Iran Planned The Capture of the Britons?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070331/ap_on_re_eu/british_seized_iran_226 If this is true, that Iran planned in advance the capture of the sailors, then I would consider that an act of war.
"Iran appears intent on sending a message of strength as it faces mounting U.N. Nations sanctions...". Should we cut the crap and show them what strength really is?

I would like to hear from Americans as well as Britons, that if negotiations fail and Britain goes to war with Iran, would you support the US being apart of the invasion as well?

You people don't have to be so hostile. I'm not exactly an English professor, but to me the phrase, "If this is true," implies that I am asking a question as to the legitmacy of the claim, as opposed to stating my personal beliefs.

And I don't think it would be very hard to plan the capture of military personal at all.

Iranian #1: "Hey we should kidnap some British sailors to show our strength."
Iranian #2: "Okay, let's go to the highly disputed Persian Gulf border and find some."
Iranian #1: "Oh look, there's a British patrol boat, let's hold them at gunpoint and grab 'em."

Answer 1

BEFORE THIS ISLAMIC CRAP IS ALL SAID AND DONE IRAN AND SOME OTHER ARABIC NATIONS LIKE SYRIA WILL GET THEIR BUTTS KICKED ...JUST WAIT...IRAN CAN NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE NUKES ... THEY ARE SO UNSTABLE THEY WILL CERTAINLY USE THEM TO HOLD THE WHOLE AREA HOSTAGE FOR THEIR OWN POLITICAL BENEFITS .... THEIR NUCLEAR CAPABILITY WILL BE DESTROYED WITH A SMALL TACTICAL NUCLEAR ATTACK TO GET THE UNDERGROUND CONCENTRATING FACILITIES....THIS WAS DONE ABOUT 15 YEARS AGO BY THE ISRAELIS WHEN IRAN WAS TRYING TO BUILD A BOMB THEN .... HISTORY JUST REPEATS ITSELF....

Answer 2

Key words "If this is true".

The source:

"The National Council of Resistance of Iran — the political wing of the Iranian MEK opposition group which is listed as a terrorist group by Britain, the U.S. and the European Union — said the British crew's capture was planned in advance, but offered no evidence to support the claims". (the link)

Who are these people and how do we know who's paying them and how do we know this isn't part of a "false flag" operations.

Second key phrase "If negotiations fail..." I'd prefer to take some time trying to find out the truth before I think about invading Iran and negotiating a release. We aren't in that great of a position to start invading Iraq. There are several steps you can take short of making an ill-advised invasion if they aren't released through negotiation.

"Hossein Abedini, a member of the opposition group's foreign affairs committee, claimed the group had obtained information from sources within Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard and had passed details to the British government. He did not provide any evidence or give further details."

PS Just because this guy makes this claim does not make it true --- why people are stating this as it it were a fact?

AND the first Time link in the previuos answer is not an "article" it's an opinion piece by an "ex CIA officer" and "novelist" -- no stranger to writing fiction. Not something I would base a decision to start a war on.

Answer 3

The short answer: Yes its true


The long answer:
Dissidents within Iran are feeding the West information taken directly from members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

It would seem that the clergy within Iran ordered that the British sailors be abducted so that Iran can have a bargaining chip against UN pressure to stop their nuclear program.

I have been saying this all along but now it seems it is being confirmed.


The question was posed "How can you plan in advance to capture foreign military personnel, unless you either know exactly where they will be or are defending a specific portion of your own territory?"

Ok..knowing where a patrol boat cruises up and down on a daily basis is not hard, its called radar. Planning something like this would not be hard at all. You know that UK forces have a pattern of patroling during a certain time, in a certain area. You wait until they show on radar and then you suprise them one day with overwhelming force and take them prisoner. It wouldnt be hard. Especially if they are not expecting it.

Look at what Iran is doing. They are putting these people on TV, they gave us GPS grid coordinates that showed they were in Iraqi waters and then tried to say those were the wrong ones. Now they want to put them on trial for more publicity. They tried to "abduct US military personnel a couple days prior but the US forces withdrew after a short firefight that killed one Iranian. THEY HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF TAKING HOSTAGES WHEN THEY FEEL THEY ARE IN A POLITICALLY WEAK POSITION.

You know that before this happened they had nothing to use as a bargaining chip against the West.

Anyone that doesnt think that Iran planned this ahead of time is either plain stupid, or employed by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

This isnt from "Fox" news its right there on Yahoo news.

Answer 4

I'll have no problem with war, if the NATO or the U.N have no problem with it, I don't see why they would since Britain did nothing to provoke such act.

But I don't really know, the U.S is already in two wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, and it's already costed the U.S about $350 Billion dollars, just for Iraq. And Iran has big brother Russia, protecting them.

If a war does go on, I hope the U.S doesn't send more then 6,000 troops to Iran. I'm sure if Iran had no help and neither did Britain, then the British would obviously win the war, since Iran has a pathetic Military. The Iraq-Iran war resulted in a "draw" and the U.S and U.K destroyed the Iraqi military in a few hours, I'm sure it'll be the same with the Irani Military.

Answer 5

Britain helps the USA, we help Iraq, and the USA helps Britain. Wars and rumors of wars. I would support the US being part of a blockade of Iran.

Your question inspired me to look up the details about the Brits being in Iraqi or Iranian waters.

Wikipedia's article "Shatt al-Arab territorial disputes" states that where this river (formed a bit further north by the Tigres and Euphrates Rivers) empties into the Persian Gulf, the water has been claimed by both Iran and Iraq since at least 2000.

It would be logical that Iran planned in advance to capture anyone they find in the disputed water area, just the same as Iraq or its allies would plan to capture anyone from Iran they find in the disputed area of the mouth of the river.

There is more info on the Brit sailors is on Wikipedia "2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel", 2nd link below. God be with them.

Answer 6

There is a serious situation opening here.

The Iranians are itching for a battle with the west so they can show their people how strong they are and instill a 500 AD sense of pride when Persian dominance was pervassive.

You people who support Iran should be looked at by a shrink if you think they are justified. This board is overrun with people who think siminiarly: That the West is the problem, that small street punks can steal, lie and use lies and decent to get their ciminal intentions implemented.

You will wish this never happended when they upset the world economy, start a war and use a nuclear weapon on Israel.

Answer 7

It is likely that Iran planned the capture of the Britons. Although the 15 British sailors have been released, Iran is still refusing to stop enrichment of uranium despite sanctions by the UN. War with Iran may still be on the horizon.

Why were the Britons captured?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015783.php
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1530527.ece
Various news media reported....
Fifteen British sailors taken at gunpoint Friday by Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Al Quds soldiers were captured intentionally and are to be used as bargaining chips to be used for the release of five Iranians who were arrested at the Iranian consul in Irbil, Iraq by US troops, an Iranian official told the daily paper Asharq al-Awsat on Saturday.
In addition, a senior Iranian military official said Saturday that the decision to capture the soldiers was made during a March 18 emergency meeting of the High Council for Security following a report by the Al-Quds contingent commander, Kassem Suleimani, to the Iranian chief of the armed forces, Maj.Gen. Hassan Firouz Abadi. In the report, according to Asharq al-Awsat, Suleimani warned Abadi that Al Quds and Revolutionary Guards' operations had become transparent to US and British intelligence following the arrest of a senior Al Quds officer and four of his deputies in Irbil.

The first sign of a possible campaign against high-ranking Iranian officers emerged earlier this month with the discovery that Ali Reza Asgari, former commander of the Revolutionary Guard’s elite Quds Force in Lebanon and deputy defence minister, had vanished, apparently during a trip to Istanbul.

Asgari’s disappearance shocked the Iranian regime as he is believed to possess some of its most closely guarded secrets. The Quds Force is responsible for operations outside Iran.

Last week it was revealed that Colonel Amir Muhammed Shirazi, another high-ranking Revolutionary Guard officer, had disappeared, probably in Iraq.

A third Iranian general is also understood to be missing — the head of the Revolutionary Guard in the Persian Gulf. Sources named him as Brigadier General Muhammed Soltani.
.
.


.

Answer 8

From what I have gathered, the Iranians had 6 patrol ships involved in this capture. Seems rather odd to have that many in one spot. I believe this was a planned operation. Just like the attack on our embassy in 1979.

Answer 9

Some so-called "top contributor" here (of what? bullcrap? lol) said that Iran would be within their rights to capture anyone in their legal waters.

Actually, according to maritime law, that is NOT true. Foreign citizens on foreign vessels may be intercepted, hailed, and ordered to leave, but they are not to be <> unless they are found to be actively breaking a law.

For example: when foreign factory ships come into U.S. waters to stripmine the ocean floor within our territorial waters, they may be intercepted by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel, or even a Navy ship, and ordered to leave.

However, we do not seize the ship, steal the cargo, and take the entire crew back to the U.S. to face trial for merely trespassing in our waters.

Foreign military personnel who stray <> into territorial waters can be intercepted and ordered out, and escorted out of those waters.

However, it is a breach of international law to seize military personnel who are operating under U.N. auspices to inspect cargo shipping and prevent smuggling of weapons to Iraq, as the British sailors and marines were doing.

Plus, one can hardly argue that, 15 of them in a zodiac boat with small arms in broad daylight getting off of a cargo ship, they posed any sort of military threat to Iran.

Simply, there is NO justification for the Revolutionary Guard -- Iran's theocratic stormtroopers -- to have seized these sailors. Based on the speed, overwhelming force, and quick getaway of the Iranian gunboats, the operation could only have been planned in advance, well-rehearsed, and executed for the sole purpose of taking hostages. There is definite historical precedent for war on this basis.

As for the second question, would America support Britain in her righteous retaliation against Iran, the answer is unquestionably YES. You have only to ask, and we'll be there.

Never mind the occasional YA crackpot Yank you see here. They don't speak for us. And we'll ignore the ignorant sign-wavers in London too.

The average American and the average Briton still have love and respect for one another, and we haven't forgotten our ties to you. We may not be a Commonwealth country, but you're our kinfolk, and we won't let you down.

So God save the Queen, and down with the fascist mullahs and their sympathizers! Rule the waves, Britannia!

Answer 10

Don't go off half ****** it was exactly that attitude that got us into Iraq and trusting dissidents who will say and do anything to get us to overthrow the govt they fled from. In any case how would they know what the govt of Iran is thinking they are NOT in the know and have been out of the country for years. That is why they are called defectors and dissidents or refugees pick you term for them.