do you agree that iran's taking of british soldiers was a clever diversion?

Question

based on his behavior in the past, one day thumbing his nose at a UN inspection of iran's use of nuclear power, the next day, welcoming in the UN for inspection, the next day, telling the UN that 23 inspectors were not welcome but not specifying who wasn't welcome, don't you think that this president of iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a rather sneaky and clever sort of a guy?  i do.  

all evidence proves that the british soldiers taken into captivity in iran had NOT strayed into the waters of iran.  that is shown not only by the ship's gps system that told the captain exactly where they were, but by actual satellite pictures!  that ship was outside of iranian waters as a fact!  

therefore, for the two reasons stated above, i think that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in his study of american politics, the american people, and the american press, pulled a real fast one on us and that we are not paying any attention to it.  

do you think as i do that maybe he engineered taking the brits as a TBC:

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

Iran began producing HEU (weapons grade) uranium in 2003 with only P-1 slow reactors.  

Iran's "diversion" worked for awhile and may have helped to get their diplomat released that was captured in Iraq.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3DA5E7CF-F3AD-4478-ABB7-8B8A372E471C.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2007/02/iraq-070207-irna02.htm
http://www.cctv.com/english/20070404/101635.shtml
Jalal Sharafi, the second secretary at the Iranian embassy in Baghdad, was captured in the central Karrada district by 30 gunmen in Iraqi army uniforms on February 4, 2007 and was released on April 2, 2007
http://www.iribnews.ir/Full_en.asp?news_id=234465&n=36
He arrived in Kermanshah, Iran on Thursday, April 5, 2007.


While the 15 British sailors and marines were being detained in the Persian Gulf  on March 23, 2007, by Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Iranian President Mahmaoud Ahmadinejad abruptly cancelled his appearance before the U.N. Security Council and sent  stead, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki to speak.  He indicated that Iran was willing to continue negotiations but without the precondition that uranium enrichment must be halted.  
Mottaki appeared before the UN on March 24 and said, "the world has two options to proceed on the nuclear issue: continued negotiations or confrontation.  Choosing the path of confrontation ... will have its own consequences. " 
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070325/D8O3E7J00.html

The U.N. Security Council unanimously voted to expand sanctions on March 24, 2007.  The new resolution 1747 calls on Iran to comply fully with all previous UN resolutions and join negotiations to reach agreement so as to restore international confidence in the peaceful nature of its nuclear program. Full transparency and cooperation with the IAEA are required. Suspension of Iran’s banned nuclear activities will elicit the parallel suspension of sanctions. The package of incentives offered Tehran last year for its cooperation remains on the table.  The full text of the draft of resolution 1747 appears at this website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6455853.stm

Military confrontation may be on the horizon.

In addition to the British frigate HMS Cornwall, there is a multi-national strike force in the Persian Gulf.  Furthermore, there are British naval vessels stationed at the Diego Garcia atoll in the Indian ocean.  The British Royal Navy may take action with its Special Boat Service (SBS) , the British Royal Navy's special forces unit. The service's motto is "By Strength and Guile". It forms part of the United Kingdom Special Forces, alongside the Special Air Service (SAS), Special Reconnaissance Regiment (SRR), and Special Forces Support Group (SFSG).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Boat_Service

Ready to assist are the American aircraft carrier strike group aircraft carrier CVN-73 USS John C. Stennis (formerly in Indian Ocean), the American aircraft carrier strike group CVN-69 USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and the French nuclear carrier Charles de Gaulle and its task force  are all in close appoximation in the Persian Gulf.  A 3rd carrier group, the CVN-68 USS Nimitz,  may also be in the Persian Gulf soon as it was scheduled for its WESTPAC07 deployment to replace the USS Dwight D.  Eisenhower which was deployed December 2006.
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3961
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/batgru-68.htm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070330/pl_afp/usmilitaryirannavy_070330160111;_ylt=Annlx2.rLEDDrJgz9RYaNIcUewgF
Amphibious ready group LHD-5 Bataan ( USS Oak Hill, USS Shreveport).  In carrying out its primary mission, BATAAN would transport and land ashore not only troops, but also the tanks, trucks and other vehicles, artillery, ammunition, and complete supplies necessary to fully support the assault. LHD-5's armament system includes the NATO Sea Sparrow Surface Missile System (NSSMS) for antiair warfare protection, two Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) Systems and two Phalanx Close-in Weapon System (CIWS) mounts to counter threats from low flying aircraft and close-in small craft. Six missile decoy launchers augment LHD-5's antiship missile defenses.  LDH-5 was scheduled back on April 4 and was evidently kept in the Persian Gulf due to circumstances in the area.
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1265
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/lhd-5.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/marg.htm
The US may have deployed 4 or 5 carrier groups in the Persian Gulf
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070328/62741920.html
Hmmmmm
The big "E" CVN-65 Enterprise ready strike group
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/batgru-65.htm
Maybe CVN-76 Reagan was deployed
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/batgru-76.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm
Maybe CVN-72 Lincoln?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/batgru-72.htm
Is CVN-77 Bush ready?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvn-77.htm

More details about military options can be found here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm

On Tuesday, March 27, 2007, the two US strike groups, USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and the USS Stennis, along with guided-missile cruiser USS Antietam, conducted military exercises in the Persian Gulf.  The participants included 15 warships and more than 100 aircraft..  

Each carrier carries an air wing of F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet fighter-bombers, EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare aircraft, S-3 Viking refueling and anti-submarine planes, and E-2C Hawkeye airborne command-and-control aircraft. 

Also taking part were six guided-missile destroyers, the Anzio, Ramage, O'Kane, Mason, Preble and Nitze; the frigate Hawes; amphibious assault ships Boxer and Bataan; and the minesweepers Scout, Gladiator and Ardent.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2007-03/28/content_838185.htm

The Isfahan plant is above ground, but Natanz is more than 50ft below and would require either a tactical nuclear missile or a conventional bunker-buster bomb to destroy it. 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1753223,00.html.

Iran's Shahab-3 ballistic missiles are capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and can be detonated by a remote-control device while still in high-altitude flight as electromagnetic pulse weapons - even one of which could knock out America's critical electrical and technological infrastructure, effectively sending the continental U.S. back to the 19th century with a recovery time of months or years.  Iran will have that capability – at least theoretically – as soon as it has one nuclear bomb ready to arm such a missile
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43956
.
.

Anonymous · Answer

Anytime you take another country's citizens hostage it's a bone-headed move.  The British did were told to stand down when faced with the Iranians and that's just what they did.   By doing this a major war was avoided.   The Middle East is just waiting for an excuse to explode.  If the British would have resisted and fired on the Iranians we would be well on our way to war with Iran.  Not to mention that the British would have in all likelihood,  been all killed.   So on the surface it looked like the Brits wimped out.  But after more information was had, standing down was a good move.

rare2findd · Answer

I think the Brits were bored and that they went willingly.

Trending News

do you agree that iran's taking of british soldiers was a clever diversion?

3 Answers