Lead-off discussion topic: captured British servicemen appear to have been deliberately ambushed and captured in Iraqi water (if the British are to be believed). What do you think should happen, and what do you think will happen?

There is a picture of a helicopter above the ship afterwards - the ship had not moved - and it was apparently in Iraqi water.

All in all this looks like a handy dandy reason to go into Iran.

Might I also add that I am sick to death - all ready - of hearing about that captured woman having a 3 year old at home. I'm not hearing diddly about the guys and their families.

Hard to say how it will eventually play out. I suspect that the servicemen... and woman :), will be duly released without too much happening to them.

The thing that gets me, is how does a bunch of tiny costal Iranian attack boats sneak up on this "boarding party". My understanding is that these boarding parties are normally launched from a larger ship such as a frigate or a destroyer. You can't just "sneak" up on these ships. They have all the latest gadgetry for detecting approaching objects, and surface boats are the easiest to detect. Radar, hydrophone, and passive sonar would have easily spoted any ship within a huge radius enabling the boarding party to be duly warned.

Furthermore, the area that the Brits were taken in is a known disputed territory, being directly off the coast of both Iran and Iraq. The commanders responsible for launching this boarding party would have been on extra high alert, as any sensible standard operating procedeure, making the capture of these personelle even more unlikely.

Outside the "official story", I highly doubt that we'll ever learn the true nature of the mission of this "boarding party".

Here

HMS Cornwall could not come to their aid since the boarding took place in very shallow water. The frigate was more than four miles away at the time of the ambush, according to naval sources.

it's all a bit sketchy and i don't know if we'll ever really know the truth. i can't see any reason for iran to do it. are they just baiting the *coalition*? i just hope it doesn't turn into lebanon. i think i'm a bit conspiracy theory-ish on this one. it would be pretty ridiculous for bush for bush to start in on iran too - his military resources are stretched enough as it is. but, hey, no one ever accused him of being too smart.

There has been no indication of American involvement, outside of support on the UN SC, to my knowledge?

not to mine either. but he's been shaking his fist in iran's general direction for a while and has been known to invade...er, i mean, liberate... nations on little provocation. or no provocation... or purely imaginary provocation... i was being somewhat facetious, however. it doesn't seem likely that it will move beyond a bit of diplomatic argy-bargy.

but i can't see either side gaining much from the event. it just means our petrol prices skyrocket over easter, which is par for the course.

quite frankly, my response would be to say "i really don't care who did what," and slap them both upside the head.

Well, I just find it surprising that any one is blaming the US (or even the UK) for this particular piece of brinkmanship. Even if the Royal Marines were, contrary to evidence, marginally in Iranian waters, the mere fact that the Iranians were able to capitalize on that speaks to the fact that they were watching the British for a chance to pull this stunt again (they something similar in 2004).

I think that if anything we should be lauding the restraint of the British, as I'm sure the Americans would have already taken unilateral action after this dog and pony show.

I'm just afraid that the Iranians have terribly miscalculated the severity of what they have done, and will stop short of causing war while bringing more European nations into it.

Linkage from Watching America - newspapers from around the world:

Jerusalem Post - Perspective: Britain vs Iran: Just don't mention the war

Information Liberation - Fake Maritime Boundaries: "The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist"

Information Liberation - Brit “Hostage” Drama Pales in Comparison to MI6 and CIA Crimes Against Iran

The Guardian - Britain stumbles in diplomatic dance with Iran

Times Online - Kidnapping could be traced back to arrests by US forces
Britain faced this predicament three years ago, when eight sailors and Marines were seized in similar circumstances by the Iranians. The men were freed unharmed after three days.
This time the process could be longer and more complicated.


^ just a sampling. Please post more of interest as you find them! :yes:

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If there is no formal border, then how can British forces be captured for straying across it?

I think that we can easily get bogged in legal details, however, I don't think that law actually matters in this case. Law only exists where there is power to enforce it, and so this case is grounded in politics (read: war), to me, and not law. This elaborate discussion of law is simply a way to convince citizens that their country is "right".

Ground truth is Britain was doing something reasonably benign (patrolling waters that are disputed/showing force near the maritime border, depending on how you believe the cookie crumbles), and the Iranians responded with a calculated and aggressive action, which was a massive escalation of the situation.

I agree that the UK made a mistake going to the SC too early, before they were able to sufficiently drag the Iranians through the coals of the media. However, I think that the British are afraid of seeming impotent, as they really don't have a creditable military response given commitments. So really their only two opinions are to back down and seem weak, or escalate it to an international incident and hope like hell that other nations will be dragged into the drama.

Something tells me that if Britain goes fishing for allies internationally, they're likely going to draw dry, which is going to shift internal Iranian politics towards the hard-liners, after an amazing show of strength towards the UN SC, Britain, and indirectly the US (they seem to be silent/reluctant on this issue).

Could it not be that the Iranian's believe there is a border and that the British had crossed it?

The way I understand it there is an elected president and a supreme ruler and it was the latter who commanded the armed forces to capture the British?

It's murky to me how their government works...

Sure, just as the British could believe that there is a natural border, and they in fact did not cross it. But even if there was a clear and agreed upon border (which it doesn't seem like there is), this is still a pissing contest, and that is what I believe is important.

I'm really not sure, I don't really have a super understanding of the clockwork of Iranian politics. That would be an interesting area to learn, though.

You must be a Mom, BI. "Don't care who started it, but I'm gonna finish it!" :lol:

But seriously, when I read this thread title, I assumed it would be U.S. bullshit again. But it doesn't surprise me that some factions in England want to keep their little projects going after Blair is gone.

Note to JD (and anyone else who does likewise)

Please lose the habit of saying "England" when you mean the UK.

My apologies. I didn't mean the UK. I don't like to assume that the rest of the UK necessarily goes with England, and all I've heard about are the English interests.

I'm guessing that that's through media who also make the same mistake. There is no specific English interest in this that I'm aware of.

Much as I would like to distance myself, I'm afraid there is little difference UK-wide on middle-eastern matters.

I think the UK, the US and the EU should continue doing what they've done until now. Which is play hardball as hard as they can without triggering a war. They (the Iranian government) will eventually concede. They have to. This gives Iran no advantage.

I think that there is an advantage as long as they can frustrate UK efforts to get their men back. It shows that the Iranians are a powerful nation in the region, which cannot but help their Iraqi agenda. I think that this is the Iranians playing power politics for a slice of Iraq.

But I agree that the US and UK need to take a single robust stance on this issue, as any weakness or division really undermines their stabilization efforts in Iraq.

i think you are correct in saying that it is political issues that are driving this situation, rather than legal ones but that goes for both sides as well. in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must assume iran genuinely believed it's border was crossed, in which case they are within their rights to detain the tresspassers. we do this all the time with illegal fishermen and boat people. it is commonplace and those detained are not called *hostages*.

i agree, too, that britain's behaviour was benign, but relations between iran and britain are not. no nation tolerates military incursions from unfriendly nations and it seems to me that only cultural bias can characterise iran as the agressor when, if the situation were reversed the UK would have done exactly what iran did.

britain is being hypocritical. they cite universal principles all the time to justify their politically and economically based actions but they never apply these principles to their own actions, or to the actions of those they happen to be allied with at time.

i dislike the politics of iran as much as the next guy, but until the west either acts in accordance with their principles, or gets honest about what it's real motivations are, these principles can be used to undermine them. taking a hard line on this issue in the press only extends the row and mischaracterising these detainees as *hostages* is not diplomatic, it's propaganda. that is political capital for iran in the region and therefore doesn't even work in britain's favour. it is also not very fair on the detainess as all this name calling simply extends their detention.

Well, there are some difference in this case. Firstly, it's not usually customary to holder fisherman for an indefinite period of time, contingent on another nation changing it's foreign policy. I think that this fits the very definition of hostage. Secondly, if another nation habitually allows its fisherman into your waters, the first nation usually warn the other nation first, and only seize people and property as a last resort (we can see examples of this from the Portuguese seizures that Canada did, and those were still controversial). Thirdly, the fact that these people are members of a nation's armed forces, and so are national symbols, makes this situation a more a direct and belligerent event. This is a flavour that is lacking from the fisherman example.

It seems like a disproportionate response, unless the Iranian government had given some prior warning. I think that if prior warning was given and the British STILL patrol those waters, than this would be a different story. But here, it seems there was a silent disagreement over the border, and the Iranians reacted by simple force. That's sort of hard to not cast whomever would do that as an aggressor.

I'm not saying that the British have an entirely pristine track record, but I don't think that that track record can be used to justify any arbitrary attack against them or their personnel.

I'm not sure what this principles of which you speak are. The principles so far seem to primarily revolve around brinkmanship and special forces actions to resolve border disputes. I really hope for the sake of preventing a war that the British don't start adopting those particular principles.

Well, well...
Iran to Release the British Crew


British personnel wave to the media after their meeting with the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, at the presidential palace in Tehran, Iran on Wednesday, April 4, 2007. (AP Photo)

All in all, that was masterfully done by Iran, seeming to catch the UK flat-footed with every turn.

It'll be hard for this crew to go back home and bad-mouth Iran in any way!

They look none the worse for wear, as they say. They were well fed and always seemed in pretty good spirits, and look at them now! All smiles and good cheer. :)

Ahmadinejad has always been so smooth when it comes to public image.

He's even got a blogsite.

here