Newshoggers Comments
The video is probably fake. reasons
The anti-US idiots are at it again. Both here on this post, and in the Gulf. Next time it wouldn't surprise me if they shoot first and ask questions later. Nevermind... what's the use of asking questions of people without a trace of logic. Wow, people, what brand of Kool Aid have you all been drinking??
Logic Note: If the boats had been sunk and there was a recording justifying it, THEN you may have a point. The fact that they refrained from pulling the trigger discredits that assumption.
Personally, I think that a government whose "President" says at Columbia University there are no homosexuals in his country, due to the fact that they hang homosexuals for being homosexuals, has the credibility problem, not the DoD.
Also, that Huffpo writer worries that he would be thought of as an "apologist for the Islamic Republic". He is very much an apologist, and can be considered pro-Iranian. I say that because in his piece, he refers to those British sailors that were hijacked and kidnapped as having been arrested. The opinion of someone with such a pro-Iranian bias and with that kind of thought process can be completely discounted.
As far as I'm concerned, the Navy ships should have "fired across the bows" of the Iranian boats at 1000-2000 yards to get them to back off, which wouldn't have caused any kind of international incident, and the Iranian government would have been laughed at had they done so. If they hadn't of turned around, then the Navy ships should have sunk every one of them.
SteveIL, you're last para has a good point. I tend to think, after my kneejerk reaction to the Cheneyite warmongering that would inevitable follow, I'd calm down and see that reaction as perfectly reasonable.
You'll note I've congratulated the Navy in all my posts on this subject for their even reaction to what would be a nervous moment even if the boats were crewed by waving girls in bikinis as long as it happened in Gulf waters.
Rockyspoon, who is obviously a drive-by commenter, doesn't get that what I'm worried about is the political massaging of the story to advance their agenda by those in and near the WH who want war with Iran. In the week that the government papers showing the Tonkin incident was definitely faked were released, it would be silly to say the US never fakes such things.
Steve, you haven't been around long enough to see my posts on the British incident. Can I suggest you look them up? It wasn't technically a hijacking of Brits, since they were on a foreign national ship at the time rather than a Brit one. The Iranian government says it was an arrest since it occurred in their waters. Top British experts on territorial boundaries (who adjudicate such disputes for Lloyd's, among others) have quietly admitted since, in news that didn't get an airing over here, that the Iranians probably had a case for that.
Which brings me to the current case. the US says it took place 3 miles outwith Iranian waters - but the Iranians apply a different definition based on an agreement with Iraq that the US doesn't recognise. The US ships may have been, by Iranian lights, in Iran's waters.
Regards, C
I believe it would have been appropriate for us to fire warning shots at them, and am very surprised this wasn't done.
I don't care what the Iranian government has to say regarding the British sailors, or what they say about saying we may have been in their waters. They don't like it, tough. They've put their terrorists into Iraq to kill our soldiers. They've sold weapons to Iraqi Shiite terrorists (either directly or through proxies) that are used to kill our soldiers. They've been violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty for 18 years by covertly and illegally developing nuclear weapons and enriching uranium. Say what you want about that stupid NIE (which was nothing more than a spin job by the hacks who wrote it); the fact of the matter is the Iranian government is getting away with violating that treaty because everybody wants to "engage" with them. That's crap and it's BS. What's worse is that our idiot media never seems to mention that part.
(I do know that the Iranian government that came after the Shah never withdrew from the NPT, as did North Korea. I also know they signed a protocol to their NPT safeguards agreement in 2003, probably around the time they said they stopped their covert weapons development, but have not complied with it; nor was it ratified officially by the Iranian government.)
It is the Iranian government that has no credibility. And does not deserve to be believed one iota.
And those "top British experts" on territorial boundaries are idiots, and placating the Iranian government.
My first thought was that the Iranian vessels were engaged in wargames and decided to incorporate the US vessels into the exercise. That could explain the boxes dumped out as markers. I thought I had seen that the Iranian Navy was conducting war games at that time but can't find the cite right now.
SteveIL, you're "really not interested" in debate or the possibility of changing your views, are you? Does it never occur to you that there might be more nuance to any story than you get from extreme rightwing blogs?
Just for a start, enriching uranium isn't illegal under the NPT.
Charles - could be that too. Isn't it a pity the white boxes weren't seen on video and none were recovered to be shown to the world? It leaves their presence as hearsay.
Regards, C
I was wondering about the same thing. What were the white boxes and where are they in the clip.
If they were floating, they could be markers for later evaluation of the coordinates by a more equipped vessel.
For smuggling goods I think speed boats need lots of fuel and I am not sure if those small speed boats could be used for such purposes.
All the things about hanging homosexuals in Iran started from hanging two rapist boys. They were charged for raping some kids and then killing them. They were not homosexuals but rapists and in Iranian law the punishment is death penalty. Even in Sweden media illustrated them as two lover boys who were executed because they loved each other! but this was not the true story.
Cernig, re-read Article II of the NPT. Enriching uranium to the point that it can be used for weapons is most definitely illegal and a violation of Article II. Then, re-read Article III. Iran failed to to sign any kind of protocol for well over a decade until they were caught red-handed building an enrichment facility unbeknownst to the IAEA, as was required by the NPT. As it is, they signed the additional protocol, but have yet to ratify it. These aren't right-wing talking points, these are facts.
Now, the Iranian government has said it will abide by the protocol as if it were ratified. However, because the protocol isn't ratified, I can believe the Iranian government can use that to play the U.S. and its allies against the UN and the IAEA, and go back to covertly develop its weapons program, as it was doing illegally before they signed the protocol.
Iran is not the aggrieved party here. They were busted illegally pursuing nuclear weapons. They continue to illegally fund and arm Hezbollah and Palestinian terrorists. Argentina has arrest warrants out for many in the Iranian government for ordering the 1992 and 1994 bombings in that country by Hezbollah, because the Argentine government at the time, under U.S. pressure, had terminated nuclear cooperation agreements with the Iranians.
What debate is needed on this? Saying the Iranian government is at all in the right is dismissing the lies they've been spreading since the Islamic Republic came into being. For those who claim to "respect the rule of law" to ignore what the Iranian government has done over the last 3 decades, and to give them deference, is mind-boggling.
"We're back to "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" because five "pimped out Boston Whalers" - as Jules Crittenden puts it - got close to an Aegis cruiser, a "mini-Aegis" Arleigh Burke destroyer and a frigate with a combined firepower that could probably sink the entire Iranian Navy and down the entire Iranian Air Force. Now that really is absurd."
I seem to recall an Aegis-equipped US Arleigh Burke class missile destroyer that didn't fare too well when it let a "tricked-out Boston Whaler" get too close. You might have heard of it--the USS Cole. It isn't the firepower of the ships involved, it's the proximity to which another vessel can approach that counts. All the firepower in the world doesn't do you any good if a small craft loaded with explosives can get under the fire curtain into the "dead zone," the area where the guns of the ship cannot be depressed enough to target. You can't fire into the water next to your own hull, the guns don't depress far enough. How long does it take a speedboat at 60mph to transit the distance between the engagement perimeter and the dead zone? (Ans: a very few seconds)
US naval vessels transiting the Straits have specific engagement perimeters, and the Straits are transited in GQ status, guns armed and ready. Had these boats come inside the designated perimeters on an appraoch vector they would have been shredded in a heartbeat. The Iranians know this--just watching the tape you can see that every time they edged up to the perimeter they were NOT "aimed" at the ships. They came out to test and annoy and try to provoke an incident by approaching just up to the "shred 'em" engagement perimeter--and the vessels involved held fire because the boats were close but not "inbound."
As for accents, it speaks volumes that some actually believe that all Iranians have the same accent and spak bad English and that a somewhat distorted voice on the radio saying a few words can be analyzed to repudiate anything. The boats were trying to provoke an incident, that they added some verbal threats to the (much more serious) physical threat is frankly secondary compared to the close approaches--the approaches themselves were the real threat.
Just two things: the movie "Wag the DOg" and the Gulf of Tonkien resolution. Is there a Strait of Hormuz Resolution in our future?
The idea that the Iranians have more of a credibility problem than the Bush administration is pretty damn funny. Almost everything Bush and Cheney have said about Iraq since 2002 has turned out to be a lie (surprise!). And most of the things they've said about Iran have proved false, as well.
Only an idiot would take their word at face value at this point.
I agree with almost all of this, except for the idea that these speedboats didn't potentially pose a serious threat...the USS Cole was laid low by a speedboat-type ship, much smaller than the Cole itself.
That being said, I don't buy a word of the Pentagon's explanation. Straits of Hormuz, or Gulf of Tonkin?
The Cole was stationary in port, not closed up at GQ, and - Tully - didn't have two other vessels providing overlapping fields of fire. 17 sailors died, and that kind of loss of life is always both horrific and tragic. But had it been a combat situation Cole would still have been fightable. You're comparing apples with oranges.
Andy, re-read both this post and my other posts on the subject - I am quite clear. I agree the speedboats posed a threat, however I disagree that it was as major a one as it is being painted.
Regards, C
Tully,
that a somewhat distorted voice allegedlyon the radio saying a few words can be analyzed at all.
There, fixed that for you.
Regards, C
The first thing that occurred to me was that the boats appeared to be remarkably non-uniform and un-camouflaged. Several makes and models and at least one a rather shocking blue. While it is not impossible that the Republican Guard, or other forces, couldn't use whatever mix and types of boats fell into their hands it would seem to me to be a bit less likely to be a Iranian military force.
Of course a freelance terrorist force would be less likely to worry about the niceties of uniform paint schemes. And it should be noted that while the ships approached are indeed powerful they are not immune to close attack. As seen with the Cole a small boat can carry enough explosive to cripple, near about destroy, a modern warship. Their main defense is keeping such threats at a distance.
Which is why I'm a bit surprised that more wasn't done to keep them farther away. Is a 'shot across the bow' still internationally understood. While it is good that it wasn't necessary, less chance of anyone thinking they were 'fired upon' and believing they got away from the USN who couldn't shoot straight, I still keep thinking that based on the video and what I estimate the range to be, a few hundred meters, I would have made my displeasure clearer before the boats got so close.
Of course there is also a decent chance that the boats were 'smugglers', freelance importers, and their course just intersected the ships by chance. It is a popular route.
Even the 'threat' is less than clear. I'm reminded of a story where a guy is driving a car around a curve and woman in a car coming the other way shouts "PIG" at him. He feels insulted and tries to think of who she might be and why she disliked him. While he is figuring this out he drives into a large sow which is crossing the road.
He mistook a warning for an insult and crashed because of it.
Is it not possible that these were locals who had reason to believe that there might be mines in the area? Was 'In a few minutes you blow up' meant as a warning that if you continue on that course your going into a minefield?
Mines were used in the area by both sides during the Iran-Iraq war. The US navy had several encounters with them some time ago. Once planted mines can remain a threat for many decades. We still occasionally find live mines in the north Sea from WW2. The US ships have very little chance of detecting mines before they are right up on them. Is it possible that these small boats forced our ships to change course and so saved them?
Of course just because locals think there are mines doesn't mean they are there. Or not.
So far there are not a lot of hard answers. All we know is that several small boats came close to a line of USN ships. We don't know who they were or what their intentions were.
It is possible the entire story was manufactured. It is possible to create a incident but you wouldn't want the alleged threat to be so visible. The Gulf of Tonkin incident
I think the voice is computer-generated, FWIW. Whoever did the transmission did not want the voice to be identifiable or traceable.
What debate is needed on this?
I am coming to youuuuuuuu!
.
why would suicide bombers wear life jackets? seems a bit redundant. just to fool the u.s. navy i guess. jeez those commies are tricky. oops, i mean iranians.
sarcasm aside, i am sure that if there were multiple iranian warships city blocks long, armed to the teeth, possibly with nuclear missiles aboard, and they were parked 10 feet outside u.s. territorial waters, we as a nation would consider it a provocation.
Of course, they could have been
suicide boats too and I understand
why the Navy didn't take chances but
even so still had a measured
non-conflagratory response.
No, they could NOT. Iranians are not suicide-bombers for God's sake. Al-Qaida terrorists do that. Iranians don't. They would attack with conventional weapons.
It's sad to see such ignorance even here.
As a person who works with Navigation Rules all the time it sure looked like to me that 1) you never cross the path of a big draft vessel in a navigation channel and 2) sure looked to me that if they were smugglers, the White Boxes also look like the white poly gasoline containers you can get worldwide. and 3) they sure looked like they had a lot of fun jumping the wakes of our vessels...almost looked like a group of guys having fun on some jet skis.
AS for a threat...give me a break..a set of guns trained on them from the get go would have been in order and I'm sure they had and saw that message loud and clear. Sure sounds to me that the DOD on our side release of this infor is for spoiling for war with Iran so they can use up the weapons stockpile. I just plain out and out don't trust our DOD, CIA, and FBI anymore. Just remember ol don rumsfield in his 9/10 interview about the amount of money unaccounted for at the Pentagon. These folks are having a great time stealing from the american people.
Commenting by HaloScan
