Iran captures British sailors

wm · 03-27-2007

Originally Posted by goesh

From the AP: 3/27:

"DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - The U.S. Navy on Tuesday began its largest demonstration of force in the Persian Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, led by a pair of aircraft carriers and backed by warplanes flying simulated attack maneuvers off the coast of Iran.

The maneuvers bring together two strike groups of U.S. warships and more than 100 U.S. warplanes to conduct simulated air warfare in the crowded Gulf shipping lanes.

The U.S. exercises come just four days after Iran’s capture of 15 British sailors and marines who Iran said had strayed into Iranian waters near the Gulf. Britain and the U.S. Navy have insisted the British sailors were operating in Iraqi waters."

Hostage taking is an old standby for trying to enforce certain behaviors by other states. This may be a chicken and egg question, but it may also just be a game of chicken.
1. Did the Iranian government, knowing about the impending US naval "exercise," take a few hostages to ensure that the exercise does not become a "live fire exercise" against Iran? The 15 UK hostages are used as a means of keeping the US force from attacking Iran.
2. Alternatively (the game of chicken), the capture might be used by the Iranians as an attempt to goad the US into a military response. If the US does not attack, the Iranians score a propoganda victory--the big bad US won't/can't help out its UK ally.

Either way, the Iranians might be successful in a divide and conquer attempt aimed at the US-UK partnership.
If the US attacks (1 above), the Iranians kill the hostages, hoping to drive a wedge between the US and UK.
If the US doesn't attack (2 above) another wedge may be driven between the US and UK.

**tequila** · 03-27-2007

I think much more likely this is Iranian tat for our ###, that is the taking of the IRGC from our good buddy Hakim's compound awhile back.

**TROUFION** · 03-27-2007

It may be ### for tat BUT the difference is clear: uniformed troops clearly identified operating on an above board stated mission on a border (resrticted waterway/disputed border) with the intent of policing smuggling vs IRGC non-uniformed troops operating clandestinely well within a sovereign state with the intent of supporting internal conflict.

This was a bad move.

Not to mention the 'illegality' of parading the brits on tv.

Cold War style brinksmanship, who flinches first?

wm · 03-27-2007

We may just have to wait and see a little longer. When are the carrier battle groups scheduled to end the exercise?
Tony Blair's latest comments do not seem to imply escalating to a military option any time soon by the Brits, more a display of evidence to allow the court of public opinion to judge what unjust folks the Iranians are.

**tequila** · 03-27-2007

I'm certainly not comparing the relative morality of Brit Royal Marines vs IRGC commanders. Obviously there is a world of difference there. Simply pointing out that Iran is going to respond to our actions, and to expect otherwise is silly.

**goesh** · 03-28-2007

UK is definitely asserting that their forces were clearly in Iraqi waters

**Tc2642** · 03-28-2007

Re: the recent capture of British soldiers by Iran, how do you people think this will play out? Or is it too early to tell yet?

I'm still unsure but I don't rule out military action if this isn't resolved fairly soon. Blair seems to be pretty cagey regarding what type of action he is willing to take but I could see this escalating pretty quickly.

Your thoughts?

**tequila** · 03-28-2007

Most recent update. CNN-Turkey says Iran may release the female sailor.

**Jones_RE** · 03-28-2007

The first thought that springs to everyone's mind is that this is Iran's highest strategic and political thinkers' cunningly calculated plan to flex their muscles, deter the West and gain even more political power in the Muslim world. Of course, if that's the analysis being presented on CNN it's quite likely to be wrong.

Actually, this is almost certainly an accident. Think about the tactical challenge of grabbing 15 sailors without killing them. As the Iranian commander, how could you be 100% sure that none of the British would start shooting? How can you be sure they won't manage to sink their zodiac trying to get away from you and maybe drown a couple guys? Negotiating over prisoners is one thing - but if anyone had died this situation would be about ten times worse. That's one reason a deliberate capture seems unlikely.

They also have no reason to attempt such a risky operation.

-If they wanted to flex their muscles all they have to do is send a shipload of weaponry to Hezbollah or Hamas. That may not seem like much, but it's guaranteed to get noticed by the US government - which is the real outside player in the region.

-If they wanted British bargaining chips they could let their buddies in southern Iraq do it without attribution. No chance of retaliation.

-If they wanted to force Britain to back away from nuclear sanctions they know this is the worst way to do it. Anything that the UK offers Iran now only looks like caving in.

The simpler explanation is that either the British or the Iranians were wrong on where an international boundary was in relation to their boats. Given the narrow confines of those waters, and the fact that the Iranian navy probably doesn't use a whole lot of GPS, and the very real possibility that the Brits didn't check their GPS, it's much more likely that folks just got confused.

Moreover, neither side is acting like they were well prepared for this. The Brits would've reacted better had this been some deliberate incursion into Iranian waters. As it is, their cover story appears to be "we so weren't in Iranian waters". The Iranians probably didn't realize what was going on for a while, either - it's not every day those coastal patrol guys come up with anything more interesting than somebody's yacht drifted out of position.

This is a political problem that will get hashed out after some posturing by both sides. It'll take a little time because neither side was prepared for it. Both sides will try to take advantage of the situation and it's possible both sides will win. Tony Blair could get some much needed political support at home if he handles this well and the Iranians could come off looking both powerful and magnanimous for seizing the sailors and then releasing them. I believe the sailors will ultimately be released without harm - anything else is far too costly for Iran.

**Merv Benson** · 03-28-2007

As this post makes clear the British were kidnapped 1.7 miles into Iraqi waters. The original coordinates given by the Iranians to the Brits was also in Iraqi waters. Then then came back with different coordinates 500 yards into Iranian waters.

I think the Iranians were aware of the British Rules of Engagement from their earlier capture so they were not concerned about getting into a shoot out.

**goesh** · 03-28-2007

Yeah, how nice and cordial of them. They should have extended such consideration to that 16 yr old girl they hung in public for adultery last year

**selil** · 03-28-2007

Russian intelligence sees U.S. military buildup on Iran border

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070327/62697703.html

MOSCOW, March 27 (RIA Novosti) - Russian military intelligence services are reporting a flurry of activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran's borders, a high-ranking security source said Tuesday.

"The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched.

He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost."

He also said the U.S. Naval presence in the Persian Gulf has for the first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said last week that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future.

A new U.S. carrier battle group has been dispatched to the Gulf.

The USS John C. Stennis, with a crew of 3,200 and around 80 fixed-wing aircraft, including F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, eight support ships and four nuclear submarines are heading for the Gulf, where a similar group led by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been deployed since December 2006.

The U.S. is also sending Patriot anti-missile systems to the region.

**tequila** · 03-28-2007

Hey, nits make lice. One less, no?

I don't think anyone is arguing that the Iranians are knights of chivalry. This may be an indicator that they are realizing they have overreached.

**goesh** · 03-28-2007

-more likely some of our air assets have already crossed into their air space just a wee bit during the show of force and sabre rattling

**Stan** · 03-28-2007

Hi Sam,
Thanks for the link !

Just below that is another link to this article from Iran:

http://en.rian.ru/world/20070328/62756839.html

"Statements surrounding the U.S. Fifth Fleet conducting large-scale U.S. naval exercises in the region are untrue," a deputy commander of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps said.

According to Kevin Aandahl, a representative of the Fifth Fleet, the ships will keep out of Iranian waters, and the maneuvers are unconnected with Iran's detention of British sailors and marines.

Well, Kevin I guess we'll soon see

Regards, Stan

**Redcell2** · 03-28-2007

Regret to say that the Iranians have gotten one of the Brit sailors to "confess" that they were in Iranian territorial waters. This "confession" is being trumpeted on Tehran TV as we speak.

Agree that this could get bad quickly. But not sure anyone outside the IRGC knows where these people are being held.

Regards,

Hugh

**SWJED** · 03-28-2007

MOD Briefing Shows Royal Navy Personnel Were in Iraqi Waters :

The Ministry of Defence has presented evidence which shows that the fifteen personnel detained by Iranian authorities on Friday 23 March 2007 were operating in Iraqi waters when they were seized.

The briefing, at defence headquarters in London, was given by Vice Admiral Charles Style, Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Commitments). Vice Admiral Style, who is responsible for providing strategic advice to operational commanders, explained in detail where the Royal Navy personnel were located when they were seized:

Picture shows GPS location of the incident, as seen from a Royal Navy helicopter over the merchant vessel after the event.

"The aim of this brief is to provide a factual account of the incident during which fifteen Royal Naval personnel were seized by the Iranians last Friday. By way of background, HMS CORNWALL was in charge of the coalition force, which - alongside the Iraqi Navy - is operating in the Northern Persian Gulf.

"This force maintains the sovereignty and integrity of Iraqi territorial waters under UN Security Council Resolution 1723, and with the approval of the Iraqi Government. The ship – and others in the coalition - maintain a presence patrolling there. They are also charged with protection of the Iraqi offshore oil infrastructure – economically very important - and the security of merchant vessels.

Picture shows position of HMS Cornwall on Friday 23 March 2007.

"On 23 March a boarding team consisting of seven Royal Marines and eight sailors - who were embarked in two of HMS CORNWALL's boats - conducted a routine boarding of an Indian flagged Merchant Vessel which was cooperative throughout. They investigated this vessel after witnessing her unloading cars into two barges secured alongside. Since early March the force has conducted 66 routine boardings. So the one that I'm talking about was entirely routine business, and conducted in a particular area where four other boardings have been completed recently.

"As shown on the chart, the merchant vessel was 7.5 nautical miles south east of the Al Faw Peninsula and clearly in Iraqi territorial waters. Her master has confirmed that his vessel was anchored within Iraqi waters at the time of the arrest. The position was 29 degrees 50.36 minutes North 048 degrees 43.08 minutes East. This places her 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi territorial waters. This fact has been confirmed by the Iraqi Foreign Ministry.

"The Iranian government has provided us with two different positions for the incident. The first we received on Saturday and the second on Monday. As this map shows, the first of these points still lies within Iraqi territorial waters. We pointed this out to them on Sunday in diplomatic contacts.

"After we did this, they then provided a second set of coordinates that places the incident in Iranian waters over two nautical miles from the position given by HMS CORNWALL and confirmed by the merchant vessel. The two Iranian positions are just under a nautical mile apart – 1800 yards or so. It is hard to understand a reason for this change of coordinates. We unambiguously contest both the positions provided by the Iranians.

"I should just explain at this point that the boats remained connected at this point. One of the seaboats was connected via data link, which communicated its position continually to the ship where it was displayed, superimposed on an electronic chart, on a purpose built console. During the boarding this console was constantly monitored and indicated, throughout, that the boats had remained well within Iraqi territorial waters.

"Our boarding started at 0739 local time and was completed at 0910 with the merchant vessel having been cleared to continue with her business. Communications were lost with the boarding team as the boarding was finishing … at 0910. HMS CORNWALL's Lynx helicopter, which had been covering the initial stages of the boarding, immediately returned to the scene to locate the boarding team.

"The helicopter reported that the two seaboats were being escorted by Iranian Islamic Republican Guard Navy vessels towards the Shatt 'Al Arab Waterway and were now inside Iranian territorial waters. Debriefing of the helicopter crew and a conversation with the master of the merchant ship both indicate that the boarding team were ambushed while disembarking from the merchant vessel. Both boats were equipped with a GPS chart plotter.

"On Sunday morning, 25 March, HMS CORNWALL's Lynx conducted an overflight of the merchant vessel, which was still at anchor, and once again confirmed her location on Global Positioning System equipment. Her Master confirmed that his vessel had remained at anchor since Friday, and was in Iraqi territorial waters.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, my primary message is clear. HMS CORNWALL with her boarding party was going about her legal business – in Iraqi Territorial waters, under a United Nations Security Council Resolution, with the explicit approval of the Iraqi government.

"The action by Iranian forces in arresting and detaining our people is unjustified and wrong. As such it is a matter of deep concern to us and the families of the people who have been taken. We continue not only to call for their safe, but for their safe and speedy, return, and we continue to seek immediate consular access to them as a prelude to their release."

**jcustis** · 03-28-2007

It will likely end much the same way it did when the US P-3 crew was forced to land in Chinese territory in 2001.

**goesh** · 03-29-2007

If I were Ahmadinejad, I would announce to my people that UK will be paying compensation for violating territorial waters, that the UK spying mission was disrupted by the brave Iranian naval forces and the prisoners will be returned shortly. I suppose he could chain them to his nuke sites too.