Posted on 03/25/2007 5:38:24 PM PDT by Flavius
Tony Blair warned Iran last night that it has only a few days to find a diplomatic solution to the escalating crisis over the 15 missing British sailors and Marines.
As the tension grew, the first direct high-level talks took place between Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, and Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, to press Britain's concerns.
The moves came as the Foreign Office admitted it had no idea what has happened to the 15 Navy personnel seized by the Iranian military on Friday.
The Prime Minister, in his first public comments since the incident, appeared to signal a hardening of attitudes after more than 48 hours of low-level diplomacy.
Speaking in Berlin, Mr Blair said he still hoped that there could be a diplomatic solution.
"I hope that this is resolved in the next few days," he said. "The quicker it is resolved, the easier it will be for all of us.
"We have certainly sent the message back to them very clearly indeed. They should not be under any doubt at all about how seriously we regard this act, which is unjustified and wrong."
The seizure of the 14 men and one woman by Iran was a "very serious situation", Mr Blair added.
He warned Teheran that it was a "fundamental" issue for Britain and insisted that the personnel had not strayed into Iranian waters.
He said: "I have not been commenting up to now because I want to get it resolved in as easy and diplomatic a way as possible, because it is the welfare of the people that have been taken by the Iranian government that is most important. But this is a very serious situation."
The sailors and Marines were seized from the Shatt al-Arab waterway south of the Iraqi city of Basra. Teheran claimed the patrol encroached on its territorial waters in an act of "blatant aggression".
But this was disputed strongly by Mr Blair. He said: "There is no doubt at all that these people were taken from a boat in Iraqi waters.
"It is simply not true that they went into Iranian territorial waters and I hope the Iranian government understands how fundamental an issue this is for us."
Downing Street sources denied that Mr Blair's comments should be read as an ultimatum to the Iranians or that any sort of military option was under consideration.
But the intervention does mark a shift in the language being used.
Mrs Beckett continued the pressure, "making very clear" in a phone call to Mr Mottaki that no violation of Iranian waters had occurred. And she repeated still unanswered demands for information on the whereabouts of the 15 and for consular access to them.
Britain's position received support from other European Union countries yesterday. President Jacques Chirac of France said Britain had the "complete solidarity" of all EU leaders over the sailors.
"It seems clear they were not in the Iranian zone at the time," he said.
The German presidency of the EU issued a statement calling for their immediate release.
Diplomats are hoping that there may be more movement today from Teheran as Iranians return to work after a public holiday.
Yesterday the British ambassador, Geoffrey Adams, met his counterpart in the Iraqi foreign ministry seeking access to the prisoners.
A Foreign Office spokesman said: "We are waiting to get a response to that. At the Ambassador's request he went to a meeting at the Ministry of Foreign affairs in Teheran to press again for the release of our personnel, ask where they are being held and ask for consular access."
Last night it was reported that Iran may give consular access once an investigation is completed.
Lord Triesman, a Foreign Office minister, said: "We don't know where they are. We wish we did. We are asking whether they are being moved around inside Iran."
The Foreign Office refused to comment on reports that the Iranian military had extracted confessions from the team from the frigate Cornwall, saying this was "speculation".
The team was seized on the eve of Saturday's UN security council vote to impose further sanctions on Iran over its nuclear programme
Relations between Britain and Iran have deteriorated recently, partly because of the row over Iran's nuclear programme and partly because of Iraq.
But Foreign Offices sources said Iran was viewing the prisoners and its dispute with the UN as separate issues.
You know LBT, this reminds me of classic 'Redneck Fishing', where you light the fuse on a stick o' dynamite, throw it in the water, and wait to see if the fish were close enough for your improvised depth charge?
I just KNOW we're going to see 'filet of baubau' floating to the surface any time now! LOL
Correction to the above. Make that #215.
LBT
-=-=-
Me too. I'm heading for 'zzzzz'-land.
G'nite all.
baubau....does this look familiar? Did you mean it when you wrote it, and just carried on too far tonite to be able to redeem yourself?
"When I realize that I've just made a mistake that can be reversed, I do reverse it."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1800787/posts?page=170#170
I'd like to hear Blair mention that the nukes are being warmed up.
It would be the end of France as an active military power outside their own borders.
Brits are pretty good at sinking French ships.
I do agree with much of what you say and hope I didnt make it sound as if I am against further expansion of this war effort against our common enemy.
Actually, I do honestly believe that this war will not be won until each and every arab/muslim nation has been completely broken, reduced to ash and rebuilt into something more resembeling acceptable human culture and governance.
I also do believe to the very bottom of my heart that this will quite probably entail at least some true effort toward genocide like campaigns.
The statement I was trying to make earlier is that there is much that is interconnected and issues that have to be worked out prior to kicking this thing off, but I do not believe the preparations should be dragged out to any extent either, nor do I expect them to be.
Our military isn't as linear and simpleminded as many want to suppose. All these issues have been worked over and revisited many times in the recent past. I would bank money on that being true.
Whatever plan or action gets taken, it wont be perfect, because no plan can be when dealing with so many variables and such a fluid state, but neither will it be the cluster gaggle that those who adhere to our enemy will try to paint it as being either.
Mostly, I just wanted to speak to the need for some patience and remind myself not to pick on the Brits too much until this is over.
The straying of vessels into the territorial waters of another country happen frequently throughout the world.
Just one correction to your post. The Brits were definitely in Iraqi waters. The Iranians seized the sailors and marines as a deliberate provocation. They want a war with the West. I doubt it will be resolved peacefully myself but Blair has to play out his diplomatic options first.
You pathetic little SCOLD! Next time I want a POST NANNY to scold me about my opinion, I'll ping you but till then, GO TAKE A FLYING LEAP!!!
It's obvious you're some type of uptight ah*ole who gets their panties in bunch when others are making the typical comments in jest. When someone says "We should nuke em" or "Let's bomb them into the stone age", do you really take the comments literally? If so, then you are an IDIOT@!!
If your spouse says "Oh you just broke my good (insert prized item here), I could kill you for that.", do you run to the police and file a attempted murder charge?
"Try to read my posts in context. I was responding to someone's remarks about the UN. My #10 was in response to #5, where someone said the UN would be involved. I responded that in addition to harsh words, there'd be a time out. (What one would expect from the UN, yes?) I think all three of you owe man an apology."
My response wasn't to your post specifically as much as to a disparaging trend I was seeing. I was reading your post when it hit critical mass. I don't recall anything in what you said that didn't seem to be about Blair; if it was aimed at the UN, fire away as far as I'm concerned - although having a unanimous opposition if it is available CAN mean something, like showing the Iranian people that their regime has seriously overplayed its hand.
It might help to avoid confusion and misunderstandings if you include reference to what you're responding to. I find it awkward to try to constantly flip back and forth between posts to see what the writer's train of thought is. Just my lazy way, but it helps.
For now, no apologies. I think Blair's playing it just right, and have no doubts about his willingness and ability to use necessary force at a time and conditions of his choosing. If he is able to actually use the UN, he'd be making a silk purse out of a sow's bunghole, but God bless him.
You mean like in Beirut?
No, I mean like this...from the WSJ...
It is worth recalling, however, that Iran was at its most diplomatically pliant after the United States sank much of Tehran's navy after Iran tried to disrupt oil traffic in the Persian Gulf in the late 1980s. Regimes that resort to force the way Iran does tend to be respecters of it.
A few excerpts from the Independant...
A senior American commander in the Gulf has said his men would have fired on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard rather than let themselves be taken hostage.
In a dramatic illustration of the different postures adopted by British and US forces working together in Iraq, Lt-Cdr Erik Horner - who has been working alongside the task force to which the 15 captured Britons belonged - said he was "surprised" the British marines and sailors had not been more aggressive.
Asked by The Independent whether the men under his command would have fired on the Iranians, he said: "Agreed. Yes. I don't want to second-guess the British after the fact but our rules of engagement allow a little more latitude. Our boarding team's training is a little bit more towards self-preservation."
The executive officer - second-in-command on USS Underwood, the frigate working in the British-controlled task force with HMS Cornwall - said: " The unique US Navy rules of engagement say we not only have a right to self-defence but also an obligation to self-defence. They [the British] had every right in my mind and every justification to defend themselves rather than allow themselves to be taken. Our reaction was, 'Why didn't your guys defend themselves?'"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.