posted on April 7, 2007 06:17:10 AM new
Iranian: U.K. Can Help Mend Relations
Updated 7:30 AM ET April 7, 2007
By JILL LAWLESS
LONDON (AP) - Fifteen British sailors and marines freed from captivity in Tehran began two weeks' leave with their families Saturday, while Iran's ambassador to London urged Britain to help his nation mend relations with the international community.
Ambassador Rasoul Movahedian told the Financial Times newspaper in an article published Saturday that Iran had "showed our goodwill" by freeing the Britons.
"Now it is up to the British government to proceed in a positive way," he was quoted as saying. "We will welcome in general any steps that could defuse tensions in the region."
The British mariners, captured in the Persian Gulf on March 23, were freed Wednesday by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who called their release a gift to Britain.
Movahedian told the Financial Times that the release of the British crew was not connected to the fate of five Iranians held by U.S. forces in Iraq. U.S. officials said last week that Iran would be granted access to the detainees, but denied the decision was linked to the fate of British crew. Britain also has denied a link.
But Movahedian indicated help from the British on the matter would be appreciated.
"If they want to be helpful and use their influence we will welcome that. ... We will welcome in general any steps that could defuse tensions in the region," he said.
Movahedian called on Britain to use the resolution of the crisis as a chance to "establish sensible lines of communication with Iran."
He said "the prime issue for Iran" was recognition from the West of its right to a nuclear power program.
The United States and allies, including Britain, fear Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program under cover of its civilian nuclear program. Iran denies this, insisting it seeks to use the program only for nuclear energy.
Britain's Foreign Office had no immediate comment on the Iranian ambassador's remarks. A spokesman said officials "will need time to assess the implication for diplomatic relations with Iran" of the crew's accounts of their treatment in detention.
The newspaper said Movahedian spoke before several crew members described Friday how they had been blindfolded, bound, kept in solitary confinement and subjected to psychological pressure during their captivity.
On Saturday, the Vatican said that Pope Benedict XVI had written to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to intercede for the release of sailors. Vatican officials declined to give details about the letter, including when it was sent. The Vatican said the pope intervened for humanitarian reasons.
The sailors said during their Friday press conference that they were coerced into saying they had been in Iranian waters when they were detained.
"All of us were kept in isolation. We were interrogated most nights and presented with two options. If we admitted that we'd strayed, we'd be on a plane to (Britain) pretty soon," said Lt. Felix Carman, who commanded the crew. "If we didn't, we faced up to seven years in prison."
Marine Joe Tindell said he believed one of his colleagues had been executed on the second day of the ordeal. The 21-year-old said the crew believed they were being taken to the British Embassy to be released, but were instead dumped in a holding facility.
"We had a blindfold and plastic cuffs, hands behind our backs, heads against the wall ... there were weapons cocking," Tindell told British Broadcasting Corp. radio. "Someone said, I quote, 'Lads, lads I think we're going to get executed' ... someone was sick and as far as I was concerned he had just had his throat cut."
Iran dismissed the news conference as propaganda _ just as Britain had condemned the crew members' frequent appearances on Iranian TV during their captivity.
The British crew was detained while patrolling for smugglers near the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab, a waterway that has long been a disputed dividing line between Iraq and Iran.
Tehran says the crew was in Iranian waters. Britain insists its troops were in Iraqi waters working under a U.N. mandate.
Prime Minister Tony Blair has insisted Britain did not negotiate for the sailors' release, and did not offer an apology for their alleged trespass into Iranian waters.
Despite the resolution of the crisis, tensions in the Persian Gulf remain high. The U.S. has two aircraft carrier groups off Iran's coast, its largest show of force in the region since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The Guardian newspaper reported Saturday that the U.S. military offered to mount "aggressive patrols" over Iranian Revolutionary Guard bases after the sailors and marines were captured.
The newspaper, which did not name its sources, said Britain had declined the offer and asked the U.S. to tone down its military activity in the Gulf. The Guardian said U.S. forces "modified their exercises to make them less confrontational.""""
(Thank goodness for cooler, smarter Brits!!!)
The Foreign Office declined to comment on the report.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
posted on April 7, 2007 07:32:29 AM newWhere was the EU in the capture of the British sailors?
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, April 6, 2007
Iran has pulled off a tidy little success with its seizure and subsequent release of those 15 British sailors and marines:
a pointed humiliation of Britain, with a bonus demonstration of Iran's intention to push back against coalition challenges to its assets in Iraq. All with total impunity.
Further, it exposed the utter futility of all those transnational institutions -- most prominently the European Union and the U.N. -- that pretend to maintain international order.
You would think maintaining international order means, at a minimum, challenging acts of piracy. No challenge here. Instead, a quiet capitulation.
The quid pro quos were not terribly subtle.
An Iranian "diplomat" who had been held for two months in Iraq is suddenly released. Equally suddenly, Iran is granted access to the five Iranian "consular officials" -- Revolutionary Guards who had been training Shiite militias to kill Americans and others -- whom the U.S. had arrested in Irbil in January. There may have been other concessions we will never hear about. But the salient point is that what got this unstuck was American action.
Where then was the EU?
These 15 hostages, after all, are not just British citizens, but under the laws of Europe, citizens of Europe. Yet the EU lifted not a finger on their behalf.
Europeans talk all the time about their preference for "soft power" over the brute military force those Neanderthal Americans resort to all the time.
What was the soft power available here? Iran's shaky economy is highly dependent on European credits, trade and technology. Britain asked the EU to threaten to freeze exports, $18 billion a year of commerce. Iran would have lost its No. 1 trading partner. The EU refused.
Why was nothing done?
The reason is simple. Europe functions quite well as a free trade zone. But as a political entity, it is a farce.
It remains a collection of sovereign countries with divergent interests. A freeze of economic relations with Europe would have shaken the Iranian economy to the core. Yet nothing was done. "The Dutch," reports The Times of London, ``said it was important not to risk a breakdown in dialogue.´´ So much for European solidarity.
Like other vaunted transnational institutions, the EU is useless as a player in the international arena. Not because its members are venal but because they are sovereign. Their interests are simply not identical.
The problem is most striking at the U.N., the quintessential transnational institution with a mandate to maintain international peace and order. There was a commonality of interest at its origin -- defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
The war ended, but the wartime alliance of Britain, France, the U.S., China and Russia proclaimed itself nonetheless the guardian of postwar "collective security" as the Security Council.
Small problem: their interests are not collective. They are individual.
Take the Iranian nuclear program. Russia and China make it impossible to impose any serious sanctions.
China has an interest in maintaining strong relations with a major energy supplier, and is not about to jeopardize that over Iranian nukes which are no threat to it whatsoever.
Russia sees Iran as a useful proxy in resisting Western attempts to dominate the Persian Gulf.
Ironically, the existence of transnational institutions like the U.N. makes it harder for collective action against bad actors. In the past, interested parties would simply get together in temporary coalitions to do what they had to do. That is much harder now because they feel such action is illegitimate without the blessing of the Security Council.
The result is utterly predictable. Nothing has been done about the Iranian bomb. In fact, the only effective sanctions are those coming unilaterally out of the U.S. Treasury.
Remember the great return to multilateralism -- the new emphasis on diplomacy and "working with the allies" -- so widely heralded at the beginning of the second Bush administration? To general acclaim, the cowboys had been banished and the grown-ups brought back to town.
What exactly has the new multilateralism brought us?
North Korea tested a nuclear device.
Iran has accelerated its march to developing the bomb.
The pro-Western government in Beirut hangs by a thread.
The Darfur genocide continues unabated.
The capture and release of the 15 British hostages illustrate once again the fatuousness of the "international community" and its great institutions.
You want your people back?
Go to the EU and get stiffed.
Go to the Security Council and get a statement that refuses even to ``deplore´´ this act of piracy. (You settle for a humiliating expression of ``grave concern".
Then turn to the despised Americans. They´ll deal some cards and bail you out.
==============
Charles Krauthammer is a 1987 Pulitzer Prize winner, 1984 National Magazine Award winner, and a columnist for The Washington Post since 1985.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 7, 2007 09:42:04 AM new
LOL at the Iranian 'dipolmacy' mingo so approves of. tsk tsk tsk
=================
U.S. says Iran uses hostage diplomacy
By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer Thu Apr 5, 8:39 PM ET
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration accused
Iran on Thursday of using hostage diplomacy to boost its status, turning up U.S. criticism after the release of 15 British sailors and marines.
With the troops safely back on British soil, the White House and the State Department changed the nature of comments that had been deliberately toned down during the captivity.
From his ranch in Crawford, Texas,
President Bush spoke with British Prime Minister
Tony Blair in a lengthy video conference telling him he was pleased that the 15 had returned home, National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.
He said Bush commended Blair for his resolve in reaching a peaceful solution to the crisis that began March 23 when Iranian forces seized the British crew in the Persian Gulf.
Iran says they were illegally in its waters but Britain says they were in Iraqi waters. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced Wednesday he had pardoned the sailors as an Easter holiday gift to the British people.
Johndroe said Washington saw no sign that Tehran was now willing to work with the international community, particularly with the
U.N. Security Council, which has demanded that Iran scale back its nuclear programs.
"What would show that they're more in line with the international community is to comply with the U.N. Security Council resolution," he said.
At the State Department, spokesman Sean McCormack went further.
He said the incident was part of an Iranian pattern of taking hostages dating back to the seizure of 52 Americans in 1979 and including a 2004 incident in which Iran captured and held another group of British sailors.
"This is clearly a regime that, after several decades, continues to view hostage-taking as a tool of its international diplomacy," McCormack told reporters.
"Let's go back 30 years, let's look at seizing hostages from the American Embassy. Let's look at, twice, within the past three years, seizing hostages from the U.K.
There are three examples right there, very clearly, that show a pattern of behavior over an extended period of time."
The United States regards Iran as the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism and has long accused the Islamic Republic of trying to secretly develop nuclear weapons and has been outspoken in severe criticism of the regime.
But for the duration of the British sailor crisis, U.S. officials had limited their public comments to calling for the release of the crew, fearing they might hinder British efforts to win the release of their sailors, McCormack said.
"In the context of an
ongoing hostage crisis, of course we are not going to say anything that could make the situation worse or make it more difficult to realize a peaceful solution," he said. "Absolutely, we're going to tailor our rhetoric."
Both Johndroe and McCormack said the United States had played no role in the release of the British soldiers and reiterated that there was no linkage between the incident and the case of five Iranians held by U.S. forces in
Iraq.
Iran has asked for access to the five, who were detained in January, and McCormack said the request is now under "active consideration" by the
Pentagon.
Separately, he said, Iranian authorities had informed Swiss intermediaries that they are looking into the case of a former
FBI agent who has been missing in Iran since early March.
On Monday, the United States asked Iran, through the Swiss, for any information about the welfare and whereabouts of the missing man, who has been identified as Robert Levinson of Coral Springs, Fla.
Iran then asked for additional data to help in possibly locating the man, which was provided to them on Wednesday, McCormack said.
====
Associated Press Writer Ben Feller contributed to this report from Crawford, Texas.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 7, 2007 09:54:34 AM new
No Nation approves of taking hostages to FORCE their so called 'dipolmacy' sybil.
That you see it as a success is what I was pointing out.
They have established a pattern of taking hostages to get what they want.
Allowing that to continue with NO consequences sets up a terrible precedent.
But the fact that YOU'RE happy to see the Iranians got what THEY wanted....shows your position.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 7, 2007 09:54:49 AM new "Thank goodness for cooler, smarter Brits!!!
And thank goodness for Irans civilized treatment of the prisoners with only a mention of a prison term whereas American prisoners under the direction of George Bush were made to wear black hoods, electrodes on the genitals and deal with ferocious dogs.
posted on April 7, 2007 09:58:12 AM new
More bash America speech from our enemy supporter, hellen.
tsk tsk tsk
I'm surprised you choose to live in America, helen, with how much you're always BASHING it.
And they WERE hooded...stripped naked too. Is THAT what you approve of? The woman being told all the other men were released and she was the only one still being held?
YOU approve of THEIR taking them hostage in the first place?
What is WRONG with you?
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 7, 2007 09:58:43 AM new
Twisting and lying about what I said won't work, linduh!
My approval was for the safe return of the Brits through British diplomacy.....NOWHERE did I express approval of hostage taking by anyone and YOU know it....keep digging that hole deeper though....
posted on April 7, 2007 10:02:26 AM new
Through British WEAKNESS you mean.
Negotiating with TERRORISTS Nations is NOT showing anything except weakness.
Just the way you want it.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 7, 2007 10:18:37 AM new
And if any others agree with hellens un-American views.....
then I have this to add.
The Brits were being threatened with a TRIAL....I seriously doubt they would have had a FAIR trial. And being sent to a Iranian jail for God knows how long....wouldn't have been a piece of cake either.
Added to that....those American soldiers who were found guilty of mistreatment.....were tried and sent to prison, hellen.
As opposed to the Iranians who took the Brits hostage....THEY were honored and given awards for doing so.
Open your eyes to our enemies and stop praising them all the time. Taking THEIR side all the time ....especially when you're so willing to call our own troops terrorists.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 7, 2007 10:24:07 AM new
"Through British WEAKNESS you mean.
Negotiating with TERRORISTS Nations is NOT showing anything except weakness."
According to Fox News report:
Tony Blair said:
"I'm glad that our 15 service personnel have been released and I know their release will come as a relief not just to them but to their families," Blair said outside his No. 10 Downing St. office. "Throughout, we have taken a measured approach, firm but calm, NOT negotiating but not confronting, either."
posted on April 7, 2007 10:26:26 AM new
linduh , you have made it quite clear that YOU would have preferred the British soldiers be tortured or killed, the Brits bombing Iran, the Iranians striking back, a big war, more bloodshed, maimings, while YOU sit on the sidelines GLOATING....
Again, you PROVE that you think physical force and brutality are strengths and intelligent diplomacy with no loss of life is a weakness....so sick...and a product of your sad life...
posted on April 7, 2007 10:34:12 AM new
Gee, linda, you seem upset that this problem was resolved without another colossal blunder involving the Blair/Bush team.
Avoiding war takes strength of mind and character with a focus on resolving the problem rather that escalating a conflict that is already more than we can handle with a cost of thousands additional dead and wounded. I'm surprised that you believe negotiating a successful resolution is weak.
posted on April 7, 2007 10:53:33 AM new
I wonder if Blair regrets going into Iraq with Bush and has now learned lessons about how serious this situation has become and has more patience to take time for dialogue before adding fuel to a fire that's already out of control.
I don't think countries hate each other as much as we are led to believe they do because of the wacko power-hungry leaders on both sides and their supporters that continue to foster that hatred.
posted on April 7, 2007 12:24:39 PM new
hellen, you know perfectly well what I'm talking about.
Your PRAISE for how the Iranian captors treated the Brits.
VS. you LIES and total distain for how America.
Just pointing out once again how you FAVOR our enemies and bash America.
================
And the liberals who are constantly telling us conservatives we should be MORE like them. They didn't have the GUTS to help the UK out.
Also NONE of you showed ANY upset when this all went down. NOT ONE BIT. Where were YOU and the EU? Hiding out?
"Britain asked the EU to threaten to freeze exports, $18 billion a year of commerce. Iran would have lost its No. 1 trading partner. The EU refused."
"Why was nothing done?
"The reason is simple. Europe functions quite well as a free trade zone. But as a political entity, it is a farce."
"It remains a collection of sovereign countries with divergent interests. A freeze of economic relations with Europe would have shaken the Iranian economy to the core. Yet nothing was done. "The Dutch," reports The Times of London, ``said it was important not to risk a breakdown in dialogue.´´ So much for European solidarity."
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 7, 2007 02:06:02 PM new
Bike races???
I've never been interested in bike races. Are you going nuts again?
And I know the difference between this administration and America.
I wasn't talking about President Bush.
But rather how you agreed with ted kennedy that OUR TROOPS were acting like terrorists.
And now..you PRAISE the Iranians who CAPTURED the Brits. And they had NO RIGHT TO DO SO.
That appears to have gone UN-NOTICED by you.
Nope....once again...you praise our ENEMIES.
shame on you helen.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Linda, you are seriously misguided if you believe that you are demonstrating "love" for your country by supporting the incompetent little chicken hawk who likes to be called commander in chief.
And you are equally misguided if you believe that you are supporting our troops by calling for the continuance of their stay in the middle of a civil war in Iraq.
In fact, you represent attitudes and beliefs that are counter to all that I treasure most about this country and the people who live here.
posted on April 7, 2007 04:50:13 PM new
"""Your PRAISE for how the Iranian captors treated the Brits.
VS. you LIES and total distain for how America.""""
(How America what??????)
"""Just pointing out once again how you FAVOR our enemies and bash America.
================
And the liberals who are constantly telling us conservatives we should be MORE like them. They didn't have the GUTS to help the UK out."""
(Uh, the UK seems to have done fine all by it's little self. )
"""Also NONE of you showed ANY upset when this all went down. NOT ONE BIT. Where were YOU and the EU? Hiding out?"""
(No, I was on CNN, Face the Nation, and Fox news yelling and screaming about the whole situation...didn't you see it?? Funny, I didn't see YOU anywhere talking about it ????)
posted on April 7, 2007 06:13:49 PM new
Linda is just pro-war and anti-troops.
Linda expected the whole of Europe to drop everything to help 15 British soldiers. Was England not able to deal with the crisis on their own?
What a dope. The "crisis" did not last long and a peaceful outcome was the result. But Linda expected all of Europe to come to the aid of Britian.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 8, 2007 11:06:18 AM new
LOL...notice how hellen doesn't ACTUALLY DENY she agreed with old ted kennedy when he was publically accusing OUR TROOPS of acting like terrorists in Iraq.
Nope...her memory still sucks. Either that or she words her post in such a way she can't be actually accused of denying what she DID say about our troops., which WAS....THEY were acting like terrorists.
She and others like her bash our troops, call them TERRORISTS, then give lip-service to supporting them.
sick.
Just as SICK as her compliment to the way the Iranian CAPTORS treated the UK soldiers...and how badly the US did. AGAIN...showing her distain for our TROOPS.
===============
Anyway....just to show not ALL Americans see how this 'crisis' was handled as having 'ended well'. Who knows....this may even be the reason the Iranians took UK soldiers TWICE as hostages. Knowing they were 'soft'.
===============
April 6: After British sailors address the media about their captivity in Iran, military analyst Jack Jacobs tells MSNBC's Amy Robach the news conference was the most "dishonorable" performance he can remember in over 40 years.
MSNBC
COMMENTARY
Jack Jacobs
Military analyst
MSNBC
Jack JacobsMilitary analyst
The capture, internment and repatriation of the British sailors and marines can only be described as a shoddy spectacle.
From start to finish, the Brits heaped nothing but ignominy on themselves, and one can recall few instances in recent memory in which a group of uniformed service members acted with less professionalism and more dishonor.
From the start, things were destined to end badly.
Although the inevitable investigation by the Ministry of Defence will determine the sequence of events that led to the capture, it seems that the boarding party was not following generally accepted practices for such an operation.
For example, there was either ineffectual support from sea and air resources, or no support at all.
Iranian Revolutionary Guards were permitted to get close enough to capture the British troops, and there is some evidence that the Brits did not employ anyone to guard the search party.
In part, the United States military Code of Conduct provides,
'I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.'
By contrast, these British geniuses surrendered without a shot being fired in their own defense.
And then things went downhill from there.
In captivity, rather than providing only name, rank, service number and date of birth, the Brits began apologizing for being in Iranian waters (they weren't, according to the British government) and permitted themselves to be taped doing so.
And then came the penultimate step: The Presentation of The Suits and Gifts. Once their release had been arranged, the British captives gleefully accepted small mementos of their internment and new, ill-fitting suits that made the men look like mini versions of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
As if that were not enough, they participated in one last comedy before leaving Iran: amiable chatting with Achmedinejad, the architect of their incarceration. Hearty handshakes all the way around. Thanks for the hospitality. What a pleasant little excursion. Sorry for troubling you.
Once they were released, some were effusive in their praise for the Iranians, apologizing yet again for their intrusion. Some have suggested that the Brits' reprehensible behavior may have been the result of coercion. Please explain how that happens among captives in a matter of mere days, troops who are not isolated and show no sign of abuse? Indeed, some of the tapes showed them eating heartily and clearly not under duress. With what were they being threatened - loss of dessert privileges?
Of course, one can expect a thorough investigation by the Ministry of Defence, and to be sure there will be recommendations to ensure that troops are properly trained, adequately supported, competently led and able to distinguish between proper and improper behavior.
This is also a warning for our forces. Although we work hard to inculcate our troops with the spirits of Code of Conduct and of the warrior ethos, we must always be vigilant in demanding honorable behavior.
Many of us know brave American troops, prisoners of former wars, who endured years of captive isolation without disclosing any information, even under torture. And England has its own Greatest Generation, troops who fought a determined and superior enemy while vowing never to surrender.
As Churchill observed, that was England's finest hour.
This isn't.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
==
helenjw posted on April 7, 2007 09:54:49 AM
"Thank goodness for cooler, smarter Brits!!!
And thank goodness for Irans civilized treatment of the prisoners with only a mention of a prison term whereas American prisoners under the direction of George Bush were made to wear black hoods, electrodes on the genitals and deal with ferocious dogs.
posted on April 8, 2007 12:28:07 PM new
After reading reports that the UK soldiers are now selling their stories to the highest bidder.....wonder how proud Churchill would be about that.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 9, 2007 10:26:33 AM new
Gawd, what a truly great man we lost because of the liberals position on Bolton. He was just beginning to show the world what a corrupt and inadequate bunch of weak-kneed people the UN leaders really are.
Iran won sailors battle with Britain: Bolton
Apr 9 10:13 AM US/Eastern
Britain's "weakness" in standing up to Iran in the detained sailors stand-off handed Tehran an improbable victory and left it dangerously emboldened, former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton said Monday.
Iran was deliberately probing for allied weaknesses and found them in abundance, Bolton wrote in a hard-hitting article in the Financial Times newspaper.
"Against all odds, Iran emerged with a win-win from the crisis: winning by its provocation in seizing the hostages in the first place and winning again by its unilateral decision to release them," wrote the 2005-2006 US ambassador to the United Nations.
The Guardian newspaper reported last week that the Washington wanted to get involved militarily in cranking up the pressure on Iran, but was rebuffed by London, which preferred to pursue diplomatic channels.
Some commentators here have said the United States should learn a lesson from Britain's handling of the detainees issue in respect to the standoff over Iran's nuclear programme.
The 15 British sailors, seized in the northern Gulf on March 23, returned home on Thursday.
But if the outcome of the stand-off with Iran was a success for British diplomacy, "one hesistates to ask what would constitute failure," Bolton wrote in the business daily.
He said Iran was testing allied resolve and found that Britain responded with "not much of a reaction at all."
"This passive, hesitant, almost acquiescent approach barely concealed the Foreign Office's real objective: keeping the faint hope alive that three years of failed negotiations on Iran's nuclear weapons programme would not suffer another, this time possibly fatal, setback."
The lesson for Iran was that "it probed and found weakness." Ahmadinejad could now "undertake equal or greater provocations, confident he need not fear a strong response," Bolton wrote.
"Emboldened as Iran now is, and ironically for engagement advocates, it is even less likely there will be a negotiated solution to the nuclear weapons issue, not that there was ever much chance of one.
"Iran, sensing weakness, has every incentive to ratchet up its nuclear weapons programme, increase its support to Hamas, Hezbollah and others and perpetrate even more serious terrorism in Iraq.
"The world will be a more dangerous place as a result.
"The only thing risen from this crisis is Iranian determination and resolve to confront us elsewhere, at their discretion, whether on Iraq, nuclear weapons and terrorism."
==/AFP
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 9, 2007 10:30:02 AM newAfter reading reports that the UK soldiers are now selling their stories to the highest bidder.....wonder how proud Churchill would be about that.
They followed the lead of Jessica Lynch.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
. 
Are YOU a Bunghole?