UPDATE - April 26, 2007 - Editor's note: I am posting at the the secondary blog.
Yesterday's stories are here(see older articles at the overflow blog).
---
150 grand?
---
Navy offers up to $150K for master EOD techs to re-up
Showing posts with label navy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label navy. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
IRAN –UK STAND- OFF ; A CLASH OF CIVILISATIONS
April 9, 2007
By K Gajendra Singh
Iran pardons Blair's dozen and Jane Bond.
" U.K. has suspended boarding operations in the northern Persian Gulf while the Royal Navy reviewed its procedures "- First Sea Lord Admiral Jonathon Bond ( no relation of James Bond )
Iranian Chess masters choreograph the crisis end.
It was a virtuoso almost flawless choreography which ended the 2 week long Iran-UK crisis ( with USA lurking at the back and Europe not far behind ) following the James Bond like British intelligence intrusion into Iranian waters. Even the Times on line admitted "The captives, including Leading Seaman Faye Turney, 26, were released yesterday in a stunning piece of political theatre by President Ahmadinejad, who brought a bizarre but welcome end to a 13-day drama that held the possibility of violent escalation."
A similar incident had occurred in 2004 when eight British servicemen were seized after straying over the maritime border. Clearly there is a dispute over where the border actually runs.
Known for inventing the game of Shatranj (chess) Tehran is giving West daily lessons in the subtle art of asymmetric warfare in Iraq and elsewhere the region . But the beaming of the release episode to the centres of western theatre; London , Washington and New York was a masterpiece. When Ahmedinejad's press conference was announced , western TV channels tuned in expecting more of the same blunt talk , which they could then distort ( as they did when they alleged the extinction of the Jewish State of Israel , while he had only repeated what Ayatollah Khomeini had said about the disappearance of the communist regime in Russia and so of the Zionist regime.)
Prime Minister Tony Blair, after the release of Blair's dozen ( Bakers dozen plus one ) and Jane Bond, Faye Turney, insisted that there was no deal done to secure the release, but added that discussions with Tehran during the crisis had opened up channels of communication "that have not been available to us before" and which it would be sensible to pursue.
Iran, meanwhile, claimed that Blair had sent a "letter of apology" the day before the prisoners were released. Ha'aretz quoted , an adviser to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, saying that Iran had received a letter of apology from Britain before the release .Downing Street denied that any apology had ever been made .
In a story titled "Pawns in a losing game: Britain's policy ", UK's 'Independent 'newspaper of 8 April referring to the release of captives , at cost unknown , but with the death of six soldiers in Basra at the same time, wondered ; just what are our soldiers dying for? , because the return and rejoicing came with a dark shadow of Iraq , with dead British soldiers .Blair directly linked the Tehran regime to the killings of British soldiers in Iraq, saying: "There are elements at least of the Iranian regime that [are] backing, financing, arming, supporting terrorism in Iraq and I repeat that our forces are there specifically at the request of the Iraqi government and with the full authority of the UN." US and UK have been making allegations of Iran' involvement , but have produced no evidence so far. The tank armor bursting cylindrical device Tehran was allegedly supplying can be easily procured in Iraq as it was being milled for its oil industry.
Iran' Ambassador in London Rasoul Movahedian told the Financial Times that Iran had "showed our goodwill" by freeing the Britons. "Now it is up to the British government to proceed in a positive way." He added that "the prime issue for Iran" was recognition of its right to a nuclear power programme. But that was said before UK organized its counter show to neutralise the Tehran performance.
The Anglo-Saxon credibility lies tattered. Except for the so called Western 'international community', the core consisting of USA, UK ,Israel , Australia and a few others , worldwide ,few believe in what British and other Western leaders and its corporate propaganda machine or Government controlled BBC churn out, casting a blot on the noble profession of journalism.
Even the US public does not trust Bush and his claims on Iraq war and inflicted a stinging defeat on his Republican party last November, but apparently to little effect so far .The suave and elegant mother of five, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's talks in Damascus with President Bashar Assad , in teeth of the Administration's opposition heralds the beginning of Bush's lame duck period . Of course , she diplomatically claimed " Our message was President Bush's message."
After visiting Israel , Pelosi delivered a message to Bashar from Tel Aviv which was ready to hold peace talks with Damascus provided it stops arming Hezbollah in Lebanon. Syria denies that it does . After the Damascus meeting she declared "We were very pleased with the reassurances we received from (Bashar) that he was ready to resume the peace process." "He was ready to engage in negotiations ... with Israel," she added.
Pelosi then went on to the Saudi capital Riyadh to meet with King Abdullah, who recently shocked his staunch ally USA. The King described the US occupation of Iraq as "illegitimate" at a meeting of Arab leaders in Riyadh last week. "In beloved Iraq, blood is being shed among brothers in the shadow of an illegitimate foreign occupation and ugly sectarianism threatens civil war," Abdullah said. Condi Rice telephoned Saudi Ambassador for clarifications. Abrasive John Bolton , the recently extinguished Ambassador to UN ( as the Senate refused to confirm him) said the US was in Iraq at the invitation of its government and its presence was further sanctioned by a U. N. Security Council resolution.
Everyone knows that the US led invasion of Iraq was in violation of the UN Charter , so affirmed by the Secretary General Kofi Annan himself. Since then quisling regimes in Baghdad have mostly consisted of exiles ,western intelligence assets , convicted embezzlers and others , who mostly live away from Baghdad or are ensconced in the Green Zone fortress .The Soviet Union used to say when its troops went into states like Hungary and Czechoslovakia that they were invited. When asked after some time by whom, the reply would be 'We are still looking for them." As for the UN, it is teetering like the League of Nations at the end .USA has destroyed its impartiality and credibility, and gravely undermined international law and Geneva and other Conventions. US along with four other nuclear armed ,also UN veto wielding powers have made mockery of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty , as in the case of Iran.
Of course there was no quid pro quo (!) said Anglo-Saxons , but access was allowed to five Iranian consular personnel , who were abducted from their office in Erbil in Iraqi Kurdistan. On 4 April , U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said an International Committee of the Red Cross delegation including one Iranian had visited the illegally held Iranian consular officials.
Also Jalal Sharafi, the second secretary at Iran's embassy in Baghdad was freed last week after being abducted in Iraq in February. Taken from his car by men in Iraqi army uniforms he was tortured by his captors, including CIA agents. The CIA officials' questions focused mainly on Iran's presence and influence in Iraq," he said. "When faced with my responses on Iran's official ties with the Iraqi government they increased the torture." Iran's Fars news agency reported, "He showed reporters the marks left by torture on his body that are now being treated by doctors."
The US military in Iraq said the coalition forces had not been involved in the abduction or any torture. Of course the CIA does not torture ! Some times they ask their friends to do so .Plausible deniability. Compare it how Tehran treated the British captives and how the Americans and the British have been treating suspects in Bagram in Afghanistan ,Gantanamo , Abu Gharaib and other black holes all over the world including in Europe. Human Rights organizations have compared these blots on humanity to Soviet era Gulags. Some European magistrates in Rome and Madrid have filed charges against CIA personnel who illegally abducted their innocent citizens for torture rendition in other countries .
During the 1991 US war on Iraq to liberate Kuwait ,US and allied troops apprehended in Iraq were treated humanely .This represents the clash of Christian and Muslim civilizations , but they are the branches from the same Abrahmic tree and are a continuation of the battle of the Gods as Karen Armstrong puts it .But unlike earlier Crusades and Jihads , this time the Jews have teamed up with the Western Christians .
James Bonds and Rambos ;
In a joint Five News and Sky News interview, recorded on 13 March but broadcast on 5 April after their release , captives leader Capt Chris Air acknowledged that he was operating close to the buffer zone between Iranian and Iraqi waters, adding: "It's good to gather intelligence on the Iranians." The British Ministry of Defence (MoD) said this was "all part of modern operations". James Bond stuff. The cover was interdicting smuggling of old Toyota cars in the Gulf.
Tehran somehow got wind off it and used it to confront the captives.Iran would not have taken the step unless it had proof of violation of its waters ( at least a couple of times ) .Perhaps the British boat had ventured too far into the enemy waters for the British ship Cornwall to intervene ,when the Iranians captured it.
The (MoD) confirmed that the Iranians had made the claim that they had become interested in Cornwall's activities after learning about it on British television interview, but denied the decision to allow the ship's crew to be interviewed while on active duty had jeopardised the mission.
According to the Guardian , the US had offered a list of military options to Britain, which remain top secret given the mounting risk of war between the US and Iran , including US combat aircraft mounting aggressive patrols over Iranian Revolutionary Guard bases in Iran. The British declined the offer and said the US could calm the situation by staying out of it. Reportedly UK also requested Washington to tone down military exercises that were already under way in the Gulf.
Colonel General Yury Solovyov , commander of Russia's Air Defense Forces Special Command told Novosti. "In line with my assessment, Iran's air defense system is strong enough." "Currently Iran has our [Russian] air defense missile systems, which are capable of tackling U.S. combat aircraft. Iran also has French and other countries' [defense] systems," he added.
It was widely believed in 1979 when US President Jimmy Carter mounted an air operation to rescue US Embassy personnel and others held as hostages in Tehran, that USSR had tipped the Iranians that something was afoot. The operation was a disaster and had to be aborted .It played a significant role in Carter's unsuccessful bid to be re-elected and brought in Ronald Regan , ushering in an era of rabid ultra neo-liberal conservative policies , which are now bringing up fruits adversely affecting the US polity .
Even this time round Moscow warned the West not to aggravate matters .It has been issuing warnings about US` naval build up in the Gulf , which many believe is a precursor to attack Iran. Russia would not standby if US and / or Israel try to destroy Iranian nuclear and military installations and even succeed partially . Nor will China be happy, which has a veto in UNSC , with its extensive energy interests and investments in Iran .
"Iranians clearly are a very uncivilised bunch"
As for the Western media now trying to milk the ordeals of their magnificent men and Mata Hari ( All that crap projected in "The bridge on river Kawai ' must be cooked up as Blair's dossiers and false accusations by Bush Administration prove ).The British lads and lass , who sang like canaries on Tehran TV and were genuinely happy at their unexpected release (the US Embassy hostages taken in 1979 stayed put in Tehran for 444 days ) are now busy selling to the British media their cooked up stories of valour and defiance , an accepted British calling , also exploited by paramours of the decadent British Royalty .
Reportedly the Royal Marines are planning to sell even the vases given as gifts to them in their 'goody bags' by the Iranians on eBay. The father of one of the hostages said the MoD had suggested the servicemen 'Go out there, tell the truth and make the money.'
The Blair's dozen and Jane Bond are expected to make around £250,000 between them. Faye Turney, mother of 3 year old child ,is likely to get the most profitable deal. She is said to have sold her story for £150,000 in a joint contract with a newspaper and ITV. Colonel Bob Stewart, a British commander of United Nations forces in Bosnia, told the Sunday Times that the MoD had turned a military disaster into a media circus. 'The released hostages are behaving like reality TV stars,' he said. 'I am appalled that the MoD is encouraging them to profit in this way.'
In 'The Guardian" ,Terry Jones wrote a sarcastic piece titled " No hoods. No electric shocks. No beatings. These Iranians clearly are a very uncivilised bunch "
He said ,"I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment --It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this - allowing them to smoke cigarettes-- And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world - have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? For God's sake, what's wrong with putting a bag over her head? That's what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it's hard to breathe. Then it's perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can't be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are.
" If the Iranians put duct tape over their mouths, like we do to our captives, they wouldn't be able to talk at all. --And what's all this about allowing the captives to write letters home saying they are all right? It's time the Iranians fell into line with the rest of the civilised world: --The inmates of Guantánamo, for example, have been enjoying all the privacy they want for almost five years, and the first inmate has only just been charged. What a contrast to the disgraceful Iranian rush to parade their captives before the cameras!
" -- The US military make sure that their Iraqi captives enjoy PT. This takes the form of exciting "stress positions", which the captives are expected to hold for hours on end so as to improve their stomach and calf muscles. A common exercise is where they are made to stand on the balls of their feet and then squat so that their thighs are parallel to the ground. This creates intense pain and, finally, muscle failure. It's all good healthy fun and has the bonus that the captives will confess to anything to get out of it.
"-What is so appalling is the underhand way in which the Iranians have got her (Turney )"unhappy and stressed". She shows no signs of electrocution or burn marks and there are no signs of beating on her face. This is unacceptable. If captives are to be put under duress, such as by forcing them into compromising sexual positions, or having electric shocks to their genitals, they should be photographed, as they were in Abu Ghraib. The photographs should then be circulated around the civilised world so that everyone can see exactly what has been going on--."
Released Britons relate stories of Iranian 'trickery'- International Herald Tribune
Can any one beat the 'Perfidious Albion', as Gen Charles de Gaulle once described the British, having suffered from their duplicity and hypocrisy? When the Brits crowed that the Sun never set on the British Empire , an admirer of cynic Diogenes .remarked that even God would not trust them in the dark .Now down and out and hanging on to US coat tails for crumbs from the world wide loot from the energy sector or from wars as after the 1991 war on Iraq . Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf kingdoms ,apart from Germany and Japan were made to shell out hundreds of billions of dollars to primarily protect US interests .One point of irritation for Baghdad was Kuwait's insistence that Iraq return $10 billion it had 'gifted ' brother Saddam Hussein ,the Sunni defender against the rising power of 'infidel' Shias of Iran . It turned out to be a costly deal with Kuwaitis shelling out more than 60 billion dollars and also suffered heavy damage during the Iraqi occupation and US led liberation war. But unlike in 1991 there is no one else to pay for this war.
Western counter show ;
So to counter the Tehran show , Captain Christopher Air of the Royal Marines and others except Faye , perhaps busy writing her memoires and to avoid inconvenient media questions ,were put on to Western TV channels a day after arrival to read out their scripted stories . Captain Air said they were kept in solitary confinement for much of the time. He added that they were subjected to ``psychological pressure'' and ``mind games,'' but none of them were physically harmed. The sailors and marines suffered ``aggressive questions and rough handling but it was no worse than that,'' said Lieutenant Felix Carman of the Royal Navy. ``Some of the tactics were an insult to our intelligence.'' But their treatment by the Iranian hosts was human.
Iran's foreign ministry said in a statement: "Such theatrical propaganda can not justify the soldiers' mistake. Such staged moves cannot cover up the mistake made by British military personnel who illegally entered Iran's territory. We are sorry that Britain has no knowledge about Islamic culture and Iranian civilisation to understand the reason Iran pardoned the British soldiers."
In his Tehran show , Ahmadinejad ha noted Easter's approach, together with the recent birthday of the Prophet Mohammed, and said that Iran was releasing the captives in the spirit of "forgiveness". It was a "gift "to the British people. The British personnel had appeared on Iranian television during captivity, insisting they had been well treated.
Why do M/S Tony Blair , Dick Cheney , George Bush et al refuse to comprehend that USA and UK have little credibility left in the world. Poodle Blair , so described even by the British media , before the invasion of Iraq went around the world to sell Western spins , half truths and lies about WMD and other accusations against Saddam Hussein and Iraq . In media conferences , Russian President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister stated that Moscow did not trust the British dossiers. Cheney remains the leading exponent of Goebbels dictum of repeating lies to make them sound like truth , even when once Bush had denied any connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda .
In a Radio broadcast a few days ago Cheney again repeated the canard that Iraq and Al Qaeda had relations prior to 2003 , even after the Congress got the records declassified which clarified that no such relations existed .So what do you do.
With the CIA chief George Tenet sitting behind him Secretary of State Colin Powell told an unbelieving UN audience about the cooked up cock and bull story of WMDs before the invasion .Tenet was later awarded the highest decoration for his 'slam dunk ' certainty of Iraq getting Uranium ore from Niger .A conscientious retired US Ambassador who exposed this canard after visiting Niger had his wife's CIA cover blown off by the administration from the very highest level as the court proceedings are proving .Cheney's chief aid Scooter Libby has been convicted of perjury and other charges .
Home coming celebrations in UK ;
Western media celebrated the return of the captives with headlines like "Mid-air toasts, facing the media, and finally the family reunions", Homecoming 'dream come true' - crew et al.
According to a study by John Hopkins and Mustansiriya Universities published by the prestigious British Journal 'Lancet' 655,000 Iraqis have been killed as a result of the US invasion and occupation. That was in July 2006 . The deadly dance of violence under US watch continues unabated. Bush's new policy of 'Surge' ie increase in US troops has only surged the mayhem and deaths. When questioned at the end of last year ,George Bush did not find the figures of the dead in the Hopkins led study credible .He stuck to the figure of 30,000 or so he had declared a year earlier .
Moreover, there are more than 2 million Iraqi refugees living in neighboring Syria and Jordan in addition to 2 million more displaced inside Iraq .Cities like Fallujah , Haditha , Tel Afar lie devastated .How many refugees US and UK, the main perpetrators of this crime have accepted .Very few . So much for their Christian morality and charity! The civilized West !
So what about the homecoming for 3 million displaced Iraqis , from Syria and Jordan and from violence created by US led coalition in their own country .When!
Experts on the Crisis ;
"I do think that the Iranian leadership was looking for an opportunity to let those placing pressure on Iran ... know that they will not be pushed into positions the United States is trying to push them into," said Farideh Farhi, an Iran researcher at the University of Hawaii. "The incident and the subsequent taking charge of the issue and negotiations by the secretary of Iran's National Security Council, Ali Larijani, was a sign by Iran that the country is willing to push back."
"The key decision makers ... may also have calculated that holding on to the sailors was a two-edged sword that was helping to boost the American/British depiction of the Islamic Republic as an irrational/outlaw regime," said Dariush Zahedi, who teaches at the department of political economy and Boalt Hall School of Law at UC Berkeley.
"The release of the sailors, once Britain toned down its rhetoric and started negotiating with the Islamic Republic, was also a signal to the U.S. -- emulate their example and we will be more amenable to working with you," Zahedi said.
"It is safe to say that by pushing back in such a public fashion, Tehran has declared its intent to stand its ground," Farhi agreed. "At the same time, by releasing the British citizens in a relatively short and 'civilized' manner, it has also made a statement about how Iranian politics works for those interested in resolving outstanding issues through negotiations.
"Whether the other side takes the message as intended by Tehran is, of course, an entirely different matter."
The western reading was that" despite its conventional military weakness and diplomatic isolation, Iran retains the ability to strike at Western interests when it feels sufficiently provoked. But " when Western powers engage Iran with respect and as an equal, they are more likely to get what they want than when they take a confrontational path designed to bully or humiliate the regime. Neither message might be well received either at the White House or among the neo-conservative and other right-wing pundits who have tried hard to depict the incident as the latest sign of Islamic or Persian barbarism." Barbarism -some cheek !
But the release of the Iranian diplomat, as well as reports that Tehran received assurances that it will have consular access to five alleged Revolutionary Guards ,all these events were not just coincidence , although London and Washington, like Ahmadinejad, insist there were no quids pro quo.
"I personally believe that the US action [in Irbil] ... accounts for why Iran chose to stage its capture of the British sailors," said Prof Gary Sick of Columbia University and former aid to Jimmy Carter. "Iran appears to have gained something from its pressure tactics." This view was supported by Trita Parsi, president of the US National Iranian American Council. "By taking the [British] soft targets, the Iranians put pressure on the US."
Sick agreed: "It is a reminder that Iran has quite an array of asymmetrical options available to it to counter indirectly the actions of the US forces in Iraq and elsewhere."
At the same time, according to Sick, Tehran's behavior during much of the crisis - including both the seizure itself, the precise location of which remains a matter of dispute, and its use of "confessions" by the British captives and threats to put them on trial - will probably have cost it much-needed international support.
"I suspect that recognition of this fact accounts for Iran's desire to end this dispute as promptly as possible," said Sick. "For the same reason, I suspect that this ploy will not be repeated any time soon."
Prof William Beeman, of the University of Minnesota, said: "Iranians have been signaling repeatedly, and not just during this crisis, that they will engage diplomatically, but without preconditions and on the basis of equality. So now they say, 'You see, when we have the upper hand, you see how magnanimous we are; we are a charitable, civilized people. We are reasonable. You can talk with us.'"
Parsi stated : "I think the Iranians thought it was better to declare victory and put an end to the crisis before there was any further escalation." He concluded : "The Iranian message is that if you deal with us respectfully, through incentives, then things can get resolved rather quickly. If you only resort to force or impose sanctions at the UN Security Council, then you'll only get stuck, and Iran will respond in kind. They're hoping that the West gets the impression that that is the incentive structure through which it can make progress with Iran. Whether that will be understood in the West is obviously a complete different question."
The Bush administration's relative silence during the crisis may also have conveyed, inadvertently perhaps, another message - that, despite widespread speculation that its recent military buildup in the Persian Gulf is intended to prepare the grounds for an attack on Iran, it has no wish to do so, at least for the moment.
Prof Juan Cole on the crisis ;
According to Middle East expert Prof Juan Cole, who writes a very informative daily Blog on the Middle East ," Once the British sailors and marines were captured, the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei used the incident "to whip up Iranian nationalistic sentiments" and garner popular support for the relatively unpopular government. He believes that "the captives were released when Khamenei was satisfied that Iran would not lose face and he could ensure the situation would not "spiral out of control." He goes on to add that it is "not impossible" that Iran might agree to a nuclear enrichment suspension if a proper formula can be found.
He adds "Khamenei has the difficulty that he represents the ideology of Ayatollah Ali Khomeini, who founded the current Iranian state. Khomeini had developed the doctrine that the clerics should rule until the Islamic promised one, the Mahdi, returned. And Khamenei represents that ideology which is puritan in character, puts restrictions on individual liberties, and is fairly dictatorial. It isn't popular.
"Although Iranians by and large, as far as we can tell, don't much care for this ideology anymore, they are still very nationalistic. And so Khamenei played this capture of the British sailors as a national moment. You even had the medical students of Isfahan University issuing a communiqué demanding that the British sailors and marines not be released and be punished for their incursion into Iranian national sovereign waters."
"In seizing the Iranians ( in Irbil) , who, after all, had been invited by the Iraqi authorities, the Americans were seen as behaving aggressively," said Cole. "Now the Iranians have demonstrated that the Anglo-American forces are not in a strong enough position to afford to do these things. They can play tit-for-tat."
" Once the British complained to the United Nations, which issued a statement and other statements and actions followed which " caused Iran to lose face, --it made Khamenei dig in his heels." But on Sunday, the British Defense [Secretary Des Browne], announced that the British were engaged in direct bilateral talks behind the scenes with the Iranians. It's clear that the British were prepared to make representations to Iran, that they had no desire to enter their waters, that they would avoid doing so. So the direct bilateral talks and the pledge not to violate Iranian sovereignty were face-saving for Iran."
Prof Cole explains "Beginning with the first supreme jurisprudent Ayatollah Khomeini , his successor "Ali Khamenei has repeatedly said that nuclear weapons are incompatible with Islamic law, because war, of course, in Islam, is a ritual. It's incompatible with Islamic thinking on war that one would kill non-combatants. And nuclear weapons, obviously, would tend to mainly kill non-combatants."
This is perhaps too simplistic. It is true that the Ayatollahs' rule has not been very popular from the very beginning . Khomeini was a rallying point for all in 1979 , against the Shah (caricatured as the sultan or the caliph), the corroding corruption, the excesses of the Savak secret police and its backers, the CIA, the hopes and aspirations of the youth for social justice, the masses suffering from inflation and sudden oil wealth inequities during US ally Shah's regime.
Khomeini provided that unflinching moral and spiritual bulwark against the Shah's armed-to-the-teeth military machine and his mendacity to deny whatever concessions were demanded, and what was held out in the end was too little too late. Many Iranians who opposed the hardline clerics and their killjoy agenda were eliminated, forced to flee or went underground. Even in 1980, disenchanted, only one fourth of Iranians went to the parliamentary polls. Expectedly, many clerics, some even senior to Khomeini, like Shariatmadari, favored political parties and more freedoms. But by sheer force, the radical conservatives took over power, sometimes in spite of Khomeini.
Then the Iranians laid low and dissimulated. When the chance came in May 1997, they voted massively in favor of Syed Mohammed Khatami. He started slowly but surely implementing his agenda, like appointing a woman vice president. But the radical conservative elements would not give in.
All efforts by Khatami to normalize relations with USA failed as since the collapse of the Soviet Union, USA wanted to rule as supreme hyper power and never forgot the hostage crisis of 1979 . Washington wants to keep the Middle East strategic balance in favour of the its Sunni client regimes like Egypt , Saudi Arabia and other kingdoms in the Gulf , who along with the West had supported Iraq in its 1980-87 war to neutralise the rising menace of Shia revolutionary power . West throughout history has exploited the divide and rule policy , in this case between the Aryan Shia Iranians and Semitic Sunni Arabs , but the rise of Iran's Shia power strengthened impoverished and ill treated Shias all over the Arab states ; in Lebanon, Syria and made them more vocal in the Gulf states .The fear of the rising Shia crescent since then grips all Western client states in the region.
Then the world changed on 11 September 2001 .Iran provided help to USA in its war against Talebans and made another sincere and serious offer to normalize relations with USA . But the Neo-Cons who were crowing of 'making history' were not inclined as their 'American Century Project ' envisaged regime changes in Iraq, Iran , Syria and perhaps even in Pakistan with its nuclear bombs ( now under an uneasy alliance , with constant danger of fundamentalist elements in its armed forces and its all powerful intelligence services ISI taking over the country ) .It was a foolish dream which has turned into a nightmare in the region.
After the thoughtless ,if not stupid and ill planned and illegal invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein emerged a Shia ruling dispensation in Iraq, an extremely potent Shia Alawaite ruling regime in Syria , with Hezbollah on a roll in Lebanon.
After two terms for moderate Khatami , whose efforts to engage in a dialogue of civilisations with the US led West were rebuffed, Iranians elected conservative hard line tough talking Mahmud Ahmedinejad in the second round , preferring him over moderate bazari ( merchant leader ) former President Rafsanjani, Khatami having throw in the towel .But let there be no doubt about the strong nationalist feeling among Iranians of all regions, languages and races .Among expatriate Iranians , even Royalists ,the nationalistic fervour exists with no Ahmed Chelebis and Iyyad Allawis in sight yet .The country has survived millennia long rule by Turks , Tatars and Mongols and civilized them all ,as it had Alexander and his uncouth Macedonian hordes.
Conclusions;
According to renowned journalist Patrick Cockburn , it was the botched US attempt to abduct two senior Iranian security officers on an official visit to north Iraq that triggered the Iran-UK crisis , with Iran seizing the British sailors and Marines.
On 11 January, helicopter-born US forces launched a surprise raid on a long-established Iranian liaison office in the city of Erbil in Iraqi Kurdistan. They only succeeded in capturing five relatively junior Iranian officials whom they now accuse of being intelligence agents .The US operation was carried out without knowledge of Kurdish government about which they had publicly protested .Did US Consul Paul Bremer not transfer sovereignty to Iraqis in June 2004!
The US objective was to 'seize two men at the very heart of the Iranian security establishment. Washington , who reportedly abducted an important Iranian in Istanbul " were after Jafari, who the Americans thought he [Jafari] was there. He was accompanied by a second, high-ranking Iranian official General Minojahar Frouzanda, the head of intelligence of the Pasdaran [Iranian Revolutionary Guard] . Jafari confirmed to the official Iranian news agency, IRNA, that he was in Erbil at the time of the raid. Manouchehr Mottaki, the Iranian Foreign Minister, told IRNA: "The objective of the Americans was to arrest Iranian security officials who had gone to Iraq to develop co-operation in the area of bilateral security."
Massoud Barzani, President of the Kurdish autonomous region in northern Iraq said on 7 April that the US forces which captured five Iranians , stationed for legitimate consular work, in the northern city of Erbil three months ago, were really after commanders of Iran's Revolutionary Guards who were visiting the region as the guests of Kurdish government .The Iranian guests had already called on Iraqi President Jalal Talabani in the northern city of Sulaimaniyah.
With US influence diminishing in the Middle East , the Kurds in a hostile environment are perhaps trying to make peace with Iran ,as Turkey is fiercely opposed to any autonomy to Iraqi Kurdistan and the forthcoming referendum by the Kurds to grab Kirkuk ,floating on oil like Kuwait ,after having carried out ethnic cleansing and manipulations.
Barzani also warned Ankara that if it intervened in the referendum, they will create problems in Turkey. Thousands of Turkish Kurdish guerillas are holed up in Iraqi Kurdistan . "Turkey is not allowed to intervene in the Kirkuk issue and if it does, we will interfere in Diyarbakir's issues and other cities in Turkey," Barzani threatened. Diyarbakir is the largest city in Turkey's Kurdish-dominated southeast.
Barzani has also declared that the independence and statehood for Kurds ( who live in Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq ) was a "legitimate and legal right". "But I am against the use of violence to reach this goal," he added. Does he have US approval who see an independent Kurdistan ( where a big US base is under construction ) with defence alliance as an option, as there appears little chance of subduing Iraq's Sunni or Shia Arabs , now engaged in a civil war. After all Iraqi Kurdistan is practically a US protectorate since the end of 1991 Gulf war.
Do not the Kurds know that even a powerful ally like Pakistan must obey US dictates as it did after 11/9 otherwise it was threatened of being bombed to the stone age .Islamabad is now paying the price of reversal of its policies with emerging massive violence along its borders with Afghanistan . It is going to get worse , even threatening Gen Pervez Musharraf's regime in Islamabad .
As for the British success in getting the EU to unreservedly back the UK position, which called for the unconditional release of the prisoners and backed by a commitment to take appropriate action if the Iranians refused , it is obvious that it was but typical EU toothless sabre-rattling. EU has become a collection of squabbling national entities , without any common foreign or defence policy , where petty states lecture Russia but would not surrender even a bit of their sovereignty for a united policy .Let us just take EU's energy requirements .It has choice of total reliance on Russia or get some of it from Iran. Its many leaders are upsetting both the suppliers .China ,India and others with galloping economic growth are waiting in the wings with their insatiable energy demand for their 2.4 billion people.
BBC's Pam O'Toole tried to decipher the decision making process in Tehran. She concluded "Iran has many different interlocking - and sometimes competing - centres of power. At best, the decision-making process there is opaque. It is often difficult to know who makes the decisions on some issues - something which causes immense headaches for Western countries trying to negotiate with Tehran.'
It is more equitable than in USA , where till the November trashing of Bush's Republican party , the legislative wing was in the pocket of the executive .And with Democrats not any different in their policies , it looked like a one party state .As for its judiciary , as the lawyers remain loyal to the party nominating them, even to the highest court , seen so clearly in 2000 Presidential elections and on the question of reduction of individual liberty in Bush era or White House's ability to appoint White House favoured Attorneys ,one wonders what kind of democracy US leaders and its subservient corporate media now talk about .In the last six years US political system has regressed towards a totalitarian system. And of course the shots are called by those who control arms manufacture and energy industry , leavened by pervasive Israeli Jewish influence in all branches of decision making . Aspirants for 2008 presidency stakes like Mrs Clinton and Obama are now being auctioned to the highest bidders . Yes , Ms O'Toole the decision making process in USA it is crystal clear.
There have been media reports about possible US attacks on Iran's nuclear sites and military installations , some even suggesting 6 April morning .The Iranian show came just before that deadline .Serious and clear headed Americans like Seymoor Hersh ,Scott Ritter and others have been warning the American lawmakers , that in a crazy move the Bush Administration might exercise that fearful one of 'all options are on the table '. And change the course of human civilization on planet Earth , for the worse.
K Gajendra Singh, Indian ambassador (retired), served as ambassador to Turkey and Azerbaijan from August 1992 to April 1996. Prior to that, he served terms as ambassador to Jordan, Romania and Senegal. He is currently chairman of the Foundation for Indo-Turkic Studies. Copy right with the author. E-mail: Gajendrak@hotmail.com
By K Gajendra Singh
Iran pardons Blair's dozen and Jane Bond.
" U.K. has suspended boarding operations in the northern Persian Gulf while the Royal Navy reviewed its procedures "- First Sea Lord Admiral Jonathon Bond ( no relation of James Bond )
Iranian Chess masters choreograph the crisis end.
It was a virtuoso almost flawless choreography which ended the 2 week long Iran-UK crisis ( with USA lurking at the back and Europe not far behind ) following the James Bond like British intelligence intrusion into Iranian waters. Even the Times on line admitted "The captives, including Leading Seaman Faye Turney, 26, were released yesterday in a stunning piece of political theatre by President Ahmadinejad, who brought a bizarre but welcome end to a 13-day drama that held the possibility of violent escalation."
A similar incident had occurred in 2004 when eight British servicemen were seized after straying over the maritime border. Clearly there is a dispute over where the border actually runs.
Known for inventing the game of Shatranj (chess) Tehran is giving West daily lessons in the subtle art of asymmetric warfare in Iraq and elsewhere the region . But the beaming of the release episode to the centres of western theatre; London , Washington and New York was a masterpiece. When Ahmedinejad's press conference was announced , western TV channels tuned in expecting more of the same blunt talk , which they could then distort ( as they did when they alleged the extinction of the Jewish State of Israel , while he had only repeated what Ayatollah Khomeini had said about the disappearance of the communist regime in Russia and so of the Zionist regime.)
Prime Minister Tony Blair, after the release of Blair's dozen ( Bakers dozen plus one ) and Jane Bond, Faye Turney, insisted that there was no deal done to secure the release, but added that discussions with Tehran during the crisis had opened up channels of communication "that have not been available to us before" and which it would be sensible to pursue.
Iran, meanwhile, claimed that Blair had sent a "letter of apology" the day before the prisoners were released. Ha'aretz quoted , an adviser to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, saying that Iran had received a letter of apology from Britain before the release .Downing Street denied that any apology had ever been made .
In a story titled "Pawns in a losing game: Britain's policy ", UK's 'Independent 'newspaper of 8 April referring to the release of captives , at cost unknown , but with the death of six soldiers in Basra at the same time, wondered ; just what are our soldiers dying for? , because the return and rejoicing came with a dark shadow of Iraq , with dead British soldiers .Blair directly linked the Tehran regime to the killings of British soldiers in Iraq, saying: "There are elements at least of the Iranian regime that [are] backing, financing, arming, supporting terrorism in Iraq and I repeat that our forces are there specifically at the request of the Iraqi government and with the full authority of the UN." US and UK have been making allegations of Iran' involvement , but have produced no evidence so far. The tank armor bursting cylindrical device Tehran was allegedly supplying can be easily procured in Iraq as it was being milled for its oil industry.
Iran' Ambassador in London Rasoul Movahedian told the Financial Times that Iran had "showed our goodwill" by freeing the Britons. "Now it is up to the British government to proceed in a positive way." He added that "the prime issue for Iran" was recognition of its right to a nuclear power programme. But that was said before UK organized its counter show to neutralise the Tehran performance.
The Anglo-Saxon credibility lies tattered. Except for the so called Western 'international community', the core consisting of USA, UK ,Israel , Australia and a few others , worldwide ,few believe in what British and other Western leaders and its corporate propaganda machine or Government controlled BBC churn out, casting a blot on the noble profession of journalism.
Even the US public does not trust Bush and his claims on Iraq war and inflicted a stinging defeat on his Republican party last November, but apparently to little effect so far .The suave and elegant mother of five, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's talks in Damascus with President Bashar Assad , in teeth of the Administration's opposition heralds the beginning of Bush's lame duck period . Of course , she diplomatically claimed " Our message was President Bush's message."
After visiting Israel , Pelosi delivered a message to Bashar from Tel Aviv which was ready to hold peace talks with Damascus provided it stops arming Hezbollah in Lebanon. Syria denies that it does . After the Damascus meeting she declared "We were very pleased with the reassurances we received from (Bashar) that he was ready to resume the peace process." "He was ready to engage in negotiations ... with Israel," she added.
Pelosi then went on to the Saudi capital Riyadh to meet with King Abdullah, who recently shocked his staunch ally USA. The King described the US occupation of Iraq as "illegitimate" at a meeting of Arab leaders in Riyadh last week. "In beloved Iraq, blood is being shed among brothers in the shadow of an illegitimate foreign occupation and ugly sectarianism threatens civil war," Abdullah said. Condi Rice telephoned Saudi Ambassador for clarifications. Abrasive John Bolton , the recently extinguished Ambassador to UN ( as the Senate refused to confirm him) said the US was in Iraq at the invitation of its government and its presence was further sanctioned by a U. N. Security Council resolution.
Everyone knows that the US led invasion of Iraq was in violation of the UN Charter , so affirmed by the Secretary General Kofi Annan himself. Since then quisling regimes in Baghdad have mostly consisted of exiles ,western intelligence assets , convicted embezzlers and others , who mostly live away from Baghdad or are ensconced in the Green Zone fortress .The Soviet Union used to say when its troops went into states like Hungary and Czechoslovakia that they were invited. When asked after some time by whom, the reply would be 'We are still looking for them." As for the UN, it is teetering like the League of Nations at the end .USA has destroyed its impartiality and credibility, and gravely undermined international law and Geneva and other Conventions. US along with four other nuclear armed ,also UN veto wielding powers have made mockery of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty , as in the case of Iran.
Of course there was no quid pro quo (!) said Anglo-Saxons , but access was allowed to five Iranian consular personnel , who were abducted from their office in Erbil in Iraqi Kurdistan. On 4 April , U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said an International Committee of the Red Cross delegation including one Iranian had visited the illegally held Iranian consular officials.
Also Jalal Sharafi, the second secretary at Iran's embassy in Baghdad was freed last week after being abducted in Iraq in February. Taken from his car by men in Iraqi army uniforms he was tortured by his captors, including CIA agents. The CIA officials' questions focused mainly on Iran's presence and influence in Iraq," he said. "When faced with my responses on Iran's official ties with the Iraqi government they increased the torture." Iran's Fars news agency reported, "He showed reporters the marks left by torture on his body that are now being treated by doctors."
The US military in Iraq said the coalition forces had not been involved in the abduction or any torture. Of course the CIA does not torture ! Some times they ask their friends to do so .Plausible deniability. Compare it how Tehran treated the British captives and how the Americans and the British have been treating suspects in Bagram in Afghanistan ,Gantanamo , Abu Gharaib and other black holes all over the world including in Europe. Human Rights organizations have compared these blots on humanity to Soviet era Gulags. Some European magistrates in Rome and Madrid have filed charges against CIA personnel who illegally abducted their innocent citizens for torture rendition in other countries .
During the 1991 US war on Iraq to liberate Kuwait ,US and allied troops apprehended in Iraq were treated humanely .This represents the clash of Christian and Muslim civilizations , but they are the branches from the same Abrahmic tree and are a continuation of the battle of the Gods as Karen Armstrong puts it .But unlike earlier Crusades and Jihads , this time the Jews have teamed up with the Western Christians .
James Bonds and Rambos ;
In a joint Five News and Sky News interview, recorded on 13 March but broadcast on 5 April after their release , captives leader Capt Chris Air acknowledged that he was operating close to the buffer zone between Iranian and Iraqi waters, adding: "It's good to gather intelligence on the Iranians." The British Ministry of Defence (MoD) said this was "all part of modern operations". James Bond stuff. The cover was interdicting smuggling of old Toyota cars in the Gulf.
Tehran somehow got wind off it and used it to confront the captives.Iran would not have taken the step unless it had proof of violation of its waters ( at least a couple of times ) .Perhaps the British boat had ventured too far into the enemy waters for the British ship Cornwall to intervene ,when the Iranians captured it.
The (MoD) confirmed that the Iranians had made the claim that they had become interested in Cornwall's activities after learning about it on British television interview, but denied the decision to allow the ship's crew to be interviewed while on active duty had jeopardised the mission.
According to the Guardian , the US had offered a list of military options to Britain, which remain top secret given the mounting risk of war between the US and Iran , including US combat aircraft mounting aggressive patrols over Iranian Revolutionary Guard bases in Iran. The British declined the offer and said the US could calm the situation by staying out of it. Reportedly UK also requested Washington to tone down military exercises that were already under way in the Gulf.
Colonel General Yury Solovyov , commander of Russia's Air Defense Forces Special Command told Novosti. "In line with my assessment, Iran's air defense system is strong enough." "Currently Iran has our [Russian] air defense missile systems, which are capable of tackling U.S. combat aircraft. Iran also has French and other countries' [defense] systems," he added.
It was widely believed in 1979 when US President Jimmy Carter mounted an air operation to rescue US Embassy personnel and others held as hostages in Tehran, that USSR had tipped the Iranians that something was afoot. The operation was a disaster and had to be aborted .It played a significant role in Carter's unsuccessful bid to be re-elected and brought in Ronald Regan , ushering in an era of rabid ultra neo-liberal conservative policies , which are now bringing up fruits adversely affecting the US polity .
Even this time round Moscow warned the West not to aggravate matters .It has been issuing warnings about US` naval build up in the Gulf , which many believe is a precursor to attack Iran. Russia would not standby if US and / or Israel try to destroy Iranian nuclear and military installations and even succeed partially . Nor will China be happy, which has a veto in UNSC , with its extensive energy interests and investments in Iran .
"Iranians clearly are a very uncivilised bunch"
As for the Western media now trying to milk the ordeals of their magnificent men and Mata Hari ( All that crap projected in "The bridge on river Kawai ' must be cooked up as Blair's dossiers and false accusations by Bush Administration prove ).The British lads and lass , who sang like canaries on Tehran TV and were genuinely happy at their unexpected release (the US Embassy hostages taken in 1979 stayed put in Tehran for 444 days ) are now busy selling to the British media their cooked up stories of valour and defiance , an accepted British calling , also exploited by paramours of the decadent British Royalty .
Reportedly the Royal Marines are planning to sell even the vases given as gifts to them in their 'goody bags' by the Iranians on eBay. The father of one of the hostages said the MoD had suggested the servicemen 'Go out there, tell the truth and make the money.'
The Blair's dozen and Jane Bond are expected to make around £250,000 between them. Faye Turney, mother of 3 year old child ,is likely to get the most profitable deal. She is said to have sold her story for £150,000 in a joint contract with a newspaper and ITV. Colonel Bob Stewart, a British commander of United Nations forces in Bosnia, told the Sunday Times that the MoD had turned a military disaster into a media circus. 'The released hostages are behaving like reality TV stars,' he said. 'I am appalled that the MoD is encouraging them to profit in this way.'
In 'The Guardian" ,Terry Jones wrote a sarcastic piece titled " No hoods. No electric shocks. No beatings. These Iranians clearly are a very uncivilised bunch "
He said ,"I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment --It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this - allowing them to smoke cigarettes-- And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world - have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? For God's sake, what's wrong with putting a bag over her head? That's what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it's hard to breathe. Then it's perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can't be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are.
" If the Iranians put duct tape over their mouths, like we do to our captives, they wouldn't be able to talk at all. --And what's all this about allowing the captives to write letters home saying they are all right? It's time the Iranians fell into line with the rest of the civilised world: --The inmates of Guantánamo, for example, have been enjoying all the privacy they want for almost five years, and the first inmate has only just been charged. What a contrast to the disgraceful Iranian rush to parade their captives before the cameras!
" -- The US military make sure that their Iraqi captives enjoy PT. This takes the form of exciting "stress positions", which the captives are expected to hold for hours on end so as to improve their stomach and calf muscles. A common exercise is where they are made to stand on the balls of their feet and then squat so that their thighs are parallel to the ground. This creates intense pain and, finally, muscle failure. It's all good healthy fun and has the bonus that the captives will confess to anything to get out of it.
"-What is so appalling is the underhand way in which the Iranians have got her (Turney )"unhappy and stressed". She shows no signs of electrocution or burn marks and there are no signs of beating on her face. This is unacceptable. If captives are to be put under duress, such as by forcing them into compromising sexual positions, or having electric shocks to their genitals, they should be photographed, as they were in Abu Ghraib. The photographs should then be circulated around the civilised world so that everyone can see exactly what has been going on--."
Released Britons relate stories of Iranian 'trickery'- International Herald Tribune
Can any one beat the 'Perfidious Albion', as Gen Charles de Gaulle once described the British, having suffered from their duplicity and hypocrisy? When the Brits crowed that the Sun never set on the British Empire , an admirer of cynic Diogenes .remarked that even God would not trust them in the dark .Now down and out and hanging on to US coat tails for crumbs from the world wide loot from the energy sector or from wars as after the 1991 war on Iraq . Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf kingdoms ,apart from Germany and Japan were made to shell out hundreds of billions of dollars to primarily protect US interests .One point of irritation for Baghdad was Kuwait's insistence that Iraq return $10 billion it had 'gifted ' brother Saddam Hussein ,the Sunni defender against the rising power of 'infidel' Shias of Iran . It turned out to be a costly deal with Kuwaitis shelling out more than 60 billion dollars and also suffered heavy damage during the Iraqi occupation and US led liberation war. But unlike in 1991 there is no one else to pay for this war.
Western counter show ;
So to counter the Tehran show , Captain Christopher Air of the Royal Marines and others except Faye , perhaps busy writing her memoires and to avoid inconvenient media questions ,were put on to Western TV channels a day after arrival to read out their scripted stories . Captain Air said they were kept in solitary confinement for much of the time. He added that they were subjected to ``psychological pressure'' and ``mind games,'' but none of them were physically harmed. The sailors and marines suffered ``aggressive questions and rough handling but it was no worse than that,'' said Lieutenant Felix Carman of the Royal Navy. ``Some of the tactics were an insult to our intelligence.'' But their treatment by the Iranian hosts was human.
Iran's foreign ministry said in a statement: "Such theatrical propaganda can not justify the soldiers' mistake. Such staged moves cannot cover up the mistake made by British military personnel who illegally entered Iran's territory. We are sorry that Britain has no knowledge about Islamic culture and Iranian civilisation to understand the reason Iran pardoned the British soldiers."
In his Tehran show , Ahmadinejad ha noted Easter's approach, together with the recent birthday of the Prophet Mohammed, and said that Iran was releasing the captives in the spirit of "forgiveness". It was a "gift "to the British people. The British personnel had appeared on Iranian television during captivity, insisting they had been well treated.
Why do M/S Tony Blair , Dick Cheney , George Bush et al refuse to comprehend that USA and UK have little credibility left in the world. Poodle Blair , so described even by the British media , before the invasion of Iraq went around the world to sell Western spins , half truths and lies about WMD and other accusations against Saddam Hussein and Iraq . In media conferences , Russian President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister stated that Moscow did not trust the British dossiers. Cheney remains the leading exponent of Goebbels dictum of repeating lies to make them sound like truth , even when once Bush had denied any connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda .
In a Radio broadcast a few days ago Cheney again repeated the canard that Iraq and Al Qaeda had relations prior to 2003 , even after the Congress got the records declassified which clarified that no such relations existed .So what do you do.
With the CIA chief George Tenet sitting behind him Secretary of State Colin Powell told an unbelieving UN audience about the cooked up cock and bull story of WMDs before the invasion .Tenet was later awarded the highest decoration for his 'slam dunk ' certainty of Iraq getting Uranium ore from Niger .A conscientious retired US Ambassador who exposed this canard after visiting Niger had his wife's CIA cover blown off by the administration from the very highest level as the court proceedings are proving .Cheney's chief aid Scooter Libby has been convicted of perjury and other charges .
Home coming celebrations in UK ;
Western media celebrated the return of the captives with headlines like "Mid-air toasts, facing the media, and finally the family reunions", Homecoming 'dream come true' - crew et al.
According to a study by John Hopkins and Mustansiriya Universities published by the prestigious British Journal 'Lancet' 655,000 Iraqis have been killed as a result of the US invasion and occupation. That was in July 2006 . The deadly dance of violence under US watch continues unabated. Bush's new policy of 'Surge' ie increase in US troops has only surged the mayhem and deaths. When questioned at the end of last year ,George Bush did not find the figures of the dead in the Hopkins led study credible .He stuck to the figure of 30,000 or so he had declared a year earlier .
Moreover, there are more than 2 million Iraqi refugees living in neighboring Syria and Jordan in addition to 2 million more displaced inside Iraq .Cities like Fallujah , Haditha , Tel Afar lie devastated .How many refugees US and UK, the main perpetrators of this crime have accepted .Very few . So much for their Christian morality and charity! The civilized West !
So what about the homecoming for 3 million displaced Iraqis , from Syria and Jordan and from violence created by US led coalition in their own country .When!
Experts on the Crisis ;
"I do think that the Iranian leadership was looking for an opportunity to let those placing pressure on Iran ... know that they will not be pushed into positions the United States is trying to push them into," said Farideh Farhi, an Iran researcher at the University of Hawaii. "The incident and the subsequent taking charge of the issue and negotiations by the secretary of Iran's National Security Council, Ali Larijani, was a sign by Iran that the country is willing to push back."
"The key decision makers ... may also have calculated that holding on to the sailors was a two-edged sword that was helping to boost the American/British depiction of the Islamic Republic as an irrational/outlaw regime," said Dariush Zahedi, who teaches at the department of political economy and Boalt Hall School of Law at UC Berkeley.
"The release of the sailors, once Britain toned down its rhetoric and started negotiating with the Islamic Republic, was also a signal to the U.S. -- emulate their example and we will be more amenable to working with you," Zahedi said.
"It is safe to say that by pushing back in such a public fashion, Tehran has declared its intent to stand its ground," Farhi agreed. "At the same time, by releasing the British citizens in a relatively short and 'civilized' manner, it has also made a statement about how Iranian politics works for those interested in resolving outstanding issues through negotiations.
"Whether the other side takes the message as intended by Tehran is, of course, an entirely different matter."
The western reading was that" despite its conventional military weakness and diplomatic isolation, Iran retains the ability to strike at Western interests when it feels sufficiently provoked. But " when Western powers engage Iran with respect and as an equal, they are more likely to get what they want than when they take a confrontational path designed to bully or humiliate the regime. Neither message might be well received either at the White House or among the neo-conservative and other right-wing pundits who have tried hard to depict the incident as the latest sign of Islamic or Persian barbarism." Barbarism -some cheek !
But the release of the Iranian diplomat, as well as reports that Tehran received assurances that it will have consular access to five alleged Revolutionary Guards ,all these events were not just coincidence , although London and Washington, like Ahmadinejad, insist there were no quids pro quo.
"I personally believe that the US action [in Irbil] ... accounts for why Iran chose to stage its capture of the British sailors," said Prof Gary Sick of Columbia University and former aid to Jimmy Carter. "Iran appears to have gained something from its pressure tactics." This view was supported by Trita Parsi, president of the US National Iranian American Council. "By taking the [British] soft targets, the Iranians put pressure on the US."
Sick agreed: "It is a reminder that Iran has quite an array of asymmetrical options available to it to counter indirectly the actions of the US forces in Iraq and elsewhere."
At the same time, according to Sick, Tehran's behavior during much of the crisis - including both the seizure itself, the precise location of which remains a matter of dispute, and its use of "confessions" by the British captives and threats to put them on trial - will probably have cost it much-needed international support.
"I suspect that recognition of this fact accounts for Iran's desire to end this dispute as promptly as possible," said Sick. "For the same reason, I suspect that this ploy will not be repeated any time soon."
Prof William Beeman, of the University of Minnesota, said: "Iranians have been signaling repeatedly, and not just during this crisis, that they will engage diplomatically, but without preconditions and on the basis of equality. So now they say, 'You see, when we have the upper hand, you see how magnanimous we are; we are a charitable, civilized people. We are reasonable. You can talk with us.'"
Parsi stated : "I think the Iranians thought it was better to declare victory and put an end to the crisis before there was any further escalation." He concluded : "The Iranian message is that if you deal with us respectfully, through incentives, then things can get resolved rather quickly. If you only resort to force or impose sanctions at the UN Security Council, then you'll only get stuck, and Iran will respond in kind. They're hoping that the West gets the impression that that is the incentive structure through which it can make progress with Iran. Whether that will be understood in the West is obviously a complete different question."
The Bush administration's relative silence during the crisis may also have conveyed, inadvertently perhaps, another message - that, despite widespread speculation that its recent military buildup in the Persian Gulf is intended to prepare the grounds for an attack on Iran, it has no wish to do so, at least for the moment.
Prof Juan Cole on the crisis ;
According to Middle East expert Prof Juan Cole, who writes a very informative daily Blog on the Middle East ," Once the British sailors and marines were captured, the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei used the incident "to whip up Iranian nationalistic sentiments" and garner popular support for the relatively unpopular government. He believes that "the captives were released when Khamenei was satisfied that Iran would not lose face and he could ensure the situation would not "spiral out of control." He goes on to add that it is "not impossible" that Iran might agree to a nuclear enrichment suspension if a proper formula can be found.
He adds "Khamenei has the difficulty that he represents the ideology of Ayatollah Ali Khomeini, who founded the current Iranian state. Khomeini had developed the doctrine that the clerics should rule until the Islamic promised one, the Mahdi, returned. And Khamenei represents that ideology which is puritan in character, puts restrictions on individual liberties, and is fairly dictatorial. It isn't popular.
"Although Iranians by and large, as far as we can tell, don't much care for this ideology anymore, they are still very nationalistic. And so Khamenei played this capture of the British sailors as a national moment. You even had the medical students of Isfahan University issuing a communiqué demanding that the British sailors and marines not be released and be punished for their incursion into Iranian national sovereign waters."
"In seizing the Iranians ( in Irbil) , who, after all, had been invited by the Iraqi authorities, the Americans were seen as behaving aggressively," said Cole. "Now the Iranians have demonstrated that the Anglo-American forces are not in a strong enough position to afford to do these things. They can play tit-for-tat."
" Once the British complained to the United Nations, which issued a statement and other statements and actions followed which " caused Iran to lose face, --it made Khamenei dig in his heels." But on Sunday, the British Defense [Secretary Des Browne], announced that the British were engaged in direct bilateral talks behind the scenes with the Iranians. It's clear that the British were prepared to make representations to Iran, that they had no desire to enter their waters, that they would avoid doing so. So the direct bilateral talks and the pledge not to violate Iranian sovereignty were face-saving for Iran."
Prof Cole explains "Beginning with the first supreme jurisprudent Ayatollah Khomeini , his successor "Ali Khamenei has repeatedly said that nuclear weapons are incompatible with Islamic law, because war, of course, in Islam, is a ritual. It's incompatible with Islamic thinking on war that one would kill non-combatants. And nuclear weapons, obviously, would tend to mainly kill non-combatants."
This is perhaps too simplistic. It is true that the Ayatollahs' rule has not been very popular from the very beginning . Khomeini was a rallying point for all in 1979 , against the Shah (caricatured as the sultan or the caliph), the corroding corruption, the excesses of the Savak secret police and its backers, the CIA, the hopes and aspirations of the youth for social justice, the masses suffering from inflation and sudden oil wealth inequities during US ally Shah's regime.
Khomeini provided that unflinching moral and spiritual bulwark against the Shah's armed-to-the-teeth military machine and his mendacity to deny whatever concessions were demanded, and what was held out in the end was too little too late. Many Iranians who opposed the hardline clerics and their killjoy agenda were eliminated, forced to flee or went underground. Even in 1980, disenchanted, only one fourth of Iranians went to the parliamentary polls. Expectedly, many clerics, some even senior to Khomeini, like Shariatmadari, favored political parties and more freedoms. But by sheer force, the radical conservatives took over power, sometimes in spite of Khomeini.
Then the Iranians laid low and dissimulated. When the chance came in May 1997, they voted massively in favor of Syed Mohammed Khatami. He started slowly but surely implementing his agenda, like appointing a woman vice president. But the radical conservative elements would not give in.
All efforts by Khatami to normalize relations with USA failed as since the collapse of the Soviet Union, USA wanted to rule as supreme hyper power and never forgot the hostage crisis of 1979 . Washington wants to keep the Middle East strategic balance in favour of the its Sunni client regimes like Egypt , Saudi Arabia and other kingdoms in the Gulf , who along with the West had supported Iraq in its 1980-87 war to neutralise the rising menace of Shia revolutionary power . West throughout history has exploited the divide and rule policy , in this case between the Aryan Shia Iranians and Semitic Sunni Arabs , but the rise of Iran's Shia power strengthened impoverished and ill treated Shias all over the Arab states ; in Lebanon, Syria and made them more vocal in the Gulf states .The fear of the rising Shia crescent since then grips all Western client states in the region.
Then the world changed on 11 September 2001 .Iran provided help to USA in its war against Talebans and made another sincere and serious offer to normalize relations with USA . But the Neo-Cons who were crowing of 'making history' were not inclined as their 'American Century Project ' envisaged regime changes in Iraq, Iran , Syria and perhaps even in Pakistan with its nuclear bombs ( now under an uneasy alliance , with constant danger of fundamentalist elements in its armed forces and its all powerful intelligence services ISI taking over the country ) .It was a foolish dream which has turned into a nightmare in the region.
After the thoughtless ,if not stupid and ill planned and illegal invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein emerged a Shia ruling dispensation in Iraq, an extremely potent Shia Alawaite ruling regime in Syria , with Hezbollah on a roll in Lebanon.
After two terms for moderate Khatami , whose efforts to engage in a dialogue of civilisations with the US led West were rebuffed, Iranians elected conservative hard line tough talking Mahmud Ahmedinejad in the second round , preferring him over moderate bazari ( merchant leader ) former President Rafsanjani, Khatami having throw in the towel .But let there be no doubt about the strong nationalist feeling among Iranians of all regions, languages and races .Among expatriate Iranians , even Royalists ,the nationalistic fervour exists with no Ahmed Chelebis and Iyyad Allawis in sight yet .The country has survived millennia long rule by Turks , Tatars and Mongols and civilized them all ,as it had Alexander and his uncouth Macedonian hordes.
Conclusions;
According to renowned journalist Patrick Cockburn , it was the botched US attempt to abduct two senior Iranian security officers on an official visit to north Iraq that triggered the Iran-UK crisis , with Iran seizing the British sailors and Marines.
On 11 January, helicopter-born US forces launched a surprise raid on a long-established Iranian liaison office in the city of Erbil in Iraqi Kurdistan. They only succeeded in capturing five relatively junior Iranian officials whom they now accuse of being intelligence agents .The US operation was carried out without knowledge of Kurdish government about which they had publicly protested .Did US Consul Paul Bremer not transfer sovereignty to Iraqis in June 2004!
The US objective was to 'seize two men at the very heart of the Iranian security establishment. Washington , who reportedly abducted an important Iranian in Istanbul " were after Jafari, who the Americans thought he [Jafari] was there. He was accompanied by a second, high-ranking Iranian official General Minojahar Frouzanda, the head of intelligence of the Pasdaran [Iranian Revolutionary Guard] . Jafari confirmed to the official Iranian news agency, IRNA, that he was in Erbil at the time of the raid. Manouchehr Mottaki, the Iranian Foreign Minister, told IRNA: "The objective of the Americans was to arrest Iranian security officials who had gone to Iraq to develop co-operation in the area of bilateral security."
Massoud Barzani, President of the Kurdish autonomous region in northern Iraq said on 7 April that the US forces which captured five Iranians , stationed for legitimate consular work, in the northern city of Erbil three months ago, were really after commanders of Iran's Revolutionary Guards who were visiting the region as the guests of Kurdish government .The Iranian guests had already called on Iraqi President Jalal Talabani in the northern city of Sulaimaniyah.
With US influence diminishing in the Middle East , the Kurds in a hostile environment are perhaps trying to make peace with Iran ,as Turkey is fiercely opposed to any autonomy to Iraqi Kurdistan and the forthcoming referendum by the Kurds to grab Kirkuk ,floating on oil like Kuwait ,after having carried out ethnic cleansing and manipulations.
Barzani also warned Ankara that if it intervened in the referendum, they will create problems in Turkey. Thousands of Turkish Kurdish guerillas are holed up in Iraqi Kurdistan . "Turkey is not allowed to intervene in the Kirkuk issue and if it does, we will interfere in Diyarbakir's issues and other cities in Turkey," Barzani threatened. Diyarbakir is the largest city in Turkey's Kurdish-dominated southeast.
Barzani has also declared that the independence and statehood for Kurds ( who live in Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq ) was a "legitimate and legal right". "But I am against the use of violence to reach this goal," he added. Does he have US approval who see an independent Kurdistan ( where a big US base is under construction ) with defence alliance as an option, as there appears little chance of subduing Iraq's Sunni or Shia Arabs , now engaged in a civil war. After all Iraqi Kurdistan is practically a US protectorate since the end of 1991 Gulf war.
Do not the Kurds know that even a powerful ally like Pakistan must obey US dictates as it did after 11/9 otherwise it was threatened of being bombed to the stone age .Islamabad is now paying the price of reversal of its policies with emerging massive violence along its borders with Afghanistan . It is going to get worse , even threatening Gen Pervez Musharraf's regime in Islamabad .
As for the British success in getting the EU to unreservedly back the UK position, which called for the unconditional release of the prisoners and backed by a commitment to take appropriate action if the Iranians refused , it is obvious that it was but typical EU toothless sabre-rattling. EU has become a collection of squabbling national entities , without any common foreign or defence policy , where petty states lecture Russia but would not surrender even a bit of their sovereignty for a united policy .Let us just take EU's energy requirements .It has choice of total reliance on Russia or get some of it from Iran. Its many leaders are upsetting both the suppliers .China ,India and others with galloping economic growth are waiting in the wings with their insatiable energy demand for their 2.4 billion people.
BBC's Pam O'Toole tried to decipher the decision making process in Tehran. She concluded "Iran has many different interlocking - and sometimes competing - centres of power. At best, the decision-making process there is opaque. It is often difficult to know who makes the decisions on some issues - something which causes immense headaches for Western countries trying to negotiate with Tehran.'
It is more equitable than in USA , where till the November trashing of Bush's Republican party , the legislative wing was in the pocket of the executive .And with Democrats not any different in their policies , it looked like a one party state .As for its judiciary , as the lawyers remain loyal to the party nominating them, even to the highest court , seen so clearly in 2000 Presidential elections and on the question of reduction of individual liberty in Bush era or White House's ability to appoint White House favoured Attorneys ,one wonders what kind of democracy US leaders and its subservient corporate media now talk about .In the last six years US political system has regressed towards a totalitarian system. And of course the shots are called by those who control arms manufacture and energy industry , leavened by pervasive Israeli Jewish influence in all branches of decision making . Aspirants for 2008 presidency stakes like Mrs Clinton and Obama are now being auctioned to the highest bidders . Yes , Ms O'Toole the decision making process in USA it is crystal clear.
There have been media reports about possible US attacks on Iran's nuclear sites and military installations , some even suggesting 6 April morning .The Iranian show came just before that deadline .Serious and clear headed Americans like Seymoor Hersh ,Scott Ritter and others have been warning the American lawmakers , that in a crazy move the Bush Administration might exercise that fearful one of 'all options are on the table '. And change the course of human civilization on planet Earth , for the worse.
K Gajendra Singh, Indian ambassador (retired), served as ambassador to Turkey and Azerbaijan from August 1992 to April 1996. Prior to that, he served terms as ambassador to Jordan, Romania and Senegal. He is currently chairman of the Foundation for Indo-Turkic Studies. Copy right with the author. E-mail: Gajendrak@hotmail.com
Des Browne and the Iran Captives: The media at war
Published April 9th, 2007
Beau Bo D’Or
By Neil
neil@b b d o . co . uk
Beau Bo D’Or
By Neil
neil@b b d o . co . uk
A bit of a departure for me - excuse the two repeated pictures, needed for the complete article.
Des Browne Confronted by Max Clifford
Today Defence Secretary Des Browne categorically denied he and the MOD had totally lost their bearings and strayed into Max Clifford’s territory by promoting the Iran ‘hostage’ story to the media.
Followed closely by a pack of journalists, perma tanned Max Clifford, sporting his trademark wireframe spectacles and wearing an open-necked white linen shirt and chinos confronted a suddenly tanned Des Browne as he left Specsavers, sporting new designer wireframe spectacles and wearing chinos and an open-necked white linen shirt.
The newly brown Browne’s efforts to avoid the press were foiled as he sought sanctuary, first in the local Primark (overrun due to false sale rumours), Topshop as Kate Moss was promoting her new line and then H&M as Madonna launched her new fashion range.
Accepting the inevitable, Browne agreed to discuss the events of the last two weeks.
Fortunately, a nearby cinema, showing a Guy Ritchie retrospective, provided a suitable venue, although the echo sometimes made it hard to hear clearly.
Browne insisted that he and his colleagues had done no wrong and were operating well within Government mandated boundaries.
“It is well known“, he added, “that Clifford regularly ignored accepted conventions in his dealings with the media, manufacturing stories and resisting full independent inspection of his self enrichment programme.”
Exclusive TV Deal for Former Captive
Clifford refuted all allegations and another made later that he was jealous of the MOD’s success in securing an exclusive TV appearance for one of the former captives.
Brown, addressing the recent ban on servicemen talking to the media, denied Clifford’s assertion that this was a pre-planned move to allow the reporting of only those items the Government deemed fit for their own political purposes.
Tehran Insists All Military Equipment Returned
Meanwhile, in Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad added to the controversy by claiming that Iran had not only released their captives but also all their boats and equipment.
Claiming deceit on the part of the British, he stated that the equipment, delivered to Tehran Airport with the servicemen, had been lost by British Airways.
The claims, he says, are supported by lost luggage data recently released by the UK’s Air Transport Users Council and an extract from the current BA London Eye brochure.
Cuddly Toys
Continuing his PR offensive, Ahmadinejad produced more footage of the captors selecting items to augment their goody bags which had been donated by the benevolent Iranian people, adding that there had been some infighting amongst the hostages as an incredible memory lapse by two contestants resulted in the loss of their ‘cuddly toy’ gifts.
Davina McCall Permitted to Honour Advertising Contract
Displaying a tolerance unseen before in Iran, Ahmadinejad graciously allowed Davina McCall to meet the evictees, minus headscarf. This move, he stated, was both an acknowledgment of Western values and a generous gesture to Garnier whose Nutrisse hair-colouring product Mccall advertises.
He did, however refuse McCall’s other request to bring with her a representative sample of a Big Brother eviction audience on the grounds that they would strike mortal fear into the hearts of his otherwise unflappable Revolutionary Guard.
PM’s Personal Sacrifice, Cherie’s Grief
Back in Britain, PM Tony Blair was fêted by his party for the key role he played in repatriating the servicemen.
Having had similar negotiations (albeit on a smaller, more personal scale) Blair made painful sacrifices to ensure the safe and comfortable return of the famous fifteen to British soil.
The effects of these sacrifices on Blair’s family remain to be seen, but medical experts believe they may include deep vein thrombosis and cramps in the facial muscles as noses are turned up at economy-class food.
BA cabin attendants will in future be issued with protection to prevent inner-ear damage caused by dontyouknowwhoiam-itis and an anticipated, new, more dangerous condition, provisionally named dontyouknowwhomy-
husbandwas-itis..
Downgraded Businessmen Received ‘Gifts’ from British Airways
President Ahmadinejad has suggested that a group of businessmen, downgraded to economy to make room for the servicemen, had been compensated by BA and can now be seen regularly commuting to work on London’s Thames river in two inflatable boats.
Questions Remain
Now this so-called “storm in a teacup” has passed, what questions remain to be answered?
In whose teacup did the storm occur, Iran or Iraq’s?
What were foreign bodies doing, floating about in the teacup in the first place?
And, when others normally lose their personal belongings in a storm, how did those involved come out with more?
in Lilbittapolitix, Pix and Current Events.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
In His Own Words: Captured Marine Says We Were Gathering Iran Intelligence - Transcript
In His Own Words
Updated: 17:22, Thursday April 05, 2007
Captain Chris Air of the Royal Marines revealed to Sky News that he and his colleagues had been gathering intelligence on the Iranians.
Here follows the full transcript of that interview.
Captain Air: "This is what's called an IPAT - an Interaction patrol whereby we come alongside or even board the fishing Dhows and basically interact with the crew.
"It's partly a hearts-and-minds type patrol, whereby we'll come along and speak to the crew, find out if they have any problems and just sort of introduce ourselves, let them know we're here to protect them, protect their fishing and stop any terrorism and piracy in the area.
"Secondly it's to gather int (Intelligence). If they do have any information because they're here for days at a time, they can share it with us whether it's about piracy or any sort of Iranian activity in the area because obviously we're right by the buffer zone with Iran
Jonathan Samuels "This Dhow had been robbed by some Iranian soldiers about 3 days ago, they had some money taken off them and apparently it's happened quite a lot of times in the past so it's good to gather int on the Iranians."
Sky Correspondent Jonathan Samuels: Is the captain happy to talk to you?
"Yes he is yeah. They're generally very compliant and friendly. We have a translator onboard who's a great help - sort of helps to break the ice - and we're obviously learning Arabic as well.
"It's good to help them just get relaxed and it's a very friendly and de-escalatory approach we adopt."
JS - Any dangers?
"At the moment we haven't encountered anyone who's been anything other than compliant (interrupted).
"We are capable of doing non-compliant boardings as well, however I think they'd be a bit stupid to start being aggresive with us because obviously we've got seven armed Marines and generally that's not a problem with us coming aboard because they understand we're here to help them at the end of the day."
JS - Any real risks?
"There can be yes, and we're not complacent about what we do so we make sure that we do take all the necessary security measure before we go jumping on a Dhow. We'll assess the situation and make sure it's secure before we come aboard."
Updated: 17:22, Thursday April 05, 2007
Captain Chris Air of the Royal Marines revealed to Sky News that he and his colleagues had been gathering intelligence on the Iranians.
Here follows the full transcript of that interview.
Captain Air: "This is what's called an IPAT - an Interaction patrol whereby we come alongside or even board the fishing Dhows and basically interact with the crew.
"It's partly a hearts-and-minds type patrol, whereby we'll come along and speak to the crew, find out if they have any problems and just sort of introduce ourselves, let them know we're here to protect them, protect their fishing and stop any terrorism and piracy in the area.
"Secondly it's to gather int (Intelligence). If they do have any information because they're here for days at a time, they can share it with us whether it's about piracy or any sort of Iranian activity in the area because obviously we're right by the buffer zone with Iran
Jonathan Samuels "This Dhow had been robbed by some Iranian soldiers about 3 days ago, they had some money taken off them and apparently it's happened quite a lot of times in the past so it's good to gather int on the Iranians."
Sky Correspondent Jonathan Samuels: Is the captain happy to talk to you?
"Yes he is yeah. They're generally very compliant and friendly. We have a translator onboard who's a great help - sort of helps to break the ice - and we're obviously learning Arabic as well.
"It's good to help them just get relaxed and it's a very friendly and de-escalatory approach we adopt."
JS - Any dangers?
"At the moment we haven't encountered anyone who's been anything other than compliant (interrupted).
"We are capable of doing non-compliant boardings as well, however I think they'd be a bit stupid to start being aggresive with us because obviously we've got seven armed Marines and generally that's not a problem with us coming aboard because they understand we're here to help them at the end of the day."
JS - Any real risks?
"There can be yes, and we're not complacent about what we do so we make sure that we do take all the necessary security measure before we go jumping on a Dhow. We'll assess the situation and make sure it's secure before we come aboard."
'Americans offered 'aggressive patrols' in Iranian airspace'
Related
Spin, spin, spin - UK tries to undo Iran's PR win
Sailors read ‘retractions’ from prepared written statements
---
Americans offered 'aggressive patrols' in Iranian airspace
Ewen MacAskill, Julian Borger, Michael Howard and John Hooper
Saturday April 7, 2007
The Guardian
Spin, spin, spin - UK tries to undo Iran's PR win
Sailors read ‘retractions’ from prepared written statements
---
Americans offered 'aggressive patrols' in Iranian airspace
Ewen MacAskill, Julian Borger, Michael Howard and John Hooper
Saturday April 7, 2007
The Guardian
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.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
What We Can Learn From Britain About Iran
THROUGH the capture of and subsequent announcement that it would release 15 British sailors and marines, the Islamic Republic of Iran sent its adversaries a pointed message: just as Iran will meet confrontation with confrontation, it will respond to what it perceives as flexibility with pragmatism. This message is worth heeding as the United States and Iran seem to be moving inexorably toward conflict.
The timing of the Britons’ capture was no accident. The incident followed the passage of a United Nations resolution censuring Iran for its nuclear infractions, the dispatch of American aircraft carriers to the Persian Gulf and the American sanctioning of Iranian banks. Although the Bush administration has been busy proclaiming its increasingly confrontational Iran policy a success, Tehran’s unsubtle conduct in the Persian Gulf suggests otherwise.
Vali Nasr is a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School and the author of “The Shia Revival: How Conflicts Within Islam Will Shape the Future.” Ray Takeyh is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of “Hidden Iran: Paradox and Power in the Islamic Republic.”
Lessons in Capture, Release of Britons
Related
UK Issued Two Different Coordinates for Gulf Incident
---
POLITICS-IRAN:
Analysis by Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON, Apr 5 (IPS) - The drama surrounding the release of 15 British sailors and marines after 12 days in Iranian captivity was designed to convey two key messages that the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush would do well to heed, say experts here.
First, the Britons' original capture by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard near the entry to the disputed Shatt-al-Arab waterway was meant to demonstrate that, despite its conventional military weakness and diplomatic isolation, Iran retains the ability to strike at western interests when it feels sufficiently provoked.
Second, when western powers engage Iran with respect and as an equal, they are more likely to get what they want than when they take a confrontational path designed to bully or humiliate the regime.
While neither message is likely to be well received either at the White House or among the neo-conservative and other right-wing pundits who have tried hard to depict the incident as the latest sign of Islamic or Persian barbarism, properly understood, they could form the basis of a new approach capable of yielding results, according to Juan Cole, a regional expert at the University of Michigan.
''The British have now opened a channel,'' he told IPS. ''Although this incident really did constitute a crisis -- one that might have escalated to very dangerous levels -- the resolution was diplomatic, and that diplomatic resolution could contain the seeds for future diplomacy, if the British and the Americans are so inclined.''
The announcement on Wednesday, that the sailors and marines were being released in honour of the Prophet Mohammed's forthcoming birthday and the Christian Easter holiday, was made by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who then met with the captives personally.
''Our government has pardoned them; it is a gift from our people,'' he said, adding that the gesture had ''nothing to do'' with Tuesday's release in Iraq of a senior Iranian diplomat who was abducted two months ago reportedly by a special Iraqi intelligence agency that works closely with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). ''We approached the subject on a humanitarian basis. It was a unilateral decision on our end,'' he insisted.
Nonetheless, the diplomat's release, as well as reports that Tehran also just received assurances that it would be given consular access to five alleged Revolutionary Guard officers seized by U.S. forces at an Iranian liaison office in Arbil nearly three months ago, suggested that Wednesday's events were more than just coincidence, although both London and Washington, like Ahmadinejad, insisted there were no quid pro quos.
''I personally believe that the U.S. action (in Arbil) .accounts for why Iran chose to stage its capture of the British sailors,'' noted Gary Sick, an Iran expert at Columbia University who served in White House under former President Jimmy Carter. ''Iran appears to have gained something from its pressure tactics.''
That assessment was shared by Trita Parsi, president of the U.S. National Iranian American Council (NIAC). ''By taking the (British) soft targets, the Iranians put pressure on the U.S..''
In addition to collecting bargaining chips, the original capture had other purposes, as well, including rallying nationalist sentiment behind the regime just as it faced the imposition by the UN Security Council of a new round of sanctions for rejecting demands to suspend its uranium enrichment programme.
As important, however, was the message Tehran wished to convey to the West that it could indeed respond to what it saw as U.S. provocations in ways that could harm or embarrass its allies.
''In seizing the Iranians, who after all, had been invited by the Iraqi authorities, the Americans were seen as behaving aggressively,'' according to Cole. ''Now, the Iranians have demonstrated that the Anglo-American forces are not in a strong enough position to afford to do these things. They can play tit for tat.''
''It is a reminder that Iran has quite an array of asymmetrical options available to it to counter indirectly the actions of the U.S. forces in Iraq and elsewhere,'' Sick agreed.
At the same time, according to Sick, Tehran's behaviour during much of the crisis -- including both the seizure itself, the precise location of which remains a matter of dispute, and its use of ''confessions'' by the British captives and threats to put them on trial -- will probably have cost it much-needed international support.
''I suspect that recognition of this fact accounts for Iran's desire to end this dispute as promptly as possible,'' said Sick. ''For the same reason, I suspect that this ploy will not be repeated any time soon.''
''I think the Iranians thought it was better to declare victory and put an end to the crisis before there was any further escalation,'' noted Parsi.
At the same time, however, Parsi and other analysts said that the point at which victory could be declared was reached because of important changes in the British approach to the crisis.
While London officials have said the turning point came Monday, when Iran's national security chief, Ali Larijani, gave a conciliatory interview to Britain's Channel Four television -- an interview that was followed by a critical conversation between Larijani and Blair's top foreign-policy adviser, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, according to 'The Independent' -- Cole points to a shift in the British stance from one of threats and demands to a more diplomatic approach over the weekend, including confirmation by British Defence Secretary Des Browne that London was ''in direct bilateral communication with the Iranians.''
''These sorts of incidents are always to some extent about face, and apparently the Iranians felt that when Britain agreed to enter into direct bilateral negotiations, Iran had gained enough face to be magnanimous,'' he said. ''On Sunday, they were admitted as equals, not scolded as little children. That created the opening for (Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali) Khamenei and Ahmadinejad to climb down and save face.''
''Iranians have been signalling repeatedly, and not just during this crisis, that they will engage diplomatically, but without preconditions and on the basis of equality,'' said William Beeman, an Iran expert at the University of Minnesota. ''So now they say, 'You see, when we have the upper hand, you see how magnanimous we are; we are a charitable, civilized people. We are reasonable. You can talk with us'.''
''The Iranian message is that if you deal with us respectfully, through incentives, then things can get resolved rather quickly,'' said Parsi. ''If you only resort to force or impose sanctions at the UN Security Council, then you'll only get stuck, and Iran will respond in kind. They're hoping that the West gets the impression that that is the incentive structure through which it can make progress with Iran. Whether that will be understood in the West is obviously a complete different question.''
The Bush administration's relative silence during the crisis may also have conveyed, inadvertently perhaps, another message -- that, despite widespread speculation that its recent military build-up in the Gulf was intended to prepare the grounds for an attack on Iran, it had no wish to do so, at least for the moment.
''The Iranian capture of 15 (British) military personnel could certainly have been used as .a pretext (for a military strike), since it could easily have escalated to a full-fledged military crisis,'' according to Sick. ''I regard the absence of unbridled escalation in this case as a significant indicator that the U.S. desire for a strike may be more muted than it has been portrayed.''
UK Issued Two Different Coordinates for Gulf Incident
---
POLITICS-IRAN:
Analysis by Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON, Apr 5 (IPS) - The drama surrounding the release of 15 British sailors and marines after 12 days in Iranian captivity was designed to convey two key messages that the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush would do well to heed, say experts here.
First, the Britons' original capture by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard near the entry to the disputed Shatt-al-Arab waterway was meant to demonstrate that, despite its conventional military weakness and diplomatic isolation, Iran retains the ability to strike at western interests when it feels sufficiently provoked.
Second, when western powers engage Iran with respect and as an equal, they are more likely to get what they want than when they take a confrontational path designed to bully or humiliate the regime.
While neither message is likely to be well received either at the White House or among the neo-conservative and other right-wing pundits who have tried hard to depict the incident as the latest sign of Islamic or Persian barbarism, properly understood, they could form the basis of a new approach capable of yielding results, according to Juan Cole, a regional expert at the University of Michigan.
''The British have now opened a channel,'' he told IPS. ''Although this incident really did constitute a crisis -- one that might have escalated to very dangerous levels -- the resolution was diplomatic, and that diplomatic resolution could contain the seeds for future diplomacy, if the British and the Americans are so inclined.''
The announcement on Wednesday, that the sailors and marines were being released in honour of the Prophet Mohammed's forthcoming birthday and the Christian Easter holiday, was made by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who then met with the captives personally.
''Our government has pardoned them; it is a gift from our people,'' he said, adding that the gesture had ''nothing to do'' with Tuesday's release in Iraq of a senior Iranian diplomat who was abducted two months ago reportedly by a special Iraqi intelligence agency that works closely with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). ''We approached the subject on a humanitarian basis. It was a unilateral decision on our end,'' he insisted.
Nonetheless, the diplomat's release, as well as reports that Tehran also just received assurances that it would be given consular access to five alleged Revolutionary Guard officers seized by U.S. forces at an Iranian liaison office in Arbil nearly three months ago, suggested that Wednesday's events were more than just coincidence, although both London and Washington, like Ahmadinejad, insisted there were no quid pro quos.
''I personally believe that the U.S. action (in Arbil) .accounts for why Iran chose to stage its capture of the British sailors,'' noted Gary Sick, an Iran expert at Columbia University who served in White House under former President Jimmy Carter. ''Iran appears to have gained something from its pressure tactics.''
That assessment was shared by Trita Parsi, president of the U.S. National Iranian American Council (NIAC). ''By taking the (British) soft targets, the Iranians put pressure on the U.S..''
In addition to collecting bargaining chips, the original capture had other purposes, as well, including rallying nationalist sentiment behind the regime just as it faced the imposition by the UN Security Council of a new round of sanctions for rejecting demands to suspend its uranium enrichment programme.
As important, however, was the message Tehran wished to convey to the West that it could indeed respond to what it saw as U.S. provocations in ways that could harm or embarrass its allies.
''In seizing the Iranians, who after all, had been invited by the Iraqi authorities, the Americans were seen as behaving aggressively,'' according to Cole. ''Now, the Iranians have demonstrated that the Anglo-American forces are not in a strong enough position to afford to do these things. They can play tit for tat.''
''It is a reminder that Iran has quite an array of asymmetrical options available to it to counter indirectly the actions of the U.S. forces in Iraq and elsewhere,'' Sick agreed.
At the same time, according to Sick, Tehran's behaviour during much of the crisis -- including both the seizure itself, the precise location of which remains a matter of dispute, and its use of ''confessions'' by the British captives and threats to put them on trial -- will probably have cost it much-needed international support.
''I suspect that recognition of this fact accounts for Iran's desire to end this dispute as promptly as possible,'' said Sick. ''For the same reason, I suspect that this ploy will not be repeated any time soon.''
''I think the Iranians thought it was better to declare victory and put an end to the crisis before there was any further escalation,'' noted Parsi.
At the same time, however, Parsi and other analysts said that the point at which victory could be declared was reached because of important changes in the British approach to the crisis.
While London officials have said the turning point came Monday, when Iran's national security chief, Ali Larijani, gave a conciliatory interview to Britain's Channel Four television -- an interview that was followed by a critical conversation between Larijani and Blair's top foreign-policy adviser, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, according to 'The Independent' -- Cole points to a shift in the British stance from one of threats and demands to a more diplomatic approach over the weekend, including confirmation by British Defence Secretary Des Browne that London was ''in direct bilateral communication with the Iranians.''
''These sorts of incidents are always to some extent about face, and apparently the Iranians felt that when Britain agreed to enter into direct bilateral negotiations, Iran had gained enough face to be magnanimous,'' he said. ''On Sunday, they were admitted as equals, not scolded as little children. That created the opening for (Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali) Khamenei and Ahmadinejad to climb down and save face.''
''Iranians have been signalling repeatedly, and not just during this crisis, that they will engage diplomatically, but without preconditions and on the basis of equality,'' said William Beeman, an Iran expert at the University of Minnesota. ''So now they say, 'You see, when we have the upper hand, you see how magnanimous we are; we are a charitable, civilized people. We are reasonable. You can talk with us'.''
''The Iranian message is that if you deal with us respectfully, through incentives, then things can get resolved rather quickly,'' said Parsi. ''If you only resort to force or impose sanctions at the UN Security Council, then you'll only get stuck, and Iran will respond in kind. They're hoping that the West gets the impression that that is the incentive structure through which it can make progress with Iran. Whether that will be understood in the West is obviously a complete different question.''
The Bush administration's relative silence during the crisis may also have conveyed, inadvertently perhaps, another message -- that, despite widespread speculation that its recent military build-up in the Gulf was intended to prepare the grounds for an attack on Iran, it had no wish to do so, at least for the moment.
''The Iranian capture of 15 (British) military personnel could certainly have been used as .a pretext (for a military strike), since it could easily have escalated to a full-fledged military crisis,'' according to Sick. ''I regard the absence of unbridled escalation in this case as a significant indicator that the U.S. desire for a strike may be more muted than it has been portrayed.''
The US can learn from this example of mutual respect
The outcome of the crisis between Iran and Britain provides a lesson on how to deal with the wider international standoff
Abbas Edalat in Tehran
Thursday April 5, 2007
The Guardian
Abbas Edalat in Tehran
Thursday April 5, 2007
The Guardian
The unexpectedly early resolution to the dispute between the UK and Iran over the detention of 15 sailors and marines in the Persian Gulf is the direct result of Iran's goodwill and a U-turn by the British government. After initially using threatening language and seeking to add an unnecessary international dimension to the dispute, it eventually opted for direct negotiations with Iran based on mutual respect. This outcome offers a compelling lesson on how to deal with the wider international standoff between the US and Iran.
President Ahmadinejad may have chided the British government at yesterday's press conference for not being brave enough to admit that it had made a mistake by crossing into Iranian waters, but his mood was generous. His "gift to the British people" was with immediate effect, and he asked for no apology or other concessions.
But what was the impediment to immediate recourse to bilateral diplomacy, which could have achieved an agreement soon after the arrest? In 2004, a similar incursion involving British service personnel in Iranian territorial waters was resolved in a matter of days, with guarantees that such incursion would not occur in future.
Tehran has certainly sought similar assurances over the past 13 days, which is reasonable given the long history of British imperial domination in Iran in the 19th century, the US/UK-incited coup of 1953 which overthrew the popular government of Dr Mosaddeq, and the UK's support for Saddam's regime in its eight-year war against Iran, including provision of chemical weapons. Against this background is the current wider context where, in violation of the UN charter, Iran is threatened by the US, UK and Israeli leaders, who regularly assert that "the military option" is on the table.
But Tony Blair effectively dismissed the possibility of a conventional approach by announcing that there would be no negotiations and suspending trade and diplomatic relations. Iran's offer to release Faye Turney was then sabotaged by the British government, which hastily involved the UN security council and the EU, unprecedented in a case which could and should be resolved bilaterally.
The government's heavy-handed approach can only be explained in the context of the US drive for regime change in Iran, which Blair has supported for more than a year. The US and UK, prodded by Israel, have been systematically pursuing a multi-pronged strategy to demonise and isolate Iran, using unfounded allegations that Iran is intent on building nuclear weapons, is directly supporting Iraqi insurgents, and aims to "wipe Israel off the map". With two US aircraft carriers stationed in the area, and a third on its way, there is a sense of deja vu in relation to the period preceding the attack on Iraq, when "evidence", subsequently shown to be false, was used to provide a casus belli.
After over 2,200 hours of inspections, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has found absolutely no evidence of a nuclear weaponisation programme in Iran, where Ayatollah Khamenei, the supreme leader, has issued a fatwa against the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons. Yet there are two security council resolutions calling on Iran to suspend its legal enrichment programme and imposing sanctions for its refusal to comply. Strikingly, there is now incontrovertible evidence, provided by Stephen Rademaker, the former US assistant secretary for non-proliferation and international security, that the US coerced the IAEA to vote against Iran in 2005 and, in 2006, to report its nuclear file to the security council.
On another propaganda front, Colonel Justin Masherevski, of the British forces in Basra, announced, on the same day as the sailors' detention, that local sources had told him Iranian agents were providing "sophisticated weaponry" to Iraqi insurgents. Such allegations have been levelled against Iran by the US and Britain since the summer of 2005, but have never been substantiated. Meanwhile, five Iranian diplomats have remained in US detention at an unknown location with no formal charges against them following a raid on their Irbil consulate in January, although Ahmadinejad yesterday denied any link between their plight and the release of the British sailors.
Finally, Ahmadinejad's own call for regime change in Israel - "the occupying Zionist regime of Jerusalem should cease to exist in the page of time" - has been mistranslated and distorted into the notorious phrase, "Israel should be wiped off the map" by the western media. What is never reported is that Ayatollah Khamenei stated unequivocally immediately afterwards that "the Islamic Republic has never threatened and will never threaten any country".
Ahmadinejad's decision to release the British detainees was a sign of strength, and he further stated that he would be willing to reconsider ties with Washington were President Bush to change his behaviour. But the dispute has also highlighted the real dangers of escalation, as happened in 1964 when the Gulf of Tonkin incident was manipulated by the US to justify war in Vietnam.
Yesterday's welcome outcome should show the international community that the solution to the standoff lies in its hands. The UK and other governments must pressure the US to drop its pre-condition of suspension of Iran's legal right to uranium enrichment, and enter into negotiations on all points of conflict.
· Abbas Edalat is professor of computer science and mathematics at Imperial College London, and the founder of the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Syria played role in resolving U.K.-Iran dispute, officials say
AP 2 hours, 3 minutes ago
Syria: We helped in Iran-Britain dispute
Syria played a key role in resolving the standoff over the 15 British sailors and marines held by Iran, two government officials said Wednesday.
"Syrian efforts and the Iranian willingness culminated with the release of the British sailors," said Information Minister Mohsen Bilal.
He said Syria had been asked "to help positively in the issue of British" crew members since their March 23 seizure by Iran in the Persian Gulf.
He did not elaborate.
Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem told reporters that "Syria exercised a sort of quiet diplomacy to solve this problem and encourage dialogue" between Britain and Iran.
Al-Moallem, who also did not give any details on the Syrian mediation, spoke at Damascus international airport before the departure of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) for Saudi Arabia.
A Foreign Ministry official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media, said Iran's decision to release the Britons was "right," and that Syria "sees it as an example of the positive results for adopting dialogue and diplomacy among states."
Syria has long been the Arab country with the closest ties to Iran, a non-Arab state. The two have moved toward each other as they were shunned by the United States and the European Union for their alleged interference in Iraq and Lebanon, and their support of Palestinian militant groups regarded as terrorist in the West.
Syria: We helped in Iran-Britain dispute
Syria played a key role in resolving the standoff over the 15 British sailors and marines held by Iran, two government officials said Wednesday.
"Syrian efforts and the Iranian willingness culminated with the release of the British sailors," said Information Minister Mohsen Bilal.
He said Syria had been asked "to help positively in the issue of British" crew members since their March 23 seizure by Iran in the Persian Gulf.
He did not elaborate.
Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem told reporters that "Syria exercised a sort of quiet diplomacy to solve this problem and encourage dialogue" between Britain and Iran.
Al-Moallem, who also did not give any details on the Syrian mediation, spoke at Damascus international airport before the departure of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) for Saudi Arabia.
A Foreign Ministry official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media, said Iran's decision to release the Britons was "right," and that Syria "sees it as an example of the positive results for adopting dialogue and diplomacy among states."
Syria has long been the Arab country with the closest ties to Iran, a non-Arab state. The two have moved toward each other as they were shunned by the United States and the European Union for their alleged interference in Iraq and Lebanon, and their support of Palestinian militant groups regarded as terrorist in the West.
Iran president says will free captured British sailors
Iranian leader says he'll free Britons
6 minutes ago
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says he has pardoned and will free the 15 British sailors and marines detained in the Gulf last month.
Ahmadinejad also gave medals of honor to the Iranian coast guards who intercepted the 15 British sailors and marines in the Gulf, saying Iran will never accept tresspassing of its territorial waters.
"On behalf of the great Iranian people, I want to thank the Iranian Coast Guard who courageously defended and captured those who violated their territorial waters, the president told a press conference.
He then interrupted his speech and pinned medals on the chests of three Coast Guard officers involved in capturing the British sailors and marines in the northern Gulf on March 23.
"We are sorry that British troops remain in Iraq and their sailors are being arrested in Iran," Ahmadinejad said.
He criticized Britain for deploying Leading Seaman Faye Turney, one of the 15 detainees, in the Gulf, pointing out that she is a woman with a child.
Also Wednesday, Iran's state media reported that an Iranian envoy will be allowed to meet five Iranians detained by U.S. forces in northern Iraq since January.
A U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad said, however, that American authorities were still considering the request. The spokesman, Maj. Gen. William C. Caldwell, said an international Red Cross team, including one Iranian, had visited the prisoners but he did not say when.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
What do captured British sailors, fake water boundaries, a botched US raid in Iraq and a UK political corruption scandal have in common?
April 3, 2007
By Heather Wokusch
What do captured British sailors, fake water boundaries, a botched US raid in Iraq and a UK political corruption scandal have in common? Read on…
Tension mounts between Britain and Iran over the 15 British sailors seized on March 23. While many US media outlets dutifully repeat the claims that: 1) the sailors were in Iraqi waters at the time they were taken captive, and 2) the incident came completely out of nowhere, a closer examination of the facts indicates otherwise.
Here’s a quick overview of recent articles providing important context -
1. The map showing the captured sailors were in Iraqi waters is "fake" and "has no legal force."
Craig Murray was the Ambassador to the Central Republic of Uzbekistan from 2002-04 and "helped expose the vicious human rights abuses by the US-funded regime of Islam Karimov."
He also headed Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from 1989-92. In other words, Murray knows a thing or two about maritime borders.
Here’s an excerpt from Murray’s March 28, 2007 blog entitled "Fake Maritime Boundaries" (www.craigmurray.co.uk):
The British Government has published a map showing the coordinates of the incident, well within an Iran/Iraq maritime border. The mainstream media and even the blogosphere has bought this hook, line and sinker.
But there are two colossal problems.
A) The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force.
B) Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one.
None of which changes the fact that the Iranians, having made their point, should have handed back the captives immediately. I pray they do so before this thing spirals out of control. But by producing a fake map of the Iran/Iraq boundary, notably unfavourable to Iran, we can only
harden the Iranian position.
2. According to the UK’s Independent, "A failed American attempt to abduct two senior Iranian security officers on an official visit to northern Iraq was the starting pistol for a crisis that 10 weeks later led to Iranians seizing 15 British sailors and Marines."
An excerpt from the Independent’s April 3 2007 article entitled "The botched US raid that led to the hostage crisis"
(http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2414760.ece):
Early on the morning of 11 January, helicopter-born US forces launched a surprise raid on a long-established Iranian liaison office in the city of Arbil in Iraqi Kurdistan. They captured five relatively junior Iranian officials whom the US accuses of being intelligence agents and
still holds.
In reality the US attack had a far more ambitious objective, The Independent has learned. The aim of the raid, launched without informing the Kurdish authorities, was to seize two men at the very heart of the Iranian security establishment.
Better understanding of the seriousness of the US action in Arbil - and the angry Iranian response to it - should have led Downing Street and the Ministry of Defence to realise that Iran was likely to retaliate against American or British forces such as highly vulnerable Navy search
parties in the Gulf…
The attempt by the US to seize the two high-ranking Iranian security officers openly meeting with Iraqi leaders is somewhat as if Iran had tried to kidnap the heads of the CIA and MI6 while they were on an official visit to a country neighbouring Iran, such as Pakistan or
Afghanistan.
The raid in Arbil was a far more serious and aggressive act. It was not carried out by proxies but by US forces directly. The abortive Arbil raid provoked a dangerous escalation in the confrontation between the US and Iran which ultimately led to the capture of the 15 British sailors and Marines - apparently considered a more vulnerable coalition target
than their American comrades.
3. Headlines about the captured sailors have conveniently buried reports on Prime Minister Tony Blair’s role in a domestic political scandal, which had him threatening to resign as recently as last week.
(www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/25/nhons25.xml)
The UK’s Sunday Telegraph reported on March 26th: "Detectives have spent a year looking into allegations that Labour promised peerages in return for £14 million in secret loans to fight the 2005 general election ... Police officers investigating the cash-for-honours scandal wanted to
interview Tony Blair under caution but backed off after being warned that it could lead to his resignation."
"Under caution" means that Blair would have been "treated as a suspect, rather than simply as a witness." That would be undesirable for Blair, because "The fact that Mr Blair has not been interviewed under caution means it is unlikely any of the answers he has given so far could be
used against him to bring charges. Legal experts say any solicitor is likely to argue that evidence from a routine interview - not treating someone as a suspect - should be declared inadmissible by a judge."
According to a Sunday Telegraph source, "Make no mistake, Scotland Yard was informed that Mr Blair would resign as Prime Minister if he was interviewed under caution."
The plot thickens…
Related
Allegations that Lord Levy is suffering anti-semitism divide British Jews
It’s Anti-Semitism, Stupid!
By Heather Wokusch
What do captured British sailors, fake water boundaries, a botched US raid in Iraq and a UK political corruption scandal have in common? Read on…
Tension mounts between Britain and Iran over the 15 British sailors seized on March 23. While many US media outlets dutifully repeat the claims that: 1) the sailors were in Iraqi waters at the time they were taken captive, and 2) the incident came completely out of nowhere, a closer examination of the facts indicates otherwise.
Here’s a quick overview of recent articles providing important context -
1. The map showing the captured sailors were in Iraqi waters is "fake" and "has no legal force."
Craig Murray was the Ambassador to the Central Republic of Uzbekistan from 2002-04 and "helped expose the vicious human rights abuses by the US-funded regime of Islam Karimov."
He also headed Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from 1989-92. In other words, Murray knows a thing or two about maritime borders.
Here’s an excerpt from Murray’s March 28, 2007 blog entitled "Fake Maritime Boundaries" (www.craigmurray.co.uk):
The British Government has published a map showing the coordinates of the incident, well within an Iran/Iraq maritime border. The mainstream media and even the blogosphere has bought this hook, line and sinker.
But there are two colossal problems.
A) The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force.
B) Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one.
None of which changes the fact that the Iranians, having made their point, should have handed back the captives immediately. I pray they do so before this thing spirals out of control. But by producing a fake map of the Iran/Iraq boundary, notably unfavourable to Iran, we can only
harden the Iranian position.
2. According to the UK’s Independent, "A failed American attempt to abduct two senior Iranian security officers on an official visit to northern Iraq was the starting pistol for a crisis that 10 weeks later led to Iranians seizing 15 British sailors and Marines."
An excerpt from the Independent’s April 3 2007 article entitled "The botched US raid that led to the hostage crisis"
(http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2414760.ece):
Early on the morning of 11 January, helicopter-born US forces launched a surprise raid on a long-established Iranian liaison office in the city of Arbil in Iraqi Kurdistan. They captured five relatively junior Iranian officials whom the US accuses of being intelligence agents and
still holds.
In reality the US attack had a far more ambitious objective, The Independent has learned. The aim of the raid, launched without informing the Kurdish authorities, was to seize two men at the very heart of the Iranian security establishment.
Better understanding of the seriousness of the US action in Arbil - and the angry Iranian response to it - should have led Downing Street and the Ministry of Defence to realise that Iran was likely to retaliate against American or British forces such as highly vulnerable Navy search
parties in the Gulf…
The attempt by the US to seize the two high-ranking Iranian security officers openly meeting with Iraqi leaders is somewhat as if Iran had tried to kidnap the heads of the CIA and MI6 while they were on an official visit to a country neighbouring Iran, such as Pakistan or
Afghanistan.
The raid in Arbil was a far more serious and aggressive act. It was not carried out by proxies but by US forces directly. The abortive Arbil raid provoked a dangerous escalation in the confrontation between the US and Iran which ultimately led to the capture of the 15 British sailors and Marines - apparently considered a more vulnerable coalition target
than their American comrades.
3. Headlines about the captured sailors have conveniently buried reports on Prime Minister Tony Blair’s role in a domestic political scandal, which had him threatening to resign as recently as last week.
(www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/25/nhons25.xml)
The UK’s Sunday Telegraph reported on March 26th: "Detectives have spent a year looking into allegations that Labour promised peerages in return for £14 million in secret loans to fight the 2005 general election ... Police officers investigating the cash-for-honours scandal wanted to
interview Tony Blair under caution but backed off after being warned that it could lead to his resignation."
"Under caution" means that Blair would have been "treated as a suspect, rather than simply as a witness." That would be undesirable for Blair, because "The fact that Mr Blair has not been interviewed under caution means it is unlikely any of the answers he has given so far could be
used against him to bring charges. Legal experts say any solicitor is likely to argue that evidence from a routine interview - not treating someone as a suspect - should be declared inadmissible by a judge."
According to a Sunday Telegraph source, "Make no mistake, Scotland Yard was informed that Mr Blair would resign as Prime Minister if he was interviewed under caution."
The plot thickens…
Related
Allegations that Lord Levy is suffering anti-semitism divide British Jews
It’s Anti-Semitism, Stupid!
Monday, April 2, 2007
Washington hurting British bid to free crew
Editor's note: I am moving to post at the secondary blog(also see new articles below).
---
Tough words from U.S. highlight rift between White House and Downing Street
DOUG SAUNDERS
From Monday's Globe and Mail
Doug Saunders
LONDON — The Iranian prisoner crisis revealed a widening schism between Britain and the United States Sunday as U.S. leaders called for tough action and British officials confirmed that they are trying to free their 15 imprisoned sailors by quietly reaching a compromise with Tehran.
British officials believe that Iran is not seeking a prisoner exchange or other further bounty in exchange for the sailors, who have been imprisoned for 10 days, and they are hoping the crisis can be resolved peacefully in the next few days.
As two more British sailors were shown Sunday night in another Iranian broadcast reading confessions and a small crowd of radical students in Tehran threw rocks and firecrackers at the British embassy there, British diplomats exchanged letters with the Iranian foreign ministry seeking a conciliatory end to the standoff.
Officials in London said that they believe their “confidence-building” operations, in which they offer to guarantee the Iranian government that British vessels will not stray into Iranian waters, offer the best hope of winning the freedom of the sailors and marines who have been in custody since they were seized by Iran's Republican Guards on March 23. Iran says the sailors had strayed into Iranian waters. Britain says they remained in Iraqi waters, where they are allowed to operate in support of the war in Iraq.
“We are anxious that this matter be resolved as quickly as possible, and that it be resolved by diplomatic means, and we are bending every single effort to that. ... We are in direct bilateral communication with the Iranians,” British Defence Minister Des Browne told reporters Sunday.
But Britain's delicate diplomatic efforts were set back by U.S. President George W. Bush, who made a statement Saturday in which he characterized the imprisoned sailors as “hostages” — a phrase that Britain has been carefully avoiding to prevent the crisis from becoming a broader political or military conflict.
“The British hostages issue is a serious issue because the Iranians took these people out of Iraqi waters, and it's inexcusable behaviour,” Mr. Bush said in response to a reporter's question during a press conference at the Camp David retreat.
He had reportedly promised not to raise the issue of the sailors, as British officials worry that the entry of the United States into this crisis could cause it to escalate into an irreconcilable confrontation.
Other U.S. officials have been even less amenable to the British approach. John Bolton, who until recently was Mr. Bush's ambassador to the United Nations, has appeared on British TV describing the British approach as “pathetic.”
Mr. Bush stressed that the United States would not turn over Iranian officials it had arrested in Iraq earlier this year on accusations that they were supporting insurgents, saying he supported Prime Minister Tony Blair's view that “there were no quid pro quos. The Iranians must give back the hostages. They're innocent, they were doing nothing, and they were summarily plucked out of water.”
But British officials say that a prisoner exchange has never been offered or suggested by Iran, and that Mr. Bush's words could cause harm by putting the Iranians in a position from which they cannot back down if it becomes a major confrontation with their long-time enemy, the United States.
British negotiators believe the Iranians have already won all the rewards they have been seeking — mainly by using several of the hostages for propaganda purposes by broadcasting videos and letters in which they admit, possibly under duress, to trespassing on Iranian territory and demand that their government withdraw from Iraq.
British officials are said to believe that a hard-line group of Republican Guards has been controlling the prisoners, possibly with the backing of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but that the imprisonment lacks a political goal beyond the humiliation of Britain and its allies, and that more moderate parties, including Iran's “supreme leader,” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are not interested in a prolonged standoff, like the 444-day 1979 U.S. hostage crisis, that would isolate Iran.
Ayatollah Khamenei has not yet spoken publicly on this crisis, and there are some observers in Iran who believe that he has abandoned his support for Mr. Ahmadinejad over the way the President's radically anti-Western gestures have distanced Iran from the rest of the world and damaged the economy.
Iran's government is deeply divided into factions and parties, which often control their own police, justice systems and wings in the major prisons. British officials and many Iranian observers believe that Mr. Ahmadinejad's more radical supporters are unlikely to prevail in this dispute since it offers few opportunities for gain. Iranian media have reported that moderate factions, including some leaders in the Republican Guards, have advocated the release of the prisoners.
Many observers noted that most Iranians have been on their country's New Year's vacation since the crisis began. Newspapers have not been publishing there, more moderate Foreign Ministry officials have not been in their offices, and the Revolutionary Guards have had a monopoly on the issue in a holiday period that will end tomorrow.
“It's the Supreme Leader who has to make the ultimate decision,” said Mehrdad Khansari of London's Centre for Arab and Iranian Studies. “He has allowed each faction to air its grievances, present its positions. ... He has heard from the moderates — I mean, the commander of the Revolutionary Guards has expressed a desire for releasing these people — whereas other groups within the Revolutionary Guards have expressed a harder position.”
---
Tough words from U.S. highlight rift between White House and Downing Street
DOUG SAUNDERS
From Monday's Globe and Mail
Doug Saunders
LONDON — The Iranian prisoner crisis revealed a widening schism between Britain and the United States Sunday as U.S. leaders called for tough action and British officials confirmed that they are trying to free their 15 imprisoned sailors by quietly reaching a compromise with Tehran.
British officials believe that Iran is not seeking a prisoner exchange or other further bounty in exchange for the sailors, who have been imprisoned for 10 days, and they are hoping the crisis can be resolved peacefully in the next few days.
As two more British sailors were shown Sunday night in another Iranian broadcast reading confessions and a small crowd of radical students in Tehran threw rocks and firecrackers at the British embassy there, British diplomats exchanged letters with the Iranian foreign ministry seeking a conciliatory end to the standoff.
Officials in London said that they believe their “confidence-building” operations, in which they offer to guarantee the Iranian government that British vessels will not stray into Iranian waters, offer the best hope of winning the freedom of the sailors and marines who have been in custody since they were seized by Iran's Republican Guards on March 23. Iran says the sailors had strayed into Iranian waters. Britain says they remained in Iraqi waters, where they are allowed to operate in support of the war in Iraq.
“We are anxious that this matter be resolved as quickly as possible, and that it be resolved by diplomatic means, and we are bending every single effort to that. ... We are in direct bilateral communication with the Iranians,” British Defence Minister Des Browne told reporters Sunday.
But Britain's delicate diplomatic efforts were set back by U.S. President George W. Bush, who made a statement Saturday in which he characterized the imprisoned sailors as “hostages” — a phrase that Britain has been carefully avoiding to prevent the crisis from becoming a broader political or military conflict.
“The British hostages issue is a serious issue because the Iranians took these people out of Iraqi waters, and it's inexcusable behaviour,” Mr. Bush said in response to a reporter's question during a press conference at the Camp David retreat.
He had reportedly promised not to raise the issue of the sailors, as British officials worry that the entry of the United States into this crisis could cause it to escalate into an irreconcilable confrontation.
Other U.S. officials have been even less amenable to the British approach. John Bolton, who until recently was Mr. Bush's ambassador to the United Nations, has appeared on British TV describing the British approach as “pathetic.”
Mr. Bush stressed that the United States would not turn over Iranian officials it had arrested in Iraq earlier this year on accusations that they were supporting insurgents, saying he supported Prime Minister Tony Blair's view that “there were no quid pro quos. The Iranians must give back the hostages. They're innocent, they were doing nothing, and they were summarily plucked out of water.”
But British officials say that a prisoner exchange has never been offered or suggested by Iran, and that Mr. Bush's words could cause harm by putting the Iranians in a position from which they cannot back down if it becomes a major confrontation with their long-time enemy, the United States.
British negotiators believe the Iranians have already won all the rewards they have been seeking — mainly by using several of the hostages for propaganda purposes by broadcasting videos and letters in which they admit, possibly under duress, to trespassing on Iranian territory and demand that their government withdraw from Iraq.
British officials are said to believe that a hard-line group of Republican Guards has been controlling the prisoners, possibly with the backing of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but that the imprisonment lacks a political goal beyond the humiliation of Britain and its allies, and that more moderate parties, including Iran's “supreme leader,” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are not interested in a prolonged standoff, like the 444-day 1979 U.S. hostage crisis, that would isolate Iran.
Ayatollah Khamenei has not yet spoken publicly on this crisis, and there are some observers in Iran who believe that he has abandoned his support for Mr. Ahmadinejad over the way the President's radically anti-Western gestures have distanced Iran from the rest of the world and damaged the economy.
Iran's government is deeply divided into factions and parties, which often control their own police, justice systems and wings in the major prisons. British officials and many Iranian observers believe that Mr. Ahmadinejad's more radical supporters are unlikely to prevail in this dispute since it offers few opportunities for gain. Iranian media have reported that moderate factions, including some leaders in the Republican Guards, have advocated the release of the prisoners.
Many observers noted that most Iranians have been on their country's New Year's vacation since the crisis began. Newspapers have not been publishing there, more moderate Foreign Ministry officials have not been in their offices, and the Revolutionary Guards have had a monopoly on the issue in a holiday period that will end tomorrow.
“It's the Supreme Leader who has to make the ultimate decision,” said Mehrdad Khansari of London's Centre for Arab and Iranian Studies. “He has allowed each faction to air its grievances, present its positions. ... He has heard from the moderates — I mean, the commander of the Revolutionary Guards has expressed a desire for releasing these people — whereas other groups within the Revolutionary Guards have expressed a harder position.”
The American dimension: UK tells US to shut the neocons the f**k up
Leader
Saturday March 31, 2007
The Guardian
Saturday March 31, 2007
The Guardian
In one sense it is perhaps just as well that it was British, rather than American, sailors and marines who were taken prisoner. If they had been Americans, the rump of neoconservatives in the Bush administration, in particular Dick Cheney and Elliott Abrams, would have been saying: "We told you so." They have long argued that Iran is not susceptible to diplomatic pressure, that the European approach is doomed to failure and the only way to stop Iran acquiring a nuclear-weapons capability is a military strike on its nuclear facilities.
Even though the prisoners are British rather than Americans, neocons have been desperate to head for television studios. The only reason they have not done so yet is a request by the British government to the Bush administration to stay out of it. Word has also reached members of Congress. The British fear is that even a mild rebuke from President George Bush, or a neoconservative such as John Bolton, will be counterproductive, escalating the crisis and making it harder to get the 15 back.
Tony Blair is well aware of the battle lines in Washington and, hopefully, will keep this at the top of his mind during the crisis. He is in a hard place this weekend. He is, understandably, under pressure from the public and parliament to do something amid a sense of outrage that Iran not only captured the group, but denied them consular access and paraded them on television. To address these concerns Mr Blair has made the necessary strident noises.
But he has to resist more hysterial voices. Throughout his premiership the British government has consistently opted for negotiation with Iran to try to resolve the nuclear issue, not military action. And now, after years in which the US refused to participate, the British government has serious allies in Washington. The US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates, are pursuing engagement and are prepared to talk to Tehran. The duo are in the ascendancy in Washington while the Cheney-Abrams alliance is temporarily relegated to the sidelines. Ms Rice and Mr Gates think their approach is working, that there are signs of anxiety in Tehran over sanctions and other economic measures, as well as the diplomatic pressure. They argue that Iran is not like North Korea, and that it does not want to be isolated.
How Mr Blair handles the present crisis could crucially impact on this internal Washington debate. Mr Blair has options. The prime minister, who has a genuine dislike of and concern about the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, could still ask Washington to set the drums beating. That would suit Mr Cheney and Mr Abrams. At this stage such an approach, thankfully, seems unlikely.
Alternatively Mr Blair could have opted for a quieter approach, choosing discreet, bilateral discussions, but was advised that this would not work. Instead he has opted for a middle route, internationalising the crisis, seeking the help of other countries to put pressure on Tehran. Countries in Europe and the Middle East have been helpful: the United Nations security council less so.
Servicemen taken by Iran in 2004 were quickly released. The background is tenser now. Iran's Revolutionary Guard, which is holding the 15, has suffered a series of setbacks in recent months, from the capture of six members of its Quds brigade in Iraq through to the defection of a senior commander to the west. British pressure applied through its allies may not have much impact on the Revolutionary Guard, but it will influence the foreign ministry and perhaps even Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
It could take a while for Britain to secure the release of the sailors and marines. In the meantime Mr Blair has to placate the British public. But he must also show patience and do nothing that will undermine Ms Rice and Mr Gates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)