You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Iranian leader pardons detained Britons
2007-04-04
TEHRAN, Iran — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says he has pardoned the 15 British sailors and marines detained in the Gulf last month.
I'll believe it when their plane lands on safe territory
Ahmadinejad also gave medals of honor to the Iranian coast guards who intercepted the 15 British sailors and marines in the Gulf, saying Iran will never accept tresspassing of 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, the president told a press conference. He then interrupted his speech and pinned medals on the chests of three Coast Guard officers involved in capturing the British sailors and marines in the northern Gulf on March 23.

"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.

Also Wednesday, Iran's state media reported that an Iranian envoy will be allowed to meet five Iranians detained by U.S. forces in northern Iraq since January. A U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad said, however, that American authorities were still considering the request. The spokesman, Maj. Gen. William C. Caldwell, said an international Red Cross team, including one Iranian, had visited the prisoners but he did not say when.
Posted by:Steve

#31  I've seen the kidnapping characterized as an act of piracy, in the tradition of the Barbary pirates at the dawn of the Republic.
Posted by: trailing wife   2007-04-04 19:48  

#30  If you rob a bank and then give the money back, you are still guilty of bank robbery.

Bingo, Keystone. Very well put. End of story. Any concessions made over this incident are nothing more than a continuing pattern of appeasement by the West. If we had an effective policy of punishing these sorts of transgressions, they wouldn't be happening in the first place. The fact that they are happening proves that we don't.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-04-04 19:29  

#29  capitulating to the Brits will not delay one second, the rush to the bomb by the Iranians; as we speak, thousands of techs in the mullah's clandestine nuclear research centers and plants are tolling, sweat in brow to achieve their goal during the west's 'diversion' with menial semantics of who's water is who's.
Posted by: smn   2007-04-04 18:02  

#28  Aris...Zenster was asking the other day where all the dickheads on this site went to. Nobody could respond because you had not been seen or read in such a long while. I see you're back. Lurking like a muslim child molester.
Posted by: Mark Z   2007-04-04 17:50  

#27  We've got to find the flaw in this, let's try the Diego Garcia angle, maybe something will come up.


/It's good news, so it's gotta be bad.
Posted by: Shipman   2007-04-04 17:24  

#26  Britain simply sent Khamenei this photo:

Posted by: doc   2007-04-04 17:04  

#25  What was in the note sent by the British to the Iranians? Since the British will not release a copy of it, I can only assume there are strategic concessions involved.

Unfortunately, Iran has apparently scored a clean victory.
Posted by: Grumenk Philalzabod0723   2007-04-04 16:44  

#24  If that happens, I figure we may as well toss Britain onto the same heap as France. But let's wait and see...
Posted by: Dave D.   2007-04-04 16:14  

#23  From The Corner (and this guy reports daily on Iran) his thoughts are scary.

Hostages Freed: What Was the Quid Pro Quo? [Mario Loyola]

Iranian president Ahmadinejad did just announce that the Brits will be released today. As some of us predicted, the quid pro quo included concessions by the United States—we know that Iranian officials will now be allowed to visit the five Iranian "diplomats" detained by the United States in Iraq for supporting the insurgency.

What we haven't seen yet—but it probably won't be long—are the details of the promises Iran extracted concerning its territorial integrity. Iran knows that as it races towards nuclear breakout, it is getting very close to a military confrontation with the United States. Getting the British to agree to back down from the nuclear standoff—and getting them to promise not to allow the U.S. to use the airbase at Diego Garcia—would be an enormous victory for the Mullahs. And it shouldn't be long before they start bragging about it.
Posted by: Sherry   2007-04-04 16:04  

#22  The so call "Walking softly and carrying a Big stick" may apply here after all. The Iranians have noticed and probable received Russian intel that the Nimitz Strike Group is 'on the way'! And no, I do not believe the single release of the Iranian diplomat in Iraq was the 'trigger' to get the 15 released; nor Pelosi's fact finding mission. My advice, get the 4th Carrier Group prep'd and smile all the while, we may just resolve the crisis (nuclear)without a single shot, or atleast a 'quick' one!!
Posted by: smn   2007-04-04 15:40  

#21   Iran also stoked some internal nationalism, reducing any heat they were having to deal with.

Agree, Gorb. And as an extra bonus, whatever dissident movements exist in Iran were dealt a hard blow when it became apparent that, if the British military personnel were unwilling to defend themselves against an Iranian attack, the Iranian anti-government factions shouldn't expect the UN, the UNSC, the EU, or Western powers to come to their aid. I think that was part of Ahmadinejad's assault against the UNSC, which he made during today's press conference.
Posted by: mrp   2007-04-04 15:31  

#20  "As soon as the brits, get home, they must renounce their admissions and tell the world they were forced to lie."

Yeah, like that'll happen....even if it did, probably wouldn't be widely 'reported'.
Posted by: Mullah Richard   2007-04-04 15:26  

#19  Iran also stoked some internal nationalism, reducing any heat they were having to deal with.

Would the Brits handle the same situation the same way if it happened again tomorrow? And I'm not interested in the "they wouldn't have been checking for smuggling/they would have had the Cornwall closer" scenario. I'm interested if they would shoot if the exact same scenario was replayed again after the hostages are returned. Maybe they were too far away, but I doubt it because it seems to me to be good military tactics to have been within striking distance before launching the pontoons, and they are not stupid.

I'm of the opinion this was agreed upon at least in a general sense at the highest levels. The operational details may have been a surprise to the highest levels, but in the end they were of no consequence either way.
Posted by: gorb   2007-04-04 15:16  

#18  As soon as the brits, get home, they must renounce their admissions and tell the world they were forced to lie.
Posted by: Jesing Ebbease3087   2007-04-04 15:14  

#17  If you rob a bank and then give the money back, you are still guilty of bank robbery.
Posted by: Keystone   2007-04-04 15:09  

#16  I'd like to express the hope that the Brits really wanted those sailors and marines out of there to clear the decks for a Good Friday attack but I'm afraid that's hoping for too much. Cooler heads appear to have prevailed...sigh.
I'm happy for the sailors and marines of course but I wonder what Hillary will do when Handjob gets the bomb?
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2007-04-04 14:52  

#15  Medals of Honor for a situation in which no shots were even fired?

What qualifies as honor in the ME never ceases to amaze me.

Medals and permanent desk jobs so they can't do the same f*ck up again.
Posted by: Harcourt Ebbomoter1484   2007-04-04 14:11  

#14  Correction: I'm informed he only got his Master's degree. I do hate to be inaccurate.
Posted by: trailing wife   2007-04-04 14:03  

#13  Mr Katsaris has earnt a PhD, done his service stint in the Greek Army, and got a real job last May. He knows how to behave in the adult world, but chooses not to here. He'd rather play the boorish Greek -- just because America chose to conquer Iraq before Syria instead of his preference of the other way round.
Posted by: trailing wife   2007-04-04 13:54  

#12  Aris is just phishing and trolling to boost his self esteem.
Posted by: anymouse   2007-04-04 13:16  

#11  Big difference here Aris. We don't just go out and take people who are pretty much minding there own business and not in Iranian waters, unless you'v drunk the kool-aid of Iranina propaganda. Tell me these British Saiolors and Marines are involved in and master-minding terrorist attacks ? Your "Moral Relevance" is irrelevant here. Spend a couple of months on patrol in Iraq and then maybe you can have a valid opinion.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2007-04-04 12:57  

#10  Jules> "And the list probably goes on and on."

Indeed. But for the full understanding of the propaganda situation you also need think of the various ways that Iran *could* have acted in regards to the situation -- e.g. if they had forced the prisoners to pose in naked pyramids, fierce dogs threaten them, waterboarded a few, tortured another few to death, had the men naked with panties on their head, the women naked with male underwear on hers, photograph the lot in such a condition. Then hold them for years and years, during which time they'll be often subject to sleep-deprivation, waterboarding, and other means of torture.

Such a treatment would have effectively managed to shut up every Iran-appeasing voice in the West -- the same way that Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and the like has effectively managed to shut up so many moderate voices in the Muslim world and other possible supporters of you elsewhere.

Trailing wife> You don't *really* think that's a genuine muslim, do you? That's merely a caricature of one. And if anything it displays the dishonesty of whoever made him.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2007-04-04 12:45  

#9  I have to remember that for next Christmas.

Now you know why I always say that Iran needs to be at the top of America's Christmas list.

As I have always maintained, Western people need to be protected by us Muslims. This is a law of nature.

Before I take my own advice and DNFTT, I'd just like to break with routine and tell J:IMR to FOAD.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-04-04 12:41  

#8  Ladies and gentlemen: please look this way and see the results of generations of overt close-cousin marriage... and of covert co-mommy, half-sister and daughter rape. The reason you are satisfied, Justice Idiot, is because you are not intelligent enough to understand anything. Go sit in the corner and wipe the dribble off your chin while the grown-ups talk.
Posted by: trailing wife   2007-04-04 12:34  

#7  Medals of Honor for a situation in which no shots were even fired?

What qualifies as honor in the ME never ceases to amaze me.
Posted by: Mike N.   2007-04-04 12:20  

#6  I don't believe there was any "power struggle" in Iran over this issue. Even the former president, black-hatted Khatami, was breathing fire a few days ago. If there was significant difference in opinion, people would be dying and the jail cells would be packed. It's simply toffee and carrots confected for a British political class desperate for this matter to just disappear down the memory hole.
Posted by: mrp   2007-04-04 10:50  

#5  Probably coordinated with Syria's "diplomatic triumph". Thugs are the reasonable guys, not like those war-mongers in the British and US administrations. Would it be surprising if Syria claims that Pelosi's visit was the catalyst for the release?
Posted by: mrp   2007-04-04 10:44  

#4  I guess we know who won the power struggle in Iran over this.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2007-04-04 10:41  

#3  "...a gift to the British people"
OK, let me get this straight, you use piracy in Iraqi waters, have the equivalent of a fraternity hazing hell week on uniformed soldiers, and them you "regift" them and (hopefully) hand them back after 13 days... and you call it a gift.
I have to remember that for next Christmas.
Posted by: Capsu 78   2007-04-04 10:25  

#2  A while ago, LH said that this hostage situation would have propoganda purposes for Iran, and I didn't get it. Now I can see:
They effectively humiliated the UK
They emboldened the appeasement impulse among liberal governments worldwide
They impressed the Muslim world by holding out against a superpower
They weaken the West by spotlighting the Western split about females in the military
They make it very difficult to do much militarily now against a nuclear Iran by appearing to be reasonable and gracious
And the list probably goes on and on.

The only thing to help the West now is to become indifferent to world opinion and do what we want anyway. Build those Anglo Saxon alliances and move ahead against a nuclear Iran as planned.
Posted by: Jules   2007-04-04 10:15  

#1  I've always believed, it's better to be bad (Iran caputuring soldiers)) than look like your doing something good (releaseing the problem you caused in the first place). It's better pub than always looking good. Then it's expected. This way, the left can always say, "see, they are trying"
Posted by: plainslow   2007-04-04 10:07  

00:00