# British sailors arrested at gunpoint by Iranian navy.



## midget-boyd91 (23 Mar 2007)

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



> Fifteen British Navy personnel have been captured at gunpoint by Iranian forces, the Ministry of Defence says.
> The men were seized at 1030 local time when they boarded a boat in the Gulf, off the coast of Iraq, which they suspected was smuggling cars.
> 
> The Royal Navy said it was doing everything it could to secure the release of the sailors and marines who are based on HMS Cornwall.
> ...



Isnt this great.. just what we all needed to calm things down.


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Mar 2007)

I cant believe the UK frigate commander allowed the Iranians to take his boarding party. He needs to be relieved ASAP. His lack of decision action now will see the Iranians demand the release of captured Iranians in Iraq in exchange for these personnel.Hope I am wrong. This is the second such incident involving Iranian interference with UK military personnel.


----------



## GAP (23 Mar 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I cant believe the UK frigate commander allowed the Iranians to take his boarding party. He needs to be relieved ASAP. His lack of decision action now will see the Iranians demand the release of captured Iranians in Iraq in exchange for these personnel.Hope I am wrong. This is the second such incident involving Iranian interference with UK military personnel.



I agree with the sentiments, but not being there, we don't know if he was outgunned, had no backup, etc, etc......Sure sounds like Iran is determined to stir things up.


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Mar 2007)

A commander is responsible for protecting his crew. If the commander had fired a few shots across the bow of the Iranian vessels they probably would have been withdrawn. There are considerable naval assets in the Gulf that could be called on as backup.

Second think of crew morale. The next time this CO dispatches a boarding party you have to think the crew might not have alot of confidence in their CO if things get nasty.


----------



## GAP (23 Mar 2007)

good points


----------



## PO2FinClk (23 Mar 2007)

Although I agree on the Capt's responsibilities, it seems to me that far too many details are missing to adequately pass judgement on what he did or failed to do.

I'll reserve judgement once more is known about how it all unfolded.


----------



## PO2FinClk (23 Mar 2007)

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/23/iran.uk/index.html


			
				CNN said:
			
		

> An Iranian naval patrol seized 15 British marines and sailors who had boarded a vessel suspected of smuggling cars off the coast of Iraq, military officials said.
> 
> The British government immediately demanded the safe return of its troops and summoned Tehran's London ambassador to explain the incident.
> 
> The Royal Marines and ordinary naval officers were believed to have been apprehended by up to six ships from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy who claimed they had violated Iranian waters.



http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/03/23/britain-iran.html


> Cmdr. Kevin Aandahl of the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet said the British crew members were intercepted by several larger patrol boats operated by Iranian sailors belonging to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy, a radical force that operates separately from the country's regular navy.



Edited for content.


----------



## CrazyCanuk4536056919 (23 Mar 2007)

> If the commander had fired a few shots across the bow of the Iranian vessels they probably would have been withdrawn. There are considerable naval assets in the Gulf that could be called on as backup.



I think it's a little to early to be making statements such as that. Especially without all the facts. 



> I cant believe the UK frigate commander allowed the Iranians to take his boarding party. He needs to be relieved ASAP.



And I do believe, that UK frigate/ship commanders, have been making decisions with respects to ships, boarding parties, and all things naval, for many, many years. Again, without all the facts regarding the situation, still pretty early to make that sort of comment.


----------



## Fabius (23 Mar 2007)

This is an interesting development considering this article:http://intelligence-summit.blogspot.com/2007/03/iran-to-hit-back-at-us-kidnaps.html





> Monday, March 19, 2007
> Iran to hit back at US ‘kidnaps’
> The Sunday Times
> 
> ...


----------



## Sf2 (23 Mar 2007)

Sounds like a job for:


----------



## Mike Baker (23 Mar 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I cant believe the UK frigate commander allowed the Iranians to take his boarding party. He needs to be relieved ASAP. His lack of decision action now will see the Iranians demand the release of captured Iranians in Iraq in exchange for these personnel.Hope I am wrong. This is the second such incident involving Iranian interference with UK military personnel.


 +1



			
				SF2 said:
			
		

> Sounds like a job for:


 I liked that movie


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Mar 2007)

Folks if speculation continues on this until all the facts are released then it will be locked...clear?

Let us not forget mere frigate commanders are tasked from higher authority and at times the mothership is tasked elsewhere....it happens.

Army.ca Staff


----------



## CrazyCanuk4536056919 (23 Mar 2007)

Serious situation for the service members involved, with the potential of starting a major international incident, is turning into a bit of a joke on this thread.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Mar 2007)

CrazyCanuk in a TrailerPark said:
			
		

> Serious situation for the service members involved, with the potential of starting a major international incident, is turning into a bit of a joke on this thread.



See above, its been already addressed


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (23 Mar 2007)

Agreed. We can't second guess the Commander or the on-scene sit. Our prayers and thoughts are with our allied sailors who may be in a great degree of peril at the hands of potentially hositle and nasty people.


----------



## McG (23 Mar 2007)

Interesting that almost 50% of the CTV poll responces favour a military responce to this incident:  Poll Results

Maybe down the road, but I would think that the diplomatic approach should be given the first effort.  At this point, anything military can only escalate things.


----------



## Shadowolf (23 Mar 2007)

Unless the outcome mimics a hollywood movie, with the SBS knocking out Revolutionary guards with teddy bears, grabbing all the captives successfully, and getting out without harming any innocents, the majority of the people who back military intervention will switch sides and yell about how the military bungled things.  Armchair quarterbacks always can do better than the proffesionals, you know.


----------



## Jaydub (23 Mar 2007)

I wonder how far away the Cornwall was from the boats when they were surrounded...  I've been to the Gulf a couple times, and my ship never lost sight of the boarding party. And we would have detected the Iranian ships on RADAR.  I guess we can only speculate at this point until we get more info.

I'd like to see getting these guys home safely as the top priority.  If the diplomatic channels don't work, the British government will have a very difficult decision to make.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (23 Mar 2007)

> The Royal Marines and ordinary naval officers were believed to have been apprehended by up to six ships from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy



I'm finding it hard to see up to six ships intercepting the RHIB. So, I was wondering if anyone here would know what the types of Rev Guard ships these would be? (What I am trying to ask is, whether or not they(Iranians) were small patrol boats who just happened to out-gun the Marines, or ships roughly the size of Kingston class etc etc...)


----------



## warspite (23 Mar 2007)

Pherhaps this incedent is the sign it's time to "cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" and eliminate the Iranian government before they cause any more trouble?


----------



## Sassy (23 Mar 2007)

I hope I post this in the right forum, if not my apologies.  

I can't believe the nerve of this country, this is going to be interesting to follow.

Diplomats meet over Iranian seizure of British sailors
POSTED: 5:56 p.m. EDT, March 23, 2007 
Story Highlights• NEW: Governments summon ambassadors to explain incident
• NEW: Incident could exacerbate tensions between Iran, West
•15 British sailors on patrol in the Persian Gulf "seized" by Iranian navy
• Personnel were carrying out "routine" boarding of a vessel when apprehended

Adjust font size:
LONDON, England (CNN) -- An Iranian naval patrol seized 15 British marines and sailors who had boarded a vessel suspected of smuggling cars off the coast of Iraq, military officials said.

The British government immediately demanded the safe return of its troops and summoned Tehran's London ambassador to explain the incident.

Foreign Minister Margaret Beckett said she was "extremely disturbed" by the capture of the 15 personnel.

Iran gave no statement until nightfall, when state-run TV quoted Foreign Ministry officials saying British personnel were arrested after crossing illegally into Iran's waters. It did not say how many were taken, where they were being held, or what would happen next.

Britain announced it had called Iran's ambassador for a meeting and demanded the immediate release of the marines.

"The meeting was brisk but cordial. [Undersecretary Sir Peter Ricketts] demanded the safe return of British personnel and equipment," a British Foreign Office statement said.

Beckett said her office was making clear it expected the personnel to be released immediately, along with "a full explanation of what happened."

Iran announced on state-run TV that it had asked Britain's ambassador in Tehran to explain why the personnel had crossed into Iranian territory.

The incident threatened to exacerbate the tension between Iran and much of the West on the eve of a U.N. Security Council vote to impose new sanctions on Iran. The world powers will meet Saturday to consider that next step in the dispute over Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

Marines, sailors on 'routine' mission
The Royal Marines and ordinary naval officers were believed to have been apprehended by up to six ships from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy who claimed they had violated Iranian waters. (Watch how British naval personnel were seized in Persian Gulf )

British naval officials said the sailors, using small boarding craft, had completed an inspection of a merchant vessel in Iraqi waters when the Iranians arrived.

Commodore Nick Lambert, commander of the HMS Cornwall -- the frigate from which the British patrol had been deployed -- said the incident did not involve fighting or use of weapons.

"We've been assured from the scant communications that we've had from the Iranians at the tactical level that the 15 people are safely in their hands," he said.

The British defense ministry said that it was pursuing the incident "at the highest level."

The Associated Press, quoting a U.S. Navy spokesman, said the Iranian Revolutionary Guards had radioed a British warship to say no harm had come to the Britons, adding that they were seized in Iranian waters. 

Lambert said the British sailors had been on a "normal, routine boarding" of a vessel that had aroused suspicions as it navigated the Shatt al-Arab, a disputed waterway that marks the border between Iraq and Iran on the shores of the Persian Gulf. (Location map)

British military patrols have been given authority to board vessels in Iraqi waters under United Nations mandate and with the permission of the government in Baghdad.

He said the captain of the merchant vessel had been cleared to proceed and the two British inflatable patrol boats were readying for departure when they were surrounded by the Iranian navy and taken into Iranian waters.

Lambert said there is "absolutely no doubt in my mind" that the marines were in Iraqi waters. But, he said, "The extent and the definition of territorial waters in this part of the world is very complicated... We may well find, and I hope we find, that this is a simple misunderstanding at a tactical level," he said.

"There hopefully has been a mistake that's been made, and we'll see early clarification and early release of my people." 

Lambert added that the marines were doing critical work, "protecting the oil platforms to ensure the economic future of Iraq."

He described the Iranian navy as "a multi-headed organization" that generally stays within its territory doing its business, "and we stay inside Iraqi territory doing our business." 

Foreign Minister Beckett added: "We have sought a full explanation of what happened and left the Iranian authorities in no doubt that we expect the full return of our personnel and equipment."

Similar incident in 2004
There was a previous similar incident in 2004, when Iran stopped three British boats and seized eight sailors and six marines. 

The Iranian Foreign Ministry said at the time the three boats had crossed into Iran's territorial waters. The detained servicemen appeared on Iranian television blindfolded. They were released after Iran said it determined they had mistakenly crossed into Iran's waters. (Full story).

Mike Critchley, former British Navy officer and publisher of Warship World magazine, told CNN that the latest situation seemed to be a repeat of the earlier incident.

"Who knows, in a hot and hostile situation like the Middle East where things change on a daily basis, what the outcome will be," he said. (Full story)

"You can be absolutely sure that enormous pressure will be brought to bear on the Iranians to release these men who were operating under a United Nations Security Council Resolution as they are, week in and week out. What the outcome of that diplomatic pressure is no one knows at this stage of course." 

Britain, the United States' main ally in Iraq, has a large military presence in southern Iraq, based out of the Shatt al-Arab port of Basra. A senior British Army officer on Friday accused Iranian agents of paying Iraqi militia to carry out attacks on coalition forces around Basra.

Copyright 2007 CNN. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Associated Press contributed to this report.


----------



## CrazyCanuck (23 Mar 2007)

warspite said:
			
		

> Pherhaps this incedent is the sign it's time to "cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" and eliminate the Iranian government before they cause any more trouble?



You're jumping the gun Warspite... a war with Iran is the last thing we need right now. This is not a time for rash decisions it is a time to sit back and let the diplomats earn their pay. Military action is and always should be a last resort a war serves nobodies interests right now. If they do declare it the first casualties will be those 15 servicemen who will probably be executed the minute it begins. Right now all we can do is hope they get home safely.


----------



## McG (23 Mar 2007)

Boater said:
			
		

> You're jumping the gun Warspite... a war with Iran is the last thing we need right now.


On that note: perhaps those, who would condemn the ship's captain, should consider that the chosen actions of the ship may be the only reason the west is not already in a new war.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Mar 2007)

midget-boyd91 said:
			
		

> I'm finding it hard to see up to six ships intercepting the RHIB. So, I was wondering if anyone here would know what the types of Rev Guard ships these would be? (What I am trying to ask is, whether or not they(Iranians) were small patrol boats who just happened to out-gun the Marines, or ships roughly the size of Kingston class etc etc...)



The boarding party were onboard the ship they boarded and chances are the rhib coxswains stayed near the car carrier to be under the guns of their boarding party rather chance being fired upon by Guard FIACs


----------



## Bert (23 Mar 2007)

Another Stratfor perspective

Iran, Iraq: Tehran's Power Play on the Water
www.stratfor.com
Summary

Iranian forces reportedly operating in Iraqi waters captured 15 sailors and members of the British marines on March 23 in the Persian Gulf. This incident comes as the U.N. Security Council is preparing to vote on a new resolution imposing additional sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt its controversial nuclear activities -- meaning it likely represents an Iranian attempt to underscore its resolve in the face of mounting international pressure. It also could complicate U.S.-Iranian negotiations on Iraq.

Analysis

Iranian forces reportedly operating in Iraqi waters captured 15 sailors and British marines on March 23. The British personnel reportedly had completed a successful inspection of a merchant ship around 10:30 a.m. local time when they and their two boats were surrounded and escorted by Iranian vessels into Iranian territorial waters. 

The capture comes as the U.N. Security Council prepares to vote on a new resolution imposing sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt its controversial nuclear activities -- meaning it probably represents an Iranian attempt to underscore its resolve in the face of mounting international pressure. The incident also could complicate U.S.-Iranian negotiations on Iraq.

By capturing the British personnel, the Iranians are likely signaling that they are not about to be intimidated by the impending resolution the U.N. Security Council regarding Tehran's nuclear activities. The international body will vote March 24 on the resolution, which would slap additional sanctions on Iran, and is expected to pass. 

The precise location of the incident remains unclear, though some reports indicate it may have taken place on the Shatt al Arab, a narrow waterway that empties into the Persian Gulf. The HMS Cornwall, the British navy frigate from which the British marines operated, would most likely have been too far away to intervene if the inspection actually took place in the waterway.






The Shatt al Arab lies between Iraq and Iran; its boundaries are often disputed by both countries. During the operation, the Cornwall would have been keeping tabs on every vessel in the vicinity. At the first sign of trouble, it would have sought to aid the boarding party. The Cornwall would have not been able to intervene in the narrow, shallow waters of the Shatt al Arab, however. Similarly, its Sea King helicopter would not have been able to do much more than observe as the Iranians escorted the British boats to Iranian territory. 

This incident is similar to one in June 2004, when the Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in the Shatt al Arab seized eight British personnel and three British patrol boats being delivered to Iraqi forces. Iran claimed the boats were operating on its side of the waterway. The British personnel were released after four days, but Iran confiscated the patrol boats. 

The capture of the British soldiers comes within days of the latest Iranian naval exercises in the Persian Gulf. It also comes as concerns mount in Tehran regarding U.S. moves to separate the nuclear and Iraq issues, leaving Tehran's unable to use the nuclear controversy as a bargaining chip in talks on Iraq. This, combined with concerns over developments in Iraq affecting Tehran's Iraqi Shiite allies likely pressed the clerical regime to escalate matters. Iran is also concerned that the United States is supplying Saudi Arabia with state-of-the-art naval military equipment. Meanwhile, the Arab states of the Persian Gulf said March 20 that they are planning to build two oil pipelines bypassing the Strait of Hormuz, thus depriving Iran of a chokehold on global oil shipments. 

The Iranians have tried to demonstrate their ability to interdict traffic in the Persian Gulf. Just March 23, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said his country would use all its power to strike back at states threatening Iran. His remarks referred not just to physical attacks on Iran, but to efforts to isolate Iran politically and economically, too.

Most tellingly, former Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani's Friday sermon said that while the West can slap on additional sanctions, Iran will stand its ground. Rafsanjani, the No. 2 man in the Iranian government, generally has advised Tehran to exercise caution on both the nuclear and the Iraqi fronts. He also warned Washington that "In case the Americans enter a new scene, they will create a basic problem for themselves, for our country and for the entire region and I am confident that after some time following a tyrannical act, they will start analyzing and thinking as to where they have made a mistake."

Rafsanjani's hardened posture suggests Tehran wants to maintain its ability to exploit the nuclear card and block the U.S. move to separate the Iraqi and nuclear issues. While there has been first contact in terms of official and public dialogue between Washington and Tehran, it will be a long time before the two sides move toward some sort of accommodation on the issue, something which also explains Rafsanjani's tougher tone. 

While Iran has much to gain in Iraq, it is also concerned by the splintering away of the Basra-based Fadhila party from the ruling Shiite coalition, the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA). The fracturing of the Shiite alliance hampers Tehran's ability to do business in Iraq, and Iran suspects the British, who are based in Basra, may be behind Fadhila's parting with the UIA. Going after British forces represents a low-cost operation in that the Iranians are unlikely to face any serious reprisal. And while the Iranians eventually will release the 15 British personnel, they will only do so after ensuring Tehran's message has been relayed.


Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Mar 2007)

I think Iran needs to pay some price for this brazen attack or else there will be more of these incidents.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/24/wiran24.xml


----------



## Justacivvy (23 Mar 2007)

Unfortunately this isn't the first time such incident has occurred...

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/17111.0.html

This was back in 2004 and the crew was eventually released after being blind-folded and parading in font of Iranian television cameras.
Let's hope the sailors and marines are release without further incident.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (24 Mar 2007)

This is just guesswork here but come diplomatic release or not the men the Iranians captured are a mixture ordinary sailor types and Her Majesty's Royal Marine Commandos, soldiers, the type that understand thier obligation to escape. I can't say for sure but there may be bloodshed yet and it might not come in the form of military action but the troops obeying thier obligation to escape.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (24 Mar 2007)

Disenchantedsailor said:
			
		

> This is just guesswork here but come diplomatic release or not the men the Iranians captured are a mixture ordinary sailor types and Her Majesty's Royal Marine Commandos, soldiers, the type that understand thier obligation to escape. I can't say for sure but there may be bloodshed yet and it might not come in the form of military action but the troops obeying thier obligation to escape.



I'm not sure where that is coming from, but its not going to come down to a "great escape" type situation.  The diplomats are already in contact with each other and one can only imagine what the negotiations are on right at the moment... but a great escape by the Marines is not going to be happening.
This sort of thing has been happening for years, and the negotiations have almost always come through.


----------



## Navy_Blue (24 Mar 2007)

For those of us sailors out there who have had the pleasure of looking off to port and seeing an Iranian Patrol Boat waiting for you to make a mistake.  Or been awakened in the morning, in your rack, on 3 deck (that's at the waterline) by an Iranian P-3 buzzing your ship.  The Pussian Gulf is a diplomatic world pool and its not easy to get out of it if you make a mistake.

I'm not even in Op's but I do know from my boarding training that the magic line that separates International and Iranian (in this case Iraq and Iran) waters, ties the hands of many CO's.  In many cases the ship you want is hugging that boarder and if it crosses in your stuck.


----------



## CrazyCanuk4536056919 (24 Mar 2007)

> but a great escape by the Marines is not going to be happening.



I agree. And to further aggravate things, the 15 were all flown to Tehran last night. I don't think this occurred the last time sailors and marines were accosted illegally by Iran, nor do I think it happend when that P-3 landed on the Chinese island. Being taken to the countries respective capitals, I mean.

To me it seems clear that there is a Political connection, with them being taken to Tehran. The group that had abducted these service members is apprently "loosely" controlled by Iranian government. And usually operated under it's own agenda, seperate from the regular Iranian Navy. 

And the games being played by Iran diplomatically are disgusting. Calling the UK ambassador to Iran to his Iranian counterparts office in Tehran to demand an explanation as to why UK service members were in Iranian waters.


----------



## warspite (24 Mar 2007)

Can you believe the nerve of these guys.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/03/24/iran-britain.html


----------



## geo (24 Mar 2007)

Disenchantedsailor said:
			
		

> This is just guesswork here but come diplomatic release or not the men the Iranians captured are a mixture ordinary sailor types and Her Majesty's Royal Marine Commandos, soldiers, the type that understand thier obligation to escape. I can't say for sure but there may be bloodshed yet and it might not come in the form of military action but the troops obeying thier obligation to escape.



An individual's obligation to escape?
Don't think so.
The UK and Iran are not at war, any act carried out by an escaper could constitute as criminal activity.  Killing an Iranian citzen could result in the application of Islamic law.... stoning, beheading, hands being chopped off for stealing..... 

The boys might as well sit back and relax until such time as the two governments finish cleaning up another mess... this might take a while


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Mar 2007)

The US Army had an encounter with IRG personnel inside Iraq.Six Iraqi's remain unaccounted for from this action.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070323/23iran.htm


----------



## CrazyCanuk4536056919 (24 Mar 2007)

> The Iranian military questioned 15 detained British navy personnel Saturday and said they confessed to illegally entering the country's territorial waters, as Iran accused Britain of "blatant aggression."



Blatant aggression my arse. Sounds like that guy needs a kick in pants.


----------



## Flip (24 Mar 2007)

In a single phrase, Political Obfuscation.

The Iranians are very good at muddying the waters and complicating
matters to their benefit.  This will happen again in some form.

The best outcome ? Iranians get tired of living on the edge and
get rid of their current government. 
(who are hanging on by their toenails right now)

The worst case for that government, new sanctions go into place and they look like a bunch of thugs.  The best case, somebody takes a shot and then Ahmedinajahd's
government are the heroes.

I'm sure no one joins the Royal Navy to go on a mission to be captured, thereby
generating a bunch of bad press for the "enemy". Until the boarding party is
released - I guess that's the job.

( my optimistic opinion anyway )


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Mar 2007)

I think this will be a wake up call for coalition naval forces operating in the Gulf. The Iranians detected a weakness in RN boarding party procedures and seized the moment. Its hard to believe that the IRG FAC's were not detected either by radar or by the helo operating overhead. If the frigate couldnt position itself due to shallow waters to assist their boarding party that should be cause for concern. Air support might have been called in to buzz the FAC's hoping to warn them off. Most warships carry helos for ASW and recon but I wonder if there is a way to arm them ? Not much good having an unarmed helo as overwatch.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (24 Mar 2007)

Considering there are a lot of inlets etc in that part of the world its very easy for a small boat to be hidden in the back clutter of the land and depending what was going on at the time who knows...I am locking this up as there is far too much speculation on whats going on. When the facts are released then it will be reopened.

As usual if you have something pertinent or viable to add beyond speculation, let me know...


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (24 Mar 2007)

Folks,

exspy has made a well considered public request to have the thread re-opened. I'm confident we can keep the speculation and armchair generalship down to a dull roar and let this informative conversation carry on.


Cheers
Mike


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Mar 2007)

The Iranians are going to charge the British personnel with spying !!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1563877.ece


----------



## geo (25 Mar 2007)

Spys - while wearing uniform, while on a boat flyin RN penants, while in arguably international or Iraqi waters?

This is getting better and better!!!


----------



## midget-boyd91 (25 Mar 2007)

> The penalty for espionage in Iran is death.



Will someone PLEASE tell me how in the hell being a few meters into Iranian waters (even though 9 chances of 10 they were still in Iraqi waters) is spying????? If this is followed through and the service men and woman arrested are sentenced the entire situation is going to explode, and i mean that quite literally!!!!!   The execution of fifteen, FIFTEEN, British personnel will have deadly implications, and not just for the onces accused of espionage.

Are the Iranian officials trying to bring a new war to the region??? THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!!


----------



## GAP (25 Mar 2007)

from the article......



> The penalty for espionage in Iran is death. However, similar accusations of spying were made when eight British servicemen were detained in the same area in 2004. They were paraded blindfolded on television but did not appear in court and were freed after three nights in detention.


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Mar 2007)

The Iranians are most likely going to offer an exchange Brits for Quds Force prisoners. The US might not agree if the stakes arent high enough. Dangerous game the Iranians are playing.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (25 Mar 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The Iranians are most likely going to offer an exchange Brits for Quds Force prisoners. The US might not agree if the stakes arent high enough. Dangerous game the Iranians are playing.



Its just too bad that nobody has told them that it ISN'T a game.
Curious though.. Would the US have a say over whether or not an exchange would happen, or would the decision be fully British as it is their sailors?


----------



## Dale Denton (25 Mar 2007)

Maybe this is some sort of messed up way of testing a "western" reaction to Iranian military intervention.  Maybe Iran was monitoring or guarding the vessel that the UK boarding team inspected (maybe they missed something important). I'm saying maybe because obviously there isn't enough information on this "incident" yet.

The more important thing I'd like to say is howcome the newspapers haven't gone into a frenzy about this? When I heard about this I was expecting it to be blown out of proportion and blasted everywhere (TV, internet, etc.), but that hasn't happened. Why hasn't the media seen this and reacted like it always does (mentioned in previous sentence)? 

regards
Lobo


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Mar 2007)

We hold the Quds force brass. So any exchange would require US approval.


----------



## geo (25 Mar 2007)

midget-boyd91 said:
			
		

> Its just too bad that nobody has told them that it ISN'T a game.
> Curious though.. Would the US have a say over whether or not an exchange would happen, or would the decision be fully British as it is their sailors?


The Brits can decide whatever they want.... but the Brits do not have control of the Iranians that were taken in northern Iraq.


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Mar 2007)

I suspect that push comes to shove we would release the Iranians to gain the release of the Brits.


----------



## KevinB (25 Mar 2007)

Regardless is the RN saw the Iranian boats prior to the incident they could not act anyway -- they have freedom of movement in their waters.
All it takes is a hundred meter dash and unless you (or the Cornwall in this case) has guns on them (which you cant do) they are at the RHIB's before you can act.  

The Captain then choses either following them into Iranian water and getting in a gunfight.

Shitty lose-lose situation given the parameters of the ROE and how they need to operate in the region.

I would guess there will be a shake up in SOP's for boading actions after this...


Militarily -- we are going to be in a shooting war very soon with Iran - unless the gov't changes it tune.


----------



## CrazyCanuk4536056919 (25 Mar 2007)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6492489.stm



> Students belonging to the paramilitary Basij group, which is close to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have called for the Britons to be put on trial.





> Iranian armed forces spokesman Gen Ali Reza Afshar told Iranian media on Saturday that the 15 personnel were being interrogated, but were in good health.



This is most certainly degrading into something that the Iranians may not be able to turn back from.

If the UK does not know their whereabouts, and this situation carries on for another few days, Militarily, what are the options? The SAS are no doubt being consulted, but if the service members location is unknown, what can they do?

And I have my doubts that the US will hand over those Quds Force members in exchange. I think it would look like they are negotiating with terrorist's or something. The Israelis did not hand over any captured Palestinian terrorists for the release of their captured solider last summer, and I think the US would operate along the same lines in this situation.


----------



## KevinB (25 Mar 2007)

With the assets next door for the both the US and UK the retrieval is doable -- but the would likley force a shooting war, especially the methods used to ensure a cordor for the insertion and egress.


----------



## Journeyman (25 Mar 2007)

CrazyCanuk in a TrailerPark said:
			
		

> * If the UK does not know their whereabouts, and this situation carries on for another few days, Militarily, what are the options? The SAS are no doubt being consulted, but if the service members location is unknown, what can they do?
> 
> And I have my doubts that the US will hand over those Quds Force members in exchange.*



I'm afraid I'm responding without knowing your expertise in what exactly the Brits do know, or how they or the US intend to respond. I do know that secret negotiations, unlikely compromises, and strange bedfellows are not uncommon in international politics.

I think, however, that this guy summed it up best.....   



			
				CrazyCanuk in a TrailerPark said:
			
		

> *I think it's a little to early to be making statements such as that. Especially without all the facts.*


----------



## Old Sweat (25 Mar 2007)

Like it or not, the options open to the Brits, and by extension, the west, are limited. While hope is not an acceptable method for conducting international affairs, the best outcome would be that the hostages were siezed by the well-known rouge element. In that case, they will be released in the near future, along with the usual rantings by the Iranian government. If, however, the government either had a hand in it or sees the capture as an opportunity, given the SC Resolution, then we probably are in for a long, difficult experience.

As for a rescue, the mind boggles at the resources required, the chances of success and the possible geopolitical outcomes of such an operation, whether it worked or not. Remember the Carter administration's botched attempt and how stupid and inept the US appeared over it.


----------



## KevinB (25 Mar 2007)

Old Sweat - as your aware we've come a long way from Blue Light and the disaster in the desert.  But yeah - one reason why I said retrieval rather than rescue...


----------



## geo (25 Mar 2007)

CrazyCanuk in a TrailerPark said:
			
		

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6492489.stm
> 
> If the UK does not know their whereabouts, and this situation carries on for another few days, Militarily, what are the options? The SAS are no doubt being consulted, but if the service members location is unknown, what can they do?
> 
> And I have my doubts that the US will hand over those Quds Force members in exchange. I think it would look like they are negotiating with terrorist's or something. The Israelis did not hand over any captured Palestinian terrorists for the release of their captured solider last summer, and I think the US would operate along the same lines in this situation.



1... For any military force to enter the sovereign country of Iran would be tanamount to a declaration of war and all the nastiness that it might present.  You can posture all you want, the sailors and Marines are stuck and only negotiations will bring about their release.  In the meantime, if the Iranians want them to admit to something, anything, I would suggest that they might as well say it, say it with all the sincerity they can muster and say it with a smile.... "Yes Charlie Brown, there is a great pumkin!"

WRT Israel and the Palestinians..... Palestine is not a Sovereighn state... not the same thing in the least.


----------



## time expired (25 Mar 2007)

I think this may be another case of politicians sending their armed forces to do dangerous tasking with
insufficient troops or equipment and further saddling them with restrictive ROEs to insure the task is 
even more dangerous. Although its a little early to make such judgements,given the lack of info.
available,I detect ROE restrictions as part of this situation as the Marines are not known as an 
organization to throw up their hands at the first opportunity.
Solving this situation may prove difficult and protracted given the increasing paranoia of the mad mullahs
in Tehran
                       Regards


----------



## geo (25 Mar 2007)

Time expired.... I think that, in this case the ROEs worked just fine.
The waters between Iraq and Iran in that area are really, really close.
Nothing would be gained by a gunfight between the RN & marines VS vessels that were identified as being Iranian... the UK is not at war with Iran.

A boatload of armed individuals coming at the RN & Marines would have received an entirely different reception and the ensuing firefight would have most certainly been decisive - even if it was " a la Charge of the Light Brigade".

Am positive that all 15 soldiers & sailors were bristling to give em a rousing welcome but, the UK is not at war with Iran.... the ROEs worked just fine.


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Mar 2007)

If the merchant ship was so close to Iranian waters why was it stopped ?


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Mar 2007)

The link below has some images of IRGC facilities near Tehran.
Unlike Operation Eagle Claw we are much closer to Tehran so staging an operation is alot easier from that standpoint anyway.

http://thespiritofman.blogspot.com/2007/03/where-are-they.html

http://bp3.blogger.com/_uQFnbeKM-eE/RgXqUDjAdsI/AAAAAAAAACA/yh227N8GYlY/s1600-h/GoogleEarth_Image+(1).jpg

http://bp3.blogger.com/_uQFnbeKM-eE/RgXqUDjAdtI/AAAAAAAAACI/IPIzWQOvjMc/s1600-h/GoogleEarth_Image+(2).jpg


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Mar 2007)

The US is holding over 300 Iranians and the Brits at least another 50. A swap of some kind will no doubt be offered up.

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/tm_headline=iran--swap-sailors-for-our-jailed-spies%26method=full%26objectid=18805338%26siteid=62484-name_page.html


----------



## CrazyCanuk4536056919 (26 Mar 2007)

Toronto Star:

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/195941



> The charge against them is illegal entrance into Iranian waters



I don't think the Iranians are even interested in a trade or prisoner exchange. It's probably just a fringe benefit of the situation that they created. They look to be more interested in making a statement. Holding a kangaroo court, and putting these service members on trial. Typical Iranian, "thumbing your nose" at the rest of the world.


----------



## tomahawk6 (26 Mar 2007)

I suppose the Iranians are quite capable of cutting off their nose to spite their face.


----------



## geo (26 Mar 2007)

Ahh... pride!
What people and countries won't do in the name of pride is truly mind boggling


----------



## GAP (26 Mar 2007)

US troops 'would have fought Iranian captors'  
By Terri Judd in Bahrain Published: 26 March 2007 
Article Link

A senior American commander in the Gulf has said his men would have fired on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard rather than let themselves be taken hostage. 

In a dramatic illustration of the different postures adopted by British and US forces working together in Iraq, Lt-Cdr Erik Horner - who has been working alongside the task force to which the 15 captured Britons belonged - said he was "surprised" the British marines and sailors had not been more aggressive. 

Asked by The Independent whether the men under his command would have fired on the Iranians, he said: "Agreed. Yes. I don't want to second-guess the British after the fact but our rules of engagement allow a little more latitude. Our boarding team's training is a little bit more towards self-preservation." 

The executive officer - second-in-command on USS Underwood, the frigate working in the British-controlled task force with HMS Cornwall - said: " The unique US Navy rules of engagement say we not only have a right to self-defence but also an obligation to self-defence. They [the British] had every right in my mind and every justification to defend themselves rather than allow themselves to be taken. Our reaction was, 'Why didn't your guys defend themselves?'" 

His comments came as it was reported British intelligence had been warned by the CIA that Iran would seek revenge for the detention of five suspected Iranian intelligence officers in Iraq two months ago but refused to raise threat levels in line with their US counterparts. The capture of the eight sailors and seven marines - including one young mother - will undoubtedly renew accusations that Britain's determination to maintain a friendly face in the region has left its troops frequently under protected. 
More on link


----------



## midget-boyd91 (26 Mar 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> he was "surprised" the British marines and sailors had not been more aggressive.
> 
> ..... Our reaction was, 'Why didn't your guys defend themselves?'"



There wasn't much of anything the Marines/Sailors would have been able to do to defend themselves from the Iranian ships.  Aside from sidearms, the Brits were largely unarmed, and very much out-gunned by the Iranian vessels.


----------



## time expired (26 Mar 2007)

GEO
     Right ,the Brits were very lightly armed,could it be that this inability to defend themselves was,as I
 pointed out in an earlier post, due to stupid, politically driven ROE?.
                                            Regards


----------



## midget-boyd91 (26 Mar 2007)

time expired said:
			
		

> GEO
> Right ,the Brits were very lightly armed,could it be that this inability to defend themselves was,as I
> pointed out in an earlier post, due to stupid, politically driven ROE?.



Politics don't have anything to do with the arms carried by individual Boarding Parties. There could have been Marines carrying elastic bands or howitzers (pending they got bigger boats), and the politics wouldn't interfere with the ROE the Brits were acting under. 
What I'm trying to say is that it doesn't matter what size guns the BP was armed with, the ROE would have allowed, and the politics wouldn't interfere.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (26 Mar 2007)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6494289.stm



> Seized sailors are 'fit and well'
> 
> The 15 Royal Navy personnel who were seized four days ago are fit and well, Iran has told the Foreign Office.
> A senior Iranian official told the UK's ambassador in Tehran that the Britons were being held in Iran but would not disclose their exact location.
> ...



*MORE ON LINK*

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6494289.stm


----------



## Spidron (26 Mar 2007)

Actually, I am surprised it took this long for Iran to pull such a stunt. Such acts simply play to the masses in Iran and hopefully distract the population from the UN sanctions brought on by the policies of the Iranian government. Iranian leaders probably have little concern for 'global' opinion and feel secure in the knowledge that we need their oil anyway.

Unfortunately, populist, bullying scenarios rarely play out well for the reigning dictatorship (eg., Argentina, Afghanistan, Panama, Libya, Iraq, etc.) as they tend to escalate into big messes if the 'bluff' is called by Western nations. 

I hope Diplomacy will win out, but doubt Iranian leaders want it to until they have extracted every ounce of propaganda they can. This is assuming somebody smart is in charge.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Mar 2007)

If the full diagram from T6's posting is anything approaching correct, there wasn't much direct-fire chance from the HMS mother ship to the IRN boat.  Then again, media, correct? :


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (26 Mar 2007)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> If the full diagram from T6's posting is anything approaching correct, there wasn't much direct-fire chance from the HMS mother ship to the IRN boat.  Then again, media, correct? :



I'm having trouble with the diagram though. Why couldn't Cornwall maneovre into position to provide cover fire? Is it a case of too shallow or the distances were more than they appear on the diagram? How could these patrol boats have come so close and the Brits not aware that they were threatening their pers? Was there radio contact? There are just so many unanswered questions and that diagram just confuses me more than answers any questions.


----------



## time expired (26 Mar 2007)

I think the comment of the USN Capt. are quite significant,the Americans whatever their faults 
seem to put the protection of their troops above everything else when configuring their ROEs,
this does not always seem to be the case with the Brits.Northern Irland is full of cases were Brit.
soldiers deviated slightly from the ROEs in selfprotection and were subsequently hung out to dry 
by the politicians.Even in Iraq there have been a few such case of troops insufficiently armed to
safely carry out their taskings,the case of the 4 MPs in the police station is a  case in point.The
ROEs did not allow them to operate in a robust enough manner to insure their own protection
and, as I stated in a couple of previous posts, that I think that ROEs were also a contributing factor.
I mean sending troops only armed with side arms into such a potentially dangerous situation
is just asking for trouble IMHO even without the Iranians.
                                                Regards


----------



## Goober (26 Mar 2007)

The comments by the Americans also seem to be a warning to Iran. "Don't try it with us"


----------



## Trooper Hale (27 Mar 2007)

So what are you suggesting time expired? That boarding parties carry a Karl G or something like that? They'r armed lightly because of what they'r doing. Small arms up to MAG58 (C6) are all a boarding party would be able to pack. The American comment is not only daft, its stupid and dangerous. If your in an inflatable boat, your biggest armament being twin MAG58, and your surrounded by superior forces with superior firepower what is the only option? You give up. Its cut and dry, dead simple. The "puss" did the right thing here, the only thing they could do. They didnt want to escalate the situation and it really does show the difference in the British way of doing things (ie, logic and smarts) as opposed to the American way of thinking ("Hoo-AH"). I reckon you put a US navy boarding party in the position of the Brits and they'll do the same thing, they'll surrender.


----------



## KevinB (27 Mar 2007)

Some RHIB's have AGL's - and BP's can have 203's  -- not ideal -- but they will hole a vessle and can make the crew think twice.

  The issue comes down to the man on the ground (or sea  ;D) at that time and place -- whether or not they feel that acquising at the time will work better for them in the long run.  Myself - I'm a big fan of shooting my way out of things, its a lot easier to "negotiate" when your armed - once you surrender your weapons your options are zero.


Hale -- I've worked with a bunch of Aussies - and to a man -- they had the same mentality as I for shooting our way out of things -- BigRed can attest to that.


----------



## Jaydub (27 Mar 2007)

It's not just a RHIB full of boarding members with MP5's and 9mm's.  We have to keep in mind that the actual ship had to have been close by when this happened.  I was deployed to the Persian Gulf twice on two different ships.  We were always in visual contact with RHIB, and we were always monitoring our sensors for any other vessels that may have been in the area.


----------



## Sub_Guy (27 Mar 2007)

Here is an interesting point of view.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=22824

Its easy to speculate and I doubt we will ever know all the facts, but the last thing we need is a war with Iran.


----------



## geo (27 Mar 2007)

Short of having a remake of "custer's last stand", the 15 soldiers & sailors certainly had limited options.  Without the Cornwall there to provide immediate direct support, without a gunship in the air acting like a sheepdog, the IC party certainly had limited options - none of them good.

Let's see some politicians start pulling their weight & get their a$$ in gear.


----------



## CrazyCanuk4536056919 (27 Mar 2007)

With respects to getting Politicians Arses in gear.......


Is there not Iran Air flights from Tehran to London's Heathrow Airport, still being made on a daily basis? A government run airline, still being allowed to make these flights  into and out of the UK. And how many other NATO countries, that have also said these sailors and marines need to be released, also host daily flights from Tehran to their respective capitals. France and Germany come to mind. 

And expelling the Iranian Diplomat out of the UK. Probably not a wanted course of action, to diminish your lines of communication, but something to be considered.

Could these be effected in the "New Phase" as Tony Blair puts it?


----------



## Juvat (27 Mar 2007)

Here is the article in question where Blair mentions the other phase.....reproduced under the normal caveats.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=42cd32b4-ce57-4398-822f-2434fa09b236

Blair warns Iran of 'different phase' in hostage crisis
Paul Hughes, Reuters
Published: Tuesday, March 27, 2007
LONDON — Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair warned Tehran today of a "different phase" if it did not free 15 British military personnel captured in the Gulf four days ago.

The sailors' capture and new U.N. sanctions imposed on Tehran on Saturday over its disputed nuclear program have stoked tensions between the West and Iran and pushed oil prices to a 2007 high.

Today, Russia and the United Arab Emirates urged Iran to comply with U.N. demands that it halt sensitive nuclear work but Tehran says the U.N. resolution is illegal.


Email to a friend

Printer friendly
Font: ****Iran, which denies any intention of making atomic weapons, has said it may charge the two boatloads of British sailors and marines with illegally entering its waters in the northern Gulf. Britain insists they were operating in Iraqi waters.

"What we are trying to do ... is to pursue this through the diplomatic channels and make the Iranian government understand these people have to be released and that there is absolutely no justification whatever for holding them," Blair said.

"They have to release them. If not, then this will move into a different phase," he told Britain's GMTV television.

Blair's spokesman said the next step London could take would be to publish proof, in the form of global satellite positioning (GPS) records, that the sailors had not entered Iranian waters.

"We so far haven't made explicit why we know that because we don't want to escalate this," he said.

A government source in London told Reuters British officials were showing Iran data on the sailors' exact position when seized.

Britain has been assured that the sailors are well but has not been given access to them or told where they are being held.

LEAVE DOOR OPEN

British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett, visiting Iran's neighbor Turkey where her counterpart Abdullah Gul voiced support for the sailors' release, said Britain would "continue to leave the door open for a constructive outcome."

Iraq's government and an Iraqi fisherman who witnessed the capture say it took place in Iraqi waters.

Iran captured eight British servicemen in similar circumstances in 2004 and released them after three nights.

Analysts have said the current crisis appeared more complex and would take longer to resolve than three years ago.

"The incident in 2004 was less tense, there were fewer gathering clouds, so they may well be held for longer," said Alex Bigham, of the Foreign Policy Center. "There are probably also internal political battles in Iran over what to do next."

Some hardline groups in Iran suggest the case could be a bargaining chip in its nuclear and other rows with the West, exposing what analysts said were divisions with more moderate voices who want to build bridges abroad, not exacerbate tension.

In Iran, a crowd of hardline students chanting "Death to Britain" gathered today on the shoreline close to where the Britons were captured and demanded firm action against the sailors, Iran's semi official Mehr news agency reported.

But the official IRNA news agency suggested in a commentary the issue could still be resolved if London apologized.

In Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov urged Iran to return to negotiations over its nuclear program.

"The door is open ... I hope that a positive reaction (from Iran) will follow," he said.

UAE President Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahayan said his country would not be involved in any military strike on Iran, but urged the Islamic Republic to avoid stoking tensions.

(Additional reporting by David Clarke, Katherine Baldwin and Sophie Walker in London, Fredrik Dahl in Tehran, Zerin Elci in Ankara, Diala Saadeh in Dubai, Dmitry Solovyov in Moscow)

Reuters


----------



## observor 69 (27 Mar 2007)

And another take on the incident:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6499781.stm

Options limited in Iran standoff 
By Paul Reynolds 
World affairs correspondent BBC News website  



The British government is still hoping that quiet diplomacy will get the release of the 15 sailors and marines captured by the Iranians, but its options are somewhat limited if Iran does not respond . 

It could create a lot of sound and fury but Iran is good at playing that game and the risk is that the Iranian government would simply exploit the incident for even longer. 

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a master of rhetoric and riposte. He has shown a ready defiance of the UN Security Council over Iran's enrichment of uranium. He thrives on a confrontation. 

According to Mark Bowden, in his book "Guests of the Ayatollah" about the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979, Mr Ahmadinejad was "one of the central players in the group that seized the embassy and held hostages." 

The American hostages were held for 444 days, initially as a bargaining tool for the exiled Shah, and released only on the day that President Jimmy Carter left office. Mr Carter was humiliated by the episode. 

More at link


----------



## time expired (27 Mar 2007)

HALE
      All I was surgesting is that the ROEs may have had something to do with both the armament 
and the reaction of the boarding party also possibly with the reaction of the mother ship.The info.
released by the MOD concerning the actual capture has been vague to say the least,and that little
drawing tells one absolutely nothing. My comment should in no way be seen as a criticism of the
troops involved rather my suspicion of T.Blair and his cretinous Labour government.
                          Regards


----------



## NL_engineer (27 Mar 2007)

Link: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L27357587.htm



> BERLIN, March 27 (Reuters) - European Union president Germany summoned Iran's ambassador to the Foreign Ministry in Berlin on Tuesday to protest against the detention of 15 British soldiers and demand their immediate release.
> 
> A spokeswoman for the German Foreign Ministry said a deputy foreign minister delivered his protest to the Iranian ambassador. Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier is currently on a trip to central Asia.
> 
> ...




Looks like Germans are protesting Iran.


----------



## time expired (27 Mar 2007)

HALE
      In addition,I dont know how smart it is to put 14 of your troops in the hands of the Mad Mullahs
when you dont have the political will or the military muscle to do anything about it.
                                            Regards


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (27 Mar 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Short of having a remake of "custer's last stand", the 15 soldiers & sailors certainly had limited options.  Without the Cornwall there to provide immediate direct support, without a gunship in the air acting like a sheepdog, the IC party certainly had limited options - none of them good.
> 
> Let's see some politicians start pulling their weight & get their a$$ in gear.



This is what I can't understand....how far away was the Cornwall? When we do boarding parties from Canadian ships we never go very far away. The diagram we saw really didn't shed much light on how far away the Cornwall was. I know probably no one on this site knows or can say how far away it was but it's just strange that they would be so far away that they couldn't provide cover fire for them to get away. ???


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (27 Mar 2007)

Frankly, those that are arguing that the RN should have shot up the Iranian patrol boats and "rescued" their personnel are ignoring political realities and are second-guessing tactical decisions made on the water at the time - something I'm loathe to do.  If you weren't there, you don't know - full stop - moreover, we'll likely _never _ know what ROE were being applied.

I agree with Hale.  This is an extremely politically sensitive issue, given the UK's poisonous relations with Iran, Iraqi politics, and other issues - including nuclear weapons - at stake.  Knowing this, no commanding officer - perhaps aside from the asinine American LCdr quoted in some press reports - is going to act in a rash, ham-fisted manner when there's a distinct possibility that his decisions will result in a general conflict.  There is every possibility that the Cornwall's CO was reacting to direction he was receiving from higher as the situation developed.

I have no doubt - none - that the UK is capable of a punitive military response if/when that is warranted.  However, is this really a situation that demands the Tomahawks fly, the SAS go door kicking, or that the RN starts lobbing 4.5-inch rounds at Iranian oil platforms?


----------



## geo (27 Mar 2007)

+1 Teddy... my point exactly


----------



## CrazyCanuk4536056919 (27 Mar 2007)

Teddy,


> However, is this really a situation that demands the Tomahawks fly, the S.A.S go door kicking, or that the RN starts lobbing 4.5-inch rounds at Iranian oil platforms?



After 4 nights....no. But what after 4 weeks or 4 months? 

How many ways, or how many times should the UK say "Gives us back our troops?". If after 4 weeks of Iranian dilly dally and farting about, are the UK not left with the tomahawk, S.A.S, 4.5" shell option? And I would have to assume that a swap of some sort would be offered during this 4 weeks, along with the UK presenting to the world, and quite possibly in the UN, evidence of UK troops in Iraqi, or international waters and not in Iranian waters. I would even suspect another country becoming involved to broker an exchange of some sort during this time frame. But If Iran still goes ahead with it's kangaroo court, snubs it's nose at the world,  prosecutes them, and drags this out, what do we have left?


----------



## Trooper Hale (27 Mar 2007)

Spot on teddy. Exactly what i would say if i was elequont and smart .
Time exprired, I'd much rather be the guest of a "Mad Mullah" then be riddled with 20mm cannon and die pointlessly. Theres bravery and theres stupidity. Sacrificing yourself for the greater good is a good thing, sacrificing yourself for the sake of it is just daft.
I6, i dont doubt the aussies you work with believe in shooting it out. If they'r the blokes i think they are then they'r the very best and would do damage to any bastard who tried it.
I think sitting out in the water, in an IRB, with nothing to stop rounds hitting you is slightly different to fighting on land though. These blokes made the best choice they could in this situation. Escalating the situation would definately not have helped any situation in the slightest.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Mar 2007)

Couple of tidbits from Stratfor, shared in  accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

27 Mar 07 

"UNITED KINGDOM/IRAN:  British Prime Minister Tony Blair sent a 
warning to Iran regarding the seizure four days earlier of 15 British 
servicemen. Blair said the United Kingdom is pursuing diplomatic 
channels to resolve the conflict, but warned that his government 
would move to a "different phase" if Iran continues to hold its 
military personnel hostage. He did not elaborate."

(....)

" Geopolitical Diary: Another Step in the U.S.-Iranian Covert War 

The  diplomatic row  over the Iranian seizure of 15 British
servicemen and marines entered its fourth day Monday, with Iran
saying the Britons are "fit and well" and being held at a secret
location until the Iranians can determine through interrogation
whether their alleged entry into Iranian waters was intentional.

The U.S. and British governments say the British personnel were
intercepted by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' (IRGC) naval
forces March 23 after completing a search of a civilian vessel on
the Iraqi side of the 120-mile Shatt al-Arab waterway leading to
the Persian Gulf. The Iranian government, however, says the British
servicemen admitted to illegally entering Iranian territory, and
that it has the satellite tracking images to prove the "blatant
aggression into Iranian territorial waters."

Iran has a track record of stirring up diplomatic spats in the
oil-rich Persian Gulf in order to reassert its political and
military relevance, as it did in  June 2004  when it seized three
British patrol boats in the Shatt al-Arab. At that time, the
Iranian nuclear controversy was gaining steam as Washington
attempted to transfer the issue to the U.N. Security Council while
building a new government in Baghdad without consulting Iran.

This latest incident occurred a day ahead of the widely expected
unanimous U.N. Security Council vote to tighten sanctions against
Iran. Included in the resolution is a clause freezing the assets of
28 people and organizations ostensibly involved in Iran's nuclear
and missile programs. Many of them belong to the elite IRGC and
Quds Force (a paramilitary arm of the IRGC), which have been
heavily involved in fueling the Iraq insurgency. The IRGC is
evidently displeased with the financial hit, as well as the January
seizure of five Iranians -- including IRGC and Quds Force members
-- in a U.S. raid in Arbil. IRGC weekly newspaper Subhi Sadek
expressed this outrage, saying the IRGC has "the ability to capture
a bunch of blue-eyed, blond-haired officers and feed them to our
fighting cocks."

There are a number of reasons behind the IRGC's recent seizure of
the British servicemen, but there could be more to this diplomatic
row than is apparent.

While Iran and the United States have kept the media busy with 
diplomatic maneuverings over Iraq  and threats linked to the
Iranian nuclear program, Iran has been entangled in an intense 
covert intelligence war  with the West. As part of this fight, the 
assassination  of an Iranian nuclear scientist by Israel's Mossad
was met a few weeks later -- as expected -- with a retaliatory
strike in Paris against David Dahan, head of the Israeli Defense
Ministry Mission to Europe. Though Dahan's death was treated as a
suicide, intelligence suggests Dahan was singled out by the Iranian
Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) in a tit-for-tat
strike.

Several weeks ago, Ali Reza Asghari, a former Iranian deputy
defense minister and Pasdaran commander  defected  while traveling
in Turkey and was turned over to the U.S. government. Asghari is
undoubtedly a  valuable asset  for Western intelligence agencies,
who likely hope to use him to dissect the Iranian defense
establishment -- representing a significant threat to Iran's
national security. In the course of Asghari's debriefing, he
undoubtedly was grilled on his knowledge of any suspected U.S.
agents operating in Iran in order to determine if any agents have
been or are close to being exposed by Iranian security agencies.

With this in mind, there have been recent indications from U.S. and
Israeli intelligence sources that the British MI6 was engaged in an
operation to extract one of its agents from Iran, but a leak tipped
MOIS off to the plan. According to an unconfirmed source, the IRGC
nabbed the British personnel, as well as the agent, to use as a
bargaining chip in order to secure the release of the five detained
Iranians. If these negotiations go poorly for Iran, the Britons
could very well be tried for espionage.

The motive behind the seizure of the British servicemen is still
unclear, but the operation likely was planned well in advance by
key figures within the IRGC. At this point, the Iranians are
watching their backs closely, and are willing to take the political
risk of flaring up another diplomatic dispute in order to plug
further intelligence leaks.


Situation Reports 

1150 GMT -- UNITED STATES -- The U.S. Navy on March 27 began a
major exercise in the Persian Gulf, bringing together two strike
groups of warships, more than 100 warplanes and 10,000 personnel.
The exercise will involve simulated attacks by ship and plane
against enemy ships, as well as searches for enemy submarines and
mines. It is the biggest show of force in the Persian Gulf since
the 2003 invasion of Iraq."


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Mar 2007)

I hope for a speedy resolution to this crisis. I know its tough on the families of the RN and RM personnel but they should take some solace that they are not alone during this trying time.

MOD has asked that UK army rumor service [arrse] to not discuss this issue on their forums. So threads like this need to carry the water for our British friends.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (27 Mar 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I hope for a speedy resolution to this crisis. I know its tough on the families of the RN and RM personnel but they should take some solace that they are not alone during this trying time.
> 
> MOD has asked that UK army rumor service [arrse] to not discuss this issue on their forums. So threads like this need to carry the water for our British friends.



Most assuredly....we are in solidarity with our comrades...READY AYE READY!


----------



## Trooper Hale (28 Mar 2007)

This is interesting, and here i was thinking that kidnapping foreign nationals was provocative :

Iran: Blair comments on hostages 'provocative'
Wednesday Mar 28 05:25 AEST http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=257186
Iran condemned as "provocative" Tuesday comments by Prime Minister Tony Blair warning of a "different phase" in British efforts to secure the release of 15 naval personnel detained by Iran.

"The media campaigns and provocative ... remarks regarding the violation of Iranian territorial waters by the British sailors are doing nothing to help settle the affair," said foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini.

"The British service personnel entered Iranian waters illegally and the case will follow its legal and judicial course."

In an interview with GMTV television earlier Tuesday, Blair said Britain was trying to "pursue this through the diplomatic channels and make the Iranian government understand these people have to be released".




"I hope we manage to get them to realise they have to release them. If not, then this will move into a different phase," he said.

Blair's official spokesman said London was not looking to escalate the stand-off and would prefer to resolve the spat quietly.

But London is clearly seeking to keep up the pressure on Tehran, which has rejected growing international calls to free the naval personnel.

Britain has Iraqi backing in its insistence that the 15 sailors and marines were on "routine" anti-smuggling operations in Iraqi waters when they were seized at gunpoint in the Shatt al-Arab waterway.

Iran says they entered its territorial waters illegally.

Hosseini said that British diplomats would be able to meet the 15, who include a woman, once investigators had completed questioning them about what they had been doing in Iranian waters.

British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett, who cut short a visit to Ankara Tuesday to report to MPs on the row with Iran, had earlier renewed calls for immediate consular access to the captive personnel.

"If indeed they are being detained in reasonable circumstances, then we can see no reason why they should not have contact with people from the British government," she said.


----------



## CrazyCanuk4536056919 (28 Mar 2007)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6501555.stm

Well, I guess the proof is in the pudding. Nice Picture of a GPS handheld, over the merchant ship, 1.5 Miles inside Iraqi waters. Whoever took that was thinking.

And Turkish diplomats may be granted access to the sailors and marines. Let's hope.


----------



## time expired (28 Mar 2007)

Given the information revealed in the posts above, plus the fact that there was a previous incident
of this type, seems to preclude the idea that this somehow came as a surprise to the British Gov. 
 IMHO it is an act of almost criminal negligence to send troops into the same situation without
more visible and effective support, for example attack helicopter,Iraqi gunboats or fastjet CAP.
This would have avoided this situation arising in the first place. Now we find ourselves in a no
win situation.The idea that the UK or the even the US will take military action to resolve this
situation is ludicrous and would be very counterproductive.Therefore we must wait until the Iranians
extract as much propergander value as possible from this situation at which time the troops will be
released,I hope.This will demonstrate to the world that one can tweak the lions nose with relative impunity,
hope the Argies are not watching Ha HA ,.
Terry R. I watched the King of spin,T.Blair  echo your comments this morning in the Commons debate
which makes me doubly suspicious, however my point is the action of politicians putting troops in
danger without proper equipment and robust ROEs is repugnant to me and must be to every soldier
serving or retired.  
                     Regards
PS Does anyone out there know why my computer submits my post in this strange and difficult
to read form,and what I can do to correct it?


----------



## midget-boyd91 (28 Mar 2007)

time expired said:
			
		

> IMHO it is an act of almost criminal negligence to send troops into the same situation without
> more visible and effective support, for example attack helicopter,Iraqi gunboats or fastjet CAP.


There was a British HELO floating around the skies with the BP. It was the HELO who confirmed that the British Marines/Sailors had been "arrested" by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.


----------



## time expired (28 Mar 2007)

Midjet-Boyd91
                   Probably a Lynx HAS 3, definitely not an attack helicopter.
 By the way Midjet-boyd91 could you please fill out your profile as I find easier to communicate
 with people I know something about.Thank you.
                                       Regards


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Mar 2007)

Visual evidence that the RN/RM personnel were inside Iraqi waters.Picture taken by the RN flight crew that viewed the hostage taking.


----------



## Mike Baker (28 Mar 2007)

Looks like the female sailor will be released soon.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070328/british_sailors_070328/20070328?hub=TopStories


----------



## CrazyCanuk4536056919 (28 Mar 2007)

Positive step in the right direction.


----------



## time expired (28 Mar 2007)

This situation has got me in a real stew.During the PMs question and answer in the Commons
this morning,Conservative defence speaker Haig asked pretty well the same questions as I have
asked,was anything been learned from the last RN hostage incident?,and received no answer from
the PM.Another question has occurred to me,do the Iranians have stealth gun boats?,and if not why
did the radar or the helicopter not
 pick up these boats as they approached?,it appears that visibility
was good.Question,questions, a situation such as this will invariable lead to speculation and in the
absence of info from the MOD it will go on. 
 I hope however that these people get out safely and soon.
                       Regards


----------



## Rice0031 (28 Mar 2007)

I cannot believe some of the stuff one of my pals believes. He claims that the British sailors are acting under part of an American plot designed to provoke Iran into making a critical move that will provoke a war. He also claims that the Americans are in Iraq and Afghanistan to surround Iran so that they can make an attack once Iran does something provocative. He essentially believes all the events since 9/11 are an American conspiracy to wage an attack on Iran.  ??? ???
If only I was good at explaining things to people and debating. ...Argh someone calm me down.


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Mar 2007)

Rosie O'Donnell said much the samething yesterday.There is no conspiracy theory that the left will not embrace.


----------



## Flip (28 Mar 2007)

I always thought the RN/RM people would get out.
In spite of the ominous tone of some posts. I still think they will.

Irans' government aren't stupid - just aggressive.

Even if the boarding party had been too close to Iran, so what?
Iran could have chosen to warn them off or just send a terse memo.
Clearly, where actually were is irrelevant to Iran.

Grabbing them up was meant to make a statement at home.
The more conflict there is in the Iranian press, the more Iranian people 
will put up with in their government. If a different Iranian government were in place things could be a lot different in the region. 

The Iranian government knows damn well they are not going to get what so
richly deserve.  All they have to do is keep their people pissed off at the coalition.

Remember this is still a political crisis. - not a military one.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (28 Mar 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Visual evidence that the RN/RM personnel were inside Iraqi waters.Picture taken by the RN flight crew that viewed the hostage taking.



What I find even more revealing is Iran's shifting claims on where the incident took place: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6502805.stm


> *The capture of the UK crew*
> 
> The UK government has released details of where it says the 15 sailors and Marines were when they were seized by Iranian forces on 23 March.
> 
> ...


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (28 Mar 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Rosie O'Donnell said much the samething yesterday.There is no conspiracy theory that the left will not embrace.



And condemn the rest of us for not immediately and wholeheartedly embracing their various "fake but accurate" theories ...


----------



## GAP (28 Mar 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> Remember this is still a political crisis. - not a military one.




Remember this is still a*n Internal* political crisis. - not a military one.


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Mar 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> Remember this is still a*n Internal* political crisis. - not a military one.



I dont get you Gap. Internal to who ? The Iranians ?
Right now the issue is in the hands of the diplomats.


----------



## GAP (28 Mar 2007)

Everybody is forgetting that as little as a year and half to two years ago there was severe internal strife in Iran, to the extent that people were protesting in the streets.

Shortly after those demonstrations the nuclear crisis was initiated by Iran and in it's various forms has been kept pumped up by Iran periodically. There have been other headline news crises, but the end result is that the Iranian people have been kept diverted from their original issues. 

You can either acquiesce to the protesters, or you can divert the majority of their attention to something else, especially if they think they are about to be attacked by the "Great Satan"!!

So far it is working, while if you follow some of the mideast news clips, the Iranian Guard are rounding up the people responsible for starting the demonstrations. Does this remind anyone of the previous dictator?


----------



## time expired (28 Mar 2007)

GEO
   What your point?we should sit around and watch,our troops get blown up by IEDs,shot by
snipers,mortared by equipment supplied by Iran or let them be taken hostage by said Iranians
all safe in the knowledge that sooner our later the Iranian will sort themselfs out.Get a grip man.
                                 Regards


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (28 Mar 2007)

FYI, link to MOD news report ... nothing new just yet (after skimming it quickly), but probably a good place to keep an eye on for developments (original source 'n' all that   ): http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/ModBriefingShowsRoyalNavyPersonnelWereInIraqiWaters.htm


----------



## geo (28 Mar 2007)

time expired said:
			
		

> GEO
> What your point?we should sit around and watch, our troops get blown up by IEDs,shot by snipers,mortared by equipment supplied by Iran or let them be taken hostage by said Iranians all safe in the knowledge that sooner our later the Iranian will sort themselfs out.Get a grip man.
> Regards


Huh?
I have said nothing about letting "our" troops get shot at & blown up by anyone.

If we look at this instance, where 15 soldiers & sailors of one sovereign country are accosted by a warship of another sovereign country -* both of whom are NOT at war with one another.... * there is no justifiable grounds for the 15 soldier/sailors to open up in a noble effort to go down with the ship, in a blaze of gory glory.  A collective kamikaze by the troops wouldn't earn them any brownie points.

If HMS Cornwall was not in a position to block the action, if the CO did not feel he was in a position to take reasonnable steps to protect his personnel, without initiating Gulf War III, it is a far, far better thing to do - to kick-start the politician awake & tell him to get cracking!


----------



## Flip (28 Mar 2007)

Time Expired

Face it, there are very few military options that don't cost the good guys.

The Iranians are in the weird position of gaining  from the west as friend or foe.
 They chose foe.  Had they chosen friend, Iraq could have been over by now.

A decapitation strike wouldn't be popular in the west.
Any other strike wouldn't  be popular anywhere.

Sanctions are too slow.
Embargoes need concensus.

Israel has options because they don't care what anyone else thinks.

Hmmmm


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Mar 2007)

Time Expired, 
Are you saying next time a Spanish ship ALLEDGEDLY  comes and fishes in our waters and we go to detain it, that you would find it proper that they open fire on us, or just maybe it might make more sense until a few phone calls are made?

...about that "grip" thing......


----------



## observor 69 (28 Mar 2007)

Some sensible comments: http://tinyurl.com/2by8qk

26 March 2007
                                              
Iran: How To Start a War
                                                     
By Gwynne Dyer

        "I don't want to second-guess the British after the fact," said US
Navy Lieutenant-Commander Erik Horner, "but our rules of engagement allow a
little more latitude. Our boarding team's training is a little bit more
towards self-preservation."  Does that mean that one of his American
boarding teams would have opened fire if it had been them in the two
inflatable boats that were surrounded by Iranian Revolutionary Guard fast
patrol boats off the coast of Iraq last Friday?  "Agreed. Yes."

        Just as well that it was a British boarding team, then. The fifteen
British sailors and marines who were captured and taken to Tehran for
"questioning" last week are undoubtedly having an unpleasant time, but they
are alive, and Britain is only involved in two wars, in Iraq and
Afghanistan. If it had been one of Eriik Horner's boarding teams, they
would all be dead, and the United States and Iran would now be at war.

        Lt-Cdr Horner is the executive officer of the USS Underwood, the
American frigate that works together with HMS Cornwall, the British ship
that the captive boarding party came from. Interviewed after the incident
by Terri Judd of "The Independent," the only British print journalist on
HMS Cornwall, he was obviously struggling to be polite about the gutless
Brits, but he wasn't having much success.

See link, more to follow.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (28 Mar 2007)

> So there they are, eight sailors and seven marines in two rubber
> boats, with personal weapons and no protection whatever, sitting about a
> foot (300 cm) above the water, surrounded by six or seven Iranian attack
> boats with mounted machine guns. "Defend yourself" by opening fire, and
> ...



My problem isn't that they didn't fire when surrounded when and horribly outgunned.

My problem is the combination of leadership and doctrine and ROE's that allowed them to get surrounded and horribly outgunned in the first place?

I simply do not understand how any leader can put troops in a situation like that near a border where they don't have an overwhelming firepower advantage in order to deter such aggressive action by the Iranians.  

Somebody should be losing their damned job at the least, and preferably be court-martialed.


Matthew.


----------



## GAP (28 Mar 2007)

I'm sure the efficiency reports this year will have a dramatic effect.


----------



## Flip (28 Mar 2007)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6501459.stm

"There is a joke doing the rounds," he suddenly said in a whisper and in perfect English. "If only the B-52s [bombers] could stop off in Tehran before going on to Kabul. 

"After all, it is on the way!" He motioned to the ayatollahs on the podium next to us. "We can't get rid of them without your help!" 

Really interesting article!!

This really is all about what's going on in Iran. "The Great Satan " is just a foil, a prop, a distraction. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6501459.stm


----------



## 211RadOp (28 Mar 2007)

More news on the subject

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070328/british_sailors_070328/20070328?hub=TopStories

*Iranian TV broadcasts footage of British sailors*

Iranian television broadcast footage Wednesday of the British sailors and marines captured in a disputed Iran-Iraq waterway, including a female captive who said their boats had "trespassed" in Iranian waters.

"Obviously we trespassed into their waters," British sailor Faye Turney said on the video broadcast by Al-Alam, an Arabic-language, Iranian state-run television station that is carried across the Middle East.

"They were very friendly and very hospitable, very thoughtful, nice people. They explained to us why we've been arrested, there was no harm, no aggression," said Turney, who was the only person to be shown speaking in the video.

Turney, 26, is also seen smoking a cigarette, her head partially covered in a black scarf. 

At another point, she is shown eating with other sailors and marines.

Turney is one of 15 British sailors and marines who were captured by Iran last week.

The Iranian Embassy in London said Wednesday that a letter allegedly written by Turney to her parents says she had "apparently" entered Iranian territorial waters. 

An embassy official sent a copy to the Associated Press: 

"We were out in the boats when we were arrested by Iranian forces as we had apparently gone into Iranian waters," the letter said. "I wish we hadn't because then I'd be home with you all right now." 

The letter also mentions that the British crew was being treated well. 

"Please don't worry about me,'' the letter said. "I am staying strong. Hopefully it won't be long until I am home to get ready for Molly's birthday party with a present from Iranian people.'' 

The British Foreign Office issued a statement denouncing the broadcast.

"It's completely unacceptable for these pictures to be shown on television," the British Foreign Office said in a statement after the broadcast. "There is no doubt our personnel were seized in Iraqi territorial waters."

The statement also demanded that British diplomats be given immediate access to them as a "prelude" to their release.

Turney is expected to be released today or Thursday, the Iranian foreign minister confirmed Wednesday. 

"Today or tomorrow, the lady will be released,'' Manouchehr Mottaki told The Associated Press Wednesday on the sidelines of an Arab summit in Saudi Arabia. 

Conflicting reports 

Iran and Britain are offering up different versions of exactly where the sailors and marines were seized. 

Iran says they captured the Royal Navy crew 0.5 km inside Iranian waters. 

However, British military officials say their boarding vessels were about three kilometres inside Iraqi territorial waters when the incident occurred. 

British Vice Admiral Charles Style told reporters that co-ordinates given Sunday by the Iranians placed the vessels in Iraqi waters. 

Style said the Iranians changed the co-ordinates on Tuesday to a location within their waters. 

"It is hard to understand a legitimate reason for this change of co-ordinates,'' Style said. 

On Wednesday, Iran's embassy in London signalled a willingness to resolve the situation. 

A statement said "the governments of Iran and Britain have the ability to solve the incident through contacts and close cooperation." 

But Prime Minister Tony Blair said Wednesday that it was time to increase pressure on Iran to release the crew members. 

"There was no justification whatever ... for their detention, it was completely unacceptable, wrong and illegal," Blair told the House of Commons, shortly after the Ministry of Defense released satellite data that it said proved the crew was in Iraqi waters. 

"We had hoped to see their immediate release; this has not happened. It is now time to ratchet up the diplomatic and international pressure in order to make sure the Iranian government understands its total isolation on this issue." 

Foreign affairs expert Eric Margolis told CTV Newsnet on Wednesday that the dispute has to be put into context. 

"The Western powers and Iran are playing a game of chicken in the Gulf," said Margolis. 

He said Iran is hypersensitive to probing by the U.S. and Britain at its borders and that they may be trying to make a statement to the countries to back off. 

With files from The Associated Press


----------



## GAP (28 Mar 2007)

They can dress her up like Woody Woodpecker, as long as they let her go.

edited to add: ps...I don't believe they are signatories to the Geneva Convention


----------



## TN2IC (28 Mar 2007)

> "Please don't worry about me,'' the letter said. "I am staying strong. Hopefully it won't be long until I am home to get ready for Molly's birthday party with a present from Iranian people.''




What are they hinting at here? Makes me raise an eyebrow. Thoughts?

Regards,
TN2IC


----------



## GAP (28 Mar 2007)

Since it is not harming her, why would it be in contravention of anything. It is their way of displaying her in a noncontroversial way, but making their point that religion rules in Iran....

I'm not making out like an expert on anything, just pointing out what my gut feelings are when I see the pics, based on the little I know. If someone else has a better explanation, by all means post it, and I will learn something. 

As for the Geneva Convention thing, I happen to remember that during the Iran-Iraq war when they were sending kids ahead in total massacres, they were slammed for it and they basically told the world to piss off.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (28 Mar 2007)

this is straying from my lane little, but I recall from a law course I took that while a nation may not be a signatory to the conventions they may still be held to them by the international community as they have become "customary international law"

Customary international law results from a general and consistent practice of states followed out of a sense of legal obligation, so much so that it becomes custom. As such, it is not necessary for a country to sign a treaty for customary international law to apply.[citation needed] 
Customary international law can therefore not be declared by a majority of States for their own purposes; it can be discerned only through actual widespread practice. For example, laws of war were long a matter of customary law before they were codified in the Geneva Conventions and other treaties.

This was all taken from Wiki


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Mar 2007)

Here's a larger shot of the Garmin posted on the MOD web site. Anyone else think it odd that the EU has been silent on this event ?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (28 Mar 2007)

I think the EU is letting the UK take the lead on this matter.

But found this:



> The European Union backed Britain. Angela Merkel, chancellor of the bloc's president Germany, said the EU extended its "absolute support and solidarity



From here: http://www.longislandpress.com/?cp=53&show=article&a_id=11502


----------



## Sig_Des (28 Mar 2007)

> "Obviously we trespassed into their waters ... They were very friendly and very hospitable, very thoughtful, nice people. They explained to us why we've been arrested, there was no harm, no aggression



and



> I am staying strong. Hopefully it won't be long until I am home to get ready for Molly's birthday party with a present from Iranian people



At first, when it was said she was to be released, I thought it was the Iranians trying to get some good PR out of good treatment of a female prisoner. Now I'm wondering if they granted her early release in return for making statements?

Could just be the paranoid and suspicious side of me, though.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (28 Mar 2007)

Sig_Des said:
			
		

> At first, when it was said she was to be released, I thought it was the Iranians trying to get some good PR out of good treatment of a female prisoner. _Now I'm wondering if they granted her early release in return for making statements?_
> 
> Could just be the paranoid and suspicious side of me, though.



I think that with something like this we should probably not try to speculate on any conclusions until we know a *lot *more of what happened/is happening ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Mar 2007)

From the MOD web site. Answers some of the questions, but not all. So far the female sailor has not been released.More Iranian gamesmanship.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/ModBriefingShowsRoyalNavyPersonnelWereInIraqiWaters.htm


----------



## geo (28 Mar 2007)

Sig_Des said:
			
		

> At first, when it was said she was to be released, I thought it was the Iranians trying to get some good PR out of good treatment of a female prisoner. Now I'm wondering if they granted her early release in return for making statements?
> 
> Could just be the paranoid and suspicious side of me, though.



Hey, these are Sailors and soldiers.
Is there any reason why they should limit themselves to the old "name, rank and SN" thing?
I don't think so.  There is no point in their facing extreme forms of interrogation and risk personal injury.
If the Iranians want them to say something - accomodate them & try to say your lines with a straight face (regardless of how silly the statement happens to be).
Everyone will know that what has been said has been said "under duress" and no one who matters will believe a single word.

As to wearing a Hijab?  what harm was there in accomodating the Iranian request?


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Mar 2007)

Actually Geo I disagree.US service personnel are required to resist even during captivity.The female sailor appeared to have made her statement under duress. The Iranians by forcing the female sailor to wear the hijab was a violation of the Geneva Convention. Below is the US Code of Conduct.

I

I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.

II

I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.

III

If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and to aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.

IV

If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.

V

When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.

VI

I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.


----------



## FredDaHead (28 Mar 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> From the MOD web site. Answers some of the questions, but not all. So far the female sailor has not been released.More Iranian gamesmanship.
> 
> http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/ModBriefingShowsRoyalNavyPersonnelWereInIraqiWaters.htm



Anyone else think it's odd that the Iranian government, after being told their coordinates meant their ship was in Iraqi waters, suddenly changed their mind and gave a position slightly further North, outside of Iraqi waters?


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Mar 2007)

The Iranians are practicing the Big Lie, say something strenuously enough people might believe you. It is not an accident that this is the second time British military personnel have been taken by Iran. The reason for this is that they view the UK as weak. There are US patrols in these waters. Why havent USN or USMC personnel been grabbed ?


----------



## CrazyCanuk4536056919 (28 Mar 2007)

Looks like they are being held at Evin Prison. Most likely moved now that this picture was released. An American citizen pointed this out to a US media outlet, and they ran with the story. I am searching for it now.

Edited to add:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evin_prison

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5077180.stm


----------



## KevinB (29 Mar 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Hey, these are Sailors and soldiers.
> Is there any reason why they should limit themselves to the old "name, rank and SN" thing?
> I don't think so.  There is no point in their facing extreme forms of interrogation and risk personal injury.
> If the Iranians want them to say something - accomodate them & try to say your lines with a straight face (regardless of how silly the statement happens to be).
> ...


There are so many things wrong with your statement above, that I cannot give a honest reply without violating the code of conduct for personal attacks.  One of the many things I admire about the US military is their code of conduct in captivity and the way they reinforce it over AFN, so troops are clear with their duties.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (29 Mar 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Hey, these are Sailors and soldiers.
> Is there any reason why they should limit themselves to the old "name, rank and SN" thing?



Yes, there's a damn good reason: it's called the Code of Conduct After Capture (CCAC) and it applies in both wartime operations and Operations Other than War ... the R in PRIDE is _Resist Exploitation by All Means Available_: http://www.dcds.forces.gc.ca/jointDoc/documents/GJ110-010CCAC_e.pdf

We are *far *from being in a position to pass judgment on LS Turney, but if she was a Canadian sailor (and I presume the British rules are similar), she and the other crew members definitely have an obligation to resist this type of exploitation.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (29 Mar 2007)

Frankly, I'm surprised that after so much speculation, criticism and hyperbole the mods haven't stepped in to put a stop to it.  I am certain that had we been dealing with such heavy criticism of _*US* _ forces, the warnings would be flying and the usual suspects would be dog-piling the poor poster who had the temerity to criticise the US military or American policy.

So where do we sit?  First, as I've said earlier, no one posting here has the slightest idea of what happened on the water a couple of days ago.  If BBC reports are to be believed, the tactical situation wasn't nearly as clear cut as the "kill 'em all" posters would have us make out.  Moreover:


We have no idea what political direction - from the coalition, British Government or Iraqi government - that Cornwall was operating under.
We have no idea - and probably never will - what ROE the ship and her crew were directed to follow.
Indications are that the tactical situation did not lend itself to the immediate use of overwhelming force - a position supported by the master of the Indian cargo vessel being boarded at the time.
Had the Cornwall followed the course of action recommended by many Americans and their supporters, the UK and, by extension, the US would be at war with Iran right now.  Consider the implications on oil prices, shipping through the straights of Hormuz, the Iranian capability to interfere in Afghanistan, the overstretch currently being experienced by both US and British forces, the lack of prepositioned ground forces, the volatile situation along the Iraqi border... but we wouldn't want to give this any thought, would we?  Kill 'em all, and let the chips fall where they may - as Canadians find themselves surging into Herat or some such to deal with Iranian incursions and Canada gets sucked into all of this.

My second issue is with those who quote conduct after capture doctrine in an effort to criticise those being held.  I_am_John_Galt makes reference to Canadian doctrine, but does so in a misleading and ill-informed fashion.  Some points:


The British marines and sailors are not PWs, they're detainees.  Doctrine differs for detainees.  From the Canadian doctrine quoted by IAJG:



> 411. DETENTION BY FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS DURING OOTW
> 1. Once in the custody of a foreign government, regardless of the circumstances that preceded the detention situation, detainees are subject to the laws of that government. CF members detained by foreign governments shall maintain military bearing and *must not participate in antagonistic or illegal behaviour*. In addition, CF members should:
> 
> a. Ask immediately and continuously to see Canadian embassy personnel or a representative of an allied or neutral country. Members should also attempt to contact the International Committee of the Red Cross/Red Crescent;
> ...




The US tendency to rely on high-sounding "codes" has hardly prevented US service personnel from appearing in orange jumpsuits and giving statements on television, despite the plethora of AFN ads.
You are not there, and have no idea what pressures (if any) are being applied.

I'm tired of the chest-beating that has seemed to accompany this "discussion".  Those posters favouring a US-style shoot it out approach would do well to remember that US foreign policy has hardly been characterized by either strategic or operational success over the past decade and that many, including me, have serious misgivings about the attitude, posture, and tendency to shoot first and ask questions later displayed by large segments of the US military on operations.

American policy has displayed little in the way of nuance and much in the way of counter-productive activity since 9-11 and the US is hardly in a position to effectively criticise the British approach in this particular case.


----------



## army outfitters (29 Mar 2007)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Frankly, I'm surprised that after so much speculation, criticism and hyperbole the mods haven't stepped in to put a stop to it.
> *VERY GOOD POINT*.
> 
> I'm tired of the chest-beating that has seemed to accompany this "discussion".  Those posters favouring a US-style shoot it out approach would do well to remember that US foreign policy has hardly been characterized by either strategic or operational success over the past decade and that many, including me, have serious misgivings about the attitude, posture, and tendency to shoot first and ask questions later displayed by large segments of the US military on operations.
> ...


----------



## exspy (29 Mar 2007)

Gentlemen,

I'm afraid I agree with Geo.  I think the captured personnel should do what they need to do in order to survive this ordeal.  Now it's not known if the Iranians want any top secret details of the ship's operations etc, and if they do than that would be a completely different matter.  But if we are only discussing accepting responsibility for their arrest in a public forum in order for Iran to receive a perceived world PR advantage, than I see no reason not to do it.  As has been mentioned already no one in the west is going to be swayed by the captured personnel's admissions, and those persons who will believe the Iranian's version would already possess anti-west sentiments anyway.

I am reminded of the 2001 forced landing in China of a US Navy EP-3E Orion spy plane by the Chinese Air Force.  At the time there were persons who believed that the aircraft commander should have ditched the aircraft into the ocean to prevent its capture at the cost of the lives of the 24 crewmen.  The US government eventually issued a letter containing apologies, the 'letter of the two sorries'.  The crewmen were all released unharmed 11 days after their capture.  The aircraft was returned (in parts) 4 months later.  It's still not known if any of the gear aboard was compromised.  (There was speculation at the time that the crew tossed it off the aircraft into the ocean prior to landing.)  Yet all these years later does anyone remember the incident or recall the names of the naval personnel involved?  Was the strategic balance between China and the US in the Far East changed one iota by the incident?  Would anything positive have been served by the deaths of the crewmen?  In my opinion, no, no and no.

My personal belief is that the captured 15 should do whatever they have to do in order to survive.  Their deaths or any injuries received would serve no purpose or further any British interest in the region.  This is not the first time a second rate dictatorship has tried to gain an advantage in its strategic political position by trying to humble a world power and it won't be the last.  It's certainly not worth losing a single life over, Iranian or British.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (29 Mar 2007)

Teddy Ruxpin, I think you've misunderstood my post.

I twice stated categorically that we are not in a position to be judging LS Turney: my post was in response to Geo's comment that they (the Sailors and Marines) should be accommodating and say/do whatever the Iranians ask them to.  You've highlighted the part of the CCAC states that they are to continue to resist ("to the utmost of his or her ability") and _avoid_ signing documents/making statements, unless *forced *to do so.  

More specifically, how is 





			
				geo said:
			
		

> Is there any reason why they should limit themselves to the old "name, rank and SN" thing?
> I don't think so.


 anything but a direct contradiction of 





			
				Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> b. Provide name, rank, service number, date of birth (blood group and religion if situation dictates) and the innocent circumstances leading to their detention. Further discussions should be limited to and revolve around health and welfare matters, conditions of fellow detainees and going home.


? ???


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (29 Mar 2007)

IAJG:

You were pretty blunt in quoting doctrine - to the point of using a mild expletive - and pretty blunt in stating what should and shouldn't have been said.  However, you're missing the nuances of military writing, particularly as part of direction:  "should" and "could" aren't the same as "must", "shall" and "will".  Note how carefully these are used in passage I've quoted.

Doctrine is there to be adapted to the circumstances at the time.  Geo's being a tad generous (OK, too generous), but you're being too doctrinaire.


----------



## KevinB (29 Mar 2007)

Well I must be the chairman of the shoot it out community that Teddy describes  ;D

However I want it clear that I was NOT advocating a shoot first ask questiosn later approach -- I'm a big fan of overwhelming force at the begining of an incident (my studies have shown it works better to be the agressor in those situations).  However my main argument was in not acquising to the demands of the Iranians -- yes maybe IF I had been the boarding party commander there would have been a shooting war.  But I would have attempted a Mexican standoff, and hopefully allowed Friendly forces to have manuvered into a better supporting position- to make the Iranian situation untenable.

  I will NEVER surrender my weapon - I was in a Platoon with a member that had joined the PPCLI after being a reservist on the R22eR tour that surrendered their weapons and kit to the Serbs and where detained -- after hearing what happened to them -- I will go out in a big flaming mess of thermite grenade and frag before that happens to myself or men under my control -- especially if there is a female under care.   There are somethings worth dying for - and some cases going to war over if necessary.  ANYTIME you deploy forces you need to be aware of that.

The US may wave its dick around the world in a manner that upsets people -- but sometime doing the right thing comes with gut wrenching consequences.


----------



## tomahawk6 (29 Mar 2007)

LS Turney was under duress when she made her statement period. In the video there shots of Turney smoking a cigarette. She is a non-smoker. Either she is trying to send a message or the pressure on her has forced her to take up smoking. I like her spirit.

US POW's in Vietnam and in the Pueblo incident found ways to send messages and to take advantage of these propaganda sessions. They were later punished when the bad guys found out they were being made fun of.These are examples of resisting your captors.It has also been found that your chances of survival improve if you are photographed while in captivity.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (29 Mar 2007)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Doctrine is there to be adapted to the circumstances at the time.


 Yes, of course.



> Geo's being a tad generous (OK, too generous),


 That's what I was trying to say.



> but you're being too doctrinaire.


I quoted the regs, because I don't have the cred. to call him on it outright.  Of course just about every 'grey' rule like this has to be interpreted in the context of any given circumstance (which is why I said that we can't judge the subject issue at this point), *but* the 'give-them-everything-they-ask-for-as-long-as-you-keep-your-fingers-crossed-behind-your-back' approach (which is how I, and it would appear some others, read Geo's post) is flat-out wrong (hence, the bluntness).


----------



## Flip (29 Mar 2007)

What I'm wondering, where is the EU?
It's been mentioned before and an  editorial in the Globe today points out that " EU solidarity"
might be proven a sham.  I'm more than a little frustrated with their tacit approval ( if not complicity )
with the likes of Saddam and Ahmedinejad.  

As painful as this is, Iran has lost some cred. over this, in europe, the Arab world and in Iran.    
The next round of sanctions Should be easier.
Some arm twisting was requred for the last Security council vote.

At some point Iranians will start to see through this crap and their government will be in no position to gain anything.
Once that occurs, The sailors come home. ( my speculation )

Personaly, I reserve my loathing for President Ahmedinejad.  He needs to be removed.
Without him all of this goes away.


----------



## army outfitters (29 Mar 2007)

He needs to be removed.
Without him all of this goes away.
*You think so do you? Good luck with that, another marter for the cause???
He has been doing the same things since the hostage crisis of the early 80's?(of which he was directly involved) what makes you think he is going to change now? Do you not think they will replace him with another Ayatola Komeni? Which could be worse than what is already in place. It does not go away. Thinking like this only leads us down a dangerous path. Do I believe that sanctions will work? No. Do I believe somebody should take him out? Maybe. Do I believe the politicians which I have every faith in will screw it up?? For Sure!I don't have all the answers but I am sure yours is not the best one, *


[/quote]


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Mar 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> What I'm wondering, where is the EU?
> It's been mentioned before and an  editorial in the Globe today points out that " EU solidarity"
> might be proven a sham.  I'm more than a little frustrated with their tacit approval ( if not complicity )
> with the likes of Saddam and Ahmedinejad.
> ...



Some EU members are positively revelling in Britain’s discomfort.  

There is considerable anti-British sentiment in some EU capitals, some of it reflecting centuries of mistrust – _perfidious Albion_ and all that.  There is also unhappiness with the degree to which Tony Blair, John Major and Margaret Thatcher divided the EU because, again and again, they put the Anglo-American _special relationship_ ahead of European _solidarity_.


----------



## GAP (29 Mar 2007)

The British Political mindset is actually closer to the US's than to any of the countries comprising the EU. Germany probably comes closest.


----------



## HeatRoca (29 Mar 2007)

Iranians in iran are apparently protesting against the 15 sailors and want there release 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/29/iran.uk.sailors/index.html


----------



## Flip (29 Mar 2007)

Army Outfitters

The EU are in a position to show Iran's government, the folly in their course.

I should have been clearer, The Ayatollahs WILL remove Ahmedinejad if he cannot function as president.

The last president was more moderate - less aggresive.
Ahmedinejad is a hard liner.  A more moderate president in Iran would be good for everyone.

Again this is a POLITICAL problem with a POLITICAL solution.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (29 Mar 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> Army Outfitters
> 
> The EU are in a position to show Iran's government, the folly in their course.
> 
> ...



Ahmedinejad is a stooge.  Everything he says is as stage-managed as the "moderates" that are occassionally trotted out to say concialiatory things.

Seriously, do you honestly believe the Holocaust Denial Conference held in Iran was without the blessing of the mullahs?   

How about the missile programs?

How about the EFP's?

How about the Iranian Forces that are in Iraq?  Did they just decide to go on their own volution?  Rogue leaders?  Because we all know how tolerant Iran has been with dissidents and people who don't follow orders.   :

Bottom Line:  The only way there will be a POLITICAL solution is if the mullahs believe the MILITARY threat is very real and that they will undoubedly be harmed should they not change their current path(s).

I should add, by claiming that the political route is the only option, you are part of the problem because despots will never fear toothless diplomats.

There's a famous qoute that goes something to the effect of "Diplomacy is the art of deferring inevitable conflict, usually to a date and time most advantageous to the beligerant."

My recommendation to you is to read "The Art of War".  As soon as you read it, you will immediately garner many insights into how despots think and behave, and as a consequence how they must be treated.



Matthew.


----------



## time expired (29 Mar 2007)

The Revolutionary Guard are real power in Iran.They control the country, even the economic
power is the hands of the Guard. The army is merely an relatively poorly equipped conscript
organization.When the Mullahs created it, they created a monster, one which even they have 
difficulty controlling.This is also the reason that one hears such contradictory messages from 
this regime.
                  Regards


----------



## geo (29 Mar 2007)

Well..... everyone is entitled to an opinion and it would appear that most have one different from I - not a problem.

I noted the quoted CF reference - interesting - I have always interpreted the application of this manual to be used when we are at war with a country.  If Iran (or any other country for that matter) is complaining that you & your crew have crossed their border, armed to the teeth - then, other than saying "whups, sorry for the missunderstanding" and we'll have our quartermaster check out the GPS receiver ASAP, there is very little that can be done on the Sailor/Marine level...

BTW,  if you were on Ex in Canadian waters and you have your RHIB boarded by the US Navy or Coast guard & they insist on bringing you in..... Would you clam up or cooperate to a reasonnable degree?


----------



## Eids of March (29 Mar 2007)

You know how when you're bargaining, and you shoot for the moon so that the other party will end up giving you what you really want? Maybe Iran still just wants '300' out of cinemas...

I'm still against it, because if we give the baby his bottle, they'll just pull this crap again.


----------



## tomahawk6 (29 Mar 2007)

Here is something that will giv e you pause. The CO of the Cornwall reported to MOD that the crew was being taken by the Iranians and he was told to stand down !!


----------



## TN2IC (29 Mar 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Here is something that will giv e you pause. The CO of the Cornwall reported to MOD that the crew was being taken by the Iranians and he was told to stand down !!



Well that says a lot there Tomahawk6. Thanks for the great information. So the CO was told to stand down by the MOD. That really makes you think now. Sounds like a political game now. A game that may take lives.

Regards,
TN2IC


----------



## Flip (29 Mar 2007)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> There's a famous quote that goes something to the effect of "Diplomacy is the art of deferring inevitable conflict, usually to a date and time most advantageous to the belligerent."
> 
> My recommendation to you is to read "The Art of War".  As soon as you read it, you will immediately garner many insights into how despots think and behave, and as a consequence how they must be treated.
> 
> Matthew.



Matthew,

 I have read the art of war. One of the fundamental rules is " NEVER get into a fight you can't win"
Given the current political situation, our own people (western democracies) won't let us win.

But aside from all that - 9 out of 10 times I agree with what you are saying. ( I think Saddam had to go )
The reason I suggest the political solution, if there is one(big if)
is that the current government of Iran is not very popular. This can be exploited.

And really I was talking near term anyway. I would like to see the hostages out before the west got too creative.


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 Mar 2007)

Britain vs. Iran: The EU's role
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/009161.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## tomahawk6 (29 Mar 2007)

It is very sad that our democrats have not been able to pass a resolution in support of the UK and its personnel now held hostage by Iran. The reason you might ask ? Majority Leader Pelosi refuses to allow it to come to the floor for a vote ! But they did pass a $400b tax increase !! 

Congressman Eric Cantor wrote the following letter to Pelosi:

Dear Madam Speaker:

Fifteen kidnapped British marines and sailors recently became the latest victims of a systematic Iranian campaign of terror and international defiance. The illegal seizure of the British forces is a signal that Iran views us as powerless to prevent it from realizing its aggressive ambitions.

For the sake of our standing in the world, our allies and most importantly the 15 British personnel and their families, I urge you to bring H. Res. 267 to the floor today before we adjourn. The resolution calls for the immediate and unconditional release of the British marines and sailors. It would also call on the U.N. Security Council to not only condemn the seizure, but to explore harsher sanctions to counter the growing Iranian threat.


----------



## geo (29 Mar 2007)

TN2IC said:
			
		

> Well that says a lot there Tomahawk6. Thanks for the great information. So the CO was told to stand down by the MOD. That really makes you think now. Sounds like a political game now. A game that may take lives.
> Regards,
> TN2IC


TN2IC
If they had offered the Iranians a "meet & greet" with guns blazing - there would certainly have been a cost in lives... you might rethink your position?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (29 Mar 2007)

> Here is something that will giv e you pause. The CO of the Cornwall reported to MOD that the crew was being taken by the Iranians and he was told to stand down !!





			
				Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> *snip*
> ...  There is every possibility that the Cornwall's CO was reacting to direction he was receiving from higher as the situation developed.
> *snip*



Doesn't change a thing - the MOD made the right call, as did the CO who referred the question back for direction.  The fact that this was done is hardly reflective of a "political game" - these types of questions are often referred back for decision by higher authority.

Edit to correct snarky tone...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Mar 2007)

MODERATOR POST

_Folks, this is obviously a passionate issue with all of us, but just a reminder to keep it civil, above board and 'chest thumpless".....

It would be a shame to have to lock this but I will not hesitate if it so requires._


----------



## Flip (30 Mar 2007)

If one were to "chesthump"...........

I would like to see Sonic booms over Tehran through the night
until they relent. No violence just noise.

God-speed to the 15.


----------



## FastEddy (30 Mar 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Hey, these are Sailors and soldiers.
> Is there any reason why they should limit themselves to the old "name, rank and SN" thing?
> I don't think so.  There is no point in their facing extreme forms of interrogation and risk personal injury.
> If the Iranians want them to say something - accomodate them & try to say your lines with a straight face (regardless of how silly the statement happens to be).
> ...




Ahhhh ! Pink "geo", yes indeed that Attitude and Action seems very intresting and appropriate and should be adopted by all Western and UN Forces. Yes indeed, it would have been a great boon to the Prisoners at the Hanoi Hilton. Not to mention providing the VC with unlimited propaganda and possibly Classified Information.

Even though everyone on this side might consider that the Statement or Confessions were obtained under duress. That propaganda is not generated for information or justification for the Western World, its designed for the local Nationals and their Allies. (if my guess is not wrong).

For the countless American P.O.W.s of that Era, such a suggestion does them a great dishonor and any Serving Member of today's Armed Forces

Please I'll tell you anything or sign anything, please just don,t hurt me. great advice to be suggesting.

As for the Hijab, I guess it would of been just the same if the LS was asked to burn the Union Jack on Camera.


----------



## TCBF (30 Mar 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> TN2IC
> If they had offered the Iranians a "meet & greet" with guns blazing - there would certainly have been a cost in lives... you might rethink your position?




- Some things are more important than life - that is why they issue us guns, right?

(Carefull Geo, I could be setting you up! )


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 Mar 2007)

Interesting article by Victor Davis Hanson. Essentially the nations of the EU and NATO have very little punching power beyond their own borders.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGNmMzdmOGM5OTlmMzMxZDAzYjBiZDc4NjI1NjViYzU=&w=MQ==
Houses of Straw
The EU’s delusions about the sufficiency of “soft” power are embarrassingly revealed.

By Victor Davis Hanson

‘It’s completely outrageous for any nation to go out and arrest the servicemen of another nation in waters that don’t belong to them.” So spoke Admiral Sir Alan West, former First Sea Lord of the Royal Navy, concerning the present Anglo-Iranian crisis over captured British soldiers. But if the attack was “outrageous,” it was apparently not quite outrageous enough for anything to have been done about it yet.

Sir Alan elaborated on British rules of engagement by stressing they are “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.”

One might suggest, not necessarily “sinking everything in sight,” but at least shooting back at a few of the people trying to kidnap Britain’s uniformed soldiers. But the view, apparently, is that stepping back and allowing some chaps to be “captured and taken away” is to be preferred to “roaring into action and sinking everything in sight.” The latter is more or less what Nelson did at the battle of the Nile, when he nearly destroyed the Napoleonic fleet.

The attack coincides roughly with Iran’s announcement that it will end its cooperation with U.N. non-proliferation efforts. That announcement was in reaction to a unanimous vote to begin embargoing some trade with Teheran of critical nuclear-related substances. With that move, Ahmadinejad is essentially notifying the world that Iran will go ahead and get the bomb — and let no one dare try to stop them. 

If a non-nuclear Iran kidnaps foreign nationals in international waters, we can imagine what a nuclear theocracy will do. The Iranian thugocracy rightly understands that NATO will not declare the seizure of a member’s personnel an affront to the entire alliance.

Nor will the European Union send its “rapid” defense forces to insist on a return of the hostages. There is simply too much global worry about the price and availability of oil, too much regional concern over stability after Iraq, and too much national anxiety over the cost in lives and treasure that a possible confrontation would bring. Confrontation can be is avoided through capitulation, and no Western nation is willing to insist that Iran adhere to any norms of behavior.

Yet the problem is not so much a postfacto “What to do?” as it is a question of why such events happened in serial fashion in the first place. 

The paradox now is that, just as no European nation wishes to be seen in solidarity with the United States, so too no European force wishes to venture beyond its borders without acting in concert with the American military, whether on the ground under American air cover or at seas with a U.S. carrier group.

There are reasons along more existential lines for why Iran acts so boldly. After the end of the Cold War, most Western nations — i.e., Europe and Canada — cut their military forces to such an extent that they were essentially disarmed. The new faith was that, after a horrific twentieth century, Europeans and the West in general had finally evolved beyond the need for war.

With the demise of fascism, Nazism, and Soviet Communism, and in the new luxury of peace, the West found itself a collective desire to save money that could be better spent on entitlements, to create some distance from the United States, and to enhance international talking clubs in which mellifluent Europeans might outpoint less sophisticated others. And so three post-Cold War myths arose justify these.

First, that the past carnage had been due to misunderstanding rather than the failure of military preparedness to deter evil. 

Second, that the foundations of the new house of European straw would be “soft” power. Economic leverage and political hectoring would deter mixed-up or misunderstood nations or groups from using violence. Multilateral institutions — the World Court or the United Nations — might soon make aircraft carriers and tanks superfluous. 

All this was predicated on dealing with logical nations — not those countries so wretched as to have nothing left to lose, or so spiteful as to be willing to lose much in order to hurt others a little, or so crazy as to welcome the “end of days.” This has proved an unwarranted assumption. And with the Middle East flush with petrodollars, non-European militaries have bought better and more plentiful weaponry than that which is possessed by the very Western nations that invented and produced those weapons.

Third, that in the 21st century there would be no serious enemies on the world stage. Any violence that would break out would probably be due instead to either American or Israeli imperial, preemptive aggression — and both nations could be ostracized or humiliated by European shunning and moral censure. The more Europeans could appear to the world as demonizing, even restraining, Washington and Tel Aviv, the more credibility abroad would accrue to their notion of multilateral diplomacy.

But even the European Union could not quite change human nature, and thus could not outlaw the entirely human business of war. There were older laws at play — laws so much more deeply rooted than the latest generation’s faddish notions of conflict resolution. Like Gandhi’s nonviolent resistance, which would work only against the liberal British, and never against a Hitler or a Stalin, so too the Europeans’ moral posturing seemed to affect only the Americans, who singularly valued the respect of such civilized moralists.

Now we are in the seventh year of a new century, and even after the wake-up call on 9/11, Westerners are still relearning each day that the world is a dangerous place. When violence comes to downtown Madrid, the well-meaning Spanish chose to pull out of Iraq — only to uncover more serial terrorist cells intent on killing more Spaniards. 

To get their captured journalists freed, Italians paid Islamists bribes — and then found more Italians captured. When Germany, Britain, and France parleyed with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (the “direct talks” that we in the states yearn for) to try to get Iran to cease its plans for nuclear proliferation, he politely ignored the “EU3.” The European Union is upset that Russian agents murder troublemakers inside the EU’s borders, and so registers its displeasure with the Cheshire Vladimir Putin.

The latest Iranian kidnapping of British sailors came after British promises to leave Iraq, and after the British humiliation of 2004, when eight hostages were begged back. Apparently the Iranians have figured either that London would do little if they captured more British subjects or that the navy of Lord Nelson and Admiral Jellico couldn’t stop them if it wanted to. 

“London,” of course, is a misnomer, since the Blair government is an accurate reflection of attitudes widely held in both Britain and Europe. These attitudes have already been voiced by the public: this is understandable payback for the arrest of Iranian agents inside Iraq; this is what happens when you ally with the United States; this is what happens when the United States ceases talking with Iran. 

The rationalizations are limitless, but essential, since no one in Europe — again, understandably — wishes a confrontation that might require a cessation of lucrative trade with Iran, or an embarrassing military engagement without sufficient assets, or any overt allegiance with the United States. Pundits talk of a military option, but there really is none, since neither Britain nor Europe at large possesses a military.

What does the future hold if Europe does not rearm and make it clear that attacks on Europeans and threats to the current globalized order have repercussions? 

If Europeans recoil from a few Taliban hoodlums or Iranian jihadists, new mega-powers like nuclear India and China will simply ignore European protestations as the ankle-biting of tired moralists. Indeed, they do so already. 

Why put European ships or planes outside of European territorial waters when that will only guarantee a crisis in which Europeans are kidnapped and held as hostages or used as bargaining chips to force political concessions?

Europe is just one major terrorist operation away from a disgrace that will not merely discredit the EU, but will do so to such a degree as to endanger its citizenry and interests worldwide and their very safety at home. Islamists must assume that an attack on a European icon — Big Ben, the Vatican, or the Eiffel Tower — could be pulled off with relative impunity and ipso facto shatter European confidence and influence. Each day that the Iranians renege on their promises to release the hostages, and then proceed to parade their captives, earning another “unacceptable” from embarrassed British officials, a little bit more of the prestige of the United Kingdom is chipped away.

In the future, smaller nations in dangerous neighborhoods must accept that in their crises ahead, their only salvation, even after the acrimonious Democratic furor over Iraq, is help from the United States. 

America alone can guarantee the safety of the noble Kurds, should Turkey or Iran choose one day to invade. America alone will be willing or able to supply Israel with necessary help and weapons to ensure its survival. 

Other small nations — a Greece, for example — with long records of vehement anti-Americanism should take note that the choice facing them in their rough neighborhoods is essentially solidarity with the United States or the embrace of Jimmy Carter diplomacy or Stanley Baldwin appeasement. 

Quite simply, there is now no NATO, no EU, no U.N. that can or will do anything in anyone’s hour of need.


----------



## time expired (30 Mar 2007)

Very good post, but I expect there will be a flood of posts condemning it as neo con, pro Bush
propaganda. The truth however remains the truth,even though most people do not wish to 
hear the truth, rather to have their preconceived ideas confirmed
                                           Regards


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (30 Mar 2007)

time expired said:
			
		

> Very good post, but I expect there will be a flood of posts condemning it as neo con, pro Bush
> propaganda. The truth however remains the truth,even though most people do not wish to
> hear the truth, rather to have their preconceived ideas confirmed
> Regards



It's hardly the "truth" , it _is_ neo-con rhetoric and is an prime example of why I (for one) felt it necessary to note the massive failure of US foreign policy in the past decade when addressing this specific issue.  If some are skeptical of the standard US approach, it is because they have felt betrayed and _lied to_ by the US administration. 

As many of my posts here will attest, I have little patience for the Eurotourist mentality that appears to characterize some nations on operations.  I will "go kinetic" (and have) at the drop of a hat - if the situation warrants.  However, there is a time and place for everything and the suggested "American" approach here is dead wrong (which is why I've been addressing US policy, S_Baker) and has proven to have been wrong repeatedly.

As indicated earlier, if posts similar to those now being made about the UK were being made about the US and US policy, I have no doubt that posters would be accused of trolling and that the dogpile would be underway.  Funny, eh?


----------



## Iron Oxide (30 Mar 2007)

It is notable that Victor Davis Hanson makes absolutely no mention of the P-3 incident in which a similar number of americans were captured by the chinese under similar circumstances. Possibly because it completely undermines the entire premise of his article. I find this is a common problem with his writting, he simply ignores any facts which don't fit his interpretation of reality.


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 Mar 2007)

I havent been unfair to the UK. I am critical of their ROE which endangers not only their personnel but also
those of allied nations.

Lets take a look at this VDH article that you dismiss out of hand. He seems to be pointing out a flaw in the UK ROE. One of the tenets of leadership is to take care of your men. The decision was made that it would be the safe course of action to do nothing. I can relate to this approach as we saw it in the Pueblo incident in 68 and the 79 embassy seizure. I can tell you in the case of the Pueblo senior naval officers were embarassed and angry. In the embassy seizure the nation was very angry, an anger that lingers today in fact. There is no doubt that the Iranians released the hostages the same day Reagan took office because they were fearful of reprisal. When the Iranians mined the waters of the Gulf Reagan had the Navy sink Iranian ships and other actions that are still classified. Peace through strength is something that the socialists of Europe/Canada/US have forgotten or chose not to acknowledge.

Hanson makes a great point here about Iran's intentions and capabilities. One that is deeply disturbing.



> If a non-nuclear Iran kidnaps foreign nationals in international waters, we can imagine what a nuclear theocracy will do. The Iranian thugocracy rightly understands that NATO will not declare the seizure of a member’s personnel an affront to the entire alliance.





> Confrontation can be avoided through capitulation, and no Western nation is willing to insist that Iran adhere to any norms of behavior.



He goes on to discuss the so called peace dividend that saw the militaries of the west downsized.Surely Teddy you cannot object to his facts or his conclusion ? I agree with it because I lived both the Carter post-Vietnam drawdown and the Clinton drawdown.I have been reading Canadian military forums for several years now and until the Harper government your complaints were many. No neocon agenda here.

Europe and even our own left in the US worship at the altar of multiculturalism.Multiculturalism has undermined the core values and culture of the west and unless its unchecked will be the undoing of us all. I am not a bible thumper by any stretch but I have seen where christian values are being eroded and this weakens the state. Gay rights, legalization of drugs, open borders, abortion on demand, lack of personal responsibility would ahve been scoffed at even 30 years ago. Some think its progress. It isnt. When we raise our kids we dont smile and tell them to do whatever they want. We expect them to obey our rules.In the US our leftists dont believe in borders or the use of military power.

After rereading this article I cannot see where any thinking human being can object the Hansons facts or conclusions. Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Look at the countries that supplied troops for Afghanistan but not Iraq. Then look at who is really doing the heavy lifting in Afghanistan. ROE's are the big dividing line between who wants to appear to be doing something and those that ARE doing something.

NATO needs to be abolished. Europe should be left to its own devices. There is too much jealousy among the major European powers to prevent them from working with the US. What is of strategic interest to the US is not shared. Europe will fall one day to their minority muslim populations thanks to multiculturalism and the moral bankruptcy of socialism.

The US is blamed for much of the worlds ills until there is a disaster and they want help. Or their country is overrun by some tyrant.Until we go big into coal/oil shale liquification we will be dependent on foreign oil.Right now we are in the middle east because of oil. No one reads the bible anymore but the last  battle on earth takes place in the middle east.Like it or not we must deal with the tyrants now or after they have nuclear weapons. I prefer now.


----------



## Rey (30 Mar 2007)

An interesting perspective from the British side, sort of explaining the actions of the RN.

Gwynne Dyer: Better that Iranians didn't go after Yanks
A similar attack on Americans could have led to casualties and an excuse for Bush to bomb Iran.

http://www.startribune.com/562/v-print/story/1086014.html

Rey


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 Mar 2007)

Iron Oxide said:
			
		

> It is notable that Victor Davis Hanson makes absolutely no mention of the P-3 incident in which a similar number of americans were captured by the chinese under similar circumstances. Possibly because it completely undermines the entire premise of his article. I find this is a common problem with his writting, he simply ignores any facts which don't fit his interpretation of reality.



The Chinese didnt shoot down the P-3 did they ? The Chinese didnt force the plane to land in their territory did they ? In fact despite the declared in flight emergency the Chinese almost didnt allow the plane to land.
Very different circumstance to what we see in Iran today.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (30 Mar 2007)

I rarely agree with Dyer, but he's bang on with his commentary.


----------



## Juvat (30 Mar 2007)

Rey said:
			
		

> An interesting perspective from the British side, sort of explaining the actions of the RN.
> 
> Gwynne Dyer: Better that Iranians didn't go after Yanks
> A similar attack on Americans could have led to casualties and an excuse for Bush to bomb Iran.
> ...



Story already posted on page 8, reply 115 by Baden Guy.

But I agree it is an interesting perspective.


----------



## CougarKing (30 Mar 2007)

Just another update on the ongoing situation. A "public apology"? For what? The two nations are not at war and the Brits were clearly within Iraqi waters, although nations like Iran often set their own arbitrary borders well past agreed international maritime sovereignty limits (In fact, mainland China actually claims all of the South China Sea up to the Spratley Islands).

Isn't their treament similar to the treatment of USN/USAF naval aviators/pilots shot down over Iraq during the First Gulf War/Desert Storm as well as the treatment of those US Army Apache pilots whose Apache had been brought down by Iraqi ground fire during Operation Iraqi Freedom's start in March 2003, leading to their capture? I mean "similar" as in their being coerced into making so-called "public apologies".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070330/ap_on_...ea/iran_britain



> Iran broadcasts British sailor's apology
> By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer
> 2 hours, 58 minutes ago
> 
> ...


----------



## time expired (30 Mar 2007)

TEDDY P.
           I agree with you insofar as the execution of some of these policies are concerned,however
I feel that I must support the basic premise that lies behind these policies,namely that a world of
democracies would be a much safer place to live in.Although the American s have retreated a little from
the idea that all democracies should necessarily mirror the US democracy.This is surely better than
the cold war policies of supporting any tin pot dictator who supplied a couple of bayonets to your side.
                                         Regards


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Mar 2007)

The thing I find most noteworthy is the continuing lack of coverage on how unstable things might be in Iran.

With bombings and demonstrations happening inside Iran, none generating significant news coverage, with Ahmadinejad's term being reduced, with loss of seats for his faction in council, squabbles amongst Mullahs, gasoline prices rising, ethnic tensions, student and teacher revolts, Iranian Revolutionary Guard a world unto themselves, the place (to borrow an ancient phrase) is in a worse state than China.

The reason that the Iranian position on any issue constantly changes is less likely to be the result of some grand conspiracy than the result of on-going internal bargaining amongst various power factions - all of whom feel free to comment on the issues of the day.

Given the current fixation on the Argentinians and the Falklands it must have occured to some that Ahmadinejad is in the same position that Galtieri was in 25 years ago.  He seems to have started the same way.  Capturing Royal Marines.

2 Apr 82 - Argentinians invade Falklands and capture Marines
25 Apr 82 - Brits secure South Georgia
2 May 82 - Belgrano sunk
21 May 82 - Main Force lands at San Carlos, East Falklands.

3 weeks of negotiation to first low level military engagement
1 more week to up the ante with the Belgrano
3 more weeks to decisive military action.

We are just passing the Week 1 milestone.

In that case logistical necessity provided time for negotiations to be tried and shown to have failed (at least sufficient to convince the Brits that the effort had been made by their government).

In this case there is less of a logistical "excuse" to "allow" negotiations.  There are operating bases within range all around Iran's border.

Interestingly that also makes this situation very different from Jimmy Carter's screw up.  He had no suitable forces in the area.

All of which puts the political process into starker focus - the interested parties have no cover to hide negotiations.  If they wanted "action this day" they could have it.  About the only thing the government of the UK can use to "justify" a delay on a rescue attempt is lack of knowledge of the location of the hostages.  Risk to the hostages is covered by the fact that they are service personnel.  If they fail to act, or act and fail in the attempt then it bolsters Iran and the faction that took the Marines hostage in the first place.

Complicating the issue further, I believe, is the fact that Iran and Iraq have not finalized where their borders meet in the Shatt al Arab.

For a more current example, Operation Barras, the rescue of the 6 Royal Irish Rangers in Sierra Leone by SAS and Paras, their capture occured on Aug 24.  The rescue was effected on Sep 10.  Almost 3 weeks of preparation, recce and negotiation in a considerably less threatening environment.

Again....we are only in Week 1 and we are not sure who is in charge, whether this was planned or even sanctioned, and apparently don't know exactly where the service personnel are being held.

Time to Wait Out  I believe.


----------



## Rey (30 Mar 2007)

Juvat said:
			
		

> Story already posted on page 8, reply 115 by Baden Guy.



Sorry, must have skimmed it when I was catching up, and didn't remember reading it.....
Kids cause C.R.S., that's my excuse, and I'm sticking with it.

Total speculation on my side here, but I remember reading an article a couple of days ago that indicated that some of the waters around Iraq/Iran are in dispute. Could the apology be used to substantiate claims for that region of water. I have no knowledge of International Law, so I'm tossing that one out to those who have a firmer grasp of the topic.

Rey


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Mar 2007)

Disregarding my own advice.....Further to my last.

Just some thoughts on the problems that the Iranians may be finding themselves saddled with.

1.  Having detained service personnel, under debatable but potentially defendable circumstances, they have supplied Britain with a POTENTIAL casus belli.
2.  If they mistreat the service personnel they will move beyond the potential into the actual.
3.  Part of proving that they are not mistreating the personnel requires allowing them access to consular support.
4.  This means letting Brits know where they are.
5.  With a target the Brits are many steps closer to mounting an operation.
6.  If the Brits succeed then the regime looks weak.  Of course the Brits could fail or decide to do nothing in which case they look weak.

7.  To prevent recovery they have a number of options:

a  Keep all the service personnel together in one place and create one very hard target 
b  Disperse them around the countryside at various bases, which could include nuclear sites 
c  Disperse them around the civilian population which is in a very restive mood with stirrings of many signs of a resistance forming/operating.

Option c doesn't seem particularly secure because they risk losing their captives in dribs and drabs and even one Sailor or Marine returned home "by" or "with the assistance of"  Iranian resistance would be a major propaganda coup.

Option b would be the US's best case scenario as it would permit the launching of wide-scale "rescue" attempts on all Iranian military facilities starting with the defences at C&C facilities and nuclear sites.  It would be most unfortunate but defensible if most or all of the service personnel died during the rescue attempts.

Option a would seem to be about the best bet but it also presents the best bet for a successful rescue attempt, although the odds are likely to be long.

The problem with taking service personnel hostage is that there is no clause in their contract with their government that says the government must bring them home alive.  

Some of the Iranians might just be coming to that realization.


----------



## geo (30 Mar 2007)

Fasteddy'

This horses#$t bsuiness with the "pink" is starting to bore me to high heaven

That you were an MP, you musta been tired of the MEATHEAD monicker.... soooo... knock it off

You may chose to dissagree with what I think
I may chose to dissagree with what you think
That's life

Ya got a problem with that?


----------



## FastEddy (30 Mar 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Fasteddy'
> 
> This horses#$t bsuiness with the "pink" is starting to bore me to high heaven
> 
> ...




Ahhhh ! "geo" I'm afraid the above is completely off Topic.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 Mar 2007)

Folks take it to PMs.....

Army.Ca Staff


----------



## Iron Oxide (30 Mar 2007)

"The Chinese didnt shoot down the P-3 did they ? The Chinese didnt force the plane to land in their territory did they ? In fact despite the declared in flight emergency the Chinese almost didnt allow the plane to land.
Very different circumstance to what we see in Iran today."

The P-3 was rammed over international waters by a chinese fighter acting illegally. The crew was then held hostage and their equipment was confiscated while the chinese made crazy demands for apologies from the americans. I believe, although I might be remembering incorectly, that they were paraded in front of the cameras by the chinese.

In this case the sailors/marines were captured illegally. They are now being held hostage and their equipment has been confiscated while the Iranians make crazy demands for apologies from the brittish. These sailors/marines are being paraded in front of the cameras by the Iranians.

You're right there are absolutly no similarities between the two cases, how could I have doubted the great Victor Davis Hanson.


----------



## geo (30 Mar 2007)

+1 IO.... and there is also the other point.... neither country was at war with the other at the time of the incident......... 

..... uhhh... possibly rogue element within the service acted on their own - looking to please his master - same as the China incident?    Who knows?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (30 Mar 2007)

Iron Oxide said:
			
		

> The P-3 was rammed over international waters by a chinese fighter acting illegally. The crew was then held hostage and their equipment was confiscated while the chinese made crazy demands for apologies from the americans. I believe, although I might be remembering incorectly, that they were paraded in front of the cameras by the chinese.
> 
> In this case the sailors/marines were captured illegally. They are now being held hostage and their equipment has been confiscated while the Iranians make crazy demands for apologies from the brittish. These sailors/marines are being paraded in front of the cameras by the Iranians.
> 
> You're right there are absolutly no similarities between the two cases, how could I have doubted the great Victor Davis Hanson.



*What?*  The F-8 did neither *ram *the EP-3, nor was either party acting illegally.  The collision was an accident, all that was contested was whose fault it was (in case you weren't aware, "ramming" isn't really a tactic in aerial warfare).  The Americans then indisputably flew to and landed at Hainan Island, which is Chinese territory.

Neither the US nor China disputed that the other was acting legally (okay, they argued about who had the right-of-way).  Neither disputed that the immediate cause was an accident, and neither disputed that the EP-3 subsequently entered Chinese airspace and landed.

From a BBC report at the time:





> *View from US*
> 
> On 1 April 0915 (local time), the EP-3 plane was on a routine surveillance mission in international airspace over the South China Sea.
> 
> ...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1260290.stm

Just because the outcome is superficially similar, doesn't mean that the causes were the same!  Sheesh!

VDH: +1


----------



## geo (30 Mar 2007)

John... in that event, the US did not come out shooting - as has been suggested by certain members of this forum.  There is time to shoot from the hip and there is time to shoot from the mouth.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (30 Mar 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> John... in that event, the US did not come out shooting - as has been suggested by certain members of this forum.  There is time to shoot from the hip and there is time to shoot from the mouth.



I think people are saying that the UK should have _at the very least_ made a show of an effort (the proverbial shot across the bow) to stop their sailors from being kidnapped.  In the case of the Hainan Island incident, the American plane was forced to land in Chinese territory for mechanical reasons: if we assume that the Americans had time to launch F-14s or Tomahawks (or whatever would have been available), one can't help but to wonder what would they be shooting at ...

And secondly, illegally entering another country's territory to kidnap soldiers is clearly a provocative act: detaining soldiers who have landed (uninvited) on your own territory is not nearly the same thing (and don't forget the Chinese lost a jet in the incident, which would tend to support the idea that it was an accident, notwithstanding the 'ramming' theory).


----------



## eerickso (31 Mar 2007)

If the CO needed to contact MOD, would it be correct to assume that he didn't have the ROEs to react? If this saga continues any longer, I'm sure British ships will be getting them soon.

Obviously, self defence is a standing ROE and my gun would definately be blazing if Al-Qaeda was on the horizon.  However, personally, I would'nt feel the need with Iranian gunboats.


----------



## FascistLibertarian (31 Mar 2007)

esp since the countries are not at war.
neither side wants to fire the first shot.


----------



## tomahawk6 (31 Mar 2007)

After seeing the video of the capture on TV, the IRG craft werent much larger than the ribs the Brits were in. They mounted a machine gun on the bow. One can only wonder if the warship had fired a shot near the craft the IRG would have had to make their own tough call.


----------



## eerickso (31 Mar 2007)

Yeah, I agree. Some warning shots and a go %#$@ yourself by the boarding party should have been allowed.


----------



## KevinB (31 Mar 2007)

The P3 issues is in no way even close to this issue -- as the fact of the matter have been described above.

The British ROE allowed them to destroy the IRG watercraft, if they believed them to be a threat etc.  Given my observation of Iraqi marksmanship techiniques I have no doubt the RN and RM personnnel would have done quite well -- the issue to me is moot now since the MOD stepped in when the Capt was giving the SITREP.

No doubt the next time - the SITREP will read -- destroyed two insurgent watercraft - proceeding on mission


----------



## navymich (31 Mar 2007)

Iranian official: Sailors may be tried



> By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer 12 minutes ago
> 
> TEHRAN, Iran -
> Iran's ambassador to Russia renewed a threat Iranian officials made earlier this week, saying 15 British sailors held by Iran could be tried for violating international law, Iran's state news agency IRNA reported Saturday.
> ...


----------



## observor 69 (31 Mar 2007)

Article source?


----------



## Mike Baker (31 Mar 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Article source?





			
				airmich said:
			
		

> Iranian official: Sailors may be tried


There on top of her post.


----------



## army outfitters (31 Mar 2007)

, "ramming" isn't really a tactic in aerial warfare). [/quote]

Can somebody tell the Germans at the end of WW2 about this as it was used as a aerial tactic by them against of all things American Bombers. Go figure


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (31 Mar 2007)

Army Outfitters said:
			
		

> , "ramming" isn't really a tactic in aerial warfare).
> 
> Can somebody tell the Germans at the end of WW2 about this as it was used as a aerial tactic by them against of all things American Bombers. Go figure



That was more of an act of desperation then anything else...


----------



## army outfitters (31 Mar 2007)

Be that as it may it is still considered a tactic of aerial warfare. Maybe I am nitpicking but I don't think so


----------



## CougarKing (31 Mar 2007)

Since Airmich forgot the article source, here is pretty much the same article with the link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070331/ap_on_re_mi_ea/british_seized_iran



> Iranian official: Sailors may be tried By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer
> 46 minutes ago
> 
> 
> ...



They can't seriously have this Kangaroo Court trial that will end up with their being convicted by backward-looking Ayatollahs! And please tell me that the punishment according to _Shariah_ law isn't stoning for foreign soldiers for trespassing in foreign waters?


----------



## Mike Baker (31 Mar 2007)

CougarShark said:
			
		

> Since Airmich forgot the article source



Look at the top of her post, the link is there. It reads "Iranian official: Sailors may be tried"


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (31 Mar 2007)

Army Outfitters said:
			
		

> Be that as it may it is still considered a tactic of aerial warfare. Maybe I am nitpicking but I don't think so


 Yes, and the Germans learned it from the Soviets during Barbarossa, and depending on how you want to define it you could count the Japanese Kamikazes as well.  It's extremely rare, but does happen in desperate times: point taken ... "'ramming' isn't really a _normal_ tactic in aerial warfare."

Nonetheless, it is not really relevant in this case, as neither the Americans nor the Chinese claimed that the immediate cause of the Hainan Island incident was anything but an accident (though they both accuse the other of negligence).  In the case of the UK/Iran incident, both parties are accusing the other of acting illegally.  They are nowhere near the same situation.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (31 Mar 2007)

CougarShark said:
			
		

> They can't seriously have this Kangaroo Court trial that will end up with their being convicted by backward-looking Ayatollahs! And please tell me that the punishment according to _Shariah_ law isn't stoning for foreign soldiers for trespassing in foreign waters?



Well, the UN _might _write the Iranians a sharply-worded letter ...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (31 Mar 2007)

> Since Airmich forgot the article source, here is pretty much the same article with the link:



LOL you are batting 100 lately for being wrong lately haven't you?


----------



## CougarKing (31 Mar 2007)

Here is the US perspective.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,130777,00.html?wh=wh



> U.S. Treads Warily in Hostage Crisis
> Associated Press  |  March 31, 2007
> WASHINGTON - The United States is taking a low-key approach to Iran's capture of 15 British sailors and marines, concerned that more robust intervention might aggravate the situation and shake international resolve on Iran's nuclear program.
> 
> ...


----------



## navymich (31 Mar 2007)

Michael Baker said:
			
		

> Look at the top of her post, the link is there. It reads "Iranian official: Sailors may be tried"



Thank you Michael.  I have been out all day and unable to respond to the questioning of my link source.  As you, and many others, noticed, my link was included.  I figured there was no sense having a long link taking up space, which is why I posted it as I did.


----------



## NL_engineer (31 Mar 2007)

airmich said:
			
		

> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070331/ap_on_re_mi_ea/british_seized_iran_223;_ylt=Au4HEwea.ntYpePZuUOgrk4UewgF



Still looking for airmich's source ???

edited to fix quote


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Apr 2007)

Ok put your hands up and step away from the keyboard. ;D


----------



## GAP (1 Apr 2007)

The link is the title of the post. Put your cursor over the title and it will change to a little hand. click on it.


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Apr 2007)

> potential of starting a major international incident



I think we are way past this being a potential international incident.


----------



## Eland (1 Apr 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Interesting article by Victor Davis Hanson. Essentially the nations of the EU and NATO have very little punching power beyond their own borders.
> 
> http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGNmMzdmOGM5OTlmMzMxZDAzYjBiZDc4NjI1NjViYzU=&w=MQ==
> Houses of Straw
> ...



What an excellent and incisive analysis of the situation. Thanks for bringing the article to our attention, tomahawk6. Hanson is right about (the British ROE being de-escalatory in nature) - they have no other choice simply because they lack the military power needed to prosecute the action needed to deal with an emerging _casus belli_. At the same time, I do understand that the British (and others) recognize that an attacking Iran with the intent to save fifteen sailors could trigger a wider war which would cost many, many more lives and likely see Russian and Chinese involvement.

Speaking of countries which lack the ability to punch far beyond their borders and subscribe to the intellectually diseased and bankrupt notion of 'soft power', Canada handily fits into that group. Yes, we are making a significant contribution in Afghanistan (and in some ways bearing the brunt of the load). At the same time, there are too many Canadians walking around with the erroneous notion that war has simply ceased to exist, and too many in powerful positions willing to indulge and encourage that deluded view of things. 

Yes, our new prime minister, Stephen Harper, would like to do more for the military. But he's constrained two major things: 1) The need to garner votes in Quebec, which has always had a vision of Canada as an essentially isolationist, non-aligned (especially where the US is concerned) and semi-pacifistic state; 2) A large number of Canadians are still in love with the idea of peacekeeping and don't want to let go - he has to find a way to engage these people without losing their votes. (Unfortunately for the peaceniks, peacekeeping is dead, dead, dead. It died when civil war broke out in the former Republic of Yugoslavia and Third World backwaters like Somalia. )

Sometimes I question the Afghanistan mission - that is, why are we really there? What do we get out of it? Why is it important for our soldiers to be doing reconstruction tasks that could better be handled by civilian agencies? Isn't a soldier's first, and most important job (in order to bring about the necessary preconditions for peace to take hold) closing with and destroying the enemy?
At the same time, I realize that withdrawing our troops is counterproductive. If we withdraw, the Talban and all the other Islamofascist terrorist nutbars win, we lose, and we may find ourselves getting a dose of what the Spanish got into the 'bargain', if you can call it that.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the Iranians have a right to develop nuclear weapons. After all, simple logic tells you that all nations which claim a right to sovereignty have a right to defend that sovereignty and to that end, to possess whatever weapons and materiel are necessary to achieve that aim. That said, it might probably be easier in the short term to let Iran have its nukes. But appeasement never works and in this case, has no chance of securing meaningful, long-term peace in the Middle East as a whole. 

At the same time, I don't blame the United States one bit for wanting to squash Ahmadinejad's nuclear ambitions. Consider the following reasons why:

1) Ahmadinejad's regime is unstable, irresponsible and potentially genocidal; letting him have nukes is tantamount to letting a madman with murderous impulses have a gun;
2) Left to its own devices, Iran could eventually develop nuclear warhead delivery systems capable of threatening Europe, the US and Asia;
3) With such weapons, or even short-range ballistic missiles, Iran could threaten the entire Middle East into denying the US and other countries access to oil, thereby wrecking the world economy;
4) It's bad enough that Russia, China (and possibly North Korea) have nuclear weapon delivery systems capable of striking the US, Europe and Asia. Why let another party (and an unstable one at that) join that club? The US has too many threats to deal with as it is. 

As inflammatory as it is, the Iranian snatch of Royal Navy personnel is a two-pronged event. It is designed to score a propaganda victory. It is also a probe designed to test the resolve of the UK and its allies - to see if they can be provoked into attacking with relatively little provocation.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Apr 2007)

This comment in the Telegraph on ROE



> .....a former Falklands War commander expressed fury at how the sailors surrendered to Iranian gunboats without a fight.
> 
> Maj Gen Julian Thompson called for a review of the Navy's rules of engagement, dictated by the United Nations, that they cannot open fire unless they are shot at first. "In my view this thing is a complete ****-up," he said.
> 
> ...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=4R134PVVIA4RDQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/04/01/wiran01.xml

And this from the Times over the "Who's on first" issue.



> THE fate of the 15 British marines and sailors held in Tehran may depend on the outcome of a power struggle between two of Iran’s top generals, write Uzi Mahnaimi and Marie Colvin.
> 
> According to an Iranian military source, the commander of the Revolutionary Guards has called for them to be freed.
> 
> ...



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1596694.ece

So there you have it.  The Military Revolutionary Guard being accused of being too "liberal" by the Political Revolutionary Guard.   I am reminded about discussions on the SS and the Waffen SS, the "Good Nazis".

I wonder if the Political type and the Military type share the same appreciation of the Miltary capabilities of the country.

According to the Times article the Basij has been mobilized and sent to the British Embassy to demonstrate and to the Iraqi border.  I wonder if they are taking their mine-defeating carpets with them?  IIRC the Basij were recruited as a Hitler Youth wing of 13 year olds during the Iran-Iraq war and were expected to roll over mine fields.  They were wrapped in carpets to keep their bits and pieces together for burial.

PS Again IIRC Ahmadinejad was a Basij.  I wonder if he can rely on the rest of the country to dance to his tune.

According to this report he apparently can't draw a crowd the way he used to -

http://www.freedomszone.com/archives/2007/03/ahmadinejad_drawing_smaller_cr.php
http://www.baztab.com/news/62991.php

Another account described last minute efforts to get a crowd to the scene in time by turning out the schools.

Hamlet might say there is something rotten......


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Apr 2007)

Eland said:
			
		

> What an excellent and incisive analysis of the situation. Thanks for bringing the article to our attention, tomahawk6. Hanson is right about (the British ROE being de-escalatory in nature) - they have no other choice simply because they lack the military power needed to prosecute the action needed to deal with an emerging _casus belli_. At the same time, I do understand that the British (and others) recognize that an attacking Iran with the intent to save fifteen sailors could trigger a wider war which would cost many, many more lives and likely see Russian and Chinese involvement.
> 
> Speaking of countries which lack the ability to punch far beyond their borders and subscribe to the intellectually diseased and bankrupt notion of 'soft power', Canada handily fits into that group. Yes, we are making a significant contribution in Afghanistan (and in some ways bearing the brunt of the load). At the same time, there are too many Canadians walking around with the erroneous notion that war has simply ceased to exist, and too many in powerful positions willing to indulge and encourage that deluded view of things.
> 
> ...



Eland a very well thought out post.I would pose one question to you. If the Iranians would snatch 15 UK military personnel to create a crisis, what would they do with nuclear weapons ?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (1 Apr 2007)

Never underestimate the stupidity of socialists (I include the whole item, as the rest does offer some interesting perspective on the 'other' problem): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/01/nbook01.xml (2nd item)


> *FO paid back by Iran*
> 
> The only wry smile to be derived from the humiliating circumstances in which our 15 sailors and Royal Marines were captured by just six Iranians came from the comment by Patricia Hewitt. *"It was deplorable," pronounced our tight-lipped Health Secretary, "that the woman hostage should be shown smoking. This sends completely the wrong message to our young people."*
> 
> ...


----------



## Eland (1 Apr 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Eland a very well thought out post.I would pose one question to you. If the Iranians would snatch 15 UK military personnel to create a crisis, what would they do with nuclear weapons ?



Good question, and one which isn't hard to answer. The Iranians would definitely threaten to use their nukes if the US and other countries didn't withdraw their forces from the Middle East (Afghanistan included). 

I get the feeling that Ahmadinejad sees himself as a Messiah of sorts - a saviour of the Middle East, if you will, who can bring about the pan-Arabian caliphate the radical imams and mullahs have been jonesing for for a long, long time now and maybe even Shariah law world-wide. I think this delusional view of his own greatness is really what's driving him - and prompting US withdrawal would just be a bonus or fringe benefit for him. As a side note, it's worth mentioning that the Caliphate also includes Israel and southern Europe, particularly Spain. There are factions within Islam which have never gotten over being ejected from southern France and Spain, or forgiven the Crusaders for effectively creating Palestine (and Lebanon) as we know them today.

The kidnapping of civilians or troops by any government (or proto-government) for political gains is never a good thing, and the capture of 15 British sailors is not a good sign, either. 

North America and Europe don't have many options here - they can either accept the status quo, which means seeing Iran gradually rachet up its antagonistic behaviours (which might even include an outright attack on US and British forces in Iraq), or do something concrete about the situation. Think of it this way: How would 170,000-odd coalition troops in Iraq fare versus 850,000 Iranian soldiers? Particularly when the US Army is already having difficulty with the situation in Iraq?

Iran does have a large military. However, unsupported by any other country, it cannot carry out a significant expeditionary mission any meaningful distance from Tehran, or sustain it for long. Russian/Chinese resupply could change the strategic complexion very quickly.

At the same time, Iran is not so powerful that it couldn't be quickly neutralized by heavy air strikes, if America chooses to seize the initiative. That's the good news. 

The bad news, and the thing I worry about more, is the very real possibility that both Russia and China could get militarily involved. Their involvement would spark a Third World War - and, as Hanson so amply demonstrates, none of the EU countries (or Canada for that matter) is really prepared for such an outcome. I think even the US, despite its superior technology and firepower, would be hard-pressed to cope too. The Russians are just now embarking on a massive re-armament campaign, which will see some 45% of current inventory replaced in the next five to ten years, if not sooner. That alone, vis-a-vis the general situation in the Middle East, is not a reassuring development. The Chinese too, are also embarked on a massive military build-up.

Put very simply, we have two very stark choices if diplomacy and sanctions don't work. Let Iran continue playing silly bugger, thereby threatening the oil supplies - and see our economies wrecked, or go to war and still run the risk of wrecking our economies, which we allowed to become too dependent on a single source of energy. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Surely Ahmadinejad must know that.


----------



## GAP (1 Apr 2007)

Another thing to keep in mind is the OIL. In a pinch, the US can get most of their supplies from a combination of their own sources and Canadian Sources...the Middle East is no longer the sole source. There are industrial concerns and a lot of vested interest in the Middle East, but if push comes to shove...the US can handle the lack of oil from the Middle East for the short term.

That given, Europe can't function without ME oil without being raped by the price that will probably charged by the Russian pipeline.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Apr 2007)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> I wonder if "they" remember that North Africa, Turkey, Yugoslavia, Chechneya, etc...were christian countries at one time?



Or at very least, blissfully pagan..... >

The entire turf of Dar al Islam, the land of Peace/Submission, was taken by the sword.  Including Mecca and Medina.


----------



## Shadowolf (3 Apr 2007)

North and South America can be considered Western Christian countries... also taken by sword and gun.   Religion usually has to spread to prove to itself that it is the 'One True Religion' or else it dies out.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Apr 2007)

Shadowolf said:
			
		

> North and South America can be considered Western Christian countries... also taken by sword and gun.   Religion usually has to spread to prove to itself that it is the 'One True Religion' or else it dies out.



Yep - true for Jesus, true for Mohammed, Buddha and Zoroaster, true for Vladimir, Uncle Joe and Adolf, and true for David Suzuki and Al Gore......Deus Vult, Insh'allah, Amen.

Thing is - is the problem with the theoretician with the DS solution, or with the person that takes that solution and its true believers and leads them where that individual wants them to go?  Is the problem with Marx and Engels and the Commissars or is it with Vladimir Ilyich and Uncle Joe?  Is it with Jesus and the Dominicans and Franciscan friars or is it with Popes like the Medicis and the Borgias?

Personally I have but one prayer - Lord preserve us from charismatic men on white horses. 

Wandering wide of the mark - but given the religious underpinning of Iran's revolution and the nature of the problems we are facing it seems that it might be important to correctly identify the "centre of gravity".


----------



## FastEddy (3 Apr 2007)

Eland said:
			
		

> Good question, and one which isn't hard to answer. The Iranians would definitely threaten to use their nukes if the US and other countries didn't withdraw their forces from the Middle East (Afghanistan included). .
> 
> Put very simply, we have two very stark choices if diplomacy and sanctions don't work. Let Iran continue playing silly bugger, thereby threatening the oil supplies - and see our economies wrecked, or go to war and still run the risk of wrecking our economies, which we allowed to become too dependent on a single source of energy. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Surely Ahmadinejad must know that.




Its a pity that Religion which is supposed to be the Salvation of Mankind, has usually been at the core of almost every major conflict of Mankind. Now whether that says a lot for Religion or a lot for Mankind ?, you be the Judge.

If you are forced into a psychical confrontation, just be sure you give the other fellow such a beating, that he'll never bother you again. There's only oneway to handle Bully's.

Cheers.


----------



## muskrat89 (4 Apr 2007)

From Ralph Peters at the NY Post:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04032007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/wheres_winston__opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm?page=0



> WHERE'S WINSTON?
> 
> IT'S IRAN 15, BRITS 0 IN THE GULF
> 
> ...


----------



## FastEddy (4 Apr 2007)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> From Ralph Peters at the NY Post:
> 
> http://www.nypost.com/seven/04032007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/wheres_winston__opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm?page=0




Good Read "muslrat89", but you can rest assured that all the Do-Gooders, Antiwar and PC are sharpening up their pencils in protest to it. Theres "geo", that probably going to say, "Well what can you expect those poor guys to do".

Not being a expert on Combat Strategies or Evasion Tactic's, I pose this question, what if they had resisted boarding and made a run for their Mother Ship. Would the Iranians have opened fire and pursued ?.

IMO, we're getting to be so AFRAID of loosing a drop of Oil and Offending the sensibilities of Islam, that we'll bend to anything.

As Ralph Peters points out, its not the BRITS we use to know.

Cheers.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Apr 2007)

Allow me to jump in in geo's stead.

Have you been watching any of the man-in-the-street interviews from Iran? In addition to women in Chadors there are women just wearing scarves.  You also have people calling for an amicable resolution - they are not convinced these Brits are spies.  That, in conjunction with demonstrations against the regime before this incident and a grand total of 200 in the rent-a-crowd before the British Embassy on Sunday, all suggests that the locals are not all on board with this - unlike Carter's escapade.  

What we want is to separate leaders from followers.  Actions that punish the followers will only drive them into the arms of their more extreme leaders.  That becomes a win for the extremists.  It would also detract from activities in Iraq which in fact may have been the thought all along.  Perhaps the Iranians are concerned that the Petraeus surge is working.

There are internal divisions in Iran.  We need to exploit them - not bridge them.  Having said that, if their is intransigence on the part of the Iranians or they mistreat the Brits, there is ample time to take alternative actions. We are still only 11 days into this.  3 weeks for Sierra Leone.  7 weeks for the Falklands (where, by the way, the Marines also gave up - and no slag intended)

PS Tony has got 433 days to go to beat Jimmy Carter's record.


----------



## Flip (4 Apr 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> What we want is to separate leaders from followers.  Actions that punish the followers will only drive them into the arms of their more extreme leaders.  That becomes a win for the extremists.  It would also detract from activities in Iraq which in fact may have been the thought all along.  Perhaps the Iranians are concerned that the Petraeus surge is working.



Eggzackly!

The internal political struggles in Iran have everything to do with this.
This should be played as the "bad guys" stepping on their own collective naughty bits.
Can you say "schlong" on ARMY.ca?

In truth most Iranians don't even know why they're fighting against the Americans
It just seems like the right thing for them to do. ( I think )
With a bit of luck this could be the best thing to happen for the good guys in a long while.

I really don't see China getting involved in any serious way - It's American money
that fuels China's growth.  The Russians don't want to see their client's Capital
(Tehran) become a glazed parking lot.  Russian foreign policy has to have the most
abysmal track record of all time.  They supported Saddam(Illegally) right up to the end.

The western powers' biggest problem remains liberal elements within our own sphere.
A kidnapping looks bad to even them.

Just a few thoughts......... ;D


----------



## FastEddy (4 Apr 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Allow me to jump in in geo's stead.
> 
> Have you been watching any of the man-in-the-street interviews from Iran? In addition to women in Chadors there are women just wearing scarves.  You also have people calling for an amicable resolution - they are not convinced these Brits are spies.  That, in conjunction with demonstrations against the regime before this incident and a grand total of 200 in the rent-a-crowd before the British Embassy on Sunday, all suggests that the locals are not all on board with this - unlike Carter's escapade.
> 
> ...




If some sort of retaliatory action was taken by the West, could not that have the same effect on the same group you have outlined, in that they would be very pissed off at their Leaders for the Tail pulling of the West, bringing more strife and sanctions.  (Like lets get these Idiots out of Office, before they get us all killed)

Do you subscribe to the behavior of the Marines and recommend that our Troops adopt this, "I'll say anything just don,t hurt me" ?.

Also, since you seem well versed on these situations, I would appreciate your views on my question, as to what would have happened if the Marines had refused to be arrested and attempted to flee to their Mother Ship.

cheers.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Apr 2007)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Good Read "muslrat89", but you can rest assured that all the Do-Gooders, Antiwar and PC are sharpening up their pencils in protest to it. Theres "geo", that probably going to say, "Well what can you expect those poor guys to do".
> 
> Not being a expert on Combat Strategies or Evasion Tactic's, I pose this question, what if they had resisted boarding and made a run for their Mother Ship. Would the Iranians have opened fire and pursued ?.
> 
> ...


                                                   MOD POST


Fast Eddy,
Geo asked you to drop the 'pink Geo" thing or take it off the board via PM's, and now I'm telling you to................this is your only warning.


----------



## geo (4 Apr 2007)

It just shows how much respect there is in the man..... doesn't it!

Meat"&/!


----------



## GAP (4 Apr 2007)

Iran president to free UK sailors
POSTED: 1322 GMT (2122 HKT), April 4, 2007 
Article Link


TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says he will pardon and set free 15 British sailors and marines being held in Iranian custody.

Speaking at a news conference on the diplomatic crisis, Ahmadinejad said the 15 detainees had violated the country's territorial waters and praised the border guards who captured them, honoring three men with medals for bravery.

"I thank the border guards who bravely protect our borders and also arrested the violators, and I grant them the bravery medal to their commander," Ahmadinejad said.

Ahmadinejad was speaking after a senior Iranian official on Wednesday welcomed UK efforts to negotiate the release of the marines and sailors.

Iran's parliament speaker Gholamali Haddadadel told an Iranian state broadcaster's Web site that British efforts to negotiate the detainees' release were "appropriate."

"The British are trying to solve the issue of their arrested soldiers with negotiations and this is appropriate action," Haddadadel was quoted as saying.

But he added: "The British should agree to their mistake and change their behavior of before."

Haddadadel is considered an influential figure within Iran because of his connections with the country's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to whom he is related by marriage.
More on link


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Apr 2007)

Great news !!


----------



## GAP (4 Apr 2007)

I think you will find the US returned that diplomat they held in custody to facilitate this...maybe the other Iranians also, don't know....


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Apr 2007)

We are giving them access to the IRG senior personnel. Do not expect their release anytime soon unless Tehran agrees to stop meddling in Iraq.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (4 Apr 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> 3 weeks for Sierra Leone.  7 weeks for the Falklands (where, by the way, the Marines also gave up - and no slag intended)



That's a very cheap shot - and not even very accurate: the RMs were outnumbered something like 50-1 (~3,000, plus naval support vs. 67) and yet still literally fought to the last building in Stanley (Government House), before the Governor surrendered.  The difference between the two actions is pretty stark.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/2/newsid_2520000/2520879.stm

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/NP8901.html


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Apr 2007)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> If some sort of retaliatory action was taken by the West, could not that have the same effect on the same group you have outlined, in that they would be very pissed off at their Leaders for the Tail pulling of the West, bringing more strife and sanctions.  (Like lets get these Idiots out of Office, before they get us all killed)
> 
> Do you subscribe to the behavior of the Marines and recommend that our Troops adopt this, "I'll say anything just don,t hurt me" ?.
> 
> ...



I'll start with the last first.  First of all I would expect ROEs to be followed.  Secondly, actions taken in the heat of the moment are seen very differently than actions taken after time has elapsed.  Personally I would have had no trouble with the Marines firing back and making a run for it back to the Cornwall (IIRC).  On the other hand 10 kms of open water in rubber boats probably would have taxed James Bond.  As to the "Mothership" taking action - I have no idea whether that was even possible.  Were there other vessels in the area?  Was there enough manoeuvring room in those channels to get into a good firing position with a free line of sight?  What was the attitude of the ship - bow on or stern on to the target vessel?  There is a whole bunch of stuff of which I am blissfully unaware.  Consequently I choose to give the folks on the scene the benefit of the doubt.  One thing that does stick out in my mind is the alleged withdrawl of the ship's helicopter, which was flying top-cover, before the RHIBs were safely recovered - but even there I don't know the reason for the recovery (Were they low on gas? If so why? Did the search take longer than anticipated.....) I wasn't there.  Neither were you.  I hold an opinion.

As to the attitude of the Marines - I think it would depend a lot on the nature of the people involved.  I am pretty sure that the Marines at Garmsir take a very different attitude when contemplating being taken by the Taliban.  As I noted earlier, even the Marines on the Falklands surrendered.  That indeed was part of what allowed the Maggie to get the Brits moving - pictures of Marines lying face down in the gutter with their hands behind their heads.  It added to the sense of national humiliation which drove the support for the war and allowed Maggie to recover from the disastrous policy decisions that allowed the Argentinians to think they could get away with it.

As to retaliatory action by the West is concerned - how much collateral damage are you contemplating? Or is it your opinion that inflicting pain on the general population will make them your friend? 

Victor Suvorov in the Liberators described Russian training procedures for new recruits.  One technique was, IIRC, socialist competition - punish the whole group and then rely on the group to punish the offending individual - you see in a good socialist society there are no individuals therefore the group must be at fault.  Is that your position WRT the Iranians?

Or should we be targeting individuals?

John - it wasn't a cheap shot at all. I have the greatest respect for the Marines, unlike Ralph Peters it is still undiminished.  You are correct that they returned fire and that the Governor surrendered the islands.  However the fact remains that the Marines were captured en masse.  Just as other forces have been captured in the past and will be in the future.  And the troops rely on their government to get them out of there.


----------



## observor 69 (4 Apr 2007)

In a tactical sense the naval personnel did the only sensible thing in surrendering vice a "fight to the death."

My question is what's the thinking on the Brits saying "yes we were in Iranian waters"  vice the old name, rank and serial number?

 I might add the Marine Capt., who one expects to have had some exposure to interrogation training, also had no difficulty in admitting fault. 

Thoughts ?


----------



## Flip (4 Apr 2007)

We can hope to get the story in a few days.

We can't count them as returned until they actually are of course.

Personally, I think the British government played it exactly right,
in a crisis the general population will side with their own government.

Now that it's likely over, the opposition can use this crisis as an example of recklessness
on the part of Ahmedinejad.

I am assuming of course that Iran got nothing out of the deal.
I am also assuming the sanctions can be ratcheted up now.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Apr 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> In a tactical sense the naval personnel did the only sensible thing in surrendering vice a "fight to the death."
> 
> My question is what's the thinking on the Brits saying "yes we were in Iranian waters"  vice the old name, rank and serial number?
> 
> ...



One set of reports I saw had the OIC agreeing that the co-ordinates supplied by Iranians, applied to an Iranian map, showed the Brits in the Iranian waters.  The issue of where the Brit's gear showed them to be on Brit charts was not addressed.   As to the apology................crickets.  Name, rank and serial number applies under the Geneva convention to PWs. Obviously the Iranians weren't working under those rules when they allowed cameras to record the troops eating.

On the other side ..... you might want to consider this.  How much sympathy did those images generate amongst the Iranian public?  The images that I saw were of a particularly "non-threatening" group of young sailors and marines - a woman and some young "baby-faced" types were front and centre in the scene with them eating with the boys sitting at the feet of a maternal figure.  Pretty hard to sell that image as representative of a group of evil British commandos.  I wonder who organized the "production".


----------



## Gimpy (4 Apr 2007)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070404/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_britain_syria


> DAMASCUS, Syria -
> Syria played a key role in resolving the standoff over the 15 British sailors and marines held by
> Iran, two government officials said Wednesday
> 
> ...



So it comes out that Syria helped with the release of the hostages during the visit of Nancy Pelosi. I think she most likely had a huge influence on the negotiations and with that in mind she has effectively done more than Bush or Blair during the entire hostage situation.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Apr 2007)

Yea, right.........the smell permenting from this scenario is quite overpowering.


----------



## geo (4 Apr 2007)

.... with all due respect to Mrs Pelosi, I figure that Iran came to the conclusion that they had milked this photo op as far as they could and ...Ohhh.... weren't those terrible British pirates scarry 

If Iran acted on Syria's suggestion - it would most likely be to tweak Dubya's nose over his rhetoric.

As to the British political action OR inaction.... they aren't telling


----------



## Gimpy (4 Apr 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> .... with all due respect to Mrs Pelosi, I figure that Iran came to the conclusion that they had milked this photo op as far as they could and ...Ohhh.... weren't those terrible British pirates scary
> 
> If Iran acted on Syria's suggestion - it would most likely be to tweak Dubya's nose over his rhetoric.
> 
> As to the British political action OR inaction.... they aren't telling



Before Pelosi went to Syria did Bush or Blair have any discussions with countries that are close to Iran? No. Did they even attempt any kind of diplomacy? Not really. So I'd say that she must have had some influence if all of sudden Iran decided to release the hostages.

Either way this is a big PR coup for Iran.
-Got the soldiers to admit they were in Iranian waters.
-Didn't do anything insane throughout the situation.
-Releasing them on the birthday of Muhammed is a great political move in the Muslim world.

So even if Pelosi didn't have a hand in it, it still all ends up as a good PR move for Iran and makes the US and UK look weak diplomatically.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Apr 2007)

Only to those who are gullible or need to believe it,...see here.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21608.0.html


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (4 Apr 2007)

I thought the NY post article was typical right wing US bull. The Brits are bringing their people home in tact and there are 15 families that are not going to be greiving their husbands, fathers, mothers and daughters. Alls well that ends well!


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Apr 2007)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070404/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_britain_syria
> So it comes out that Syria helped with the release of the hostages during the visit of Nancy Pelosi. I think she most likely had a huge influence on the negotiations and with that in mind she has effectively done more than Bush or Blair during the entire hostage situation.



Dumb comment.Syria has no real influence with Iran.They are a client state.Pelosi's visit is pure interference in US foreign policy.I want to point out that Pelosi's Congress couldnt be bothered to pass a resolution denouncing Iran's seizure of the UL military personnel.


----------



## Gimpy (4 Apr 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Dumb comment.Syria has no real influence with Iran.They are a client state.Pelosi's visit is pure interference in US foreign policy.I want to point out that Pelosi's Congress couldnt be bothered to pass a resolution denouncing Iran's seizure of the UL military personnel.



Whats dumb about it? Syria is certainly closer to Iran than the US is. Syria is closer to Iran than Saudi Arabia. Just because they don't have any "real" influence doesn't mean that they aren't in contact with Iran whereas the US and UK aren't. And correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Ms. Pelosi was the only US politician during this entire situation to take any action at all.

Also here is the cover of a newspaper that sums up the situation nicely:


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Apr 2007)

If she wanted to influence the situation she should have gone to Tehran instead of Damascus. Her visit there was amature hour. She misrepresented the Israeli position.She didnt even raise the subject of captured Israeli soldiers.


----------



## Gimpy (4 Apr 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> If she wanted to influence the situation she should have gone to Tehran instead of Damascus. Her visit there was amature hour. She misrepresented the Israeli position.She didnt even raise the subject of captured Israeli soldiers.



Tell me the last time an American politician has visited Tehran and then think about it for a minute. There is no way any American politician, even Bush would dare step foot in Iran. So don't use that argument. Syria is by far the closest country relations-wise to Iran, and Bush hasn't even been to Syria. Also, not sure what you mean by Israeli position (typo maybe) but we're talking about the British here.

Also, tell me how do you know she didn't raise the subject of the captured soldiers? It seems like she of all people would since she would have a lot of politcal capital to gain at home and abroad if she did. Honestly, she would do it just to stick it to Bush even further.


----------



## KevinB (5 Apr 2007)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> Tell me the last time an American politician has visited Tehran and then think about it for Syria is by far the closest country relations-wise to Iran.


 :
Uhm dude you do know the difference between a Sunni gov't and a Shia one dont you?

The rest of your posting is equally dumb.


----------



## Gimpy (5 Apr 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> :
> Uhm dude you do know the difference between a Sunni gov't and a Shia one dont you?
> 
> The rest of your posting is equally dumb.



Show me another Shia majority that has closer relations with Iran than Syria does. I doubt you can. Sunni and Shia have nothing to do with Iran-Syria relations. The fact is that their relations are so close because they are two Arab nations who share common interests and are shunned by the USA. So please enlighten me on how my posting is "dumb" when all you've posted is a meaningless comparison.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Apr 2007)

I can help enlighten you a bit, you are being told by a person who has, and still is, making his living in that part of the world. His life depends on what he knows.............................and you?


----------



## Gimpy (5 Apr 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I can help enlighten you a bit, you are being told by a person who has, and still is, making his living in that part of the world. His life depends on what he knows.............................and you?



I realize he is in the region, but he is pointing out the fact that Syria has a Sunni government and Iran has a Shia government. But those in no way seriously effect the relationship between Iran and Syria. 

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/827017.html

Iran and Syria have stated publically that they have an alliance. Iran has sold Syria weapons. They share the common interest of protecting themselves from Israel and US (their words). So, the fact they share different religions has nothing to do with their political relationship which was the crux of Infidel's little jab.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Apr 2007)

You MUST come out to poker night sometime..........................$$$$


----------



## Gimpy (5 Apr 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> You MUST come out to poker night sometime..........................$$$$



I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand the meaning of this post. I'm not trying to be disrespectful at all, but the point is that regardless of the fact that Infidel is in the region, it doesn't make him an expert on Iran-Syria relations. Futhermore, I doubt any of us are, I certainly am not, but from the information that is available to the public its clear that the religion of both countries doesn't have an influence on their political relationship.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (5 Apr 2007)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> I realize he is in the region, but he is pointing out the fact that Syria has a Sunni government and Iran has a Shia government. But those in no way seriously effect the relationship between Iran and Syria.
> 
> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/827017.html
> 
> Iran and Syria have stated publically that they have an alliance. Iran has sold Syria weapons. They share the common interest of protecting themselves from Israel and US (their words). So, the fact they share different religions has nothing to do with their political relationship which was the crux of Infidel's little jab.



I'm not trying to split hairs here but it must be pointed out that they do not share different "religions" It is the same religion but different sects of the same religion. In the same way that the Northern Irish are Protestants and Catholics; same religions, different sects. It may seem to you a small difference but really not in the large scale of things.


----------



## Gimpy (5 Apr 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to split hairs here but it must be pointed out that they do not share different "religions" It is the same religion but different sects of the same religion. In the same way that the Northern Irish are Protestants and Catholics; same religions, different sects. It may seem to you a small difference but really not in the large scale of things.



Yes, I do know that its all Islam, but different strands. But my point is that while there is division between the two strands of Islam which can cause animosity towards the other Iran and Syria have managed to work around those to form a strong bond which counters what Infidel was saying about Sunni/Shia governments.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Apr 2007)

A "strong bond" is not based solely on mutual hatred of a third party.....


----------



## KevinB (6 Apr 2007)

Syria is on Syria's side (and the same applies to Iran - but I digress)
  Syria has been allowing insurgents to cross the border into Iraq (and where they go and kill Shia's) in doing so it ensures 1) Iran will not be able to gain control via the weight of numbers of Shia in Iraq. 2) The US is kept hoping on one foot.  Yet they actively crackdown on internal dissenter or insurgents that pop up on the radar so as to keep the American's somewhat appeased.
Iran on the other hand is a totally different kettle of fish.  The more radical of the elements (IRG) intend on establishing their view of life on everyone else a country at a time.

Heck the Germans sold weapons to Iraq (and the French) -- and the Canadian gov't sold a bunch of Twin Hueys (CH135 Iroquois)  to the Iranians a few years ago.  Selling weapons is hardly a measue of you countries posture to the other.


The more "extreme" members of the opposing sides believe that the side of the religion are heretics (and thus worse than Infidels).  Political dallying in the Muddle East cant be counted on 1)Everyone Hates Israel 2) Not really anyone likes the US -- they'd love to hate them -- but the US has a big stick...  3) They dont trust anyone.


IF/When the US pulls out or Iraq -- the sides of religion will be evident -- Syria and Saudi are on records they beleive they would have to move troops in to protect the Sunni's -- and Iran will move (more) troops in to prop up the Shia.
   Then there will be a bloodbath of epic scale - and the Kurds sitting back and banking money and building up their army with western support...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (6 Apr 2007)

> Then there will be a bloodbath of epic scale - and the Kurds sitting back and banking money and building up their army with western support...



Unless Turkey decides to move in and eliminate the Kurdish problem once and for all...


----------



## tomahawk6 (6 Apr 2007)

Watching the press conference this AM of 6 RM/RN personnel and one thing that struck me was how unprepared these personnel were for captivity. This episode shows that all personnel need to go through some form of SERE training. In captivity you have a duty to resist becoming part of the bad guys propaganda effort.At the same time you want to survive.Some people cannot handle the pressure and give in and many others find ways to get through captivity with honor.

The RN is reviewing its ROE. Evidently they could fire only in self defense. Initially they were stalled by 2 boats and 6 IRG personnel and were joined by 6 other boats to effect the capture.Due to the shallow water the Cornwall could not move closer to their position. I think  patrol craft need to be used in those waters otherwise the boarding parties have no backup.The USN only has the Cyclone Class type vessel and the lead ship has already been decommissioned.


----------



## observor 69 (6 Apr 2007)

To all the Royal Navy and Royal Marine hostages captured by the Iranians I say

"Bravo Zulu"  

A naval signal, conveyed by flaghoist or voice radio, meaning "Well Done"


----------



## Belce (6 Apr 2007)

Actually Syria's Baath party is majority composed of a Shia sect called Alawi.  The majority of people in Syria are Sunni, but they are ruled by Shite Muslims.  

For more info you can google alawi islam
or for a quick look
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/islam-alawi.htm


----------



## LakeSup (8 Apr 2007)

"Watching the press conference this AM of 6 RM/RN personnel and one thing that struck me was how unprepared these personnel were for captivity. This episode shows that all personnel need to go through some form of SERE training. In captivity you have a duty to resist becoming part of the bad guys propaganda effort.At the same time you want to survive.Some people cannot handle the pressure and give in and many others find ways to get through captivity with honor."
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The RN pers may not have had much indoc as POWs but the RMs likely did...pretty tough guys and tough training in the RM.
On another note, I just watched the Beltway Boys on FoxNews and they are really playing the Brits as cowards saying they embarrassed themselves by not pulling a "John McCain for as long as 10 min."  Also another show on the network commented on the Brits caving although they didn't use the word "cowards" amidst the eyerolls.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (8 Apr 2007)

WarmAndVertical said:
			
		

> "Watching the press conference this AM of 6 RM/RN personnel and one thing that struck me was how unprepared these personnel were for captivity. This episode shows that all personnel need to go through some form of SERE training. In captivity you have a duty to resist becoming part of the bad guys propaganda effort.At the same time you want to survive.Some people cannot handle the pressure and give in and many others find ways to get through captivity with honor."
> ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> The RN pers may not have had much indoc as POWs but the RMs likely did...pretty tough guys and tough training in the RM.
> On another note, I just watched the Beltway Boys on FoxNews and they are really playing the Brits as cowards saying they embarrassed themselves by not pulling a "John McCain for as long as 10 min."  Also another show on the network commented on the Brits caving although they didn't use the word "cowards" amidst the eyerolls.



Yeah nice way to treat your Allies. I treat this stuff the same as that earlier garbage in the NY Post as typical right wing BS....and as such worthy of being ignored.


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Apr 2007)

Here is a comment by one of the RM. Its all about the cash now and its not going over too well on arrse. Cant say that I disagree.



> One of the hostages, Dean Harris, 30, an acting sergeant in the Royal Marines, told a Sunday Times reporter yesterday: “I want £70,000. That is based on what the others have told me they have been offered. I know Faye has been offered a heck more than that. I am worth it because I was one of only two who didn’t crack.”


----------



## KevinB (8 Apr 2007)

Thats FUCKED -- 

Makes me want to puke who in their right mind wants a book on surrender and whining.


----------



## geo (8 Apr 2007)

Hmmm... if we pass the hat around, maybe we can buy him airfare to Teheran and he can be brave for a little while longer

However..............

Just heard on the CBC that the Brit MOD has decided that it is "okie dokie" for the sailors and marines to bare all....


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Apr 2007)

It's official - I now accept that I understand SFA.


----------



## Stoker (9 Apr 2007)

Here's the story

Britain gives seized sailors permission to sell their stories
From the Associated Press, Times Staff Writer
3:50 PM PDT, April 8, 2007 


LONDON -- The 15 British sailors and marines held by Iran for nearly two weeks have permission to sell their stories to the media, the Ministry of Defense said today, making an exception because of what it called "exceptional" interest.

Serving service personnel are usually not allowed to enter into financial arrangements with media organizations, but exceptions are allowed, the defense ministry said in a statement.

"It was clear that the stories they had to tell were likely to have emerged via family and friends regardless of any decision the navy took," the ministry statement said.

Lt. Felix Carman, who was in charge of the crew when it was seized by Iranian forces on March 23, told the British Broadcasting Corp. that he was uninterested in making money from his time in captivity.

"My main aim is to tell the story," he said. "There's some people who might be making money, but that's an individual's decision, that's very private, but that's not something that myself or many of the others will do," he told BBC.

After their release last week, the crew members told reporters in Britain they were subjected to constant psychological pressure in detention.

In an attempt to refute that claim, Iran broadcast new video Sunday showing some of the crew playing chess and watching television during their captivity.

Some of the footage, briefly aired on Iran's state-run Arabic satellite TV channel Al-Alam, also showed crew members watching soccer on TV and eating at a long table decorated with flowers. The crew members could be heard laughing and chatting.

A newscaster said the video proved "the sailors had complete liberty during their detention, which contradicts what the sailors declared after they arrived in Britain."

At a news conference Friday, Carman said the sailors and marines were only allowed to socialize for the benefit of the Iranian media.

British media regularly pay for high-profile interviews, but the decision to allow the crew to sell their stories has come under some criticism.

The opposition Conservative Party's defense spokesman, Liam Fox, said many people would feel that selling the stories was "somewhat undignified and falls below the very high standards we have come to expect from our servicemen and women."

William Hague, the party's foreign affairs spokesman, told Sky News his party would question the decision in Parliament.

Menezies Campbell, who leads the third party Liberal Democrats, told the BBC he was concerned there could be "inadvertent" leaks of sensitive information.

"And there is, of course, the very understandable feeling of the families of those who have died in Iraq as to why it should be that those who have survived should -- putting it bluntly -- profit in this way," he said.

The Sunday Times reported that the only woman in the group, 26-year-old Leading Seaman Faye Turney, could earn as much as $300,000 from deals with a broadcaster and a newspaper.

In all, the crew could earn as much as $490,000 between them, the paper said.

The defense ministry said it decided to give permission "in order to ensure that the navy and the MoD had sight of what they were going to say, as well as providing proper media support to the sailors and marines."

The statement said the decision was made "as a result of exceptional media interest."

The crew included seven Royal Marines, who have agreed to pool their fees and split them evenly, sending 10 percent to a military benevolent fund, both the Sunday Times and Sunday Telegraph said. The rest of the captured crew was made up of Royal Navy sailors, including Turney.

The sailors and marines were captured in the Persian Gulf on March 23 and freed last week by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who called their release a gift to Britain. They began two weeks of leave with their families on Saturday. 

Well I guess they can say whatever they want about their time in detention, its not like anybody can find out what really happened.


----------



## devil39 (9 Apr 2007)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> Show me another Shia majority that has closer relations with Iran than Syria does. I doubt you can. Sunni and Shia have nothing to do with Iran-Syria relations. The fact is that their relations are so close because they are two Arab nations who share common interests and are shunned by the USA. So please enlighten me on how my posting is "dumb" when all you've posted is a meaningless comparison.



Gimpy,

Your biggest misunderstanding here is that the Iranians are not an Arab nation.  Iranians are Persians... well 97 percent of them, and Arabs are Arabs.   Arabs are to Persians as the Mongols were to Chinese... English are to Spanish...


----------



## Marauder (9 Apr 2007)

So much for "Return With Honour"... While I deplore the fact that they are already licking the hand of the media whores, I still don't think anyone with two brain cells left thinks that any of the captives spilt their guts without a "bit" of coersion.


----------



## TCBF (9 Apr 2007)

If they were Canadians, they could claim they were tortured and collect $10,000,000 like Mahar Arar did.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (9 Apr 2007)

Manhattan District Attorney <a href="http://www.nbc.com/Law_&_Order/bios/bios_fred.shtml">Arthur Branch</a>, the next <a href="http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117608047503663677-WZrqXZL95sj7myO3fJrhc_Uvi9c_20070508.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top">President of the United States</a> has an <a href="http://www.redstate.com/stories/foreign_affairs/the_pirates_of_tehran">interesting take</a> on the bigger picture:





> *The Pirates of Tehran*
> By Fred Thompson
> 
> Oil prices fell. The stock market rose. Video images of smiling British soldiers with Iranian President Ahmadinejad were everywhere. So were pictures of the 15 freed hostages embracing family members back home. The relief over the return of the Brits was so tremendous; you could almost hear birds singing.
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 Apr 2007)

I have some hesitation, as a civilian who has never served in our military (but we do have a son in the CF), in mentioning this--in any case note the music in this guest-post at _Daimnation!_:

Shame reconsidered
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/009212.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Juvat (10 Apr 2007)

Stay tuned folks, Iran is coming up with a "truthful" documentary concerning these rescued members.  :

With the usual caveat....

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=29e1fd39-8739-4a0a-8d44-92ce11fe0264

Iran planning documentary on British 'confessions'
Reuters
Published: Tuesday, April 10, 2007
TEHRAN — Iran's armed forces are preparing to release a documentary and book about the detention and "confessions" of 15 British sailors and marines held captive in Iran, a military commander said today.

"A documentary about their arrest, interrogation and confessions ... is being prepared and soon it will hit the market," Commander Alireza Afshar, cited as deputy for "defense propaganda," said in a faxed statement.

Iran released the captives on Thursday, 13 days after surrounding their boats in what it said was its territory but Britain said was inside Iraqi waters.

In captivity, several of the Britons were shown on Iran's state television saying they were sorry for entering Iranian waters illegally. Afshar's statement did not say whether the documentary would contain any material not already shown.

The 14 servicemen and one woman said in a statement given at an official news conference after their return to England they had been blindfolded, bound, kept in isolation and threatened with up to seven years in jail.

Iran has dismissed the news conference as "propaganda."

"Instead of thanking and welcoming the Islamic Republic for its clemency in pardoning the sailors, the childish staged theatre ... once more displayed Britain's aggressive habit," Afshar said.

Britain's Ministry of Defence waived the rules this week barring serving military personnel from selling their stories to media because of huge public interest.

It revised that decision yesterday in the face of criticism, but not before several of the soldiers sold their stories. Afshar said letting the sailors profit from the situation was a "scandal" for the British army.

Reuters


----------



## geo (11 Apr 2007)

Ugh... I'd usually say that I will wait till it comes out in paperback
This time, I'll wait till it comes out in firewood.

Cheers!


----------



## TCBF (12 Apr 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Ugh... I'd usually say that I will wait till it comes out in paperback
> This time, I'll wait till it comes out in firewood.
> 
> Cheers!



- I'm with you on this one.

 8)


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Apr 2007)

Here's some more info from Amir Taheri on why those Brits might have been seized in the first place......the rest of the article is pretty good as well.  Basically it says that if Maliki has both the Yanks and Tehran angry with him he might be doing something right.    



> .....Despite months of pressure from Tehran, Maliki has also refused to scrap the maritime inspection mission of the coalition forces under a mandate from the United Nations Security Council.
> 
> (The 15 British sailors captured by Tehran last month were operating within that mission.)
> 
> ...



http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=8620

PS - still can't fathom the behaviour of the Brit captives or the MOD allowing them to sell their stories.....Oh well (maybe Scotland won't vote for sovereignty  :-\ )


----------



## observor 69 (13 Apr 2007)

I keep having this thought on the Brits selling their stories.

1. The Brits made a mess of properly protecting their personnel on boarding inspections. (They got captured.)

2. The Iranian government was playing this for political and PR gain.  They jerked the hostages around, trotting them out when it suited their purpose, and generally treated them like play things. 

This capture was not like a conventional war scenario. This was a CNN war.

At the end of the day if the hostages can get a few bucks out of it I feel like it's one way to jack up the Iranians and as the MOD originally said get the true story out.


----------



## Cloud Cover (13 Apr 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> If they were Canadians, they could claim they were tortured and collect $10,000,000 like Mahar Arar did.



Only if the MND and CDS delete the exculpatory emails from their BlackBerry's detailing how they accidently deployed them there in the first place.


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Apr 2007)

Here is the Queens Regulation regarding sale of stories. My reading of it is that if the article/story is done in your off duty time then you can sell the story and accept monies for same.



> From Queens Regulations.
> Annex A(J) to Chapter 12 and J12.022
> 
> Broadcasts by serving personnel acting as official spokesmen and speeches and lectures on official subjects will normally be undertaken as part of their official duty and, as such, covered by their Service pay; no question of extra payment to individuals will therefore arise. *If, however, all or part of the preparatory work and delivery of the broadcast, speech or lecture is done during the individual's off duty time he may retain the whole or part of any fees payable, as appropriate.* This provision also governs the retention of any fees payable for the writing of books or articles on official matters or involving material or experience. Details of any payments should be sent to the appropriate Public Relations or Publication Clearance authority (see Annex A to this Chapter) to consider what proportion should be credited to public funds.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Apr 2007)

So, when you're being detained by a foreign power are you "on duty" or "off duty"? Or are you "on duty" only when being interrogated or in front of the cameras and "off duty" when resting comfortably in your cell? How do you calculate the over-time?  Are the loot bags and free clothes to be retained by the detainees or are they the property of the Crown?   : :-\ ^-^

Amazing.


----------



## TCBF (21 Apr 2007)

One wonders if any of the memoires will contain the sentence:

 "But then the @#$%^ &*$$% in the ^^&&)#$# ship lost their fudge and didn't back us up.  Well, you can just imagine how that made us feel.  Do you think one minute that if the Iranians had gone after the mothership, that we would have sat on OUR butts and telephoned mommy in London asking for permission to look bloody stern about it?  Not bloodly likely, mate!  We would have rode in after them, no butts about it.  It's no wonder now that all of our boarding parties are cracking jokes about the 'spine' of the ship that's backing up THEIR arses: 'Best leave Taffy on the Bridge with an HK so they won't go all bloody wobbly on us'..."

Or words to that effect.

 ;D


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Apr 2007)

Believe it or not the sailor the Iranians called Mr Bean had taken his ipod along with him on the boarding party.


----------



## TCBF (21 Apr 2007)

Well, if ya get in the sh_t, it's allways nice to be able to chill to some BOC*, know what I mean?

 ;D


*"Blue Oyster Cult" for you young'uns , though I myself was a Zeppelin man working in a paper mill in 1973...


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Apr 2007)

With Leading Seaman Turney smoking on the in-run and Extremely Ordinary Seaman "Bean" listening to his IPod it might appear that the RN saw themselves more as Taxi-Drivers on this mission than as a part of a Fighting Patrol tasked with engaging the enemy.  That task could have been seen as the responsibility of the RM boarding party and nothing to do with the RN.  It appears as if the boarding craft were initially engaged while the Marines were still on board the principle target leaving the RN to guard the boarding craft.   It will still be interesting to discover why the Helicopter (Lynx?) recovered to the Mothership, apparently to the surprise of both the RN and RM on the boarding party


----------



## TCBF (21 Apr 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ...  It will still be interesting to discover why the Helicopter (Lynx?) recovered to the Mothership, apparently to the surprise of both the RN and RM on the boarding party.




- You do understatement oh so well!


----------



## 3rd Herd (21 Jul 2007)

and continuing.................

British map in Iran crisis 'inaccurate'
by Sophie Walker in London
July 22, 2007 03:49am
Article from: ReutersFont size: + -
Send this article: Print Email 
A BRITISH map of the northern Gulf where Iran seized 15 naval personnel in March was not as accurate as it should have been and Britain was fortunate Iran did not contest it, a review into the crisis said.

The parliamentary report also said Britain's Foreign Office should name the person who let two sailors sell their stories to the media, a decision widely criticised for handing a propaganda coup to Britain's enemies and embarrassing serving troops.

The report by the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) said the Foreign Office's overall approach could not be faulted, but it said efforts should have been made to contact key Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani sooner.

Iranian Revolutionary Guards seized 15 British personnel in the northern Gulf in March sparking a 13-day standoff that ended when Iran's President freed them, a day after Larijani spoke to a senior adviser to then Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Mr Larijani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, is regarded as a pragmatist more amenable to exploring a bargain with the West than hardliner President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. 

Britain first applied to speak to Mr Larijani seven days into the crisis.

Britain insists the personnel were in Iraqi territorial waters on a UN-backed mission when they were seized. 

Iran says the British sailors had strayed into its territory.

A British Ministry of Defence map published during the crisis showed a territorial water boundary extending from the Shatt al-Arab waterway that separates Iran and Iraq out to sea. 

However experts say no maritime boundary between the two countries has been agreed and the line was based on a 1975 land boundary that could have shifted over time if the centre of the waterway had moved due to natural causes.

“We conclude that there is evidence to suggest that the map of the Shatt al-Arab waterway provided by the Government was less clear than it ought to have been,” the report said. 

“The Government was fortunate that it was not in Iran's interests to contest the accuracy of the map.”



'Uncertainties'

Britain and Iran provided different coordinates for the location of the capture. 

The report did not make a definitive conclusion on the accuracy of the map or whether the sailors were in Iraqi or Iranian waters.

It quoted Martin Pratt, director of research at the International Boundaries Research Unit at Durham University, as saying that if the British coordinates were correct, it was difficult to see how Iran's claim could be legitimate.

“Nevertheless, there are sufficient uncertainties over boundary definition in the area to make it inadvisable to state categorically that the vessel was in Iraqi waters,” he was quoted as saying.

He said the map was “certainly an oversimplification” and could be regarded as “deliberately misleading”.

The Foreign Office said it was pleased the report praised its overall approach. 

It was considering some recommendations and leaving others for the Ministry of Defence to address. 

The Ministry of Defence also said it would study the report.

Compiled by members of parliament, the report said it was “wholly unsatisfactory” that a previous report into the affair had been unable to say who was responsible for authorising payment for the stories of the personnel after they were freed.

“We recommend ... the (Foreign and Commonwealth Office) set out who specifically took the decision to authorise the naval personnel to sell their stories to the media,” it said. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22114048-1702,00.html


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Jul 2007)

Let the slagging of the Royal Navy continue. Kind of like being flogged around the fleet, only in print.


----------



## geo (30 Jul 2007)

Hmmm... Inacurate maps....
Guess the RN buys from the same map supplier as the IDF (Israel) did for the Golan Heights area last summer.


----------

