h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Very likely Arnie, taking into account that there is damn all we can actually do, short of a REAL act of aggression.

Novo

Looking at the BBC News Report on the web, it would seem possiblefrom the relative positions of the RN vessels, and I include other posters remarks on the Frigates position, that an over zealous bunch of Revolutionary Guards might have taken the opportunity to 'bloody our nose'

This might mean that Arminowotsit is in a bit of a bind. He cannot refuse to back his own hotheads, but he can't ( in the current climate ) just hand back the marines and sailors. There has to be time for bluff and bluster.

So we wait quietly.........

Novo

"
The de-escalatory nature of the Navy's Rules of Engagement have been shown to be flawed in the face of such an aggressive act."

Are you advocating the Royal Navy respond with force? The result of that would have been loss of life and actual armed hostility between the UK and Iran. That's a lot of responsibility to shoulder.

"This could be a defining moment for Britain in the manner of Suez or the American hostage crisis of 1980. At the moment, the Iranians are fully in control of the crisis and are proactively ramping it up. Can Britain seize the initiative and force Iran to react?"

"Defining moment"? This isn't actually that major a situation, certainly not comparable to the Suez crisis. The Iranians haven't actually harmed the sailors and are unlikely to do so. We're almost certain to get them back and extremely unlikely to give the Iranians any quarter in order to get them to do so. This is one of two things 1) the ship did stray into Iranian waters (which is likely considering the aquatic Iraq/Iran border has been fuzzy for a long time) and the Iranians knew to not react would be a sign of weakness or 2) the Iranians have kidnapped the sailors to make some sort of point. Neither is a serious threat to British interests in the long term and, unless Iran threatens the sailors, the smart move is to humour their chest-beating whilst making sure the sailors are returned without making concessions.

A reasonable hypothesis from the Times:

"Diplomats involved in the case believe that the British servicemen were ambushed by a naval unit of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards with the intention of putting pressure on Britain ahead of the key UN Security Council vote to impose sanctions on Tehran for its nuclear programme.

If that was the motive, it failed. On Saturday, the day after the abduction, the council voted unanimously to impose sanctions on Iran, banning the export of weapons and freezing the assets of 28 individuals and companies involved in the country’s nuclear and ballistic missile programmes."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1570839.ece?token=null&offset=12

Simulpost

<>

Yes. Absolutely. I am as convinced as any that this took place in Iraqi waters. At the first approach by Iranian boats, the frigate should have fired warning shots. Failure to comply with the orders of the frigate should then have seen the Iranian boats sunk. This was an act of aggression and to kidnap another country's servicemen is an act of war.

How is the next patrol going to feel when they go to search a ship? The message is quite clear that under current ROE they will receive no support and can expect to spend an indeterminate time being interrogated, subjected to mock executions and paraded in front of the media. Hardly good for morale.

"Then again with many thinking American invasion of Iran is inevitable maybe they are desperate."

Even Noam Chomsky has backed-off from the "America is gearing-up for a war with Iran" position which he's been pushing for several years. After what happened in Iraq, the myth of the American collossus has been shattered (more so than it was with Vietnam, imho) and they're likely to tread more carefully and with more thought. It's worth remembering that Iraq was an economically-broken country with a largely-crippled army when the coalition invaded in 2003 and they're currently having problems fighting an insurgency arguably largely made-up of troops with little training. Iran doesn't have the economic problems Iraq had and has an army much more loyal and willing to fight (much of Iraq's army was, apparently, disabled by paying-off Saddam's generals). Also, one of the key ideas in recent US foreign policy is formenting dissent and revolt in oppressive countries and a US invasion is likely the bolster rightwing populists like the current President of Iran and marginalise Iran's liberal opposition. Iran needs to be confronted but even Bush seems to have realised that it's going to be a more complicated problem than the Taliban.

"Yes. Absolutely. I am as convinced as any that this took place in Iraqi waters. At the first approach by Iranian boats, the frigate should have fired warning shots. Failure to comply with the orders of the frigate should then have seen the Iranian boats sunk. This was an act of aggression and to kidnap another country's servicemen is an act of war."

That would have started a shooting war with Iran and, I'm afraid, only an irresponsible idiot would have done that over this issue. Do you also think George Bush was wrong not to go to war with China when the crew of that US spy plane were held by China? Starting a war is a serious step and there must be good reasons for doing so since the Prime Minister would have placed the lives of any Royal Navy personelle in the Arabian Gulf in danger from Iranian naval vessels and directly jeapordised the mission the Royal Navy are currently on in the Gulf.

"How is the next patrol going to feel when they go to search a ship? The message is quite clear that under current ROE they will receive no support and can expect to spend an indeterminate time being interrogated, subjected to mock executions and paraded in front of the media. Hardly good for morale."

Cant. They clearly are receiving support from the government who has demanded Iran return them immediately and there's no reason they can't continue their mission searching vessels in the Gulf. Iran claimed they strayed into their waters and that may actually be true. Just because the Iran is run by a nasty religious rightwing regime doesn't mean the Royal Navy vessel is incapable of straying into their waters.

As far as I'm concerned, there's no reason to use force with all the responsibility that brings in this situation unless the lives of the navy personelle are threatened or Iran refuses to return them to us.

Iran, Iraq...almsot the same in many ways but different in critical ones.

The reason *we were told* we went into Iraq was because of Saddam being a bad guy and WMDS. Not many people backed this hypothesis more lefties are willing to acccept the UNs line that Iran is a potentially dangerous state. Apparently we went in to liberate the Iraq's and build a new nation if Iran continues in this belicose way a move to *defeat* Irna loooks far more do-able and excuseable.

Where the sailors were isnt the big deal and that service perssonel are put in jeopardy isnt news, what is? Its the possibility that if news reports are too believed it appears that Iran is pushing the boundaries.

North Korea is in a stronger negotiating position than it has been for a long time because it stuck to its guns over arms developement. A battle worn Whitehouse will be watching to see how strong willed its next potential advisory/negotiating opposition is.

<>

But they are in danger. From any nutjob in a dinghy with an AK47. They're not allowed to fire unless fired upon.

The actions of the RN personnel at the time as reported by eyewitnesses supports the assertion that they were in Iraqi waters at the time. As I've already said, this was an established checkpoint that has been used for years. Given the incident in Iraq previously and the fact the boats are equipped with GPS, I find it unlikely a simple mistake was made.

Besides which, International Law clearly states that where an incursion takes place, the offending party should be escorted out of the area into International waters. Not whisked off to secret sites in Tehran for interrogation and refused access to Consular staff.

First signs of a climbdown by the Iranians?

"The investigation involved examining tracking equipment to determine exactly where the crew was captured."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6494289.stm

Yesterday they were adamant.
Today they're "investigating".

There was a good explanation on yesterdays PM programme of the problems with defining the border between Iraq and Iran. The border follows the Shat El Arab river bed and that changes with time. It's position is meant to be surveyed every 10 years, but because of the various wars, this hasn't happened. Hence there is probably no legally agreed border.

Interviews with the Marines involved in the last incident indicate that the Iranian attack speed boats have an anti aircraft gun mounted on them. Six of these might have been able to inflict considerable damage to both the Lynx helicopter and HMS Cornwall if either had intervened.

>>>Yes. Absolutely. I am as convinced as any that this took place in Iraqi waters.


I must say, I'm not...

>>>At the first approach by Iranian boats, the frigate should have fired warning shots. Failure to comply with the orders of the frigate should then have seen the Iranian boats sunk. This was an act of aggression and to kidnap another country's servicemen is an act of war.

Of course, that's a) assuming the Rigid Raiders weren't in Iranian waters - if they were, it would have been an act of war by us

And of course you're forgetting that the frigate wasn't there and wasn't even in visual range at the time.

---------

>>>Iranian attack speed boats have an anti aircraft gun mounted on them. Six of these might have been able to inflict considerable damage to both the Lynx helicopter and HMS Cornwall if either had intervened.

Six heavy machine guns would not stop a frigate from functioning - whilst they might well kill a couple of people on the upper decks, they wouldn't stop it functioning and thus striking back - and as for the lynx, the Iranians would have to get very lucky indeed... Firstly, the Lynx pilot would have to be daft enough to get within Machine Gun range, secondly, they'd have to disable him _very_ quickly, otherwise he'd just turn round out of range and launch one of the Sea Skuas he'd have been carrying (range - approx. 20km)

New information:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6498611.stm

It seems the British government has evidence that the sailors were in Iraqi waters, but hasn't published it to avoid escalation. Whether that is the correct action or not, it at least indicates that the British are worried about the possibility of escalation, or the perception of escalation.

Also:
http://economist.com/daily/news/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=8914938&top_story=1

This basically summarizes all the related events.

Since it is a situation very much about 'face', we would not wish to prematurely play the last card of 'position' which we sincerely hope will confirm the boats were in Iraqi waters. The cost of such humiliation may be too high.

Better to let the Iranians extract apologies , confessions or whatever, then publish the position details AFTER the sailors and marines are returned. The Iranians can then deny as much as they wish. We will all have the facts. ( we trust)

Novo

This whole discussion comes about because we have a liar for a Prime Minister and people generally don't believe a word government says any more.

Even when he's telling the truth, many people are all too ready to accept another (dubious) country's version.

Once upon a time, the word of a British Prime Minister was respected.

Is this the real Nu-Labour legacy?

Sadly ,yes SWL,

But how do you link it to this present situation?

Are you suggesting that because 'we' know that this government can be believed on very few matters, the Iranians are similarly aware?

Or simply that our international reputation for honesty and straight dealing, as a nation, is now too tainted ?

Novo

Probably the latter. More importantly than the international viewpoint is the domestic one. It seems far too many people were quick to give credence to Iranian claims.

The tenor of this discussion would have been entirely different from the outset if it had been a given that the incident took place in Iraqi waters.

hmmmm.... Do we all really think PMs lying is a new development? Or rather is it just bliar got caught with his pants down after preaching holier than thou?

With FB ,I think we should try to link it all to the situation in hand.

Since the thread was started, and on TV and in the press there has ben plenty of analysis. I am sure that SWL would agree that his 'shoot first and ask after' policy is in the minority, and that he favours a more vigorous US style where the Iranian boats were preferably sunk. Dealing with the consequences he hasn't yet dicussed. That is not to say he is wrong, and given a stronger RN presence maybe he would be right.

I make no secret of the fact that since our forces are stretched, and since the current ROE prevented shooting first, we had no option but to follow the diplomatic course first. How long we should wait is up for debate, though were some Americans held for 120 days without a shooting war starting?

The questions about where the frigate was and the decisions of it's captain are for the MoD( in which I have little faith and scant respect ). We cannot know his operational orders so questioning his judgement is unfair.

Which leaves us with 'positions in the water' at the moment. Whatever evidence the coalition, including the Iraqis produce will be refuted by the Iranians, who would say that the information was doctored. They would deny being wrong even if they walked up the beach onto Iraqi soil.

So given our relatively weak military position, and the fact that 'evidence' will be said to be concocted, where to now, and how does our PM's flexibility with veracity affect the matter?

Novo

Securing the release of the sailors and marines will have to come about by diplomacy not force. As you say we are in a weak position militarily and any use of force would worsen their plight. Given the closed nature of Iranian society the chances of covert operations must be slight; even if their locations were known.

Iran is in a weak position internationally. The UN sanctions vote went through the Security Council by 15 votes to 0. No cover from Russia or China. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan are increasingly critical of Iran and despite their oil reserves they are struggling financially.