Jump to content

Britain weighs response to Iran Gulf crisis with few good options


webfact

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply
15 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And they did so with a Government in the midst of changing leaders, the sitting PM essentially neutered in all respects of political power.

 

Those in the UK who profess a fear of the UK joining a fictitious 'EU Army', need to wake up to the reality of the UK military being a handy 'foreign legion' for the US.

 

Find out who authorised the capture of the Iranian tanker at such a critical time and why they did so before sharpening sabres for war. 

I thought the Iranian tanker was seized due to the violation of EU sanctions, i.e. this was done on behalf of the EU? Yes there are rumours that Washington ordered it, but only rumours as far as I can see. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, pegman said:

Well, then maybe we can see if Russia has sold or lent their S400 air defence system to Iran. From what's been getting reported those F-35's could be easy pickings.

 

Clearly Iran is in the right here. The only realistic action left for the Brit Twits is to get a credible 3rd party like Norway or Turkey to broker a settlement. A captured ship exchange. Maybe throw in a Spice Girls concert seeing the UK hi-jacked first. Don't hold your breath Boris waiting for the Oval Office draft dodger to bail you out. That ain't happening.

Not necessarily.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Somtamnication said:

This doesn't look good. I hope the Iranians free the crew and the ship. Unlike other world leaders who give out bloated threats, the UK does not play. (Remember the Falklands?).

The UK had 35 frigates before the breakup of the Soviet Union. We now have 19. Consecutive British governments have degraded British military capacity across all arms of service to the extent where they are  almost negligible. So it is just as well we are in NATO and have those trident subs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And they did so with a Government in the midst of changing leaders, the sitting PM essentially neutered in all respects of political power.

 

Those in the UK who profess a fear of the UK joining a fictitious 'EU Army', need to wake up to the reality of the UK military being a handy 'foreign legion' for the US.

 

Find out who authorised the capture of the Iranian tanker at such a critical time and why they did so before sharpening sabres for war. 

Pompeo on Iran’s capture of British-flagged tanker: Up to ‘United Kingdom to take care of their ships’

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sticky Wicket said:

This is laughable. Their definition of soft power is somewhat deficient. Try this one instead:

"a persuasive approach to international relations, typically involving the use of economic or cultural influence."

The British Council's definition is all about cultural influence and international engagement. In the present situation, it's all about the Benjamins. Unless the UK plans to ship the Iranians enough cash to compensate for what they've lost by the sanctions, its soft power is more or less useless in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

This is laughable. Their definition of soft power is somewhat deficient. Try this one instead:

"a persuasive approach to international relations, typically involving the use of economic or cultural influence."

The British Council's definition is all about cultural influence and international engagement. In the present situation, it's all about the Benjamins. Unless the UK plans to ship the Iranians enough cash to compensate for what they've lost by the sanctions, its soft power is more or less useless in this case.

you mean the same way America soft powers not working with Sanctions against iran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Thongkorn said:

you mean the same way America soft powers not working with Sanctions against iran.

But that's the point I was making. In this case, it's all about the Benjamins. And thanks to the way the international banking system is structured gives the USA a huge edge in that kind of soft power. The most meaningful kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, bristolboy said:

But that's the point I was making. In this case, it's all about the Benjamins. And thanks to the way the international banking system is structured gives the USA a huge edge in that kind of soft power. The most meaningful kind.

 totally agree with you that was my point Britain has more soft power than America , thats why they dont need to go to war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Thongkorn said:

 totally agree with you that was my point Britain has more soft power than America , thats why they dont need to go to war.

I don't see what the connection is between the kind of soft power Britain shines in "Education, culture, and international engagement" and not having to go to war.

Also, the US came in fourth. The UK had a score of 80.55 and the USA 77.60

Finally, what makes the judgement of a company called Portland Communications authoritative?

 

Portland Communications Ltd is a political consultancy and public relations agency set up in 2001 by Tim Allan,[1] a former adviser to Tony Blair[2] and Director of Communications at BSkyB. In 2012 a majority stake in Portland was purchased by Omnicom.[3]

Portland provides communications and public affairs advice to brands and high-profile individuals. Portland's website states that "Our team is recruited from the highest levels of the media, politics and government."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_consulting

 

Looks like just a public relations stunt to publicize themselves. They are a public relations agency, after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/22/2019 at 12:16 AM, bristolboy said:

Well, apparently, Trump deputized Rand Paul, who is very opposed to foreign entanglements, to speak to the Iranians. And I've noted that Trump has dropped references to Iran's support of terrorism and making ballistic missiles. Those latter 2 were also originally cited as grounds for the sanctions.

Trump escalated tension in the gulf to raise the price of oil which helps the USA's economy. He has no desire to go to war.

 

As for us Brits, if we sail our fleet into the gulf to teach them a lesson like we did to the Argies, then I don't see that ending well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/22/2019 at 11:48 AM, Baerboxer said:

 

Your incredible knowledge of history is only surpassed by your even more incredible grasp of current wold events!

 

I salute you!

 

ps - Galtieri and his fascist Junta started the Falkland's War by illegally invading a British territory. Ironically mainly to divert the Argentinian people's attention away from their dire economic and financial governance. Responding to an invasion via the "diplomatic route" is likely to have been as successful as Chamberlain was at Munich!

 

PPS - the Iranians have taken advantage of a crap caretaker PM waiting to be replaces by an idiot or cretin. 

 

pps 2 - the Iranians "look we can do what you do" attitude is laudable. Now, let's nuke Tehran and see what they do!

Nuke Tehran over a Swedish owned oil tanker, I doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, bartender100 said:

If we wanted we could storm it anytime we want, the UK forces may be diminished but SAS and SBS are still the best in the world, could do the job in a heart beat with no Iranians left standing

Boris just has to send the mobilisation orders out to Pattaya, there's a full battalion of special forces guys down there ready for action.  They just have to swap their beer stained vests and pee stained cargo shorts for the desert fatigues and the Iranians will run home to mummy!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/22/2019 at 12:40 AM, geoffbezoz said:

Yes I remember it very well in a contrived unnecessary war that killed 255 British Service ma, a war deliberately contrived by that anti Christ Thatcher who refused to take the diplomatic route, the sole purpose of which was to get her an election win. At that time we were wholly reliant upon the Americans for support and Chile for a land base as then the UK had only a half of a naval force it should have had.

 

Now the UK Navy has a small fraction of even that, a point raised this weekend by the Minister. Couple that with the fact that this potential conflict is being contrived by Trump, and the British are helpless to avoid doing what they are told by him due to gutless politicians, I hope yet another Middle East catastrophe, purposely engineered by the US to boost Trumps next election chances (or so he thinks), is avoided.

 

However the only thing that the British can now do in retaliation on their own against the Iranians is wait for that fool Boris to become PM so that he can attack them with bile and bluster and perhaps blow is front teeth out at them.

with all the defense cuts britains been punching above its weight for a while now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, kingdong said:

with all the defense cuts britains been punching above its weight for a while now.

Sadly I have to agree with you on this point. In defence of the armed forces (pun intended) they do cover a lot of NATO requirements unlike many of the EU countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2019 at 1:30 AM, bartender100 said:

If we wanted we could storm it anytime we want, the UK forces may be diminished but SAS and SBS are still the best in the world, could do the job in a heart beat with no Iranians left standing

That is true and we all know what happened the last time US special forces went into Iran.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2019 at 9:58 PM, kingdong said:

with all the defense cuts britains been punching above its weight for a while now.

It's not just the cuts, it is also about getting value for the money that is being spent. As things stand at the moment the British tax payer is being robbed blind by the defense industry. Just look at  France which gets good value for its defense Euros. Them compare the UK's gdp with that of Russia. If Russia can afford to spend more then so can the UK. The UK's elites will just have to take break from robbing their own country for a while so that our defenses can be rebuilt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The captain of a tanker seized while carrying Iranian oil has said Royal Marines used excessive force in detaining his ship.

Earlier this month, UK forces helped authorities in Gibraltar who believed the tanker was carrying oil to a Syrian refinery in breach of EU sanctions.

The captain said marines made his unarmed crew kneel on the deck at gunpoint.

Gibraltar police said "minimum force" was used to take control of the vessel.

On 4 July, about 30 marines, from 42 Commando, were flown from the UK to Gibraltar to help detain the tanker and its cargo, at the request of the Gibraltar government.

Royal Marines used excessive force, says tanker captain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...