Did British sailors do the right thing ?

[Turbodick]

I just saying that we don't know the whole story, but on the surface it does look a certain way. Look at how many years it took for the truth to come out about Canada's Ambassador to Iran, Ken Taylor's role with the U.S. hostages. It looked like an operation that Canadians undertook when it was masterminded by the U.S.

 

[YouVantOption]

I hope people knew that he was dangerious before his particular incident, in fact, I think this time he walks out looking like a diplomatic rational man. He is far from it. He has organized a Holocaust denial conference in Tehran, he calls for Israel to be 'wiped off the map,' he has a fledgling nuclear program, his senior advisor is some Ayatollah...

Creepy!

These last are creepy, yes, but also very savvy from a diplomatic sense. He is jostling for power as the leading country among Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. He has the world's attention and is affiliated with Russia and China, both of whom also want to supplant the strategic power-base the U.S. holds with its alliances there.

I imagine part of the untold story might have been Tehran asking Moscow if they had their backing should this thing come down to a shoot out, and there being no clear indication that they would support them. And that probably came down to a call from G.W. and his buddy Poot-poot.

 

[JustBob]

Ahmadinejad is the President of Iran, not the supreme ruler of Iran. He had little to nothing to do with the decision to release the hostages. I'm quite sure that Ayatollah Khamenei took Ahmedinijad to the woodshed and told him to release the hostages because the Ayatollahs did not want to provoke a conflict with the west at this time.

 

[YouVantOption]

Ahmadinejad is the President of Iran, not the supreme ruler of Iran. He had little to nothing to do with the decision to release the hostages. I'm quite sure that Ayatollah Khamenei took Ahmedinijad to the woodshed and told him to release the hostages because the Ayatollahs did not want to provoke a conflict with the west at this time.

And you are basing this on what, precisely? Bear in mind their capture was a coordinated tactical move which would not have been done without some upper management consultation.

The way it played out seems to be that they intended to make a point all the way through all of this, and it was all posturing. On both sides. the brits were in no position to do anything; they were clearly not willing to get into a fight they couldn't finish and there is neither the political will nor the military capability to take on iran at this time, even if the entire Coalition of the Supplicants were behind them, which they are not.

Yes, the U.S. is gearing up, but they have learned their lesson very well in iraq - don't go with the army you have, but the army you need to get the job done.

 

[JustBob]

And you are basing this on what, precisely? Bear in mind their capture was a coordinated tactical move which would not have been done without some upper management consultation.

I'm not saying that this wasn't planned from above, I'm saying that the decision to release the hostages also came from above. Simply put, Ahmadinejad does what he's told.

As Britain refused to apologize for the behavior of its boarding party, continuing to insist that they were operating in Iraqi waters – not inside Iran's territorial waters, as Tehran alleged – some of Khamenei's advisors began to have second thoughts.

Adding to those doubts were whispered reports that the USS Nimitz was steaming toward the Persian Gulf– making it the third Carrier Strike Group in the area.

So Tehran's leaders decided it was wiser to back down.

 

[John_Cage]

I am not a soldier... So I can't speak or think like one.

However, whenever I see one of those movies where someone gets captured or whatnot... I keep thinking why don't they just steal their guns and fight back? Then the Dawson shooting happened (I wasn't in Dawson, thank god I graduated). Things are different when your life is at stake. If I ever get "captured" in international waters (cruise gone bad? lol), I will surrounder (even if I am armed) and do what I can to stay alive. I don't believe in MACHO show-offs just to save the embarassment your country might feel. After all, your survival means a lot more to the people that actually count (friends and family).

 

[YouVantOption]

I'm not saying that this wasn't planned from above, I'm saying that the decision to release the hostages also came from above. Simply put, Ahmadinejad does what he's told.

My understanding of Iranian politics differs somewhat - there is a free hand to a degree to act autonomously, from what I have read. keep in mind Ahmadinejad was democratically elected. He has also had his own internal political struggles, in part because he didn't make good on his populist election promises.

As Britain refused to apologize for the behavior of its boarding party, continuing to insist that they were operating in Iraqi waters – not inside Iran's territorial waters, as Tehran alleged – some of Khamenei's advisors began to have second thoughts.

Adding to those doubts were whispered reports that the USS Nimitz was steaming toward the Persian Gulf– making it the third Carrier Strike Group in the area.

So Tehran's leaders decided it was wiser to back down.

I have another possible explanation. this is more of the taunting of the obviously weakened American/British alliance that is mired down in Iraq, and nowhere near ready to attack a country many times more massive than Iraq

Iraq
432,162 sq. Km
7,776,257 - potential fighting force

Iran
636 million sq. km
24,133,919 - potential fighting force, double that if you include women

This, in essence was the second major military victory for Iran this year, the other being their proxy war against Israel in Lebanon. They captured, and allowed the hostages to go free on their own terms. In a part of the world where history and image mean everything, it was a win-win-win situation for Ahmadinejad domestically, and in the eyes of his regional compatriots.

 

[Agrippa]

You mean:
Iran - 636,372 sq mi or 1,648,195 km² (population 68,278,826)
Iraq - 169,234 sq mi or 438,317 km² (population 24,683,313)

Edit:
According to the CIA Factbook manpower fit for military service: males age 18-49:
Iran: 15,665,725
Iraq: 4,930,074

 

[YouVantOption]

You mean:
Edit:
According to the CIA Factbook manpower fit for military service: males age 18-49:
Iran: 15,665,725
Iraq: 4,930,074

yes, that is where I got the figures. thing is, that doesn't take into account cultural differences like age not being a huge factor to disinclude people (which was a factor in iraq - many of the reservists were called up well beyond their best-before date) and the movement towards using women in actual boots-on-the-ground service as well as in infrastructure support. Keep in mind women actually do play a significant role in Iranian society, and so one would expect them to participate at least partially in the Mother of all Battles Pt. II 'This time it does mean shi'ite' as it were.

 

[JustBob]

My understanding of Iranian politics differs somewhat - there is a free hand to a degree to act autonomously, from what I have read. keep in mind Ahmadinejad was democratically elected. He has also had his own internal political struggles, in part because he didn't make good on his populist election promises.

The Supreme Leader (Khamenei) controls the military, intelligence and security operations, police, and the judiciary. It also controls the legislative branch since it has the power (thru the Guardian Council and the Expediency Council) to reject any law submitted to Parliement.The true power in Iran lies with the Supreme Leader, not with the President.

This, in essence was the second major military victory for Iran this year, the other being their proxy war against Israel in Lebanon. They captured, and allowed the hostages to go free on their own terms. In a part of the world where history and image mean everything, it was a win-win-win situation for Ahmadinejad domestically, and in the eyes of his regional compatriots.

Britain didn't admit they were wrong nor did they offer an apology, Iran didn't get anything out of the deal, and the hostages are home. Nevertheless, regardless of "terms", Iran would have spun this any way they liked and used it as propaganda. Somewhat of a victory perhaps (if you can call preaching to the converted a victory), but certainly not a "major military victory" in my opinion.

 

[John_Cage]

Is Iran being attacked really enough of a possiblity right now (enough that the Iranians are doing all this for a victory propaganda)? The US has its hand full with Iraq, attacking Iran in the upcoming future is unlikely (barring any GWB stunt).

Edit: Yes, Iran isn't as powerful as back in the Iraq-Iran war, but it's still one of the most powerful Middle-Eastern country. US don't have much of a chance after fighting Iraq (plus the internal anti-war sentiments that's rising).

 

[YouVantOption]

Britain didn't admit they were wrong nor did they offer an apology, Iran didn't get anything out of the deal, and the hostages are home. Nevertheless, regardless of "terms", Iran would have spun this any way they liked and used it as propaganda. Somewhat of a victory perhaps (if you can call preaching to the converted a victory), but certainly not a "major military victory" in my opinion.

Your opinion, nor mine, means a lot for Iran's intended purposes. Right now, this very minute, Ahmadinejad is being heralded as the victor in the middle east press. I am a bit of a media junkie, I listened to countless shows yesterday pretty much backing up what i said Saturday; the international talk shows, on the bbc web-radio broadcats, for example, with a ton of Arab commentators.

Like it or notI, ran was the clear winner - it didn't cost them a thing and gave them major props among their peers.

 

[donquixote]

bumfie,

For those who were not in the American military, can you explain what the response would have been in that situation by US naval personnel? I did find it odd that if the British really thought themselves to be in international waters, that they would not have defended themselves.

My only examples are the attacks on the USS Maddux
resulting in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution resulting in
the US deploying 500,000 troops to SE Asia and the
USS Maine resulting in the US involvement in the
Spanish-American War.

Neither are apt parallels. What could Britain do?
What were their options?

The more I reflect, there was a situation between
the US and China within 2 months of GWB becoming
POTUS. An Air Force intel flight was forced down when
it collided with a Chinese fighter jet. The crew were
held for a period and then released. Nothing occurred.

Fact is, the relationship between China and the US
got a lot better after that situation. Not sure the
military and economic issues are related. A mere
coincidence?

I think the Brits did the right thing by being
patient. That's the difference between a
mature and a recent empirical power.

Or a practical answer. The US didn't want
to go to war with China; I don't think the
Brits were prepared to take on Iran.