Britain has few options in Iran standoff

ap ^

[maquiladora]

LONDON - Tough talk hasn‘t worked. Britain didn‘t get far at the United Nations . And the public doesn‘t have much of an appetite for military adventures.

Britain‘s options are limited in the crisis over 15 British sailors and marines held by Iran , especially now that Prime Minister Tony Blair has ruled out "negotiating over hostages."

Iran‘s seizure of the Britons appeared intended to send a message of strength as it faces mounting international pressure over its nuclear program.

He suggested Blair "leave Iran with enough room to maneuver to find a way out of this that doesn‘t damage Iranian pride."

Iran may want a way out. The dispute has strained its ties with the European Union — Iran‘s largest trade partner — and could damage its growing influence in Iraq , whose government has insisted the Britons were in Iraqi waters when they were intercepted.

Such an admission could have serious repercussions — perhaps even encourage Iranian-sponsored militias in Iraq to kidnap British soldiers, said Simon Barrett, director of International Media Intelligence Analysis in London.

"We need to really give them an ultimatum of about 10 days to release the hostages or we will apply diplomatic pressure," he said. "The first thing is by freezing assets. Secondly, we would need to expel the Iranian ambassador and his diplomatic staff" from London.

However, two sets of U.N. sanctions have done little to sway Iran to comply with international demands over its nuclear program. And the country‘s trade partners on the U.N. Security Council U.N. Security Council — Russia and China — have consistently used their veto power to soften tougher measures favored by the United States and Britain.

A prolonged crisis will not help diplomatic efforts to push Iran into suspending its uranium enrichment program. Iran, which denies Western allegations that it is seeking nuclear weapons, could take an even more rigid stance if it emerges humiliated from the dispute over the captives.

In 1980, Britain‘s Special Air Service stormed the Iranian Embassy in London to free 26 hostages seized by six Iranians protesting alleged oppression by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The siege ended with two hostages dead.

"There‘s no way that the SAS could go in and rescue today‘s captives because Iran‘s security apparatus is so strong and so powerful," Barrett said.

But Mike Vickers, a former U.S. special forces soldier who also worked at the CIA , said a rescue mission should not be ruled out.

"Primarily, the approach is negotiations, and then you‘re thinking about what you‘re going to do if negotiations aren‘t successful, and there‘s a good opportunity" for a rescue, he said in an interview in Washington. "It depends on where the hostages are, the distance one has to go to get to them, if they‘re dispersed or together."

[ClearCase_guy]

He suggested Blair "leave Iran with enough room to maneuver to find a way out of this that doesn‘t damage Iranian pride."

Jolly good. Wouldn't want to behave in a beastly manner, eh, old chap? White man's burden and all that, what?

[Doogle]

Tough talk hasn‘t worked

..when is anyone going to learn?

Doogle

[NonValueAdded]

Britain has few options in Iran standoff

sounds like poor design on their dial-a-yield devices, then. No crowd pleasers?

[Izzy Dunne]

Britain‘s options are limited [...] especially now that Prime Minister Tony Blair has ruled out "negotiating over hostages."

I think Tony has displeased the AP.

[Izzy Dunne]

Britain didn‘t get far at the United Nations

Well, now golly, Gomer, no one could have expected that!

[Izzy Dunne]

Tough talk hasn‘t worked. And the public doesn‘t have much of an appetite for military adventures.

Golly, Gomer, ya think one has somethin' to do with the other?

[SkyPilot]

Option 1: Do Nothing And Act Like Jimmah Carter

Option 2: Invite the US in joining them to kick Iran's arse

Sounds like they have two options to me.

[Izzy Dunne]

10 days to release the hostages or we will apply diplomatic pressure,

... and then.... ?

I will taunt you a second time..

[Brian Mosely]

1. Contact MI6.

2. Have them target high ranking Iranian mullah.

3. Deal with target.

4. Repeat as needed.

[Lexington Green]

The English Bull is the English Steer?

[keat]

"We need to really give them an ultimatum of about 10 days to release the hostages or we will apply diplomatic pressure," he said. "The first thing is by freezing assets. Secondly, we would need to expel the Iranian ambassador and his diplomatic staff" from London.

I've been witholding judgment up to this point but now I have to say that the UK's response has been weak, ineffectual and an embarassment to the Christian world.

I really don't see any hope of this being resolved in any manner that contributes to global security.

God bless the USA, it's all on our shoulders, more than ever.

[Hugin]

There are lots of options that make holding the hostages too costly for the Iranian regime to continue. Publicly state that they have 72 hours to turn them over or face "very grave consequences". Privately tell them Britain (with US help) will bomb every Iranian Navy and Air Force base. Also bomb their one and only oil refinery (Iran is a producer of crude oil but has to import a large part of their refined petroleum products). Third we will bomb every Iranian nuke site. Forth, target every Iranian government building and official. Tell them there will be no negotiations, comply or die.

[LeoWindhorse]

DECLARE WAR

[Radix]

"He suggested Blair "leave Iran with enough room to maneuver to find a way out of this that doesn‘t damage Iranian pride." "

He who?

[ClearCase_guy]

Tell them there will be no negotiations, comply or die.

Agree completely.

[babygene]

"There are lots of options that make ... negotiations, comply or die."

You have a knack for coming up with the obvious.

[elhombrelibre]

Iran's regime is led by intrinsically evil men who cloak their rapacious desire for power in religious pieties and claptrap they neither believe nor adhere to. Iran's mullah's and their military infrastructure must be destroyed. The sooner the civilized world wakes up to that the better we'll all be.

[razorback-bert]

Tough talk hasn‘t worked. Britain didn‘t get far at the United Nations . And the public doesn‘t have much of an appetite for military adventures. Britain‘s options are limited in the crisis

I remember reading this sentence, when the Falklands crisis bubbled up.

[Robe]

"DECLARE WAR"

With this congress????.....

man you gotta stop smokin that stuff

[the_ronin]

now's the time for a joint SAS/Delta operation with a few cruise missiles dropped in mullahs' backyard.

[ElectricStrawberry]

Tomahawk option looks good to me. One every 15 minutes until they're in friendly custody.

[Grut]

Talk, fight or shrug. My money's on 'shrug'.

[JamesP81]

Tomahawk option looks good to me. One every 15 minutes until they're in friendly custody.

They might just kill the hostages. Of course, this could be averted if we inform them that for every hostage killed, a tomahawk with a nuclear warhead would be sent, but I doubt anyone would ever consider such a drastic measure.

And truthfully, the Iranians would push us into doing it. OTOH, if we did do it, the next petty tyrant down the road wouldn't be so keen on stirring up trouble.

[randog]

And the public doesn‘t have much of an appetite for military adventures.

They don't even bother to provide bogus poll numbers anymore.

[randog]

DECLARE WAR

That means politicians would have to make a long-term commitment, and that ain't gonna happen in today's world. Besides, "war" is so....descriptive. Gotta use weasle words like "unilateral action", or "necessary means" so that the pols can later say they "never voted for this war."

[ElectricStrawberry]

They might kill the hostages anyway....but they'd probably keep 'em alive and in custody until their use as political pawns is done with.

Not to be the hearless Sarge I always will be, but real leaders cannot let what might happen to a handful of troops at the hands of terrorists dictate the actions of the leader.

That's what they're counting on (the Brits doing nothing but talk), and, unfortunately, that's what is going to happen.....nothing.

A whole lot of talk at the UN....unless Blair grows a pair sometime soon.

Wonder what Maggie Thatcher would do...

[JamesP81]

Wonder what Maggie Thatcher would do...

Blow their asses off...which is what needs to be done.

[Cementjungle]

Where's Jesse Jackson when you need him?!

[chaos_5]

I guess Tony Blair will just have to give them another stern talking too.

[Newfy]

Apparently the dividing line (in the water) between Iran and Iraqi waters is kinda uncertain (without GPS coordinates which the Iranians conveniently changed) so why don't the Brits take a boatload or two of Iranian soldiers/marines and see what the Iranian government would do then. Tit for tat old chap!

[bassmaner]

Where's Jesse Jackson when you need him?!

The Revvvrnd Jacksnnnnnn is probably on his way to Tehran now, as the personal guest of YabbaDabbaDoowhocares (a Mark Levin line!) himself.

[wafflehouse]

message from Britain to captured soldiers; "You're F*cked"

[MEGoody]

Britain‘s options are limited

I haven't even heard them mention the best option - bomb the snot out of them until they release the hostages.

[PAR35]

He suggested Blair "leave Iran with enough room

Who is "he"? Simon Barrett, who uttered the other idiotic statements down the page? (Give them a 10 day ultimatum, and then try diplomatic pressure.)

[TalBlack]

"Not to be the hearless Sarge I always will be, but real leaders cannot let what might happen to a handful of troops at the hands of terrorists dictate the actions of the leader."

Right as rain but the real problem here is that there no "real" leaders in this thing. The Brits LET those people be taken. To then consign them to their fate would provoke a backlash of outrage like nothing before.

Real leaders would never be in this situation in the first place because the Iranians would be scared to death of them.