Why hasn't the UK or the US made some sort of tactical attempt to reclaim British Sailors taken in Iran?

Answer 1

For once, they are relying on the good judgment of diplomacy to resolve this issue. We don't need an extention of any regional wars in the Middle East. These personnel have been trained for these eventualities, I'm sure. I wouldn't put too much credibility on their "confessions". Iran has done that tactic for decades. As long as the hostages aren't in any danger, I think an attack would not be adviseable. I'd rather side on diplomacy, for now.

Answer 2

Because they simply can't. It's not a walk in the park and it also risks starting a war they can not afford to wage, not with Iran since it will be an act of total stupidity.

Regarding the link above that talks about a rumor of US attacking Iran on April 6th and other folks who keep thinking "War", here are a few facts about Iran:

1- Population of 75 Million with more than 50% under the age of 35.

2- Mandatory and war experienced armed services which managed to hold Saddam at the border for 8 years without any help, supplies, or spare parts. (Basically fighting the whole West since Saddam was getting help, satellite intelligence, supplies, spare parts, training, chemical WMDs, and even actual fighter pilots from the west at the time. People in the armed services know the importance of the above.)

3- One of the top chemical weapons researcher and manufacturers in the world ever since Saddam used U.S. provided chemical WMDs on them.

4- Advanced missile technology with missiles rumored to be capable of reaching even the east coast of the U.S. carrying various payloads.

5- Advanced torpedo technology capable of speeds of up to 200Mph (yes, Miles per hour).

6- Advanced SAM technology and installations partly from Russia.

7- Suicide training camps with approximately 200,000 trained troops as part of the elite armed forces.

8- Supports and controls various groups around the world capable of striking any country’s interests any place.

9- Extremely nationalistic culture with a proud history of more than 3,000 years which defaults to a great determination to defend their homeland.

10- Vast amounts of oil which equals to a great source of funds.

11- Quite capable of closing the narrow strait of Hormuz which would leave the opponent and the whole world with an oil shortage.

If we learned anything from Israel’s futile high-tech air strike against a bunch of Hezbollah in Lebanon, it is that air strike alone is not enough (that is assuming it’s successful to begin with). Ground troops would have to go in.

Personally I don’t see Iran losing a war. They might not win it but would make it so horrible and expensive that it would leave a very bad taste in the opponent’s mouth and would probably end up as a political disaster if not suicide for the opponent’s ruling administration in their country if not the whole world.

For those of you who talk about nukes, chemical WMDs are just as bad if not worse. In my opinion they're worse because of the psychological effects they would have on people. Nukes kill and vaporize the most right away, Chems don't and they certainly don’t vaporize, they prolong death leaving the dead and the suffering to be seen and observed by the survivors hence psychologically effecting the healthy in a horrible way as well. Again, Iran has first hand experience in this from the U.S. provided chemical WMDs that Saddam used on them.

Let me put it this way, if it was that easy Bush would be there right now. He is dumb, but even he is not that dumb.

All war is bad and should be avoided at all costs.

Answer 3

I`ve thought of a good deal to solve the crisis. If they let us have back the 15 British Citizens currently in Iran. We`ll let them have back the 150,000 Iranian citizens currently in the UK. Deal or no deal?

Answer 4

Good question. I guess the U.S. has no place to get involved since this is between iran and britain. Im just glad they arent threatening to behead the sailors if britain doesnt do this or that.

Answer 5

Because any military attempt would be suicide for both US and British forces.

And they know this. Which is why neither country has even *tried* to push the envelope yet.

Answer 6

1. The U.S. and the UK are already rather heavily involved in a couple of armed conflicts.
2. They are utilizing diplomacy at this time
3. Who says they are not planning something already?

Answer 7

U know what politicains dont care bout our troops or any troops they only like their status and if they go to war oil prices will go way up and people will get angry so yea they wont do much to save the troops out there just like in Vietnam we have prisioner still in Vietnam or Loas thats why in some way i respect G.W.B but i dont like him.

Answer 8

Is there oil to occupy in Iran ?.
Britain hate to take lead in anything ,so that terroist will not bomb them to cinder and USA will not get involve unless there is Oil to annex out ther.Or Drug field to liberate and camp soldiers to harvest.

Answer 9

They're probably worried about comitting an "act of war", as though the Iranians haven't done that already. This should be a lesson that weakness doesn't prevent aggression, but weak politicians think weakness is the answer to aggression.

Answer 10

A diplomatic attempt would probably be better than a tactical one.