Iran playing games

[Pekka]

British Forces Held By Iran
Updated: 14:11, Friday March 23, 2007

The Government is demanding the "immediate and safe return" of 15 British sailors and Marines seized at gunpoint by Iranian forces.

They were taking part in a routine operation boarding merchant ships in Iraqi territorial waters when they were taken captive by Iranian naval vessels.

The sailors and Marines had completed a successful inspection of one ship, reportedly a dhow, when the group and their two boats were surrounded.

They were then escorted by Iranian vessels into its territorial waters.

Read the rest at http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/...257281,00.html

Pretty normal, I mean not out of the ordinary, but I find it interesting that they were taken by gunpoint to Iranian territory.

It's interesting why they would provoke, because this is not enough to start a war anyway. So why the provocation? If they want war, they can have war, but this won't do it.

[Lord Avalon]

Perhaps some Iranian official had a stake in the smuggled cargo, so ordered the navy in (or made a deal with the local naval commander) to keep the Brits from stopping it?

[Dinner]

I recall that around a year back the Iranians tried to do this to Americans only the US forces opened fire and killed a few Iranians.

[dannubis]

great for you sonny !!!!

[Ned]

I can't understand how the Brits got captured. Cowardice? Where was the Brit air force? Should have sunk all the Iranian ships pronto.

How are Iranians going to respect the Brits now? They have nothing to fear and everything to gain from piratical behavior.

[kittenOFchaos]

Re: Iran playing games

Originally posted by Pekka


It's interesting why they would provoke, because this is not enough to start a war anyway. So why the provocation? If they want war, they can have war, but this won't do it.

Britain has gone to war over an ear before, why is this not enough?

Relevant link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Jenkins'_Ear

War!!!

[ElTigre]

Apparently Britain chose neutrality over war, in an attempt to save the lives of thousands of British soldiers and civilians. I'm sure you agree with this decision, Ned.

[SlowwHand]

What you're eventually going to learn is that North Korea and Iran, for two, mouth words only in order to buy time until their next unacceptable behavior.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by ElTigre
Apparently Britain chose neutrality over war, in an attempt to save the lives of thousands of British soldiers and civilians. I'm sure you agree with this decision, Ned.

Well played

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
I can't understand how the Brits got captured. Cowardice? Where was the Brit air force? Should have sunk all the Iranian ships pronto.

How are Iranians going to respect the Brits now? They have nothing to fear and everything to gain from piratical behavior.

They were in the Shatt al Arab. Not exactly sea room, and they likely don't have aircraft hovering overhead burning fuel and wearing out airframes to cover routine patrol missions.

The Brits chose not to unnecessarily escalate. If the Iranians choose to up the stakes, then they may have a lot more than they bargained for.

[germanos]

Re: Iran playing games

Originally posted by Pekka

It's interesting why they would provoke, because this is not enough to start a war anyway.

asking the question is answering it.

(Dutch proverb)

[SlowwHand]

Stay tuned.

Iran's president cancels U.N. appearance

By ALEXANDRA OLSON, Associated Press Writer
31 minutes ago

UNITED NATIONS - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad canceled a trip to New York to address the
U.N. Security Council before it votes on whether to impose further sanctions against his country for refusing to stop enriching uranium, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said Friday.

The decision came as diplomats from the five veto-wielding members of the Security Council — the U.S., Britain, France, China and Russia — and Germany held a flurry of last-minute negotiations in New York on a draft resolution seeking to pressure
Iran to comply.

The six powers want a vote on the resolution by Saturday, but diplomats said that could be delayed by efforts to reach consensus to give the sanctions more weight.

The sanctions, agreed on last week by the six powers, would ban Iranian arms exports and freeze the assets of 28 additional individuals and organizations involved in Iran's nuclear and missile programs. About a third of those are linked to the Revolutionary Guard, an elite military corps.

Ahmadinejad said earlier this month that he wanted to take his case for pursuing nuclear power to the Security Council himself. Earlier Friday, a council diplomat said the Iranian president would arrive in New York at 1 a.m. Saturday, just hours before the council is expected to meet.

But Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammed Ali Hosseini told Iranian state television later in the day that the trip had been scrapped because of "America's obstruction in issuing visas" to the Iranian delegation that was to travel to New York.

Hosseini said that instead of Ahmadinejad, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki will attend the Security Council meeting and "explain Iran's position regarding its nuclear activities."

"Due to open failure by the United States to issue visas for members of the Iranian delegation accompanying President Ahmadinejad and the air crew, American authorities have effectively prevented President Ahmadinejad from attending the U.N. security council meeting," Hosseini said.

Mohammad Mir Ali Mohammadi, press secretary of Iran's mission at the U.N., told The Associated Press that the U.S. did not deliver a visa to the U.S. Embassy in Bern, Switzerland, in time for Ahmadinejad to pick it up before flying to New York for the Saturday session.

He said Russia and China were trying to postpone the session until Monday and if the session was put off Ahamdinejad would decide whether to come.

Tom Casey, a State Department spokesman, said in Washington that 39 visas had been issued for Ahmadinejad and other Iranian officials and their passports had been returned to Iranian diplomats in Bern by Friday morning. He said another 36 passports with visas were ready later in the day.

The U.S. says Iran's nuclear efforts are cover for a weapons program, but Tehran insists it only wants electricity.

In December, the Security Council voted unanimously to impose limited sanctions on Iran, ordering all countries to stop supplying Iran with materials and technology that could contribute to its nuclear and missile programs and to freeze assets of 10 key Iranian companies and 12 individuals related to those programs. Iran responded by expanding its enrichment program.

Several non-permanent members of the Security Council have resisted the draft resolution, agreed upon last week by the five council powers and Germany.

In an effort to overcome their concerns, Russia proposed a compromise Friday over a proposal by Indonesia and Qatar calling for the Middle East to be free of weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. Including such an appeal could have implications for
Israel, a U.S. ally widely believed to possess nuclear weapons, though it has never officially acknowledged it.

The Russian proposal would include a recognition that "a solution to the Iranian nuclear issue would contribute global non-proliferation efforts, including those in the Middle East."

France and Britain approved of the wording, while the United States was considering it, said Axel Crau, a spokesman for France's U.N. mission.

"It's definitely a key point and probably the key to unanimity," Crau said.

He said the resolution's co-sponsors — France, Germany and Britain — still wanted to call a vote Saturday but may delay it to seek consensus. "For the sake of unanimity we are willing to make some efforts because unanimity has a value," he said.

Alejandro Wolff, the acting U.S. Ambassador to the
United Nations, said the nuclear debate should not be affected by the Iranian seizure of 15 British sailors and marines in the Persian Gulf Friday.

[Fake Boris]

Mornington Crescent!

[Dinner]

The Russian proposed wording would never fly as the US fleet keeps a lot of nukes on their ships. Then of course Israel won't give up their nukes.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by ElTigre
Apparently Britain chose neutrality over war, in an attempt to save the lives of thousands of British soldiers and civilians. I'm sure you agree with this decision, Ned.

one of my favourite posts in years