[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Couldn’t he just put Superglue on the West Wing keyboards?
[/QUOTE]
I think he should replace all the keys with Ws.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Difficult as it is to add to such a substantive OP with a clear topic to be debated…
(ahem)
It certainly doesn’t seem to be a routine event, unless anybody can provide a cite for American ships routinely being notified “I am coming at you. You will explode in a couple of minutes,” in the context of dropping unidentified containers in front of the American ships. Now, of course, the specific source of the transmissions cannot be confirmed. So even without an explicit threat that an attack was about to commence, buzzing another nation’s ships and dropping strange containers into the water in front of them is certainly something other than routine.
Unless, of course, you consider claims such as a handfull of cases where there was aggressive maneuvering on the part of possible Iranian ships. But even those reports are sketchy and apparently substantially divergent.
Behavior like that is likely to get you fired on. Add to that the fact that this went down in international waters, and there are some serious problems. Possibly, it was an attempt to draw a US response in order to point to the US as evil warmongering imperialists, or what have you. And as the OP seems stumped by the context, it’s also worth pointing out that the Strait of Hormus is a conduit for upwards of 40% of the world’s oil. “or any other important point of conflict” indeed. :rolleyes: That it may have been a tacit threat to the continued viability of the Strait of Hormuz, a vitally important oil shipping route, shouldn’t be overlooked in any calculations. Nor should the fog of war be overlooked, and the possibility that both sides are jumpy and need to review their SOP and ROE.
Any way you slice it, it’s dangerous and reckless for the Iranian Navy (or Revolutionary Guard if it turns out to be their boats) to act in such a manner. And even with good ROE’s, this sort of thing can quite possibly lead to blood. And that’s the real story here.
Some, of course, will be at a loss for how to view this since it can’t be fit into a “America is teh uber evil war lovers” meme. Or, on preview, I see that silenus seems to have found a way to work this event into that paradigm, too.
The general event certainly did occur, with Iranian internal press claiming (in English but not Farsi) that the events “had been a warning to the American vessels to stay away from Iran’s territorial waters.” Odd, of course… but not necessarily mutually exclusive, when considered along side of Iranian claims that this was a routine event where they simply checked the flag the ships were flying under. Additionally, the Pentagon has claimed that the Iranian ships did not respond to hails. I’m sure that the usual suspects will claim all sorts of sinister motivations and allege conspiracies of various sorts on the part of the American Navy. But let’s be a bit honest here. If the Navy wanted to fake an incident where Iran attacked us and gave us a casus belli? They’d have done it.
And hell, as long as I’m at it… Rick, the Vincennes downed Iran Air Flight 655 and they did indeed have good reason to find its launch ‘scary’ although they investigation ultimately found that crew error was to blame for the events. The fog of war is never pretty.
Still, there is no real comparison between those events and the events under discussion here.
I’m still not clear on what the OP thought he was going to be debating, if anything.
Ah well.
[/QUOTE]
Good post. The obvious thing here is that the Iranian boats were lucky they weren’t utterly obliterated. It isn’t very wise for a boat with an outboard motor and a .50 cal to try to intimidate a destroyer/cruiser/frigate with all the weaponry that they have.
In fact, I would have been pleased if we’d have at least fired a shot at them to inform their nonsensical asses that we mean business.
See, this is just it…as much as people like to try to portray the USA as mongering for war with Iran, in an instance where we would have been completely justified in attacking a vessel with such an aggressive nature and intent, we had restraint.
There’s no doubt that Iran has been emboldened by our creation of a power vacuum in Iraq and wants to be recognized and respected as a player in the region. That’s fine, we probably should initiate some kind of diplomacy with them after all these years of alienation from each other, with both sides to blame for the current impasse.
However, what they DO need to realize is that they don’t want to provoke us any more than they already have been, especially with their weak-ass attempts to intimidate our formidable Navy in the Hormuz, or they will be destroyed. Literally.
[QUOTE=Squink]
Other than an acknowledgement that something happened, the Iranians have been pretty quiet about this. There’s been none of the fervor like we saw over the siezure of British sailors last year.
[/QUOTE]
I think this has more to do with the fact that they failed to accomplish anything of use. Most likely one faction in Iran did try to mess with us. However, as the effort failed to give them anything useful, they’ll just forget about it and pretend it was an accident.
[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
I think this has more to do with the fact that they failed to accomplish anything of use. Most likely one faction in Iran did try to mess with us. However, as the effort failed to give them anything useful, they’ll just forget about it and pretend it was an accident.
[/QUOTE]
The same SOP they used against the Brits in the earlier incident. Iran is just itching for it right to the point of no return, then they back down, it’s how they operate.
They want NO PART of the combined forces of the US and British navies. Their pathetic little gunboats offer nothing but fear of a re-enactment of the USS Cole, and even that won’t happen now. There have been so many changes in the way our naval forces operate in the wake of that incident that an unidentified boat or ship will be chum before it gets close enough to matter. Apparently this act of agression wasn’t close enough for the US Navy to act. But I suspect it was pretty close.
Adman is a douchebag.
[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
this has more to do…
[/QUOTE]
More to do than what?
I tossed it in here because it’s about as authoritative a take as we’re likely to get from the Iranian side of this.
They sure aren’t playing it for domestic advantage like we are.
I’d like to see a map of the incident, with the usual lines of demarcation, including the official lines defining the shift between international and Iranian waters.
It’s important to react carefully to those little boats - how hard would it be to turn one of them into some sort of floating IED? Can a crew hide and fire an Exocet in/on/from that sort of boat?
As for firing a shot or two across the bow, that is the navy version of a warning shot, at least in the highly inaccurate war movies. I think that the mildest procedure in play when going hot is to target and destroy the engines, followed by some combination of blowing up/sinking/rescuing/capturing boats and/or people.
If nothing else, the boats give the crews training in handling … annoying little boats.
From Salon:
Some interesting details breaking down the audio & video, as well as the “threat” and how the US military (mis-)characterized it.
Here is an interesting take on this, from the Register.
To summarize, there is a radio channel that all seamen must listen to for distress calls, warnings, etc. The US ships no doubt warned off the Iranian ones on this channel. In those parts there are people - the radio equivalent of trolls - who like to spout insults and warnings on the channel, knowing they must be listened to. So, right wingers, DNFTT. I’m sure they’d love to have started a war with their trollery.
[QUOTE=smithsb]
My questions are on the Iranian side of the conflict. Why? Which faction? Who would benefit most from an incident?
[/QUOTE]
This is what I’m curious about. Whether or not the United States exaggerated the event, it was undoubtedly and literally provocative. It seems to me that Iran is in political ascendancy in the Middle East right now. Why rock the boat? (sorry). There must be some expected benefit to justify a potentially militarily disastrous risk.
I missed the edit window . . .
Unlike Bush with Iran, we must consider the worst case scenario: The United States blows most of the Iranian navy out of the water, while suffering some casualties itself. Who benefits? Is it that the United States demonstrates to the world that it’s a war mongering imperialist? Isn’t that already the conventional wisdom? ETA: Or might the hope be that that the ME nations now sitting on the sidelines will now rise as one against the United States?
These are real questions, by the way. I’m trying, but Middle Eastern politics still befuddle me.
It’s my understanding, from reading articles on the incident, that the channel that was used is, in the Gulf, pretty much treated like a CB channel…conversations back and forth, pranks, even music broadcast at night.
I want to know what the boxes are about:
[QUOTE=jayjay]
It’s my understanding, from reading articles on the incident, that the channel that was used is, in the Gulf, pretty much treated like a CB channel…conversations back and forth, pranks, even music broadcast at night.
[/QUOTE]
Right. As my link notes, none of this is the purpose of the channel, but it is used that way by untraceable trolls. It seems to be common knowledge, but I can’t blame US officers for not necessarily considering this possibility in the heat of the incident.
I wonder if Bush would still be so upset if the transmission had said :all your ships are belong to us." Probably.
Gulf of Tonkin Incidentm ?
I read the New York Times story and thought the confrontation was overhyped. I was master helmsman when our ship traveled through the straights and there were lots of small boats around, some of them approaching us. I was also part of operation Millennium Challenge, but I’m not sure why anyone is surprised that lots of small boats can overtake much larger ships. Ships are mostly armed with .50 caliber machine guns (the autonomous CIWS mounts are designed for aircraft) and it is extremely hard to hit another vessel what with the yaw, pitch and roll of both crafts. The smaller the vessel, the harder the shot, even if they are within 100 yards.
I am almost inclined to believe that this purported audio clip is fabricated…
Are you kidding me??
[QUOTE=alterego]
I am almost inclined to believe that this purported audio clip is fabricated…Are you kidding me??
[/QUOTE]
As mentioned in the link Voyager posted in Post 28, it quite possibly IS “fabricated”, or rather was inserted into the channel, by a third party with a questionable sense of humor. The radio version of trolls.
That our leaders thought this made some REAL story… is disappointing. My gut was saying something was off on this early…
And y’know? Still think Bush et. al. want a reason to do more with Iran than they’ve been able to so far. They’re looking for stuff.
[QUOTE=Anomalous Reading]
That our leaders thought this made some REAL story… is disappointing.
[/quote]
Our leaders? Not the news agencies?
[QUOTE=Anomalous Reading]
And y’know? Still think Bush et. al. want a reason to do more with Iran than they’ve been able to so far. They’re looking for stuff.
[/QUOTE]
With all the claims that this incident was in whole or in part cooked up, you’d think that the Bush administration could have cooked up an actual attack, no?
In any case, I’m not sure what pieces like Greenwald’s attempt to do. As of two entire days before his piece went online, we were already being told by military sources that there was no confirmation that the transmission came from Iranian ships. In fact, the only thing Greenwald seemed to be able to pin on anybody was some sloppy reporting from WaPo which provided an unsourced claim that the transmission had been Iranian in nature. We’re also given a bunch of strange nonsense, like claims that the accent couldn’t have possibly been Persian (it sure as heck could, I grew up with plenty of Iranian kids who had very similar accents,although the voice on the tape was obviously hamming it up).
This story has no legs, there’s been nothing new on it, despite dressing it up and posing it interesting new ways. US military sources said some things couldn’t be confirmed, they still can’t. They said that the Iranians maneuvered aggressively and too close to their ships, even the Iranian edited tape excludes that part from the video. Etc, etc, etc…
It’s still not much of a story, all in all. No war. No missile strikes. No sanctions.
Meh?
Prankster called “Filipino Monkey” may Have Been Behind Radio Threats
this according to http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/005061.php
[QUOTE=silenus]
Can you say Gulf of Tonkin?
I knew you could.
[/QUOTE]
Other than the fact that both incidents occured in a Gulf, I’m not sure what one has to do with the other.
I would not be surprised. I thought the voice at the end of the tape different from the previous voices and kind of like someone playing a joke.