Don't we have satellites that could prove Brits were in Iranian waters

[Iwasthere]

How come no one has come out with the actual pics of the vessels showing exactly how far away from Iran they were, proving or disapproving the claims once and for all? Seems like a no brainer to me? I know the pics could be photo shopped but those can be disproven. So if this escalated we are just going to take their word for it? Would Iran have some pics, of radar print outs perhaps.

[mike_c]

1. yeah, just like we had satellites that proved Iraqis were massing...

...on the Saudi border. I wouldn't trust ANY data supplied by the U.S. or U.K. gov't on that matter.

[soothsayer]

2. because this is just sabre rattling or whatnot

[TlalocW]

3. All the military intelligence people who are good

at Photoshopping were gay and have thus been discharged leaving no one with enough skills to move the ships into international waters on the photos.

TlalocW

[CabalPowered]

4. Or better yet, give us the coordinates.

I'm sure the Brits have GPS.

[L. Coyote]

5. Exactly. Just read the waypoints in their GPS units. n/t

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

9. I think we can assume they were in Iran's territorial waters...

otherwise this information would have been released several days ago.

[CabalPowered]

12. Which is what has me puzzled. I thought the poodle said no dice on Iran

:shrug:

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

14. Could have been a simple mistake

Which I'm sure it was. Don't know if you saw the news story a few weeks ago about how the Swiss army inadvertently "invaded" Liechtenstein. Shit happens.

[Solo_in_MD]

18. I doubt it, the Brits are not cowboys, and don't want a dust up in Iran

Also given it was the Pasdaran and not the Iraqi navy, makes me think this was as much for domestic consumption in Iran as anything else. They are already calling them *spies*

[WinkyDink]

21. They thought it was Vatican City. :)

[Squatch]

13. Operational Security.

Could reveal sensitive data like routine and non-routine patrol routes, times of patrols, etc.

[happyslug]

15. 29th Infantry Patch, How is the old Blue and Gray Division?

n/t I served in the Pennsylvania National Guard, 28th Infantry Division (The keystone Division)>


http://www.dmva.state.pa.us/paarng/cwp/view.asp?a=3&Q=440947
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/28id.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._28th_Infantry_Division

More on the 29th:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._29th_Infantry_Division
http://www.ranger95.com/divisions/history_of_the_29th_infantry_div.htm

[Squatch]

16. I bump into quite a few of you guys.

The PA Guard is the first state to equip and field a National Guard Stryker Brigade Combat Team.

[louis-t]

6. I think the problem is: both countries claim same waterway.

I'm also beginning to wonder if this is a setup to start war with Iran. The bushgang figgers a new American Gulf of Tonkin would be too obvious. But if the UK is involved, of course we have to protect our buddy Blair.

[KansDem]

7. Probably the same reason we didn't see photos of Saddam transporting all his WMDs out of Iraq

Bush's 2003 SOTU speech:

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

500 tons? That's a million pounds of potential sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. I fail to see how anybody could move a million pounds of anything without being detected, especially by our billion-dollar spy satellites.

We didn't see photos of Brits in Iranian waters for the same reason we didn't see Saddam's 1,000,000-pound freight transfer: someone didn't want the truth to be know.

[Solo_in_MD]

19. Its easy to dodge the satellites so no pictures can not be honestly used to say it did not happen.

[Squatch]

8. Sure...were they using GPS?

[kenny blankenship]

10. the satellites may be taking pictures elsewhere

to get resolution needed to make a claim this way or that, the satellite would probably need to be directed to focus on the area in question at the time in question. If you know what you want to take pictures of already, there's no problem. If something happens in a piece of real estate you're not watching closely at the moment, you won't have anything to look at.

[Turbineguy]

11. If anything

they knew they did NOT want to take a picture of that operation.

[Solo_in_MD]

17. Radar plots would be useful if no satellite photos are available

[tehehehe]

20. It is less their actual location...

...it is more the nature of their (Brit) intent. Ships can sometimes stray into disputed waters (there is much to dispute in the Gulf). While I tend to think the Brits probably were in Iraqi waters, the main issue is "what were they doing".

In this case there is no dispute that the Brits were conducting a routine inspection of a commercial vessel. The Brits "boats" were small inflatable surface craft that carried no independent firepower. The Brit military carried only sidearms (not even automatic weapons). The Brit craft had no "surveilence" equipment (at least none is charged in Iranian releases). The ship the Brits boarded was not an Iranian ship, nor a ship bound for Iran.

The evidence would suggest that the Brits did not provoke the incident, and that there is no justification for the Iranian detainment other than the Brits may have strayed into disputed waterways. In such a situation, craft are typically "warned away" and only seized if they fail to abide by such a warning. There was no warming (at least none claimed by the Iranians). They simply seized the Brit vessels.

Thuse, even conclusive evidence of pictures or radar would not necessarily result in the release of the Brit vessels. The Iranians would simply claim that the photos were wrong, or were not representative of where the vessels did "cross into Iranian waters". More likely, the Iranians will put the Brits on trial (a show trial on Iranian TV) and are likely to "convict" them (apparently on espionage charges based upon the latest iranian news releases). What will be important is what happens once the Iranians "convict" the Brits. Will they be released to their native country, or will they be held?

If they are held, there is likely to be some nasty stuff that follows. Things could get very heated very fast. Until then it is likely only to be rhetoric and huffing and puffing with all kinds of "counter-charges" and "deadlines". If they are convicted and not released within a week adfter the trial, we will face a very incindiary situation. There is simply no "law of the sea" principle that would permit such an act of war to be drug out. It would be merely a provocation (equivalent to putting a chip on you should and daring the other guy to knock it off). Iranian intransigence past a month after a conviction will likely result in a retaliatory attack of some type. Between now and then, coalition forces will "overwatch" all coalition surface craft to ensure there is no replication of such an event, and would take any opportunity to seize an Iranian craft if it strayed in clearly identifiable (documented and reportsed) Iraqi waters.

It is and will be a nervous time, but it will not escalate unless the Irnians choose to be belligerant and force an excalation. The first response would likely be a complete embargo and sea blockade after appeals to the UN. The next stage would be seizing ships leaving or trying to enter Iranian ports. The third stage would be an exhcange of fire with Iranian vessels or port facilities. The final stage would be air attacks on Iranian targets and the resulting conflict.

Have faith that cooler heads will prevail. They will on the Western side, but the Iranian Revolutionary guards are much less disciplined. They act more like a "militia" that operate independent of the government and in response to directives from Muslims clerics of the Revolutionary Guard who may see a confrontation to be more politiocally advantageous to improving their own political objectives.

[Oilwellian]

22. Cooler heads will prevail on the Western side?

What alternate universe do YOU live in?