Is It Likely That Iran Will Kill The British soldiers?

Question

If they do will this be a war tactic to start World war 3?

Maybee this had something to do with Amaddinejad cancelling his trip to the UN meeting. Surely the British would be there.

Answer 1

Killing the British would be colossally stupid. In the face of international sanctions, Iran has claimed repeatedly that they are not pursuing a nuclear weapons program and that their intentions are entirely peaceful - killing these 15 sailors would not help their cause.

As for the WWIII part of your question, John McCain, one of the leading contenders for the Republican presidential nomination, suggested that the UK threaten "very decisive action" for what he calls a gross violation of international law (see source list). So, yeah, killing the British soldiers could start a massive response from the West. It'd be a great way to get our troops out of Iraq, because we'd just march them across the boarder into Iran!

However, starting a war with the West is not in Iran's best interest and I seriously doubt they'd provoke that. No country wants to go to war with us, despite how badly we've bungled things in Iraq. Remember, we toppled the Iraqi government in less than two weeks and have executed just about all of Saddam's top officials. If we went into Iran we'd probably leave pretty quickly, but not until after we'd executed everyone responsible for killing the British sailors. Iran may be run by religious zealots, but they're not stupid and they're not suicidal - this isn't al Qaeda we're dealing with, it's a sovereign nation with cities and citizens.

Incidentally, the Iranian people aren't all that anti-American. Most are educated, middle class, and enjoy our cultural exports. Unlike a lot of the rest of the world, it's not the people of Iran that hate us so much as their government.

Answer 2

The Iranians said they confessed(We all know they didn't). However, what Iran wants is unknown. If they try to do a prisoner exchange for the Iranian men we captured in Iraq. The British will have a tough sell to Bush. Bush is known not to negotiate with them.After all the Iranians in Iraq are in U.S. custody, and therefore some kind of bargaining agreement would have to be reached between the British and the United States and I think it is highly unlikely.

However, If they are trying to play a game of get the U.N. off of our back, this wont work ethier. It is unrealistic that they will kill them, but hey this is IRAN we are dealing with. To a logical thinking person , they are worth more alive than dead.
I think they Iranians will try to use them as leverage or some kind of bargaining chip for something they need. Fuel, Airplanes, Weapons things of that nature. Mostly things not from China or Russia.

If the Iranians do kill them, this is VERY bad for them. It could be the spark that lights the fire in the middle east. The United States has two Army Divisions in Afghanistan (the eastern side of Iran) An Airforce Base in Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia. U.S. Navy 5th fleet in Bahrain, Two Carrier Battle groups in the Persian Gulf. And four American divisions in Iraq with an additional 27,500 moving that way and will be in place by may. It would not be pretty.


IF IRAN KILLS THEM ALL BETS ARE OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 3

It's not likely that they will be killed, but they may wind up having a protracted stay because of negotiations to get their insurgent spies released that were arrested in Iraq.

Iran better understand that hostage rescue has come a long way since the days of Jimmy the putz Carter.

Answer 4

It must be assumed that the grab was made to provoke UK/US into a military strike in order for the unpopular government to garner support at home. Killing the sailors and Marines would negate the whole purpose.

Answer 5

No there not that stupid,... actually this has happen before, with the Brits and The Iranians,... but i like the dudes answer Cantrino i think his name is ,... "we Should attack them anyway for taking them ,.

Answer 6

If they do, God help them. It will be war then. I think we should attack them anyway just for capturing them.

Answer 7

yes i too doubt this one will happen. their wind up merchants but not stupid i think. i don't think the UK would or could tolerate that one

Answer 8

no that would be a disaster dumb move

Answer 9

Iran's Prime Minister Mottaki announced that Iran demands Britain admit that their naval personnel made a mistake. That will not happen. Iran has said that it will put the 15 captives on trial for espionage. The penalty for espionage is death.

It is likely that military action will preceed any trial by the Iranians. Iran is in a heap of trouble.....

Iran is dealing with two issues.
o- First, Iran has captured 15 British Royal Navy personnel.
o- Second, Iran has refused to cooperate with the UNSC regarding cessation of uranium enrichment.

AMBUSHED
At 10:30 a.m. on March 23, 2007, six IRCG guard boats ambushed, surrounded and seized two Royal Navy 'ribs' (rigid-hulled inflatable boats) containing 15 Royal Navy personnel (eight sailors and seven marines) from the frigate HMS Cornwall. The Royal Navy boats were on patrol just outside the mouth* of the 125-mile waterway which divides Iraq from Iran. Sovereignty over the waterway, and corresponding territorial waters, is disputed between Iraq and Iran. A 1975 treaty recognized the middle of the waterway as its border. It is called "Shatt al-Arab" waterway in Arabic meaning "Arab Coastline". It is called "Arvandrud" in Persian meaning "Arvand River".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6494289.stm
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAN_WHERES_THE_BORDER?SITE=MIDTF&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-03-27-15-05-08
(map of waterway and HMS Cornwall area of operation)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6494289.stm#map

The British MoD says the Royal Navy patrol was inspecting an Iraqi fishing boat anchored at the mouth of the waterway which was suspected of smuggling automobiles.
British MoD say the British were:
o- 1.7 nautical miles (2 miles; 3.1 kilometers) inside Iraqi territory at precisely 29 degrees 50.36 minutes north latitude and 048 degrees 43.08 minutes east longitude

IRGC say the British were:
o- 0.5 km deep into the Iranian waters
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1257880,00.html
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2042289,00.html
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BRITISH_SEIZED_IRAN?SITE=PASUN&SECTION=INTERNATIONAL
Map of both positions:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/galleries/593.html?SITE=MIDTF&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Under the mandate of the UNSC Resolution 1723, the British team had been conducting a compliance inspection of a suspicious Iraqi merchant ship. The intercepted British crew being ambushed and surrounded by IRGC surrendered without a fight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1723

It is alleged that similar Iraqi vessels routinely transport Iraqi Shiites into Iran for training by the elite Quds force, a branch of Iran's Revolutionary Guard. In addition, Iraqi vessels transport arms from Iran to Iraq.

Iran has elicited "confessions" from the 15 British sailors they captured and may put them on trial for espionage.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1563877.ece
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2042259,00.html

“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.

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."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6493391.stm
(in French)
http://www.france24.com/france24Public/fr/administration/article-afp.html?id=070327102418.nid1l893&cat=monde

The 15 Royal Navy personnel are being held in Tehran at the Revolutionary Guard Corps base.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6494289.stm.

The British government release the GPS coordinates as evidence demonstrating that its 15 naval personnel detained by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards last Friday were seized while in Iraqi waters and not inside Iranian territory.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d26b393e-dbbe-11db-9233-000b5df10621.html

Iran is preparing to release Faye Turney, the sole female among the 15 captured personnel of the Royal Navy. Clad in a white tunic and a black shayla-style head scarf, she appeared on Al-Alam TV, an Arabic-Language, Iranian state-run TV station that is carried across the Middle East. "Obviously we trespassed into their waters," was her statement which continued with details of how she had been treated.
http://www.comcast.net/news/international/index.jsp?cat=INTERNATIONAL&fn=/2007/03/28/621792.html
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BRITISH_SEIZED_IRAN?SITE=PASUN&SECTION=INTERNATIONAL
see the video
http://video.ap.org/v/en-ap/v.htm?f=MIDTF&g=1EF1EAE6-3EFC-42CA-93E9-
more detail video
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/default.stm
see her letter to her parents
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/galleries/593.html?SITE=MIDTF&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

On 4 June 2004, eight British servicemen were detained for three days, after Iran said they had entered Iranian territorial waters. They were released unharmed, but their equipment was not returned. During their detention, according to former detainee Marine Scott Fallon, they endured a mock execution and appeared blindfolded and forced to apologize for their "mistake" on Iranian TV..
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=721052004

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

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-73 USS John C. Stennis, the American aircraft carrier strike group CVN-69 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. A 3rd carrier group, the CVN-68 USS Nimitz, may also be in the Persian Gulf soon as it was scheduled for its WESTPAC07 deployment to replace the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower which was deployed December 2006.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/batgru-68.htm
The US may have deployed 4 or 5 carrier groups in the Persian Gulf
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070328/62741920.html
Hmmmmm
Maybe CVN-76 Reagan was deployed
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/batgru-76.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm
Maybe CVN-72 Lincoln?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/batgru-72.htm
Is CVN-77 Bush ready?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvn-77.htm

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

On Tuesday, March 27, 2007, the two US strike groups, USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and the USS Stennis, along with guided-missile cruiser USS Antietam, conducted military exercises in the Persian Gulf. The participants included 15 warships and more than 100 aircraft..

Each carrier carries an air wing of F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet fighter-bombers, EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare aircraft, S-3 Viking refueling and anti-submarine planes, and E-2C Hawkeye airborne command-and-control aircraft.

Also taking part were six guided-missile destroyers, the Anzio, Ramage, O'Kane, Mason, Preble and Nitze; the frigate Hawes; amphibious assault ships Boxer and Bataan; and the minesweepers Scout, Gladiator and Ardent.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2007-03/28/content_838185.htm

The Isfahan plant is above ground, but Natanz is more than 50ft below and would require either a tactical nuclear missile or a conventional bunker-buster bomb to destroy it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1753223,00.html.


.