Increasing Tentions with Iran

Post-9/11 Era Forum

Iran has come under heavy critism from British and UN officails recently after they seized 15 Biritsh Marines that they alledge were trespassing in Iranian waters.

The navy personnel, who include one woman, were seized at gunpoint by forces said to be Iranian Revolutionary Guards, after inspecting an Iraqi boat and returning to their two small boats to head back to the HMS Cornwall

The Prime Minister Tony Blair has said that the detaining of these people was "unjustified and wrong" he also denied at a UN conference that the marines even went into Iranian waters.

Meanwhile, the German presidency of the European Union has demanded the immediate release of the personnel.

Iran however claims that the British marines havs admitted to trespassing in Iranian waters and have refused to allow the UK or UN any contact with the detainees and have said that they are concidering legal action against the detainees and some have called for them to be put on trial.

The UK representative to the UN, Sir Emyr Jones Parry, told the BBC that he hoped to raise the subject with Irans foreign minister at a recent UN confereance but was prevented from doing so by the extended debate on Irans nuclear programme.

Sir Emyr Jones Parry said "I would have wished very much to have had the opportunity to approach the foreign minister and simply ask for the release of those sailors. Unfortunately, he allowed the debate to continue for 90 minutes before he joined us. He then assailed us for 40 minutes and then left before anyone else, and was shepherded out of the building."

However with Iran refusing to allow the UK or the UN any contact with the detainees it cant be verified whether or not the Britiah marines actually went into Iranian waters or not.

Professor Sadaq Ziba-Kalam, of Tehran University, told the BBC he did not think the marines would be charged with spying. He said "That part of the water between Iran and Iraq where the incident happened has been disputed for decades, so it is very difficult to draw the line and say this is the Iranian side of the border and this is the Iraqi side of the border."

However this incident, added to the on-going hostilities between Iran and the UN over Irans nuclear programme, has just served to raise more tention in this already tense relationship between the UN and Iran.

Recently the UN Security Council voted unanimously in favour of further sanctions against Iran for its refusal to suspend its nuclear enrichment programme.

To hell with policy, diplomacy and wether Tony Blair is a lair or night they have our men illegally that pice of water in not Irans or Iraqs it's always been disputed a dispute that has never been resolved.
So maybe we stop looking weak and start to up the ante a little for starters let stick 2 battleships outside Iranian international waters ditto with tornadoes in airspace not to do anything but it will send a message. Then lets start a UN resolution declaring that strech of water to become Iraq waters saying that recent events prove Iran cannot be trusted to police it correctly, of course these resolutions take time so while we wait we arrest any Iranian army boats that end up in the area for the same reason our lot are being held. If all else fail we take a caluculated risk by bombing the revolutionary guards HQ if that fails fine we use our spies find out where the sailors and soldiers are then we send in the SAS or SBS to bust them out.
Like I said Iran are the aggressors they acted illegally that means that we can and should use any means possible to get our people back.

Also why has the Iranina embassy not been kicked out of the UK they have made it obvious they don't want to help so kick them out they are hardly allies or neutral countries in this.

This from the FT.

This isn't the first time Iran has taken British personnel unlawfully. It happend a few years ago and the Iranians forced the captured British servicemen, blindfolded, to confess to tresspassing on Iranian TV and then released them.

The powers that be in Iran have backed themselves into a corner. They have very few supporters in the world wide scheme of things and seem intent on making enemies of the US, the UK and the UN.

The problem that we have, as well, is that there are at least three different parties that control Iran without caring about the other two so whatever happens you cant be sure whether or not you are working with the party that can do anything about the situation or not.

If the Iranian government can prove, without a shodow off doubt, that the British personnel did invade their waters and were openly hostile about doing so, as the Iranians claim, the I will retract that statement you have highlighted h@ts and appologise for saying it, however if the Iranians arrested the British personnel in waters that were either Iraqi waters or neutral waters then that statement will be perfectly valid.

The fact of the matter is that I don't know everything about this situation so I cannot give you any evidence either for or against that statement. However what I can tell you is that both the Iranians and the British claim to have evidence supporting their side of the arguement.

If the British personnel were returning to HMS Cornwall after inspecting an Iraqi ship then it leads me to these questions, was the Iraqi ship in Iranian waters? If so why were the sailors on the Iraqi ship not detained along with the British?

If the ships in that area are inspected in the same way as they are here then the whole procedure would have been watched carefully from the Cornwall itself so unless the men and women on the Cornwall weren't doing there job then there is every reason to assume that the incident occured in either the neutral waters between the Iranian and Iraqi waters or the Iraqi waters themself.

If that is the case then the seisure of the British personnel was unlawful.

Also it has come out that there was a Sea King helicoptor monitoring the boats position now if those boats had crossed a line eitheer the GPS in the Cornwall or the eyes in the SEa king would have let them know.
Oh and I wish people would staop calling it Iranian waters it is disputed waters Iraq nd Iran have been arguing about ownership for years.
Also why should we belive that UK over Iran simple Iran have pulled this crap before remember.
And the Iranians if they are telling the truth that the boats where in thier agreed area, that they were spying well simple prove it lets see your evidence you are the aggressor show us eveidence for being aggresive. Also the troops are being treated weel and looked after again prove it let the UK embassy or the red cross see them because I have serious doubts after the last time remember mock executions daily beatings I would not be surprised if the female has been raped already.
Oh and the word unlawfull has been used by at least one MOD officla and I belive Tony Blair used it when he threatend phase 2 is on the cards.
Quite frankly I can't belive that there are people in thos country that either want to sit on thier asses and do nothing or make call into account or sailors credibility, now obvioulsy because of isues like Iraq and the cinduct of Tony Blair people will act like that but if you ask me they need to unconnect the dots they have made in thier minds. This is not about Iraq or Tony Blair it's about unlawful arrest plain and simple and every person in this country should be outraged about this and should be prepared to let Tony Blair and the MOD do what thiey are leagally entilted to do and that would be phase 4 get a UN resolution and lets us go and get out troops home.

You can't separate this incident from the credibility issue Blair has, and the complete lack of trust many people have in him and anything he says.

If as Blair now says he has evidence to prove the sailors were in Iraqi water he should present it and we can get past this initial phase of this incident. Likewise the Iranians should do the same. The difference between the two countries is that this incident happened off the Iranian coast NOT the English channel.

As for people sitting on their arses, there are diplomatic talks going on all over the place. Even the Germans authorities summoned the Iranian ambassador in Germany to demand the release of these sailors.

The BBC are running an on-going thing with this and recently BBC Radio 4 interviewed Dr Ali Pahlavan, the editor of Iran News, an independent newspaper published in Tehran, on this situation this is what he had to say.

The Royal Navy says GPS evidence proves 15 personnel being held in Iran were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters when they were seized in the Gulf.

Vice Admiral Charles Style said the Iranians had given two different positions for the personnel - the first inside Iraqi territorial waters. He said they had been "ambushed" after the search of a vessel and that their detention was "unjustified and wrong".

Iran insists the group had been in its waters when they were taken on Friday.

Earlier, Turkey's prime minister was quoted as saying his diplomats may be allowed to meet the group, taken in the Gulf. According to CNN Turk television, Recep Tayyip Erdogan gave the indication after meeting the Iranian foreign minister and before an Arab leaders' summit in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

The Foreign Office said reports that Turkish diplomats may be granted access to the detainees should be treated with "caution". It stressed: "For the moment, the point is that we want access to them."

Downing Street has said that up to now the UK has been attempting to talk "discreetly" to the Iranians to secure the release of the Royal Navy personnel. The prime minister's spokesman said that if the talks were unsuccessful, the government may have to become "more explicit" with Iran.

Salah Al Shaikhly, Iraq's ambassador to the UK, said his country would try to help the bid to secure the personnel's release and "the voice of reason should prevail".

I heard there was some controversy over why the 15 sailors did not fight back when confronted by the Iranians. Apparently they wanted permission to fight back, but permission was denied by higher command. U.S. military commanders have commented that they would have fought back under such circumstances.

They did not fight back because if they did they would be dead end of story. They were in lightboats that had no gun and had the minimum of arms most likely rifles pistols and knifes, they were facing 6 heavily armed Iranian warships that did have main guns and heavily armed revolutionary guards. They were outnumbred and outgunned part of being a Royal Marine is knowing when to fight and when to surrender , although surrende is the last option it was in this case right one no group in the world would have survived a gunfight with the odds they marines and sailors had.

As for the developments it is now clear Iran is lying. The GPS pictuures prove where the sailors were, the Indian cargo ship has also confrimed it hell that boat is still in the same position. Iran intially gace co -ordinates that were inside Iraqi waters and then had to change them, I also find Irans reply to the UK regarding the GPs to be a little quick almost dare I say prepared. On the more serios note this refusal to grant consulr access and refuse tyo give locations of the troops can only escalate the situation and will make Iran evenmore alone against the world. Also a fact I forget that the Foreign secreetary made this afternoon. All ships are supposed to be given soverign status therfore all Iran could and should have done was expalin the sitution and tell the boats to turn back as of yet they have given no reason why they did not do this.

As it satnds Iran is finding itself alone at least 4 Gulf states have been openly critical and other have privately offerdd support, Germany will today speak for the UK in an EU leaders summit. More worringly for Iran next week the UK is in charge of the UN security council so I imagine something will be motioned and carried if the situtaion is not resolved. All business ties with Iran have been suspended and if this goes on much longer diplomatic ties will follow.

Well sorry but thats simply not true. I was in the marines and I know these boats and there is not that capacity to carry the kind of firepower and also you would not need that kind of equipment for a simple patrol you would hve your basic kit and not much else would be needed bacause you are going to be fairly close to the main warship in this case the Cornwall. If it was a combat mission you may have more stuff but not a simple patrol.

Also even if you had the kit they were surronded you could not get a shot off before bing cut down by Iranian machine gun fire.

Iranian state television has broadcast an interview with captured British female sailor Faye Turney and footage of the 14 servicemen seized with her. Leading Seaman Turney, 26, said they had been seized in the Gulf because "obviously we trespassed" in Iranian waters - something the UK disputes. She said her captors had been friendly and the 15 personnel were unharmed.

The circumstances of the filming is unknown.

The footage showed the eight Royal Navy sailors and seven Royal Marines, who were seized at gunpoint by Iranian Revolutionary Guards last Friday, in their uniforms sitting and eating a meal out of white trays.

There was separate footage of Leading Seaman Turney - wearing a black headscarf - smoking and speaking.

She said: "I was arrested on Friday March 23. Obviously we trespassed into their waters. They were very friendly and very hospitable, very thoughtful, good people. They explained to us why we had been arrested. There was no aggression, no hurt, no harm. They were very, very compassionate."

The video showed a letter, said to have been written by Leading Seaman Turney to her parents, in which she admitted that the navy personnel had "apparently" crossed into Iranian waters. "I wish we hadn't because then I would be home with you right now," the letter said.

Mrs Beckett said she was concerned about "any indication of pressure on or coercion of our personnel" who she said were on a routine operation in accordance with international law.

She added: "I am particularly disappointed that a private letter has been used in a way which can only add to the distress of the families."

Defence Secretary Des Browne said it was "completely unacceptable to parade our people in this way".


In respnsoe to the UK vesion of event earlier today Iran's embassy in London issued a statement in which it said the sailors and marines had been 0.5 km inside Iranian waters at the time they were seized.

The statement, quoted by the official IRNA news agency, said "the governments of Iran and Britain have the ability to solve the incident through contacts and close co-operation".

Anyone know what the actual job the British sailors are doing patrolling these disputed waters?

Craig Murray, on More 4 news this evening, has an interesting take on this dispute. He says the "difficulty is that the maritime delimitation in the North West of the Persian Gulf, between Iraq, Kuwait and Iran, has never been resolved. And the line that the British government is talking about was drawn up by the British and not recognised by anyone else. It is not therefore a question of just checking your GPS to see where you are. This is a perfectly legitimate dispute, in which nobody is particularly at fault."

Also - "There is nothing outlandish about Iranian claims, and we have no right in law to be boarding Iranian or other shipping in what may well be Iranian waters. The UN Convention on the Law of The Sea carries a heavy presumption on the right of commercial vessels to "innocent passage", especially through straits like Hormuz and in both territorial and international waters. You probably won't read this elsewhere in these jingoistic times but, in international law, we are very probably in the wrong. As long as the Iranians neither mistreat our Marines nor wilfully detain them too long, they have the right."

It seems very much like we overreacted to the initial arrest, creating a far more serious incident than it needed to be, now getting to the stage where it's become a case of who is going to blink first, the British or the Iranian governments.

Actually although the waters are disputed there have been lines drawn up who can go where that have been the accepted lines since the end of the Iran Iraq war. So as long as the UK boats stayed withiun the Iraqi lines there should not be a problem and the GPS and the Indian boat both say we were in Iraqi waters end of story.

I know about the UN law of the sea but troops are perfectly entitled to search a ship if the belive it is involved in smuggling and they obvioulsy thought it was smuggling weapons so they are withing thier rights. What is not in doubt is the soverign rights of warships if those boats had staryed into Iran waters they should have been turned away plain and simple not arrested.

Overreacting let me get this straight we stayed in an area we are meant to be in now I don't care what Channel 4 or Iran says other ships, coalition troops, MOD, GPS, and the international community have stated and agreed we where we should be, we are doing legitimate work, we were not spying ( even Iran acknowledges that) and we were not the aggressors. And you saw we overreacted when Iran breaks internatonal waterways to kidnap 15 sailors, denies them consular access, refuse to give up thier location and then parades them on TV. Sorry H@ts but if you think we overreacted then you must be a very soft person because any other country in the world would be going crazy about this whole situation.

Why is Iran parading captured soldiers on TV? Seriously, this stinks to high heaven. The GPS and the changing Iranian government story just shows they're lying.

Iran has said if we admit we were wrong they will release the sailors.

What do we do? Say sorry and get the sailors back or refuse the offer and prolong the sailor's capture?

Why should we apologise we have done f**k all wrong plain and simple.

Also H@ts you need to do alittl research those waterlines were drawn up and agreed by the UN, Iran and Iraq many years ago and for many years Iran has stuck to them now they get all rowdy about them. Regardless anyway ships have soverign powers and should have been told to turn back not be captured thats in interntional law.

Also what do you think we should have done in the first instance asked nicely for them back and when they said no piss off and sing Kumbya and pray for the sailors we should call that plan Z.

IMO opinion we should not apologise for the waterway, the emabrgo, the UN condemantion that is coming, the condemnation of othe Gukf states and if it comes to it the death of any Iranians that get in our way if we have to get the troops back.

Also are we all so blind we can't see the ploy by Iran? we apologise and that's an admittanmce and will be used in evidnece against these sailors that why they want an apology and I would love to see this tape that shows the sailors in Iranina waters as well.

The British postion could well be softening. This from Lord Triesman saying if we did stray into Iranian waters it could have been accidental:

This is the timeline of events so far:

1. Iran recieves the message that the UN voted unanimously to impose sanctions on their nuclear programme, several sorces claim that the Revolutionary Guard will do something in retalliation. ((This could be an unrelated event but speculation surrounds the actions of Iran so soon after this UN decision was reached))

2. British sailors returning to HMS Cornwall after inspecting an Iraqi ship are ambushed by a number of heavily armed Iranian gun-boats and escorted into Iran to be held at an undisclosed location. UK insist the sailors were in Iraqi waters

3. Iranian news releases statement claiming that the British sailors agressively entered their waters and admitted to doing so and claim that they have GPS evidence to prove it. UK still insist that sailors were in Iraqi waters.

4. Iran refuse to tell UK where sailors are being held and a number of Iranians demand the Sailors be put on trial. Prime Minister Tony Blair says it is "serious" and calls for a swift end to the "unjustified and wrong" detention. UN calls fro the sailors to be released.

5. Iran says the 15 sailors are being questioned but were not taken in exchange for Iranians held by the US in Iraq. The UK holds a third meeting with Iran's ambassador. In Tehran, the British ambassador is assured the missing personnel are "fit and well". Iraq's minister of foreign affairs tells Iran the British personnel were in Iraqi waters.

6. Prime Minister Tony Blair's official spokesman says the UK could release evidence to prove the group was in Iraqi waters. Tony Blair talks of a "different phase" in diplomatic efforts if current moves fail, the sailors were in Iraqi waters under a UN mandate, he adds. The BBC is told the group are being held in Tehran, where Iran says they are being treated humanely.

7. Iranian state television broadcasts an interview with Faye Turney (the capture female sailor) and footage of the servicemen. They had "obviously" trespassed but their captors had been friendly, she says. The programme also shows a personnal letter written by Turney to her family. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki says Ms Turney will be released within two days. The Royal Navy presents GPS evidence it says proves the group were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters when they were seized. Iran claim that the Sailors were 0.5 nautical miles inside their waters.

I don't understand what appears to be your defense of Iran and anything but less than truthful here h@ts. Of course anyone can make an argument but given Iran's erratic behavior as of late, I find it hard pressed to believe anything they have to say about those soldiers being almost 2 miles inside their water way.

Even if you believe they were up to something, what could that be so far out in the water? I guess the boarding of that ship was something they decided to do while conducting a covert op?

It just doesn't jibe and given Iran's propensity to compound and already difficult situation in the M.E., I say they are playing more of the games they've been playing since this Iraq debacle.

If you can only see the lies of Blair and not hose of Ahmandinejad, then you're having trouble processing actual events in that region.

As Iran nears the goal of producing nuclear weapons, there is a belief that they must be stopped before they reach the so-called point of no return. It is thought that the only ones who would stop them would be Israel and/or the U.S. I read a book called, “Showdown With Nuclear Iran” by Michael D. Evans. In it Mr. Evans outlines the consequences of either taking preemptive action against Iran or not doing so. Of course the consequences of taking out Iran’s nuclear capability are huge. Unlike Iraq’s nuclear reactor that Israel took out in the 1980s, Iran’s facilities are much larger. Much of it is deep underground, and mingled with civilian areas, so thousands of civilians would be killed. Of course Iran would also retaliate with a declaration of war on Israel and the U.S. by launching missiles on the assets of both countries throughout the Middle East and Europe.

But Mr. Evans says that, from Israel’s point of view, the only thing that would be worse that a preemptive strike would be letting Iran acquire nuclear weapons. He also says that the U.S. does not have the political will to take preemptive action, so from Israel’s point of view they have to take preemptive action. There is no other choice. It is only a matter of when. The only thing that could derail this inevitable clash is if Iran changes their mind about acquiring nuclear weapons. But that seems unlikely, given how far they have come, and that they are only 1-2 years away from their goal.

So the world waits for what appears to be an inevitable preemptive attack on Iran by Israel. But I have had a feeling that the ironic surprise will be that Iran will be the first one to make a move, not Israel or the U.S. I think there is a high probability that this will happen very soon, likely in relation to this developing hostage crisis. Both sides are posturing and rattling sabers, and there are no rules to the game that is being played right now as tensions and provocations escalate.

UN support for Britain was hardly overwhelming yesterday, with Russia refusing to allow the words "immeditae release" in any statement, and again today the British government is back-peddling and softening its tone.

Iran is isolated but so it seems is the Blair government. Even America is saying very little.

Let me run through a few things.

I have never denied the UK or US hostilities towards Iran however Iran has been openly been hostile to many countries and are seen as a treat by many countries in the Gulf, not just by the UK or US.

Due to a treaty signed toward the end of the Cold War there is no country is allowed to test Nuclear weapons in any real sense of the word. They can develop weapons but not test them.

A trident nuclear intercontinetal balistic missile has never been fire in anger and has only ever been employed in a defensive position. The trident was developed during the Cold War as a deterant to the Soviet Union, the Trident is there simply to put off countries that have nuclear weapon from attacking the UK.

I do not deny that the UK or US has been agressive toward Iran however Iran has also been agressive toward the UK and US so you cant really say that this is the fault of the UK or US.

Whether or not Iran has been 'pushed around by the UN', as you claim h@ts, doesn't really have precident here. The simple fact is that this whole Iranian nuclear programme argument could have been avoided if Iran had been willing to cooperate with the UN inspectors and shown them every aspect of their nuclear programme.

Let us not forget that Iran are the ones who claim that their Nuclear programme is simply for peaceful uses however when asked to show the evdence for this claim they refused. If it is for peaceful uses then Iran should allow the inspector to see their whole programme if only to put the countries that are worried about Iran nuclear capabilities at ease.

The final thing is that the UN is made up of 192 different countries of which include the UK, US, and yes even Iran. Every country that in a member of the UN that has Nuclear weapon has them inspected by the UN, every country in the UN that has nuclear capabilities has an inpection done by the UN, every country except Iran. What makes them any different? Why should they be exempt from ispection when every other country that has a nuclear programme isn't?

To many it may seem that this Nuclear arguement a UK and US vs. Iran issue, it isn't, it is a UN thing, something that is supposed to happen that Iran has refuse to allow to happen. The fact the you know that the US is developing a new nuclear weapon and the the UK are updating theirs shows that they are following UN guidelines. It shows that they are being open and honest with their nuclear programmes and allowing the UN to do its job.

Iran on the other hand refused to let the UN do its job and subsequently have put themselves in a undesirable position within the UN and have recently lost a vote in the UN which means that sanctions are going to be placed on Iran nuclear programme itself, lost the vote unnanimously I might add.

There is no problem with Iran having nuclear capabilities if they are honest and inform the UN what exactly they plan to do with their nuclear capabilities.

Also oneofpeace you have to add that Iran have refused to let the UK, Iraq, UN or Turkey have any contact with the british personnel held in Tehran so all we are getting out of Iran is their side of the story and occaisonal television coverage from Iranian TV which it truthfullness is highley questionable.

There is also speculation that Iran is manipulating the situation, forcing the British personnel to write letter specifically edited by the Iranian powers and foring the British personnel in front of Television cameras when the British government told them not to.

Due now to Iran seemingly refusing to work with the UK in resolving this issue the UK has gone to the UN to ask for assistance, he UN have called for Iran to release the personnel, and Iran has sent the British government a letter acusing them of making this issuean international issue rather than just an issue between UK and Iran by going to the UN.

Iran dont seem to be behaving like a country that has done nothing wrong.