History > 2007 > UK > International (I)

Schrank

political cartoon

IoS        8.4.2007

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Shouts of 'murderers' and 'torturers'

greet King Abdullah on Palace tour

Published: 31 October 2007
The Independent
By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor

One of the most controversial state visits to Britain of recent times began officially yesterday with a royal welcome, set against a backdrop of protest placards.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was officially welcomed by a guard of honour with the Queen at Horseguards Parade. Gordon Brown, Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, and the Foreign Office minister Kim Howells joined dignitaries on the dais. The King then lunched with the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh in the Bow Room at the Palace before being shown a specially created exhibition of Saudi items from the Royal Collection.

Beyond the gates of the Palace, however, the growing outcry continued. Protesters calling for the reopening of a corruption inquiry into a multibillion-dollar arms deal for Typhoon fighters from the UK jeered the Saudi King as the Government rolled out the red carpet to greet him. Scores of protesters shouted "murderers", "torturers", and "shame on you" at King Abdullah as he passed by in a gilded horse-drawn coach.

As the Prime Minister welcomes the King to No 10 today, Labour MPs are planning a demonstration outside the Saudi embassy in London.

Vince Cable, the acting leader of the Liberal Democrats, who is boycotting events during the visit, said Mr Brown should answer a list of questions including whether he has sought an apology over the arrest and torture of the British expat engineer Sandy Mitchell by the Saudi authorities. Mr Mitchell is expected to be among the protesters.

Mr Cable said Mr Brown should raise with the Saudi King five causes of civil rights abuses in the country – gender discrimination, the death penalty, cruel punishments, the wholesale use of torture and the ill-treatment of homosexuals.

On corruption charges, including alleged "backhanders" for arms deals, Mr Cable asked: "Why is it that the UK has dropped the investigation into Al Yamamah deal in the same year that the US has opened an investigation into the issue? Will Mr Brown reopen the investigation by the SFO into BAE Systems and alleged corruption with regards to Saudi Arabia?" Would Mr Brown give his backing to the release of the National Audit Office report into the Al Yamamah case – which is the only report conducted by the NAO which has never been released?

He said Mr Brown also needed to say whether the Government was giving full co-operation to the US Justice Department, or whether he believed the US action compromised international security. Would he co-operate if the US charges were brought against British Government officials? Mr Cable asked.

More than 30 MPs and celebrities have also signed an open letter protesting at the visit. One of the signatories, the comedian Mark Thomas, 44, who helped the group Campaign Against Arms Trade organise the protest, said: "It's really important to show opposition to this disgusting hypocritical state of affairs where governments, rules of law, human affairs and democracy are cast aside to worship a barrel of oil."

Another signatory, Clare Short, the former secretary for international development who resigned from the Blair government, accused the Government of an "absolutely craven foreign policy" towards Saudi Arabia. "It is not just that the Saudis have a terrible record on human rights at home. They are exporting an extreme fundamentalist form of Islam. We should not be giving a state visit to this regime," she said.

The human rights activist Peter Tatchell said it was "incredible hypocrisy" for ministers to condemn the Burma and Zimbabwe while saying nothing about human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia. He said: "It just shows oil and arms sales seem to have bought the Government's silence."

Peter Kilfoyle, a former defence minister, and a string of trade union leaders such as Tony Woodley, joint general secretary of Britain's biggest union, Unite, were also among the signatories. "We believe that there is a conspiracy of silence about the human rights abuses being perpetrated by the Saudi regime," their letter said.

Shouts of 'murderers' and 'torturers' greet King Abdullah on Palace tour, I, 31.10.2007, http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3112811.ece

2.30pm update

UN a million miles

from meeting development goals,

says Brown

Tuesday July 31, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Patrick Wintour in New York and Matthew Tempest

Gordon Brown has used his first speech to the UN as prime minister to warn the world that it is a "million miles" from meeting its promises to relieve poverty, HIV and illiteracy in poor countries.

Mr Brown told an audience of world leaders, businessmen and diplomats that, at the current rate, some of the UN's touchstone Millennium Development Goals - due to be fulfilled by 2015 - were a century away from being honoured.

Describing this as a "global emergency", the prime minister focused relentlessly on the role businesses and faith groups - as well as governments - had to play in reinvigorating progress.

He said: "Some people call it the mobilisation of soft power. I call it people power, people power in support of the leadership of developing countries."

Mr Brown vowed to bring together 12 world leaders and 20 top business figures to sign up to a new commitment to meet the eight MDG targets - which range from maternal mortality to the spread of malaria.

In strongly moral language he called it a "coalition of conscience" and a "coalition for justice", which in the end could make "globalisation a force for justice on a global scale".

Although the 30-minute speech did not mention Iraq or Afghanistan, and concentrated instead on helping the developing world, Mr Brown did touch on Darfur, as expected.

He announced that later today the UK, along with the US and France, would table a new UN resolution which would see a 20,000-strong peacekeeping force - the largest in the world - sent to Sudan by October 1.

Mr Brown again described the conflict in Darfur, which has cost an estimated 200,000 lives and created two million refugees, as the "greatest humanitarian disaster" facing the world today. However, he warned the Sudanese government: "We must be clear: if any party blocks progress and the killings continue, I and others will redouble our efforts to impose further sanctions.

"The message for Darfur is that it is time for change."

Mr Brown is acutely aware that previous UN resolutions did not lead to action.

But British officials believe that the Chinese - previously reluctant to back a tough military mandate for the force - are becoming more sensitive to their international reputation in the run-up to the Olympic games next summer and will now relent.

The eight MDGs, signed by most of the nations on earth in 2000 with a deadline of 2015, set out to halve the proportion of the world's population living on under a dollar a day; to halve the proportion of people suffering from hunger; to provide universal primary education for all the world's citizens, principally in Africa; to ensure that all girls had the right to be educated to at least primary if not secondary level; to cut by two thirds the under-five mortality rate; to cut by 75% the maternal mortality rate; to begin to reverse the spread of both HIV and malaria; to halve the number of people without access to fresh drinking water, and to cut developing world debt and increase aid.

Mr Brown told his audience: "We cannot allow our promises that became pledges to descend into just aspirations, and then wishful thinking, and then only words that symbolise broken promises.

"We did not make the commitment to the Millennium Development Goals only for us to be remembered as the generation that betrayed promises rather than honoured them and undermined trust that promises can ever be kept.

"So it is time to call it what it is: a development emergency which needs emergency action.

"If 30,000 children died needlessly and avoidably every day in America or Britain we would call it an emergency. And an emergency is what it is."

On current rates, Mr Brown pointed out that it would take until 2100, not 2015, to provide worldwide primary education.

A UN progress report on meeting the goals found that while the proportion of people living on one dollar a day or less had declined from 45.9% to 41.1% since 1999, reaching the MDG target of halving the extent of extreme poverty by 2015 required that the current pace be almost doubled.

There had been progress towards universal primary education, with enrolment increasing from 57% in 1999 to 70% in 2005 - but a gap of 30% remained, and the number of school-age children was increasing daily.

Although the share of parliamentary seats held by women had increased substantially, from 7% in 1990 to 17% this year, the share of women who earned a salary, aside from farming, still stood at less than one third in 2005.

Mr Brown said he wanted to "call into being, beyond governments alone, a global partnership for development and together harness the energy, the ideas and the talents of the private sector, consumers, non-governmental organisations and faith groups and citizens everywhere".

He quoted both Winston Churchill, the former British prime minister, and John F Kennedy, the former US president, saying: "In 1960, here in America, President John Kennedy called for a peace corps, an international commitment to harness the idealism many felt in the face of threats to human progress and world peace.

"Today we should evoke the same spirit to forge a coalition for justice.

"And when conscience is joined to conscience, moral force to moral force, think how much our power to do good can achieve.

"Governments, business, scientists, engineers, doctors, nurses, charities and faith groups coming together to make globalisation a force for justice on a global scale."

Mr Brown now heads back to the UK - and a family holiday in Scotland over the summer recess - after three days in the US that have seen him meet George Bush, cross-party leaderships on Capitol Hill, and, this morning, Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, for private talks.

Before making his speech today, Mr Brown also met Bill Clinton to discuss the work of the former president's foundation, including its drive against Aids in Africa.

The decision to highlight both world poverty and the importance of the UN in his speech today was clearly designed to balance the impact of holding lengthy talks at Camp David with Mr Bush, still a hugely unpopular figure in the UK.

The Brown speech was also designed to highlight the prime minister's belief that Britain could deploy both soft and hard power.

    UN a million miles from meeting development goals, says Brown, UN, 31.7.2007, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,,2138478,00.html

British Prime Minister

Holds Talks With Bush

July 30, 2007
The New York Times
By JIM RUTENBERG and SARAH LYALL

WASHINGTON, July 29 — President Bush, whose relationship with Tony Blair when he was prime minister of Britain was unparalleled in closeness and reliability, on Sunday night began two days of meetings with Mr. Blair’s successor, Gordon Brown.

The selection of Mr. Brown, who took office in late June, has injected a dose of unpredictability into Mr. Bush’s most important trans-Atlantic partnership.

The meetings, the first of Mr. Brown’s tenure as prime minister, hold challenges for both men.

Mr. Bush heads into the new relationship as a lame duck. Mr. Brown enters it at the very start of his term, facing demands at home that may redefine what many considered a supplicant relationship with the United States under Mr. Blair.

Headlines out of London have predicted a new era of distance from the United States, first and foremost in terms of Iraq policy — a forecast that has not gone unnoticed at the White House or among diplomats in Washington.

They have also taken note of statements from some officials in Mr. Brown’s government — most notably by a Foreign Office minister, Mark Malloch-Brown, suggesting that the new prime minister will not be anywhere near as close to Mr. Bush as Mr. Blair was.

The former prime minister was mocked as Mr. Bush’s “poodle” by voters increasingly dismayed by the war and by what they regarded as American arrogance and heavy-handedness in foreign policy.

But in interviews last week, American officials referred to the news out of Britain as “white noise,” saying that they had taken heart in Mr. Brown’s statements that he still considered the United States a prime partner.

“Look at what he said on BBC Radio,” said Gordon D. Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council, referring to an interview this month in which Mr. Brown pointed to Mr. Bush’s relationship with Mr. Blair in positive terms.

“I will continue to work, as Tony Blair did, very closely with the American administration,” Mr. Brown said in the interview. “We will not allow people to separate us from the United States in dealing with the common challenges that we face around the world.”

Mr. Johndroe said the start of British troop withdrawals from Basra, which has fed into the predictions of a shift in the relationship, had been expected for some time.

Before leaving for the United States, Mr. Brown was unequivocal in his support for the alliance, saying it was Britain’s “single most important bilateral relationship.”

“Because of the values we share, the relationship with the United States is not only strong but can become stronger in the years ahead,” he said in a statement released by Downing Street. “We know that we cannot solve any of the world’s major problems without the active engagement of the U.S.”

United States officials say Mr. Bush and Mr. Brown, who met in person on various occasions before he became prime minister, had already begun to speak regularly by video conference.

Mr. Johndroe said that the men dined alone on Sunday night and that they had a one-on-one breakfast meeting scheduled for Monday.

The idea, Mr. Johndroe said, was that “the two leaders can just get down to direct discussions,” though their meeting Monday morning will be followed by a session with aides, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Mr. Johndroe said the two would lay out their positions on the major topics confronting their nations, what he termed an “exchange of views” on topics like Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, the crisis in Darfur and the status of Kosovo.

American officials seemed encouraged that Mr. Brown traveled to Camp David, a trip they had feared he would cancel after recent widespread flooding in parts of Britain. As of a few days ago, American officials were still uncertain he would come.

While Mr. Brown evidently deemed it politically safe to make the trip, the domestic ramifications of his relationship with Mr. Bush would seem likely to remain delicate for some time.

Mr. Blair’s unwillingness to criticize the United States and his unwavering commitment to the Iraq war proved the most unpopular aspect of his leadership. “Under Tony Blair, the relationship was so subordinate as to appear subservient,” the leader of the opposition Liberal Democrats, Sir Menzies Campbell, said recently. “Britain needs to be America’s candid friend, not its client.”

In a newspaper interview this month, Mr. Malloch-Brown, who served until recently as deputy secretary general at the United Nations, said, “It is very unlikely that the Brown-Bush relationship is going to go through the baptism of fire and therefore be joined at the hip like the Blair-Bush relationship was.”

“You need to build coalitions that are lateral, which go beyond the bilateral blinkers of the normal partners,” he told the Daily Telegraph, speaking of reaching out to other leaders in Europe, India and China.

Jim Rutenberg reported from Washington,
and Sarah Lyall from London.

    British Prime Minister Holds Talks With Bush, NYT, 30.7.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/world/europe/30brown.html

1pm

Brown hails 'partnership of purpose' with US

Monday July 30, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Matthew Tempest, political correspondent

Gordon Brown today stressed that the "battles of ideas" were as important as military might as he prepared to hold his first joint press conference with the US president, George Bush.

The prime minister and Mr Bush are locked in a day of talks at the presidential retreat of Camp David, with Iraq, Darfur, Iran and Afghanistan on the agenda.

But in an article today in the Washington Post, Mr Brown quoted the former US president Franklin Roosevelt when he said that the "arsenal of democracy" - schools, museums, newspapers and the arts - was just as important as weapons in defeating terrorists.

That is in line with earlier comments from Brown proteges, such as the international development secretary, Douglas Alexander, who has already warned that the US should put more emphasis on "soft power".

And Mr Brown again avoided using the term "war on terror", in favour of calling terrorism "a war against humanity".

Mr Brown and Mr Bush will appear together in front of the cameras at around 4.30pm UK-time today, before the PM leaves for New York and a speech at the United Nations.

Although the two leaders are expected to announce new measures against the Sudanese government in the face of the Darfur crisis, it will be the first time many of the president's team and aides get a close-up view of the new prime minister.

In his first-person piece Mr Brown refers to the special relationship as a "partnership of purpose". And although he is careful to quote both Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan, he stresses "shared values" rather than an unequivocal London-Washington axis.

Mr Brown stresses "The struggles of the 21st century are the battles that engage military might which we have been fighting together in Iraq and Afghanistan and through Nato - and they are also the battle of ideas."

He says the cold war was won both through the deterrence of "large amounts of weapons and a cultural effort also on an unprecedented scale".

He writes: "Foundations, trusts, civil society and civic organisations - links between schools, universities, museums, institutes, churches, trade unions, sports clubs, societies ... those in newspapers, journals, cultural institutions and the arts and literature sought to expose the difference between moderation and violent extremism."

Mr Brown and Mr Bush will be joined at the summit today by the foreign secretary, David Miliband, and the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice. The stalled Doha round of trade talks is also on the agenda.

Last night at Camp David the two men had 90 minutes of talks with officials before going into a private dinner at the presidential retreat.

In his Washington Post article today, Mr Brown said: "It is our shared task to expose terrorism for what it is - not a cause but a crime. A crime against humanity.

"All of us must be vigilant in our determination to prevent attacks and defeat the forces of terrorism. And it is the values we share that make us best placed to succeed.

"So today the struggles of the 21st century are the battles that engage military might which we have been fighting together in Iraq and Afghanistan and through Nato - and they are also the battles of ideas.

"We must expose the contrast between great objectives to tackle global poverty and honour human dignity and the evils of terrorists who would bomb and maim people irrespective of faith, indifferent to the very existence of human life."

After his press conference this afternoon and lunch with President Bush Mr Brown will travel to Capitol Hill for cross-party talks with leaders of the Senate and House of Representatives, including senate majority leader Harry Reid and House speaker Nancy Pelosi.

    Brown hails 'partnership of purpose' with US, G, 30.7.2007, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,,2137877,00.html

Russian Expels 4 British Diplomats

July 19, 2007
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 10:38 a.m. ET
The New York Times

MOSCOW (AP) -- Russia said Thursday it will expel four British diplomats and suspend counterterrorism cooperation with London, the latest move in a mounting confrontation over the radiation poisoning death of former KGB officer Alexander Litvinenko.

Britain had announced Monday the expulsion of four Russian diplomats and restrictions on visas issued to Russian government officials after Moscow refused to extradite Andrei Lugovoi, accused of killing Litvinenko in London last November.

The dispute marks a new low in relations between Moscow and London, which had already been troubled by Russia's opposition to the war in Iraq, Britain's refusal to extradite exiled tycoon Boris Berezovsky to face embezzlement charges, and by Kremlin allegations last year of spying by British diplomats.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin announced the expulsions after summoning British Ambassador Anthony Brenton to the ministry and informing him.

Kamynin described Russia's response as ''targeted, balanced and the minimum necessary.'' He contended that Russia was forced to respond, saying Britain had made a ''conscious choice of worsening relations with our country.''

Foreign Secretary David Miliband expressed disappointment.

''We obviously believe that the decision to expel four embassy staff is completely unjustified and we will be doing everything to ensure that they and their families are properly looked after,'' he said.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called on Moscow to heed British demands and extradite Lugovoi -- the first time America's senior diplomat has weighed in on the dispute.

''This is an issue of rule of law to our minds, not an issue of politics,'' Rice said at a news conference in Portugal, where she was attending a conference on Middle East peace. ''It is a matter of Russia cooperating fully in what is simply an effort to solve what was a very terrible crime committed on British soil.''

Russia says such extraditions are prohibited by its constitution and characterized Britain's demand as an attempt to interfere in Moscow's internal affairs.

''We are disappointed that the Russian government should have signaled no new cooperation in the extradition of Mr. Andrei Lugovoi for the alleged murder of Alexander Litvinenko,'' Miliband said.

''We are, however, much heartened that over the last 36 hours across the international community, European countries, the EU as a whole and the United States should have put out such positive statements about the need to defend the integrity of the British judicial system, and that is something that we shall be taking forward with the international community over the next few days and weeks,'' Miliband said.

Litvinenko, a fierce Kremlin critic, died Nov. 23 after ingesting radioactive polonium-210. From his deathbed, he said Russian President Vladimir Putin was behind his poisoning.

A letter from Russia's ambassador in London denounced claims of Kremlin involvement in Litvinenko's murder.

''It is preposterous to assert that the killing of Alexander Litvinenko 'appears to have the clear backing, if not the active assistance, of the Russian government,''' Ambassador Yuri Fedotov wrote in a letter to The Times, responding to an editorial published Tuesday.

Fedotov said there is nothing sinister in Russia's refusal to hand over Lugovoi, and reaffirmed Russia's offer to put him on trial at home if British authorities provide enough evidence.

Fedotov, who has been uncharacteristically visible in British media this week, said that how far the standoff goes depends on the ''political will'' of the British government.

''The Russian government values its relations with the U.K. and respects its laws and constitutional arrangement,'' Fedotov wrote. ''A close relationship, of course, requires that the British government does the same.''

British police said Wednesday that it had apprehended and deported a suspected Russian assassin who was reportedly planning to murder Berezovsky in June. The tycoon accused the Kremlin of being behind that plot.

Kamynin also said Russia would stop issuing visas to British officials and seeking British visas for Russian officials until London provides more information on the restrictions it has imposed.

''Until the new procedure is explained, Russian officials will not request British visas. And analogous requests by British officials will not be considered,'' he said.

He also said Moscow would suspend cooperation against terror.

''To our regret, cooperation between Russia and Britain on issues of fighting terrorism becomes impossible,'' Kamynin said.

He did not elaborate, and the extent of current cooperation -- with ties already damaged by Russian intelligence services' accusations of British spying -- was unclear.

Natalia Leshchenko, an analyst at the Global Insight think tank, said on BBC TV that Britain and Russia do cooperate against terror, but suggested the suspension was mainly meant to tarnish the new government of Prime Minister Gordon Brown in the eyes of its own people.

''The cooperation itself is there and we can also say it can be exaggerated if needed to show that Gordon Brown acts against the British people. At least that's what they are saying to the Russian public at the moment,'' Leshchenko said.

Kamynin said the interests of tourists and businessmen would not be hurt. He said that on visa issues Russia would mirror Britain's actions from now on.

Associated Press writers Jim Heintz and Tariq Panja contributed to this report from London.

    Russian Expels 4 British Diplomats, NYT, 19.7.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Poisoned-Spy.html

Cold war diplomacy is back as UK expels spies

Moscow vows retaliation after four agents thrown out over Litvinenko case

Tuesday July 17, 2007
Guardian
Luke Harding in Moscow, Ian Cobain and Julian Borger

The British government was last night bracing itself for an inevitable diplomatic backlash after expelling four Russian intelligence officers in protest at the Kremlin's refusal to hand over the prime suspect in the polonium-210 poisoning affair.

In an attempt to underline the government's anger and alarm over the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, the Foreign Office announced it was ceasing cooperation with Moscow on a range of issues, starting with the imposition of restrictions on visas issued to Russian officials seeking to visit the UK.

All four individuals being expelled are officers with one of the successor organisations to the KGB, a clear signal that British authorities strongly suspect that Russian intelligence agencies had a hand in the murder. David Miliband, the foreign secretary, told the Commons yesterday: "This response is proportional and it is clear at whom it is aimed."

Last night Gordon Brown, arriving for talks in Germany, said Britain wanted a constructive relationship with Russia, but added: "When a murder is committed on British soil, action has to be taken."

"We believe there should be cooperation from the Russian authorities in this. We are sad that cooperation is not forthcoming. We have therefore had to take the action we have taken and we hope we can have a resolution of this matter shortly."

The Kremlin immediately vowed to make an "adequate response" - widely expected to include the tit-for-tat expulsion of British diplomats today. The Russian foreign ministry denounced the British move as "immoral and provocative", with a spokesman warning it would have "the most serious consequences" for relations between the two countries.

It said: "The decision taken by London confirms a flare-up in Russophobic sentiments in British society and political circles, which have recently spread to its foreign policy. Given this situation, Miliband's statement that the UK would like to see Russia as a partner on the international scene looks naive."

One Kremlin adviser, Sergey Markov, told the Guardian the mood within the Russian government was "cold and angry", and accused the British of behaving in a high-handed and "imperial" manner.

Mr Miliband told MPs that the impasse was one that Britain had "not sought and does not welcome". However, Mr Litvinenko, who had taken British citizenship, had "suffered a horrifying and lingering death", and his murder had "put hundreds of others, residents and visitors, at risk of radiation contamination".

In refusing to extradite Andrei Lugovoi, the Russian businessman suspected of persuading Mr Litvinenko to sip a poisoned cup of tea at a London hotel, Moscow had failed to acknowledge the seriousness of the crime or the British government's concern, Mr Miliband said.

He added that it was necessary to send a "clear and proportionate signal" to Russia about the seriousness with which Britain regarded the matter. "Given the importance of this issue, and Russia's failure to cooperate to find a solution, we need an appropriate response. The heinous crime of murder does require justice."

The Russian prosecutor general told the Crown Prosecution Service last week that Moscow could not hand over Mr Lugovoi because the country's constitution forbids the extradition of its citizens. However, British government officials believe extradition may have been possible.

Hinting that he was taking action in part to protect other Russians resident in the UK, who may fear that they too are in danger from Russian intelligence officers, Mr Miliband added: "The UK has a wider duty to ensure the safety of the large Russian community living in the UK."

There are about 30 Russian intelligence officers based in London, according to British counter-intelligence officers, a figure not seen since the end of the cold war. The number is said partly to reflect the Kremlin's growing interest in London's dissident community.

    Cold war diplomacy is back as UK expels spies, G, 17.7.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2128132,00.html

5pm update

Britain expels four Russian diplomats

Monday July 16, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Mark Tran


Relations between Britain and Moscow today took a sharp dive as the foreign secretary, David Miliband, announced the expulsion of four diplomats from the Russian embassy in London.

He told the Commons the move was intended to "send a clear and proportionate signal" to Russia of the seriousness with which Britain viewed Russia's refusal to extradite the ex-KGB agent Andrei Lugovoi to stand trial for the murder of Alexander Litvinenko.

"The Russian government has failed to register either how seriously we treat this case or the seriousness of the issues involved, despite lobbying at the highest level and clear explanations of our need for a satisfactory response," Mr Miliband said.

Mr Litvinenko, a former Russian security agent who fled to Britain, died in a London hospital last November from a fatal dose of the extremely rare radioactive isotope polonium 210.

Mr Miliband said Mr Litvinenko suffered a "horrifying and lingering death in front of his family", and said the manner of his murder had put hundreds of others at risk of radiation poisoning. He said police had "assembled a significant body of evidence" against Mr Lugovoi.

The foreign secretary announced a package of additional measures, including a suspension of recent efforts to speed up the visa application process for Russian citizens and changes to the way Russian government officials get visas.

He said international agreements meant Mr Lugovoi could be extradited if he left Russia.

Foreign Office officials are bracing themselves for immediate and furious reprisals from Moscow, which could include the tit-for-tat expulsion of UK diplomats. The escalating row comes amid deteriorating relations between Russia and the west.

The Russian state-run news agency said officials in Moscow were promising an "appropriate" response.

On Saturday, the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, signed a decree suspending Russia's obligations under a cold war pact, the conventional forces in Europe (CFE) treaty, which limits the number of aircraft and tanks that can be used on the continent.

The Russian decision stems from Moscow's anger at US plans to build missile defence bases in the Czech Republic and Poland.

Russian prosecutors last week formally announced that Mr Lugovoi would not be handed over to the UK, on the grounds that Russia's constitution prevents his extradition.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) announced in May that it would seek the extradition of Mr Lugovoi to face trial for the murder of Mr Litvinenko, a critic of the Kremlin who had close links with expatriate dissidents in the UK and the US.

Downing Street officials have said privately that the Kremlin could have delivered Mr Lugovoi for trial in London, had it wished. At a minimum, Britain wanted Moscow to clearly signal its regret over Mr Litvinenko's killing and to ensure nothing similar happened again. No such signal has been forthcoming.

Downing Street last week described Moscow's refusal to cooperate as "extremely disappointing".

Mr Putin has dismissed Britain's request for Mr Lugovoi's extradition as "stupidity". A campaign of harassment has been waged against Britain's ambassador in Moscow, Tony Brenton, by activists from the Russian youth group Nashi.

Pro-Kremlin protesters have picketed the British embassy, jumped in front of the ambassador's car and heckled his speeches.

The anti-UK campaign has spread to the British Council, which has been raided by tax officials wearing balaclavas, and was last month told to move out of its offices in the city of Yekaterinburg. At the same time, both BP and Shell have been forced to yield major gas field assets to Russia's state gas firm, Gazprom.

Since the CPS charged Mr Lugovoi with murder, Kremlin officials have encouraged the Russian media to blame Mr Litvinenko's death on the exiled Russian former oligarch Boris Berezovsky and MI6.

Russian television channels have run lengthy interviews with a Russian who claimed that MI6 tried to hire him, and that Mr Litvinenko poisoned himself. At a recent press conference, Mr Lugovoi blamed the murder on the former prime minister Tony Blair, Mr Berezovsky and the Georgian mafia.

The director of public prosecutions, Sir Ken McDonald QC, has made clear that it would not be "acceptable" for Mr Lugovoi to be tried in Russia, where the court system is susceptible to political pressure.

Mr Putin is personally incensed by the UK's failure to extradite Mr Berezovsky to Moscow, where he has been charged with money-laundering and attempting to plot a coup against the president.

Mr Litvinenko, who lived in north London with his wife and young son, died last November, aged 44, three weeks after being poisoned at the Millennium hotel in Mayfair with radioactive polonium-210. His associates later claimed he wrote a deathbed statement accusing Mr Putin of being behind his poisoning.

Despite serious political differences between EU member states and Russia, trade and investment are at an all-time high.

The EU industry commissioner, Günter Verheugen, told reporters after talks in Moscow that increasing numbers of investors from EU countries were putting their money into Russia.

"The reality today is a little bit paradoxical," said Mr Verheugen, who is also an EU vice-president. "Economic cooperation is really booming ... but we have some political irritants, to say the least."

The EU is Russia's top trading partner and Russia is the EU's third-largest trading partner.

"You see the figures," he said. "It's booming. We are moving from a record high to another record high ... I cannot see the negative effects. This is quite amazing but it's true."

    Britain expels four Russian diplomats, G, 16.7.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2127730,00.html

1.45pm

Brown restates commitment to US alliance

Friday July 13, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Mark Tran

Gordon Brown today insisted he would work closely with the Bush administration, after one of his cabinet allies hinted at a shift away from the US.

Mr Brown, who is scheduled to meet President George Bush in Washington in a few weeks' time, said Britain and the US would remain close.

"We will not allow people to separate us from the United States of America in dealing with the common challenges that we face around the world," Mr Brown told Radio Five Live. "I will continue to work, as Tony Blair did, very closely with the American administration."

Downing Street had earlier moved to dispel the impression that Britain was seeking to distance itself from the Bush administration, following a speech in the US by Douglas Alexander, the trade and development secretary.

Mr Alexander had called in his speech for the virtues of "soft power" to be recognised. He told an audience in Washington that nations had to build "new alliances" that "reach out to the world".

In a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations which emphasised the importance of multilateralism as opposed to unilateralism, Mr Alexander said: "In the 20th century, a country's might was too often measured in what they could destroy. In the 21st century, strength should be measured by what we can build together. And so we must form new alliances based on common values, ones not just to protect us from the world, but ones which reach out to the world."

He added: "We need to demonstrate by our deeds, words and our actions that we are internationalist, not isolationist, multilateralist, not unilateralist, active and not passive, and driven by core values, consistently applied, not special interests."

The prime minister's spokesman rubbished suggestions in the press that the speech heralded a significant shift in relations between the UK and the US.

"I thought the interpretation that was put on Douglas Alexander's words was quite extraordinary," he said.

"To interpret this as saying anything at all about our relationship with the US is nonsense."

Mr Brown has spoken to Mr Bush three times since becoming prime minister, including a lengthy video conference call earlier this week.

He will make his first overseas trip as prime minister next week for talks with the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, in Berlin. Shortly afterwards he will have talks in Paris with the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy. He will then go to Washington.

In an interview with the BBC, Mr Alexander said Britain's relationship with Washington was important as part of a wider framework.

"Gordon Brown has made very clear that he regards a strong relationship with the US as being one of the fundamental bases of his foreign policy," he said.

"But he also wants to see strong relationships with our partners within the European Union, and indeed growing and strong relationships with China and India, emerging powers in Asia."

    Brown restates commitment to US alliance, G, 13.7.2007, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,,2125837,00.html

'I'm fine': hungry and bitten by mosquitoes,
British three-year-old is released by Nigerian kidnappers

· Father of snatched child says no ransom was paid
· Intense security service pressure led to freedom

Monday July 9, 2007
Guardian
Sarah Knapton


Margaret Hill, the three-year-old British girl abducted by gunmen in southern Nigeria last week, was last night released and returned to her parents. She was unharmed apart from a rash of mosquito bites, and apparently in good spirits as she told reporters on the telephone that she was "fine".

The little girl, who was seized from a chauffeur-driven car on her way to school last Thursday, was released after Nigerian security services piled pressure on the group holding her, according to her father, Mike Hill. "She's in a bit of a trance," he said. "She is covered in mosquito bites. I am going to have to get her to the clinic, because she will need some injections. She's been in the bush. And I don't think they fed her very much."

"There was no ransom paid," he told Sky News. "The kidnappers told my wife to go and meet them. She was released due to the pressure put on the people by the security services in Nigeria."

The gang grabbed Margaret in the Nigerian oil capital, Port Harcourt, smashing the windows of the car with their weapons and stabbing the driver in the arm before snatching the child. Her Nigerian-born mother, Oluchi Hill, received a call hours later saying they would kill her daughter unless her husband agreed to swap places with the child. Police advised him against doing so, while the Foreign Office in London and the Nigerian president, Umaru Yar'Adua, demanded her safe release.

Mr Hill, who has lived in Nigeria for more than 10 years, is a British oil industry consultant working for a Texan company, Lone Star. Last night he let Margaret answer reporters' questions on the telephone.

"Fine", she replied when asked how she was. "OK", she said when asked how it felt to see her mother and father again.

It is believed the kidnappers kept her in a small hut in the Niger Delta, a vast malarial wetlands.

Mr Hill said he never spoke to the kidnappers, who had insisted on communicating only with his wife because she was seen as the "weakest link". Last night, speaking from the headquarters of the state security services, Mrs Hill said: "I am very very happy."

The foreign secretary, David Miliband, said he was "delighted" that the child was safe and thanked those who worked to secure her freedom. "I am grateful to the Nigerian authorities for all their help and I hope the perpetrators will be swiftly brought to justice," he said. "Foreign Office consular staff in Nigeria have been working closely with the [Nigerian] authorities throughout and, of course, Margaret Hill's family, and will continue to provide consular support as required."

Last month the Foreign Office warned all British nationals not to go to Port Harcourt or the surrounding core oil-producing region of Rivers, Delta and Bayelsa states following a spate of kidnappings in the country's oilfields. Abductions have increasingly been carried out by criminal gangs demanding ransoms.

Margaret was the third child to be seized in six weeks, but she was the first foreign youngster to be abducted.

Since the beginning of this year, 149 expatriates, including nine Britons, and 21 Nigerians have been abducted. Most have been released after payment of a ransom. Eighteen are still being held. Four foreigners and 20 Nigerians have been killed in the course of abductions.

Mr Hill said the kidnapping would not force him to leave the country. He added: "I don't have a problem with Nigeria. I think 99% of the people are quite good, but it's the 1% of people that spoil them."

    'I'm fine': hungry and bitten by mosquitoes, British three-year-old is released by Nigerian kidnappers, G, 9.7.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2122021,00.html

Kidnappers threaten to kill three-year-old

· Child hostage in Nigeria in 'good health' say police
· Plan to swap girl for father rejected by officials

Saturday July 7, 2007
Guardian
Julian Borger and David Pallister

Margaret Hill, the three-year-old British girl kidnapped in the Nigerian coastal city of Port Harcourt on Thursday, was said to be in good health last night, according to the local police, despite threats from her captors that they would kill her.

The girl's mother, Oluchi Hill, said the kidnappers had phoned her to demand money but that the connection had been broken before they could specify an amount. She said she had been allowed to talk to her daughter briefly

"She was crying. She said they gave her only water. She wants to come back," Mrs Hill told Reuters. She said the man she spoke to then issued a direct threat. "He said he doesn't care about killing and burying the baby," she said.

The kidnappers said they would let her husband, Michael, a British oil industry consultant, take the child's place but the police objected, Mrs Hill said.

"They say I can bring my husband to swap with the baby," she told the BBC. "He wanted to go down for his baby but the police commander told him not to."

A police spokeswoman, Ireju Barasua, would not comment on the case yesterday other than to insist that the kidnapped girl was unharmed. "She's in good health. There's nothing wrong with her," Mrs Barasua said, but he would not say where the police had got the information.

The Nigerian State Security Services (SSS), the local police and British consular officials were yesterday urgently trying to secure Margaret's release. The Hill family issued a statement through the Foreign Office saying: "You are well aware of the effects that this terrible situation will be having on us as a family. We are very grateful for their support and ask the media to please leave us to work with others to try and bring our daughter home safely."

Margaret Hill was grabbed by a group of gunmen who smashed the windows of the car taking her to school and stabbed the driver. It was the third child abduction in Port Harcourt in two months, and there have been more than 170 cases of kidnapping since the beginning of the year. Almost all the abductees have been released after negotiation.

Most of the victims have been foreign oil workers, who are targeted by rebels who want oil revenues to be invested in the desperately poor Niger Delta region. However, the main rebel group, Mend (Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta), yesterday expressed outrage at the abduction of children and vowed to help find the missing child. "We will join in the hunt for the monsters who carried out this abduction and mete out adequate punishment for this crime. We abhor all forms of violence against women and children," Mend said in a statement to the Associated Press.

The Rivers State authorities yesterday offered an amnesty and one million naira (nearly £4,000) to militants or gang-members who hand themselves in and surrender their weapons. The offer was made by Hassan Tam Douglas, the chairman of the state's Peace and Rehabilitation Committee. Judging by postings by Port Harcourt residents on an online message board, there was little confidence such measures would achieve anything other than the enrichment of criminal gangs.

    Kidnappers threaten to kill three-year-old, G, 7.7.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2120796,00.html

Scepticism hangs over Blair's appointment as quartet envoy

· Former PM to help build Palestinian institutions
· No formal role in finding permanent solution

Thursday June 28, 2007
Guardian
Ian Black, Julian Borger, and Rory McCarthy in Jerusalem

Tony Blair is to make his first working visit to Ramallah in the West Bank next month as envoy of the quartet of Middle East peacemakers, it emerged yesterday, after his job was confirmed amid scepticism about any chance of his success.

His role of quartet representative was announced jointly in New York by the US, EU, UN and Russia. Mr Blair will work on building government institutions and the rule of law, mobilising international help, and promoting the economy.

"He will spend significant time in the region working with the parties and others to help create viable and lasting government institutions representing all Palestinians, a robust economy, and a climate of law and order for the Palestinian people," the quartet said in a statement.

They stopped short of giving Mr Blair an explicit role as mediator between the Israelis and Palestinians in the peace process, but did give a broad remit to "liaise with other countries as appropriate in support of the agreed quartet objectives". Sources close to Mr Blair said he expected his role to be bigger than that assigned to his predecessor, James Wolfensohn, a former World Bank president who resigned in frustration in April 2006 after focusing just on the economy, on preparation for Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.

Mr Blair sees his role as preparing ground for eventual talks on a final, comprehensive settlement by Palestinians and Israelis, with his immediate task to help to halt the violence between Fatah and Hamas and heal the divide.

His appointment left some egos battered and generated controversy. Russia demanded last minute changes to the terms of reference, clarifying his precise status. Mr Blair also spoke to Vladimir Putin, Russia's president.

Gordon Brown was described as angry at being presented with a fait accompli, making it difficult for him to formulate his own Middle East policy.

"This keeps Blair interminably in the limelight," said a top diplomat, noting the former PM will report to the UN general assembly in September, just as Mr Brown makes his maiden appearance.

Javier Solana, EU foreign policy chief, with a long track-record in the region, is also unhappy, Brussels sources say. The Foreign Office, where top officials knew nothing until last Thursday, is said to be in an "institutional sulk".

Mr Blair is understood to have spoken to Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, and his prime minister, Salam Fayyad, who are happy with the appointment. He also spoke to Israel's prime minister, Ehud Olmert. Jonathan Powell, No 10's former chief of staff, is to work with Mr Blair. Other officials may follow suit, making a team of a dozen experts to be based in East Jerusalem.

Mr Blair is not being asked to run talks between the Palestinians and Israel, but he will seek Israel's cooperation in areas such as free movement and access. It was failure to make progress on these which led to Mr Wolfensohn's resignation.

"The quartet recognise that you can't make significant progress on Palestinian institutions and capabilities without getting the Israelis to help," said a well-placed official. "If they want a partner for peace they have to enable improvements. Obviously we hope there will be a political process but this is an essential component. You won't get the US and Israel moving until they feel this issue is being tackled."

The White House last night appeared to play down expectations over what he might achieve, saying progress depended on Palestinians first renouncing terrorism. "Tony Blair is going to have the opportunity to work with and in support of those who support democracy and peace in the region, and that's what he does. He's not Superman, he doesn't have a cape," said Tony Snow, George Bush's spokesman.

"He's not designed to be doing that. What he is designed to do is to work as an aggressive facilitator between the quartet and interested parties to try to look for ways to make progress."

Mr Blair will coordinate donors and agencies such as the UN Relief and Works Agency, a task currently carried out through an ad hoc liaison committee. Another hot issue is reform of the Palestinian police.

It is already clear he will face one grave problem, as Israel makes clear that it will not contemplate any dealings with Hamas, and intends to back Mr Abbas to the hilt. Critics say talk of Palestinian governance and capacity building is meaningless if it ignores 1.4 million people in the Gaza and institutionalises a West Bank/Gaza schism, critics say.

"No one doubts Blair's status and commitment," said a figure closely involved in the quartet deliberations. "He came fresh to Northern Ireland, but he's not coming fresh to this. He has an extraordinary amount of baggage. And he's coming in at the worst possible moment."

In public, Palestinian leaders welcomed Mr Blair's appointment. In private, there was scepticism. "Is he going to be listened to? Are his comments going to be respected? Can he really intervene?" asked Hanan Ashrawi, a Palestinian MP and former peace negotiator. She said the Palestinians did not need help building up their institutions. "We need third party involvement to achieve peace, to curb Israeli measures, to end the occupation and to build a state."

Israelis also noted their government was reluctant to have an international mediator trying to strike a peace deal. "It doesn't matter who the middle man is, or if there is a middle man at all. If the sides are interested, it can happen, if they are not, it doesn't matter who you bring," said Cameron Brown, deputy director of the Interdisciplinary Centre in Herzliya.

    Scepticism hangs over Blair's appointment as quartet envoy, G, 28.6.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2113169,00.html

5.30pm

'No individual to blame' for seizure of sailors

Tuesday June 19, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Peter Walker

The capture of 15 UK navy personnel by Iran in the Gulf in March was the result of a series of operational failures and was not the fault of any individual or due to a lack of equipment, a government-commissioned report concluded today.

A separate report into the decision to allow some of the sailors and marines to sell their stories to the media on their return to Britain said this was a mistake and recommended the practice should be banned in the future.

However, this inquiry also concluded that the decision was not the fault of any one person but the result of a more general failure of systems and procedures.

"There is no concealing the fact that, on the most contentious issue, that of payments, the department took its eye off the ball," Bill Jeffrey, permanent undersecretary at the Ministry of Defence, introducing the two reports, told reporters.

On the issue of the initial capture, there was "no suggestion of individual neglect but rather an accumulation of events", the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, told reporters.

The HMS Cornwall personnel were seized by Iranian revolutionary guards as they boarded a merchant ship in the Gulf off the coast of Iraq. They were held for almost two weeks.

Their capture and the chaotic scenes surrounding their return, when two of the crew members, Leading Seaman Faye Turney and the youngest captive, Arthur Bachelor, sold their stories to the press, led to calls for the resignation of the defence secretary, Des Browne.

In April, Mr Browne asked a retired general, Sir Rob Fulton, now governor of Gibraltar, to examine the operational issues behind the capture.

His report remains classified for security reasons. However, speaking about the report to the Commons today, Mr Browne said the main failing it spotted was that of not fully appreciating the "complex and dynamic nature" of the situation in the Gulf at the time.

Gen Fulton's report "is clear that this event was not the result of equipment or resource issues, including helicopter availability, the size and suitability of the [HMS] Cornwall or the size and armaments of the boats available to the boarding party," he said.

The other report, by Tony Hall, former head of BBC news, published this afternoon, called for a ban on future payments to serving military personnel, a suggestion Mr Browne said he accepted fully.

"The principle applying to the issue of payments to serving personnel is that they are only paid once for their work," the report reads.

"It is a normal part of the duties of serving service personnel and MoD civilians to explain their work in public, and this should not attract additional payment."

The decision to allow the personnel to sell their stories involved many people in both the MoD and navy, Mr Hall says in the report.

However, "we have not been able clearly to identify a single person who in practice took the decision to authorise payment, or a clear moment when that authority was given".

"This was a collective failure of judgment, or an abstention from judgment, rather than a failure by any one individual.

"Many people were consulted or involved, but very few took a clear view, and nobody took clear control of the issue.

"Many people could have said no and nobody did."

    'No individual to blame' for seizure of sailors, G, 19.6.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2106682,00.html

2.30pm

UK 'deeply concerned' over Rushdie comments

Tuesday June 19, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Duncan Campbell, Vikram Dodd and Mark Tran

Britain today expressed its "deep concern" over reported comments by a Pakistani minister that Salman Rushdie's knighthood could justify suicide bombings.

The UK's high commissioner, Robert Brinkley, conveyed the message after being summoned to meet Pakistani officials in Islamabad.

"The high commissioner made clear the British government's deep concern at what the minister for religious affairs was reported to have said," a Foreign Office spokesman said.

"The British government is very clear that nothing can justify suicide bomb attacks."

Britain's message came amid continuing protests over Rushdie's controversial knighthood.

The award was intended to recognise the contribution to literature by one of Britain's most high-profile - and much vilified - writers. But the government's decision to give the author of The Satanic Verses a knighthood has generated the kind of international furore that once threatened to engulf his career and put his life at risk.

The Satanic Verses, published in 1988, provoked the ire of many Muslims and led to the issuing of a fatwa in 1989 by the Iranian leader, Ayatollah Khomeini.

Scotland Yard said it did not discuss security arrangements for individuals, although it is acknowledged that Rushdie had round-the-clock armed protection throughout the time of the fatwa.

The Pakistan parliament yesterday called on the government to reverse the decision to award Rushdie a knighthood or face further protests from Muslim nations.

"If someone commits suicide bombing to protect the honour of the Prophet Muhammad, his act is justified," the minister for religious affairs, Ijaz ul-Haq, told Pakistan's national assembly, according to the translation from Urdu by Reuters. He urged Muslim countries to break diplomatic ties with London.

"This is an occasion for the [world's] 1.5 billion Muslims to look at the seriousness of this decision," said Mr ul-Haq, the son of the former Pakistan military leader, Zia ul-Haq. "If Muslims do not unite, the situation will get worse and Salman Rushdie may get a seat in the British parliament."

His comments were reported on local news networks and provoked an angry response around the world. Effigies of the Queen and Rushdie were burned in the eastern Pakistan city of Multan as students chanted "Kill him! Kill him!"

Mr ul-Haq said his main intention had been to examine the root causes of terrorism; he denied he was encouraging suicide bombing. Pakistan's lower house of parliament also passed a resolution condemning the decision to knight the Booker prize winner. "We deplore the decision," said Pakistan foreign ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam yesterday. Rushdie's knighthood would hamper inter-faith understanding, she said. "This we feel is insensitive and we [will] convey our sentiments to the British government."

Mr Brinkley defended the decision to award Rushdie a knighthood and tried to defuse the situation. "It is simply untrue to suggest that this in anyway is an insult to Islam or the Prophet Muhammad, and we have enormous respect for Islam as a religion and for its intellectual and cultural achievements," he said in a statement last night.

The Muslim Council of Britain, while condemning any threats to Rushdie's life, also attacked the decision to grant him a knighthood. "Salman Rushdie earned notoriety among Muslims for the highly insulting and blasphemous manner in which he portrayed early Islamic figures much-loved and honoured by them," Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said. "The insensitive decision to grant Rushdie a knighthood can therefore only do harm to the image of our country in the eyes of hundreds of millions of Muslims across the world," he added. "Many will interpret the knighthood as a final contemptuous parting gift from Tony Blair to the Muslim world."

Labour peer Lord Ahmed said: "It's hypocrisy by Tony Blair who two weeks ago was talking about building bridges to mainstream Muslims, and then he's honouring a man who has insulted the British public and been divisive in community relations."

It is believed Mr Blair was not involved in the decision to knight Rushdie, who has expressed delight at the knighthood. His name was recommended to the Queen by a cabinet office committee.

Career of controversy: A writer greeted with veneration or violence

As he celebrates his 60th birthday today and the award of a knighthood for services to literature, Ahmed Salman Rushdie can look back on a career that has attracted both great admiration and violent controversy.

Educated at the Cathedral School in his native city Bombay, Rugby and Kings College, Cambridge, he came to international prominence through his second novel, Midnight's Children, published in 1981 to universal acclaim. It won him the Booker prize.

His fourth novel, The Satanic Verses, sparked worldwide controversy after its publication. It was condemned by the Islamic world because of its perceived blasphemous depiction of the Prophet Muhammad and Iran's spiritual leader issued a fatwa, forcing the author to go into hiding.

Scotland Yard reported a number of attempts to assassinate Rushdie and he was provided with an armed police guard. The Japanese publisher of the book was killed, others associated with the book suffered attacks and threats. The UK broke off diplomatic relations with Iran; they were only restored in 1998 after the Iranian government had given assurances that they would not harm Rushdie.

Since the time of the fatwa, Rushdie has not had security, either private or through the government. If someone is assessed to be at serious risk, they will be offered security by the police, either on a round-the-clock basis or through regular surveillance of their home.

Rushdie now prefers to spend most of his time in New York, where there are not seen to be as many Islamic extremists as in the UK.

Also the winner of the Booker of Bookers award, Rushdie's other works include Shame (1983), The Moor's Last Sigh (1995) and The Ground Beneath My Feet (1999).

Married three times, currently to Padma Lakshmi, he has two sons. He is based in New York after many years in London.

    UK 'deeply concerned' over Rushdie comments, G, 19.6.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,2106595,00.html

Iran Condemns British Title For Author Rushdie

June 17, 2007
By REUTERS
Filed at 7:59 a.m. ET
The New York Times

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran accused Britain on Sunday of insulting Islam by awarding a knighthood to Salman Rushdie, whose novel "The Satanic Verses" prompted the late Iranian Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to issue a fatwa death warrant for him.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman said Rushdie, awarded for services to literature in Queen Elizabeth's birthday honors list published on Saturday, was "one of the most hated figures" in the Islamic world.

Spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini portrayed the decision as an act directed against Islam by Britain, which is among world powers involved in an escalating standoff with Iran over Tehran's disputed nuclear ambitions.

"Honoring and commending an apostate and hated figure will definitely put the British officials (in a position) of confrontation with Islamic societies," Hosseini said.

"This act shows that insulting Islamic sacred (values) is not accidental. It is planned, organized, guided and supported by some Western countries," he told a regular briefing.

The Islamic Republic's government formally distanced itself in 1998 from the original fatwa against Rushdie, issued in 1989 by Khomeini who said the book committed blasphemy against Islam. Rushdie lived in hiding for nine years.

But shortly after it disavowed the death edict under a deal with Britain, Iranian media said three Iranian clerics called on followers to kill Rushdie, saying the fatwa was irrevocable and that it was the duty of Muslims to carry it out.

Britain's twice-yearly honors ritual -- designed to recognize outstanding achievement -- is part of an ancient and complex honors system. A total of 946 honors were handed out in the birthday list, including 21 knighthoods.

Hosseini said: "Giving a badge to one of the most hated figures in Islamic society is ... an obvious example of fighting against Islam by high-ranking British officials."

London's history of imperial intervention in Iran still overshadows ties between the two countries.

On Thursday, demonstrators pelted the British embassy in Tehran with stones and eggs and condemned anyone attending the queen's annual birthday party as "traitors" and supporters of the "Old Fox" Britain.

In March, Iranian forces seized 15 British servicemen in the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway that separates Iran and Iraq, triggering a diplomatic crisis. Tehran, which said the Britons were in Iranian waters, released them in early April.

Britain and other Western powers accuse Iran of seeking to build atom bombs. Iran says its nuclear program is solely aimed at generating electricity so that it can export more of its valuable oil and gas.

    Iran Condemns British Title For Author Rushdie, R, 17.6.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/arts/entertainment-iran-rushdie.html

Iran raises stakes with claim of nuclear leap

Tuesday April 10, 2007
Guardian
Robert Tait in Natanz and Julian Borger

Iran claimed yesterday to have made a dramatic leap forward in its nuclear programme by enriching uranium "on an industrial scale", a move likely to accelerate a collision with the US and strengthen calls in Washington for military action.

In a gesture of defiance to President George Bush and the UN security council, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad trumpeted the claim, making the announcement with pomp and ceremony at the heart of Iran's nuclear programme, the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.

Mr Ahmadinejad claimed "the Iranian nation had joined the group of countries who enriched uranium on an industrial scale", but did not specify what that entailed. Iran's top diplomat, Ari Larijani, said the country had 3,000 centrifuges capable of processing uranium to make either low enriched fuel for generating electricity or - as the west fears - highly-enriched material for a warhead.

Before an audience that included his cabinet, senior mullahs and dozens of foreign ambassadors, Mr Ahmadinejad warned security council members that Iran would "reconsider its treatment towards them" if they continued to oppose its nuclear ambitions. "They have seen again and again that our nation is powerful enough to do that," he said to chants of "death to Britain", "death to America" and "death to Israel". "I advise them to observe the legal rights of different nations and stop monopolising, because that will not be to their benefit."

Whatever the truth of the Iranian claims, there was no mistaking the disdain shown for two mild sanctions packages passed by the security council so far, and the threat of more if Iran does not cease uranium enrichment by May 24.

There are also voices inside the Bush administration and the Israeli government calling for military action before Iran acquires the capacity to build a bomb. Yesterday's ceremony will have strengthened their claims that diplomacy and UN sanctions are having no effect.

Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the US state department, said the international community did not "believe Iran's assurances that their programme is peaceful in nature". The White House said it was "very concerned" that Tehran had started industrial atomic work.

In London, the Foreign Office said Britain might use its presidency of the security council this month to discuss Iran's new claims, as well as the 13-day hostage crisis involving the 15 UK service personnel.

The latest UN sanctions package, passed unanimously by the security council on March 24, included a ban on Iranian arms exports and the freezing of assets of several leaders of the revolutionary guard and Iran's fifth biggest bank. British and US officials have suggested that the pressure so far has opened fissures in Tehran over the wisdom of its nuclear drive.

Scientists believe that with 3,000 centrifuges operating smoothly and continually, Iran would have enough highly enriched uranium for a bomb within nine months. However, nuclear analysts in the US and Britain say the Iranian leadership may be exaggerating its progress. They question whether Iranian scientists have mastered spinning such a large number of the very delicate machines at once.

"I think it's a boast," Mark Fitzpatrick, a former US state department expert on non-proliferation who is now at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said. "I don't believe they have 3,000 centrifuges running in Natanz. There's not been any evidence yet they can even run test cascades [arrays of centrifuges] in a continuous manner."

The UN estimate is that the Iranians have installed only 1,000 centrifuges so far in Natanz and have not yet started enriching uranium with them. UN inspectors are due to visit the site this month to check.

Mr Ahmadinejad went out of his way to project national unity and determination yesterday. The televised ceremony featured nationalistic songs played live by an orchestra. Journalists were bused to the event, passing anti-aircraft missile batteries on the approaches to the site in central Iran. It marked the anniversary of last year's announcement that Iran had achieved its nuclear fuel cycle, a development that raised tensions with the west.

Mr Ahmadinejad said Iran was on course to produce 20,000 MW of nuclear-generated electricity and would not be deterred by the UN. "Our peaceful programme is a test for the security council, particularly its permanent members," he said. "Their decision shows how far they are committed to observing international and national rights and upholding justice."

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's atomic watchdog, predicted last month that Iran would achieve industrial capacity in uranium this summer. It is a moment experts at the IAEA feared as a potential point of no return, because it puts the country within reach of making a warhead. "It is capacity that is the proliferation risk, not the know-how itself," said one IAEA diplomat.

The agency acknowledges it has no proof that Iran is seeking to make a bomb, but says Tehran has not been entirely forthcoming with information in many areas. In its last report in March, it said Iran had stopped the agency's 24-hour surveillance of the Natanz enrichment plant.

    Iran raises stakes with claim of nuclear leap, G, 10.4.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2053452,00.html

10.30am

Hostage tells of execution fears

Monday April 9, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies

The sole woman among the 15 British personnel held captive in Iran revealed today that she feared her captors had measured her for a coffin.

As criticism continued over the Ministry of Defence's decision to allow the released captives to sell their stories, an interview with Leading Seaman Faye Turney appeared in today's Sun.

In the interview, the mother of one said a woman had come into her small cell and measured her from head to toe, while she could hear the sound of wood sawing and nails being hammered.

Ms Turney said: "She shouted the measurements to a man outside. I was convinced they were making my coffin."

The 25-year-old said the worst thing that happened to her was that she was kept alone and told her colleagues had been released.

Recalling the moment she was separated from her colleagues, she said: "With a blindfold on, I was led away from the rest of the guys. All I could hear from behind me was one of them shout, 'they're going to execute us'."

The sailor was then "thrown into a tiny cell" and ordered to strip off. She said: "They took everything apart from my knickers."

Ms Turney - who was released with her colleagues last week after almost a fortnight in captivity - said she was threatened with years in prison if she did not cooperate with her Iranian captors, and described her disgust at being made to write letters questioning the UK government's policies.

The Iranians had told her she would be free in two weeks if she confessed to being in Iranian waters, she said, and she was given just an hour to think what to do. She was worried everyone in Britain would hate her but she made sure nothing she wrote would damage security.

It is thought that Ms Turney has agreed a joint deal with the Sun and ITV's Tonight with Trevor McDonald for close to £100,000; it has been reported some of this will go to a charity linked to HMS Cornwall, the frigate which the patrol crew were operating from when their two small craft were intercepted in the Gulf by Iranian forces on March 23.

Also today, the youngest captive, Arthur Batchelor, 20, also spoke of his time in Iranian hands, saying guards had nicknamed him Mr Bean and that they had all feared they would be sexually abused.

Operator Mechanic Batchelor told the Daily Mirror that Ms Turney had risked beatings from guards for whispering reassurances to him after they were snatched.

He said: "It was beyond terrifying. They seemed to take particular pleasure in mocking me for being young. A guard kept flicking my neck with his index finger and thumb. I thought the worst ... I was frozen in terror and just stared into the darkness of my blindfold."

The Ministry of Defence said it had waived normal rules to allow the sailors to be paid for speaking to the media because of the "exceptional circumstances" of their capture.

However, the move has brought criticism from families of other personnel killed in conflict zones, and warnings from opposition politicians and former senior military personnel that it will set a dangerous precedent.

Major General Patrick Cordingly, who commanded the Desert Rats during the 1991 Gulf war, told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: "I think it's unfortunate the MoD are using the sailors and marines in this way.

"They are using them almost as a propaganda tool and it seems to be encouraging us to feel irritated with Iran rather than dialogue going on. We are just compounding the problem by the way we are dealing with it."

The major said the move had left him depressed because he had thought the team had handled itself so well at the initial press conference and did not "overplay" their unpleasant experience.

Royal Navy Lieutenant Felix Carman, one of the 15 captives, told GMTV that neither he nor Royal Marine Captain Chris Air had accepted money for their stories because they wanted "to tell their side of it".

Lt Carman said: "I personally find the subject (of being paid to speak about the ordeal) a bit unsavoury, but I don't begrudge people who have been through an awful ordeal making a bit of money out of this. In the case of Faye Turney, she has a young daughter and the money could set her up for life."

Former Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie claimed on the programme he would not have paid for the released personnel's stories. "Curiously enough I don't think I'd touch it with a bargepole, to be honest, I think there's nothing but downsides for everyone connected with this," he told Today.

    Hostage tells of execution fears, G, 9.4.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2053165,00.html

4.30pm update

Blair renews criticism of Iran as sailors arrive home

Thursday April 5, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies


Fifteen British sailors and marines held captive by Iran for nearly a fortnight arrived home today, as Tony Blair attacked Tehran for what he called its continued support for terrorism.

The British Airways flight from Tehran touched down at Heathrow at 12:02pm. Soon afterwards, the 14 men and one woman, now dressed in uniform rather than the Iranian-provided suits in which they boarded the plane, crossed the landing strip to a pair of Sea King helicopters waiting to transfer them to their home base in Devon.

At exactly 2.30pm the helicopters landed at the Royal Marines base at Chivenor, near Barnstaple. The former captives disembarked before assembling next to the officers' mess, waving at relatives and colleagues watching from inside.

After a short pause, those waiting were allowed to run and greet the group with hugs and embraces. The released personnel and their families then shared a leisurely lunch, to be followed by a debriefing and medical check up.

Air Chief Marshall Sir Jock Stirrup, who greeted the 15, said they seemed "very happy and in good shape". He added: "They did exactly what they should have done and we are extremely proud of them."

At the very moment the group's plane arrived in London, the prime minister's generally conciliatory tone towards Iran of recent days took a noticeably tougher turn, and he warned that "elements of the Iranian regime" were still arming insurgents inside Iraq.

Mr Blair contrasted the rejoicing at the sailors' return with the "sober and ugly reality" of events in Iraq.

He told reporters outside No 10, there was "grieving and mourning" for four UK soldiers killed overnight in a roadside explosion near Basra, southern Iraq.

They were killed at around 2am local time by a roadside bomb attack targeting their Warrior armoured vehicle patrol. A civilian Kuwaiti translator was also killed in the attack and a fifth British soldier was left seriously injured.

Mr Blair said it was too early to link this attack with Iran definitively, but added: "... the general picture, as I have said before, is that there are elements of the Iranian regime that are backing, financing, arming and supporting terrorism in Iraq."

The latest deaths bring the British death toll in Iraq for the last few days to six, making it the bloodiest week for UK forces in Iraq for more than two years.

British and US officials believe that the Quds brigade, a secretive organisation directed by the Iranian spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and part of the Iranian revolutionary guard, is helping to provide insurgents in Iraq with the training and finance to create roadside bombs.

The UK personnel were themselves seized by revolutionary guards on March 23 in waters just outside the Shatt al-Arab waterway separating Iraq and Iran as they searched an Indian-registered vessel.

Iran said the crew's two rigid inflatable boats had strayed into Iranian waters. Britain insisted they had remained well inside Iraqi naval territory at all times.

The lingering standoff, which saw Britain go to the UN security council for support, ended suddenly yesterday when the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, announced he was freeing the captives as a "gift" to Britain.

With the immediate crisis over, Mr Blair lost no time today in sending the message that his willingness to talk about the captives did not mean Britain was softening its attitude towards Iran, which he has previously accused of arming and assisting insurgents inside Iraq.

"The international community has got to remain absolutely steadfast in enforcing its will, whether it is in respect of nuclear weapons or whether it is in respect of the support of any part of the Iranian regime for terrorism, particularly when directed against democratic governments," he said.

The tone was in marked contrast to comments Mr Blair made yesterday when the captives were still in Iran, in which he hailed their imminent release and stressed that Britain held no "ill will" towards the Iranian people.

Britain has expressed annoyance at the way the captives were repeatedly paraded on Iranian television to express their contrition at, they said, having entered Iranian waters.

Following Mr Ahmadinejad's announcement yesterday, the 15 Britons were shown greeting him warmly on the steps of the presidential palace.

A British official said last night that London would continue to study how to avoid a repetition of the crisis and had not ruled out negotiations over boundary disputes in the northern Gulf and the Shatt al-Arab waterway.

Downing Street was adamant the Britons' release was not linked to future talks. "We didn't get into negotiation. This is not a conditional release," said one insider.

However, speculation of a secret deal was raised by a US announcement yesterday that Iranian diplomats might be given access to five Iranians arrested by American soldiers in Iraq, after three months in detention.

    Blair renews criticism of Iran as sailors arrive home, G, 5.4.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2050596,00.html

Freed with a handshake and a pardon from the president

· Iran to release 15 sailors today as a 'gift' to Britain
· Blair denies that secret deal resolved crisis

Thursday April 5, 2007
Guardian
Julian Borger and Will Woodward

Iran and Britain were both claiming last night that the release of the 15 British military personnel vindicated their own strategies in the 13-day standoff that threatened to become a global crisis.

Tony Blair welcomed the surprise Iranian promise to release the captives as a success for the government's "measured approach", but Tehran also claimed that its handling of the situation had won it new respect on the world stage.

As British embassy officials prepared to fly the 15 Britons out of Iran this morning, both sides insisted that they had international law on their side, and both denied that the unexpectedly swift release of the captives was the result of a secret deal.

The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who announced the release towards the end of a 90-minute monologue on regional history and global politics, claimed it was seasonal gift.

"Under the influence of the Muslim Prophet, [Iran] forgives these 15 people and gives their freedom to the British people as a gift," President Ahmadinejad told a news conference in Tehran.

The sailors reportedly shouted with joy on hearing of their imminent release. And in an intriguing footnote to the affair, several were pictured on Iranian television last night, thanking both the Iranian president and people for their generosity.

"Just thank you for letting us go and apologies for our actions, but many thanks for having it in your hearts to let us go free," said Leading seaman Faye Turney. "It was fantastic, we were treated well, we weren't harmed in any way."

Lieutenant Felix Carman, who like the 14 other male service personnel was wearing a new suit apparently provided by the Iranians, said: "I can understand why you were insulted by our apparent intrusion into your waters."

The Foreign Office said that the British ambassador in Iran, Geoffrey Adams, had met the sailors, but added that they had not formally been handed over.

The news was greeted with cheers from the families of the captives, many of whom watched President Ahmadinejad's address in pubs near Plymouth where the naval unit is based.

Mr Blair emerged from 10 Downing Street with Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, to hail the ending to the crisis as a victory for tightrope diplomacy. "We have taken a measured approach, firm but calm, not negotiating but not confronting either," the prime minister said. Addressing the Iranian people directly, he said Britain respected and admired Iran's "ancient civilisation" and "proud and dignified history".

"We bear you no ill will," he said. "The disagreements we have with your government we wish to resolve peacefully through dialogue."

A senior Iranian source - with contacts in the revolutionary guards who took the British naval patrol captive in the northern Gulf on March 23 - said the incident would serve as a lasting lesson to Britain's leaders. "They believe they are in the 19th century and Britain is an empire," the source said. "But we are not Pahlavis [the family of the last Shah] and we are no longer in the British empire."

The Iranian singled out Downing Street for what he called "arrogant behaviour", and said Mrs Beckett had, by contrast, been "fair and diplomatic".

President Ahmadinejad's announcement came as a surprise to British officials. Sir Nigel Sheinwald, the prime minister's chief foreign affairs adviser, had spoken to Iran's chief negotiator, Ari Larijani, at 8pm on Tuesday, for 40 minutes. The contents of the talks remain secret, but encouraged Downing Street to issue an optimistic statement late that night.

The Foreign Office had been told by Iranian diplomats to wait until the end of the president's speech, when they would see "light at the end of the tunnel". They expected good news, but not such an abrupt conclusion to the crisis.

A British official said last night that London would continue to study ways of avoiding a repetition of the crisis, and had not ruled out negotiations over boundary disputes in the northern Gulf and the Shatt al-Arab waterway that separates Iraq and Iran. Throughout the crisis, Iran claimed it arrested the British naval patrol in its own waters. Britain was equally categorical that the patrol had been in Iraqi waters.

Downing Street was adamant the Britons' release was not linked to future talks. "We didn't get into negotiation. This is not a conditional release," said one insider.

However, speculation of a secret deal was raised by a US announcement yesterday that Iranian diplomats might be given access to five Iranians arrested by American soldiers in Iraq, after three months in detention. Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, who has been negotiating consular access to the five Iranians, told the Guardian he had pursued the issue for weeks and there was "no connection whatsoever" to the release of the Britons.

No 10 believes that the end of the crisis is a vindication of Mr Blair's "twin track" approach of getting the backing of the international community on the one hand and pursuing talks with the Iranians on the other. During the first week of the crisis, attempts to establish substantive talks with the Iranians proved futile, hampered by the long public holiday there. The Iranians, too, bridled at UK attempts to bring pressure through the UN and the EU.

At the weekend, however, came the first signs of light. The Iranians sent a letter on Saturday opening up discussion, to which the British replied. Iran did not respond to that directly, but allowed Mr Larijani, to make a conciliatory interview on Channel 4 News. Perplexed but pleased, Downing Street and the Foreign Office responded with positive public statements.

    Freed with a handshake and a pardon from the president, G, 5.4.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2050484,00.html

2.25pm

Iran to release British sailors

Wednesday April 4, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Mark Oliver, Peter Walker and agencies


The 15 British sailors and marines detained in Iran for nearly a fortnight have been formally pardoned and will be released immediately, Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said today.
The 14 men and one woman, detained on March 23, would be released and taken to the airport as soon as his speech was over, he said, calling it a "gift" to Britain at Easter.

"After the news conference they can go to the airport and go back home," he told the ongoing news conference. "They will be going back home today."

The announcement was a distinct surprise, coming at the end of the president's hour-long address to reporters in Tehran, much of which consisted of complaints against Britain and other western nations.

During the address, Mr Ahmadinejad even presented a bravery medal to the commander of the Revolutionary Guard naval patrol which seized the 15 Britons as they searched an Indian-registered merchant ship in the Gulf as part of a routine patrol.

"On behalf of the Iranian people, I want to thank ... the commander who managed to arrest the people who entered our waters," the president said.

Elsewhere in the speech, Mr Ahmadinejad also attacked Britain for sending the crisis over the arrested sailors to the UN Security Council and using "media hype". He additionally launched into a long complaint about the invasion of Iraq, and accused the UN of being institutionally biased against nations such as Iran.

And in a reference to Leading Seaman Faye Turney, the only female among the captured Britons, Mr Ahmadinejad said: "How can you justify seeing a mother away from her home, her children. Why don't they respect the values of families in the west?"

The news follows several days of rising hopes in Britain that the stand-off could soon be resolved, especially after Downing Street confirmed last night that the first high-level direct talks had taken place between British and Iranian officials.

Last night Downing Street said Iran's top diplomat, Ali Larijani, the head of the country's national security council, had spoken by telephone to British officials.

In a statement, No 10 said Tony Blair believed "that both sides share a desire for an early resolution of this issue through direct talks".

Earlier today, Iranian state media reported that Mr Larijani had now spoken to Mr Blair's chief foreign policy adviser, Sir Nigel Sheinwald. Downing Street would not confirm which British officials were involved in the talks, though it is likely Sir Nigel has a role.

In other developments today, Iran's official news agency said an Iranian representative was due to meet five Iranians detained by US forces in Irbil in northern Iraq in January, Reuters reported.

Tehran says the men are diplomats; the US says they are Revolutionary Guards linked to insurgents in Iraq. There have been claims that Tehran orchestrated the seizure of the British crew with a view to an exchange for Iranian captives. The US president, George Bush, said yesterday that he agreed with Mr Blair that there should be no "quid pro quos when it comes to the hostages".

More indications emerged today of the role Syria is playing in the diplomacy. The Syrian foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem, told the newspaper Al-Anba that the situation needed "quiet diplomacy", which Syria was involved in. Syria has long been the Arab country closest to Iran, a non-Arab state.

    Iran to release British sailors, NYT, 4.4.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2049996,00.html

Iran to Release 15 Britons Held Since March 23

April 4, 2007
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The New York Times

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday that Iran would free the 15 detained British sailors and marines as a gift to the British people.

He pardoned the sailors and announced they would be released following a news conference at which he pinned a medal on the chest of the Iranian coast guard commander who intercepted the sailors and marines in the northern Gulf on March 23.

Ahmadinejad said Iran will never accept trespassing in its territorial waters.

"On behalf of the great Iranian people, I want to thank the Iranian coast guard who courageously defended and captured those who violated their territorial waters," he said.

"We are sorry that British troops remain in Iraq and their sailors are being arrested in Iran," Ahmadinejad said.

He criticized Britain for deploying Leading Seaman Faye Turney, one of the 15 detainees, in the Gulf, pointing out that she is a woman with a child.

"How can you justify seeing a mother away from her home, her children? Why don't they respect family values in the West?" he asked of the British government.

    Iran to Release 15 Britons Held Since March 23, NYT, 4.4.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Iran-Britain.html?hp

Britain vs Iran: A high-stakes game of chess

The Pawn: Iranian diplomat is released by Iraq as hostage crisis enters crucial stage
The Gambit: Margaret Beckett says Britain is 'ready to engage' with Tehran
The Endgame? Hopes rise that British sailors may be freed through prisoner exchange

Published: 04 April 2007
The Independent
By Patrick Cockburn

The stand-off over the 15 British sailors and marines captured by Iran looks to be moving towards a de facto prisoner exchange, despite denials by Britain and Iran that a swap was intended.

The first sign of a breakthrough yesterday was the release of Jalal Sharafi, an Iranian diplomat abducted from the streets of Baghdad two months ago, whom Iran claimed had been seized by Iraqi commandos controlled by the US. At the same time, an Iraqi Foreign Ministry official said the Iraqi government was "intensively" seeking the release of five Iranian officials captured in a US helicopter raid on a long-established Iranian liaison office in the Kurdish capital of Arbil in January.

The rhetoric in Tehran and London became more diplomatic as Tony Blair said the next two days would be "fairly critical" in resolving the crisis, though the Prime Minister gave no details. Iran continues to deny it seized the British naval detachment in the northern Persian Gulf on 23 March to force an exchange of hostages, while Britain said it would not bargain for their release.

The seizure of the sailors and marines was the latest episode in a series of tit-for-tat confrontations between the US and Iran which began, as The Independent revealed yesterday, when the US tried to seize senior Iranian intelligence officials on an official visit to Arbil on 11 January. The raid failed and only succeeded in detaining five Iranian officials at the liaison office, which has now been officially recognised as a consular office.

Senior Kurdish officials told The Independent that the real US targets were Mohammed Jafari, the powerful deputy head of the Supreme National Security Council, and General Minojahar Frouzanda, the head of intelligence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. They had visited President Jalal Talabani of Iraq at Dokan near Sulaimaniyah and then gone on to Arbil where they saw Massoud Barzani, president of the Kurdistan regional government, at his headquarters outside the city.

The Arbil raid came a few hours after an aggressive address to the nation by President George Bush, in which he denounced Iran as America's great enemy in Iraq. It has been followed by a series of tit-for-tat incidents such as the attempted abduction of five US soldiers in a highly sophisticated attack near the holy city of Kerbala, south of Baghdad, in which the assailants first tried to take prisoner the US soldiers but later killed them. The US blamed the episode on Iraqi Shias acting as proxies for Iran.

Though there was greater optimism yesterday about the British hostages being released, the Iranians have a tradition of blowing hot and cold in negotiations and drawing them out to extract the last possible advantage from the situation.

The release of Mr Sharafi is a hopeful sign. He was seized in mysterious circumstances on 4 February by uniformed men. Iran and some Shia politicians in Baghdad said they were from the 36th Commando Unit of the Iraqi Army that was, in practice, controlled by the US. Mr Sharafi has now returned to Tehran. The US denies any role in his disappearance. At the same time, immediately after the Arbil raid, the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, revealed that President Bush had approved a policy of raiding Iranian targets on Iraqi soil.

Neither Mr Sharafi, a second secretary at the embassy, nor the five Iranian officials seized in Arbil seem to have been important figures. Mr Sharafi was involved in plans to open a branch of the Iranian national bank in Baghdad. One of the captives from Arbil was described by the US as a senior officer of the Quds Force, an elite unit of Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

American and British claims that there was no connection between the capture of Iranian officials on 11 January and the seizure of the British sailors and marines was undermined yesterday when the Iraqi Foreign Ministry official said his government was also working "intensively" for the release of those five other Iranians to "help in the release of the British sailors and marines".

In Washington, President Bush signalled the same: "I also strongly support the Prime Minister's declaration that there should be no quid pro quos when it comes to the hostages," he said.

With the stand-off at a sensitive stage, Britain reacted with caution to the release yesterday of a new picture of the captives on the website of Iran's Fars News Agency, an apparent breach of the understanding that no more such photographs would be published. The picture, apparently a still taken from a video, showed six sailors squatting on a carpet in a room, wearing blue, black and red tracksuits.

Britain had expressed outrage over the airing of videos of the service personnel last week. The British also froze most diplomatic contacts with Iran. On Monday, an Iranian state-run television station said all 15 of the Britons had confessed to entering Iranian waters illegally.

How the world reacted to our story

John Nichols, writing on The Nation magazine's blog

"President Bush describes Iran's seizure of 15 British sailors and marines as "inexcusable behaviour". But did the Bush administration's anti-Iran machinations lead to the escalation in tensions that culminated in the seizure of the Brits? One of the finest reporters on Middle East affairs argues that this is precisely the case."

USA Today (website)

"A British newspaper is reporting that Iran seized 15 British sailors in retaliation for a botched attempt by US forces to capture two high-ranking Iranian officials while they were visiting the Kurdish portion of Iraq earlier this year. 'Early on the morning of 11 January, helicopter-borne US forces launched a surprise raid on a long-established Iranian liaison office in the city of Arbil in Iraqi Kurdistan. They captured five relatively junior Iranian officials whom the US accuses of being intelligence agents and still holds,' Patrick Cockburn reports in The Independent."

Fox News (website)

"A botched attempt by the US to abduct two senior Iranian officials on a visit to Iraq 10 weeks ago was the flashpoint for the current crisis in which [Iran] detained 15 British troops in the Persian Gulf, The Independent reported. The US move happened on the morning of January 11, when forces carried out a surprise raid on an established Iranian liaison's office in northern Iraq, the newspaper claimed."

Mother Jones (liberal magazine)

"This is precisely how wars get started, an act of aggression by one side followed by an act of retaliation by the other, tit for tat until someone gets nuked. Patrick Cockburn reports that Iran's capture of 15 British marines and sailors was a direct response to a botched US operation in January, when the military snatched 5 Iranians in Arbil - identified as members of a Revolutionary Guard, or Pasdaran, unit - who were suspected of arming insurgents."

    Britain vs Iran: A high-stakes game of chess, I, 4.4.2007, http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2418427.ece

Direct talks with regime lift hopes of deal

· Both sides want an early resolution, says Blair
· UK delegation ready to fly out to gain breakthrough

Wednesday April 4, 2007
Guardian
Julian Borger, Michael Howard in Baghdad and Ewen MacAskill in Washington

British officials last night held direct talks for the first time with Iran's influential chief international negotiator on the 15 military personnel seized in the Gulf, raising hopes of breaking a 12-day stalemate.

Tony Blair said he believed both sides now wanted "an early resolution" to the stand-off, following the contact with Iran's national security council head, Ali Larijani.

"There have been further contacts between the United Kingdom and Iran this evening, including directly with Dr Ali Larijani," Downing Street said. "On the basis of these, the prime minister believes that both sides share a desire for an early resolution of this issue through direct talks."

Dr Larijani had earlier indicated that Iran wanted the matter resolved diplomatically, and called for a delegation to come to Iran to judge whether the crew had been in Iranian or Iraqi waters as a first precondition for their release.

Last night, a British delegation, probably consisting of naval officers, legal experts and diplomats, was standing ready to fly to Iran at short notice. The team would not formally negotiate the release of the 15 sailors and marines seized by Iran on March 23, British officials insisted, but would try to produce a face-saving way out of the crisis for both sides by discussing how to avoid another incident in the northern Gulf.

"The next 48 hours will be fairly critical," Tony Blair said yesterday. But British officials are also bracing themselves for a news conference today by the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has had little to say about the crisis.

"If they want to resolve this in a diplomatic way, the door is open," the prime minister said. But if the negotiations stalled, Britain would "take an increasingly tougher position".

The foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, made clear that Britain was not considering the use of force. The prime minister, Mrs Beckett said, "is not talking, or intending to imply, anything about military action," she said. "We are not seeking confrontation. We are seeking to pursue this through diplomatic channels." She did warn however that a swift resolution was not yet in sight.

British diplomats had still not been given access to the captive naval crew, and the Foreign Office had still had no "formal response" to a note sent to Tehran on Friday. She proposed the dispatch of the expert delegation for confidence-building talks.

There have been almost daily contacts between the Iranian ambassador in London, Rasoul Movahedian, and David Triesman, a Foreign Office minister. The British ambassador in Tehran, Geoffrey Adams, has also been meeting officials in the Iranian foreign ministry. But those contacts have produced platitudes, British sources say. They believe that Iranian officials may be unwilling to commit themselves until President Ahmadinejad has spoken.

Meanwhile, an Iranian diplomat abducted in Baghdad in February was freed yesterday amid speculation over the identity of his captors and whether his release was part of a deal with Tehran to release the 15 British captives.

Jalal Sharafi, the second secretary at Iran's embassy in Iraq, had been missing since he was plucked from the streets of Baghad's Karrada neighbourhood on February 4 by a group of men who witnesses said wore Iraqi special commando uniforms.

Iran blamed US forces in Iraq for ordering the diplomat's abduction, but US military officials denied the claims. Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, said yesterday that Mr Sharafi had been fit and well when he was released, but declined to speculate over the identity of his jailers.

Iraqi foreign ministry sources said they were also "trying hard" to convince US officials to release five Iranians seized by US forces during a midnight raid in the Kurdish capital, Arbil.

George Bush, however, said "there should be no quid pro quos when it comes to the hostages". US and Britain did not request the release of Mr Sharafi, but the Iraqi government may have decided to intervene in an attempt to be helpful.

    Direct talks with regime lift hopes of deal, G, 4.4.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2049535,00.html

Incident seen as conspiracy

Wednesday April 4, 2007
Guardian
Robert Tait in Tehran

Iran's newspapers ended a fortnight's enforced silence on the 15 detained UK naval personnel yesterday by depicting the affair as a dark conspiracy hatched by London, with many denouncing the British and some saying the sailors and marines had been sent into Iranian waters to stoke a conflict aimed at isolating the country.

The tightly state-monitored dailies were publishing for the first time since before the national new year holiday.

The usually moderate Etemade Melli accused the Blair government of devising a "pre-planned scenario" to protect the Labour party from an electoral backlash caused by British public opposition to the Iraq war. "Britain was well aware that such an incursion by its military forces would provoke a reaction from Tehran," the paper wrote. "The existence of hi-tech satellite navigation equipment eliminates the possibility of negligence or error on the part of the British. London has been prepared to pay the price of the arrest ... to perform its pre-planned scenario."

Kayhan, a fundamentalist daily often seen as reflecting Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's views, dismissed an "accidental" straying of the personnel, saying the outcome could have a strong impact on Iran's political, diplomatic and security concerns.

Hamshari, Iran's biggest-selling daily, reported that the British sailors had "dismissed London's claims" that they were in Iraqi waters when arrested.

    Incident seen as conspiracy, G, 4.4.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2049578,00.html

Iran outlines conditions for release of UK sailors

Tuesday April 3, 2007
Guardian
Julian Borger and Ian Black


Iran's most senior diplomat, Ali Larijani, called for a "delegation" to rule on whether a British naval patrol entered Iranian waters last month before his government would release the 15 marines and sailors it is holding captive.
Laying out what appeared to be a vague road map for the freeing of the British personnel, Mr Larijani said that, if it was found they had crossed into Iranian territory, there should be an apology and they would then be released.

He gave some conciliatory signals in an interview with Channel Four News, saying the Iranian government was not interested in putting the detainees on trial, but warned that might change if Britain attempted to impose more international pressure on Tehran. "We are not interested in this issue getting more complicated," said Mr Larijani, the secretary-general of Iran's national security council.

"Our interest is in solving this problem as soon as possible. This issue can be resolved, and there is no need for any trial. There should be a delegation to review the case ... to clarify whether they have been in our territorial waters or not."

Mr Larijani did not specify whether the delegation he was requesting should be British or international, but he did say the issue should be solved "bilaterally". His remarks could be a response to an offer by Britain to send a team of naval experts and diplomats to discuss how to avoid a repetition of the crisis. A Foreign Office spokeswoman said last night: "We are still studying Dr Larijani's remarks.

"There remain some differences between us, but we can confirm we share his preference for early bilateral discussions to find a diplomatic solution to this problem. We will be following this up with the Iranian authorities tomorrow, given our shared desire to make early progress."

However, British officials are adamant that the team of experts would not be going to negotiate the captives' release, and would focus on the future rather than on the March 23 incident. They said proposed talks would ideally improve the current atmosphere, but would not include acceptance of Iranian claims that the British patrol had entered Iranian waters.

Earlier in the day, Iranian media noted "positive changes" in negotiations with Britain over the crisis. They said that was the reason they did not broadcast "confessions" of a territorial incursion by all 15 captives, which Iran says it has recorded. So far, four have been shown "admitting" that they had entered Iranian waters.

The head of Iran's parliamentary committee on foreign policy and national security, Allaeddin Broujerdi, seemed to echo the British suggestion for talks yesterday when he told state radio: "There is a need for a bilateral agreement to prevent such an event in the future."

In seeking the captives' release, Britain has been seeking help from Iran's allies. Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, has intervened, the Guardian has learned. Mr Assad raised the issue with the Iranian foreign minister, Manuchehr Mottaki, at the Arab summit conference in Riyadh last Wednesday. It came shortly before Mr Mottaki told an Iranian TV station that the captured sailor Leading Seaman Faye Turney would be released shortly. The move followed a direct appeal to Damascus by Sir Nigel Sheinwald, Tony Blair's chief foreign policy adviser.

It came only five months after Sir Nigel visited the Syrian capital in an attempt to persuade Mr Assad to distance himself from Iran. British officials have been impressed by Syria's readiness to help in the dispute with Iran, and have singled it out for praise in recent days.

John Bolton, the Bush administration's former ambassador to the UN, yesterday criticised the British government for its "weak" and "passive" response to Iran over the captives. "If I were sitting in Tehran, I would say, 'I played this card against the Brits and they did everything but plead with me to give these people back'," he told CNN. "I think that tells the Iranians quite a bit about European resolve."

    Iran outlines conditions for release of UK sailors, UT, 3.4.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2048798,00.html

1.30pm

Tehran claims all 15 UK personnel have 'confessed'

Monday April 2, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies

All 15 of the British service personnel held in Iran have confessed to having illegally entered the country's waters, an Iranian state-run television channel said today.

The unsourced report was on the Arabic-language channel al-Alam and contained a mix of old and previously unseen footage of the captives.

Iranian media reports said footage of the "confessions" would not be broadcast, following unspecified "positive changes" in Britain's negotiating stance.

Since last week, al-Alam has broadcast footage of four of the 15 captives "confessing".

The broadcasts, which Tony Blair has described as "disgusting", began with footage of the sole female prisoner, Leading Seaman Faye Turney, apologising for having entered Iran illegally.

The latest footage, broadcast last night, showed two Royal Navy personnel using maps of the Gulf to show an area of Iranian waters, and "confessing" that this was where they had been seized.

Britain says the sailors and marines were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters when six Iranian navy vessels surrounded them.

Downing Street today maintained its call for their unconditional release. Tony Blair's official spokesman said: "The Iranians know our position, they know that stage-managed TV appearances are not going to affect our position."

At the weekend, Britain signalled it was ready to defuse the crisis by discussing operations in the Gulf with Tehran and by promising that the Royal Navy would never enter Iranian waters without seeking permission.

Senior Ministry of Defence officials said the offer was a "confidence-building" measure, but would involve neither an apology nor acceptance of the claim that the patrol was in Iranian waters.

The MoD said the UK was communicating with Iran through letters and other contacts between diplomats, rather than in new face-to-face talks.

The situation has been complicated by Iranian internal power struggles: the Iranian Revolutionary Guards used the distraction of the Iranian new year holiday to seize the British personnel, unhindered by rival power groups. Today was the first day many Iranian officials were back at their desks since the crisis started.

Reports suggest there are mixed feelings in Iran about the seizure, though hundreds of students yesterday demonstrated outside the British embassy demanding that the 15 be punished. Several threw rocks and firecrackers, while riot police fired teargas.

The two personnel shown in broadcasts last night were named as Royal Marine Captain Chris Air and Lieutenant Felix Carman. They looked in good condition and were wearing clean, smart military fatigues.

Captain Air, who appeared first, said he and his fellow captives had been shown on a GPS device that they had been seized inside Iranian waters.

Lieutenant Felix Carman said he would like to tell the Iranian people: "I can understand why you are so angry about our intrusion into your waters." Both men gestured to points on the map behind them, close to the handwritten words "the point where intruding boats were captured".

On Saturday, the US president, George Bush, publicly backed Mr Blair's efforts to resolve the situation peacefully, calling the capture "inexcusable behaviour".

British officials have asked the US to keep a low profile over the crisis but when asked by a reporter about the captives, Mr Bush said: "Iran must give back the hostages. They are innocent, they did nothing wrong, and they were summarily plucked out of waters."

The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, said Britain had the "full solidarity" of the European Union; Germany currently holds the rotating presidency of the EU.

The French presidential candidate Nicolas Sarkozy has expressed his solidarity with Britain. "Holding the British sailors as prisoners is unacceptable," Mr Sarkozy told reporters in Paris.

    Tehran claims all 15 UK personnel have 'confessed', G, 2.4.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2048333,00.html

Robert Fisk: The war of humiliation

Published: 02 April 2007
The Independent

Our Marines are hostages. Two more were shown on Iranian TV. Petrol bombs burst behind the walls of the British embassy in Tehran. But it's definitely not the war on terror. It's the war of humiliation. The humiliation of Britain, the humiliation of Tony Blair, of the British military, of George Bush and the whole Iraqi shooting match. And the master of humiliation - even if Tony Blair doesn't realise it - is Iran, a nation which feels itself forever humiliated by the West.

Oh how pleased the Iranians must have been to hear Messers Blair and Bush shout for the "immediate" release of the luckless 15 - this Blair-Bush insistence has assuredly locked them up for weeks - because it is a demand that can be so easily ignored. And will be.

"Inexcusable behaviour," roared Bush on Saturday - and the Iranians loved it. The Iranian Minister meanwhile waited for a change in Britain's "behaviour".

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Holocaust-denying President from hell, calls Blair "arrogant and selfish" - and so say all of us, by the way - after refusing to play to the crowd at the United Nations. They'll release "serviceperson" Faye Turney. Then they won't release her.

Veiled Faye with her cigarette and her backcloth of cheaply flowered curtains, producing those preposterous letters of cloying friendship towards the "Iranian people" while abjectly apologising for the British snoop into Iranian waters - written, I strongly suspect, by the lads from the Ministry of Islamic Guidance - is the star of the Iranian show.

Back in 1980, when Tehran staged its much more ambitious takeover of the US embassy, the star was a blubbering marine - a certain Sergeant Ladell Maples - who was induced to express his appreciation for Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamic Revolution just before America's prime-time television news.

The Iranians, you see, understand the West. And they understand it much better than we understand - or bother to understand - Iran.

We have forgotten the years of Allied occupation in the Second World War, the deposition of the pro-German Shah and then, humiliation of humiliations, the overthrow of the democratic Prime Minister, Mohamed Mossadeq, engineered by the CIA's Allen Dulles and an eccentric British scholar of Greek, an ex-Special Operations Executive operative - "Monty" Woodhouse by name - with a few guns and a pile of dollars. And the Iranians remember well, how back came the Shah of Iran, our "policeman" in the Gulf, the King of Kings, Light of the Aryans, descendant of Cyrus the Great, to stretch out the young Iranian men and women of the resistance on the toasting racks of their Savak torturers.

Nor have the Iranians any real intention of putting Faye and her chums in front of any court. They'd far rather have the Brits chomping through their "nan" bread on Sky TV, courtesy, of course, of Tehran's Arabic "Al-Alam" channel. And did you notice that little "exclusive" label in the top left-hand corner of the screen when Rifleman Nathan Summers decided to go public?

How the Iranians love mimicking their oppressors. When the gold braid of the Ministry of Defence produce a complexity of maps to prove our boys were in Iraqi waters, the Iranians produce a humble coastguard with a Minotaur map to show that they were in the Iranian briney.

The Union Jack still flies on their rubber boat - but the Iranian banner floats above it. No one has yet explained, I notice, why our boys and girls in blue carry rifles on their sailing adventures if their duty is to hand them over when attacked. Are we actually trying to supply the Revolutionary Guards with more weapons?

But behind all this lie some dark questions - with, I fear, some still unknown but dark answers. The Iranian security services are convinced that the British security services are trying to provoke the Arabs of Iran's Khuzestan province to rise up against the Islamic Republic. Bombs have exploded there, one of them killing a truck-load of Revolutionary Guards, and Tehran blamed MI5. Outrageous, they said. Inexcusable.

The Brits made no comment, even when the Iranians hanged a man accused of the killings from a crane; he had, they said, been working for London.

Are the SAS in south-western Iran, just as the British claim the Iranians are in south-eastern Iraq, harassing the boys in Basra with new-fangled bombs? Will the Americans release the five Iranians issuing visas to Kurds in Arbil whom they locked up a couple of months ago. No, says Bush. Well, we shall see.

There is a lot we do not know - or care to know - about all this. In the meantime, however, it will be left to Blair, Bush and the merchants of the SKY-BBC-CNN-FOX-CBS-NBC-ABC axis of shlock-and-awe to play the Iranian game. Will they put Faye on trial? Will our boys be threatened with execution? Answer: no, but be sure we'll soon be told by the Iranians that they are all spies. A lie, needless to say. But Blair will fulminate and Bush will roar and the Iranians will sit back and enjoy every second of it.

The Iranians died in their tens of thousands to destroy Saddam's legions. And now they watch us wringing our hands over 15 lost souls. This is a big-time movie, the cinemascope of political humiliation. And the Iranians not only know how to stage the drama. They've even written Blair's script.

And he obligingly reads it to cue.

New TV footage shows captured servicemen

Footage of two of the 15 captured Royal Navy personnel was broadcast on Iranian state television last night.

The television station Al-Alam released footage of the captives standing in front of a map of the Persian Gulf where the sailors and marines were captured 10 days ago.

The captives' speech was not initially broadcast, but one of the station's newscasters said they had "confessed" to entering Iranian waters "illegally", according to translations.

The British government maintains that the vessel was in Iraqi waters. The footage was condemned by the Foreign Office last night as "unacceptable".

The two men were seen pointing to a picture of a boat, while the voiceover described how the servicemen had left HMS Cornwall on 23 March and arrived into Iranian waters in a small boat at 10am local time. The broadcaster said hostages were receiving "good and humanitarian treatment".

The same station last week released footage of Faye Turney, the only woman among the captives, and Nathan Thomas Summers, whose footage was released on Friday.

The Ministry of Defence said they would not be identifying the servicemen. The families of all the personnel are understood to have been contacted last night to alert them of Al-Alam's plan to release the footage.

Prior to the release of the footage, Foreign Office minister Des Browne had indicated that a diplomatic solution to the crisis could be sought when he said that "direct bilateral talks" with Iran over the capture were ongoing.

Helen McCormack

    Robert Fisk: The war of humiliation, I, 2.4.2007, http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article2412764.ece

Tehran screens televised 'confession' by two more British service personnel

· Propaganda drive follows UK diplomatic overtures
· Students throw rocks and firecrackers at embassy

Monday April 2, 2007
Guardian
Richard Norton-Taylor Robert Tait Tehran Ewen Macaskill Washington

Iran stepped up its propaganda offensive against Britain last night by broadcasting new footage of two of the 15 captured service personnel on al-Alam television, including another "confession" that they had strayed into Iranian waters.

The two are each pictured in front of a map of what appears to be the Persian Gulf. They gesture at the map, upon which "the point where military boats were captured" is hand-written in red pen. The uniformed men give their names as Royal Marine Captain Chris Air and Lieutenant Felix Carman.

The Foreign Office last night said using the footage was "unacceptable". It has already expressed "grave concerns" about the conditions under which Leading seaman Faye Turney was persuaded to admit on film that the 15-strong naval patrol had strayed into Iranian territory last Friday.

In the latest video, Lt Carman stands in front of the map. He explains the type of boats used and gestures to the area where they were captured. "Yes, I would like to say to the Iranian people, 'I can understand why you are so angry about our intrusion into your waters'," he says.

Capt Air describes the team as seven Marines and eight Royal Navy personnel. "So far we have been treated very well by all the people here. They have looked after us and made sure we are given enough food and treated very well by them, so I thank them for that."

Earlier, Britain signalled it was ready to defuse the crisis by discussing operations in the Gulf with Tehran, and by stating the Royal Navy would never enter Iranian waters without seeking permission.

Diplomacy

The offer was described by senior Ministry of Defence officials as a "confidence-building" measure, but would not involve an apology, nor acceptance of the claim the patrol was in Iranian waters when captured by Revolutionary Guards on March 23. "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," the defence secretary, Des Browne, told BBC TV. "It's not my intention to go through the detail of that blow by blow, and it wouldn't be appropriate to do that, but we are in direct bilateral communication with the Iranians."

The bid comes at a time of hardening attitudes in Tehran, where hundreds yesterday abruptly ended a mood of public apathy towards the crisis by demonstrating outside the British embassy. Several, mostly volunteers and pro-government students, threw rocks and firecrackers, while riot police fired tear gas.

"If Britain had apologised initially it would have solved everything," said Saeed Abutaleb, a fundamentalist MP. "But now the matter has dragged on so long I don't think the Iranian government and nation will be satisfied with an apology, and [the sailors] might be put on trial.

"Britain should pay attention to what happened to the American hostages, who were kept until Iran had achieved what it wanted," he told the Guardian. "We have the experience of that [1979] embassy siege, and we are ready for it again."

The British initiative follows a diplomatic note from Tehran on Friday which was unusual in not demanding an apology for any alleged incursion, instead seeking a guarantee against future infringements. The Foreign Office replied the same day via the embassy in Tehran.

Defence sources said yesterday there was "no question of negotiations" for the crew's release. Britain would instead simply explain how it conducts its naval operations in the region. The sources also played down newspaper reports on Sunday that a senior naval officer would fly to Tehran to explain the British position.

The "confidence-building" initiative would consist of an explanation to Tehran about the Royal Navy's mission in the northern Gulf and operating procedures when crew stop and board vessels suspected of smuggling weapons to insurgents or of planning attacks against Iraqi oil terminals, officials said. It would involve a discussion of the precautions taken to avoid straying into Iranian waters.

To resolve the crisis, Britain is receiving help from Syria, among other Arab states, the Guardian has learned. Though bilateral relations have been poor, diplomatic sources said Damascus appears to be trying to help. It is one of the closest to Iran, with which it has a defensive pact.

The Qatari government is also seeking to play a mediating role, and British diplomats have claimed to be delighted with the level of support they won at the Arab League meeting in Riyadh last week.

Innocent

Although Britain has asked the US to keep a low profile in the standoff, George Bush on Saturday accused Iran of "inexcusable behaviour", though, in keeping with his promise, he did not raise the issue but was asked about it at the end of a press conference at his Camp David retreat.

The president signalled there would be no swap for the six Iranians arrested in Iraq in January. He said he supported Tony Blair "when he made it clear 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."

The EU has threatened "appropriate measures" if the 15 are not released.

Reaction

With Iran on its new year holiday, reaction to the crisis was muted until yesterday's demonstrations. Even then, opinion on the streets was divided:

Maryam Ghazisaedy, 22, student

"I don't blame the 15 sailors but I blame the British government for entering our waters, not accepting Iran's legitimate rights and for asking things they have no right to demand"

Ali Razavi, 52

"The British are in Iraq illegally so they had no right to be in the Shatt al-Arab waterway"

Maryam Ebrahimi, 34, importer

"If they came into Iran's waters accidentally I would like them to be released because who knows, this could be used as an excuse to attack Iran"

Hamid, 34, businessman

"They should be released. The Iranian government is misusing it to deflect attention from other problems"

    Tehran screens televised 'confession' by two more British service personnel, G, 2.4.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2048095,00.html

Iran snubs UK olive branch

George Bush denounces capture and calls for hostages to be freed

Sunday April 1, 2007
The Observer
Ned Temko, Mark Townsend and Jason Burke

President George Bush last night called for the release of the 15 British sailors and Royal Marines being held by Iran, denouncing their capture as 'inexcusable behaviour'.

Commenting for the first time on the issue, Bush told a press conference at Camp David: 'Iran must give back the hostages. They're innocent, they did nothing wrong.' He also declared support for Tony Blair's efforts to find a diplomatic resolution.

However, he would not discuss options for what might be done if Iran does not comply and he rejected any possibility of swapping the British captives for Iranians detained in Iraq. His remarks came after Britain offered a diplomatic olive branch to Iran earlier in the day to try to secure an early release of the prisoners. Hopes were dashed, however, when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denounced London's handling of the ongoing crisis.

In his first statement on the arrest of the crew, he told a rally marking the Persian New Year that Britain should have 'apologised and expressed regret' but had failed to act 'in the legal and logical way'. The crowd shouted 'Death to Britain', Iranian media reports said.
Ahmadinejad added: 'The British occupier forces did trespass our waters. Our border guards detained them with skill and bravery.'

The comments were reported hours after Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett - in what aides termed a 'step back' from confrontation - told an Iranian television reporter 'everyone regretted' the crisis had been allowed to develop. A 'way out' should be found, she said.

As friends of one of the captives showed their concern by draping yellow ribbons over the Cornwall pub where he used to work, Downing Street suggested the crisis was finely balanced. Tony Blair was said to remain determined to press for the immediate release of the hostages, but also to recognise that 'we may be in this for the long haul'.

Officials were at pains to say Beckett's use of the word 'regret' in her remarks, made after a European Union ministers' meeting in Germany, should not be seen as an apology, or as a retreat from Britain's insistence the sailors were 'in Iraqi waters, under a UN mandate' and must be unconditionally freed.

Asked by the Iranian reporter if she had a message for Iran, she said: 'The message I want to send is that I think everyone regrets that this position has arisen.

'What we want is a way out of it. We want it peacefully and we want it as soon as possible.'

The Foreign Office source said: 'For the last couple of days we have been toe-to-toe and nose-to-nose. This is a small step back, to give people a little space and to see whether we get anything substantive from the Iranians.'

The Foreign Office also confirmed it had replied to a letter from Iran's Foreign Ministry. The Iranian letter did not ask for an apology, only a future 'guarantee' not to enter Iranian waters. The British reply was apparently aimed at seeing whether that might provide a window for a diplomatic solution.

In separate developments yesterday, Downing Street was passed evidence purporting to show that the arrest of the British sailors was planned days in advance. Hossein Abedini, spokesman for the exiled National Council of Resistance of Iran, said the arrests were a 'meticulously concocted operation' to divert attention from Iran's nuclear programme.

But the Ministry of Defence hinted for the first time it may have made mistakes surrounding the incident. An inquiry has been commissioned to explore 'navigational' issues around the kidnapping and aspects of maritime law.

    Iran snubs UK olive branch, O, 1.4.2007, http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2047590,00.html

Iran Airs New Video of Seized Briton

March 30, 2007
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 12:49 p.m. ET
The New York Times

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- One of the 15 British service members held captive in Iran appeared Friday on state television and said he apologized ''deeply'' for entering Iranian waters, and the country released a third letter supposedly from the one woman in the crew saying she has been ''sacrificed'' by Britain.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose government has insisted that its navy personnel were captured in Iraqi waters, immediately condemned Iran's treatment of the captives, saying it ''doesn't fool anyone.'' The European Union meanwhile called for ''immediate and unconditional release'' of British naval personnel held by Iran.

In the video Friday, Royal Marine rifleman Nathan Thomas Summers was shown sitting with another male serviceman and the female British sailor Faye Turney against a pink floral curtain. Both men wore camouflage fatigues with a label saying ''Royal Navy'' on their chests and a small British flag stitched to their left sleeves. Turney wore a blue jumpsuit and a black headscarf.

''We trespassed without permission,'' Summers said, adding he knew that Iran had seized British military personnel who strayed into their waters three years ago.

''This happened back in 2004 and our government said that it wouldn't happen again,'' Summers said. ''And, again, I deeply apologize for entering your waters.''

It was not known whether the marine spoke under pressure from his captors, but Summers said in the broadcast ''our treatment has been very friendly.''

''I really don't know why the Iranian regime keep doing this. I mean all it does is enhance people's sense of disgust. Captured personnel being paraded and manipulated in this way doesn't fool anyone,'' he said. ''What the Iranians have to realize is that if they continue in this way, they will face increasing isolation.''

Iran earlier broadcast a video showing Turney saying her team had ''trespassed'' in Iranian waters, and on Friday released a third letter from her.

The first two letters attributed to Turney said she was sorry the crew strayed into Iranian waters and asked if it wasn't time for Britain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. The first letter was wooden; the second and third had language that was even more stilted.

''I am writing to you as a British serviceperson who has been sent to Iraq, sacrificed due to the intervening policies of the Bush and Blair governments,'' the letter Friday said.

British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett, who also denounced Friday's video as ''appalling,'' said a letter from Iran on the detention of the 15 sailors and marines had done nothing to bring the standoff to a close.

''There is nothing in the letter to suggest that the Iranians are looking for a way out,'' Beckett told the British Broadcasting Corp.

The letter stopped short of asking for a formal apology but instead asked for Britain to acknowledge its sailors had trespassed into Iranian waters and confirm that it would not happen again. The standoff has added to tensions over Iran's nuclear ambitions and over allegations that Iran is arming Shiite Muslim militias in Iraq.

The sailors, part of a U.N.-mandated force patrolling the Persian Gulf, were seized off the Iraqi coast while searching merchant ships for evidence of smuggling. Britain insists the sailors were seized in Iraqi waters and has said no admission of error would be made.

The TV showed pictures of the light British naval boats at the time of the sailors' seizure. The helicopter flying in the background was British, the Al-Alam newscaster said.

Britain has frozen most bilateral contacts and referred the issue to the U.N. Security Council, which expressed ''grave concern'' over Iran's seizure of the military personnel. Iran subsequently rolled back an offer to free Turney.

The Iranian Embassy in London said Friday the Security Council had no place in what it called a purely bilateral dispute: ''The British Government's attempt to engage third parties, including the Security Council, with this case is not helpful.''

Hours before the council issued its statement, a top Iranian official suggested his country may put the Britons on trial.

If Britain continued its current approach, ''this case may face a legal path,'' Ali Larijani, the main negotiator in Iran's foreign dealings, said on state radio. ''British leaders have miscalculated this issue.''

Despite the escalating rhetoric, the office of the Turkish prime minister -- who is trying to mediate the dispute -- said Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had indicated his government is willing to reconsider freeing Turney, who is married and has a young daughter.

Iran, which faced new Security Council sanctions just last week over its refusal to abandon uranium enrichment in its disputed nuclear program, has found few open defenders in the crisis.

Iran first broadcast the footage of the captives, both Wednesday's and Friday's video, on its Arabic-language TV channel, Al-Alam, rather than on its main Farsi channels. The decision, which was not explained, appeared to be an attempt to seek support from Arabs in Iraq and the Gulf states, where many resent Britain's military deployment in Iraq and its historical role as a colonial power in the region.

The Iraqi foreign minister has taken Britain's side, reiterating Friday that the navy personnel were captured in its territorial waters. Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari also said the Iraqi government was in contact with Iran to ''ensure the wise handling of the case.''

The European Union vowed solidarity with Britain, but some diplomats also warned against avoid unnecessary escalation.

''We must put very strong pressure on the Iranians,'' French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said in a radio interview in Paris. ''I think we must avoid confrontation and escalation.''

In Tehran, about 700 people staged a brief demonstration against the British sailors' actions. Leaving Tehran University campus after Friday prayers, the protesters walked a few hundred yards down the road chanting ''Death to Britain!'' and ''We condemn the British invasion!''

Crude oil prices kept soaring Friday as a jittery market worried that oil exports could be affected by the British-Iranian crisis.

After settling at a six-month high a day earlier, light, sweet crude futures rose 52 cents to $66.55 a barrel in European electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

Trading settled Thursday at $66.03 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange -- the highest settlement price since Sept. 8, 2006, when crude finished at $66.25.

    Iran Airs New Video of Seized Briton, NYT, 30.3.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-British-Seized-Iran.html

The third Faye Turney letter

The following is the full text of a letter purportedly written by the captured British sailor Faye Turney and addressed to the British people. The letter was released by the Iranian embassy in London.

Friday March 30, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

To British People,

I am writing to you as a British service person who has been sent to Iraq, sacrificed due to the intervening policies of the Bush and Blair governments.

We were arrested after entering Iranian waters by the Iranian forces. For this I am deeply sorry. I understand that this has caused even more distrust for the people of Iran, and the whole area of the British [sic].

The Iranian people treated me well and have proved themselves to be caring, compassionate, hospitable, and friendly. For this I am thankful.

I believe that for our countries to move forward, we need to start withdrawing our forces from Iraq and leave the people of Iraq to start rebuilding their lives.

I have written a letter to the people of Iran apologising for our actions.

Whereas we hear and see on the news the way prisoners were treated in Abu Ghrayb (sic) and other Iraqi jails by the British and American personnel, I have received total respect and faced no harm.

It is now our time to ask our government to make a change to its oppressive behavior (sic) towards other people.

    The third Faye Turney letter, G, 30.3.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2046745,00.html

11am

Ahmadinejad: UK should apologise

Friday March 30, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Mark Oliver and agencies

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said the UK should apologise for "violating" Iranian waters and has delivered a defiant message over the 15 captured British sailors, it was reported today.

His first public remarks about the diplomatic crisis came out on a state television station this morning, the AFP news agency reported, as Iran's state Arabic station Al-Alam broadcast footage of a "confession" from one of the captured Royal navy personnel.

The moves seemed to be part of an Iranian attempt to step up the propaganda battle over the capture of the British marines and sailors last Friday.

Citing state television, AFP quoted Mr Ahmadinejad as saying: "In recent years British forces have violated international law and crossed the Iranian border. Britain should apologise to Iran."

Reports suggested that the Iranian president's quotes were from a conversation he had with the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. It was reported that Mr Erdogan had telephoned Mr Ahmadinejad last night to discuss the captive personnel.

Mr Erdogan's spokesman, Akif Beki, said Mr Ahmadinejad had said he was "willing to reconsider the issue of the release of the woman crew member".

Tony Blair yesterday called a previous propaganda broadcast by the Iranian showing the sole female captive, Royal Navy rating Faye Turney, "disgusting".

Two strangely worded letters purported to be from her - in which she "confesses" to entering Iranian waters and also questions the British presence in Iraq - have prompted fury from British officials.

The British patrol was intercepted by heavily armed Iranian navy boats near the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway. Earlier this week the Ministry of Defence released evidence that the patrol was 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters. Last night Iranian officials made similar claims that the patrol was in Iranian waters.

Earlier today, Iran's IRNA news agency said the Iranian foreign ministry had sent a message to the British embassy in Tehran asking for "necessary guarantees that violations against Iranian waters would not be repeated".

The Foreign Office confirmed the British embassy had received a note from the Iranian government but refused to reveal its contents.

Iran's message, the first written communication from Tehran to Britain since the sailors and marines were seized, appeared to resemble a statement used to resolve a similar standoff in 2004, when Iran seized eight British servicemen and held them for three days, Reuters reported.

Last night the UN Security Council expressed "grave concern" over the detention of the sailors and marines, and called for the crisis to be resolved as soon as possible.

But the statement, agreed by all 15 members after more than three hours of negotiations in New York, was seen as a blow for Britain because it fell short of "deploring" Tehran's actions and demanding the detainees' immediate release.

Today the French foreign minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy, called for the captives' release without any conditions but ruled out suspending diplomatic relations with Iran over the crisis.

"We call on the Iranians to free the sailors as quickly as possible and without any concessions," Mr Douste-Blazy told RTL radio. "We must put very strong pressure on the Iranians," he said, adding, "I think we must avoid confrontation and escalation".

The tension was ratcheted up yesterday when the British government responded furiously to Iran's release of the second letter said to have been by Leading Seaman Turney.

The handwritten note - addressed to British "representatives" and apparently signed by Leading Seaman Turney - questioned why UK troops have not been withdrawn from Iraq.

The foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, accused Tehran of an "outrageous and cruel" attempt to use the young mother-of-one for propaganda purposes. Downing Street said: "It is cruel and callous to do this to someone in this position, and to play games like this is a disgrace."

The stilted language prompted immediate fears that Leading Seaman Turney had written the letter under duress, with Mrs Beckett expressing "grave concerns" about the circumstances in which it was prepared.

    Ahmadinejad: UK should apologise, G, 30.3.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2046490,00.html

Tehran raises the stakes in hostage crisis

Second 'confession' letter released questioning UK's presence in Iraq

Friday March 30, 2007
Guardian
Julian Borger and Patrick Wintour

The Iranian hostage crisis took a sinister turn last night when Tehran withdrew an earlier offer to release one of the 15 captive sailors and marines and issued a second, strangely-worded letter in her name calling for Britain to withdraw from Iraq.

The letter, signed by Leading Seaman Faye Turney, the only woman in the naval crew seized last Friday, was addressed to "representatives of the House of Commons". Although the letter was handwritten, it was stilted and lacked the personal tone of the first letter, sent to her family the day before. The second letter appeared to have been dictated to her.

"Unfortunately during the course of our mission we entered Iranian waters. Even through our wrongdoing, they have still treated us well and humanely, which I am and always will be eternally grateful," the letter said.

"I ask representatives of the House of Commons after the government had promised this type of incident would not happen again why have they let this occur and why has the government not been questioned over this? Isn't it time for us to start withdrawing forces from Iraq and let them determine their own future?"

A No 10 source said: "It is cold and callous to be doing this to a woman at a time when she is being detained in this way."

The letter was released during a day of rising tensions and diverging negotiating positions. Tony Blair said he was still willing to put the whole incident down to a "misunderstanding". "The important thing is we just keep making it very clear to the Iranian government it is not a situation that will be relieved by anything but the unconditional release of all our people," he said.

The UN security council yesterday released a statement expressing its "grave concern" at the capture of the sailors and marines. However, the wording of the statement was weaker than Britain had hoped after council members, notably Russia, balked at a draft that asked for the Britons' immediate release and stated that the navy boats were in Iraqi waters.

The UN moves were part of a British effort focused on building international solidarity and isolating Iran. The EU and an Arab summit in Riyadh were lobbied for statements criticising Iran's actions.

The Iranian response was to dig in. An offer of diplomatic access to the British captives and to release Leading Seaman Turney was dropped.

The head of the country's national security council, Ari Larijani, told state TV that the British government had "miscalculated this issue, and if they follow through with the threats, the case may face a legal path", an apparent reference to a future trial.

Another Iranian news agency quoted the military chief, General Ali Reza Afshar, saying that as a result of Britain's "wrong behaviour" the release of the woman sailor had been "suspended", reversing an undertaking given the day before by the foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki.

Meanwhile, a coastguard officer appeared on television to deliver a rebuttal of Britain's account of Friday's incident, displaying a map and GPS monitors purporting to show that the British navy patrol had been in Iranian waters.

In an ITV interview Mr Blair was asked directly about the treatment of Leading Seaman Turney, who is the mother of a three-year-old girl, and who was shown on Iranian TV on Wednesday "confessing" to having entered Iranian waters.

He said: "I just think it's ... a disgrace when people are used in that way. The longer it goes on, the more the pressure will be stepped up. We are going to have to step up pressure, not just with them in the UN and the European Union, but see what further measures are necessary to get them to understand it's not merely wrong but only going to result in further tension."

Last night the Foreign Office said it was giving "serious consideration" to a confidential note from the Iranian government about the 15 captives. A spokeswoman said the note's contents could not be discussed but would receive a formal response.

    Tehran raises the stakes in hostage crisis, G, 30.3.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2046361,00.html

Latest letter

This is the letter purportedly from captured Royal Navy rating Faye Turney to British MPs that was released by Iranian authorities last night

Friday March 30, 2007
Guardian

"Representative of the House of Commons, I am writing to inform you of my situation. I am a British serviceperson currently being held in Iran. I would like you all to know of the treatment I have received here. The Iranian people are kind, considerate, warm, compassionate and very hospitable. They have brought me no harm but have looked after me well. I have been fed, clothed and well cared for.

"Unfortunately during the course of our mission we entered into Iranian waters. Even through our wrongdoing, they have still treated us well and humanely, which I am and always will be eternally grateful.

"I ask the representatives of the House of Commons, after the Government have promised that this type of incident would not happen again, why have they let this occur, and why has the Government not been questioned over this?

"Isn't it time for us to start withdrawing our forces from Iraq and let them determine their own future?

"Faye Turney 27/3/07."

    This is the letter purportedly from captured Royal Navy rating Faye Turney to British MPs that was released by Iranian authorities last night, G, 30.3.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2046441,00.html

Britain seeks to build diplomatic pressure on Iran

in attempt to free captive personnel

· Security council issues watered-down rebuke
· EU and Arab League urge early release of sailors

Friday March 30, 2007
Guardian
Julian Borger, Ewen MacAskill in Washington and Ian Black in Riyadh

Britain was attempting yesterday to isolate Iran over its detention of 15 marines and sailors, but there were no immediate signs that the diplomatic offensive had brought their release any closer. British diplomats were hopeful that international solidarity would force Iran's rulers to rethink and focused on rallying the international community to Britain's cause.

In New York last night, the UN security council issued a statement of rebuke for Iran's seizure of the British naval patrol last Friday. The statement, which expressed "grave concern" at the capture of the sailors, called on Tehran to allow consular access to the captured Britons and for an early resolution of the dispute and their release.

The wording, after four hours of debate, was less forceful than Britain had wanted. Russia balked at calls for the immediate release of the navy personnel, and for language saying they had been seized in Iraqi waters. But diplomats said they were satisfied the statement sent a clear message to Tehran. "I don't think we failed," said Britain's UN ambassador Emyr Jones Parry. "I'm more concerned by the outcome, and the outcome is a united council. By the end it was a good outcome."

Britain hopes a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Bremen today will issue a sharper statement. It was encouraged by France's decision to summon Iran's ambassador to Paris to the foreign ministry to demand the Britons' swift release. The EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, took a tough line yesterday, calling for an end to the "illegal" detention. "What Iran has to do is to liberate immediately all the soldiers," Mr Solana told reporters.

In meetings at an Arab League summit in Riyadh, Arab diplomats and the UN's secretary general, Ban Ki-Moon, also added pressure on Iran to free the captives. British officials said they were pleased with the level of Arab support and said some Gulf states were concerned about a recent rise in Iranian naval incursions into their own territorial waters.

Mr Ban raised the detainees with Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki. A UN statement said he expressed a wish "to see an early resolution of this problem".

Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq's foreign minister, also raised the issue of the captives in talks with Mr Mottaki. "We had a good meeting with the Iranian minister," Mr Zebari said. "I passed on a message asking for the release of the soldiers. Our information is that they were detained in Iraqi territorial waters. But really I felt a sense that they [Iran] want to resolve the issue."

Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, said last night: "We are afraid it's going to add to the tension that exists in the Gulf ... some of us who have relations with Iran are in contact with Iran but I wish I had good news that they will be released."

The quiet voice in yesterday's international chorus of disapproval was America's. The White House has deliberately played down the standoff at Britain's request. The US and British governments discussed whether it would be helpful to cancel military exercises in the region but the conclusion was to go ahead.

US officials said there was no prospect of a swap of six Iranians arrested in Iraq for the 15 British personnel and Britain had not asked for this. But the Americans could raise their profile as the crisis continues. The expectation in Washington is that the standoff, unlike a similar one two years ago, could be protracted.

Nicholas Burns, under-secretary of state, testifying before the Senate's foreign affairs committee, said he hoped Iran would reach the right decision. He told the committee that the recent US approach to Iran, a combination of diplomacy and economic squeeze, was helping to unnerve the Iranian government. He said the two US carrier battle groups on exercise in the Gulf were "not to provoke Iran but to reassure our friends in the region".

Joe Biden, the chairman of the committee, said: "If there is anything worse than a poorly planned intentional war, it's an unplanned, unintentional war."

    Britain seeks to build diplomatic pressure on Iran in attempt to free captive personnel, G, 30.3.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2046295,00.html

A bitter legacy

The seizure of 15 British sailors by Iran is only the latest incident in a long and troubled history between the two countries. As Robert Tait reports from Tehran, most Iranians see Britain as an old colonial power that's still meddling in their affairs

Friday March 30, 2007
Guardian
Robert Tait

If the 15 British sailors currently held by Iran's revolutionary guards are shocked by the hostility to Britain shown by their captors, it will be less surprising to British diplomats engaged in the delicate process of securing their release. Hostility to all things British is, as every foreign office mandarin knows, the default mode of Iran's staunchly anti-western political leadership. From its perspective, Britain - along with America - is in the vanguard of "global arrogance", Iranian political shorthand for the contemporary western interventionism whose alleged goal is to dominate and control the resources of developing nations such as Iran.

But this is not just President Ahmadinejad. The antipathy goes back to colonial times, and the long and tortured history of British intervention in Iran.

This anti-British sentiment is shared by ordinary Iranians. Its resonance defies boundaries of age, education, social class or political affiliation. In the eyes of a broad cross-section of the population, Britain - as much, or even more than, the US - is the real enemy. Four decades after the sun set on its imperial might, the Machiavellian instincts of the "old coloniser" are believed to be alive, well and still acting against the interests of Iran. For every mishap - whether a bombing, rising living costs or simply the advent of an unpopular government - a hidden British hand is often thought to be at work.

I first became aware of this conviction 18 months ago on a visit to Ahvaz, capital of the south-western province of Khuzestan. A bomb attack - the latest in a series - had killed six people in the city's main street. The incident seemed to be linked to Arab separatists in the mainly Arabic-speaking province, but the Iranian authorities blamed Britain, pointing to the British military presence across the border in southern Iraq. Eulogists at public mourning ceremonies organised by the revolutionary guards railed against "criminal England".

When I visited Ali Narimousayi, whose 20-year-old daughter, Ghazaleh, had been blown up in the blast, it became clear that the message carried a wider currency. "We know they want to come here and take our oil for free and we won't let them," he said. "Why is Britain so against our nuclear programme? Have we ever mistreated their ambassador or their people? What have we ever done to them? Go back to Britain and tell [the politicians] to be in good relations with Iran."

This was not just grief talking. When I expressed amazement to my Iranian mother-in-law at the belief in the existence of an omnipotent Britain, she smiled knowingly and said: "You are the masters and we are the servants."

The view was evident in Tehran this week, despite low public awareness of the sailors' plight (partly because of the current no rouz ((new year)) holiday). Shahim Nouri, 24, working in an optician's across from the British Council in Shariati Street, summed up the views of many affluent anti-regime Iranians. "I'm not old enough to know the history but everybody says Britain is behind the clerical regime. If it is not behind the mullahs, it is definitely in a relationship with them," he said.

Iranians' belief in the power of the British is "psychological and cultural", according to Issa Sakharhiz, a political analyst. "Much of it stems from historical matters and the British role in third-world countries, especially Iran, over the past 100 years," he says. "It's been reinforced by the closeness of Britain's relationship with the US in the past two decades, particularly its involvement in the military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. There are also lingering feelings over the western-backed war Saddam Hussein waged against Iran in the 1980s - the British were heavily involved in that. In the past 20 years, these suspicions have been exaggerated because everybody knows the US is in the frontline working against the benefits of the third world countries and that Britain doesn't have its previous power. But that psychological and cultural relationship that Iranians have towards Britain and the belief that it is behind everything is very important. It will take decades of quiet (Anglo-Iranian) relations to change it."

Quiet has seldom been an apt description of the British relationship with Iran in modern times. It started during the 19th century as Iran - along with Afghanistan - became a pawn in the imperial Great Game between Britain and Tsarist Russia. The British sought successfully to use Iran as a buffer to bolster its position in India against the tsarist empire.

In doing so, however, they created an enmity supplanting the traditional Iranian fear and loathing of Russia. Fuelling it was a quickly acquired habit of meddling in Iranian politics and a pattern of monopolising the country's vital natural resources.

Relations quickly soured after a succession of monarchs - wanting to finance lavish courts - granted economic concessions to British entrepreneurs. In 1872, Nasser Al-din Shah granted Baron Paul Julius de Reuter - the founder of the Reuters news agency - exclusive rights over extensive parts of the economy, including railways, roads, tramways, irrigation works and all minerals except gold and silver. In 1896, the shah granted the forerunner of British Imperial Tobacco rights over the production, sale and export of Iranian tobacco. The move triggered mass protests led by Iran's Shia clergy and was supported by merchants in the bazaars. Police fired on one demonstration in Tehran, killing several unarmed protesters. Amid the outcry, the concession was cancelled, leaving Iran with its first foreign debt - £500,000 borrowed to compensate the British tobacco company - and a deep reservoir of anti-British feeling.

But the most important concession concerned a substance whose importance was lost on Iran's rulers - oil. In 1901, William Knox D'Arcy, a London-based lawyer and businessman, was granted exploration rights in most of Iran's oil fields for the princely sum of £20,000. It took several years for D'Arcy's investment to bear fruit but when it did - after he struck oil in Masjid-e Suleiman in 1908 - its effect was enduring and fateful.

It turned out to be the world's largest oil field to date and a year later, D'Arcy's concession was merged into the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC). In 1913, with war clouds gathering in Europe, the British admiralty - under Winston Churchill - discarded coal in favour of oil to power its battleships. To safeguard the decision, the government bought a 51% stake in APOC. The importance of oil - and Iran - in British imperial expansion was now explicit. It was a priority of which Churchill, for one, would never lose sight.

For the next four decades, the oil company and Britain remained close to the heart of Iranian political and economic life and became twin sources of burning national resentment.

In 1921, the British - seeking a strongman ruler to replace the teetering Qajar dynasty - threw its weight behind a charismatic colonel, Reza Khan, commander of the powerful Cossack brigades. Within four years, Khan had seized power, anointed himself Reza Shah and instituted the Pahlavi monarchy. With British acquiescence, he ushered in a reign of repressive modernisation which, among other things, outlawed women's Islamic hijab and repressed the clergy. He thus gave the religious establishment reason to suspect and detest Britain.

He did not, however, do Britain's bidding. During the 1930s, Reza Shah developed an admiration for Hitler and turned towards Germany, who had offered to build modern railways - an idea the British feared as a potential invasion route of India. As a result, Britain invaded Iran in 1941 and occupied the southern half of its territory. At the same time, it deposed Reza Shah and replaced him with his 21-year-old son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Despite his accession to the Peacock Throne, the young monarch never forgave his benefactors for their treatment of his father. Neither did the monarchists loyal to Reza Shah. Britain had alienated yet another sector of Iranian society.

Meanwhile, anger over the arrogant behaviour of the now-renamed Anglo-Iranian Oil Company - it later became BP - was leading inevitably to a fateful confrontation between Britain and Iran. Resentment over Iran's paltry share of company profits had festered for years. In 1947, out of an annual profit of £40m, Iran received just £7m. Iranian anger was further fuelled by the treatment of oil-company workers who were restricted to low-paid menial jobs and kept in squalid living conditions, in contrast to the luxury in which their British masters lived. Attempts at persuading the oil company to give Iran a bigger share of the profits and its workers a fairer deal proved fruitless. The result was a standoff that created conditions ripe for a nationalist revolt.

Into this ferment walked Mohammad Mossadegh, a lawyer and leftwing secular nationalist politician fated to go down as perhaps Iranian history's biggest martyr before British perfidy. Mossadegh was elected prime minister in 1951 advocating a straightforward solution to the oil question - nationalisation. It was a goal he carried out with single-minded zeal while lambasting the British imperialists in tones redolent of a later Iranian leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Within months, he had ordered the Iranian state to take over the oil company and expelled its British management and workers.

The company and the British government reacted furiously. The Labour government of Clement Attlee imposed a naval blockade in the Gulf and asked the UN security council to condemn Iran. Instead, the council embarrassingly came out in Iran's favour. Meanwhile, Mossadegh - who often did business in his pyjamas - embarked on an American tour in the naive belief that the US would back him against the British "colonisers".

It was a serious misjudgment. The oil company's executives were clamouring for a coup to overthrow Mossadegh. Attlee rebuffed the idea but when a Conservative government took office in October 1951, led by Churchill, it fell on more sympathetic ears.

With British power in decline, however, Churchill was unable to mount such a venture alone. American help would be needed. The result was Operation Ajax, a CIA-MI6 putsch that co-opted a loose coalition of monarchists, nationalist generals, conservative mullahs and street thugs to overthrow Mossadegh. With the economy teetering in the face of the British blockade, Mossadegh was ousted after several days of violent street clashes.

The shah, at that time a weak figure, had fled to Rome fearing the coup would fail. When he heard the news of Mossadegh's demise, he responded: "I knew they loved me." He subsequently returned to install a brutally repressive regime - maintained in power by the notorious Savak secret police -backed to the hilt by both America and Britain for the next 25 years.

The British remained loyal to the shah throughout the violent upheavals that presaged his own overthrow in January 1979. The Labour foreign secretary of the time, David Owen, gave the monarch vocal support even as millions took to the streets in Tehran to demand an end to the dictatorship. Britain's stance provoked a brief takeover of its Tehran embassy by opposition protesters in November 1978. The shah, however, was unconvinced. In the final days of his reign, beleaguered and bewildered at the forces ranged against him, he told the US ambassador, William Sullivan, that he "detected the hand of the English" behind the demonstrations. Sullivan couldn't believe his ears but it is a view still held by royalists a generation later.

After the revolution, the Islamic authorities continued to draw on national resentment at more than a century of British interference, damning Britain as the "little Satan" (the US was the "Great Satan"). Such feelings were further fed by London's support for Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, despite Baghdad having started the war and subsequently resorting to chemical weapons. London and Tehran were at loggerheads again in 1989 after the revolution's spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, issued a fatwa (religious edict) sentencing the British author, Salman Rushdie, to death for blasphemy over his novel, The Satanic Verses.

The antipathy resurfaced most recently in June 2004 in an incident with uncanny parallels to the current stand-off. Then, eight British sailors were seized and paraded blindfold on state TV after allegedly straying into Iranian waters in the Shatt al-Arab waterway, where the 15 currently in detention were intercepted and arrested last Friday. On the previous occasion, the Britons were released following an apology from the foreign secretary at the time, Jack Straw.

The Anglo-American invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan have once again brought British troops to Iran's borders. Although Iran opposed the invasion of Iraq, it gave the occupation forces few problems in the early years, as it built up its influence in the Shia areas controlled by Britain in the south. That has all changed in the past year or so, as Iranian-backed militias have increasingly challenged the British occupation forces, both politically and militarily.

The British RAF personnel and marines in Iran's captivity may well be oblivious to the long-accumulated resentments that have provided the backdrop to their detentions. Perhaps they are learning something of this tortured history from their captors.

    A bitter legacy, G, 30.3.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2046290,00.html

4pm update

Iran suspends sailor's release

Thursday March 29, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies

Iran has suspended its plans to release the only female sailor among the 15-strong British naval patrol it detained last week amid reports that the UN is preparing a statement calling for all the captives to be released.

"The release of a female British soldier has been suspended," the Iranian Mehr news agency quoted military commander Alireza Afshar as saying. "The wrong behaviour of those who live in London caused the suspension."

The move followed an earlier warning from Tehran that it would delay the release of Leading Seaman Faye Turney if the UK created an international outcry.

Britain ignored that threat, and a Foreign Office spokesman said the UK's ambassador, Sir Emyr Jones Parry, had been circulating a draft text among member states at the UN headquarters in New York.

"There will be a statement. We should hopefully get that later today," the spokesman said.

Yesterday, the Iranian foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, said Leading Seaman Turney could be freed very soon.

However, earlier today, Ali Larijani, the secretary of Iran's supreme national security council, said her release could be delayed. He claimed the UK government had "miscalculated this issue", warning that Tehran would take legal action if Britain took the matter to the security council.

The Foreign Office reacted with fury after an Iranian television station last night showed Leading Seaman Turney "confessing" to the territorial transgression in video footage of the captives.

Also today, the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, met Mr Mottaki in Riyadh, where both are attending an Arab League summit.

Mr Ban's spokeswoman said the detention of the British marines and sailors was one of the subjects they had discussed, but gave no further details.

Speaking in the Saudi capital last night, Mr Mottaki said the Britons could be freed very soon if the UK government accepted that the patrol had been in Iranian waters. "Admitting the mistake will facilitate a solution to the problem," he added.

The British personnel were seized near the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, which forms part of the border between Iran and Iraq, last Friday.

Mr Mottaki's remarks brought a scathing response from the Foreign Office, which said no apology was planned and called the crew's detention was "completely wrong, illegal and unacceptable".

Tony Blair's spokesman today reiterated this message, saying it was "important ... that Iran knows it is isolated on this issue".

The Iranian foreign minister said Iran would allow British officials to see the detainees, giving no further details.

In a further indication of heightened feelings, the Iranian consul in Basra today accused British forces of surrounding the consulate and firing into the air in a deliberately provocative act.

UK military officials in the southern Iraqi city denied the claims, saying the shots had come from a British convoy that was ambushed in the same street as the building.

The video footage of the captured Britons was shown by al-Alam, an Iranian satellite channel broadcasting across the Middle East in Arabic, yesterday.

Leading Seaman Turney was seen wearing a headscarf and smoking while giving an account of the incident, which was translated and voiced over in the broadcast.

"Obviously we trespassed into their waters," she said. "They were very friendly and very hospitable, very thoughtful, nice people. They explained to us why we've been arrested ... there was no harm, no aggression."

The video included footage of other marines and sailors eating, showing no obvious signs of injury.

It also showed a handwritten letter, purported to be from Leading Seaman Turney to her parents, saying she had "written ... to the Iranian people to apologise for us entering into their waters".

The foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, condemned it and the release of the letter, saying she was disappointed that a private letter had been used in a way that could only add to the distress of the families.

The Ministry of Defence yesterday issued a detailed account of the seizure of the naval patrol, with charts, map coordinates and photographs supporting Britain's claim that it had been well within Iraqi waters when it was surrounded by Iranian gunboats.

There is evidence that the 15 sailors and marines were captured and are being held by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, (IRGC) which represents a state within a state with its own forces, political representatives and hardline ideology.

    Iran suspends sailor's release, G, 29.3.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2045544,00.html

Iran Official Warns on Seized Britons

March 29, 2007
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 8:23 a.m. ET
The New York Times

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran may delay the release of the female British sailor if Britain takes the issue to the U.N. Security Council or freezes relations, the country's top negotiator Ali Larijani said Thursday. The Foreign Office in London, meanwhile, said Britain is seeking condemnation of Iran at the United Nations.

The seizure of 15 British sailors and marines took place during operations in Iraqi waters under a U.N. Security Council mandate, said the Foreign Office official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the subject.

''There are some plans to say something on behalf of the United Nations (about the seized troops) but they have not been finalized,'' said the official.

Speaking on Iranian state radio, Larijani said: ''British leaders have miscalculated this issue.'' If Britain follows through with its policies on the 15 British sailors and marines detained by Iran last week, Larijani said ''this case may face a legal path'' -- a clear reference to Iran's prosecuting the sailors in court.

Britain asked the Security Council to support a call for the immediate release of the detainees, saying in a statement Wednesday they were operating in Iraqi waters under a mandate from the Security Council and at the request of Iraq, according to council diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity because the text was not released.

On Wednesday, Britain announced it was freezing relations with Iran.

    Iran Official Warns on Seized Britons, NYT, 29.3.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-British-Seized-Iran.html

Fury as Iran shows

footage of captured sailors on television

· Britain to seek UN resolution over seizure
· Sailor 'admits' boats were in Iranian waters

Thursday March 29, 2007
Guardian
Julian Borger and Patrick Wintour

Iran dramatically raised the stakes in its tense diplomatic stand-off with Britain last night, broadcasting a propaganda video of the British sailors and marines seized last week, including a "confession" that they had entered Iranian waters.

The Foreign Office reacted furiously to the video, calling it "completely unacceptable" and expressed "grave concerns" about the conditions under which Leading seaman Faye Turney was persuaded to admit on film that the 15-strong British naval patrol had strayed into Iranian territory last Friday.

Britain has started moves towards a UN security council resolution condemning the seizure of the personnel and the TV screening. The defence secretary, Des Browne, said the refusal to release the sailors was unacceptable. Britain had not planned to go to the UN until next week when it takes over the security council chairmanship, but last night South African ambassador Dumisani Kumalo, the current council president, said the UK had circulated a press statement on the hostages to the 14 other council members. He said the statement would be discussed today.

The video was shown by al-Alam, an Iranian satellite channel broadcasting across the Middle East in Arabic. Leading seaman Turney was shown wearing a headscarf and makeup, and smoking while giving an account of the incident, which was translated and voiced over in the broadcast. "Obviously we trespassed into their waters," she is shown saying against a floral backdrop. "They were very friendly and very hospitable, very thoughtful, nice people. They explained to us why we've been arrested; there was no harm, no aggression."

The video was not shown in Farsi to a domestic Iranian audience. It included footage of other marines and sailors sitting and eating in a nondescript room, showing no obvious signs of injury. It also showed a handwritten letter purporting to be by leading seaman Turney to her parents, saying she had "written a letter to the Iranian people to apologise for us entering into their waters".

"I wish we hadn't because then I'd be home with you all right now," the letter said.

Downing Street believes the admissions were made under duress, and is not convinced that the screening is a precursor to the sailors' release. Number 10 said they would continue to ratchet up the pressure slowly. "The next few days will be [used] to increase Iran's sense of diplomatic isolation," a government official said.

The Iranian embassy in London said it had handed the letter to the British government, adding that the captive crew were "in good health and condition and they enjoy welfare and Iranian hospitality".

"We understand the anxiety of their families, but they must be assured that they are in safe hands and have a better life than the risky mission in the Persian Gulf waters," the Iranian statement said.

The foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, condemned the video and the release of the letter, saying she was particularly disappointed that a private letter has been used in a way which could only add to the distress of the families.

Last night Iran's foreign minister said his government had agreed to allow British officials to meet the hostages, although he did not specify when the visit could occur. Manouchehr Mottaki told the Associated Press that Britain must admit that its sailors entered Iranian waters for the standoff to be resolved. If the crew's alleged entry into Iranian waters was a mistake "this can be solved. But they have to show that it was a mistake, that will help us to end this issue."

Earlier, Mr Mottaki had suggested that Leading seaman Turney, the only woman among the 15 captives, would be released "as soon as possible", although this is hardly likely to defuse a crisis which appeared to escalate by the hour yesterday. The broadcast of the video came soon after a British announcement that it was cutting off official contacts with Tehran on any business apart from the naval detainees.

The Ministry of Defence also issued a detailed account of the seizure of the naval patrol last Friday, with charts, map coordinates and photographs supporting Britain's insistence that it was well within Iraqi waters when it was surrounded by Iranian gunboats. Mrs Beckett also alleged that the Iranian government had changed its story over the past few days in an attempt to support its contention that the two British patrol boats had entered Iranian waters near the Shatt al-Arab waterway separating Iraq from Iran.

Britain had already begun canvassing its partners in the UN security council and the EU, seeking solidarity in the showdown with Iran. Ministers are pinning their hopes on Turkey and Germany as the main two levers on Tehran.

At an Arab League summit in Riyadh, the UN secretary general, Ban ki-Moon, Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari all raised the fate of the captives with Mr Mottaki at Britain's behest.

A Foreign Office spokesman said of the video broadcast last night: "Given the nature of Leading seaman Faye Turney's statement and the apparent confession that the personnel were 'arrested after they trespassed into Iranian waters' we have grave concerns about the circumstances under which she made this statement."

Patrick Cronin, director of studies at the International Institute of Strategic Studies, said the crisis represented a counterattack by Tehran radicals after months of international pressure over Iran's nuclear programme. "They clearly want to change the subject. They want to go on the offensive."

There is evidence that the 15 sailors and marines were captured and are being held by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, (IRGC) which represents a state within a state, with its own forces, its own political representatives and its own hardline ideology. Al-Alam is thought to have ties to ultra-conservative factions in Tehran.

Iran is seeking the release of five officials arrested by US forces in Iraq in January, who the Americans claim are senior members of the IRGC. However, the Iranian foreign ministry has denied Tehran is seeking a prisoner swap.

Last Tuesday, the brother of the IRGC commander, General Yahya Rahim Safavi, was in London and said he was conducting research on behalf of his brother. He appeared to be particularly interested in the threat of further economic sanctions by Europe, according to sources with knowledge of the meetings.

This letter was released yesterday by Iran, which claims it was written by Faye Turney to her parents. It contains some oddly-worded phrases and there are concerns it was written under duress:

Dear mum and dad

I am writing to you from Iran where I am being held. I will try to explain to you the best what has happened.

We were out in the boats when we were arrested by Iranian forces as we had apparently gone into Iranian waters. I wish we hadn't because then I'd be home with you all right now. I am so sorry we did, because I know we wouldn't be here now if we hadn't.

I want you all to know that I am well and safe. I am being well looked after. I am fed 3 meals a day and have a constant supply of fluids.

The people are friendly and hospitable, very compassionate and warm. I have written a letter to the Iranian people to apologise for us entering into their waters.

Please don't worry about me, I am staying strong. Hopefully it won't be long until I am home to get ready for Molly's birthday party with a present from Iranian people.

Look after everyone for me, especially Adam and Molly.

I love you all more than you will ever know.

All my love,

Faye

    Fury as Iran shows footage of captured sailors on television, G, 29.3.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2045099,00.html

Three minutes

in which routine boarding

turned into armed ambush

· Iranian craft swarmed around naval boats
· Personnel were put in an 'impossible position'

Thursday March 29, 2007
Guardian
Richard Norton-Taylor

The Royal Navy for the first time yesterday gave a detailed account of the circumstances surrounding the capture of 15 navy personnel by heavily armed Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

They described in graphic detail how what they called an "entirely routine" boarding of an Indian-flagged vessel took place 7.5 nautical miles south-east of the al-Faw peninsula, the southern tip of Iraq, on Friday morning last week.

A boarding party of eight sailors and seven marines left the frigate HMS Cornwall in fast rigid inflatable boats - Ribs, as the navy calls them. The vessel they raced towards had been spotted unloading cars into two barges secured alongside.

As the search took place, four naval personnel were left to look after their boats and monitor the data link which kept it in contact with the frigate.

The remaining 11 boarded the merchant vessel at 7.39 local time. They carried SA80 rifles or pistols, and the Cornwall's Lynx helicopter hovered overhead.

Vice Admiral Charles Style, deputy chief of the defence staff, described the operation as "entirely routine business", conducted in an area where four other boardings had recently been completed without fuss. The boarding party finished inspecting the vessel, which was cleared to carry on its business, at 9.10am.

The 11 sailors and marines were leaving the vessel when "very heavily armed Iranian vessels" arrived. Adm Style said the Iranian crew initially appeared friendly.

However, with their two boats equipped with rocket-propelled grenades and heavy machine guns a few feet away, the Iranians suddenly became aggressive. Four other Iranian craft quickly came on the scene. "They came out to swarm around our boats and shepherded them in," said a senior naval officer. He added: "The navy personnel were put in an almost impossible position."

The Iranian ambush, carried out with six boats capable of 40 knots, took place in three minutes.

British military sources insisted yesterday that commanders engaged in patrolling the northern Gulf were "entirely satisfied" with their rules of engagement. "They had all the freedom they needed, all rights to engage in self-defence," said one senior military officer. The naval personnel had acted "in a professional way".

HMS Cornwall could not come to their aid since the boarding took place in very shallow water. The frigate was more than four miles away at the time of the ambush, according to naval sources.

Communications between the naval boarding party and the Cornwall were lost at 9.10. The Lynx helicopter, which had left the scene, returned to locate the boarding team. The helicopter crew reported that the boarding party and their boats were being "escorted by Iranian Islamic Republican Guard Navy vessels towards the Shatt al-Arab waterway and were now inside Iranian territorial waters."

The government's apparent confidence that its case was solid was reflected in Ministry of Defence briefings yesterday. Adm Style pointed out that the British boarding party's two boats were equipped with GPS (global positioning system) chart plotters. Satellite data on the boats and on the Cornwall's Lynx helicopter proved the 15 naval personnel and the merchant ship they boarded had been inside Iraqi waters, British military officers said. Adm Style gave the position of the merchant vessel, and hence the boarding party, as 29 degrees 50.36 minutes north 048 degrees 43.08 minutes east. He said: "This places her 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi territorial waters. This fact has been confirmed by the Iraqi Foreign Ministry."

He said the Iranian government had provided Britain with two different positions for the incident, the first on Saturday and the second on Monday. The first of these was within Iraqi territorial waters, he said, and that was pointed out to the Iranians on Sunday in diplomatic contacts. The Iranians then provided a second set of coordinates that placed the incident in Iranian waters more than two nautical miles from the position given by HMS Cornwall.

Adm Style added: "On Sunday morning, March 25, HMS Cornwall's Lynx conducted an overflight of the merchant vessel, which was still at anchor, and once agian confirmed her location on global positioning system equipment. Her master confirmed that his vessel had remained at anchor since Friday, and was in Iraqi territorial waters."

    Three minutes in which routine boarding turned into armed ambush, G, 29.3.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2045090,00.html

From softly-softly to sanctions - how pressure on Iran may be increased

Thursday March 29, 2007
Guardian
Julian Borger

Gentle diplomacy

This was the approach taken in the first six days. Naval officers and diplomats suggested the issue of maritime boundaries was complicated and the whole affair could be a mistake. It was the line taken by foreign secretary Margaret Beckett in her first conversation with her Iranian counterpart, Manouchehr Mottaki, on Sunday. It had the advantage of not pushing Tehran into a corner and allowing a face-saving way out, in the hope that the incident would play out like its precursor in 2004, when British captives were released after three days. This time, the circumstances seem to be different. The Revolutionary Guards are more entrenched in power, and are close to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The reformers in Tehran are cowed. Approaches were made to Russia, Turkey and Arab states in the hope they had more direct lines of communication with Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei but to no avail.

To some extent the lack of response was predictable. The Iranian New Year holidays are observed by almost everyone including the political and clerical elite. The holiday ends in early April but Tony Blair decided Britain was not prepared to wait that long.

Mr Blair's announcement that the British response was entering a "different phase" and Mrs Beckett's announcement of the diplomatic sanctions yesterday reflects a decision that the softly-softly approach has not worked, and rising concern that time is not on Britain's side.

The new phase

This began yesterday with a concerted offensive by the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office. It opened with a far more assertive and detailed presentation of Britain's legal position, complete with charts and map coordinates, and the sequence of events. It was accompanied by the first concrete sanction - the severing of government contacts. That includes a refusal to issue any visas to Iranian officials and a suspension of any meetings between diplomats from either government. It falls short of a full break in diplomatic relations, but that would clearly be counter-productive as Britain needs to keep talking to Tehran.

Mrs Beckett also introduced another, perhaps riskier, element into the strategy in her announcement - her note of ridicule will not have been missed in Tehran. By recounting an apparent comedy of errors in the Iranian foreign ministry's handling of the affair - with the Iranian ambassador to London initially presenting map coordinates for the incident that bolstered Britain's argument that it happened in Iraqi waters - she made Iran's diplomats look inept.

Further sanctions

The new phase runs the risk of entrenching Iranian positions, and blocking off the easy face-saving exit. Yet if this initial diplomatic rebuke fails, the government is committed to ratchet up its response still further or lose credibility with Tehran, and other adversaries. The next step could be to start slowing down or stopping visas issued to ordinary Iranians, including students and businessmen, which would upset Tehran's middle classes. After that, the usual logic of international sanctions suggest targeted financial measures, freezing accounts of Iranian leaders and any organisations they may be linked to. Then comes trade sanctions: prohibition on British companies from doing business with Iran, and a ban on Iranian imports. But such measures are likely to damage Britain at least as much as Iran if carried out unilaterally. Students and businessmen could just take their money elsewhere in Europe or to the United States.

Multilateral measures

The timing for Britain is terrible. It has just led a push for UN sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme, persuading Russia and its allies to sign on reluctantly to freezing the assets of prominent Iranians including Revolutionary Guard leaders. It has therefore already used much of its credit at the UN. Meanwhile, the White House has let it be known that while it supports Britain's position, "there is no escalation of tensions on our part". That may be welcomed in London. US support is a mixed blessing in a country where America is known as the "Great Satan" and Britain its "Little Satan" sidekick. The most promising route then, could be common European action. Germany, in its role as EU president has been supportive, calling the Iranian action "unacceptable".

Military rescue

The precedents for daring raids to rescue hostages from Iran are not encouraging. President Jimmy Carter tried it in 1980, but the special forces raid, Operation Eagle Claw, ended in disaster when a helicopter collided with a US plane in a sandstorm in the Iranian desert. Eight Americans were killed. Britain is in an even weaker position militarily, as the Iranians could easily take reprisals against British troops in Basra.

    From softly-softly to sanctions - how pressure on Iran may be increased, G, 29.3.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2045106,00.html

Unacceptable behaviour


Thursday March 29, 2007
The Guardian
Leader

With each day that passes, the crisis triggered by Iran's seizure of 15 British marines and sailors in the Shatt al-Arab waterway on Friday grows. Last night leading seaman Faye Turney was paraded on Iranian television, "admitting" they had trespassed into Iranian waters. The video was heavily edited and there was no way of telling under what duress it had been filmed. The video and the accompanying letter, apologising to the Iranian people, was reminiscent of all the worst Iranian hostage dramas. Earlier, the Iranians promised British officials they would not parade crew members on television, which contravenes the Geneva convention (even if it is only deemed to apply in a state of war) and last night they broke that promise too.

The release of the video could be a precursor to the imminent release of Ms Turney and the rest of the crew. It could satisfy hardline elements in the Revolutionary Guard that national honour has been restored. But if anyone in Tehran thinks it is helping those in the United Nations who argue the case for negotiation on all the other issues clouding relations with Iran, they are wrong. This is not so much Iranian diplomacy shooting itself in the foot, as blowing itself up.

Yesterday Tony Blair announced he was freezing all contact with Iran, as Britain released positioning data which confirmed the boarding party was 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters when their two boats were surrounded by six Iranian vessels and escorted into Iranian territorial waters. There appears to be little serious doubt, outside Iran, about the positioning data. Iran's claims that the incident took place inside their territorial waters are undermined by the fact they had to change their story. The grid coordinates they originally provided on Friday and Saturday showed that the incident had taken place inside Iraqi waters.

Furthermore, the sailors were operating under a UN security council resolution which renewed the mandate of the multinational force last year and is binding on all UN members including Iran. Tehran has so far refused consular access to their detainees and failed to confirm where they are being held. Whether the seizure of the boat crews was the work of an over-zealous local Revolutionary Guard commander, or a carefully laid ambush, is now immaterial. The issue now is the crew's immediate return. Holding on to them would only increase the suspicion that they were being used as bargaining chips for the five Iranians in US custody.

The practical measures available to Mr Blair, who vowed yesterday to ratchet up Britain's response, can only be diplomatic ones. There is nothing to suggest that the prime minister or foreign secretary or indeed the boat crews who surrendered without a shot being fired, have shown themselves to be weak or pusillanimous. British diplomats have been active and as a result Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and the EU are all piling on the diplomatic pressure on Tehran.

Iran should not underestimate the damage it is doing to its own cause on the much more fundamental issue of its refusal to abandon uranium enrichment, by behaving the way it has in this episode. The hardliners are only making the neoconservative case in Washington and Israel for them. There were two US carrier groups in the Gulf out on exercises yesterday and no one is in any doubt that the Pentagon's plans for an airstrike on Iran's nuclear facilities are far advanced, should sanctions fail. For the moment, the pragmatists in the US State Department are holding sway by arguing that diplomatic pressure on Iran has some way to run. Sanctions are not exhausted. But what better argument could you make against Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, and the effect it would have on proxies in the Middle East, than the one that is being made by Iran's conventional forces and their commanders?

    Unacceptable behaviour, G, 29.3.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2045183,00.html

6.15pm

Blair threatens force over Darfur

Tuesday March 27, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Julian Borger


Tony Blair is pushing the United Nations to declare a no-fly zone over Darfur, enforced if necessary by the bombing of Sudanese military airfields used for raids on the province, the Guardian has learned.

The controversial initiative comes as a classified new report by a UN panel of experts alleges Sudan has violated UN resolutions by moving arms into Darfur, conducting overflights and disguising its military planes as UN humanitarian aircraft.

Mr Blair has been pushing for much tougher international action against Sudan since President Omar Hassan al-Bashir reneged earlier this month on last November's agreement to allow UN peacekeepers into Darfur to protect civilians.

Over 200,000 have been killed in the course of a counter-insurgency by government forces and allied Janjaweed militia, and more than 10 times that number forced to flee their homes. Humanitarian supplies to the millions of refugees in the area are tenuous and threatened by continuing violence on the Sudan-Chad border.

Talks are under way in the UN security council over a package of sanctions being pushed by Britain and the US, which includes a comprehensive arms embargo and the freezing assets of Sudanese leaders implicated in the Darfur ethnic cleansing.

Speaking in Berlin on Sunday, Mr Blair described the situation in Darfur as "intolerable" and said: "We need to consider a no-fly zone to prevent the use of Sudanese air power against refugees and displaced people."

According to Downing Street, he is pushing for a no-fly zone to be passed at the same time as the new sanctions package, in the form of a 'Chapter 7' security council resolution, allowing the use of force.

"The prime minister believes we can do them together," said a Downing Street source. "There could be an agreement in the security council that there could be a no-fly zone. If the Sudanese government broke that agreement there would have to be consequences."

The imposition of a no-fly zone, of the kind employed over Iraq before the invasion, has been widely dismissed by military experts as impractical over an area as large as Darfur, which is the size of France. But the Guardian has learned that US and British officials are considering a cheaper alternative: punitive air strikes against Sudanese air force bases if Khartoum violated the no-fly zone.

The example being considered is the Ivory Coast, where the French wiped out much of the Ivorian air force while its planes and helicopters were sitting on the tarmac, in November 2004. The air strikes were in reprisal for the deaths of nine French peacekeepers in an Ivorian raid on rebel-held areas in the north.

Mr Blair's push for tough action is likely to be given a considerable boost by a new, still classified, report in New York by the UN's panel of experts on Sudan. According to an official who has seen the report, the panel found evidence that the Sudanese government was continuing to ship arms into Darfur and conduct air force operations over the province in violation of UN security council resolution 1591, passed two years ago.

The investigators also spotted an Antonov-26 aircraft painted white and parked at a military airport. "The panel noted with concern that the plane had a UN logo painted on the top of its left wing," a UN internal document said. "It was parked on the military apron next to rows of bombs."

The panel spotted another white Antonov at a military airport on March 1. The panel is "investigating the role of both aircraft in aerial bombing" of Darfur, the document said.

Downing Street has stressed that Mr Blair would prefer to act in concert with other security council members, but Sudan's defenders at the UN, led by China, are likely to resist any resolution backed by force. Asked whether the UK and the US would attempt to rally a 'coalition of the willing' against Sudan in the event of a security council impasse, a Downing Street source said: "We'd have to judge that if we failed." The initiative for such tough action is being driven by Mr Blair himself, often in the face of scepticism in the foreign office and ministry of defence.

The MoD in particular distanced itself from the idea yesterday, and said there were no plans for British forces to get involved.

"There are absolutely no plans for any UK military action at all in Sudan or the Darfur region of Sudan," a senior British defence source said yesterday, adding: "There are no plans on the radar".

But British military officials did not exclude the possibility that the US had contingency plans to strike Sudanese airfields.

Mr Blair is said by his aides to believe the ethnic cleansing to be a defining moral issue.

"It's very important [President Bashir] doesn't believe he can renege on his agreements. We can't allow the status quo to be locked in after the ethnic cleansing there," a Downing Street source said.

"The prime minister believes in a values-driven foreign policy and believes you have to evenly apply those values to have any credibility. He sees Darfur as a test of the international community's commitment to its own values."

The prospect of a no-fly zone was welcomed by the independent International Crisis Group thinktank yesterday. "The government in Khartoum is using its air force to bomb its own civilians and to resupply its troops and allied militias killing its own people. That's a pretty good reason for a no-fly zone," Andrew Stroehlein, the ICG's media director, said.

    Blair threatens force over Darfur, G, 27.3.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/sudan/story/0,,2044116,00.html

5.45pm update

Blair warns Iran over captive sailors

Tuesday March 27, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Mark Tran and agencies

In a sign of increasing British impatience, Tony Blair today warned of a "different phase" if diplomatic efforts fail to secure the release of the 15 British service personnel held by Iran.

With the impasse entering its fifth day, the prime minister described the group's capture as "unjustified and wrong", while the foreign secretary Margaret Beckett demanded their safe return in "very robust" terms.

This afternoon Mr Blair's spokesman was keen to emphasise that British diplomats were engaged in talking "discreetly" to the Iranians, and only if those talks failed would the government have to become "more explicit" about why it knows the group was in Iraqi waters.

For its part, Iran said the 15 detained British sailors and marines were healthy and were being treated in a humane fashion.

"They are in completely good health. Rest assured that they have been treated with humanitarian and moral behaviour," Muhammad Ali Hosseini, a spokesman for the Iranian foreign ministry, told the Associated Press.

Speaking on GMTV this morning, Mr Blair said: "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 what he meant, Mr Blair said: "Well, we will just have to see, but what they should understand is 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, and then effectively captured and taken to Iran."

Mr Hosseini said Faye Turney, the only woman sailor among the group, enjoyed complete privacy. "Definitely all ethics have been observed," he said.

He did not say where the marines were being kept and reiterated that their case was under investigation.

"The case should follow procedures," Mr Hosseini said, warning that "media hyperbole will not help" to speed things up.

Mr Blair's warning to Iran came after the family of Ms Turney, 26, who has a three-year-old daughter, spoke of their distress.

A statement issued by the Ministry of Defence on behalf of her family said: "While we understand the media interest in the ongoing incident involving Faye, this remains a very distressing time for us and our family. We are grateful for the support shown to us by all personnel involved and appreciate it, but would request that our privacy is respected."

The seizure of the 15 marines and sailors last Friday occurred at a time of increased tension between the west and Iran over the latter's nuclear programme.

On Saturday, the UN security council tightened sanctions against Iran, banning Iranian arms exports and freezing the assets of an additional 28 people and organisations involved in Iran's nuclear and missile programmes.

Iran's deputy foreign minister, Mehdi Mostafavi, said the captives were being interrogated but insisted they were not taken as pawns to be used in exchange for five Iranians held by US forces in Iraq on suspicion of helping Iraqi insurgents.

Releasing a statement through state television, he said: "Iran has enough evidence to prove that the British forces personnel were detained in Iranian waters. It should become clear whether their entry was intentional or unintentional. After that is clarified, the necessary decision will be made."

Asked on GMTV whether he thought the capture was the "direct result" of the seizure of five Iranians by US forces, Mr Blair replied: "It should have absolutely no bearing at all, because any Iranian forces who are inside Iraq are breaching the UN mandate and undermining the democratically elected government of Iraq, so they have got no cause to be there at all."

The eight sailors and seven marines from the frigate HMS Cornwall were carrying out a routine search of a vessel which they suspected of smuggling in what Britain insists were Iraqi waters. They were taken at gunpoint by in the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, which divides Iran and Iraq.

    Blair warns Iran over captive sailors, G, 27.3.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2043913,00.html

Blair warning to Iran as diplomatic efforts fail to trace captured patrol

· PM denounces 'unjustified and wrong' seizure
· Tehran claims Britons admitted incursion

Monday March 26, 2007
Guardian
Julian Borger, diplomatic editor

Tony Blair yesterday denounced Iran for the "unjustified and wrong" seizure of 15 British sailors and marines, rejecting Tehran's claim they had entered Iranian waters, and warning that the situation had become very serious.

"I hope the Iranian government understands how fundamental an issue this is for us," the prime minister said at a European summit in Berlin. "They should not be under any doubt at all about how seriously we regard this act, which was unjustified and wrong."

Mr Blair's comments marked a hardening of British tone, after hopes that the capture of the British patrol on Friday would prove to be a misunderstanding had been dashed by statements from Iran over the weekend.

A senior military official, General Ali Reza Afshar, said on Saturday that the patrol had "confessed" to the incursion, and claimed the Britons had been taken to Tehran. Other sources hinted they might be put on trial.

Initially, British military officials and diplomats tried to defuse the situation by stressing the complicated nature of the boundaries between Iraq and Iran on the Shatt al-Arab waterway, where the patrol had been conducting anti-smuggling operations. But Mr Blair's declaration left no room for ambiguity.

"This is a very serious situation and there is no doubt at all that these people were taken from a boat in Iraqi waters," he said. "It is simply not true that they went into Iranian territorial waters."

Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, continued the diplomatic pressure last night when she spoke to the Iranian foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki.

In a phone conversation, she made "very clear" that no violation of Iranian waters had occurred. She repeated demands for information on the whereabouts of the 15 and for consular access to them.

Mr Mottaki is in New York where the UN imposed fresh sanctions on Iran.

In response to the sanctions, Iran last night announced that it was partially suspending cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, while President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the latest sanctions would not halt the country's nuclear enrichment "even for a second".

A Foreign Office spokesman said Mrs Beckett's talks were confined to the issue of the seized military personnel.

Britain's ambassador to Tehran, Geoffrey Adams, yesterday met Iranian foreign ministry officials to find out where the 15 captives - 14 men and a woman - were being held.

British officials said that the meeting, the second in two days, was at Britain's request, but it was portrayed on the Iranian media as a summons and a dressing-down by Iran's foreign ministry.

Britain has not been able confirm reports that the group had been taken to Tehran. Foreign office minister David Triesman told Sky News yesterday: "We don't know where [they are], and I wish we did. We are asking to know whether they are being moved around inside Iran. We have been insisting that they should be released immediately; there is no reason to hold them."

Lord Triesman added: "These things are always very difficult. They are delicate discussions. My belief is that they will come to a good outcome, but you can never be certain."

British officials would not comment yesterday on a report in the London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Sharq al-Awsat, quoting an unnamed military source "close to" the elite al-Quds brigade of Iran's Revolutionary Guards as saying the seizure of the two-boat British patrol had been planned at a high level days in advance.

The aim, said the report, was to take captives to exchange for senior al-Quds officers arrested by US forces in Irbil, Iraq, earlier in the year.

Lord Triesman said Britain had been given assurances its sailors and marines the patrol were not being held hostage for political reasons, and another British official said: "For the time being, we are treating this as an isolated incident."

War of words

The EU yesterday attempted to reopen talks with Iran over its nuclear programme in the wake of new sanctions imposed by the UN security council, targeting Iranian arms sales and hard-line Revolutionary Guards leaders.

Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief, said he would try to call Iranian lead negotiator Ari Larijani "to see if we can find a route that would allow us to go into negotiations".

Iran and the west looked as far apart as ever after a unanimous security council vote to impose tougher sanctions because of Iran's refusal to stop enriching uranium, and its seizure of a British naval patrol.

Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, denounced the vote as an attempt to coerce Iran into suspension of its peaceful nuclear programme". "I can assure you that pressure and intimidation will not change Iranian policy," he told the security council.

Iran insists its programme is peaceful but the west suspects it is for nuclear weapons.

    Blair warning to Iran as diplomatic efforts fail to trace captured patrol, G, 26.3.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2042794,00.html

Free our sailors, UK tells Iran

Britain demands explanation of incident

Saturday March 24, 2007
Guardian
Ewen MacAskill in Washington, Julian Borger and Richard Norton-Taylor

Britain yesterday demanded the return of 15 sailors and marines seized by the Iranian navy in a channel separating Iraq and Iran.

Iran's ambassador to London, Rasoul Movahedian, was summoned to the Foreign Office and asked for an explanation of the incident, in which a British patrol conducting a routine search of traffic in the Shatt al-Arab waterway was surrounded by Iranian vessels and detained.

Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, said the British patrol had been inside Iraqi waters "in support of the government of Iraq to stop smuggling" and that the Iranian envoy "was left in no doubt that we want them back".

The Iranian government had made no comment on the incident by late last night but a US navy official, Commander Kevin Aandahl, said Iran's revolutionary guard naval forces had broadcast a brief radio message saying the British had been detained because they were operating inside Iranian waters and that they had not been harmed.

The crisis comes at a time of high tension between Iran and the west, with the UN security council due to vote today on new sanctions against Iran over its refusal to halt uranium enrichment for its nuclear programme.

The 15 sailors and marines from the frigate HMS Cornwall were all believed to be safe last night, and their next of kin had been informed. Their two "ribs" (rigid inflatable boats) had been watched by a Royal Navy helicopter as they boarded a large dhow carrying a cargo of vehicles and as they were then surrounded by six Iranian patrol boats and taken into Iranian waters.

"We know that there was no fighting, there was no engagement of weapons or anything like that; it was entirely peaceful," said Commodore Nick Lambert, commander of the Cornwall, the leading ship in the taskforce whose main mission is to protect Iraqi oilfields and exports from criminals and terrorists.

"We have been assured from the scant communications that we have had with the Iranians at the tactical level that 15 people are safely in their hands," he said.

The commodore added that after the patrol had carried out a "compliant boarding" of the dhow, contact with the British servicemen had been lost.

Commodore Lambert said he hoped the incident was the result of a misunderstanding. "There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they were in Iraqi territorial waters. Equally, the Iranians may well claim that they were in Iranian territorial waters," he said.

"The extent and definition of territorial waters in this part of the world is very complicated. We may find, and I hope we will find, that this is a simple misunderstanding at a tactical level."

In July 2004, eight British sailors and marine commandos were seized after three patrol boats were said to have strayed into the Iranian side of the Shatt al-Arab waterway. The men were blindfolded, held for three days, and paraded on Iranian television. Iran kept the boats.

Britain's ambassador to Iran, Geoffrey Adams, repeated Britain's demands to Iranian officials in Tehran, but by late evening there had been no clear response, the absence of many officials during Norouz holiday contributing to the confusion.

The US also called for Iran to release the 15 marines. Sean McCormack, the state department spokesman, said: "We support the British demand for the safe return of their people and equipment."

    Free our sailors, UK tells Iran, G, 24.3.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2041706,00.html

3.45pm update

15 British sailors held by Iran

Friday March 23, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Mark Tran


The Iranian navy has seized up to 15 British sailors, the Ministry of Defence confirmed today, sparking a diplomatic standoff between the UK and Iran.

The Royal Navy and Royal Marines personnel were taken after they had boarded a dhow during a routine patrol in the Shatt al-Arab waterway at 10.30am local time.

As the sailors searched the fishing boat for signs of possible smuggling activity, Iranian boats approached it and captured them at gunpoint.

The men, who had approached the dhow in two inflatable boats from the frigate HMS Cornwall, were taken to an Iranian naval base.

The Foreign Office said the Iranian ambassador in London had been summoned, and Britain was demanding the men's immediate safe release.

"The 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," a spokesman for the MoD said.

"We are urgently pursuing this matter with the Iranian authorities at the highest level and, on the instructions of the foreign secretary, the Iranian ambassador has been summoned to the Foreign Office.

"The British government is demanding the immediate and safe return of our people and equipment."

The commanding officer of HMS Cornwall, Commodore Nick Lambert, said his "immediate concern" was for the welfare of his crew.

"I have got 15 sailors and marines who have been arrested by the Iranians," he told the BBC. "My immediate concern is that their safety and their safe return to me is ensured."

He said the 15 men were all believed to be safe, adding: "We know there was no fighting, there was no engagement of weapons or anything like that - it was entirely peaceful.

"We have been assured from the scant communications that we have had with the Iranians at the tactical level that 15 people are safely in their hands."

He said the incident appeared to be the result of a "misunderstanding" which could be quickly resolved.

Commodore Kevin Aandahl, of the US Navy's Fifth Fleet - which operates jointly with the British forces off the coast of Iraq - said the UK crew members had been intercepted by several larger patrol boats.

The boats were operated by Iranian sailors belonging to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy, a radical force operating separately from the country's usual navy.

Iran has captured British service personnel on the Shatt al-waterway before. Eight crew members from the three boats - sailors and marines who were part of a British team training Iraqi river police - were held by the Iranian authorities in May 2004.

The 120-mile tidal river, dividing Iran and Iraq, has long been a source of tension between the two countries. The 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war broke out after Saddam Hussein claimed the entire waterway, which is Iraq's only water access to the Gulf.

It has also been an important smuggling route for oil illegally exported from Iraq as well as a crossing point for groups opposed to the US-British occupation and seeking to infiltrate Iraq.

Today's incident could further inflame tensions between the UK and Iran at a time when British troops in Basra believe insurgents in southern Iraq are receiving help from Iran in the form of military materiel and advice.

"We have a lot of very modern and quite sophisticated weaponry being used against us - weaponry that could only really have been procured from a state," Lieutenant Colonel Justin Maciejewski, the commanding officer at the UK base at Basra Palace, told BBC Radio Four's Today programme.

"We haven't found any 'smoking gun', but certainly all the circumstantial evidence points to Iranian involvement in the bombings here in Basra, which is disrupting the city to a great extent."

Earlier this week, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said if western countries "want to treat us with threats and enforcement of coercion and violence, undoubtedly they must know that the Iranian nation and authorities will use all their capacities to strike enemies that attack".

Iran and the west are also at loggerheads over Tehran's determination to pursue uranium enrichment, a process that can lead to the production of an atomic bomb.

The UN security council is poised to vote in favour of a resolution tightening sanctions, first introduced last year, against Iran.

    15 British sailors held by Iran, G, 23.3.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2041366,00.html

1.30pm

Q&A: the seized British sailors

Friday March 23, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Mark Tran


What happened today?

Iranian naval vessels seized 15 British sailors in Iraqi waters, the Ministry of Defence said. The British personnel, from the frigate HMS Cornwall, were aboard a dhow on a routine operation - searching for contraband and weapons - when Iranian boats drew alongside and took the men at gunpoint.

Where did the incident take place?

The Shatt al-Arab waterway is a disputed border between Iran and Iraq. It is also a strategic passage, as most of the world's oil is shipped through the narrow waterway. Iraq and Iran have disputed navigation rights on the Shatt al-Arab since 1935, when an international commission gave Iraq control.

Has this happened before?

In June 2004, six British marines and two sailors were seized by Iran in the Shatt al-Arab waterway. After being initially threatened with prosecution, they were released after high level contacts between the then British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, and the then Iranian minister of foreign affairs, Kamal Kharrazi. The initial hardline approach may have been due to power struggles within the Iranian government.

What are British forces doing in the gulf?

British ships are working with a US naval force that has recently expanded with the arrival of a second aircraft carrier battle group, led by USS Stennis. The ships are engaged in routine patrols such as the one that took place today. But the west has naval forces in the area as a matter of course to ensure the safe passage of oil tankers. The US is committed to protecting Iraq's southern oil terminals against attack until the Iraqi navy can prove it is capable of ensuring the six miles of shipping lanes through the Strait of Hormuz stay open. Up to 80% of Europe's trade with Asia and a substantial proportion of the world's oil and gas are shipped through local waters.

Why has the US boosted its naval presence?

US officials say they want to send a message to Iran that America has plenty of military muscle in reserve despite its commitments in Iraq. The west and Iran are at loggerheads over Iran's determination to pursue uranium enrichment despite UN disapproval. A large western naval presence can be seen as part of a war of nerves as the US puts pressure on Iran to halt nuclear work that the Bush administration believes is for an atomic bomb.

Which British ships are in the gulf?

Britain has recently boosted its naval presence, having sent HMS Cornwall, a type-22 frigate, two mine sweepers, HMS Ramsey and HMS Blythe, and a vessel from the Royal Fleet Auxiliary to the area.

In what state are UK-Iranian relations?

Not as bad as relations between Washington and Tehran. Britain, at least, has diplomatic relations with Iran. However, there is tension over not just the nuclear issue but also allegations that Iran is helping and abetting insurgents in southern Iraq with advice and materiel for bombs targeting British troops around Basra.

    Q&A: the seized British sailors, G, 23.3.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2041421,00.html

Iranians seize 15 UK marines in Gulf


March 23, 2007
From Times Online
Devika Bhat and agencies

Fifteen British sailors and Marines were captured by Iranian naval warships in Iraqi territorial waters today, prompting a major diplomatic crisis.

The Ministry of Defence said the 15 were conducting a routine shipping inspection from the Type 22 frigate HMS Cornwall in the north Arabian Gulf, when they were surrounded by Iranian vessels and escorted to waters controlled by Iran.

The Foreign Office said that Iran’s ambassador in London had been summoned and Britain was demanding the servicemen's immediate safe release.

The MoD said the incident happened at around 10.30am local time. “The 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,” a spokesman said.

“We are urgently pursuing this matter with the Iranian authorities at the highest level and on the instructions of the Foreign Secretary, the Iranian ambassador has been summoned to the Foreign Office.

“The British Government is demanding the immediate and safe return of our people and equipment.”

The Pentagon also confirmed the detention, saying that the Britons were in two inflatable boats from the frigate HMS Cornwall during the routine operation. A BBC News 24 reporter on the ship, Ian Pannell, said that they had just boarded a dhow.

“While they were on board, a number of Iranian boats approached the waters in which they were operating - the Royal Navy are insistent that they were operating in Iraqi waters and not Iranian waters - and essentially captured the Royal Navy and Royal Marine personnel at gunpoint,” he said.

The area – on the Iran-Iraq border, is of high strategic importance, with British personnel regularly patrolling the Iraqi waters and boarding merchant vessels with UN permission to search them. It is not the first time that British servicemen have been taken captive by Iranian forces in the troubled waters.

In July 2004, eight servicemen - six Royal Marines and two Royal Navy sailors - were seized and detained after their patrol boats were said to have strayed into the Iranian side of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, which divides Iran from Iraq and is a crucial transport route for oil supplies.

That incident triggered a dramatic stand-off, with the men blindfolded and held for three days during which they were paraded on Iranian TV, while the captors failed to meet deadlines for the return of British equipment, including boats, weapons and radios.

It was thought the group were on their way to Basra to deliver one of the patrol boats to the new Iraqi Riverine Patrol Service. British authorities denied straying into Iranian territory, with the then Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, saying that the crews were “forcibly escorted” into Iranian waters.

Oil prices rose above $62 a barrel following today's incident. Washington said that no US military personnel were involved.

The latest incident comes at a time of renewed tensions with Iran over Tehran’s enrichment of uranium, which Britain and other Western powers fear could be used to develop a nuclear weapon. It also coincided with fresh claims of Iranian interference in Iraq.

Lieutenant Colonel Justin Maciejewski, the commanding officer at the UK base at Basra Palace, said the Iranians were arming and funding insurgents attacking British troops.

“We have a lot of very modern and quite sophisticated weaponry being used against us - weaponry that could only really have been procured from a state,” he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.

“We haven’t found any ‘smoking gun’ but certainly all the circumstantial evidence points to Iranian involvement in the bombings here in Basra, which is disrupting the city to a great extent.

“Local sheikhs and tribal leaders here in Basra - who are desperate to prevent this violence escalating - are telling us that Iranian agents are paying up to 500 dollars a month for young Basrawi men to attack us.”

Earlier, an Iraqi fisherman in Basra told Reuters he had seen the incident in the Shatt al-Arab waterway, that marks the southern stretch of Iraq’s border with Iran, and where British naval boats routinely patrol to clamp down on cross-border smugglers.

The fisherman, who asked not be named, said six or seven foreign military personnel were on two small boats that stopped to check Iranian ships in the Siban area of the waterway, near the al-Faw peninsula that leads into the northern Gulf. When they boarded one ship, at least two Iranian vessels appeared on the scene and the military personnel were detained

Iranians seize 15 UK marines in Gulf, Ts, 23.3.2007, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1558228.ece