UK Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

FuManChu said:

So you're saying that the Royal Navy, USN and Iraqi government are lying too?

Sampan, did you even bother to read my posts about UN law? I know you hate Tony Blair, but you shouldn't let that railroad you into justifying the illegal detention of our people under UN law.



Because Cornwall was not in a position to help, nor was the Lynx. And the Iranians had a lot more firepower than they did.



Nothing fishy is going on - you just need to read the thread and the information supplied.

What I find fishy is that someone in the UK seems so quick to condemn the Royal Navy.

Click to expand...

FuManChu said:

bakapa, it is actually you who are missing the point. With no further laws and regulations, any country could interpret that statement to allow it to attack and invade whoever it wanted with impunity. "Sovereignty" can be defined many ways.

All UN members are bound by UN laws. Those very rules are drawn up with the UN Charter in mind, so the Charter cannot override UNCLOS in the way you mentioned.

Click to expand...

bakapa said:

I suggest you read and digest the UN Charter -

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please pay particular attention to point 1 and 4 of the Chapter 1

Click to expand...

Violet Oboe said:

A selective interpretation of ´international law´by the UK and her allies have initially created the catastrophic mess in Iraq

Click to expand...

But we should not dramatize the incident since the iranians did obviously not apply force

Click to expand...

Satellite data proves 15 navy personnel being held in Iran were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters when they were seized, UK defence officials say.

Vice Admiral Charles Style said the sailors had been "ambushed" in the Gulf after searching a vessel and their detention was "unjustified and wrong".

Tony Blair said it was time to "ratchet up" pressure on Iran, with whom the UK has now suspended bilateral contacts.

Reports suggest the only woman among the group will be freed shortly.

Click to expand...

FuManChu said:

.............Iran has done a very, very stupid thing (given this is the second time) - it doesn't need to be dramatised, as it is already highly serious.

Click to expand...

Schumacher said:

Fu, if u can look at this objectively, u'll see Iran has actually been quite smart in that they've used this to gauge the willingness & readiness of UK & US for escalations to their long running tensions.

Click to expand...

British pawns in an Iranian game
By Pepe Escobar

The 15 British sailors and marines who were patrolling the Shatt-al-Arab - or Arvand Roud, as it is known in Iran - were not exactly indulging in a little bit of Rod Stewart ("I am sailing/stormy waters/to be with you/to be free"). They had their guns loaded. These would certainly have been fired against Iraqi smugglers - or, better yet, the Iraqi resistance, Sunni or Shi'ite. But suddenly the British were confronted not by Iraqi but by Iranian gunboats.

This correspondent has been to the Shatt-al-Arab. It's a busy and tricky waterway, to say the least. Iraqi fishing boats share the
waters with Iranian patrol boats. From the Iraqi shore one can see the Iranian shore, flags aflutter. These remain extremely disputed waters. In 1975, a treaty was signed in Algiers between the shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein. The center of the river was supposed to be the border. Then Saddam invaded Iran in 1980. After the Iran-Iraq War that this sparked ended in 1988, and even after both Gulf wars, things remain perilously inconclusive: a new treaty still has not been signed.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

checking for cars, not weapons, being smuggled. It's almost laughable that the Royal Navy should be reduced to finding dangerous Toyotas in the Persian Gulf. Some reports from Tehran claim the British were actually checking Iranian military preparations ahead of a possible confrontation with the US.

Western corporate media overwhelmingly take for granted that the British were in Iraqi or "international" waters (wrong: these are disputed Iran/Iraq waters). Tehran has accused the British of "blatant aggression" and reminded world public opinion "this is not the first time that Britain commits such illegal acts" (which is true). Tehran diplomats later suggested that the British might be charged with espionage (which is actually the case in Khuzestan province in Iran, conducted by US Special Forces).

Chess matters
The coverage of the sensitive Shatt-al-Arab incident in the Iranian press was quite a smash: initially there was none. Everything was closed for Nowrouz - the one-week Iranian New Year holiday. But this has not prevented radicalization.

Hardliners like the Republican Guards and the Basiji - Iran's volunteer Islamist militia - asked the government of President Mahmud Ahmadinejad not to release the sailors until the five Iranian diplomats arrested by the US in Iraq were freed. They also demanded that the new United Nations sanctions imposed on Iran over its nuclear program be scrapped. And all this was under the watchful eyes (and ears) of the US Navy's 5th Fleet in Bahrain.

Much of the Western press assumed Iran wanted Western hostages to exchange for the five Iranian diplomats, without ever questioning the Pentagon's illegal capture of the Iranians in the first place. Then the plot was amplified as an Ahmadinejad diversion tactic as the UN Security Council worked out a new resolution for more sanctions on Iran and as Russia told Tehran to come up with the outstanding money or the Bushehr nuclear plant it is building in Iran would not be finished.

The Shatt-al-Arab incident has been linked to an Iranian response to Washington's accusations that Tehran is helping Shi'ite militias with funds, weapons and training in Iraq. For the record, Iran's ambassador in Iraq, Hassan Kazemi Qomi, said there is absolutely no connection: "They entered Iranian territorial waters and were arrested. It has nothing to do with other issues." Not surprisingly, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari had to take the side of the occupiers who installed him in his post: he said the British were in Iraq invited by the Iraqi government and were operating in Iraqi waters.

This doesn't stop people, especially in the Islamic world, questioning what business the British, as an occupation force, had in the Shatt-al-Arab to start with.

From the depths of their abysmal, recent historical experience, even the Arab world - which is not so fond of Persians - sees the US-orchestrated UN sanctions on Iran for what they are: the West, once again, trying to smash an independent nation daring to have its shot at more influence in the Middle East. More sanctions will be useless as China and India will continue to do serious business with Iran.

Tactically, as a backgammon or, better yet, chess move - in which Iranians excel - the Shatt-al-Arab incident may be much more clever than it appears. Oil is establishing itself well above US$60 a barrel as a result of the incident, and that's good for Iran. It's true that from London's point of view, the incident could have been arranged as a provocation, part of a mischievous plan to escalate the conflict with Iran and turn Western and possibly world public opinion against the regime.

But from Tehran's point of view, for all purposes British Prime Minister Tony Blair is a soft target. The episode has the potential to paralyze both President George W Bush and Blair. Neither can use the incident to start a war with Iran, although Blair has warned that his government is prepared to move to "a different phase" if Iran does not quickly release the sailors.

If the Tehran leadership decides to drag out the proceedings, the Shi'ites in southern Iraq, already exasperated by the British (as they were in the 1920s), may take the hint and accelerate a confrontation. Strands of the Shi'ite resistance may start merging with strands of the Sunni resistance (that's what Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has wanted all along). And this would prove once again that you don't need nuclear weapons when you excel at playing chess.

Pepe Escobar is the author of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(Nimble Books, 2007). He may be reached at [email protected].

Copyright 2007 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved.

Click to expand...

BLUEJACKET said:

Or to generate quid pro quo dynamic. Didn't famous Englishmen named Newton postulated that "every action creates an equal and opposite reaction"?

Click to expand...