Britain has made much of their claim that Iran issued a GPS location of the incident, and then corrected it with another one. But it appears Britain did the same thing.

The official British position as published in the online Guardian on March 28 is: 29 degrees 50.36 minutes north, 048 degrees 43.08 minutes east

However, if you examine closely the picture of the Garmin/eTrex GPS device held by the helicopter pilot as he hovers over the alleged ship that was boarded, the readout says: N 29 50.174, E 048 43.544

(see CNN video story of March 28, "Iran may free female sailor")

The eTrex readout puts the position almost half a minute, i.e., half a nautical mile, EAST of the official position published in the Guardian. This would likely push it closer to the border, if not over it. So it appears the British are changing their facts to fit their stories.

In any case, it's clear from all these GPS positions that the incident took place not in the narrower Shatt al-Arab waterway but BEYOND it, in the open waters but within the 12-mile limit. One BBC report about the "Murkey dividing lines of Shatt al-Arab" notes that these borders can "change with the seasons". Richard Schofield, an expert in international boundaries at King's College London, told the BBC that "Releasing the co-ordinates wouldn't necessarily help us as there is no formally agreed boundary."

The British themselves claim that the incident was only 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters. Given the murkiness of the border, they are playing a provocative game by seizing vessels so close to Iran, and are objectively serving U.S. war plans.

"But today, many of those old problems have receded or been addressed. Today the big threats to people’s future prospects come from complex, decentralized phenomena: Islamic extremism, failed states, global competition, global warming, nuclear proliferation, a skills-based economy, economic and social segmentation. . . ."

With the convenient label "complex, decentralized phenomena," Brooks is able to 1) imply that his 'nonideological Americans' cannot ultimately understand these problems that were 2) not caused by any powers (i.e. multi-national corporations, deregulation, militarism, etc.) that Mr. Brooks and his colleagues have supported.

I wonder, too, if an important shift in 'neo-conservative' politics has been supporting the goals of multi-national corporations over and above (and under the guise of) nationalism.

NAFTA (which, to my understanding, significantly infringes on local,state and national law in its chapter 11), the corporate agenda in Iran/Iraq, along with the very ills Mr. Brooks mentions seem to stem from policies that favor the corporation over the mere nation.

I'm no political expert, and I'm fairly new to your column. I have a feeling the above ideas would, in the past, have fallen into the realm of conspiracy theory. However, given the $21 billion dollar the U.S. government has rewarded Halliburton in contracts, and given the fact that this company has moved its corporate headquarters to the Middle East (and to a nation we have no extradition treaty with), I think we'd be foolish not to take a perhaps very real threat to our nation quite seriously.

Glenn, thank you for this powerful piece. I never fail to learn from you.

Glenn, you quote an Iraqi official stating fisherman told him the British boats were in waters that were off-limits. Following the link provides the "Iran captures UK troops" but makes no mention of this report you quote. In fact, aside from mentioning that there is a dispute about the border, they give NO MENTION of anyone corroborating Iran's story. Not an Iraqi officer, not fishermen, no one.

Curious.

Glenn, you'll notice that your quote no longer appears in the referenced article and searching for the quoted Iraqi commander actually brings up all the old headlines for the article, proving that it was substantively changed multiple times until it no longer resembled the original content. The current version has lost almost all news content that differs from the administration position!

This should be front page blog news if they indeed suppressed reporting and tried to change internet history. Could you maybe find someone at the Post who could comment on the dramatic story change?

The only thing that can be said about this is Iran has alreadt attacked U S. soliders in iraq so why should we belive them . Also they also sponsor terorist around the world they are an enemy and should be treated as such.

Everything everywhere at all times is their fault. Please stick with the script people or we will purge you from the party.

Great article, congratulations on the informative details contained within this report.

I must say that when I first heard about the 'arrests' of the British troops by Iran, I could not miss the similarities to the 'kidnapping' of Israeli troops by Lebanon's Hezbollah faction.

Each incident involved troops captured on 'disputed' territorial border lines, each incident led to a public relations battle -- a nightmare for Israel and a test of credibility for the British and the US -- and with no doubt that both incidents were purposely staged to bait the target into an incident that could lead to war.

There is no doubt in my mind that Blair and Bush have both intentionally decided to play this political 'poker game,' primarily to strategically win the public relations' battle, after having had witnessed the Israeli war loss with Hezbollah, before their 'officially' invading Iran.

So far, I have yet to read a media report on the striking similarities between these two incidents involving troops who magically 'just happened' to have been detained on disputed territorial border lines.

Your article was very informative and did question the motivations and the end game of Bush and Blair, in regards to Iran. Most important, was your questioning of both leaders' credibility credentials should they invade Iran, as I am sure you already know that they both have already planned to invade Iran by the end of March, this year.

A future article could include an expansion in detailing the fact that both Bush and Blair have been trying for over a year to find the excuse that they needed to preemptively invade this sovereign nation, an issue that everyone in the World is fully aware of, if they keep up with current events. There first attempt, questioning Iran's nuclear ambitions, has been a longer, drawn out, ploy than they had anticipated, a very important public relations and credibility issue, particularly following the failed WMD ploy debacle in Iraq.

Failing this, they decided to use the 'bait and provoke' method used by the Israeli's as recently as this past summer near the Lebanon border. Ironically, both 'bait and provocation' incidents occured within the southern borders between each nation involved, ultimately leading to war. LOL... Similarities so imprinted on the World's minds,it cannot be missed or overlooked.

Have a great day and keep informing us of the truths we so clearly miss from our Fourth Estate these last 6 years!