UK sailors captured at gunpoint

[Seth Able]

Slightly alternative theory

Is there any information regrading the container ship the British force was checking for smuggling weapons? Was it searched by another crew?

The possibility I'm trying to raise is this: Could it be that the cargo of that ship was important enough to the Iranians they decided (obviously knowing the anger such an action would cause in the UK&US) to make sure it reaches its destination?

Could it be that taking Coalition soldiers hostage was NOT the objective here but a necessary by-product?

 

[Waylander]

What could be so important?
Every foreign arms shipment to Iran would not be in these waters or would go by train from the north.

And I would think that every arms/explosives/equipment shipment from Iran to Iraq goes in small packages by land. These should be less threatened by interception.

 

[Rich]

Is there any information regrading the container ship the British force was checking for smuggling weapons? Was it searched by another crew?

The possibility I'm trying to raise is this: Could it be that the cargo of that ship was important enough to the Iranians they decided (obviously knowing the anger such an action would cause in the UK&US) to make sure it reaches its destination?

Could it be that taking Coalition soldiers hostage was NOT the objective here but a necessary by-product?

No! I dont think it was. If the cargo was important enough to the Iranians it would be nowhere near that waterway. A cargo full of explosives for Iraq militants would have layers of deniability built into it. Besides its far easier to load that kinda crap on a donkey and truck it into Iraq that way.

This is simply Diplomacy by extortion/kidnapping. An old game the Iranians have always played. Had they played it against us Yanks, or should I say "Romans"?, we probably would write off the lives of the brave troops, "we've lost so many already", and go in gun ablazing. We probably would have gone down in a blaze at the outset, I mean the Iranians would have.

Taking Brits was a calculated move because the Brit Govt and population is far softer on the use of force against Iran and they would make better hostages then the taking of Yanks. We no doubt are still holding Iranian Intel operatives that have been supplying the Iraqi militants with the gear to kill our boys. I'll bet a shiny nickle that Iranian ship was loaded with Revolutionary Guards who sprung the trap on an unsuspecting British crew.

I know I wouldn't be saying this If I was a parent of one of these fine boys, and I know Im being a bit hypocritical in saying this, but we do need to send a strong message to Iran on this or we will invite far worse results in the future. Unfortunately I think that ship has already sailed as westerners are more concerned about the price of gas then they are the future were going to be giving our kids.

15 lives are not worth another prolonged International humiliation. Nor were 66 back in Nov. '79.

 

[Dave H]

The mess that Iraq is today is solely caused by the ridiculous perceptions of the leaders who took us into there in the first place. Did they actually think that the neighbouring states would sit meekly by? Does the US and the UK as your best friend think that people will actually roll over in the face of massive military power? I wouldnt if the UK was invaded/occupied, whatever you want to call it.

Saddam was bad, He had to go, He defied the UN and was a tyrant..but there have been many tyrants.

We stuck our noses in and got burned and moaning that Iran supplies weapons "to kill our boys" is forgetting that all sides fight dirty.

The UK messed up many countries with our empire, we gave a stupid settlement to the partys in Palestine post WW2, we have sold numerous weapons to dubious regimes. We even invented the concentration camp.

The good old "irish americans" funded the IRA to kill British servicemen and Civilians for decades. US administrations played politics in Central America, playing one side off against another. The west welcomed Saddam waging war on the Iranians, US built Stinger missiles bought down Soviet Aircraft...etc...etc....etc.

Its all to do with empire, us Brits had one....the americans have one now,. Cold economic facts dictate that if you are the worlds economic superpower you must continue to have over those lesser countries to remain number one...its dog eat dog...good luck to you but its about oil and power.

There is no point playing the moral highpoint and moaning about iran smuggling arms into Iraq...the politicians should have seen it coming, and our politicians should stop playing the big military power unless they are prepared to pump in the money. Many iraqis share the same religious dogma and loyalties as many iranians so why would we suppose they would just let a non muslim alliance call the shots? Particularly when a far right Christian president and a catholic Primeminister both say that God told them they were correct...you couldnt make it up...how does that sound in the muslim world where they think there is one true god? A christian god told western countries to occupy a muslim country? Hmmm!!!

Get the servce personel back, bring the other troops home and let the folk of Iran decide when they have had enough of the religious hardliners.

 

[Rich]

The mess that Iraq is today is solely caused by the ridiculous perceptions of the leaders who took us into there in the first place. Did they actually think that the neighbouring states would sit meekly by? Does the US and the UK as your best friend think that people will actually roll over in the face of massive military power? I wouldnt if the UK was invaded/occupied, whatever you want to call it.

More then a little truth to this.

Saddam was bad, He had to go, He defied the UN and was a tyrant..but there have been many tyrants.

The UN failed the world again. Again it showed it was a toothless debating society made up of many nations that have no basic freedoms and only act in their own interest. There should have been an invasion and removal of Saddam, under UN mandate, far sooner. Of particular guilt I would name the French, Russians, and Chinese. All of whom are on the security council and consistently showed they were far more keen on getting back to business with Saddam then in enforcing UN sanctions. Which, by about the 8'th one, became the biggest running joke in world politics.

The UK messed up many countries with our empire, we gave a stupid settlement to the partys in Palestine post WW2, we have sold numerous weapons to dubious regimes. We even invented the concentration camp.

The past is the past and none of us were involved. We can only take responsibility for our own actions in our own time. The Brits are a fine, decent, just people. I know, because Ive been there.

The good old "irish americans" funded the IRA to kill British servicemen and Civilians for decades. US administrations played politics in Central America, playing one side off against another. The west welcomed Saddam waging war on the Iranians, US built Stinger missiles bought down Soviet Aircraft...etc...etc....etc.

A big stain on our history, in my opinion. The support the IRA got from Irish Yanks. The IRA were nothing but thugs, terrorists, and baby killers. But look, to even suggest we sold Saddam stingers is nuts. We sold him a small amount of unarmed helicopters, trucks, and gave him some Intel on the disposition of Iranian forces because our Gulf Arab friends were, and still are, scared crap-less of the Iranians.

Saddams main arms suppliers was the Russians and the French. The Gulf Arabs were the ones who paid the bills.

There is no point playing the moral highpoint and moaning about iran smuggling arms into Iraq...the politicians should have seen it coming, and our politicians should stop playing the big military power unless they are prepared to pump in the money. Many iraqis share the same religious dogma and loyalties as many iranians so why would we suppose they would just let a non muslim alliance call the shots? Particularly when a far right Christian president and a catholic Primeminister both say that God told them they were correct...you couldnt make it up...how does that sound in the muslim world where they think there is one true god? A christian god told western countries to occupy a muslim country? Hmmm!!!

Agreed. Funny how an uneducated street cop like me, who was an uneducated grunt in that region, understands the power of tribal politics and religious alliances better then our leaders.

Get the servce personel back, bring the other troops home and let the folk of Iran decide when they have had enough of the religious hardliners.

The Iranians aren't going to back down, they are going to humiliate Britain and hold those troops, and we are going to inch that much closer to war with them. The question is, and I asked this on both 11/05/79 and 9/12/01, do we want to face our enemies from a position of strength or a position of weakness?

 

[Galrahn]

The mess that Iraq is today is solely caused by the ridiculous perceptions of the leaders who took us into there in the first place.

This is mostly in response to Dave and swerve.

Blame whatever you want, at the end of the day Iran committed what is legally, by international law and law of the sea, an act of war, and has decided to violate the Geneva conventions to do as they please to your countrymen. If someone thinks blaming western imperialism holds legitimacy in any aspect of a defense of what Iran did, or holds legitimacy in explanation, I would disagree by pointing out you are simply making excuses for blatant acts of aggression against you because there are no easy solution to the problem.

Ask yourself a serious question, does some Iranian's 'perception of Western leadership' legitimately justify that behavior, or even legitimately explain it? I read a lot about how complicated politics in Iran are, and read a common theme that if we just understood how complicated the politics of Iran are then we would understand what and why all this is happening.

I guess we are reading the same thing and coming to different conclusions, because the more I read about Iranian politics the more I learn how important it is to avoid being caught up in it, and the first step is protecting yourself and not giving Iran an opportunity to make western troops a puppet in their show.

After thinking about it, I wonder how important it is to understand how complicated the political situation in Iran is, because understanding a country has political problems so big they can't control themselves to the point they casually break international law certainly doesn't make the situation better, in fact it highlights how much worse it is probably going to get. In fact it highlights how rediculous it is to think ignoring Iran's threats and behavior is some sort of credible solution that is in some way a road to a peaceful political solution on any number of topics.

This incident isn't some sovereignty dispute over nuclear technology, this action is a clear violation of international law, basically a blackmail scenario in which Iran is telling the Brits you can't do anything and should sit and take it. All 15 sailors were performing a UN authorized mission intended to keep illegal activity out of the Persian Gulf, and no entity in Iran, no matter how much political control they do or do not have is unaware of that fact. If this was the only clear violation of international law conducted by Iran, an obvious random act of national interest, I think latitude and understanding might be in order, but this follows a great deal of illegal arms smuggling into Iraq and Lebanon with the sole intention to kill people. I guess we should casually ignore that all of this adds up to belligerent behavior with no peaceful intentions for the region, because according to the historical evidence presented regarding the injustices of westerners under imperialism in the past, it is only westerners throughout history that act that way.

I don't carry the guilt some you do about the actions of western nations taken in the past. I don't carry the guilt of imperialism nor do I carry the guilt of living in a prosperous and successful nation, even if it is far from perfect. At the end of the day Iran is the one acting belligerently and no amount of history justifies a behavior that takes those men hostage, men acting under the authorization of the UN, in accordance with the established law of the human race at sea, and in the waterways identified and recognized under the UN mandate as Iraqi territory.

Whatever the points about complicated Iranian politics and IRA support and mistakes in Iraq were designed to make, it has nothing to do with this situation, and it comes off as just a pile of excuses intended to make that uncomfortable Iranian boot in the UK backside feel less painful.

 

[ssmoore]

As far as Im concerned , any act directed towards the brits should be considered a act against all the coalition countrys.. Once we get the serviceman back, they need to have their noses bloodied.

 

[Manfred]

WHatever Britian does to make this right, the US will have to back them up, no question about that.

Did anybody notice that the Iranians threw the UN nuke inspectors out at the same time that they were scooping up hostages?

This ought to be a familiar scenario for Britain. As was the case in 1982, an unpopular, autocratic government is clinging to power by attacking what seems to be an easy mark. Something tells me they are in for a rude shock.

The Russians severed their connection with Iran's nuke program rather suddenly, didn't they? Say what you will, those people can smell a crack-up coming a mile away.

Whatever happens, I doubt that the Ayatollah's face-man will last long enough to shave again. He is unpopular at home, and stunts like this rarely work twice in a row.

 

[Dave H]

Sorry Rich, didnt make myself clear, the Stingers were given to the Afghans to shoot down Soviet aircraft by the US. Its strange but things seemed much simpler during the cold war, both sides expected the other to take sides and pump in arms, these days we get upset that someone dare suport the opposition.

 

[Dave H]

Galrahn,

I am not happy about what the Iranians have done and I agree that it is verging on an act of war. However the UK is somewhat limited in what it can do.

Iran is supplying arms to the iraqi insurgents/freedom fighters/al quaeda but the point I am making is that we should expect that and in similar circumstances when the case has suited us, we have supplied arms to be used against countries that are hostile to us.

Where the case has become blurred is that the US, with its sympathy to Israel is hell bent on preventing Iran getting nuclear arms, so the arms to iraq question is diplomatically merged with the bigger picture.

Now I hope Iran doesnt get nukes but I can see the argument made by others that we in the west cant hold the moral highground when we have them ourselves. If our politicians were honest and just said, "iran is a danger, we will bomb them if they try", take the diplomatic flak but at least be honest about it, then we could all vote yes or no on our TV polls.

As a UK citizen I think our world reputation has been harmed by the mess in Iran, I think we followed a crazy presidential regime with a duff agenda based on oil politics who naively thought that by the end of 2003 they would be home for tea and medals, iraq, syria and iran would have all be shocked into subservience by shock and awe and the state of israel saved for eternity...amen. But they were wrong and stupid.

The taliban and Al Quaeda could have been bombed into submission, that was justifyable but not enough troops were put in to finish the job. The Kurds could have been supported as an independent state in North Iraq (but that would upset turkey), the screw on Saddam could have been kept up by airpower etc etc...but actually occupying a middle eastern country has been a disaster.

As for world opinion, the US and Australia and other allies might back us up but a few within the EU might be laughing (france perhaps?!!)

I dont feel guilt as such about the past but if you dont recognise that we have caused many of the problems and are imperfect then the west will never solve the problem. We could all (well the US could) collectively bully Iran but the world is effectively "off side" to our aims, Yes be the world policeman, duff up a few regimes but end up getting hated and breeding more lunatics who will willingly blow up trains and buses.

Perhaps a return to MAD is the answer, politely point out to the various factions in iran that, yes they might decide to make nukes but they will be targetted by massive numbers in response.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

More then a little truth to this.



The UN failed the world again. Again it showed it was a toothless debating society made up of many nations that have no basic freedoms and only act in their own interest. There should have been an invasion and removal of Saddam, under UN mandate, far sooner. Of particular guilt I would name the French, Russians, and Chinese. All of whom are on the security council and consistently showed they were far more keen on getting back to business with Saddam then in enforcing UN sanctions. Which, by about the 8'th one, became the biggest running joke in world politics.

You say that the UN is a toothless debating society, On the other hand you are saying that the UN somehow failed the world, you cannot have it both ways!

The fact of the matter is that the UN is a rubber stamp for the self interest of nations and a rubber stamp that is used for the benifit of the veto holding nations. If the UN fails to act it is because there is nothing in it for one or more of the veto powers. In all honesty do you seriously think that the US is going to allow anything to happen in the UN that would affect it in any way?

The UN is a vehicle for power politics, nothing more: take away the driver and it goes nowhere, take away the fuel, and its a useless hulk that rusts into oblivion. It cannot, by its very nature, act by itself because it is the expression of its membership. You say the UN failed but the truth is that the membership failed.

 

[ssmoore]

Lets face the fact that as long as a communist country like china is allowed to have a vote, the UN will be worthless. They simply dont share the same values as the free world.

 

[kickars]

Lets face the fact that as long as a communist country like china is allowed to have a vote, the UN will be worthless. They simply dont share the same values as the free world.

What the hell are you talking about? It's about the lives of those British solders! Don't you bring 'communist' and 'free world' into this thread! Have you ever lived in china in your life? If not, how the hell do you know the lives in so called 'communist' China aren't what you call free world? O, right, coz CNN doesn't say so! For you every country in the world must adapt American's life style and politics, then they will be considered free, right? Let me tell you something, China has been China for the past 4000 years (some may say 5000 years). So please don't you ever expect China will do/follow US's way to be what you call free world. It will only do/follow its only way, whether you like it or not!

Sorry for being off the topic. Just saw the news that The British government is attempting to "discreetly" talk to the Iranians to secure the release of 15 Royal Navy personnel. Well I think after the "discreetly" talk, they should come back home soon, let's just hope.

 

[Galrahn]

Dave,

I am not advocating immediate military action to solve the situation, but I do think it is hard to see where a military conflict against those 6 Iranian gunboats, even had all 15 of the British sailors died in the firefight, would be a worse situation for your country than the one you are currently in. I think the situation is even worse than you appear to believe, because this is where your nation actually is politically...

You have a large number of your own leaders, both in government and in the Royal Navy, supported by a good number of other leaders worldwide whose interests are far from the interests of Great Britain, claiming that your soldiers not defending themselves was the correct thing to do. That claim suggests that British soldiers defending themselves against aggressive Iranian Special Forces would have been a reprehensible thing to do, because it suggests the action of defending oneself would have somehow been the cause of problems.

If you can explain how this has become a legitimate, logical reasoning for this event then I would greatly appreciate it, because I see it as a massive setback in the ability of the UK to negotiate effectively with any nation willing to take calculated, aggressive action and utilize terrorists tactics like hostage taking in negotiation.

If indeed this event is accepted as part of the larger geopolitical struggle between Iran and the west, and this episode is somehow allowed to influence those events, while citizens like yourself also concede moral equivalence to Iran on those issues this event is allowed to influence, then you have just been defeated without defending yourself and without making the enemy fire a single shot.

If you are unaware that the character of your country, that your countries actions in response to this event doesn’t carry enormous ramifications then you have miscalculated what is happening. The whole world will be carefully watching this event unfold, and loss of respect of dignity or any perception of popularity or standing in the world community should be the least of your concerns. After all, none of those things make a difference to the well being of your soldiers either before or after the event, and none of those descriptions apply to the way the US is discussed in the world, yet US soldiers aren’t messed with in the same way.

Apparently, as brutal as it is, and as politically incorrect as it is to say these days, Machiavelli knew exactly what he was talking about.

 

[Galrahn]

BTW, and I am not advocating a total war military solution, but one other thing said in this thread by the Brit's troubles me.

It is really sad that so many knowledgeable Brits defend the issue that the UK is unable to do anything militarily about Iran. You really have to wonder how western countries will have success in this century if nations on an economic scale of Great Britain apparently can't do anything about the belligerency of nations like Iran.

To put this into perspective, the country of Iran is apparently so capable of a military force that they can do as they wish against a country as powerful as Britain without expectation of consequences, and this is accepted by the more powerful nations citizens and perhaps may even be true despite the reality that in the best economic year in Iran’s existence, 2006, the GDP of Iran is still less than 45% of the city of London.

If Britain really can’t do anything, then perhaps they are getting the humiliation they may well deserve. Nations that don’t fight, and not necessarily with guns btw, to protect their self interest deserve their fate. Iran is clearly fighting for their self interest, so it shouldn’t be seen as an accident they are having success when no one stands against them, even if it is in their self interest to do so.

 

[Chrom]

Lets face the fact that as long as a communist country like china is allowed to have a vote, the UN will be worthless. They simply dont share the same values as the free world.

Hmm, lets face the fact what as soon as ANY major country cant vote in UN - UN will cease to exist. Its the VERY purpose of UN - to find a compomise between DIFFERENT countries and DIFFERENT political systems. If you want something like UN without "communist countries" - then you dont need to look further, you already have it. It is called NATO.

 

[ssmoore]

I agree that the brits need to spend a little more on defence. But in saying that I feel that this is not only a slap in the face to the brits but to the USA also. They are our allies and this is a joint operation. Between the 2 we have more then enough capability to punish IRAN. Now Im not really advocating a full invasion of IRAN but they need to be given a lesson.

Even if they did somehow stray into IRAN waters there actions far exceed what I feel to be reasonable. I mean they're talking about executing them. They're using these soldiers as political pawns plain and simple and it should not be tolerated by the brits or the US.

 

[Waylander]

If (And there's a big IF) they have been in Iranian waters searching Iranian ships than this action is legal and every souvereign nation would have done the same and arrested them.

But I just doubt it and think that they just want to free the Iranians captured while operating in Iraq.

 

[ssmoore]

Notice I said far exceed whats reasonable. Arrest maybe but execute them? Im sorry you wont convince me thats logical by any means . I just dont see it as a offence that deserves execution.

 

[Chrom]

If (And there's a big IF) they have been in Iranian waters searching Iranian ships than this action is legal and every souvereign nation would have done the same and arrested them.

But I just doubt it and think that they just want to free the Iranians captured while operating in Iraq.

There are reports what the area where British peoples were captured is a long-time disputed area between Iran and Iraq. Iraq goverment dont recognize iranian souvereinity other this area, Iran claim it belongs to them, etc. Of course USA/UK also do not recognize Iran rights there. As such it is very unclear situation from international law POV.