Some news agencies have pointed out that the timing of these attacks may be intended to overshadow/cancel out Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit to Iran in order to reduce tensions between Iran and the US.
Tensions appear to not be reduced.
The ship’s owner doesn’t believe it was a limpet mine:
One source of confusion might be mixing up terms, especially if they are being translated from another language. For example, in current English usage, a torpedo is “a self-propelled weapon with an explosive warhead, launched above or below the water surface, propelled underwater towards a target, and designed to detonate either on contact with its target or in proximity to it.”
However, a torpedo originally referred to a variety of explosive devices, most of which would today be called mines.
To wit, Rear Admiral David Farragut’s famous/apocryphal command during the Battle of Mobile Bay in 1864, “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!” refers to a minefield laid at Mobile, Alabama.
So it seems to me that it would be easy for a non-native English speaker or translator to mix up the terms.
Shells are a different category entirely.
Trump on Fox News: “And you saw the boat at night trying to take the mine off, and successfully took the mine off the boat and that was exposed.”
According to the CENTCOM timeline, the removal of the mine happened at 4:10 p.m., which would have been broad daylight.
Fair point.
Also, I haven’t seen this mentioned much, but apparently a week ago several Iranian boats caught fire in a suspicious incident.
http://jcpa.org/mysterious-blazes-on-six-iranian-ships-in-iranian-ports/
You know why it might not have been mentioned much? Maybe because what the fuck has that got to do with anything? It seems to me, you think yourself a bit of a hardnosed realist but what I see is a guy who made up his mind in the first 5 seconds and everything is going through that lense. A CNN article calls for caution in assigning blame, you see an obvious false flag conspiracy. You see a hazy video of some guys removing something from a hull, and obviously it’s a limpet mine and the obvious reason they are so casually removing it is because they put it there. And a random boat fire is obviously connected to a scuba crew sabotage operation because why exactly?
Well, the article does say that some have speculated that it could be retaliation. I’m not that convinced. From the photos, the boats look like relatively small wooden dhows that were moored adjacent to each other, so it’s easy to see how a single non-deliberately started fire could have burnt all of them.
Yeah, “some have speculated” in Farsi, so I guess I’ll just have to take their word on that. Burning 3 docked wooden merchant ships seems like extremely lame retaliation - outside of a mob war for control of the docks.
You seem a bit wound up. I posted the bit about the Iranian boats burning because it is possibly related. I wouldn’t claim it’s “obviously related” nor would I claim that it’s a proven connection. It’s a possibility, and an interesting one (at least to me), given all the ships that have been suffering damage in the region in the last few weeks.
As for the Iranian boat alongside the Kokura Courageous, if there’s an innocent explanation for their presence there, I hope Iran will enlighten the rest of us. Maybe they were just touching up the paint job, or removing barnacles, or scratching “Muhammad wuz here” on the hull for the lulz. Maybe they pulled a Saudi-designed limpet mine off the hull and they’re about to release glossy high-resolution pictures complete with a “made in Riyadh” sticker. So far I haven’t seen any explanation from them about what their boat crew was doing next to the hull of the Kokura Courageous. It’s possible I missed it though. Do you know if they’ve offered any explanation? Absent that, what’s the most innocent explanation you can imagine that you personally still find plausible to explain their actions?
That’s not so much wound up as exacerbated. Why is it even possible that the burnt boats are related? Ok, people speculated that. To not be told any of the reasoning behind that speculation doesn’t raise any alarm bells? That it was in Farsi is good enough for you?
“A honking great ship with a volatile cargo aboard appears to have mines attached. It’s in a strategically important waterway near our coast. Let’s try and fix that.”
Waste not, want not.
Seriously though, you think they might have turned it over to someone else to make their case that it was not them.
Turned it over to whom? How would that have helped their case?
I wonder if the flying things the crew saw were drones? Drones have been used to deliver explosive payloads in the Houthi conflict, and the Houthis get a lot of their ordnance from Iran.
It’s not impossible that someone has figured out how to use UAVs to deliver limpet mines to a moving ship.
It’s weird because, if you read the article in the link, it sounds like the fires happened at multiple ports.
One large screwup in one port I can buy. But multiple ports start having burning ships on the same night? It starts looking more like sabotage at this point. As to who, and why, I don’t think the Iranians are burning their own boats, though it’s not impossible.
Who benefits from heightened tensions in the region, and the accompanying higher energy prices? Who benefits from a potential shooting match between the Iranians, the US, and maybe the Gulf nations too? Russia might. Russia certainly has the capability to stealthily place mines, launch drones, and attack ships in different ports.
Anyway, that’s why burning boats in Iranian ports might be relevant to this situation.
Baron Greenback, I agree that the Iranians might want to fix the situation of a floating bomb near their territorial waters, with a potential bomb attached to it, but the way they went about it is not the way someone without precise knowledge of that potential bomb would fix the situation. It’s just too easy to get blown up by someone else’s UXO, the way they did it on that video.
Actually i have no idea who they could turn it over too, maybe the ICC in the Hague. At this point, someones covert op went pear shaped and most folks are not really surprised that Iran is featured on the list of usual suspects. If they remember anything from operation praying mantis, then they would at least try and protest their innocence before the US Navy and Air Force do an extreme makeover on different parts of that country.
If it is the Iranians, then this BBC article discusses what their motive might be: that they’ve been cornered by the U.S. to the point where they’ve been forced to adopt a more aggressive strategy.
The article suggests that they feel this is worth the risk, since they think that Trump doesn’t actually want war. This sounds like a potential recipe for disaster - did they not hear in the news this week that polls showed that at least six Democratic presidential candidates would defeat Trump in head-to-head election matchups?
But even still, it is only the timing that seems to be the evidence they are linked. As I said, this is weak ass “retaliation”. Can you imagine an American General in the war room saying “We need to send a message. Let’s burn some docked merchant boats.” I need something more. Like maybe these boats were known to really covert ops boats. Some important guy’s son was assigned to one of the boats. Something.
I don’t think the US did it. It’s not a military target, and all it does it heighten tensions on the Iranian side, which isn’t in the US’s interest as I perceive it. I thought that heightened tensions might be in the interest of other nations that rely on energy sales to maintain their economy. Like Russia.
It might be in the interest of nations that want Iran disturbed enough that some of their forces might get into a shooting incident with the US. Wherein the US will bomb Iran in multiple places, and potentially set back for some time any WMD programs or other abilities to project force in the Persian Gulf region. Countries like Israel or the Gulf nations might be interested in those goals. Energy-exporting countries like KSA and others might also benefit from higher energy prices, provided they have alternate means of marketing their oil and gas that don’t involve the Fujairah oil terminal, or transiting the Straits of Hormuz. Like shipping oil and gas through Yanbu.
Alternately, the fires could be due to some common factor in Iranian merchant ports that began recently. Some different regulations for handling fuel, or other flammable material, for instance. Maybe there’s a labor strike in the region we’re not aware of?
I do think that fires in multiple locations is awfully odd.
EDIT: Or, to your point on some important guy’s son being on the boats, if Qasem Soleimani was discovered to be one of the casualties, I’d strongly suspect US involvement. As well as cheer.