Most Popular This Week
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- 'Beyond Orwellian': Outrage Follows Revelations of Vast Domestic Spying Program
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- 'We Are Movement, Not a Moment': North Carolina Peaceful Uprising Continues
- The Bill of Rights Exists: An Open Letter to Dianne Feinstein
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- Is Enbridge Building a Secret Keystone Pipeline?
- The Bill of Rights Exists: An Open Letter to Dianne Feinstein
- 'Beyond Orwellian': Outrage Follows Revelations of Vast Domestic Spying Program
Popular content
Today's Top News
Washington Hurting British Bid to Free Crew
LONDON -- The Iranian prisoner crisis revealed a widening schism between Britain and the United States yesterday as U.S. leaders called for tough action and British officials confirmed that they are trying to free their 15 imprisoned sailors by quietly reaching a compromise with Tehran.British officials believe that Iran is not seeking a prisoner exchange or other further bounty in exchange for the sailors, who have been imprisoned for 10 days, and they are hoping the crisis can be resolved peacefully in the next few days.
As two more British sailors were shown last night in another Iranian broadcast reading confessions and a small crowd of radical students in Tehran threw rocks and firecrackers at the British embassy there, British diplomats exchanged letters with the Iranian foreign ministry seeking a conciliatory end to the standoff.
Officials in London said that they believe their "confidence-building" operations, in which they offer to guarantee the Iranian government that British vessels will not stray into Iranian waters, offer the best hope of winning the freedom of the sailors and marines who have been in custody since they were seized by Iran's Republican Guards on March 23. Iran says the sailors had strayed into Iranian waters. Britain says they remained in Iraqi waters, where they are allowed to operate in support of the war in Iraq.
"We are anxious that this matter be resolved as quickly as possible, and that it be resolved by diplomatic means, and we are bending every single effort to that. . . . We are in direct bilateral communication with the Iranians," British Defence Minister Des Browne told reporters yesterday.
But Britain's delicate diplomatic efforts were set back by U.S. President George W. Bush, who made a statement Saturday in which he characterized the imprisoned sailors as "hostages" -- a phrase that Britain has been carefully avoiding to prevent the crisis from becoming a broader political or military conflict.
"The British hostages issue is a serious issue because the Iranians took these people out of Iraqi waters, and it's inexcusable behaviour," Mr. Bush said in response to a reporter's question during a press conference at the Camp David retreat.
He had reportedly promised not to raise the issue of the sailors, as British officials worry that the entry of the United States into this crisis could cause it to escalate into an irreconcilable confrontation.
Other U.S. officials have been even less amenable to the British approach. John Bolton, who until recently was Mr. Bush's ambassador to the United Nations, has appeared on British TV describing the British approach as "pathetic."
Mr. Bush stressed that the United States would not turn over Iranian officials it had arrested in Iraq earlier this year on accusations that they were supporting insurgents, saying he supported Prime Minister Tony Blair's view that "there were no quid pro quos. The Iranians must give back the hostages. They're innocent, they were doing nothing, and they were summarily plucked out of water."
But British officials say that a prisoner exchange has never been offered or suggested by Iran, and that Mr. Bush's words could cause harm by putting the Iranians in a position from which they cannot back down if it becomes a major confrontation with their long-time enemy, the United States.
British negotiators believe the Iranians have already won all the rewards they have been seeking -- mainly by using several of the hostages for propaganda purposes by broadcasting videos and letters in which they admit, possibly under duress, to trespassing on Iranian territory and demand that their government withdraw from Iraq.
British officials are said to believe that a hard-line group of Republican Guards has been controlling the prisoners, possibly with the backing of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but that the imprisonment lacks a political goal beyond the humiliation of Britain and its allies, and that more moderate parties, including Iran's "supreme leader," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are not interested in a prolonged standoff, like the 444-day 1979 U.S. hostage crisis, that would isolate Iran.
Ayatollah Khamenei has not yet spoken publicly on this crisis, and there are some observers in Iran who believe that he has abandoned his support for Mr. Ahmadinejad over the way the President's radically anti-Western gestures have distanced Iran from the rest of the world and damaged the economy.
Iran's government is deeply divided into factions and parties, which often control their own police, justice systems and wings in the major prisons. British officials and many Iranian observers believe that Mr. Ahmadinejad's more radical supporters are unlikely to prevail in this dispute since it offers few opportunities for gain. Iranian media have reported that moderate factions, including some leaders in the Republican Guards, have advocated the release of the prisoners.
Many observers noted that most Iranians have been on their country's New Year's vacation since the crisis began. Newspapers have not been publishing there, more moderate Foreign Ministry officials have not been in their offices, and the Revolutionary Guards have had a monopoly on the issue in a holiday period that will end tomorrow.
"It's the Supreme Leader who has to make the ultimate decision," said Mehrdad Khansari of London's Centre for Arab and Iranian Studies. "He has allowed each faction to air its grievances, present its positions. . . . He has heard from the moderates -- I mean, the commander of the Revolutionary Guards has expressed a desire for releasing these people -- whereas other groups within the Revolutionary Guards have expressed a harder position."
© Copyright 2007 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

12 Comments so far
Show AllThere most certainly are not "... few opportunities for gain." To understand why this is so and the real leverage Iran has in this case, please go to http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ID03Ak01.html
An excerpt from page 2,
"Question of international law
"The crisis over the British sailors in fact provides raw material for a fresh consideration of the applicability of international laws in Persian Gulf in that Iran's official position is that the salient facts of the case are in conformity with the guiding criteria of the UN's Law of the Sea Treaty.
"Contrary to US pundits such as Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who debated the author on CNN over the weekend, there is no clear-cut "established international law" that would dictate the freeing of British sailors if found in Iranian waters.
"A glance at the proceedings of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg, Germany, makes it obvious that there are several precedents for the seizure of foreign vessels in territorial waters. Nor is there a right of "innocent passage" that could be invoked by the British government in defense of its jailed sailors, given the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea's conditions, ie, that a vessel's passage is not "threatening to sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence", or the "good order and security" of the coastal nations.
"Article 301 of this treaty is pretty clear that intruding ships "shall refrain from any threat". Article 25, paragraph 3, on the other hand, stipulates that a coastal state may suspend in its territorial waters the right of "innocent passage" of any vessel it deems threatening to the country.
"From a strictly legal point of view, the British sailors cannot be effectively deemed detained until the time when an Iranian judge upholds their seizure by the Iranian armed forces. The initiation of a legal proceeding against the sailors serves precisely this particular purpose, setting the stage of a subsequent Iranian "forum shopping" in international law, even though a full trial may not be either necessary or advisable, politically and internationally."
Published on Tuesday, April 3, 2007 by Globe and Mail / UK
The Globe and Mail is a Canadian paper, it's not from the UK.
[Comments from Jeffrey Blankfort's newslist, author of War for Israel. ]
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3383843,00.html
For a very brief moment, I thought she was referring to the British sailors. (LOL). For another brief moment I thought she was representing the people of San Francisco (more laughs). But think about it. In response to the capture (not kidnapping) of two Israeli soldiers, Israel launched a war that killed over 1000 Lebanese and caused billions of dollars of destruction to the country and to it environment, a war that was supported by the US and by Pelosi herself to the bloody hilt. Pelosi, in fact has endorsed every war that Israel has waged as has virtually every other member of the Democratic Party, including those who oppose the US war in Iraq. As it is easier for an American Congressmen and women to criticize an American president than an Israeli Prime Minister, it is easier for them to criticize an unjust and unwarranted US war than one launched by Israel. That is the extent of control that Israel and its lobby has over the US body politic. And the Republicans are no different. Those who have had the courage to challenge Israel have been cut down by the lobby while their colleagues looked away and were thankful that it wasn't them.-JB
US House Speaker 'won't rest till captives are home'
Before leaving Israel for Syria and Lebanon, Nancy Pelosi tells kidnapped soldiers' families she will demand their release
Amnon Meranda
Latest Update: 04.01.07, 22:27 / Israel News
US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Sunday evening that she would not rest until the kidnapped Israeli soldiers return home.
During a speech she gave at the Knesset in the presence of the families of soldiers Ehud Goldwasser, Eldad Regev, Gilad Shalit, Guy Hever and Zachary Baumel, Pelosi presented the soldiers' ID tags, which were given to her by their families...
Concrete man--who is more despicable, the whore or her patrons? Think about it.
All of us are to blame (propotional to our responsibility as citizens, consumers etc), and I certainly don't blame "the Jews" anymore than those that have happily allowed their democracy to be hijacked by a special interest group. A complex history to be sure, see the wonderful power packed book by James Petras (the Leftist's leftist), The Power of Israel in the United States.
Silence in this instance is golden for the American administration.
For once, please listen and learn something about professional negotiating and statesmanship. The President and his crew have learned nothing from their colossal Iraq mistake if they continue to
"twitter" on the sidelines.
The UK and Iran appear to be finding solutions in the diplomatic way and it behooves all of us to observe silently. War is no longer an option for any situation.
Bush's insensitive comments are another example of the incompetence and uncouth quality of the man. In this crisis the British Government has shown maturity and restraint, while Bush seems to be seeking more evidence to support his unrealistic and dangerous Iran policy. Bush's comments clearly hinder and imperil the British-Iranian diplomatic process; maybe it will finally push even Tony Blair into European sanity and a clearer view of the unseemliness of the Bush view of the world.
Another example of Bush putting his foot in his mouth but believing he has kicked butt. The man is a complete and utter disaster on anything that requires more than three brain cells.
You are missing Bush's point, Bush wants another war and or attack on our soil, so he can declare marshal law, stop our elections and truly rule the oil on this planet for once and for all. He has plans with his oil friends and no one will stand in their way, he will have his power and oil one way or another. Hang on for the ride. At least with the mafia you know who you dealing with so you expect trouble, but when dealing with so called honest men, then you expect honesty and guess what, you better off with the mob! Then you would not let down your defense's.
THREE brain cells!? You're being awfully kind this morning, ricg, overstating bush's intelligence. It looks like Iran is going to release the Brits despite bush's trying to screw up their release. BUT...they aren't home yet. bush could still screw up the whole deal.
Bush wants to use his nukes so bad, he is positively salivating at the prospect. I wish he and Cheney wwould go visit a nuke site and get radiated but good. Maybe then the could use the single brain cell between them for something other than war.
I applaud the Brits for not making a big stinking arrogant issue of it as George certainly would have, and I derive a certain pleasure from their acting independently of the desires of the White House. And, I must admit, the Iranian people deserve to crow a little.
If our "King" George does not like Mr. Ahmedinajad, he need only look in the mirror to see the reason why the Iranian people elected someone far less moderate as their president. The "Axis of Evil" spun from Crawford, Texas, and those closely associated with it's best known resident.