US To British - Whack Iran!

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-07-01 03:56am

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... et=/portal

Attack Iran, US chief ordered British
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 30/06/2004)

America's military commander in Iraq ordered British troops to prepare a full-scale ground offensive against Iranian forces that had crossed the border and grabbed disputed territory, a senior officer has disclosed.

An attack would almost certainly have provoked open conflict with Iran. But the British chose instead to resolve the matter through diplomatic channels.

"If we had attacked the Iranian positions, all hell would have broken loose," a defence source said yesterday.

"We would have had the Iranians to our front and the Iraqi insurgents picking us off at the rear."

The incident was disclosed by a senior British officer at a conference in London last week and is reported in today's edition of Defence Analysis. The identity of the officer is not given.

"Some Iranian border and observation posts were re-positioned over the border, broadly a kilometre into Iraq," a Ministry of Defence spokesman said.

The incident began last July when Revolutionary Guards pushed about a kilometre into Iraq to the north and east of Basra in an apparent attempt to reoccupy territory which they claimed belonged to Iran.

Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez then ordered the British to prepare to send in several thousand troops to attack the Revolutionary Guard positions.

The Revolutionary Guard Corps has 125,000 soldiers, making it 25 per cent larger than the entire British Army, and is equipped with 500 tanks, 600 armoured personnel carriers and 360 artillery weapons.

The incident is reminiscent of the exchange during the Kosovo conflict between the American general, Wesley Clark, the supreme allied commander Europe, and Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the British commander.

When Gen Clark told Gen Jackson to send British troops into Pristina airport to prevent Russian troops from taking control Gen Jackson refused. He was reported to have said: "I am not going to start World War Three for you."

The Iran-Iraq incident lasted around a week and was resolved by a telephone conversation between Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, and Kamal Kharrazi, his Iranian counterpart, British officials said.

"It did look rather nasty at the time," one official said. "But we were always confident it was a mistake and could be resolved by diplomatic means. We got in touch with Baghdad and said, 'Don't do anything silly; we are talking to the Iranians.' "

While Mr Straw was trying to resolve the issue peacefully, British military commanders on the ground were calming their Iranian counterparts, the ministry said.

The Revolutionary Guard was believed to be behind the seizure of eight Royal Navy and Royal Marines personnel last week after they strayed across the disputed border between Iraq and Iran.

The eight men, who were delivering patrol boats to the Iraqi riverine patrol service, were released - but not before they were paraded blindfolded on Iranian television.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2004-07-01 04:08am

I may not be the most politically-knowledged dude around, but to the US commanders I say, "Chill."

Hokalus · Post by **Hokalus** » 2004-07-01 05:25am

The plot thickens regarding the captured UK servicemen leading to even higher tension between UK/USA & Iran (if thats possible)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3854921.stm
[quote=BBC-News]
UK servicemen 'forced' into Iran
British servicemen sit aboard an aircraft at Mahshahr, Iran
The servicemen have returned to British units in Iraq
Eight British servicemen claim they were "forcibly escorted into Iranian territorial waters" before being taken captive, the defence secretary has said.

Geoff Hoon said the six Royal Marines and two Royal Navy sailors maintained they had been operating in Iraq's waters and had not strayed into Iran's.

The servicemen were held for three days sparking a stand-off with Britain.

Shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram said Iran should issue a "full apology" if the claims are true.

In a statement released by the Ministry of Defence, Mr Hoon said the MoD was looking into the servicemen's claim.

Mr Hoon also expressed concern about "the blindfolding of the men" during their captivity and added the UK had made representations to ... Iran."

'Humiliated'

Mr Ancram described the alleged treatment of the servicemen as "absolutely outrageous" and demanded a "full apology" from Iranian authorities if the claims are true.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "This creates an extraordinary strain on Iranian-British relations.

"If we are to have a good relationship with Iran it must be on the basis of mutual confidence and trust - this undermines that."

Mr Ancram also told Today that he felt the servicemen had been "humiliated" while being detained as they were "paraded" by the Iranians.

We do not expect a recurrence of this type of incident
Geoff Hoon
Defence Secretary

Hoon statement in full

For the Lib Dems Paul Keetch said: "This is potentially a new twist to the story. The GPS [global positioning system] equipment has yet to be returned. When it is, it may well shed more light on the matter."

The men were captured after their patrol boats were said to have strayed by mistake into the Iranian side of the Shatt al-Arab waterway.

Iran said the vessels had entered its waters without prior permission.

But Mr Hoon said: "In a recent debriefing the crews have said that they were operating inside the Iraqi border and were forcibly escorted into Iranian territorial waters.

"Our assessment continues and will be greatly assisted by the retrieval of navigational information in the Global Positioning System equipment carried by the crews."

Mr Hoon said the Iranians had failed to comply with Tuesday's deadline to return equipment carried by the men including three boats, radios and navigational equipment, weapons and ammunition.

Following the servicemen's release Iran's foreign minister Kamal Kharrazi said the equipment would be returned.

Porous border

One of the men returned home on Wednesday due to medical reasons connected with the incident and a further two were sent back to Britain as their tour of duty had ended.

The remaining five are continuing their work in Iraq.

The MoD said the detainees had been part of a Royal Navy training team heading to Basra when they were detained by Iranian guards.

They had been helping to re-train the Iraqi river patrol on a waterway renowned for its use by smugglers and foreign militants trying to infiltrate Iraq.

The southern stretch of the Shatt al-Arab forms the border between Iran and Iraq.
[/quote]

Hokalus · Post by **Hokalus** » 2004-07-01 05:48am

damn, didn't see the thread reporting this

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-07-01 08:26am

I hate the "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude that seems to have infected the entire American political and military structure. It's obvious what caused it (having no one able to shoot back), but how can we fix it?

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-07-01 08:55am

the order was to PREPARE an invasion force. It's called agressive diplomacy. Let the Iranians see the buildup, thus giving yourself a position of strength to negotiate from. Nowhere in this article does it say the actual order to attack was given.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-07-01 10:43am

Col. Crackpot wrote:the order was to PREPARE an invasion force. It's called agressive diplomacy. Let the Iranians see the buildup, thus giving yourself a position of strength to negotiate from. Nowhere in this article does it say the actual order to attack was given.

AKA 'Speak softly and carry a big stick'.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2004-07-01 02:29pm

Who wants to bet in 2005, if Bush is re-elected, Iran gets invaded for there nuclear program?

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2004-07-01 05:46pm

Solauren wrote:Who wants to bet in 2005, if Bush is re-elected, Iran gets invaded for there nuclear program?

Axis Kast does.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-07-01 05:46pm

Solauren wrote:Who wants to bet in 2005, if Bush is re-elected, Iran gets invaded for there nuclear program?

I will bet against that happening, and I will win the bet: Even if Bush is elected to a second term, the US military is in no condition to launch any OIF-scale operation within his presedency, and Iran's armed forces are more formidable than Iraq's were before OIF, thus requiring an even greater effort to defeat, and it's going to be many, many times harder (if not impossible) to occupy Iran than Iraq: Iran has more cultural cohesion, there is more land area to patrol, and the population is several times larger. So, no: it's not going to happen...

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-07-01 05:58pm

Two interesting points about this article.

The Revolutionary Guard Corps has 125,000 soldiers, making it 25 per cent larger than the entire British Army, and is equipped with 500 tanks, 600 armoured personnel carriers and 360 artillery weapons.

First of all, that's a blatantly misleading statement about the Iranian armed forces. There may be equipment avaliable in relatively large amounts, but much of it is extremely poor. Not to mention that the training, communications technology, and air support behind the British troops would be tremendous force multipliers.

The incident is reminiscent of the exchange during the Kosovo conflict between the American general, Wesley Clark, the supreme allied commander Europe, and Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the British commander.

There was no chance for "World War Three." The Russians actually went through with an airport blockade against the British a short while later; no shooting resulted.

Alan Bolte · Post by **Alan Bolte** » 2004-07-01 10:19pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:the order was to PREPARE an invasion force. It's called agressive diplomacy. Let the Iranians see the buildup, thus giving yourself a position of strength to negotiate from. Nowhere in this article does it say the actual order to attack was given.

Something struck me as wrong about this, so I asked a friend of mine who knows quite a bit more about Arab culture, Islam, and the Middle East in general . She said that in her opinion that a show of force in that instance would be quite a bad idea, as the Iranian forces would require restraint by higher-ups not to engage, and at the very least would hold their ground, because running away would be, as she put it, dishonorable. Negotiation "through diplomatic channels" was a better solution because it avoided the distict and undesirable possibility of escalation. Obviously here I'm begging for someone who can cite some damn sources or is an actual expert to help me out.

Of course, if you were merely pointing out that the article made it seem as though we were going to practically start a war with Iran, I fully agree with you. Biased reporting.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-07-01 11:55pm

Solauren wrote:Who wants to bet in 2005, if Bush is re-elected, Iran gets invaded for there nuclear program?

That's just stupid fearmongering. Even if the US military wasn't tied up in Iraq we wouldn't invade Iran, espically not over its nuclear program which can be set back the better part of a decade with a couple of B-2 sorties and Tomahawk launches.

Dennis Toy · Post by **Dennis Toy** » 2004-07-02 12:01am

aww aww you guys are forgetting one element in Iran,...OIL!!

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-07-02 12:05am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Solauren wrote:Who wants to bet in 2005, if Bush is re-elected, Iran gets invaded for there nuclear program?
That's just stupid fearmongering. Even if the US military wasn't tied up in Iraq we wouldn't invade Iran, espically not over its nuclear program which can be set back the better part of a decade with a couple of B-2 sorties and Tomahawk launches.

Why not, it's been done before....

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-07-02 04:42pm

Why not, it's been done before....

If that's your best argument as to why we will be invading Iran in one year's time, you might as well conceede the argument right here and now.

That we did something once is no guarantee whatsoever we'll do it again - especially not after the situation has already changed.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-07-02 06:49pm

Axis, I believe the Bear is refering to the strike on Iraq's nuclear reactor, not America's invasion of Iraq.
Especialy since the preceeding quote refers to a military strike setting back a nuclear program.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-07-02 10:52pm

Axis Kast wrote: First of all, that's a blatantly misleading statement about the Iranian armed forces.

Well, for one thing it's only the Revolutionary Guard. I doubt Iran's entire military has only 360 artillery pieces. However, the Revolutionary Guards is much better equipped than the Army.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-07-03 03:58am

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:Axis, I believe the Bear is refering to the strike on Iraq's nuclear reactor, not America's invasion of Iraq.
Especialy since the preceeding quote refers to a military strike setting back a nuclear program.

Danke, and last time we didn't even have to do it our selves

a couple of Isreali fighter/bomber's did the job.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-07-03 11:27am

Axis, I believe the Bear is refering to the strike on Iraq's nuclear reactor, not America's invasion of Iraq.
Especialy since the preceeding quote refers to a military strike setting back a nuclear program.

That connection can't be made.

Look again: the preceeding quote is discussing the feasibility of an invasion, not merely a military strike.

If the Bear meant one thing, he said another.

Well, for one thing it's only the Revolutionary Guard. I doubt Iran's entire military has only 360 artillery pieces. However, the Revolutionary Guards is much better equipped than the Army.

The point is that we would never face all of those forces at once, and that many of those forces are antiquated.

a couple of Isreali fighter/bomber's did the job

I still think that even if we let Israel settle the problems with Iran, it would generate blowback against American targets as well. Most people - especially in the Middle East - would simply assume we signed off on Tel Aviv's proposals.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-07-03 11:33am

Axis Kast wrote: The point is that we would never face all of those forces at once, and that many of those forces are antiquated.

I'm agreeing with you.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-07-03 12:51pm

Axis I was refering to shutting down Iran's Nuclear capability with a sergical air strike, no matter WHat you keep trying to put in my fuckin mouth.

and we don't exactly have to use Isreal again, they just bombed Iran the last time they got too close. An already nuclear equiped, and heavily soviet and us airforce equiped India would be a better option. (let's not give Pakistan and Iran any ideas of whose really boss), and besides with a Moslem now in charge of India, it would make for a better image standpoint.

gee try reading machevelli some time kiddo

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-07-03 03:06pm

The Yosemite Bear wrote: with a Moslem now in charge of India, it would make for a better image standpoint.

I thought the new PM was a Sikh.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-07-03 06:15pm

Plekhanov wrote: I thought the new PM was a Sikh.

He is: of that I am quite certain (his name is Singh, after all).

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2004-07-03 10:13pm

I was wondering how long it would be before the first border incident with the Iranians occured. The instability in Iraq is practically begging the Iranians to send in whatever proxy forces they can find. They would be increasing their influence dramatically if they can work their way into a relaitonship with the Iraqi shiites. That's a big if, though. I'm not sure how willing the Iraqi insurgents would be to put aside their differences with the Iranians. They did fight a pretty nasty war not too long ago, so Iran would have to mend some fences before some serious alliances could be worked out. The potential is there, however.

Iran knows that the Americans won't do anything dramatic that would bring on a major war, so they can afford to screw around with proxy forces - sending terrorist groups across the border, funding insurgents, that sort of stuff. All they would have to worry about is the occasional border incident. As long as they don't make any major military shifts, they should be in a good position to get their way in the area.