Author Topic: Is this an Act of War?  (Read 3499 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

The_Professor

  • Guest
Is this an Act of War?
« on: March 25, 2007, 03:44:56 PM »
What would YOU do right now if you were the British?


FIFTEEN British sailors and marines arrested by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards off the coast of Iraq may be charged with spying.

A website run by associates of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, reported last night that the Britons would be put before a court and indicted.

Referring to them as “insurgents”, the site concluded: “If it is proven that they deliberately entered Iranian territory, they will be charged with espionage. If that is proven, they can expect a very serious penalty since according to Iranian law, espionage is one of the most serious offences.”

The warning followed claims by Iranian officials that the British navy personnel had been taken to Tehran, the capital, to explain their “aggressive action” in entering Iranian waters. British officials insist the servicemen were in Iraqi waters when they were held.

Related Links
Blair warns Iran over seizing of British sailors
Iran raises the hostage stakes
Keep up the pressure
The penalty for espionage in Iran is death. However, similar accusations of spying were made when eight British servicemen were detained in the same area in 2004. They were paraded blindfolded on television but did not appear in court and were freed after three nights in detention.

Iranian student groups called yesterday for the 15 detainees to be held until US forces released five Revolutionary Guards captured in Iraq earlier this year.

Al-Sharq al-Awsat, a Saudi-owned newspaper based in London, quoted an Iranian military source as saying that the aim was to trade the Royal Marines and sailors for these Guards.

The claim was backed by other sources in Tehran. “As soon as the corps’s five members are released, the Britons can go home,” said one source close to the Guards.

He said the tactic had been approved by Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, who warned last week that Tehran would take “illegal actions” if necessary to maintain its right to develop a nuclear programme.

Iran denounced a tightening of sanctions which the United Nations security council was expected to agree last night in protest at Tehran’s insistence on enriching uranium that could be used for nuclear weapons.

Lord Triesman, the Foreign Office minister, met the Iranian ambassador in London yesterday to demand that consular staff be allowed access to the Britons, one of whom is a woman. His intervention came as a senior Iranian general alleged that the Britons had confessed under interrogation to “aggression into Iran’s waters”.

Intelligence sources said any advance order for the arrests was likely to have come from Major-General Yahya Rahim Safavi, the commander of the Revolutionary Guards.

Subhi Sadek, the Guards’ weekly newspaper, warned last weekend that the force had “the ability to capture a bunch of blue-eyed blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks”.

Safavi is known to be furious about the recent defections to the West of three senior Guards officers, including a general, and the effect of UN sanctions on his own finances.

A senior Iraqi officer appeared to back Tehran’s claim that the British had entered Iranian waters. “We were informed by Iraqi fishermen after they had returned from sea that there were British gunboats in an area that is out of Iraqi control,” said Brigadier-General Hakim Jassim, who is in charge of Iraq’s territorial waters. “We don’t know why they were there.”

Admiral Sir Alan West, the former head of the Royal Navy, dismissed suggestions that the British boats might have been in Iranian waters. West, who was first sea lord when the previous arrests took place in June 2004, said satellite tracking systems had shown then that the Iranians were lying and the same was certain to be true now.


Henny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1075
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is this an Act of War?
« Reply #1 on: March 25, 2007, 03:48:22 PM »
What would YOU do right now if you were the British?


FIFTEEN British sailors and marines arrested by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards off the coast of Iraq may be charged with spying.

A website run by associates of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, reported last night that the Britons would be put before a court and indicted.

Referring to them as “insurgents”, the site concluded: “If it is proven that they deliberately entered Iranian territory, they will be charged with espionage. If that is proven, they can expect a very serious penalty since according to Iranian law, espionage is one of the most serious offences.”

The warning followed claims by Iranian officials that the British navy personnel had been taken to Tehran, the capital, to explain their “aggressive action” in entering Iranian waters. British officials insist the servicemen were in Iraqi waters when they were held.

You know, Ahmadinejad makes Bush's version of foreign diplomacy look positively brilliant.

The_Professor

  • Guest
Re: Is this an Act of War?
« Reply #2 on: March 25, 2007, 04:04:59 PM »
Britain to Iran, "Release our captured sailors or we'll embarrass you with all our whining." Britain made a mistake and did not have enough immediate backup in the area to prevent an Iranian boat from kidnapping the British sailors who were inspecting a cargo ship in Iraqi waters, where there is a disputed demarcation line. We should make it plain PUBLICLY so as to cause the sane people to get out of Dodge er Tehran that the opening shot WILL be nuclear centered on their nuclear facilities and for good measure a dose of 3 large ones on Tehran. We will not start it. We will not start small. But if Iran bugs us they get erased and we get to see who Allah likes best.

If you go to war with us there will not be enough of any of you left to get your 72 virgins in paradise.

What we are short on is the high tech precision weapons that we've used up and not replenished properly. So if Iran opens as a new war front we CAN deal with it. It will be messy, months of carpet bombing and all that since precision bombing is not feasible without the precision guided bombs. Most important of all, we CAN do this without being the nuclear monsters I've feared we would have to become. All we need is to convey to the would be enemies the certainty of overwhelming response. There will be civilian casualties so "get over it."

Sadly, it appears that Ahmadinejad and his cronies with their radical Shi'ite bosses seem hell bent to resurrect the 12th imam by making sure times get tough enough for Mohammedans. So we're probably going to have to get rough in Iran. And it will be remote bombardment not men on the ground who make life in Iran unbearable and ultimately unfeasible. Those old WW-II iron bombs we still have in stock in huge numbers are effective if somewhat excessively messy. We'll all get the chance to see who's right, those who seek the 12th imsm's return or those who figure that's misguided ignorant superstition.


Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is this an Act of War?
« Reply #3 on: March 25, 2007, 04:50:00 PM »
A war might be just the thing to excuse what Acmanedjad needs to do to consolidate his power and quell dissent.


The_Professor

  • Guest
Re: Is this an Act of War?
« Reply #4 on: March 25, 2007, 05:25:59 PM »
Oh well...There are principles higher than HIS NEEDS which need to be pursued. A principle that says if you committ an atrocity like this, then you pay the price. Perhaps this will dissuade future such actions. We should have been more aggressive during the original Tehran hostage crisis and we need to pursue a more aggressive policy now. Sometimes you simply have to pursue military action if talking doesn't get the point acorss.

If Britain cannot get their people free SOON via diplomacy (and I do advocate a liittle more diplomacy), then slagheads produced by weaponry does tend to get across a vivid point, doesn't it?
« Last Edit: March 25, 2007, 05:30:54 PM by The_Professor »

Henny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1075
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is this an Act of War?
« Reply #5 on: March 25, 2007, 05:53:24 PM »
Oh well...There are principles higher than HIS NEEDS which need to be pursued. A principle that says if you committ an atrocity like this, then you pay the price. Perhaps this will dissuade future such actions. We should have been more aggressive during the original Tehran hostage crisis and we need to pursue a more aggressive policy now. Sometimes you simply have to pursue military action if talking doesn't get the point acorss.

I'm going to pretend for a minute that I would support the idea of going to war with Iran.

While you are going on about what you think we should do, have you considered that there are military advisors that work for both governments who would carefully try to decide if this idea of war with Iran is feasible and what the costs (both in dollars and lives) would be?

This is certainly an agressive act, but I think the world will wait to see how it plays out, including Britain and America. Both countries are already stretched thin with Iraq and Afghanistan - to say the very least - and while Iran needs to be dealt with strongly, are we prepared to start another war because of these British soldiers?

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is this an Act of War?
« Reply #6 on: March 25, 2007, 05:57:23 PM »
I am going to say that this will be resolved by diplomacy. It certainly is not to either country's advantage to actually go to war, unless, of course, this whole thing was planned by some British secret plan to pick a fight to win support for the UK staying in Iraq, which certainly does not seem all that likely.

The diplomacy will be secret, may involve the transfer of money or technology, and will not be disclosed for decades.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

The_Professor

  • Guest
Re: Is this an Act of War?
« Reply #7 on: March 25, 2007, 09:06:35 PM »
XO, I concur. Military action will probbly NOT be required. I certainly hope so. And paying some money for the British soldiers some may consider to be a "clean" approach. But then again, does it get acorss the message that such actions should not be repeated?
« Last Edit: March 25, 2007, 09:59:27 PM by The_Professor »

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Is this an Act of War?
« Reply #8 on: March 25, 2007, 09:28:50 PM »
Why should the Brits pay a ransom for their countrymen?

If they were in Iraqi or international waters, Iran doesn't have a leg to stand on with their espionage charges.

If they truly were in Iranian waters, Britain should apologize and if need be arrange a 1 to 1 prisoner exchange.

Otherwise give Iran 15 days to release the prisoners else be prepared for a naval blockade and or airstrikes.


The_Professor

  • Guest
Re: Is this an Act of War?
« Reply #9 on: March 25, 2007, 09:58:56 PM »
Actually, I agree with you, BT. It is just that ransoming these guys is probably the way it will be done as it is the "easiest" approach. Of course, the easiest approach may not always be the BEST approach.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is this an Act of War?
« Reply #10 on: March 27, 2007, 10:31:21 PM »
This ought to shed some light on the subject
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

UK to reveal GPS data in Iran clash
By Ben Hall in London and Gareth Smyth in Tehran

Published: March 27 2007


Tony Blair on Tuesday stepped up calls on Iran to free 15 naval personnel it has held since Friday, vowing a “different phase” of overt diplomatic pressure which will include publication of what London claims is proof they were seized from Iraqi waters.

The UK prime minister signalled the shift in tactics as behind-the-scenes diplomatic contacts failed to secure the release of the eight sailors and seven marines.

Margaret Beckett, UK foreign secretary, Tuesday night cut short a visit to Turkey to return to London to make a statement to parliament detailing the evidence, thought to be the servicemen’s co-ordinates when they were detained.

Ms Beckett spoke to Manouchehr Mottaki, her Iranian counterpart, in “robust terms”, demanding immediate UK consular access to the 15 personnel and their safe and speedy return. But for the third day, ambassador Geoffrey Adams met senior Iranian officials in Tehran and was unable to gain information on where the 15 were being held or when they would be released.

The British foreign secretary is expected to explain to MPs the global positioning system co-ordinates of the 15 servicemen to prove they were well inside Iraqi waters in the Shatt al-Arab waterway.

A Downing Street spokesman suggested the evidence was the location of a dhow searched by the 15 troops shortly before their capture. The boat is thought to be still anchored in the same place.

UK officials hope that publication of the co-ordinates will persuade the Iranian government to admit it made a mistake in seizing them. “If their argument is that we were in Iranian territorial waters, we’ve got the evidence [to the contrary] and we’ll use it,” said one UK government figure.

The detention of the 15 has had limited impact in Iran, with most businesses and newspapers closed until next week for the Noruz holiday.

But observers expected the sailors and marines to be freed in a week to 10 days. Mohammad Atrianfar, managing editor of Shargh, the reformist newspaper, also believed matters were being handled not just by the Revolutionary Guards, whose forces seized the 15, but by Iran’s Supreme National Security Council.

“The council reports to the supreme leader, but I very much doubt Ayatollah [Ali] Khamenei is in charge of the case,” he said.

Separately, Ebrahim Sheibany, central bank governor, said in Kuala Lumpur on Tuesday that Iran held only 20 per cent of foreign reserves in dollars – down from 40 per cent last September when Washington began its campaign for western banks to end dollar transactions with Iran.

Mr Sheibany said measures agreed last week by the UN Security Council – calling on states to freeze assets of the state-owned Bank Sepah and of some Revolutionary Guards commanders – were limited to “special areas” and would not damage Iran’s economy.


Article


"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

The_Professor

  • Guest
Re: Is this an Act of War?
« Reply #11 on: March 27, 2007, 11:35:15 PM »
So, if it comes to conflict, do we support the Brits in any way or just watch from the sidelines?

The_Professor

  • Guest
Re: Is this an Act of War?
« Reply #12 on: March 28, 2007, 12:10:17 AM »
A Serving Officer on the Iran Hostage Situation

As we all know, the Iranians have captured British marines and sailors in the Persian Gulf. Eight sailors and 7 marines from HMS Cornwall. The Royal Navy says they can prove their personnel were never in Iranian waters due to technology like GPS, though Iranians have claimed that disputed boundaries will make such proof difficult. The Iranians intend to try them as spies, even though they were taken in uniform. The British personnel have admitted to being in Iranian waters, but Ministry of Defense officials point out that these are not trained to resist interrogations, and thus are expected to say what their captors want on the grounds that nobody will believe them anyway.

So, what can we know about this? The US has actually begun moving against Iranian Qods force officers in Iraq. They were dealing with Sunni and Shia fighters and providing arms and training. This surprises the naive, who think that Sunni, Shia and Secular can't work together, forgetting this is where we get the saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." An unknown number of Iranian officers have been taken, and at least two attempts have been made against US forces that appear, based on open source reports, to be attempts to retaliate for those. One was successful, with US personnel taken and killed ( http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/01/the_karbala_attack_a.php) . The other was an attack on an Iraqi Army platoon, miles inside Iraq, by Iranian border guards. Some of the Iraqi soldiers are missing, but no Americans were hurt in that attack. In both cases it appears reaction was fast enough to prevent full exploitation. Keeping live American prisoners would be a real coup, even if only considered in propaganda terms.

HMS Cornwall is the flagship of a multinational force of ships combating smuggling off the Iraqi coast. It is not clear why HMS Cornwall, the embarked helicopter, the two RN minesweepers in the Gulf or an allied naval unit was not covering the two small boats as they were taken by a reported force of six Iranian boats.

A complicating factor is that Iran has no single commander in chief. There are several officials who can make use of varying amounts and types of military force. This makes it harder to know who is actually making the move, and thus who to deal with. It has been about four days since elements of the Revolutionary Guards seized the two boats containing the British personnel. This is not the first time Iran has taken British forces prisoner in the area, but the June 2004 incident ended with the release of the prisoners three days later. The British press apparently believes this is in response to Americans taking Iranian prisoners in Iraq. I'm not sure, since it could also be connected with EU sanctions. There being a limited selection of EU forces handy for Iran to grab in the area.

However, the Brits seem to have failed to learn the lessons of strict ROE. There are times to take it and soldier on. I've taken fire without returning it, so I know it can be done when there is a reason. However, a boat in the Gulf isn't a place where I'd worry too much about stray fire hitting civilians. Yet the Brits use a de-escalating ROE to reduce the chances of getting into a war. Hmm, may not be working. According to MP Ann Winterton, returning British personnel have told her that they are forbidden to fire so much as a warning shot at Iranian forces on pain of court martial.

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=951  is a good starting point for a timeline, though from memory I do not believe it is complete.

The Iranians say they will treat the uniformed military personnel as spies. This is in clear violation of the Geneva Convention. Yet when we treated prisoners, taken in combat against us in civilian clothing, about like we'd treat prisoners in a maximum security prison in the US, we were accused of war crimes when the treaty we signed allows us to shoot them out of hand for their crimes. How long you figure we'll need to wait until we hear those lawyers who were so worried about our treatement of the Geneva Convention on the case against Iran? Should I hold my breath? Nobody seems upset about summary executions of civilian contractors or military personnel taken by the enemy in Iraq, so it must be far less important than the crime of using women to guard Muslims.

PM Blair has threatened to move from pleading to cajoling. He has stated that "efforts to secure the release of 15 Royal Navy personnel held by Iran will enter a 'different phase' if diplomatic moves fail." Current speculation is that this means sanctions. However, there are already mild sanctions in place, and I'm told that foreign investments in Iran are drying up already because investors fear their assets would be seized and nationalized, and their personnel taken hostage. This tends to harm the profit margin.

The most likely outcome is less than a week of posturing before Iran can get a nice enough deal to return the troops, probably involving the release of Iranian agents in British hands in the south of Iraq.

Serving Officer

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/mail459.html#hostages

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is this an Act of War?
« Reply #13 on: March 28, 2007, 12:14:19 AM »
So, if it comes to conflict, do we support the Brits in any way or just watch from the sidelines?

We watch & support their efforts rhetorically & publically, unless we're officially asked to assist.  If we're asked to assist we say "yes, absolutely".  Then we work out specifically what they need us to assist with, logistics?, ESM?, Special Ops?, military hardware?, air refueling?, actual boots on the ground?

Show of force doesn't hurt either
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Navy Flexes Muscles in Persian Gulf  
 
Mar 27, 2007
By JAMES CALDERWOOD and JIM KRANE
Associated Press Writers

 
ABOARD THE USS JOHN C. STENNIS (AP) - American warplanes screamed off two aircraft carriers Tuesday as the U.S. Navy staged its largest show of force in the Persian Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, launching a mammoth exercise meant as a message to the Iranians.
The maneuvers with 15 warships and more than 100 aircraft were sure to heighten tensions with Iran, which has frequently condemned the U.S. military presence off its coast and is in a faceoff with the West over its nuclear program and its capture of a British naval team.

While they would not say when the war games were planned, U.S. commanders insisted the exercises were not a direct response to Friday's seizure of the 15 British sailors and marines, but they also made clear that the flexing of the Navy's military might was intended as a warning.

"If there is strong presence, then it sends a clear message that you better be careful about trying to intimidate others," said Capt. Bradley Johanson, commander of the Stennis.

"Iran has adopted a very escalatory posture with the things that they have done," he added.

Meanwhile, oil prices shot nearly 8 percent in a matter of minutes in afterhours trading Tuesday, topping $68, as rumors spread that Iranians had fired at a U.S. ship in the Persian Gulf and that Britain had taken action to free the captives.

But both the U.S. military and the British government denied the rumors.

Lt. Cmdr. Charlie Brown of the U.S. Navy 5th fleet told The Associated Press that all ships in the Gulf had been checked and the rumors were untrue. Britain's Foreign office said its military had not taken any action.

The exercises began four days after Iranian forces detained the 15 Britons for allegedly being in Iranian territorial waters near the northern end of the Gulf. U.S. and British officials insist the team was properly searching cargo vessels inside Iraqi waters.

F/A-18 fighter jets roared off the Stennis' flight deck all day, mounting a dozen rapid-fire training sorties against imaginary enemy ships and aircraft. A second task force with the carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower also took part in the drills.

"These maneuvers demonstrate our flexibility and capability to respond to threats to maritime security," said Navy Lt. John Perkins, 32, of Louisville, Ky., as the Stennis cruised about 80 miles off the United Arab Emirates after entering the Persian Gulf overnight.

"They're showing we can keep the maritime environment safe and the vital link to the global economy open."

At the headquarters of the Navy's 5th Fleet in Bahrain, Cmdr. Kevin Aandahl said the maneuvers would last several days. He said U.S. warships would stay out of Iran's territorial waters, which extend 12 miles off the Iranian coast.

None of America's naval coalition partners in the region joined the maneuvers.

A French naval strike group, led by the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, was operating just outside the Gulf in the Arabian Sea. But the French ships were supporting NATO forces in Afghanistan and not taking part in the U.S. maneuvers, Aandahl said.

At the Pentagon, spokesman Bryan Whitman said the Navy routinely conducts exercises when its forces are deployed near each other.

"The exercise should reassure our friends and allies of our commitment to security and stability in the region," Whitman said. "We are not interested in confrontation in the Gulf."

The war games involve more than 10,000 U.S. personnel mounting simulated attacks on enemy aircraft and ships, while hunting submarines and looking for mines.

"What it should be seen as by Iran or anyone else is that it's for regional stability and security," Aandahl said. "These ships are just another demonstration of that. If there's a destabilizing effect, it's Iran's behavior."

The U.S. drills were the latest in a series of competing American and Iranian war games. Iran conducted naval maneuvers in November and April, while in October the Navy led a training exercise aimed at blocking nuclear smuggling.

In January, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the Stennis strike group was being sent to the Mideast as a warning to Iran that it should not misjudge America's resolve in the region.

Iran has grown increasingly assertive in the Persian Gulf as the U.S. military has become focused on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iranian officials have publicly called on America's Arab allies to shut down U.S. military bases and join Iran in a regional security alliance.

Leaders of Arab nations around the Gulf have grown increasingly uneasy with the tough U.S. stance toward Iran, believing any outbreak of war would bring attacks on their own soil. But none has shown interest in an alliance with Iran.

In February, the 5th Fleet's then-commander, Vice Adm. Patrick Walsh, said he had assured Arab allies that Washington was trying to avoid "a mistake that boils over into war" with Iran.

The Stennis strike group, with more than 6,500 sailors and marines, entered the Gulf late Monday or early Tuesday along with the guided- missile cruiser USS Antietam, the Navy said.

The Stennis, which had been supporting military operations in Afghanistan from the Arabian Sea, joined the strike group led by the Eisenhower.

It is the first time two U.S. aircraft carriers have operated in the Gulf since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Aandahl said. The Eisenhower was operating off the coast of Somalia in January and February.

Each carrier carries an air wing of F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet fighter-bombers, EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare aircraft, S-3 Viking refueling and anti-submarine planes, and E-2C Hawkeye airborne command-and-control aircraft.

Also taking part were six guided-missile destroyers, the Anzio, Ramage, O'Kane, Mason, Preble and Nitze; the frigate Hawes; amphibious assault ships Boxer and Bataan; and the minesweepers Scout, Gladiator and Ardent.

 
Article
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is this an Act of War?
« Reply #14 on: March 28, 2007, 11:25:54 AM »
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle