British Forces Held By Iran

Bungled US raid led to seizure of British sailors

A new report claims a botched US raid led to the British sailor hostage crisis in Iran. A British newspaper says a failed American attempt to abduct two senior Iranian security officers was the starting point for the diplomatic standoff. The Independent claims the US forces captured and still holds five relatively junior Iranian officials whom Washington accuses of being intelligence agents.

The raid happened within hours of President Bush making an address to the nation in which he claimed Iran is providing material support for attacks on US troops in Iraq.

The Independent claims US military officials had wanted to seize two men at the very heart of the Iranian security establishment who were in Kurdistan on an official visit to meet the Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani. He has recently confirmed to Iran's state news agency that he was in Arbil at the time of the raid.

Analysts say better understanding of the situation should have led Downing Street to realise that Iran was likely to retaliate against American or British forces such as highly exposed Navy search parties in the Persian Gulf. Meanwhile, a senior Tehranian official says a new phase of negotiations has begun which should end the stand-off.

Britain, however, says no new talks are taking place but there is a " more positive feel" to discussions already underway.
http://euronews.net/index.php?page=info&article=414966&lng=1

Will it be a repeat of 1939 appeasement? I suspect so. The Iranians can and will thumb their noses at the west as long as they have us by the "OIL"

This if nothing has until now given impetus to the search and development of an alternate forms of energy no matter the cost. If not they and the oil producing nations will have the rest of the world by the proverbial short hairs for the foreseeable future.

One thing has become as certain as death or taxes: whatever happens whether it is uprisings in Africa or holes in the ozone or melting ice caps or destructive hurricanes or capture of British sailors, somebody will find a way to make it the United States' fault.

Well, they have some information here, haven't they?

(The original report has been posted on the other thread earlier.)

"British Gunboats in an Area Out of Iraqi Control" - A Bogus Hostage Crisis
by Gary Leupp
On March 31 the President of the United States made a statement pertaining to the 15 British sailors and marines unfortunately detailed in Iran: "The Iranians must give back the hostages. They're innocent. The Iranians took these people out of Iraqi waters. It's inexcusable behavior."

But since the American people don't trust George W. Bush, let's seek a second opinion. A credible authoritative one.

Let's ask the top Iraqi military officer in charge of guarding the Shatt al-Iraq waterway where the Brits were actually apprehended. This man is working for the U.S.-backed regime and probably not inclined to make up stuff to embarrass the U.S. president, who gives him his paycheck. So his opinion should be relevant here. Let's ask Brigadier General Hakim Jassim.

The good general told Associated Press the day after the March 23 incident: "We were informed [about the British troops' arrests] by Iraqi fishermen, after they had returned from sea that there were British gunboats in an area that is out of Iraqi control. We don't know why they were there.'"

Gen. Jassim---again, working for the Anglo-American occupiers of his nation---does not sound outraged by the Iranian action. And notice how the Iraqi client-state apparatus, which for some time has been telling Washington, "Don't drag us into your anti-Iranian projects" is not calling the detained Britons "hostages." It has indeed (with much of the world) protested the illegal U.S. detention of Iranian diplomats in Irbil, in Iraqi Kurdistan.

(That particular instance of "inexcusable behavior" hasn't gotten much press in this country. Nor has the subdued Iranian response to the provocation.)

Gen. Jassim would agree that the Shatt al-Arab river where the Brits were seized has no clearly marked boundary and has been the focus of past quarrels between Iraq and Iran. (Commodore Peter Lockwood of the Royal Australian Navy, commanding the Coalition task force in the waterway last October, said as much: "No maritime border has been agreed upon by the countries.") Craig Murray, once head of the British Foreign Office's maritime section, writes that Prime Minister Blair "is being fatuous" in stating that he is "utterly certain" the British ship was seized within Iraqi territorial limits. Murray, best known as the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan (who exposed British complicity in torture in that country) writes as follows:

"There is no agreed boundary in the Northern Gulf, either between Iran and Iraq or between Iraq and Kuwait. The Iran-Iraq border has been agreed inside the Shatt al-Arab waterway, because there it is also the land border. But that agreement does not extend beyond the low tide line of the coast.
"Even that very limited agreement is arguably no longer in force. Since it was reached in 1975, a war has been fought over it, and ten-year reviews--- necessary because waters and sandbanks in this region move about dramatically---have never been carried out."

Gen. Jassim might privately agree that this border issue in any case is the business of Iraqis and Iranians---rather than British and American imperialists popping up in the region at no one's invitation, on false pretexts, slaughtering people and expecting as they do so that the conquered locals will say "Thanks, boss!"

Bush is trying to depict the March 23 incident as a "hostage crisis," stoking memories of the 1979-81 Iran Embassy episode. (Younger readers may need some reminding. After the overthrow of the U.S.-backed and universally despised Shah of Iran, in the most genuine mass-based revolutionary upheaval in the history of the modern Islamic world, the Carter administration allowed the Shah refuge in the U.S. and refused to extradite him to Iran to stand trial. This prompted Iranian students to seize the U.S. embassy and detain its personnel. Those seized were released as Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as Carter's successor in January 1981. The incident unleashed much bigotry, hatred and war fever in this country, to the delight of those wishing to shock the U.S. public out of the "Vietnam Syndrome.")

Just as the seizure of the Americans in 1979 needs to be understood in perspective, the detention of these Britons has to be understood in the context of the crime of the Iraq War itself. Whatever the actual coordinates of the vessel boarded and seized by the Iranians, why are the British policing the Shatt al-Arab waterway at all?

They're there fighting an imperialist war. That war is going badly. The neocons still in charge in Washington (and building bridges to the resurgent Democrats led by opportunists competing to convey deference to AIPAC and embrace a hard line against Iran) wish to expand it to include the Islamic Republic. They work overtime organizing that project. That much should be obvious to anybody paying attention. http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/6521

Turning a blind eye
By James G. Zumwalt
April 3, 2007



The seizure of 15 British sailors and marines by Tehran is most telling about its leadership.
At the time of the incident, the Brits were operating outside the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway a 125-mile channel separating Iraq and Iran having just inspected a merchant ship for contraband when swarmed by Iranian Republican Guard Corps (IRGC) boats and arrested.
The center of the waterway as the dividing line between the two countries was established by a 1975 treaty abrogated in 1980 when Saddam invaded Iran. No new treaty has been signed by the new Iraqi government and Iran. Satellite positioning clearly placed the British on the Iraqi side, despite Tehran's claims they had entered Iranian waters in an act of "blatant aggression." The Brits operated with Iraqi authorization and pursuant to a U.N. mandate. This begs the question was the Iranian plan of action well-conceived or more of a shoot-from-the-hip act of aggression involving little concern for international repercussions?
An early glimpse into President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's mindset sheds some light on this. Immediately after the Islamic Revolution swept the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to power in 1979, Mr. Ahmadinejad, then 23, joined an ultraconservative student group plotting the U.S. Embassy seizure in Tehran. When first discussed among the group's membership, Mr. Ahmadinejad pressed to seize the Soviet Embassy too an idea rejected by the others.
This suggests while other group members apparently feared a double embassy seizure might provoke a more forceful or joint response by Washington and Moscow, Mr. Ahmadinejad gave such consequences no thought. We see, even at an early age, he was driven to act aggressively against an enemy, exercising little rational reflection of the consequences.
The incident reveals too Mr. Ahmadinejad's comfort level with and perceived loyalties of his military commanders and senior government officials. He has nurtured a relationship with the IRGC by directing lucrative government contracts to its construction division; he has been quietly moving former IRGC commanders into prominent government positions; he has been carefully assigning operational responsibilities of critical military facilities to his IRGC cronies. He clearly feels he will be allowed, unlike our own president, to deal with Iran's enemies as he sees fit.
Also telling is that IRGC, rather than regular naval forces, seized the 15 Brits. Iran has two military forces its regular forces and the IRGC. The latter was formed in 1979 as the former's loyalty to the shah made it suspect. The IRGC commander reports directly to the supreme religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Thus, this action had to be sanctioned by him.
Finally, also telling is Iran's double standard. In 1979, we saw the Islamic Revolution ensconce a mindset in Tehran representing a whole new and irrational way of looking at the rest of the world. That year, the Iranian government, in its own act of "blatant aggression," violated international law, invading and seizing U.S. territory (the U.S. Embassy in Tehran) in the only loss of U.S. territory since World War II. Embassy personnel were arrested, paraded around blindfolded, threatened continuously with death and, after 444 days, finally returned to the United States. Iran sees the world as its oyster, adhering to the perception no nation has a reciprocal right to violate its territorial sovereignty.
One of Britain's greatest naval heroes, Lord Nelson, lost an eye in battle. In 1801, that loss proved useful in the early moments of another battle when Nelson's senior, losing his nerve, signaled Nelson to retreat. Informed by his aide of the signal flag, Nelson knew this was the time to fight not flee. He placed the telescope to his blind eye, informing his aide he saw nothing, sailing off into battle and victory.
With his good eye, Nelson saw the fight must be taken to the enemy; with his blind eye he "saw" those who feared doing so.
The British response to yet another illogical and illegal act by Mr. Ahmadinejad has been Chamberlainesque. A stronger response was warranted from the 15 Brits at the time; a much stronger response is warranted now from their government. The question for Tony Blair is through which eye will he choose to focus in responding to this blatant act of aggression by Tehran.

more

I beleive the UK over Iran any day. When they let a terrorist become "President" of their country how can they be beleived?

Britian released the GPS location of where these sailors were taken and it appears that it was well within Iraqi waters. Why should Britian appoligize for doing nothing wrong?

I'd really like to see the chart used aboard of the boat - and where what border was drawn when, why, by whom.

I've been more then six weeks just feet away from GDR-border - without GPS (totally unknown in 1970), but latest map material and after plotting and calculating the position any 15 secs.
[I must have been quite good since ... well, I knew where the border was.]

Baldimo, Craig Murray seems to have exposed Blair's lies on that matter. Murray certainly has the credentials. Blair has disgrace the Brits once again as he did in the lead up to war in Iraq. Blair lied then and lied now. http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=14638 "from 1989 to 1992 I headed the Foreign Office's maritime section. This included responsibility for territorial sea claims and for negotiating our own maritime boundaries. The expertise of the Royal Navy was invaluable.

For eight months I also worked with Royal Naval and Defence Intelligence Service personnel in the Embargo Surveillance Centre, a secret unit operating 24 hours a day from an underground command centre in Central London to prevent Iraqi attempts at weapons procurement.

We analysed information from intelligence and other sources, and could instruct Royal Naval craft in the Gulf to board and inspect individual ships. I was responsible for getting the political clearance for operations just like the one now in question, in this exact location. So I know what I'm talking about.

There is no agreed boundary in the Northern Gulf, either between Iran and Iraq or between Iraq and Kuwait. The Iran-Iraq border has been agreed inside the Shatt al-Arab waterway, because there it is also the land border. But that agreement does not extend beyond the low tide line of the coast.

Even that very limited agreement is arguably no longer in force. Since it was reached in 1975, a war has been fought over it, and ten-year reviews - necessary because waters and sandbanks in this region move about dramatically - have never been carried out.

But what about the map the Ministry of Defence produced on Tuesday, with territorial boundaries set out by a clear red line, and the co-ordinates of the incident marked in relation to it?

I have news for you. Those boundaries are fake. They were drawn up by the MoD. They are not agreed or recognised by any international authority."

Iran announces release of its abducted diplomat in Iraq
Tue, 03 Apr 2007 21:56:50
Iran's Foreign Ministry Spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini has announced the release of an Iranian diplomat abducted two months ago by gunmen close to U.S. forces in Iraq.

Gunmen in Iraqi army uniforms abducted Jalal Sharafi, second secretary at the Iranian embassy in Baghdad, on 4 February, after which Tehran blamed the U.S. military for the act.

The abduction of the 40-year-old diplomat occurred outside a branch of the Iranian state-owned Bank Melli Iran in Karrada, a predominantly Shia district in south-east of Baghdad.

Hosseini told reporters on Tuesday that Sharafi's release was a result of Iranian officials' persistence in its joint efforts and cooperation with the Iraqi government.

Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari also confirmed the release of the abducted Iranian diplomat, saying, "I can confirm that he has been freed and is in good health."

"We made tremendous efforts to free him. All sides had denied holding him, which made it more difficult. But we kept the pressure up on everybody," he added.

Iranian news agencies reported that Sharafi had already arrived back in Iran and had been welcomed by Iran's Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki on his arrival in Tehran's Mehrabad Airport.

Asked who was involved in the abduction of the diplomat, Zebari said, "Only he (the released diplomat) knows who was holding him."

Zebari said Iraq's government was also trying to secure the release of five Iranians who were captured by U.S. forces during a raid on Iran's liaison office in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil on 11 January.

While Tehran insists the five are diplomats, the U.S. has previously claimed they are Iranian agents backing insurgency against the U.S.-led occupation forces.

"I am in constant contact with the Americans to release them. We always hear from them pledges that they will be released," Zebari said.

So ... in the absence of a clearly defined border, how can anyone say in which "side" the sailors were when apprehended ?

Britian not only must not apologize,they must issue Iran a warning.
Since Iran only has one gasoline refinery in the entire country,the Brits should warn Iran that if any of the hostages get so much as a hangnail,Iran will lose that refinery.

And yes,hostages is the correct word.

Also,if Britian apologizes,it will give Iran the impetus to do something else.
By appearing weak,we allowed those US hostages to be held for 444 days,till REagan was sworn in.
Then,they were released because Iran knew that he would do what he said he would.
By appearing weak,it gives the Iranian govt the idea that they can do something else.
After all,if the Brits were to weak to respond to this,why would Iran think they would respond to another provocation.
If they wanted something,all they would have to do is kidnap a few more Brit sailors and marines,and the Brits would give in.
That is the wrong message to send.

Britian must not apologize,and they must give Iran a very firm warning about what will happen if those hostages are released.

Also,why is anyone objecting to the term "hostages"?
It seems to me that so many people are so afraid of offending Iran that they are bending over backwards to avoid calling it like it is.

Can you explain your reasonning ?

Ahmanutjob said he was releasing the 15 hostages as a gift to Britain today.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070404/ts_nm/iran_britain_dc_40

Maybe all that saber rattling paid off?

No, he a gallant hero who after arresting 15 imperialist soldiers invading his territorial waters has found it in his heart to release these evil terrorists back to their country.

No legal protection for MKO in Iraq
Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:40:49
Iraq's chief prosecutor says that members of the terrorist anti-Iranian group, the Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO), cannot receive legal protection inside Iraq.

In an interview with the London-based Al Qods Al Arabi Daily, Jaafar Al-Mousavi said that some MKO members were allegedly involved in a number of crimes which were committed under former Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, and that, as such, they are not protected under current Iraqi law.

The suspected MKO members could now face legal prosecution in Iraq, he added.

Al-Mousavi had said earlier that he was considering whether or not to try a case against MKO members in Iraq's highest criminal court.

Meanwhile 150 Iraqi political figures gathered for a meeting in Baghdad to announce their support of Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maleki's latest plans for national reconciliation and security.

They also called on Maleki to immediately expel MKO members from Iraq, saying that the move would be well within the Iraqi Constitution.

Members of the Mojahedin Khalq Organization are reportedly active in the United States, Iraq and some European countries. In the early 1980s the group was responsible for the assassination of some 3,000 Iranian officials nationwide and the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, as is being witnessed in Iraq today. They were close collaborators of Saddam's regime in his crackdown against Iraqi Shias and Kurds.

The United States, however, has reportedly provided the MKO with a base in eastern Baghdad despite what the Iraqi government says is the terrorist group's illegal presence inside Iraq. Nothing new in this really, as in the terrorist group's heyday of the early 80s then CIA chief William Casey openly admitted to funding and supporting the organization...you can read that in the New York Times.
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail.aspx?id=4784&sectionid=3510202

I am curious to hear how the Iranians were able to get these British sailors to act as their propaganda tools?

Freed British navy personnel 'thank' Iranian president

The 15 British naval personnel captured by Iran were today shown thanking the country's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad after he promised to free them from their 13-day ordeal.

The families of the sailors and marines reacted with grateful relief after Mr Ahmadinejad said they were to be allowed home as a "gift" to Britain to mark both the birthday of the Prophet Mohammed and Easter.

The apparent diplomatic resolution of the crisis came after the UK and Iran began direct talks to defuse the anxious stand-off.

Mr Ahmadinejad told a news conference in Tehran: "On the occasion of the birthday of the great Prophet and for the occasion of the passing of Christ, I say the Islamic Republic government and the Iranian people - with all powers and legal right to put the soldiers on trial - forgave those 15."

He added: "This pardon is a gift to the British people."

A little more than an hour later some of the UK personnel were shown on Iranian TV, dressed in civilian suits, thanking Mr Ahmadinejad for their freedom.

"I would like to thank yourself and the Iranian people," said one.

"Your people have been very kind to us and I appreciate that very much," said another.

The president wished them luck and success and explained their release was linked to "the birthday of the great prophet of Islam".

Mr Ahmadinejad also said the British government had "sent a letter to the Foreign Ministry pledging that it (entering Iranian waters) will not happen again".

And he asked Prime Minister Tony Blair not to "punish" the crew for confessing that they had been in Iranian waters when they were seized.
http://www.24dash.com/centralgovernment/18939.htm