Blair breaks silence on Iran's seizure of Navy personal

He announced today :

"It is simply is not true that they went into Iranian territorial waters,"

However, it has taken rather a long time for him to speak out in the defense of the Navy personnel involved. I think a possible explanation is that the government have been trying to get to the bottom of what happened. Only yesterday it was reported that the personnel l had 'confessed' to straying into Iranian territory. However I'm unsure how accurate this information is, as it has been reported by some very vague Iranian sources.

However, 1. what if HMS Cornwall had strayed into Iranian waters, deliberately? And 2. what if Blair is lying about what he knows? If he is he could be playing a very dangerous game with those involved, of that we can be certain. Finally 3., what are the repercussions of this event?

• An increased case for military action against Iran by the US and UK?
• Further strained relations between the government and Nato?
• A uniting of Nato countries against Iran, resulting in an attack?
• Assassination of the Navy personnel by Iran?

This issue throws up many worrying questions, the answers of which I am sure will continue to allude us for sometime.

Blair tackled over his Nato allies

I think it was a lively PM's Question time today, as a war between David Cameron and Tony Blair was battled out. Insults were fired between the two leaders like missiles.

Blair told Cameron as far his own policy making went, he was still "In the kindergarten".Cameron hit back fiercely by asking Blair where his Nato allies are.

This is an interesting question highlighted by Cameron. Whilst UK troops are re-deployed in Afghanistan WHERE are troops from allied countries? I feel that if they are not deployed into areas of Afghanistan shortly, Blair will be urgently need to re-think some foreign policy issues. Arguably though, he does appear to be currently protesting at the lack of other nato soldiers in Afghanistan.

But so far there seems to be little gained from his calls for alliance.

I think this may mark the end of his powers of influence regarding Nato countries, as do many of critics of Blair's foreign policies . I don't think we can realistically expect a diplomatic response from France, Germany or Italy as they seem unshakably firm in their positions to avoid becoming integrated into the recent deployments.

I think there are obvious reasons for this. 9/11 has impacted upon the foreign policies of every allied and non-allied country. This has led to wide-spread condemnation of the war in Iraq, which in my opinion has made other countries fearful of becoming involved in conflict associated with the so-called 'war on terror'. This view has particularly grown since the July 7th London tube bombings which I think seems likely to be a symptom of Britain's involvement in Iraq.

However, are these countries doing the right thing by refusing to deploy troops to Afghanistan I wonder?
A note to readers of my blog: please feel free to discuss this issue.

Just how safe is Britain this week?

Fighting talk aplenty in British politics today. Defence secretary Des Browne has confirmed after much media speculation that the government will indeed be sending more troops to Afghanistan, after deciding to withdraw numbers in Iraq last week. What a merry-go round! With our troops over- stretched and moral at somewhat of a low ebb, this seems like a bad idea to me. The Guardian reports that the decision comes after efforts to recruit assistance from France and Germany were unsuccessful.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,2020034,00.html

Prince Harry's deployment in Iraq has left me more than a little concerned. The Independent has reported the prince to be "Over the moon" about the deployment, however I feel it is possible that his involvement could put Britain in danger, after all, wouldn't it be a clear demonstration of British support for the 'war on terror'?
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2296850.ece

An anti-ballistic missile defense system aptly named after the cult sci-fi films "star wars", has also grabbed the attention of the Tories, who were desperate to find out what the PM and President Bush have been plotting today. The economist reports that Tony Blair had been "discreetly waging a campaign" to have the "son of Star Wars" system on British turf, in the belief that its presence will add protection to Britain. Sadly for the PM it is now being reported by BBC news that the US has it sights set on a spot in Eastern Europe ; Good news for us skeptics, who believe that the situation of a US system in Britain could increase the threat of terrorist attacks . It is also reported that questionable accuracy of such a missile could also pose a danger, with the possibility of falling derbies on allied areas. Nice. Something which Shadow defense secretary Liam Fox was eager to highlight.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6390621.stm

http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8744629

So it seems today that the government is using its best fighting talk. But at what costs?