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

I'm surprised no one posted this yet...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6484279.stm

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-British-Troops-Iran.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

yeah, I spotted that.
It's also on Al Jazeera. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B8BE3CDD-F79A-4CF0-8524-C84E9BB0ECD7.htm

First off I thought Iran does do this occasionally, gets the headlines at home, 'proves' they can get one over on the UK. But then they don't do anything too bad knowing that relationships are bad anyway and the UK ain't really going to retaliate in kind.

Then I thought of the recent press stories where Iran had claimed that some of those who have been arrested are Iranian diplomats. And rather than getting at the US forces (which I think they know would be a really bad idea) they pick on the junior partner.

It'll rumble on and there'll be a slanging match and then they'll be returned, quite possibly sans armaments and equipment (like last time).

I just feel sorry for the individuals caught up in it but presumably they are trained on what to do when captured. But in all this they are just pawns for Ahmidenijads posturing against the west.

They're also, I think, testing to see if they can get away with claiming the entirety of the strait as they have always wanted to do.

on the other hand, I see very little in the Iranian media websites (which could be deliberate since I know they filter what goes out to the world and what comes in from the world).
It is interesting though in light of the pronouncements from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in retaliation to the possibility of UN Sanctions.

eg.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2007/03/22/iranian_leader_issues_threat/
"If they want to threaten us and use force and violence, they should have no doubt that Iranians will use any means necessary to strike a blow against those who assault them,"

Altough to be honest my dirty mind was having more fun with "He blamed the country's domestic cleavages on foreign powers."
sorry.

yeah, I agree with post 2, except for the timing with respect to the current UN security council standoff (as you state in post 3). A talking head mentioned last week that brinkmanship (by the US towards Iran) was a bad idea, b/c then a little event (british solider taken hostage) can set off a war.

It could lead to nothing, or it could be the start of something bad.

And I'm sure that Iran is aware that UK forces are stretched at the moment.

goes off to put R.E.M. on the stereo.

Well yes but even so Iran does seem to be taking a lot of risks. Then again with many thinking American invasion of Iran is inevitable maybe they are desperate.

Do you really think there will be serious repercussions Arni? (I'm not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely asking your opinion.)

Technically, is this not an act of war? Iran illegally invaded the territory of another nation and abducted British servicemen. Look what happened in Israel when the same thing happened.

Remember the last time Iran did this - seven British troops were made to stand blindfolded in a ditch and subjected to a mock execution for the cameras.

I can see this making realtionships more tense but no cause war, we will have to see what happens in the next week. IF Iran remain uncooperative it will probably speed up the road to war (prehaps what Iran wants)

SWL, I feel there's a chance of it snowballing. The snowball analogy seems particularly apt. If the situation weren't already tense, it would be analogous to dropping a snowball on flat ground. But with the situation already tense from the nuclear standoff, Iran has dropped a snowball on sloped ground.

I don't know how sloped the ground is, but when you're talking chain reactions/snowballing of events, it seems even the littlest thing can get things moving in the wrong direction.

And one can;t forget Israel in all this. They have hinted at being willing to fly over Iran to blow up its nuclear facilities. I'm sure they'd be willing to help out in any action against Iran.

what a surprise, Iran justifies it by saying they illegally entered Iranian water. Again, same excuse as last time.
Do you think Iran realises how dangerous a game they are playing? Not to comment on any other actions in the area, just concentrating on this.
I wonder how far they will go.

Well, they seem to be taking it to the next stage. There are reports that the 15 are to be charged with espionage and tried. In Iran, this carries the death penalty. They are also refusing to allow British Consulate staff access and refusing to say where they are being held.

Iraqi witness reports say the personnel were seized at a recognised checkpoint in Iraqi waters which is well-known to all vessels in the area. This is confirmed by the US. It was an Iraqi ship, bound for Iraq. Why would it be in Iranian waters?

This helps to explain the passive response from the Navy & Marines. They would have seen the Iranians coming, (warned by the crew of the Lynx overhead), but made no attempt to evade capture, which you would expect them to do if they were in Iranian waters.

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.

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?

I'd send in the SAS to rescue them if we could find out where they are. But I presume the Iranians have split them up all over the place if they've any sense. But some kind of tit for tat military strike is definitely called for.

Tit for tat is a bad idea. There are too many aid workers in Iraq who would become hostages to fortune, literally.

The UK should launch a clear military strike. Taking out the base where those boats came from would be a good start.

A firm line should be drawn. If we don't make Iran suffer real consequences, we're leaving the door wide open for more hostage taking.

Iran is most definitely thinking itself to be getting stronger thanks to the fall of Sadam and the weakening of the Sunnis in Iraq. Last year they announced their power through their puppets hezbollah, against a weakened Israel in the war in Lebanon.

They don't expect the West to have the balls to attack them. But surely we should do it before they get nuclear weapons. Should we call their bluff? Maybe this is a golden opportunity to take out their nuclear development sites?

This post has been removed.

I'm curious about one aspect of this whole affair...

Now, from the interviews I've heard, it's pretty clear that when this happened the two boats carrying out the boarding operation were out of sight of the frigate...

What nobody seems to have asked yet (or explained), is Why?

If you want to board a ship you believe may be carrying contraband/arms/etc., you really want to have a couple of big guns pointing at it when you send across your marines, just in case someone with a guilty conscience onboard the cargo vessel decides to throw a couple of hand grenades into their inflatables as they come alongside. So, in my experience, the boarding parties aren't generally sent off on their own.

So where was the frigate?

There are only two possibilities that come to mind (please feel free to add any more if you can think of them) - because I'm not entirely happy where this train of thought is leading me - and I'd be happy to be proven wrong:
a) They could have been off chasing another cargo vessel - possible, but a dodgy decision by the skipper in my opinion
b) The skipper decided he couldn't risk taking his large, expensive frigate to where the cargo vessel was... Why? Because it's a darned sight more dangerous, and aggressive, to take a heavily armed frigate into someone elses waters than it is to have a couple of small rigid raiders make an 'elementary error of navigation'.

Isn't it more likely that the Iranians are trying to provoke a military attack, ( as advocated bt SWL ) precisely so that they can 'justify' their nuclear weapons programme?

The soft approach has to be tried first, if only because thare are not enough naval resources in the area to prevent sneak, and illegal, attacks by Iranian fast patrol boats.

IF the marines are not returned unharmed,after a suitable period to allow posturing on both sides, then I will support an attack on their naval base from which the patrol boats operate.

Novo

Whisky makes a good point about what the frigate was or wasn't doing. I think that skipper may have some serious questions to answer. Talked to a mate last night who's still serving and there's a new phrase doing the rounds - doing a Lambert. Basically, leaving your shipmates to fend for hemselves.

The boats were under observation the whole time from the frigate's Lynx. They would have seen the Iranians coming. Yet the RN boats stayed put. If they were in Iranian waters, wouldn't they scarper when the Iranians came close? Whereas, if they were in Iraqi waters they wouldn't feel the need to do anything.

Either way, the frigate should have been close enough to influence the situation.

I'm surprised there isn't bigger news about this - at least there isn't anything big in the US. It's a tough call. I think the Iranians are completely just bluffing and it's just a matter of diplomacy. But if that trial actually gets underway...

I'm wondering if the media isn't making bigger news about it b/c of government pressure - basically to try to keep the situation from getting worse.