Why so? The British probably have considered the possibility of this situation happening (or of something similar happenning) and decided that they would rather have some soldiers captured than an actual engagement between the royal navy and the Iranian navy. It’s not like sinking an Iranian ship couldn’t possibly result in a very bad situation very quickly. Escalation is a very real risk in this area (for instance Iran launch anti-ships missiles against some british ship in reprisal, sink it, killing a hundred british sailors…then, what?), and I’ve no reason to assume that the British government currently regrets not having fought back.
You’re assuming the Iranians would have tried this if the British rules of engagement gave the Royal Navy the go-ahead to fight back, I’m not sure that’s the case. The U.S. Navy would have had the go-ahead to fight back (whether or not that’s how such a situation would have been resolved is dependent on decisions taken by commanders on the scene) and it is notable that the Iranians took RN sailors captive and not American ones.
I’m not sure the Iranians would have tried this at all with the Americans, precisely because they knew American sailors would have the authority to fight back instead of having to passively allow themselves to be taken prisoner.
It shows the importance of always keeping a strong front. The U.S. and the USSR both did all kinds of huge military exercises throughout the Cold War to demonstrate that their nuclear arsenals were ready and waiting to be launched, and for that reason neither side every tried anything too serious against the other. Deterrence is very real, and I think it is why there are 15 RN sailors in captivity and not 15 Americans, considering Iran definitely seems to have a bigger beef with us than with the U.K.
What kind of success would it be, and how would it fare in the medias? In the scenario proposed, the UK destroys Iranian power plants (something that might much more difficult than some seem to assume : Iran isn’t Irak, and the UK isn’t the USA, but let’s assume it happens). So, the medias soon show footages of the unavoidable civilian deaths, of premature babies dying in iranian hospitals as the result of the lack of electricity, and… the 15 british sailors are still detained in Iran along with some british pilots. Major PR success? Me think not.
Let’s just run that statement back, shall we. The “astronomical price” of oil means that we don’t have any problems with closing down what amounts to 5% of production, because there are “reserves just about everywhere”
Could you explain just why that already astronomical price wouldn’t sky rocket even further when supply is cut and the market is faced with uncertainty. For bonus points could you also tell me where these reserves you refer to have been found, or just how they will suddenly transmogrify from upstream reserves to downstream production. Usually the oil industry relies on a few intermediate stages, like creating a production facility, pipelines, refining capabilities, but you appear to know a magical solution to avoid these time consuming steps.
It’s very hard to respond to this nonsense in a way that complies with this forums rules. Can I ask just how you propose to achieve this?
You have no idea.
Frankly I have long written you off as a moron.
I am interested in hearing the views of others, just in case I might change my mind.
- you do not understand that the tectonic plates have shifted
- the UK, Russia and France will re-emerge, we don’t like wars on our borders, and Iran is too close.
We are old enemies, we distrust each other, but this mess needs sorting out, and it is obvious that the USA is not competent.
I have no idea where you are getting this from - this isn’t the 19th century any more.
I’m not assuming that. I’m stating it could have happened, and that the British probably considered it when they chose their “awareness level” (or whatever else it is called).
Maybe Iranians could decide to capture british sailors, or maybe not (after all, it didn’t happen previously). Maybe a go-ahead to fight back would have prevented it, or maybe not (after all, Iranians could call it bluff). Maybe actyually fighting bak would have resulted in escalation, or maybe not.
I’m just saying not only that it wasn’t obviously a mistake before the facts, but also that it’s not obvious at all that the British admiralty considers it a mistake after the facts. They migh very well still think it would have been unwise to fight back.
Sure, there’s a lot of variables. Personally I’d feel more comfortable serving in a military that gives its commanders on the front line the ability to resist acts of war versus one that requires you to passively surrender at signs of trouble.
I’m not saying it would be a good thing for the RN to have sunk 6 Iranian ships, I don’t think anyone believes that is a good thing. What I do think is a good thing is for the Iranians to be too afraid to try because they fear that could happen, it’s my opinion the fear of such a response if precisely why this was not tried with the U.S. Navy and why it was tried (successfully) with the Royal Navy.
There is a lot of maybes either way. Maybe the RN should have had a stricter policy in place. If they had, the captain of the Cornwall could have informed the Iranians that he was authorized to aggressively respond which in and of itself could have prevented the incident on the scene, if the general rules of engagement hadn’t kept the Iranians at bay in the first place.
Maybe a more aggressive rule set would have caused this to blow up into outright war.
I’m not going to say anyone is a seer capable of answering these questions, it’s just my opinion that there’s a very prominent reason this happened to the Royal Navy and not the U.S. Navy, and when all is said and done this didn’t happen to a U.S. warship it happened to a British warship, and I personally find that telling, but maybe it is just coincidence.
I forgot to mention that a go-ahead to fight back brings the risk of an accidental or unwarranted attack (say, an iranian officer is a little provocative, and a british one a little nervous or trigger-happy). Probably a risk that was considered too.
And what would you want the UK, Russia and France to do, exactly???
Do we know they’re all prisoners? Isn’t it possible Ali Reza Askari defected?
Russia will. As geopolitical players, the UK and France have no future except as key members of the EU. (The UK has no future as an American ally; you’ll always be very junior partner in that relationship.)
So it was not a dhow. Looks like a small container ship to me. Any ideas? Certainly not a dhow.
You must be an editor.
OK. Lets just call it ‘She’. Or the ship. Or the big boat that has some guns.
FRDE - I assume you’re obliquely referring to something commonly termed the ‘national interest’ when you refer, often, to “we”. If that is what you are doing, can I ask you consider (a) the absurdity of allying yourself - and I worry the whole population - with a one-dimensional version of a nation state (b) that you sound like a propagandised, unthinking oaf and © that there are very many different views as to what constitutes said national interest - and (I believe) a minority would probably consider themselves among your version of “we”.
Alternatively, perhaps you might consider using “We, except Elsie”?
It was just “pulling me out of the moment” a bit.
Warning: this sort of direct insult, particularly when you have already been pushing the envelope with your broad-brush slams against entire populations and choosing to not control your temper, here, is a direct violation of the rules.
You will not do this again.
[ /Moderating ]
I agree with the above, BG, with one rather large caveat though. The EU itself is already, and will become and even larger geopolitical player. In fact, as your own empire fades, I see China and the EU as the two strongest contenders to succeed you. A short six years ago I would have never predicted that I’d see the decline of the US in my lifetime, but at the rate you’re going and adding roughly another twenty years to my already advanced age, that might be the case yet.
OTOH, the rise of both China and the EU were rather easy to predict – but I was thinking more along the lines of fifty/seventy years from now for them to surpass the US. Lots of bitter irony in how the neocons have managed to accomplish exactly the opposite of what they set out to accomplish. You know, the whole “hegemony” thing.
Rubbish, in terms of military strength and military overseas projection, the UK is up there with the big boys. This is including Russia.
Except George Bush (and Cheney, and Rove, and etc) will be out of office on or before January 20th, 2009. So expect some change in those trend lines about then, whether a Republican or a Democrat wins.
And suddenly you’d wake up and realize it was only a dream.
Short of going nuclear – where no one wins – there’s no conventional force that can currently match the might of the US. Russia, the EU and China might present a problem due to sheer numbers, but technology-wise, the US armed forces are nonpareil other than to themselves. And for a very good reason:
In Context: U.S. Military Spending Versus Rest of the World
That’s reality and the rest is bunk.
I harbor no ill-will towards the US. As I’ve often said on this board, I married Americans twice and my only child is a born and bred American who resides in the US.
Having said that, I agree with you. No matter what Party wins the next election there’s some about-facing that has to be done. But – and there’s always a but – BushCo has placed your nation in somewhat of a hole, both financially and politically. And I don’t think it’s going to be all that easy to climb out of it. As I said – perhaps in another thread, not sure – you’ve not only morgaged yourselves to the will of other nations, but you’ve also earned the scorn of most of the rest the world. Not going to be easy to climb out of that hole.
But I trust you’re right and I am not. I really do. After all, I grew-up admiring the US and it’s tough to change one’s world-view after so many years…