Prisoners were not maltreated and statements were not coerced

April 6, 2007 at 10:20 pm | Posted in Britain, Iran, IRGC, Media, Pasdaran, Propaganda, UK | Leave a comment

The recently released British Royal Marine Commandos and Royal Navy Sailors detained by Iran for illegal entry into Iranian territorial waters, were “paraded” in front of the British media to deliver scripted speeches, in a press conference blatantly stage-managed by the Ministry of Defence. Contrast this to their statements given to al-Alam, that were by the former prisoners’ own admission unscripted and freely given.

Moreover, their self-described treatment at the hands of Iran was by any military standard, exemplary. They were not physically coerced; threatened with physical coercion; subject to sleep deprivation; stress positions; or cruel and unusual punishment. In fact, they were only blindfolded when transported and adequately cared for. Segregation of suspects during interrogation and plea bargains are not unreasonable.

However, the British claims of harsh treatment are undermined by the recently released Iranian video.

And least we not forget; they were arrested for entering Iranian water. A point the British government can no longer sensibly contest, it now having been revealed by Royal Marine Commando Captain Air that their mission was to gather intelligence on Iran. A point buttressed by Royal Navy Lieutenant Carman’s admission that Occupation forces have only made sixty-six boardings in a four week period in the Persian Gulf. Tellingly, the Royal Navy has now ceased all boardings. Carman admission that the HMS Cornwall is tasked with guarding vital Iraqi oil platforms, which are situated outside Iraqi territorial waters, cast further doubt on the British claims to be operating within Iraqi water.

Furthermore, there is no internationally recognised border between Iran and Iraq in this waterway; a point that has been clarified by the United Nations. Thus the British government suggestion to the contrary is manifestly untrue.

All of which seems to have escaped the ever compliant British media.

Iranian Propaganda

April 2, 2007 at 1:07 am | Posted in Britain, Iran, Iraq, IRGC, Media, Propaganda, UK | Leave a comment

The Western MSM is incensed by Iran’s blatant use of the captured Royal Marine commandos and Royal Navy sailors for propaganda purposes. The occidental chauvinism and hypocrisy is astounding. one would never have thought that it was in fact the British media who first sought to use their personnel for propaganda purposes; that the British media, without any evidence, followed the British Foreign Office line that the prisoners were detained illegally in Iraqi territorial waters, failing to accurately report that Iraqi territorial waters have yet to be established and consequently the British claims have no merit in international law; the Royal Navy acknowledged that the waters they were detained in are claimed by Iran.

Instead the British media ran stories about Faye Turney and vilified Iran for holding a mother hostage. Of course, forgetting to mention that had an Iranian mother been on the crew of a fully armed Commando team entering British water, she too would have been detained. Iran’s response was a calculated quid pro quo. Iran is on the one hand showing how these prisoners are unharmed and well treated, yet on the other how vulnerable and helpless they are. Knowing that this places pressure on the British government to resolve the issue.

However, having seen that despite being obviously scripted the World’s media would eagerly report what they said, Iran has adeptly used the prisoners to convey messages to the World public. As much as the Western media will never admit it; it own anti-Iranian propaganda has been shamelessly, thus it is hardly surprising that Iran would respond in this way. Moreover, despite Western claims there is no treaty that prevents it. They are not prisoners of war, and whilst the environment they are in is coercive, there is no evidence of physical coercion. I imagine that Iran will continue to exploit the prisoners for propaganda purposes, whilst the British government continues to do the same.

Brinkmanship Unwise in Uncharted Waters

April 2, 2007 at 12:51 am | Posted in Blair, Britain, hostage-taking, Iran, Iraq, IRGC, Propaganda, UK | Leave a comment

Consortiumnews.com has published a rather good article on the eight RM Commandos and seven RN sailors detained by Iran for illegal entry into Iranian waters questioning the sense of the British strategy.

The frenzy in America’s corporate media over Iran’s detainment of 15 British Marines who may, or may not, have violated Iranian-claimed territorial waters is a flashback to the unrestrained support given the administration’s war-mongering against Iraq shortly before the attack.

The British are refusing to concede the possibility that its Marines may have crossed into ill-charted, Iranian-claimed waters and are ratcheting up the confrontation. At this point, the relative merits of the British and Iranian versions of what actually happened are greatly less important than how hotheads on each side—and particularly the British—decide to exploit the event in the coming days.

Call that humiliation?

April 2, 2007 at 12:45 am | Posted in Britain, hostage-taking, Iran, Iraq, IRGC, Pasdaran, UK | Leave a comment

Terry Jones writing in the Guardian quips,

I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment of our naval personnel accused by Iran of illegally entering their waters. It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this – allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills. And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world – have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? For God’s sake, what’s wrong with putting a bag over her head? That’s what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it’s hard to breathe. Then it’s perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can’t be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are.

British Sponsored Terrorist Release Iranian Prisoners

March 27, 2007 at 1:56 pm | Posted in Blair, Britain, Iran, IRGC, Pasdaran, Terrorism | Leave a comment

Jundallah, the Wahhabi terrorist group released the three members of Iran’s Disciplinary Force (police) that it abducted in eastern Sistan and Baluchetan, earlier this month and then took into Pakistan, where they were held hostage.

Meanwhile Blair has suggested that if the British commandos being detained by Iran for illegally entering Iranian water are not released presently, the situation will move into a “new phase”.

Iran has said that Jundallah has links with British SIS, which of course Britain denies. However the release of these hostages would suggest otherwise.

15 Royal Navy and Royal Marines Captured in Iranian Waters

March 23, 2007 at 3:52 pm | Posted in Britain, Iran, Iraq, IRGC, Pasdaran, UN | 3 Comments

15 Royal Navy sailors and Royal Marines from the frigate HMS Cornwall have been arrested by the Pasdaran for illegally crossing into Iranian territorial waters when they boarded a merchant vessel in the Arvand rud.

The Royal Navy routinely encroaches into Iranian territorial waters without incident. Thus the capture of these servicemen – given that the incident is set to coincide with tomorrow’s UNSC vote on a resolution against Iran and President Ahmadinejad’s speech before that body – was undoubtedly preplanned, set to serve as a timely reminder of the vulnerability of Occupation forces in the region. The Pasdaran etched their symbol into an U.S. warship on the 15 February 2007, a symbolic act to demonstrate their ability to sink the vessel.

Much of the Western MSM are already reporting that the incident occurred in Iraqi territorial waters, without acknowledgement that Britain dispute Iranian territorial waters in the Arvand rud, or explanation as to why the Royal Navy would be patrolling that water. They are certainly not there to prevent smuggling operations or cross border infiltration.

Iran may be prepared to trade the British servicemen for the Iranian diplomats illegally taken hostage by the United States, however I think that doubtful.

The Arrest of Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim

February 24, 2007 at 2:13 pm | Posted in Britain, Hakim, Imperialism, Iran, Iraq, IRGC, Kurd, Pasdaran, Propaganda, SCIRI, Shia, UK, USA | Leave a comment

Commenting on Friday’s arrest and 11 hour detention of Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim – the son of SCIRI president and United Iraqi Alliance leader, Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim – spokesman for the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, Lou Fintor said:

“What I can tell you is that at this point we understand that Mr. Hakim was arrested by soldiers who were doing their duty. He was not singled out, and we understand the soldiers were following standard procedure since the border was closed.”

This is simply untrue. Sayyed Mohsen Al-Hakim, said that his older brother was unlawfully arrested and detained along with several bodyguards in Badre, located in the border between Iran and Iraq on the pretext that his passport had expired, even though it expires in September 2007 and that in any event, it is not the responsibility of the Occupation forces to check passports at entry points; that responsibility belongs to the Iraqi police. Moreover, both the Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and President of the Kurdistan Regional Government Massoud Barzani, have denounced the arrest as illegal.

Talabani’s office issued a statement declaring:

“President Talabani judges that the treatment of Seyyed Al-Hakim was uncivilized and indecent, and he has demanded that the American leadership hold those behind it responsible”.

Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim said of his arrest and detention: “Senior (U.S.) officials intended to arrest me, and these officials gave instructions to personnel at the site.” He also asked: “Is this the way to deal with a national figure? This does not conform with Iraq’s sovereignty”.

This was undoubtedly a deliberate preplanned act of aggression against the SCIRI, the United Iraqi Alliance, the Iraqi government (including the PUK and KDP), Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim and the Shia. The United States has publicly accused Iran of interfering in Iraq’s internal affairs and supporting the insurgency. A claim that was dismissed on Saturday by Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim as “unfounded and mere propaganda,” and has never been supported by the Iraqi government, President or Prime Minister. Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim also stated that Iran is a friend of the Iraqi people and a benevolent country.

In fact, the Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has previously accused the Occupation forces of destabilising region, saying: “If anyone is responsible for the poor security situation in Iraq it is the Coalition”.

Moreover, if there was ever any question as to the United States implacable hostility towards Shia Islam and the Islamic Republic Iran, President George W. Bush, spelt it out in his State of the Union Speech 2007 when he stated: “In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East.” Bush also attributed much of the blame for this too the Islamic Republic of Iran, notwithstanding that the elected Iraqi government is predominately Shia and pro Iranian, hence the very people whom Bush refers to as “Shia extremists”. In fact, not only is the United Iraqi Alliance pro-Iranian, so too are the main Kurdish parties, the PUK and KDP.

Far from supporting the elected Iraqi government, the Occupiers are actively undermining it. The United States is not interested in stabilising Iraq; quite the reverse, the United States is opposed to an autonomous Shia government of Iraq – much of the anarchy in Iraq can be attributed to this. Thus General Sir Richard Dannatt statement, “we can’t wish the Islamist challenge to our society away and I believe that the army both in Iraq and Afghanistan and probably wherever we go next, is fighting the foreign dimension of the challenge to our accepted way of life”, applies not only to the insurgents in Iraq but also to the elected “Islamist” Iraqi government.

Over eighty percent of the popular vote in Iraq’s last national election went to political parties with close political connections to Iran and the Shia constitute over sixty percent of the electorate and even more of the population – individuals of Iranian descent were denied Iraqi citizenship under Saddam Hussein, a policy that has been continued by the Occupiers. Conversely the United States is regarded as a colonial occupier, which has fermented ethnic and sectarian factionalism.

Recent U.S. allegations that Iran’s Pasdaran Qods force has supplied EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) to Iraqi insurgents, which have been flatly rejected by the Iraqi government, are part of a concerted propaganda campaign to demonise Iran. The United States has used these allegations as a pretext to carry out illegal raids on an Iranian diplomatic mission in Arbil, in which five Iranian diplomats were abducted, and on an SCIRI compound, in which two Iranian diplomats were abducted. Moreover, earlier this month, U.S. warplanes attacked a PUK guard post in Mosul killing eight Pesh Merga after President Talabani visited Iran. These acts were all clearly designed to serve as warnings to Iraqi politicians not to engage with Iran.

The arrest and detention of Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim has to be seen in the same light: as a warning to his father, Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, vis-a-vis his strong political relationship with Iran. However, the United States massively underestimated the significance of abducting Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim. The reaction from within the Iraqi government has been robust and defiant. President Talabani demanding the culprits be punished and the SCIRI calling for the occupiers to leave Iraq has ended all pretense that the Iraqi government and the United States are on the same side. The U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad was forced to issue a speedy apology and to preposterously claim that the United States did not “mean any disrespect to Abdel Aziz al-Hakim or his family”. It is very significant that Kurdish and Shia politicians have rejected the apology and explanation; the balance of power has now firmly shifted into Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim favour.

British Surrender of Basra

February 21, 2007 at 7:38 pm | Posted in Basra, Britain, Iran, Iraq, IRGC, Pasdaran, Propaganda, UK | Leave a comment
The announcement of the British surrender of Basra to Iraqi forces and the announcement of a phased troop withdrawal serves as a timely refutation of the U.S. claims that Iran is arming the insurgency and the much touted prospect of a U.S. military attack on Iran. If either was true, then it would be pure insanity for British forces to scale down or hand control of Basra over to Shia militias, when the city is situated on the Arvandrud – the easiest cross-way for Iran’s Pasdaran (IRGC) to enter into Iraq.

State sponsor of terrorism

February 20, 2007 at 1:50 am | Posted in Iran, IRGC, Terrorism, USA | Leave a comment

Deputy chairman of the Iranian parliament’s National Security Commission, Mohammad Nabi Roudaki said of Wednesday’s terrorist attack in Zahedan, which martyred eleven and injured thirty-one members of the Pasdaran (IRGC), “the arsenals used in the criminal act were US-made, while the documents and proofs show that the terrorists were supported and led by the US.”

The Security Operations chief in the Iranian province of Sistan and Baluchestan, Brigadier general Mohammad Ghaffari had previously stated that three of the terrorists have admitted under questioning links to the United States and British intelligence services.

Nasrollah Shanbe-Zehi one of the principle perpetrators was publicly hanged in Zahedan on Monday morning, after he confessed on national television and admitted to British and U.S. involvement.

War with Iran

February 17, 2007 at 7:06 pm | Posted in Afghanistan, Crusade, EU, Imperialism, Iran, IRGC, Islam, Media, Monafiqeen-e-Khalq, Propaganda, Shia, UK, USA, Zionism | 19 Comments

Despite the Bush administration’s sabre rattling, it is far from certain that the United States will go to war with Iran; in fact, there is every indication that it will not be able to do so during George W. Bush’s presidency. For it is important to recognise that for this current U.S. administration, diplomacy is war by other means. Their belligerence is not incidental, it is intentional; this administration is fundamentally Zionist and hegemonic, and have repeatedly demonstrated a disinclination for diplomacy where they believe strategic or ideological objectives could be realised through force of arms alone. Furthermore this administration is committed to the overthrow of the legitimate and democractically elected Iranian government (Iran Freedom and Support Act of 2005). From the Bush administration’s perspective, they are already at war with Iran; in fact, George W. Bush used his State of the Union Speech to emphasis that point, broadening the enemy to Shia Islam. Thus, this begs the question: why has this U.S. administration not already launched an attack against Iran?

If one sees the United States as already at war with Iran, as this administration does, then it is clear that they are losing. U.S. diplomacy and economic warfare has failed to prevent Iran from enriching uranium and will not stop Iran from continuing its nuclear fuel programme, as both the Bush administration and European Union have already conceded; in fact economic warfare has shown that Iran does not need European investment or European custom. Conversely, the European Union and Turkey are very venerable to an Iranian oil and gas embargo. Hence the avoidance of military action to date is very telling. It would be extraordinarily naïve to think that Bush has thus far been prevented from trying to emulate Alexander the Macedonian by the niceties of international law, which he ignored when he waged war on both Afghanistan and Iraq.

In fact, whilst the Bush administration has been able to manipulate a series of confrontations and fabricated confrontations with Iran to its advantage in the English speaking media – hence they have been able to present an image of Iran (and thus Islam) as inherently evil – there is still little domestic support in the United States for military action against Iran – U.S. public opinion is very much opposed to military action against Iran. Moreover, the speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi has stipulated, George W. Bush categorically does not have the legal authority to launch a military attack on Iran, without the House’s approval. Thus the likelihood of war with Iran during George W. Bush’s presidency is not a measure of his intent; it is a measure of the willingness of the House of Representatives to authorise such a course. The Iranian government does not believe that they would and with good cause: any attack would run contrary to the U.S. national interest unless it brought about regime change in Iran and regional stability to the Middle East, which even the most optimistic of Pentagon military strategists do not envisage.

The U.S. military is currently hampered by its occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan; even were this not so, any U.S. force invading Iran would be heavily outnumbered. Moreover, whilst 52% of the U.S. military consists of badly trained and poorly motivated reservists and National Guard (46% of the US army in Iraq in 2005), Iran conversely has a highly motivated and well trained army, Pasdaran (IRGC), and Basij (volunteers), as well as an armed civilian population, with nearly every man having served two years in the military. The recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon saw the Iranian trained Hezbullah guerrilla force, outnumbered 20 to 1, yet they defeated the U.S. armed Israeli army in the battlefield within 34 days. That is a good indicator of the utter infeasibility of a U.S. invasion and occupation of Iran – the United States simply does not have the military capability.

Moreover, not only would the United States need exponentially more men under arms to occupy Iran than it presently has to commit, the likely reduction in Iranian oil and gas production on its own would send the energy markets spiralling out of control, however the consequences of an invasion are likely to lead to anarchy and insurgency throughout the Middle East. There are 200M Shia in the World over 100M situated in the Middle East, as the map indicates Shia are sitting on the majority of the World’s oil and natural gas reserves. Even most Saudi oil is situated is the predominately Shia Eastern Province, in the Qatif and Abu Sa’fah oil fields. A Shia uprising would certainly disrupt Middle Eastern oil and natural gas exports – most the World’s natural gas reserves are held by Russia, Iran and Azerbaijan – and both the U.S. and European economies are utterly dependent on Middle Eastern oil. For this reason, any U.S. military attack on Iran that threatens Middle Eastern oil exports would be economic suicide.

Therefore the most likely scenario for a U.S. military attack would be an aerial assault against the nuclear facilities in Bushehr, Arak, and Natanz in the aim of destroying them. However, it is hard to see what strategic benefit this would be: at the most this would only set Iran’s nuclear energy programme back, although the Israeli attack on the Iraq nuclear facilities in Osirak in June of 1981 failed to set back Iraq’s nuclear programme. Iran would still have the technology and would be able to resume its nuclear energy programme unabated outside of the auspicious of the IAEA.

Moreover, Iran would almost certainly respond militarily. Iran has already demonstrated this week the ability to sink U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf at will and thus block off the passage of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. The situation in Iraq is precarious enough for the U.S. military, were the United States at war with Iran, the Shia population would rise up and the situation would be unmanageable. Furthermore, Iranian forces can easily cross the border into Iraq, should they so desire and U.S. military bases in Iraq, Afghanistan and Azerbaijan are venerable to Iranian missile attacks. Even were Iran only initially to target the U.S. military in Iraq, the potential for escalation is obvious. Thus once again raising the prospect of a conflict that would destabilise the entire Middle East, which the United States cannot afford. Hence it is more likely that the Bush administration will to continue to support terrorist attacks in Iran by groups like Monafiqeen-e-Khalq and Jundullah under the guise of the Iran Freedom and Support Act of 2005, since these are deniable and unlikely to provoke a severe response.

Recalling the Bush administration’s view that diplomacy is war by other means – whilst attacking Iran would require an even greater degree of folly than the occupation of Iraq – the more unlikely it is, the keener they will be to inflate the possibility. This strategy is foolhardy and risks the law of unintended consequence. This said it is still hard to envisage the House of Representatives disregarding all reason and authorising a military attack on Iran during Bush’s presidency.

Iran demonstrates ability to sink US warships

February 16, 2007 at 3:16 am | Posted in Iran, IRGC, Pasdaran, USA | Leave a comment

President George W. Bush would have done well to heed the advice of the old British proverb, “talk of the devil, and he is bound to appear”.

Yesterday the commander of the Pasdaran Ground Forces, Nur Ali Shushtari, announced that the Pasdaran emblem was etched onto US warship stationed in the Persian Gulf by the crew of a submarine that had managed to reach the warship undetected. The purpose of which is to demonstrate the capacity to sink the US vessel had Iran so desired.

Commander Shushtari also stated that in the event of a confrontation, all US forces in the gulf as well as targets inside the United States would be subject to reprisals.

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.