Reply
Fri 23 Mar, 2007 09:08 am
Iran seizes British navy personnel in Iraqi waters
Friday, March 23, 2007
LONDON ?- Iranian forces seized 15 British Royal Navy personnel who had searched a merchant ship on Friday, Britain said, triggering a diplomatic crisis.
Britain said the incident took place in Iraqi waters, where it routinely boards merchant vessels with UN permission to search them. The Foreign Office summoned Iran's ambassador and demanded the immediate, safe release of the personnel.
"At approximately 1030 Iraqi time (0730 GMT) this morning, 15 British naval personnel, engaged in routine boarding operations of merchant shipping in Iraqi territorial waters ... were seized by Iranian naval vessels," the ministry said.
"The boarding party had completed a successful inspection of a merchant ship when they and their two boats were surrounded and escorted by Iranian vessels into Iranian territorial waters," it said in a statement.
"We are urgently pursuing this matter with the Iranian authorities at the highest level and on the instructions of the Foreign Secretary, the Iranian ambassador has been summoned to the Foreign Office. The British government is demanding the immediate and safe return of our people and equipment."
Oil prices rose above $62 a barrel after the incident.
Royal Navy personnel include sailors and marines, who typically make up boarding parties for ship searches.
Washington said no U.S. military personnel were involved.
Iranian officials could not immediately be reached for comment. The embassy in London was closed for a holiday.
The incident was similar to one in 2004 in which eight British servicemen spent three nights in the hands of Iranian Revolutionary Guards before being released unharmed.
In that incident, the Iranians accused them of crossing into Iranian waters, which Britain disputed.
Earlier, an Iraqi fisherman in Basra told Reuters he had seen the incident in the Shatt al-Arab waterway that marks the southern stretch of Iraq's border with Iran.
The fisherman, who asked not be named, said six or seven foreign military personnel were on two small boats that stopped to check Iranian ships in the Siban area of the waterway, near the al-Faw peninsula that leads into the northern Gulf.
When they boarded one ship, at least two Iranian vessels appeared on the scene and the military personnel were detained. There was no sign of any violent confrontation he said.
He said the merchant ships had stopped in a narrow area of the waterway where smaller boats normally pull alongside to take on board goods.
Canada.com
So we are going to exit Iraq by going through Iran?
What the US do when, in 2004, Iran detained eight British servicemen for three days after they allegedly strayed over the maritime border?
Joe Nation wrote:So we are going to exit Iraq by going through Iran?
Didn't Britain withdraw all their troops from Iraq?
Miller wrote:
Didn't Britain withdraw all their troops from Iraq?
You should püerhaps follow the new a bit more - there're more than 7,000 British soldiers in Iraq.
They are to be reduced to about 5,500 according to Blair.
Miller wrote:Joe Nation wrote:So we are going to exit Iraq by going through Iran?
Didn't Britain withdraw all their troops from Iraq?
Where do you think the Brits were stationed? India??
Here's my fearless prediction: same song, second verse-- they will be released within the next ten days.
Joe(unless George does something stupid)Nation
Them damn Iranians better not waterboard these Brits or they'll be real sorry.
blueflame1 wrote:Them damn Iranians better not waterboard these Brits or they'll be real sorry.
You obviously don't live in London!
Miller wrote:
You obviously don't live in London!

So you live in London now and made some related experiences?
Miller wrote:Quote:they will be released within the next ten days.
In body bags?
You MUST have some, no: at lot more knowledge than what is published or what agency sources say.
Joe Nation wrote:So we are going to exit Iraq by going through Iran?
That makes a lot of sense, if you really think about it. Iran will inevitably have a great deal of influence in Iraq, so why not assist the resistance in Iran to power? Maryam Rajavi would make a fine replacement for Ahmadinejad, and from that day forward Iranian interference in Iraq could be encouraged. Hell, I'll even buy you dinner for it. :wink:
The British Government is releasing maps "proving" the marines were in Iraqi waters. I'm sceptical because the Iranians say the Brits own sat nav system "proves" they were in Iran. The commander on HMS Cornwall says they were in Iraq, but "would not be surprised if the Iranians claim otherwise".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2044448,00.html
The fact is the border is disputed. Why send the marines into disputed waters? Its asking for trouble.
If the Iranians did indeed enter British controlled Iraqi waters and capture 15 sailors at gun point, that is an act of war. If they went into Iranian water, thats an aggressive act for which the Iranians had every right to arrest them.
But my point is simply this...why allow them to get into danger in the first place? I dont believe for one moment they were not exactly where they were because they were ordered there. What is really going on here?
The British may have been testing the waters.so to speak.
Apparently, the cargo ship which was being searched by the Marines is still at anchor in exactly the same spot. Surely the U.N. could take a sat nav location from this and determine who was in the wrong.
This whole thing should have been turned over to the U.N. security council for consideration as soon as the incdent took place and initial allegations made.
squinney wrote:The British may have been testing the waters.so to speak.
In response to this "test", the US Navy is conducting war games in the nearby waters.