KEY POINTS:
The British were caught off guard when the 15 service personnel were seized by Iranians, and taken by surprise again by the suddenness with which they were freed. But, behind the relief that the episode has ended peacefully is the realisation that what happened has huge implications for the military presence in the Gulf.
An inquest is already under way into why no intelligence indicated the sailors and marines were at risk, and into the weaknesses in the rules of engagement which allowed them to be captured with no resistance. Debate will also focus on whether the hostages should have allowed themselves to be paraded on television, and what they are told to do under such circumstances.
The wider question brought up by the hostage-taking concerns the challenges all British forces in Iraq can expect in an attritional confrontation with Iran. What happened in the Shatt al-Arab waterway followed months of accusations that the Iranians have been supplying Shiite militias in Iraq with sophisticated explosive devices which have killed coalition troops.
The feeling is that more crises will follow. Admiral Sir Alan West, who has just left as head of the Royal Navy, said: "It is not just a military but very much a political matter as well. There will be a thorough debriefing of the service personnel who were taken prisoner, and a thorough analysis of lessons learned. We had set up a system of communications with the Iranians on the Gulf but it did not work, and this is something we need to look at. The important matter is to decide how we interact with Iran."
Although British naval forces are in the Gulf under a United Nations mandate, they are not working under UN rules of engagement which have often been criticised for being weak..
Coalition forces each have their own rules. Commander Erik Horner, of the US Navy, said: "Our rules of engagement allow a little more latitude. Our boarding team's training is a little bit more towards self-preservation." He said US personnel faced with the same situation as the British would have opened fire.
This was not a practical option for the British. The two patrol ships that seized them had rocket-propelled grenades and heavy-calibre machine-guns. The British had only rifles.
Major-General Julian Thompson, who led the marines in the Falklands War, said: "We need to find out why there was nothing at hand to go to their rescue. If we are to put our forces in harm's way, we must make a better job of looking after them."
- Independent
