Iran

[ç i p h é r]

Cassiel, you posed the argument that Britain wouldn't attack because she'd lose 14 precious lives. The counter argument is that Iran will release the hostages because it doesn't want to lose 70 million of her own precious lives. If this were all a bluff, Iran has vastly more to lose in terms of life than Britain does. Ergo, Iran will fold her hand.

But, unfortunately, I doubt it's that simple. If the past is any indication, don't expect to see those sailors for a good long while. And that leaves Britain with 2 options:

1. Do nothing, look weak in the face of adversity, and invite more of the same.
2. Do something, look defiant in the face of adversity, but lose the very lives you want to save.

Lose. Lose. But I would rather go down fighting than groveling and I bet those 15 sailors would wish the same.

[ElCadaver]

MAKE WOVE NOT LAW

(thats pronounced Wuv)

[NickD]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/author/story. ... d=10431575

Gwynne Dyer: How to start a war - American style

"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 15 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 Horner's boarding teams, they would all be dead, and the United States and Iran would now be at war.

Horner is the executive officer of the USS Underwood, the American frigate that works with HMS Cornwall, the British ship 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.

"The US Navy rules of engagement say we have not only a right to self-defence but also an obligation to self-defence," Horner explained. "[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?"'

So there they are, eight sailors and seven marines in two rubber boats, with personal weapons and no protection whatever, sitting about 30cm above the water, surrounded by six or seven Iranian attack boats with mounted machine guns.

"Defend yourself" by opening fire, and after a single long burst from half a dozen heavy machine-guns there will be 14 dead young men and one dead young woman in two rapidly sinking inflatables, and your country will be at war. Seems a bit pointless, really.

It's a cultural thing, at bottom. Britain has a long history of fighting wars and taking casualties, but the combat doctrines are less hairy-chested. British rules of engagement "are very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting," explained Admiral Sir Alan West, former First Sea Lord.

"Rather than roaring into action and sinking everything in sight, we try to step back, and that, of course, is why our chaps were ... able to be captured and taken away."

That emollient British approach is probably why the Iranian Revolutionary Guard chose to grab British troops rather than Americans. It was obviously a snatch operation: the Iranians would not normally have half a dozen attack boats ready to go, even if some "coalition" boat checking Iraq-bound ships for contraband did stray across the invisible dividing line into Iranian waters, which the British insist they didn't.

But it was not necessarily an operation ordered from the top of Iran's Government. In fact, there is no single source of authority in Iran's curious system of "multiple governments", as one observer labelled the impenetrably complex division of responsibilities and powers between elected civilians and unelected mullahs. The Revolutionary Guards, who are quite different from the regular armed forces, have considerable autonomy within this system.

According to US authorities in Iraq, the five Iranian diplomats arrested by US troops in a raid in Irbil in Iraqi Kurdistan last January were Revolutionary Guards, and it would seem that their colleagues want them back.

Kidnapping American troops as hostages for an exchange could cause a war, so they decided to grab some Brits instead. And it will probably work, after a certain delay.

In this episode, the American reputation for belligerence served US troops well, diverting Iranian attention to the British instead. In the larger scheme of things, it is a bit more problematic.

A quite similar snatch operation against the equally belligerent Israelis last July led to a month-long Israeli aerial bombardment of Lebanon and a retaliatory hail of Hizbollah rockets on northern Israeli cities. Well over 1000 people were dead by the end, although nothing was settled.

Any day now, a minor clash along Iraq's land or sea frontier with Iran could kill some American troops and give President Bush an excuse to attack Iran, if he wants one - and he certainly seems to.

If the Revolutionary Guards had got it wrong last Friday and attacked an American boarding party by mistake, he would have his excuse now, and bombs might already be falling on Iran. All the pieces are in place, and the war could start at any time.

[mxlm]

p.s. But we all know Iran won't give them up right quick. First, Ahmadinejad is stark raving mad. Second, he's done this before - five Americans in the hostage crisis of the 70's have fingered Ahmadinejad as the leader of the embassy raid - and Carter's failure to deal with Iran has apparently only encouraged him. And third, what does Iran really have to fear? Certainly not a Democratic controlled Congress in the United States of America that can't stomach a fight.

Cipher, I think you're overlooking the most relevant past precedent: the Iranian kidnapping, in 2004, of British seamen.

Seems a bit more like the current event than does the hostage crisis.

1. Do nothing, look weak in the face of adversity, and invite more of the same.
2. Do something, look defiant in the face of adversity, but lose the very lives you want to save.

Lose. Lose. But I would rather go down fighting than groveling and I bet those 15 sailors would wish the same.

And this is a false dichotomy. The choice, as you present it, is between bombing/invading/nuking/whatever and no action, period.

Which is--and I'm not trying to be insulting, but blunt--nonsense. The 2004 incident makes this very plain, even if reason does not (though IMO, reason should).

[Stormseeker]

This is a strong arm/bully tactic, and if you give in once you will give in time and time again as more bullies figure out your weakness.
To get the iran boys from the usa to trade for the britts i wonder what the britts will have to give up?

[Overfilled Cup]

When i watched the video of the British sailors where they are eating it appears like they are extremely hungry to me. The women has been Islamified.....

Iran is and has been the aggressor in all this. The balls in there court.

Personally I dont care if they get to save face or not. If the guy down the street took my kid and was holding him in his basement I dont think Id wait too long before I kicked the door down...

Add On. Funny they would try a tactic "kidnapping nationals" that they used 40 years ago. Sure does add weight to my old comments about Ahmadinejad being one of the Hostage takers from the 70's

[Burt]

Worth giving the UN a shot. If Iran continue to be stubborn in the face of overwhelming odds at least they can't say we didn't warn them.

[Stormseeker]

I agree with you there.

[ç i p h é r]

Cipher, I think you're overlooking the most relevant past precedent: the Iranian kidnapping, in 2004, of British seamen.

Well that predates Ahmadinejad's presidency, but yeah it certainly appears to be their modus operandi, which just underscores my point. Britain must address the act of kidnapping itself or they'll continue to be "easy targets".

And for the folks at home preaching voluntary disarmament.....................

[NickD]

To get the iran boys from the usa to trade for the britts i wonder what the britts will have to give up?

Being the main ally of the US and backing you lot up to the hilt in a pointless war isn't enough for you?

[NESchampion]

This is how the Iranians roll...we know. Civilized? Nope. Savages...yes.

Yes, I'm sure broad sweeping generalizations and borderline racism will help the situation now and in the future.

[Stormseeker]

Oh it is for me nick, but we are not talking about me but politicians.

[Jeppan]

The women has been Islamified.....

Did they use their special Islam-O-Gun?



Cipher and Dan continues their numbnut partnership. Your pure existance explains how someone like Bush can be elected twice.

[Rotku]

Did you guys ever release those Iranians you kidnapped from Iraq?
From my understanding, that was a lot worse than what they've done now.

Danubus, out of curiousity, have you travelled much, out side of North America?

[Overfilled Cup]

Did they use their special Islam-O-Gun?

Im fairly certain the guns werent far out of camera view