The capture of 15 British sailors and marines
by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy, may be a flash
point that could escalate into the long-anticipated war between
the US and Iran.
On 15 January, a Raw Story article revealed
that the Dutch ING bank advised that investors of the risk of a
US war with Iran in a timeframe of February-March 2007 (1).
A former NSC Director has said that the Bush
administration is trying to provoke Iran into creating a pretext
that would spark a US war on Iran. Hillary Mann was NSC director
for Iran and the Persian Gulf area until she left the Bush
Administration post in 2004. (2)
Testifying before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee on Thursday 1 February, Zbigniew
Brzezinski, the national security adviser in the Carter
administration, warned that the Bush administration’s
policy was leading inevitably to a war with Iran. He
claimed that the Bush administration was seeking a
pretext for an attack on Iran…
He outlined several possible
scenarios.
Brzezinski warned of a possible
provocation. He called the senators’ attention to a
March 27, 2006 report in the New York Times on “a
private meeting between the president and Prime Minister
Blair, two months before the war, based on a memorandum
prepared by the British official present at this
meeting.” In the article, Brzezinski said, “the
president is cited as saying he is concerned that there
may not be weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq,
and that there must be some consideration given to
finding a different basis for undertaking the action.”
He continued: “I’ll just read you
what this memo allegedly says, according to the New York
Times: ‘The memo states that the president and the prime
minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had
been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of
not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush
talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation.’
“He described the several ways in
which this could be done. I won’t go into that... the
ways were quite sensational, at least one of them."
World Socialist Website(3)
It is a matter of record that the US and
Britain stepped up a bombing campaign prior to the Invasion of
Iraq to provoke an Iraqi retaliation that could be used to
justify the Allied invasion. British government documents
released to Parliament show that American and British aircraft
dropped no bombs on Iraq in March 2002, 10 tons of bombs in
July, and 54.6 tons in September. Nevertheless, this failed to
provoke Saddam Hussein into the kind of reaction that could be
used as an ostensible casus belli. (4)
For example a White House Meeting Memo, 31
January 2003, describing a meeting between Bush and Blair
describes a proposal by President Bush to Tony Blair: "The US
was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter
cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them,
he would be in breach" (5)
Brzezinski and ING both saw the hand-over of
control of operations in the Iraq / Gulf theatre from the Army
to Admiral Fallon of the US Navy as an indication of the move
towards military action against Iran.
A flash point involving Britain and not the
US or Israel is not a scenario that has been anticipated by
commentators, but it would have advantages for all three
parties.
For Britain, although Tony Blair seems like
he would like to support Bush, he would be unable to join a
US-led war against Iran, unless Britain was attacked at the
outset of the campaign. For Bush, he gets to keep his
"coalition" into the next stage of the conflict, he gets Iranian
"aggression" as an excuse to start war and he does not have to
explain US actions to Congress. Israel can take a back seat and
does not have to take the opprobrium of leading an attack on a
Moslem state.
So, was the British naval action today, that
led to the capturing of the 15 British sailors, a calculated act
of provocation? The Iranians claim that the British were in
their territorial waters - the British deny this. The disputed
status of the waterway does not help. Was it all a
misunderstanding?
It will be very hard to find out. Given the
seniority and experience of the naval personnel involved in the
ill-fated raid today, an Allied "cock-up" seems unlikely.
The raid was launched from HMS Cornwall, the
flagship of Commodore Nick Lambert commanding Combined Task
Group 158.1 (6)
A British Royal Navy website reported: -
On 6th March 2007, Portsmouth based Royal
Navy Battle Staff commenced maritime security operations in the
Northern Arabian Gulf onboard HMS Cornwall. Relieving Rear
Admiral Garry Hall, United States Navy, Commodore Nick Lambert
will command Combined Task Force 158 (known as “CTF 158”), a
coalition force comprising up to 12 units from the US, UK,
Australian and Iraqi navies. (7)
A British MoD website reported: -
Commodore Lambert has a team of around 30
supporting staff to enable the control of maritime security
operations within the Northern Arabian Gulf.
HMS Cornwall's commanding officer outlined
the importance of HMS Cornwall's and the Royal Navy's role in
this region. He said:
"I am proud to have the opportunity to be
involved. This is my fourth tour in the Gulf and HMS Cornwall
and my team have received extensive training to fulfil this
vital role.”(8)
8 out of the 15 captured today were also
captured by the Iranians in a very similar incident a few years
ago.
Given that a UN Security Council vote on
further action against Iran will be taken tomorrow (Saturday) it
seems the timing of today’s incident could not be worse for
Iran.
References: -
1) Major investment bank issues warning on strike against
Iran
