BLAIR MUDDLE OVER HOSTAGE CRISIS

daily express ^

[maquiladora]

TONY Blair yesterday got himself into a tangle over taking on Iran in the hostage crisis.

He initially hinted at military action if the 15 Royal Marines and sailors, including Leading Seaman Faye Turney, were not released quickly.

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.

Mr Blair had warned of a “different phase” if diplomatic efforts failed to secure the hostages’ release – while Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett was calling for the dispute to be re­solved “swiftly and peacefully”.

The Premier had said there was no justification for holding the 15. He said of the Iranians: “I hope we manage to get them to realise they have to release them.

“If not, then this will move into a different phase.”

Asked about what he meant by a “different phase”, he said: “Well, we will just have to see.”

He then added that “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”.

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.”

But yesterday critics said that Mr Blair needed to choose his words more carefully in handling a delicate crisis.

Tory MP Patrick Mercer, a former Army officer, said: “Real­istically there are no military options to deal with this sort of situation because the prisoners will have been separated into small groups, making a Special Forces operation almost impossible. The Gov­ern­ment is right to put pressure on Iran but it is crucial that its language is unambiguous, firm and realistic.

“The diplomacy is crucially important and it has got to be believable. There must be no mixed messages.”

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.”

Iran has so far refused to reveal where the prisoners are being held or to grant Tehran-based British diplomats consular access, but it has said they are “fit and well”. Last night a spokesman for Iran’s foreign ministry kept up the game of cat-and-mouse by saying that British diplomats would be given access after Iran completes its inquiries.

Underlying the sense of crisis, the Cabinet’s emergency committee, Cobra, met yesterday. Later Mrs Beckett called her Iranian opposite number Man­ouchehr Mottaki for the second time since the flare-up.

A Foreign Office spokesman said: “The Foreign Secretary phoned the Iranian foreign minister today. She spoke in very robust terms, reiterating the UK’s concerns about the continued detention of our personnel.

“She demanded their safe and speedy return and immediate consular access so that we can satisfy ourselves that they are safe and well.

“She indicated that the Brit­ish Government will continue to pressurise the Iranian government on all these points.”

Mrs Beckett is expected to make a statement to the Com­mons today.

Mr Blair rejected Tehran’s repeated claims that the 15 were in Iranian waters.

He said: “We are utterly confident that we were in Iraqi waters and not just marginally in Iraqi waters but in Iraqi waters.

“It is a case of tactics if and when we have to prove that.”

The proof is thought to be the Indian-flagged merchant vessel which was searched by the British force just before their capture.

American officials say the skipper has provided a statement that his vessel was in Iraqi waters at the time.

The Government is also under pressure to review its rules of engagement in Iraq amid claims that it was not robust enough to allow the sailors and Marines to defend themselves.

Experts say that the 15 Britons in two dinghies were heavily outnumbered and al­most certainly out­gunned when they were surrounded by six Iranian gunboats on Friday.

But their presence was tracked by British aircraft, leading some to ask why they were not able to put up a fight.

Shadow Foreign Minister Keith Simpson said the MoD may now need to review the rules of engagement as well as the support available.

“The Iranians might have thought twice about using their fast patrol boasts if they thought there was an immediate response, probably air power, in the immediate area,” he added.

[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!

[CalvaryJohn]

Blair has shown himself to be a eunuch. God help these sailors, because Great Britain apparently won't.

[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.

[ExSES]

If this is not possible, we may have to become more explicit. That’s all he meant. He didn’t mean anything else.”

Like maybe the letters of protest will be typed with all caps bolded or a different font?

[elli1]

I don't know how reliable the source is but:

The latest report is that the Britons were ready to fight off their abductors. Certainly their escorting ship, HMS Cornwall, could have blown the Iranian naval vessel out of the water. However, at the last minute the British Ministry of Defense ordered the Cornwall not to fire, and her captain and crew were forced to watch their shipmates led away into captivity.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03282007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/hostage_sailors____britains_impotence_opedcolumnists_arthur_herman.htm?page=1"

[rollo tomasi]

Wonder if Rosie thinks Nixon was president when the GOT incident occurred?

Would not surprise me one bit.

[ncphinsfan]

"...we may have to become more explicit."

The Brits are probably considering sending the Iranians the dreaded all caps email. Harsh, I know, but these are harsh times.

[CatoRenasci]

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.

It's true enough in the case of the American miltary, but the original military, somewhat surprisingly, to give wide latitude to junior officers to make decisions on the spot was the Prussian army - the officers were schooled in obedience from a young age at cadet schools and kriegsakademien, but they were almost all (outside of the artillery and technical services) aristocrats and expected to act with honor and good judgment. The British army, likewise, give wide latitude to subalterns in the 19th century.

[Dog]

They just produced the GPS data....I would say they called Irans bluff....this is coming to a head.....someone has to back down and lose face or its a military confrontation.

[prairiebreeze]

Is there a link anywhere on that GPS data story? thanks

[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.