The Times OnLine has an updated story with the latest information on Iran’s hostage-taking operation.
Iran initially gave coordinates (the correct coordinates) that placed the action in Iraqi waters. Iran later provided new coordinates, conveniently inside Iranian territory.
The Times report says the sailors and marines were “conned” and “ambushed.”
The lede:
The British sailors and marines being held by Iran were ambushed at their most vulnerable moment, while climbing down the ladder of a merchant ship and trying to get into their bobbing inflatables.
Out of sight of their warship and without any helicopter cover, their only link to their commanders was a communications device beaming their position by satellite.
That went dead as they were captured. One theory is that it was thrown overboard to prevent the Iranians getting hold of the equipment and the information it contained.
My column this week assumed the British sailors were surprised and out-gunned. I also argued that this had the marks of a planned operation on the part of the Revolutionary Guards. That’s what the Times reports.
Another excerpt from the Times:
The two Iranian patrol ships that seized the Britons were equipped with rocket-propelled grenades and heavy machine guns, enough for a small sea battle. By contrast, the Britons go lightly armed on vessels they search in the Gulf. Each man is issued with a rifle or a pistol
— The Iranians struck at a vulnerable moment when the Britons were climbing down a ladder to jump into their inflatables
— The Royal Navy does train its men in the techniques needed to fight at just such a dangerous stage. “They had all the rights available to act in self-defence under law,” a senior military officer said. But they were in an “almost impossible position”…
Iran is now demanding that the British admit their sailors and marines were in Iranian territory, despite the clear evidence otherwise. That follows the usual hostage taking script — a demand for kowtow. However, this hostage grab strikes me as being a beast of a different sort. My point of view is contrarian — I don’t think Iran is operating from a position of strength. Every target in Iran lies within an hour’s flight time (or less) of a US air base or US Navy carrier. Brinksmanship by the mullahs over Iranian nukes may have a domestic political pay-off. The nuclear ambitions, both nuclear energy and nuclear weapons, link to nationalist aspirations. While brinksmanship over hostages has echoes of 1979, risking devestating airstrikes over 15 sailors nabbed under questionable circumstances isn’t going to play well domestically. Iran in 2007 is not a nation lit with revolutionary fervor. The mullahs don’t offer a bright and shining future; instead, they are burdened by a failed past and a flailing present. In 1979 the Ayatollah Khomeini faced a weakened Jimmy Carter. Today Iran faces a weakened George Bush. But a weakened George Bush wields a far bigger stick than Jimmy Carter did in his most muscular presidential moment (whenever that occurred).
Iran also faces new UN sanctions. It’s relationship with Russia is shaky.
The Iranians’ coordinate faux pas adds a strange Keystone Kop element.
The Times reports:
The Iranians also blundered in diplomatic talks by giving the British their own compass reference for the place where they said the 14 men and one woman had been seized. When Britain plotted these on a map and pointed out that the spot was in Iraq’s maritime area, the Iranians came up with a new set of coordinates, putting the seizure in their own waters.
This may prove to be a microcosm of Iran’s own situation. The Iranians had the tactical military operation planned but failed to coordinate the political cover story. That’s a media and diplomatic embarassment — hence a blow to Iran’s prestige.
The Iranian demand for kowtow may be an attempt by hardliners to bluff their way out of a strategic mistake.