Britain forms plan for Gulf evacuation in event of war with Iran

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Yokel, Dec 29, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Would be quicker/cheaper/safer to zap Iran ?
  2. No. The Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment for nuking Iran would cost a fortune and employ an army of consultants for a decade at least...
  3. A naval evacuation with no air cover. Should be interesting. :/
  4. Will we be reconstituting the Armed Forces for this 'little' outing?

    100,000 full time ex-pats in UAE ALONE.

    Then there is Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and of course Iraq.
  5. I say we should have been more controlling of Iran in the first place before it started it's nuclear program. Then we surround the place with NATO warships to shoot down any missiles of theirs and put them back in their place, instead of them being the little rebel they seem to be at the moment.
  6. As previous posts have stated, HMG regularly revises plans for NEO's around the world. IMHO, the implied message here is that any evacuation from one or more of the gulf states would require a massive effort from the RN and RAF in particular. If it happened in the next few years with HERRICK still running as it is now, then there would be serious disruption to the air bridge to theatre. We would therefore be very reliant on assistance from allies to do both at once.

    I would not be surprised if this particular story has, at the very least, the 'blessing' of senior RN/RAF officers keen to limit or even roll back some of the impending cuts.
  7. Are you getting what happens in a video game mixed up with what happens in real life?
  8. A war with Iran is something we almost certainly would want to avoid- even if the US and Israel goes to war. But I fear we may end up being dragged into it.

    Iran has the potential to seriously destalibilise the Middle East even moreso then it already has. It has already made gains in Iraq, and increasingly Afghanistan at the Wests expense. It has allies in the form of Syria, and also allies in Palestine and Lebanon (The latter two it could step up funding and arming and use to launch a proxy war on Israel- even moreso then currently). Turkey is increasingly moving away from the West and Israel, and we certainly couldn't count on their support in a war.

    The US would have to go the whole way and launch a full on invasion of Iran (Which would be far bloodier and more drawn out then anything seen in Iraq and Afghanistan). Anything less (e.g. Airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities) and Iran could plunge the whole of the surrounding regions into war. Increased funding and arming of the Taliban would destroy NATO efforts in Afghanistan. It could use its political sway over Iraq (Seeing as Iraq currently has a pro-Tehren government). As stated, it could use its Hezbollah and Palestinian allies to launch a proxy war (Even moreso then currently) on Israel. And as the article said Iran has the ability to launch missiles, and also, prehaps most importantly, to block off the Straight of Hormuz- prehaps the most important shipping route in the world, which would ruin Western oil supplies.

    The way I see it its a loose loose situation in the Middle East. Either leave Iran and they gain nukes. Strike Iran and take out its nuclear progress, and potentially plunge the entire region into a serious and destabilising war and still have no guarentee that Iran won't gain nukes in the future. Or invade and ocupy Iran and see a war far bloodier then anything in Iraq and Afghanistan, and which could have a very destabilising influence in surrounding countries (Namely Afghanistan and Iraq)

    Armchair General mode off.
  9. UNEXPECTED!!! WTF are you smoking Yokel? The Telegraph has been banging the 'let's bomb Iran' wardrums for several years. The only 'new' element to this drivvel is the non-mention of Israel. Normally get a piece every 4-6 weeks.

    Nevertheless, a few questions for the 'expert strategic analysts' out there to ponder - especially those into 'naval strategy' and the 'save the harrier' camp followers.

    1. On what basis, ie justification, do you propose going to war with Iran?

    2. Notwithstanding the answer to (1), would going to war with Iran be in the UK's national interest? How so? (I don't doubt giving Iran a good slapping will be in many people's interests, but I'm specifically asking about UK national interest.)

    3. Notwithstanding answers given to (1) and (2), at what scale do you suggest we wage war: token RN force; RAF flypast and bombing for a few days; significant air, land and sea littoral offensive; major combined arms assault and occupation; all out to the death?

    4. Notwithstanding answers given to (1), (2) and (3), at what scale do you effect NEO given the unavailability of assets required by (3)?

    5. What are your thoughts on the idea that UK nationals are holidaying in the Persian Gulf whilst we are preparing for, or making war with, Iran? Apart from questionning whether it is wise to travel there in the first place, at what point in the planning/fighting process are we going to actually go and pick them up: nice and early and damn the loss of pre-emptive strike surprise; the very last moment so as not to lose too much of the element of surprise; after the shooting starts; only after Iran launches at them?

    6. What type(s) of vessel in the RN/RFA fleet is/are most suitable for an NEO?

    Another effing non-story by the Telegraph deliberately placed to engender a false belief amongst its readership and manipulate their opinions. But provides an ideal launchpad for the 'expert strategic analyst' to demonstate his/her capabilities by offering more than their usual soundbites.
  10. Despite what other middle eastern countries say in public you dont really think they would care if Iran got bombed do you? Nobody is keen for their neighbours to own nukes. If Israel/USA did launch airstrikes against Iran, I dont think the leaders of Syria etc will really care much.

  11. I am thinking more along what strings Iran can pull. I know that most of the Arab nations would be chuffed with Iran's nukes being destroyed and would side with the West. But Irans position next to Afghanistan means it can completely ruin our progress through greatly increased funding and arming of the Taliban (I know tradtionally Iran and the Taliban have not been on good grounds- but the enemy of your enemy is your friend as they say. We have already seen that Iran is helping fund and arm the Taliban already- and in the event of a strike they could step up that aid).

    There is also the fact that Iraq currently has a pro-Tehren government and I don't think they would be too happy with a strike on Iran. If they did decide to go against Iran, then again Iran has the ability to plunge the country back into civil war.

    Iran is also in a position to block the Straights of Hormuz which would be disasterous even if blocked for just a short while.

    As for Syria, I can't see them being happy with a US-Israeli strike on its main ally. They might not wage direct war, but could certainly aid Iran in funding and arming Hezbollah, Hamas and other Iranians allies around Israel/Palestine on the down-low. The Palestinians themselves are becoming increasingly pissed off with Israel, and there is potential for another Intifada with outside support.

    I doubt Turkey would side with the West and would most likely just try and stay out of it.

    There is also the fact that Iran has potential allies in Yemen (Where there is lots of hostile factions towards the West) which it could further use as a proxy, as well Bahrain which has a large Shia majority.

    Finally there is the threat of Iranian missiles.

    One thing is for sure, Iran wouldn't take an attack on it lying down, and over the last decade the balance of power in the Middle East has seemingly shifted in their favour. Iran has actually done pretty well out of the Western invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
  12. the_boy_syrup

    the_boy_syrup LE Book Reviewer

    All dodging tax and living the good life until it all goes wrong
    Then the old Brit passport gets waved and they demand the Army come and get them

    **** em
    Let them get flights out when it happens by themselves
    They manage to fly in and out enough times to avoid paying tax I'm sure they can find one in a hurry
  13. Can't fault that kind of thinking.

    Maybe they could buy their seats out on Crab Air, and then their cabins on the Andy.
  14. War with Iran could well become when and not if in the later years of this decade.

    Another prospect is Iran forming some sort of alliance with Venezeula,Bolivia and Ecuador in Latin America,China,North Korea and Burma in Asia and threatening western interests over a wider sphere.

    Iran sponsers terrorist movements in many countries already,and as other threads on here have covered,are supplying missiles to the Chavez regime in Venezeula.

    The increasing price of oil will increase the opportunity of the nut 'dinnerjacket' to stir up further trouble for the west.