WI Iran Killed the Royal Navy Sailors?

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Depends on how much jingoism runs in London at the time, really.

If the British decide to strike back, nobody will prevent it; but itll cause a huge shitstorm for little benefit. If cooler heads prevail, they can get concessions from Teheran because of their sudden casus belli. Actual strikes would be unwise, but not neccessarly unsuccessful.

Basically, Iran basically put itself in Serbia's shoes, circa 1914.

Not a bad simile in many ways.

Unfortunately things do not move at the relaxed pace of the summer of 1914. It was a full day before the London and Paris papers had the assassination story published. The satellite news organizations would have the entire history of the Iranian/West stand-off and the pictures of the location, the body bags and the politicians reacting inside of two hours, right into every home with a TV. It took five weeks for thing to go to hell then, mostly due to the time it took to mobilize. The U.S. and British can unload on Iran inside of an hour.

That is one of the worst features of today's crisis management. There is NO time to manage, no time to think. It just happens (or it happens TO you).
 
I agree, the simile was great, albeit the things CalBear mention.

There would be some proportionate response, maybe a sunk ship or two for Iran and the guys who captured them being locked up or something.

That is applying Iran goes through this rationally (as rational as possible after killing the RN Sailors).
 
I agree, the simile was great, albeit the things CalBear mention.

There would be some proportionate response, maybe a sunk ship or two for Iran and the guys who captured them being locked up or something.

That is applying Iran goes through this rationally (as rational as possible after killing the RN Sailors).

So, we cannot expect the UK and/or US to behave rationally in this instance? How 'disputed' was the waters? Was it within Iranian claimed territory? Why were the british there in the first place?
 

MrP

Banned
So, we cannot expect the UK and/or US to behave rationally in this instance? How 'disputed' was the waters? Was it within Iranian claimed territory? Why were the british there in the first place?

1) Public opinion's a bitch.
2) Disputed by Iran, recognised as International/Iraqi by everyone else, IIRC.
3) Investigating a stationary transport for possible smuggling.
 
So... how would Israel react in all of this? If it sees the US and UK taking punitive strikes against the Iranians does Israel then decide to take action against any Iranian nuclear facilities?
 
So... how would Israel react in all of this? If it sees the US and UK taking punitive strikes against the Iranians does Israel then decide to take action against any Iranian nuclear facilities?

I would think Israel would, with or without approval of the states - i will fully admit i do not know enough to really talk about there releationship with the states but if both the USA and UK launch punitive strikes so would Israel - imo.
 
Not a bad simile in many ways.

Unfortunately things do not move at the relaxed pace of the summer of 1914. It was a full day before the London and Paris papers had the assassination story published. The satellite news organizations would have the entire history of the Iranian/West stand-off and the pictures of the location, the body bags and the politicians reacting inside of two hours, right into every home with a TV. It took five weeks for thing to go to hell then, mostly due to the time it took to mobilize. The U.S. and British can unload on Iran inside of an hour.

That is one of the worst features of today's crisis management. There is NO time to manage, no time to think. It just happens (or it happens TO you).

If there are no military assets in the area, the time needed to bring the military into the area serves as useful stopgap. However, there is nothing to stop the decision making authorities to take a slower pace, just need to be quick enough for the news media though.
 
If there are no military assets in the area, the time needed to bring the military into the area serves as useful stopgap. However, there is nothing to stop the decision making authorities to take a slower pace, just need to be quick enough for the news media though.

I'm pretty confident there are US and British forces in the Persian Gulf and in the nations around Iran.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
If there are no military assets in the area, the time needed to bring the military into the area serves as useful stopgap. However, there is nothing to stop the decision making authorities to take a slower pace, just need to be quick enough for the news media though.


If the closest U.S. or British assets are at Diego Garcia or even in the UK, they can be wheels up in minutes and over Iranian targets within 8 hours of the "Go" order. With the political landscape that was in place when this incident occurred the UK could have significant air assets in Iraq in hours, the U.S., of course, had the largest, most modern and powerful air force in the region just on the two carriers in the Arabian Sea.

There isn't anywhere that the U.S. doesn't have military assets. That may or may not be a wise thing, or even something that will be true in 20 years, but right now, it is very true. In actual fact, the U.S. can strike any spot on Earth with significant force in no more than eight hours, mostly via ALCM or SLCM. The UK has fewer assets so that the response period might be as much as 36 hours (assuming we are staying inside the sane response options).

The question is, how fast do you have to move to stay ahead of the media? In the case of what the media would spin as a slaughter of innocents (which, interestingly, would ACTUALLY be true for a change), you have to be very fast indeed, especially in the case of Iran, a state that, fairly or not, has been painted as the enemy of all that is good and true by the U.S. Administration. The U.S. and UK leadership would be in a position where the calm, sensible approach isn't politically possible. Again, the comparison to the WW I situation is striking.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
IIRC, the Americans offered to assume a more aggressive posture against Iran, but the Brits asked them not to because they did not want to be seen as requiring American help. Therefore, if there is a military response to the killings (my guess would be an attack on the base from which the Iranian boats operated, and perhaps sinking Iranian naval vessels), would it be a combined operation or would the Brits want to do it alone?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Except we don't have the system of alliances that led us to a wider world war. Hmm, actually, on that note would there be any way to involve NATO in this?

The NATO Treaty technically covers attacks on NATO members taking place in Europe or North America, so NATO members would not be required to support Britain in this case.
 
The question is, how fast do you have to move to stay ahead of the media? In the case of what the media would spin as a slaughter of innocents (which, interestingly, would ACTUALLY be true for a change), you have to be very fast indeed, especially in the case of Iran, a state that, fairly or not, has been painted as the enemy of all that is good and true by the U.S. Administration. The U.S. and UK leadership would be in a position where the calm, sensible approach isn't politically possible. Again, the comparison to the WW I situation is striking.

Well, I think the decision makers will at least wait for the first communication from their counterparts of the other side. Shooting won't start till at least the parties talked at least once. Of course, that doesn't mean the forces already involved in the accident won't return fire almost immediately.

Does anyone know how much time lapsed between the OTL capture of UK sailors and the release of this news in UK domestic media?
 
Top