ALLIANCE, n. In international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pockets that they cannot separately plunder a third. Ambrose Bierce

As the Western media turns its attention to and prattles about the fate of the 15 Britons detained for allegedly trespassing into Iranian waters, the status of the five Iranian officials captured in a US military raid on a liaison office in Northern Iraq on January 11, remains a mystery.

Even though high-level Iraqi officials called for their release, for all practical purposes, the Iranians have disappeared into the US-sanctioned 'coalition detention' system that has been criticized as arbitrary and even illegal by many experts in international law. The US forces had raided what has been described as a diplomatic liaison office in the northern city of Arbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan, and detained six Iranians (one of whom has since been released), infuriating Kurdish officials in the process.

In response to the request by the Iranian authorities to the US-led coalition to investigate the circumstances involving their detention and to release the five men, the US State Department replied that "the investigation is not complete, and we don't comment publicly with respect to ongoing investigations".
 

What a slap in the face! The Iranians who are being held as 'security detainees' are not being charged with anything and so are being held unlawfully. On the other hand, the US administration has already ruled out any possibility of prisoners exchange with the 15 Britons held by the Iranians as, in the words of Sean McCormick, spokesman for the State Department; "There is no comparison between the two issues".

The UN secretary-general's office has not commented on the detained Iranians or Iran's detention of the 15 British sailors, describing both incidents as "disputes between individual states". "We've left it to the respective countries to work it out among themselves", said Farhan Haq, a UN spokesman. In spite of which, the UN had backed a watered-down version of a resolution calling for Tehran to immediately release the hostages, while there was stronger support from the European Union. The EU statement demanded the unconditional release of all the hostages and threatened 'appropriate action' if Tehran failed to act.

The timing of this incident couldn't have been more provocative if it had been planned that way. And evidently it was! The question is, however, who did the planning?

It happened on the eve of a vote in the UN Security Council to impose stricter sanctions on Iran. On top of that. one must include the kidnapping of the Iranian consular officials in Irbil, covert US support for terrorist attacks inside Iran, the 'disappearance' of a high-ranking official in the elite Revolutionary Guards unit and the strong suspicion that the Mossad had a hand in the killing of a renowned Iranian nuclear scientist. Add it all up, and there is little doubt as to who would have planned such a brazen provocation.

Doesn't all this have the likelihood of a Gulf of Tonkin-style incident in the Persian Gulf? Well, predictions are proving too accurate! Is it Western brinkmanship at its prime or a 'false flag' operation? Anyway, it could well end up as a 'casus belli'!

On the US front, the Israel Lobby is preparing the ground by softening up any possible opposition and is pushing hard the US to go to war with Iran.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair is mad as hell. "It is cruel and callous to do this to somebody in this position and playing this kind of game -- it is a disgrace", he said. He even labelled their seizure as "blatant aggression". These are strong words. But maybe that, in his phony outrage, he would contemplate on, at least, two other words -- Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. It seems that even Chancellor Brown's memory is failing as he too denounced Iran's treatment of the sailors as "cruel, callous, inhuman and unacceptable". They (and the sailors) are lucky they weren't detained by US forces! What Iran is doing - allegedly coerced statements and ridiculous TV interviews - to the British sailors is positively humane by comparison.

Most Britons oppose immediate military action to free the navy personnel and believe that the government will resolve the crisis peacefully.

The only good thing that Blair has done so far was to tell the Bush administration to stay out of it. It's just the sort of support Britain doesn't need!

And if this is Blair's idea of "blatant aggression", what the hell was invading Iraq under false pretenses? A picnic?

According to the British medical journal, 'The Lancet', over 650,000 Iraqis and 130 British personnel have been killed in Iraq.

What Blair should have viewed as a "disgrace" was his failure to meet with the military families of his own country, although he accepted to meet the families of the Israeli soldiers kidnapped by the Hezbollah.

And lastly; when is the British media going to stop playing on the sentiments of its gullible public?

Their immediate reaction to the televising of the only captive woman sailor set them off searching hysterically family albums to depict her as a distressed sweet young mother. Quite rightly, although seemingly stressed, she did look healthy, without any sign of violence, not handcuffed, wearing civilian clothes, smoking and smiling -- not in a lurid orange boiler suit, like the other human beings paraded for a global television audience. However, none could have missed her other photo showing her in full battle uniform and cuddling a machine gun. Oh, sweet mother, whose kids and toddlers would you be killing in case these may be 'terrorists'? Isn't it a charming contrast?

Maybe these comparisons sound odious, but unfortunately truth sometimes hurts!

The noble art of losing face - Will someday save the human race. - Hans Blix

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites