The MAIN Iran Thread: Eventual Confrontation
03-24-07, 03:10 PM
#51
DVD Talk Godfather
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,545
This has been going in the news for a while:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6491577.stm
Gen Ali Reza Afshar told Iranian media the 15 personnel were being interrogated, but were in good health.
The Foreign Office could not say where the group was being held. It insists they had not been in Iranian waters.
Earlier, minister Lord Triesman met with the Iranian ambassador in London to demand their immediate release.
In the hour-long meeting, Lord Triesman also sought assurances about the group's welfare and asked that they are seen by consular staff.
Iran's Fars news agency earlier said the group, which includes one woman, was flown to Tehran, arriving in the capital at 1200 local time (0830 GMT).
But that report was later withdrawn from the agency's website.
Meanwhile, the German presidency of the European Union has demanded the immediate release of the personnel.
They were from HMS Cornwall, based in Plymouth - the flagship of the coalition-Iraqi force which patrols Iraqi territorial waters in the northern Gulf to combat smuggling.
They had inspected an Iraqi boat before returning to their two small boats where they were seized before being moved along the Shatt al-Arab waterway to Iranian bases.
The British task force commander, Commodore Nick Lambert, said there had been no evidence of fighting.
Lord Triesman's meeting with ambassador Rasoul Movahedian followed a meeting on Friday between Ibrahim Rahimpour, Iran's director general for Western European affairs, and the UK's charge d'affaires, Kate Smith, in Tehran.
Former Royal Navy head Admiral Sir Alan West dismissed suggestions the British boats had strayed into Iranian waters.
Sir Alan was first sea lord in 2004 when Iran detained eight British servicemen for three days after they allegedly strayed over the maritime border.
The men were paraded blindfolded and made to apologise on Iranian TV before their release was agreed.
Sir Alan told BBC News that tracking systems then had proven that the servicemen had been in Iraqi waters.
"They can do lots of smokescreens and things like that but I am absolutely clear in my mind it would have been in our waters," he said.
The Ministry of Defence has been in contact with relatives of the group.
The BBC's Bridget Kendall said the big question was whether the capture was part of a bigger political game, ahead of a UN Security Council vote in New York over further sanctions against Iran's nuclear programme.
But Sadegh Ziba Kalam, professor of politics at Tehran University, dismissed the idea that the seizure was a political move ahead of the vote.
"Everyone knows that would not change anything," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
The seizure also follows claims that much of the violence against UK forces in Basra is being engineered by Iranian elements, which Tehran denies.
---
I'd be thinking about a strikeforce about now. Hopefully the US will back the UK up like the UK has backed us in the past and presentl.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6491577.stm
Gen Ali Reza Afshar told Iranian media the 15 personnel were being interrogated, but were in good health.
The Foreign Office could not say where the group was being held. It insists they had not been in Iranian waters.
Earlier, minister Lord Triesman met with the Iranian ambassador in London to demand their immediate release.
In the hour-long meeting, Lord Triesman also sought assurances about the group's welfare and asked that they are seen by consular staff.
Iran's Fars news agency earlier said the group, which includes one woman, was flown to Tehran, arriving in the capital at 1200 local time (0830 GMT).
But that report was later withdrawn from the agency's website.
Meanwhile, the German presidency of the European Union has demanded the immediate release of the personnel.
They were from HMS Cornwall, based in Plymouth - the flagship of the coalition-Iraqi force which patrols Iraqi territorial waters in the northern Gulf to combat smuggling.
They had inspected an Iraqi boat before returning to their two small boats where they were seized before being moved along the Shatt al-Arab waterway to Iranian bases.
The British task force commander, Commodore Nick Lambert, said there had been no evidence of fighting.
Lord Triesman's meeting with ambassador Rasoul Movahedian followed a meeting on Friday between Ibrahim Rahimpour, Iran's director general for Western European affairs, and the UK's charge d'affaires, Kate Smith, in Tehran.
Former Royal Navy head Admiral Sir Alan West dismissed suggestions the British boats had strayed into Iranian waters.
Sir Alan was first sea lord in 2004 when Iran detained eight British servicemen for three days after they allegedly strayed over the maritime border.
The men were paraded blindfolded and made to apologise on Iranian TV before their release was agreed.
Sir Alan told BBC News that tracking systems then had proven that the servicemen had been in Iraqi waters.
"They can do lots of smokescreens and things like that but I am absolutely clear in my mind it would have been in our waters," he said.
The Ministry of Defence has been in contact with relatives of the group.
The BBC's Bridget Kendall said the big question was whether the capture was part of a bigger political game, ahead of a UN Security Council vote in New York over further sanctions against Iran's nuclear programme.
But Sadegh Ziba Kalam, professor of politics at Tehran University, dismissed the idea that the seizure was a political move ahead of the vote.
"Everyone knows that would not change anything," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
The seizure also follows claims that much of the violence against UK forces in Basra is being engineered by Iranian elements, which Tehran denies.
---
I'd be thinking about a strikeforce about now. Hopefully the US will back the UK up like the UK has backed us in the past and presentl.
03-24-07, 03:56 PM
#53
DVD Talk Godfather
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,545
It's certainly not enough to go to "war" with Iran, but it does validate a strikeforce to rescue the hostages if Iran refuses to give them up shortly.
If Iran wants to crank it up a notch, then so be it. The problem is, the US really can't handle an all-out land war with Iran--much less the world at this point. Some might argue just assassinate the leader, but this would just turn into an Iraq situation rather quickly, with everyone attacking each other for power, including Israel. It would be a mess, and the US would be impotent to handle it.
We could initiate air strikes, and make it an exclusive air campaign, thereby reducing US and UK deaths dramatically, but still, you have the problem of what happens after we strike. It would be a bad idea at this point.
If Iran wants to crank it up a notch, then so be it. The problem is, the US really can't handle an all-out land war with Iran--much less the world at this point. Some might argue just assassinate the leader, but this would just turn into an Iraq situation rather quickly, with everyone attacking each other for power, including Israel. It would be a mess, and the US would be impotent to handle it.
We could initiate air strikes, and make it an exclusive air campaign, thereby reducing US and UK deaths dramatically, but still, you have the problem of what happens after we strike. It would be a bad idea at this point.
03-24-07, 04:41 PM
#54
DVD Talk Hero
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,443
I ask because you start this thread with "It appears as if some in Washington DC are slowly but surely building more evidence and justification to conduct a military operation against Iran. "
...which sounded like a suspicion that the Bush administration might want a conflict and work things towards that end (as we often hear about Iraq). But perhaps I misinterpreted.
If that was correct, I'm wondering if this event adds to your suspicions of Washington or whether you think Iran will share a larger part of the blame for any eventual confrontation.
Do you think that Bush is actually keen on attacking Iran at some point, that Iran is keen on drawing such an attack, or that these events are independent of any plan by either party relating to a potentially greater conflict?
...which sounded like a suspicion that the Bush administration might want a conflict and work things towards that end (as we often hear about Iraq). But perhaps I misinterpreted.
If that was correct, I'm wondering if this event adds to your suspicions of Washington or whether you think Iran will share a larger part of the blame for any eventual confrontation.
Do you think that Bush is actually keen on attacking Iran at some point, that Iran is keen on drawing such an attack, or that these events are independent of any plan by either party relating to a potentially greater conflict?
03-24-07, 05:53 PM
#55
DVD Talk Godfather
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,545
Well, I do believe this behavior by Iran is helping Bush's cause for a strike against Iran.
Yes, it definitely helps present a case that Iran is looking for a confrontation of sorts, much like Saddam was. This act by Iran does not help their case at all for continuing on with nuclear technology unhindered by world oversight. Some say this act was an opportunistic "gesture of subtle retaliation" for what happened in January of this year when 5 or so Iranians were arrested in northern Iraq, which included an Iranian Revolutionary Guard general.
Currently, the US is doing the smart thing by just saying Iran needs to return the 15 servicemen. However, if Iran is too stupid understand we can take their government out within a few hours notice, then well, so be it. However, it would be a disaster. Gas prices will be outrageous. Other economical sectors might be hit pretty hard as well.
Before this incident, Bush really had no justification per se. But now, obligations are now forming and Iran needs to realize they need to chill the fuck out. While Iran might be true to their nuclear pursuit of energy, they are not helping their situation whatsoever by this incident.
As to your last question, I think we might have a situation where the Iranian Revolutionary Guard acted a little too aggressively because of the incident mentioned above, and Iran's government was forced to back them up, regardless if they thought the IRG was justified. We would never hear an admission of a "mistake" by Iran so the only option is to make the British servicemen admit they made the error...and then their release soon after. I hope this is the case, and the servicemen are released, or things are going to heat up.
Yes, it definitely helps present a case that Iran is looking for a confrontation of sorts, much like Saddam was. This act by Iran does not help their case at all for continuing on with nuclear technology unhindered by world oversight. Some say this act was an opportunistic "gesture of subtle retaliation" for what happened in January of this year when 5 or so Iranians were arrested in northern Iraq, which included an Iranian Revolutionary Guard general.
Currently, the US is doing the smart thing by just saying Iran needs to return the 15 servicemen. However, if Iran is too stupid understand we can take their government out within a few hours notice, then well, so be it. However, it would be a disaster. Gas prices will be outrageous. Other economical sectors might be hit pretty hard as well.
Before this incident, Bush really had no justification per se. But now, obligations are now forming and Iran needs to realize they need to chill the fuck out. While Iran might be true to their nuclear pursuit of energy, they are not helping their situation whatsoever by this incident.
As to your last question, I think we might have a situation where the Iranian Revolutionary Guard acted a little too aggressively because of the incident mentioned above, and Iran's government was forced to back them up, regardless if they thought the IRG was justified. We would never hear an admission of a "mistake" by Iran so the only option is to make the British servicemen admit they made the error...and then their release soon after. I hope this is the case, and the servicemen are released, or things are going to heat up.
03-25-07, 09:23 AM
#57
DVD Talk God
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
The Bush administration is not about to take military action against Iran over this incident.
A far greater crisis will occur when/if Iranian gun boats attack a super tanker in the Gulf. That will, IMO, cause the U.S. to take some sort of military response.
A far greater crisis will occur when/if Iranian gun boats attack a super tanker in the Gulf. That will, IMO, cause the U.S. to take some sort of military response.
03-25-07, 01:40 PM
#58
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: US
Posts: 9,631
I don't get understand how these guys were even captured in the first place. They were operating from a british frigate/destroyer, so it had to be fairly close, why didn't it close in and provide protection? Also they had to have had a few minutes notice of the incoming iranian ships (I'm assuming they had a lookout of some sort on the boat they were searching), why not call in some air cover? I just can't see how they guys get picked up without a fight at all...
03-25-07, 01:56 PM
#59
DVD Talk Hero
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,443
Originally Posted by Dave99
I don't get understand how these guys were even captured in the first place. They were operating from a british frigate/destroyer, so it had to be fairly close, why didn't it close in and provide protection? Also they had to have had a few minutes notice of the incoming iranian ships (I'm assuming they had a lookout of some sort on the boat they were searching), why not call in some air cover? I just can't see how they guys get picked up without a fight at all...
03-25-07, 02:32 PM
#60
DVD Talk Godfather
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,545
What happened was the 15 servicement boarded an Iranian merchant ship (they were not on their own ship). An Iranian patrol ship with IRG's were close by, intercepted the servicemen as they were returning to the HMS Cornwall on their two smaller inflatable boats (or intercepted them a short time before but I think they were returning to the HMS Cornwall), and grabbed the 15 servicemen, placing them under arrest near the Shatt al-Arab waterway. There is an Iraqi-Iranian border which is often disputed on this waterway. Iran says these 15 servicement were on the Iranian side of the waterway, so it's anyone's guess as to how this can be definitively proven, unless we have affirmative proof from the servicement what really happened. And we don't have that yet, and apparently, the HMS Cornwall isn't commenting much either--probably because they don't want to escalate the hostages being in Iranian hands.
The HMS Cornwall crew on board their own ship, had no justification to fight back to get their servicemen--which is a political bullshit policy if you ask me. But they there on orders to not fight back because it would "escalate" the already tense situation over there.
Dave99,
So, the HMS Cornwall had no justification, by it's own policy (and that of the US too I believe if they were in the same situation), to request support at all because no shots were fired (I assume this). I think Iranian ships being close happens all the time on that particular area, so the Brits were used to it. However, they were caught by surprise when the Iranian ship intercepted their two boats with servicement on it, and grabbed them rather quickly. They probably tried to request permission to respond to the incident, but higher powers said..."No."
Here's a map of the area:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/graphic/0,,2041394,00.html
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world...042259,00.html
"Local fishermen watched as the Iranian vessels surrounded the two inflatable British boats and escorted them away at gunpoint."
I would read this entire article. It's quite informative about the ongoing conflict between the UK and Iran and how Iran seems to hate the UK more than the US (according to the article).
The HMS Cornwall crew on board their own ship, had no justification to fight back to get their servicemen--which is a political bullshit policy if you ask me. But they there on orders to not fight back because it would "escalate" the already tense situation over there.
Dave99,
So, the HMS Cornwall had no justification, by it's own policy (and that of the US too I believe if they were in the same situation), to request support at all because no shots were fired (I assume this). I think Iranian ships being close happens all the time on that particular area, so the Brits were used to it. However, they were caught by surprise when the Iranian ship intercepted their two boats with servicement on it, and grabbed them rather quickly. They probably tried to request permission to respond to the incident, but higher powers said..."No."
Here's a map of the area:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/graphic/0,,2041394,00.html
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world...042259,00.html
"Local fishermen watched as the Iranian vessels surrounded the two inflatable British boats and escorted them away at gunpoint."
I would read this entire article. It's quite informative about the ongoing conflict between the UK and Iran and how Iran seems to hate the UK more than the US (according to the article).
Last edited by DVD Polizei; 03-25-07 at 02:47 PM.
03-26-07, 11:49 AM
#61
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 969
I wonder how certain members would feel in those Brittish soldiers were deemed by Iran to be "enemy combatants " and tortured. If it is ok that Bush and company torture people they determine to be "enemy combatants " then I guess Iran has that right too.
03-26-07, 03:34 PM
#62
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Originally Posted by cinten
I wonder how certain members would feel in those Brittish soldiers were deemed by Iran to be "enemy combatants " and tortured. If it is ok that Bush and company torture people they determine to be "enemy combatants " then I guess Iran has that right too.
But, then again, I'd expect that the Iranians wouldn't care about any Geneva Conventions and would torture the soldiers if they wanted to regardless of what any other country did/does.
03-26-07, 03:41 PM
#63
DVD Talk Hero
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,443
Originally Posted by cinten
I wonder how certain members would feel in those Brittish soldiers were deemed by Iran to be "enemy combatants " and tortured.
I know how 90% of us would feel.
03-26-07, 03:56 PM
#64
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 969
Originally Posted by Thor Simpson
That makes me wonder how you would feel.
I know how 90% of us would feel.
I know how 90% of us would feel.
03-26-07, 04:07 PM
#66
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 969
Originally Posted by wmansir
If they were acting hostile, out of uniform, and not acting under orders of a recognized government you might have something vaguely resembling a point.
I had a point and it was simply stated, I am sorry if you couldn't understand it and had to reply with an attack instead of debating.
03-26-07, 04:43 PM
#67
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 969
Originally Posted by bhk
By definition they can't be enemy combatants because they're wearing uniforms.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.1076.IH:
(8) The term `enemy combatant' has historically referred to all of the citizens of a state with which the Nation is at war, and who are members of the armed force of that enemy state.
03-26-07, 04:45 PM
#68
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Working for Gizmonic Institute
Posts: 10,430
Originally Posted by wmansir
If they were acting hostile, out of uniform, and not acting under orders of a recognized government you might have something vaguely resembling a point.
Originally Posted by cinten
I had a point and it was simply stated, I am sorry if you couldn't understand it and had to reply with an attack instead of debating.
03-26-07, 05:03 PM
#69
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Jayhawk Central, Kansas
Posts: 7,125
Originally Posted by VinVega
Except for the use of airstrikes -- which, when applied without other military measures, historically have failed either to bring about regime change or to deter powers from pursuing their national interests
03-28-07, 11:26 AM
#70
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 54,871
UK reveals Iran dispute evidence
Officials say GPS data shows the personnel were in Iraqi waters
Satellite data proves 15 navy personnel being held in Iran were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters when they were seized, UK defence officials say. More: BBC News
<hr>
Standoff Over Britons Held in Iran Escalates
Britain today froze all “bilateral business” with Tehran to retaliate for the seizure of 15 British naval personnel six days ago in what the Royal Navy insists were Iraqi waters. More: New York Times
<hr>
No News is Good News... or Not
"My brother called me yesterday, and he didn’t even have any idea that this had happened. “Didn’t you see the news?” I asked him. “No,” he said. He is like most Iranians: he is enjoying the new year holidays not worrying about sanctions and territorial waters." More: View from Iran
Officials say GPS data shows the personnel were in Iraqi waters
Satellite data proves 15 navy personnel being held in Iran were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters when they were seized, UK defence officials say. More: BBC News
<hr>
Standoff Over Britons Held in Iran Escalates
Britain today froze all “bilateral business” with Tehran to retaliate for the seizure of 15 British naval personnel six days ago in what the Royal Navy insists were Iraqi waters. More: New York Times
<hr>
No News is Good News... or Not
"My brother called me yesterday, and he didn’t even have any idea that this had happened. “Didn’t you see the news?” I asked him. “No,” he said. He is like most Iranians: he is enjoying the new year holidays not worrying about sanctions and territorial waters." More: View from Iran
03-28-07, 02:04 PM
#75
Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 163
Originally Posted by classicman2
Whose satellite data is that? 
From http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/...ors/index.html
Iran insists the ship was inside its territorial waters and, according to Style, provided a map with coordinates on Saturday in attempts to prove the point.
Blair said those coordinates actually "turned out to confirm they were in Iraqi waters" and Iraq has supported that position.
Upon pointing that out Sunday through diplomatic contacts, Style said Iran then "provided a second set of coordinates" on Monday that were "in Iranian waters over two nautical miles" from the position shown by the HMS Cornwall and confirmed by the merchant vessel the British personnel boarded.
The "change of coordinates," Style said "is hard to legitimate."
