How Long Will Iran Hold the British Sailors?

[casey_brick]

[ QUOTE ]
What would ou expect to happen if an Iranian ship was discovered in Iraqi waters? If a foreign vessel is in territorial waters without permission it is illegal.

Since you a priori reject Iran's side it is difficult for you to see that pehaps a mistake was made by the british. But the detention may be 100% legal depending on which side of the story you take.

Bottom line is that neither of us were there and neither government would like to admit that they are lying. So how can you pick a side to believe without any shred of doubt?

[/ QUOTE ]

When I was in the gulf I know that both the Iranian and US navies communicate on a daily basis. The reason for the communication is to avoid just this sort of incident. I can say with about 90% certainty the Iranians are in the wrong here.

[Bill Haywood]

I suspect the capture of the Brits is linked to the US seizure of Iranian diplomats in Irbil (Iraqi Kurdistan) some weeks back. Tit for tat. If true, one possible conclusion will be that the Brits are released soon, then after a decent interval, the Iranian diplomats will be released -- after enough time passes for the US to claim no deal was made. Irbil article: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IC31Ak04.html

Another interesting thing is that there's no accepted boundaries in that region of the sea -- Iraq and Iran never agreed on how to divide the strait. This means the capture of the Brits is somewhat more complicated -- disputed waters rather than a flagrant act of piracy from clearly international waters. (Though this doesn't address NewTeaBag's point that you warn, not capture trespassers.)

This link: http://counterpunch.com/leupp04022007.html makes some interesting points. The Iraqis don't seem to be joining in the denunciation of Iran. Brigadier General Hakim Jassim even undermined the British claim of not being in the wrong place. And "Craig Murray, once head of the British Foreign Office's maritime section, writes that Prime Minister Blair "is being fatuous" in stating that he is "utterly certain" the British ship was seized within Iraqi territorial limits." Due to the previously mentioned boundary issues.

It may be awhile until we find out what was really going on beneath the surface.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
I suspect the capture of the Brits is linked to the US seizure of Iranian diplomats in Irbil (Iraqi Kurdistan) some weeks back. Tit for tat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Were those Iranian diplomats by any chance Revolutionary Guard advisors to groups which are committing mayhem in Iraq?

Anyway, if they were really "just diplomats" then "tit for tat" would be capturing American personnel - not seizing British sailors engaged in carrying out their regular longstanding U.N.-mandated anti-smuggling patrols.

I agree with you that it will be a while before (if ever) we discover what is really going on here - by that I mean, what calculus are the mullahs employing to derive that strongly ratcheting up tensions with the West is a good idea for them right now? I have a few guesses as to their motives for this blatantly illegal kidnapping, but time will tell us more - maybe.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
Were those Iranian diplomats by any chance Revolutionary Guard advisors to groups which are committing mayhem in Iraq?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, we shouldn't assume they were really diplomats, but then, why assume they were Revolutionary Guard types either? As even the thick learned from WMD, nothing the US government says can be believed.

[ QUOTE ]
if they were really "just diplomats" then "tit for tat" would be capturing American personnel

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't be pedantic. Pressure Britain to pressure the US. Probably has a better chance of working than seizing US personnel. Blair is more vulnerable at home, at least that is conceivably the Iranian thinking.

[ QUOTE ]
British sailors engaged in carrying out their regular longstanding U.N.-mandated anti-smuggling patrols

[/ QUOTE ]

Haven't you watched enough 007 movies to know not to immediately accept a cover story?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
if they were really "just diplomats" then "tit for tat" would be capturing American personnel

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't be pedantic. Pressure Britain to pressure the US. Probably has a better chance of working than seizing US personnel. Blair is more vulnerable at home, at least that is conceivably the Iranian thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't trying to be pedantic; there's a real (not merely semantic) difference. You may be right, though, that seizing the British may be more effective for the Iranians.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
British sailors engaged in carrying out their regular longstanding U.N.-mandated anti-smuggling patrols

[/ QUOTE ]

Haven't you watched enough 007 movies to know not to immediately accept a cover story?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're giving too much benefit of the doubt to the Iranian government (which have a long history of hostage-taking for political purposes) and which has already changed its story by revising the co-ordinates of the capture location. Also, the fact that U.N.-mandated anti-smuggling patrols have been taking place for many years, lends support to the British position, as does the release of the actual GPS data by Great Britain.

I must say, I'm having some trouble understanding the apparent desire of some posters on this board to lean towards believing the Iranians and disbelieving the British on this issue. Anyway, don't you at least agree that it looks like the Iranians are probably lying and the British are probably telling the truth?

[CTKid]

Is it possible that the British sailors were sent into Iranian waters with the intention of instigating just this sort of crisis, thereby creating public support in US/UK for an overt attack on Iran's nuclear facilities?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
I must say, I'm having some trouble understanding the apparent desire of some posters on this board to lean towards believing the Iranians and disbelieving the British on this issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Somebody should have thought about that before serving a lot of lies prior to the Iraq-war. The loss of credibility leads to people coming to such conclusions. If somebody repeatedly lies to you, do you still assume they speak the truth? Why do you think Iran can win the propaganda war over this now? The world can not be run only via weapons, good relations to all sorts of groups are necessary. Look where we are, 2 countries fighting islamic terrorists at home (Russia & China) choose to support a country which finances islamic terrorism. The Iranians are better at this game than US/Britain, they seem to have better psychologists, better cultural experts etc. in place, if the War on Terror is ever going to be won it is time to focus on this part of the battle, and in the US you lack skill in that field, so you need to start to cooperate with someone that has.

I think the Brits are right, but they have themselves created a climate where many won't believe them.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I must say, I'm having some trouble understanding the apparent desire of some posters on this board to lean towards believing the Iranians and disbelieving the British on this issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Somebody should have thought about that before serving a lot of lies prior to the Iraq-war. The loss of credibility leads to people coming to such conclusions. If somebody repeatedly lies to you, do you still assume they speak the truth? Why do you think Iran can win the propaganda war over this now? The world can not be run only via weapons, good relations to all sorts of groups are necessary. Look where we are, 2 countries fighting islamic terrorists at home (Russia & China) choose to support a country which finances islamic terrorism. The Iranians are better at this game than US/Britain, they seem to have better psychologists, better cultural experts etc. in place, if the War on Terror is ever going to be won it is time to focus on this part of the battle, and in the US you lack skill in that field, so you need to start to cooperate with someone that has.

I think the Brits are right, but they have themselves created a climate where many won't believe them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that the Iraq war was oversold and deceptively marketed.

Even so, it seems that the Iranian government is even less to be trusted, and it has taken hostages before, and it surely looks like it is lying this time (changing its story about the location coordinates).

I don't understand anyone thinking that Iran is more to be trusted than Great Britain, especially in this particular case - but that's apparently just what some people are thinking - or wishing to believe. It baffles me to an extent, but I guess there's no minimizing the power of wishful thinking (in either direction). Also, I suppose that it is remotely possible that the reverse is true in this particular case - but that does seems very unlikely.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

It baffles you probably, because you know a bit about the Iranian regime, and you know somethings about the situation behind the facade. But if you would only know the facade, would it still baffle you?

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
don't you at least agree that it looks like the Iranians are probably lying and the British are probably telling the truth?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since the Iranians captured the sailors rather than warned them off, it's probably some sort of calculated power move, and unrelated to real issues of boundaries. Beyond that, I wouldn't want to predict who's lying. I can easily believe the Iranians plucked the Brits out of Iraqi waters, or waited for weeks and weeks until they saw them stray into the wrong area. The British are saying the Iranians "fixed" the GPS logs. In other words, the equipment DOES indicate a violation of territorial waters. Maybe yes, maybe fishy, but I don't see a "probably" in there to rely on.

You put yourself in a difficult position by assuming the Brits are more likely to be truthful. Say you are correct, that Tehran lies 10% of the time, vs. only 5% for Blair (7% for Bush). The aggregate stats do not help with the specific cases.

Maybe it's some whacky thing where they are all lying -- the sailors did violate Iranian waters, but were out of them by the time they were picked up. Who knows. At this point, it is comforting to fall back on the anarchist wisdom that all governments lie -- and not get sucked into taking sides. Unless of course, someone thinks credulity is patriotic.