I’ll do this creative visualisation now, instead of panicking that my comment won’t get through. Here goes.

Which is why the said Marines should have put up a fight instead of meekly allowing themselves to be taken as hostages.

Probably fighting would have resulted in some casualties, but, shit, these people were meant to be military personnel partrolling in a war zone, ffs – not pathetic ‘mummy who just wants to come home’ as the press have characterised one of them.

A firefight in Iraqi waters with the Marines calling for air support and/or reinforcements and screaming blue murder about Iranian infringment would have had a damned sight better outcome for the British than this god-awful mess.

Fighting might well have resulted in the Revolutionary Guards backing off (and, laughingly, trying to gain international sypathy via their BBC/Reuters sympathisers) but even if it racheted up the tension with Iran, this would have served to highlight Iran’s agressive intentions, which would be considerably to the British advantage.

Allowing oneself to be taken as a hostage to be used any way the Iranians want to use you is *not* a helpful military tactic in anyone’s book.

Also, ffs, get the girls out of the military. A woman with a young child has no place patrolling an internationally disputed border in the Shaat-Al-Arab. Christ almighty…. haven’t these people got any sense?

Which is why the said Marines should have put up a fight instead of meekly allowing themselves to be taken as hostages.

Probably fighting would have resulted in some casualties, but, shit, these people were meant to be military personnel partrolling in a war zone, ffs – not pathetic ‘mummy who just wants to come home’ as the press have characterised one of them.

A firefight in Iraqi waters with the Marines calling for air support and/or reinforcements and screaming blue murder about Iranian infringment would have had a damned sight better outcome for the British than this god-awful mess.

Fighting might well have resulted in the Revolutionary Guards backing off (and, laughingly, trying to gain international sypathy via their BBC/Reuters sympathisers) but even if it racheted up the tension with Iran, this would have served to highlight Iran’s agressive intentions, which would be considerably to the British advantage.

Allowing oneself to be taken as a hostage to be used any way the Iranians want to use you is *not* a helpful military tactic in anyone’s book.

Also, FFS, get the girls out of the military. A woman with a young child has no place patrolling an internationally disputed border in a place like the Shat-Al-Arab. Christ almighty…. haven’t these people got any sense?

In situations like this, successful negotiations as far as the British are concerned are advantageously conducted from a position of strength and unfortunately in spite of all the latter hyped up political statements emanating from Tony Blair his initial passive and semi-conciliatory response has given the Iranian’s the advantage in the war of words. Combined with the almost forgotten and ineffectual response by the British Authorities to the kidnapping of Alan Johnston, the BBC correspondent in Gaza, despite the British knowing, one would assume, which terrorist group was responsible for his capture, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards serving with Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza would have notified Johnston’s situation to Tehran which would have taken cognisance of the British inaction as an indicator for their strategy to deal with the British Marines.

While Alan Johnston’s fate can probably be relegated to an agreed sum paid out to his abductors the British Marines fate is being manipulated for political gain by various factions within Iran and externally to the political detriment of the British Authorities. With the Americans having captured in Iraq eight Iranian Revolutionary Guards and holding them in American custody, the Iranians operating within Iraq have failed in their campaign of abducting US troops in Iraq and using them as bargaining chips for the release of their Revolutionary Guards, are now perhaps trying an alternative approach on the hapless British Navy Marines and would indicating a dim prospects of a quick release of the Marines

In the larger game the incident allows Iran to remind the UK and US that brinkmanship works both ways, and offers a reality check for Western hawks who believe that military power can bring the Persians to heel.

The UK understands that it is prudent to support the position of Iranian moderates within government, so diplomatic negotiations must succeed and concessions will therefore have to be made. The exchange of prisoners will ensue, although posturing and propaganda will continue well after the swap takes place.

The British navy will review its procedures and tighten force security to account for these type of low-level attacks.

The spanner could be a UK inability or refusal to release the detained iranian officials or worse yet, that one or more of them is dead or in Iraqi government custody. That complication will kill the deal and increase the Guard’s desire to use the UK prisoners in a more ugly way in both games.

Barring that eventuality, normal transmission should resume fairly shortly.

There are several loud voices that refuse to accept any criticism of the Iranians over this. Now, anti-establishment, anti-west propaganda is fine, up to a point. But when it gets to the point that people can’t find anything wrong with illegal military attacks on the west, that point is passed, and the point of moral bankruptcy is reached instead.

A nicely written and coherently argued post. And if I had more time I would take great pleasure in taking it apart…but I will content myself with just this one point.

It is of a surprise to me those who would seek to defend a regime with an atrocious human rights record and which kidnaps and assassinates civilians living abroad while being a major sponsor of world terrorism. Iran is financing Hezbollah and Hamas and is a principal source of war and instability in the Middle East.

Substitute the word “USA” for “Iran” in this paragraph and see for yourself if it really looks much different. Human rights? Think Guantanemo Bay. Kidnaps and assaninations? Think the “extraordinary renditions”. Prinicple source of war? Which nation has large bases in dozens of countries around the world? Which nation outspends the rest of the world combined on its war machinery, which nation has sent troops to invade on average about one new nation (for one reason or another) per year for the last 100 years?

And most tellingly, which nation has most recently invaded another major country, on now proven false pretexts, resulting in a bloody shambles that has dragged on now for almost as long as WW2?

On the other side of the ledger I have socially mingled and worked with both Iranians and Americans in the course of the last 30 years, and find much to respect, indeed admire, about both of these very different nations. When any peoples turn their energies to constructive uplfting purposes I am delighted. By contrast, when I see those energies directed to warfare, to the rearing of the Four Horses of the Acopolypse, to the dark madness that is war… I despair.

It is an immature reasoning to conclude that just because I cannot support the US/UK actions in the Middle East, automatically this means that I am a supporter of Iraq or Iran. This dictate that “either you are for us or against us” belongs in the schoolyard. Grow up folks.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind124.html

I bet if Iraqi troops had done the same to Iranian sailors you’d be a little less sanguine. Imagine if Israeli troops did the same to Egyptian or Lebanese sailors – well I’m sure you’d be full of outrage complete with the full range of relevent Geneva Convention breaches to back your outrage. The UN of course would immediately condemn Israel with a quick and unambiguous resolution. The double standard of lefties like you is so blatant its pathetic.

As for your “who knows what reason” bleat – its pretty obvious why. A good read of Serum’s excellent post would be a good start.

I think they knew the coordinates perfectly well. I think the British did too. I think ships move and so do boats, and I think there are plenty of plot points we don’t know about. It’s a possibility the Iranians chose three different ones from their list. It’s not a given that they made them up.

It will be (b). Brtian will negotiate and concede a little. Otherwise it is stalemate with no talk. Since the UK does not want war with Iran, and does want its sailors and soldiers back, they will negotiate (as oppossed to simply making demands). Iran captured them so they can negotiate – they now have negotiating leverage. So both countries have a negotiating interest. What we are seeing now is the maximisation of negotiating positions, before actual talks start.

I expect there will be some talks on the nuclear issue – ultimately some agreement on what part of the fuel cycle Iran can keep – which wont be zero. But of course this will be all publicly disconnected from the current issue. The NPT does not stop countries having some level of involvment in the fuel cycle eg Japan. But of course it is subject to a full IAEA inspection regime

By the way not shooting back was smart. If faced with overwhelming odds, surrender is the obvious option, if you beleive that there will be at least some level of observance of the rules of war. And I think US service personnel would do the same in the same circumstances, notwithstanding bluff and bluster. A few M16s are not much against multiple 25MM turreted guns. US sailors and soldiers are not keen on suicide, which was the choice that faced the Royal Marines.

Wayne

While it is true that in this situation the maritime borders are not demarcated, the baselines used by Iran to determine its maritime borders are not accepted by any other country in the Gulf and contravene the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Seas.

Iran is a signatory to the Convention and is obliged to obey it under international law. If there is an argument over the boundary, as some postings here claim, then the Iranian Revolutionary Guard units are as guilty as the British navy in entering disputed waters.

The maritime borders were not imposed by the British government, they were drawn up by the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein. The present Iraqi government has accepted the territorial borders demarcated by the Saddam regime. As foreign forces are there on a UN mandate, they are obliged to defend Iraqi territory.

Even if one accepts the Iranian boundary, Iran is still not permitted to arrest these personnel. If the military forces or civilians of another state violate territorial waters, the first action by the Iranian would be to ask them to leave. This kind of border violation is usually solved by border officials, not by gunboats manned by Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

Iran has previously abided by this convention by requesting that Azerbaijani boats crossing into territorial waters claimed by Iran in the Caspian Sea leave the area, which they do. Moreover, the British naval personnel were not belligerent – their light weaponry could not even be used to take out one IRG boat. It is relevant here that Commodore Nick Lambert the commander of HMS Cornwall, who was responsible for the captured Marines, was restricted by the current rules of engagement forbidding any action to stop the Marines being taken as this would be seen as an escalation of a crisis which in effect places the British navy in a position where it cannot defend it’s very own personnel.

Iran perhaps does have a defence, if its territorial claims could be backed by international law (which does not appear to be the case). While military units do have the right to innocent passage through territorial waters, the British naval personnel were not in the process of passage and Iran could argue that they were not innocent. Nevertheless, they would still be obliged to request the personnel to leave in the first instance.

The rights and the wrongs of the Iraq War do not enter into the equations. If those who want to justify these arrests by supporting Iran’s spurious legal claims, they are going to lose the argument. Moreover, it makes you wonder whether they are simply appeasers for a corrupt and despotic regime.

It is of a surprise to me those who would seek to defend a regime with an atrocious human rights record and which kidnaps and assassinates civilians living abroad while being a major sponsor of world terrorism. Iran is financing Hezbollah and Hamas and is a principal source of war and instability in the Middle East. Iran’s involvement in Iraq is a major factor behind the bloody terrorism there and the fact that there is a reluctance to deal with Iran in Iraq has been one of the major mistakes that has been made. When the five Iranian Revolutionary Guards were captured in January in Iraq, along with the defection of two highly-placed Iranian agents, the astounding scale of Iran’s involvement in Iraq could no longer be denied and also failing to deal properly with Iranian aggression for the past three decades is a sign of weakness which has encouraged Iran to ratchet up its attacks.

In 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini declared war on the West and the West took no notice. In the years that followed, Iran repeatedly attacked western interests and the response has always been muted, presumably for fear of something worse. Iran believes the West will not act. They are banking with some confidence on appeasement by the West and history tells us what horror awaits those who believe you can appease tyranny.