Iran seizes U.K. troops=The 15 sailors are back home

[Brent]

Blair convenes Cobra team as crisis in Iran escalates
BRIAN BRADY
WESTMINSTER EDITOR
THE official notification, delivered in secure calls yesterday morning to senior Whitehall figures, was the latest dramatic behind-the-scenes move to get to grips with a crisis that is now engulfing the government.

After a day of shadow-boxing with a notoriously slippery regime, Tony Blair is set to up the ante: the plight of the Shatt al-Arab 15 is officially a crisis and he will need the Cobra team to handle it.

The clutch of VIPs will gather in an operations room several floors below Downing Street as early as this afternoon to plot an escape from a military spat that now threatens to become an international incident.

The decision came just 24 hours after the crew of HMS Cornwall had been caught in the confusion of direct confrontation with Iranian vessels in the searing heat of the Gulf.

As the crew members were surrounded in their two rubber dinghies, the Cornwall's commander, Commodore Nick Lambert, frantically radioed back to his own top brass for instructions.

The response to the inquiry, which had been immediately patched through to Ministry of Defence headquarters in Whitehall, was to hold fire.

The order to show restraint has been observed throughout the forces and the British government in the 48 hours since, but it is unclear how long both sides will be able to maintain control.

Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett's first response to the gathering crisis on Friday was to keep to diplomatic conventions. After a hurried phone call to Blair, she immediately summoned Iran's ambassador, Rasoul Movahedian, to her office to explain their behaviour.

After a meeting described by officials as "brisk but polite", Beckett emerged to stress that she was "extremely disturbed" by events.

It was an understated description of the deep concern now gripping the government. Not only was Blair's administration alarmed at the risk to the 15 military personnel, which included at least one woman, but it was in no doubt over Tehran's ability to use their plight to make a wider point.

During a flurry of diplomatic activity in the hours after the snatch, the Iranians' rhetoric repeatedly elevated their action, and the alleged motives of the British, to a multinational affair. It was the eve of a second UN Security Council resolution imposing sanctions over Iran's refusal to halt its programme to enrich uranium. The Shatt al-Arab 15 were, from the start, pawns in a perilous international game.

"It looks like too much of a coincidence," a senior Foreign Office insider confirmed.

The response was a no- nonsense demand for Iran to relent - and Britain freely used the international community to back up its case. Beckett dispatched the UK chargé d'affaires, Kate Smith, to confront the government in Tehran, armed with the insistence that the British sailors had been in Iraqi waters.

In the meantime, Blair made a personal call to European allies, including EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, to secure a public denunciation of the Iranians' actions.

"It was impressed on everyone how important it was to raise the diplomatic temperature, rather than keep a low profile and let them make a song and dance of the situation," one defence official said.

"There is nothing to be gained in provoking a confrontation, because that would be playing into their hands. But neither should we let them have it all their way. We tried that before and we're still trying to get our kit back."

The smaller-scale precedent, the taking of six British marines and two sailors on the same waterway in June 2004, was a painful lesson. The personnel were only returned after they had been paraded blindfold on Iranian television and admitted entering Iranian waters illegally. Three years on, the government is still pressing Iran for the return of its boats and kit, including valuable radar equipment.

The degree of concern felt across Whitehall was demonstrated yesterday, when Movahedian was called back to the Foreign Office, this time to see Beckett's minister, Lord Triesman. The British were clearly attempting to warn off Tehran before it could begin to use the servicemen and women as a significant propaganda tool.

It was, however, a race against time - and through it all, the diplomats and the politicians were acutely aware that Tehran has built a foreign policy on disregarding diplomatic niceties.

Top level
COBRA is an acronym for Cabinet Office Briefing Room A, where its meetings are held.

Tony Blair, senior ministers, police and security chiefs all take part. It is called after events such as 9/11, 7/7

and can evoke emergency powers such as suspending Parliament or restricting movement.

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=462812007

[kevin]

This tendency to give great intellect and cunning to the enemy so that every provocation, mistake, and bluster turns into calculated action is ridiculous.

This is not a causus belli. It would NOT have led to war 20 years ago. Similar events have happened, demonstrate a case where it led to war in the last sixty years.

[Cryomaniac]

That would suggest our people have simply been the subject of a planned kidnap then which surely is an act of war?

I agree, in my mind it is almost certainly an act of war.

[Stephanie]

This tendency to give great intellect and cunning to the enemy so that every provocation, mistake, and bluster turns into calculated action is ridiculous.

This is not a causus belli. It would NOT have led to war 20 years ago. Similar events have happened, demonstrate a case where it led to war in the last sixty years.

I think that they took advantage of the situation. Perhaps it wasn't pre-meditated, but it played right into Iran's hands. We are also talking about a totally different Dictator - someone that is much more in the world's public eye and seeks it than previous ones.

[wx247]

This tendency to give great intellect and cunning to the enemy so that every provocation, mistake, and bluster turns into calculated action is ridiculous.

This is not a causus belli. It would NOT have led to war 20 years ago. Similar events have happened, demonstrate a case where it led to war in the last sixty years.

This process has been attributed back as far as the Aztecs. They would take their enemies and capture them. This served as a signal of war. While I am not saying that this alone is reason enough for war, "casus belli" is defined as "a modern Latin language expression meaning the justification for acts of war."

If you look at the "casus belli" of previous events in history, much less has occurred to lead to war.

[Lindaloo]

His continued defiance is getting him more and more in hot water. He claims that sanctions are illegal. Is he referring only to Iran? I must have missed something?

[BUD]

Ok, we need to tell this fool that he has 48 hours then we will start bombing and will not stop until those guys are let go.

[nholley]

If it comes to military action to get them back....would it just be the British going in? Would the US/Israel use it as an excuse to go after their nuke program?

[sunny]

Ok, we need to tell this fool that he has 48 hours then we will start bombing and will not stop until those guys are let go.

That is the UKs place. What we need to do is support our friends in whatever action they decide to take, the way they have always supported us.

[Cryomaniac]

Ok, we need to tell this fool that he has 48 hours then we will start bombing and will not stop until those guys are let go.

Yes, we do.

[Yarrah]

Ok, we need to tell this fool that he has 48 hours then we will start bombing and will not stop until those guys are let go.

I don't think that would be in their best interests, i.e. they would be executed.

[Cryomaniac]

Ok, we need to tell this fool that he has 48 hours then we will start bombing and will not stop until those guys are let go.

I don't think that would be in their best interests, i.e. they would be executed.

From a rather hawkish autistic point of view, that would be even more reason for war.

[kevin]

We have been led into war on false pretexts before.

Please one example in the last sixty years where an incident like this has led to something viewed by anyone as a legitimate cause for war.

We do not have one single ounce of evidence which tells us the British sailors were not in Iranian waters. If you haven't noticed lately we are going to be at least bombing Iran in the next year and a half. That is about as good a foregone conclusion as I know. It is complete and utter lunacy but I am positive it will happen.

Reporters with some credibility have been talking about US special forces operating in Iran for some time.

Gulf of Tonkin Incident.

I do not believe any government.

[kevin]

War is the last instrument of foreign policy. I do not think a one of you advocating immediate action have even a bit of an understanding of what Iran is capable of retaliating with and how long the engagement will last. It'll be bad enough when the Israelis and Americans do bomb Iran. There is no need in my mind to needlessly hurry the day.

Our British friends should be careful that they are not being duped into war. Our British friends should understand that the Iranian government was right the last time about British incursions. The British should understand that if they had soldiers in rubber dingies enter Iranian territory this is clearly an action which demands their capture. The facts are unclear. War is a last option.

What will you do when it becomes clear that the British didn't have a reason for bombing Iranian cities? For destroying the necessary infrastructure to take out the Iranian military positions. When images of children with their limbs torn off make it onto the BBC and Al Jazeera? Will it have been worth not waiting a few days?

[kevin]

This tendency to give great intellect and cunning to the enemy so that every provocation, mistake, and bluster turns into calculated action is ridiculous.

This is not a causus belli. It would NOT have led to war 20 years ago. Similar events have happened, demonstrate a case where it led to war in the last sixty years.

This process has been attributed back as far as the Aztecs. They would take their enemies and capture them. This served as a signal of war. While I am not saying that this alone is reason enough for war, "casus belli" is defined as "a modern Latin language expression meaning the justification for acts of war."

If you look at the "casus belli" of previous events in history, much less has occurred to lead to war.

Oh? Are we going to base what is proper and correct off the actions of Aztec murderers and enslavers? Are we going to base what is proper and correct off of the US going to war over an accident on the Maine? How about the US deciding arbitrarily that events in Cuba required the capture of the Philippines? How about the consequent insurrection and its brutal suppression? These are historical cases which do not follow ius ad bellum, or to give the older term bellum iustum. Most people look at these actions as being unjust. They serve no purpose but to augment national power.

Now show me a case in which the kidnapping of soldiers in disputed territory has led to immediate war? I have seen the Indians and Pakistanis fight and die on a contested glacier. These two countries avoid war nevertheless. Why? Because war is hell and should be avoided and used only as the last instrument of national power. Coercive diplomacy is one thing but war is an 'all in' gamble.

I hate seeing it treated so trivially.

[brunota2003]

If it comes to military action to get them back....would it just be the British going in? Would the US/Israel use it as an excuse to go after their nuke program?

I do not know, however I can say that the U.S. at least (and most likely Israel) would help out in some way, as all three are allies.

[wx247]

Kevin, I was simply illustrating the point that this type of issue has been ongoing for many years and can be considered a "casus belli" as it is defined, although likely not hrough you or I would define it. That is the key concern here... actual definition versus interpretation of the definition. Your example of the USS Maine explosion is very comparable to this. True, there is doubt as to which side is correct/at fault, but (in the case of the Maine) created a incident that led to war ("casus belli")... justified or not --- that is debatable. Today's example with these sailors is very similar in that there is dispute over who was where but in the end, the point is that they were taken by the Iranians. That in itself likely wouldn't lead to war. For example, when the Chinese took the US people a few years back. This event, coupled WITH the growing firestorm over nuclear weapons could lead to war, with this incident being cited as the "casus belli".

Capture of soldiers in disputed territory... should we look to Israel, Lebanon, Palestine for a moment? That land is all disputed. We know what happened there recently and has been ongoing for years. Not an identical situation, but close enough for comparisons to be drawn. I would also argue that there other factors that are leading to the countries of India and Pakistan not going to war, beyond the fact that "war is hell". Primarily, the fact that these two nations are actively engaged diplomatically helps a great deal. I am not sure how much diplomatic coersion can take place between Britain and Iran.

I would agree that war should be a last resort. Too often we view war as a game, something played out on screens in lands far from home. We don't realize the human casualties and loss beyond our own friends and family members that we lose. No matter how hard we try, we can't understand what it is like to live in a war zone. We only live these tragedies in short amounts... Pearl Harbor, 9-11, etc. People in these war zones live through this every day.

I thank you Kevin for this wonderful opportunity to discuss this topic in a scholarly and mature fashion. This is how the forum works at its best. While we have opposing viewpoints, each is grounded in information and thought provoking posts... not empty hateful remarks against a person or group of people. I hope this thread continues in this manner.

[Bellarose]

Ok, we need to tell this fool that he has 48 hours then we will start bombing and will not stop until those guys are let go.

That is the UKs place. What we need to do is support our friends in whatever action they decide to take, the way they have always supported us.

I couldn't agree with you more. This would be their fight, therefore their decision as to what action, if any, to take. But, I definately think we need to stand by them and give them whatever support they need. They have been a tremendous ally to us.

[Derek Ortt]

Iran does have a capable military, though Saddam also had one in January 1991, as well as Molosevic in 1999.

With Slobo, we leveled large parts of Belgrade and their cities in a sustained air campaign. A similar campaign would crush the Iranian economy, and could turn the Iranians against their government when they start losing thousands of people. The Serbs had enough of being bombed and forced Slobo to surrender. Why are we so sure that this won't happen in this case, or is it that we have lost our resolve to do what is absolutely necessary?

[Bellarose]

Iran does have a capable military, though Saddam also had one in January 1991, as well as Molosevic in 1999.

With Slobo, we leveled large parts of Belgrade and their cities in a sustained air campaign. A similar campaign would crush the Iranian economy, and could turn the Iranians against their government when they start losing thousands of people. The Serbs had enough of being bombed and forced Slobo to surrender. Why are we so sure that this won't happen in this case, or is it that we have lost our resolve to do what is absolutely necessary?

Derek, more often than not, I tend to agree with you. But, I have to ask....what if the Iranians don't force a surrender? Where does that leave things? Also, are any of us prepared for the fallout of a large scale attack on Iran? Who would be on our side, and who would make us out to be the bad guy, justified or not?