I don't know...is Blair still doing the butt wiping for Bush or not?

You don't think it's entirely possible that the Brits were doing something semi-deliberately provocative in order to get a response from the Iranians? It's a sad commentary when one's initial reaction is to give the benefit of the doubt to the Iranians over the British much less the Americans. At the very least, it looks like payback on the part of the British for all of the Iranians we've been picking up.

The idea that anybody should argue that the UN charter prohibits Iran from enriching uranium, but it doesn't prohibit the US and UK from invading Iraq, is fairly laughable. Neocons are quite happy to ignore the UN when it suits their purposes.

"The Persian Gulf is now one big game of chicken".

Actually, I'd wager the Iranians see it exactly the opposite. Their neighbor, Iraq, cooperated repeatedly with UN disarmament programs. What did that get them? A US-led invasion. The Iranians cannot possibly think acceding to US demands would be better for their security. The precedent has been set with North Korea and Iraq: a nation with no nukes can be invaded on the flimsiest of pretexts, while a nation with nukes will cause the neocons to think twice before acting.

If the President's intention was to accelerate nuclear proliferation around the world, he has succeeded wildly. The curious thing is how people like Mario Loyola can try to disappear the past five years down the memory hole. This isn't just a pissing contest between two toughs on the schoolyard. One of the toughs already suckered punched another kid who had already said uncle. Indeed, he and his buddy kicked the shit out of the third kid while he was rolling around on the ground. Not exactly conducive to schoolyard harmony.

I can see several possible scenarios:

First, the British could have been testing something (say, Iran's surveillance capabilities, response times, etc.) by way of intelligence preparation of the battlespace. One way you plan attacks is to see where the other guy isn't looking or isn't able to see you.

Second, the sailors and marines could simply have made a navigational error, though that would have been a pretty spectacular error since there were obviously Iranian forces quite close by (perhaps lending credence to Scenario #1).

Third, perhaps there is more internal disarray in the Iranian regime than we are aware of, and this is some kind of half-baked attempt to produce a rally-round-the-flag effect. We always have to be cognizant of the fact that most Iranians have no living memory of the Islamic Revolution, so perhaps the regime needed to gin up some support.

Fourth, it might be a repetition of the original hostage crisis. As Mark Bowden shows in _Guests of the Ayatollah_, in a sense Khomeini was blackmailed into supporting the embassy takedown by the students -- his hand was forced. A rogue-ish element of the Iranian regime, perhaps attempting to either (a) force the regime's hand or (b) embarrass the regime?

In any event, I agree with Kevin that it's unlikely the Iranians would simply provoke in the midst of the sanctions crisis. They may act crazy, but they've always showed signs of political rationality.

As a descriptive matter, I think Loyola's probably right that the Brits were raising the stakes and that the Iranians re-raised. As a prescriptive matter, Loyola's enthusiasm seems misplaced.

In case it's not clear - in chicken, staying on target = possible danger, while veering away = safety. The lesson of the Iraq war is that veering away ¬= safety. So Iran has little incentive to change their course.

Can't say what actually happened in the water, but I can guarantee you it'll be played like this in the American MSM for the only audience the White House cares about: "IRAN: Out of control? Axis of Evil? How soon will they test a nuclear weapon?!?"

a guy who's been getting a little too sweaty watching episodes of 24

Can I just say, ew? I mean, seriously, ewwwwwwwwww.

This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.

The English deliberately engineered a provocation? The English navy deliberately sacrificed 15 of its sailors/marines to engineer a diplomatic incident so that pressure could be put on the Iranians? Or something. Total utter crap -crap, CRAP, KKKRAAAAAAPPPP. Not even the English would be so devious and moronic.There are two alternative scenarios to explain what happened: either the officers in the piddling little toy boats that ferried the forces to the target boat were incompetent, didn't know how to read a map or use GPS systems, and found themselves wandering into Iranian territory and then legitametely got nicked. Or the Iranians baited a trap and waited while the English merrily wandered in to take the bait and then got nicked. Meantime - where was the air cover protecting the small boats? Why wasn't the base ship HMS Pinafore or whatever it is called keeping a lookout and protecting the brave 15? Whatever scenario you choose, there is a level of military incompetence and stupidity that is mind boggling.

The English government and military themselves are now humiliaterd and totally powerless. The toy fleet of little ships the English have swanning around the Persian gulf is too puny to be able to threaten the Iranians who are sitting there in Tehran laughing like drains at the stupid English. And the Americans will do nothing. They're most probably livid about the stupidity of the English. No doubt the US will attack Iran in due course when they claim there is sufficient provocation. But they will not launch military strikes against Iran just because of 15 incompetents who wanted to play soldiers with the big boys and who will be seen by the international community to have violated Iranian sovereign territory.

So, why is this so surprising.

The toads in Bushland have been trying to provoke Iran or provide a pretext for invading or attacking Iran for months now, everything from exaggerated claims about their progress on nuclear weapons (sound familiar?) to bogus EFP allegations.

Any outright provocation by the Bush administration wouldn't have any credibility - everybody would know instantly that Bush deliberately instigated the provocation just like he instigated the false case of war against Iraq.

So Bush got his good buddy Blair to be a surrogate provocateur and Blair obliged because he's attached to Bush's butt by his lips.

but there is often a lot more to these international "incidents" than meets the eye.

Except of course when there's a good deal less...

'Remember the Maine'

I frankly don't know where the British boats were. But why has the following piece of significant evidence been flushed down the memory hole?

Iraq's military commander of the country's territorial waters, Brig. Gen. Hakim Jassim, told AP Television News that Iraqi fishermen had reported the British boats were "in an area that is out of Iraqi control."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070324/british-seized-iran

Do you think the news services would have forgotten such a fact if it were the Iranian general in charge of territorial waters who went on the record saying that the Brits weren't in Iran? I suspect we'd be hearing about that 24-7.

Third, perhaps there is more internal disarray in the Iranian regime than we are aware of, and this is some kind of half-baked attempt to produce a rally-round-the-flag effect. We always have to be cognizant of the fact that most Iranians have no living memory of the Islamic Revolution, so perhaps the regime needed to gin up some support.

Fourth, it might be a repetition of the original hostage crisis. As Mark Bowden shows in _Guests of the Ayatollah_, in a sense Khomeini was blackmailed into supporting the embassy takedown by the students -- his hand was forced. A rogue-ish element of the Iranian regime, perhaps attempting to either (a) force the regime's hand or (b) embarrass the regime?

These sound far more likely than the first two. Britain looks utterly helpless and weak at the moment. I have a hard time picturing them putting themselves in this situation on purpose.

Iraq's military commander of the country's territorial waters, Brig. Gen. Hakim Jassim, told AP Television News that Iraqi fishermen had reported the British boats were "in an area that is out of Iraqi control."

the middle of the Pacific Ocean is out of Iraqi control too. Big deal.

he's an up-and-comer! Expect him to get drafted as a first round pick by the vice president's office soon.

Yes, except that I think we're going into a seller's market for war enthusiasts. The VP's office is a lot like the housing bubble - too much dry humping for too long, and now the long hangover.

Remember the movie Iron Eagles? I sometimes thing that certain men on the national scene think it was a documentary rather than a wish-fulfillment fantasy. This guy -- and Cheney, Bush, Perle, Feith, Rummy, Condi -- each and every one, dreams a whupass vision that is completely loony, and not appropriate for anyone in a position of responsibility to play with.

Not that they, any of them, give a Flyin' F.

Under usual circumstances, even in a time of crisis, this would just be passed over and a quick settlement would be reached. I suspect it will be. One can imagine Gordon Brown does not want Iran on his plate. There is just no stomach for more of the Middle East meat and money grinder and Labour is slipping even in Scotland. But the Bush administration runs private war- even against their own party- and their policies are beyond the looking glass, so anything is possible.

OT: U.S. prosecutors on Monday charged David Stockman, a former chief executive of Collins & Aikman and a former Reagan administration budget director, and seven other former company officials with fraud and conspiracy related to alleged financial misdeeds at the bankrupt auto parts maker.

Too bad conservatives' alleged tough-on-crime attitude doesn't translate to a don't commit crimes attitude.

Thank goodness Bush can now appoint USAs who will look the other way when GOPers are caught victimizing Americans.

Not.

The scenarios Greasy Nick proposes seem a little far fetched. The British have a competent military and I don't think this was a mistake. They want to test the Iranians and they got some good information about how the Iranians would react. They really aren't endangering their soldiers as both sides know that any mistreatment of those soldiers will result in very serious consequences.

As to the question of whose waters they were in, the British reaction indicates they were in Iranian waters. The sailors would have a GPS system in such a vessel so they could be located in the event of a storm. So the British know where the boat was to at least within 10 meters (probably more accurate than that). If they were indeed in Iraqi waters, they would have released that data to make their case.

The real question is: why did the Iranians take the bait? I think they want to hold the sailors for a while and then release them unharmed. Maybe they will even do a show trial just to boost domestic support. This will show two things to the outside world. First, they will defend themselves. More importantly, they will do so in a manner consistent with international law. They will probably even claim that because they didn't torture the sailors, they treat their enemies more humanely than the US or Britain. We will have no way to counter those claims and Iran will come out of this with more international support than they had before. And Britain will have to claim incompetence rather than admit they were deliberately trying to provoke Iran.

...his scenario sounds like something from a guy who's been getting a little too sweaty watching episodes of 24

That guy would be you?

The scenarios Greasy Nick proposes seem a little far fetched. The British have a competent military and I don't think this was a mistake. They want to test the Iranians and they got some good information about how the Iranians would react. They really aren't endangering their soldiers as both sides know that any mistreatment of those soldiers will result in very serious consequences.

The Iranians paraded the last guys they grabbed blind-folded in public. That is mistreatment.

As to the question of whose waters they were in, the British reaction indicates they were in Iranian waters. The sailors would have a GPS system in such a vessel so they could be located in the event of a storm. So the British know where the boat was to at least within 10 meters (probably more accurate than that). If they were indeed in Iraqi waters, they would have released that data to make their case.

Relaease what data? An easily forged printout of GPS coordinates? I think the fact that they have GPS leads to exactly the opposite conclusions. If they were testing the Iranians, they would have done so in a way that would have prevented capture, not poking around in a couple of rigid inflatables.

This kind of stuff happens all the time- including the getting caught part. It just never gets reported. If you know any old SEALs or other Special Forces types or read enough about the Cold War you will not be surprised by this little incident.

It IS interesting that it is public.

RSM: If they were testing the Iranians, they would have done so in a way that would have prevented capture, not poking around in a couple of rigid inflatables.

RSM still doesn't get that the capture of their soldiers is exactly what the British wanted.

Sailors.

[/pedantry]

There has been a long-standing dispute between Iraq and Iran over the Shatt-al-Arab. Under Saddam, Iraq claimed the waterway up to the Iranian shoreline. The internationally recognized border is the thalweg (midpoint of the shipping channel). This is different from the geopgraphical midpoint of the waterway. It wouldn't take much for the Brits to have strayed into Iranian waters. On the other hand, the Revolutionary Guard often makes its own rules.

Tom S. I think has it right. The Iraqi's and the Iranians have had differing views for years about the ownership of this waterway and that even without a nagvigation error could easily explain this incident without a conspiracy theory.

Kevin,

I know that you have tried mightily to avoid saying anything about what the US should do with respect to Iran, but suppose, just for the purposes of argument, that the Iranians deliberately kidnapped these sailors in Iraqi waters in order to force the UK or US to release Iranians captured inside Iraq. What do you think the UK and US ought to do?

There has been a long-standing dispute between Iraq and Iran over the Shatt-al-Arab. Under Saddam, Iraq claimed the waterway up to the Iranian shoreline.

Well, for some time, they calimed the waterway including the Iranian shoreline, and attempted for several years to align the reality on the ground with that claim.

Well, the word is apparently out that we HAVE to hit them this year, so we better crank up the provocation machine:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21452350-31477,00.html

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879153851&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

Wonder if you can get iodine tablets on eBay...

From RickT's link to the Aussie story: "...cabinet decided then to approve the attack when it learned that a shipment of enriched uranium fuel rods was due to arrive at the new reactor south of Baghdad."

Hmmm...hope that the Iraqis had kept their receipt for those fuel rods. Can't get a refund without one...

Wonder if you can get iodine tablets on eBay...
Posted by: RickT

You can get anything you want at Alice's restaurant...

'This is about a pact the American right made with the devil, a pact the devil is now coming to collect on. American conservatism sold its soul to the Coulters and Limbaughs of the world to gain power, and now that its ideology has been exposed as empty and its leadership incompetent and corrupt, free-floating hatred is the only thing it has to offer.' The Coulterization of the American right/Gary Kamiya - http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/03/13/
coulter/

Bellumregio brings up a key point: During the cold war each side always probed the other's defenses to gauge reaction levels.
It was not uncommon to have Soviet Backfire bombers, or Bear's, Badgers, et al get an escort service away from American airspace by the US airfore.
It happened a lot.
I think this incident is more of a probe, "hey, what'cha going to do?" and the Brits got a response. Now it's the diplomats turn.
Eventually, the Brit's will be released with the admonishment from the Iranian government of respecting Iran's sovereignty, and it will be a non-issue...well, till the wacky neocons rub themselves down with gun grease, and have a group-grope with a globe of the world. I'm sure their having fantasies about it even now, the sick puppies.

Somebody wrote:

"[I]t's unlikely the Iranians would simply provoke in the midst of the sanctions crisis. They may act crazy, but they've always showed signs of political rationality."
______________________

It's a mistake to assume that every act on the part of one part of government actually represents the intent of the government as a whole. The Iranian Navy has long had standing orders to arrest anyone violating Iranian waters, especially around the Shatt al Arab. I very much doubt they even bothered to check with Tehran before they seized the British sailors and marines. The leadership in Tehran is doubtless trying to make the most of the situation, but the seizure needn't be part of any sly scheme.

Likewise, the idea that the British deliberately put their own people in a position to be scooped up is far-fetched. It's far more likely that an innocent difference of understanding about the exact location of Iranian waters was the cause of the whole mess. As in other parts of the world, Middle East borders have a tendency to be where the border guards decide they are that day.

It still rather nasty of the Iranians to have arrested the Brits. Normal sea-going courtesy would have been to challenge them, point out their error and send them on their way. But some third world types like to stick it to the big boys whenever they can. They can nearly always get away with it.

Until, one day, they don't. Some might want to remind them of the War of Jenkin's Ear.

I was rather hoping that the lack of a U.S. PR offensive over this incident means that either the Bush regime is too busy to start another war, or that Bush himself stopped at the edge of the precipice.

I know, wishful thinking, but just the same, if they were trying to drum up support for war with Iran, why not try to exploit this incident?

Bellumregio is probably pretty close to reality in his scenario -- probing enemy defenses, etc., is pretty routine stuff in the special operations communities -- though I can also see the logic in Trashhauler's comments, which weren't far from my own -- namely, that the central government's hand is being forced by someone downstream.

Comments noting the thalweg dispute are also quite important -- it's not clear exactly where the border "officially" is. Saddam abrogated the 1975 Algiers accord that set the border before invading in 1980, and I don't recall if the cessation of hostilities in 1988 included a settlement.

I agree with bizutti. Seems to me that this operation was intended to probe Iran, not provoke them. The Tonkin maneuver is scheduled later.

I don't recall if the cessation of hostilities in 1988 included a settlement.

On NPR they reported that after the Iran/Iraq war, they went back to the thalweg border.

Andrew Sullivan notes that we no longer have any standing to complain about the treatment that the captured Brits may receive while undergoing interrogation. By US government-approved standards, they may be waterboarded, sleep-deprived, and exposed to extremes in temperature.

Thanks, GW!

I wonder if it is vaguely plausible that the Iranians might have cranked up the "grab some western sailors if you get a chance"-o-meter because it would be handy to have some war prisoners in the event of a US attack on Iran in the next few weeks?

Can't imagine that Blair would do anything to jeopardize the chances for Gordon Brown's (who's ascendency is hanging by a thread) 'smooth' transition. Brown would not allow it.

Blair is more like a dead duck than a lame one at this point, so it seems very unlikely that he would continue to carry water for Washington. Especially regarding Iraq/Iran.

The whole thing seems like a mistake. Even with all the GPS stuff, not inconceivable that either the Brits or the Iranians got their coordinates wrong.

I wonder if it is vaguely plausible that the Iranians might have cranked up the "grab some western sailors if you get a chance"-o-meter because it would be handy to have some war prisoners in the event of a US attack on Iran in the next few weeks?

I don't think that Iran is dumb enough to think that the GWB admin gives a damn about British sailors.

The Iranians paraded the last guys they grabbed blind-folded in public. That is mistreatment. … Red State Mike at 3:37 PM

It's far more likely that an innocent difference of understanding about the exact location of Iranian waters… Trashhauler at 4:57 PM

Mike
The Iranians paraded the last guys they grabbed blind-folded in public. That is mistreatment. … Red State Mike at 3:37 PM

But waterboarding, false execution, and imprisonment in a gulag is not….

Are you saying parading blind-folded in public is not mistreatment? Or are you just taking a cheap shot on behalf of your Radical Islamic Overlords you so obviously support?

GPS should have told the Brits to within a few metres where they were...if the Brits were in Iraqi territory, why didn't they arrest the Iranians because the Iranians would have necessarily also been in Iraq territory?

Non sequitur, since we don't know if the Brits were in Iraqi waters. There is a third option.

In the Shatt Al Arab there are only two options - Iraqi or Iranian waters.

Aren't the British sailors working under American military leadership?

Are you saying parading blind-folded in public is not mistreatment? Or are you just taking a cheap shot on behalf of your Radical Islamic Overlords you so obviously support?

I would say parading people blindfolded is not mistreatment. I wouldn't do it to my guests, but it's not really mistreatment. And given the way we treat prisoners, we certainly have no right to criticize it. As for the "taking a cheap shot" part, we have made it our policy to torture the people we catch. By doing so, we open ourselves to criticism of that policy, even snarky comments. It's hardly a cheap shot. It's not like we are accidently torturing people or that torture has only occurred in isolated incidents.

fostert wrote:

"I would say parading people blindfolded is not mistreatment. I wouldn't do it to my guests, but it's not really mistreatment. And given the way we treat prisoners, we certainly have no right to criticize it. As for the "taking a cheap shot" part, we have made it our policy to torture the people we catch."
_______________________

Not to put too fine a point on it, but our official policy is that we will not torture our prisoners. Mileage may differ on what constitutes torture, of course.

In any case, I haven't tortured anyone, so I have no trouble saying that parading people around blindfolded is mistreatment. These weren't special ops types from the Special Boat Squadron. They were normal sailors and marines checking Iraqi vessels for smuggling. The odds are great that their progress in checking vessels had been monitored every step of the way. They should not have been arrested, let alone taken to Tehran.

Nonetheless, that's where they are. Odds are they'll be released eventually, even if tried and found guilty. But Westerner militaries came to expect such mistreatment from these folks long, long before we began the GWOT.

For anyone interested in who captured the 15 Royal Marines and sailors and what their role in Iran actually is the following might be helpful:

The big question: What is the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and who controls them?
By Angus McDowall in Tehran
Published: 27 March 2007
Why ask this now?

When two British boats with 15 Royal Navy personnel were seized by Iran on Friday, all eyes turned to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. The corps' naval force carried out the operation, which Britain says happened in Iraqi territorial waters, and its commanders hold the key to the crisis.

Representing a power block in Tehran's complex political scene, the guards are at the sharp end of all the recent confrontations with the West. They are deeply involved in its nuclear and ballistics programme and are accused of "interference" in Iraq and Lebanon.

There is a precedent, too. When British servicemen were captured in the summer of 2004, it was widely interpreted as an exercise in muscle-flexing by the guards, who wanted to show Britain and America that their presence in Iraq was unwelcome. Some analysts also believed they wanted to force more pragmatic Iranian strategists into a harder line against the West.

Who are the guards?

Known in Persian as the Pasdaran, the guards emerged from the tumult of Iran's 1979 revolution. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's followers were unwilling to trust the police or the army to maintain revolutionary discipline, so formed the guards as a nationwide militia. They patrolled the streets, enforcing strict Islamic mores and attacking supporters of opposing ideological factions.

When Iraq invaded in September 1980 the untrained and poorly armed guards joined the regular army on the front line. Over the next eight years they evolved into a disciplined military force that extolled martyrdom and battled the better-equipped Iraqi soldiers for God, Khomeini and country. Since the war ended in 1988, the guards have become Iran's crack troops.

Senior commanders are still mostly seen as ideological hawks. When students demonstrated in 1999, top guardsmen signed a letter threatening a coup if the reformist president Mohammed Khatami failed to rein them in. But there are signs the rank and file are less politically hardline, with some reports suggesting the majority of them actually voted for Mr Khatami.

How strong are they?

The guards number up to 150,000 and are armed with the best weapons the Islamic republic can buy. By comparison, the conventional army has 300,000 troops but is ill-paid and less well-equipped. The guards have a naval force of 20,000 men designed to undertake amphibious guerrilla operations. They are also believed to operate Iran's ballistic missile programme and to be developing other weapons systems.

A large militia, known as the Basij, is directed by the revolutionary guards. With several million recruits of all ages and both sexes, it was known in the war for its ideological fervour and blind courage. Today it organises pro-regime demonstrations and violently breaks up anti-government protests. Membership can help ease applications for government jobs and places at university.

Iran's special forces, the Qods Brigade, are under the guards' control and have close ties to the intelligence services. The brigade has been inconclusively linked to terrorism and assassinations outside Iran.

Who do they answer to?

In Iran's unique political system, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei sits above the elected government, run by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and controls large parts of the state. Unlike the conventional forces, the revolutionary guards answer to his office. The supreme leader appoints top guardsmen and they in turn profess themselves his "devotees".

During the Iran-Iraq war, when Khamenei was president, he worked closely with the guards and developed personal relationships with its top leaders. But it has never been clear how close an interest he takes in tactical decisions. It is also uncertain how far commanders who disagree with his policies are able to push their own ideas or take unsanctioned, independent action.

The top Pasdaran commander, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, is reported to have strongly criticised talks with Europe on the nuclear issue ­ talks that were endorsed by the supreme leader himself. As a protégé of Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the revolution, Mr Safavi is unlikely to be overawed by his successor Ayatollah Khamenei.

Is their importance growing?

Since the revolution, Iran's military has steered clear of power games. But over the past three years, some analysts have speculated that the revolutionary guards are trying to move into politics. Many of the conservatives who won seats in a controversial election to the Majlis, or parliament, in 2004 were old members of the Pasdaran.

In presidential elections the following year, three candidates had close connections to the guards, including the mayor of Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It has never been clear what rank the president held, but there are rumours he was involved in special forces operations.

Since taking office, political rivals have accused him of militarising the government. Certainly, many of his cabinet appointees come from the guards and he has awarded enormous contracts ­ worth billions of pounds ­ to engineering companies run by them.

What have they got against Britain?

As the confrontation between Iran and the West has increased, it is the guards who have felt the heat. Some of the Iranians captured by American forces in Arbil in northern Iraq in January were corps members. The raid is reported to have greatly angered guardsmen, who hold Britain, as America's partner in the Iraq occupation, partly responsible.

Accusations of interference in Iraq and Lebanon have also been directed at the guards. Statements from top commanders suggest they see such charges as hypocritical, lambasting Britain and America for occupying neighbouring countries and making threatening noises about attacking Iran.

And with the nuclear crisis growing worse, the guards have come under sanction. Under a UN resolution co-sponsored by Britain and agreed on Saturday, revolutionary guards leaders, including Mr Safavi, will have their assets frozen.

What's happening to the servicemen now?

British diplomats have been told the servicemen are in good health and are being treated well. Iran has said it might charge them with entering Iranian waters illegally ­ something Britain denies they did. But it has not said what this might involve. In 2004, the captured servicemen were shown blindfold on Iranian television. Britain has told Iran that if that happens again, it would be seen as a serious escalation.

The Iranians have so far denied access to the servicemen and will not even confirm a report on Saturday that they had been transferred to Tehran. But whether they are in the capital or remain near the coast, the likelihood is they are still being held by the revolutionary guards.

Will the British servicemen be released soon?

Yes...

* Iranian media have played down the incident, creating some room to back off

* The Iraqi government has said that the boats were in their waters, not in Iran's

* Iranian pragmatists have become more important in recent months and might counsel a swift solution

No...

* Top officials have said the servicemen could be charged ­ which might take weeks

* Revolutionary Guards are angry at what they see as recent American escalation of involvement in Iraq

* Some factions might see the servicemen as bargaining chips for other disputes

"The stakes in this nuclear-poker game just got a little higher."

... Written by someone who thinks he's not a chip in the game. When he gets to be part of someone's bluff, he'll think again.

Ed

so you don't think that he's right eh? Too paranoid eh? No-one-would-possibly-be-that-crazy eh?

Remember the last time you gave anyone in this administration (ok they're British troops, but giving the British any decision making role is to give Blair way too much credit) the benefit of the doubt? How did that work out for you?