Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0

[KreellKeiser]

So, I'm having trouble figuring out why Iran would take the Brits hostage. I mean, they know that the Bush Administration is just dying for a good reason to kick their asses. But since the US is bogged down in Iraq, and the UN is completely unwilling to make a move, they were in a fairly secure spot continuing to build their nukes without intervention.

But then they go and pull this stunt. It's pretty hard (impossible) to justify the action. Especially since the GPS indicated that the Brits never entered Iranian territory. So now they've provoked a crisis which the international community is practically forced to go against them on. It only further makes the case to the world that the Iranian government is dangerous, aggressive, and unreasonable.

So really, what the [censored] are they thinking? It seems like the potential costs of this stunt outweigh any benefits of asserting their sovereignty over their territory.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

I don't think they would have done it if they didn't think they were right, they are fighting a propaganda fight and it would be just too stupid. So it is a mess up. Now the whole situation is just a pain in the ass for them, looking for a way they can release them without losing face and admiting they screwed up.

[Dan.]

As far as I've read from different news sources, Britain produced maps and GPS showing the sailors in Iraqi water (as they obviously would), and Iran produced maps and GPS showing sailors in Iranian waters (as they obviously would). So really nothing can be concluded from that. You said it yourself, this would be a horrible stunt for Iran to pull, so why do it? *gasp* Maybe Iran is in the right, and the West really did overstep its bounds.


Edit: I found this bit interesting from NY Times

[ QUOTE ]
But Craig Murray, a former British diplomat and Foreign Office specialist on maritime affairs, said, “There is no agreed maritime boundary between Iraq and Iran in the Persian Gulf. Until the current mad propaganda exercise of the last week, nobody would have found that in the least a controversial statement.”

In postings on his Web site, www.craigmurray.co.uk, Mr. Murray referred to charts shown by the Royal Navy to reinforce its argument, saying: “The Iran-Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British government.”

[/ QUOTE ]

[NewTeaBag]

Im confused how an armed Unit of UK forces could be forcibly kidnapped and it NOT be considered an "act of war." When a foreign Naval power threatens or uses force at sea on another Navy it is clear "act of war."

Had this occurred with a US detachment there is a high probability that air cover would have been called in and a firefight at sea occurred.

To ascribe any sort of reason to this kidnapping by The Iranians is to attempt to asign reason to the unreasonable.

Iran has a professional military(Including their Navy and especially the Republican Guard Units). In my 9 mos in the Gulf, despite whatever political rhetoric was spewing between Tehran and Washington, our 2 navies always acted professionally to each other. Even when they think you may be entering a disputed area of water they would easily have gotten on the radio with the Brits and WARNED you long before attempting any sort of hijack at sea. I find it highly unlikely that this warning could have been made in that the Brits would almost definitely have withdrawn rather than force a poor situation (poor from both a tactical and poltical standpoint).

This leads me to believe that there must have been a standing order from V high up in The Iranian Govt. to make something like this happen. I don't seriously see how a professional sailor is going to commit an "act of war," on a known foreign force with clearly known and routine intentions, without authorization.

Why doesn't the press and governments start calling this what it really is, an act of war by a country which is increasingly attempting to place themselves outside the boundries of reason, professionalism, and any sense of international standards for conduct between nations.

[ojc02]

Great post. Exactly how I feel. This smelled like a trap as soon as I heard about it. Still, I have no idea why the iranians would have done it unless they actively want an armed conflict.

All I know is, I wouldn't want to be working in that nuclear facility in iran - as soon as anything happens that building is gonna be a greasy smear.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as I've read from different news sources, Britain produced maps and GPS showing the sailors in Iraqi water (as they obviously would), and Iran produced maps and GPS showing sailors in Iranian waters (as they obviously would). So really nothing can be concluded from that. You said it yourself, this would be a horrible stunt for Iran to pull, so why do it? *gasp* Maybe Iran is in the right, and the West really did overstep its bounds.


Edit: I found this bit interesting from NY Times

[ QUOTE ]
But Craig Murray, a former British diplomat and Foreign Office specialist on maritime affairs, said, “There is no agreed maritime boundary between Iraq and Iran in the Persian Gulf. Until the current mad propaganda exercise of the last week, nobody would have found that in the least a controversial statement.”

In postings on his Web site, www.craigmurray.co.uk, Mr. Murray referred to charts shown by the Royal Navy to reinforce its argument, saying: “The Iran-Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British government.”

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Iran also produced GPS data showing the Brits were in Iraqi waters, then, hours later, retracted that data and issued new coordinates.

Also, Iran is charging them with espionage and spying. As they were uniformed soldiers they cannot possibly be guilty of spying.

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]

Also, Iran is charging them with espionage and spying. As they were uniformed soldiers they cannot possibly be guilty of spying.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read that someone (I forget who) said that the sailors may be tried for various things, but Iran has since denied that any trials will occur.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as I've read from different news sources, Britain produced maps and GPS showing the sailors in Iraqi water (as they obviously would), and Iran produced maps and GPS showing sailors in Iranian waters (as they obviously would). So really nothing can be concluded from that. You said it yourself, this would be a horrible stunt for Iran to pull, so why do it? *gasp* Maybe Iran is in the right, and the West really did overstep its bounds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing can be concluded from that? It's [censored] Iran. And [censored] Britain. I'm not saying Britain's word is sacrosanct, but Iran's sure as hell isn't. And even if there is a disputed border, kidnapping soldiers patrolling in good faith on their side is not a good way to handle it.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
kidnapping soldiers patrolling in good faith

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to nit, but how do you know this to be the case? Is an RC-135 aircraft flying inside Chinese controlled waters also patrolling in "good faith"? What about a U-2 flying over Moscow?

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
kidnapping soldiers patrolling in good faith

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to nit, but how do you know this to be the case? Is an RC-135 aircraft flying inside Chinese controlled waters also patrolling in "good faith"? What about a U-2 flying over Moscow?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know anything for a fact, but if there is in fact a border dispute, and the British were doing typical customs inspection work in a tiny boat, it seems odd to classify it as some sort of deliberate hostile incursion.