British Navy held at gunpoint by Iranians.....eeekk...

SunnyJim · Post by **SunnyJim** » 23 Mar 2007, 12:35

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6484279.stm

Erik · Post by **Erik** » 23 Mar 2007, 13:55

The optimist in me (that long lost friend who ocassionally resurfaces when I least expect it) is telling me that this will all just blow over in a couple of days like it did in 2004.

In June 2004, six British marines and two sailors were seized by Iran in the Shatt al-Arab between Iran and Iraq. They were presented blindfolded on Iranian television and admitted entering Iranian waters illegally, then released unharmed after three days.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... ran23.html

Norm · Post by **Norm** » 23 Mar 2007, 14:21

Erik wrote:

The optimist in me (that long lost friend who ocassionally resurfaces when I least expect it) is telling me that this will all just blow over in a couple of days like it did in 2004.

Possibly not this time, the experts are saying with the new circumstances and harder attitudes, this could be very different. Hope it does turn out well though.

Moadib · Post by **Moadib** » 26 Mar 2007, 20:49

All the same, uncanny timing. Just when the anti-Iranian feeling is being built up, the Iranians cooperate by doing something like that. It couldn't be they were provoked...?

The Iranians have nothing to gain by such a confrontation and would seek to avoid it. "We" stand to gain rather a lot in political capital and leverage. Apparently the Navy were looking for smuggled vehicles, attempting to invade car tax....? Twelve miles off the coast of Iran...? In a highly charged atmosphere...? Hmmmm

Either way, this is worth a read
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2 ... rines.html

As is the follow up
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2 ... nes_1.html

SunnyJim · Post by **SunnyJim** » 26 Mar 2007, 21:57

Strangely there is nothing about it on tehran times.

http://www.tehrantimes.com/

mocara · Post by **mocara** » 26 Mar 2007, 22:29

http://www.tehrantimes.com/feedback.asp

hahahahaha. That's got to be the most self-indulgent feedback page ever

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 26 Mar 2007, 22:30

Time was we'd have just sent in a gunboat.

Oh, it was a gunboat

Bandidoz · Post by **Bandidoz** » 27 Mar 2007, 01:38

There was an interesting piece on R4 today about the boundary between Iraq and Iran in the Shatt al-Arab. The boundary is supposed to be reviewed every 10 years, because the deepest part of the river will move. The last time they agreed was in 1975; in 1985 they were at war (obviously) and in 1995 there was still no settlement (and I suppose in 2005 no-one was properly in charge in Iraq). It might come out in the wash that the boundary needs to be "moved".

R4 page
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/pm/

(latest programme, 18 minutes in)

More here:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... niraq.html

In particular, the two have disputed control of the Shatt al-Arab, the major waterway connecting the Persian Gulf with the Iranian ports of Khorramshahr and Abadan, and the Iraqi port of Basra.

In 1847 a treaty was signed that established the Shatt as a boundary between Iraq and Iran (then the Ottomans and the Persians, respectively). Both agreed to respect freedom of navigation in the waterway, while Iran said it would cease interfering in northern Iraq in exchange for receiving control of two predominantly Arab cities, Khorramshahr and Abadan. The dispute was not completely settled and disagreements continued over the next several decades. In 1975, a new agreement was reached whereby the midpoint of the Shatt was determined to be the boundary between the countries.

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 27 Mar 2007, 16:52

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6499781.stm

BBC News - 27/03/07 - 16.10 GMT

Options limited in Iran standoff

The British government is still hoping that quiet diplomacy will get the release of the 15 sailors and marines captured by the Iranians, but its options are somewhat limited if Iran does not respond.

It could create a lot of sound and fury but Iran is good at playing that game and the risk is that the Iranian government would simply exploit the incident for even longer.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a master of rhetoric and riposte. He has shown a ready defiance of the UN Security Council over Iran's enrichment of uranium. He thrives on a confrontation..........

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 27 Mar 2007, 17:13

Iran will keep them and use them as human shields to deter a military attack.

Mark my words.

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 27 Mar 2007, 17:34

Andy Hunt wrote:Iran will keep them and use them as human shields to deter a military attack.

Mark my words.

Considering Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's past reputation, I'm inclined to agree with you.

According to author Mark Bowden - in his book "Guests of the Ayatollah" about the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979 - Mr Ahmadinejad was "one of the central players in the group that seized the embassy and held hostages."

The American hostages were held for 444 days, initially as a bargaining tool for the exiled Shah, and released only on the day that President Jimmy Carter left office. Mr Carter was humiliated by the episode.

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 27 Mar 2007, 17:40

They will spread them around their nuclear facilities and keep them there.

Moadib · Post by **Moadib** » 27 Mar 2007, 19:16

Aurora wrote:
Andy Hunt wrote:Iran will keep them and use them as human shields to deter a military attack.

Mark my words.
Considering Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's past reputation, I'm inclined to agree with you.

According to author Mark Bowden - in his book "Guests of the Ayatollah" about the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979 - Mr Ahmadinejad was "one of the central players in the group that seized the embassy and held hostages."

The American hostages were held for 444 days, initially as a bargaining tool for the exiled Shah, and released only on the day that President Jimmy Carter left office. Mr Carter was humiliated by the episode.

That is far from clear an it is strongly rumoured that was an invented smear.

"Soon after his election as president of Iran, on June 25, 2005, pictures of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad emerged showing him as a hostage-taker. An Associated Press photograph showed a man looking very much like a younger version of today's Ahmadinejad holding a blind-folded man, apparently five days after the U.S. embassy in Tehran was seized on November 4, 1979.

Five former American hostages confirmed that Ahmadinejad as one of their captors. William J. Daugherty, a former intelligence officer, said he saw Ahmadinejad 8 to 10 times at the start of his captivity: "I recognized him right off. ? I remember so much his hatred of Americans. It just emanated from every pore of his body."

BBC correspondent John Simpson recalled seeing Ahmadinejad on the embassy grounds. Abholhassan Bani-Sadr, a former president of Iran long living in exile, asserted that Ahmadinejad "wasn't among the decision-makers but he was among those inside the Embassy."

But Ahmadinejad's office denied these allegations and other hostage-takers, some of them now political opponents of Ahmadinejad ? including Mohsen Mirdamadi, Hamid Reza, Abbas Abdi, Mohammad-Reza Khatami, and Saeed Hajjarian Jalaiepour ? confirmed his account. One former American hostage denied Ahmadinejad had been a captor. Amir Taheri, editor-in-chief of a Tehran newspaper in the shah's time, concluded that "it is almost certain Ahmadinejad was not directly involved in the US embassy episode."

Thus did the issue die inconclusively: Ahmadinejad was for sure a central committee member of the main student group behind the embassy takeover, the "Office for Consolidating Unity between Universities and Theological Seminaries," leaving his precise role in the hostage-taking murky."

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 27 Mar 2007, 23:05

Blair seems to be warning that things will escalate if they are not freed by Friday.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6498611.stm

Iran are so bloody obstinate, it really worries me that this will escalate more and more. From what I can see (in the media) the Iranians are pushing for a fight. Sometimes I think what is their real agenda? Do they hate the West that much? I always seem to conclude they really do.

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 27 Mar 2007, 23:12

snow hope wrote: Iran are so bloody obstinate, it really worries me that this will escalate more and more. From what I can see (in the media) the Iranians are pushing for a fight. Sometimes I think what is their real agenda? Do they hate the West that much? I always seem to conclude they really do.

I think you'll find that both sides have a hidden agenda.