Americans offered 'aggressive patrols' in Iranian airspace (During hostage crisis) - Guardian

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

The Brits told us to Butt-out. I would imagine, much to the disappointment of Bush and the Pentagon.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329771336-111322,00.html

The US offered to take military action on behalf of the 15 British sailors and marines held by Iran, including buzzing Iranian Revolutionary Guard positions with warplanes, the Guardian has learned.

In the first few days after the captives were seized and British diplomats were getting no news from Tehran on their whereabouts, Pentagon officials asked their British counterparts: what do you want us to do? They offered a series of military options, a list which remains top secret given the mounting risk of war between the US and Iran. But one of the options was for US combat aircraft to mount aggressive patrols over Iranian Revolutionary Guard bases in Iran, to underline the seriousness of the situation.

The British declined the offer and said the US could calm the situation by staying out of it. London also asked the US to tone down military exercises that were already under way in the Gulf. Three days before the capture of the 15 Britons , a second carrier group arrived having been ordered there by president George Bush in January. The aim was to add to pressure on Iran over its nuclear programme and alleged operations inside Iraq against coalition forces.

At the request of the British, the two US carrier groups, totalling 40 ships plus aircraft, modified their exercises to make them less confrontational. The British government also asked the US administration from Mr Bush down to be cautious in its use of rhetoric, which was relatively restrained throughout.

[rgbecker]

1. Vocabulary check...

Captured uniformed military personnel operating in your national waters wouldn't normally be called hostages but rather, detainees.

Uniformed military personnel, policing national waters, and not firing on unarmed civilians wouldn't normally be called terrorists.

[Solo_in_MD]

3. What would you call when one nation illegally takes prisioner under threat of deadly force

foreign nationals operating under a UN mandate and outside of first nations soveringity?

What do you call those uniformed members of the sencond nations military who were illegaly captured

What do you call those who took them prisoner who do not wear uniforms and were operating outside of their national waters?



Note: The Pasdaran do not wear uniforms

[leftchick]

2. "the US could calm the situation by staying out of it."

no fucking shit. As evidenced by the diplomatic success from the UK.

[Solo_in_MD]

4. Not surprising that it was one of many options offered

What has not (and most likely will not) be released is what the Iranians wanted when they grabbed the Brits, and what it took to get them freed. The latter breaks down two ways. Either they got something or threats were made that they could not tolerate. Possibly some combination thereof. Some things to note:

- The UK has ceased inspections
- The US did end its excersizes, though its not possible to tell if they were curtailed or ended as planned.
- EU and France did issue strong denunciations, and they are strong suppliers to Iran
- Reports of China and Russian ships headed to the Gulf (single sourced at this time)

That it was over sovereignity is nonsense, and an apology was not the only thing sought. Interesting that they were grabbed by the Pasdaran and released by the civil governmnet.

Its a fair presumption that there was some carrot and some stick. The UK could easily have used the US as a bette noir with the Iranians with considerable effect.