Americans offered 'aggressive patrols' in Iranian airspace

The US offered to take military action on behalf of the 15 British sailors and marines held by Iran, including buzzing Iranian Revolutionary Guard positions with warplanes, the Guardian has learned.

In the first few days after the captives were seized and British diplomats were getting no news from Tehran on their whereabouts, Pentagon officials asked their British counterparts: what do you want us to do? They offered a series of military options, a list which remains top secret given the mounting risk of war between the US and Iran. But one of the options was for US combat aircraft to mount aggressive patrols over Iranian Revolutionary Guard bases in Iran, to underline the seriousness of the situation.

The British declined the offer and said the US could calm the situation by staying out of it. ...

[Read the whole thing. H/T: Jules C.]

In case you didn't come by yesterday:

• Iranian Piracy/Brit Hostage Crisis Post-Mortem -- Day 1 
  • From Iran With Love
  • No Change In Iranian Position After Release
  • Video: Royal Marine Captain says “fighting back was not an option”; Update: Col. Jack Jacobs rips sailors; Update: Iran rips press conference as, um, stage-managed
  • UK sailors 'blindfolded, isolated'
  • Quds Force members captured at Irbil might be released soon
  • Video: Col. Ralph Peters calls for court-martial of British sailors’ officers
  • Brit ex-captive says statements forced
  • Good News Bad News

***

Goody Bagful Of Dishonor
Blubbering Brits who took foes "gift" merit no heroes' welcome
Ralph Peters

April 6, 2007 -- IT WAS a fitting image of the 14 wimps and a sob sister arriving back in the United Kingdom yesterday: skulking away with pink goody bags in hand.

The color was no accident - although yellow would've been more appropriate.

The released hostages weren't allowed to make any more statements. Apparently, the Blair government feared they'd repeat their lavish praise of their Iranian captors.

Look, we're all glad they're home safe, if not necessarily sound. But why on earth is Britain, the land of the legendary stiff upper lip, celebrating cowards who clambered over one another to shame their country?

Wouldn't the Brits do better to make a fuss over the many soldiers of the queen who've served bravely in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why break out the cakes and ale for officers who enthusiastically briefed Iranian propaganda for the TV cameras and who let their subordinates behave as if the Revolutionary Guards were their best pals?

One almost expects that Royal Marine captain and his Navy lieutenant sidekick to receive Victoria Crosses.  ...

***

What ever happened to "Let's Roll" 
By Dean Barnett (H/T: Michelle Malkin)

On 9/11, the passengers aboard United Flight 93 had an option – they could rely on the good intentions of their captors or they could fight back. When presented with this Hobson’s choice, they responded with the words “Let’s roll.” Their ensuing actions were the very definition of heroism.

A few weeks ago, 15 British seamen and marines, soldiers of the Royal Navy, found themselves in a similar quandary. Belligerent Iranians had surrounded them and threatened them with both words and actions. Just as the passengers on Flight 93 had a choice, so too did the British seamen who ultimately spent a couple of weeks as hostages of the Iranian regime. Why did these soldiers, the products of military training and representatives of Her Majesty’s flag, make the decision to surrender themselves? Because, according to their Captain at a Friday press conference, “Fighting back was simply not an option.”

What a strange and dismal trip it has been for the Western world, going from “Let’s Roll” to “Fighting Back Was Not An Option” in scarcely more than five years. One can only hope that when the history of our era is written, the former will turn out to be the immortal quote, not the latter. ...

***

US Offered Military Assistance To UK During Hostage Crisis
Ed Morrissey

The Guardian reports that the Bush administration offered a series of military options to the Blair government at the beginning of the hostage crisis, but the British asked the Americans to hold off on any response. The exact list remains classified, but it included one option of "aggressive patrols" over Revolutionary Guard locations:

[...]

It explains the muted response from the Bush administration during the crisis. Except for demanding the release of the 15 sailors and Marines and endorsing a strong response from the UN, the US stayed rather quiet during the fortnight. The Navy moved a second carrier group into the Gulf, but those orders had come in January and they were expected to arrive at that time.

The report also explains why the Revolutionary Guard captured British personnel rather than Americans. The Guardian's source within the RG admitted that detaining Americans would have led to war, and the RG apparently wanted to push the line to somewhere short of that. It bolsters the case that the capture was ordered locally by an RG commander acting more or less unilaterally, who put the nation in a crisis its senior leadership hadn't sought, but who intended to make the best use of it once it occurred. ...

***

Recently Freed Iranian Diplomat Says He Was Tortured by CIA
al-AP

TEHRAN, Iran —  An Iranian diplomat freed two months after being abducted in Iraq accused the CIA of torturing him during his detention, Iranian state television reported Saturday.

Jalal Sharafi, who was freed on Tuesday, said the CIA questioned him about Iran's relations with Iraq and assistance to various Iraqi groups, according to state television.

"Once they heard my response that Iran merely has official relations with the Iraqi government and officials, they intensified tortures and tortured me through different methods days and nights," state TV quoted Sharafi as saying.

The claim could not immediately be independently verified.

But a White House spokesman, Gordon Johndroe, who was with U.S. president George W. Bush in Texas on Saturday, said, "The United States had nothing to do with Mr. Sharafi's detention and we welcome his return to Iran."

A U.S. intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said the CIA vehemently denies any role in the capture or release of Sharafi. The official dismissed any claims of torture, saying "the CIA does not conduct or condone torture." ...

***

Torture, Lies and Videotape
Steve Schippert

Iranian Jalal Sharafi is described by Iran as a ‘diplomat’ and second secretary for the Iranian embassy in Baghdad but, as reported by the New York Sun’s Eli Lake, “is believed by American military intelligence also to be a member of the lethal Quds Force, the terrorist-supporting organization whose members have been fair game for American soldiers and Iraqi allies since a change in the rules of engagement was issued in December.”

Sharafi was released just ahead of Iran’s release of the 15 British sailors and Marines and (via AP) today’s Washington Post headline blares: Iranian Diplomat Alleges CIA Torture. Just what sort of interrogation the suspected IRGC Quds Force operative was subjected to and by whom is quite unclear. However, his - and Iranian leadership’s - claims fail to hold up to the test of logic.

[Iranian] State television said signs of torture were still visible on Sharafi, who is being treated at an Iranian hospital. Images of Sharafi were not shown.

This claim is almost certainly bunk for several reasons.

Foremost among them is the need to believe inverted logic from an Iranian regime eager to use international imagery. Publicly aired imagery was employed with regard to the British hostages in order to gain a perceived PR boost at home and in the region (as well as an attempt to put a finger in the West’s eye). Conjured ‘confessions’ that no one in the world truly believed genuine were repeatedly released and aired for the purpose of fronting ‘proof’ that the Iranian captors were not only in the right, but being wrongly portrayed as the aggressor rather than protectors of territorial sovereignty.

Yet suddenly, the regime refuses to air images of what would certainly be seen as proof to their claims of torture at the hands of Americans. Not even the release of images of bruises to Sharafi that they themselves could inflict for this purpose. Any release of such images now, after the non-release, should be seen as just that: Regime-inflicted wounds ‘still visible’ for propaganda purposes.

Consider also: Of all of the people that could have been released, why would one be chosen who would exhibit ‘signs of torture still visible’? The entire claim defies logic. Bunk.

But we should thank the Associated Press for carrying the regime’s water and publishing and thus forwarding their claims without an ounce of analytical review. ...