into West Hall to hear the emotional speech.

With tears welling up and applause growing proportionally with each additional name mentioned, Chidiac listed all those that "they" have killed.

"They thought that with the assassination attempt on Marwan Hamadeh they would instill the necessary terror to stop the movement for freedom," she told the students. "Their attempt failed so they assassinated Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and his associates. Basil Fuleihan became a martyr. They killed George Hawi, Samir Kassir, Gebran Tueni and they killed Pierre Gemayel. After trying to assassinate Marwan Hamadeh, they tried to assassinate Elias Murr. Then they tried to assassinate me."

"They," she later clarified, "were the Syrians."

From the article @ http://www.iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/n...&m=03&d=29&a=4:

In the next 24 hours Britain is to start moves towards a UN security council resolution condemning the seizure of the personnel and the TV screening. The soundings will be initially informal, but the defence secretary, Des Browne, said the refusal to release the sailors was unacceptable. Britain had not been planning to go to the UN until next week when Britain takes over the security council chairmanship.


"The next few days will be [used] to increase Iran's sense of diplomatic isolation," a government official said.





The Iranians don’t give a rat’s a** about condemnations and they don’t care whether the soundings are informal or otherwise.

Neither do they give a damn about diplomatic isolation because these are words and words will never hurt them.

The Iranians are in the driver’s seat in this situation and they know it. Everyone else also knows it. They don’t need us… not really. Sanctions to date have not hurt them to any degree and neither will future sanctions. When the situation escalates so does the price of fuel and that hurts us infidels a lot more than them. It’s aggravating as hell from this infidel’s viewpoint but they apparently enjoy it that way. I am sure the situation aggravates a lot of other infidels.

So far the politicians are blustering to no effect. Unleashed, the military men will get the Iranian’s attention and I guarantee they will give a rat’s a** then. Until that time we will have to wait and bitch at the pump. The Iranians are old hands at this. Recall the embassy hostages from nearly 30 years ago. We could be bitching at the pump for a long time.

=




<B><center>March 29, 2007 Thursday Rabi-ul-Awwal 9, 1428

<font size=+1 color=green>Gulf conflict to affect world, warns Musharraf</font>

http://www.dawn.com/2007/03/29/nat3.htm </center>
RIYADH, March 28: President Pervez Musharraf warned on Wednesday that rising tensions in the oil-rich Gulf risk leading to a confrontation that could affect the entire world.

“Tensions in the Gulf region are shaping an ominous confrontation that could have incalculable consequences globally, regionally and among the Muslim Umma,” Musharraf told an Arab summit in Riyadh in a reference to Iran's standoff with the West over its controversial nuclear programme.</b>

“We cannot remain helpless spectators in this and other crises and conflicts afflicting the Islamic world,” said Musharraf, one of several world figures invited to the summit's opening session.

“We need to join hands to work for solutions on the basis of fairness, justice and realism.”

Musharraf warned against the rise of extremism and sectarianism in the Islamic world.

“Apart from disputes and conflicts, Muslim countries are facing great danger in the rise of extremist and obscurantist thinking and tendencies,” he said.

“Sectarian and ethnic divisions are tearing the fabric of many of our societies and draining energies needed to ensure progress and development.”

—AFP

=




<B><center>3/28/2007 10:58:00 PM

<font size=+1 color=blue>Sudan army denies French paratroopers' attack against Darfur village</font>

http://www.kuna.net.kw/NewsAgenciesPublicSite/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=1719850&Language=en </center>
KHARTOUM, March 28 (KUNA) -- The Sudanese army on Wednesday denied reports circulated over raids carried out by French paratroopers against one of the villages in Darfur.
</b>
Army spokesman Othman Mohammad Al-Aghbash said in a statement that the Darfur districts had not been raided by French paratroopers as some news agencies claimed.

He said that the town of Piraw, which was the core of news agencies, is located in the state of Central Africa and it is the capital of one of its districts.

He added that the Sudanese army precisely spots any infringement in the air, sea or land in the entire country.

Meanwhile, news agencies had earlier reported that French paratroopers attacked rebels in the border areas of Darfur and led to the destruction of Piraw town. (end) hha.tg KUNA 282258 Mar 07NNNN

=




<B><font size=+1 color=purple><center>Sudan leader: No U.N. troops in Darfur</font>

By NADIA ABOU EL-MAGD, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 1 minute ago
March 29 2007
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070329/ap_on_re_mi_ea/darfur_un </center>
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon tried to persuade Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir to accept U.N. peacekeepers in Darfur on Wednesday, hours after al-Bashir flatly rejected the deployment. </b>

Ban met with the Sudanese president for more than three hours in late-night talks joined by Saudi King Abdullah and Arab League chief Amr Moussa on the sidelines of an Arab summit in Riyadh, the Saudi state news agency said.

Ban is seeking Arab help in winning al-Bashir's acceptance of a U.N. force to assist African Union peacekeepers who have been unable to halt the violence in the war-torn region.

In a small sign of cooperation, Sudan and the United Nations signed an agreement in the Sudanese capital Khartoum to ease humanitarian access to Darfur's refugees.

But in a speech earlier in the day at the Arab summit, al-Bashir underlined his objections to a 20,000-strong combined U.N.-AU peacekeeping force, saying the United Nations should only provide financial and technical help to African peacekeepers already on the ground.

Al-Bashir slammed U.N. resolutions calling for U.N. troop deployment in Darfur as "a violation for Sudan's sovereignty" and said they "provoke the conflict in Darfur, instead of finding a solution for it."

But some 7,000 African Union peacekeepers have been unable to put an end to the violence in Darfur, where government forces and ethnic African rebels have been battling for nearly four years.

Al-Bashir's government is accused of backing Arab janjaweed militiamen blamed for widespread atrocities against ethnic African civilians. More than 200,000 people have been killed and more than 2.5 million driven from their homes.

"The people of Darfur have waited too long and suffered too much," Ban said in an address to the Arab summit, adding that Arab leaders could play a "positive role" in helping end Darfur's plight.

Al-Bashir's statements in Riyadh eclipsed the incremental improvement in Khartoum — an agreement that ensures unrestricted travel by international aid workers throughout Sudan, including Darfur, upon notifying the central government of plans.

"I am cautiously pleased that this agreement has been signed and publicized," U.N. humanitarian chief John Holmes told The Associated Press while touring Darfur refugee camps in neighboring Chad. The "important thing is whether they will actually implement what they say."

Last week, Holmes warned that obstruction from Sudan's government and insecurity had created a fragile environment in Darfur that could push aid workers to pull out.

Holmes said the most important aspect of the new deal was a monitoring committee to be jointly chaired by the Sudanese minister of humanitarian affairs and the U.N. humanitarian coordinator in Sudan.

The committee will fast-track visa procedures for Darfur-bound aid workers and process applications for work permits within 15 days and visas within two days. Applications are backlogged until January 2008. The committee will have representatives from international and national aid groups, the Arab League and foreign donors.

Bump back to Page 1

"..“We need to join hands to work for solutions on the basis of fairness, justice and realism.”.."

Code for trashing Israel.

Again, WHERE THE HELL IS THE INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS AND SHAMNESTY INTERNATIONAL?????

THEY DON'T CARE IF WESTERNERS ARE HELD HOSTAGE AND PARADED IN VIOLATION OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION?

BASTARDS!

=




<B><center>Yemen:

<font size=+1 color=red>Perceptions and Benefits of an Iranian Presence</font>

March 28, 2007
Stratfor
Stratfor Global Intelligence Brief
http://www.stratfor.com/ </center>
Reports from Yemen suggest Yemeni security forces have shot down an Iranian-made drone. Sanaa is likely trying to project the image that Iran is backing Zaydi rebels. Iran also would like to exploit the perception that it is seeking to project power in the region.

Analysis </b>

Yemeni forces have shot down a foreign-made drone flying over the country's southern Hadhramaut region, Yemeni authorities said March 28. Local daily Akhbar Al Yawm reported that the aircraft was Iranian-made. The development comes three weeks after a ruling General People's Congress spokesman accused certain elements within the Iranian religious establishment of backing Yemen's renegade Zaydi movement, known as the Believing Youth and led by Abdul Malik al-Houthi. Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh said in January that the rebels were getting funding and weapons from foreign states.

The Yemeni government thus appears to be moving toward blaming Tehran for supporting the rebel movement that has left hundreds dead, mostly in northwestern Yemen's Saada governorate. Though doing so improves Sanaa's ability to deal with the rebellion and allows it to exploit the current anti-Iranian climate in the region and in the West, Iranian involvement with the Zaydis in fact is limited in scope because of certain structural hurdles. Even so, Tehran's low-level involvement does further Iran's goal of projecting power in the region.

Neither Iran's Mohajer nor Ababil unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have anywhere near the range to get from Iran to Yemen. If it turns out an Iranian UAV was shot down, it would have been operated from somewhere in Yemen. During its summer 2006 conflict with Israel, Hezbollah used at least two different types of UAVs (almost certainly provided by Iran). The Iranians similarly could have provided the Yemeni rebels with drones.

The Zaydis form most of the 48 percent of Yemenis who practice Shiite Islam. Given their shared Shiite faith, the Zaydis present the Iranians with a potential proxy at the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula. Yemen's Zaydi community, however, is unlike Iran's other proxies in Iraq, Lebanon, Bahrain, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia because the Zaydis practice an offshoot of mainstream Twelver Shiite Islam. Moreover, many people in the region view the Zaydis as being in many respects much closer to the Sunnis

The Yemeni Zaydi rebels led by the al-Houthi tribal elders are a subset of the wider Zaydi community in Yemen. Overall, the government has significant support among the Zaydis. Furthermore, the Arab-Persian ethnic divide always serves as an arrestor to the Iranians' ambitions to align with like-minded sectarian or ideological forces in the mostly Arab Middle East.

Iran thus cannot hope to create a significant fifth column in Yemen. Iran can, however, pursue the more modest goal of furthering its aspirations to be a regional hegemon by offering the renegade Zaydis support in different forms. Doing so would allow Tehran to shape perceptions of Iran's power rather than altering geopolitical reality.

Given Tehran's influence throughout the so-called Shiite Crescent on Saudi Arabia's northern and eastern periphery, appearing to wield influence in Yemen allows Iran to signal the Saudis -- the Iranians' principal regional rivals -- that they are being encircled. The Iranians hope this will yield greater leverage in talks with the Saudis over how to share influence in the region.

As for the Yemenis, accusing the Zaydis of accepting support from the Persian Shiite state allows the Saleh government to undercut support for the rebels within Yemen by painting them as an agent of a state hostile to Arabs. Such a charge should help block the rebels from spreading their cause among the wider Zaydi community.

Accusing the Iranians of meddling brings the risk of raising tensions between Iran and Yemen -- something the Yemenis might not want to incur. But it also helps the Yemenis gain Saudi attention, given Riyadh's desire to secure the Arabian Peninsula from Iranian/Shiite activity. It also could help Sanaa get closer to the Gulf Cooperation Council, the regional bloc that comprises the Persian Gulf Arab states.

Though Yemen would like to use the Iranian card to extract geopolitical benefits, it does not have the resources to deal with a confrontation with Iran. Iran also is too busy for a confrontation with Yemen, and is therefore satisfied to build a perceived proxy presence in Yemen rather than the real thing. So long as neither side takes things too far, the perception of Iranian influence among the renegade Zaydis paradoxically benefits both Yemenis and Iranians.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=brown><center>Faced with Iranian Blackmail, Europe Must Show Real Solidarity</font>

March 29, 2007
The Guardian
Timothy Garton Ash
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2045071,00.html </center>
Iran depends on German government export guarantees. Let the EU presidency put its money where its mouth is.

Last week, while the European Union celebrated 50 years of peace, freedom and solidarity, 15 Europeans were kidnapped from Iraqi territorial waters by Iranian Revolutionary Guards. As I write, those 14 European men and one European woman have been held at an undisclosed location for nearly a week, interrogated, denied consular access, but shown on Iranian television, with one of them making a staged "confession", clearly under duress. So if Europe is as it claims to be, what's it going to do about it? Where's the solidarity? Where's the action? </b>

Simply to describe the crisis in these terms is to see how far we are from the Europe of instinctive solidarity that European leaders like to believe we have - and especially when it comes to our armed forces abroad. Most Brits do not think of our captured sailors and marines as Europeans. Indeed, I'd bet our kidnapped British service personnel don't think of themselves that way. Most British people will look for more decisive action from the British government ("Admiral Lord Nelson must be revolving in his grave," chuntered Melanie Phillips in yesterday's Daily Mail), and then perhaps from the United States or the United Nations. It would not occur to them to look across the Channel for support, and they would be very surprised to learn that Europe has more direct, immediate leverage on Iran than the United States does.

Many continental Europeans, if they have registered that there is a crisis at all - and many will not have, since Europe's media are still mainly national in form and priorities - will probably think of it as yet another consequence of a foolish, illegitimate Anglo-American military action in Iraq. They will see it as a problem for "them" (Brits and Americans) rather than for "us" (right- thinking, peace-loving Europeans). Some may suspect the British sailors and marines did in fact stray into Iranian territorial waters, as the Iranians claim. A few may even privately mutter: "Well, you had it coming to you."

Those who follow these things more closely may wonder if the Revolutionary Guards were not making an indirect tit-for-tat response to American seizures of Iranians in Iraq, perhaps even hoping for a hostage swap. Or perhaps just an angry reaction to the latest UN security council resolution about Iran's nuclear programme - which was actually passed a day after the kidnapping, but its contents were well-known beforehand. That resolution extends targeted sanctions to companies controlled by the Revolutionary Guards and to individuals including the commander of the Revolutionary Guards navy. But I would bet my bottom euro that none of these continental Europeans' synapses will have fired spontaneously with this thought: "Our fellow-Europeans have been kidnapped, so what can we, as Europe, do in response?"

Even if you regard the Anglo-American presence in Iraq as foolish and illegitimate, and the American seizure of Iranians in Iraq as an escalation of this illegitimate folly, that would not for a moment excuse the Iranian action. The British forces were operating as part of a multinational force under an explicit UN mandate, to protect oil installations and prevent the smuggling of guns into Iraq - guns with which more Iraqis would otherwise be killed. According to the sophisticated GPS instruments which the British service personnel had with them, they were more than three kilometres inside Iraqi territorial waters when they went to search a suspect vessel.

Reflecting the confusion inside the Iranian state, the first coordinates for the allegedly transgressing British boats given to the British by the Iranian government turned out to be within Iraqi territorial waters too. Not until three days later did the Iranians come up with a second "corrected" set of coordinates which conveniently put the British forces on the wrong side of the line. Only someone whose political and moral compass is totally disorientated by hostility to American and British policy could dare to suggest that this act of shameless, lying, cross-border piracy is justified or excusable.

The British government initially tried to secure the captives' release by what the foreign secretary described to the House of Commons as "private but robust diplomacy", while at the same time aiming to bring indirect pressure to bear on the Iranian government from all possible quarters. Among the protests was a statement of condemnation from the German presidency of the EU, conveyed to the Iranian government by the German ambassador in Tehran. A Foreign Office expert tells me he thinks the Iranians are beginning to feel the heat, with rebukes and warnings pouring in from all sides.

Let us hope that he is right and that by the time you read this the British captives are free. If they are not - and, in any case, for a possible next time - we need to think about possible next steps. While Javier Solana, the nearest thing the EU has to a foreign minister, did raise the issue with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator in a telephone conversation earlier this week, it is a bad idea to link the reopening of nuclear talks to the kidnapping issue. Iranian hardliners would be delighted to scupper those talks. As far as they are concerned, the more confrontation there is with Britain and America - the old and new satans of the Iranian political imagination - the better for them. Why walk into their trap?

But there is something Europe should do: flex its economic muscles. The EU is by far Iran's biggest trading partner. More than 40% of its imports come from, and more than a quarter of its exports go to, the EU. Remarkably, this trade has grown strongly in the last years of looming crisis. Much of it is underpinned by export credit guarantees given by European governments, notably those of Germany, France and Italy. According to the most recent figures available from the German economics ministry, Iran is Germany's third-largest beneficiary of export credit guarantees, outdone only by Russia and China. Iran comes second to none in terms of the proportion of German exports - in recent years up to 65% - underwritten by the German government.

The total government underwriting commitment in 2005 was €5.8bn (£3.9bn), more than for Russia or China. As the squeeze grows on Iran from UN sanctions and their knock-on effects, and as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fails to deliver on his populist economic promises, this European trade becomes ever more vital for the Iranian regime - and ever more dependent on European government guarantees to counterbalance the growing political risk.

In the Commons yesterday a former foreign secretary, Malcolm Rifkind, asked if Britain's European friends - and Germany, France and Italy in particular - might be prevailed upon to convey to Iran, perhaps privately in the first instance, the possibility that such export credit guarantees would be temporarily suspended until the kidnapped Europeans are freed. I gather that if such private pressure is not forthcoming, Britain might be tempted to raise the suggestion more formally at a meeting of European foreign ministers in Bremen this weekend.

So here's a challenge for the German presidency of the European Union: will you put your money where your mouth is? Or are all your Sunday speeches about European solidarity in the cause of peace and freedom not even worth the paper they are written on?

=




<B><font size=+1 color=green><center>Britain seeks U.N. condemnation of Iran; female sailor's release 'suspended' </font>

TARIQ PANJA, Associated Press Writer
March 29, 2007 7:30 AM
http://www.newspress.com/Top/Article/article.jsp?Section=WORLD&ID=564989242816988317 </center>
LONDON (AP) - Britain said Thursday it is seeking United Nations condemnation of Iran for its capture and detention of 15 sailors and marines in disputed waters in the northern Persian Gulf.

The British announcement came as Iran rolled back on its promise to release the sole female British sailor among the captives. The Iranian military chief, Gen. Ali Reza Afshar, said that owing to the ''wrong behavior'' of the British government, ''the release of a female British soldier has been suspended,'' the semiofficial Iranian news agency Mehr reported.</b>

Prime Minister Tony Blair's official spokesman dismissed a suggestion Wednesday by Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki that Britain should resolve the crisis by admitting that its personnel had made a ''mistake'' and crossed into Iranian waters.

Instead, Britain has been seeking a U.N. declaration condemning the detentions, a Foreign Office official said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the subject. The text is still under discussion, he said.

The British initially circulated a press statement, which is the weakest action that the U.N. Security Council could take, but diplomats said they might be considering a stronger presidential statement, which unlike a press statement, is read at a formal council meeting and becomes part of its official record.

The standoff and broader tensions in the Gulf region helped fuel a spike in world oil prices.

Mottaki had said Wednesday that sailor Faye Turney, 26, would be released within 48 hours. Britain said it was halting all discussion with Iran except negotiations to free the detained sailors, and expressed outrage over Iran's broadcast of images of the captured service members.

Before telling The Associated Press it was seeking condemnation of Iran, Britain said it had asked the Security Council on Thursday to support a call for the immediate release of the detainees. The British government said that its sailors and marines were seized Friday after completing a search of a civilian ship near the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, which forms the border between Iran and Iraq, under a mandate from the Security Council and at the request of Iraq. Iran says the British vessels were inside its territorial waters.

The issue was expected to be debated Thursday at the United Nations.

Negotiator Ali Larijani said on Iranian state radio that: ''British leaders have miscalculated this issue.''

If Britain follows through with its policies toward Iran, Larijani said ''this case may face a legal path'' - a clear reference to Iran's prosecuting the sailors in court.

Blair's official spokesman said Britain wanted to resolve the crisis quickly and without having a ''confrontation over this.''

''We are not seeking to put Iran in a corner. We are simply saying, 'Please release the personnel who should not have been seized in the first place,''' said the spokesman, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with government policy.

But in a briefing to reporters, the spokesman said British officials had been angered by Tehran's decision to show the captured sailors and marines on Iranian television.

''Nobody should be put in that position. It is an impossible position to be put in,'' he said. ''It is wrong. It is wrong in terms of the usual conventions that cover this. It is wrong in terms of basic humanity.''

In the video broadcast Wednesday on Iran's Arab-language satellite channel, Turney said her group had ''trespassed'' in Iranian waters. The segment showed her wearing a black head scarf, sitting in a room before floral curtains and smoking a cigarette.

''Obviously we trespassed into their waters,'' Turney said. ''They were very friendly and very hospitable, very thoughtful, nice people. They explained to us why we've been arrested. There was no harm, no aggression.''

Britain's Ministry of Defense released coordinates that it said proved the captured naval personnel were seized 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters.

Oil prices rose by more than $1 a barrel Wednesday to a six-month high as the U.S. Navy completed its largest show of force in the Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

President Bush has discussed the 15 Britons with Blair, White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said, and fully backs the British position.

=





<B><center>03/29/2007

<font size=+0 color=blue>IRAN CONDUCTS RECON MISSIONS IN YEMEN</font>

http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2007/march/03_30_1.html </center>
CAIRO [MENL] -- Iran has been conducting reconnaissance missions in Yemen.

Yemeni sources said the Iranian military has been conducting reconnaissance missions on military and strategic targets. They said Teheran also employed Shi'ite operatives to spy in Yemen.</b>

"It's not clear why Iran would conduct reconnaissance missions on Yemen when the two have friendly relations," a Yemeni source said. "It could be Iranian fear that Yemen has been harboring U.S. forces that could be used in an attack on Teheran."

On Wednesday, Yemen reported that the military shot down an Iranian unmanned aerial vehicle. Officials said the Iranian UAV flew over the Arabian Sea and conducted reconnaissance missions deep in southeastern Yemen.

=





<B><font size=+1 color=purple><center>Ominous Signs Suggest Iran War Close</font></b>

<i>Seizure of British marines could be "Gulf of Tonkin"
long yearned for by warmongers</i>

<b>By Paul Joseph Watson
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=21205 </center>
As tensions surrounding Iran's seizure of 15 British navy personnel continue to build, ominous signs that war is nearing give an indication that this could be the new "Gulf of Tonkin" Bush and Blair have long yearned for to justify air strikes on Iran.</b>

The U.S. has escalated war games in the area, "The manoeuvres involve the USS John C. Stennis and the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, marking the first time the two strike groups have operated in a joint exercise under the US Navy's Fifth Fleet," reports the AFP.</b>

Russian news outlets are reporting that such activity represents, "Heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," that closely resembles the situation immediately before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has given the Iranians just days to return the marines safely before harsher steps are taken.

It's difficult to know who to trust concerning exactly whose waters the marines were in, Iraq's or Iran's, when Ahmadinejad's slender grip on power survives only by feeding his own population war propaganda, while Bush and Blair have become the very iconography of deceit in the modern age.

A high ranking Iraqi official expressed his surprise that British forces were even operating in the area.

Brigadier-General Hakim Jassim, commander of Iraq's territorial waters, told the BBC: "Usually there is no presence of British forces in that area, so we were surprised and we wondered whether the British forces were inside Iraqi waters or inside Iranian regional waters."

Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, slammed the spin and rhetoric Tony Blair has cased the crisis in, pointing out that the Royal Navy boarded the ships not to conduct inspections on weapons smuggling, but to look for tax evaders.

"In international law the Iranian government were not out of order in detaining foreign military personnel in waters to which they have a legitimate claim," said Murray, adding "For the Royal Navy, to be interdicting shipping within the twelve mile limit of territorial seas in a region they know full well is subject to maritime boundary dispute, is unnecessarily provocative."

What seems to be unfolding are similar circumstances that led to the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon last summer, where two Israeli soldiers were "kidnapped" after they had crossed the border into Lebanese territory.

It seems highly unlikely that the Iranians would risk further international condemnation by kidnapping British marines in Iraqi waters, but whatever the truth, the fact remains that the "coalition of the killing" are no strangers to violating international rules defining sovereignty and kidnapping foreign nationals for political gain.

Bush has green-lighted the CIA policy of globe-hopping to snatch terror suspects off the streets of foreign countries, the most high profile case being Islamic cleric Abu Omar in Milan in 2003.

On January 11, U.S. military forces raided an Iranian consulate in Arbil and detained five Iranian officials who are still prisoners to this day.

Bush and Blair's denouncements of Iran's actions are accompanied by more than a whiff of hypocrisy and if this situation continues to escalate it may become the "Gulf of Tonkin" they have long yearned for to justify ordering air strikes against Ahmadinejad's nuclear and military facilities.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=red><center>Blair overhauls Home Office to fight terrorism</font>

40 minutes ago
March 29 2007
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070329/wl_uk_afp/britaincrimesecurity;_ylt=A0WTUenyzwtGLVgBxBpvaA8F </center>
LONDON (AFP) - Prime Minister Tony Blair announced Thursday the creation of a new national security department to fight terrorism, as part of a radical overhaul of the beleaguered Home Office.

Under the plan announced by Blair in a written statement to parliament, the Home Office will be split into two departments: one for national security and the other for the justice system.</b>

"The changes set out here are aimed at producing a step change in our approach to managing the terrorist threat to the UK and winning the battle for hearts and minds," Blair said.

Britain has intensified efforts to counter terrorism since July 7, 2005, when four Islamist suicide bombers blew themselves up on three London Underground trains and a bus, killing themselves and 52 commuters.

The changes have also been driven by scandals in the criminal justice system.

Home Secretary John Reid, the no-nonsense Blair ally tasked with reforming the unwieldy ministry since he was appointed to the job more than a year ago, said Britain was keeping step with the times.

He said Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett would retain control of Britain's overseas intelligence service MI6 while Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly would retain her responsibilities for community cohesion, which includes ties with the minority Muslim community.

David Davis (news, bio, voting record), the senior Conservative MP who is shadow home secretary, told members of parliament that breaking up the Home Office will create a new set of problems.

He claimed the overhaul "will leave public security undermined and a justice system overwhelmed," adding that officials would be "distracted" by the changes rather than focusing on fighting terror, overflowing prisons and immigration.

The Home Office has been in turmoil this year after it emerged that an alleged oversight led to hundreds of files on serious criminals convicted of offenses in Europe not being entered on police computer records.

=




<B><center>March 29, 2007

THE WORLD FROM BERLIN

<font size=+1 color=brown>'A Crisis Is Simmering With Iran'</font>

Yahoo
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,474707,00.html </center>
Iran's intransigence over the 15 kidnapped British sailors has forced London to go on the offensive. Tony Blair has now called on the international community for its support. German commentators praise the British reserve in dealing with the crisis.


REUTERS
Tony Blair is looking for international support in its dispute with Iran over the capture of 15 British sailors.</b>

The stand-off between Tehran and London over Iran's capture of 15 British sailors last Friday shows no sign of abating. On Wednesday the Iranians paraded the Britons on television and suggested the crisis could be resolved if Britain admitted the sailors were in Iranian waters when they were arrested. The British government reacted by releasing data which it says proves that the military personnel were in fact in Iraqi waters at the time of their capture -- and by freezing some bilateral relations with Tehran.

After initially attempting the softly-softly approach, the UK is now calling in the big guns in the international community. The United Nations Security Council is expected to discuss the issue later today. And UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon met with the Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki earlier on Thursday in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where both men were attending the Arab Summit.

The German papers Thursday praised the British response to the crisis, with some newspapers calling for international solidarity in dealing with Tehran.

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

"No one can accuse the British government of not trying to resolve the conflict over the capture of its sailors without making a big fuss. In the light of the gravity of Iran's act of piracy, London displayed the patience of a saint in trying to build bridges with Tehran ... But, for some reason that cannot be explained rationally, Tehran has ignored these bridges. This at least makes it obvious which side is seeking escalation: Iran.

"Now Britain's sharper tone seems to be showing results: for the first time since the beginning of the crisis, the Iranian foreign ministry is making conciliatory noises ... At this point, an amicable agreement still seems possible. That is heartening news, and also contains a lesson for the future. In dealing with regimes like the one in Tehran, unity and strength is more likely to bring success than hasty conciliation and compromise."

The conservative Die Welt writes:

"In Tehran we are dealing with a 'rogue regime' that seems to be set on torpedoing every chance for peace in the Gulf and the wider Middle East ... The fact that (Ahmadinejad) is now adding a hefty portion of stupidity to his usual practice of playing with fire is a new development.

"Iran is acting so aggressively in the certainty that no British or any other type of armada is going to set out to reprimand it. That doesn't make the situation any less dangerous. A crisis is simmering with Iran, one that can only be quelled with solidarity. To allow this to fail, just because the Germans differed with Washington and London on Iraq, would also be stupid."

The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:

"The latest conflict between Great Britain and the Islamic Republic of Iran is potentially explosive ... It cannot be separated from the deterioration of the situation in the region. Iran feels itself exposed to growing pressure because of its nuclear plans and is defiant in the face of tougher sanctions by the international community.

"London has to deal with an Iran that is not far off from being the dominant power in the Persian Gulf. The conflict over the captured soldiers has to be solved with the help of international diplomacy before it leads to complications that no one wants.

"Despite the current antagonism, Germany has traditionally maintained good relations with Tehran, and so could perhaps give political support."

The Financial Times Deutschland writes:

"The manner in which the British have acted in the crisis so far has been correct and clever. At first Tony Blair's government tried to answer Iran's obvious provocation with quiet diplomacy. It was only after Iran proved itself to be stubborn that London upped the ante ... With the freezing of diplomatic relations, Great Britain has shown that it is not avoiding a confrontation.

"At first glance Iran has the upper hand, as the breaking off of diplomatic ties will not free the British soldiers. But nevertheless the British reaction makes it clear to Tehran that the capture has a price ... There is evidence that Iran has grasped this fact."

-- Siobhán Dowling, 3:15 p.m. CET

=




<B><font size=+1 color=green><center>Britain “not seeking confrontation with Iran”</font>
(AFP)

29 March 2007
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/Display...h/theworld_March772.xml&section=theworld&col= </center>
LONDON - London is not seeking a confrontation with Iran over its capture of British sailors, Prime Minister Tony Blair’s official spokesman said on Thursday.

Speaking shortly before an Iranian official announced that the sole female sailor would not after all be freed because of London’s ”incorrect” attitude, the spokesman said Britain was not seeking to back Teheran into a corner.</b>

And he dismissed reported suggestions from Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki that Britain could resolve the crisis by admitting it made a “mistake,” saying: “The facts are the facts.”

“What is important is that Iran knows that it is isolated on this issues,” the spokesman said. “We want this resolved. We don’t want a confrontation over this. We want this resolved as quickly as possible,” he said.

“We are not seeking to put Iran in a corner. We are simply saying, “Please release the personnel who should not have been seized in the first place’.”

London on Wednesday unveiled a dossier of evidence which it said proves the 15 Royal Navy and Royal Marines personnel were in Iraqi, not Iranian waters when they were seized.

=





<B><font size=+1 color=blue><center>Britain splits Home Office to sharpen concentration on terrorism</font>

The Associated PressPublished: March 29, 2007
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/29/europe/EU-GEN-Britain-Terrorism.php </center>
LONDON: Prime Minister Tony Blair said Wednesday he hopes to improve the government's response to terrorism by splitting up a major department.

Blair announced plans to create Ministry of Justice to oversee criminal law, sentencing and constitutional affairs, taking over responsibilities which are currently under the Home Office.</b>

Within the Home Office, Blair said a new Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism would be set up.

The plan was criticized by opposition parties and some members of the governing Labor Party, and Britain's senior judge expressed concern that the new Ministry of Justice might compromise the independence of the courts.

"Our counter-terrorism capabilities are among the best in the world," Blair said in a written statement. "However, the continuing and growing threat from terrorism means that the government must develop and improve its counter-terrorism and security capabilities, and its governance."

Conservative legislator David Davis said the plan "will just create a whole new raft of problems."

"Because of the way it has been done, the creation of a Department of Justice and a Department of Security will leave public security undermined, and a justice system overwhelmed."

Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats accused the government of rushing to reorganize the department by May 9 in order to push the change through before Blair leaves office.

Ken Jones, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, said the split would complicate the work of police and probation officers.

"Core activities such as intelligence-gathering and supervising dangerous offenders rely on all criminal justice agencies working in partnership, and separating them into two ministries mean that we will have to work much harder to ensure that the strong partnerships that have been built up continue to develop," Jones said.

Lord Phillips, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, issued a statement saying the government must prevent the new minister from "interfering with or damaging the independent administration and proper funding of the court service."

However, Phillips said, the judiciary did not object in principle to breaking up the Home Office.

Israel rejects Arab peace plan

Israel rejects Arab peace plan





Israel began a new incursion into the West Bank
town of Nablus on Thursday [EPA]


Israeli officials have refused to accept the revived Arab peace initiative as it stands, saying more negotiations are needed.

Shimon Peres, the Israeli deputy prime minister, told Israeli radio on Thursday: "There is only one way to overcome our differences, and that is negotiation."




"It's impossible to say: 'you must take what we offer you as is.'"

The plan, endorsed at the Arab League summit on Wednesday, offers Israel full diplomatic relations if it withdraws from all land occupied in 1967, allows the creation of a Palestinian state and the return of Palestinian refugees.






Arab states called on "the government of Israel and all Israelis to accept the Arab peace initiative and seize the opportunity to resume the process of direct and serious negotiations on all tracks."

Talks needed

Israeli officials said negotiations were needed as parts of the initiative, notably on the refugees, were unacceptable to them.

"There is no alternative to negotiations," Peres said.

"With a diktat neither the Palestinians, nor the Arabs nor us will achieve a solution."

The Arab League summit in the Saudi capital Riyadh ends on Thursday with Arab leaders reiterating their commitment to the 2002 initiative.

Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, said in an interview with a British newspaper that Israel should not expect any further diplomatic overtures.

"If Israel refuses [the plan], that means it doesn't want peace and it places everything back in 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."

Violence continues

Israeli troops shot dead a teenager and wounded two other Palestinians in the occupied West Bank on Thursday, local residents said.

The 16-year-old was shot after he threw stones at the Israeli soldiers near the town of Jenin, the residents said.

An Israeli army spokeswoman in Tel Aviv said soldiers on patrol in the area had come under fire and shot an armed man who had been standing on the roof of a house.

In a separate raid, Israeli forces detained an Islamic Jihad militant in the West Bank city of Nablus, residents and the army said.


http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/055D7839-8661-4502-A83A-7ED669535280.htm

=





<B><font size=+1 color=purple><center>US to impose new sanctions on Sudan within days - officials</font>

Thursday 29 March 2007 16:54
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article21054 </center>
March 29, 2007 (WASHINGTON) — The United States will impose tough new measures against Sudan, likely within days, to try to force it to change course on Darfur and aims to pressure Khartoum militarily by helping rebuild forces in the south, U.S. officials said.

State Department, Defense, Treasury and other U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the goal was to "tighten the screws" on President Omar Hassan al-Bashir and have him accept an international force in the vast western province.</b>

A White House announcement on sanctions and a further limit on dollar transactions was expected very soon, a State Department official said.

Military options like a no-fly zone over Darfur — which Britain wants — or a forced intervention have been ruled out for now, but the Pentagon has done some "back of the envelope" calculations on what might be needed, a defense official said.

Some Sudan experts said the new sanctions were too little, too late.

"This is the right idea but it is simply not enough and not multilateral enough to make an impact, a dent, in the calculations of the Sudanese regime," said John Prendergast of the International Crisis Group.

The United States had threatened an unspecified "Plan B" by Jan. 1 if Bashir did not agree to a U.N./African Union force in Darfur, where more than 200,000 people have been killed since 2003 in what Washington says is this century’s first genocide.

That deadline passed but it was Bashir’s comments that he would not accept a hybrid force that pushed the administration to roll out "Plan B," senior officials said.

MILITARY HELP IN SOUTH

The U.S. government is also looking at how to change the military equation in Sudan.

One tactic is to help the government in the south build a strong force out of the former rebel Sudan People’s Liberation Army which was at war with the north until a 2005 peace deal.

"If he (Bashir) is faced with a credible force in the south, he will start to relook at how his forces are dispersed and where his risks are," the defense official said.

But the initial focus will be on putting the financial squeeze on Bashir.

About 130 firms with ties to Sudan’s government, including the two leading oil companies, are already on a U.S. sanctions list barring them from doing business with the United States or from using U.S. financial institutions to do dollar transactions — the favored currency for lucrative oil trades.

Other companies will be added to the list, current sanctions will be tightened and existing loopholes closed, making it harder to do dollar deals.

"The goal is to be more pro-active and have tighter enforcement (of sanctions)," said a Treasury Department official.

Aside from slapping travel and banking restrictions on at least three more Sudanese individuals, including a rebel leader, Washington also wants to put more pressure on splintered rebel groups in Darfur.

"You have to squeeze them all," said the defense official. "The goal is to get both Bashir and the rebels to come to the conclusion that they are not going to get anywhere with their current course of action."

The United States is working closely with Britain, which takes over the presidency of the U.N. Security Council next month, and is planning a new resolution on Darfur.

But a senior U.S. official made clear the United States would not wait months for the United Nations to act.

Britain has been pushing for a no-fly zone in Darfur but the Pentagon sees that as fraught with problems, as it does a forced military intervention which would ostracize Arab nations still smarting from the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

"When you look at a no-fly zone, the conclusion that pretty much everyone comes up with is that it will not have any impact at all," a defense official said.

With Sudan’s limited number of fixed-wing aircraft, it would also be a logistical nightmare maintaining a no-fly zone in an area the size of Texas, the official said.

(Reuters)

=




<B><font size=+1 color=red><center>China blasts attempts to link Olympics to Darfur issue </font>

http://www.chinaview.cn 2007-03-29 19:18:40

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-03/29/content_5913684.htm </center>
BEIJING, March 29 (Xinhua) -- Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang on Thursday refuted calls to connect the Darfur issue with the 2008 Olympic Games.

"We don't think it's appropriate to connect the Darfur issue with the Olympic Games in Beijing," Qin said in response to an editorial published in the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday calling for a boycott of the Beijing Olympics over China's support of Sudanese government. </b>

"People who try to connect the Darfur issue with the Olympics in an attempt to win ballots or increase their reputation are totally wrong on that scheme," he said.

China hopes the Darfur region can realize peace and stability. On this issue, China shares the same goal as the international community and is making unremitting efforts to this end, Qin said.

He said China hopes efforts by the international community could improve the humanitarian situation in Darfur so as to realize a lasting peace and stability of the region.

"We are confident we will hold a successful and high-quality Olympic Games," the spokesman added.

Editor: Lin Li

=




<B><font size=+1 color=brown><center>China to expand friendly relations with Sudan </font>

http://www.chinaview.cn

2007-03-29 19:20:28
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-03/29/content_5913692.htm </center>
BEIJING, March 29 (Xinhua) -- Chinese top legislator Wu Bangguo Thursday reaffirmed that China will work to expand friendly relations with Sudan. </b>

"Strengthening this relationship is in the interests of the two peoples, and will help promote cooperation between China and Africa and contribute to peace and stability of the region and the world at large," said Wu, chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC).

During a meeting with Deputy President of the Sudanese National Congress Nafi'a Ali Nafi'a, Wu said President Hu Jintao's Sudan tour in February had greatly advanced bilateral relations.

Noting that party-to-party exchanges had promoted mutual understanding and friendship, Wu said the Communist Party of China (CPC) would like to expand exchanges and cooperation with the Sudanese National Congress to develop the relations between the two countries.

Nafi'a Ali Nafi'a said Sudan values its relations with China, and will make joint effort to upgrade the reciprocal cooperation and friendly exchanges to a new height.

The Sudan guest is visiting China from March 28 to 31 at the invitation of the CPC.

Editor: Lin Li

Thanks Dutchman, for this "hard news" we cannot find on the tube. I appreciate your hard work.

=




<B><center>3/29/07

<font size=+1 color=green>US Calls for British Sailors' Release </font>

By Gary Thomas, VOA, Washington
http://www.payvand.com/news/07/mar/1346.html </center>
The United States is calling on Iran to immediately release the 15 sailors and marines seized in the waters of the Persian Gulf Friday. But, as VOA correspondent Gary Thomas reports, the United States is trying to stay out of the diplomatic spotlight on the issue.

Asked about the Iranian seizure of the British sailors, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino only said President Bush spoke with British Prime Minister Blair in a previously scheduled conference call. </b>

"The president fully backs Tony Blair and our allies in Britain," she said.

State Department spokesman Tom Casey said the British sailors were operating legally in Iraqi waters and called on Iran to respond to Britain's call for their release.

"What's important to us is that the Iranians do the right thing here, that they heed Prime Minister Blair's call to release these sailors, and release them immediately and unconditionally," he said.

Britain says the two small Royal Navy patrol craft were in Iraqi waters when they were seized by sailors of Iran's Revolutionary Guard. Iran disputes that, saying the craft had entered Iranian waters. The 15 were taken to Tehran for interrogation.

Prime Minister Blair told the House of Commons that it is now time to ratchet up the international and diplomatic pressure on Iran to secure the sailors' release.

The U.S. Navy is engaged in military exercises in Gulf waters, the largest such maneuvers since the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. But State Department spokesman Casey said the exercises are normal and should not be read as a signal or message to Iran.

"The exercises that are ongoing certainly pose a threat to no nation, including Iran," he said. "And I don't believe anyone should draw a connection between those military exercises, which our naval forces do in various parts of the world all the time, and this particular situation with the British sailors that are being held."

Some analysts believe the Iranian action was actually aimed at the United States, perhaps in response to the U.S. military maneuvers. But Ken Katzman, an Iran analyst at the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, says the United States is clearly letting Britain take the lead on the seizure of their service members.

"The problem with that theory, though, is that they've seized British [citizens], and the U.S. doesn't seem to be making any threats on behalf of Britain. The U.S. seems to have left this to Prime Minister Blair to solve himself," he said. "So the linkage between the U.S. and Britain is perhaps not as firm, perhaps, as Iran thinks it is."

Spokesman Casey also dismissed as speculation any talk of a swap of the British sailors for several Iranian men detained by U.S. forces in Iraq earlier this year. Iran claims the men are diplomats.

=




<B><center>3/29/07

<font size=+1 color=blue>US Senators Introduce Legislation to Close Loophole in Sanctions Law</font>

By Deborah Tate, VOA, Capitol Hill
http://www.payvand.com/news/07/mar/1344.html </center>
Two U.S. Senate Democrats have introduced legislation that would close a loophole in U.S. sanctions law. The measure would deny federal contracts to U.S. companies that do business - through foreign subsidiaries - with countries that the United States has designated state sponsors of terrorism. VOA's Deborah Tate reports from Capitol Hill. </b>

U.S. law prohibits American companies from trading directly with Iran and other countries designated by the State Department as state sponsors of terrorism.

But foreign subsidiaries of U.S. firms can operate there, as long as they are run separately from their American operations and do not hire U.S. citizens as managers, directors or employees.

However, critics say foreign subsidiaries offer a convenient way for U.S. companies to circumvent sanctions.

"It undermines the very function of the sanctions that we have established as a country," said Senator Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat.

"Part of our public policy is to try to impose these economic sanctions on countries like Iran, and yet we now see in this country that we have corporations that have very substantial contracts with our federal government. They benefit from having substantial contracts from our federal government," he added.

Echoing Dorgan's comments is Senator Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, who notes that among those U.S. companies that have foreign subsidiaries operating in Iran is the oil-field service giant, Halliburton, which is the Pentagon's largest contractor in Iraq.

"The current administration gives billions of dollars in government contracts to companies that do business with state sponsors of terrorism," he said. "The most immediate example, of course, is Halliburton, which received more than $20 billion in government contracts, despite the fact that a subsidiary company engaged in business dealings with Iran."

At a news conference Wednesday, Brown announced that he and Dorgan have introduced legislation that would bar foreign subsidiaries of U.S. firms that trade with state sponsors of terrorism from getting federal contracts.

"This legislation will stop the current practice of rewarding expatriate corporations and companies that do business with state sponsors of terrorism from profiting through government contracts," said Brown. "It will help restore integrity within our government contracting process and encourage good corporate citizenship."

Similar legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives.

=




<B><center>Thursday, March 29, 2007

<font size=+1 color=purple>Musharraf warns of ‘ominous confrontation’ in Gulf</font>

http://www.pakistanlink.com/Headlines/March07/29/10.htm </center>
RIYADH: President General Pervez Musharraf warned on Wednesday that rising tensions in the oil-rich Gulf risk leading to a confrontation that could affect the entire world. </b>

“Tensions in the Gulf region are shaping an ominous confrontation that could have incalculable consequences globally, regionally and among the Muslim Umma,” Gen Musharraf told an Arab League summit in Riyadh in a reference to Iran’s standoff with the West over its controversial nuclear programme. “We cannot remain helpless spectators in this and other crises and conflicts afflicting the Islamic world,” said Musharraf, one of several world figures invited to the summit’s opening session. “We need to join hands to work for solutions on the basis of fairness, justice and realism.”

Musharraf warned against the rise of extremism and sectarianism in the Islamic world. “Apart from disputes and conflicts, Muslim countries are facing great danger in the rise of extremist and obscurantist thinking and tendencies,” he said. “Sectarian and ethnic divisions are tearing the fabric of many of our societies and draining energies needed to ensure progress and development.”

He said “a handful of fringe elements” must not be allowed to malign the culture of moderation and Islam through acts of terrorism.

He also pointed at “the campaign in the West to defame Islam” and described it as “attempts to destabilise our societies through provocation”.

The president said there are forces scheming to push Islam and the West towards a clash. “These dangerous trends must be discouraged and countered to prevent a global disaster,” he said.

He called for collective efforts by the Muslim world for the resolution of the Middle East crisis. “We must set a timeline and work with the international community for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with Al Quds (Jerusalem) as its capital, living side by side with Israel in peace and security,” the president said.

Gen Musharraf recently visited several Muslim countries in a new initiative to help peace efforts in the Middle East. He said Pakistan’s initiative was supportive of “other endeavours”. “We believe that the issues of the Arab world deeply impact on the entire Muslim Umma and our collective effort will prove to be more effective in addressing them,” he said. The president said the United States and Europe too have a historic responsibility. “More than any other issue, the failure to find a just solution of Palestine has damaged principles and moral content in contemporary politics,” he added.

Gen Musharraf expressed satisfaction over the conciliation between Fatah and Hamas and formation of a Palestinian national unity government. “We hope that this summit will help forward movement towards the goal that you had together stated in the Beirut Declaration five years ago,” the president said.

The plan called for full Israeli withdrawal from all Arab territories occupied since June 1967, Israel’s acceptance of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital and Palestinian refugees’ right of return, in return for the establishment of normal relations and comprehensive peace with Israel.

The president also referred to Pakistan’s peace efforts in South Asia and said the country was working to promote an environment of peace. He said a peaceful and stable Afghanistan is in the vital interest of Pakistan and the region. “We are also addressing the long-standing Kashmir dispute for a just settlement which is imperative for a brighter future for our region,” he added.

President Musharraf also expressed satisfaction over the summit meeting between Saudi Arabia and Iran and said it had a salutary influence over the Gulf region.

He said it was vital that countries of the region work together to prevent a new conflict that would have serious consequences for the region and beyond on the international scene. Also on Wednesday, Gen Musharraf discussed the Middle East situation, the Palestinian dispute and Pakistan-Turkey bilateral relations with the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

app
Courtesy DailyTimes.com.pk

=




<B><center>the March 28, 2007 edition -

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0328/p04s01-wome.html

US hawks see strikes on Iran as less likely now

<font size=+0 color=red>Influential thinkers who backed a US-led invasion of Iraq now say containment, not confrontation, is best for Iran.</font>

By Dan Murphy | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0328/p04s01-wome.htm

WASHINGTON</center>
Earlier this month when House leader Nancy Pelosi struck a provision from a $100-billion spending bill that would have specifically required President Bush to seek congressional approval before any military strike on Iran, it was seen as a victory for the hawks in Washington.

After all, the Democrats took control of Congress last year in large part because of voter anger over the Iraq war. If they were saying that Bush doesn't need their permission to take action against Iran, then his "all options are on the table" rhetoric looks stronger, and raises the possibility of expanded conflict in the Middle East. </b>

But war with Iran, or even targeted air strikes at presumed nuclear facilities, is looking less and less likely. Despite tough rhetoric from both sides and increased tension over Iran's move to detain 15 British sailors last week, a variety of influential thinkers who championed the US-led invasion of Iraq are now saying that containment, not confrontation, is the best approach to Iran.

"I think the discussion has really shifted," says M. J. Rosenberg, the director of analysis for the Israel Policy Forum, a pressure group in Washington that favors diplomatic efforts to resolve the Middle East's problems and worries that the Iraq war has made Israel and America less safe. "The conventional wisdom in Washington has changed," says Mr. Rosenberg. There were influential people who thought that thought military action could be possible this year, he says. "Now, hardly anyone does."

Mr. Rosenberg says continued tough talk – and the Democrat climbdown over the spending bill – largely serve two functions: to hopefully soften up Iran in ongoing diplomatic negotiations over inspections of its nuclear facilities; and as a sop to hard-line groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which advocates continued political and economic sanctions on Iran until it gives up its nuclear program, and whose lobbying was largely seen as leading Ms. Pelosi to take her action. [ Editor's Note: The original version mischaracterized AIPAC 's position.]

Polls show attacking Iran is unpopular

But it's not just doves like Rosenberg. The more hawkish forces in Washington – from neoconservatives who believe the Middle East should be remade by force to pro-Israel lobby groups that say military strikes would prevent Iran from advancing its nuclear ambitions – have taken a step back.

The logistics of a strike, with an expanded US military role in Iraq and the fact that the two US carrier groups in the Gulf can't stay there indefinitely, are growing ever more difficult. And polls show a large majority of Americans prefer diplomacy, at least for now.

"If Bush attacked Iran tomorrow, the great majority of Americans would think he was nuts,'' Patrick Clawson, deputy director for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said last week at a conference in Washington on America's options with Iran.

Mr. Clawson, a vigorous proponent of invading Iraq, sees the Islamic Republic of Iran as an intractable enemy of the US, and has repeatedly urged that the US focus on regime change there by supporting exiled dissidents and democratic opponents inside the country.

But he has recently written that military action against Iran "is clearly undesirable" and thinks war is out of the question, unless it is triggered by a "much more aggressive" stance from Iran, for instance a withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or the testing of a nuclear weapon.

At the same conference, which was sponsored by the RAND Corporation, a think tank with close ties to the American military establishment, Ken Pollack, another supporter of the Iraq invasion, said he favors keeping the pressure on Iran with sanctions, which he thinks could work in containing their nuclear program if Iran sees that the social and economic costs are high enough.

He sees military action as an absolute last resort, and worries that Iran could easily tie up US forces in Iraq – where the US alleges many of the Shiite militias closely cooperate with Tehran. "We need to think about Iraq before we go off on some half-cocked military action against Iran,'' Mr. Pollack says.

To be sure, there are still real risks of an eventual escalation. The UN Security Council on Saturday backed a package of sanctions against Iran that includes a ban on Iranian arms exports and a freezing of the assets abroad of 28 individuals and organizations involved in the country's nuclear program.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned about the planned sanctions last week, saying that if big powers via the Security Council took "illegal actions" and ignored the Islamic Republic's rights, "we can also carry out illegal actions and we will do that." He insisted Iran would continue with efforts to enrich uranium – a fuel needed for both nuclear reactors, but that could also be used to make a weapon.

David Ochmanek, a former deputy assistant secretary of Defense for strategy and now a defense analyst at RAND, argues that the logic of seeking nuclear weapons from the Iranian perspective is compelling – and America's desire to stop that just as urgent.

He says Iran's conventional military, particularly its Air Force and anti-aircraft batteries "are really a museum" and that its recent history – a ruinous war with Iraq in the 1980s in which Sunni Arab regimes, and at times the US, supported Iraq – has convinced it to rely on itself rather than international forums when it comes to its defense.

In that context, nuclear weapons have a "unique deterrent value" and he argues that strikes on Iranian facilities today would probably lead Iran to "redouble its efforts" to acquire a bomb.

Of course, Iran insists that its nuclear program is entirely for peaceful energy purposes. Speaking by video link because the US won't allow him to leave New York, Iranian Ambassador to the UN Javad Zarif disputed the belief of strategists like Mr. Ochmanek that a nuclear weapon would be attractive for Iran.

"Nuclear weapons won't help Iran," he said. They would "increase our vulnerabilities and decrease our influence ... nuclear deterrence for Iran is just a myth."

Nevertheless, Mr. Zarif maintained the insistent Iranian line that it needs to be able to produce nuclear fuel on its soil. He said that "everyone knows... sanctions will not reach the intended result" and turned a favorite saying of former President Ronald Reagan's by describing the attitude of the two countries towards one another as "mistrust and verify."

Diplomacy now seen as best path

Zarif said suggestions by some UN diplomats that a compromise could be reached – in which an international consortium would promise to supply Iran with nuclear fuel produced abroad – are unacceptable, though he implied that an agreement to produce fuel in Iran with international oversight might be acceptable, though this is an outcome the US says it won't accept.

For now, diplomacy is taking its course. European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana said Tuesday he aimed to continue talks with Iran's top nuclear negotiator early next week.

"There's no guarantee that diplomatic options will succeed," says Mr. Pollack. "But [they're] likeliest to succeed.

Iran: UK sailors entered 6 times

Iran: UK sailors entered 6 times
POSTED: 11:13 a.m. EDT, March 29, 2007

exceprt:

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran says the 15 UK military personnel detained last week entered its waters six times before they were arrested, and announced that the promised release of the woman sailor was suspended due to Britain's "behavior" in the matter.

An Iranian naval spokesman said Thursday there is videotape and documents, including global positioning numbers, to back up their claims.

The latest salvo in the standoff came as Iranian military commander Alireza Afshar announced that the release of Faye Turney was being suspended.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/29/iran.uk.sailors/index.html

=




<B><center>(AFX UK Focus)

2007-03-29 15:51 GMT:

<font size=+1 color=brown>Iranians accuses UK forces of raiding Iraq consulate </font>

http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=afxnews&articleid=6042329&subject=economic&action=article </center>
TEHRAN (AFX) - The Iranian consulate in Iraq's southern city of Basra accused British forces of storming and surrounding its office during a shootout with gunmen today.</b>

The British military flatly denied any such incident, saying its soldiers had come under small arms fire during a routine patrol in the vicinity of the Iranian consulate but did not leave their vehicles.

The incident came amid a diplomatic standoff between Tehran and London over Iran's seizure of 15 British sailors and marines in Gulf waters last Friday.

"British forces sealed off the Iranian consulate in Basra. They went inside for 10 minutes and after that there was intense gunfire on them," Iranian consul Mohammed Reva Nasir told Agence France-Presse in Basra.

"This is a provocative act against the Iranian consulate in Basra. I believe it has something to do with the British detainees in Iran," he said.

Asked whether British troops raided the consulate, spokesman Major David Gell told AFP: "No. Absolutely not."

"There was a vehicle patrol going back into Basra Palace (a British base in Basra). The rear vehicle received small arms fire. We returned fire in self defence and the patrol continued on," Gell said.

"I'm led to believe (the incident happened) in the same street" as the Iranian consulate, he added.

"There is absolutely no link to the building. It's pure coincidence that it took place in that area," Gell said.

"No troops were injured and none of them got out of the vehicle."

The Iranian foreign ministry protested what it called "the British forces' provocative act," according to a statement obtained by AFP.

"The Iranian consulate operates with the consent of Iraqi authorities and its personnel enjoy diplomatic immunity.

"Iran has protested to the Iraqi authorities, who are responsible for the safety of consular personnel under international law," the ministry said. newsdesk@afxnews.com afp/cmr

Thanks, Dutch, for all you do. This situation with Iran is not structurally stable, it will collapse. I, for one, am glad we keep as good tabs on things as we do around here.

So many just don't know what is going on...