British Hostage Crisis with Iran

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/28/...lors/index.html

 

LONDON, England (CNN) -- The one woman among a group of 15 British military personnel seized by Iran will be freed later Wednesday or Thursday, Iran's foreign minister said, according to media reports.

 

The woman, identified as sailor Faye Turney, was seized last Friday by Iran along with 14 other British Royal Navy sailors and marines who were conducting a routine inspection of a merchant vessel at the northern end of the Persian Gulf.

 

"Today or tomorrow, the lady will be released," Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told The Associated Press at an Arab summit he was attending in the Saudi capital Riyadh. CNN Turk also reported his comments.

 

Earlier Wednesday Britain increased pressure on Iran, releasing evidence it said showed the group was operating in Iraqi waters and freezing bilateral contacts until the crisis is resolved. Iran insists the group was inside its territorial waters.

 

"We are now in a new phase of diplomatic activity," British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett told members of parliament.

 

"We need to focus all our bilateral efforts during this phase to resolution of this issue," she added. "We will therefore be imposing a freeze on all other official bilateral business with Iran until this situation is resolved."

 

The freeze means all official inward and outward visits will be stopped, visas to Iranian officials will not be issued, British support for other events such as trade missions to Iran is put on hold and government-to-government business on other issues will cease, the UK foreign office told The Associated Press.

 

Beckett also said the Iranian government was still refusing to give British officials information on exactly where the Britons were being held and was denying consular access to them.

 

A statement released by the Iranian Embassy in London Wednesday said that all the British Navy personnel were in good condition.

 

Iranian officials said they would allow British diplomats to see the detainees once an investigation into the matter is completed, according to a statement from Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Seyyed Mohammadali Hosseini.

 

The Iranian embassy statement said that the two governments were capable of resolving the issue through close contact and cooperation.

 

"We believe this is purely a technical and legal issue and is not related to any other issue," the statement said.

 

Earlier, the British Ministry of Defense gave what it said was proof that the British ship carrying the sailors and marines never strayed into Iranian waters.

 

British Vice Adm. Charles Style said that the global positioning system on the ship proved the vessel was "clearly" 3.1 kilometers (1.7 nautical miles) inside Iraqi waters and that the 14 men and 1 woman who were inspecting a merchant ship were "ambushed" by the Iranian forces.

 

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said it was an "incontrovertible fact" that the "seizure" of British personnel in the Persian Gulf was "utterly without foundation."

 

The British sailors and marines were aboard frigate HMS Cornwall during a patrol to prevent smuggling, according to Britain's Ministry of Defense.

 

They were captured March 23 by members of Iran's Revolutionary Guards while conducting what Britain called a routine inspection of a merchant vessel near the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab, at the northern end of the Persian Gulf.

 

"These personnel were patrolling in Iraqi waters under a United Nations mandate," Blair said during a House of Commons session Wednesday.

 

Blair said his country is in contact with "everyone in Europe, NATO, the United Nations and the allies out in the Gulf region" to ratchet up pressure on the Iranian government.

'Hard to legitimate'

 

Iran insists the ship was inside its territorial waters and, according to Style, provided a map with coordinates on Saturday in attempts to prove the point.

 

Blair said those coordinates actually "turned out to confirm they were in Iraqi waters" and Iraq has supported that position.

 

Upon pointing that out Sunday through diplomatic contacts, Style said Iran then "provided a second set of coordinates" on Monday that were "in Iranian waters over two nautical miles" from the position shown by the HMS Cornwall and confirmed by the merchant vessel the British personnel boarded.

 

The "change of coordinates," Style said "is hard to legitimate."

 

The statement Wednesday from the Iranian embassy in London said the British personnel had made an incursion of 0.5 km (0.3 miles) into Iranian territorial waters.

 

Even if the ship had somehow strayed into Iranian waters, Beckett said, "under international law, warships have sovereign immunity in the territorial sea of other states."

 

"The very most Iran would've been entitled to do if they considered our boats were breeching the rules on innocent passage would've been to require the ship to leave their territorial waters immediately," the foreign secretary explained.

 

On Monday, hard-liners in Iran urged the government to charge the Britons with espionage and put them on trial.

 

Coupled with reports from Russian intelligence that the U.S. is building up its military presence along the Iranian border this situation looks like it could easily spiral out of control.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Yeah, but probably time to do something about it. The Iranians need to be put in their place, and sternly. I really hope the sailors can be rescued, and that American troops don't have to die doing it.

[Zorin Industries 0]

This happened before, about 3 years ago. Those sailors were released after a couple of weeks unharmed. The same will happen here, its just posturing by Iran, their just seeing how much they can get away with.

 

No-one in the region can afford military action at this time I think, I don't see it becoming anything more serious.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I don't know. I'd be pretty pissed if they were planning on parading around American troops on television. I think it's time to make an example out of Iran. This hasn't been their first offence.

[Zorin Industries 0]

At most it would be airstrikes, but even that would be unlikely. Iran can cause shitloads of trouble in Iraq for the US if they wanted to, far more than their doing at the moment

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I guess my point is, we can and probably should be causing a lot more trouble for Iran than we are now. Or the UN should, but being that it's a completely impotent organization, we should punish Iran for their continued insolence.

[2GOLD 0]

Iran just likes to beat their chest and prove how tough they are. There isn't a point to going after them right now when every country has too much on their plate as is. Iran just knows when to pull this shit and when not to. They know the US and UK won't go after them considering the heavy Iraq backlash so they are going to thumb their nose at every country in the UN.

 

Now if they happened to kill the lady, yeah then a problem might have risen. She'll be released unharmed hopefully, a little underfed but hopefully mostly unharmed and it'll let Iran feel like a big country for a bit.

[EricMM 0]

Insolence?

 

Come on.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Come on with what? This is the 21st century, and we have this global body that's supposed to deal with nations that act aggressively and have questionable nuclear weapons programs. But they do nothing because the Arab and third world nations have too much power and would rather sit back and do nothing, and let it be Uncle Sam's problem so they can bitch about the Great Satan, no matter what our country and handful of allies do.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Hope you're ready to enlist for that war with Iran, Dobbs. Were you this boisterous in clamoring for war back in '02?

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I figured war was justified based on the evidence presented. I now think that the president mislead the country, and our troops have done their jobs, so it's time to leave Iraq. It's up to the Iraqis to be free if that's what they truly want, just like any other people throughout the history of the world.

 

Iran needs to be put in line. I'm not eager for another war, but it seems to be what they are asking for, based on their actions and rhetoric.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I figured war was justified based on the evidence presented. I now think that the president mislead the country, and our troops have done their jobs, so it's time to leave Iraq. It's up to the Iraqis to be free if that's what they truly want, just like any other people throughout the history of the world.

 

I really don't want to re-argue Iraq. I just wish people like you would have figured this out and seen through the bullshit before we ended up in the Mess 'o Potamia.

 

Iran needs to be put in line. I'm not eager for another war, but it seems to be what they are asking for, based on their actions and rhetoric.

 

I think it's more the actions of their batshit-crazy president, who is being empowered by the instability in Iraq and, well, the lack of credibility of our batshit-crazy president.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I really don't want to re-argue Iraq. I just wish people like you would have figured this out and seen through the bullshit before we ended up in the Mess 'o Potamia.

 

I don't want to re-argue it either, because it's all about who wins the political struggle between the Dems and the President at this point.

 

 

I think it's more the actions of their batshit-crazy president, who is being empowered by the instability in Iraq and, well, the lack of credibility of our batshit-crazy president.

 

Well, yes, Bush is definitely a problem here. We basically don't have the capability to do anything militarily because of the Iraq quagmire. WTF would our nation do if we were attacked tomorrow? I doubt the UN would bother to help us.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

Most people have the common sense to know that invading or bombing Iran will only make things far worse in the Middle East. The last thing that's needed is more instability.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Most people WHO AREN'T IN THE WHITE HOUSE have the common sense to know that invading or bombing Iran will only make things far worse in the Middle East.

 

efa

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

And I'm sorry, but the first things that pop into my head when I read a story like this are: Gulf of Tonkin, the Thornton Affair, etc.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

And I'm sorry, but the first things that pop into my head when I read a story like this are: Gulf of Tonkin, the Thornton Affair, etc.

 

Understandable, but not relevant to the situation here.

[BruiserKC 0]

Come on with what? This is the 21st century, and we have this global body that's supposed to deal with nations that act aggressively and have questionable nuclear weapons programs. But they do nothing because the Arab and third world nations have too much power and would rather sit back and do nothing, and let it be Uncle Sam's problem so they can bitch about the Great Satan, no matter what our country and handful of allies do.

 

 

Not to mention the UN simply seems to blame the US and Israel for all the world's problems and would rather see us neutered and Israel pushed into the sea. I think it's time to take a stand against Iran...even if the rest of the world doesn't have the guts to. Maybe Iraq was fucked up...but I'd rather not see a nuclear Iran where "Death To America" is as popular a slogan as "Where's the Beef" was here.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Yep, any time there's an issue in the Middle East it ultimately comes back to "the evil Zionists and their evil American overlords." If they want to hate us, fine, but let's at least make them fear us as well.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

And I'm sorry, but the first things that pop into my head when I read a story like this are: Gulf of Tonkin, the Thornton Affair, etc.

 

Understandable, but not relevant to the situation here.

 

You don't know that.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Can't prove a negative, so I'm not going to bother arguing with you.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

And I'm sorry, but the first things that pop into my head when I read a story like this are: Gulf of Tonkin, the Thornton Affair, etc.

 

Understandable, but not relevant to the situation here.

 

You don't know that.

It's interesting to see you apply very different standards of the burden of proof to Britain in this case and Saddam Hussein in the case of Iraq.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

And I'm sorry, but the first things that pop into my head when I read a story like this are: Gulf of Tonkin, the Thornton Affair, etc.

 

Understandable, but not relevant to the situation here.

 

You don't know that.

It's interesting to see you apply very different standards of the burden of proof to Britain in this case and Saddam Hussein in the case of Iraq.

 

What?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

And I'm sorry, but the first things that pop into my head when I read a story like this are: Gulf of Tonkin, the Thornton Affair, etc.

 

Understandable, but not relevant to the situation here.

 

You don't know that.

It's interesting to see you apply very different standards of the burden of proof to Britain in this case and Saddam Hussein in the case of Iraq.

 

I have higher standards for liberal democracies than for murderous autocrats.

 

And I didn't make any claim, just said that's the first thing that popped into my head. The USS Maine, too.

 

Now I'm gonna go buy a Lambroghini like Eddie Griffin's with my 98% tax cut.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Can't prove a negative, so I'm not going to bother arguing with you.

 

Okay, Dobbs, explain why it's irrelevant, then. A lot of people believed that the Gulf of Tonkin incident and other war provocations were genuine and later turned out to be bullshit. Why does this case not have that potential?

 

I'm reading this book right now, so I may be a little jaded at the moment.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Hypothetically the potential is there, but hypothetically George W. Bush and Tony Blair could be gay lovers plotting to turn Iran into their own personal cabana. Doesn't mean it's a relevant argument.

 

Iran kidnapped those sailors. Even if they were in Iranian waters, it was still an illegal action.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Hypothetically the potential is there, but hypothetically George W. Bush and Tony Blair could be gay lovers plotting to turn Iran into their own personal cabana.

 

I think you're on to something!

 

Doesn't mean it's a relevant argument.

 

That's why I said that it was just the first thing that popped into my head, not that it was my Grand Unified Theory of the Oncoming War with Iran.

 

(I will reveal this theory soon.)

[Justice 0]

Wow. Smitty's not a happy person today.

 

Anyways, I'm not for a War in Iran with the current HoS. Bush isn't bat-shit crazy, nor do I think he out and out lied... but God damn if he isn't an utterly miserable leader, plus with a Congress that is ready to pull out of Iraq, why even try? I'd rather just

 

We do eventually need to move onto Iran (For obvious reasons), but we can't right now.

 

Re: Gulf of Tonkin - I don't think this is one of those situations. Firstly, the British are NOT going to go to war with "The Spare" in Iraq nearby. Maybe in a few months, if it lasts that long. Iran would be stupid to push the British into a conflict when they are about to pull back out of the region, and while I don't think that the Iranians are more savvy than Bush (Perhaps even less savvy), this would be beyond stupid.

Edited March 30, 2007 by Justice

[Dobbs 3K 0]

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1259008,00.html

 

Appears they have been freed, or will be very shortly today. Definitely good news to hear. Iran claims it's as a "gift to Britain" and in recognition of Muhammed's birthday, but I wonder what the true impetus was.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Iran claims it's as a "gift to Britain" and in recognition of Muhammed's birthday, but I wonder what the true impetus was.

 

Haha. Really? What bullshit.