MILAVIA Forum
Military Aviation => Defence in General => Topic started by: Gripen on March 29, 2007, 09:03:35 AM
-
The boarding team of eight sailors and seven Royal Marines in two rigid-hulled inflatable boats was detained at 10:30 local time, following a boarding operation by the British personnel, by six Guard boats of the IRGC Navy. They were subsequently taken to a Revolutionary Guards Corps base in Tehran for interrogation. On 28 March 2007 the Iranians showed some of the 15 British sailors on television. The British team had been conducting a compliance inspection of an Iraqi ship, under the mandate of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1723. The Iraqi merchantman had aroused suspicion while moving along the Shatt al-Arab/Arvand waterway.Sovereignty over the waterway, and corresponding territorial waters, is disputed between Iraq and Iran. While innocent passage is permitted in each other's waters, boarding and compliance inspections in another state's waters would not be lawful. It was reported that the CTF158, Cdre Lambert, requested advice from the Ministry of Defence but was told to hold fire,
British Prime Minister Tony Blair later said the attitude of the British forces had been "entirely sensible", if they had fired there would "undoubtedly have been severe loss of life".
The United Kingdom says the sailors were on a routine patrol of the area. In accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1723, they had boarded the vessel 1.7 nautical miles (3.1 km) inside Iraqi territorial waters at 29°50.36′N 48°43.08′E. One of the boats remained data-linked to HMS Cornwall throughout this time and the GPS system showed them to be located well within the Iraqi area, though no direct evidence for this was given. This position was later confirmed by the Indian flagged merchant vessel, which had subsequently dragged east on its anchor to 29°50.174′N 48°43.544′E.
Iran's director general for Western European affairs, Ibrahim Rahimpour, said that the British boats had made "illegal entry" into Iranian territorial waters and that the personnel "were arrested by border guards for investigation and questioning". Mohammad Ali Hosseini, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, voiced his country's discontent of what he called "blatant aggression", accusing The United Kingdom of "violating the sovereign boundaries of other states". He further stated that Britain was trying to cover up the incursion and that they should refrain from putting the blame on others.
The US Navy had dispatched 2 Nimitz class aircraft carriers (USS John C. Stennis and USS Dwight D. Eisenhower) carrying more than 100 aircraft (F/A-18 fighter jets) along with 15 other warships to the Persian Gulf. The US Navy maintains that the battle group was dispatched to the Gulf before Iran detained the British sailors, and it was not a show of force in response to Iran's actions.
Britain has the US, EU, Australia, Iraq and other's support. If the Iranians dont release the RN personnel, what will happen? SAS raid, or full war becuase that has been coming for a while now.
-
It will probably be the same as last time the Iranians detained British service personnel. Iran will probably end up holding them until such time as they feel they have made a point and are able to return the service personnel and save face. One of the more important aspects of politics in the Middle East is the saving of face. Most likely a neutral country such as the UAE will end up negotiating a release.
-
I agree with RecceJet. Besides, SAS raid is far too risky, if it fails it has huge political consequences, Blair won't risk it (Thatcher would, hehe). Full war, not now and not over this. Maybe Bush would like to use this as an excuse to get the UK to join in an attack (and search for WMD), but he really can't, with congres against him, public against him and the military overstretched.
-
Im pretty sure that the British could take on Iran by itself, they are more powerful then alot of people think. The SAS are the worlds best, and Iran started all this by taking the RN sailors, so how could a SAS make it any worse then it is? What could they say "you people attacked us and stole back your people?"
-
Britons would need seriouslly to moblize, prepare, pull out of Afaganistan etc. And it would give a last death blow to Afganisan and Iraqi wars. I think it's hardly an option.
-
From my point of view, the Brittish probably have a few covert SAS troops on site. But only to gather intelligence. But this is just a guess. On so many other occations the SAS have always been first on site. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the SAS was onroute already the same night.
But sending a strikeforce in to rescue the hostages is probably out of the question. Mostly because its on "enemy" territory and the logistics to get it in motion is pretty advanced. Takes a lot of planning.
I think it will all be solved piecefully. :)
-
I thought that Nimitz class carriers could carrier 100 planes each? so what.. are they only half full?
-
so how could a SAS make it any worse then it is? What could they say "you people attacked us and stole back your people?"
Because any rescue attempt is also a violation of Iran territory. If it goes wrong, you will probably have a war, or loose face completely with the Iranians. However, I think more worrying is the public opinion in Britain, if a rescue would go wrong.
From my point of view, the Brittish probably have a few covert SAS troops on site. But only to gather intelligence. But this is just a guess. On so many other occations the SAS have always been first on site. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the SAS was onroute already the same night.
But sending a strikeforce in to rescue the hostages is probably out of the question. Mostly because its on "enemy" territory and the logistics to get it in motion is pretty advanced. Takes a lot of planning.
I think it will all be solved piecefully. :)
Right, I'm sure they are on site, but like you say probably for intel.
I thought that Nimitz class carriers could carrier 100 planes each? so what.. are they only half full?
It says more than 100 F/A-18s. They probably also carry EA-6B, E-2, C-2, SH-60. Besides they probably don't need to be loaded fully, I suppose it's better for ops to operate without the decks full.
-
Yes, but with out the full decks, you lose combat effectiveness.
Webmaster, you cant keep something that you shoudnt have, besides, Iran is generally hater at the moment anyway, with their nuclear program, and besides, they'd be at a major flaw because they cant attack England directly, where England can hit iran.. its all confusing and annoying >:(
-
To be honest I haven't heard much about Irani nuclear program lately. Guess they've taken the heat off from that :P
-
The Iranians claim the British were in Iranian territorial waters. But according to satellite pics, the Brits were well outside of Iran's territory. I personally see this as an act of terrorism on Iran's part.
I agree, the Brits would have no problem kicking butt, but there should be a more diplomatic solution. At the same time, I don't think the Brits should allow the Iranians to "bully" them and allowing them to call the shots. The Iranian president talks a tough talk, but I seriously doubt he can back that up.
He's made comments about the annihilation of the Jewish State then turns around and says that's not what he meant. He wants proof of the Jewish Holocaust. Come on! What kind of proof do you need! You want to dig up the 6 million bodies that Hitler committed genocide against?
This guy is the North Korean wacko president of the Middle East. He's a loose cannon waiting to go off. I don't think the Brits should tolerate this wacko's behaviour. Everyone knows that if he kills any of the hostages, he's just signed his country's own death certificate.
GO UNITED KINGDOM!!! WE'RE ALL BEHIND YOU!!!
-
but there should be a more diplomatic solution.
The British dont mess around with politics. think the Falkland/Malvina war. the argentines thought that the brits would go to the UN and try diplomatic measures, but they didnt. Maggie Thatcher called a meeting of the house of commons (first since the suez crisis) and decided on a war plan. im guessing if the iranians go to far, something similar will happen again.
It might be a way for the iranians to learn that there are condequences for the actions... what does mossad say? they know everything :|
-
I see what you're saying, but right now, like the American army, the Brits are spread thin. Neither the US or the UK want to be in a position, which we are already, where we'll endanger more of our men.
If the Brits attack, I know the US, without question, will back them up 100%. Speaking of the Falklands War, which I was old enough to live through and watch on a daily basis, the US gave the Brits "information" on the A-4, which helped the Brits out. Not that they needed help shooting down the A-4 but being the closest allies, the US shared this info w/them.
-
Yes, and they also received direct help from Chile and Brazil. The first one spying and the second one lending Ascension Island for the to land >:(
-
Looks like Iran found a way to return the sailors and save face. Making it seem like a generous gesture.
-
Glad to know that!! :D
Maybe that would lead to a "cooling" down of tensions??
-
Yeah, the Iranian pres had to save face because he knows real well if the Brits went in on the offensive, the Iranians would be in deep trouble. And if the US joined in, it would be the Iranian pres sending his troops to their deaths.
-
I doubt even with the US that the UK would venture into any armed conflict with Iran over a matter like this. Israel made the short-sighted move of taking on Hizbollah in the form of assymmetrical warfare and got a bloody nose. I would expect Iran to fight like Hizbollah and focus on small and simple units in swarm tactics. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the doctrine of the IRGC, there is plenty of information on the net on how they have 2-man RPG launcher teams on jet-skis and motorbikes. In an urban environment in Iran, or an enclosed maritime envrironment like the Persian Gulf, swarms of small teams like this can do quite a lot of damage to a conventional armed force.
-
Because they're cowards...they would use innocent civilians as cover...it's a cheap and dirty tactic, no matter how effective it is...they know US and UK soldiers wouldn't shoot at civilians...and our policy has always been to shoot after being shot...well guess what...
It's time to change those tactics...if innocent civilians die (remember 9/11?) then, they'll die, that is war. I think it's time to send the war to them...at their level. War isn't about large divisions rumbling across the country and taking towns and cities by storm..it's a hide and seek game that's been around for a couple hundred years.
This hide and seek tactic was used by Native American Indians against the British and Colonial Americans and was quite effective. We need to employ such tactics now and MOST IMPORTANT, KEEP THE MEDIA OUT BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES WHO REVEAL OUR TACTICS AND KILL OUR TROOPS.
Covert ops, black ops, highly trained special forces (SAS, SEALS, DELTA FORCE) willing to risks their lives and assasins are what we need to get the job done. Leaders like the North Korean and Iranian president need to be terminated - they are very unstable. They talk trash but they can't back it up. Look at the Iranian idiot president who made statements about annihilating Israel - do you think for one second Israel would allow that? They would have no problems launching a nuke at Iran. They have the most capable fighting force in the Middle East.
This is how we need to fight a war now - low, down and dirty - because that's how those cowards fight now.
-
Because they're cowards...they would use innocent civilians as cover...it's a cheap and dirty tactic, no matter how effective it is...they know US and UK soldiers wouldn't shoot at civilians...and our policy has always been to shoot after being shot...well guess what...
the biggest pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffftttttttttttt I have ever had to make....more or less like in Irak...
And maybe those leaders you mentioned are a.....holes, but then Bush is that too ::)
-
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad unexpectedly announced the release of the captive servicemen and woman halfway through a long press conference on the afternoon of 4 April 2007. However the release was presented in such a way as to suggest that it was an Easter gift to the British people and not a surrender to British Government pressure and diplomacy; to this end the captives were not released to British consular officials but placed directly aboard flight BA6634 (flown by British Mediterranean Airways using Airbus A321 G-MEDL), a direct flight to the UK, on the morning of 5 April 2007, landing at about 12 noon local time. After a briefing on board at London Heathrow, the press were allowed a short photographic opportunity, before the personnel were flown directly to Royal Marines Base Chivenor in north Devon by two Royal Navy Westland Sea King helicopters for medical checkups, a full debriefing and meeting with their families.
-
Hey Valiant, how is this news being presented in the US?
I am wondering, because I saw one MSNBC interview with Col. J. Jacobs, he basically said the Brits were cowards and should have fought the Iranians no matter what the odds, instead of surrender without a fight. They ripped a few fragments of the press conference out of context to support the Colonel's statements. Was this an isolated view, or did more US networks/experts have this view?
-
Well, we Americans have a warm spot in our hearts for the Brits. We believe, in general, that the Iranian president used the "Easter gift" idea as an excuse to save face.
But at the same time, people here were holding their breath because if the UK went to war with Iran, we know that the US would support and follow our "mother country" and we'd fight side by side with the Brits to free their sailors. Not that we wouldn't go in, but people here are generally disgusted with the current war in Iraq.
We can definitely breath a sigh of relief, but the Iranian president should consider himself lucky.
GO UK!!!!!!!!
-
I heard a while ago that the Iranians tried to detain RAN personnel.
the RAN people were inspecting a boat, and the Iranians approached. RAN retreated, and went back to the boat they were inspecting fully armed. Then the Iranians approached one of our boats, but retreated becuase the Machine Gun/s on the boat were aimed at them.
Britain shouldve done the same thing..
-
I don't think they could have gone 'back to the boat' with six Iranian patrol boats surrounding them without a fight.
Also all navies in the area are probably more careful since this event.