Iran Detains British Sailors in Iraq Waters

If the british vessel wasn't in their waters then what they have done is wrong and is seeking to provoke someone. Simple as that.

I agree that something else has to be going on for the Iranians to just suddenly jump 15 sailors.

 

You do realise you probably just sealed that guys fate if he comes to britain lol

 

any move to execute those sailors would almost certainly be met with force. Iran should know that much, I am surprised it has gone on this long but I still think a peaceful solution is likely.

 

I agree with that, but i think even Iranians are worried about what the revolutionary guard might be capable of.

 

I agree. Delays on the part of Iran are likely a response to wider international pressure, though more so on the part of the nuclear issue. Pressure on Iran has been increasing for a long time, but of special significance is the toughening of Russia's stance on the issue signified by Moscow's recent decision against delivering nuclear fuel to Iran's Bushehr reactor. Tehran considers this move as detrimental to its image of being an autonomous state with hegemonic potential as perceived by the wider international community. Because of the increase in pressure on Iran and the heating-up of the whole captured-sailors-incident, it is more difficult now to make a prediction as to how the issue may be resolved, though a peaceful solution is still the most likely.

 

Although, this has more to do with Iran not paying the Russians for existing construction costs than any objections from Moscow on the ramifications of Iran's nuclear program.

My theory on ALL of the garbage that Iran pulls comes down to economics. Almost all of Iran's revenue comes from selling oil. Over the past 10 years, the price per barrel went from $20 to peaking at $70. The Iranian government has become dependant on this high price and will do what it can to keep it high.

This most recent crisis pushed the price up by $5 a barrel. In the past year every time the price was decreasing, Iran's president would make a grandious speech about Iran's nuclear ambitions or progress, or how the US and Israel would drown in a lake of fire (or words to that effect). Each time he made such a speech, "tensions in the Middle East" would escalate and the price of oil would increase along with them.

 

I disagree, the whole payment dispute seemed like a normative cover for Moscow reaching a deal with the U.S and NATO on its approach to Iran.

Though economics no doubt plays an important role in Tehran's strategic political manouvering, I don't think it is the decisive element and such a structural analysis is reductionist. Tehran is more concerned with the fungibility of economic resources rather than just their accumulation for wealth's sake.

 

I'm not sure that Moscow is looking for cover. If they were serious about coordinating with NATO, then building the reactor at all is a bad idea. However, I hope you are right about Russia coordinating with NATO.

But oil revenues make up most of Iran's budget, so keeping the price high is important to them. I don't believe that it is the primary reason for such actions as building the reactor in the first place. However, Ahmadinejad has a habit of spouting off about the program (or about eliminating Israel) even when there are no new developments to announce. The only result from these tirades seems to be an increase in the price of oil, which makes me suspect that that is the purpose of such oddly timed displays.

I don't follow your point about fungibility of economic resources, are you referring to oil becoming less fungible because of the present situation? As for accumulating wealth, the Iranian economy is hurting even with higher oil prices. I think their concern is more for providing basic services and for their "extracurlicular" activities rather than strictly for wealth's sake. I might be misunderstanding your point though.

 

I don't think you are misunderstanding; all of your points are valid ones, my main point was that "ALL of the garbage that Iran pulls" cannot be reduced to economics.

To clarify what I was trying to say above though, I believe that Moscow has reached some sort of deal with Washington and the Europeans (I think talking of the two 'co-ordinating' on the issue is too strong a word, as Russia still arms Iran and resists stronger targeted sanctions). It has been suggested by some analysts that this deal could have involved the West easing pressure on Russia regarding treatment of NGOs and the status of breakaway provinces like Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This is of course speculation however. Also, regarding fungability, I was specifically talking about Tehran's capacity to translate economic resources into millitary output, which depends more on foreign relations (and with Russia in particular) that anything else. Therefore, although it can be argued that economics are the means, the end is hegemony. Hope this is a little clearer.

 

Crystal clear.

I agree--economics are only secondary. My own take came from my puzzlement of the timing and manner of certain actions and statements from Iran. My theory is nothing more than speculation, but I would enjoy bouncing it off an expert.

 

Hopefully, the sailors & marines will be freed very soon. It'll be interesting to find out what happened behind the scenes but this is outstanding news...

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1259008,00.html

And it looks like the'll be free shortly.......

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...in_article_id=446679&in_page_id=1766&ito=1490

 

There free now :http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91193-1259238,00.html

I have to raise this person's comment:

It seems as if he know better if they were in Iranian territory than the navy personel themselves!

 

Cowards? Whoever made that comment deserves a slap, they did exactly what they needed to do to guarantee their release, no one should expect any more than that.

 

A number of things still puzzle me about this whole sorry episode.

- Were they really in Iranian waters or not?

- Why were they so eager to say what the Iranians wanted them to on TV?

- Which idiot came up with the idea of letting them sell their stories to the papers, and why aren't they getting the flak as well as the minister who agreed to it?

 

probably not

Because they weren't given the anti interrogation skills elite guys like signals get, don't know if marines talked on TV though

because they aren't govt ministers in charge of a department but low end cannon fodder?

 

Yeah it seemed that this whole thing was hush-hushed rather quickly.

 

I suspect not too. I think this was a case of Iran flexing it's muscles - and ending up with far more of a propaganda coup than it could ever have dreamed of.

In the war, our captured servicemen were only supposed to give their name, rank and serial number - even when the Germans were sticking lighted matchsticks under their fingernails. At least one of this lot cracked when the Iranians took away his i-pod and started calling him 'Mr Bean'! (According to his story in the papers.) They've made our armed forces look ridiculous.

I know some of alledged that they'd been treated a bit unpleasantly (although no actual 'torture' that I'm aware of, but they looked right as rain on TV when they were making the 'confessions' which the Iranians had obviously told them to. A couple of them seemed to be trying not to laugh.

But surely the decision must have been approved by the highest levels of command within the RN before it was passed up to the MOD for final confirmation?

 

I think you are judging them quite harshly. What would you have had them do, stiffen up that British upper lip and refuse to cooperate. If they had done that they would still be over there. We are not at war with Iran, they did the right thing, which was to get home.

 

I'd be interested to know what their orders are in the event of being taken prisoner. Somehow I doubt that it's anything along the lines of 'say whatever they tell you to just to get back home ASAP'.

They're in the armed forces - they're supposed to be professionals. It's a good job our boys had a bit more backbone in the last war, or we'd all be speaking German!

 

lol I think you are probably giving the old boys a bit too much credit. I bet quite a few of them spilled their guts under persuasion. Just because we dont talk about it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I remember during the beginning of this crisis one of the senior armed forces officers (I think) basically said 'They should tell them what they want to hear, obviously dont tell them secrets, but theres no point in being silly about it'