• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

U.S. Sizing Up Iran?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Iggore said:
A contingency plan? Say, like for an emergency? WHY I NEVER!

The americans have such plans for every situations. As I understand it there's a contingency plan on the books in the Pentagon that details how they'll execute an amphibious landing in Norway in December in order to liberate it from Russian tank divisions. Just because there's a plan for it on the books doesn't necessarily indicate that anything is expected to come of it.

The BBC seem to publish them a lot. The US also has contingency plans to attack the UK, we'll probably hear about them again on the next really slow news day.

you can look at this in different ways: the leak of these plans is designed to readya domestic audience and to explain the conditions for an attack, it is designed to pressure the iranians by showing them them that we have a big stick and are prepared to use it, it is designed to notify international institutions of the conditions which america feels will justify military action or any combination of these.

we can't consider this just another contingency plan since its hyping appears to have been accepted by its authors. yes, they have plans for other contingencies involving other countries but the current scenario is akin to approaching a specific individual in a pub and telling them that if he causes trouble he'll get a swift beating and at the same time ignoring everyone else on the premises.
 
ted_bloody_maul said:
but the current scenario is akin to approaching a specific individual in a pub and telling them that if he causes trouble he'll get a swift beating and at the same time ignoring everyone else on the premises.

If the guy was really nasty and had been saying sh!t about you an your wife, no one except his best mates would mind if you kicked his head in or even used a bat, but if you walk into the pub and throw dynamite at him, folk will think you're worse than, him while they scrape all the blood and bone off themselves, while hoping he didn't have a blood borne disease.
 
Staff studies exist for many countries in many situations. It is a way to train staffs how to plan (keeps them busy when they have no real war to deal with).

I would suspect that the plan was leaked to put additional pressure on Iran. The Americans of course have a plan for attack, just like they do for most countries in the ME. I myself worked on the plans to secure western civilians out of the Gulf should those countries go into civil war- which involved invading the various countries and gathering up the expats before retreating. All planning.

The Iranians are playing the game poorly, by playing tough (like a tough guy confronted by the police who keeps his hand in his pocket and acts like he has a gun) The Iranians if they were really only interested in N for power would open up to UN inspection. The fact that they don't fans the flames.

I suspect that after the next session of meaningless sanctions the US will go for an Iranian oil embargo. Getting Saudi and UAE acceptance by negotiations and promising the UAE Abu Musa and the Thumbs back.
 
An interesting look at the contingency plans in this article, interesting use of the words near term in the title of the plans in question.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... cleId=4888



DUBAI, UAE, 21 February 2007. (revised 23 Feb 2007). Code named by US military planners as TIRANNT, "Theater Iran Near Term" has identified several thousand targets inside Iran as part of a "Shock and Awe" Blitzkrieg, which is now in its final planning stages.

According to the Kuwait-based Arab Times, an attack on Iran under TIRANNT could occur any time between late February and the end of April. This assessment, however, does not take into account the disarray of US ground forces in Iraq as well as the untimely withdrawal of several thousand British troops from the Iraq war theater, many of whom were stationed in Southern Iraq on the immediate border with Iran.

Revealed last April by William Arkin, a former US intelligence analyst, writing in the Washington Post, TIRANNT was first established in May 2003, following the invasion of Iraq.

"In early 2003, even as U.S. forces were on the brink of war with Iraq, the Army had already begun conducting an analysis for a full-scale war with Iran. The analysis, called TIRANNT, for "theater Iran near term," was coupled with a mock scenario for a Marine Corps invasion and a simulation of the Iranian missile force. U.S. and British planners conducted a Caspian Sea war game around the same time. And Bush directed the U.S. Strategic Command to draw up a global strike war plan for an attack against Iranian weapons of mass destruction. All of this will ultimately feed into a new war plan for "major combat operations" against Iran that military sources confirm now exists in draft form. [This contingency plan entitled CONPLAN 8022 would be activated in the eventuality of a Second 9/11, on the presumption that Iran would be behind it]

... Under TIRANNT, Army and U.S. Central Command planners have been examining both near-term and out-year scenarios for war with Iran, including all aspects of a major combat operation, from mobilization and deployment of forces through postwar stability operations after regime change." (William Arkin, Washington Post, 16 April 2006)

The 2003 decision to target Iran under TIRANNT should come as no surprise. It is part of the broader military roadmap. Already during the Clinton administration, US Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated in 1995 "in war theater plans" to invade first Iraq and then Iran.

"The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President's National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman's National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command's theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM's theater strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States' vital interest in the region - uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil."

(USCENTCOM, http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/c ... m#USPolicy , emphasis added)

First Iraq, then Iran

Consistent with CENTCOM's 1995 "sequencing" of theater operations, the plans to target Iran were activated under TIRANNT in the immediate wake of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Confirmed by Arkin, the active component of the Iran military agenda was launched in May 2003 "when modelers and intelligence specialists pulled together the data needed for theater-level (meaning large-scale) scenario analysis for Iran." (Arkin, op cit). In October 2003, different theater scenarios for an Iran war were contemplated:

"The US army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared battle plans and spent four years building bases and training for "Operation Iranian Freedom". Admiral Fallon, the new head of US Central Command, has inherited computerized plans under the name TIRANNT (Theatre Iran Near Term)." (New Statesman, 19 Feb 2007)

Concurrently, the various parallel components of TIRANNT were put in place including the Marines "Concept of Operations":

"The Marines, meanwhile, have not only been involved in CENTCOM's war planning, but have been focused on their own specialty, "forcible entry." In April 2003, the Corps published its "Concept of Operations" for a maneuver against a mock country that explores the possibility of moving forces from ship to shore against a determined enemy without establishing a beachhead first. Though the Marine Corps enemy is described only as a deeply religious revolutionary country named Karona, it is -- with its Revolutionary Guards, WMD and oil wealth -- unmistakably meant to be Iran.

Various scenarios involving Iran's missile force have also been examined in another study, initiated in 2004 and known as BMD-I (ballistic missile defense -- Iran). In this study, the Center for Army Analysis modeled the performance of U.S. and Iranian weapons systems to determine the number of Iranian missiles expected to leak through a coalition defense.

Military planners are said to favor the use of conventional weapons. The use of tactical nuclear weapons, which are now part of the Middle East war theater arsenal, are not explicitly contemplated, at least in the first round of the US sponsored Blitzkrieg. However, the fact that nuclear weapons are acknowledged as a possible choice in the conventional war theater is indicative that their use is an integral part of military planning.

In November 2004, US Strategic Command conducted a major exercise of a "global strike plan" entitled "Global Lightening". The latter involved a simulated attack using both conventional and nuclear weapons against a "fictitious enemy" [Iran]. Following the "Global Lightening" exercise, US Strategic Command declared an advanced state of readiness.

In this context, CONPLAN is the operational plan pursuant to the Global Strike Plan. It is described as "an actual plan that the Navy and the Air Force translate into strike package for their submarines and bombers,'

CONPLAN 8022 is 'the overall umbrella plan for sort of the pre-planned strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.'

'It's specifically focused on these new types of threats -- Iran, North Korea -- proliferators and potentially terrorists too,' he said. 'There's nothing that says that they can't use CONPLAN 8022 in limited scenarios against Russian and Chinese targets.' (According to Hans Kristensen, of the Nuclear Information Project, quoted in Japanese economic News Wire, op cit)

The use of tactical nuclear weapons is contemplated under CONPLAN 8022 alongside conventional weapons, as part of the Bush administration's preemptive war doctrine. In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 35 entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization was issued. While its contents remains classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in compliance with CONPLAN 8022.

:twisted: :twisted:
 
TIRANNT is a homophone of Tyrant - is the cosmic joker trying to tell us something about US policy here? 8)
 
US accused of Iran bomb plan


President George Bush has charged the Pentagon with devising an expanded bombing plan for Iran that can be carried out at 24 hours' notice, it was reported yesterday.

An extensive article in the New Yorker magazine by the investigative journalist Seymour Hersh describes the contingency bombing plan as part of a general overhaul by the Bush administration of its policy towards Iran.

It said a special planning group at the highest levels of the US military had expanded its mission from selecting potential targets connected to Iranian nuclear facilities, and had been directed to add sites that may be involved in aiding Shia militant forces in Iraq to its list.

That new strategy, intended to reverse the rise in Iranian power that has been an unintended consequence of the war in Iraq, could bring the countries much closer to open confrontation and risks igniting a regional sectarian war between Shia and Sunni Muslims, the New Yorker says.

Elements of the tough new approach towards Tehran outlined by Hersh include: Clandestine operations against Iran and Syria, as well as the Hizbullah movement in Lebanon - even to the extent of bolstering Sunni extremist groups that are sympathetic to al-Qaida Sending US special forces into Iranian territory in pursuit of Iranian operatives, as well as to gather intelligence Secret operations are being funded by Saudi Arabia to avoid scrutiny by Congress. 'There are many, many pots of black money, scattered in many places and used all over the world on a variety of missions,' Hersh quotes a Pentagon consultant as saying.

As in the run-up to the Iraq war, the vice-president, Dick Cheney, has bypassed other administration officials to take charge of the aggressive new policy, working along with the deputy national security adviser, Elliott Abrams, and the former ambassador to Kabul and Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad.

Mr Cheney is also relying heavily on Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi national security adviser, who spent 22 years as ambassador to the US, and who has been offering his advice on foreign policy to Mr Bush since he first contemplated running for president.

The New Yorker revelations, arriving soon after Mr Cheney reaffirmed that war with Iran remained an option if it did not dismantle its nuclear programme, further ratcheted up fears of a military confrontation between Washington and Tehran.

Such concerns deepened further with the warning from the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that there could be no stopping or rolling back of his country's nuclear programme. 'The train of the Iranian nation is without brakes and a rear gear,' Iranian radio reported Mr Ahmadinejad as saying.

Hersh, who made his reputation by breaking the story of the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam war, was among the first US journalists to report on the prison abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib. Although the most explosive material was supplied by unnamed sources, his status in US journalism made his latest report an immediate talking point on yesterday's TV chatshows.

His assertion that the Bush administration was actively preparing for an attack on Iran was denied by the Pentagon. 'The United States is not planning to go to war with Iran. To suggest anything to the contrary is simply wrong, misleading and mischievous,' the Pentagon spokesman, Bryan Whitman, told reporters.

Hersh was just as adamant. 'This president is not going to leave office without doing something about Iran,' he told CNN. Hersh claims that the former director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, resigned his post to take a parallel job as the deputy director of the state department because of his discomfort with an approach that so closely echoed the Iran-contra scandal of the 1980s.

In seeking to contain Iranian influence - and that of its most powerful protege, the Hizbullah leader, Hassan Nasrallah - the US has worked with the governments of Saudi Arabia and Israel. Both countries see a powerful Iran as an existential threat, and the Saudis suspect Tehran's hand behind rising sectarian tensions in its eastern province, as well as a spate of bombing attacks inside the kingdom.

One prime arena for the new strategy is Lebanon where the administration has been trying to prop up the government of Fouad Siniora, which faces a resurgent Hizbullah movement in the aftermath of last summer's war with Israel.

Some of the billions of aid to the Beirut government has ended up in the hands of radical Sunnis in the Beka'a valley, Hersh writes. Syrian extremist groups have also benefited from the new policy. 'These groups, though small, are seen as a buffer to Hizbullah; at the same time, their ideological ties are with al-Qaida,' Hersh writes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0, ... ss&feed=12

link to the new yorker article

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/a ... fact_hersh
 
Looks like there may be some top level yanks with a conscience

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 434540.ece

SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.

“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”

A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.

The Iranian paradox: to gain victory the West must first concede defeat
“There are enough people who feel this would be an error of judgment too far for there to be resignations.”

A generals’ revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented. “American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,” said a Pentagon source. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders.

The threat of a wave of resignations coincided with a warning by Vice-President Dick Cheney that all options, including military action, remained on the table. He was responding to a comment by Tony Blair that it would not “be right to take military action against Iran”.

It takes some guts to abandon a post military career in the arms manufacturing industry, and bliar pulls his tongue out of wuh's arse for long enough to speak against the attack, I wonder how much leverage he has.
 
Iran in rocket claims


Iran boasted that it had fired its first rocket into space yesterday in a move likely to set alarm bells ringing in the West.

The same technology could be used to build ballistic missiles capable of reaching Britain - which Iranian hardliners demonise as the 'little Satan' to distinguish it from the 'Great Satan' America.President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran's atomic drive was like a 'train with no brakes'. If confirmed, the launch could 'destabilise' the Middle East, Britain's former ambassador to Iraq Sir Richard Dalton told the BBC.Iran's claim came on the eve of today's emergency meeting in London of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany to discuss expanding sanctions after Tehran flouted last week's deadline to suspend uranium enrichment.

http://www.dailysnack.co.uk/news_article.html?fSKU=6002

He also remarked that this train has 'no reverse gear'. When he starts quoting Tony Blair i don't know whether to worry about him talking piss or warm to him for taking the piss.
 
The spin I watched on CNN about this, whinging that Iran would be able to use this tech to bomb the US was ridiculous because it wasn't a space rocket that could be adapted for war, it was a ballistic missile that had been adapted to put a payload in orbit, they've had ballistic missiles for years. ;)
 
Interesting to read Zbigniew's view.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... cleId=4920

The National Security Advisor to former President Carter testified before the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on 1 Feb 2007. Dr.Zbigniew Brzezinski delivered a scathing assessment of the core mistakes made by the Bush administration in the Middle East. Just before describing what he termed the mythical historical narrative of the policy, he offered a scenario that the Bush administration might use as a convenient invitation to attack Iran.

War may result from Iraqi failures at governance attributed to Iranian interference followed “…by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a ‘defensive’ U.S. military action against Iran…” The “act” would lead to a “lonely America” into a conundrum of conflict across Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Further isolation and estrangement from the world would be the end game for the United States.

18 Fateful Words


a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran
Brzezinski doesn’t waste any time setting off his own fire works. This phrase appears in the third paragraph (see full text below). He posits a possible justification for attacking Iran; clearly outside the bounds of rationality and built upon a foundation of myths.

Look at the use of “terrorist act in the U.S.” in the context of his prepared statement:


If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.. (.pdf of Brzezinski’s testimony)

Note: The emphasis by underlining and the use of quotation marks around defensive is found in the original copy and presumed to be that of Dr. Brzezinski.

The remarkable wording is that Iran is “blamed.”

“…blamed on Iran…” Does that mean that they did it?

Brzezinski refers to “a ‘defensive’ U.S. military action” adding emphasis and meaning by the use of quotation marks highlighting defensive. This answers the question about Iran’s blame in the scenario. The quotation marks around defensive indicate something other than that. This defines the meaning of “blamed” as somewhat akin to saying Iran would be the patsy, fall guy, or stooge for whoever actually committed the act.

Brzezinski’s prepared testimony is a chilling and highly evocative analysis offered by a major player in the U.S. foreign policy establishment. Before serving in the Carter administration, he was the first director of the Trilateral Commission. This isn’t speculation by an outsider supporting human rights or a peace activist, its insider information from the highest level of the United States foreign policy establishment.

Shortly after testifying Brzezinski was approached by Barry Grey, reporter for the World Socialist Web. Grey recounts the exchange:


Q: Dr. Brzezinski, who do you think would be carrying out this possible provocation?
A: I have no idea. As I said, these things can never be predicted. It can be spontaneous.
Q: Are you suggesting there is a possibility it could originate within the US government itself?
A. I’m saying the whole situation can get out of hand and all sorts of calculations can produce a circumstance that would be very difficult to trace.

“I have no idea” in response to the “provocation” is certainly not comforting since it implies the blaming of Iran would be arbitrary. Brzezinski’s answers above indicate that the terrorist act “can be spontaneous” or “the whole situation can get out of hand and all sorts of calculations” can lead to the act. At one end of the spectrum of anti U.S. terrorist acts, we have something totally random which the administration grabs and runs with as an excuse for war. At the other end, we have out of control “calculations” which at the extreme might be taken to include something like Operation Northwoods given the absence of a denial to Grey’s assertion in the second question above.

The plan swings into action…blaming Iran


Gates Says Bombs Tie Iran to Iraq Extremists
Lolita Baldor Associated Press 9 Feb 2007

MUNICH, Germany (Feb. 9) - Serial numbers and other markings on bombs suggest that Iranians are linked to deadly explosives used by Iraqi militants, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday in some of the administration's first public assertions on evidence the military has collected.

Just a week after Brzezinski outlined the modus operandi for the Bush crew, the supposed voice of reason at the Pentagon is selling a story of Iranian subversion. Trying it out on the road in Munich, Germany before the homeland premier, Gates indicated that weapons were found with Iranian serial numbers.



U.S. Secretary of Defense
Robert Gates on his European tour.

"I think there's some serial numbers, there may be some markings on some of the projectile fragments that we found" that point to Iran, he said.

Gates' remarks left unclear how the U.S. knows the serial numbers are traceable to Iran and whether such weapons would have been sent to Iraq by the Iranian government or by private arms dealers.


Compare Gates’ tentative assertion to this whopper used to justify Gulf War I: “They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die” said the Kuwaiti Ambassador’s daughter, who, by the way, had never seen anything of the sort. Gates’ tentative serial number claim is no way to whip up war fever. Even the AP reporter bluntly questioned his ability to know just what it is about those serial numbers that gives them that tell-tale Iranian look.

So it begins - the rationale for war. The political basis for this scenario explains why the tactics must, of necessity, be so completely inept.

“…9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor…”

After defining the specific dangers from the ill begotten Bush tactics, Brzezinski unveils the mythology that justifies the rush to war.


A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD's in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the “decisive ideological struggle" of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America's involvement in World War II. (Author’s emphasis)

This short paragraph is the epitaph for the widely rejected neoconservative policies adopted by the White House. One can only wonder if the last line of the paragraph is a reference to the often quoted line from the Project for a New American Century anticipating the arrival of the brave new world of United States dominance. That PNAC goal will evolve slowly “…absent some catastrophic and crystallizing event – like a new Pearl Harbor” (p. 51).

Corporate Media Response

Reporter Grey complained vigorously about the lack of corporate media coverage for this testimony. This is one of the minor ironies of this event – a Socialist writer advocating for wide spread coverage of one of the most ardent anti-Communists of our time.

The silence was quickly broken when Barry Schweid of the Associated Press covered the story on the same day of the hearing, 01 Feb:


Brzezinski set out as a plausible scenario for military collision: Iraq fails to meet benchmarks set by the U.S., followed by accusations that Iran is responsible for the failure and then a terrorist act or some provocation blamed on Iran. This scenario, he said, would play out with a defensive U.S. military action against Iran.

They included “blamed” on Iran. The only less than representative element is the absence of quotation marks around defensive to imply something other than real defense. Banner headlines would have helped also.

The AP article appeared on MSNBC’s web page, in the Guardian, and other media outlets.

The St. Petersburg Times (Times Wires) story on 2 Feb completes the process AP began and clearly represents the testimony:


While other former U.S. officials and ex-generals have criticized administration policy in committee hearings, none savaged it to the degree Brzezinski did. He set out as a plausible scenario for military collision: Iraq fails to meet benchmarks set by the administration, followed by accusations Iran is responsible for the failure, then a terrorist act or some provocation blamed on Iran, and culminating in so-called defensive U.S. military action against Iran. (Author’s emphasis)

This clearly represents the most provocative statement in the testimony. It places the former national security advisor at the head of a pack of distinguished critics. This isn’t headline news yet but in just 72 hours we have an honest reading of the implication that a “so-called defensive…action” will arise from a terrorist act of questionable origin.

Now it’s time for the White House Press Corp to move in and fully expose the story:

Mr. President, what do you think of a former National Security Advisor Brzezinski’s claim that you’re cooking up a war with Iran based on a questionable terrorist act?
 
I hope this guy's a man of honour.

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/US_militar ... 72007.html

[/quote]The head of the US military declared "categorically" Tuesday that the United States is not planning air strikes against Iran.

"It is not true," said General Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, when asked during an appearance in Congress about suggestions that the US military was preparing to launch air strikes on Iran.

Asked by Senator Robert Byrd if he was categorically denying the reports, Pace replied: "Categorically sir".

US Vice President Dick Cheney fueled concerns about possible US military strikes against Iran over the weekend by saying that "all options are still on the table" to deal with Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program.

There have also been reports in the US media that the Pentagon has been doing contingency planning for military action, possibly including air strikes on nuclear sites around Iran.

But senior officials have stressed publicly that Washington remains committed to using diplomacy to convince Iran to comply with a UN resolution calling on it to suspend uranium enrichment activities some believe are a precursor to producing atomic weapons
 
(Could it be a case of Four Years On: Don't Watch Iraq, Watch Iran?)

UK sailors captured at gunpoint

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.

continues

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6484279.stm
 
Marine commandos, no doubt on a sabotage mission behind the future enemy lines.
 
crunchy5 said:
Marine commandos, no doubt on a sabotage mission behind the future enemy lines.

I'd say it's a possibilty, perhaps even a likelihood but i wouldn't suggest there's no doubt about it though.
 
ted_bloody_maul said:
crunchy5 said:
Marine commandos, no doubt on a sabotage mission behind the future enemy lines.

I'd say it's a possibilty, perhaps even a likelihood but i wouldn't suggest there's no doubt about it though.


They're not there for the sun, tbh I agree with you, my post wasn't entirely serious, I've highlighted the none serious parts. If they didn't want to be there they could've taken a leaf out of those Scots soldiers book and got caught doing drugs.
 
I say that Iran returns them (with a short deadline) or the UK nuke Iran cities to glass.

for starters.
 
ruffready said:
I say that Iran returns them (with a short deadline) or the UK nuke Iran cities to glass.

for starters.

That's the thing, we can't , because the yanks provide us with the targeting ability on our "independent" nuke force, so to do so we'd have to be doing your bidding yet again.

Anyway they're our guys why do you care I've never met a UK service man who didn't hold the US armed forces in contempt.
 
http://tinyurl.com/35w37z

AMMAN, Jordan: The waters where Iranian navy forces seized a group of British sailors and marines are near an area long contested by Iran and Iraq — just outside the mouth of a muddy, 200 kilometer (125-mile)-long channel that separates the Arab and Persian worlds.

The neighbors don't even agree what to call it. For the Iranians, it is Arvandrud, or Arvand River. To the Iraqis, it is the Shatt al-Arab, or Arab coastline.

Whatever the name, the waterway is formed by the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, which join at the Iraqi town of Qurnah and flow into the Persian Gulf — providing Iraq's only outlet to the sea.

Iranians and Iraqis have been squabbling over the waterway since before the creation of modern Iran and Iraq.

In 1639, the Persians and Ottomans signed an agreement dividing the territory, but without a careful land survey. Bickering continued for centuries, with Iraq claiming the entire waterway right up to the Iranian shorelin
In 1975, however, the two countries signed a treaty recognizing the middle of the waterway as the international boundary. Five years later, Saddam Hussein tore up the treaty and invaded Iran, unleashing a devastating eight-year war.

Much of the fighting centered around the waterway. When the Iranians captured the Faw Peninsula on the southern end of the channel in 1987, Iraq lost its shipping lanes and had to turn to Kuwait and Jordan for help in exporting its products.

A United Nations peacekeeping force was stationed along the Iran-Iraq border after the war ended, from 1988-1991, with naval personnel in the waterway.

British forces overran the area in the early days of the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam and quickly reopened the port of Umm Qasr. Virtually all of Iraq's oil is exported through an oil terminal near the mouth of the waterway.

In June 2004, six British marines and two sailors were seized by Iran there. They were presented blindfolded on Iranian television and admitted entering Iranian waters illegally, then released unharmed after three days.

Today, the U.N. says it is not involved in any border disputes between the countries.

"It is up to each country to decide their borders," said Farhan Haq, a U.N. spokesman. "The United Nations does not draw borders. What the recognized borders are in that waterway is the decision of Iran and Iraq."

But Tehran and the new Iraqi government have never signed a treaty to replace the Shah of Iran's agreement with Saddam, meaning control of the waterway remains a matter of dispute, said Lawrence G. Potter, an associate professor of international affairs at Columbia University.

"The problem is that nobody knows where the border is," Potter said. "The British might have thought they were on their side, the Iranians might have thought they were on their side."

For the Iranians, who have a much longer coastline, exercising their claims to the area is both emotional and strategic. The Iranian cities of Abadan and Khorramshahr lie along the waterway.

Michael O'Hanlon, senior fellow of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution, said the Iranian interest in defending its claims explains the move against the British.

"The only reason they would do what they've done is to show that they feel strongly about those waters," he said. "This is the sort of thing they will want to ratchet down very quickly."

The sailors' commander said they were patrolling Iraqi waters, on the Iraqi government's behalf.

Shibley Telhami, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said that he doubted that the Iranians would risk harming their relationship with the Iraqi government over the waterways.

"There's always been a dispute about where the line is, but it returned to status quo since the end of the war in 1988," said Telhami. "They have a good relationship with the Iraqi government right now, so it would be surprising if they wanted to open border issues with them at this point."

With tensions high over Iran's refusal to halt uranium enrichment, and recent U.S. detentions of Iranians in Iraq, Potter said, Iran may have found a way to assert itself internationally without provoking serious repercussions.

___
 
Way to rule the waves! Isn't this the second such incident?
 
LIVING ON A THIN LINE- The Kinks


All the stories we've been told of kings and days of old

But there's no England now (there's no England now)

All the wars that were won and lost

Somehow don't seem to matter very much anymore

All the lies we were told (all the lies we were told)

All the lives of the people running round and castles that burned

Now I see change but inside we're the same as we ever were


Living on a thin line oooohh tell me now what are we supposed to do?

Living on a thin line oooohh tell me now what are we supposed to do?

Living on a thin line, living this way, each day's a dream

What am I, what are we supposed to do?

Living on a thin line, oooohh tell me now what are we supposed to do?


Now another century nearly gone (gone, gone)

What are we gonna leave for the young?

What we couldn't do, or what we wouldn't do, disappoint but does it matter?

Does it matter much, does it matter much to you?

Does it ever really matter? Yes, it really really matters!

Living on a thin line oooohh tell me now what are we supposed to do?
Living on a thin line oooohh tell me now what are we supposed to do?


Then another (leave us cents), break their hearts and break some heads

Is there nothing we can say or do?

Blame the future on the past, always lost in bloody guts

And when they're gone it tears you

Living on a thin line oooohh tell me now what are we supposed to do?
Living on a thin line oooohh tell me now what are we supposed to do?

Living on a thin line oooohh
 
Espionage? Hahahaha! This is hilarious!

Anyway, this will be resolved through conventional diplomatic channel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top