Have the Brits finally gone soft?

[[-=IDSF=-]SykloAG]

Hell, forget soft, this is just positively gooey.
Please guys, tell me this is not true - this cannot be from a country that invented the saying "keep a stiff upper lip"...

A UK guarantee to stay permanently out of Iranian waters would exclude Britain from a Western military strike on Iran

This pledge in return for securing the release of 15 British sailors would also remove Britain from its tasks in securing the sea lanes to S. Iraq. DEBKAfile’s military sources: The statement by a senior British defense official Sunday, April 1 is fraught with broad implications: He said: “We are quite prepared to give the Iranians a guarantee that we would never knowingly enter their waters without their permission, now or in the future.”

1. One implication is that London is no longer solid in its position that the 15 sailors and marines seized by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards naval unit Friday, March 23, were taken from the Iraqi side of the divided Shatt al-Arab at the mouth of the Persian Gulf. “We are not apologizing, nor are we saying that we entered their waters in the first place,” said the official. “But it may offer a route out of the crisis.”

According to DEBKAfile’s sources in Washington and London, the British government had no choice but to give ground in its standoff with Iran after Western allied backing melted away. The UN Security Council invoked by Britain Friday, March 30, refused to deplore Iran’s conduct; and the European Union rejected London’s demand for an export boycott against Iran. But the unkindest cut of all came from Washington. It took President George W. Bush 10 days into the crisis, and frantic appeals from Downing Street, to affirm that the seized British crew had been taken from Iraqi water against the claim by Tehran.

“Iran must give back the hostages,” said Bush in his belated message of support. “They’re innocent, they did nothing wrong, and they were summarily plucked out of Iraqi water.”

Earlier on, Washington slapped down a deal to swap the 15 UK Navy personnel captured in the Gulf for five Iranians seized in Iraq.

The hostage crisis therefore places London and Washington, close strategic partners in the global war on terror and the Iraq war, at loggerheads as never before. The Blair government’s willingness to offer Iran a guarantee never to knowingly enter its waters is a blow to this partnership and American interests in the region. It means that Tony Blair is going off in his own direction, heading for negotiations with Tehran and a ransom deal for the 15 hostages that would potentially place British naval and marine strength on an exit course from the Shatt al-Arb. Only a month ago, the Royal Navy doubled its deployment in the Persian Gulf, Sea of Oman and Arabian Sea, to match the arrival of the US nuclear carrier Stennis and its naval, air and marine buildup.

The fruits plucked out of the sea with the British sailors could not be sweeter for Tehran. The British will have to ease out of the task they undertook to secure the sea routes to southern Iraq and its southern oil installations. This extra burden will devolve on the United States.

The guarantee never to enter Iranian waters will exclude Britain from any potential Western military action against Iran’s nuclear installation and further accelerate the British military pull-out from southern Iraq.

DEBKAfile’s Tehran sources report the radical Revolutionary Guards and president Mahmoud Ahmadnejad are celebrating their successes. By a single move, they have planted a wedge in the heart of the Western alliance ranged against Iran, helped boost crude to a six-month high, as well as humiliating Britain. Now, they are considering ways to capitalize on their success by follow-up coups.

[Top_Cat_AxJnAt]

But then again, have US tactics really helped peace world wide or more precisely the lives of all indervidual humans - point being, the suppossid idea that US are not generaly considered "soft" and i am justing questioning the use of these tactics, the idea that acting in the opposite way to "soft", is always the best way to act. (quite a big generalization but hope get idea, US just impresise example).

Remeber, if they had engaged the Iranians to prevent capture, they woudl all be probaly dead. I would rather see them all locked away for many years than dead, and so would the families - soft tactics so far have kept them alive.

But i do realize the need, at times to go "hard". I think some people are forgetting:

The IRanians are not total nutters, admitialy they have behaved wrongly in the past, but their overall culture is different - how often is the average UK/US person willing to challenge key parts of their culture (there are many bad parts of ours). Dont let the mistakes of politians, destroy the lives of millions of IRanians.

Possibility the UK did cross, although there is actualy a massive no-mans land area, so for the moment, i say it was 6 of one and half a dozen of another at the moment. Therefore the Iranian actions of capture where not entiely wrong but one must question following treatement.

[WNxLT7]

Little does Iran know that its april fools and they are being suckerd in!

[[R-MOD]Mongolian_dude]

I think Britain would be wise to not enter another conflict so soon. I know the public would go AWOL for a start .

NEWSFLASH!:
Israel goes soft!:


...mongol...

[Top_Cat_AxJnAt]

BRITAIN CANT. We actualy cant becuase our armed forces are so strechted.


We are undermanned at the moment, cant recruit and keep enough recruits. Labour cut funding a fair ammout to the armed forces.

When Royal Navy was asked about a N-Korea Blockade, they simply said, "impossibe becuase we dont physicaly have the ships".

Iraq and Afganstian has exausted the armed forces overall, i mean they are still extremely capable but i dont think any sane person could say they are both physicaly and mentaly prepared to fight with a continued high standard in another war.

[Ghostrider]

US & Britan might just as well hand over, in a silver plate, anything that Iran demands. I'm sure that, in the future, these decisions will turn their ugly faces back at them and then, it will turn worse.

If you ignore them, or comply with their demands, you only make them stronger (morale), and they will attack you when you least expect it. People forget the WTC attack, and the subway terror attacks way to fast. They seem to keep thinking that "pleasing" them will make them change their ways.

How stupid can people be, when year after year, they allow their enemies to gain more strength. The day their enemies decide to strike, it may very well be over before you know it. It's hard to imagine that Iran (and allies) would not try something if they get strong enough to challenge the UK+US+Allies militaries.


-Ghost

[xW0LFx]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Ghostrider

It's hard to imagine that Iran (and allies) would not try something if they get strong enough to challenge the UK+US+Allies militaries.


-Ghost

well Iran will never get that opportunity. I am completely in dismay as I believe the next terror attack will be a WMD agaisn't either the UK or the US. I fear that were giving them too much time and way to much ability to (Iran specifically) develope their military programs. And we all know there using it all on power or to boost their economy. Im almost certain that they are producing nuclear weapons, and if there not then there supply the terrorist with that amount of power. Im not sure how we would respond to having a wmd blow up in our country. But im almost certain we would launch retaliatory strikes with nuclear munitions on Iran, and any other suspected countries that could have supplies it. It would be a sad day for us all, but I feel that it will happen.

[Cravixon]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]xW0LFx

well Iran will never get that opportunity.

They may allready have it, as the powers that be or will become will not use force back. WWII anyone?

[TheOldDog]

I think Israel should deal with Iran itself, instead of trying to convince the world that the first use of a nuke Iran obtained would be to send it to London or New York ahead of Tel Aviv.

BTW SykloAG, you left out the source of your original post...

http://www.debka.com/

Also on the site:

"DEBKAfile quoted intelligence sources in Moscow as predicting that a US strike against Iranian nuclear installations codenamed Operation Bite has been scheduled for April 6 at 0040 hours. Missiles and air raids will conduct strikes designed to be devastating enough to set Tehran’s nuclear program several years back."

[[-=IDSF=-]SykloAG]

Originally Posted by TheOldDog

I think Israel should deal with Iran itself, instead of trying to convince the world that the first use of a nuke Iran obtained would be to send it to London or New York ahead of Tel Aviv.

Militarily we are capable. However there are several factors that make it undesirable.

1. It would inflame Arab tensions in a region already on the edge.
2. Israel would find itself pitted at least against Lebanon, Syria and Iran.
3. Things could get messy - if Israel is attacked with non-conventional weapons (which both Syria and Iran posses), then the gloves would come off. And the world can kiss the middle east goodbye along with all its riches.

Iran is the rest of the worlds problem. No doubt Israel would be the first target for a nuclear Iran. Are you willing to gamble the fact that Iran would keep its nukes to itself?

Besides that, Israel is a long time ally of the US at the least. England might be happy to leave Israel out to dry (they don't exactly love us - BBC proves my point), but the US would not.

There are so many reasons why Iran having nukes would be bad for the world. But the number 1 concern for the West is OIL. Thats the truth. If Iran goes nuclear, then the biggest suppliers of Oil in the Middle East (Iran's Arab Sunni neighbors) would be the target of threats (causing tensions to rise along with the oil price) and who knows - maybe even nuked.

The bottom line is that nobody could care less about Israel - it all revolves around keeping the black gold flowing.

So a nuclear Iran could mean:

1. No Israel. Tough shit huh? But no habitable ME countries either.
2. Nukes in the hands of Hizbullah and other terror groups. Destined for yours truly.
3. A nuclear arms race between ME countries.
4. No ME oil or crazy prices.
5. Worldwide depression with crude at all-time high prices.

So, still convinced that this is Israel's problem alone? If so then go attend the next anti-Israel protest. They're a dime a dozen these days.