HMS Daring, the first of the new ‘Daring’ class of Clydebuilt Type 45 destroyers and whose sea trials in Argyll waters we watched closely on AIS is off on her first active mission – to the Gulf.
Her deployment is far from unconnected to the recent threat from Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz to shipping if economic sanctions were put in place against the country.
The pressure for such sanctions, however, is increasing with President Obama signing a sanctions bill in Washington at the end of December 12011 and France, in the past week, exhorting EU member states to embargo oil exports and freeze the assets of Iranian banks. BY the end of January, Britain, as an EU member, will have to agree to or stand aside from this proposal.
The arrival in the Gulf of HMS Daring cannot be seen as other than an act of additional provocation and challenge.
But the US Fifth Fleet is gingering up the situation with overt threats to Iran over any attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz and little Brit seems to be compelled to play bag-carrier in any American aggression. Rookie Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond, issued a warning of his own on action from Britain if Iran followed through with its threat on the Strait.
The significance of the Strait of Hormuz is that something lke 40% of the world’s oil is shipped out through this key waterway.
President George W Bush, with his Blair echo, were talking up potential conflict with Iran towards the end of their respective periods of power.
They were doing this in spite of the already known cost of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan – in lives, in the growing strength of terrorist factions and in money.
Since then we have seen the UK and NATO meddle in the affairs of countries in the Middle East – with no real understanding of their very different cultures and no intention of being around to help clear up the resulting chaos and stabilise the countries concerned.
This dangerously light-minded and light-fingered interference in other peoples’ business is far from the wishes of the UK electorate who are never consulted on such matters but who have to bear a cost – as Scotland knows – in growing vulnerability to revenge attacks from increasingly numerous organisations bred out of resentment.
The constant ratcheting up of a conflictual situation with Iran, the monstering of President Ahmadinejad – who may talk belligerence but acts with greater – and unrecognised – reasonableness, could neither be more irresponsible nor more potentially disastrous.
This is a very real and present danger for world stability in 2012 and the major national news media are virtually ignoring it. There is almost no public information on what is going on, no real analysis and no public concern. There should be.
Just as it was impossible to believe that, in the conflict in Kosovo, we were again seeing skeletal human beings in concentration camps, with our media uncritically parroting the obscene euphemism of ‘ethnic cleaning’, it is impossible today to credit that the USA and the UK are limbering up to monkey around in Iran.
President Obama has just announced cuts of half a million troops from the American forces – on the ironic grounds that ‘America can no longer fight the world’s wars’. The UK has, following the recent defence cuts, a seriously depleted and strained defence force – with neither aircraft carrier capability nor aircraft – bar some helicopters – to be carrier launched anyway; reductions in land based aircraft and airbases; and cuts in infantry numbers going through.
Yet out of this entire context we are acting provocatively and undiplomatically – because Iran has developed a nuclear capability. This is well beyond reason since the fact that Israel – the nation arguably most likely actually to use nuclear weapons if pushed, has long had such capability without such alarmism from the west.
It is a matter of real despair that, in 2012, we are so unevolved in adult relations between states and leaders that we can play such brutishly stupid games. But. hey – this is the year President Obama will fight to retain what has been a disappointingly unimpressive presidency – and one thing the USA and the UK have in common is an easily inflamed distrust of ‘Johnny Foreigner’.
With the powerful American Jewish lobby to be won over in a tricky election campaign, Obama’s bullish actions on Iran could be said to be gestures of reassurance to that influential internal body.
At what cost to the rest of us?
thumbs up , this artical is loaded with facts that may come to haunt us unless things change. this hitler in iran could become the desaster of 2012, this threat is real and the iranian operation ,in the name of the geart profit , may in fact result in a power boost for iran if it is not taken seriously. the worst thing one can do is to under estimate his enemy. bill cliton did this with osama bin laden with a one timer. iraq was wrong, but iran is a must, we must take out the nuke sites and radar and missile .iran with nukes is terroeist with nukes. no nation building, the people will take out the trash. it says , the beast will rise out of the sea.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
How does the deployment of 1 single type 45 vessel amount to monking around with Iran??
As an individual who knows a number if persian people never I have a meet a more cultured and hospitable race.
Speculative nonsense on here fails to give newsroom creditability and more importantly mocks a race of people who long lead this planet in culture and mathematics long before Anglo Saxon man climed ou of his caves.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For ourmaninoslo: Somehow we’ve got crossed wires here.
Gunboat diplomacy is a long time manoeuvre – and this is not a single action but part of a continuum, some of which actions we’ve mentioned – Like defence Secretary Philip Hammond issuing counterthreats to Iran.
As for Persian / Iranian people – we couldn’t agree more. And that’s what we are saying – that the USA/UK ‘monkeying around’ (which, on the evidence, they certainly are) monstering or demonising the Iranian President Ahmadinejad is a distortion and a misrepresention – and that is both mischievous and dangerous.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Isn’t this just part of the Armilla patrol (the UK’s permanent naval presence in the Gulf?)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Dr Douglas Mackenzie: It’s being signalled as a gesture of intent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So what do you suggest is the right course of action should the Iranian dictator close the Straits as he threatens?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Iranian people prefer to be called Persian, or at least the ones I know do.
My post was partially referring to ray’s nuke em all comments.
In reference to your article a single type 45 vessel is not an inflammatory gesture in the build up to war. The us have a permanently stationed battlegroup there anyway, I just think you are speculating where to be honest the facts need to be reported.I respect this medium but I think this sort of article undermines the brilliant work you guys have completed on local issues.
A oil embargo is in the process if being placed on Iran. To be honest I’m surprised they have managed to maintain production given the block that we have had on the sales of oil related equipment. I don’t think we are going to see a seven headed beast rising in the middle east soon but we may see a change innleadership in Iran as those in power become more marginisalised.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This war against Iran, make no mistake, we are seeing the first moves, has been planned by the US for many years. It was always going to happen. But you can’t attack a “goody”, you have to demonise them first. (Remember WMD!) So we have this time “the nuclear capability”, despite the FACT that Israel and others in the area already have this. Sanctions applied against Iran are like poking a stick in a wasp’s nest. The result is inevitable.
There is only one way to do business in this world and that is the US way. Any country which does not agree and wants to do its own thing will be a target of their spite. Remember what happened when France pointed out that they did not agree with the invasion of Iraq. The entire might of the US press and diplomatic system rounded on them. “Cheese-eating surrender monkeys” was one of the more public and softer results of this.
Iran has every right to defend itself should the US/UK decide to up the stakes in the Gulf. I am just so sickened that more people are going to die “in my name”. Also embarrassed and angry that my country will once again ignore international law and be a party to an illegal attack on a sovereign country. In my mind this is just one more reason to vote for Independence and be a citizen of a country which has no desire to build or cling on to an empire and can stick two fingers up to those who do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Andy: What you have said here about being sickened that even more people are going to die ‘in my name’ is very personally emotive.
I was one of the tens of thousands of ‘virgin marchers’ in the Glasgow march against what we now know was an existing commitment to the war in Iraq. A lot about that day lives in my mind but the enduring image is the series of placards saying over and over again ‘Not in my name’ -and the sheer offence of that compulsory association with a legal and moral wrong gets no easier with time.
Like you I am embarrassed and angry at this latest destructive and corruptly nmanipulative manoeuvering over Iran. And yes, it does fuel the longing to start from scratch with a clean sheet – and the determination to keep it that way.
Lynda
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ignorance and rampant emotional outpourings all at once….how familiar.
Not in your name….you want no part of the killing….yet your clothes you buy on the high street imported from China in ships run on oil….your food from supermarkets supplied by road and rail fuelled by, yup, oil.
As with all of the emotional and ignorant you are happy to live in the society that we have built up in the west, but, take all of the convenience for granted.
40% of the worlds oil comes through the Straits of Hormuz…if you cant see the risk from Iran shutting that chokepoint you have no business commenting on it!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So you think we should kill a few Iranians so that we can continue our profligate ways. It goes to show that Jingoism is alive and well. The Iranian threat is a response to the threats by the West, ie US, UK and bits of Europe, after the Iranians decided they wanted nuclear power, just like many other countries around the world. The US has decided they can’t be trusted. Or is it that the US has realised they cannot control the Iranians? The standard US answer to this problem applies. Find an excuse and invade!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
‘wanted nuclear power’ or wanted nuclear weapons? In examining our faults, is there a risk of downplaying just how dangerous the Iranian leadership is?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Newsroom: generalisations can be dangerous – ‘..we have seen the UK and NATO meddle in the affairs of countries in the Middle East with no real understanding of their very different cultures…’ might apply to individual politicians in the UK, but it certainly doesn’t apply to this country itself down the years, and the political advisers have absolutely no excuse for not having a very good ‘understanding of their very different cultures’.
With regard to the British media, and Kosovo, at least one journalist – Robert Fisk – consistently reported the truth (as he always does) rather than prejudice, or facts so laundered that they’d mislead public opinion in the NATO countries. Just now you don’t need to go as far as the Middle East to see alarm bells ringing – we’re probably all in denial about what could happen in Greece, and there’s something really nasty brewing in Hungary.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Robert Wakeham: Thank you for drawing attention to Robert Fisk, whose journalistic record of informedness and integrity is exemplary.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Does any one commenting here understand what this Daring Ship cost .
And its not a threat ???????
If the Perians take it out it will be a massive propoganda coup.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ochone, ochone!
Should we really be concerned that the age old ploy of sending out a gunboat no longer seems to work? Gone, apparently, are the days when half the atlas was coloured pink.
All that money spent on Trident and it carries zero clout.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
And all this from people who sneer at the military capacity of the Danes and Norwegians and others.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m not sure why anyone should sneer at the military capabilities of either the Danes or the Norwegians. They both have potent armed forces that are internationally respected and valued partners in international security operations.
The Danes and the Norwegians operate strong air forces using the F-16 as their main strike and air defence aircraft (3 squadrons in Norway with 57 aircraft and 2 in Denmark with 30 aircraft). Both the Norwegians and Danes operate in Afghanistan and they each dropped more bombs in Libya than the UK (presumably because the UK flew more air combat missions while the Scandinavians were concentrating on ground targets).
The Danish Navy has a number of sophisticated warships whose NATO role is the protection of Greenland and the Arctic (as well as home defence in the strategic entrance to the Baltic. Denmark also contributes heavily to anti-piracy operations in the Indian Ocean. The Norwegians have an even more powerful fleet built around its core of 5 ultra modern Nansen class frigates and a surprisingly large submarine fleet. The Norwegian Navy earned proud laurels for its initial defence of Norway during the German invasion and in subsequent operations (including D-Day)throughout WW2.
Both Norway and Denmark have very competent armies. The Norwegians have a strong armoured brigade as the core to their army. The Danes have two armoured brigades and both countries have moved to a much greater reliance on full time professionals as they have begun to focus on participation in international security duties rather than home defence as the core purpose of their armed forces. Both countries operate the excellent German Leopard II as their main battle tank. Both countries have been heavily committed to NATO operations including Afghanistan and have seen significant amounts of combat against the Taliban.
I suggest that anyone sneering at either of these nations military capabilities does so from a position of ignorance. Both supply good models of what the defence force of Scotland would look like in terms of size, composition and deployments (presuming we stay in NATO).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am grateful to Dr Douglas for that information that surely deserves wider circulation.
Assorted recent ex Ministers for War in UK governments -Lords(!?) Robertson, Reid and Browne – seem to be wholly unaware of the effectiveness of small independent nations and their capabilities.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0