Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Iran-what do you think is our next move?

44 replies

noddyholder · 01/04/2007 14:05

Have just watched a news update and there are now protests and a small explosion outside the british embassy in Tehran.The president has said that the uk has been aggressive and unreasonable(?).It is looking serious

OP posts:
KathyMCMLXXII · 02/04/2007 12:54

sorry, Iranian, not Iraqi

wannaBeWhateverIWannaBe · 02/04/2007 12:55

let's just hope it's true though ey.

littleEasterlapin · 02/04/2007 12:59

The Navy personnel (with the possible exception of the Marines) won't have been trained in how to cope under interrogation; aircrew and army are, because of the increased likeliness of capture. Faye Turney, for example, is just a boat driver (in this context, not to belittle her in any way) and would not have expected to face this. So even if they are being "well treated", they are probably absolutely terrified.

Eleusis · 02/04/2007 13:43

I wonder if the British point of view is shown in Iran?

The only reason that i can thinkof to get the British Sailors to confess they were in the wrong waters on telly broadcast to the Iranina people is to turn the people against the West, and toward Ahmadinejad -- whose popularity among his own people is not exactly soaring. He is desperate and he is using the British sailors for his own (internal) political gain.

CoteDAzur · 03/04/2007 11:20

Does anybody think this is relevant to the discussion?

saltire · 03/04/2007 11:23

The British viewpoint won't be shown in Iran, at least not the view that we want it solved diplomatically. I think the scenes from the Iranian embassy show what the people think of us.
Goodness knows what those sailors and Marines are being told to get them to go on television, as littlelapin said they won't have been trained in how to deal with interrogation, even the Marines, depending on what they usually do, might not know how to deal with the situation

saltire · 03/04/2007 11:24

Sorry, not the Iranian embassy, I meant the British embassy

LazyLine · 03/04/2007 11:24

Probably. I was out of the news loop in January time, were they released? Probably not....

LazyLine · 03/04/2007 11:25

That was in reference to the 11:20 post.

GooseyLoosey · 03/04/2007 11:30

Perhaps Britain should take the novel approach and consider that we might be in the wrong - UK and US have hardly been taking a pacific stance towards Iran.

We, as country, do not have a particularly good record in recognising when we or someone else is in territorial waters or not. As I recall, we were happy to bomg the General Belgrano to oblivion on the basis that they had sailed into our exclusion zone when it later transpired that this was possibly (probably?) not the case.

We could just say that any incursion into Iran's territorial waters was unintentional (as we don't spy on people, honest) and we regret anything that had happened.

Bounce1 · 03/04/2007 11:33

It's just a massive wind-up, alternatively it's WW3. Iran has been angling to become the focal fundamentalist Islamic nation in the region for some time. To gauge the seriousness of the situation look at the oil price rather than the newswires- if it starts trading above 70 dollars a barrel it's serious. Think it's around 65 at the moment.

Eleusis · 03/04/2007 13:35

"Iran has been angling to become the focal fundamentalist Islamic nation "

I think we have to remember to differentiate between Iran's leaders and Iran's people. Seeing as the leaders aren't particularly popular with the people, we can't really group them together as one opinion.

I work with an Iranian who loves her country dearly and wants very much to see the West go in and topple the government. I'm not sure I think that's a good idea, but it is her view.

meowmix · 03/04/2007 14:58

Bounce1 - oil was up over 70 last year without all this.

what is interesting (to me anyhow) is how the power between US and this region is changing - for example, while they're over in Iraq soldiering the state of qatar has donated over $100 million to the katrina appeal and supports a number of low-income scholarship schemes too. So Qataris are going there and solving their problems... or thats the way its seen out here at least. Egyptian bloggers are teaching US bloggers how to investigate rather than regurgitate at a conference here at the moment. The balance of authority is changing slowly but surely.

If you can get Al jazeera intl its well worth watching, its more balanced in many ways and also it shows reactions here. (also they get kicked out of so many GCC countries due to telling it like it is so you can pretty much believe what they say - at the moment jordanians don't get visas to qatar cos of Al Jaz!)

On the co-ordinates GWB is always going to say it was Iraqi water. But iraqi water/iranian water lines are in constant flux and disagreement from the rulers of those nations. US and UK may have their ideas but they may well not reflect what the Iranian govt believes. This is a fluid area, it changes in a blink.

Eleusis · 03/04/2007 16:01

meowmix, where do you live?

CoteDAzur · 03/04/2007 16:53

"I think we have to remember to differentiate between Iran's leaders and Iran's people. Seeing as the leaders aren't particularly popular with the people..."

That sounds too much like "Iraqis hate Saddam so they will welcome us with flowers". Yes, many Iranians are not happy with their regime. No, they will not be supporting UK if there is any conflict. People rally around their leaders in time of external threat (which is why most leaders exaggerate external threats). Remember Bush, whose approval rating was miserable before 9/11 and then jumped to about 90% afterwards?

Eleusis · 03/04/2007 17:05

I just meant that it isn't the people, but rather their leaders, who are "angling to become to focal fundamentalist Islamic nation".

I've only know a few Iranians in my life. But, they've all been very nice people. Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, is a fucking nutter.

Bounce1 · 03/04/2007 17:37

To make the distinction clear, I was referring to Iran the state as it is being currently governed and not making a general comment on the desire of various individuals. I too know plenty of Iranians who had the good fortune to be able to leave after the revolution and would like to see a change in regime. And yes oil was above 70 USD last year for other reasons and if there were genuine concerns that this was going to escalate profoundly, supply concerns would push it up to this level again.

CoteDAzur · 04/04/2007 17:02

My understanding is that Iran is trying to develop nukes as a strategy for survival - as you do, after being shortlisted in the 'axis of evil' and seeing what happened to the other country on that list who did not have nukes. And they are royally enjoying the mess in Iraq. But I wouldn't particularly say they are angling for increased regional importance. [That is what I think you meant by "angling to become to focal fundamentalist Islamic nation", anyway]

If anyone is turning tables and "angling" for power in the region, I would say that is US/UK...

saltire · 04/04/2007 17:13

Well they are being released now, which is all that matters.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page