July 1, 2004
THE LION MEWS
Sailors 'forced into Iran waters'
(The Telegraph, July 1st, 2004)
The eight British servicemen seized by Iran last week were "forcibly escorted into Iranian territorial waters" before they were detained, according to the Ministry of Defence.The six Royal Marines and two Royal Navy sailors were captured after their patrol boats were said to have strayed by mistake into the Iranian side of the Shatt al Arab waterway, sparking a tense three-day stand-off.
It was thought the men had accidentally entered Iranian waters on their way to Basra to deliver one of the patrol boats to the new Iraqi Riverine Patrol Service.
But in a written Commons statement, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon said: "In a recent debriefing the crews have said that they were operating inside the Iraqi border and were forcibly escorted into Iranian territorial waters.
"Our assessment continues and will be greatly assisted by the retrieval of navigational information in the Global Positioning System equipment carried by the crews.
"We are very concerned about the blindfolding of the men and have made representations to the government of Iran. We have made it clear that we do not expect a recurrence of this incident."
Although clearly an act or war under international law, the three days of captivity, public mistreatment and forced apology of these sailors appears to have generated no statement by the Prime Minister. It doesn’t seem to have generated much interest among the Opposition or newspaper editors either. The bare facts were reported daily, but it played second fiddle to the European soccer tournament, which may be poetically fitting because Iran knocked Britain out just as effectively as Portugal did.
There is currently much talk about the Europeans and the Security Council getting tough with Iran over its nuclear programme. Could Iran have devised a more brilliant, low-risk test of their mettle? Is it possible that the one cogent reason for regretting the war in Iraq is that Iraq is not Iran and another war, nukes or no nukes, is politically impossible?
The was a story on Drudge yesterday reporting that the Iranians had moved into Iraq and set up bases during the invasion. The Americans told the Brits to attack the Iranian positions. The Brits refused, and had their foreign minister call the Iranian foreign minister to resolve the issue. The tone was very much one of the sophisticated Brits teaching us cowboys a lesson.
Oh well, enough of that completely irrelevant tangent. I wonder how the Iranians knew that the Brits wouldn't react to the piracy of their boats and the kidnapping of their sailers?
Posted by: David Cohen at July 1, 2004 7:33 AMI'm sure the U.S. was on the side of diplomacy now, until the election, because the country hasn't been prepared for hostilities with Iran.
Posted by: pj at July 1, 2004 7:35 AMDavid:
I saw that too in the British press. Don't you sleep well knowing that the clever, articulate British and French Foreign Ministers are close by the phone ready to give rogue states the stern lectures they deserve?
Posted by: Peter B at July 1, 2004 8:01 AMI fully expect that both Iran and Syria (though not necessarily in that order) will be dealt with appropriately after the President's reelection. My only concern is -- will that be too late in light of Iran's rush to nuclear weapons?
Posted by: Morrie at July 1, 2004 9:07 AM"Is it possible that the one cogent reason for regretting the war in Iraq is that Iraq is not Iran and another war, nukes or no nukes, is politically impossible?"
Yes, it is.
Posted by: GG at July 1, 2004 10:44 AM>Don't you sleep well knowing that the clever,
>articulate British and French Foreign Ministers
>are close by the phone ready to give rogue
>states the stern lectures they deserve?
See how Allah prepares the Infidel for slaughter by the Faithful?
What in the world is a nuclear "programme"? Is that something purchased at an atom "shoppe"? I don't usually nitpick over spelling, but his may indicate an Anglophile cultural affinity of which we were unaware. I frown on seeing that sort of thing so close to the 4th of July.
Posted by: Mayor Curley at July 1, 2004 3:40 PMWell, I wasn't very impressed with the pusillanimous tone of the American foreign minister in Khartoum, begging the Sudanese yesterday to please, please, pretty please with sugar on it allow more access by do-gooders to Darfur.
I think we ought to ignore Darfur until the Muslims have stopped killing infidels, but if we're the hegemon, and we're going to interfere, we shouldn't ask for anything. We should direct specific performance.
And get instant compliance.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 1, 2004 4:22 PMI'm with Harry on this one. And it wouldn't take much to scare the bullies in the world - if we killed the Sudanese government or Mugabe or even Assad, the other goons would jump more quickly. But the best thing would be to indict (and then arrest) Kofi Annan (for contempt of Congress, if nothing else).
Posted by: jim hamlen at July 1, 2004 4:38 PMI continue to believe that Iraq was the necessary second step in a multi-step plan to get the middle east under a semblance of control. We now have bases and forces in the middle, between, Syria, Arabia and Iran.
The governments of each of those countries will melt down within the next few years and we will be able to act as is appropriate.
Iran may act provocatively and decide to go first. That is their privelege. Arabia can blow at any time. And Syria could collapse at a moments notice.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 2, 2004 12:05 AM> I think we ought to ignore Darfur until the Muslims have stopped killing infidels
Uh, Harry, what is it you think they're doing in Darfur?
I'm with Jim on this one (kill the Sudanese govt)--how many daisy-cutters or bunker-busters would it take?
Notice that when the bad guys wanted to test someone's mettle, they tested the Brits', not ours---the benefit of having swung a big fist in Afg. and Iraq.
Posted by: Sam at July 2, 2004 8:32 AMAre British servicemen told to say whatever their captors ask in the event of capture? Was there torture or threat of torture to make them talk? It seems like their apologies came rather easily.
Of course, the West has much to apologise for, apparently. If not for straying into Iranian waters, then their are 1,000 historical crimes by the British Empire that their apologies can be applied against.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at July 2, 2004 5:16 PMAnon, both sides in Darfur are Muslims.
Arab Muslims are killing African Muslims.
I read Donne and I understand I'm supposed to feel that no man is an island, and these unfortunate people deserve better.
But I don't feel that way. I have a hierarchy of innocents, and as an infidel, I'm pro-infidel.
Until we've protected all the infidels, we don't have the resources available to protect Muslims.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 2, 2004 6:39 PM