British PM warns Iranians only have a few days

Originally posted by subz

Tony Blair's grip on power in Britain is tenuous to say the least. If he tries to throw British forces at the Iranians his government will definitely fall.

i agree subz

military action could only be condoned if Iran chose to execute our troops.

(which is highly unlikely IMO )

they just don't have the support for any such action against Iran.
I think the attack will come from Israel , then America will be pulled into the conflict via a futher attack on troops near the border.

If you subscribe to the whole NWO theory about the ME then the writing is pretty much on the wall for Iran.

It is integral to the bush administration to remove Iran from the equation.






[edit on 26-3-2007 by tombangelta]

Assuming that the Iranians "start it," would Blaire get enough traction to stay in office? I know that many Americans are asking that question about Bush. I myself have written about how a U.S. President could stay in power as the result of a martial conflict.

The EU and other nations need to apply real political pressure to Iran. The best way would be for the likes of France to dispatch warships to the region. Even if smaller countries sent troops that would take part in a non combatant role in any conflict with Iran it would all be a part of the show of unity and mounting political pressure.

Iran mustn't be allowed to continue making the plays as this situation continues to unfold.

[edit on 26-3-2007 by xpert11]

Where would you like to see all these troops gets staged? It might have to be Iraq.

Originally posted by xpert11
The EU and other nations need to apply real political pressure to Iran. The best way would be for the likes of France to dispatch warships to the region.

Political pressure is different from military pressure, I don't think that adding some more forces, unless it is Russian and Chinese would make any difference right now.

Originally posted by DIABOLIC
I've read elsewhere that the Brit. sailors admitted to being on Iran waters...

Riight... and the next thing the Iranians will tell us is that the Brits confessed to killing the Easter Bunny.

I don't think that even Ahmadinejad is stupid enough to harm these Brits. They will be released soon.

I tell you now... if Iran is attacked, Russia and China are in the picture.
The last thing we the people want is for Iran to be attacked.

...Unless of course you don't mind the thought of World War 3...

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Assuming that the Iranians "start it," would Blaire get enough traction to stay in office? I know that many Americans are asking that question about Bush. I myself have written about how a U.S. President could stay in power as the result of a martial conflict.

very good point justin.

Under no circumstances would Blair be allowed to stay in number 10.

Gordon Brown ( our next pm ) this week has been compared to Stalin,
and that's by members of his own government lol.


as for bush nothing would surprise me. Could be there for another 8 years.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Where would you like to see all these troops gets staged? It might have to be Iraq.

In terms of land based troops Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkmenlstan, Pakistan and a few other countries are possibility's. Some of those governments might not be so keen on hosting troops. Naval forces are quite handy because they can maintain a presences without needing the support of a local government.

JacKatMtn military pressure can be used to apply diplomatic pressure things look a bit differnt when you are faced by a gun.

[edit on 26-3-2007 by xpert11]

[edit on 26-3-2007 by xpert11]

I'm not sure I'd feel bad about the Easter bunny thing. It could be that the timetable for enacting the new U.N. sanctions could be sped up. I'm not that familiar iwth U.K. law, so I don't know how they will respond to the lack of consular access. I expect to hear further remarks from Blaire later on today.

I personally think its all connected with the UK/USA threats and UN sanctions relating to their Nuclear programme. Once they (Iran) have had their confessions etc on TV the sailors will be released, I don’t think we will use military action over this unless they are released unharmed soon. Although, it does give Blair/Bush cause.

That's what I am hoping for, Smartie. Let's hope that saner heads prevail. If it turns out that the Iranains are trying to povoke something, I can only hope what whatever they've got up their sleeves doesn't work. I shudder to think what might happened here in America if Bush43 decided to use the crisis to stay in office.

Originally posted by xpert11
JacKatMtn military pressure can be used to apply diplomatic pressure things look a bit differnt when you are faced by a gun.

I think Iran has been staring down the barrel for quite some time with no effect, to use the cliche' "you don't put out a fire by pouring on more fuel"

Like I said, the only military pressure which might make a difference is Russia/China pointing their weapons at Tehran, and we know this is highly unlikely...

I understand your point though, I just disagree...

Iran hasn't really been facing down the barrel at all. Coalition forces have been tied down in Iraq and apart from USN carriers there has been no real military presence that is aimed purely at Iran. China and Russia have chosen there own interests over what is best for the region and global security.

A blockade of oil exports from Iran would get their attention real quick.

That would be a likely scenario.

Originally posted by jsobecky
A blockade of oil exports from Iran would get their attention real quick.

That would be a likely scenario.

How would this affect the price per barrel, could we be looking at $6+ per gallon of gas?

I am not sure of the scenario though if this is possible, more than the Iranians would be paying attention...

...US politicians with election/re-election prospects would be highly interested not to mention consumers.

What a mess.....

[edit on 2007/3/26 by JacKatMtn]

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
Mar. 26, 2007 10:12 | Updated Mar. 26, 2007 10:29
'US sailors would have shot at Iranians'
By JPOST.COM STAFF

www.jpost.com...

I'm not so sure, its easy for some one up the chain of command to speculate but when it comes down to the real thing the ROE's might not be so clear. It would not be the first time the USN has operated under unclear ROE's due to the possibility of starting off a war being so high (see Cuban Missile Crisis). Most commanders I'm sure would return fire with interest if fired upon but what will they do when the situation is not at that point yet. Make contact, warning shots, physical presence etc...? If you're operating in an area like this where such encounters can happen then the ROE’s and procedures should be clear to everyone (from sailor to Admiral) and you have to equip your forces with the proper equipment carry out those procedures. You can't just hope that the situation never arises or that you'll make stuff up as it happens. Apparently we (the coalition) did not learn our lesson from the 2004 incident.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
So US forces don't plan on letting them pull this stunt again.

I think the way these types of operations are carried out will change (if there needs to be a change). I suspect there will always be a large surface ship near by providing support from now on and maybe a helicopter or two. These should be enough to deter any future action like the one that has taken place.

The one thing that bothers me however is that this is SOP now so why did this take place? The surface ships in the area were probably very much away of what was going on and I'm sure the Iranian vessels were well within the engagement envelope but I suspect be the ROE's and procedures for this type of situation were not as clear. Given that no actual shots were fired the commander of the nearby British ship probably did not know how to react, I’m interested to see the time frame of this (ie. how long it took) that might help explain things a little better. Anyway If the sailors/marines in question had resisted and perhaps threatened to open fire (sidearm) things might have gotten a bit more interesting. Sure we might have lost some friendly but think of the different precedent that would have been set. Instead of letting them get away with it a second time we would have made it very clear that any unprovoked hostile or threatening action would not be tolerated and will result in additional artificial reefs in the Gulf. Instead we are no forced to play their game while further emboldening their ideas... And ambiguous "tough talk" with zero real world implications or action being taken/demonstrated is even more pathetic and embarrassing.

[edit on 26-3-2007 by WestPoint23]

So if I get this right, in theory..

If Iran executed the Sailors and UK, US and Allies attacked Iran; China and Russia would also defend Iran and basically another World War would start?

I can picture Kim Jong Il jumping up and down in glee wanting to join in the massacre .

Peace,
- Naz

For those interested,

I have heard comments here in the UK that the deadline is 48 hours.

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by DIABOLIC
I've read elsewhere that the Brit. sailors admitted to being on Iran waters...

Riight... and the next thing the Iranians will tell us is that the Brits confessed to killing the Easter Bunny.

I don't think that even Ahmadinejad is stupid enough to harm these Brits. They will be released soon.

Problem is, they were captured in waters that have been disputed for like EVER.
Iraq calls it their territory, Iran calls it theirs, it simply depends on who's side your on when you call the troops being in Iraqi waters.

Troops have been seized in the very same situation before, where they were in some of these disputed territories.

Iran will probably release them, they aren't stupid and they had their minutes in the spotlight.

Although there is a chance they won't release them since the US has been kidnapping Iranian officials too, both on Iranian and Iraqi soil.