Iran seizes 15 British sailors/Marines

[EX-CG-GM]

Here's the link to the story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17752685/

Apparently this has happened once before.  Hard to believe that the British frigate didn't get directly involved, but it would have been ugly.

And here's a link to what Iran has in the way of a Navy:

http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/

What's your thoughts, especially since we have 1/2 dozen 110's over there?

[Rebel]

http://usmilnet.com/smf/index.php?topic=7092.0


My thoughts are in there. 

These f'ers are BEGGING for a war. Why are we ignoring this ****? They've crossed into Iraq, trained insurgents, ARMED insurgents, and now they're kidnapping allied troops? Drop the ****ing bomb. 

[LTGunner]

It appears to be a similar tactic used by Hezbollah (who are purportedly trained and supported by the Iranians) when they kidnapped the Israeli soldiers last summer.  That incident led to the conflict in Lebanon in July 06.  Their clear intention is to provoke a reaction.    

The incident occurred in the Al-Faw Peninsula, a notorious disputed region that has seen its share of conflict.  The Iranians have a multitude of land based “silkworm” or C-802 anti-ship missiles (same type that hit the INS HANIT).  That’s probably why the HMS CORNWALL was just out of reach during the MIO Boarding, while its small boats headed north to board the suspected vessel.  The CORNWALL was probably lying south waiting to intercept and recover the crew after the boarding (just some arm chair theory, no know facts as yet).

I’m not surprised that the CORNWALL did not engage, as noted, this has happened before and the Brits are known for being cool cucumbers when dealing with adversaries.  Rules of Engagement also play into this incident.  

The incident has all the hallmarks of a “planned” event.  Intel could have been leaked that the vessel was smuggling contraband and the six patrol boats were laying in waiting knowing the MIO procedures for that area.  I’m sure there is going to be more to follow on this incident.  

The seizure and kidnapping of the Brits was carried out for something more sinister IMHO.    

[EX-CG-GM]

LTGunner-

It could also be a fairly shrewd move on the part of Iran.  They don't mess with us but mess with our closest ally, knowing it will piss us off yet avoiding a direct confrontation with the U.S.

I looked up the Cornwall.  Pretty well armed, but I think you are right about the ROE.  I think unless they were directly fired on (or their boats were) they were probably told to play it very coolly.

I don't know the AOR of our 110's but think that would be a good place for them to avoid.  Snatching some folks from RHIB's is one thing but I don't see a 110 being quite so placid in their response and they are seriously under armed to go gun to gun (or gun to missile) with the Iranian PB's.

[LTGunner]

It could also be a fairly shrewd move on the part of Iran.  They don't mess with us but mess with our closest ally, knowing it will piss us off yet avoiding a direct confrontation with the U.S.

No, I don’t believe it’s a “shrewd move”; it’s a tactic right out of the Revolutionary Guard playbook.  It appears to be the same maneuver used last summer just before the U.N. was to vote on sanctions against Iran.   It’s a distraction that Iran has poorly planned and will cause further pain in the region (in Briton and here as well).  I wonder if the event was to be executed in concert with the Iranian President's arrival in the US and the IRG didn’t get the word in time that he canceled.  Kind of like a Soviet era tactic to embarrass the world as the President spoke…

I looked up the Cornwall.  Pretty well armed

Yes, the CORNWALL is a fairly well armed frigate (BTW, cool gun firing video on their home page http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.1598 & used by CNN yesterday).  I also respect the CO for not firing (if he was in range) and keeping his cool as he sorted out what was happening.  Sometimes it doesn’t matter what weapons you have on board, it’s the decision on what tactic to use.  I’m guessing that the vessel may have been out of range as well; the frigates helo observed what was going on and reported back.  It appears the Brits were in their small boats and surrounded by six PBs and forced into port; kind of hard to fire at the PBs with your crew in the middle.

News reports this morning say the captured sailors and marines are in Tehran and have purportedly confessed. IRIB News agency is also reporting “illegal and interventionist entry into Iranian territorial waters of British forces as a "suspicious move and contrary to international rules and regulations."

All in all this is just plain wrong.  Moving the captured Brits to Tehran is a signal that the game is going into extra innings while were still in the second inning. 

[EX-CG-GM]

No, I don’t believe it’s a “shrewd move”; it’s a tactic right out of the Revolutionary Guard playbook.  It appears to be the same maneuver used last summer just before the U.N. was to vote on sanctions against Iran.   It’s a distraction that Iran has poorly planned and will cause further pain in the region (in Briton and here as well).

It is certainly a distraction, but could well have been meant to be exactly that.

It's easy to underestimate folks in that part of the world, but they are pretty darn clever.....cunning is a better word.  If we only look at it from our perspective it looks like a dumb move.

Iran pretty much knows we really don't want to expand the shooting war over there by engaging a second country.  That means they can operate with a certain level of impunity as long as they don't do something REALLY stupid.  This allows them to indirectly thumb their nose at the U.S. with minimal fear of reprisal.  Worst case we would have taken out a few of their PB's and they would have raised hell about it on the world stage, protesting that all they were doing was protecting their sovereign territory.

[JACoastie]

I think the Iranians are spoiling for a fight and want to take ever chance to make headlines with their nuke. I think there president is a crazy *******.

Soooooo if you put it all together you have a crazy ******* president developing nuclear wepons and spoiling for a fight. Isn't that what FUBAR is all about?

[BuoyJumper]

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, (like you said JAC  the crazy ******* ) has called for the Britons to be put on trial. It seems to me that whether or not the Brits did or did not enter Iranian waters in irrelavent and I don't think their nut job president cares either.  Ahmadinejad knows that our wonderful news media has kept him well informed by their polls that the majority of the American people want U.S. troops out of Iraq and knowing this is daring us or anybody else to start some **** with Iran.  I can't help but wonder .... with this sabre rattling if this isn't some kind of test to see how we and the Brits respond.  If we, the Brits and the Aussies and the rest pull out by the fall of 08, would Iran gamble and try to take over Iraq through military force knowing that the U.S. and the Brits would be reluctant to send troops back there again?   

[JACoastie]

What I would like for voters in 08 to consider would be how Hillary/Pelosi/Schumer/Kennedy/Gore/Kerry/Dean/etc would handle a similar situation.......IMO we would be screwed.

[BuoyJumper]

Ya know JAC, you mention Hillary and it got me to thinking about a post that I will probably post at milcom when I hear from DJ on the thread he started "The end that justified the means" as a continuation of our discussion. 

Back in 1999, a host of politicians and Hollyweird Celebrities came to ralley behind the plight of the women of Afghanistan.  Hillary Clinton in speaking on behalf of Afghan women, spoke of the severe restrictions placed on women in that country by the Taliban. She said, "They are begging on the streets to feed their children because they are forbidden to work to earn income to buy the food their children need.... Think of the woman whose health care has all but vanished, victims of a terrible dilemma in which women cannot be treated by male doctors and the government has banned all female doctors."

In a gala event hosted by "Mavis Leno, Event Chair, & Jay Leno, with Eleanor Smeal, President, Feminist Majority Foundation, U. S. Senators Barbara Boxer & Dianne Feinstein, Honorary Co-chairs.  Marlo Thomas, who narrated a documentary on the plight of Afghan women and girls which was aired at the event, also spoke. "I can say without fear of embellishment, that our Afghan sisters are currently attempting to exist in one of the most dangerous and oppressive environments ever conjured up by mankind," she stated.

Isn't it interesting that many of these very same people, these wonderful concerned feminists, are the very same ones who are pushing to get us out of Afghanistan and Iraq.  So I guess from her perspective and others of her ilk, the women or Afghanistan and Iraq can go back to being raped, murdered, sodomized, beaten, tortured, etc. when we pull out because she has changed her political position now that she is running for POTUS?  What does the book say about being double minded, that those who are, are unstable in ALL of their ways! 

[JACoastie]

If they were concerned about the women they should read a book about a Palistinean woman called "burned alive"....it provides a interesting look at how this woman was treated and how the men of the region view "womens rights".

[EX-CG-GM]

Looks like a touched a couple raw nerves on the other site.  Two folks have been hammering on me over there about this topic.  Seems they felt the Brits in the RHIBs should have fought to the death against the six Iranian patrol boats.   

Since I disagreed they are pretty sure I'm a coward and advocate surrendering rather then fighting.   

[Mudpuppy Sarge]

You are not obligated to resist capture when doing so would cause your death without inflicting comparable casualties to the enemy.

Any resistance on their part would have merely gotten them killed, and I doubt they would have taken so much as ONE Iranian out in the process.

Can't speak for the UK, but if an American Sailor did that, he would have committed NO violations of the Code of Conduct.

[Delete]

Looks like a touched a couple raw nerves on the other site.  Two folks have been hammering on me over there about this topic.  Seems they felt the Brits in the RHIBs should have fought to the death against the six Iranian patrol boats.   

Since I disagreed they are pretty sure I'm a coward and advocate surrendering rather then fighting.   

I think we'd all love to think and believe we'd be the hero in those situations, or always be that one person who does everything by the book, but few of us will ever be placed in situations like that. Everyone already serving over there is courageous in my book. I just don't understand calling someone a coward, especially with not having all the facts, and not knowing what they've been through. I'd feel the same if it was anyone here on this board.

[Mudpuppy Sarge]

I don't have an issue with their surrender.
I do have an issue with the female's statements.