is iran trying to provoke the us and/or britian into an attack for strategic reasons?

Question

doesnt it seem like they are playing some pretty obvious games?

Answer 1

yeah isnt it great some one is standing up the the neo con messianics at long last
borders are traditional
not arbitarilly as un and israel deem them to be
not lines nor walls
but traditional sovereign property.
belonging to its indiginant peoples
who must be protected [not harrased by whim or un collusive elements.]
might is not right
all war is over if we want it
thou shalt not kill

god is life /reason /light and love
satan is dead/fear war hate global destruction/army geddon.

Answer 2

Iran would not be doing this unless they felt they have some pretty good cards in their hand.
They think the world will not commit to nuclear war and if not, Iran has a good shot at getting what they want.
If it does go nuclear, I think they do have some capability already to do some damage and possibly win if they have the right allies.
Britain has too much to risk and nothing to gain if this were to escalate, and no one in their right minds wants nuclear war, and then there is Iran.

Answer 3

You got it exactly opposite. They know they can't win against the US force. They think the US won't attack Iran with all that Iraq crap going on next door. That's why they don't control borders so fighters can move in and out of Iran and help to create more chaos in Iraq. They want the US force to stay in Iraq and become fatique so the US won't be ready for another big war.

Who would want to get hit by most advanced, most capable force on the planet? Why?

Answer 4

No. They know the US is overstretched militarily (thanks to the Clinton budgets that cut it's size by more then half from what is was in the Gulf War) and cannot risk a war with them. They can weather a couple of missiles. They want more influence within the Muslim world and it's popular there to annoy the western powers. They're basically just scoring points with nationalists over the globalists.

Answer 5

The kidnapping of the British troops is meant to be used as a bargaining chip in dealing the U.N. actions against its nuclear programs. It's called brinksmanship.

Answer 6

i respect the Arab concepts We(Iraq) opt for this (Shatt Al Arab , larger oil expenses ,Kuwait or in spite of) .They hence enter into negotiations in which they only state -- we are more effective and superior so provide us what we call for -- or we can invade you. So Iraq invades Kuwait, kidnaps, tortures and rapes Kuwaiti electorate, frequently loots the position, seizes its oil fields and then threatens Saudi Arabia -- and also you ask what has that to do with the West or all of us else ? Do you ever ask your self why Arabs/Islam get the style of undesirable press international huge

Answer 7

Yes they are trying to provoke the USA and Britain.
http://www.iranpressnews.com/english/source/022286.html
A small piece of info to pass along. Looking more scary everyday.

Answer 8

No. It's become obvious that there are some people in this country who are *itching* to get their butts kicked again by another country's military--and they want to use this excuse as a springboard to another senseless and failed war.

Just like Iraq.

Answer 9

I don't know. And neither does anyone else on this board (although they like to sound informed). How can we possibly know? Blair says they weren't in Iranian waters and Iran says they were. Both leaders are politicians and we all know how honest they are....

Answer 10

If Iran is playing a game, I think 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
.
.