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.

64 out of 100 labour MPS against Trident system

(Image by Peter Brooke timesonline)

I think its fair to say that Tony Blair is facing a crisis in his own party now that the BBC have revealed that 64 out of 100 labour MPs are opposing plans to renew the Trident 'nuclear deterrent system'.

Defence secretary Des Bowne has until Wednesday to persuade MPs to vote for its renewal, although some MPs are less than likely to change their minds, one MP, Jim Devine is even threatening to resign if the plans go ahead. If his resignation were to occur the ensuing media circus could severely knock the party into turmoil.

This makes me wonder why a party leader and PM would go against his own MPs on an issue that is clearly causing such stubborn opposition, particularly in Scotland, where the current system is situated.

Des Brown has stated the government's reason for the decision is linked to Nato commitments. Ah. I see. Our government is committed to Nato. BUT WHY? if Nato countries are unwilling to commit to assisting other allied countries, (like ours) in Afghanistan? Of course, there is a country which is also committed to Nato, and fighting in Afghanistan, America! So is the real reason for renewing the trident system linked to our commitments to Nato...or just America?

I think its time Tony Blair and Des Browne listened to the rest of the party, and acted with a little more transparency. It would give the party a little credibility.

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.