Will the British Attack Iran or retaliate for the capture of its Navy personnel?

Answer 1

Iran is in a heap of trouble.....

Iran is dealing with two issues. First, Iran has captured 15 British sailors. Second, Iran has refused to cooperate with the U.N. regarding cessation of uranium enrichment.

Military confrontation may be on the horizon.
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3961
In addition to the British naval vessels at the Diego Garcia atoll in the Indian ocean, there is a multi-national force in the Persian Gulf. The British HMS Cornwall aircraft carrier strike group, the American aircraft carrier strike group Bremerton-based aircraft carrier CVN-74 John C. Stennis, the American aircraft carrier strike group USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and the French nuclear carrier Charles de Gaulle and its task force are all in close appoximation in the Persian Gulf. The USS Nimitz may also be in the Persian Gulf as it was scheduled for its WESTPAC07 deployment to replace the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/batgru-68.htm

More details about military options can be found here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm

Iran has elicited "confessions" from the 15 British sailors they captured and may put them on trial for espionage. The penalty for espionage in Iran is death.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1563877.ece
“If it is proven that they deliberately entered Iranian territory, they will be charged with espionage. If that is proven, they can expect a very serious penalty since according to Iranian law, espionage is one of the most serious offences.” Espionage carries a death sentence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6493391.stm
Iran's detention of 15 Royal Navy personnel is "unjustified and wrong", Prime Minister Tony Blair has said. UK officials are waiting to be granted access to the HMS Cornwall staff, who were seized on Friday, and have not been told where the group are held.

"It simply is not true that they went into Iranian territorial waters and I hope the Iranian government understands how fundamental an issue this is for us," Mr Blair said.

"We have certainly sent the message back to them very clearly indeed. They should not be under any doubt at all about how seriously we regard this act, which is unjustified and wrong."

On March 23, 2007, U.S. and British officials said a boarding party from the frigate HMS Cornwall was seized about during a routine inspection of a merchant ship inside Iraqi territorial waters near the disputed Shatt al-Arab waterway.

The seizure of two Royal Navy inflatable boats took place just outside the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, a 125-mile channel dividing Iraq from Iran. Its name means Arab Coastline in Arabic, and Iranians call it Arvandrud - Persian for Arvand River. A 1975 treaty recognized the middle of the waterway as the border.

Iranians send arms to Iraqi extremists, including sophisticated roadside bombs. This week, two commanders of an Iraqi Shiite militia told The Associated Press in Baghdad that hundreds of Iraqi Shiites had crossed into Iran for training by the elite Quds force, a branch of Iran's Revolutionary Guard thought to have trained Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon.

Regarding enrichment of uranium, Iranian President Mahmaoud Ahmadinejad abruptly cancelled his appearance before the U.N. security council and in his stead, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki Iran spoke. He indicated that Iran was willing to continue negotiations but without the precondition that uranium enrichment must be halted.

Mottaki said, "the world has two options to proceed on the nuclear issue: continued negotiations or confrontation. Choosing the path of confrontation ... will have its own consequences. "
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070325/D8O3E7J00.html

The U.N. security council unanimously voted to expand sanctions on March 24, 2007.

The new resolution 1747 calls on Iran to comply fully with all previous UN resolutions and join negotiations to reach agreement so as to restore international confidence in the peaceful nature of its nuclear program. Full transparency and cooperation with the IAEA are required. Suspension of Iran’s banned nuclear activities will elicit the parallel suspension of sanctions. The package of incentives offered Tehran last year for its cooperation remains on the table.

The full text of the draft of resolution 1747 appears at this website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6455853.stm
.
.

Answer 2

Don’t be surprised if this thing goes on for 444 days.
Barring any major “Terrorist” events that may precipitate preemptive war, Iran will use this propaganda to their best advantage given Khamenei’s* hard line and recent warnings against the west. This is a provocation.
There will probably be a Brit naval buildup and preparation.
Iran’s crazy President Mahmood Ahmadinejad will bask in the meantime awaiting Armageddon.
Randy D...
Shameful dig at Carter when complicity to DELAY release of 52 remaining hostages until Reagan’s inauguration on Jan. 20, 1981 has been connected to that administration. Think about that.
*Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

Answer 3

The British are much better at diplomacy than anyone else. Jaw, Jaw, rather than War War, Churchill himself said.

No way were they in Iranian waters, they have GPS and are under rules of engagement. If UK Armed Forces were wanting to provoke a fight, then it would have been done in a much more co-ordinated fashion.

However, I do think, the Iranian leadership, which is not as straightforward as even a Western democracy, is asking for a smack. Not the people of Iran, I doubt this is anything to do with the general public there, but the leadership needs a big punch in the mouth.

Answer 4

That's just the Excuse that Meat-head Bush wants to attack Iran. Maybe Karl Rove had the Navy Guys captured just for the excuse, another engineered reason to start a war.

Answer 5

We can only hope! Remember the Falklands! Remember the 444 days in the 1970's when ours were inprisoned and tortured over there, and Jimmy boy couldn't / didn't do one thing. God Bless you.

Answer 6

I don't believe the Brit's want to initiate another war, for any reason. Diplomacy can be used by heads of state and I think this would be the better option. What good would it do to retaliate?

Answer 7

Depends on the Diplomatic results...gotta wait and see

Answer 8

well so far all it has been is much talk and yet again no action, do you know that in the USA this has barely made ANY sort of headlines in any way................shows you what is thought of that sort of thing really.............mind you would be a WHOLE different story if it was 15 US troops.........

I rather hope that they do attack, fed up of the Brits trying to do it nicely IMO

Answer 9

It is very hard to say what they will do at this point. They were in enemy waters. This is undeniable. The Brits were totally at fault.

How they handle this situation will show the world what responsibility really means.

It will also effect what happens to those soldiers. Whether they live or die will depend on the Brits.

Answer 10

there is no need to attack. it will be solved very easier