The Shatt al-Arab waterway is a disputed border between Iran and Iraq. It is also a strategic passage, as most of the world’s oil is shipped through the narrow waterway. Iraq and Iran have disputed navigation rights on the Shatt al-Arab since 1935, when an international commission gave Iraq control.
The British are a race?
The word “race” can mean anything from a family (e.g., British nobles being referred to as “of ancient race”) to all humanity.
I wouldn’t bet against Tony Blair doing it.
Most people don’t assosiate race with family
I hope that’s tongue-in-cheek, otherwise that’s one of the wildest statements I’ve seen posted here.
Uh huh. Tony Blair isn’t nuking anybody, please stop fantasizing.
I can’t figure out if you’re pretending Tony Blair might nuke Iran because you’re in favor of nuking Iran, or if you’re pretending Tony Blair might nuke Iran because you’re convinced he’s history’s greatest monster and this would prove it, but either way, please stop.
This is the Dope. It’s probably the latter.
If I were POTUS, I’d certainly bet on any military action we’d do, no matter how great or small, to be latched onto propaganda causes by Jihadists and Al Queda, so it’s a no win situation, damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
According to this story, the British guys were not grabbed by the regular Iranian armed forces, but an offshoot.
Assuming that the claims about them are true, this is bad. They seem like the sorts who could push this into some sort of major confrontation, either on purpose or ideological stubborness. Especially with Bush and his puppet Blair on the other side looking for an excuse. I think there are people in power on both sides who want a conflict, and this may be the spark they need.
I cannot think of any rational for the Iranians to want to be invaded by the US & UK. It would be very bad for us and the stability of the world. However, it could only be absolute devastation for Iran. I doubt either country would attempt another occupation. We would sweep in; destroy everything we wanted to and much more as collateral damage and head back to Iraq. The waste of human life would be obscene.
The US and UK would become pariahs, but the Iranians would lose all their infrastructure. They have to know how easy it is for the US & UK to destroy their military. They cannot be that ignorant. I might hate Bush, but he is the wrong person to play chicken with and Blair is on the way out anyway.
Jim
You assume they think we can and will mount a serious invasion; I doubt it. Oh, we have the power - with a draft, which I doubt Bush has the political power to implement. Without a draft, we don’t have the numbers to properly hold onto Iraq now; we certainly can’t send over much into Iran without completely losing control in Iraq.
Bush might be stupid enough to do it anyway, which is a really unpleasant scenario.
Some of the leaders would likely regard that as a great scenario. They can just hide until we have to leave, and they will be able to blame all Iran’s problems on us, and firmly unite Iran behind them via the hatred the Iranian people will have for the US. Plus, they will weaken the US even more.
Also, it wouldn’t be as easy as you seem to think. The Iranian military is much stronger than Iraq’s was, and ours is weaker.
I think the thing you are missing is that the US & UK do not really need to invade. We can deal out death and doom to a country like Iran from a distance. They cannot fight our missiles and aircraft. They have no hope. If they think we need to invade they are deceived. We invaded Iraq because our idiot leaders thought [del]they could take over and control the oil[/del] they could enact a benign regime change.
In Iran, we will simply destroy their ability to wage war and build nuclear power plants to make nuclear weapons. Don’t make the mistake we need to expend extra troops. They have only terror to fight us. Their military will be as nothing compared to ours.
The problem is, it will escalate the terror war to a whole new level. It might actually kick off a much larger war. A war humanity cannot afford to fight. Do you trust Bush not to take the kit-gloves off?
Jim
Except we have troops sittting on either border of Iran that would be at risk from retaliation if we “delt doom from afar”.
But in anycase, I still doubt this will lead to anything beyond a war of words and saber rattling. Iran will film a few propaganda videos of the soilders in handcuffs and then release them in a few weeks.
Not enough to destroy their government, or their military; probably not even enough to shut down their nuke program short of using nukes ourselves.
And our Great Leaders no doubt want the same in Iran. I strongly believe that Bush wants to invade and occupy Iran, and that he would have long ago if the neocon fantasy of the Iraqis falling at our feet for “liberating” them had actually happened.
I seriously doubt that; I think you overestimate our ability to defeat someone in a position to fight back.
He’s never put them on. I would not be at all surprised if he attacked; I also wouldn’t be surprised if it turns into a first class military disaster. One possibility that comes to mind is Iraq rising up against us if we divert too many forces from there, cutting off our force’s supply lines. Another, is Bush ordering in a force too small to succeed, and when it gets bogged down and starts taking casualities demanding more money and troops, and accusing the Democrats of “abandoning our troops” to the Iranians.
Corroborating evidence either way.
From the cite Tagos posted:
This was from the 18th. Think it’s a coincidence that the Iranians pull a snatch and grab of a bunch of British soldiers a couple of days after they threaten to do exactly that?
This was probably a Quds Force retailiation for the U.S. detention of Quds Force members in Iraq.
The claim that most of the world’s oil is shipped through Shatt-al-Arab is wildly untrue. Iraq is reliant on the waterway and it is close to Iran’s major refinery city of Khorramshar. But as you can see but Iran and Iraq put together are nowhere near most of the world’s oil supply (and Iran has other ports anyway - Khorramshar’s port is still damaged from the Iran- Iraq war to boot).
The tone of this thread is troublesome to me. Are people really so consumed with hate they think Tony Blair relishes the thought of nuking Iran? I think this is a case of rationality being occluded by prejudice.
This looks like a clumsy attempt by Iran to send a warning to the west on the eve of the latest round of UN sanctions. Remember that Iran’s Supreme the Ayatollah Khamenei leader said this week that Iran would pursue “illegal actions” against the west? Well, here you go. Also keep in mind that it was not the regular Iranian navy that was involved here, but the Revolutionary Guards who operate under the close supervision of Khamenei. Six vessels as I understand it. Johnny-on-the-spot.
Of course they will dispute where the incident took place, but I would contend that the British are being very mindful of their position, especially after the incident of 2004. Considering that they were boarding an Iranian cargo ship I would double that bet.
Is a rescue attempt in the offing? Hardly. Do you think the Iranians have notified the Brits as to where the hostages are being held? Do you think western intelligence knows? They are doubtlessly well-guarded and I would imagine they have been separated into smaller groups to further ensure there will be no rescue.
Will Iran kill them? Highly unlikely. That would precipitate a pointedly unfavorable response from Britain (but certainly not nukes) that Iran would rather not suffer. Instead look for Iran to humiliate the men by showing them on television confessing to violating Iran’s territory before they are released.
If our leaders aren’t considering the pros and cons of stirring up international terrorism, then they aren’t doing their job properly. Look at Northern Ireland: the UK government could have razed the Falls Road with tanks, but recruitment to the IRA would have been massive. If they hadn’t been considering the effect of policy on terrorist recruitment, they’d have been as big a bunch of idiots as whoever made the call to shoot into the crowds at Bloody Sunday, or introduced Internment (which policy was directly stopped because of the recruitment to terror groups).
You may wish to hang your opinions on a trite (albeit grammatically incorrect) slogan; I hope our foreign policy makers don’t.
Very true. We may dislike some of the things they consider, but they still need to consider them.