Iran Guards warn U.S. of "fallout" over bomb attack

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Castout

I wouldn't call Iran as the most dangerous nation. Sure their current leadership is very anti American and Israel but they are not as stupid and desperate as the North Korean leadership who imo fits the title of the most dangerous nation.

Agree for different reasons. The Iranians simply lack significant numbers of modern jets, ships and tanks for a conflict with the west or the GCC. At least with the Norkors they follow Stalin's old dictum.

Iran is more destabilizing than outright dangerous.

[Castout]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Agree for different reasons. The Iranians simply lack significant numbers of modern jets, ships and tanks for a conflict with the west or the GCC. At least with the Norkors they follow Stalin's old dictum.

Iran is more destabilizing than outright dangerous.

Well only because of their current leadership.

I still believe you could talk with Iran as long as you keep the lunatic Israeli right wing extremist at bay . Sometimes no make that a lot of times I'm worry about Israel getting out of hand than I worry about Iran rhetoric. I guess Israel developed that trait to keep them safe understandable knowing their history.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Castout

Well only because of their current leadership.

I'm not so sure, Iran has always been a regional powerhouse since the end of WWII. Its just until the revolution they were working against the Communist supporting regimes in the region. But they did have confrontations with the western allied UAE that culminated in the invasion and capture of several UAE islands by the Iranian Navy and Marines.

This was the equivalent of listening on a police scanner and in the middle of a standoff going on your own radio on the police channel and saying "Shots fired".

Rather like the claims initially made about the transmissions during Gaza ships incident.

The boundary is recognized by the parties what is not recognized is where boundary currently falls

Exactly, there is a boundary as there are two states but the location of that boundary is not established therefore the territorial claims by those two states are disputed.
The UN mandate under which the coilition remained in Iraq, and the british government and armed forces policies do not allow for operations in the disputed territory as that would be an act of aggression.

The Treaty was between Iran and Iraq the US and the UK Etc were not participants.

And what does the treaty say about foreign countries?

It was not. It was just a misunderstanding.

A misunderstanding??????
Was it what it was claimed to be? No
Did the naval personell featured make several glaringly obvious mistakes in their own transmission? Yes
Were the claims made by the DoD and Whitehouse spokesmen at the time false? Yes.
The incident was indeed a misunderstanding by the US, but its portrayal was deliberatly misleading and false....rather like the claims made by the British at the time of their incidentand indeed the claims that were found to be tantamount to lying to Parliament.
I suppose its kinda like the Tonkin incident where the only real truth in the statement given was that the USS Maddox was indeed a US Destroyer

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Rather like the claims initially made about the transmissions during Gaza ships incident.

I heard no such claims so I can not comment.

Exactly, there is a boundary as there are two states but the location of that boundary is not established therefore the territorial claims by those two states are disputed.
The UN mandate under which the coilition remained in Iraq, and the british government and armed forces policies do not allow for operations in the disputed territory as that would be an act of aggression.

It is established. The current location of the established boundary is unknown. Colition forces operated under the most recent known location of the established boundary while the IRGCN operates where they wish and routinely violate the boundary.

And what does the treaty say about foreign countries?

What is interference to one country is assistance to another.

A misunderstanding??????
Was it what it was claimed to be? No

After the political BS died down it was.

Did the naval personell featured make several glaringly obvious mistakes in their own transmission? Yes

Where? The two videos of the incident are of communications from two different ships! The IRGCN boat is in contact with the USS Port Royal ("Coalition Warship 73") while the USS Hopper is on a different channel. The channel the IRGCN ship was previously transmitting on- they switched from Channel 16 to channel 11 but continued to transmitted briefly on channel 16 before the commander realized his radio operator had not switched the channel. (I have a feeling that the "Glaring Mistakes" you mention were not the obvious poor training of the IRGCN) FWI Channel 16 is requied to be monitored by all US vessels (USN, USCG, Civil) and is to be used for both distress calls and contacts between two approaching vessels. At that point a some local jack ass sends the famous transmission on Channel 16.

Were the claims made by the DoD and Whitehouse spokesmen at the time false? Yes.

False and in error are two different things, false implies malice. The Press Secretaries are not experts they are just good at talking.

The incident was indeed a misunderstanding by the US, but its portrayal was deliberatly misleading and false....rather like the claims made by the British at the time of their incidentand indeed the claims that were found to be tantamount to lying to Parliament.

How were the British lying? They agreed with the first Iranian claim of where the RN sailors were captured. The Iranians first press release showed the IRGCN boarded the RN zodiac in Iraqi Waters! It wasn't until the British government mentioned that that they changed their story.

Yea someone was lying to their government and I have the feeling it was an officer in the IRGCN.

I suppose its kinda like the Tonkin incident where the only real truth in the statement given was that the USS Maddox was indeed a US Destroyer

And that the North Vietnamese Navy operated torpedo boats, and the USS Maddox was hit by a 14.5mm shell, and a USN F-8 was also hit. Did we distort what happened? Sure. Did the North Vietnamese? Sure, they claimed to have hit the Maddox with a torpedo!

[tater]

There is a long standing way for navies to resolve such disputes.

Fight it out. We'll see how that works for Iran. I frankly don't particularly care what Iran's opinion on anything is, they need a good bitch-slapping.

Maybe we should secretly arm all the gays in Iran (that don't exist)—they might as well shoot it out, since the alternative is being hung from a crane on the back of a truck (along with women who have the temerity to hang out with men).

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Iran is well-armed eough to make an oinvasion of it and groundwar on its territory a thing so compolicated that it makes Afghanistan and Iraq looking easy. And this ability is what counts. If they accheivbe it with traditional jets and tank fleets, or via guerilla warfare, asymmetricl war and all that beefed up with scores of missile systems, does not really matter.

Still nothing preventing a major air offensive. Any Iranian counter attack by land would be in to deserts (both on the east and west of Iran) where US forces could do "Mother of all battles part II". increased guerilla warfare in Iraq or Afghanistan simply becomes a situation of "the same $h!t, just more of it".

Originally Posted by tater

Maybe we should secretly arm all the gays in Iran (that don't exist)—they might as well shoot it out, since the alternative is being hung from a crane on the back of a truck (along with women who have the temerity to hang out with men).

Or have you wiener cut down the middle and turned inside out. Seriously Iran is second only to Thailand in sex reassignment surgeries. Unfortunately the US armed gays will have to fight it out with the Iranian armed Pedophiles (That's legal over there along with most of the ME).

Having known a girl who was raped as a young child I have no problem with US troops castrating every prisoner they got in Gitmo or where else with rusty bayonets.

It is established. The current location of the established boundary is unknown.

If a boundary has no known location then it isn't established.

Colition forces operated under the most recent known location of the established boundary

Bull. Plus they specificly were not allowed to opearate in disputed territory.

Where?

In what they were saying.

False and in error are two different things, false implies malice.

Deliberatly misleading clearly implies the malice element if you want to put it that way, and the claims made were deliberately misleading

How were the British lying?

Ask them, thats what their own inquiry said, deliberatly misleading is the term.

Having known a girl who was raped as a young child I have no problem with US troops castrating every prisoner they got in Gitmo or where else with rusty bayonets.

Wow I didn't know Gitmo was being used for convicted sex offenders, did they have to change its purpose as they were they having problems getting enough real terrorists to lock up?

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

If a boundary has no known location then it isn't established.

Never heard of a undefined boundary?

Bull. Plus they specificly were not allowed to opearate in disputed territory.

The law says otherwise. (See below.)

In what they were saying.

Care to cite an example of incorrect radio procedure?

Deliberatly misleading clearly implies the malice element if you want to put it that way, and the claims made were deliberately misleading

Deliberately releasing information reported in error not known at the time or partial information is not an act of malice. It maybe an act of stupidly or jumping the gun but not malice.

Ask them, thats what their own inquiry said, deliberatly misleading is the term.

Considering that the IRGCN routinely operates in Iraqi waters and that both the Origional Iranian and British locations of the capture of the Zodiac were in Iraq waters its not hard to assume that the findings of whatever inquiry you are citing were political motivated.

Which I find strange because I have the MOD report on the 27 March 07 incident in front of me and it says:

At 0745hrs on 23 Mar 07 a boarding team consisting of 2 x RHIBs, 15 personnel and CRWL’s Lynx departed CRWL to board the [redacted]. En route to the [redacted] the Lynx over flew the MV HANIN and reported that they had identified a potentially illegal cargo of motor cars aboard the MV HANIN. A decision was made to re-direct the boarding to this vessel which was located outside the Buffer Zone 1.5nm from the Op Line.

BTW the Op line is...

The 1975 Algiers Accord drew a line down the centre of the navigable channel and made provision for 10-yearly reviews to account for silting. To date, no review has been undertaken and beyond the mouth of the Shatt al Arab...



... the coalition tactical demarcation (the Op Line) is used as a notional TTW boundary. It is a US NAVCENT construct based on an extension of the Algiers Accord demarcation line beyond the mouth of the Shatt al Arab into the NAG.

So the Op line is an extension of the existing line. Does Iran claim waters beyond that line? They have not published any claim beyond it, routinely operating their boats in the waters does not make it theirs. Occupying an Iraqi crane barge they sunk near the Shatt doesn't make it theirs. I think they would they claim the whole gulf if we were not their to stop them.


it goes on to say...

The crew of the MV HANIN became agitated and the captain told the boarding party that he did not want them to leave as he was fearful of Iranian reprisals.

Reprisals? Why would that be? Why would they fear IRGCN forces? Could it be that the IRGCN isn't out there handing out cupcakes but engaging in state sponsored Piracy?

I read an email published by a sailor who served in the NAG aboard USS Underwood. Here is probably the most important part of it:

I also DO mean TERROR CREWS because nightly we would hear fishermen begging for help over the civilian radio as they were attacked in what can only be viewed as state sponsored piracy, usually in Iraqi waters. Lots of stuff from that time still piss me off.

I don't give a $h!t what waters you are in! Neither does Black's Law Dictionary. In combating piracy lines on a chart do not matter, Coalition forces have Universal Jurisdiction when it comes to combating piracy.

Wow I didn't know Gitmo was being used for convicted sex offenders, did they have to change its purpose as they were they having problems getting enough real terrorists to lock up?

Hamas a known terrorist group routinely organizes mass child weddings. Considering that Saudi clerics also support Child Marriage I would not be surprised Whabbist groups also conducted such acts.

Terrorism supports Pedophilia

Where can I get that on a T Shirt?

If I made one would you buy one Skybird?

With this opinion I will not become popular in Western politics, I'm sure. I'm violating a taboo.

Well I'm not a politician I'm a tactician and I agree with most of what you said. One thing to consider as part of an "Air War" against Iran is Airborne forces. Basically bombing a site, dropping in paras to clear out any bunkers then flying them out on helis or using a captured airstrip for Hercs. Against any counter attack by IRIA or IRGC forces use B-52s armed with GBUs or Spectre/Spooky Gunships to provide some area denial.

[Skybird]

Agree for different reasons. The Iranians simply lack significant numbers of modern jets, ships and tanks for a conflict with the west or the GCC. At least with the Norkors they follow Stalin's old dictum.

Iran is more destabilizing than outright dangerous.

Iran is well-armed eough to make an oinvasion of it and groundwar on its territory a thing so compolicated that it makes Afghanistan and Iraq looking easy. And this ability is what counts. If they accheivbe it with traditional jets and tank fleets, or via guerilla warfare, asymmetricl war and all that beefed up with scores of missile systems, does not really matter.

Israel is a factions that can be calculated in its (limited) regional interests. that has been understood by many Araba nations, and that is why they formed secret but de facto alliances with Israel against the Sunni Persians. Iran'S interests goes far beyond the block it lives in. The malicious nature of their policies and leaders is illustrated by their dogma to destroy Israel, and their massive, really massive support for international terrorism and warf factions in and around Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan.

One must draw a line in the sand and make clear to them: not one step beyond this line - or else. But the Western policies of the past ten years , with so many ultimatums and final demands and negotiations where Iran just wanted to buy time and timetables raised only to see them getting forgotten, does not make me optimistic that Western politicians have what it takes to understand what they are dealing with. Becasue then they would need to recognise that they must not talk but act with solid determination - and if there is one thing poltiicians really hate, then it is taking a stand on something that cannot be defended by words only, but need solid action to be defended.

My bet is that Iran is winning the race for the bomb, and that the West will make a loud tam-tam about it and prefers to do nothing substantial. and then we have what at all cost we should avoid, no matter the cost: a second Pakistan. I personally am not willing to accept a second Pakistan, even more since this will trigger a regionaol nuclear arms race, and Israel very likely prefering to strike before Iran has functional nukes - evcen if it only is to delay it (more the Israelis cannot do, and this also only if their operation runs optimal - which should not be taken for granted).

I also want to remind of the fact that the Iranian opposition leader Mussawi has made it very clear that he also would run for the nuclear bomb, if he would have gotten elected. He is often called a reformer, becasue people in the West do bnot known anythiung about him and only see that he does not openly attack the West in words so hilariously like Ahmadinejadh. But if anyone thinks he must conclude from that that he a "moderate", he probably conlcudes wrong. Mussawi also is a conservative Muhammedan basing in strict Islam, and he wants the bomb, too, he said that clearly in interviews before the elections. Also please remember that the man has no real references that would qualify him as a "reformist". In fact, in the late 80s he alrready should run for the presidency - in the name of the radicals, and then again in the late 90s. He has a reputation. but not as a reformer, but as a hardcore conservative. He lost nomination becasue Rafsandjani and Chatami beat him - by personal networks of theirs, and becasue it was believed that Mussawi would give Iran a more radical face to the West that would trigger more resistance to Iran'S plans than was inevitable. Mussawi also hailed the US embassy drama as "a second Iranian revolution". Mussawi broke diplomatic relations with Saudi arabaia, and cracked down on many foreign cultural institutions in the 80s.

Mussawi is not about reforms and moderate Islam when he ran for the elecitons last year, that is a total mispercpetionb by the West, and many young Iranians. Mussawi simply was about coming to power. Since he does not act as rethorical as Ahmadinejadh (minimisng oppositon from the West that way), but in principle runs the same agenda, I rate Mussawi as the far more dangeorus man, compared to Ahmadinejadh.