Iran: U.K. Must Admit Fault To End Dispute

(CBS/AP)  Iran's foreign minister said Wednesday that Britain must admit that its 15 sailors and marines entered Iranian waters in order to resolve a standoff over their capture by the Mideast nation.

Manouchehr Mottaki's statement in an interview with The Associated Press came on a day of escalating tensions, highlighted by an Iranian

video of the detained Britons

that showed the only woman captive saying her group had "trespassed" in Iranian waters. Britain angrily denounced the video as unacceptable and froze most dealings with the Mideast nation.

Mottaki said that if the alleged entry into Iranian waters was a mistake "this can be solved. But they have to show that it was a mistake, that will help us to end this issue."

"Admitting the mistake will facilitate a solution to the problem," he said late Wednesday night in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where he was attending a summit of Arab leaders.

It was the first time that Iran has publicly suggested a way to resolve the crisis, but British acquiescence appeared unlikely as the country has been insisting since the crisis began that its troops were in Iraqi waters and released documents on Wednesday to back up the claim.

There was no immediate comment from the British to Mottaki's statement. A call to Britain's Foreign Office in London was not answered early Thursday.

Mottaki also backed off a prediction that the female sailor, Faye Turney, could be freed Wednesday or Thursday, but said Tehran agreed to allow British officials to meet with service personnel.

"We have accepted that (the British request), there is no problem. Measures are underway (to arrange meeting.) They can meet them," he said.

"With Iran's foreign minister now saying that Tehran will allow British officials to meet with the detained British sailors and marines, the crisis is turning to at least some level of diplomacy," said CBS News foreign affairs analyst Pamela Falk, "but the longer the soldiers remain in Iranian custody, the more volatile the crisis becomes, particularly with increased U.S. and British military hardware in the Gulf."

Iran has now held these British sailors longer than the ones it seized three years ago, reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin. And former CIA officer Bruce Reidel says this time, Iran has a president who's made a career of defying the West.

"I think we're dealing with a much more tough and vigorous opponent than the Brits were dealing with when three years ago they had a similar incident like this," Reidel says. "I think they want to just send the message, 'Don't mess around with us because we can mess around with you. You are very, very vulnerable in Iraq these days.'"

British Prime Minister Tony Blair's government announced it was freezing all dealings with Iran except to negotiate the release of its personnel, adding to a public exchange of sharp comments that helped fuel a spike in world oil prices.

Britain's military released a GPS readout it said proved the Royal Navy personnel were seized 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters Friday. But Mottaki said Iran had GPS devices from the British boats that showed they were in Iranian territory.

A few hours later, a brief video of the captured Britons was shown on Iran's Arabic language satellite television station, Al-Alam.

• 1
• 2
• Next Page »

[gaye5]

1400 isnt it dphaffner and you are dead right...
We cant stop it by stopping muslims as it isnt the people which is the problem but what is written in the Quran and others of their holy books so every last book would have to be destroyed...which is impossible... there is no way around it but to fight... and the sooner our leaders wake up to that the less people will die...

[dphaffner]

I should have said stop THEM

[dphaffner]

If all you good people would just read a little more.
I am sure you will find that the war against the Jews and Christians by the follers of islam, has been going on for about seventeen hundred years.

And it will not stop until we "Christians and Jewish people" stop it.

[geoweb4]

How is the territorial waters defined? by some physicial features or by a set of coordinates?

If by set of coordinates, what datum, projection, and coordinates are being used displayed by the UK; and what datum, projection, and coordinates are being used by Iraq or Iran to define the boundaries. Are they using the same information? and are they using it correctly

[gaye5]

mcdazz, you said that I should check my facts..but perhaps you didnt know that...
I was trying to point out to people that Muslim fanatics had been conducting successful attacks on American targets abroad for nearly 30 years before Sept. 11. They had bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanganyika, all but sunk the destroyer Cole in Aden, and simply assassinated various American officials around the world -- all without attracting much notice from the American public, and without suffering any serious retaliation.
bin Laden threat was recognized at the highest levels of the Clinton administration as early as 1993. What's more, bin Laden's attacks kept escalating throughout the Clinton administration; all told bin Laden was responsible for the deaths of 59 Americans on Clinton's watch.

President Clinton learned about bin Laden within months of being sworn into office. National Security Advisor Anthony Lake said that he first heard the name Osama bin Laden in 1993 in relation to the World Trade Center attack.
bin Laden made his first attack on Americans was December 1992, a little more than a month after Clinton won the 1992 election. His target was 100 U.S. Marines housed in two towering Yemen hotels.
and no I am not keen on Bush, but the alternative is even worse...
yes there have been over 6890 terrorist attacks since sep 11th, and no I did not have any agenda in not saying that..

[radiob-2009]

Isn't this issue, alone, worthy of further investigation?


www.boston.com/news/nat
ion/washington/articles/2006/08/05/2_mem
bers_detail_sept_11_panels_frustrations/
Posted by feelfree1


The majority of the issues raised in the article can be answered by reading Against All Enemies by Richard Clarke. The issue over documentation is not addressed there. As far as the comments in the article regarding Iraq and why the planes were not ordered shot down, those answers can be found in the book. There is no definitive answer on Iraq itself, or the reasons for the war. The Price of Loyalty brings up Iraq also prior to the actual war itself. Again there is no definitive answer.Both authors are republicans and served under Bush. There is a great deal of information that suggests that Iraq was preplanned before 9-11 and that blame was to be shifted on Iraq immediately after 9-11. It is conjecture, if it was definitive or could be proven the President would not be in office. I am not a supporter of Bush, there simply is not enough evidence to support any of the claims that have been made in regards to Iraq.This war should never have been waged, it was wrong from the beginning based on either faulty evidence or manipulated evidence.I still have the films to watch that you suggested.

jdweymouth wrote:

"But while we're talking about "hidden agendas" why don't we talk about whose administration the anarchist movenment boomed? Under which administrations executive power was increased nearly dictarorily enabling the freedom that Clinton, and yes George Bush, have exercised. I like George W. Bush, and I like most of his policies, but I can admit that he has made mistakes."

In my opinion Clinton deserves nothing but contempt.

I do get a little tired of the old Republican argument that "Clinton is to blame for everything".

Well, guess what, Clinton's been gone for over six years, and Republicans are still b*tching about that moron.

People need to get the hell over it.

I could point out numerous mistakes that have cost numerous American lives by both Reagan and Bush Snr.

Ultimately, GW Bush is the current leader, and the focus should be on him and how he handles things.

And to be perfectly blunt, he hasn't done a great job of anything except looking after his rich buddies and his old friends the Bin Ladens and the rest of the Saudis.

Talk about fraternizing with the enemy.

[jdweymouth]

mcdazz:

I'm pretty sure he didn't mention them because he was showing that there were plenty of attacks before Bush came to office, therefore proving he's not the cause of terrorism.

But while we're talking about "hidden agendas" why don't we talk about whose administration the anarchist movenment boomed? Under which administrations executive power was increased nearly dictarorily enabling the freedom that Clinton, and yes George Bush, have exercised. I like George W. Bush, and I like most of his policies, but I can admit that he has made mistakes.

Former President George HW Bush once said:

"Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power %u2014 America in an Arab land %u2014 with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous."

Thanks to his idiot son, we now know the consequences.

Gaye5 wrote:

"Why did bin Laden start his attacks on American targets during President Clinton%u2019s administration."

He didn't.

Bin Laden's first strike against the US came in December of 1992, where a bomb was planted in the Gold Mihor Hotel in Aden, Yemen, where approx 100 US Soldiers had been staying.

The explosion killed two people and injured another person.

Perhaps you should check your facts next time.