British Forces Held By Iran

Let me give you an example of what I mean.

Total Coalation ships doing boarding(including UK ships): 20
British ships taking part in boarding:10
Total coalation ships doing boarding after UK suspends:10

Cdre N Lambert RN is the current Commander of the multinational Task Force 158 (CTF 158), providing maritime security and surveillance in the Northern Arabian Gulf.

HMS Cornwall is undertaking these duties, with a Lynx helicopter from 815 Naval Air Squadron and supported by RFA Sir Bedivere.
HMS Blyth and HMS Ramsey are undertaking a deployment to the Gulf region.

Elements of 845 and 846 Naval Air Squadrons are deployed to Iraq.

The US offered to take military action on behalf of the 15 British sailors and marines held by Iran, including buzzing Iranian Revolutionary Guard positions with warplanes, the Guardian has learned.
In the first few days after the captives were seized and British diplomats were getting no news from Tehran on their whereabouts, Pentagon officials asked their British counterparts: what do you want us to do? They offered a series of military options, a list which remains top secret given the mounting risk of war between the US and Iran. But one of the options was for US combat aircraft to mount aggressive patrols over Iranian Revolutionary Guard bases in Iran, to underline the seriousness of the situation.

The British declined the offer and said the US could calm the situation by staying out of it. London also asked the US to tone down military exercises that were already under way in the Gulf. Three days before the capture of the 15 Britons , a second carrier group arrived having been ordered there by president George Bush in January. The aim was to add to pressure on Iran over its nuclear programme and alleged operations inside Iraq against coalition forces.
At the request of the British, the two US carrier groups, totalling 40 ships plus aircraft, modified their exercises to make them less confrontational.

The British government also asked the US administration from Mr Bush down to be cautious in its use of rhetoric, which was relatively restrained throughout.

The incident was a reminder of how inflammatory the situation in the Gulf is. According to some US and British officers, there is already a proxy war under way between their forces and elements of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

Meanwhile, the Iranians are convinced that separatist guerrilla attacks in Khuzestan and Baluchistan provinces are the work of British and US intelligence respectively. Earlier this week, ABC television news reported that a Baluchi group, Jundullah, based in Pakistan and carrying out raids inside Iran, had been receiving advice and encouragement from American officials since 2005.

A senior Iranian source with close ties to the Revolutionary Guard, told the Guardian: "If this had been between Iranian and American soldiers it could have been the beginning of an accidental war."

With the crisis now over, a remarkable degree of consensus is emerging among British, Iranian and Iraqi officials about what happened over 13 nervous days - namely that the decision to seize the Britons was taken locally, and was not part of a grander scheme cooked up in Tehran.

"My best guess is that this was a local incident which became an international incident," said one British source closely involved in the crisis.

Both sides had been watching each other closely for years across the disputed line separating the Iranian and Iraqi sides of the Shatt al-Arab waterway and the northern Gulf beyond and British officials say that Iranian boats regularly infringe on foreign waters.

The senior Iranian source meanwhile, claimed there had been three British incursions into Iranian waters in the three months leading up to the capture and that the decision to detain the British naval crew on March 23 was taken by a regional Revolutionary Guard commander, responsible for the waterway.

Once the 15 captives were brought back to Iran, their stay was guaranteed to be unpleasant. The Pasdaran (as the Revolutionary Guards are universally known in Farsi) are a law unto themselves, feared within Iran for their thuggish methods.

There is also general agreement in London and Tehran that once the crisis had been triggered it took nearly two weeks to untangle, because their release had to be agreed by all the key players in the perpetual poker game that passes for government in Tehran. But those players could not be reached because they were scattered around the country for the No Rouz (new year) holiday.

"Nobody who counted was answering the phone," said one senior British official. "By the time the Iranian leaders got back from the holiday [on Tuesday] the phone was ringing off the hook, including from people they didn't expect, calling on them to release the captives quickly."

Among those unexpected callers were their closest allies, the Syrians, as well as leaders from far-flung states with no direct stake in the Gulf. Even the Colombian government issued a protest.

Another surprise intervention came from the Vatican. Hours before Wednesday's release, a letter from Pope Benedict was handed to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It said the Pope was confident that men of goodwill could find a solution. He asked the supreme leader to do what he could to ensure that the British sailors and marines were reunited with their families in time for Easter. It would, he said, be a significant religious gesture of goodwill from the Iranian people.

What impact the Pope's message had is impossible to assess. But some of its language was reflected at the press conference at which the release of the 15 Britons was announced. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the decision to "forgive" the sailors and marines had been taken "on the occasion of the birthday of the great prophet [Muhammad] ... and for the occasion of the passing of Christ".

The Iraqi government also played a critical role, pushing for consular access to five Iranians who had been arrested by US forces in Irbil and had been in custody since January, and helping organise the mysterious release of an Iranian diplomat who had been in captivity since February.

In the first days of the crisis, Iraqi officials also helped the British to identify the exact boundaries of Iraqi waters, the Guardian has learned, suggesting the British were not as certain of their case as they had publicly claimed.

But it was the unexpected release of Jalal Sharifa, the second secretary at the Iranian embassy, that raised most eyebrows, fuelling speculation that some kind of bargaining was going on. The diplomat had been missing since he was plucked from the streets of Baghdad on February 4. Iran blamed US forces in Iraq for ordering the diplomat's abduction, but US military officials denied the claims. Baghdad's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, however, has insisted that negotiations over Mr Sharafi had been under way long before March 23.

Some credit for the abrupt release of the British naval crew has also been given to Tony Blair's top foreign policy adviser, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, who got through to his Iranian counterpart, Ari Larijani for the first time the night before Mr Ahmadinejad made his surprise announcement. The opening of a Sheinwald-Larijani channel of communication is being hailed as one of the few pluses to emerge from the affair.

The crucial decision for release was taken on Tuesday by the supreme national security council. It includes representatives of the presidency, the armed forces and the Revolutionary Guard, and Tuesday was the first day they could all be brought together following the No Rouz holiday.

"I think they realised pretty quickly the game was not worth the candle," a senior British government source said.

I don't think that the spectacle of for profit media sales of their "stories" by the 15 captives, who apparently very quickly signed and said whatever their Iranian captors required of them, is in the real interest of the British government, and I believe they won't let it happen.

Were these "stories" sold to the papers, or is this just the regular reporting of sensational news?

I still doubt that the british government will permit the sale of the stories while the individuals are on active service.

They got the official permission.

MoD bans military staff from selling their stories

Military personnel have been banned from selling their stories to the media amid a growing row over the returned captives from Iran.

The government made the move after captured sailor Faye Turney and her fellow hostages were accused of 'behaving like reality TV stars' after being given permission to cash in on their ordeal.

Defence Secretary Des Browne said the Navy had faced a "very tough call" over its decision to allow the sailors among the 15 hostages to take payments in return for their accounts - the first of which were published today.

But he said everyone concerned recognised it had "not reached a satisfactory outcome" and lessons must be learned from a review of procedures ordered by the Ministry of Defence.

"I want to be sure those charged with these difficult decisions have clear guidance for the future," he said in his first comment on the controversy.

"Until that time, no further service personnel will be allowed to talk to the media about their experiences in return for payment."

The 15 sailors and Marines had earlier been told they could sell their stories by the Ministry of Defence, which bracketed the "exceptional circumstances" surrounding their 13-day ordeal with winners of the Victoria Cross.

The most senior member of the crew Royal Navy Lieutenant Felix Carman had defended the right of comrades to sell their stories, but admitted he found the subject of being paid "a bit unsavoury" and said he would hand over any money he makes to charity.

He told GMTV: "In the case of Faye Turney, she has a young daughter and the money could set her up for life."

Before the latest developments Mrs Turney told The Sun how she feared she would be raped by her Iranian captors. The 26-year-old mother said she was separated from the other sailors and Marines, and stripped to her underwear. She said she "felt like a traitor" when ordered to write "confession" letters on Iranian TV.

Iranian television also released fresh footage of the sailors and Marines aimed at refuting claims they they were mistreated.

The video clips showed several of the sailors and marines dressed in track suits playing chess and table tennis.

The newscaster, who spoke over the beginning of the footage, said the video proved "the sailors had complete liberty during their detention, which contradicts what the sailors declared after they arrived in Britain."

News that Mrs Turney alone is likely to make at least £100,000 was condemned by former Defence Ministers, ex-soldiers - and families who have lost loved ones in Iraq and Afghanistan.

At Westminster, even some Labour MPs suspected a Government spin operation designed to distract attention away from embarrassing questions over the capture itself. PR expert Max Clifford said he had been approached by the fathers of two of the hostages for advice on how to do a deal with the media.

He described the decision as a "propaganda exercise" because it "suited" the MoD for the stories to be told.

"They were very encouraging, they were very happy about them doing this, that's the way they (the fathers) were putting it to me," said Mr Clifford.

...

BRITANNIA WAIVES THE RULES

"Mummy, Mummy" is the headline on today's Sun, which shows the freed Royal Navy hostage Faye Turney embracing her three-year-old daughter. The paper is publishing its second day's worth of material from its controversial interview deal with Ms Turney, one of the 15 British hostages recently held by Iran.

The coverage of the crisis in the other newspapers, however, is very different. Most have prominent stories detailing the latest twists in the row that has followed the Ministry of Defence's decision to allow the former captives to sell their stories. Last night the defence secretary, Des Browne, announced a freeze on all future payments from the media to service personnel while a review of procedures is conducted.

The moratorium on payments may have drawn a little of the sting from today's coverage in most of the newspapers, but there is still plenty of barbed comment, especially from columnists.

Ms Turney is believed to have received around GBP 100,000 in a joint deal with the Sun and ITV, and another of the captives sold their story to the Mirror. But the focus is really all on Ms Turney, the sole female detainee.

The Times calls last night's move by the MoD a "U-turn"; the Telegraph says it has not stopped calls for an inquiry, and notes former defence secretary Lord Heseltine's comment that he was appalled by the deals.

More detail about the process that led up to the decision to waive the normal rules banning payments came out yesterday, and the papers pick this over. The second sea lord, Vice-Admiral Adrian Johns, told BBC Radio 4 the navy had asked the MoD for the captives to be allowed to make media deals so they could "get their story out", and permission to do so had been granted.

The vice-admiral, who acknowledged some of the concerns surrounding the payments, said the navy was keen to let the 15 speak, helped by military advisers to stop stories coming out from friends and relatives, who could potentially give out operationally compromising information.

Many of those who have criticised the deals, including Lord Heseltine, find it particularly unpalatable that freed hostages can expect to make considerable sums while relatives of troops killed in Basra, for example, can expect no cheques from the tabloids.

In the Guardian, Simon Jenkins says the decision to allow payments "beggars ever more belief".

He writes: "Having accused the Iranians of exploiting them for propaganda, why stand open to the identical charge? Having abused the Iranians for treating a woman differently, why treat her differently, allowing her to make a fortune from a 'controlled' interview?"

He goes on: "What was likely to be the reaction of other services, which are enduring far greater losses and privations than the navy in Iraq? They are actually getting killed. What is 'My Ordeal' for GBP 100,000 against that? Every member of the navy press office should be fired."

But Mark Lawson, also writing in the Guardian, thinks that the navy press office should be happy at Ms Turney's performance on ITV last night with Trevor McDonald.

Lawson, reviewing the interview, says "letting the former hostages appear seems reasonable". He finds Ms Turney credible and says "no fair person watching last night could have thought badly of her conduct in captivity". He wonders whether the "MoD should rethink its rethink".

In the Times, David Aaronovitch says he, too, regrets that the payments were made but says it was no surprise, calling the affair 'Big Brother in uniform'. He says it is a fact that some people's stories have become commodities.

"The unpalatable truth was that the Marines, unlike the bereaved relatives of dead soldiers, or those ex-service personnel who have been terribly injured, had - for a brief moment - stories that somebody wanted to buy, and a reason for selling. No broadcaster or newspaper is going to pay big money for a tale of a dead child. That's because they (we) think we (you) won't buy newspapers or watch programmes full of weeping mothers or prosthetic limbs. It's a calculation about us (you), which may be why it is all so uncomfortable."

Vice-Admiral Johns also confirmed yesterday that Mr Browne had personally known of the decision to waive rules on payments. In the Guardian's leader column, entitled "Publish and really be damned", Mr Browne is singled out for criticism, and his move last night is describing as "shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted". The paper says allowing payments risked setting a "corrosive precedent".

The headline on Richard Littlejohn's column in the Mail is: Up the Shatt al-Arab without a paddle".

Finally, there is another MoD story in the papers. A financial report for last year shows that the MoD paid £67m in compensation, mostly to service personnel but also to a beekeeper in the Balkans whose charges were bothered by low-flying helicopters.

* Sailor faces final screen test
* It is lunacy to reopen this sensitive diplomatic wound
* Publish and really be damned
* Sun: Mummy, Mummy
* Times: Don't be surprised. This is Big Brother in uniform

A shameful display that damages our Forces

As Iran ratchets up the tension with its nuclear claims, a senior military figure warns that the decision to let the hostages sell their stories is extremely dangerous

SIR JOHN WALKERAIR MARSHAL

THIS was not our finest hour: a confused account of how 15 Navy personnel came to be taken prisoner in the Persian Gulf, followed by their humiliation on Iranian TV. But the quite extraordinary decision by the MoD to allow those sailors to tell their stories to the media and get paid for it is now rebounding on the British government in ways that could prove profoundly damaging both at home and abroad.


The MoD's decision smacks of yet another knee-jerk effort to get column inches. It is a profoundly short-sighted view. Once this precedent has been set, it is hard to see where it stops. Who draws the line between what is an acceptable story, for which the subject could be paid substantially, and an unacceptable story, the subject of which could feel deprived and certainly poorer?


If six-figure sums are to be paid for tales of a two-week capture by the Iranians, surely the story, for example, of Private Johnson Beharry, awarded the Victoria Cross in Iraq, is worth a good deal more? Or remember those brave soldiers who clung to the outside of an attack helicopter to retrieve the body of a fallen comrade in Afghanistan? Why not them, too? What would be the rate for that?


Of course, such bargaining would be quite ridiculous: but it will be part of the hornet's nest that this disgraceful and ill-considered decision will bring. Never mind that Defence Secretary Des Browne has belatedly announced a temporary ban on other servicemen and women taking this course: the damage will be hard to reverse now.


Neither have the Navy and the MoD strengthened their position with their evasiveness over many aspects of the incident that sparked the crisis. In these days of Global Positioning Systems, a boat's position can be determined to within a few yards. So there is little chance that what happened could have been accidental.


But in that case, why did we not challenge the Iranian accusation straight away, with facts, on the international stage? We should have had all the means to make our case convincingly. HMS Cornwall should have had an accurate plot; the suspect ship being intercepted would have had a log. Were there not radar plots? The area must be swamped with satellite coverage: surely somehow, somewhere, there was demonstrable proof of the position of the incident, which some reports say took about 80 minutes to complete.


That in itself is telling. HMS Cornwall had a helicopter aboard. Reports talk about that having left the scene to return to the ship to refuel. It should take far less than 80 minutes for a helicopter to refuel and return to the scene. Why did it not?


That we did not convince the international community of our case ultimately allowed the Iranians to take the PR high ground without any discernible opposition. And that is part of the wider problem for Britain here. For a couple of weeks, Iran had a platform for its policy statements, and as it twisted the British lion's tail, it showed its neighbours that it was the regional power. The lion was strangely docile.


Their success is the more remarkable because their opponent was a government in Whitehall that owes much of its success to turning public relations from an art form into a near science. Is there a government in the world that has milked the press as comprehensively as New Labour has? Yet, when push came to shove over a few small boats in the waters of the Gulf, it had little to say.


Perhaps it was because, within Whitehall, it was recognised that with forces deployed in Basra, we were just too vulnerable to play a stronger line. With the new and deadly roadside explosive devices almost certainly coming from Iran, and those claiming four more of our soldiers only last week, maybe the assessment was that we had too few cards in our hand. That is certainly a good subject for the House of Commons Defence Committee to get its teeth into.


But the consequences of this failure may be more serious. Is this media manipulation preparing the ground for another regime-change argument, this time for Iran ? In the backwoods of Washington, the neo-cons murmur hopefully about military action with that aim in mind.


But the UK is not the only over-stretched nation; for the US to take on yet another foreign adventure of the magnitude of Iran, they would have to reintroduce the draft. With luck, that would be enough for Congress to turn off the financial tap and for common sense to re-assert itself.


There is a limit to how much enforced democracy that region, or the world's energy supplies, can take. Iran, with close to four times the area and three times the population of Iraq, would be a big bite to swallow. The Rumsfeld Doctrine of winning battles relying on massive technological superiority worked in Iraq. But to win the war needed the bootson-the-ground in the aftermath that the Doctrine denied. That could be the "asymmetric warfare" lesson that historians will draw from this whole ill-conceived and tragic Middle Eastern adventure.


It is a mess that was no doubt far from the minds of the hapless Leading Seaman Faye Turney and the rest as they set out that day. But her TV interview last night, and the MoD's blessing for it, have compounded the damage caused by this whole shabby affair. She has done the cause of women in the Armed Forces little good.


Most of us join the British military for reasons far removed from making a fortune. What matters so much is belonging: being part of the regiment, or the ship or the squadron, where the team is everything because it is the team that will make the difference between victory and defeat, between life and death in war.


The tawdry decision to let the hostages sell their stories can only be divisive: some will end up rich and others poor. Through what? Their professionalism in the art of war? No ?- seemingly through some faceless assessment of the need for media coverage, for reasons that will scarcely ever be appreciated at the levels where the war is fought.


The Chief of the General Staff is reported to have said that this shameful lottery would not be applied to the Army. Well done, sir! But if it was not him who made this divisive decision, then who?


We need to know. And when we do, the current review should announce that this decision was an aberration, a one-off and, on due consideration, a mistake. We should revert to the system of press statements that has served us well in the past. But that may not be enough to repair the damage done by Downing Street's effort to fight war by spin.


Sir John Walker was Chief of Defence Intelligence, 1991-94.