Iranian forces detain fifteen RN personel

[Gripen]

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.   
 

[RecceJet]

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.

[Webmaster]

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.

[Gripen]

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?"

[alyster]

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.

[Viggen]

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. 

[Gripen]

I thought that Nimitz class carriers could carrier 100 planes each? so what.. are they only half full?

[Webmaster]

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.

[Gripen]

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

[alyster]

To be honest I haven't heard much about Irani nuclear program lately. Guess they've taken the heat off from that 

[Valiant1]

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!!!

[Gripen]

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 :|