• 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:
Espionage? Hahahaha! This is hilarious!

Anyway, this will be resolved through conventional diplomatic channel.

I don't think there's anything unreasonable in thinking that this could be espionage or a deliberate attempt to provoke. If we assume that other countries are prone to this and we believe that they are pose a realistic threat at some point in the near future then it's not only imaginable but justifiable. As some of the recent responses on this thread have shown it's not inconceivable that some of us in the US and UK are actually expecting, perhaps even hoping for, confrontation.
 
Yeah, what can a bunch of sailors spy on that a recon plane, a drone or a satelite can't do, eh? What spying is there to do on the border of iranian territorial water?

If your country was in the middle of an international crisie where war is a possible outcome, the last thing you'd want to do is is to increase tentions by capturing foreign military personnel. Indead, what stopped the iranians from simply driving the british boat out of their territory? Why are they so keen on judging them for spying, where the sentence can even be death, after barely 2 days of captivity?

In light of this, its also possible to make the case that Iran is trying to provoke Britain in a diplomatic confrontation where they will likely back down to humiliate them.
 
Iggore said:
If your country was in the middle of an international crisie where war is a possible outcome, the last thing you'd want to do is is to increase tentions by capturing foreign military personnel.

Isn't that pretty much what the Americans just did by arresting the Iranians in Iraq?
 
The iranian consulate was apparently mingling with the insurgency by supporting the shiits with cash and intelligence. This is pretty equivalent to a cover proxy war by Iran against the Coalition. Thats different from what the british boat did, which is apparently guilty of spying on the iranian coast with a pair of binoculars.
 
Iggore said:
Thats different from what the british boat did, which is apparently guilty of spying on the iranian coast with a pair of binoculars.
Boats not boat. And they'd just finished investigating a ship suspected of smuggling goods to Iraq.

It's not clear where HMS Cornwall (the mother ship) was at the time - presumably not that far away - but the Iranian pirates weren't going to tackle a warship.

There's a lot we don't know, but it looks like Iran is shit-stirring, maybe to get the prisoners back from the Americans.
 
Concern and hope on HMS Cornwall
By Ian Pannell
BBC News, HMS Cornwall in the Gulf

The thing about extraordinary days is how they invariably start out in a routine fashion. Friday on board HMS Cornwall was one of those days.

The Royal Navy and the Royal Marines, together with American, Australian and Iraqi support, patrol some of the most important waterways in the world. Their mission is to protect the oil terminals that effectively keep Iraq's economy afloat.

Precise figures are rare but oil exports account for as much as 90% of Iraq's GDP.

Just the day before, we watched the sailors and marines stop and search suspicious-looking boats, and we talked to them about the lives and families they had left behind in Britain.

One young sailor told me about the guilt of leaving home and the agony of trying to be a good parent and a good sailor.

They talked about lifelong ambitions to go to sea. There was agreement that, although the work was hard, morale was high.

Many of the team we spoke to that day would be captured at gunpoint less than 24 hours later.

Friday began the same way as the day before. The helicopter took off and the two black inflatable boats and their crew were put to sea, on the same routine patrols we had seen.

We were on the deck of the Cornwall with the crew on hand with logistical support, cups of tea and large doses of banter. Then everything changed.

I stepped onto the bridge of the Cornwall, but the path was suddenly barred by a junior officer who held up his hand and asked me to wait outside.

No-one wanted to talk or make eye contact. Our ever-cheerful minder was hauled off while we stood in a corridor waiting, trying to deconstruct what was happening.

We were called in to talk to Commodore Nick Lambert, the coalition task force commander. A genial host, he had already given us the kind of welcome and insight that is rare among the often starched diffidence of military men.

But now he was tense.

"We have lost 15 people," he said.

He explained how the 15 sailors and marines had been surrounded and captured at gunpoint. They were already being held at a small Iranian naval base across the border.

Sombre assessment

For the moment, we were sworn to secrecy while the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office were alerted and the families contacted.

Then the ship's public address system crackled into life and the voice of Cdr Jeremy Woods brought HMS Cornwall to a standstill.

For a few brief minutes, the seemingly incessant noise of the Cornwall stopped. The decks, the mess hall, the engine room and galleys of the naval frigate were silent.

Hardened sailors hung their heads, pensively listening to how 15 of their friends and workmates had just been captured.

Cdr Woods gave them a sombre but positive assessment.

"Our crew have not been harmed and have been taken to a place of safety," he said.

He warned this would have a significant political impact and high-level discussions to secure their release were already under way.

"We are doing our best to get our people back."

He promised that the crew would not run off and desert their colleagues.

"Let's get the job done," he added.

Critical mission

HMS Cornwall and its crew have seen hard times before.

Through its many incarnations it has known war and peace.

But this week will be remembered as one of those hard times.

When we had first arrived on board, Cmdr Lambert had taken us to one side to tell us how critical his mission was.

He said it was derisively called "the wet end" or "the safe end" of Iraq, an expression guaranteed to annoy the hell out of everyone serving these waters.

They wont call it that any more.

There are hard days ahead aboard HMS Cornwall but, to a man and woman, the crew remain upbeat and confident their colleagues will be home safe and soon.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6492705.stm
 
Meanwhile, on the nuclear front: Iran to Suspend Cooperation With Nuke Watchdog Over Sanctions

07.03.25.Misfire-X.gif


Iran isn't backing down after a unanimous vote by the U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions, announcing Sunday that it will partially suspend cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency and will be adjusting relations with those nations who voted for sanctions.

Iranian officials called the vote by the U.N. Security Council in response to Tehran's refusal to stop enriching uranium "illegal and bullying."

"The Security Council has to be aware of its own position and status. Actions that are illegal, unwarranted and unjustified will reduce the credibility of the Security Council," Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said through a translator while in New York.
 
Iggore said:
The iranian consulate was apparently mingling with the insurgency by supporting the shiits with cash and intelligence.

No, I was referring to the highly provactive US act of arresting Iranians in Iraq, not the alleged Iranian activity.. No solid evidence has yet been presented that links them with the insurgency, has it? Everything we're seen so far has been purely circumstantial.

The US behaviour act is clearly aimed at raising the tension.
 
Everything we're seen so far has been purely circumstantial.

We haven't seen any evidence yet, and we wont before a long time. All we can rely on are official statements and our own intepretation. "Solid evidence" are out of the discussion on this matter.

So if you assume that the american decision to arrest those iranians was only aimed at raising tensions, this means that you assum that the statements by officials and military witnesses on the field to be outright lies, and that you somehow discard the possibility of iranian meldling in Irak as fiction, for reasons beyond me.
 
So if you assume that the american decision to arrest those iranians was only aimed at raising tensions, this means that you assum that the statements by officials and military witnesses on the field to be outright lies, and that you somehow discard the possibility of iranian meldling in Irak as fiction, for reasons beyond me.

The Americans are doing it. THEREFORE IT MUST BE BAD.

Obviously :roll:
 
Perhaps. Just wish the bastards would stop shining it in my eyes. :)
 
Perhaps. Just wish the bastards would stop shining it in my eyes.

merely the beginning Mr Lupe Merely the beginning ;)

I'm sure things will get far more interesting for us all.
 
Iggore said:
Everything we're seen so far has been purely circumstantial.

We haven't seen any evidence yet, and we wont before a long time. All we can rely on are official statements and our own intepretation. "Solid evidence" are out of the discussion on this matter.

Not at all. The US put on show a selection of what they appeared to believe was convinving evidence of iranian involvement - none of which actually stood up very well when examined by skeptics.

(Recall when an EFP factory was found in Iraq after the Pentagon said the EFPs must have come from Iran).

This makes me suspect that the evidence for Iranian involvement is much like that for WMD in Iraq - very much in the eye of the beholder.

Iggore said:
So if you assume that the american decision to arrest those iranians was only aimed at raising tensions, this means that you assum that the statements by officials and military witnesses on the field to be outright lies, and that you somehow discard the possibility of iranian meldling in Irak as fiction, for reasons beyond me.

I believe the US aim to send a very strong message to Iran because they believe the Iranians are involved in Iraq, and also because they want to raise support for their anti-Iran campaign on other fronts (e.g int he U.N.)

But their beliefs are strongly coloured by their prejudices (get someone in the US military talking about Iran...) - a common issue in Forteana.
 
Quake42 said:
The Americans are doing it. THEREFORE IT MUST BE BAD.

What a preposterous notion! US intervention in the Middle East has always been marked by fairness and a concern for the greater good rather than purely national interests. Iran in particular has always been the beneficiary of particularly enlightened US policies. :)
 
techybloke666 said:
Perhaps. Just wish the bastards would stop shining it in my eyes.

merely the beginning Mr Lupe Merely the beginning ;)

I'm sure things will get far more interesting for us all.

Isn't that a chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times"?
 
What a preposterous notion! US intervention in the Middle East has always been marked by fairness and a concern for the greater good rather than purely national interests. Iran in particular has always been the beneficiary of particularly enlightened US policies.

were you missing a nice sarcastic wink at the end of that wembley, or have you got shares in Big Oil ?

:lol:
 
Part of a Guardian article by Max Hastings:
President Ahmadinejad knows that most of the world questions the legitimacy of the western military presence in Iraq and its claimed territorial waters. Whatever angry noises are being made by Britain, in many countries this incident is regarded with indifference, or worse. Their governments and peoples believe that our forces have no business on the Shatt-al-Arab in the first place.

Here is a new manifestation of the loss of moral authority resulting from the Iraq policies of George Bush and Tony Blair. Iran is controlled by one of the most repressive regimes in the world. Its cruelties fall not merely on its opponents, but upon its entire female population. It is a proponent of international terrorism, committed to the illegal acquisition of nuclear weapons. Its president is a Holocaust denier.

Yet in dealing with Tehran, Washington and its allies must duck and weave. Iraq has drained from the international community any appetite for a showdown. Opinion polls show many people around the world are more fearful of President Bush launching strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities than of the consequences of President Ahmadinejad acquiring weapons of mass destruction.
.......................
It will be a rash coalition commander in Iraq who again exposes British or American troops to Iranian arms. Iran is a tormented society, flailing and thrashing in a quest for international respect and influence. So long as its only claim to these things rests upon its capacity for violence and destruction, much more grief lies ahead for its own people and the rest of the world.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... 34,00.html
 
I've wondered if we were using "car" smugglers to get in and out of Iran and the Iranians might have caught us taking some special forces off the boat. Just idle speculation I know, but us and the US have a history of using criminal elements and their networks certainly since WW2 and it has been heavily hinted that we have forces in Iran already preparing the way on target acquisition and sabotage missions.
 
lupinwick said:
Isn't that a chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times"?

Yes it is.

Like a pri*k when I first heard it as a teenager I thought I was hard enough to cope with the consequences so used it a fair few times, now look at the world, I feel a great responsibility for the current state of affairs.
 
Ok!! enuff!! lets get the ships Off and going toward Iran !!

do your thing UK !! :shock:
 
So, we sail towards Iran with the Treorchy Male Voice Choir, and sing at them till the Iranians capitulate, is it, boyo...? ;)
 
I'm sure I saw a news report that said we had 13 surface ships, why risk them when as far I can see the captured guys have had a couple of weeks holiday with nice food and free fags, with the only requirement being to do a couple of PowerPoint presentations and call t bliar a liar.

A bit of a contrast to how the coalition of the killing treat captured enemies or potential enemies.
 
crunchy5 said:
I'm sure I saw a news report that said we had 13 surface ships, why risk them when as far I can see the captured guys have had a couple of weeks holiday with nice food and free fags, with the only requirement being to do a couple of PowerPoint presentations and call t bliar a liar.

Quite. This is no more than the latest variation on Big Brother. Or I'm In The Military... Get Me Out Of Here, if you will. The fact that they're allowed to smoke means they've probably got more freedoms than that of the average Scottish or Welsh pub-goer.

In saying that it does send out the wrong message to children.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top