I heard a Colonel Jack Jacobs, who was a talking head who appeared frequently on TV/Radio during the first year or two of the Iraq War-—to me he sounded foolish and needlessly, possibly FATALLY hawkish, responding to a synthetic situation created by the pathetic Iranians,that doesn’t deserve any martyrdom from the UK and CERTAINLY would have become a REAL tense bout of endless brinkmanship had the Brits been warned to clam up by their superiors. What relevance could or would the judgement of an American military man have on Brit military behavior? He sounded like he was sore he didn’t get the opportunity, implying he would have done it the right way. As tepid as it may have looked from over here, the British did the right thing. And from what I heard it might have been the deployment of the Nimitz towards Iranian waters, that is what really secured the release of the Brits.
Anyone with a brain could figure out what game the Iranians were playing. For the British sailors to have “played” the role of captured combatants would only have confirmed the hollowness of the Iranian attempt to picture them that way: by making obviously coerced “confessions” the sailors showed the world what utter amateurs and pathetic poseurs the Iranians are.
Strike words “the hollowness of” in the last sentence of my previous post. It makes no sense that way.
You’re right , thr Iramians do look like fools but the media refuses to blaim them for any of it. The Brit sailors did what they had to do to survive and get out of there.
Of course they shouldn’t have allowed themselves to be put in that position in the first place. That was their first mistake.