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

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So in the first it appears the British were in Iranian waters where they are not allowed to be

The Iranian claim they were in Iranian waters the British claim they were still in Iraqi waters.

in the second they were in disputed waters where they certainly are not allowed to be.

They are allowed to be their since they are operating on behalf of the Iraqi government.

The reason these waters are disputed is tides. A high tide the line of demarcation is in one position at low its at another. Also neither the Iranians or Iraqis will come to an agreement over just where the border is, one side wants it down the center of the Shatt al-Arab while the other wants it at shore.

The reason the IRGCN is harassing Coalition forces and Iraqi shipping in this area is that:
A) Coalition patrols make it difficult to smuggle weapons in to Iraq and fuel out.
B) Coalition patrols prevent them from extorting the Iraqi fisherman for protection.

The Iranian claim they were in Iranian waters the British claim they were still in Iraqi waters.

That why I used the word "appears", besides which the shatt is a matter of dispute between two nations which Britain has no role in. which also comes to.....

They are allowed to be their since they are operating on behalf of the Iraqi government.

No, the mandate was very clear, they were operating under a strict mandate and they were specificly not allowed to enter disputed territory as that would be an act of aggression. That was reinforced by orders from the British military.
I will see if I can find the statement from the British admiralty that they released at the time of the incident(though most of the media ignored it of course) Though the so far released parts of the Air chief marshals inquiry and of course by the UK government enquiry by the foreign affairs commitee all backthat up as does the problems Britain had with trying to go through the UN to pressure Iran as at that time it was a UN mandate the British were under and that UN mandate that they broke.

The reason the IRGCN is harassing Coalition forces and Iraqi shipping in this area is that:

Hold on coilition forces no longer do the Iraq Iran border down south as that is done by the new Iraqi forces made up from the Iranian trained and funded Badr brigades so why would they bother smuggling by sea when their people are running both sides of the land border?

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Two incidents he could be talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Ir...Navy_personnel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Ir...Navy_personnel

In 2004 they captured some kind of riverine patrol boat. In 2007 they captured a Zodiac boat.

Yep, I remember those but it was the reference to 'gunship' and 'big boat' that had me wondering if I'd forgotten about some frigate or destroyer we'd lost

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

That why I used the word "appears", besides which the shatt is a matter of dispute between two nations which Britain has no role in. which also comes to.....

No, the mandate was very clear, they were operating under a strict mandate and they were specificly not allowed to enter disputed territory as that would be an act of aggression. That was reinforced by orders from the British military.
I will see if I can find the statement from the British admiralty that they released at the time of the incident(though most of the media ignored it of course) Though the so far released parts of the Air chief marshals inquiry and of course by the UK government enquiry by the foreign affairs commitee all backthat up as does the problems Britain had with trying to go through the UN to pressure Iran as at that time it was a UN mandate the British were under and that UN mandate that they broke.

That is its disputed is disputed (its the middle east nothing can be agreed upon!) The 2007 boat was seized south east of both the Algeria Agreement and International boundary lines. The IRGCN on the other hand ignores all boundaries and has jurisdiction where ever no one has a bigger gun.

Hold on coilition forces no longer do the Iraq Iran border down south as that is done by the new Iraqi forces made up from the Iranian trained and funded Badr brigades so why would they bother smuggling by sea when their people are running both sides of the land border?

The Badr Brigates are just one group of many the IP and Iraqi Navy patrol the Tigris and Shatt al-Arab as well.

[Moeceefus]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

What was crazy about the speedboat incidents is the obvious lies the US told about them.

Moeceefus.
Do you realise that the video you linked to was thoroughly trashed as complete rubbish the very day it was released?

That is its disputed is disputed

Can you find any agreement between the two nations that both recognise an established maritime boundary between the two states in that location?
No, so it is disputed and that is beyond dispute.

The 2007 boat was seized south east of both the Algeria Agreement and International boundary lines.

The problem there is that though the treaty was signed the demarcation wasn't completed so there is still no agreed international boundary lines there, since of course that constitutes breaking the spirit of the treaty that puts #4 into play which means it isn't a solution.
Though as you wished to mention that treaty, if it were in effect it would mean that the sofa Iraq has given the coilition would be invalid and the US and British could not be in Iraq at all.

[Moeceefus]

[QUOTE=Tribesman;1449371]Moeceefus.
Do you realise that the video you linked to was thoroughly trashed as complete rubbish the very day it was released?

QUOTE]


What would be the point of faking that and where is your proof that thats the case? Do you not believe Iran is trying to incite more problems in the middle east?

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Moeceefus.
Do you realise that the video you linked to was thoroughly trashed as complete rubbish the very day it was released?

It was not. It was just a misunderstanding. Some @$$ holes on the guard net (or its naval equivalent) talking $h!t in the middle of an encounter between IRGCN and USN forces and the USN forces assumed they were taking to them. If this happened in US waters the USCG would have found out who was misusing the radio net and prosecuted them.

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".

Can you find any agreement between the two nations that both recognise an established maritime boundary between the two states in that location?
No, so it is disputed and that is beyond dispute.

The boundary is recognized by the parties what is not recognized is where boundary currently falls. The required surveys were not conducted after the Iran-Iraq war so the current charts showing the boundary are not up to date with the current holographic situation.

Though as you wished to mention that treaty, if it were in effect it would mean that the sofa Iraq has given the coilition would be invalid and the US and British could not be in Iraq at all.

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

[Castout]

Originally Posted by krashkart

+1

Did anyone here see that Ted Koppel special a couple years back where he went to Iran? I believe it was aired on the Discovery Channel.


EDIT - Found YouTube links. Pretty sure it's the right one.

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.

[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

[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.

[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!