They should have known the Iranians might spring a trap. Several months before
the current hostage crisis a small group of American and Iraqi soldiers had
been patrolling near the Iranian border 75 miles east of Baghdad.
They spotted a single Iranian soldier lurking in Iraqi territory near the town
of Balad Ruz and moved forward to question him. The Americans were,
according to a US army report obtained by The Sunday Times, promptly
ambushed by a much larger platoon of Iranian soldiers who had been hiding
across the nearby border.
An Iranian captain warned the Americans that “if they tried to leave their
location, the Iranians would fire upon them”. For a few moments the US
paratroopers must have felt as helpless as the British sailors in inflatable
speedboats who were surprised 10 days ago by more heavily armed Iranian
vessels.
The US incident last September ended very differently. Firing broke out. Both
sides scattered and a potential hostage crisis was averted as the Americans
escaped unhurt.
By contrast, the 14 British service-men and one woman proved humiliatingly
vulnerable to a low-tech Iranian naval manoeuvre that has provoked mocking
headlines around the world. Yesterday they were still at the mercy of their
unpredictable Iranian captors, reduced to making forced false apologies for
breaching Iranian territory.
Nathan Thomas Summers, one of the captured crewmen, was paraded on television.
“We trespassed without permission,” he said. “I deeply apologise for
entering your waters.”
Yesterday Hussein Shari’atma-dari, a senior adviser to the regime, described
the incident as a “plot from London to put more pressures on Iran”. He said:
“The path taken by Britain and the West shows that they do not want to take
any step for the release of the British soldiers, therefore Iran must put
them on trial.”
How could the British forces have been caught so unawares? They should have
been alerted months ago by the Balad Ruz clash to the heightened threat of
an Iranian assault. They might even have read subsequent warnings – reported
in The Sunday Times as recently as two weeks ago – that Tehran was
threatening to kidnap “a nice bunch of blue-eyed blond-haired officers”.
As Iranian radicals rejoiced at their propaganda triumph last week, even some
of Britain’s friends were scathing in their condemnation of military
impotence and political incompetence.
“Wimping out on Iran” was one of the more polite commentaries in the New York
Daily News. John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the United Nations,
dubbed the British government’s performance as “pathetic”.
The crisis has reduced Tony Blair and several of his officials to the status
of irrelevant foghorns, issuing empty warnings about “stepping up the
pressure” and “moving to the next phase”.
Such is the shambles that senior Royal Navy officers at the fleet’s
operational headquarters have been directed to review the rules of
engagement for naval boarding parties. If necessary they will recommend
changes to ensure Britain’s forces are never again seized so easily without
a shot being fired.
THE streets of Tehran were largely empty last week as Iranians celebrated
Norouz, their new year festival. There was a chill in the air and snow on
the distant mountains as Mullah Ahmad Khatami mounted his podium in the
courtyard of Tehran University to lead Friday prayers.
Khatami, viewed as a rising hard-liner, quickly turned to the hostage crisis.
“Britain must know that this is not the 19th century and it should not be
taking an imperial posture,” the burly mullah said.
“Everyone knows that Britain is a defeated nation that acts as a political
broker [for the Americans],” he went on. “You cannot frighten Iran by
sending gunboats and doing whatever pleases you. Iran today is a strong Iran
and is the only country that stands up to the Americans.”
Iran has been resisting a campaign led by the United States and Britain at the
UN to force the mullahs to end Iran’s programme of enriching uranium. Iran
claims it will be used to produce civilian nuclear power but the West fears
Iran wants to produce a nuclear bomb.
Khatami said his religious colleagues sent their “warmest congratulations” to
the “mighty border guards” who had seized the British sailors. He condemned
London for “bullish declarations and devious actions” and warned: “Britain
should understand that if they want to continue that path of bullying, they
would pay a huge price.”
This was scarcely the response that Blair can have been hoping for when he
warned last Tuesday that Britain’s campaign to free the captives would “move
into a different phase” if Iran did not respond.
Blair added: “I hope we manage to get them to realise that they have to
release them.”
While there was no doubting the outrage shared by British ministers, it was
equally clear by Thursday’s cabinet meeting that Britain’s big mistake was
to have allowed the sailors to be captured in the first place.
“It’s not as simple as just being tough with the Iranians,” Margaret Beckett,
the foreign secretary, argued to her colleagues.
“They have tentacles in all sorts of areas such as the Afghan warlords, the
Iraqi insurgents and Hamas.”
In other words, Beckett was suggesting, any military action against Tehran was
likely to be met by a barrage of terrorist reprisals by Iranian allies
around the globe. “We have to be more sophisticated,” she insisted.
At 10 Downing Street, senior officials took a similar line. “There is no real
point in sabre-rattling for its own sake,” said one official. “We have been
looking for the opportunity to engage through our multilateral contacts.”
Variations on that peacemongering theme were expressed widely in Whitehall
last week. John Williams, a former Foreign Office director of communications
who was intimately involved in protracted negotiations over Iran’s nuclear
ambitions, said he believed Beckett’s hands were tied. “The Foreign Office
objective is to get our people out safely. There is just too much at stake
for any other approach,” he said.
Such diplomatic hand-wringing was last week driving American hawks to
distraction. “The Brits have laboured mightily for many years to prevent the
United States from pursuing vigorous action against Iran,” sneered Michael
Ledeen, a prominent neocon and Middle East scholar who has long argued for
regime change in Tehran. “Now they will have to answer to the families of
the hostages.” Ledeen argued that coalition forces should “undertake the
legitimate self-defence to which we are entitled”, and attack terrorist
training camps and bomb factories inside Iran.
Newt Gingrich, the former Republican congressman who is considering a
presidential bid, urged Britain to use military force to destroy Iran’s
petrol production company. If a lack of petrol for their cars forced
Iranians to “go back to walking and using oxen to pull carts”, the people
might rise against the ayatollahs, Gingrich said.
None of which will come as much comfort to the frightened family of Leading
Seaman Faye Turney, 26, who has become the human face of the crisis.
Psychologists have had a field day analysing the pitiful videos of Turney
attempting to cooperate under obvious duress.
The three letters she has purportedly written to her parents. to a
“representative of the House of Commons” and to “British People” were
obviously dictated in large part by her Iranian captors. Yet however crude
Iran’s propaganda may seem in Britain, it is mainly aimed elsewhere. Iran is
patently showing off to its radical acolytes around the globe, revelling in
the chance to kick sand in the face of the West.
The so-called confessions of Turney and Summers were first aired not in Farsi,
which is spoken by most Iranians, but on an Arab-language television station
watched widely in Iraq and Arab Gulf countries. The message was clear – the
Arab world must look to Tehran if it wishes to vanquish the American
invaders and see off their yapping British lapdogs.
How they must have laughed in Iran last week when Britain failed to persuade
the UN even to “deplore” the seizure of its sailors. The UN security council
expressed “grave concern” instead. “That’ll really show the Iranians we mean
business,” commented one disillusioned British diplomat. WITH diplomatic
efforts apparently stalling, attention is likely to return this week to how
the Royal Navy, pride of Britain for at least 350 years, allowed this
disaster to happen in the first place. Have we really sunk so low that we
cannot fight off a few Iranian thugs in what amounted to little more than
militarised speedboats?
Vice-Admiral Charles Style, a deputy chief of defence staff, made a good fist
of defending the navy’s position at a Ministry of Defence press conference
on Wednesday. He had all the right satellite coordinates and charts to show
the Iranians were at fault, but everyone listening knew that it no longer
really mattered exactly where our chaps had been arrested – they should not
have been arrested at all.
That point was rammed home by an officer on board the US frigate that is the
other main ship in Task Force 158, the British-commanded fleet patrolling
off Iraq. Lieutenant-Commander Erik Horner of the USS Underwood said US
sailors’ rules of engagement meant they not only had the right to defend
themselves against that kind of aggression, but also were obliged to do so.
“Our reaction was: why didn’t your guys defend themselves?” Horner said.
John Pike, one of America’s leading military analysts, was similarly baffled
that the sailors’ home ship, HMS Cornwall, was up to 11 miles away, too far
to offer immediate cover as the British inflatables searched an Indian
freighter in a routine antismuggling check. Despite all the evidence that
Iran was looking to capture “blue-eyed officers”, Pike said, “there seems to
have been a loss of situational awareness on the part of the folks on
Cornwall that their boarding party could be snuck up on like that”.
Admiral Sir Alan West, the former first sea lord, defended the lack of
aggression on the British side, pointing out that UK rules of engagement
“are very much deescalatory, because we don’t want wars starting”. He added:
“The reason we are there is to be a force for good, to make the whole area
safe. So we try to downplay things. Rather than roaring into action and
sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why
our chaps were . . . captured.”
The British lapse was all the more surprising because the same thing happened
in June 2004, when eight sailors and marines were seized in the same area
and released three days later. The defence ministry compiled a “lessons
learnt” paper to ensure that those mistakes were not repeated.
The Sunday Times has learnt that the paper highlighted the need for “top
cover” for boarding parties, which should always have been covered from the
air by the presence of a helicopter. The Cornwall’s Lynx – armed with a .50
machinegun that could have caused serious damage to the Iranian fast boats –
had apparently been overhead when the sailors boarded the Indian freighter.
Why did it turn back, leaving the sailors exposed? The ministry initially said
last week that it needed to refuel before retreating behind an insistence
that there was no standard procedure for keeping a helicopter in place.
It also remained a mystery how the Cornwall’s advanced radar and sonar systems
failed to alert its crew to a problem. As a type22 frigate, the Cornwall has
the capability to track ships up to 200 miles away. One recently retired
naval officer said even basic navigation radar should have picked up
motorboats at shorter range, assuming someone was looking out for them.
An official board of inquiry will ultimately be charged with examining the
incident and establishing, among many other things, why no immediate effort
was made to intercept the Iranians as they departed with their captives.
Less easy to predict is how the standoff will be resolved. “A military
confrontation would just be losing all round. Both sides realise that,” said
Robert Lowe of the Chatham House think tank. He said the solution had to be
one where “neither side loses face”.
One experienced source who has dealt with Iran in the past expects the
hostages to be released after a week to 10 days, but he said that was likely
only if Britain relaxed its pressure. “They will not want to be seen to be
reacting to anything we are saying or doing,” he said.
A rescue attempt, if successful, would be hugely popular in Britain and might
restore Blair’s tattered image in America. “There are plans being made [for
a possible rescue],” one senior British source acknowledged. But it is not
even clear where the sailors are being held.
Nor is history on the prime minister’s side. A US attempt to rescue embassy
hostages in Iran in 1980 ended in a fiasco of colliding aircraft in the
desert. Those hostages were held for 444 days.
Additional reporting: Safa Haeri, Paris
Regime continues as it began, with intimidation and violence
1979 Iranian student supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini occupied the
American embassy in Tehran and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. A
rescue attempt called Operation Eagle Claw failed when a sandstorm made two
helicopters lose their way. The crisis was blamed for Jimmy Carter’s loss of
the American presidential election in 1980.
1980s Iran, which helped to found the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, was
linked to a series of kidnappings of foreigners in Lebanon, including that
of Terry Waite, and to the abduction and murder of Colonel William Higgins,
an American marine.
1989 Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for the death of Salman Rushdie,
the British author, claiming he had committed blasphemy in his novel The
Satanic Verses. The fatwa remains in force because only Khomeini, now dead,
could remove it; but the regime worked out an agreement with the British
government that it would not be enforced.
1992 Suicide bombing of the Israeli embassy in Argentina which killed
29 people – thought to be the work of Iran.
1994 Suicide bombing of a Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires that
killed 85 people and wounded 200. Argentine investigators blamed Hezbollah.
2002 Iran involved in attempt by Hezbollah to smuggle weapons to the
Palestinian Authority. A cargo ship was intercepted by the Israel Defence
Forces and found to be carrying $15m worth of weapons, including katyusha
rockets, antitank missiles, mortars and land mines.
2004 Iran seized eight British sailors and held them prisoner for three
days, parading them blindfolded on television and subjecting them to mock
executions. The crisis was resolved through negotiation.
2006-7 America and Britain have accused Iran of fomenting violence in
Iraq, including supplying sophisticated “shaped” bombs used against
coalition troops. A senior British officer last month claimed Iran was
paying $500 to agents in the Basra area to carry out attacks.
1979-2007 Many of Iran’s political opponents have met violent ends at
home and abroad, including Dr Shapour Bakhtiar, the Shah of Iran’s last
prime minister, who was stabbed in his Paris home. Thousands of political
dissidents, including many who originally supported Khomeini’s overthrow of
the Shah, disappeared or were executed as the regime solidified its power.
It is stunning to see Britain so brutally reduced to third class status. It is not that this situation could be resolved militarily - the moment for that passed when the incident first transpired. Rather it is Britain's inability to make even a demonstration of military power, or to persuade its European allies to follow its lead, that is so stunning.
The truth is that all the pillars of British power are shattered. The UN and the EU have proved less than worthless. If a military action is undertaken, it will probably be by the United States with the British as helpful observers of their own liberation. Briatin is not what it was in the days of empire, but at least it appeared still to be a major world power with military capabilities and diplomatic influence to to match.
Now it is clear: Britain is a hardship case, dependent on the charity of others to save its own - and to think, London survived the Blitz for the likes of a generation too somnolent to save itself.
James Geoffrey, Falls Church, Virginia, USA
Amazing. The supremacist Iranian theocracy captures British soldiers patrolling their own territory, and sock puppets like Daniel have the nerve to blame the West for it. With gullible westerners not only denying that Iran is a threat to modern civilization, but actively siding with them, the mullahs could not have wished for an easier passage to a new Islamist world order. What a riot!
Petrius, Toronto, Canada,
As a life-long Anglophile it is a very sad time for me.
How Britain could fall so low so fast?
Royal Navy, a glorious history and all, let 15 sailors get captured by two bit thugs with no shots fired?
Your heroic predesessors are weeping in their graves.
Is this truly the end of England?
Any Britts with balls remain?
mik, san francisco, usa
To RMC Stu:
My respects.
HerrMorgenholz, USN, Retd., Dayton, USA/Ohio
The best course of action was taken, where we need to understand why this happened, it should be noted that being gun-ho like the USA is not going to work. Compare the situation in Basra to Baghdad. It should be noted that Shia, especially the marsh arabs, in this area are 1) numerous and 2) have been sorely treated by Mr Hussien when the allies left the first time for helping the USA and UK. In short there is history here to concider, softly softly is the correct answer, use a big stick only when you have to, but be prepared to use it
tony wilson, london, united kingdom
"...where neither side looses face." is obviously wrong. Briton has already lost face. Capture one of their subs at the very least. Show them the difference between a two bit thugocracy and one of the west's finest post industrial nations. Is Iran of today even a pail shadow of WWII's Germany? Suck acts of piracy should not be allowed to stand unpunished.
David, Greenville, NC
This is what happens if you put 'Jack' in charge of 'Royal'. Matlot's are not soldiers and have no idea of soldiering. As an ex- Royal Marines Commando I'd like to think that had all 15 of the boarding party been Roya Marines Commandos, that they would have got the bloody rounds down and attempted to make good their escape. At the end of the day we were all taught that a P.O.W never has a good day. If I thought my mates or I might not see home again I know what would have happened to our usless rules of engagement. They would have gone out of the window.
You see, having all passed the same tests to gain our green lid's, we knew we could rely on each other no matter what. The level of comradery was such and still is, that you would rather drag yourself naked over broken class than let your mates or yourself down.
Tewnty five years ago to this day a small party of Royal Marines put up a harsh and dogged resistance against a much larger invading force of Argentine Commandos.
Stu Brown, London, England
Imagine, if a non-nuclear Iran will kidnap foreign nationals in disputed waters, if not clearly the waters of another, what would this "The(thug)ocracy" do if nuclear armed? What price will the willing pay now to preservere against such aggression? And what price will it pay later if it chooses mere acquiesence?
Patience and diplomacy are virtues. While speaking softly, carry a big stick.
Greg, Mobile, Alabama/ USA
>>What happened to giving only name,rank, and serial number? Did their captors threaten to take away their cigarettes if they did not bash their goverment and country?<<
Mr. Wright -
Easy to say sitting at home in your comfortable room at the computer. Much harder, no doubt, when you have simitars zinging about the room and nuts holding them.
Anita, Indiana, USA
Britain needs to learn from Carter's mistake. The first step to take in this situation is to demand the safe return of the hostages. Step two is to freeze all Iranian assets, ban travel to Iran, and refuse entry to Britain to anyone with an Iranian visa stamp in their passport. Step three is to declare war, and sieze as prisoners of war any Iranian nationals who haven't petitioned for asylum. Step four is to invoke NATO's obligation to assist Britain in time of war. These steps taken together should take no more than a week at the outside.
The iranian theocrats behave this way because their experience tells them they can get away with it. It's time for that to change. When they're in danger of following in Saddam's footsteps themselves instead of just writing a check to their suicidal mercenaries in Lebanon, it will be a very different story.
-jcr
John C. Randolph, Cupertino, California, USA
Yes, Daniel, I said Mohammedan attack. Leave Belfast and venture into London. Leave London and venture to Paris. Leave Paris and venture to Stockholm. Leave Stockholm and venture to Minneapolis. Sharia is a way of life in Germany and France and Sweden. The Dutch have yet to avenge Theo Van Gogh's heinous, multicultural murder. This is real, friend.
I choose my words carefully.
Aurelius: I didn't mean 50 years, I meant 1500. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
I pray for 15 British sailors and Marines, but I mourn for the West.
HerrMorgenholz, Dayton, USA/Ohio
Britian's ship is sinking in the the vast ocean of dhimmitude.
sue, nyc,
Yes, Daniel, I said Mohammedan attack. Leave Belfast and venture into London. Leave London and venture to Paris. Leave Paris and venture to Stockholm. Leave Stockholm and venture to Minneapolis. Sharia is a way of life in Germany and France and Sweden. The Dutch have yet to avenge Theo Van Gogh's heinous, multicultural murder. This is real, friend.
I choose my words carefully.
Aurelius: I didn't mean 50 years, I meant 1500. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
I pray for 15 British sailors and Marines, but I mourn for the West.
HerrMorgenholz, Dayton, USA/Ohio
The article in today's Mail on Sunday 'How I know Blair faked Iran map', by a former head of the Foreign Office's maritime section, is worth reading. "These boundaries are fake", he says, "They were drawn up by the MoD. They are not agreed or recognised by any international authority." If true, does this affect anyone's views?
Tom, London, UK
I am amazed that under this sorry emasculated excuse of a government, the Royal Navy's "Rules of engagement" didn't include handing over the HMS Cornwall, and the crew swimming home.
Dagenham Dave, England,
The excessive concern displayed by the UK and the US over "provoking" Iran into a conflagration no matter how much it violates their interests boils down to one conclusion: They are no longer prepared to defend themselves!
Paul Jancu, New York , USA
Today the fanatics were lobbing stones and firecrackers into the British Embassy compound,luckily the occupants were probably taking advantage of the New Year holidays!Maybe the British Government should ask the Chancellor of St Andrews University in Scotland to ask the ex-president of Iran Khatami to send him an invitation so that he can have some "Dialogue"since they were so chummy in Fifeshire,after all the ex-president is on kissing terms with all those in power in Iran.
olivebranch, brighton.Sussex, uk
Something fishy going on here.
First it was said that the ship being searched was a dhow loaded with second hand cars. It was stated that it was Iranian, then Indian...
A photo from a helicopter was shown, it was flying over the still anchored ship in question, with someone showing a hand-help GPS device to show its location in Iraqui waters. The problem is that the ship could clearly be seen NOT to be a dhow, but a normal merchant vessel.
This vessel was quite large and obviously heavy, requiring deep waters. How come the British frigate could not get closer?, is it that much heavier?. I have seem HMS Cornwall and its not a big ship.
Ernesto Forchetto, Gijon, Spain
Wow, no Brits at all posting (other than me, and I scarpered due to the unbearable patheticness of modern Britain) ... cats got your tongue?
Rob Spear, LA,
As much as I detest the presidency of George W. Bush, I am with him in advising Tony Blair to get tough with the Iranian hostage-takers.
Be that as it may, I have a word of advice to the “HAVE YOUR SAY” respondents: As you are preparing your response–whichever side it might be on–fix up your typos, your misspellings, your punctuation, etc. I have seen so much of that in the published responses.
Nothing can take the zest out of your message, when read by others, than such sloppiness in your writing. One who writes sloppily most likely thinks sloppily; his readers are not likely to put much store in his comments.
Mycroft Watson, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Daniel if there is no threat then what concern is there regarding being "blown to smithereens"? It is a British problem, so you and your countrymen and government should deal with it as you see fit (though I find the response personally to be appalling, but that is your problem). My concern is that it is the incompetency of the management of the war in Iraq by my government that has allowed this Iranian ascension to take place.
Ian, Old Bridge, NJ USA
Whether we like it or not, Iran is a sovereign state, who ironically probably think, as a whole, that Tony Blair and his lot are evil, a point with which I have some sympathy.
We have no right to be in their territorial waters, how would we feel if the circumstaces were reversed.
Our government do not listen to their own peoples opinions let alone anyone else, Oh! with the exception of the maniac in the White House. My point therefore is why would they offer that respect to anyone else, especially when they are sitting on significant oil reserves. We are the monsters in allowing Mr. blair to carry on this senseless action.
Read Dis, London, England
I have to ask, why in the name of hades did our marines etc end up boarding a craft without any outward looking cover.If the heli had to ret, to the mother ship & the mother ship could not cover, why was not another outward looking patrol deployed with the search team.As a civillian I can understand the requirement to cover your mates asses when they are vunerable, and have a disaster/recovery plan on standby. Is it the case that our forces are now stretched like over extended catgut strings on a guitar that the slightest twang breaks their capacity.Have they been so emasculated that it is now a satisfactory statement to proffer that our forces no longer roar into action.[Sir Alan West] Is this just a political speakeasy way of designating our people to the level of geopolitical cannon fodder. We have kicked our people into battle like never before.We have reduced in real terms the size of the financial steak we put on their plate year after year. They cant speak so we must speak out.!
Donacha, Glenrothes, Scotland
The restrained reaction of a mature and responsible government is what we all expect of our governments. Unfortunately, these thugs have also come to expect this response. The Iranians have come to expect that they can take hostages any time they wish, and the only outcome is they gain some advantage in the ensuing negotiations. There are no consequenses for this behavior. These are not just fifteen service members, Iran is holding an entire nation hostage, and thre must be a price to pay for it.
Scott Gorman, mulberry, Florida U.S.
I'm suprised and disappointed by the bloodlust which shows in many of these postings.
This is not the England my mother came from.
Peter, Altdorf, Germany
Whilst the Iranian treatment of the captured sailors is, indeed, despicable we should not forget that this is primarily a result of our government's aggressive foreign policy.
When was the last time you heard of French, German, Swiss et cetera military personnel being held ransom by unsavoury regimes?
Daniel, Belfast,
What happened to giving only name,rank, and serial number? Did their captors threaten to take away their cigarettes if they did not bash their goverment and country?
charles wright, mazatlan, mexico
HerrMorgenholz and other irrational Americans:
Mohammedan attack? Slavery? Destruction? Sharia law?
Hmmm, I think you are being slightly melodramatic. Let's put things into perspective - fifteen sailors were seized in the Persian gulf for propaganda purposes and that is it.
Britain is not going to be destroyed because of this. If your country wishes to embark upon another lunatic war to prove your strength, so be it. Personally, I prefer diplomacy and remaining alive.
We are not all hoping for a crusade against a non-existent threat or to have ourselves blown to smithereens for national pride.
Daniel, Belfast,
You might want to go back further in your history to the '50s, when the downflal of the then moderate prime minister was engineered to, make way for the dictatorial Shah, hated by his people (as well as mentioning the shameful way he was abandoned during the Revolution!). And all because Iran dared to challenge the UK for a decent amount of revenue from their petro-chemical industry.
Other than that, you're quite right, they shouldn't have been taken prisoner.
Chris, Northampton,
how long is this rouge country going to get away with the taking of hostages every time they throw a tantrum? find out the location of the sailors then nuke the rest of that dump to ashes (try not to hit france)
john, belleville, USA NJ
Iran is a 'horde of shrieking, debased savages'. This sort of talking is really not a great deal different to the idiot segment of the Iranian population chanting 'Death to America/Britain'. And you are supposed to represent the values of Western civilization, Aurelius?
I also object to both this article's - and other posters' - tirades against 'peacemongerers'. What is so wrong with finding a diplomatic solution?
Why are so many people keen to start a war? Only fifteen were captured: a war would resut in the deaths of thousands. Please, a sense of rationality should be injected into this 'debate'.
Diplomacy offers a way out of this impassé to both sides without the need to murder each other.
Stephen, London,
The R.N. should have been prepared to defend their brave sailors and marines who were patrolling these waters under a UN mandate. They failed miserably...hence the world now views British military power and its political leaders as impotent and unable to retrieve their people without licking the boots of the Iranian regime. Nelson and Churchill must be rolling in their graves.
charles wright, mazatlan, mexico
Mr. Morgenholtz is absolutely correct: This is not a new war. It has been underway now for nearly 30 years. And it is just astonishing that we have continued for forbear for so long. These cretins do not constitute a state; they are a horde of debased, shrieking savages. Let us cease pretending that we are dealing with a government or anything resembling a responsible member of the community of nations. Bomb them and get them out of there. Free the people of Iran. Annihilate all of the theocrats' warmaking facilities. Bomb them abundantly, prodigiously, without apology. Nay, far from apologising, demand thanks. And demand compensation: Finance the operation with seized petroleum. They did not put it there, they did not make it. They simply sit atop it lazily, and employ its proceeds to finance further savagery. Bomb them. Bomb them with joyful exuberance, demand thanks, and exact compensation.
Aurelius, NY/London, US/UK
Why were our troops put in this position after the events several years ago, the recent attempted kidnap of U.S. soldiers, the recent threat from Iran of "kidnapping blonde haired blue eyed westerners" and all the other events going on? Yet again we ask our troops to do a very difficult job without giving them the support they need and deserve. I just hope that measures have now been taken to stop this happening again.
We should give the Iranians another week to release the soldiers they kidnapped, and if they have not released them by then take punative military action against strategic oil and nuclear targets. Force is the only kind of diplomacy that these mad men respect or understand. The don't listen to bleeding heart liberals who they beilieve are pathetic and weak. I suppose at least we agree on something then.
J W Randall, Edinburgh,
Good friends, remember the words of Solomon, "Pride goeth before a fall." It's one the greatest double entendres in history.
Dan Friedman, New York City, USA
Iran is the one that looks pathetic,not Britain.
john, london,
Balanced and interesting information. Britain is to br thanked for stand firmly on her values , as well as, defending her soldiers. The "confessions " Iranians brag about having gotten are noting but the outcome of physologicla torture. Britten must stay firm an fight the game Iran wants to play.
K P Hermansen, Drammen, Norway
The timing is a little suspicious to say the least. Why on earth would Iran want to pick a fight with the west and risk losing it all. Iran couldn't even defeat Iraq. A force we crushed like an insect. Twice no less. Doesn't make any sense. However if the west (read USA) wanted an excuse to mix it up with Iran then what better way to do it.. Use an allies peril as an excuse to intervene..... Does anyone remember Vietnam and how it got started. How do you say Gulf of Tonkin incident.........
W T Katz, scottsdale, arizona usa
Tony Gold:
And it is just that attitude that will have your sons beheaded and your daughters in burkhas, if they haven't already. "Biodiesel"?! While your own nation succumbs to a Mohammedan attack? Nero was a warmongerer compared to those Westerners who would so quickly surrender their lands to the barbarians. What trauma did you and your fellow travelers suffer that you would so quickly debase yourselves? Is Britain, and the West, so totally shorn of all pride that they CHOOSE slavery? Sharia? Destruction? This is a war, and not a new one. Surrender and you will die. Fight it and you may just survive.
HerrMorgenholz, Dayton, USA/Ohio
A few months ago some Swiss soldiers accidentally 'invaded' Liechtenstein. No fuss was made. This is the difference in peaceful states not ruled my warmongering Holocaust deniers. And the siezure was cowardly - our sailors were on the ladder and exposed. Had we fired back (which the ones on the ladder could not), the Iranians would have picked off those on the ladder. We would have been left with several hostages taken anyway but several dead in the water. Is this what you want?
Ben, York,
Brian! first of all, it is'nt about map reading, as they were in iraqi waters, and secondly, they were not S.A.S. were the odd border incursion is nessecary to gain a closer look. The Northern Ireland war was to do with British forces helping to combat civil unrest. what we were doing in the Gulf was ensuring that vessels passing through those particular waters were not carrying anything that may be linked to terrorist activities thus protecting any one in the Middle East. So grow up!
john, croydon, surrey
When does “too much at stake” become nothing more than a euphemism used by Western democracies for self imposed slavery to regimes intent on destroying them?
TQ, Jacksonville, USA/FL
This is a ridiculous incident in an idiotic episode in British history. What possible good can a UK military presence achieve in the Middle East? We are a Christian power with an appalling record in that part of the world. Iraq is an Islamic-Zionist problem - leave it to Bush and his controllers to trigger Armaggedon. Meantime invest UK public funds in bio-diesel development, not the Ministry of Defence!
Tony Gold, Southbourne, UK
ridiculous niavety on part of the R.N.
however having seen the size of the iranain speed boats
their radar image at 11miles,if that were true of the distance off of the mother ship,could have been clutter.
gps is excellent but there are times of day when the number of satellites visible to receivers might be no more than 3, giving less than perfect reception and there less accurate positions.
despite these comments, the CO has a lot of questions to answer , as do his bosses.
james haydon, el ejido,
Thank you Britain, Thank you Britain, for coming along side of us in our time of need. When we were at our most vulnerable--you were there. And now, we're here. There is no such thing as humiliation in the face of injustice, only the opportunity to stand up in the face of it.
Tom, Scottsdale/, AZ
The main trouble ius that British servicemen and women Cannot read even simple road maps.
How many times did even the much vaunted SAS cross the border from the North into the Republic of Ireland.
Brian P O Cinneide, Durban, South Africa
Blair should fly to Teheran and apologise.....return with the crew.....then we should fire him as Prime Minister and eject him from the Labour Party.
He is so busy apologising for potato famines, abolition of slavery, that a final act of contrition should not shame his thespian skills and he can then depart the stage to resounding cheers
TomTom, Leeds, England
It seems like it was all planned to trigger a crisis leading to a direct confrontation between Iran and Britain with the hawks in Washington trying to provoke the latter to fight. And then, bingo, Bush's last dream comes true...the war is on!
Lacoste, Paris, France
Caught napping!
What will the Navy's response be if an Iranian patrol attemps to board the HMS Cornwall?
leon, Perth, Australia
Why all that reminds me of Neville Chamberlain?
Irb, Belem, Brazil
You know boys and girls it is not the sailors who are humiliated. Inspite of the title of the piece. It is Briatin as a nation that is humiliated. All the seventy odd million of them. No ammount of saving face or other parts of the British anatomy changes the facts on the ground. If this happened to anyone else, the world would just shrug. But to Britain! Now that is humiliation. When the Japanese emperor ordered its military to surrender to the Americans he used the words " I will bear the unbearable". For the British this is not unbearable at all.
George Steiner, Lachine, Quebec, Canada
Excellent Article...
Non, New York, NY, USA
what does MR. BLAIR plan to do when diplomacy fails? The USA's hostages were held captive for 444 days. I pray that these brave soldiers are returned unharmed as fast as possible. America Stands behind you!
Aaron McGuire, ORlando, USA / FL
Ambassador Bolton is right "pathetic"
Michael Wonder, Anyplace, USA
Magnificent reporting, unbiased fair and balanced. Hope peace prevails and the "East Indian Company", Lord Conrniwallis, "on to the Oxus" type of hawkish thinking is debunked by the the new EU Britian that believes in peace and mutual respect.
Moin Ansari, Parsippany, NJ
Iran and the talibaan do not get along. The red herring of the talibaan in Pakistan is pure war mongering.
Moin Ansari, Parsippany, NJ
While everyone is distrctred by the hostage incident qand Iraq, one has to wonder what Iran is doing in concert with the Taliban to undermine Mushareff and take possession of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal... Imagine an alliance between Irna nd the Taliban with more a multitude of nuclear warheads and the missiles to deliver them anywhere in the world.....It may be too late already...
Robert, Corvallis, Oregon
Britons seemed to forget that POW is an acronym.
tandma, penn Yan, NY