Blair: Britain Won't Negotiate With Iran

[sabra]

Source: AP

LONDON - Prime Minister Tony Blair said Thursday that Britain would not negotiate over British sailors and marines held hostage by Iran. In an interview with ITV News, Blair again called for the unconditional return of the 15 Royal Navy personnel who were seized by Iranian authorities last week.

"The important thing for us is to get them back safe and sound, but we can't enter into some basis of bargaining," Blair said. "What you have to do when you are engaged with people like the Iranian regime, you have to keep explaining to them, very patiently, what it is necessary to do and at the same time make them fully aware there are further measures that will be taken if they're not prepared to be reasonable.

"What you can't do is end up negotiating over hostages; end up saying there's some quid pro quo or tit for tat; that's not acceptable," he said.

Britain's Sky News meanwhile said Iran had released another letter by captured sailor Faye Turney, this time calling for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Read more: http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/93-03292007-1322185.html

[hippiechick]

1. I heard from a source who heard from a source

(yeah reliable, I know) ... but there is a particular news item <cough> making the rounds in the European press (the US press is of course oblivious, or being paid not to discuss) that Blivet spoke with Pooty Poot yesterday and something verrrrry interesting should be happening on or around April 6th.

If you get what I'm trying to say ... :scared:

[ShortnFiery]

8. But couldn't Pooty Putin and China stop this? Or would they relish in more lost wealth

from Preemptive Wars. I suppose they remember the Soviet's mis-adventures in Afghanistan and look forward to Britain and USA as less than first world nations? :shrug:

If this is true, we are truly SCREWED! :scared: :nuke: :cry: :scared:

[hippiechick]

10. I have no idea...

... but you know Dimson is just looking for any reason to start dropping shit outta the sky on the Iranians.

[Strelnikov_]

39. Russia and Chindia will take a pass

Russia stands to make a fortune. And if all the gulf oil goes off line, they become the worlds sole energy superpower.

It appears to me that Russia is playing both sides as Putin whispers sweet nothings into the Chimps ear as they gaze into each others eyes, while supplying the alleged 'enemy', Iran, with arms. If the status quo maintains, they sell their petroleum and natural gas and get rich. If part of the Middle East resource is lost to open war, they get really really rich.

Chindia will dig in, weather the storm, and emerge in a position to snap up all those production contracts that will no longer go to US multinationals.

Chindia is playing the long con. They know that petroleum and natural gas energy infrastructure is too fragile to hold militarily, short of depopulation. Eventually the refrain of 'Fuck you, we sell to Chindia' will be heard throughout the Middle East.

Also, all those dollars they are sitting on will go a long way to outbidding us on what remains of the world petroleum export market. So, it appears that Chindia is also playing both sides.

No, Russia and Chindia are playing the "If the enemy is destroying themselves, don't get in the way" card.


The Japanese, on the other hand, are scared shitless . . .

[kitty1]

38. So on April 4th or 5th, the Iranians will release the Brits, and if the U.S...

strikes on April 6th or around then, it will look like the the U.S. and Brits are being huge Bastards for attacking them over a minor international incident. No worse than what is being done to Iranian officials in Iraq.
The Iranians will appear to be conciliatory and even apologetic for the incident when the Brits are released.
If Iran get's attacked, it will appear likely that the Brits were probably up to no good after all. Because look at the aftermath. There probably was covert activity going on behind their backs.
Either way the Iranians look like the victims now.
The U.N. will be caught in the middle with a catch 22 situation whichever side they take if things escalate.

[CJCRANE]

2. "Iran has left us no choice but to..."

Oh sorry, I'm a few days early with the speech.

On edit: the Iranians took the bait and soon they're going to get what's been planned for them for a long time.

(The British are good at this kind of manipulation, don't forget - they invented "gunboat diplomacy").

On edit2: and yes, I promise to eat my tinfoil hat if this is resolved peacefully!

[winter999]

9. Don't even suggest that the Brits are at fault here.

I'm tired of hearing our folk making lame excuses for Iran's act of aggression here. They are being the schoolyard bully and the Brits are the victims. I might add rather polite and patient. Haven't we seen other countries recently start a bloodbath when military personnel are "taken"? :mad:

[CJCRANE]

11. Read the Downing Street Memos..

Tony Blair knows full well how to put his people in a situation that will play out to his advantage and provide a casus belli.

[winter999]

15. Yeah, and Iran has never taken hostages for its own ends before.

Oh, I forgot. West is bad, wrong, evil. I hate myself, my country, my race, my culture, my civilization. If you're not like me then you're good, better, right. Sorry to question those poor Iranians; they're just protecting themselves and standing up for all that's good in the world. Shame on me for jumping to conclusions (after all I am a white western male).

[jayfish]

16. Sounds Like RW Talking Points.

You sure your posting on the correct board?

Jay

[winter999]

18. because we don't agree, you're going to label me?

Sad. Normally, there can be a civilized discussion of ideas without the name-calling or branding. That's the MO of a RW hatemonger. Most of us on these boards relish diversity and welcome alternate views. Most of us.

[jayfish]

19. Not Because We Don't Agree.

Because you just posted RW talking points from the chapter entitled "Blame America First". There are a lot of people here I don't agree with but they present their arguments from a center-left perspective.

Jay

[pettypace]

20. Only criteria one needs to post on DU

is that you don't approve of President Bush.

If you agree with that at least, Winter99, we can always discuss the rest:)

[Hobarticus]

24. You say this, and then cry foul?

"Oh, I forgot. West is bad, wrong, evil. I hate myself, my country, my race, my culture, my civilization. If you're not like me then you're good, better, right. Sorry to question those poor Iranians; they're just protecting themselves and standing up for all that's good in the world. Shame on me for jumping to conclusions (after all I am a white western male)."

Get over yourself.

[CJCRANE]

22. I'm not defending what the Iranians are doing..

but it's predictable that this would happen. Just read the Downing Street Memos. The British didn't colonize half the world and defeat the Nazis through pure luck. These guys put Machiavelli in the shade.

on edit: BTW I'm not anti-British as my views might indicate, I just think Blair represents the worst of Britain as B*sh does of America.

[stormymonday]

29. If defeating the Nazis was Machievelian

then I am all for Machievelian politics. Sadly, Blair is nowhere near that subtle. He is merely the delusional quisling lapdog of the neofascist junta that occupies the White House. This situation has arisen not because British sailors strayed into Iranian waters but because Blair's government sent them to Iraq in the first place as part of the illegal invasion. However, the idea that somehow Britain is the play maker in what happens in this part of the world is the sort of laughable rubbish that you get from nutters such as Lyndon La Rouche. The UK is a client state of the US Empire, end of story. Its lick spittle rulers do what they are told by their masters in Washington. Any upcoming conflict with Iran is going to be organised and run from there not London.

[CJCRANE]

30. Machiavellian doesn't necessarily mean evil...

and much as Blair is a lapdog for B*sh, he is also a very articulate and successful salesman for the neocon policies and makes their job much easier.

And I'm not saying Blair is in charge of neocon policy just that the idea that somehow the Brits have innocently wandered into this situation is "laughable" (as you put it).

[Hobarticus]

23. Yeah, and it's been resolved without war before

I don't see how Blair throwing his rediscovered manhood on the table is going to help those sailors come home, at all.

[pampango]

27. I don't see that there is anything that Blair can do to get those

sailors home, other than admit to a lie (if it is) and hand the hard line faction a propaganda victory. As I understand the 2004 incident, the British did admit to making a mistake and the situation was resolved. Could it be that they don't want to admit to a "mistake" because they don't feel that they made one?

If he doesn't admit to a "mistake", he could have continued the initial strategy of "quiet diplomacy", but at some point he might believe that it would appear that Britain is looking guilty by "quietly accepting" what happened to the sailors. He could authorize some rash military rescue or other response, but thankfully has not done so. Or he can conduct more public diplomacy since quiet diplomacy is not working. Nothing he does is guaranteed to work, but he probably feels that he needs to do something.

(Also, if the sailors did make a "mistake", Blair should tell the naval commander to seek alternative employment. If the commander thought it was a good idea to send 15 unsupported sailors into Iranian waters, not to launch some sneak attack, but to board and inspect a third nation's commercial vessel. (If you are going to intentionally violate another country's territorial waters, it is probably a wise command decision to do it with enough force to keep yourself from getting killed or captured. Or, if it a small, stealthy operation, make sure the operational goal is worth the risk.))

[Hobarticus]

31. I guess admitting to a false mistake is a small price to pay

If it means avoiding getting these sailors locked up after some kangaroo trial, sure. Or worse.

Blair will have to make that judgement, and live with that, for the rest of his life.

I doubt a navigational mistake was made. Iran's revised the location of the incursion, from outside of their waters to well within. I think these sailors got caught playing their game, and Iran's playing their game. This kind of thing is nothing new.

If Blair would knock off the Rambo routine and keep this under the table, these sailors would be home in two weeks.

[CJCRANE]

26. The bottom line

is that B*sh/Blair/The Neocons want to blast up certain Middle Eastern countries.

The reason has nothing to do with human rights, democracy etc etc. It most likely has something to do with access for the big Anglo-American corporations to go in and clean up (but the jury's still out on that one).

So we can either support their smash and grab policies (and see our civil liberties disappear at the same time) or point out what they're doing and try and stop them.

[Bridget Burke]

46. Oh, the "Clash of Civilizations" argument.....

I'm from Texas, so I'm more Western than you!

[jayfish]

12. You Don't Have Any More Information...

on the matter than the rest of us. There is no black and white in this situation and we better hope to a deity that a bloodbath doesn't ensue because our soldiers will be in the cross-hairs of a full on Iranian missile attack. Oh, and please don't presuppose that you can tell other people what to say or believe. ...regardless of how tired you are.

Jay

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ronnie624]

44. On Bizarro World maybe.

Back here on Earth however, if any other country decided to conduct "war games" and "patrols" off the coast of the UK or the US, I think we both have an idea of what the response would be. With that in mind, I think it is the Iranians who are displaying patience.

[bananarepublican]

48. How do we know whether the Brits were taken in Ameri.. I mean Iraqi waters? Is Blair the fountain...

... of truth?

Is it easier to accept MSM blather, or, think critically for oneself?

[DanWithAngel]

34. So I guess it was Jimmy Carter's fault for the previous iranian hostages?

What was the bait way back then?

[CJCRANE]

42. No.

The situation is somewhat different. However What would you call the Iranian diplomats who are detained by the US in Iraq incommunicado and in an undisclosed location?

There is another side to this story and the people who put those sailors into that situation (of being on or near the border) knew hwat was likely to happen (it was predicted in the Sunday Times the previous week).

[Eugene]

3. U.S. rules out prisoner swap for UK sailors-official

Source: Reuters

U.S. rules out prisoner swap for UK sailors-official
Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:29PM EDT

By Peter Graff

LONDON (Reuters) - The United States would not back a deal to swap five Iranians
it is holding in Iraq for 15 British military personnel seized by Tehran last week,
a senior U.S. official said on Thursday.

Asked if Washington would be willing to entertain such a deal, the official, who
briefed reporters in London on condition he not be named, said:

"The government of the United Kingdom and we have a similar view about exchanges
of hostages. I don't think it's ever a good thing to create exchanges of hostages."

The official said he was unaware of any discussions between Britain and the United
States about freeing the five Iranians who were arrested during a raid on an Iranian
consulate in northern Iraq by U.S. forces in January.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2965035820070329

---

Then again, the Repub track record on dealing with Iran isn't
completely credible in this regard.

[mainegreen]

5. "exchanges of hostages". So we admit officially our Iranians are hostages and not prisoners.

That's a step in the right direction.

[Megahurtz]

13. Not Unreasonable for Iran to Ask for a Swap

of Iranian hostages for British ones, but BushWon't because he's just drooling for more War!:nuke:

Are we totally fucked yet? :scared:

[SpikeTss]

4. Of course doesn't the British regime negotiate

These neo-fascists have already proven that they have no second thoughts about attacking other countries and being responsible for the death of hundred thousands citizens. Hitler would have been proud of what Blair and his cronies have already "achieved" in Iran's neighboring countries Iraq and Afghanistan.

[ShortnFiery]

6. Dimson's Reverse Midas Touch has infected his poodle. n/t

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

7. Shorter Blair:

"Oooo martyrs martyrs martyrs! Me wanna! Helps me make WAR!"

[daleo]

14. Hostages led to the war in Lebanon this past summer

So there is precedent for this getting out of hand. It is hard to say where the truth lies, or who is yanking who's chain here. I imagine there is a lot of cross border incursion going on that we never hear about.

[Joe Chi Minh]

17. Heck that's one macho Rambo of a PM! Pity he's not in Iranian custody and the service folk

back home. He might have a different perspective.

I loved his term, "that's not acceptable"; not acceptable to whom? He said it, as if it were some kind of enigmatic, immutable, self-referential, universal law of logic. I almost experienced satori, just reading it.

[Hobarticus]

25. Pretty brave when someone else's ass is on the line, isn't he?

I can't see how this public display of alpha-malehood is going to get them home any faster. This happens time and time again, without so many feathers getting ruffled.

[Joe Chi Minh]

28. He's literally a cypher for coporate state. His policies could scarcely show

greater contempt for the British people. Some of our troops didn't even have enough bullets, never mind body and vehicle armour. And if I remember correctly, those troops came under fire. Was it the military police lads who were killed?

[Joe Chi Minh]

49. It seems to me that the expression, "Alpha Male" has limited applicability

in terms of human beings. There's no mistaking that my brother-in-law is an Alpha Male, but then you wouldn't want to meet him in a dark alley, and wouldn't need to be in the same building to hear him speaking. When he steps out to cross the road at a t-junction, he is not being arrogant; it just doesn't occur to him that he should need to look out for an approaching vehicle. Still less defer to it. First come, first served.

The term, Alpha Male, would presumably be of zoological provenance, but in the animal world, Mr Big imposes his will by his own brute force. On the other hand, a human male, such as Truman Capote, for example, might struggle to overpower a fairly indifferent street-fighter. Doubtless most of us academically-educated types would, too. And I sure think that would be true of Bliar, so I find a reference to him as an Alpha Male, somewhat amusing.

[yellowcanine]

32. I actually agree with the poodle on this one if it is true they were not in Iranian waters.

Iran is going to have to blink on this one. They can blame it on overzealous Revolutionary Guards who exceeded their authority or whatever - but they will have very little support even from other Islamic countries if they turn this into another hostage crisis.

If they were in Iranian waters it is a different story but the evidence, such as it is, is on Britain's side at the moment.

[daleo]

33. This BBC article is quite informative on the point

Murky dividing lines of Shatt al-Arab

...And up until recent years the median line was marked simply with buoys, he added.

"But the demarcation of the waterway has suffered like many things," he said.

Admiral Sir Alan West, who was first sea lord in 2004, when Iran detained eight UK serviceman accused of straying into Iranian territory, said the waters were "very complicated".
...
But the Ministry of Defence has so far refused to release the co-ordinates of where they believe the vessel was when the sailors were seized.
...
Richard Schofield, an expert in international boundaries at King's College London, questioned whether the dispute would be eased if the Royal Navy released co-ordinates of where the sailors were seized.

"Releasing the co-ordinates wouldn't necessarily help us as there is no formally agreed boundary," he said.

"It isn't clear the incident happened off the water of Shatt al-Arab. We are talking about territorial waters beyond."

"Iran and Iraq have never agreed a boundary of their territorial waters. There is no legal definition of the boundary beyond the Shatt al-Arab."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6496559.stm

[yava]

35. precedence for this getting out of hand

Well, Primier Olmert said the other day that the war on Lebanon was planned months in advance "in case soldiers were snatched at the border" or something like that. So, prepare to bomb first, then send lots of soldiers on the border or just a little over it and wait for something to happen !

[yava]

36. there is oil underneath

Oil issue: since the territorial water lines and continental shell partitions have not been agreed to in many parts of the Persian Gulf, lets be fair and call them waters "disputed waters" claimed by both iraq and iran. Is that the right place for Brits to search ships?
Remember, apart from security and national pride issues, there's a lot of Rock Oil under those waters! It is said for example that Kuweit id pumping Iraqi oil by tilted drilling.
If Iran accept the line drawn by Blair in the Gulf, it is potentially giving up on future oil rights. Its like in the sea of China. There are Islands claimed simultaneously by Japan, China and Taiwan, and there is oil underneath.

[yava]

37. sanctions

Santion issue: the security council at the UN just banned "export" of arms by iran. Does that mean "coalition forces" may soon start searching ships for iranian arms? We haven't seen the end of this. If Russia and China agreed to include that small but significant sanction, its because a deal was made for bombing. There is plenty to negociate about in the Ukrain, Georgea, central asia to get the Russians to shut up. China can be offered something on Korea or Taiwan. Note the Russians pulled out their nuclear engineering from Iran two weeks ago.

[daleo]

40. Good point about the oil

That is bound to make the boundary waters very sensitive, especially when the U.S./U.K. invasion was primarily oil driven (in my opinion, and in the opinion of most informed people).

[HuffleClaw]

41. proving yet again he is little more than bush's poodle

'hostages' my ass.

[okoboji]

43. so that's it.....

shock and awe can now begin because they think they have their excuse.....

bastards

and I suppose they don't need congress's approval on this either

[Eugene]

45. Britain Considering New Iranian Demands

Source: Associated Press

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6520212,00.html">Britain Considering New Iranian Demands


Friday March 30, 2007 12:01 PM

AP Photo LON116, VAH104, ANK103, LON115

By EDITH M. LEDERER

Associated Press Writer

LONDON (AP) - Britain said it was giving “serious consideration” to a proposal
from Iran for freeing 15 British navy personnel and ending the week-old crisis
over their capture without a “confrontation.”

The British government refused to disclose the details of the proposal, which
could end a standoff that has added to tensions over Iran's nuclear ambitions
and over allegations that Iran is arming Shiite Muslim militias in Iraq.

In Iran, meanwhile, the government's Arabic-language TV channel broadcast
Friday what it claimed was a confession by one of the British Marines detained
last week in what Tehran insists were its territorial waters.

-snip-

Britain's Foreign Office said the proposal was delivered to the British Embassy
in Tehran late Thursday.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6520212,00.html

---

Also: Iran broadcasts sailor's confession - AP

[muriel_volestrangler]

47. Text of the letter

"The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran presents its compliments to the British Embassy in Tehran and draws the attention of the latter to the following:
"According to the information received from relevant authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran, two British naval vessels manned by 15 fully equipped crews trespassed on Iran's territorial waters on 3 Farvardin 1386 (23 March 2007). Since similar acts had taken place in the past and prior warning had been given against the repetition of such acts, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran protests strongly against this illegal act in violating Iranian territorial waters, emphasizes the respect for the rules and principles of international law concerning the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states, underlines the responsibility of the British Government for the consequences of such violation, and calls for the guarantee to avoid the recurrence of such acts.

"It will be appreciated if the esteemed embassy conveys this note to the relevant authorities of its government and informs this ministry of any explanation in this regard.

"The ministry of foreign affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the British embassy the assurances of its highest considerations."

http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/line-22/0703305409115323.htm