EU Referendum

Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts

Neda[i-Neda]In this case "they" are not the politicians but the next group in the low-life stakes, journalists of the MSM. As it happens, we have not written much about the momentous events in Iran, partly because it is hard to fit them into the pattern of this blog and partly because they have been widely covered.

I suspect we shall have to change that attitude just as I have changed my entirely negative attitude to twitter - in some cases that rather ridiculous idea has enormous uses. Indeed, cyber-technology has shown its awesome powers and not the way the Iranian mullahs would have liked it. (Not to mention the State Department that has explained that their desire to be friendly with the Iranian regime has not been affected by recent developments.)

One story that has been covered widely is the shooting of Neda, a medical student who stood next to her father watching what was going on. Again, the story has been widely covered by various media outlets, including the Financial Times that has managed to live up to its reputation of being somewhat less than entirely reliable in its reporting of foreign news.

"Web video of woman dying in street becomes image of Iran protests", says the headline of Najmeh Bozorgmehr's story from Tehran. Nothing wrong with that, one might think until one reads the first paragraph:

The footage of a Palestinian man being shot dead next to his 12-year-old son, Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah, by Israeli forces in Gaza in 2000 has been etched in the minds of many Iranians, as state television has continually replayed the images to highlight the “Zionist regime’s brutality.”

Now, the Islamic regime itself has become the subject of similar allegations at home and abroad after gruesome footage of a dying young woman during the suppression of an opposition protest on Saturday was released on the internet.

Etched or otherwise, ladies and gentlemen of the Financial Times, the Al-Dura story and images are fakes. We have followed the story to some extent ourselves but the expert on the subject is Richard Landes who has an update on Augean Stables and on Pajamas Media (where one commenter enquires about those demonstrations against the Iranian regime's behaviour towards Iranian people).

One cannot help wondering who does the research on that venerable rag, the Financial Times.

COMMENT THREAD

As the European Union (and the United States) approve the new sanctions on Iran (the previous ones having worked so well) one cannot help wondering whether the participants in those negotiations and decisions have bothered to read the column penned under the name of Spengler, which gives some interesting details about what is happening in that country.

The outlook is not good either for Iran or her neighbours but the problems Spengler outlines may explain why there appears to be a certain retrenching in the support given to the Mahdi army in Iraq and the client terrorists of Hamas and, possibly in the near future, Hezbollah.

Maryam+Rajavi[i-Maryam+Rajavi]The news from Iran is becoming ever more disquieting – for the Iranian authorities, that is. The riots caused by petrol rationing have obviously shaken the regime because they have gone the way regimes always go when confronted with a problem: they have banned all local reporting of it and, to make sure, that nothing leaked out, switched off the text messaging system.

As the BBC reports it, the ban was circumvented by some newspapers, described as reformist. One way or another we know that there have been demonstrations in various parts of Iran and several police campaigns against people who show themselves to be disobedient to the rule of the Mullahs. (We have written about those campaigns here, here and here.)

It is, therefore, particularly odd for the European Council to persist in keeping the main Iranian opposition group, the People's Mujahideen of Iran (PMOI) on the list of terrorist organizations, without providing any evidence for this.

As my colleague and Christopher Booker have pointed out, this organization was first put on that list by the then British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, at the request of the Iranian government. It was British perseverance that put the organization on the EU black list. (Who says we have no influence in Brussels?)

Last December the lower court of the ECJ ruled that this was unlawful, not least because the PMOI had never been given sight of any evidence to show that it supported terrorism. But in January, in an unprecedented breach of European law, the European Council agreed with Britain that the ECJ's ruling should be ignored (a decision personally defended by Tony Blair in a letter I have seen, dated March 19).

In a cynical nod to the ECJ, the Council did, in March, send the PMOI 16 documents supposedly justifying its actions. This turned out to be a self-parodying "dodgy dossier", including a 10-year old article from Time magazine and items trawled from unidentified websites, which contained not a shred of evidence that the PMOI was engaged in terrorism. Indeed the dossier broke another EU law, in that it was legally obliged to contain current evidence, whereas none of its contents referred to events later than 2001.

There is a reason why none of the evidence stopped in 2001 – that was the year in which the PMOI foreswore violence. According to an article on EUObserver, the Iranian government has cast severe doubts on that. Well, not so much cast doubts as stated that it did not matter: once a terrorist always a terrorist. The British government and the European Council apparently agree with this, disregarding the fact that they have accepted similar assurances from Sin Fein/IRA.

As the same article reports the latest list of terrorist organizations still includes the “Mujahedin-e Khalq Organisation (MEK)...a.k.a...the People's Mujahidin of Iran (PMOI)”. And still no evidence has been produced. What about the ECJ decision, which ought to count for more than statements by Iranian officials?

The PMOI decision has seen a howl of protest from Paris-based sister group the NRCI, with NRCI spokesman Shahin Gobadi telling AP that "tens of thousands" of Iranian exiles will stage a march in Paris on Saturday.

The NRCI says that an EU court ruling last December, which annulled a 2002 decision to put PMOI on the register and freeze its funds, has not been honoured. But EU lawyers say the verdict does not cover subsequent decisions.

Right. Let me get this straight. There is a legal decision by a court that is authorized to decide in the matter. The politicians then go against that decision and announce that the legal judgement does not apply to what happened after it. Interesting.

Incidentally, in case you are wondering, Hezbollah is not on the proscribed list. In fact, it is a little surprising that Hamas is. Perhaps Iran is not as closely involved in what has been going on in Gaza as we think.

COMMENT THREAD

Iran_protests.01[i-Iran_protests.01]So engrossed have we been by the enthralling saga of the "mandate" and the constitution that is now just an amending treaty that we are two days behind on mentioning what has been going on in Iran, where it seems police has been cracking down on people in the streets of Teheran with some brutality.

Two days ago the New York Times published an article about the behaviour of the Iranian police towards people accused of "treason", which frequently amounts to very little more than wearing western style clothes.

Iran is in the throes of one of its most ferocious crackdowns on dissent in years, with the government focusing on labor leaders, universities, the press, women’s rights advocates, a former nuclear negotiator and Iranian-Americans, three of whom have been in prison for more than six weeks.

The shift is occurring against the backdrop of an economy so stressed that although Iran is the world’s second-largest oil exporter, it is on the verge of rationing gasoline. At the same time, the nuclear standoff with the West threatens to bring new sanctions.

We must not forget that at the same time Iran is spending a great deal of money on arming and financing Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

The blogs across the United States published the story of the police behaviour as well, with numerous rather unpleasant pictures. Here is an example on Michelle Malkin's blog, complete with rather robust challenges to many who spend a lot of time not talking about the realities of life in Iran, such as the American branch of Amnesty.

Yesterday, the New York Times apologized (same link). It seems that they have been told by unimpeachable sources from the official Iranian media that the people being beaten up were, in fact, all criminals of the darkest hue. Glad we've got that sorted. Presumably the bit about economic problems was all wrong as well. Under the Mullahs, as under Stalin, life has become better and happier.

COMMENT THREAD

We have written before about that attack on Iranian women who "do not cover up" by the Iranian Morality Police. In plain English it consists of brutality against women who do not wear the veil.

At the time we wondered whether Western left-wing feminists or, for that matter, the various tranzis, such as the UN would summon up enough interest to protest. We are still waiting.

In the meantime, here is more on the story from Kamangir. I have to warn our readers that the pictures are not pleasant but there is an interesting twist to the story: it seems that passers-by, male and female summon up enough courage to rush in and help the women under attack.

Whittaker+Chambers[i-Whittaker+Chambers]One of my great heroes is Whittaker Chambers, not just because he managed to bring down some of that self-satisfied, arrogant, treacherous group of which the various Hisses were such a prominent section, but because his actions had a logic that escaped fellow travellers.

He joined the Communist Party and, later, became a secret member of it because he believed that these were the people who could bring about the world he wanted. When he realized that, in actual fact, Communists created a far worse world, he left, deep wrench though it was for him to do so, and fought the good fight against them.

In his book, "Witness", which I thoroughly recommend to anyone who wants to understand the twentieth century, he describes a conversation with the daughter of a professor who had left the Party. It was, the young woman explained, because one day he heard a scream in the night. He heard the scream of all those being dragged away to prison, all those tortured, all those killed. Chambers explains his own "apostasy" in the same way - he, too, heard the scream in the night.

Iran+women[i-Iran+women]Now, thanks to Michelle Malkin, Fausta, Gateway Pundit and other bloggers, we can hear a scream in broad daylight. It's the scream of a woman being dragged into a police car by no less than four rather burly males (brave aren't they?), members of the Morality Police, who are cracking down on all those who are inappropriately dressed.

This applies to women who refuse cover themselves up completely from head to toe, to men, who are sporting vaguely western fashions and even to mannequins, as Fausta shows.

Who will hear that scream? The left-wing feminists who cannot imagine a system worse than Bush's presidency (which is, oddly enough, very similar to all other presidencies)? The UN, perhaps? Well, errm, no.

In fact, the UN's latest report on the state of women's rights, the UN, to the complete lack of surprise among us, seasoned UN-watchers, criticized only one country. Well, have a guess. Saudi Arabia? Nope. Sudan for its behaviour to women in Darfur? Nope. Pakistan, perhaps, for honour killings? Nope, wrong again. Give up. OK, I'll tell you. It's Israel.

Well, OK, you might argue that women in Israel, Jewish, Arab, Druze and others, seem to be remarkably free to do what they like doing. But, hey, have you thought what the "occupation" does to Palestinian women? Not as much as the treatment of Palestinian women by Palestinian men does in a society where honour killings (or, in plain English, murder, often preceded by torture) is considered to be a minor crime. Of course, they do acknowledge equality in one respect. Indeed, the women get priority in this; suicide/homicide bombing.

In the meantime, the women of Iran can scream their heads off.

COMMENT THREAD

Women_Iran[i-Women_Iran]This picture has done the rounds of the Iranian blogs as a symbol of the latest activity by the Iranian government and police. There are more pictures and a video of police rounding up women who are not veiled in a "summer campaign against immodesty".

The behaviour of the police has been such that even conservative Iranians including prominent politicians like Ayatollah Seyyed Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi have protested (though the latter simply thought the methods were counterproductive).

150,000 women were arrested in the first four days and all but a handful have signed an admission of guilt and a formal apology. 13 will stand trial and an unspecified number has been given psychological counselling.

Unsurprisingly, ministers have been jumping up and down and praising both the idea and the execution of it as right and proper. 203 members of the Majlis (Iranian parliament) have signed a letter to General Ismail Ahmadi Moghaddam, which praised the police and blamed the United States and Israel for inciting Iranian women to defy what they see as the Islamic dress code.

The courageous Iranian blogosphere (or blogistan) has been running the story in English but, especially, in Farsi with citizen journalists taking photographs and videos.

Oh, by the way, has anyone seen a comment from left-wing feminists of either sex?

COMMENT THREAD

Via Gateway Pundit we get news of continuing student protests in Iran and the growth of student blogging. He also links to Kamangir, who advises caution when interpreting what those blogs say. There are links to the blogs themselves. Well worth reading.

Of particular interest, in my opinion, is the protest by 700 female students against the requirement to wear a veil.

Female students at Tehran Polytechnic University, where students protested against Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during a visit last December crying 'dictator go away' and throwing firecrackers, are staging a major protest against new regulations enabling police as of 21 April to arrest women who do not abide by the Islamic dress code. A group of 700 female students organized a rally on campus and signed a letter to the dean calling the new rules "an offence to the dignity of women" and accusing him of "wanting to extend to academia the sexual apartheid imposed by the government on Iranian society."

Not to worry, the authorities are responding. Firstly, they have withdrawn all the protesting students' ID cards and secondly will make them face a disciplinary commission.

COMMENT THREAD

story+002[i-story+002]This morning, we saw a cynical attempt by the Conservative Party to extract party political capital from the Iran hostage situation. Fronted by the increasingly lacklustre Tory defence spokesman Dr Liam Fox, the attack started on the Tory Party website, and went from there.

Silent on the substantive issues, the website homed in on the "soap opera" of the "government incompetence over returned hostages", pointing the finger of blame at government ministers, following the "appalling" decision to allow the Britons held hostage in Iran to sell their stories to the media.

The bleating was picked up by the BBC although even it could not cope with the limited focus of the Tory "attack". It led its piece with the news that Fox was calling for an inquiry into the circumstances of the hostages' capture. But the thrust of the report was nevertheless on the "cash for stories" issue, with a demand that defence secretary should give "details of who was involved in the decision" and when.

The report had Fox squawking about "complete ministerial incompetence", charging that "New Labour's obsession with news management trumped issues of dignity, professionalism and discipline."

This was backed up by a turgid editorial in The Daily Torygraph which could have come straight out of the Janet and John book on Tory defence policy. It too homed in on the "fiasco following the release of the service personnel captured by Iran", asserting that "the sailors and marines were … enlisted as part of a despicable spin operation" by the government.

Pointing to where the Tory attack would lie, it then declared that, when Parliament returned next Monday, "Mr Browne had better go to the Commons and give a full and honest account of what led him to sanction the selling of the captives' stories to the media."

The Dail Mail also fell into line, with a ridiculous commentary, citing that great political commentator, General Sir Michael Rose (now fortunately retired). Sir Michael, who provokes derision even in his own former Service, also had it that the decision to allow the captives to sell their stories was "part of a crude government spin operation".

By lunch time, however, the attack was contained. On the BBC Radio 4's World at One programme, Browne was on the air, accepting "full responsibility" for the decision. It had, he said, been made originally by the Navy on Thursday, when the hostages had been released and endorsed by him on the Friday, following a briefing by an MoD official. Browne's full statement is here.

The secretary of state was followed by Labour MP David Crausby, a member of the defence select committee, who affirmed that it was "pretty clear" that it was a decision taken by the Navy. He had questions on whether Browne should have vetoed the Navy but, he said, the central question was whether the marines and sailors should have been captured in the first place. The controversy over the payments "should not allow this to overshadow this", he declared.

Interestingly, Lib-Dem spokesman Michael Moore agreed with this line. A lot of questions remain, he said, but the payments issue was "a major distraction". It was "in danger of distracting us from how on earth we got into this situation in the first place."

Story+003[i-Story+003]That left Liam Fox with nowhere to go. Even the BBC interviewer, Sean Ley, was by then looking at the bigger picture, pointing up the tension "between military independence and political decision-making".

In a later interview, though, the Boy Cameron still tried to pander to the tendency which prefers to see its politics in soap opera terms. Asking for the "equivalent" of a Board of Inquiry on the wider issues, he then went on quickly to the payments issue. The government's "cheap and tatty" focus on short term headlines could cause long-term damage to the armed forces, he said, desperately trying to up the ante by declaring that "the buck stopped with the prime minister". Tory Diary has the full statement.

Browne, however, had already shot his Fox. He was waiting for reports on the wider question of the hostages' capture and would make a statement on Monday to Parliament.

Then, this blog trusts, we will begin to deal with the substantive issues and, if the Tories want to bleat from the margins, they will consign themselves to irrelevance. Perhaps, in the manner of the "frightened fifteen", they should book a group hug and then get out of the way, to let the grown-ups get on with it.

COMMENT THREAD

Ahmadinejad[i-Ahmadinejad]One wonders which part of "appeasement does not pay" is so hard for so many people at all levels (just have a look at the few British blogs that bothered to write about the "frightened fifteen" and the comments thereon, if you don't believe me) to understand. I hereby make it clear that any ignorant reference to Chamberlain and Munich on the forum will be ignored or, possibly, traduced. I am sick of hearing rubbish about those events.

Now, let me recover my good humour and do a small round-up of recent news. First off the Sunday Telegraph, which I do not read but to which I was directed by Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs. The title of the article is clear enough: "Buoyant Tehran warns of further kidnappings". No, really? How frightfully unexpected.

Amidst all the sabre-rattling (there is no explanation as to whom they intend to kidnap and of what nationality), the British civil service comes through:

However, a British Government official familiar with the negotiations said that while the abductions had provided Ahmadinejad with a platform from which to humiliate the West, such behaviour would have undermined Iran's ambitions for its nuclear programme. Countries which might otherwise have supported Iran would now be questioning whether a regime that took hostages could be trusted with sensitive nuclear technology.

Oh good. We are so delighted.

Mind you, it is not quite what the news is on Al-Jazeera, which says:

Iran has begun producing nuclear fuel on "an industrial scale", the president announced during a speech to mark the first anniversary of the country's enrichment of uranium.

Well, I guess Ahmadinejad may be lying or exaggerating. That is not impossible. Nor is it impossible that all other statements on the subject are lies and exaggerations as well:

Ahmadinejad's speech confirmed an announcement by the head of the country's atomic energy organisation, who alo said that Iran had started mass-producing the centrifuges needed for the enrichment of uranium.

"Today, with the start of mass-producing centrifuges and the start of uranium enrichment on an industrial phase, another step was taken for the flourishing of the Islamic republic," Gholam Reza Aghazadeh said.

Ali Larijani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, told reporters that 3,000 centrifuges were being used to enrich uranium at the facility.

At the very least, however, the British civil servants who have made this country what it is, should be a little careful with their boastful pronouncements.

Another item from Al-Jazeera, confirms what we have already suspected. Daniele Mastrogiacomo's Afghan translator has been murdered by his kidnappers because President Karzai has put a stop to any further exchanges with Taliban prisoners.

No news yet on the two French aid workers, their three Afghani staff or the five Afghani health officials.

Meanwhile, Iran has released more videos of the "frightened fifteen", which purport to show that they were having a very jolly time, indeed. Of course, it is never possible to tell what goes on behind the camera, the pictures do sound staged and it is a natural instinct to make the best of any situation, but, surely, here is another reason why there should be a Board of Inquiry held: the sailors and marines say that those earlier videos were propaganda produced through psychological pressure but the Iranian government says nothing of the kind but the press conference is propaganda. Let the truth be established in such a way that the world can see it.

Meanwhile, all we know is that the BBC has decided not to commission a play about Johnson Beharry VC and his heroism because, it seems, that it might just be a tad too positive and might antagonize members of the audience who oppose the war in Iraq. My guess is that it is not those nice middle-class audience in Islington or wherever that they are afraid of but one cannot be sure, of course. May one point out that in a country that is finding it difficult to define its national identity, where there are serious problems with some members of various ethnic minority communities a play about one such young man fighting courageously, doing his duty and much beyond it, and receiving the highest honour available, might just be a useful tool. Especially, if it is then followed by a programme about the Empire and Commonwealth soldiers of all Britain's twentieth century wars.

COMMENT THREAD

Mail+001+H[i-Mail+001+H]It is unlikely that the prominence of the front page content of The Daily Mail this morning was entirely dictated by news values. And, if the message is not clear enough, the implied snub is made that much clearer by the headline spanning pages two and three (pictured below).

Its declaration, "An absolute credit to the Army", referring to the two women soldiers who were killed by a bomb in Basra on Wednesday night makes a marked contrast to the relegation of the Iran hostages story, which has to wait for pages six and seven for treatment.

Mercifully, none of the newspapers seem to have used the AP photograph of Seaman Batchelor, one of the captured boarding party (below left), who was snapped holding hands with not only mummy but auntie as well, a picture which does not exactly convey the martial values of this once great nation of ours. It is some small compensation that The Daily Telegraph and others carry an account of what our servicemen are still capable of doing.

In terms of news management, one can now see a certain amount of logic in the way the MoD spin meisters are handling the Iran hostages issue. By not holding back with an official Board of Inquiry, and holding a high profile news conference, objectionable though it may be, they have achieved a sort of "closure" and will now hope that the media circus will move on without looking too closely at the underlying, and even more embarrassing issues.

Mail+002+H[i-Mail+002+H]Here, of course, the blogs could come into their own, pursuing the aspects of the incident that the media have neither the patience nor the capability to follow but, throughout the whole affair. And, although that is precisely what we intend to do – although not with the same intensity of the least two weeks - it is quite remarkable how little comment there has been from the British blogosphere, and how superficial and ill-informed has been such comment as has found its way onto the net.

For robust and informed comment, you have to cross the Atlantic, where Michelle Malkin and her Hot Air blog, plus Redstate, National Review and others have led the way. Little Green Footballs, meanwhile, has the video showing how badly the hostages were treated.

Matching the silence of the (British) blogs has been a distinct lack of comment from the main political parties. In the early stages of the incident, this was understandable, as none would want to be seen to be handicapping the process of freeing the hostages. Now, however, when it is quite evident that the government is intent on burying the issue as fast as is humanly possible, the opposition should be in full cry, demanding answers to the hundred and once questions raised by the affair.

arthurbatcheloraz4[i-arthurbatcheloraz4]For sure, with Parliament in recess for the Easter holidays, the opposition is robbed of the opportunity to grandstand in the Commons, but, in some ways, getting your message into the media is actually easier. With mainstream government business in temporary suspension, the media is short of political copy and there is a good market for robust comment from opposition spokesmen.

The problem is though that, like the British blogs, the opposition – and especially the Conservative Party – has nothing interesting or original to say. We saw a taster of the line defence spokesman Liam Fox is going to take, when in his one and only BBC interview, the point to which he gave his main emphasis was the "shortage" of helicopters, which is by no means the most important of the issues to emerge and nor is it particularly relevant.

The limp-wristed response may be a function of the "girlie boy" line taken by the Boy King, who does not want his Green-Blue party to be associated with such nasty, manly issues like defence (even if women are getting killed and captured) but there must be millions of voters out there who have been appalled by this incident and want answers which the government is quite evidently unwilling to deliver.

There is, therefore, an opportunity for the opposition to shine, demonstrating an ability to get to grips with serious issues of the day and to back the government into a corner on matters that are of real interest to a very large number of potential Conservative voters. Unfortunately, it looks as if the Party is going to duck the challenge, projecting an image that is closer to Seaman Batchelor with his mummy and auntie than to one of a party which is fit and ready to govern.

COMMENT THREAD

Iran+110[i-Iran+110]
The kindest thing one can say of the press conference organised by the MoD yesterday afternoon, to show off the released Iranian hostages, is that it should never have happened.

If the Navy was actually serious about carrying out an inquiry – even if it is of the watered-down "lessons learned" variety – then the last thing it should have done was expose some of the key witnesses to media scrutiny, with carefully pre-prepared and rehearsed statements. Although the issue is not formally sub judice the same general provisions must surely apply, in order not to prejudice any findings.

However, by his behaviour this morning (see also here) before the statement by the two recently captive officers, Lieutenant Felix Carman RN and Royal Marine Captain Chris Air, First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathon Band has already delivered his judgement on the conduct of the boarding crew. That rather makes any findings which may emerge from any inquiry redundant, and the inquiry itself a charade.

And, by delivering his injunction not to second-guess "decisions that operational commanders and other people make," defence secretary Des Browne has effectively given carte blanche for the charade to continue.

This is a very foolish move which he may have cause to regret. He could have (and should have) stood aloof from the fray, behind the scenes insisting on a properly constituted Board of Inquiry, then announcing that he would stand by the findings. That way, he could rightly disown any responsibility for what in fact were operational decisions.

All that said, with the benefit of the press conference transcript to hand, we can agree with the officers' decision not to resist the Iranians – in the circumstances in which they found themselves.

It makes an interesting contrast with the December 2004 incident, where the boarding team remained on the ship they were inspecting, when challenged by Iranian Revolutionary Guards, while their boat(s) returned to the mother ship – the team eventually being lifted out by helicopter.

Since the officers have put their own conduct up to the bar of public opinion, we can have no problems with judging them. In that they appeared to have seen, from the vantage point of the boarded freighter, the approach of two Iranian boats, and decided then to return to their boats, this seems to be an unforced error. Like the 2004 crew, they might have been better off remaining on the freighter, sending their own boats away to avoid capture.

That apart, it seems more clear than ever that the capture could not have happened had a warship been standing off to protect them. It is even questionable whether it would have happened had the Lynx remained on guard, as it seems – according to the new narrative – that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards only approached after the unexpected departure of the helicopter.

It also seems, according to Carman and Air, that the boarding team contacted the ship to ask why the helicopter had gone, and was in contact when the Iranians approached. Here, therefore, there appears to be a conflict between this account and that offered by Commodore Nick Lambert.

Shortly after the event, he told the BBC that the boarding had been compliant and that the leader of the boarding party cleared the captain to continue with this business. After that, said Lambert, "we lost communications with the boat, but we did have a helicopter in the air – we always have a helicopter flying top cover – and our understanding is that the boarding party returned to its boats and was promptly arrested by a group of Iranian patrol boats…".

It is precisely to resolve such conflicts that there should be a Board of Inquiry and, for exactly the same reason, the boarding officers' evidence should not have been rehearsed in an informal context before it had been properly heard and evaluated.

That said, we are by no means alone in our criticism of actions taken in relation to this incident and, on yesterday's BBC Radio 4 PM programme – after the press conference – Max Hastings was insistent that the key question must now be how the boarding party was put in the position of being so vulnerable.

He was also highly critical of the lax attitude of the Navy, remarking that the Army had been fighting a "proxy war" with Iran for the last three years, yet the Navy did not even seem to be on a war footing. The operation, he said, had been treated, "apparently as if it were a Sunday stroll".

This in fact was Hastings repeating much of what he had written in The Daily Mail yesterday morning, in a piece headed, "Why there must be sackings over Iran".

The Royal Navy has blundered, he wrote. "It seems unlikely that Commodore Nick Lambert, the local commander off Iraq, will gain promotion to admiral, or deserve to." And, he adds, "Blame must go higher than the Commodore … Some naval heads must roll for the Iranian fiasco. It will not do merely to let officers 'retire with honour' at the end of their present postings. When a fiasco of this magnitude takes place in any walk of life, those responsible must not only be sacked, they must be seen to be sacked."

It was at that point that Hastings was under the impression that there would be a Board of Inquiry and his own fears of a "naval whitewash" now look exceedingly likely to be realised. But, with Band leading the cover-up attempt, apparently endorsed by Des Browne, it appears that they too are putting their careers on the line.

They should know that, in the way of these things, it is often the attempt to cover-up, rather than the original events, which destroy the players.

COMMENT THREAD

Iran+107[i-Iran+107]Although one would not hold out The Sun to be the fount of all wisdom, it is certainly the bellwether for a significant sector of public opinion. And, while the "frightened fifteen", clutching their "lucky bags" revel in the warm embrace of their mummies and daddies, and sundry other "loved ones", the redtop has made it clear it sees a link between the bomb in Basra and what it calls the "Tehran tyrant".

Its leader acknowledges that it was "good to see our 15 sailors and marines back on British soil yesterday" but, for all the cheers and champagne, avers that "this was not Britain's finest military hour".

John Humphrys put that very point to First Sea Lord Jonathon Band this morning. He responded: "This incident was a most extraordinary act conducted in those waters and I would not agree at all that this wasn’t our finest hour. I think our people have reacted extremely well in some very difficult circumstances."

HMS+Ostrich[i-HMS+Ostrich]Band then went on to justify his force's lack of preparedness by telling us to look at the boarding "in context", defining the threat in terms of protecting the Iraqi oil terminals in the Gulf from "criminals and terrorists and certainly not the Iranians". The Iranians are not the enemy, he averred. In no way are they considered the enemy. The Iranians "are not part of the scene".

Asked whether he considered the possibility that our service people might be captured by the Iranians, Band virtually squawked with indignation. "As a professional set of Armed Forces – and you can't get a more professional set than the United Kingdom – we are always assessing the balance between force protection and the task we are doing… the decision to go ahead with the boarding was entirely proper."

When Humphrys suggested that the "little boat was out of sight of the mother ship" and that "... it was a pretty cavalier approach," Band showed the ranks were truly closing, resorting to the time-honoured defence of the bureaucrat: "The procedure was correct for the situation on the ground as the commander saw it."

If that does not stink of minds already made up, I don't know what does, but the First Sea Lord could have at least waited until his "lessons learned" charade has run its course before being so confident. Now that he has made so public a claim, it will be exceedingly difficult for him to go back on his words and then admit to any major defects - thus does the cover-up progress.

Needless to say, Band dismissed any parallel between the 2004 incident in the Shatt al Arab, when three boats manned by Royal Marines were seized by the Iranians, but he is undoubtedly assuming that we know nothing about the later incident. Let me reproduce the narrative from Hot Air here:

I don't think it was widely reported, but the last time the 'wood was in the NAG' (North Arabian Gulf) (from roughly Oct '04 until Jan '05) the Brits had a standoff with the Iranians. It was early December '04 if I remember correctly when for a reason we could never ascertain, something like 5 or 6 merchant vessels ran aground trying to enter the Shatt al Arab, which is roughly the dividing line between Iranian and Iraqi waters (depending upon who you ask, as you might imagine). A British Boarding Team boarded one of the aground vessels to try to figure out why so many vessels ran aground at the same time. While in the merchant vessel, small boats from the Iranian Republican Guard Corps Navy (IRGCN) surrounded the vessel and the British small boat standing by. The picture I believe is classified, but you can imagine the reaction of the guys in the RHIB when there were two IRGCN RHIBs within 20 feet, pointing AK-47s and an RPG at them. Needless to say the RHIB backed off and returned to the ship. The Boarding Team hunkered down and the diplomacy started. It ended with the Boarding Team getting lifted off the merchant via helicopter, a needlessly dangerous operation, because the Iranians gave them permission to do so by air but only until sunset. After that all bets would be off.

Then there are the more recent incursions reported by CNN, there was the Iranian attempt in September last to abduct US soldiers, the bellicosity of recent statements, the fact that the CIA had warned the British to expect reprisal attacks from Iran after America detained five suspected Iranian intelligence officers in Iraq. And there was also the Iranian action against the Iraqi naval forces in January 2006.

From all this and the activity of Iranians against land forces, taking it in its totality (plus, undoubtedly, much more that we do not know about) and potential threat emerges with the greatest of clarity. If Band is really trying to convey to us that there was no conceivable possibility of an Iranian abduction, then he is either incredibly stupid, or believes us to be. Either way, surely he cannot expect us to swallow the line that the Iranians were "not part of the scene".

RN+task+force[i-RN+task+force]However, given even the remotest possibility of Iranian action – and the very serious consequences that might ensure – we did not expect Band (and his subordinate commanders) to pawn the Crown Jewels to protect our servicemen (or even for our servicemen to take unnecessary risks.) Simply - in view of the vulnerability of the British boats - we believe it is entirely reasonable to expect the commanders on the spot to have used the assets they had available – which included other coalition warships.

Thus, we maintain that the central issue is and must remain the question of why the commanders on the spot sent two lightly armed rigid-hulled inflatable boats on their mission on that fateful day, without a warship escort. Everything else is, in our view, peripheral. Until that is resolved, for Band to pretend that, "the decision to go ahead with the boarding was entirely proper" simply won't wash.

COMMENT THREAD

Cyclone+class[i-Cyclone+class]
We learn from the BBC's Radio 4 World Tonight programme that, contrary to expectations, there is going to be no formal Board of Inquiry into the events surrounding the Iranian hostage incident. This is from Paul Adams, the BBC's defence correspondent, who reports that the Navy is instead to carry out a wide-ranging "lessons learned process".

In the meantime, British boarding operations in the northern Gulf have been suspended and HMS Cornwall has been stood down. The command of Coalition Task Force 158 has been transferred to another (unspecified) vessel – possibly American. This probably means that Nick Lambert, the current force commander has also relinquished his command.

In the same programme, opposition defence spokesman Liam Fox was interviewed, only for him to display his (usual) lamentable lack of detailed briefing. He queried the rules of engagement, the equipment and procedures but gave most emphasis to the absence of helicopter cover, questioning whether we had sufficient helicopters and whether the absence of air cover was an effect of "the cut in the helicopter budget".

After a brief word from Lib-Dim leader Menzies Campbell, who wanted all British forces to pull out, former First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Allan West was interviewed. He complained that dealing with Iranian forces which might capture our boats at any time was "not the basis on which we have been operating over the last three years" and to cope with it would require "a completely new force mix".

Cyclone+MG+25[i-Cyclone+MG+25]It was West, however, who got closest to explaining that the Cornwall was part of a coalition force and that there was also available a "one Iraqi patrol boat and a US coastguard cutter". That, as we know, is a gross understatement - although West did also say that we had two minesweepers - but even that was not picked up by the BBC interviewer, Robin Lustig. He failed to ask the obvious question – why one of these vessels was not tasked to escort the boarding team.

The BBC, however, is by no means the only media source completely to miss the international force dimension and the extent of the assets that were available to Commodore Lambert.

For instance, in a wide-ranging piece reporting that a Navy inquiry was under way, The Times also failed to pick up this dimension.

Cyclone+mg+50[i-Cyclone+mg+50]It listed "a catalogue of errors", from poor intelligence to inadequate training and lack of firepower, and cited "naval sources" which said that clear failings had already been identified. It is also understood that a thorough review of the rules of engagement and standard operating procedures is already under way to prevent another ambush, "the second of British naval forces by Iranian vessels in three years." It has not even got that right for, as we know, this is – at the very least – the third.

The paper also focuses on the absence of the Lynx helicopter, an issue which is developing into something of a red herring as, if there had been a warship escort, top cover would hardly have been necessary.

All The Times could manage in relation to the availability of suitable vessels was to convey "doubts about whether Britain has the right ships to conduct the operations required in the shallow waters of the northern Gulf." HMS Cornwall, it said, "is a Type 22 frigate that was designed to combat Soviet submarines during the Cold War."

She is too large to operate in the confined waters of the northern Gulf coast. As a result she was several miles from the boarding party when they were ambushed and so was powerless to help.

The obligatory "expert" was then wheeled on - Jason Alderwick, of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, who said that the Navy needed a warship more appropriate for the job, such as a small, fast and heavily armed corvette with a shallow draft that could operate right up to the Gulf coast-line.

Iran+011[i-Iran+011]That may be true of the Royal Navy but it is not true of the Coalition Task Force as a whole, which was more than adequately equipped – the two Cyclone-class patrol vessels being especially suitable – (USS Whirlwind pictured above – the other pictures show respectively one of the two Mk38 25mm machine guns and one of the twin .50 cal machine gun mounts - plus an Iranian Revolutionary Guard launch ... "make my day, punk!").

Thus, for all the torrent of words and the earnest study, all but The Daily Telegraph has missed the point. There was no shortage of vessels – simply that Commodore Lambert failed to deploy his assets in such a way as to afford protection to the Cornwall's boarding party.

A combination of the idleness of the media and now the absence of a formal Board of Inquiry means that this central issue is closer to being glossed over in what is looking suspiciously like the start of a cover-up.

COMMENT THREAD

HMS+Ocean[i-HMS+Ocean]The Cornwall had too deep a draught – at just over 20 feet - to provide line of sight cover for the boarding party, which meant that Commodore Lambert sent in a boarding team in two rigid-hulled inflatable boats, without a warship escort.

Never mind, Lewis Page in a commentary piece in The Telegraph - of Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs fame - has the answer. He would send in "something with a lot of well-armed helicopters, boats and troops: for instance an amphibious assault ship."

"Such ships are useful for lots of missions which often crop up," chirps Lewis. "They can do disaster relief, evacuate non-combatants, or invade troublesome countries - all things which have needed doing in the last few years. If you need to fight submarines, they can also act as a base for anti-submarine helicopters."

Ships, one assumes, like HMS Ocean (pictured), which draw nearly 22 feet, displacing 22,500 tons - with a crew of 285 and embarked aircrew and marines bringing her complement to 1,275 – yet still only capable of 18 knots. And all that to inspect one small freighter parked in shallow water, guarding against a clutch of Iranian motorboats, when there were plenty of other warships available to do the job?

Is one allowed to use the word "prat" on a family blog?

COMMENT THREAD

Iran+106[i-Iran+106]Extracts from this morning's Daily Telegraph leader:

"…the satisfaction of a diplomatic challenge eventually handled with skill is soured by the string of psychological humiliations that Britain has suffered.

First, there is the apparent incompetence of the Royal Navy in providing insufficient protection to lightly armed inflatables, at a time when relations between Iran and the West were particularly volatile following the imposition of UN sanctions.

…

No one would pretend that it is easy to deal with a nation that, since 1979, has shown itself prepared to treat norms of diplomatic behaviour with contempt. However, the steps that led to the seizure of the 15 on March 23 must be thoroughly investigated.

It appears that the Royal Navy has a lot to answer for."

And, from a piece by Thomas Harding:

pc9_1[i-pc9_1]"While Cornwall had too deep a draught to provide line of sight cover for the boarding party, there were many other ships that could have given immediate back-up. Cdre Lambert has 12 warships under his command in Coalition Task Force 158, including several US Navy patrol boats capable of 35 knots and bristling with machineguns that would have outgunned the Iranians.

It has been suggested he could have ordered any one of these to "overwatch" the boarding party."

COMMENT THREAD

If only they would stop behaving in such a barbaric manner.

Anzio+aid+2[i-Anzio+aid+2]
ARABIAN SEA (Nov. 10, 2006) - Sailors from guided-missile cruiser USS Anzio's (CG 68) rescue and assistance team provide aid to the motor vessel SINAA, a 35 meter Iranian-flagged dhow. Anzio supplied the dhow with water, fuel and food to sustain themselves for the transit home after receiving a distress call from the dhow.

Anzio is deployed as part of the Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group (IKE CSG) supporting Maritime Security Operations (MSO) in the 5th Fleet area of operations. MSO seek to preserve the free and secure use of the world's oceans by legitimate mariners and prevent terrorist from attempting to use the maritime environment as a venue for attack or as a medium to transport personnel, weapons or other material that could support their efforts.

COMMENT THREAD

… and you takes your choice. There is virtually something for everybody in the media coverage of the release of the Iranian hostages. But they can't all be right.

Iran+103[i-Iran+103]
The BBC:

President Ahmadinejad announced the release of the 15 British naval personnel like a card player flinging down his hand to scoop the pool. Iran had good cards and played them well.

It made its point about defending its borders, dominated international television with pictures of its prisoners and their "confessions" and, when it perhaps judged that it had got as much as it could expect to out of the confrontation, ended it with a flourish.

Iran will project this as a victory (the medals given publicly to the officers who led the operation was an immediate example) against a country still viewed with suspicion in Iran because of its past interventions.

The Times:

The surprise release of 15 Royal Navy personnel on the orders of President Ahmadinejad was the result of a fierce debate within the Iranian regime rather than the product of negotiations with Britain.

When the Iranian leader suddenly announced that he was letting the British sailors and marines go, no one was more surprised than the officials involved in securing their freedom at Downing Street, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence.

The Metro:

The British sailors held captive by Iran were told they can fly home, after being released as a 'gift' to Britain – but not before Tehran humiliated them one more time.

The 14 men and one woman were paraded in front of TV cameras and were even asked by a clearly delighted Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: 'How are you? So you came on a mandatory vacation?'

The Daily Mail

Wearing broad smiles and shiny suits, the 15 sailors and Marines seized by Iran lined up for a farewell propaganda parade yesterday. Moments earlier, hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had dramatically freed them as an Easter "gift" to Britain.

The slick, stage-managed performance provided the final flourish to a spectacular PR coup for Tehran which left Britain humiliated in the eyes of many. The hostages, held captive for almost a fortnight, are expected to fly home today to the delight of their families and "profound relief" voiced by Tony Blair.

The Herald (Scotland)

The release of the 15 British Navy personnel in Tehran is a triumph for diplomacy. Yet to be completely successful it must now be seized as an opportunity to open genuine talks between London and Tehran. Yesterday the delighted smiles and heartfelt relief of relatives of the captured sailors and marines expressed the positive outcome to an alarming and distressing incident which should never have happened. However, a disturbing mirror image was the smiling satisfaction of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as he played out the final moves in this unsavoury display of manipulation for the benefit of the cameras and microphones of the international media.

Hardblogger (MSMBC):

The Iranians have decided to release the 15 British sailors and Marines they have held hostage for over 12 days. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that he had “pardoned” the British during the celebration of the birth of the prophet, which this year almost coincides with Easter. To the world, he appears to have made a magnanimous gesture.

Good news, of course, but now comes the post mortem. There are many questions to be answered, not the least of which are what did the British give to secure the release of their service members, and will Iran pay a price for their action?

Islamic Republic News Agency:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the decision to release British sailors was made by the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran as a present to the people of Britain.

The president, who was speaking at a press conference here Wednesday, was responding to a question by a western reporter who asked if the release of British sailors had been the result of a deal between the two governments.

President Ahmadinejad rejected the idea of 'compromise or concession' in the issue and stressed that the British naval troopers were released due to Islamic goodwill and a decision made by the Islamic Republic of Iran on the auspicious occasion of the birth anniversary of the Great Prophet of Islam Muhammad (PBUH).

He said," When we do something due to Islamic goodwill, we do not expect to receive any rewards."

NewsMax:

Washington cautiously welcomed Wednesday's announcement that Iran was releasing the 15 British soldiers and sailors it has held for nearly two weeks. Vice President Dick Cheney said "it was unfortunate that they were ever taken in the first place."

Associated Press (via The Washington Post):

With the announcement that 15 Britons were going free, Iran's hardline president retook his favorite spot on the international stage - delighting in Tehran's rising power and lecturing Western powers on their misdeeds.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad kept an unusually low profile for most of the international standoff, prompting speculation that he had been sidelined by more pragmatic figures in Iran's government, whose ultimate authority is supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The Daily Telegraph:

When fighters from Iran's Revolutionary Guard seized 15 British sailors and marines in the northern Gulf 13 days ago, they ignited a diplomatic crisis in one of the world's most dangerous waterways.

On Tuesday night, two of the most powerful yet anonymous men in their respective countries quietly reached agreement to defuse the tension and free the captives.

Sir Nigel Sheinwald, the Prime Minister's foreign policy adviser, held secret talks with Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran's national security council and his country's chief negotiator on nuclear issues. This telephone call between the two officials was the breakthrough encounter.

The Guardian:

It makes Tehran look generous rather than grudging, enabled President Ahmadinejad to project a smiley rather than a scowling persona, and may go a long way to remove the sour taste left by the whole incident in the international arena.

In the west, meanwhile, it arguably strengthens the hand of the diplomats in the ceaseless debate with the hawks over what to do about Iran. After all, the doves can say, patient negotiation won the day. After scoring an own goal, Iran can claim to have come out of the game with at least a draw.

The Independent:

This is a possibility everyone's missed - maybe the Iranians, in an effort to show the West how modern they've become, thought they'd put our marines in a house they couldn't escape from and show them each day on television in an Anglo-Iranian Big Brother. Now we've seen all of them, it will be time to start voting them off. The next broadcast will start with a voice telling us: "It's 4.57pm and Faye is still smoking in front of the map."

This could be used to recruit young people into the armed forces in a celebrity culture. Billboards will be put up showing the captives making their statement, with the slogan: "Join the Marines and get your own slot on TV." Maybe a deal can be reached with Ayatollah Khamenei, that the next lot have to perform their statements in a show called "Hostage Academy".

COMMENT THREAD

Last updated 20:03

Iran+102[i-Iran+102]Here is a link to a short film of President Ahmadinejad, happily smiling as befits the winner, meeting two of the sailors, who are shown only from their backs.

Later we see all the marines and sailors together - they are all (including LS Turney) wearing suits, which look to be reasonably good fits. Are they bespoke and, if so, how long did it take to do the tailoring? And does that beg the question as to when the decision was made to release the team?

For international comment, see the Telegraph website. Two interesting contributions were:

US defence secretary, Robert Gates: "We welcome the release of the 15 British sailors. It's too bad they were seized in the first place. It's pretty clear they were in Iraqi waters. Letting the diplomatic process work in this case was the best way forward."

Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox: "We all look forward to welcoming them home as soon as possible.

"There will be questions to be asked about this whole episode, but I think it would be prudent to restrict our comments and our questions until all our personnel are back in the UK."

COMMENT THREAD

If I were the Iranian government or whoever is handling the hostage situation, I was saying the other day, I would announce that as a measure of special generosity and because Britain is celebrating an important religious festival this week and week-end (several important religious festivals, as it happens) we are relasing the hos .... I mean .... captured marines.

Neat, eh? If they do that, they will not have to acknowledge anything at all; they can express their sorrow at British and Western duplicity; they can probably win in the shame/honour competition; and they can defy anyone who dares to criticize them in the near future.

Maybe they were listening. President Ahmadinejad has just announced that he will order the release as soon as the press conference is over (which must have happened by now, unless his idea of press conferences equals that of Fidel Castro's).

He has also expressed his sorrow at Britain's perfidy and the ease with which Europe, correcting himself to European Union, thus showing that he knows more than many of our journalists and commentators, blamed Iran and pinned medals on three brave Iranian Coast Guards for their courage in capturing the British "invaders".

Of course, an announcement is not the deed. We shall be watching events as they unfold.