UK stand off with Iran

[Ocean Moves]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6496191.stm

"the revolutionary guards are of the view that the UK and the US should be pushed and their interests need to be threatened. So this is a serious situation. "

[EvilBastard]

I don't blame them, to be fair - if I found a bunch of marines floating about in my backyard, and knew that they represented a government whose leader regularly took it up the gary from the leader of another country which had accused me of being an overall badhat, I'd probably take a "bird in the hand" view and capture them too. It's a little bit of sabre-rattling by the chaps in Tehran, who probably figure that they need a bargaining chip, and the lads and lasses of the RM will do very nicely. On the plus side, they're probably safer in Tehran than they would be in Baghdad - it may not be the prettiest part of the world, but the food's good.

I would have to agree with Dr Pahlavan - if this was US soldiers we were talking about, then there would be all sorts of repercussions. While Britain may have many faults, it is fortunate to have hundreds of years of experience of dealing with the region, and it does have long-standing relationships with senior people out there. This incident is more likely to lead to talking rather than to widespread deployment of tactical nuclear weapons.

That being said, it must be a bit worrying for their families in the UK - but if this puts the kibosh on my planned trip to Iran this winter I shall Not Be Happy.

[Ocean Moves]

Personally, the thing that I can't understand is this whole
Business of inspecting nuclear facilities.
Iran has insisted that they are purely for civil
Purposes, yet they deny thorough inspection from the UN.
Why is that? What do you have to gain? (or hide?)
The outcome, as far as I can see, is simply all round
suspicion from the international community....
The very thing that lead to the war in Iraq (by those
hot headed sabre rattlers in the Bush administration
who just wanted an excuse).
And on that note, I've never understood why, when presented with
the choice of inspections (for weapons, which, apparently
weren’t there at all) or being attacked, Saddam chose the latter.

Someone enlighten me.

[Ahráyeph]

The enlightenment : who ever said that leaders of a country made sense? And you're talking about Saddam here : a man so removed from reality he felt he could get away with just about anything. Until reality caught up with him via a noose around his neck. And by then it was too late, of course. Nothing unusual there, it's been an ongoing cycle for thousands of years...

[boudicca]

Am I alone in thinking it'll probably blow over?

This particular issue I mean (ie they'll be released) not the rather larger problem of both Iran and the US secretly, or not so secretly, wanting AT each other very badly...

[Ahráyeph]

I definitely agree, Claire. Tehran already promised to release the female soldier. They just want to give a signal that they shouldn't be messed with. A bit of muscle flexing, that's all it is...

[eotunun]

Or inabillity to use GPS receivers propperly.

[boudicca]

They said they were 200 yards (that's approx. 200 metres for you foreigns! ) inside Iraqi waters... you would think they could be a bit more lenient when it comes to matters of a few yards on the high seas!

[paint it black]

They said they were 200 yards (that's approx. 200 metres for you foreigns! ) inside Iraqi waters... you would think they could be a bit more lenient when it comes to matters of a few yards on the high seas!

they actually said 'you were at point X' to which it was pointed out that point X was not there territory, then then said, 'ah, sorry, we meant point Y' to which they were told point Y was not possible given the route the boats had taken, so they finally settled on point Z. you see

[eotunun]

They said they were 200 yards (that's approx. 200 metres for you foreigns! ) inside Iraqi waters... you would think they could be a bit more lenient when it comes to matters of a few yards on the high seas!

183.6 meters, to be precise. One yard is three feet, one foot is 30.6 centimeters (cm). Thus it´s 200 x .918=183.6
For point Z, that is.
Could it be that they have a very special system of calculating coordinates?

[Badlander]

One yard is three feet, one foot is 30.6 centimeters (cm).

Naaaah, it's 30.48 cm. One foot is 12 inches (2.54 cm).
12*2.54=30.48
How could anybody not get that ?

Again, why don't they just use the metric system ?

[markfiend]

They said they were 200 yards (that's approx. 200 metres for you foreigns! ) inside Iraqi waters... you would think they could be a bit more lenient when it comes to matters of a few yards on the high seas!

they actually said 'you were at point X' to which it was pointed out that point X was not there territory, then then said, 'ah, sorry, we meant point Y' to which they were told point Y was not possible given the route the boats had taken, so they finally settled on point Z. you see

"And we dispute the borders; points X, Y and Z are all inside our claimed territory anyway."

[boudicca]

Can't everyone just agree that they were in the water?

[wild bill buttock]

DIRKA DIRKA

[DeWinter]

My response to the Iran crisis? Fight your enemy with their own weapons. Round up Iran's diplomatic representation in London, and force their wives/daughters to apologise on national television to the British people for acts of unwarrented aggression. Hiijab's and burkha's removed, and hair displayed freely, as is our custom.
Then listen to the screams of manufactured fury in the Islamic world, the spluttering of our own brand of fifth-columnists, and the EU impose the exact trade sanctions on us it's just refused to impose on Iran.
The one thing this has convinced me is that internationally, for whatever motive, we are being shown who our friends are, and it's not the group we pay 13 billion yearly to be a part of. And as for the Russians, the next time they send a rustbucket out to sea and it sinks, it can drown before we offer to help.

[lazarus corporation]

My response to the Iran crisis? Fight your enemy with their own weapons. Round up Iran's diplomatic representation in London, and force their wives/daughters to apologise on national television to the British people for acts of unwarrented aggression. Hiijab's and burkha's removed, and hair displayed freely, as is our custom.
Then listen to the screams of manufactured fury in the Islamic world, the spluttering of our own brand of fifth-columnists, and the EU impose the exact trade sanctions on us it's just refused to impose on Iran.
The one thing this has convinced me is that internationally, for whatever motive, we are being shown who our friends are, and it's not the group we pay 13 billion yearly to be a part of. And as for the Russians, the next time they send a rustbucket out to sea and it sinks, it can drown before we offer to help.

Of course, that would breach the diplomatic immunity of the Iranian diplomatic representation in London, and Iran would doubtless retaliate by doing exactly the same to the British diplomatic representation in the embassy in Tehran. So we'd end up with a lot more British people being held prisoner by Iran. Not exactly a solution is it?

Deliberately letting Russian citizens drown in some puerile act of revenge against the Russian government is obviously wrong. Personally I don't believe that the citizens of a country should be killed in acts of revenge against their government's policies. That's why I'm against terrorism.

I'm sure there's a lot of diplomacy going on behind the scenes (by the UK, Iran and probably Russia and EU member states) which is completely different from the silly name-calling, posturising or apparent lack of engagement which is the publicly visible sideshow.

This public sideshow is just there to push the buttons of the more easily-led citizens of the respective countries to make them support their government's actions and further condition their kneejerk responses in a way that their government wants - which generally manifests itself in manufactured fury and spluttering on both sides.

[Ramone]

Where are we now..10 days and counting since this dispute began? And the more hear this story the more it sounds like a tale a child would tell.

15 marines in a boat 'wander' into Iran's waters and get detained for doing so. The British 'Military intelligence' ( as Graucho Marx once said 'Military Intelligence', now that's a contradiction in terms) won't admit as to what they were doing there and the Iranians, who have every right to do so, detain them for doing so.

If you woke up one night and found some kid you knew was a notorious trouble maker in your area was snooping round in your garden in the middle of the night with a bunch of his mates, wouldn't you grab hold of him and want an explanation off his parents as to why he wasn't home in bed like everyone else's brats?

But now, according to the local bully, let's call him George W Bush, steps in and says that they should be regarded as 'hostages ' and that this act is intolerable and heinous. Wouldn't you think this was rather ironic from a man who has been 'detaining' and keeping people in a Cuban facility without trial, access to legal representation and communication to the outside world for over five years - merely because of their religion and race?

To be regarded as a hostage, the scenario for that to unfold usually involves men in ski masks jumping out of a van tying some one up and sticking a bag over their head and then keeping them in a darkened room with out access to food, water and clean clothing. All against the persons will.

Mr Bush, is trying his hardest to inflame this situation so he can use it as an excuse to goad Iran into something more serious.

You only have to ask yourself, just how many times have the U.S and British 'special services' donned their black covert gear and gone into some else's country to gain' intelligence' illegally ?It's just that when you come back in your milk tray man outfit with the relevant information, your deemed a hero, and then immortalized in many a block buster movie, but when your caught red handed your captors are quickly seen as the evil wrong doers and your simply an innocent man who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This all stinks of saber rattling and bravado. We were caught and we're too embarrassed to admit it. For shame.



VOTE SANJAYA!!!

[DeWinter]

Of course, that would breach the diplomatic immunity of the Iranian diplomatic representation in London, and Iran would doubtless retaliate by doing exactly the same to the British diplomatic representation in the embassy in Tehran. So we'd end up with a lot more British people being held prisoner by Iran. Not exactly a solution is it?

Deliberately letting Russian citizens drown in some puerile act of revenge against the Russian government is obviously wrong. Personally I don't believe that the citizens of a country should be killed in acts of revenge against their government's policies. That's why I'm against terrorism.

I'm sure there's a lot of diplomacy going on behind the scenes (by the UK, Iran and probably Russia and EU member states) which is completely different from the silly name-calling, posturising or apparent lack of engagement which is the publicly visible sideshow.

This public sideshow is just there to push the buttons of the more easily-led citizens of the respective countries to make them support their government's actions and further condition their kneejerk responses in a way that their government wants - which generally manifests itself in manufactured fury and spluttering on both sides.

Point taken, not the politico's then. Round up any of the thousands of Iranian citizens currently in the UK. Theres a lot more of them than you'd think, and a hell of a lot more than there are Britons in Iran, I reckon. It'd be a heart-warming spectacle, them all publicly apologising for a trumped up charge.If those are the tactics that are going to be used by the Iranians to try and gain some kind of "victory" over the UK and increase it's standing amongst the rest of the backward countries in the M.E, use the same.

Diplomacy means nothing if you can't back it up with anything. Trade sanctions are out, as the EU won't compromise it's trade with Iran for the UK's sake, so the UK gets hung out to dry (I can forgive the Danes, since Britain didn't say a word in support of them last year). Leaves Britain with only one option if diplomacy fails, and that option the EU will fall over itself to criticise the UK for if used,even though they themselves blocked the other option. In a way I'm delighted for it, the amount of damage it'll do the EU in the eyes of the public is enormous.

The Russians? Well, last time the UK lifted a finger to assist them, they tried to blame them for their decaying submarine sinking in the first place, as I recall. Again, treat them the same way they behave.

[nowayjose]

Mr Bush, is trying his hardest to inflame this situation so he can use it as an excuse to goad Iran into something more serious.

No, he isn't.. the American side, not normally known for the finer aspects of diplomacy, has shown pretty much restraint, surprisingly, probably at the behest of T. Bliar. However, if you look at the bigger picture, this might not be surprising at all. With the recently re-presented Saudi peace plan for the Middle East having caused mild interest even with the Israeli side now, and most Arab states apparently supporting it (oil won't last forever, after all), the "West" would be very stupid indeed to escalate the situation and fcuk things up more than they already are. Iran is increasingly isolated and if things go forward in the Middle East in general, the future is looking rather bleak for the Mullahs. Perhaps that's why they're kicking up some dust now. Another attack on a Muslim country (we're not talking about an invasion -- not even Bush & Cheney would want to shoulder that, but probably some limited air strikes) would gain instant sympathy for Iran on the Islamic and Arab street and disrupt any diplomatic efforts in the Middle East. Perhaps that's what the Mullahs are speculating for. Very similar to the Hizbollah in Lebanon, the same tactics apparently conceived by the same people. Hopefully the "West" won't fall into the same trap as Israel did.

[DeWinter]

No, he isn't.. the American side, not normally known for the finer aspects of diplomacy, has shown pretty much restraint, surprisingly, probably at the behest of T. Bliar. However, if you look at the bigger picture, this might not be surprising at all. With the recently re-presented Saudi peace plan for the Middle East having caused mild interest even with the Israeli side now, and most Arab states apparently supporting it (oil won't last forever, after all), the "West" would be very stupid indeed to escalate the situation and fcuk things up more than they already are. Iran is increasingly isolated and if things go forward in the Middle East in general, the future is looking rather bleak for the Mullahs. Perhaps that's why they're kicking up some dust now. Another attack on a Muslim country (we're not talking about an invasion -- not even Bush & Cheney would want to shoulder that, but probably some limited air strikes) would gain instant sympathy for Iran on the Islamic and Arab street and disrupt any diplomatic efforts in the Middle East. Perhaps that's what the Mullahs are speculating for. Very similar to the Hizbollah in Lebanon, the same tactics apparently conceived by the same people. Hopefully the "West" won't fall into the same trap as Israel did.

I think George Carey pointed out on QT that the current Iranian leader is not personally popular in his country, and faces a pretty shaky future. And you're probably spot on about the tactics being used, but..diplomacy backed with more diplomacy is unlikely to work. In the end, you need something to use as a consequence.And sanctions are now ruled out, thanks to Russia at the UN, and the EU.
In the end, its likely we'll have Britain taking some kind of responsibility and making a faux apology, even if they weren't guilty of anything . What is truly aggravating me is, as I've said,the actions of those who purport to be our allies, who hve shown themselves nothing of the kind. At a time when there was great support for breaking away from the States in terms of foreign policy, this is not going to help towards any concord with the Europeans, and certainly shows why there shouldn't be an EU foreign minister.

[lazarus corporation]

I'm a bit confused about this alleged lack of support from the EU you keep mentioning.

On Friday 27 EU Foreign Ministers voiced "unconditional support" for Britain (clicky) urging the "the immediate and unconditional release" of the captured Britons, and said it reserved the right to take "appropriate measures" if Iran did not comply. In fact, the EU's statement was much more strongly worded than that of the UN.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy described Iran's detention of the Royal Navy crew as "a very serious and unacceptable act which we immediately condemned" and said "We stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the British.".

You say that the EU "won't compromise it's trade with Iran". I'm not surprised - the UK hasn't asked the EU to impose trade sanctions! The EU did exactly what Margaret Beckett asked them to do - condemned the incident and put diplomatic pressure on Iran.

Please don't let your obvious hatred of the EU blind you to the fact that the EU is clearly and strongly supporting the UK in this incident.

[DeWinter]

I'm a bit confused about this alleged lack of support from the EU you keep mentioning.

On Friday 27 EU Foreign Ministers voiced "unconditional support" for Britain (clicky) urging the "the immediate and unconditional release" of the captured Britons, and said it reserved the right to take "appropriate measures" if Iran did not comply. In fact, the EU's statement was much more strongly worded than that of the UN.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy described Iran's detention of the Royal Navy crew as "a very serious and unacceptable act which we immediately condemned" and said "We stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the British.".

You say that the EU "won't compromise it's trade with Iran". I'm not surprised - the UK hasn't asked the EU to impose trade sanctions! The EU did exactly what Margaret Beckett asked them to do - condemned the incident and put diplomatic pressure on Iran.

Please don't let your obvious hatred of the EU blind you to the fact that the EU is clearly and strongly supporting the UK in this incident.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 593988.ece
There we go, a request made for sanctions, and totally denied. Try reading a decent paper, rather than the ridiculously biased BBC. This is the same organisation that has threatened sanctions on America, Canada, and even Austria, one of it's own members on trade, visas, and elected officials they didnt like respectively.
And yes, I do loathe the EU, but if it's any consolation, I loathe the UN, Commonwealth and sometimes even the United Kingdom as well. I cant help but loathe useless organisations that cost a lot of money to belong to.

[lazarus corporation]

The Times is owned by arch-Eurosceptic Rupert Murdoch! Of course it's going to put a negative spin on anything about the EU! The Times is incredibly biased about anything concerning the EU. Surely you knew that?

I don't think the BBC is ridiculously biased - certainly no more than the Times (I generally read the Independent when reading a paper newspaper, buy hey).

But anyway - the statement by the EU Ministers is exactly as I quoted it. What the Times does is put a particular (negative) spin on it by speculating about what went on behind the scenes. This is unsurprising given the Times' anti-EU agenda.

[DeWinter]

The Times is owned by arch-Eurosceptic Rupert Murdoch! Of course it's going to put a negative spin on anything about the EU! The Times is incredibly biased about anything concerning the EU. Surely you knew that?

I don't think the BBC is ridiculously biased - certainly no more than the Times (I generally read the Independent when reading a paper newspaper, buy hey).

But anyway - the statement by the EU Ministers is exactly as I quoted it. What the Times does is put a particular (negative) spin on it by speculating about what went on behind the scenes. This is unsurprising given the Times' anti-EU agenda.

Oh yes, I know full well it's a Murdoch newspaper. I have no idea why he's changed his mind on the EU, he was very big on it at one point, despite the UK's entry damaging the economy of his native Australia.
Independent is a fine paper, all in all. At least you don't read The Guardian!

BBC? I don't think anyone seriously believes it's UNbiased anymore. It's coverage of the Israel/Lebanon conflict for example I defy anyone to claim was balanced. George Galloway could have wrote it for them.
As for the EU/BBC, the BBC receives millions in loans from the European Investment Bank ("The European Investment Bank finances capital investment furthering EU integration"), so I think when I say it has mildly biased reporting where the EU is concerned I must be given a little credence?

The difference being that one is a privately owned newspaper, whereas the other is a supposed impartial public service.

And,as it happens, I do believe what the Times is reporting, based quite simply on the EU's past behaviour when it's own interests are concerned. It's interesting reading the comments on the Times article that the EU respondents argue that their governments were quite right to do so,but dont deny the truth of the article.

[Syberberg]

DeWinter, what was wrong, in your view, about the BBC's coverage of the Israel/Lebanon conflict?