Iran is escalating the situation in the Middle East, and against the Brits especially:
Fifteen British Navy personnel have been captured at gunpoint by Iranian forces, the Ministry of Defence says.
The men were seized at 1030 local time when they boarded a boat in the Gulf, off the coast of Iraq, which they suspected was smuggling cars.
The Royal Navy said it was doing everything it could to secure the release of its personnel, who are based on HMS Cornwall.
It added that the men had been carrying out a routine patrol in Iraqi waters.
The Ministry of Defence said: “The group boarding party had completed a successful inspection of a merchant ship when they and their two boats were surrounded and escorted by Iranian vessels into Iranian territorial waters.
This isn’t the first time that Iran has asserted its authority in the Persian Gulf. In 2004, some British soldiers were captured in the Gulf after accidentally wandering into Iranian waters. But this incident is much more provocative, in that it allegedly took place in Iraqi waters, and comes just as British Army colonel claimed that his troops are mostly facing violence in Basra at the hands of Iranians:
Col Justin Masherevski told BBC News that Iran was providing “sophisticated weaponry” to insurgents.
“Iranian agents” were also paying local men to attack British troops, he added.
PM Tony Blair has previously said weapons used were of “Iranian origin”. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) says any Iranian links are “unacceptable”.
Col Masherevski said “local information” indicated that “the vast majority of the violence against us is inspired from outside Iraq”.
“The people here very much believe that is Iran,” he said.
“All the circumstantial evidence points to Iranian involvement in the violence here in Basra which is disrupting the city to a great extent.”
The standard of weapons being used against British troops was such that it could only have come from outside Iraq, he said.
“These are not old munitions being used from the Iran-Iraq war, they’re much more modern – some of them produced in 2006.
“The locals are telling us these are coming in from Iran.”
And it was believed Iranian agents were paying “up to $500 a month for young Baswari men to attack us”, he added.
Combined with the US allegations of Iranian involvement in arming and training insurgent elements in Iraq, these recent events suggest that Iran is becoming more bold and openly hostile to Western presence in the Middle East. And its claims of wanting a stable Iraq should, by now, be deemed utterly bogus.
My only question is, will Iranian escalation backfire? By that I mean, instead of harassing British and American troops to the point of them leaving, will it instead solidify our resolve and perhaps invite scrutiny from others? Russia is finally getting some religion with respect to Iranian nuclear ambitions. Perhaps they would be interested in turning the screws a little tighter on the Mullah-cracy if the pot is sweetened (i.e. oil deals).
UPDATE: Gateway Pundit has more.
[tags] Iran, Britain, troops seized, Persian Gulf, Basra, Iraq, nuclear ambitions, Russia, UN sanctions, arming the insurgency [/tags]
Not to be entirely cynical and politically driven, but I wonder how this is going to play out in the upcoming British elections? The PM is, supposedly, stepping down to be replaced by Gordon Brown, however should Labor lose significantly in a general election, “Don’t call me Dave” Cameron and the Conservative Party take over. Cameron, although claiming to be the “heir to Blair,” may not have the backing to continue strong British presence in the Middle East. Iran’s sabre-rattling may just have the desired effect, should Blair/Brown and Labor fall.
Omar,
The next UK general election is likely to be in 2009 at the earliest. It is unlikely that Labour will allow for a general election so soon after 2005 just because the leadership is changing. A lot can change in 2-3 years…
Sometimes I feel that there is a sense of growing isolationism in the UK. People’s dissatisfaction with Blair’s Iraq venture (as it can be percieved) has generated a feeling of discontent with involvement in other countries. In days gone by the kidnapping of 15 British sailors would generate a somewhat jingoistic fervour that I am not detecting at the moment. It is almost as if great parts of the population fail to care and those that do care would rather just have our troops home without worrying about more potential warfare.
Of course this is just one man’s sampling of a general feeling and the tides of public opinion are both strong and fast moving.
True, Kav and I probably should have been more detailed about the scenario that I was introducing. As far as I know, and I admit to only a limited knowledge of British politics, the PM and his supposed successor, Gordon Brown, are not on friendly terms. In fact, by what I’ve seen, Labor is becoming quite polarized between the “conservative” Blair faction and the “anti-Blair” faction led by more left-leaning leaders. Those leaders may or may not back Brown, but certainly will not support any candidate chosen by the PM. I wonder if this, combined with the ongoing malaise that you have mentioned regarding the Middle East crisis, will cause a vote of no confidence or an outright fall of the Blair government. If so, who steps in to fill the vacuum? Brown, Cameron, a strong anti-war, isolationist candidate? Also, is it possible that when the PM steps down later this year, as he has indicated he will, is it possible that with no definite successor named, a general election may be forced simply to sort out which faction is really in charge? A possible anti-Blair Labor/Conservatie coalition government led by David Cameron? I really have no idea what will happen, but I suspect that, as you have mentioned, further problems in the Middle East may lead voters and MP’s in a strong isolationist direction which may cause the fall of Labor.
Omar,
Blair and Brown are indeed not bossom buddies. The way the hand-over should go is that there will be a leadership election; Brown will stand and so should others. If he stands unapposed he wins. Now it would be nice if a vote of no-confidence were to occur but, well, we shall see.
The only ways Cameron could take power is if: 1) a general election is called that brings the Conservative party to power (Lib Dems have said they would not share government with them so coalition is very unlikely).
2) The Queen steps in to circumvent an imploding Labour party and asks Cameron to form a government. Likelihood of 2? Vanishingly small.
There does not need to be a ‘named successor’. This is a very recent concoction – pretty much unique to Blair-Brown, I think. See the removal of Margaret Thatcher for example, it was a bun-fight for the leadership position.
Remember party leadership is completely within the purview of the party and if that leader happens to be prime minister then so be it.
I think the liklihood of anti-Blair Labour mps backing a Cameron coaltion government to also be vanishingly small. Remember that most of the die-hard anti-Blairites in Labour are well to the left and consider the Tories to be evil incarnate.
Speaking of hard left types, would Mr. Galloway be a reasonable representation of the anti-Blair left or would you consider him more of an aberration within labor? Alternately, although not an MP, what chances do you think Mr. Livingstone has of rising to the top of the Labor leadership (despite his occasional exile from the party)? He is, by the numbers I’ve seen, quite a popular fellow amongst Londoners, who, granted, do not by any means represent Britains as a whole anymore than New Yorkers represent Americans as a whole, but there are quite a few of them and that must count for something.
Also, I can’t seem to wrap my brain around the policies and ideology driving the Liberal Democrats. They have claimed to favor what amounts to Libertarian positions, yet many members are further left than Labor (indeed, a few seem to be openly Marxist). At the same time, their isoloationist positions, combined with economic populism puts them within the spehere of what would be called in the US paleoconservatism. Yet another faction of the LD’s seem to favor heavy involvement in Europe, especially NATO and the situation in Kosovo in the 1990′s. Now I understand that they are trying to “out-green” the Greens by pushing for a tax on heavy polluters. What gives? Is this the party of Clintonesque triangulation or are they simply a mob of MP’s who do not fit in with Labor or the Tories trying to advance their individual ideologies without a firm leader to give them direction?
Speaking of the Greens, do you think that they will gain seats in the anticipated general election in 2009? Although still 2 years away, will Labor recover enough to hold the government?
My opinons on Mr Galloway verge on the unprintable; however I would suggest he is not representative of the anti-Blair left and I seriously doubt any Labour MP would suggest that their views aligned with his even if they are against involvement in Iraq. Part of the problem of trying to find a descriptive standard is that the Labour party really is a big tent organisation these days (low funding notwithstanding).
At the moment, zero. In the future, who knows? (Red) Ken is further left than most Labour MPs on many issues. I have to say that I actually like Ken in some ways even though I disagree with him on too many issues to count. At least you pretty much know where you stand with him. As for his popularity with Londoners, he can only stand in one constituency so his popularity will only carry him so far. Besides he hated being in the Commons. His past time as an MP was not characterised by advancement to the cabinet (or, rather, shadow cabinet) and that was under Neil Kinnock who, whilst still moving the Labour marty more to the centre, was decidedly left of the current cabinet.
That’s alright, neither can the Liberal Democrats!
They are an odd bunch and you have to know their history in some respect to understand the disparate folk who populate the party. That said, they have often been a lot more popular than their poll numbers would suggest; the comment that ‘I would have voted Lib Dem if I thought they had a chance to win’ has more than a grain of truth in it. The Lib Dems do tend to avoid pigeonholding but that in fact hurts them as they are dismissed as mixed up and irrelevent by the two main parties even when they produce coherent (and often quite good) policies. At the moment I would suggest that their biggest stumbling block is an uncharismatic leader. They would have been better off keeping Charles Kennedy who, for his faults, was well liked and could hold his own in the commons (compared with Ming the Merciless). I still miss Paddy Ashdown (the greatest PM we never had). Paddy had been an officer in the SBS (like the SAS but tough) and I always thought we should have sent him to Saddam at the start of the first Gulf War as a diplomat; he could have had him in a headlock screaming uncle before you could blink.
The Greens have never been much of a force in politics and I am not so cavalier as to suggest that they never will be but I find it difficult to see that they will make any substantial gains in the next election. The larger parties always seem to manage to marginalise them.
I am not sure if Labour will hold on. The idea of a hung parliament might be good but I am so dissatisfied with the current government that I am actually hoping for an outright Conservative victory. If one were cynical one could comment that in the past elections much hay was made by Blair in reminding folk how bad things were under the Tories (true or not); the ability for Labour to do that is severly dented with recent history much more important to folk and a recognition that as time goes on it is no longer quite the same Tory party. In 1997 people had forgotten how disasterous the last Labour government (1974-1979) was, it depends on whether we need another 8 years…
Lol! Nearly fell out of my chair on that one. Yes, I understand that the Special Boat Service is quite the “John Wayne” service and compares very favorably with the US Navy SEALs and Germany’s Kampfschwimmers.
Indeed, Paddy Ashdown might well have been an excellent PM and ambassador to Iraq. I think very highly of General Sir Peter De la Billiere, as well. His ability and conduct during Gulf War I made Generals Powell and Schwartzkopf look like amateurs. Also, I liked his book
Thank you for the explanation of the LD’s. I read most of their position statements on their official website and spent a good deal of time scratching my head attempting to find a coherent ideology. Maybe they are simply Britain’s third party for those frustrated with Labor and the Tories?
In many ways a very apt description. I think they often show potential to be so much more but then get lost on the way…