Fifteen RN Sailors captured by Iranian forces

[Saracen]

We won't admit that we were in Iranian waters though (probably because in all likelyhood we weren't - as the first co-ordinates of the ship that the Iranians gave was in Iraqi waters until we pointed it out)

But can we believe our own government when they claim we weren't in Iranian waters? After the 45 minute claim over WMD, if our government stated the sun was going to rise in the East tomorrow morning, I'd be half-expecting it to rise in the West.

As it happens, I rather suspect they're telling the truth this time, but if they'll lie to both Parliament and the people to justify going to war, I absolutely don't trust them not to be lying about this, or anything else whatsoever, too.

Personally, I have no idea what the best strategy is to get our people back, and what worries me is that from the confustication in the foreign office, it seems they don't eithert. They don't seem to have a clear read on the situation, because they don't seem to be sure who in Iran is actually calling the shots on this one.

And, after all, the Iranian government (and some element of the people) have a history of taking and holding Western hostages, and of supporting others in doing it. We have to face up to the possibility that we're in for a long haul with this.

What's clear to me is that while we should try to avoid painting Iran into a corner over this, we do NOT compromise our integrity on other issues by bending to blackmail, and as for Iran's statements out us not having a "correct attitude", they can go <bleep> themselves.

Next, change our military's rules of engagement, and treat Iran as the dangerous and hostile force that they are. From now on, NO British forces should be in anything like such an exposed position as these sailors and marines were. Ifthey're going to conduct this kind of operation in the future, it should ONLY be done when the people at the pointy end can be supported and covered by ships and/or air power. And it needs to be made clear to Iran that next time they try this, they'll be shot at.

And if we can't cover our people like that, don't send them on this type of mission, because if we do send them out without such cover (both in terms of military presence and rules of engagement), we are offering them as hostatges to fortune (and Iran) at the whim of a fruitcake like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

[YorkieBen]

the reasons I dont think we were in Iranian waters:

1) the aforementioned cock up by the Iranians re: initial positioning of the ship

2) what would be the benefit of a pair of RIBs being 1.7 miles inside Iranian waters

3) The way in which the sailors were ambushed by multiple Iranian forces - from the description etc this was planned

[nichomach]

I think the key factor here is 1). The fact is the Iranians have been shifting their story about to make it justify the seizure; and the latest position that they gave is a mere 500m inside their waters. As to whether it was planned, you have to ask by whom; Iran doesn't have a single effective government, just a load of mutually antagonistic factions - it's entirely possible that the RG did this on their own hook, and have effectively dumped the mess on the rest of the "government". They're obviously trying to put the best face on it, and they can't really turn around and say "Look, it was a bunch of gung-ho cowboys over whom we have little if any control" without massive loss of face. And possibly a bullet in the head...talk about "uneasy lies the head that wears the crown", eh?

[grimpy]

well 1 week has passed and it doesnt look like it`ll sorted soon,if it drags on and on then then give the iranians an ultimatum.

either they release all our sailors & marines or we`ll strike at what means the most to them at this moment in time and thats their nuclear sites.

[Saracen]

well 1 week has passed and it doesnt look like it`ll sorted soon,if it drags on and on then then give the iranians an ultimatum.

either they release all our sailors & marines or we`ll strike at what means the most to them at this moment in time and thats their nuclear sites.

And how many people are we going to get killed doing that?

Besides, linking the hostages and the nuclear issue is exactly what we don't want to do.

And we don't have the stealth technology of the US, so getting to those sites won't be easy. And I rather suspect the Iranians are expecting that (though not from us), so you can assume that both the sites and the routes to them will be bristling with Anti-air missile sites, and I'd bet that you can also bank on anything worth hitting being so far underground you'd need serious munitions to do it.

And, of course, that type of action would immediately lose any high ground or international support we do have, almost certainly in return for merely making a few holes in the desert, not doing any substantive damage.

Gunboat diplomacy won't work in the modern age, and certainly not against a country like Iran. The US MIGHT have the military power to make a credible threat like that, but we don't. Britain is not a world military power any more, however much Blair seems to want us to be.

There's one big problem with issuing ultimatums ..... if you get called on it, and you don't follow through, you look like a powerless and impotent pillock. And I don't believe we have the ability to mount any meaningful follow-through.

Ultimatums have to be carefully judged, and credible. For instance, I'd love to know exactly what Saddam was told by the Americans about what would happen if he'd used any form of WMD on allied forces during Gulf War 1? My personal bet is that he was told the US would respond to WMD with WMD and as they only had one type of WMD .....

And I'd further bet that whether they actually would have done that or not, he believed the threat was genuine. That, if believed, would be a credible ultimatum.

But I don't believe we can threaten Iran with anything that they'll both believe is practical, or give much of a hoot about. It is also, in my view, why they chose to make this kind of a stance against us, not the US forces. They know, or at least believe, that they'd have received a much more robust response from the US, partly because the US is capable of responding, and partly because Iran believes they'd like nothing better than a good excuse to do so.

[Blitzen]

Britain is not a world military power any more, however much Blair seems to want us to be.

Thats rubbish...sorry but it is!

[Saracen]

Thats rubbish...sorry but it is!

No, it isn't.

We do not have the size of military to be able to swan around the world threatening countries like Iran with military force because we do not have the ability to deliver on that threat against a country like Iran on their own turf, and they know it.

Sure, we have a military sufficient to present a credible force to dissuade a lot of aggression against us, and it's enough to generally protect our own interests .... though I've seen some senior military figures suggest that we could not pull off the Falklands operations we did back then, if that were to occur today.

According to Wikipedia (for what it's worth) we have the 28th largest military, ranked by numbers of active personnel. Sure, numbers aren't everything, even if those figures are accurate. But Iran (8th largest) has three times the number of active personnel we do, and some 2200 tanks compared to our 450-ish. And we'd have to get our forces there, then support and supply them.

I mean, Eritrea and Myanmar have larger armed forces than we do (though I certainly agree that sheer numbers aren't everything, especially if they're untrained and poorly equipped or motivated conscripts).

Yes, we have aircraft, and yes we have some advanced ships, and yes, we can project a certain amount of force. But we are not a world-class power. Iran is not going to quake in it's boots the moment a British Naval vessel hoves into sight and runs up the flag, and gunboat diplomacy is not an option for us like it used to be.

In my view, in terms of military threat, there is precious little we can credibly threaten Iran with. Even if we knew exactly where our guys (and gal) are, I have doubts that we could do much about it militarily. Maybe, if they were very close to the coast, it may be possible to sneak in, grab and and run like hell back out before the Iranians woke up, but I do not believe we can project the kind of force required to go in and take them (even assuming they weren't killed in the attempt) against active Iranian defences. We simply don't have that level of ability any more, and haven't had it for a very long time. We have a relatively small, highly trained and highly efficient military that is extraordinarily good at doing what we ask of it, but we just don't have the size or logistics to be able to swan about the world throwing our weight about.

Blair ponces about the world, involving our military in things we really shouldn't be involved in, and lies to the country and Parliament about the situation in order to do it. But he can ONLY do it because we're "supporting" the US. He's acting the world statesman by trying to stand on Bush's coattails.

And, in the process, he involves things country in things that are not only not our business, but in areas of the world that have good historical reason to be very sceptical about either British or US motives, and probably lumbers us with another whole historical chapter of uninvited interventionism in the process.

[excalibur2]

That's about it Saracen.

Many people are narrow minded, and it's not what we think but what the world thinks. The special relation with the US over decades is mostly a farce, they have consistenly ignored what the UK has to say, sure they listen but that's all.
Countries respect military (or economic) power...when someone said to Stalin about the power of the pope, he replied "how many divisions (i.e. military) has he got"...... erm he had a point.

So you have to think what the USA or China or Iran etc think of the UK, well I've talked to many Americans on forums and the vast majority think we (UK) are insignificant but liked the Beatles.......huh! oh well there you go.

[YorkieBen]

define 'world military power'

Britain is probably the only country in the world apart from the USA that can mount a significant oversea military operation - however for a sustained war against Iran on Iranian territory it is not big enough

the only true world military power is the USA, however Britain is higher up in the food chain that some think

[excalibur2]

define 'world military power'

Britain is probably the only country in the world apart from the USA that can mount a significant oversea military operation - however for a sustained war against Iran on Iranian territory it is not big enough

the only true world military power is the USA, however Britain is higher up in the food chain that some think

Don't get me wrong, I argue that the British forces are the best trained in the world, and have argued with the Yanks at the start of the gulf war, when they were saying we only had a max of 10% to attack Iraq with poor equipment and were calling us the flintstones and borrowers, and I said "it's what's in a warriors brain that counts, and those 10% were equivalent of 30% of US ground forces"...many a true word said in jest...eh

Anyway this link seems to be fairly accurate:-

http://www.globalfirepower.com/count...son_detail.asp

[grimpy]

And how many people are we going to get killed doing that?

none,because we would launch tomahawk cruise missiles against them.

[grayg1]

It is a British and many other countries unwritten rule, no man gets left behind.
People serving for their country being abanoned and left says everything about that country, their soldiers mean nothing and are completely disposeable.

[Saracen]

define 'world military power'

Britain is probably the only country in the world apart from the USA that can mount a significant oversea military operation - however for a sustained war against Iran on Iranian territory it is not big enough

the only true world military power is the USA, however Britain is higher up in the food chain that some think

You've pretty much defined it for me. But I guess what I meant was that we are not the major power we used to be. "We do not have the size of military to be able to swan around the world threatening countries like Iran with military force because we do not have the ability to deliver on that threat against a country like Iran on their own turf, and they know it."

As I said above, yes we can project some force, but we don't have the capability to mount a sustained operation against Iran on their own soil, and they know it. We can no doubt cause some damage, but short of using nukes, anything we can do will, in the context of damage to a large nation, be fairly trivial.

[Saracen]

none,because we would launch tomahawk cruise missiles against them.

Well, after previous Israeli actions, do you not think Iran might have thought "We'll put our nuclear program deep underground this time, in heavy bunkers"?

Odds are that firing Tomahawks at their nuke program will succeed in putting some expensive (about &#163;3m a time) holes in the desert, or denting the surface rocks on some mountainside, somewhere.

But I'm sure they'll be impressive dents and holes, and it'll scare Iran into giving us our people back ..... when they get through peeing themselves with laughter.




This is what I meant about us not being a major world power anymore. We can't threaten Iran with anything serious and credible, militarily, and they know it.

[excalibur2]

This is what I meant about us not being a major world power anymore. We can't threaten Iran with anything serious and credible, militarily, and they know it.

But they don't seem to be frightened of the USA either.....I read an article (who knows if it's true) that after the fall of Saddam, Iran thought they were next and offered all sorts of deals with US but were ignored. Now if this is correct the US made a terrible political blunder as we would have less problems today.

[excalibur2]

It is a British and many other countries unwritten rule, no man gets left behind.
People serving for their country being abanoned and left says everything about that country, their soldiers mean nothing and are completely disposeable.

Wonder if snatching British servicemen comes under the NATO agreement "an attack on one is an attack on all".

An Ultimatum from all Nato countries.........hand over or a state of war will exist between Nato and Iran......they should frighten any country.