British PM warns Iranians only have a few days

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

Iran won't, they're that stupid.

Even if they do release them, we should seek military action anyways.

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
How would this affect the price per barrel, could we be looking at $6+ per gallon of gas?
[edit on 2007/3/26 by JacKatMtn]

The US doesn't get oil from Iran. China is it's biggest customer, I believe. But the whole oil market is tied together globally, so it would end up affecting us in some way, esp. if China started bidding on our usual oil sources.

I just heard on the news that oil prices are rising above $62/bbl because of the tensions in Iran.



[edit on 26-3-2007 by jsobecky]

UK Defence Minister is about to take questions in the House of Commons shortly. If you are a UK member, flick it over to the news channels. This could get interesting.

nothing new said,

Defence Minister said more will be said at a later date.

If there is an attack on Iran, it has to be launched by sea, and there the West is outgunned. We'd see some major naval hardware at the bottom of the Gulf in short order.

Putin has given the Iranians and the Syrians the Sizzler/Sunbeam missile system, which the US Navy itself has admitted it is defenseless against. These missiles travel at Mach 2.5, fly about 40 feet above sea level, and have a range of about 200 miles. They can be land or sea based. They have such velocity that they can sink a Nimitz class carrier with a conventional warhead.

This is why the Times (n.b. London) reported two weeks ago that at least a half-dozen senior US military will resign in protest if the go order is given on Iran.

You'll see quite some Iranian arrogance; they'll try to humiliate the UK as much as possible, because they've got this up their sleeves. But in the end they'll let the Brits go and things will return to stalemate.

This is major geopolitics playing out right now. I hope no one missteps!


[edit on 26-3-2007 by gottago]

I found this article saying acces to prisoners will be granted after investigations. Just posting FYI

Access To British Detainees In Iran After Investigations

Iran will grant British diplomats access to the 15 British detainees in Tehran after the end of investigations, the website of state-television IRIB quoted Monday Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki as saying.

Mottaki said in a phone conversation with his British counterpart Margaret Beckett from New York, that the marines would be allowed to meet British diplomats after investigations were concluded.

The British detainees are reportedly held in a secret place where even British diplomats had no access so far.

IRIB further quoted Mottaki as denying speculations over Iran's intention to exchange the British detainees with Iranian diplomats arrested by the United States in Iraq.

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

Well, the US does not directly import crude form Iran, we have not done so for a long time. Currently we only import roughly 22% of our oil from the Persian Gulf with 90% of that coming from Iraq and Saudi Arabia. However given that you have a least a half dozen countries in the area producing and shipping 90% of their oil through the Straight of Hormuz the situation logistically and military could get messy. Western Europe, Japan and now Asia make up the bulk of the ME oil importers, they won't be too happy if that flow is disrupted and they will be affected a lot more than we will.

Iran only produces about, 2.6 million bbl/d or about 15% of the exports coming for the Persian Gulf area, statistically not that significant on the larger world scale. But because the way the market is structured and run (by speculative investors) the price of crude will inevitable go up and the effect on the global economy will not be pretty. How bad it gets depends on a lot of things namely time, effect on other gulf exporters and domestic government action.

It could work however since the vast majority of Iran's economy is based around their oil and natural gas exports... Out of all the non-diplomatic options available now I personally prefer this one over direct military action which this might lead to anyway. But at least we wont have to initiate it.

interesting to me is that no one here seems to remember that westerners abducted Iranian citizens in the first place...

how easilly you are manipulated...

tsk, tsk

Originally posted by gottago
You'll see quite some Iranian arrogance; they'll try to humiliate the UK as much as possible, because they've got this up their sleeves. But in the end they'll let the Brits go and things will return to stalemate.

I'm not too sure,
I think Iran does want a war with the West, but fears what could happen if it went to war. This is the problem Iran does face, it no longer has the support of China or Russia.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
It could work however since the vast majority of Iran's economy is based around their oil and natural gas exports... Out of all the non-diplomatic options available now I personally prefer this one over direct military action which this might lead to anyway. But at least we wont have to initiate it.

Wise words my friend, I agree that I would much rather pay extra at the pumps than pay with the lives of ours and others soldiers & citizens.

I just wonder if it would still end up with the loss of life most of us do not want.

I doubt very much if military actions will be taken at this point in time. Economic sanctions, i.e. oil blockades, are the way to go. Then the whole world will come down on Iran's neck to release the Brits.

That's if Tony asks me what he should do.

[edit on 26-3-2007 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by infinite
I'm not too sure,
I think Iran does want a war with the West, but fears what could happen if it went to war. This is the problem Iran does face, it no longer has the support of China or Russia.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. Just because they had some disagreement on one matter doesn't mean they arent allies anymore. China still gets their supply of oil from Iran, they wouldn't be too pleased. And Putin knows Ahmadinejad quite well... I'm sure he'd know what the real story is. Not the propaganda crap that we hear from mainstream western media.

Originally posted by Navieko
China still gets their supply of oil from Iran, they wouldn't be too pleased. And Putin knows Ahmadinejad quite well... I'm sure he'd know what the real story is

If we give them a cut of Iranian oil, then problem solved. As long as we protect Iranian oil then China and Russia will have no problem with us bombing the police.

If we are not in the middle east, they all kill each other. If we are in the middle east they all kill each other and us?

Nothing we do over there will resolve the problems, it's all such a pointless and tragic waiste of life.

For a change 1000's are dieing in the name of religion, while religion tries to create a name for doing good. This world would be so much more peaceful with out the whole God/Jesus/Mohamed/Budha blah blah crap.

That feels better,

Q

Originally posted by Quackmaster
God/Jesus/Mohamed/Budha blah blah crap.

I hate to disappoint you, but I do not recall Buddha having any links to the Middle East.

Originally posted by gottago
If there is an attack on Iran, it has to be launched by sea, and there the West is outgunned.

The bulk of it will be launched from the sea but not all of it, look at the map and notice all the USAF bases in the region not to mention we have CONUS reach anyway.

USAF Bases
USAF Instillations

Originally posted by gottago
We'd see some major naval hardware at the bottom of the Gulf in short order.

Yup, mostly likely Iranian (see Operation Praying Mantis).

Originally posted by gottago
Putin has given the Iranians and the Syrians the Sizzler/Sunbeam missile system...

It is not confirmed that Iran has either, they probably have a limited number of Sunburn (SS-N-22) missiles but no "Sizzler" (SS-N-27B) missiles.

Originally posted by gottago
...which the US Navy itself has admitted it is defenseless against.

I'll take those assumptions with a grain of salt, given that neither of these missile systems has ever seen combat their performance against US systems (SM-2ER, AEGIS, Phalanx, RAM, ESSM etc...) is questionable.

Originally posted by gottago
These missiles travel at Mach 2.5, fly about 40 feet above sea level, and have a range of about 200 miles.

Not all of them, they come in distinct variants and specifications. Have a read.

Originally posted by gottago
They can be land or sea based.

Again depending on the version...

Originally posted by gottago
They have such velocity that they can sink a Nimitz class carrier with a conventional warhead.

Uhh... no. A Nimitz class super carrier is the most survivable large military (surface) ship afloat. If (big IF) some missiles hit it would take several just to achieve a mission kill (meaning flight ops are canceled). I'm not even sure if you could sink a Nimitz class with only conventional cruise missile hitting above the waterline (you probably could but it would take a ridiculously high number).

Anyway, a few missiles are not going to win you a war and if the carriers are used/positioned correctly within the protection envelop of her escorts ships and fighters the risk of any missile attack can be greatly negated. These are just the defensive options, given that these coastal/ship batteries will be high on the list they will be some of the first to be disposed of.

Originally posted by gottago
This is why the Times (n.b. London) reported two weeks ago that at least a half-dozen senior US military will resign in protest if the go order is given on Iran.

Eh, I'm not much for sensational journalism, still Leavenworth has room for more people and the US military will not be greatly affected by any such loss. Anyway if I recall correctly those in question were in conflict over moral and personal beliefs not because Iran has ASCM's.

Originally posted by gottago
You'll see quite some Iranian arrogance; they'll try to humiliate the UK as much as possible, because they've got this up their sleeves. But in the end they'll let the Brits go and things will return to stalemate.

Yup, nothing but grandstanding and propaganda on Iran's part but their arrogance is due to their blinding ideology not secret technology. Iran's military (given it's not an occupation) stands no chance against the West whatsoever. Their efforts will be akin to giving someone with a sledgehammer a bee sting before they come down on you...

[edit on 26-3-2007 by WestPoint23]

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

That would be a likely scenario.

The assumption is that China play along with this. I don't think they will appreciate being told where to get their product especially given China's booming economy and the fact that they have long term investments with Iran for oil and natural gas. Included in the mix is India, Japan and Russia. Its been widely known that 2004 Iran/China deal was a major setback for the bush administration as far as Iranian sanctions go.

brill

Originally posted by Implosion

It's always the same here on ATS. Remember the North Korean missile tests? OMG It's WW3! Same when they fizzled a nuke. Seems to me, posters here actually want it to happen.

[edit on 26/3/07 by Implosion]

AMEN! But I don't think they want to see war as an end. War would just justify their overly-conspiratorial (and some would say dangerously paranoid) worldview.

Originally posted by brill
The assumption is that China play along with this.

No the assumption is that China will come down on Iran because they can't do diddly squat in terms of stopping the US/UK from carrying out this operation. We know full well they would not like it, thing is we don't like having our troops captured either.

Seeings troops have been captured, I don't see what problem China would have if the UK decided to use force to get them back. UK has a good relation with China and we do support the "One China" policy.