Blair's Labour spin and Iran's gamble

Here's an obvious conclusion from the British sailors' debacle: Britain should have resorted to direct diplomacy from the get-go. Instead, the former empire spent time and effort dramatising the situation and giving the international audience a feel that it was at war with Iran.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair avoided bilateral talks, calling on the EU and the UN to get involved - an unprecedented way of handling a straightforward case.

In the end, Iran, through its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared its "gift" to the British people by sending the sailors back to home. The decision appeared to have been collective, approved by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini.

Disparity in approach

One thing that was evidently misleading in Western media was the language used to refer to the sailors. Depending on which camp one belonged to, the sailors could have been either captives or hostages.

Given that we still don't know what exactly happened and considering the fact that the UK sailors were "kidnapped" - but all those prisoners in Guantanamo Bay snatched from various parts of the world are "detained" - it is clear that there is a disparity in approach.

Double standards are unacceptable. If as Britain claims it possesses national traits of "tolerance and fair play", then how could its media (and official line) use differently valued words to describe the same actions? This is not fair play.

As a government which has misinformed its citizens in the past, all its statements should be read with scepticism. The same applies to Iran, which also hasn't always shown transparency.

Blair's early comments promoted the government line. Let's think things through for a second. If the Iranians were present in allied-occupied Iraqi waters with the purpose of kidnapping soldiers, they would have been met with retaliation (not least thanks to British military might).

The overriding issue in the West is that these sailors were being paraded on television. But in this "parade" we were able to see a relaxed bunch who seemed healthy. It gave us the comfort that, provided sound negotiations took place, they would be okay.

If Blair wanted to diffuse the situation diplomatically, rather than put Iran under the microscope and call on the West and the United Nations to get involved, he could have.

Instead, he used threatening language - calling their behaviour "disgusting" - and forcefully argued that these sailors were in Iraqi waters.

It was only later that the official line began singing from the Iranian songbook, because he saw cooperation, or diplomacy rather, was the safest option.

Provocative statement

The intelligence community and the British Ministry of Defence did hint that they didn't necessarily agree with Blair's political spin, hinting that it had endangered their personnel. Blair's statements were aimed at provoking the Iranian government.

Little attention was paid to the fact that the border between Iran and Iraq was not in fact acknowledged and hasn't been.

That is a matter that will and should be settled by the parties concerned - Iran and Iraq. Even though this is stating the obvious, it is not up to Britain or the US to draw lines on maps and declare borders.

It is indeed legitimate for Iran to discuss borders and approximate distance, but when outside parties start getting involved, it's a different matter. The Western media in particular have clung to the notion that the craft was in Iraqi waters without even questioning British information.

Blair gambled with people's lives when he tried to spin this around. It wouldn't be the first time, having been involved in a war that killed thousands of innocents. He should remember that this is not the end of it.

As he continues to carry out his political spin and allegiance to the neo-cons, he risks future atrocities both for his people back home, and also abroad.

It is in times like these that people should be reminded the UK government lied extensively about the status of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Despite this, most believed the government line completely when it outlined the position of the craft intercepted by Iranian authorities.

The British sailors may have been in Iraqi waters, they may not have been. It is not clear either way and as mentioned earlier, the border itself is unclear.

Given that, one can't help but question why the Iranians actually detained the soldiers. They could have diffused the situation immediately and just asked the British sailors to turn back. Normal protocol would be to give them a warning and tell them to change course.

The Iranians deliberately wanted an international incident. The failure of the British is that they gave them one. They fell into the trap.

This episode embarrassed Blair (and Bush for that matter, who couldn't protect his faithful ally). He will be shown to be a liar by the end of it. Moreover, he knew quite well that the sailors would most likely be released unharmed.

Let's face it: they were safer in Iran than they would be in Iraq.