"Unprovoked, unexpected"
I am in a background briefing by what I am obliged to call "a senior military officer".
He has called Iran's seizure of seven Royal Marines and eight sailors "unprovoked, unexpected, unprecedented and improper". I have just asked whether the rules of engagement for our forces in Iraq prevented them from fighting back. The answer was "No".
Our forces were carrying out a routine inspection. They were approached at high speed by two heavily-armed Iranian boats, although they initially adopted a 'friendly posture'. It was only at the last minute that the Iranians, armed with RPGs and heavy machine guns, became aggressive. By then, we were told, there was a distance of only a few feet between the British and Iranian boats - a distance too short, we were told, for an 'arc of fire'.
The senior military officer insisted that the commander of forces in the region was satisfied with the rules of engagement.
I'm 
Comments
If the British lion had even one tooth left in its head, one claw left in its paw, one shred of self respect, it would instead have called it what it once would have; "an act of war." The British lion is nothing more than a tabby. Why should Iran take it seriously. Where are those trident submarines?
Why don't the rules of engagement allow the armed forces (and by the by what part of 'Armed' doesn't the government understand?) to return fire?
While noone wants to see needless death, there's already enough of that in Iraq, surely rules of engagement that do not allow the troops to fire in order to prevent themselves being kidnapped puts any sailors/marines in danger and allows the iranians to see the British as toothless.
Why should anyone complain now about Iran?
It was plainly obvious that Iraq was the easiest - but clearly the wrong - target for the "war on terror". You didn't need to be a brain surgeon to work that one out.
The idea that our politicians will now adopt some strong/effective posturing over Iran's aggression is ludicrous; the trouble is that Iran knows it's ludicrous.
I`m puzzled.Our highly trained,experienced and professional navy personnel with boats (as i understand it) capable of 30 knots ,being captured by a couple of Iranian patrol boats.
Why didn`t they just run back to the safety of HMS Cornwall.
Very strange
This whole Iran situation (including the nuclear business) is a clear attempt by the current Iranian regime to prop itself up by forcing a foreign policy crisis.
We appear to be playing into their hands at every turn...
I am glad the British forces did not reach for their guns in defence of some antiquated ideal you might call 'the British lion'. By not resorting to force we have won considerable sympathy and respect from nations around the world. The vast majority of people are shocked and repulsed by aggression, not forgetting the lessons we have learnt from history. It is a blessing that wisdom and clear-thinking triumphed on board the Cornwall; that we did not upset the many to appease the few.
In response to Gary, Nick's post makes it quite clear that the rules of engagement are not to blame for the capture of the troops. Indeed had the Iranian fores adopted an aggressive posture sooner it is entirely possible that the British forces would've engaged.
In response to John Turner the Iranian troops had a distinct advantage over our troops in terms of firepower and initial speed. Chances are they would've caught our boys (and girl) whether we turned and ran or not.
I think the government handling of this incident is poor. Whilst I understand the need for diplomacy and, for want of a better word politeness, at the same time the Iranians have effectively executed an act of war, and I would expect the UN and EU to be involved passing resolutions, applying economic sanctions and potentially gathering intelligence and planning a military rescue mission behind the scenes.
Nick, (apologist not blogger)
Britain does not need the world's sympathy. Even without our pilloried "empire" we are derseving of respect from other countries, especially wanna-be first and second world nations.
A Decade ago these sailors would not have been taken. Tony has eunoched our armed forces because in the New Labour kingdom to defend oneself is an act of aggression.
Should we be there? It doesn't matter; we are there, and as a supposed force in world politics we should be respected for our potential response. That we are not justisfies Trident in my view
It would be nice if we could go in and get 'em but I hope diplomacy and common sense prevail (Walks away with a hopeful look on his face that Common Sense may be used in a Muslim environment)
Spin, nick, pure spin.You fail to mention that this is the second time its happened in broadly the same area.
I have no idea what the rules of engagement are and neither do you.
We put our troops in harms way and if we could eventually see the rules of engagement we would know the truth but you have to parrot the Govt. line!
Look forward to seeing you on Newsnight with Guido.
Let's go back to the days of Gunboat Diplomacy. Palmerston must be turning in his grave to see what Britain has descended to.
If this was the first occasion this had happened then all well and good but it isn't. I don't believe the "Senior Military Source" or the PM when they say that our forces are happy with the Rules of Engagement.
Maybe its time we took a more robust stance with Iran. They seem to be getting away with everything they do in Iraq and now Iraqi waters.
A few thoughts: Remember folks before you start throwing bombs and bulletts, Iran has never been involved in a coup and installation of a dictator in the UK. With the US we installed the Shah in lieu of a democratic governemnt in Iran and have strident views on what they should or should not do. We have been meddling in their affairs for 100 years or more. There is no agreement extant on the "ownership" of territiorial waters, the existing Treaty applies to the river channel only. Why didn't Cornwall have a helicopter backing up those in the inflatables, especially as they supposedly knew they were less than two miles from Iranian waters and incidents might happen? We will not know the truth of this until it has been over for a long time. Don't believe all our government tells us in the interim!
I am just wondering, if the kidnapped sailors and Royal Marines were the only British personnel there at the time and were out of sight of HMS Cornwall and not in radio communication, how does this senior officer know exactly what happened?
Is he relying on eyewitness accounts of people on the inspected ship? If so they seem remarkably well informed about hardware and military tactics.
The comment of the officer is at odds with from recently returned sailors who said their rules of engagement meant they were under strict orders NOT to defend themselves in such circumstances. Very odd.
I’m not especially worried by this incident. It’s entirely in keeping with the atmosphere in the region, Iran’s ambitions, and the ticking clock of history. Focusing on small pebbles and blowing them into mountains doesn’t help. While it’s wise to be prepared it’s also wise to look for the opportunity for success.
I’m not going to join in a slanging match condemning Iran or the British governments handling of this issue. It is entirely counter-productive. Hot heads make mistakes. While John Reid took a firm and robust position, I’m sure the Margaret Beckett will take a tolerant and patient view behind the scenes. One way or another, it will be resolved.
Iran is a badly damaged and insecure country trying to grow up, and Britain has its own issues to deal with. The attack is spiteful and parading of prisoners is mean, but adding more fuel to the flames is premature. Yes, hold the big stick in the background but develop the small, practical, and trust building opportunities as they arise.
No need to rush. No need to panic. Things will work out fine.
Sorry, no sale. The intercept took place over a mile inside Iraqi seas. There's no excuse for the Iranian ship not to have been intercepted.
Britain has been shrinking its navy to the size of Belgium's and has rules of engagement that amount to cowering. Iran has no reason to fear retaliation for this act of war, as Britain's resolve is no stronger than its navy. This is not the same nation that defeated Napoleon and Hitler and stood up to Stalin.
Nick, I'm curious what you're talking about when you say, "considerable sympathy and respect from nations around the world."
Which countries are these? What form does this sympathy and respect take? I admit to being sceptical, but you must have something concrete in mind.
Nick said the UK won "sympathy and respect" from the nations of the world... because civilized folk are so "shocked and revulsed" by violence.
But remember that the nations of the world were also "shocked and revulsed" by the violence done to Bosnian Muslims, Rwandans, Sudanese, Somalians... and, dare I say, European Jews. Hell lotta good it did them.
If our desire is to "not forget the lessons we have learnt from history," then those soldiers better give up any hope for rescue, and dig in for an illegal incarceration lasting around, oh, 444 days.
For those claiming that the incident clearly took place in Iraqi waters, take a look at Craig Murray's blog at:
It seems that it is far from clear whose waters the boat was in at the time, despite the maps presented by the UK government.
Why has no-hoper 'Gorgeous Gordy' Brown waded in to the Iran kidnap scandal with size nines (and totally unneccessary and incorrect vocabulary )when he should be calming matters. I appreciate that the press, once again has blown this out of proportion. They simply should not be reporting it in such terms as to make it harder for us to secure the hostages (because this is what they are) release? I would have considered censure.
Once again it shows that Gordon Brown is not (and never was - ask TB) Prime Ministerial material and that this government thrives on over reactive knee jerks to situations that arise. Half this governments policies have come about this way.
Someone must be able to save us?
Has anyone thought of bringing in mediation by a neutral country to get our sailors out? All I am hearing is hawkish talk.
Routine inspection? Of what exactly - some open sea? Why were the boats so far from their escorts? Why did the escort's radar not spot the Iraqi patrol boats arriving? I don't like what the Iraqis have done at all, but there are a few unanswered questions about this sortie which make me feel the issue is not quite as clear-cut as we're being told.
Dear Nick
Nationalism, in Scotland ? Nationalism in England,?
Nationalism in Wales,?
whose driven us towards separatism, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, two of the most hated politicians on the Planet,Blair will need body arlour for the rest of his life, the bounty on his head will reach is Villa in Eygpt.