But what ever the outcome, the article Fred wrote was supported by facts at the time.
Yes, I now see you're closer to London than I. Which means I'm closer to Tennessee and Wash DC than you. So I have a dog in this presidential hunt.
My dog don't like Rudy.
Woof!
My point is that his implications are deliberately misleading. He is implying Iran is doing this because of the Royal Navy. That is rubbish.
He is also implying that there is something strange with the UK having only the 28th largest army in the world. That is not new. Even when Britain ran 650 million Indians they did so with less than 20,000 people.
Vietnam and Iraq show that even America struggles to invade nations, do why would the UK have an army big enough to pretend it could do that?
Britain should have a capability to defeat terrorism, win flashpoints or destroy a nation completely. I think that is the policy they are looking at.