[Rembrandt_fan]

I don't for a moment doubt the courage of British sailors and marines. Just guessing, but it sounds to me as if the British went up the chain requesting direction as the situation developed. This is, after all, how shooting wars start and few career-minded officers want to risk that step without orders from higher. By the time news of the incident went up--and decisions had been made and orders sent back down--the men had surrendered and been taken away before air support could respond. European militaries have traditionally been that way, while American service members--officers and enlisted alike--are taught to take the initiative in the absence of guidance from above. When in doubt, fight.

[browardchad]

The spokesman said: “So far, we haven’t made explicit why we know that because we don’t want to escalate this. “We may have to get to the stage where we become more explicit about why we know. “We don’t want to do that too soon because we would prefer this to be resolved quietly. If this is not possible, we may have to become more explicit. That’s all he meant. He didn’t mean anything else.”

Oh, no! Not the dreaded "explicit" weapon!

Be afraid. Be very afraid.  /sarc

[dvwjr]

Later Mr Blair’s spokesman said the “different phase” referred to “a different way” of handling talks, which may involve making public the reasons why Britain was certain the 15 were in Iraqi waters.

The spokesman said: “So far, we haven’t made explicit why we know that because we don’t want to escalate this.

“We may have to get to the stage where we become more explicit about why we know.

“We don’t want to do that too soon because we would prefer this to be resolved quietly. If this is not possible, we may have to become more explicit. That’s all he meant. He didn’t mean anything else.”

Very explict.

Stop, or I'll yell stop again! ...Ah, Brave Sir Tony...

dvwjr

[moonman]

"...we cannot have a situation where our servicemen and women are seized when actually they are in Iraqi waters under a UN mandate, patrolling perfectly rightly and in accordance with that mandate."

That's not what Rosie O'Donnell says. She believes the Brits purposely set themselves up to start a confrontation with Iran, similar to our involvement in Vietnam via the Gulf of Tonkin episode.

[moonman]

How does, "Mr Blair had warned of a “different phase” if diplomatic efforts failed to secure the hostages’ release" translate into 'military action'? I think the writer of this article is starting chit!

[livius]

But within a few hours the Prime Minister’s office had to tone down his comment – and claim he merely meant that negotiations would become public rather than private.

I'm not sure that he was directly hinting at military engagement, but I don't like the phrase "had to tone down his comment." I don't live in Britain so I can't say I'm following the press there, other than what I read on FR, but it seems to me that Blair's problem is that there is very little public outcry about this situation. The US press is barely mentioning it, British Freepers have said the Brit press is more concerned with the dead cricket coach, and there's not much of a groundswell of public sentiment that would support Blair if he wanted to do anything other than talk.

British Freepers, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the impression I've gotten.

[Mister Da]

"Sir Richard Dalton, former British ambassador to Iran, said Mr Blair should be prepared “to play a long game and to keep at it”.

He said the Prime Minister should be firm, both in public and private. He told GMTV:

“I doubt whether there is a viable military solution to this question.

“We don’t know where they are held and we would be going into territory where any UK forces would be heavily outnumbered. I think Iran is considering its options.”
"

If Iran wants to, they can turn Tony Blair into Jimmy Carter, in way less than 444 days. Blair has no viable military response & no support at home to force Iran to release the hostages.

So, here's what I'd do if I was Blair:

Secretly, in the COBRA meeting, I would write off the hostages as prisoners of war, & publicly scale back the empty rhetoric. If the British public aren't concerned, why kowtow to the Iranians? The hostage's value to the Iranians is directly related to how much the Brits squirm over this. Blair's silence could lead others to speak up.

Next, with coalition (US) help, I would massively increase security in the Iraqi portion of the Shatt al-Arab & vigorously enforce the boundary with Iran, seizing & detaining ALL Iranian vessels that violate that boundary, using any force necessary. If the Iranian navy crosses the line, capture or sink them. In all instances, GB & the coalition can claim they are acting defensively to secure the border, basically the same claim as the Iranians.

Finally, I would dramatically increase the search for & capture of Iranian agents in Iraq & Great Britain - everywhere. Make life impossible for Iranians in Iraq & elsewhere.

These actions, I believe, will convince the Iranians the hostages have no value to them, but carry great costs instead.

[Pietro]

"Sir Richard Dalton, former British ambassador to Iran, said Mr Blair should be prepared “to play a long game and to keep at it”. "

There you go, a loooong game. That'll teach em.