Commodore Lambert
Fifteen British Navy personnel have been captured at gunpoint by Iranian forces, the Ministry of Defence says.
The men were seized at 1030 local time when they boarded a boat in the Gulf, off the coast of Iraq, which they suspected was smuggling cars.
The Royal Navy said the men, who were on a routine patrol in Iraqi waters, were understood to be unharmed.
The Foreign Office has demanded the immediate and safe return of the men, who are based on HMS Cornwall.
That vessel's commander, Commodore Nick Lambert, said he was hoping there had been a "simple mistake" over territorial waters.
"There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they [British personnel] were in Iraqi territorial waters. Equally, the Iranians may claim they were in Iranian waters.
"I hope we find this is a simple misunderstanding at the tactical level."
Helicopters had reported seeing two British boats being moved to Iranian bases and there had been no evidence of fighting, he added.
He said that despite scant communication, the 15 people were understood to be safe and had reacted in an "extremely professional way, in line with the rules of engagement".
"I look forward to seeing them on their return and congratulating them."
He said naval authorities were doing everything possible to ensure their safe return.
The Ministry of Defence said: "The group boarding party had completed a successful inspection of a merchant ship when they and their two boats were surrounded and escorted by Iranian vessels into Iranian territorial waters.
HMS CORNWALL FACTS
Multi-national force flagship in the northern Gulf
Type 22 frigate
Crew: 250 (Max 301)
Length: 148.1m / 485.9ft
Speed: 30 knots
Source: Royal Navy
Profile of HMS Cornwall
"We are urgently pursuing this matter with the Iranian authorities at the highest level.
"The British government is demanding the immediate and safe return of our people and equipment."
Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett has summoned the Iranian ambassador in London to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in an attempt to get the men released as quickly as possible.
In a statement, leader of the Liberal Democrats, Sir Menzies Campbell, also called for their immediate release.
"Whatever the rights and wrongs of military action, British forces in Iraq are now there with the authority of a UN security council resolution... and the Iranian government should be left in no doubt of the serious implications of their action," he said.
FAMILY INFORMATION LINE
0845 7800 900
The incident comes as British Army Colonel Justin Masherevski, who is based in Iraq, says most of the violence against UK forces in Basra is being engineered by Iranian elements.
Col Masherevski said Iran was providing "sophisticated weaponry" to insurgents and "Iranian agents" were paying local men to attack British troops.
In 2004, Iran detained eight British servicemen for three days after they allegedly strayed over the maritime border.
The UK claimed the men were "forcibly escorted" into Iranian territorial waters.
While they were being held, the men were paraded blindfold and made to apologise on Iranian TV before their release was agreed.
The BBC's diplomatic correspondent James Robbins said the difference this time, and a cause of concern, is that the present Iranian government under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was much more hardline.
"The political climate is worse with Britain among those confronting Iran over its controversial nuclear programme," he added.
Originally Posted by Someone other than George Bush who really does know what he's talking about: The incident comes as British Army Colonel Justin Masherevski, who is based in Iraq, says most of the violence against UK forces in Basra is being engineered by Iranian elements.
Col Masherevski said Iran was providing "sophisticated weaponry" to insurgents and "Iranian agents" were paying local men to attack British troops.
Looks like BG is going to have to eat another hat.
A strange path taken by the Iranians in their quest for 'peaceful nuclear power'.
A couple notes; Iranians doing this is stupid. Especially on British troops. If they captured US troops, there'd be a lot more nuts saying it was all some big conspiracy. Or maybe they knew the US would retaliate harder.
But - is this an act of war? Capturing another nation's soldiers in territory outside your own? IT seems awfully close if it isn't.
Originally Posted by : Do I have to eat them all at once, or can I save some till later?
Perhaps a multi-course meal? What wine goes good with hats?
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit: A strange path taken by the Iranians in their quest for 'peaceful nuclear power'.
A couple notes; Iranians doing this is stupid. Especially on British troops. If they captured US troops, there'd be a lot more nuts saying it was all some big conspiracy. Or maybe they knew the US would retaliate harder.
But - is this an act of war? Capturing another nation's soldiers in territory outside your own? IT seems awfully close if it isn't.CR
Actually I think this is a clever move... if it works.
If Iran knew those were British troops they were capturing then this just might prove to be a very shrewd move. One could argue that Iran is trying to 'persuade' the UK government to expedite its pull out of Iraq by applying pressure in such a way that would bring public outcry against the war to the boiling point (i.e. massive, violent protests). The appearance of 15 British troopers being held hostage on the every TV in the UK might be the straw that breaks the camel's back. By forcing Britain to abandon the southern Shia dominated regions sooner than later it makes the US mission in Iraq that much more difficult, especially now that the hawkish Bush administration has to butt heads with a decidedly dovish Democrat controlled Congress. A premature withdrawal from those Shia dominated regions would also facilitate an even quicker build-up of Iranian backed insurgency forces there.
Why Brits and not Americans? The use of conventional forces to capture American troops in international waters would be treated by the US government (especially a Republican one) as an openly hostile act. Given the current administration's penchance for 'action' (in that region anyway) and its position on nuclear proliferation in the Middle East Iran would run the risk of being targeted by massive US airstrikes and special forces operations, both to secure the hostages and of course... to take out its nuclear research and development facilities. So clearly hostage taking would work to the US' advantage and give it an excuse to act on its displeasure with Iran's nuclear program. However, attack a US ally whose gov't and population has been experiencing a flagging 'enthusiasm' for the Iraqi venture since it began and it puts the US in the uncomfortable position of restraining itself and abiding by the requests of its ally so the hostages can be secured via peaceful, diplomatic means. When strength is met with passivity or weakness it invites further aggression. Should Britain 'buy' back its hostages with money, agreements or an even quicker withdrawal the Darwinian floodgates will fly open and lead to much bolder actions on the part of the aggressors. Iran 'wins'.
Of course, given that the US is Britain's biggest and staunchest ally this could backfire in Iran's face and they just might be on the receiving end of said strikes and spec ops operations anyway. It is certainly a big gamble.
Originally Posted by : Perhaps a multi-course meal? What wine goes good with hats?
Mmm, a nice bowler with a light cream sauce sounds appropriate. Serve it up with a light white wine. Delish.
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro: Predicting a repeat thread due to lack of description in title.
Lol, fixed.
Spino
I think you underestimate the British people, if anything happens to those sailors the whole populace will be screaming for blood, only a few (usually the most vocal I grant you) would see this as a reason to pull out of Iraq.
I think you underestimate the British people, if anything happens to those sailors the whole populace will be screaming for blood, only a few (usually the most vocal I grant you) would see this as a reason to pull out of Iraq.
I believe the point is that nothing will happen. Nothing at all, just like in the article Fenring posted. This inaction will lead to frustration which will lead to
Originally Posted by Spino: etc
.
Looks like those sailors wussed out pretty quick. The UK embassy earlier expressed concern that they were shown on television wearing blindfolds, making apologies for entering Iranian territorial waters.
Originally Posted by : LONDON, England (CNN) -- An Iranian naval patrol seized 15 British marines and sailors who had boarded a vessel suspected of smuggling cars off the coast of Iraq, military officials said.
The British government immediately demanded the safe return of its troops and summoned Tehran's London ambassador to explain the incident.
Foreign Minister Margaret Beckett said she was "extremely disturbed" by the capture of the 15 personnel.
I just read this as well. I just hope that Bush doesn't use this a pretext to fight the Iranians for the sake of the British. They really seem to want a fight! With the Russians withdrawing from Busher and more sanctions looming I wonder if a war will be the only way then can unite their populace to the government like they did fighting Iraq in the 80s.
I said it was inevitable and it has come a step closer today. I just hope they make this one short and bloody, destroy the nessessary infastructure, and leave.
Here's a thought. Iran still has an Air Force, I hate to think how Britain will deal with fast jets if america can't very rapidly achieve air superiorety.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla: This is the Cassus Belli.
I said it was inevitable and it has come a step closer today. I just hope they make this one short and bloody, destroy the nessessary infastructure, and leave.
Here's a thought. Iran still has an Air Force, I hate to think how Britain will deal with fast jets if america can't very rapidly achieve air superiorety.
That's not a worry. If Britain attacked Iran, you bet the US would supply itwith everything it needed.
Originally Posted by Tribesman: Nah the start of things to come is Turkey saying it is going to invade Iraq again unless the coilition sort out the mess
Nothing like staking your claim in advance. Cheap land is awfully hard to come by these days...
Originally Posted by Ja'chyra Quote:: Spino
I think you underestimate the British people, if anything happens to those sailors the whole populace will be screaming for blood, only a few (usually the most vocal I grant you) would see this as a reason to pull out of Iraq.
Well I can almost guarantee that it won't come to that. Regardless of whether this was a planned action or not the point is that no harm will come to those sailors. Iran needs to persuade the US' allies to abandon the coalition effort in Iraq in order to achieve its own ends. Killing or torturing those sailors would defeat the purpose of using them for political leverage. If this action was planned and British forces were the intended target then it's clearly part of a divide and conquer strategy.
The worst part is that Iran sure as hell won't apologize for violating international law and detaining these sailors, even if there happens to be mounds of evidence proving them to be in the wrong. They'll simply claim their forces were well within their territorial waters when the incident took place and harp on that point ad nauseum.
Unfortunately this is already shaping up to be a minor Iranian victory.
Originally Posted by : Nothing like staking your claim in advance. Cheap land is awfully hard to come by these days...
I know , who do they think they are ? threatening to invade to get rid of a terrorist safe haven . blimey next thing you know they will be accusing America of supplying a banned terrorist group by putting it through its other wing that isn't on the banned list .
Originally Posted by Tribesman: yaeh yeah , thats what they said about the Maddox
I knew I would find you in this thread. Like me, I suppose you have thought hard for, oh, seven or eight seconds after hearing about this in the news.
'Cus who stands to benefit?
Not the British, whose Naval commander has already caved in by stating that the specific area of the waters was 'disputed' and that he hoped it was all a 'tactical misunderstanding'.
Not the Americans, who have the stiffer upper lips these days but keep them well shut since this would be a very inconvenient time to start another little war.
I guess the Iranian regime might benefit somewhat from a brief public display of the captive sailors (for interior reasons) followed by a swift hand-over. Anything more would damage their cause in the upcoming UNSC sitting.
So yes, this looks like one more wet cracker destined to sizzle for a while and then drown in the lukearm Gulf waters without a bang.
Unless, of course, there would be clues that this was the work of a rogue element, some radical group within the elite corps of the army, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. Think: 1979 hostage model.
Lo and behold, US Navy Commander Kevin Aandahl has now stated that the captors were IRGC. No more news is transpiring however. No clues of any wider ramifications. All in all, it looks like a 2004 rewind.
Originally Posted by Adrian II: For some reason, I would hate being captured without firing a shot even more...
Not a good idea when you're in rubber dingies surrounded by a half dozen heavily armed patrol boats. This smells like a set up...wonder what else is getting smuggled besides cars
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito: wonder what else is getting smuggled besides cars
Crossed my mind as well. There are bases of the elite Quds force nearby, and these guys are accused of smuggling explosive devices into Iraq. But so what, it's all just guesswork. Homeopathic doses of the truth amount to no truth at all.