How do you know it was a bluff ?
Just capturing the British sailors was audacious enough; do you think they really would have been so reckless as to sink them?
Oh, I’d be more than happy to discuss coups in the 1950s and SAVAK and the relative power of the Qods force vice the traditional Iranian military and myriad other matters - but that seemed like a bit much to get into at the moment. Just pointing out that the OP wasn’t posting the whole story was enough at that particular time.
Now, if you’d like to discuss these things, I’m sure ready. But a general thread about our relations with Iran might serve better than this one devoted to just this incident.
Of course! The Iranians Are Evil!
Isn’t the world of black and white so much simpler!
Who do they think they are, FOX News?
First of all, being outgunned only matters if the other side starts shooting. Would the Iranins have risked an actual gunfight with the British navy? I doubt it.
Second of all, I asume the 14 sailors had a radio. All they had to do was refuse to surrender for 15 minutes, and reinforcements would have arrived. The fat that they *didn’t * wait for reinforcements is pretty damning in my eyes.
One thing I never understood about the event - who, exactly, gave the order to surrender? Was it the commander at the scene, or did they receive instructions from above? And if so, who was it?
I shouldn’t wonder if their captain had standing orders to surrender in such a situation rather than risk a violent incident. In fact, it would be gross negligence on the part of the brass if such a policy were not firmly in place.
Bear in mind that, looking back, everything turned out much better for all concerned than it possibly could have if they had fought, or called for reinforcements.
Certainly. First, I doubt that Britain would start a war over a few sailors killed, any more than they did over some captured. Second, there are likely factions that would like a little war with Britain, to shore up support at home. And third, if they were unwilling to shoot, they’d be giving up all pretense of authority. And fourth, I wouldn’t care to bet my life on guessing the geopolitical opinions of strangers with guns pointed at me.
You suggested that the British should start shooting, so yeah, it does matter.
Read the linked article. They did call for help:
I’m sorry, but “violent incidents” are what militaries do. If they weren’t prepared to fight then why did they even bother to show up?
I don’t think you realize the damage this little incident did to the UK.
I commend you, and look forward to a fulsome and complex debate on the history of Iranian/US relations the next time Iran does something egregiously stupid. (It’s probably just a matter of time)
No, I suggested that they should have waited to see if the Iranians fired the first shot. But no shots were fired.
Then why didn’t they wait for the helicopter before laying down their arms?
Again - were they ordered to surrender, or did they do it independently? This is the key question of the entire debacle, and I still haven’t seen a satsfactory answer.
Don’t let me stop you from starting one. If I feel you post something stupid I’ll be sure to speak up.
They weren’t sent there to fight the Iranians, with whom both the U.S. and UK have maintained an uneasy peace up to now, which fighting at that juncture might have shattered.
Indeed I do not. Beyond a small measure of humiliation, what exactly is the nature of this “damage”?
You never will, if it is the Royal Navy’s policy not to release that information. But they did the right thing – does it matter why?
And unless they were willing to fire, surrendering to the larger force was probably the best thing to do.
Who said they ever picked up their arms?
Why is it a key question since you claim to already know that they were in the wrong simply because they surrendered?
Please take a moment to look up the bolded word before you employ it again. Thank you.
Seeing as how **EP **is a “guest”, he or she might not be able to tell whether you are moderating or not. I wasn’t exactly sure at first.
Err… oops.
I was going for meaning simply “abundant,” without any implication of excess or insincerity.
I do note that “This usage is etymologically justified but may invite misunderstandings in contexts in which a deprecatory interpretation could be made.”
In my case, no offense intended.
<ignorance fought>
I know, I even read the SD column on the subject. But I do think the Iranians have legitimate grounds to fear that US military vessels near their shores might represent some sort of threat. Same with British vessels, of course.