Saturday, March 31, 2007

We need to descide what were about.

It is starting to look like Iran is going to use its kidnapped hostages to help intimidate the rest of the region.

The British government needs to decide what its about. Sit down and discuss just how far we are willing to go. If the answer is a Blair clime down of the type he carried out over the British EU rebate then he should take the humiliation now and withdraw our forces from the Gulf. [It may be that the military's advice is that we have no choice - in which case its better to listen now. Though of course Balir gets the blame for letting this come about.]

But if not, than planning for war needs to start ( and none of that disgraceful NuLabour not ordering equipment in case their own pathetic back benchers get a little upset ). Not I'm not talking about invasion, but destroying large amount of Iran's military infrastructure and major elements of its economy. This can be achieved by the RAF.

We will need an airfield, perhaps building one in southern Iraq, as the Royal Navy can't protect itself any more. By making such intentions clear to the Iranians, but not public we may be able to resolve this issue without any further trouble - but we will be able to finish it if we need to.

What are the betting on NuLabour being to pathetic to do either ?

PS If you think the Argentines aren't watching re:Falklands then you are very naive (perhaps your a Labour MP).

Update: Blair - as ever trying to cash in on Mrs T's more popular moment - tells us he would have sent a task force to regain the Falklands also. I think this is rubbish - and now his bluff has been called.


billy said...

I'm happy with your idea but which aircraft do we have that would be capable of doing it?

Eric said...

I think you are right. I have never felt so ashamed of the strategic mess we are in in the Middle East, and I wonder what true options we really have given the threadbare state of our forces. This government has vandalised just about everything it has layed its hands on, and in a time of military over-stretchedness, failed to reinforce and to bolster as it should have. We can afford to bolster. We have the highest economic growth of anyone else in in the OECD.

Labour are progressive all right, progressive like cancer is progressive.

Man in a shed said...

If you have the airfields to operate from then the equipment exists. But we would never have the political nerve to do it.

This looks like a mini-Suez again.

This is what I mean by the fact we have to make up ours minds what we want to do and act accordingly.

Its the NuLabour spin - of pretending to be a major military power, whilst not paying for the equipment and man power that's the really dangerous stuff.

buster said...

I think that if we attack before they are released they will probably be killed.
We wait until they are released and nothing will happen. Beckett and Blair's handbag is not as mighty as Maggies. They have no conviction.

i wonder how concerned the soldiers and sailors are? As we used to say, "You shouldn't join if you can't take a joke."

billy said...

Man in a shed said...
If you have the airfields to operate from then the equipment exists. But we would never have the political nerve to do it.
1:24 PM

I do enjoy your blog and I hope you don't think I am arguing for the sake of it, but which aircraft specifically have we that can hit Iran?
Tornadoes were spectacularly poorly performing in the Gulf; brought down by the most basic AA fire.
The V bombers are all gone. Didn't the last flying one go all the way to the Falklands and miss the target when it got there?
Having an airfield doesn't mean you've got effective aeroplanes. My neighbour has a garage but she doesn't have a car, or even a bicycle.

Man in a shed said...


Thanks for your comments. I'm not an expert but my response would be:

The Eurofighter Typhoon is one of the the most able air-air fighters in the world. It effectively stomps all over F15's and the like. So air superiority should locally achievable. ( Anything the Iranian's send up against it will effectively be a flying coffin. ).Tornado F4's with AWACS support can cover wide area air defence and have very good endurance.

There nothing wrong that I know of with the Tornado's GR4s. The problem with the first gulf war was that tactics designed to work against a large integrated air defence - ie fly very low and fast - weren't necessary against an opponent whose air defences have been destroyed. But flying low makes you vulnerable to ground fire, especially when you over fly the target (which is where the RAF had problems)- which you needed to do with the JP233 airfield denial weapon. So you don't gain anything by flying low, but you do suffer. Against Iran, which might be more intact low level flying could be valuable.

The RAF now has stand off weapons and the low level capability would be useful against a still intact air defence. However there would be loses.

We also have submarine cruise missiles. We could do major economic damage in very short order, with a bit of preparation.

Quite frankly I think the Americans and Israelis would join in anyway. The Americans think the current Iranian president was one of the hostage takers from the US Embassy nightmare that brought in Ronald Reagan and in many ways made America more forceful after Vietnam. they would love to get even with him.

What must be forgotten is that the Iranian people are very civilised and mostly fine decent people - whom have become trapped by a bunch of head bangers. Fighting a war against them would be a great shame.

However, the Iranian airforce is also not be be underrated - still flying F14 etc - see a more sombre appraisal here...

In fact reading around a bit I'm not sure that a low intensity war with Iran isn't under way already.