Iranian forces capture British sailors

[Eki]

They've found dead insurgents with Iranian ID cards but whether or not they are genuine or purposely planted by insurgents who do want the US to wage war with Iran is yet to be proven.

I think the latter sounds more plausible. Why on earth would Iranians trying to disguise as Iraqi insurgents carry Iranian ID cards? That would be totally silly.

And what becomes to the manufacturing origin of weapons, it doesn't prove much. Swedish police recently raided the club house of a biker gang (I think it was the Hell's Angels) and found a Swedish made anti-tank gun. They don't know how the bikers had acquired that gun, but it's suspected it came from a lot that the Swedish military had sold to Estonia in the past. If Swedish bikers can get Swedish made heavy weapons without their government knowing about it, it wouldn't surprise me if Iraqi insurgents can get Iranian made weapons without the Iranian government knowing about it.

[Gannex]

But getting back to the British hostages. It seems they boarded the Iranian vessel in Iraqi waters to search for suspected contraband. The British claim the contraband they were after was a cache of stolen cars, but that, I suggest, is a lie. The UN resolution under which the British were operating was one designed to interdict weapons on their way to Iraq. Weaponry is probably what the British boarding party happened upon.

That would explain the extraordinary presence of the Revolutionary Guard on board this supposedly innocent merchant vessel. And it would explain why the boarding party had to be arrested: to prevent them searching the ship.

The British task force commander has said that this may well be a completely innocent misunderstanding and made the surprising statement to the BBC that "helicopters had reported seeing two British boats being moved along the Shatt-al-Arab waterway to Iranian bases", whatever that might mean. It certainly sounds like a suggestion that all the Iranians have to do is hand over the people and equipment and all will be forgotten.

[L5->R5/CR]

Yes, but sofar it has made no different what average american think, but you are right it would take balls to fight the Iranis on the ground, armchair attack with missile sounds more likely.

I dont think Britain want us to send anything, their main problem i belive is thinking how to get out from this whole mess.

I did say limited tactical strikes :/............

[Gannex]

My earlier post, number 22, suggested that the arrested British personnel were detained by members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard while searching an Iranian vessel for weapons. This, however, now appears to be wrong. The commander of the ship, HMS Cornwall, from which the British hostages came, has said that the fourteen men and one woman were arrested after having boarded an Iraqi rather than Iranian ship. The hostages left that Iraqi vessel to return to the Cornwall in two small dirigible boats. These two small boats were then intercepted and forcibly escorted by an Iranian vessel up the Shatt al-Arab Waterway towards Iranian bases.

So my theory, that the arrests of the British were to prevent a weapons search of an Iranian vessel, seems completely wrong. Which leads me to wonder why on earth the Iranians would consider it in their interests to seize these British sailors. Any ideas?

[Tomi]

So my theory, that the arrests of the British were to prevent a weapons search of an Iranian vessel, seems completely wrong. Which leads me to wonder why on earth the Iranians would consider it in their interests to seize these British sailors. Any ideas?

Someone said in news yesterday that the territorial water boarders are not so clear in area, so both parts can be right or wrong as well.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Maybe it's time to kick some ass!!!!!!

[Gannex]

I have now read The Times and it reports that the fifteen British sailors had indeed boarded an Iranian merchant vessel to inspect it. They left the Iranian vessel in two small boats but, before reaching their frigate, they were surrounded by six larger vessels from a Revolutionary Guards naval unit. The Iranian naval unit, according to The Times, then escorted the two British boats at gunpoint up the Shatt al-Arab waterway towards an Iranian base.

Combining information from the BBC about the boundaries of Iraqi territorial waters and a map in The Times showing the location of the seizure, it appears that the British were at the very edge of Iranian territory when detained. Which side of the border they were on is impossible to ascertain from those two sources.

Since this was a six-vessel unit of the Revolutionary Guard, it seems to me all but certain that this was not an unauthorised action of a faction; the Revolutionary Guard are highly disciplined.

Five Iranians were seized in January by the US in northern Iraq. Those five men are still in US custody.

The UN Security Council is expected to pass today a resolution barring Iran from exporting arms, restricting loans to Tehran, and freezing the assets of 28 Iranian individuals and companies involved in nuclear or missile work. Last week, Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said that Iran regarded the resolution as illegal and that Iran would respond by carrying out its own "illegal actions". Maybe this seizure is Iran's first response.

[Scott Dryden]

Whether or not the British sailors were in Iranian waters is simply a technicality, which would indicate whether the Islamic Revolutionary Guard were correct to make the arrest. Like the military and political experts, what I find concerning is the language that's come from Iran since. Instead of looking to release the sailors, Iran is speaking about an 'aggressive' act by the Royal Navy.

The Royal Navy were carrying out a routine exercise, the like of which they complete on a daily basis. They are working under a UN resolution, attempting to prevent smuggling in the Gulf. In no way is this 'aggressive'.

This type of incident has occurred before. If, as the Iranians are currently indicating, it isn't possible to resolve the situation briskly, allied air strikes should take place against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard (ideally following the release of the sailors).

[Eki]

The Royal Navy were carrying out a routine exercise, the like of which they complete on a daily basis. They are working under a UN resolution, attempting to prevent smuggling in the Gulf. In no way is this 'aggressive'.

Which resolution? Britain didn't receive a permission from the UN to invade Iraq in the first place and I haven't heard about any resolutions after the invasion? As far as I know, Iranian navy has as much right to sail the Iraqi waters as the British navy.

[Gannex]

I agree with you, Scott, that the Iranian attitude is deeply discouraging. Not only the language coming out of Tehran, but also the fact that this seizure appears to have been sanctioned at the highest levels of the Iranian government. I think we have no choice but to conclude that the sailors are hostages, and the Iranians intend to get the maximum benefit from them before they are released.

I'm surprised, though, Scott, that you advocate retaliatory air strikes. That seems to me a very bad idea. It would escalate the tensions at a time when we need to do just the opposite. I would urge negotiation, specifically, an offer to release the five al-Quds operatives currently detained by the US in exchange for the release of the Britons.