View Full Version : Telegraph: Britain forms plan for Gulf evacuation in event of war with Iran
WE Branch Fanatic
29th Dec 2010, 21:41
Britain forms plan for Gulf evacuation in event of war with Iran (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/dubai/8228244/Britain-forms-plan-for-Gulf-evacuation-in-event-of-war-with-Iran.html)
Thelma Viaduct
29th Dec 2010, 21:56
Iran will def be attacked at some point in the future.
The media have been 'softening' up the public for a good while now.
It's exactly the same misguided agenda that lead to Iraq 2 & Afghan.
We should send a carrier and some Harriers:ok:
TBM-Legend
29th Dec 2010, 22:26
put the Tristars on standby for shuttle flights:eek:
Donna K Babbs
29th Dec 2010, 23:54
It's a good job the Iranians don't have Kilo class submarines or we'd be screwed without the Nimrod!
Could be the last?
30th Dec 2010, 08:58
This is obviously some kind of ASC table-top exercise...........:D
The 'Pink/DS solution' would be an interesting read...............:confused:
barnstormer1968
30th Dec 2010, 08:58
Donna, you raise a god point, which I would imagine is rapidly coming to haunt whoever decided we needed an MPA capability holiday!
I would not be too happy to try to form this evacuation plan knowing we no longer have RAF aircraft to help, and cannot use RN ships as we have also just scrapped their protection (made doubly worse, as we DID foresee this kind of thing coming when the Nimrods were axed!). Maybe the evacuees could walk!
Military covenant anyone:E
SirPeterHardingsLovechild
30th Dec 2010, 09:05
A bloke in a pub told me...
Well, actually
A Norwegian oil worker, based in Iran, taking a break in Dubai, in a pub told me...
That mahoosive amounts of Iranian money are invested in the UAE.
Don't know the relevance of this, I got told in a pub, in the Irish Village.
Finningley Boy
30th Dec 2010, 09:35
If the Chiefs of Staff and the Cobra Committee (or whatever they're called) use their collective powers of Transcendental Meditation they may be able to levitate all British Workers and their dependents... up into the air and....?:ouch:
FB:)
Squirrel 41
30th Dec 2010, 11:52
Excellent, get everyone to drive to Oman and then we'll use the airbridge to... ah. :hmm:
Wonderful, we'll send a Squadron of FF/DD to protect STUFT cruise liners. Call the Admiralty and see if we can find an FF/DD. Oh... :rolleyes:
Capital, we'll drop the on-call Airborne Bn from some C-130s to secure an airfield, conduct a TALO and... err.... :ugh:
Bo:mad:cks!
S41
LookingNorth
30th Dec 2010, 12:08
I've seen some of our future war planning documents. I understand failure is now an option. Indeed, it's No.1 option.
Mechta
30th Dec 2010, 12:27
If the British ex-pats in Iran were just stripped of their British citizenship, then it wouldn't be necessary to move them anywhere. Problem solved! :E
Boy_From_Brazil
30th Dec 2010, 13:28
Hopefully the STUXNET worm will delay things until I can go and fill up the Jeep's tank.....
To be honest I would be very surprised if there aren't UK contingency plans in place for most countries perceived at risk.
Best advice is to register at your local Brit embassy or Consulate....Not too sure what they could do without UK military support (not much chance of that with all the dreadful cut-backs)
BFB
Thelma Viaduct
30th Dec 2010, 15:46
The 'govern'ment should issue the evacuees with a rifle, and tell them that their assistance with the war effort is essential to the safety of the UK.
This will save money on getting them home safely.
Make up a 45 minute wmd attack warning so that some people buy it hook line & sinker.
Get the 'forces favourite' sun newspaper involved for added authenticity.
Job jobbed.
Trim Stab
30th Dec 2010, 17:40
There are evacuation plans in place for British citizens in many places around the world that may be at risk from war, uprest or natural disaster. Would you expect otherwise?
Could be the last?
30th Dec 2010, 18:50
Given the current climate, and the real threat that things could turn nasty, why on earth would a Brit be in Iran!!! And if they are, give them a 'Gypsies' and tell them that due to the current account being empty, a free evac home is not an option!!
And if it is FCO personnel, they should know better!!!!!!!!!
Old-Duffer
30th Dec 2010, 19:31
It's OK - Cathy Ashton and her EU External Affairs Agency will have it all under control. The Iranians would never dare to cross her.
O-D
Lyneham Lad
30th Dec 2010, 20:48
This is not about evacuating British people from Iran :ugh:
The British armed forces are drawing up contingency plans to evacuate hundreds of thousands of British residents and tourists from Dubai and other Gulf cities in the event of war with Iran.
Whilst I am of the opinion that such planning is of the 'impossible dream' variety, given the UK's paucity of resources, it may at least give our wonderful leaders pause for thought re the SDSR.
...but I'm not holding my breath.
WE Branch Fanatic
1st Dec 2012, 13:10
I wonder if the plans have been updated?
lasernigel
1st Dec 2012, 13:17
They reckon there are a lot of Iranian "sleepers" in the UAE just waiting for the nod. It won't be pretty when it starts, people think the UAE is safe, think again!
VinRouge
1st Dec 2012, 15:04
Anyone question why Iran shouldnt have the bomb? I am sick of having it rammed down my throat, despite the Iranians having to deal with their next door neighbors brimmed to the teeth with Jericho.
Perhaps if the west didnt display unbelievable double standards in this respect. Hasnt anyone considered that a cold war in the middle east could in effect end the hot one that has gone on for years in the region?
If Tehran was ever to try it on, they know they are going to get turned to glass.
The UK government could make the bold step and realise that Iran is going to be the major future power in the region and co-operate with them to bring much needed stability.
Viewed dispassionately, Israel’s unwillingness to get on with her neighbours seems to be a bigger problem than any nuclear weapons in Iran. If there were no such weapons in Israel would the Iranians even be bothering with them?
I expect all the existing Extraction Plans had to be torn up and rewritten when the MPA capability was lost, but they were under constant review when I was in anyway.
beardy
1st Dec 2012, 18:00
I don't believe that Israel has vowed to wipe any of its neighbours off the face of the planet, yet. Unlike some of its neighbouring countries. I suppose there is time. Maybe that's why they have difficulty with some (but not all) of their neighbours.
Would Iran have developed nuclear weapons without the presence of Israeli weapons? Possibly, Probably.
Jabba_TG12
1st Dec 2012, 18:30
Would Iran be developing the bomb had the Israelis not had it?
With nuclear India and Pakistan not far away? Too bloody right she would.. The fact that the Israelis have nukes is neither here nor there. Very easy to pick on Israel in this type of discussion. Dont forget though that on the day she was formed by the UN, Israel came under attack from 3 sides. She didnt attack anyone else.
And if my memory serves me correctly, most of the times that she has attacked, it has been as a response, as against pre-emptively with some notable exceptions:
1) Following the PLO into Lebanon in 82
2) If I remember rightly either 1967 or 1973 was a pre-emptive strike taking out the Egyptian Air Force on the ground.
3) Osirak
Im pretty sure most of the rest of the occasions she has responded in kind have been exactly that - responses, not acting as the aggressor.
The situation on the ground re the Palestinians is a whole other barrel of sardines. Neither side has covered itself in glory where that is concerned.
What we are likely to see going forward is likely to be the 2000's equivalent of our 1950's MAD with Iran and Israel in a Mexican stand off. Whichever chooses to attack knows that it will in response be turned into a glass car park, which, despite any fiery rhetoric from either side should keep the lid on it, although it may ratchet up the tension from time to time.
VinRouge
1st Dec 2012, 18:40
Jabba, there have been a fair few nuclear scientists go up in smoke in the past year or two. Unprovoked? It certainly wasnt sanctioned by the UN was it?
And lets not forget the actions they carried out against the British in Palestine.
Terrorism 1940 - 1949 (http://www.timripley.co.uk/terrorism/terrorism1.htm)
Saintsman
1st Dec 2012, 19:34
Unfortunately its not 'Iran' that is the problem per se, as I'm let to believe that the majority are rather pleasant and welcoming. Its the people in charge and the religious fundamentalist who are rattling the sabres.
As ever, its the few who will cause misery for the masses.
Someone who has visited Iran told me that you can feel the atmosphere change the closer you get to Tehran.
Anyone question why Iran shouldnt have the bomb? I am sick of having it rammed down my throat, despite the Iranians having to deal with their next door neighbors brimmed to the teeth with Jericho.Some treaty Iran signed saying they wouldn't develop the bomb would appear to be the reasoning here. Israel didn't sign said treaty.
Two's in
2nd Dec 2012, 01:11
Not sure if these pictures of the Royal Navy's remaining evacuation fleet are sensitive or not...
http://www.edcheung.com/album/album04/Story/swan.jpg
billboard
2nd Dec 2012, 02:01
Would Iran be developing the bomb had the Israelis not had it?
With nuclear India and Pakistan not far away? Too bloody right she would....
What problem did Iranians ever had with India? Anybody heard Iranian leaders ever say that they feel threatened by India?
Anyways, going by your logic it would be legitimate if Argentina developed the bomb, with nuclear Britain not far away. And off course they have much greater rights to Falklands than some imperialist government sitting 8000 miles away. Worryingly, Cubans would seem to have an even stronger case.
Anyone question why Iran shouldnt have the bomb?
1. They signed NPT and have to fulfil their obligations. If not sanctions have to be imposed and obeyed to give all other signature nations pause for thought, otherwise you might as well tear it up.
2. They are a theocracy lead by those who a publicly uttered belief in the imminent return of the 12th Imam and an intent to remove Israel from the map. It leads to the thought that they will not behave in what other believe is a rational manner.
3. They are one side in a Sunni/Shia, Arab/Persian regional power and arms race. Both Turkey and Saudi Arabia are known to urgently pressing ahead with development/procurement of their own ballistic missiles and ability to produce their own warheads. Others are probably doing the same. Do you really want the whole new Middle East armed with nuclear warheads in the hands of mutually antagonistic theocracies?
Perhaps if the west didnt display unbelievable double standards in this respect. Hasnt anyone considered that a cold war in the middle east could in effect end the hot one that has gone on for years in the region?
VinRouge, Iran is developing the capability and has the outright intent to use it. This could be where the threat of mutually assured destruction isn't an issue the Iranian fundamentalists are concerned with. They know the country will likely exchange a few missiles maximum; after all the hoo-ha had died down those fundamentalists would believe their legacy was worth it - even if they died.
Job done...
I fear they are not as considered as our former Soviet antagonists.
Gulfstreamaviator
2nd Dec 2012, 07:27
But as we know that does not hold water in the extreme situations that can evolve from the thinking mans freedom fighters.
In general the UAE is safe, but it might be wise to remain clear of too many obvious American or British projects.
I was also in the Irish Village last week and got a totally different message from the populus, or was it the Guinness.
However should the UAE be attacked, do it now as the country is closed for another holiday.
glf
racedo
2nd Dec 2012, 09:05
To be honest I would be very surprised if there aren't UK contingency plans in place for most countries perceived at risk.
Even the UK..................
Actually probably just a number of cities in the UK
Pontius Navigator
2nd Dec 2012, 11:55
VinRouge, Iran is developing the capability and has the outright intent to use it.
What they say and what they intend are two different things. This was always the intelligence conundrum in the Cold War. We knew what their capabilities were and we knew what they said in public but we needed spies to tell us what they really thought.
I fear they are not as considered as our former Soviet antagonists.
How do you arrive at the conclusion? How many airliners have they shot down? How often to they launch SAM at allied aircraft in international airspace? How many allied naval vessels have they rammed?
As far a nuclear policies are concerned I think the phrase "It is not Her Majesty's Government policy to confirm or deny . . ."
Heathrow Harry
2nd Dec 2012, 15:48
Actually guys I believe the Supreme Leader has stated that the use of nuclear weapons to be can act of Satan..........
Yeah, but he's also said that, ""holding these arms is a sin as well as useless, harmful and dangerous". And even the IAEA has accepted (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/27/iran-bomb-atomic-nuclear/1730267/) that they have a nuclear weapons programme.
So pardon me for being a teensy bit cynical.
Ronald Reagan
2nd Dec 2012, 16:28
Having nukes would guard against any future attack by the west. So I would imagine thats the biggest reason they want them, also the fact it puts them in a rather elite club.
I have many Iranian friends, all hate the regime and are really great people.
I cannot say I really want to see a nuclear armed Iranian regime or any other nations with nukes in general (especially in that region) but considering we have nukes I don't know what moral right we have to tell others they cannot have them!
At the same time despite all the talk I don't think the Iranian regime would be stupid enough to use them, it would invite the total destruction of Iran and end of the regime, not what they want at all!!!!! I think to remain in power at all costs is their biggest concern.
I fear for my Iranian friends a lot right now, if there was a ever a large scale war with Iran I would fear for them even more. Such a shame that such great people have to live under such a terrible regime. Another reason all these ''revolutions'' in the region worry me!
air pig
2nd Dec 2012, 21:21
And, at the other side, one from the Guardian/Observer
Turkey requested Nato missile defences over Syria chemical weapons fears | World news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/02/turkey-syria-chemical-weapons-fears)
One hopes that does not start up, in particular if the wind is in the wrong direction, otherwise it will open a can of worms no one will be able to close.
althenick
2nd Dec 2012, 22:34
he expatriate population has grown to more than 100,000 in the UAE alone
My god that's one hell of a lot of rich taxpayers that will need extracted when the Stuan-fuch hits the spinner. I'm glad that at least some of these people are patriotic enough to pay their tax's in the UK.
Aye right why should we put decent men and women in harm's way for tax avoiders :mad:
F*ck em
ORAC
"1. They signed NPT and have to fulfil their obligations. If not sanctions have to be imposed and obeyed to give all other signature nations pause for thought, otherwise you might as well tear it up."
Might as well tear it up as a few countries - US, Australia - seem quite happy to supply gear to non signatories - India being one.
enginesuck
3rd Dec 2012, 01:43
We are not all rich tax avoiders you know ! in fact i still pay UK tax at the moment and if anything im contributing more to the UK economy as most of my salary is spent and invested in the UK and is bought in from abroad - so ill be expecting a 4 prop taxi when the **** hits the fan ! (Obviously id prefer emirates business class and will make the necessary arangement should a war become imminant!)
500N - India is not a signatory state. Neither is Pakistan or Israel. N Korea withdrew. Looks like we're back to the NPT again...
Jayand
3rd Dec 2012, 08:02
Alarmist B*****ks, there will be no war with Iran!
billboard
3rd Dec 2012, 08:32
1) The government that signed the NPT on behalf of the people of Iran was not a democratically elected government. Therefore, their government's accession to the NPT regime cannot be considered to have been done with the free will of the people of Iran.
2) The reason why Iranians did not have a democratically elected government at the helm was because some countries(primarily Britain) overthrew a democratically elected government by engineering a coup and installed a dictator so that the dictator could allow them access to Iranian oil reserves thereby causing losses to the people of Iran.
The Iranians were made to sign the NPT by the use of unlawful interference in their internal affairs. In light of this, would it not be understandable if the Iranians refused to comply with the NPT?
If we abrogated all treaties not signed by a democratically elected government, there wouldn't be many left.....
VinRouge
3rd Dec 2012, 19:44
very good analysis this morning on start the week (Radio 4, andrew Marr)
podcast available here:BBC - Podcasts and Downloads - Start the Week with Andrew Marr (http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/stw)
PTT
I think you misunderstood my post. I know those countries are not part of
the NPT.
Orac said in response to the question
"Anyone question why Iran shouldnt have the bomb? 1. They signed NPT and have to fulfil their obligations. If not sanctions have to be imposed and obeyed to give all other signature nations pause for thought, otherwise you might as well tear it up."
I was just pointing out that depending on who is who in world,
it is OK to supply non signatories with nuclear material.
I am sure the US has supplied Israel. Australia is going to supply India.
And the BS of it's not for nuclear weapons ........., yes well, we shall see.
Lonewolf_50
3rd Dec 2012, 21:10
I see, billboard.
All treaties signed by governments with the usual despots in charge are null and void by default, is that it?
Your argument doesn't hold water.
If a government wish to withdraw from a treaty a former government signed, there are up front means of so doing.
Transparent even.
Care to try again?
It's funny how a newspaper article which said...
"The British armed forces are drawing up contingency plans to evacuate hundreds of thousands of British residents and tourists from Dubai and other Gulf cities in the event of war with Iran." ...
Has become lost in a debate about who signed up for what with regards to nuclear weapons. I'm fairly new here, does this happen often?
billboard
4th Dec 2012, 05:21
If we abrogated all treaties not signed by a democratically elected government, there wouldn't be many left.....
One of the reasons for some countries to stop poking their nose into others' internal affairs and installing favorable governments.
All treaties signed by governments with the usual despots in charge are null and void by default, is that it?
In cases where the foreign governments with which these "despots" signed the treaties are the same ones that installed them in the first place?...........Yes!
Signing the treaty(among other things) could very well just be a form of pay-back by such dictators to their foreign masters. This should be considered in light of the fact that the foreign powers that installed the dictator in Iran were the same powers that were trying to push the NPT down every country's throat back then.
If a government wish to withdraw from a treaty a former government signed, there are up front means of so doing.
They could announce the withdrawal from the treaty in a press meet held 10 minutes before they conduct their tests. Why would they announce a withdrawal when they are not close enough to assembling a workable device? That would only make things difficult for them.