British Sailors Captured By Iran

Remove all ads!

15 men from the Royal Navy and Royal Marines have been captured in Iraqi waters by Iranian forces.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6484279.stm

Let's hope they're all released safely. The Falklands proved that if Britain is provoked, it will respond and wars have been started over less.

Wonder what effect this will have on the potential for war with Iran when the dust settles.

 

Hope they get home safely.

Say... isn't this political?

 

Now thats not conclusive yet , either way is Iran just trying to isolate itself from world politics any way it can? The marines will probably be released but probably not till they've been paraded round on televesion for a week like the last time. I swear Iran has set itself to self destruct mode with such a reckless and agressive foreign policy.

 

Iran says it's Iranian waters. Supposedly, the sailors and marines have admitted this. Weird, some 3 years ago there was an almost mirror case.

Hopefully it'll be resolved peacefully. I think it may be because Iran and Iraq might have unresolved border issues from the war and there's no clarity on where the border is.

 

Is Iran just being stupid or flexing its muscles? Pushing Bush is one thing but Britain? Not wise that could really annoy people. I hope the sailors are return quickly and without incident.

 

Yeah, I wouldn't trust something a prisoner of Iran says THAT much.

 

As for the Brits, poor lads. I have little doubt they were indeed only searching for smugglers, or rather, were doing border reconaissance. It is possible that the Iranian revolutionary guards, more in tune with Ahmedinejad's hardline stance, have been (over)zealous and simply snatched them to make a point, get a bargaining chip, or to embarass the UK.

The bargaining chip consideration makes some sense. The Iranians might want to use them as a bargaining chip to get back Irania diplomats the US arrested in Iraq. Arresting diplomats is an unfriendly act, and the Iranians will have wanted to retaliate.
According to Seymour Hersh the US and the Brits have been playing games with Iran for a long time, including incursions of special forces for intelligence gathering and the like. They have been doing it themselves and through proxies, like the MEK, Beluchi tribesmen or others. Sending your troops into a foreign country's territory is technically an act of war.

The Iranians have been rather restrained in their response. The border between Iraq and Iran is not clearly defined, especially in the Shat al Arab region where tides, islets and shifting sandbanks make navigation difficult. The Iranians might well be right. One advantage of the geography is that it would allow for a face saving solution for both sides: A navigation error, and a misunderstanding.

Interestingly, I think it will not really embarass the UK if Iran tries to play games over these soldiers, in the West it will with high probability isolate Iran further. If there are Iranian intentions in this direction, expect an internal Iranian power struggle over the decision. Just like in D.C. - realists versus ideologues.

 

looks like it was a well laid trap to me, bad move.

 

Nah... This isn't the first time such a thing has happened, it'll be resolved soon enough.

 

Well the Iranians swear blind the captured party was in Iranian waters, however Iran refuses to accept the technically correct borders of the area. So whether the Iranians swear the British were in what they consider to be Iranian waters could well be a different to which waters the British were officially in. Either way like Ragusa said its a very over zealous response and Iran cant be doing itself any favours at all by this.

 

Times story on previous capture of Iranians in Iraq:

So Iran has uses members of its Revolutionary Guards as diplomats? I've heard of 'gunboat diplomacy' but infantry diplomacy? And here I wondered why people were feeling so alienated by that nation...

I'd say that this is one of the gambits being put forth by bickering factions in the Iranian gov't; another is to strengthen their contested claim to the waterway.

Welcome to international diplomacy. Based on Iran's previous stance with other nations, it can hardly hold a state dinner and shmooze representatives of relevant governments into thinking their way; you can only play the cards in your hand...

 

Apparently they no longer trust the UN with such things. If Hans Blix had been more forceful in the discharge of his duties, then maybe Iraq would have been brought to heel faster. But Hans Blix was delayed how many times? Given enough time (advanced notice and/or stalling tactics), even the biggest drug den can havv all their "stuff" flushed or re-located by the time the cops manage to search the place...

The UN dropped the ball, so a couple nations are taking it upon themselves to get this intelligence.

 

Seems I was right and that the Iranian hardliners indeed want to trade the Brits for their captured spies in Iraq.

 

The Falklands proved something?

The entire affair mainly pointed out the shortfalls of the Royal Navy. Britain is certainly not capable of taking on Iran without the US support (and the US in not in a position to help much right now).

Iran and Britian have traditionally been on reasonable terms with each other (as reasonable as Iran can be), hopefully a diplomatic solution will be forthcoming.

 

im going to disagree with you on that, britain wouldnt be able to hold Iran, but i dont think that would be the plan, britain is certainly capable of destroying Irans war machine and infastructure

 

What makes you think that? I'd say we'd absolutely trounce them. They don't have the technology, training nor funding to be able to compete with Britain. The US would probably just get in the way with their gung-ho attitude. You can back us up financially if you want, but I'd really prefer that the US not get involved in a war with again, unless we're really desperate.

Hey, we won the Falklands didn't we, and achieved our objectives? Which is more than you can say for the US in the only war they've done on their own, Vietnam .

Why on Earth would be want to do that? There's no big ass tyrant to overthrow and protect the country from. If we went to war with Iran, it would just be a good old fashioned lesson. Give them a 'don't dare do that again' arse kicking, then come home. We won't go to war though, it's pointless, pointless, pointless and Blair is on his way out anyway.

[ March 26, 2007, 20:10: Message edited by: Barmy Army ]

 

Hmm.... it seems a few our UK SP'ers here have never been in the Persian Gulf or transited the Straits of Hormuz.

Bit of background: As a ship transits through the Straits of Hormuz a passing glance on the right reveals a few heavily defended missile sites. These sites don't house the little Exocet missile with it's puny 165 kg warhead (like the one that sank the HMS Sheffield) -- noooo, Mr Bond, these have 1,000 kg warheads which are designed to rip tankers and mini-carriers (like the HMS Illustrious) in half. These missile sites are protected by an Air Force that actually has runways much closer than 300 miles away (which was a luxury Argentina did not have). In this area of the Persian Gulf a single large tanker (or aforementioned mini-carrier) will completely block the channel and no sea traffic will go in or out of the Persian Gulf (that includes oil for Britain bought from Kuwait).

Of course, sinking a ship will require salvage ships (roughly the size of tankers) to come in and remove the two halves of the ship unable to get out of the way of the Mach 2 monster missile launched from less than 20 miles away (which struck the hapless vessel approximately one minute after launch). Iran will naturally allow the salvage ships to do the job and not launch more missiles at such fat and tempting targets.

I think the British can't take the Iranians because I understand the technology the Royal Navy has AND the technology Iran has. I don't think the Royal Navy has the ability to project force necessary to neutralize the fairly sizable Iranian Air Force (fortunately their F-14's don't work, but they have some planes that can easily match the Harrier in a dog fight). Iran has excellent pilots -- very well trained, with the best equipment money can buy. They also have the best patrol boat fleet in the world (which is perfect for defending their coast) and even a couple of submarines. Not to mention thousands and thousands of mines.

 

What? The Brits still use Harriers as their main attack plane? That can't be possible. Those things were initially designed back in the 60s. I know that they were still being built long after the 60s were over, but I find it hard to believe that the Brits are still using an attack plane design (even if heavily upgraded since its inception) that is close to 50 years old.

 

Of course they still use the Harrier (it's now called the Joint Force Harrier) -- it's the primary combat aircraft for their carriers. It's also still used by the US Marines who affectionately call it the 1st Lieutenant Killer.

 

Well of course the design isn't the same as then, Aldeth. Use your box. That's a bit like saying 'I can't believe people still drive Ford! They've been going since 1903!' The British army is horribly underrated. The SAS are the words best trained soldiers, and overall, our soldiers are the best trained and most disciplined. We have the same technology the US have, as we are bum buddies. After all the bloody backup we've given those guys, I'm sure they'd lend us a few tanks, boats or planes. Maybe they'd be a few less friendly fire incidents if our boys we're piloting the things, too. Our main drawback is lack of funding, but I'm sure we can still pump more cash into our forces than Iran can. They've hardly got a world renowned economy have they. Ah, come on Bruno, you're a bit anti-Britain I know, but there's no way we'd lose in a war with Iran. Give us some credit.