Today the Iranian Navy sailed into Iraqi waters and seized 15 Royal Navy sailors that had boarded Iranian fishing boats British protest Irans seizure of sailors
1) Why did Iran do this at this time?

2) What should be done?

3) Is Iran looking for a fight?

1) Why did Iran do this at this time?

Just guessing, but maybe because of the Iranian fishing vessel connection. I'm holding back on judgement until all the facts get in, such as what was done on international waters and what wasn't.

2) What should be done?

Don't know without all the facts. If this was an illegal move by the Iranians, then carry on with whatever international consequences are usual for this. If it was another hostage-taking thing, maybe we need Ross Perot to head up the rescue mission. Or if it's just another Gulf of Tonkin incident, I would say nothing because nothing really happened. Right now I'm deeply skeptical, especially with all the buildup in PR for doing something to Iran.

3) Is Iran looking for a fight?

Seems there's a chip on the shoulder. The Brits are now accustomed to ME warfare, and I imagine the US will help out. Or maybe it's part of the master plan for the ME, don't know. The Powers that Be never brief me on this, not even a stinking Christmas card. It's like I don't exist to them! Well, I don't. Oh well.

1) Why did Iran do this at this time?

The incident is less then 12 hours old. The motives remain to be seen.

2) What should be done?

Nothing at all.

3) Is Iran looking for a fight?

We cannot make that judgement until it becomes clearer why ships were pulled in. Seriously, is that question even remotely appropriate when the USS Nimitz and USS Dwight Eisenhower are sitting not too far away? Either the Iranians have a deathwish or something very credible on their end happed to warrrant such behaviour.

I'm not sure what the intent of this action is, but I do think that the use of the Pasdaran must have some significance. The regular Iranian army defends the Iranian state, the Pasdaran defend the Islamic revolution. One of the five arrested in Iraq was a Revolutionary Guards general so I am guessing they have some sort of hostage exchange for those five in mind.

1) Why did Iran do this at this time?

Why have they ever done these things? This is not unusual but instead standard behavior for IRI. They like hostage taking and they recently announced to the world how easy (and cheap) it is...
“abducting Americans and transferring them to any desired location is easier than buying a bunch of Chinese crap" link

They also seem have thought out this easy street plan of abductions thoroughly as they already have plans on what to do with us once captured..
We’ve got the ability to capture a nice bunch of blue-eyed blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks,” he said. “Iran has enough people who can reach the heart of Europe and kidnap Americans and Israelis.” link

ohhh but don't go jumping to a bunch of silly assumptions! They might have a very good reason to put this cheap china crap animal feed plan into action.

1) Why did Iran do this at this time?

The British boarded the Iranian ship to enforce a UN resolution. Everything at this point is guesswork, but there are a variety of possible motives:

1. GPS glitch or other honest mistake-- either Iranian or UK instrumentation had faulty information about their location.
2. UK knowingly conducted an op in Iranian waters and got caught (Unlikely, IMO, but possible).
3. The IRG intentionally violated international law at risk of retaliation, sanctions, rescue ops
4. Iranian captors were not acting on orders from IRG, but from an even more radical group.
5. The fishing boat was carrying something or someone the IRG didn't want the UN or UK to know about , at least not within the next few days.

Although anything could have happened, I'm going to hazard a guess by extrapolating from history that #3, #4, or #5 is what happened. The Iranian president himself, and several Iranian extremist groups, enjoy taking hostages to create international incidents, apparently just for the sport of it. The UK, not so much.

Of the three remaining options, I'm more doubtful of #3 and #4 than #5. Follow that boat.

2) What should be done?

The UK and UN have a slightly more immediate vested interest than the US in this situation. Naturally, the US should support decisions from UK allies. But I don't mind offering my two cents to our UK friends.

If #1 or #2 happened, start diplomatic efforts to negotiate a hostage release/exchange.

If #3 happened, and it can be easily proven, it is an act of war; so hawks might suggest supplying proof on TV while immediately taking the opportunity to send allied stealth bombers to take out Iranian nuclear facilities and missile silos, simultaneously. They might suggest the UK issue a warning that it will continue to degrade Iranian military targets until the hostages are released. I doubt they'll get their way.

If Iranian government claims #4 happened (likely, whether true or not), a hawk might start practicing for the eventuality of the same response as #3, but give the Iranian government 2 days to secure the release of the hostages from the radicals; if they fail to produce the hostages on time, proceeed to take out their nuclear facilities and missile defense systems. Again, not likely.

I suggest we assume #5 was the case until it can be proven otherwise. Keep constant covert satellite coverage of the vessel in question, and prepare to recapture it if imagery hints it may hold evidence of Iranian malfeasance. It might be worth a covert op to retrieve the evidence, as well as the crew; but such action probably won't be very effective unless it is already underway.

Expect to hear a lot about the RGR, RM, PR, and of course SAS over the next few days, even if they don't deploy. Also expect to be reminded of Jimmy Carter's fiasco a few bazillion times on FNC, but somewhat less in the pro-Carter NYT.

3) Is Iran looking for a fight?

I seriously doubt it, but it's possible-- they could be hoping for a response like I've pondered as a pretext to invade Iraq overtly. Iran definitely wants to appear as if it is itching for a showdown with the West, and it may have taken today's show of weakness by Democrats in the US Congress as an indication US and UK are too weak to respond. However, I don't think it's really ready for a real fight-- not yet.

If I had to guess, I'd guess that if the IRG is behind this and intentionally defied the UK and the UN by proxy, it is merely testing the waters to see how fast and severely the free world responds. If we're too slow or dovish in our response, it'll be a step toward open season on terrorizing the West, much more than we're used to. If we're too swift and decisive, they'll old off a few years, but use decisive allied action to ramp up the anti-Western rhetoric. It's a lose-lose situation. The only thing that might throw off the Iranian government is if Afghani and Iraqi troops participate in a rescue operation, but I doubt such a thing would happen any time soon.

1) Why did Iran do this at this time?
Don't know, but the waters involved are a "disputed area" that Iran claims, albeit their claim is pretty weak, since the Shah's government surrendered the claim in the 70's to Iraq. One possible reason is to take attention away from bailing on the UN appearance. Another possible reason is that certain elements in the Iranian government want to start a war, perhaps to shore up a shaky domestic situation. Or it could be that one of the next vessels likely to be inspected had something on it the IRI couldn't afford to have revealed, so they pulled this pre-emptive stunt.

2) What should be done?
Up to the Brits. Were it my decision, I'd sink every Iranian vessel in sight that's not sitting tight in port. I'd also sink every IRI vessel, regardless of location. That would include the IRI Rubber Ducky in the Ayatollah's bathtub. The IRI has conducted an act of war.

3) Is Iran looking for a fight?
Iran? Maybe, or maybe just some elements of the Iranian gov't are looking, while others are less amenable. This may be the former's attempt to drag the latter into a fight.


But they didn't "abduct" Americans, they abducted Brits. These inspections are a routine undertaking, done by all most or all of the nations contributing ships to the task force providing security to the oil platforms in the Gulf, under the auspices of the UN Security Council.

Well, no, they haven't. Based on what we know so far (and I emphasis that, as we know very little) the British boarded an Iranian vessel in international waters. Until we hear there was a good justification for that act (and there may be one, I say again this is based just on what we know so far) that is an act of piracy, and the Iranian military is WELL within its rights to respond.

Capturing British soldiers who have boarded an Iranian vessel is hardly an act of war. I agree we can't leap to conclusions, or really make any intelligent assessment until we know more, and that includes inflammatory assertions like that one.

I agree we know too little to make a proper assessment at this time. However, I don't agree that we even know the above is true because multiple sources in that article repeatedly claimed that Iranian Revolutionary Guard vessels entered Iraqi waters to take this action. Waters that right now are under the control of the UN as well as multinational forces without issue or complaint from the Iraqi government. Waters that may have been the subject of a boarder dispute between Iraq and Iran for ages (though apparently settled to some degree in the 70's).

If forced to speculate I think this is likely a rogue action by the IRGC to either force a prisoner exchange for their people captured in Iraq recently, or to possibly an attempt to instigate higher tension with the West in an effort to win over some of the opposition within Iraq. However, that is pure speculation.

Edited: for typo

I agree, and this was the first thing I thought when I heard the story.
The Iranians want to get us back by taking our ally's soldiers hostage, because we took some of their ambassadors.
Probably want a hostage exchange, which I hope is all that this turns into, because it could get a lot worse.

One other possibility is that this could be a move by the IRGC to try to get the multinational forces to go easier on the inspections which would make arms smuggling into Iraqi a bit easier.

Regardless, assuming the Iranians will negotiate this matter in good faith (which based on history is a huge leap I fear), this issue should be able to be defused.

Isn't Iran due to speak to the Security Council very soon? If so, and considering that the UK has been pretty consistently opposed a military response to Iran so far, it seems unlikely that this action would have had the sanction of the Iranian government. Then again there is 1979 - present Iranian history to consider.

Just canceled their trip to the Security Council on the ground of visa problems... of course
Story here

Granted. However, we also know the timing of this is very suspicious, being right before the UN meeting to discuss sanctions on Iran. I think this explains a lot about why hostages have been taken...for leverage in that issue. Even given the facts as the Iranians above, this issue could have been handled differently were there not some ulterior motivation driving events. Why not simply register a protest during Ahmadinejad's scheduled visit to the U.N.? So, I think the upcoming sanctions vote is what is driving this, and the given facts are nothing more than a pretext for gaining some leverage. But time will quickly tell....

Simply put we put ourselves as a moral superior to people, and some people probably object. Now I am not going to say I agree with Iran’s leadership, speaking of such its back to the morality and warfare thread which are probably flawed terms but hey, they are bunch of nutcases but to say we can take hostages, they cant, such is illegal, blaw, whatever. So many people say warfare is hell and might is right, only of course if it will support there positions this is, otherwise its some evil lawyers version of an angle to get some leverage really, akin to what ultra conservatives in Israel do most the time. Anyways, all this might simply boil down to a tit for a tat type behavior, and simply could be nothing more, we take hostages, they take hostages, it really could be just that, but as already pointed it out its truly to early to do anything but speculate wildly at this point as to why such occurred. I hope those poor soldiers or people really are not harmed to much, as I feel sorry the U.K at large had to pay for bush vision.

New info on this: British sailors admit entering Iran waters: Iran military



However, history does tell us that Prisoners of War, Detainees, Hostages, or whatever label you would like to apply to this situation have often be "persuaded" to "confess". The source for this revelation being the Iranian Military (and not the British personnel themselves) makes this information questionable as well IMHO.


Edited to add:

A google search suggests that General Alireza Afshar is connected to the Revolutionary Army, so the question, "was this action sanctioned by the Iranian Government originally?" still seems valid at this point.

I think this is a large factor as well. Five Iranians were recently taken captive in Iraq...this could easily be a retaliation for that.



More than that...we don't even know at this point if the sailors actually did admit to this. We just know that a senior Iranian official said they did.

So far recent events indicate the Brits drifted off coarse while looking for smugglers.



While the captives may been physically coerced, it may be unlikely since the timeframe is only a day since they were captured. We've have to see the Brits individual statements after they have been released.

I just read the article you linked and I don't she where it indicated they drifted of course at all. The Iranian source says they were in Iranian Waters, the British source says they were not. Am I missing something? Could you clarify please?

It looks like the Iranians are attempting to trade the Royal Navy and Marines for the five Iranians arrested in Irbil. This is from an article in the Jerusalem Post "The sailors, taken at gunpoint Friday by Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Al Quds soldiers were captured intentionally and are to be used as bargaining chips to be used for the release of five Iranians who were arrested at the Iranian consul in Irbil, Iraq by US troops, an Iranian official told the daily paper Asharq al-Awsat on Saturday.

In addition, a senior Iranian military official said Saturday that the decision to capture the soldiers was made during a March 18 emergency meeting of the High Council for Security following a report by the Al-Quds contingent commander, Kassem Suleimani, to the Iranian chief of the armed forces, Maj.Gen. Hassan Firouz Abadi. In the report, according to Asharq al-Awsat, Suleimani warned Abadi that Al Quds and Revolutionary Guards' operations had become transparent to US and British intelligence following the arrest of a senior Al Quds officer and four of his deputies in Irbil.

According to the official, Iran was worried that its detained people would leak sensitive intelligence information. "

The IRG are the elite forces of the Iranian regime. They function exactly like the Waffen SS of Germany in the Second World War. They report directly to the Aytollahs and the very idea that they might function on their own is totally unthinkable. Every action the IRG carries out is approved by the Aytollahs, they wouldn't go to the bathroom without direct authorization they sure as heck would not carry out any unapproved military actions.

Well, darn, who do you believe in these cases? Not a single reliable source one has been mentioned. How in the world does a person that is not there even figure out what the truth is? And Loreng- what makes the Waffen like IRG any different than the Massad? Or any other secret service type on the planet? how do we know for sure that those folks are involved at all? From word from thier most hated enemy?

This is kind of where I stand. The use of the IRG is highly significant in this case, though. British sailors were taken in 2004 for crossing the line into Iran and I highly doubt that they would accidentally do so again. I'm betting that both Iran and the UK soldiers are watching that line in the water very very closely. If the Iranians do attempt to trade the British for their guys, we'll know where the real truth lies.

I am hoping that we soon see something more concrete, like satalite imagery, or GPS data to better support what was going on. Since they sailors captured had just finished an inspection of a ship, perhaps an enterprising reporter can locate the crew and find out where they were when they were stopped. For now, we are left to speculate.

If, for the sake of discussion, we assume that they were in Iranian waters, one question to ask is if they were warned of this fact and directed to leave or if they were simply captured. You would think that a warning would have been given in an attempt to avoid an international issue. If not, perhaps the international issues was the intent of the capture?

Edited to add:

As Mrs. Pigpen suggests, we will likely have a better understanding of this event once it plays out. How the Iranians handle this issue from hear could be very enlightening.

OS- that being said- we probably don't warn Iranians before we pick them up either- ya think?

But,. still, some kind of decent info would be nice!

I wish people would be this skeptical about what our government said as well. Then we could have true analysis.

Moving on....

The possibilities are limitless thus far as to what transpired. Who's waters? Why was the Iran fishing vessel boarded? Who took the British sailors into custody? Who authorized these actions? Why were they taken into custody? Was this a response to the Iranian diplomat from a few months prior? Does this have anything to do with the UN Security Council?

What's really telling is that there are those out there who have rendered judgement already and have nothing to go off of. They just want blood and are looking for a reason, Bikerdad in particular. An Act of War? For who? The British? You know what constitutes an act of war for the British, Bikerdad? No. How does the UK sink the entire Iranian Navy with only 7,800 troops in the region? They obviously don't have the resources. Then if they are asking us to do it for them, wouldn't that be hypocritical of us, considering we continue to accuse the Iranians of meddling in Iraq's affairs. Shouldn't we also stay out of the UK's affairs? I do have just one question for you Bikerdad; have you ever served in the military? Just wondering, because you don't sound like someone that understands the consequences of your proposed actions. Like an arm-chair general, or maybe Dick Cheney would be a better example.

There are a few differences between these incidents. The Iranians were captured in Iraq (one went missing in Turkey I believe but I haven't seen any evidence of allied involvement there). The Sailors were captured at sea, possibly in Iranian waters though that is still questionable. The Iranians were in Iraq apparently covertly, while the Brits were operating at sea openly. There was apparently even some level of communication between the multinational naval forces and the Iranian naval forces (st least according to the first few news stories).

I really do not see these incidents as the same at this time, though it is possible developments in the story could change that in the future.

CR - Mossed is an intelligence agency of approx 1,000 agents. Yes I said 1,000 people in total work for Mossed. The IGC is not an intelligence agency but is instead an Army of approx 120,000 plus a reserve of about equal numbers. Which about equal to the US forces in Iraq. There are five branches of their military - Army, Navy, Air Force, RGC, and Paramilitary. Each reports directly to the President except the RGC which reports directly to the Supreme Religious Leader. The RGC accept only the most fanatical of the Sh'ias. Consider the fanaticism to become a suicide bomber, the Iranians have an entire army that is made up of those type people.

Their is a correction to the story, it was a merchant ship that the Royal Navy boarded and not a fishing boat.

Thanks Loreng- to be honest- from your post, I thought it more like the Mossad- such as your Waffen SS comment made me think "secret service"- so they are more like the thuggish brownshirts instead?

That being said- we STILL do not have really any good info on this- Iran says they confessed- but, well, the US has said that Guantanamo detainees have confessed as well- and we know torture is going on there and other places-

this entire "WOT" has made ALL sources so far, completely and utterly unreliable.

Emphasis mine


I'm reading into the article but ever-so-slightly. This is a classic he said/she said arguement. Hopefully we'll find more evidence this week which will clarify.



The waters were busy this week with vessels from both sides. As naive as it sounds this could have been a simple mistake. Maybe someone interferred with the war-game exercises?

Also I think the border line is in dispute myself. Take BBC's comments today,

CR - No problem. I do not know if the RGC has it's own aircraft, but it does have a naval force which has attacked many tankers in the Gulf with RPGs and machineguns. The USS Vincennes was engaged with several RGC gunboats in 1988 when it mistakenly shot down Iran Air Airbus A300B2. They do have their own armored forces and artillery as well as the most modern of their air defense systems.

That is why I referred to them as the Blackshirt Waffen SS. Because they are a separate armed forces that reports directly to the regime leadership. Much as the SS were Hitler's political troops these are the Aytollahs religious troops.

As for the 'confession' that is what the Iranians are reporting. Since there have been no direct statements from the personnel and no outsiders have been allowed to see them I will take that with a very large grain of salt.

Since the Royal Navy was enforcing a UNSC resolution this is not just a matter between Great Britain and Iran but the UN versus Iran.

As already noted, although ignored by virtually everybody here:

The inspections being conducted by the British sailors and marines are under the auspices of the UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL for the purpose of insuring the safety and security of the oil platforms in the Persian Gulf. The purpose is not to interdict weapons smuggling into Iraq, that would simply be a side effect.


The UK could sink the entire Iranian Navy (excepting what's in the Caspian Sea) with the HMS Cornwall alone. The Iranian Navy is very small and "in poor shape", to put it lightly. UK forces in Afghanistan could deal with the minor Iranian naval forces in the Caspian, or those forces could simply be ignored. Sinking the 3 useless Iranian destroyers and 2 nearly useless Iranian frigates in the south, plus the passel of patrol craft such as used by the IRG for this snatch would send the point home to the mullahs. It took similar action 200 years ago by Jefferson to put an end to similar perfidy by other mohammaden nutjobs. Perhaps you should become more educated in military realities and history.

I do have just one question for you Bikerdad; have you ever served in the military?
Yes.



The justification for the inspection is simple:
The Britons were assigned to a task force that protects Iraqi oil terminals and maintains security in Iraqi waters under authority of the U.N. Security Council as already noted...




Now, the UN connection is very significant, because I believe it points to both the motive of the Iranians (UN sanctions) and also to the possible responses of the Brits. The overriding goal of the UN is to prevent wars between member states, which is one reason why they rarely do much involving internal conflicts. Since it was a UN mission that was obstructed by the Iranians, the UN is likely to restrain the Brits, and the Brits are likely to accept such restraint, at least in the short term. (Whether Nelson, Rodney or Howe would allow such to pass is another matter entirely, but today's Brittania is not the same as their Brittania).

I'm talking about resources in the region. To be sure, the British Royal Navy has a distinguished history among Naval Powers, but currently in the region they do not have the resources to destroy the entire Iranian Navy. Even so, what kind of ridiculous response is that? Apprehend 15 British Sailors and we destroy your entire Navy. No wonder people from the Middle East hate the West so much, they don't know how to play well with others. But I know to you that sounds like a completely reasonable response. And then when they are destroying buildings and targeting civilians you are going to be wondering, "What's their problem?" This is a question we've been asking about Persians, Arabs, Iraqis, and Palestinians for over forty years. Being heavy-handed hasn't made them give up, I hope you are not so naive to think that we haven't been tough enough.

I do believe the United States went to war with Great Britain over the seizing and impressment of US sailors.

As for being heavy handed, just the opposite has been the case. The world has reacted with extreme restraint and the result has been an increasing level of violence. If we had reacted with that heavy hand they would not be attacking everybody and everything in sight.

When the Iranians seized the US Embassy in Tehran I was in the Army and expected to be in the first wave going into Iran as an intelligence agent. I was very young and very scared but knew that this is what was expected of us. Instead the moron in the White House did not carpet bomb the country and invade like he should have, but personally screwed up the rescue mission. As a result we had Iraq invade Kuwait and the increasing violence in the region because nobody is afraid of what we might do. We have shown the Arabs that we lack the backbone to protect our interests or even people. That in the Middle East is an unforgivable crime.

Do you have any idea what the TO&E of the Iranian Navy is? The only shortage of resources the Cornwall might encounter is if it runs out of missiles. So, unless the Cornwall is the only one of Her Majesty's Ships in the Gulf, there's not a resource problem. You should attempt to educate yourself on these subjects.

Have you ever heard the Marine Corp's Hymn? One verse goes like this "from the shores of Tripoli". Check out the history behind that verse, and you'll find that, in point of fact, if you are 'tough enough', they (Islamic troublemakers) do give up when you kick them hard in the nards.

Why indeed? It hardly makes any sense to me, but I suspect the timing has a lot to do with the UN going against Iran with regards to Iran's desire for nuclear supremecy.

Grabbing these British sailors strikes me as being very similar to Hizb'Allah (Iranian sock puppets) grabbing the two Israeli soldiers though and I'm wondering at the coincidence. Either Iran wants to start a premature fight right now (one hey might think they can handle as Hizb'Allah handled the IDF's counter attack) or some one in Iran wants to make damned sure that Iran stays on course


What indeed!?

I don't think military action is going to make any difference. In fact I think its probably the sort of thing whom se ever conceived this plan was hoping for. No matter how much fire power HMS Cornwall carries, the fact is, large military ships are still potentially vulnerable to anti ship missiles and we saw in Lebanon just how vulnerable when an Israeli ship was hit by a Hizb'Allah missile. I don't know the particulars of that event but I seem to remember reading Iran has been buying Chinese 'silk worm' and possibly 'Yingji-82' anti ship missiles and I bet some of those hot headed jihadi's in Iran are just dying to fire them at the kuffar ships out on the horizon.

So what should be done? Sanctions. Really hard, biting sanctions. The sort of enforced sanctions that really put the squeeze on, and what a coincidence that Iran is surrounded...




Without a doubt.

Based on your post, and by my own admission, neither one of us knows what either country has in the region, or in total capacity. I would think that's wise considering these ships are used for warfare. If you and I, average citizens, knew the whereabouts of these ships then the opposing admirals would as well. And the admirals could do far more with that information than you and I could. I do know this, wars and battles are fought in the real world, not on paper. On paper, the British Royal Navy would crush the Iranian Navy, but apparently the Royal Navy isn't as invincible as you are making them out to be. There are 15 of their sailors in captivity right now. Those sailors had to ride aboard a boat to be where they were at. The Iranian Navy had to ride a boat to take them into custody. The Royal Navy ship must not have been as intimidating to the Iranians as they are to you.

And I don't base my foreign policy on a verse from a song. Your simplistic solution is why we are faced with these complex problems. Crush and capitulate may seem like a sound approach to you, but ask yourself, would you capitulate? Would you just give up and quit? Tuck tail and run? Isn't that why we are still there? Don't cut and run! The Iranians, the Iraqis, the Palestinians, and the terrorist organization are just as obstinate as the United States. Maybe one day, we'll have a President who figures that out.

I am curious as to your reasoning behind this loreng- you are a responsible guy, with a pretty big world view- I kind of expect this from the right wing chest thumpers- because they really don't have a freakin' clue as to WHY the embassy was taken.

I mean- we, being the US and Britain, installed the shah- a brutal and corrupt dictator, with a corrupt and evil secret service, a kind of "Saddam lite"- so I mean, if the positions were reversed- you mean you couldn't understand that? You know, how the Italians treated Mussolini kind of thing?

I mean, the US, without a doubt- was the bad guy in this equation,

and as a jew- I am suprised you would consider genocide as a reasonable response to the Iranians taking back territorey stolen from them.

Not so, I've already informed you that the Iranian Navy's "capital ships" (in the very loosest sense of the word) consists of 3 1970s or earlier vintage destroyers that are useless. They also have 2 frigates that are almost useless, but can apparently actually put to sea! The remainder of the combat assets consist of patrol and missile boats, and mini-subs from North Korea. In contrast, the Royal Navy has 3 frigates, two Type 22 and one Type 23 in the area. The Royal Airforce also has combat assets (Tornados) in the Gulf. So, just based on what's in the area, the UK can wipe the Iranian Navy (except for their Caspian Sea elements, which are too far away and too minor to be worth hitting) off the map. They can do so without any assistance from the US or anybody else, and they can also bring additional assets in from the Med.

The general location of all Royal Navy surface vessels is available on the Royal Navy's website. The TO&E and condition of the Iranian Navy can be found at Global Security

They ride about in little boats because they're working in shallow water and its a heckuva lot smarter to risk 15 guys in little boats when inspecting potential nutjobs who could have a couple tons of explosives under the fishing nets than risking a Frigate. Does the USS Cole ring any bells? Boarding parties doing inspections go in little boats. Pretty much always have, probably always will, at least until we get transporters. As for "not being intimidating", that's because the inspection boats were a fair distance away from the Cornwall, AND the Iranians were counting on not being blown out of the water. Its kinda like the little kid who walks up to a professional boxer and punches him in the gut. What's the boxer going to do?

Coulda fooled me, although I'm not sure if you're working from Kumbiyah or We are the World or Imagine

No, actually we're faced with these problems because of realpolitik and "peace processes" and other such nuanced, complex, sophisticated wastes of time. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but after they surrendered unconditionally, Germany, Italy and Japan really haven't been spent a lot of time running around supporting terrorists, using chemical weapons, and generally causing a wholelottatrouble, have they? Contrast this with the Treaty of Versailles, the truce that suspended the Korean War, with the Paris Peace Accords.

We're still there because we're playing paddycake. The only reason the Islamofascist threat exists is because we collectively lack the will to annihilate it, because we surely have the ability. The United Kingdom could give the Iranians the option of returning their sailors and marines, or be annihilated, and the UK has the ability. I would suggest that you do some study into the use of force. Contrary to what most Leftists seem to think, using too little force is more dangerous than using too much. We have repeatedly used too little force when dealing with the Islamofascists. While annihilating Iran over these Royal Navy blokes would seem, on the face of it, to be extreme, the simple fact is I'd much rather convince them that we will annihilate them if necessary by destroying their entire Navy, than find ourselves in the position of having to annihilate the entire country down the road.

Bush figured out that Saddam was just as obstinate, so further yak yak was useless. Saddam is now gone. Reagan figured out that the Soviet Union wasn't interested in co-existing, so Reagan didn't back down. The Soviet Union is gone. FDR and Truman determined that Hitler and Tojo were mighty obstinate, both their nations surrendered unconditionally because it became clear that we were crushing them. Sherman dealt with Confederate obstinancy by burning a swath through the South. Our current President has already figured out just how obstinate these folks are. He's determined that the Islamofascists will remain obstinately committed to their goal of a global Caliphate, a goal that entails the destruction of Israel, the Great Satan (that's us in case you hadn't heard), democracy, and Western civilization. Which means we have two options in dealing with them. Crush them, or capitulate.

Capitulation appears to be your choice.

I say crush them. That way we can go home and rest easy for another couple of centuries until the festering pestilence that calls a pedophile their Prophet erupts in another paroxysm of blood and madness. Actually, I say annihilate Islam, so that my great grandchildren don't have to gird their loins and venture forth to give more fools their opportunity to die for Allah. Treat Islam the same way we treated Nazism and Japanese militarism.

1) Why did Iran do this at this time?

I'm not really sure, but I think it's more likely to be linked to renewal of UN sanctions against Iran for their nuclear program and other infringements than any particular or specific beef against Britain, who (in recent international terms) has been arguing for political and diplomatic engagement with Iran rather than the total ostracisation that others, including Israeli and the US governments, have been urging.

I think Iran is in the wrong - I don't believe the British were in Iranian waters. Apart from anything else, Iran are not in the USA's good books, and so are pretty unlikely to have access to the GPS network which, in a disputed territorial area such as this, is about the only way to know exactly where anybody is.

The Brits on the boat may not have been sure of their location, because they'd got off their Navy launch, and go onto a civilian vessel. I'm guessing that the Iranian assertion that the British captives have "admitted" they had strayed into Iranian waters is less a product of torture, and more an Iranian extrapolation of an honest admission by the Brits that they couldn't be absolutely certain where they were, once they'd left their own vessel.

But, the British commanders would know pretty well exactly where the British sailors and marines were when they were captured. To my mind, the British assertion that they were not in Iranian territorial waters was too immediate and too unequivocal to be some kind of political spin to cover up for a British mistake.

But what do I know? - I was taken in by Tony Blair's "15 minutes" claim that took us into Iraq four years ago. Maybe I should get "mug" tattooed on my forehead and have done with it.

2) What should be done?
Hard to say. I think the line taken by Blair - diplomatic moves first, with the threat of force implicit in the background - is about right for the time being.

3) Is Iran looking for a fight?

Hard to say.

I suspect they probably aren't deliberately doing so, or that it is not their primary motivation, but that the effect will be much the same as if they were.

I think that this is some kind of attempt to flex their muscles, and that the intended audience isn't really the UN or the West, but their own citizens and the wider Middle East. I think this is posturing to whip up nationalist, Shi'ite and pan-Islamist sentiment to shore up the hardline Iranian government (which seemed a few months ago to be losing some grip over their population to the drift toward liberalisation; as an aside, I think the Iranian nuclear program serves much the same purpose), and to cement the regional dominance that Iran has been gifted by the removal of the Ba'athists from Iraq.

As such, I think this - like Saddam's boasting about military capabilities he didn't really have - demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of the modern political world that pervades the Middle East. Pronouncements are made which are primarily intended for domestic consumption, without paying attention to how they might or will be recevied abroad.

All countries do this to a certain extent, especially where conservatives are in power (it has been frequently levelled at the USA under the Bush administration e.g. "Mission Accomplished", "you're either with us, or with the terrorists", etc.), but non-democracies, such as those we see in the Middle East, seem particularly prone to the problem.

Say what you like about Israel or Turkey, but they don't make the same mistake nearly as often as Iran, Iraq, Syria, and the rest. Their governments don't have to conjure up support in this way because they already have it, having been elected.

Just the soldier in me I guess Not really but it was fun.

The reason that the Iranians took the US Embassy was money pure and simple. Prior to President Carter the CIA was paying the Ayatollah between 1 and 2 million dollars a year while he was in exile in France. When President Carter came into office he put a stop to those payments. Needless to say that turned the Aytollah from neutral to an enemy because President Carter hurt his dignity and the concept of 'face' in the Middle East is just as important as it is Asia.

As for the idea of carpet bombing well the US used it against both Japan and Germany and neither was considered genocide. In 1979 we did not have a lot of percision guided munitions. Different time and the technology was not there yet, so the idea was very valid back then. As for now I think that when in doubt use a bomb. I really do not believe in wasting our most valuable resource, the American fighting personnel.

As for how bad the Shah was, well compared to the current regime he was very much the liberal. Which is why he was overthrown. The Aytollahs have killed more and jailed more Iranians every year since 1979 than the Shah did in his entire reign. This is a brutal theocracy that is hated within their own country. Make no mistake the average Iranian is not a fan of America, but they do hate their own regime.

Now how to make use of that is the question. A direct attack which the Iranian government appears to be asking for is a mistake because it would unite the people against the invader, much like Iraq. They are venerable though, 60% of the gas is imported because of the Iran-Iraq war. Preventing gas from getting in would put great pressure on the government. They are straved for foreign capital, we have had some success there, more needs to be done. There are people that are working to overthrow the regime but they are terrorists just as much as Hamas and Hezbollah. That is a path we should not travel. Because even if I agree with the cause one man's terrorist is everybody's terrorist.

But the REAL question is what we do with Iranians in the wrong place. Do we hold them hostage and use them as a tool to get what we want? OF COURSE NOT.

The Iranians are savages in many ways. They still use public stonings, still hang women for 'crimes against chastity', etc. Look at what happened last time we sat on our hands and let them keep our people. Sure, these are the British, but the US has Spec Ops troops on both sides of Iran. There's no sense in letting this go unnoticed.

I say give diplomacy a chance, then send in people to kick down the door. Our nations have the most powerful special operations forces in the world. I'd mount a Navy Seal/SAS operation if we don't have those men back in under 2 weeks. Iran wouldn't know what hit them.

Consider the first time that we attempted to rescue the hostages, no one let us use their air bases, we had no help, etc. Now we're a 45 minute helicopter ride away (if that far). I'd volunteer.

Interesting point, but I think the parallel has a couple major kinks in it. Hizb'Allah grabbed the Israeli soldier to encourage Israel to invade, knowing that they would make out politically in such a scenario. Iran encouraged this because they didn't have direct involvement, and could make Israel look bad with no repercussions. In this situation, I don't see how Iran comes out looking good goading Britain into a showdown, and also Iran is directly involved and can't just sit by on the sidelines.

Its like a game of bluff you can't win. If the Brits don't use force then they look powerless and the jihadi's get all excited.

If they attack then the utter powerless of Great Britain in the face of Iranian dominance in the region is laid plain for all to see and then the jihadi's get really excited indeed! After all, if tiny Hizb'Allah with brazen impunity can face down mighty Israel right on Israel's border, then what is Great Britain going to do to the distant, mighty Islamic Republic of Iran? Invade? Precision strike at its nuclear assets? I think not.

Sanctions perhaps, but I can just see the clerics in their private tea drinking and child snogging sessions IMG, laughing to themselves at that one. Hardship is good for the soul, especially for people who yearn to become martyrs. Suffering fills the mosques and like Orwellian proles the masses will hate the wicked Kuffar who dared to violate the sacred territory of the Islamic Republic right on que. Iran is Orwell's dystopia!

Link.
And thats the point. Look past the socialist labels of Ingsoc and tell me what you see. Ingsoc is a literary device, Islam is the real deal.

The Iranians don't give a fig for what the British say or do. They way they see things, they're winning. Their actions are being played out for the really important audience; Dar al-Islam .

You only have to listen to what these people are saying to figure out whats going on and understand that no matter how far out they sound, they absolutely mean what they say.

I tend to agree. The only thing that can make a difference in Iran is the young majority chaffing under the rule of the Mullahs. If the sanctions are enforced and the whole society has to suffer – some could lose patience and move against the Mullahs.

We can only hope it happens – because if/when they bring there little war to the US they will be looking down the barrel of annihilation.

And I agree they mean exactly what they say. All of it.

Yesterday, the former First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Alan West, said British rules of engagement were "very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting ... Rather than roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were, in effect, able to be captured and taken away." - The Independent

I'm sure that morale in the Royal Navy is skyrocketing right now! Undoubtedly the sailors are comforted to know that their government subscribes so deeply to the concept of "no man left behind."

1) Some are crazy, and as grandma always said, don't bother figurin' out crazy 'cause you can't and won't and that's why we call it crazy.

2) Threaten them with "prompt and utter destruction".

3) They're looking for something, but see answer 1).

If Tony Blair is to be believed, the Brits asked the Iranians to supply the coordinates. The Iranians did. The Brits then pointed out that such coordinates are in Iraqi territorial waters. Whereupon, the Iranians gave the Brits a new set of coordinates.

Re the Brits ability to win a war, simply recall the Falklands. That victory was achieved without an aircraft carrier worthy of being called such. As a result of that war, the neglected air arm was upgraded and so the HMS Illustrious and the HMS Ark Royal can be brought to bear in their role as aircraft carriers [and not sub-hunters]. The HMS Invincible has been mothballed but is subject to recomission "on notice".

1) Why did Iran do this at this time?

2) What should be done?

3) Is Iran looking for a fight?


Answer 1
Well, they couldn't very well wait till the sailors went back to international waters or Iraqi waters. They captured the sailors because the sailors had no respect for Iranian sovereignty, more importantly the government of Great Britian had no respect for the sovereignty of Iran.

Answer 2

Absolutely nothing. Play politics and run propaganda but be happy that the sailors will make it back alive. They invaded the waters of another nation. Add to that, Iranains found in british waters would likely go through the same thing.

Answer 3

I don't think so. It does not serve them in any way. However Iran likely feels bullied and disrespected with all the efforts of western nations to dictate to them their right create their own technology. Likely, they just felt a need to answer this latest insult of having their sovereignty violated.

droop:

Perhaps you missed:

"Britain's military said its vessels were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters when Iran seized the sailors and marines on Friday after they completed a search of a civilian vessel in the Iraqi part of the Shatt al-Arab waterway. The border between Iran and Iraq has been disputed for centuries.

Vice Adm. Charles Style told reporters that the Iranians had provided a position on Sunday -- a location that he said was in Iraqi waters. By Tuesday, Iranian officials had given a revised position two miles east, placing the British inside Iranian waters -- a claim he said was not verified by global positioning system coordinates.

"It is hard to understand a legitimate reason for this change of coordinates," Style said.

Style gave the satellite coordinates of the British crew as 29 degrees 50.36 minutes north latitude and 048 degrees 43.08 minutes east longitude, and said it had been confirmed by an Indian-flagged merchant ship boarded by the sailors and marines."

See: http://www.kare11.com/news/national/nation...?storyid=249276

Another report of the same part of the story:

"Earlier in the day, Vice Admiral Charles Style presented maps and coordinates, from positioning satellites, of the British patrol boats and the merchant vessel the British personnel had just finished searching when they were seized by Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

"The position was 29 degrees, 50.36 minutes north; 48 degrees, 43.08 minutes east, and this places her 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi territorial waters," he said.

The vice admiral said the Iranians provided two different coordinates where they said the British patrol boats were. He said the first ones still showed the boats in Iraqi waters, while the second, "corrected" coordinates showed them to be inside Iranian waters."

See: http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=43801

I will otherwise be waiting for you and the rest of the "liberal" crowd to expound ad nauseum here on AD about the multiple violations of a certain Geneva Convention to which Iran is a signatory. Or does the certain Geneva Convention and your moral outrage only apply to the Coalition of the Willing?

As has been mentioned, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that these sailors were in Iranian waters. Quite the contrary. As has also been mentioned, inspections being conducted under the auspices of the UNSC, not the British government. Finally, Iran is parading these sailors on television, demanding that the British government admit they trespassed. That is how a banana republic acts.

Placing this in any realistic context requires an alternate reality, but supposing that the UN desired for Iranian inflated rafts to inspect vessels in the waters of France, and further supposing one of those rafts drifted off-course into British water, you honestly believe that the British government would send out its most elite forces, seize them and parade those sailors on television? You are taking empathy to a ludicrous extreme.

I would like to add to Mrs. Pigpen's statement. The parading of POWs on television is a violation of the Geneva Convention.

Which raises the ante of kidnapping, invasion of a sovereign member of the United Nations, and now a war-crime for the mistreatment of POWs. An interesting record.

Wait, we're at war with Iran? Man, I have been away for awhile.
Maybe Iran is just claiming these British soldiers are "unlawful combatants," "battlefield detainees," or "illegal combatants," and thus there is no obligation to follow the Geneva Convention.

Kinda like,

cite

Also:

Female British soldier confesses. Now befor you say "well the camera didn't show the gun to her head" ask yourself how many times we've acted upon "confessions" from those in Gitmo.