Especially in a relatively closed-in environment, like the Gulf areas.
Other news. Per Foreign Policy,
Further, per Jennifer Griffin’s twitter, the reporter responsible for national security issues at Fox News, citing US DoD spokespeople, Iranian boats prevented tugboats, hired by the MT Front Altair’s owners, from attempting to attach lines to and begin towing the severely damaged tanker. The MT Front Altair’s crew is in Iran, having been removed from the ship that rescued them, the MV Hyundai Dubai, by Iranian military personnel.
Attempts by Iranian boats to prevent similar towing of the MV *Kokuka Courageous *were prevented by the USS Bainbridge.
I hope the crew of the Front Altair is returned to Norway or where ever their home port is, ASAP.
Can I note that the FP article you cite is titled Some U.S. Allies Balk at Blaming Iran for Tanker Attack?
Can I also note that the only two people you cite who are backing up the current administration’s interpretation of events are two people from Trump’s de facto propaganda machine?
You’re right. It’s all a Trumpian plot. There’s absolutely no way anyone could go interview the tugboat captains—who I’m willing to bet aren’t Americans—later and see if the DoD was lying. That certainly wouldn’t ever come out. The tanker crew sitting in an Iranian port is totally a lie too. It’s not like the Iranians released photos of the crew or anything.
The statement from Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt is a direct quote. I thought the UK officially agreeing with the US DoD’s version of events was kind of a big deal. Other allies probably are balking at blaming Iran. The UK doesn’t appear to be one of them.
I don’t believe the US committed these attacks; but I want to mention that this is an unrealistic standard. The people who pulled off the ‘second attack’ in the Tonkin Incident were not concerned that we would learn a decade later that the attack was completely fabricated. It didn’t even matter that you could talk to people from the USS Maddox who could verify that there was no second attack; by the time that was widely accepted, it was too late to stop the direct US engagement in the Vietnam War. No one was going to pull a quarter-million US troops out of South Vietnam because some guys in an office lied to get them there in the first place.
Hopefully whatever happened will come out. The primary objective of everybody should be to make sure a war doesn’t start before facts that are not currently widely available come out.
This is by far the biggest news story AFAIC. CBS reported the ship was surrounded by Iranian military who demanded the crew leave with them. If they’re going after the crews and there is a video of them removing something from the side of one of the ships then it’s pretty clear they were trying to cover up something.
I don’t see how this is anything besides act(s) of war.
the question is why? Escalating a conflict they can’t possible win only makes sense when viewed through the ideology of the 9/11 attacks. it reeks of religious suicide on a grand scale. It’s certainly within their developmental timeline to have developed a nuclear bomb by now. If they’re going for the brass ring of crazy then striking the US becomes the logical result of an illogical plan.
It keeps getting worse. It’s just a matter of time before one of our ships is attacked.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/06/14/politics/us-drone-tracked-iranian-boats/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F
I’m heartened to see that you’re at least open to the possibility that Iranians perpetrated the tanker attacks. I’m disappointed that you think the US sanctions might have “forced” Iran to start blowing holes in tankers. If Iran did this, they were not “forced to”, by the US nor anyone else.
From the AP:
Dems have spent the last two years screaming about how evil the Russians are. I wonder how they’re processing this information: Britain says it believes the attacks were perpetrated by Iran and Russia says not to. Do they believe our traditional ally Britain or listen to the evil Russians?
So no, you don’t have an unbiased source; gotcha.
In response to HurricaneDitka:
Close but no cigar. The Democrats have spent the last two years saying that it was impossibly stupid for an American presidential candidate to seek help from Russians in his campaign. Politicians from both sides of the aisle have been calling Russia evil for a long time now.
The incidents happened closer to the Iranian coast than any other country’s. I can see why the Revolutionary Guards that arrived in their boats may have felt the area was under their jurisidiction, rather than the civilian vessel’s. In any case, the civilian ship that initially picked the crew up, the Hyundai Dubai, is a big cargo ship and so it would probably make more sense to transport the crew back to land in the faster Iranian ships.
I’ve seen news reports describing the crew as being “detained” and “in custody” with the Iranians, but that seems a bit premature to me. The crew’s ship had to be evacuated, and some time will surely be needed to make it safe and to carry out forensic examination of the damage, as well as making it seaworthy again. So it’s not like the crew have anywhere to go. If it turns out in the next day or so that the crew are being held against their will as hostages, then it will, of course, be different.
As mentioned several times now in the thread, there could be various non-nefarious reasons for removing the mine, such as safety reasons.
I’ve always been open to the possibility to the Iranians perpetrated the tanker attacks. The Iranians are the natural prime suspects, but are by no means the only suspects. It will take evidence to narrow down the list of suspects, or change percentages regarding speculation as to who did it.
Well, that’s what the article suggests as being what the Iranians feel. I agree that the Iranians probably feel that they have been forced into a corner by the U.S.
Remind me again: did you think Iraq had WMD? And which countries lined up saying they did, and which ones said they didn’t?
How awkward was that for you?
Interesting Slate article.
I was out of the country at the time, with very limited access to the news, and focused on things other than politics / foreign policy. I never really formed an opinion on the matter during the buidup to the Iraq War. I don’t feel like there’s anything awkward about it for me. Sorry your gotcha attempt failed.
Yea-huh. Sure.
No, it doesn’t make sense to take a crew against their will and not release them.
And nobody drives up to a mine of unknown origin and rips it off the side of a ship.
I suspect that reasons of national pride may have been a factor. The Iranians might have felt it a bit embarrassing that these incidents happened closer to their coast than any other country’s, and their adversaries the Americans appear as though they will be getting all the glory for rescuing both the crews.
I’m sorry, but I don’t agree with you that what the Iranians did regarding the crew constitutes an “act of war.”
The Iranians need to give a press conference or issue a press release giving their version of events. Unless they do so, suspicions against them will justifiably increase.
U.K. Foreign Office: “It is almost certain that a branch of the Iranian military - the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps - attacked the two tankers on 13 June.” However, the U.K. Foreign Secretary rather undermined the credibility of this statement when he said “our starting point is obviously to believe our U.S. allies.”
German Foreign Minister: “The video is not enough. We can understand what is being shown, sure, but to make a final assessment, this is not enough for me.”
Mr. Blair? Is that you?