The President of Iran's popularity amongst his own people is at an all time low. I imagine the kidnapping appeals to hard-lined Iranians that feel the west has treated them unfairly. The British apologized last time he did this and even offered some minor concessions. I'm sure he thought things would go the same way this time. It's not an accident that the kidnapping took place right before the UN meeting to heighten sanctions against his country.
2007-03-26 04:35:42
·
answer #1
·
answered by CHARITY G 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Please do not presuppose that Iran was the aggressor in the detainment of these British military personel. It is quite possible that the British might have been running interdictions into sovereign Iranian waters. Iran would have nothing to gain by abducting these people, especially when the UN Security Council is moving against them to stop nuclear production. What most Americans don't know is that within certain military circles there are groups that operate under the umbrella of Special Operations. These operations are directed against a specific country in order to find out their response times, or just plain provoke a fight. This would justify a retalitory response by the "agent provocateurs" in order to "spin" world opinion against them (Iran). The question as you surmised is "cui bono"---Who Benefits?
For Iran, this would be a zero sum proposition to be the aggressor; especially in lieu of all the sanctions brought on by the west. A good historical case for provoking another country to respond, if such is the case with Iran, is the U.S.S Maddox incident that resulted in the fraudulent "Gulf of Tonkin" resolution. The Maddox happened to be in International waters, or just on the fringe of North Vietnam's at the time of the alleged attack by the North Vietamese. The Maddox was monitoring the communications of an ongoing covert mission taking place at the time. What wasn't told, is at that time, an incursion by South Vietamese forces under the direction of U.S. covert special forces were operating "hit and run" tactics within the borders of North Vietnam. These covert actions were called--OPLAN 34 ALPHA! The North Vietamese responded by running out the U.S.S Maddox from the area and thus ceasing the support of the insurgency. This incident was used on the main U.S. Naval Fleet sent to respond to the Maddox's escape two weeks later as a pretext for war. A complete fabrication in order to polarize American opinion to get into the SouthEast campaign. This is not "conspiracy theory!" This may be the same modus operandi we are seeing played out in the Arabian (Persian) gulf?
2007-03-29 21:39:08
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Iranians are asserting their independence and their right to autonomy without outside interference from any other nation. The United States and the United nations seeks to deny the same priviliges to Iran that they freely grant to Israel.
The British agents were captured in disputed waters - imagine if an boat with Iranian navy and marine personnel were sailing around the British coast - would they just be allowed to go about their business?
2007-03-26 04:51:06
·
answer #3
·
answered by James 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Perhaps Iran is being so provokative because Iran already has weapons grade uranium and according to the rules of engagement of the Qur'an, they would not make a first strike but could use it in a defensive jihad fee sybil Allah. Perhaps they believe by using the nuclear weapon, any further battle would cease immediately just as the bombing of Japan stopped Japan's military actions.
All the Muslims that died in the jihad fee sybil Allah would go to jannah (heaven) and they would not be considered as dead.
Then the mahdi would appear in Qom at the Jamkaran mosque as Ahmadi-nejad believes.
2007-03-28 13:38:35
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Their credibility is on the line. They been taunting the superpowers and by capturing these service members, they are basically saying or implying that they have power. They want their operational revolutionary guards that were caught deep inside Iraq and they will try to use those Brits are pawns. This will backfired and sooner or later they will have to release them for neither does this country nor Britain deal with terrorists, compared to ITALY!!!!!!!!!!.
2007-03-26 04:41:58
·
answer #5
·
answered by R C 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think they want Britain to attack their country. The muslim crowd would then use this as a means of showing the rest of their supposedly moderate brethren that the west is out to destroy them and their culture, thus uniting the "not sures" with the radical wings of this so called peaceful religion in their attacks on the western culture. Plus, their lead by a raving lunatic who would think nothing about sacrificing one of the most modern and advanced middle eastern countries for the glory of martyrdom.
2007-03-26 04:48:30
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Just blunders and slip-ups with human errors in planet of apes.
Just the pirates trying to mess up the sea-scout who were lost during their picnic trips in planet of apes.
2007-03-26 05:08:51
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Iran is quickly becoming the next country to be "liberated".
Their plan must be to become a democracy...
2007-03-26 04:37:30
·
answer #8
·
answered by Josh 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
some said a reaction to the UN sanctions.
2007-03-26 05:17:43
·
answer #9
·
answered by chuck h 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
We must vaporize their entire country before its too late.
2007-03-26 04:36:11
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋