I’ll try that again.
The story is that Ahmadinejad had problems getting a visa to enter the USA to address the UN.
That is a bit daft as a visa can be supplied on a faxed bit of paper (I know I’ve done just that) but also he would not go through immigration, most likely his aircraft would park up and he would be picked up on the tarmac by a car.
In other words the visa story is nonsense, it means that he did not want to go, or more likely his government did not want him to go.
Some reasonably scary developments:
Iran to Try Britons for Espionage
And it does look like this was a Quds Force reprisal: British Soldiers ‘Bargaining Chips’
Do be a good fellow and not accuse me of sentiments that I’ve not espoused. I’ve not said anything about classing the execution of soldiers as being an act of war, or of tabloids being stupid. I think it’s a reasonable statement to say that the Sun, for instance, is more likely to run headlines calling for an attack on Iran than the Times, even though they’re stablemates. I certainly think that the Sun callling for this will have more effect on public opinion than the times. If you disagree, then by all means tell me why, but let’s forego the strawmen
You’re talking nonsense. I’d accuse Blair of many things, but he’s hardly likely to want his legacy to be first use of Nuclear weapons outside of a world war.
This is just a fundamental misunderstanding of how large countries work. Do you seriously think Saddam’s position as leader of Iraq was strengthened by the complete devastation of his country’s infrastructure following the air campaign of the Persian Gulf War? That isn’t remotely the case.
Even if the complete destruction of Iran’s civilian infrastructure did not harm Iran’s nuclear program or kill any of its major leaders (I would certainly not expect the latter, like all semi-civilized states Iran’s leaders will have protected, secret bunkers to hide in–just like the leaders of the United States for example) it would economically destroy Iran. It would certainly destroy the Iranian air force’s ability to act (you can be assured runways and other areas of important to a modern air force would be one of the first things destroyed), it would destroy Iran’s electrical and water systems, which would devastate the country. Might it possibly strengthen the current Iranian regime’s standing in the eyes of the public? Maybe. That wasn’t at all what happened with Saddam’s regime following the destruction of his country in the Persian Gulf war, but Iran/Iraq are not analogous situations politically or culturally, either.
Ultimately the point is moot, widescale economic devastation along the lines seen in Iraq following the Persian Gulf war will have long term, and devastating effects on the military prowess of any country. Countries with devastated economies don’t field strong militaries.
Can Iran (or almost any country) hide certain assets from aerial destruction? Certainly. But Iran can’t exactly fold all of its military assets into hardened bunkers, nor can it do so with its civilian population or its essential infrastructure. You can’t exactly fold a power plant into a bunker, or a major dam, or a major military base. These things would be destroyed, and to devastating effect. Iran has indeed had more time to prepare, but our ability to destroy a country aerially has increased since the Persian Gulf war. You shouldn’t confuse the fact that the United States Army is somewhat stretched thin with the U.S. Armed Forces as a whole. The Air Force as well as the U.S. Navy isn’t really busy day-to-day keeping order in Iraq to the same degree as the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, and while all the branches of the armed forces are active in the current Iraq situation, the Air Force and Navy have tons of assets which are not involved which could easily strike at Iran, as well as possessing the ability to easily disentangle what assets are involved in Iraq if the need arose (the Army and Marine Corps do not enjoy a similar situation.) Not to mention or even go into detail about how much of the RAF and RN are currently available for something like this.
I’m not sure where the impression came about that a large, relatively advanced country like Iran can just “shrug off” having no electricity, no water, no transportation, no Air Force, and no major military installations with sheer fanaticism, that just doesn’t happen.
If the U.S. and the U.K. decided to bomb Iran, I don’t really think the goal would be to kill Iran’s political leaders, if you are interested in making a serious bid to kill a political leader you’d have a much better chance of success via covert means versus a bombing campaign which follows months of diplomatic threats.
Let’s be serious though, the chances of any of these scenarios playing out is very low. The U.S. and the U.K. have no desire for any of this to go down, so more than likely it will not. If Iran does something really rash, like put the captured sailors on trial and sentence them to lengthy incarceration or death, something could happen, but even then I doubt it would be a massive bombing campaign.
On an unrelated note, I’m honestly questioning the procedures shown by the HMS Cornwall here. Why exactly was its boarding party so out of range of the ship that the Cornwall was unable to factor in to the situation? A self-respecting captain in a modern navy who was in the vicinity of something like this would issue warnings to the 6 Iranian ships that it would desist from attempting to capture its sailors under threat of being fired upon. That sounds somewhat rash, but a ship of war I think, has a responsibility to not peacefully allow a boarding party to be captured by the enemy. Since none of this happens I suspect the boarding party was some distance away from the Cornwall, which makes me wonder why exactly a boarding party would be so far away from its ship in the first place.
I think you’re well aware that a military force, such as the U.S. Army which is currently designed around being capable of meeting and destroying other military forces is one ill suited to occupy a hostile country. Even a force specifically designed to occupy a hostile land would suffer setbacks and death at the hands of guerilla fighters. In all honesty though, the total number of dead soldiers in Iraq isn’t that significant, it is only in the context of the last 20-30 years that a few thousand dead soldiers = major military disaster. More were lost in a few hours during WWII, on a very regular basis.
I’m not really sure Iran would want to cross the borders of Iraq and Afghanistan, this could risk bringing other regional players like Turkey into the equation. Turkey hasn’t been remotely supportive of the U.S. campaign in Iraq, but it’ll be even less supportive of what it would view as a blatant Iranian power grab in the region. Look at how Turkey responded to Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, for example.
Early on, on the BBC, I heard the word ‘ambush’
I have a suspicion that the Iranian patrol boats might have come from within the dhow - not so crazy when you look at the picture of a dhow next to my great, great uncle’s battleship. (Actually the one that hangs above my VDU).
Personally I would have sent in helicopters - preferably blaring Apocalypse Now, but that is why I’m not commander of a cruiser.
Next time a dhow sets out with a suspicious radar profile, something nasty will happen to it - and it will not be investigated.
I think it highly unlikely that they’ll do anything much to the guys, I think that they have figured out that we get really annoyed with even minor casualties.
I also think something is going on within Iran.
Whoa, I must be reading the story different from everyone else. From my understanding, these British sailors were found in Iranian waters, picked up, and interrogated. The Iranians haven’t done anything (to my knowledge) that would suggest this is any different than what any other country would do. I would hope that if an Iranian ship just happened to be sailing near one of our waterways that America would be just as vigilant.
Now if the Iranians execute these sailors or use them as bargaining chips, then I’ll definitely think of it as an act of war.
And you must be reading the story different from every one I’m aware of, some people have speculated that the British were in Iranian waters, but GPS evidence has been offered up showing they were not. The British have never once conceded that their soldiers were in Iranian waters, and the general tone of most reports that the major world media have issued has said that Iran took the soldiers in Iraqi waters, not Iranian.
Furthermore, the narrow waterway where this went down is one where a treaty (several times reaffirmed throughout the 20th century) clearly marks lines of territoriality, and from all accounts the Brits were on the Iraqi side of that line. While both sides have long disputed the line being where it was, the line doesn’t “exist as a muddled line” it is a line that is actually there and affixed by treaty, a treaty that both Iran and Iraq have in the past signed off on, despite the fact neither side really like it. Now, since these territorial lines aren’t actually drawn across the water, it is entirely possible for ships to cross them unawares, however if you ask me who is more likely to cross a territorial line unknown, the Iranians or the Royal Navy, I’ll go with the Iranians every time. The RN has more experienced, better trained navigators and better navigational equipment than the Iranians.
One Foreign Office undersecretary going by the name Lord Triesman has said that whether or not the RN was in Iran’s territorial waters is a technical issue, and he asserts that based on the technical evidence it is clear that the RN was not in Iranian territorial waters. Jacques Chirac has likewise said that it “appears” the RN was not in Iranian waters at the time.
I’ve actually not seen any reports asserting that the RN was in Iranian waters aside from the claims of Iran itself.
If they do, then god help them
Fortunately, behind them are fairly sensible people, unfortunately they have not yet stuck their knives in the backs of the idiots - although I suspect that is going on in Iran right now.
Something is going on inside Iran.
Good thing you’re not a racist. Better yet, luckily for you this isn’t The Pit where your comments could be properly addressed.
Why’s it racist to ascertain that the Palestinian and Iranian public are not well versed in the line of democracy and free speech, let alone criticism of their own regimes actions as we are?
Blair has made a statement – no threats or ultimatum, just, “This is a very serious situation.” And he denies the sailors were in Iranian waters.
I really hope the Iranians aren’t thinking that this could be like the 1979 hostage crisis, where Iran held people for a long, long time, and used it as a lever against the west. If they do, they haven’t grasped that times have changed. There is no cold war. There’s no offsetting superpower to keep conflict in check. I don’t believe Britain will tolerate letting those soldiers be held for any long period of time - nor should they. Iran is playing an extremely dangerous game right now.
It’s very hard to understand the internal motivation of Iran here. I posted a couple of links that suggest this was a Quds Force retaliation against the U.S. capturing and holding Quds Force members in Iraq. If so, it’s not clear if the order came down from the top, or if this is a sign of a schism within Iran.
It’s also possible that this was done for the internal benefit of the regime, as a response to the defection of several high-level members of the military. The regime can not tolerate the appearance that the military is beginning to abandon the government. What better way to show solidarity than to allow the Quds force to retaliate in this way? It could be the Iranian equivalent of, “we support the troops” - a way to quell dissatisfaction in the ranks.
It looks to me like there’s been some kind of sea change in the past few weeks. First we had the defection of high-ranking officers. Shortly thereafter, Iran started making conciliatory noises about Iraq. Moqtada al-Sadr’s coalition appears to be fracturing a bit. Then out of the blue Russia started playing hardball with Iran over their nuke plant. Then the U.S. managed to engineer a Chapter VII resolution against Iran , imposing sanctions (with a 15-0 vote). It was a vote no one expected to succeed several months ago. It was certainly not something I expected to see, given that the U.S. has seemed to be on the defensive over the past while.
I wonder if the defectors didn’t have some very juicy information that has put the U.S. in a strong position against Iran, or which has convinced the rest of the Security Council that Iran is a bigger threat to them than they thought? And Iran is now lashing back out as an attempt to staunch the bleeding.
All speculation, but it sure seems like something has changed in the last little while.
Good Analyses here esp. Captain Lance and Sam.
For my part, I am not sure there is anything “deeper” going on than that the Quds force has lost face by having thier guys arrested in Iraq & this is a way to look like they are “doing something” .
I am not sure I see the racism in his comments that their leaders are dumber than Shrub, but the people below the leaders are fairly sensible.
That appears to be stretching the definition of racist beyond what I can understand.
Sam Stone, great post. Thank you for your conjecture. Everything about it rings more true than anything I have come up with.
Jim
The British and American masses are thick as pig-shit.
Acceptable to you? Because if it is, we’ve lost all sense of perspective in this site.
Anything goes.
Not what he said. Read it again. The “masses” as far as I can tell and any dictionary will surely back me up on this, refers to the majority of the population in Palestine and Iran.
If that’s not flat-out racist, I don’t know what is. No “stretching” involved – the comment is crystal clear.
Agreed, I did miss that. My mistake.
That statement is offensive nonsense.