Why did Iran let them go?

Question

I think it because the US had warships off their coast and Britain threatened them as well.

http://www.conservativeworld.us/

Answer 1

nop,to stick it to Bush.

Answer 2

Britain threatened them?!
Heck No! They're not Libiya nor Panama! They are not even Hizbolla who defeated Israel last summer!
US warships have been there for several years and they have NATO at their east (Afghanistan) and American troops at their western border(Iraq) for at least 4 years.
I think they've gaind what they wanted without firing a single bullet so they ended the game:
1-BELITTLEMENT of west by showing power and withstanding against what they call "Global Arrogance".
2-Increase of Ahmadinejads popularity in Iran and the mid east.(up to 83 percent in Arab world.(Ref. Poll by Aljazeere News network))
3-Some million dollars! Let's estimate their benefit by increased oil prices:
(Duration of crisis in days)*(Average increase in oil prices per barrel)*(Iran's daily oil export)
13*5*1400000=91000000$!(Not so bad!Enough to purchase some anti aircraft missiles from Russia!)

Answer 3

I agree it had something to do with the American military exercises that were going on, but I think they stumbled across an event that would prevent the US from looking like a threat, and turning it to their advantage.

There couldn't have been any strikes against Iran by the US if there was the chance members of the British military would be hit.

Answer 4

They saw nothing else to gain by holding them. Iran had squeezed all the propaganda value they possibly could out of the situation. With nothing else to gain, they let them go since executing or trying them in any way would have brought unpleasant consequences on them. Iran isn't dumb. They saw how fast the US burned through the Iraqi army. Iran couldn't accomplish that in ten years of war. We did it in a matter of weeks. They know they stand no chance in a shooting war, so they have to try to gain influence and prestige in the Arab world another way. This bought them a little more respect in the Arab world because they were seen to 'thumb their noses' at the Western powers without any consequences.

Answer 5

The real question is..why did Iran have them.


They took British citizens, accusing them of a crime. This sounds like when Americans intercepted Iranian soldiers, and accused them of a crime, and denied them consular access. Oh wait..that happened 3 months ago, and they're still not free.

So Iran captures a few foreign citizens. Makes a big sherade about it, then says that they solved their problem through diplomatic communication between the parties, with Syria included.

This was a big PR campaign for Iran to show that they're not so bad (which they aren't), and that diplomacy is a valid tool for solving international crises. The soldiers weren't coerced or harmed in any way. So Iran just releases them to make themselves look good and say that diplomacy triumphed in the end or something along those lines.

It's a subtle insult to the big guys (like US) who immediately go to war before trying harder at other ways.

my theory.

Answer 6

no no some one told them that Rosie O was backing Britain, and coming over there to Iran , thats the truth

Answer 7

They realized they couldn't get away with it again. I'm sure a lot of back room discussion went on, plus they are rally facing a lot of problesm. There access to financial markets have been servely limited, they have trouble getting goods, their oil output is half of what it was because they can't get the equipment needed. TheUN has placed sacations (many are borken of course by countries that could care less0 .

Answer 8

Part of the reason that the Britons were released is because of the threat of military conflict. The military build up is still there and Iran is still keeping its hard line on refusing to stop enriching uranium.

Iran justifies arresting the British crew because the U.S.arrested five members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Erbil in Northern Iraq on January 11.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1604546,00.html

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

The British sailors and marines being held by Iran were ambushed at their most vulnerable moment, while climbing down the ladder of a merchant ship and trying to get into their bobbing inflatables. It took only three minutes for the Iranians, moving at 40 knots, to move from their legitimate positions monitoring shipping in their waters to come alongside the British
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1582544.ece

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015783.php
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1530527.ece
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070331/ap_on_re_eu/british_seized_iran_226
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 9

They were released? Holy cow! On what excuse is Bush going to rely now to attack Iran? He can't use the phantom WMDs excuse with Iran, I don't think Americans would be stupid enough to fall for that lie twice.

Answer 10

I guess they knew they were about to have thousands of cruise missles per hour rain down on them and send their sorry butts back to allah. I think if they pull some crap like this again, they should be engaged on the spot.

Answer 11

On the one hand, they had dim illusions of 72 virgins - on the other hand, they had a very clear view of the US battle group aircraft carriers off their coast.
It was a well exercised example of self preservation.