MERGED-->Iran's President Said + New Situation in Middle East

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Justin24

Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
6,716
Location
San Mateo
The New Situation in the Middle East

How will the British handle the situation? Will this turn into a "Jimmy Carter" situation? Iran really has guts to stand up to the west knowing full well it can be destroyed. How will this play down, will the British apologize? Or will there be military action?


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...tml?in_article_id=444500&in_page_id=1811&ct=5

Say sorry or we won't free mum, says Iran
Last updated at 17:08pm on 29th March 2007

Comments (42)

The release of kidnapped British sailor Faye Turney is on hold after Iran accused Britain of having an "incorrect attitude".


The hostage crisis also took a sinister new turn as a hate mob in Tehran demanded that the 15 captured British Navy personnel be hanged.


Protesters waved placards demanding "15 British aggressors must be executed" outside the foreign ministry.


More....

Now Iran wants its vases back
The eyes reveal the strain she is under
UN may be the best hope in Iran stand-off


The announcement Turney's release is on hold by the head of Iran's supreme national security council Ali Larijani dashed hopes that the 25-year-old mother would be released "very soon".

The u-turn came a day after Iran pledged to release Mrs Turney, who was detained along with 14 male colleagues, following their capture in Iraqi waters.





Faye Turney and the other British marines held captive as they appeared on state Iranian TV. Faye, who describes her captors as 'compassionate' has apologised for entering Iran's waters

But Mr Larijani announced on state television today: "It was announced that a woman in the group would be freed, but (this development) was met with an incorrect attitude. Naturally, (the release) will be suspended and it will not take place."


Earlier today the head of the United Nations personally intervened in the British hostage crisis.


The dramatic move by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon came as the tense international stand-off entered its sixth day.

Mr Ban held talks with Iranian foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki in an attempt to negotiate the release of the 15 Navy personnel. Confirmation of the meeting emerged from the Saudi capital Riyadh shortly after Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett urged Mr Ban to get involved.

Britain will begin moves to push for a UN Security Council resolution that will "deplore" the detention of the seven Royal Marines and eight sailors including Leading Seaman-Faye Turney who was paraded on Iranian TV wearing a headscarf. Iran had earlier upped the stakes by telling Britain: "Apologise before they go free."

The demand by Mr Mottaki was described by one senior British diplomat as "impossible to meet". The Foreign Office rejected Iran's call for an apology, insisting Britain would "hold its ground" until the captives are released. The sabre-rattling by Tehran reversed Iran's claim yesterday that 26-year-old Leading Seaman Turney would be set free. Mr Mottaki said: "This can be solved but they have to show that it was a mistake. That will help us to end this issue."

His intervention raises fears that the crisis could last for weeks or months. In 1979 Iran held 60 American diplomats captive for 444 days and experts today warned Britain faced a similar situation.

Mr Mottaki offered to allow British diplomats to visit the hostages who are thought to be in Tehran.

Government officials yesterday produced data it said proved the boarding party from HMS Cornwall was two miles inside Iraqi waters when the group was seized on Friday.

Tony Blair has vowed to "ratchet up" the pressure on Iran. It is understood that Mrs Beckett has been lobbying Iran's neighbouring states - including Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Oman - to press Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to release the Britons. She will ask EU leaders for support at a summit this weekend-In an interview broadcast on Iranian TV, Leading Seaman Turney said the group had been seized in the Gulf because they had "obviously trespassed" in Iranian waters. She said her captors had been friendly and that everyone was unharmed.

"Obviously we trespassed into their waters," she said at one point, her voice audible under a simultaneous-Arabic translation. "They were very friendly and very hospitable, very thoughtful, nice people." The broadcast included footage of other marines and sailors sitting in the same room eating a meal.

It also showed a letter from Leading Seaman Turney to her parents in which she said the Navy personnel had "apparently" crossed into Iranian waters, and asked the couple to look after her three-year-old daughter Molly and her husband Adam. The Foreign Office reacted furiously to the broadcast, calling the screening "completely unacceptable".

One of the marines was named today as 26- year- old Danny Masterton, from Muirkirk, Ayrshire. His father, a retired professional footballer, said: "We just want Danny home."




Faye's letter telling her family not to 'worry' about her and that she is 'staying strong'


Video footage on state TV of Tehran parading its captives inflamed the worsening crisis - and led to demands for decisive action from the Foreign Office.

Faye Turney, the 25-year-old mother of a girl aged three, was singled out by the cameras in the first glimpse of the hostages since they were seized by Iran's Revolutionary Guards six days ago. Tehran had earlier claimed it was ready to release the sea survival expert 'very soon', but she showed clear signs of strain.

Words she was forced to write and speak for Tehran TV, apparently confessing that the Britons had 'trespassed' into Iranian waters, spoke of being well treated by her 'compassionate' captors.

But the harrowing footage of Mrs Turney, whose husband Adam and daughter Molly wait anxiously at their family home in Plymouth, told a different story.

Gone was the fresh-faced, enthusiastic young sailor filmed by the BBC on HMS Cornwall only hours before the British forces were captured at the mouth of the Shatt-al-Arab waterway.

She was evidently traumatised - at one point seen nervously sucking on a cigarette - in footage which the Foreign Office described as 'completely unacceptable' and British diplomats said was a clear breach of the Geneva Convention.




In the broadcast Mrs Turney, filmed in front of brightly-coloured curtains, is heard saying: 'My name is Leading Seaman Faye Turney. I come from England. I serve on Foxtrot Nine Nine. I have been in the Navy nine years. I live in England.

'I was arrested on Friday March 23. Obviously we trespassed into their waters.

'They were very friendly and very hospitable, very thoughtful, good people.

'They explained to us why we had been arrested. There was no aggression, no hurt, no harm. They were very, very compassionate.'




A letter allegedly handwritten by Mrs Turney and addressed to 'Dear Mum and Dad', says: 'We were out in the boats when we were arrested by Iranian forces as we had apparently gone into Iranian waters. I wish we hadn't because then I would be home with you all right now.'

She continues: 'I have written a letter to the Iranian people to apologise for us entering into their waters. Please don't worry about me. I'm staying strong. Hopefully it won't be long till I'm home to get ready for Molly's birthday party and with a present from the Iranian people.'

She ends: 'Look after everyone for me, especially Adam and Molly, I love you all more than you will ever know.'



Leading Seaman Faye Turney, who was one of the sailors captured, is being kept separately from the other hostages


Not all the 15 captured sailors and Marines were shown during the brief broadcast. Only two other captives have been publicly identified, Marines Danny Masterton, 22, from Muirkirk, Ayrshire, and Paul Barton, 21, from Southport.

Condemnation of the broadcast was immediate. Defence Secretary Des Browne said: 'It is totally unacceptable to parade our people in this way.'

Tory former Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind said the pictures were 'totally repugnant'. He said: 'This is a PR exercise. If they believed in their own propaganda, they would release all of our personnel.

'We need to make clear there will be no concessions and they will suffer harsher penalties unless our personnel are handed over.'

Mrs Turney's husband declined to respond to the Iranian pictures but a friend, Kim Slater, 49, said: 'It is a very shocking film. She looked very uncomfortable with what she was saying. There is something not right in her eyes. I am sure she has been forced to do that and say those things.'

The dangerous game of brinkmanship at a time of world tension over Iran's nuclear programme moved to a new level when Ministry of Defence officials told how the Iranians had launched an 'unprovoked, unprecedented and improper' attack last Friday.

They published detailed evidence of how heavily-armed Iranian gunships had 'ambushed' the British personnel while they were patrolling in Iraqi waters.

Defence chiefs also released satellite pictures and graphics which prove the British boats were well within Iraq waters - despite Iranian claims that they had strayed into their territory.

The data shows that the Navy personnel were 1.7 nautical miles inside the Iraqi part of the Shatt al Arab waterway, which forms a boundary between the countries.

The Ministry of Defence said it 'unambiguously contested' claims from Tehran that the UK vessel was in their waters.

Deputy chief of the defence staff Vice Admiral Charles Style said their detention at gunpoint was 'unjustified and wrong'.

He said the British personnel had carried out an 'entirely routine' boarding of an Indian dhow carrying a suspicious cargo of cars off the coast of Iraq.

The ship's co-ordinates had been confirmed by the Iraqi foreign minister and verified by the Indian vessel's captain. They confirmed the ship was inside Iraqi waters.

The Vice Admiral also disclosed that the Iranians had changed their account of where the incident had taken place after it was pointed out that the first set of co-ordinates they gave were in Iraqi waters. The Prime Minister, who spoke to George Bush yesterday about the growing crisis, told MPs: 'It is now time to ratchet up the diplomatic and international pressure in order to make sure the Iranian government understands their total isolation on this issue.'

He also defended the boarding party's 'entirely sensible' decision not to fight back against their captors, as they were heavily outnumbered and it would have led to 'severe loss of life'.

However the decision is being angrily criticised around the world, particularly in the U.S., with talk of 'timidity' and ' impotence' in the face of Iran's aggression.

One irate critic declared Britain had 'covered itself with shame' for failing to show a more aggressive response to Iran.

In a New York newspaper article, military historian Arthur Herman claimed: 'The escorting ship HMS Cornwall could have blown the Iranian naval vessel out of the water.' One reader wrote: 'The United Kingdom is acting like the French. Say what you want about President Bush, but I bet the Iranian madmen are not mad enough to try this on our Navy.'
 
MrPryck2U said:
Now that you've used up all this bandwith, could you honor us with an opinion on this subject?

I think things will esculate if Iran contiues there defiance. The UN will impose sactions against Iran and Iran will then start the war it has wanted.

And quit being a smart ass all the time. Why don't you enlighten us.
 
I don't think this is anything more than a political cockfight. I'd be surprised if the prisoners weren't returned shortly.
 
I don't expect a war to break out.
I'm never really good in guessing, but I don't see any of them to be in a position to start a war.

And I wouldn't say that Iran is looking to start a war.
 
Justin24 said:


I think things will esculate if Iran contiues there defiance. The UN will impose sactions against Iran and Iran will then start the war it has wanted.

And quit being a smart ass all the time. Why don't you enlighten us.

Congratulations, you gave us an opinion, instead of your usual "post a long article and then have nothing to say" routine. Who's being a smartass here? I seriously wanted to know if you actually had an opinion on the article that you posted. Geez, is there anything wrong with that?

Here's my opinion: Iran has and always will be an enemy of the US and its allies. The US and its allies should always be on guard to anything Iran says or does.

A little tip for you too, Justin: When you post any sort of article, it's OK if you post your opinion of said article afterward. Otherwise, what's the point, right? If you post an opinion, it gives more validity to the importance of you introducing the article to us in the first place, get it?
 
^ It's not your place to tell anyone what the proper approach to posting an article is. Plenty of posters, myself included, alternate between posting an article with comment and posting one without comment all the time. Not a problem. (And in fact Justin did preface the article with some questions.) If you wish to politely ask a question for clarification as to what kind of discussion the thread-starter was hoping for, fine, but if you're just doing it to sneer at someone, then I suggest you keep it to yourself instead. Posting in someone else's threads just to ridicule them is trolling and likely to get you in trouble.
 
I don't think they will be sending Jimmy Carter to get these hostages released.

perhaps, Jesse Jackson could lend his services

or Ollie North with a Bible and a cake?
 
MrPryck2U said:




Here's my opinion: Iran has and always will be an enemy of the US and its allies. The US and its allies should always be on guard to anything Iran says or does.


Hi Pryck

Actually Iran has a good case against the U S if you go back to the 1950s and follow all the U S meddling in their affairs.

Even the 1979-1980 hostage crisis is not as one-sided as most Americans believe.
 
The U.S. destabilized a democratically elected government in Iran back in the '50's to put the Shah back in power. They have good reason to hate us.
 
verte76 said:
The U.S. destabilized a democratically elected government in Iran back in the '50's to put the Shah back in power. They have good reason to hate us.

That is a part of it.

The Shah had the Savat (secret police) and they did crimes against the Iranian people

Can you imagine if Saddam was deposed by a popular uprising?
and then Saddam went into exile in France
and the French gave him protection

also, imagine this happening and the French support a coup and put Saddam back in power and then say that Iraq is their Aircraft carrier in the MiddleEast to implement French interest

and then a popular uprising drives Saddam out again
and he is in exile in France and receiving support from the French

so the Iraqis take over the French embassy and demand to exhange the French hostages for Saddam

they really do not want the French to put Saddam the butcher back in power, who has the more legitamate complaint here
 
yolland said:
^ It's not your place to tell anyone what the proper approach to posting an article is. Plenty of posters, myself included, alternate between posting an article with comment and posting one without comment all the time. Not a problem. (And in fact Justin did preface the article with some questions.) If you wish to politely ask a question for clarification as to what kind of discussion the thread-starter was hoping for, fine, but if you're just doing it to sneer at someone, then I suggest you keep it to yourself instead. Posting in someone else's threads just to ridicule them is trolling and likely to get you in trouble.

Sadly, you missed the point entirely. I simply gave him what is known as a suggestion and assured him that it was, indeed OK, to have an opinion. Who's trolling? I did actually have a comment about his article. There was no sneering. I had earlier in the thread simply asked him if he had an opinion on this particular article. I politely implore you to please give me a break.
 
No, I didn't miss the point at all. People who are "simply giving a suggestion" don't say things like "Now that you've used up all that bandwidth, could you honor us with an opinion" or "Congratulations, you gave us an opinion, instead of your usual 'post a long article and then have nothing to say' routine." This is not the first time a mod has spoken with you about this either.

If you want to discuss it further then email me.
 
can we all just move back on topic
and stop the sniping


I thought this thread might be about Condi Rice's efforts to make progress on the Israeli / Palastinian front

there is also the Arab / Saudi group meeting on this

I truely hope all parties will keep the focus here

this is at the heart of most of the conflicts
 
When I see the ridiculous propaganda video that Iran keeps releasing of the prisoners, I can't help but think that it looks similar to video we see from terrorist organizations.

Iran is really making itself look quite foolish with this whole situation. I hope they come to their senses real quick.
 
British-Iranian dispute enmeshed in tangled history

By Eoin O'Carroll
Christian Science Monitor, March 29


...In attempting to explain the actions, analysts have invoked everything from the country's nuclear standoff with the West, to stepped-up US actions against Iran, to a border dispute dating from the 17th century. Dr. Ali Pahlavan, the editor of an independent newspaper published in Tehran, told the BBC that he sees his country's actions as an attempt to rebuke Great Britain for its role in supporting a new UN Security Council resolution imposing fresh sanctions over Iran's refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment program. The sanctions, which were approved unanimously the day after the arrests were made, banned all arms exports to Iran and froze the assets of several officials linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps. "My understanding of the situation is that this could be a reaction to the UN sanctions which were passed two days ago... the revolutionary guards had promised that some sort of reaction would be forthcoming from Iran. The revolutionary guards are a very hard line, ultra-conservative wing of the regime who believe that the US and Britain need to be challenged in the Persian Gulf and in the Middle East... their interests need to be challenged in Palestine, in Lebanon, in Iraq and elsewhere. So this could be part of the strategy to challenge the British and American supremacy in this part of the world which is troubling. It could lead to confrontation and be a trigger and which could lead to escalation."

Other analysts seem to agree that the capture was planned in advance. Frances Harrison, the BBC correspondent in Iran, links the arrests to what she calls an "unusually aggressive speech" last week by Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: "[Khamenei] said: 'In case the enemies of Iran intend to use force and violence and act illegally, without a doubt the Iranian nation and officials will use all their capabilities to strike the invading enemies.' It was an oddly defiant and hostile tone to strike for a new year speech. One commentator, Sayeed Laylaz, has drawn a parallel with President George W. Bush's state of the nation address in January, which was followed immediately by a US attack on an Iranian office in Irbil in northern Iraq, and the seizure of five Iranians who are still being held by the US. ...Mr. Laylaz points out that the speech of Mr Khamenei was swiftly followed by the capture of the British sailors."

Some draw a more explicit link to the January raid in Irbil. Richard Beeston, the diplomatic editor of the Times of London, writes in an analysis that "privately there is acknowledgement that [the British sailors'] fate is bound closely to that of the Iranian captives seized by the US...Iranian officials speculated that the way to win the freedom of their comrades was to capture American or British soldiers and arrange a prisoner swap. Reza Faker, a writer for the Revolutionary Guards' newspaper Subhi Sadek, said: 'We have the ability to capture a nice bunch of blue-eyed blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks.' Reza Zakeri, of President Ahmadinejad's office, said that capturing a Western soldier was easier than acquiring a cheaply made Chinese product."

Many analyses contrast the current crisis with a 2004 incident in which Iranians arrested eight British servicemen on patrol in disputed waters between Iran and Iraq. Those servicemen were released three days later, after making a televised apology for straying into Iran. Writing in the The Scotsman, an Edinburgh daily, Dr. Ali Ansari, the director of the Institute for Iranian Studies at St. Andrews University, says that the diplomatic landscape is more sensitive today. "Because this incident occurred on the eve of a crunch meeting at the UN to call Iran to account over its nuclear programme, tensions are much higher than in 2004. We are also dealing with an entirely different regime from the previous one under president Khatami, who favoured conciliation over confrontation. In contrast, president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has clashed repeatedly with Western governments over his refusal to cooperate with inspectors over his nuclear programme."

For all the possible political motives, however, the main cause of the showdown could be a centuries-old dispute over the water border between Iran and Iraq. It began with the 1639 Treaty of Zuhab between the Persian and Ottoman empires, which divided the land without a careful survey. Disagreements through the 1980s, and some of the fiercest fighting in the eight-year war between the two nations, occurred along this border. The AP quotes Lawrence G. Potter, an associate professor of international affairs at Columbia University, who says that even to this day the exact demarcation has not been established. "The problem is that nobody knows where the border is," Potter said. "The British might have thought they were on their side, the Iranians might have thought they were on their side."
 
Last edited:
It looks like there are quite a lot of rumors going around about this and we'll never know the truth. All I know is gas is up 20 cents per gallon on the 'speculation' something bad might happen. Someone is getting rich off of a phantom war that hasn't even begun. Wait and see IF it happens before you rip us off, mmmkay?
 
AnnRKeyintheUSA said:
It looks like there are quite a lot of rumors going around about this and we'll never know the truth. All I know is gas is up 20 cents per gallon on the 'speculation' something bad might happen. Someone is getting rich off of a phantom war that hasn't even begun. Wait and see IF it happens before you rip us off, mmmkay?

The price of oil is always way higher due to speculation on the Futures market.

But in the US it's still cheap :)
 
phanan said:
When I see the ridiculous propaganda video that Iran keeps releasing of the prisoners, I can't help but think that it looks similar to video we see from terrorist organizations.

Iran is really making itself look quite foolish with this whole situation. I hope they come to their senses real quick.

The US released quite a few images and videos of prisoners during the invasion of Iraq as well. Both sides play the game.
 
Gwynne Dyer: How to start a war - American style

Friday March 30, 2007
By Gwynne Dyer

"I don't want to second-guess the British after the fact," said US Navy Lieutenant-Commander Erik Horner, "but our rules of engagement allow a little more latitude. Our boarding team's training is a little bit more towards self-preservation."

Does that mean that one of his American boarding teams would have opened fire if it had been them in the two inflatable boats that were surrounded by Iranian Revolutionary Guard fast patrol boats off the coast of Iraq last Friday? "Agreed. Yes."

Just as well that it was a British boarding team, then.

The 15 British sailors and marines who were captured and taken to Tehran for "questioning" last week are undoubtedly having an unpleasant time, but they are alive, and Britain is only involved in two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If it had been one of Horner's boarding teams, they would all be dead, and the United States and Iran would now be at war.

Horner is the executive officer of the USS Underwood, the American frigate that works with HMS Cornwall, the British ship the captive boarding party came from.

Interviewed after the incident by Terri Judd of the Independent, the only British print journalist on HMS Cornwall, he was obviously struggling to be polite about the gutless Brits, but he wasn't having much success.

"The US Navy rules of engagement say we have not only a right to self-defence but also an obligation to self-defence," Horner explained. "[The British] had every right in my mind and every justification to defend themselves rather than allow themselves to be taken. Our reaction was, 'Why didn't your guys defend themselves?"'

So there they are, eight sailors and seven marines in two rubber boats, with personal weapons and no protection whatever, sitting about 30cm above the water, surrounded by six or seven Iranian attack boats with mounted machine guns.

"Defend yourself" by opening fire, and after a single long burst from half a dozen heavy machine-guns there will be 14 dead young men and one dead young woman in two rapidly sinking inflatables, and your country will be at war. Seems a bit pointless, really.

It's a cultural thing, at bottom. Britain has a long history of fighting wars and taking casualties, but the combat doctrines are less hairy-chested. British rules of engagement "are very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting," explained Admiral Sir Alan West, former First Sea Lord.

"Rather than roaring into action and sinking everything in sight, we try to step back, and that, of course, is why our chaps were ... able to be captured and taken away."

That emollient British approach is probably why the Iranian Revolutionary Guard chose to grab British troops rather than Americans. It was obviously a snatch operation: the Iranians would not normally have half a dozen attack boats ready to go, even if some "coalition" boat checking Iraq-bound ships for contraband did stray across the invisible dividing line into Iranian waters, which the British insist they didn't.

But it was not necessarily an operation ordered from the top of Iran's Government. In fact, there is no single source of authority in Iran's curious system of "multiple governments", as one observer labelled the impenetrably complex division of responsibilities and powers between elected civilians and unelected mullahs. The Revolutionary Guards, who are quite different from the regular armed forces, have considerable autonomy within this system.

According to US authorities in Iraq, the five Iranian diplomats arrested by US troops in a raid in Irbil in Iraqi Kurdistan last January were Revolutionary Guards, and it would seem that their colleagues want them back.

Kidnapping American troops as hostages for an exchange could cause a war, so they decided to grab some Brits instead. And it will probably work, after a certain delay.

In this episode, the American reputation for belligerence served US troops well, diverting Iranian attention to the British instead. In the larger scheme of things, it is a bit more problematic.

A quite similar snatch operation against the equally belligerent Israelis last July led to a month-long Israeli aerial bombardment of Lebanon and a retaliatory hail of Hizbollah rockets on northern Israeli cities. Well over 1000 people were dead by the end, although nothing was settled.

Any day now, a minor clash along Iraq's land or sea frontier with Iran could kill some American troops and give President Bush an excuse to attack Iran, if he wants one - and he certainly seems to.

If the Revolutionary Guards had got it wrong last Friday and attacked an American boarding party by mistake, he would have his excuse now, and bombs might already be falling on Iran. All the pieces are in place, and the war could start at any time.
 
But it was not necessarily an operation ordered from the top of Iran's Government. In fact, there is no single source of authority in Iran's curious system of "multiple governments", as one observer labelled the impenetrably complex division of responsibilities and powers between elected civilians and unelected mullahs. The Revolutionary Guards, who are quite different from the regular armed forces, have considerable autonomy within this system.

Doesn't the Revolutionary Guard answer directly to Khamenei?
 
ntalwar said:


The US released quite a few images and videos of prisoners during the invasion of Iraq as well. Both sides play the game.

Yes. It's the exact same thing.


2ndletterDM2903_468x672.jpg


You go Iran!
 
Last edited:
DrTeeth said:
Doesn't the Revolutionary Guard answer directly to Khamenei?
Pretty much, yeah, though that may be more true of certain branches of the Revolutionary Guard (e.g. intelligence and paramilitary) than others, and they do have their own commander-in-chief. But the paragraph you quoted doesn't seem very credible to me no matter how "autonomous" they tend to be--it's hardly likely that Khameini, and for that matter Ahmadinejad too, wouldn't have been informed in advance on an obviously planned hostage-taking which was guaranteed to have major international repercussions. If it's true, as has been reported, that the Irbil hostages are all Revolutionary Guard intelligence agents and one of them is even their intelligence ops director, then there's almost certainly something more than Revolutionary Guard comradeship motivating any intent on Iran's part to get a prisoner swap out of it.
 
yolland said:
If it's true, as has been reported, that the Irbil hostages are all Revolutionary Guard intelligence agents and one of them is even their intelligence ops director, then there's almost certainly something more than Revolutionary Guard comradeship motivating any intent on Iran's part to get a prisoner swap out of it.
British Navy Crew Arrives in London

Thursday April 5, 2007
By COURTNEY FRENCH, Associated Press


LONDON--Fifteen British sailors and marines held captive for nearly two weeks in Iran arrived home Thursday, a day after the announcement of their release defused a growing confrontation between the two countries. The crew, dressed in fresh uniforms supplied to them before their arrival, lined up beside the plane as photographers captured their arrival. They smiled and many stood with their hands behind their back before boarding two military helicopters at Heathrow Airport.

Wednesday's announcement of their release in Tehran was a breakthrough in a crisis that had escalated over nearly two weeks, raising oil prices and fears of military conflict in the volatile region. The move to release the sailors suggested that Iran's hard-line leadership decided it had shown its strength but did not want to push the standoff too far. Iran did not get the main thing it sought--a public apology for entering Iranian waters. Britain, which said its crew was in Iraqi waters when seized, insists it never offered a quid pro quo, either, instead relying on quiet diplomacy.

Syria, Iran's close ally, said it played a role in winning the release.
..........................................................................
On Wednesday, Iranian state media reported that an Iranian envoy would be allowed to meet five Iranians detained by U.S. forces in northern Iraq. A U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad said American authorities were considering the request, although an international Red Cross team, including one Iranian, had visited the prisoners. Another Iranian diplomat, separately seized two months ago by uniformed gunmen in Iraq, was released and returned Tuesday to Tehran. Iran accused the Americans of abducting him, a charge the U.S. denied. Those developments led to speculation that the release of the Britons had been connected to the events in Iraq. Both Iran and Britain denied any connection.
 
Back
Top Bottom