Features

KevinTheOmnivore · #1

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...AR0&refer=home

Here is an interesting read on the current diplomatic status between Britain and Iran. This bit was interesting:

Quote:

His spokesman Tom Kelly later told reporters that when the Prime Minister referred to a ``different phase'' in dealing with Iran, he didn't mean military action or expelling diplomats. Blair would prefer the matter to be resolved ``quietly and privately'' and the new phase may involve making public why the U.K. was so sure its people were in Iraqi waters, Kelly said.
``We have been clearly stating that we are utterly certain that the personnel were in Iraqi waters,'' he said. ``We so far haven't made explicit why we know that because we don't want to escalate this. We may get to the stage where we will become more explicit.''

What might the British have been investigating there? Why the certainty that they were in Iraqi waters (which I'm sure they were).

Abcdxxxx · #2

The dummies guess would be that the kidnapping itself occured on Iraqi soil, or as a result of an altercation which started along an Iraqi port. The problem with this is the Brits do themselves a disservice in terms of credebility when they try and minimize a situation while threatening to put Iran on blast and tattle if they don't play nice. Why not just say what happened? Iran's not going to appreciate the kid glove diplomacy anyway.

KevinTheOmnivore · #3

Yeah, my guess would be that the Brits were checking for weapons trafficing, or somethinglike that, and had the guns turned on them.

I agree with you on their choice of methods. They should come clean with what they know, and put the ball back in the Iranian court.