On The Edge Of War
US-Led Coalition Set The Iran-Iraq Maritime 'Border'
Without Telling The Iranians
How Britain Triggered
2007 Iranian 'Hostage' Crisis
www.nlpwessex.org/docs/watbritainirancrisis.htm
Was It Extraordinary Negligence Or An Eden-Suez Type Plot?
New MOD Evidence Released
Under Freedom Of Information Act

Heroine Or Unwitting Pawn?
Faye Turney (above) was one of the party of British marines and sailors which was captured by Iran in the Persian Gulf in March 2007 when the party had thought it was operating in internationally recognised Iraqi waters.

Now the London Times has uncovered startling evidence from within the British Ministry of Defence that these British troops were working to an unrecognised Iran-Iraq maritime border line unilaterally drawn up by the US-led coalition, and not notified to Iran. As a result these troops did not know that they were operating in waters claimed by Iran. Moreover a full explanation as to why they were left without their cover helicopter just before the capture incident took place has still not been provided.

Was this simply a case of astonishing negligence by the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence, or was it a deliberate act of deception of the kind used by Prime Minister Anthony Eden in 1956 to trigger war with Egypt over oil and the Suez canal, full details of which only came to the surface many years later?

In the 21st century how many international borders in such a sensitive location are unilaterally designated by 'advanced nations' without all parties being notified? The British and American governments now have a lot of explaining to do.

"Let me make it absolutely clear, irrespective of what has been said in the past, when we were detained by the IRG [Iranian Revolutionary Guards] we were inside internationally recognized Iraqi territorial waters."
British sailors' statement: Full text
CNN, 6 April 2007

"The arrests took place in waters that are not internationally agreed as Iraqi."
Extract From Ministry of Defence Internal Document
London Times, 17 April 2008

In Practice It Can Be Assumed That Within The 'Coalition' It Was Britain And America
That 'Set' The Iran-Iraq Maritime Border Without Telling Iran
As A Result Of Which Junior British Military Personnel Were Unaware They Were Operating In Waters Claimed By Iran

"Fifteen British sailors and Marines were seized by Iran in internationally disputed waters and not in Iraq’s maritime territory as Parliament was told, according to new official documents released to The Times. The Britons were seized because the US-led coalition designated a sea boundary for Iran’s territorial waters without telling the Iranians where it was, internal Ministry of Defence briefing papers reveal. Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act detail for the first time the blunders last spring that led to what an all-party committee of MPs came to describe as a 'national embarrassment'..... Newly released Ministry of Defence documents state that: — The arrests took place in waters that are not internationally agreed as Iraqi; — The coalition unilaterally designated a dividing line between Iraqi and Iranian waters in the Gulf without telling Iran where it was.... Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, repeatedly told the Commons that the personnel were seized in Iraqi waters.... [In 2007] The MoD, in a televised briefing by Vice-Admiral Charles Style, the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, produced a map showing a line in the sea called 'Iraq/Iran Territorial Water Boundary'. A location was given for the capture of the Britons inside what the chart said were 'Iraq territorial waters'. But the newly released top-level internal briefing accepts that no such border exists.... Professor Robert Springborg, of the School of Oriental and African Studies, said yesterday that it was negligent to fail to clarify with the Iranians where the notional boundary was. Using the Freedom of Information Act, The Times made requests about the events. The MoD released two documents, although parts are censored. One is the report to Sir Jock dated April 13, 2007, a week after the Britons returned home unharmed. It was compiled after they had been debriefed. The other is the communications log between the mother ship HMS Cornwall and the two seaboats used by the boarding party."
Report reveals Iran seized British sailors in disputed waters
London Times, 17 April 2008

The Initial Response Of The Iranians To The Incident Was Friendly
Until They Were Opposed By British Marines Who Had Been Misled By Their Superiors Into Thinking They Were In Undisputed Iraqi Waters

"The terrifying minutes when 14 British servicemen and a woman found themselves surrounded by heavily armed Iranians at sea are divulged today. A plaintive radio call for a helicopter to save them was made to the mother ship HMS Cornwall moments before the sailors and Marines were seized by Revolutionary Guards. A wireless transcript was released by the Ministry of Defence after a request by The Times under the Freedom of Information Act, although some of the transcript was replaced by the word 'redacted'.... A newly released MoD report to the Chief of the Defence Staff states that on March 23, 2007, the boarding team in two RIBs (ribbed inflatable boats) set out to board a vessel accompanied by a Lynx helicopter. 'En route to the [redacted] the Lynx overflew the MV Hanin and reported that they had identified a potentially illegal cargo of motor cars aboard the MV Hanin. A decision was made to redirect the boarding to this vessel which was located outside the Buffer Zone 1.5 [nautical miles] from the Op Line'. Precisely what happened next remains secret. A passage of the report is missing, replaced with 'redacted'....The narrative resumes: 'The crew of the MV Hanin became agitated and the captain told the boarding party that he did not want them to leave as he was fearful of Iranian reprisals. 'At this point OCRM [the senior Royal Marine] ordered all his personnel to make their weapons ready and for the [RIBs] to come alongside to extract the teams. As the party was descending the ladders, two Iranian gunboats came alongside and blocked in the RIBs. [Redacted] The initial posture of the Iranian personnel was friendly and the IRGCN [Revolutionary Guards Navy] Captain shook hands with OCRM and told him he was in Iranian waters, which OCRM refuted. The Iranians then adopted an aggressive stance...."
‘We have cowboys . . . can we have the helicopter over ASAP?’
London Times, 17 April 2008

"It was during the boarding that we noticed the helicopter had returned to 'Mother,' and we started calling the ship on VHF to find out why. A short while later two [Iranian] speed boats were spotted approaching rapidly about 400 meters away..... Another six boats were closing in on us... we realized that had we resisted there would have been a major fight, one we could not have won with consequences that would have had major strategic impact......"
British sailors' statement: Full text
CNN, 6 April 2007

Only Deft Footwork From The Iranians Stopped The Incident
Exploding Into All Out War

"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 Iranians did not reveal what had prompted them to make such a dramatic public climbdown....Downing Street did not expect that the captives would be freed in less than 24 hours. "
Sudden decision owes more to tension in Tehran than to Britain’s diplomacy
London Times, 5 April 2007

"Washington did not launch air strikes against Iran early Friday despite recent media reports, but expectations of the attack have driven Brent price to $70 per barrel. Russian and foreign media have recently reported the U.S. could launch an operation, codenamed Bite, against Iran at 4:00 a.m. local time April 6. The operation was expected to deliver air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities over a 12-hour period to prevent the country from obtaining nuclear weapons..... Iran's Defense Ministry declined to comment on possible U.S. strikes Thursday night, saying it was closed for Thursday and Friday, which are days off in the republic. Israel's DEBKAfile Web site quoted intelligence sources in Moscow in late March as saying a U.S. strike against Iranian nuclear sites had been scheduled for April 6 and aimed at setting Tehran's nuclear program back several years."
No U.S. attack on Iran, oil price hits $70 in expectation
RIA Novosti (Russia), 6 April 2007

"The release of the 15 British sailors and marines captured by Iran has robbed the U.S. of a pretext to attack Iran, but the U.S. has not given up plans to attack Iran militarily, said Col. Gen. Leonid Ivashov, president of the Academy for Geopolitical Problems, a Russian think tank. 'Preparations to strike Iran's strategic facilities continue...'".
Russian general says U.S. continues preparations for military action against Iran
Interfax (Russia), 8 April 2007

Who Was In Lt-Cdr Phil Richardson's Chain Of Command?
Who Asked Him To Leave The Scene?

"Lt-Cdr Phil Richardson, the pilot of a Lynx helicopter which had been providing cover, said the crew of the ship appeared co-operative and friendly so he was asked to continue reconnaissance in the rest of the area.... '"
Iran kidnaps Marines at gunpoint
By Terri Judd, aboard HMS Cornwall in the Persian Gulf
Independent, 24 March 2007

"A catalogue of errors, from poor intelligence to inadequate training and lack of firepower, was blamed yesterday for the capture of the 15 British Marines and sailors by Iranian forces two weeks ago. As the Ministry of Defence began an inquiry into the circumstances of the incident on March 23, when a lightly armed Royal Navy boarding party was ambushed and taken hostage by Iranian Revolutionary Guards, naval sources said that clear failings had already been identified... The inquiry will want to know why the Lynx helicopter flying from HMS Cornwall, which was equipped with a heavy machinegun, had already returned to the ship before the mission was complete. It was scrambled when the ambush was under way but arrived back on the scene too late to save the Marines and sailors. ' 'I understand that HMS Cornwall had requested a sniper team be added to its crew but this was turned down by the Ministry of Defence,' one naval source said. 'That has now been rectified.' There are also concerns that Royal Navy commanders had inadequate intelligence that may have made them complacent. Iranian military commanders had been giving warning publicly for weeks that they intended to capture American or British forces in Iraq in retaliation for the arrest in January of five Iranian officials by US troops. British servicemen were particularly at risk on March 23 since Britain was pushing through a UN Security Council resolution the next day, imposing sanctions on Iran over its nuclear programme. British soldiers operating in southern Iraq were put on alert earlier this year against the hostage threat. They were authorised to use 'maximum force' to avoid being captured while on patrol. The same rules of engagement clearly did not apply to naval personnel patrolling Iraqi waters."
Inquiry begins into errors that led to crew’s ambush
London Times, 6 April 2007

"Intelligence failures are also being blamed for the incident. British troops in southern Iraq had been warned of the dangers of being taken hostage, after Iran openly threatened to capture American or British soldiers. They had been authorised to use 'maximum force' to protect themselves. And yet, on the eve of a UN Security Council vote on a British resolution to impose sanctions against Iran, no warning was given to the boarding party about the dangers to which they were being exposed."
Deaths fuel Iran row
London Times, 6 April 2007

"... it is hard to think of anything in modern times that has held Britain up to such, and such richly deserved, international contempt as the case of the 15 captured mariners in the Shatt al Arab. There was the original sin; messing about in lightly armed little boats in a waterway contested by Iran — a bit like poking a mad dog in the eye without being prepared to clobber it with a big stick if it bites."
Why Old Britain's Time is Up
TIME, 12 April 2007

"Royal Navy commanders are furious that the Ministry of Defence and senior Fleet officers have failed to order a full inquiry into the debacle surrounding the capture by Iranians of 15 servicemen. There is a growing belief that the furore over the media payments story is acting as a smokescreen to the 'national scandal' of the mistakes made that have substantially undermined Britain's international standing, Fleet sources said. Officers believe a board of inquiry would reveal what led to the decision to allow 15 troops so close to the Iranian border without support.... "
Officers fear furore hides real 'scandal'
Daily Telegraph, 13 April 2007

"[Lt. Carman:]...... On Friday 23 March I along with 14 of my colleagues were part of a routine boarding patrol. We deployed from HMS Cornwall in two Rigid Inflatable Boats and patrolled into an area south of the Shatt Al Arab waterway. This was meant to be a routine boarding operation and followed approximately 66 similar such boardings over the previous four weeks. 'We approached an unidentified merchant vessel that our supporting helicopter had identified as worth investigation. We carried out a completely compliant boarding with the full cooperation of the Master and crew. The RM secured the vessel and the RN element of the boarding party then arrived and commenced a thorough search of the ship. This was in complete accordance with our UN mandate and as part of an International Coalition. We were equipped with Xeres true navigational equipment and hand held GPS for backup. The helicopter in support provided continuous navigational confirmation and we were also linked to HMS Cornwall who were monitoring our exact position at all times. Let me make it absolutely clear, irrespective of what has been said in the past, when we were detained by the IRG we were inside internationally recognized Iraqi territorial waters and I can clearly state we were 1.7 nautical miles from Iranian waters. [Capt. Air:] It was during the boarding that we noticed the helicopter had returned to 'Mother,' and we started calling the ship on VHF to find out why. A short while later two speed boats were spotted approaching rapidly about 400 meters away. I ordered everyone to make their weapons ready and ordered the boarding party to return to the boats. By the time all were back on board, two Iranian boats had come alongside. One officer spoke good English and I explained that we were conducting a routine operation, as allowed under a UN mandate. But when we tried to leave, they prevented us by blocking us in. By now it was becoming increasingly clear that they had arrived with a planned intent. Some of the Iranian sailors were becoming deliberately aggressive and unstable. They rammed our boat and trained their heavy machine guns, RPGs and weapons on us. Another six boats were closing in on us. We realized that our efforts to reason with these people were not making any headway. Nor were we able to calm some of the individuals down. 'It was at this point that we realized that had we resisted there would have been a major fight, one we could not have won with consequences that would have had major strategic impact. We made a conscious decision to not engage the Iranians and do as they asked. They boarded our boats, removed our weapons and steered the boats towards the Iranian shore......"
British sailors' statement: Full text
CNN, 6 April 2007

"The British lapse was all the more surprising because the same thing happened in June 2004, when eight sailors and marines were seized in the same area and released three days later. The defence ministry compiled a 'lessons learnt' paper to ensure that those mistakes were not repeated. The Sunday Times has learnt that the paper highlighted the need for 'top cover' for boarding parties, which should always have been covered from the air by the presence of a helicopter. The Cornwall’s Lynx – armed with a .50 machinegun that could have caused serious damage to the Iranian fast boats – had apparently been overhead when the sailors boarded the Indian freighter. Why did it turn back, leaving the sailors exposed? The ministry initially said last week that it needed to refuel before retreating behind an insistence that there was no standard procedure for keeping a helicopter in place. "
Focus: In the eye of the storm
Sunday Times, 1 April 2007

"... The Royal Navy and Royal Marines have huge experience of operating in the narrow Gulf waterway and there is concern, if not bewilderment, over the manner in which the 14 service-men and one servicewoman were so easily seized by the Iranian gunmen."
Browne apologises, offers two inquiries . . . and keeps his job
London Times, 17 April 2007

"General Sir Michael Rose, [is] former head of the SAS, ex-commander of UN forces in Bosnia, and formerly in charge of standards in the Army as Adjutant General..... 'The overall system should have responded in some way,' he says, referring to the mother ship, the heavily armed HMS Cornwall which was nearby when the hostages were taken. He also criticises the ship’s crew for not detecting the Iranian approach on their radar screens..... 'I am amazed that the Navy hasn’t had a Board of Inquiry about what happened. Who put them in that situation? They should be held responsible. .... Yes, there should indeed have been charges, and the senior officers should have been asked how come they allowed this situation to occur. '..."
J'Accuse! Top General lambasts 'moral cowardice' of government and military chiefs
Dail Mail, 12 April 2007

"Prime Minister Tony Blair warned Iran on Tuesday of a 'different phase if it does not free 15 British military personnel captured in the Gulf four days ago. The sailors' capture and new U.N. sanctions imposed on Tehran on Saturday over its disputed nuclear programme have stoked tensions between the West and Iran and pushed oil prices to a 2007 high.... 'They have to release them. If not, then this will move into a different phase,' he told GMTV television."
Blair warns Iran of 'different phase'.
Reuters, 28 March (Wednesday) 2007

"Iran held 15 British sailors for the fifth straight day yesterday with no indication of where they were or when they might be released. An angry Prime Minister Tony Blair warned that the showdown was moving to a 'different phase.' He refused to elaborate."
Angry Blair eyes 'different phase'
Ottawa Sun, 28 March 2007

"Russian intelligence believes that the U.S. Armed Forces have nearly completed preparations for a possible military operation against Iran, and will be ready to strike in early April, the RIA-Novosti news agency reported on Friday quoting an unnamed source in the Russian security services. The source said the U.S. had already compiled a list of possible targets on Iranian territory and practiced the operation during recent exercises in the Persian Gulf. 'Russian intelligence has information that the U.S. Armed Forces stationed in the Persian Gulf have nearly completed preparations for a missile strike against Iranian territory,' the source said. American commanders will be ready to carry out the attack in early April, but it will be up to the country’s political leadership to decide if and when to attack, the source said. Official data says America’s military presence in the region has reached the level of March 2003 when the U.S. invaded Iraq."
Russian Intelligence Predicts U.S. Missile Strike on Iran in Early April
MosNews, 30 March 2007

"Tony Blair’s remarks today in Scotland were very candid. In essence he said that we have a window of 48 hour to conclude a deal."
Analysis: Iran deal 'all a matter of wording'
London Times, 3 April 2007

"The next 48 hours will be crucial to securing the release of the 15 British sailors and Marines held by Iran, Tony Blair said yesterday. But Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, cautioned against expecting 'a swift resolution' to the crisis, which enters its thirteenth day today. And British officials said that the state of dialogue between London and Tehran was 'confused'.... Mr Blair, visiting Glasgow yesterday, said: 'The next 48 hours will be fairly critical.' He did not elaborate..."
Iran softens stance over captured crew but Beckett calls for caution
London Times, 4 April 2007

"Washington did not launch air strikes against Iran early Friday despite recent media reports, but expectations of the attack have driven Brent price to $70 per barrel. Russian and foreign media have recently reported the U.S. could launch an operation, codenamed Bite, against Iran at 4:00 a.m. local time April 6. The operation was expected to deliver air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities over a 12-hour period to prevent the country from obtaining nuclear weapons.....Iran's Defense Ministry declined to comment on possible U.S. strikes Thursday night, saying it was closed for Thursday and Friday, which are days off in the republic. Israel's DEBKAfile Web site quoted intelligence sources in Moscow in late March as saying a U.S. strike against Iranian nuclear sites had been scheduled for April 6 and aimed at setting Tehran's nuclear program back several years."
No U.S. attack on Iran, oil price hits $70 in expectation
RIA Novosti (Russia), 6 April 2007

"The London-based brother of the Iranian general who personally ordered the kidnapping of the 15 servicemen in the Shatt al-Arab waterway condemned Britain’s ingratitude after their release last week.... The Sunday Times revealed last week that the general had told Iran’s Supreme National Security Council that the hostage crisis was getting out of hand and warned its members that the Britons should be freed to defuse tension in the Gulf. They were released six days later. A source confirmed this weekend: 'It was General Safavi who recommended to the supreme religious leader [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] that the captives should be released. Even though he was the one who gave the order to grab the guys, he believed that the timing wasn’t good for Iran to keep them longer than necessary.”
Say thank you, says hostage taker’s brother
Sunday Times, 8 April 2007

"The underground bunkers beneath Whitehall had been busy since July, and the 'arthritic' British war machine was already creaking into action. A top-secret meeting at S�vres between the three allies (the Israelis turning up in hats and dark glasses) to plot the final moves was foolishly recorded on paper. Eden was thrown into a panic. The French and Israelis refused to destroy their copies, but the evidence was clear: a squirming Eden was up to no good."
The long shadow
Guardian, 4 November 2006

"At the official level Eden's immediate response was refined both by Whitehall planning, lead by the Foreign Office, and by discussions with the US government..... Britain's foreign intelligence service MI6 wanted to go much, much, further. Under the American Freedom of Information Act I've obtained a CIA memorandum from April 1st 1956. Presented for the first time in a documentary, it records two days of meetings between MI6 Deputy Director, George Young, and his CIA counterparts."
Professor Scot Lucas
Suez - The Missing Dimension
'Archive Hour' Interview, BBC Radio 4, 28 October 2006

The Suez Conspiracy

"Following emerged as MI6 position. Nasser's aims are the total destruction of Israel, Egyptian domination of all Arab governments, and elimination of all western positions in the Arab area. In order to realise his ambitions Nasser has accepted full scale collaboration with the Soviets. Nasser has now taken the initiative for the extension of Soviet influence in Syria, Libya, and French North Africa. Nasser must therefore be regarded as out-and-out Soviet instrument. MI6 asserted that it is now British government view that western interests in the Middle East, particularly oil, must be preserved from Egyptian-Soviet threat at all costs."
CIA Memorandum, 1April 1956, obtained by Professor Scott Lucas under the Freedom of Information Act
Suez - The Missing Dimension
'Archive Hour' Interview, BBC Radio 4, 28 October 2006

"You find that people in MI6 were conducting quite separate policies..... quite regardless of what the Foreign Office view was. I was astonished when somebody showed me some document written by an acquaintance of mine in MI6. I wouldn't have recognised it at all as being anything like British policy, but it was set out as being so. These secret people, you see, they get so above themselves, if I might say so."
Evelyn Shuckburgh, Assistant Under Secretary of State for Middle East Affairs at the Foreign Office in 1956, interviewed decades later
Suez - The Missing Dimension
'Archive Hour' Interview, BBC Radio 4, 28 October 2006

"I remember that I went to see Dick White [Head of MI6] who was an old friend of mine. And he told me that MI6 had information, which he regarded as reliable, that there was a body of dissidents in Cairo who were prepared to stage a revolt and upset Nasser, if allied forces approached the capital. I remember feeling extremely sceptical about this, and in fact if there were any such dissidents prepared to do anything, Nasser had absolutely no difficulty in dealing with them.... It took me no time at all to realise that things were not being handled in the proper traditional way. Instead of the military's directors of plans making plans for a possible military operation, they were being handled by special planning staff. What surprised me enormously was that no Foreign Office adviser was sitting with these planners. I went to see the Cabinet Secretary Norman Brook in London. I said to him that I thought it was a pretty good shambles. And I remember that he smiled and made no comment. He certainly didn't deny it."
Patrick Reilly, Foreign Office Assistant Under Secretary Of State 1956, interviewed decades later
Suez - The Missing Dimension
'Archive Hour' Interview, BBC Radio 4, 28 October 2006

"All the time here he [Eden] was with this personal declaration of war against Nasser, but no means of putting it into effect. Because although Nasser had nationalised the Suez Canal Company he hadn't given us any casus belli, he hadn't actually stopped a ship, or arrested a British subject, or shot anybody, or done anything which would give us the opportunity to go in and invade. And then suddenly the French came up with this plan whereby the Israelis would take the initiative, they would invade Egyptian Territory, they would march to the Suez Canal, and Britain and France would then intervene in order, so the declaration would read, to separate the combatants, to put out this most dangerous fire which had started in the Middle East and to land troops between the two - well, on the Suez Canal. So we would then in effect retake possession of the Suez Canal and the Suez Canal Company, and this in its turn would be such a humiliation for President Nasser that he would be toppled from his perch. It was as if suddenly the heavens had opened, and here was the opportunity at last. I was allowed to consult two officials at the Foreign Office - Permanent Under Secretary, and the Under Secretary in charge of the Middle Eastern area. Nobody was to be told."
Anthony Nutting, Foreign Office Minister of State 1956, interviewed decades later
Suez - The Missing Dimension
'Archive Hour' Interview, BBC Radio 4, 28 October 2006

"All my life I have been a man of peace, working for peace, striving for peace, negotiating for peace. I've been a League of Nations man, and a United Nations man, and I'm still the same man with the same conviction, the same devotion to peace. I couldn't be other even if I wished. But I'm utterly convinced that the action we have taken is right."
Anthony Eden, British Prime Minister, speaking in 1956
Suez - The Missing Dimension
'Archive Hour' Interview, BBC Radio 4, 28 October 2006

"I was increasingly aware that people had been hiding things, in particular that you couldn't trust a damn thing that the politicians or the Foreign Office said...."
Frank Cooper, Permanent Under-secretary at the Ministry of Defence during the 1956 Suez Crisis, interviewed decades later
Suez - The Missing Dimension
'Archive Hour' Interview, BBC Radio 4, 28 October 2006

In 1956 Almost No One Knew That Eden Was Secretly Planning War Against Egypt

"With hindsight it's clear that Eden was already committed to military action [against Egypt in 1956]. Approaching the problem through the United Nations was unlikely to work, since in international law Nasser probably was within his rights to nationalise the Suez Canal Company. With the likelihood of armed conflict in mind, in fact Eden would ultimately engage in an illegal secret pact with France and Israel to provide a pretext to start it..... no one outside of a very few close confidants knew of Eden's single minded commitment to a military solution, and still less about the very secret plan hatched with the French and Israelis to provide a pretext for that military action to start.... Government preparations for war went largely unreported in detail having been the subject of two 'D' notices. That's the system by which press and broadcasters agree voluntarily to restrict reporting of matters relating to national security. Meanwhile unknown to any but his closest inner circle the plan for the Israelis to invade Egypt, thus allowing Britain and France to intervene on the pretext of keeping the waring sides apart, was ready to be put into action."
'A Comfort to the Enemy'
BBC Archive Hour, Saturday 4 November 2006 20:00-21:00 (Radio 4 FM)

"The Suez Crisis, which occurred 50 years ago, was the full stop at the end of the British Empire......Middle Eastern oil was as essential, in 1956 as now, to the economy and security of the United States, Europe and world trade..... Only in October did Eden adopt the joint Anglo-French-Israeli plan that was indeed a disaster..... The world community had an essential interest in the free flow of oil through the canal."
Lord William Rees-Mogg
Suez: why I blame it on Ike
London Times, 24 July 2006

"To mark the 50th anniversary of the Suez Crisis of 1956, Professor Scott Lucas uses new evidence to uncover the key role played by British intelligence services in 'creating' the war with Egypt. To tell this story for the first time, Professor Lucas presents a number of interviews which he conducted with British officials in the late Eighties. These interviews have never been aired and many were 'classified' until the deaths of the interviewees. They include the recollections of [Conservative MP] Julian Amery, who met the anti-Nasser plotters in Geneva and Athens up to the end of August 1956. He reveals the details of the conversations and only drew the line at revealing the identities of his Egyptian conspirators. For many years, the blame for Suez has been placed on Prime Minister Anthony Eden and his lack of judgement. This documentary will contend, however, that British intelligence was plotting for the downfall of Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser long before Nasser's nationalisation of the Suez Canal Company in July 1956 and even before Eden's expressed wish in March that year to get rid of the Egyptian leader."
Archive Hour – Suez: The Missing Dimension
BBC Press Office, October 2006

"Lord Heseltine, the Conservative former defence secretary, is the latest to criticise the selling of stories by 15 former Iranian hostages, declaring he is 'appalled' by the Government decision to allow it.... Speaking on the Today programme this morning, he said: 'What an extraordinary story that people who every day take calculated risks with their lives are expected to earn relatively small sums of money whilst people who get themselves taken hostage, in circumstances which are worth exploring, can make a killing.'..... Des Browne, the Defence Secretary who is understood to have signed off the decision, was even facing claims that hostages could have been encouraged to 'tell all' to deflect attention from the circumstances of their capture and their 'confessions' while in Iran.....According to the Ministry of Defence, the decision was taken by the Royal Navy in consultation with the MoD. But Labour will be unable to avoid responsibility after officials privately admitted that it involved ministers 'at the highest level' - code for the Defence Secretary himself. Tony Blair was informed, said No 10."
Heseltine joins furore over sailors' stories
Daily Telegraph, 9 April 2007

"As a former Defence Secretary, I feel nothing but despair over an episode that could permanently damage the morale of our services... At every step of the saga, the political and military leaders have looked inept, from failing to protect properly the Royal Navy boarding party in the first place to sanctioning the sale of the captives' stories.....the Royal Navy's exercise appears to have been conducted without proper equipment or support, making it easy for Tehran's Revolutionary Guards to seize the unit without a fight. Good communications, armament and helicopter back-up all seem to have been lacking, even though the Iranians had made it obvious that they were looking for a chance to interfere.... We are told that by agreeing to allow Press interviews the Ministry kept some degree of control. Really! Why did they need it? What were they fearful the hostages might say?.... Given the extent of this mess, we must have a public inquiry into what has happened. Such an inquiry would have to examine three fundamental issues. First, it should look into the exact circumstances of the detention of the Royal Navy party, studying in particular the alleged lack of support from the nearby task force headed by HMS Cornwall. We need to know why the raiding party was so pitifully armed and seemed to have no cover from any helicopter.... Second, we have to find out who actually took the decision to allow the personnel to sell their stories. At what level was it made in the MoD? Was the Defence Secretary consulted, or indeed the Prime Minister? What was the reasoning behind this radical departure from official policy?"
Heseltine: 'Humiliating and inept, and only one man is to blame'
Daily Mail, 10 April 2007

"Fuel is our economic lifeblood. The price of oil can be the difference between recession and recovery. The western world is import dependent. ....So: who develops oil and gas, what the new potential sources of supply are, is a vital strategic question...The Middle East, we focus on naturally."
Prime Minister's speech at the George Bush Senior Presidential Library, Texas
10 Downing St, 7 April 2002

"The United States offered to mount aggressive air patrols over Revolutionary Guards bases during Iran's stand-off with Britain.... Citing unnamed diplomatic sources, the [Guardian] said that Pentagon officials offered a series of military options...."
US offered to scare Iran; sailors were 'stripped, blindfolded'
Agence France Presse, 7 April 2007

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3761058.ece

From The Times

April 17, 2008

Report reveals Iran seized British sailors in disputed waters

Fifteen British sailors and Marines were seized by Iran in internationally disputed waters and not in Iraq’s maritime territory as Parliament was told, according to new official documents released to The Times.

The Britons were seized because the US-led coalition designated a sea boundary for Iran’s territorial waters without telling the Iranians where it was, internal Ministry of Defence briefing papers reveal.

Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act detail for the first time the blunders last spring that led to what an all-party committee of MPs came to describe as a “national embarrassment”.

The captured 14 men and one woman were paraded on Iranian TV for a fortnight before being freed a year ago by a smiling President Ahmadinejad, who gave them new suits and bags of presents.

Newly released Ministry of Defence documents state that:

— The arrests took place in waters that are not internationally agreed as Iraqi;

— The coalition unilaterally designated a dividing line between Iraqi and Iranian waters in the Gulf without telling Iran where it was;

— The Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ coastal protection vessels were crossing this invisible line at a rate of three times a week; It was the British who apparently raised their weapons first before the Iranian gunboats came alongside;

— The cornered British, surrounded by heavily armed Iranians, made a hopeless last-minute radio plea for a helicopter to come back and provide air cover.

Iran always claimed that it had arrested the Britons for violating its territorial integrity.

Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, repeatedly told the Commons that the personnel were seized in Iraqi waters.

The MoD, in a televised briefing by Vice-Admiral Charles Style, the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, produced a map showing a line in the sea called “Iraq/Iran Territorial Water Boundary”. A location was given for the capture of the Britons inside what the chart said were “Iraq territorial waters”. But the newly released top-level internal briefing accepts that no such border exists.

The report, addressed to Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the Chief of the Defence Staff, blames the incident on the absence of an agreed boundary and a failure to coordinate between Iraq, Iran and the coalition.

Under the heading “Why the incident occurred”, the report examines the history of a border that has been disputed since a treaty between the Persian and Ottoman empires in 1639.

Professor Robert Springborg, of the School of Oriental and African Studies, said yesterday that it was negligent to fail to clarify with the Iranians where the notional boundary was.

Using the Freedom of Information Act, The Times made requests about the events. The MoD released two documents, although parts are censored. One is the report to Sir Jock dated April 13, 2007, a week after the Britons returned home unharmed. It was compiled after they had been debriefed. The other is the communications log between the mother ship HMS Cornwall and the two seaboats used by the boarding party.

What they said

“There is no doubt that HMS Cornwall was operating in Iraqi waters and that the incident itself took place in Iraqi waters . . . In the early days the Iranians provided us with a set of coordinates, and asserted that was where the event took place, but when we told them the coordinates were in Iraqi waters they changed that set and found one in their own waters. I do not think that even they sustain the position that the incident took place anywhere other than in Iraqi waters”

Des Browne, Defence Secretary, House of Commons, June 16, 2007

“Since the outset of the Iraq-Iran War there has been no formal ratified TTW [territorial waters] agreement in force between Iraq and Iran . . . In the absence of any formal agreement, the coalition tactical demarcation (the Op Line) is used as a notional TTW boundary. It is a US NAVCENT [US Naval Forces Central Command] construct based on an extension of the Algiers accord demarcation line beyond the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab [waterway] into the NAG [northern Arabian Gulf]. While it may be assumed that the Iranians must be aware of some form of operational boundary, the exact coordinates to the Op Line have not been published to Iran.”

MoD report to the Chief of the Defence Staff under the heading: ‘Why the incident occurred’, dated April 13, 2007, released to The Times under the FoI

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3761054.ece

From The Times

April 17, 2008

‘We have cowboys. . .can we have the helicopter over ASAP?’

The terrifying minutes when 14 British servicemen and a woman found themselves surrounded by heavily armed Iranians at sea are divulged today.

A plaintive radio call for a helicopter to save them was made to the mother ship HMS Cornwall moments before the sailors and Marines were seized by Revolutionary Guards.

A wireless transcript was released by the Ministry of Defence after a request by The Times under the Freedom of Information Act, although some of the transcript was replaced by the word “redacted”.

At 8.43am local time, as a suspicious merchant vessel was boarded by the British, the inspection party sent the message: “That’s Blue Team embarking”. At 9.04am comes the first sign of trouble. The crew say: “We have cowboys rpt cowboys beside us”.

A minute later, they plead for air cover: “Can we have helo over ASAP?” HMS Cornwall replies: “Can you let us know what they are doing? Are they in Iraqi territorial waters?” The reply comes: “Yes”.

A newly released MoD report to the Chief of the Defence Staff states that on March 23, 2007, the boarding team in two RIBs (ribbed inflatable boats) set out to board a vessel accompanied by a Lynx helicopter.

“En route to the [redacted] the Lynx overflew the MV Hanin and reported that they had identified a potentially illegal cargo of motor cars aboard the MV Hanin. A decision was made to redirect the boarding to this vessel which was located outside the Buffer Zone 1.5 [nautical miles] from the Op Line”.

Precisely what happened next remains secret. A passage of the report is missing, replaced with “redacted”.

It seems that the British may have raised their weapons first. The coalition had carried out 66 boardings in four weeks so it is unclear if this might have been seen as a provocative act.

The narrative resumes: “The crew of the MV Hanin became agitated and the captain told the boarding party that he did not want them to leave as he was fearful of Iranian reprisals.

“At this point OCRM [the senior Royal Marine] ordered all his personnel to make their weapons ready and for the [RIBs] to come alongside to extract the teams.

“As the party was descending the ladders, two Iranian gunboats came alongside and blocked in the RIBs. [Redacted] The initial posture of the Iranian personnel was friendly and the IRGCN [Revolutionary Guards Navy] Captain shook hands with OCRM and told him he was in Iranian waters, which OCRM refuted.

“The Iranians then adopted an aggressive stance, bringing their weapons to bear and physically blocking in the [RIBs]. Due to the speed of change in posture and the overwhelming fire-power available to the IRGCN, the boarding team took the decision to lower their own weapons in order to try and deescalate the situation.

“The [RIBs] were then piloted by IRGCN personnel including a camera-man who videoed the events”.

For nearly a fortnight Iranian TV showed the team. Leading Seaman Faye Turney, the only woman, was filmed smoking and wearing a hijab.

The MoD let the detainees sell their stories. Arthur Batchelor became a laughing stock after telling the Daily Mirror that he sobbed himself to sleep when guards confiscated his iPod and called him Mr Bean.

"People who have already had one career but are seeking greater challenges are also being headhunted [by MI6], especially when the experience they have gleaned has a relevance to secret intelligence work. Recent recruits have joined from the City, elsewhere in Whitehall and from business."
MI6: agents of change
London Times, 9 April 2008

"The prime minister's former chief security and intelligence adviser, Sir Richard Mottram, has accepted a job with GardaWorld, a Canadian private security company that saw four of its employees kidnapped in Iraq last year, the Guardian has learned. Mottram, who retired last autumn as chairman of Whitehall's joint intelligence committee, and as permanent secretary for security, intelligence and resilience, confirmed yesterday he is to join GardaWorld's 'international advisory board'. His appointment was first revealed by Solomon Hughes, author of War on Terror, Inc, which is published by Verso this week. Hughes said yesterday he learned about it after the book went to print. GardaWorld described its international board as providing 'strategic counsel and industry expertise' to its experts working with clients in 'high-risk markets around the world, focused in particular on the global oil and gas, and mining industries'. It declined to say how much Mottram will be paid. Four GardaWorld security guards were seized by about 40 gunmen wearing police uniforms at the Iraqi finance ministry in Baghdad in May last year. A fifth hostage, whom the others were guarding, was an employee of BearingPoint, a management consulting firm based in Virginia. Their whereabouts are unknown. General David Petraeus, US commander in Iraq, said he believed they were abducted by a group funded by Iran. A GardaWorld spokesman yesterday made no comment. Mottram was appointed chairman of the JIC soon after the intelligence fiasco of the Iraq weapons dossier."
Former intelligence chief moves to Canadian private security firm
Guardian, 16 April 2008

"The neoconservatives may yet get their war on Iran. Ever since Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki ordered the attacks in Basra on the insurgent Mahdi Army, Gen. David Petraeus has been laying the predicate for U.S. air strikes on Iran and a wider war in the Middle East. Iran, Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee, has 'fueled the recent violence in a particularly damaging way through its lethal support of the special groups.' These 'special groups' are 'funded, trained, armed and directed by Iran's Quds Force with help from Lebanese Hezbollah. It was these groups that launched Iranian rockets and mortar rounds at Iraq's seat of government (the Green Zone) ... causing loss of innocent life and fear in the capital.' Is the Iranian government aware of this - and behind it? 'President Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders' promised to end their 'support for the special groups,' said the general, but the 'nefarious activities of the Quds force have continued.' Are Iranians then murdering Americans, asked Sen. Joe Lieberman: 'Is it fair to say that the Iranian-backed special groups in Iraq are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians?' 'It certainly is ... That is correct,' said Petraeus. The following day, Petraeus told the House Armed Services Committee, 'Unchecked, the 'special groups' pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq.' Translation: The United States is now fighting the proxies of Iran for the future of Iraq. The general's testimony is forcing Bush's hand, for consider the question it raises: If the Quds Force and Hezbollah, both designated as terrorist organizations, are arming, training and directing 'special groups' to 'murder' Americans, and rocket and mortar the Green Zone to kill our diplomats, and they now represent the No. 1 threat to a free Iraq, why has Bush failed to neutralize these base camps of terror and aggression? Hence, be not surprised if President Bush appears before the TV cameras, one day soon, to declare: 'My commanding general in Iraq, David Petraeus, has told me that Iran, with the knowledge of Ahmadinejad, has become a privileged sanctuary for two terrorist organizations - Hezbollah and the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard - to train, arm and direct terrorist attacks on U.S. and coalition forces, despite repeated promises to halt this murderous practice. 'I have therefore directed U.S. air and naval forces to begin air strikes on these base camps of terror. Our attacks will continue until the Iranian attacks cease.'"
Petraeus points to war with Iran
San Francisco Chronicle, 16 April 2008