My understanding is that the Brits received fire and requested permission from HQTRS to return fire and it was denied. They were told to succomb to the Iranians (probably thinking a diplomatic solution could be found). An American general stated that Americans have more latitude when being fired upon and if his sailors were fired upon, they would return fire no matter what. A difference in procedure basically (once again a prime example of America's shoot first, ask questions later but in all fairness, it would be self-defense). The current talk is that Iran knows full well the difference in procedure between the Brits and the Americans and it wouldn't have happened if it had been Americans because it would have immediately escalated. Does anyone remember Reagan's actions in 1987 against the Iranian naval vessel Iran Ajr?

http://www.nightstalkers.com/history/4.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,965656,00.html




>>>Aye but I'd've thought the frigate's radar would be able to pick up another naval vesel coming in ... fast.
>>
>>Small-ish plastic river boat, coming from behind the ship that was being searched.... perhaps didn't show up on the radar.
>
>Well if that's the case, we had a smallish plastic boat of boot-necks. Why'd they let a similar-sized bunch of Iranian matelots take 'em. Doesn't make sense.
>
>>
>>>>Perhaps the rules of engagement prevented the frigate from firing on the vessels, or it was thought that they might injure the UK soldiers. The British commander was on CNN International going on and on about being pround of his men of adhering to the rules of engagement and that he was going to congratulate them when they got back.
>>>
>>>That's the trouble - we always adhere to the rules and others don't.
>>
>>The fight is harder, but playing by the rules wins hearts and minds.