Iran

[Sugabeen]

I'm suprised that this isn't a more talked about topic on here. I wonder if that indicates that people are as confused about the situation as I am!?

The latest on the UK news tonight was that the Iranians are asking for a delegation from the UK to review the evidence in Iran.
This was portrayed as an effort to enter into diplomatic talks and avoid a trial, but also included the need for Britain to apologise-not if they are wrong-just to apologise.

We also have the US backing the UK in its stance-I'm not altogether suprised about this, but I'm not sure why the US is getting involved at this stage-unless that is what Iran was banking on.

Its interesting that there have been such vehement displays of protest against the supposed "crime" by the UK troops from the public in Iran-what and how have they been told about this to stir such reaction....even using children as young as 4 to chant their hatred.
In the UK at least there seems to be an attitude of wanting to find the truth and wanting the people released, rather than "I'm right, you're wrong!" at least in the reported public's eye.

There has to be so much more going on behind the Iranians actions and I for one, just wish I had some idea what that could be. I don't think that they believed Britain would just accept blame and release Iranian diplomats, although they may have thought it would be done as a goodwill gesture-but how could they expect that.

Its also not been fully clear what the UK mission was in the first place-surely the risks of such an incident would have been fully explored...and was the mission worth the events that followed?

The UK is showing that the mud flats around the area have shifted, making the area in dispute much harder to define-so why take the risk of going near there.
Maybe Iran took the opportunity to have the area defined more clearly and by the UK or UN to avoid entering into those disputes directly with Iraq.

This is one of those situations that makes me feel for people who are in positions of power and have to make such difficult decisions, probably without having all the facts about implications. We are quick to villify our politicians and their decisions, but would we want to have to take their place over issues like these, I wonder.

[Keakealani]

I'm definitely confused, for one.

The main thing I'm confused about, though, is why Iran detained those sailors in the first place. Just because they were in the waters? Is it a crime to be slightly beyond the border? Navigational technology is good, but it's certainly possible that since there is a dispute that they honestly didn't know. To me, that doesn't seem to be a great justification for capturing people, and whatnot.

In my view, Iran is just looking to pick a fight, refusing to follow UN requests agains nuclear research, and now this, as well as other percieved or real hostilities towards the US and its actions as well as its allies and their actions. Maybe I'm seeing a propagandized version of the story, but it still seems a bit strange...

[Wab]

Originally Posted by Keakealani

The main thing I'm confused about, though, is why Iran detained those sailors in the first place. Just because they were in the waters? Is it a crime to be slightly beyond the border?

For the military forces of one country to violate the borders of another is an act of war (if the violated party wants).

[Keakealani]

Oh, wow, I didn't know that. Hm, I guess that makes sense. *shrug* I guess I still don't see why they're hurting for war so badly, but knowing that it's considered an act of war does change my position a bit.

[OldLupin]

Originally Posted by Keakealani

Oh, wow, I didn't know that. Hm, I guess that makes sense. *shrug* I guess I still don't see why they're hurting for war so badly, but knowing that it's considered an act of war does change my position a bit.

The problem is that the Iranian vessel was in Iraqi water and not the British in Iranian waters. The initial report from the Iranian ship was coordinates that put them clearly in Iraqi waters. The Iranians changed the position officially not long after they realized the actual position would have made their actions a deliberate act of war and an illegal kidnapping. Now it is all damage control and saving face. The Iranian leadership probably got stuck with this because of an incompetent officer making a mistake, but now they have to use what leverage they have to see if this could be manipulated to their advantage. There is no way the Iranian government is going to admit that they were wrong, let alone that they were patrolling Iraqi waters at the time.

[WarriorEowyn]

Originally Posted by OldLupin

The problem is that the Iranian vessel was in Iraqi water and not the British in Iranian waters. The initial report from the Iranian ship was coordinates that put them clearly in Iraqi waters. The Iranians changed the position officially not long after they realized the actual position would have made their actions a deliberate act of war and an illegal kidnapping. Now it is all damage control and saving face. The Iranian leadership probably got stuck with this because of an incompetent officer making a mistake, but now they have to use what leverage they have to see if this could be manipulated to their advantage. There is no way the Iranian government is going to admit that they were wrong, let alone that they were patrolling Iraqi waters at the time.

I'm not quite clear: was the British patrol (according to British data, and I trust the Brits plenty more than I do Iran) in waters that are recognized by everyone as belonging to Iraq? Because I keep hearing that they were in disputed waters claimed by both Iraq and Iran (which still makes Iran's actions wrong, but at least suggests a motive in trying to assert their possession of the area).

[Daemon_in_a_Box]

I believe they were in Iraqi waters recognized by everyone, but like OldLupin said Iraq changed its story once this was established.

[Discordia]

GPS tracking, coupled with initial admissions by the Iranian forces of their location that has been edited later, would lead me to assume that the "confession" is pretty orchestrated and means very little except that Iran currently doesn't feel that Britain is covered under the Geneva Conventions. I don't think British troops would intentionally come out and say those types of things on camera without some coercion, even if they were true.

I agree with you. If my memory serves me right I can't recall the US or other nations like Britain who resort to such tactics. Look at the Muslim terrorists who constantly make videos of their captives. What does Iran want from the world now?

[Sugabeen]

Originally Posted by OldLupin

The problem is that the Iranian vessel was in Iraqi water and not the British in Iranian waters. The initial report from the Iranian ship was coordinates that put them clearly in Iraqi waters. The Iranians changed the position officially not long after they realized the actual position would have made their actions a deliberate act of war and an illegal kidnapping. Now it is all damage control and saving face. The Iranian leadership probably got stuck with this because of an incompetent officer making a mistake, but now they have to use what leverage they have to see if this could be manipulated to their advantage. There is no way the Iranian government is going to admit that they were wrong, let alone that they were patrolling Iraqi waters at the time.

Wow, this is an interesting perspective and one I stupidly hadn't considered, but it certainly seems plausible.
It will be useful to bear this in mind when watching further reports. Forgive me for not taking it as truth-I'm not sure we will ever know the full truth behind the incident...I like to keep an open mind unless there is unequivocal prove. I wouldn't like to make assumptions that could be misinterpreted.
I would be very intrigued to know how you came by this information-is it something you've heard reported,I wonder.

It could be possible that BOTH evens happened, that is, the British forces unwittingly went into Iranian waters and the Iranians, in pursuing the British then crossed into Iraqi waters.
Mind you, if this did come out, it would be somewhat foolish for the Iranians to set a precedent in their behaviour by penalising the British because the Iraqi's might then feel justified in taking action against the Iranians.

From the continued talks about diplomatic solutions and positive outcomes, it doesn't seem likely, at this point, that it is a precursor to war. It does seem to show what would happen if Britain or the US or UN were to fall into a further dispute with Iran-the complications of negotiation and the instability of the situation as a whole...hopefully once this is resolved, lessons will have been learnt that might prevent future, possibly more challenging situations from occurring.

[Dedalus Diggle]

Originally Posted by Keakealani

Oh, wow, I didn't know that. Hm, I guess that makes sense. *shrug* I guess I still don't see why they're hurting for war so badly, but knowing that it's considered an act of war does change my position a bit.

It is certainly not at all unusual for a government to rally its people by rattlign sabres. The Iranian government seems to have been doing that for quite some time now (and let's not get into whether other governments have been douing that lately). I have heard that the bulk of the populace is far less religious - or at least 'fundamentalist' - as the leadership of Iran, so that appeals to national pride are being used to turn any criticism of the government's excesses into 'antipatriotic' and treasonous statements. There's nothing like an international crisis to divert criticism - and if one doesn't occur on its own you can always create one.

[Morgoth]

Originally Posted by WarriorEowyn

I'm not quite clear: was the British patrol (according to British data, and I trust the Brits plenty more than I do Iran) in waters that are recognized by everyone as belonging to Iraq? Because I keep hearing that they were in disputed waters claimed by both Iraq and Iran (which still makes Iran's actions wrong, but at least suggests a motive in trying to assert their possession of the area).

That would be fine if Iran hadn't changed the coordinates of where they took the soldiers and sailors originally. All territorial claims become null and void at this stage.

Originally Posted by Dedalus Diggle

It is certainly not at all unusual for a government to rally its people by rattlign sabres. The Iranian government seems to have been doing that for quite some time now (and let's not get into whether other governments have been douing that lately). I have heard that the bulk of the populace is far less religious - or at least 'fundamentalist' - as the leadership of Iran, so that appeals to national pride are being used to turn any criticism of the government's excesses into 'antipatriotic' and treasonous statements. There's nothing like an international crisis to divert criticism - and if one doesn't occur on its own you can always create one.

There was a fantastic documentary made by the BBC, which I believe is somewhere online, which went deep into the heart of Iranian society and it was quite the eye opener. I would say from the documentary that Iran is no more different in lifestyles than the US. What keeps the people surpressed as you say, is the fundamentalist regime that polices the airwaves, the internet and the newspapers.

[OldLupin]

Originally Posted by Morgoth

That would be fine if Iran hadn't changed the coordinates of where they took the soldiers and sailors originally. All territorial claims become null and void at this stage.



There was a fantastic documentary made by the BBC, which I believe is somewhere online, which went deep into the heart of Iranian society and it was quite the eye opener. I would say from the documentary that Iran is no more different in lifestyles than the US. What keeps the people surpressed as you say, is the fundamentalist regime that polices the airwaves, the internet and the newspapers.

Do you think that the underlying political climate is another motivation for the Iranian interference in Iraq and efforts to destabilize Iraq? Could the hostage episode be a precursory way of justifying involvement in Iraq to the Iranian people and other potentially sympathetic allies? Do you think I was right in the assessment that Iran will "Test the water" with how the reaction plays in Britain and the West as this situation persists?

[purplehawk]

Iran has just announced that it will release all 15 captives.

Iran to Release 15 Britons Held Since March 23

[WarriorEowyn]

Originally Posted by purplehawk

Iran has just announced that it will release all 15 captives.

Iran to Release 15 Britons Held Since March 23

Yep. The spin Iran is putting on it - "they're guilty and we're just freeing them because we're so nice that way" - is hilarious, as is Ahmadinejad taking the British to task for "not respecting family values", but it's pretty clear that they've actually just backed down, or else the British gov't has made concessions we're not aware of.

[Sugabeen]

Yes, the attack on family values-saying that the British woman held captive shouldn't be in the forces as she has a child at home, is highly hypocritical given that the Iranians had young children involved in their volatile demonstrations!

It is wonderful to hear that the troops are being freed, although I'm sure the families won't feel at peace until they land in Britain. It will be fascinating to find out from them what exactly happened over there.

[purplehawk]

Iran said something like this when the were holding American hostages way back when. They released the black hostages very early on, saying that blacks" had suffered enough" in America.

[Daemon_in_a_Box]

Originally Posted by purplehawk

Iran has just announced that it will release all 15 captives.

Iran to Release 15 Britons Held Since March 23

Great news. Looks like cooler heads prevailed.

[fryonator]

I dont understand why Iraq and Iran aren't trying to draw clearer boundaries because of this incident. I have heard nothing about this at all

[OldLupin]

Originally Posted by purplehawk

Iran said something like this when the were holding American hostages way back when. They released the black hostages very early on, saying that blacks" had suffered enough" in America.

The North Koreans used to focus Phy-ops at black soldiers in the Korean War using similar rhetoric sometimes over loud speakers or in pamphlets. My father served in the war with black soldiers who were not impressed by it. Most considered it insulting to their intelligence and were even more motivated to fight by being singled out in a newly integrated force that even had black officers and NCO's in possitions over white enlisted men. "It was their mistake, those guys were out for blood after those broadcasts and comparing them to dogs in those booklets, talk about backfiring..." as my father put it.

Sorry to go off topic.

[Overdose]

This has to be a political ploy.

Iran will want something for their 'favour' to Britain, not in the case of actual demands, but in terms of spinning public opinion of the citizens of not just Iran but also the rest of the world in their favour. Furthermore this will put pressure on Britain especially in regards to Iran's nuclear issue.