You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Iran softens stance on kidnapped British sailors
2007-03-27
Iran said Monday it was questioning 15 British sailors and marines to determine if their alleged entry into Iranian waters was "intentional or unintentional" before deciding what to do with them - the first sign it could be seeking a way out of the standoff.

The two countries continued to disagree about where the military personnel were seized Friday, with Britain insisting they were in Iraqi waters after searching a civilian cargo vessel and the Tehran regime saying it had proof they were in Iranian territory. Britain's Defense Ministry said they were seized in the Shatt al-Arab, a waterway flowing into the Persian Gulf that marks the border between Iran and Iraq. But the dividing line in the waterway, known in Iran as the Arvand river, has long been disputed.

The Iranian emphasis Monday on the detainees' intent was a noticeable pullback from the certainty expressed Saturday by Iran's military chief, Gen. Ali Reza Afshar. Afshar said then that the 15 confessed to "aggression into the Islamic Republic of Iran's waters." Other Iranian officials suggested afterward that the Britons might be charged with a crime - presumably espionage or trespassing - for knowingly entering Iran's territorial waters.

Deputy Foreign Minister Mehzi Mostafavi took a softer line Monday while saying that the 14 men and one woman were still being interrogated. "It should become clear whether their entry was intentional or unintentional. After that is clarified, the necessary decision will be made," Mostafavi said.
Posted by:Fred

#4  Helloana - this is just a testing, don't worry about it
Posted by: Testerzvl   2007-03-27 19:20  

#3  Something significant is happening behind the scenes, IMHO. The price of a barrel of crude oil skyrocketed to $69 temporarily at about 5PM.

Perhaps Tony Blair's mild rhetoric about his countries negotiations with Iran moving to a "different stage" correspond with military maneuvers to place pressure on Iran to release their sailors. Or it might be that Iran has shown greater truculence in the face of sanctions than many thought they would and has done something else to raise the stakes in that confrontation.
Posted by: Grumenk Philalzabod0723   2007-03-27 18:16  

#2  I think discussion of intent and borders is totally moot. This was an act of war and should be treated as such. Quibbling over the details cedes the debate to Iran. Iran's government is totally illegitimate and represents and evil ideology. I could care less if Royal Marine Commandos with lit firecrackers up their arses were across the border on a mission to loot Persian corner-stores. We would still be right and they would still be wrong.
Posted by: Excalibur   2007-03-27 09:30  

#1  "It should become clear whether their entry was intentional or unintentional. After that is clarified, the necessary decision will be made."

Neither. Even saying it was "unintentional" gives credibility to the Iranian claim that the sailors were in Iranian waters, which I doubt they were. I wouldn't give this claim any traction because they can use it against anyone they want to in the future for whatever purpose they probably have in mind now.

I don't regard this as a "softening" except in the mind of someone who is naive. It seems to me that the strategy they are employing is to initially ask for way more than anyone thinks they have a right to, so that later when they ask for what they really want it seems more palatable. What they really want is probably multidimensional, too, including building internal cred, which hurts western efforts by building nationalism and thereby taking some of the pressure off the Iranian government.

No, no, and no. They have no proof other than a hazy claim that they were in "Iranian" waters which they can use to back off at any moment if they really wanted to without hurting themselves too badly. No.
Posted by: gorb   2007-03-27 00:55  

00:00