This is new and disturbing. Iran seems to be actively trying to provoke and incident.

“WASHINGTON — The United States issued a stern warning to Iran Monday following an incident near the Strait of Hormuz in which Iranian speedboats veered dangerously close to three U.S. Navy ships and intercepted radio signals said U.S. "ships would explode."
U.S. ships blew whistles, issued radio warnings and took evasive maneuvers to avoid striking the Iranian boats, which motored as close as 200 yards from the American ships by one account. The naval ships armed their weapons, and the five unmarked Iranian boats — believed to belong to the Iran Revolutionary Guard — sped away.”

"At one point during this encounter ... the ships received a radio call that was threatening in nature to the effect that they were closing our ships and that ... the U.S. ships would explode," Cosgriff said, speaking via video camera from Bahrain.
Cosgriff also called the incident "more serious than we have seen" among other encounters with Revolutionary Guard boats.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,320587,00.html

For the debate:

What could be their motivations?

Is Iran trying to garner sympathy in the area by getting their boats shot up by provoking US warships?

What could be their motivations?

Is Iran trying to garner sympathy in the area by getting their boats shot up by provoking US warships?
Maybe they are worried that if the Dems win they might lose their sympathy support because the Dems will not follow Bush's aggressive policies . kind of hard to scream about the Great Satan when we're not throwing our weight around in the ME.
They would benefit by a Republican win in November.

What could be their motivations?

When one considers the amount of naval assets we have sitting near Iran, it is suprising that there aren't more 'incidents'.

Posturing and showboating is normal between belligerent powers and is probably safe to chalk up as a motivation here.

Is Iran trying to garner sympathy in the area by getting their boats shot up by provoking US warships?

I'm not sure what the Iranians would have to gain by getting their boats shot up.

Something tells me that it is not the Iranians who are vying for sympathy here. That said, I don't think this is quite the Gulf of Tonkin sort of situation that some on the right seem to be hoping for.

Is that your best?

What could be their motivations?
Beyond acting like children, maybe they are trying to test the resolve of a president who has troops fighting on either side of them. They are obvious a tough group to convince.

Is Iran trying to garner sympathy in the area by getting their boats shot up by provoking US warships?
Maybe, but it's a silly idea. No one is going to feel sorry for Iran.

The navies of the US and the USSR used to play provocative games with each other for decades - ranging from the occasional belligerent nonsense as described above to continual attempts (successful and not) at strategic probing of defenses.

The current belligerance is mere provocation intended is to elicit a disproportionate response. I don't think its necessary to lay out the potential strategic negative effects of that type of incident.

To legitimately justify a violent response against the Iranians, they would have to move beyond provocation to presenting an actual physical threat to our Naval Forces in the Gulf. Although I do not believe they will cross that line, I also don't think they quite understand the Navy's nervousness about the proximity of small boats since the USS Cole incident.

If you recall, Operation Praying Mantis was launced in retaliation for the Iranians mining the Gulf - which we discovered when the USS Samuel B. Roberts struck a mine and blew a gaping hole in her hull. Three days later, payback. I don't believe they've forgotton that lesson.

They were probably trying to provoke a response...not much other reason to do what they did. I don't think this is a big deal though (unless we responded by attacking, which would have made it a large deal). I know that pilots fly over international airspace 'due regard', which means most anything (short of outright hostile action) goes. I would hazard a guess that it's the same for vessels in international waters.

I was thinking of the Cold war as well. Back in 1988, after the USS Caron was lightly rammed by a Soviet frigate it didn't even fire warning shots (or fire back). "Shouldering" was an accepted tactic (boats could be followed very closely) and I don't think that sea laws have changed since 1988. These were little speedboats. No hostile action. A molehill.

Not by a long shot but hell your fellow republicans are fond of the very same tactic.
After all if American troops start to leave the region and are no longer fodder for the fundie propaganda campaigns, then what do the fundementalists really have to use to gain support.
People might stop paying attention to them.
Depending on the Dem candidate who wins they are about to lose their best recruitment tool ever--Bush.
Gonna be a lot of depressed fundies and defense contractors after Nov.

I have not heard “the right” hope for any such thing – have a source.
What I did hear last night is that now that the new NIE seems to have taken some of the pressure off Iran, Akmadinajad is under increasing pressure. The economy is a mess and inflation is 20%. Thus the Revolutionary Guard may be trying to stoke the tension level at the behest of Akmadinajad thus diverting attention from this mess.

You might want to discontinue the lib talking points at this board, they won't impress anyone, except maybe as to your shallow comprehension of any matter. There are plenty of envirofundamentalists on your side of the political spectrum, so your attempt to insult and marginalize religious people as extremists, fundies and warmongers is intellectually dishonest and quite ridiculous. Most of the biggest wars in the 20th Century were overseen by Democrat administrations, so if you want to talk about loving war and defense contractors, have a conversation within your own household. You're just whistling Dixie --> as usual. BTW, I'm still waiting for your Nancy to cut off funding......maybe you should write her a letter.

pretty good observation. The fundementalists are going to really miss Bush. He has been a great boon to them. Whether or not Iraq was a good policy move for the U.S will be decided by history but it is very easy to see just how polarizing Bush has been in the world. For Osama and iran he has been a rallying point for them and a way to garner support and sympathy. remove any imminent threat of a US attack on Iran and suddenly people in the world have a chance to step back and reassess the situation. The move with the boats just looks stupid. no one is going to have any sympathy for someone who provokes an obviously DANGEROUS opponent. Its like walking into a pit of Mastiffs with chicken blood on your throat.

You have just earned your Darwin award.

Suddenly the focus is going to be on other aspects of life in Iran, like where is my paycheck and what can I even still afford to buy with it. The everyday people of Iran will do as any other person would, start asking tough questions that will embarass the responsible parties. I'monnaJihad and people like Hugo Chavez are about to see there popularity take a nose dive without the specter of Bush to use a boogeyman for those who are anti American.

The best thing IMO is make very very clear that the safety of our troops will not be compromised and they are always greenlighted to respond to events they deem an attack(there is an actual security term for this but I cannot think of it right now) then just "ignore" Iran. Remove them from the news that comes out of the whitehouse. I'monnaJihad will probably prove spectacularly what a punt he is. On the same note why has the whitehouse not started a very loud and constant campaign where they point out consistently that the greatest threat to muslims has been from the terrorists themselves with their car bombs? i would constantly refer to them as murders to build up a buzz and enter it into the mindstream of the ME.

Right, but I wonder at what point these actions will elicit a response?

What if the captain of the US Naval ships decided to take further action?

If I were the President, or even the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I'd have a letter immediately out to Iran warning that if there are more hostile actions that endanger the lives of US Sailors that action will have to be taken.

No one wants war on another front... but hell, it might get us out of Iraq! HA!

I rather think a response is what they're looking for. This has drummed up too much attention as it is, IMO.


I don't think he would be justified in taking further action in this instance. What happened? Some small boats got in their way. They exchanged a nasty radio call.



Not me. If I were president this incident wouldn't have made it to the press. Let 'em believe we couldn't care less.

Edited to add: Uh, huh. Here it is. Now they're using the special attention this incident has generated to raise a stink:

Of course this was set-up, cameraman and all (I guess little rafts with rolling cameras (complete with radio narration) are rolling around the Gulf everywhere....). They screw with us, we get angry, and they use it to say we're over-reacting and inciting aggression. I wish we were just a tad less predictable.

I'm not sure whether Bush is the boogeyman, so much as the establishment of America as a whole. The great Satan, remains the great Satan, no matter who resides in the Ninth Circle of its frozen hell, right? (Please excuse the Divina Commedia reference.) What incites jihad isn't really any individual president, but (IMO) nations that religious radicals find irreconcilable with their own. If the Iranian government has managed to keep its people cowed for this long, I don't think that their political stranglehold will be broken by a meager presidential election.

Just like China--we thought that capitalism would convert the last remaining "Red State" (in the communist sense ) , but we underestimated the strength of the tyrannical people's party. Don't make the mistake of thinking that "optimism and hard questioning brings revolution."

First off, capitalism DOES make for a much larger middle class, but if the citizens want to live under tyranny- than they get what they wish for-


possibly the truest "benevolent tyranny " in the world is singapore- total free market economy, but social conservatism run into the extreme, with harsh punishments for just about any violation of any of the very petty "bad manner" statutes they have on the books- spitting on the sidewalk is a very serious offense -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore

There are no jury trials. Laws restricting the freedom of speech are justified by claims that they are intended to prohibit speech that may breed ill will or cause disharmony within Singapore's multiracial, multi-religious society. For example, in September 2005, three bloggers were convicted of sedition for posting racist remarks targeting minorities.[23] Some offences can lead to heavy fines or caning and there are laws which allow capital punishment in Singapore for first-degree murder and drug trafficking. Amnesty International has criticised Singapore for having "possibly the highest execution rate in the world" per capita.[24] The Singapore government argues that there is no international consensus on the appropriateness of the death penalty and that Singapore has the sovereign right to determine its own judicial system and impose capital punishment for the most serious crimes.[25

So economic system rarely= freedom or no freedom- it is the goverment the majority of poeple are willing to accept-

Iranians have a freely elected goverment, as free as our own. they have a religious counsel who gets to determine who is on the ballot, and act as "kingmaker" and we have the main stream media declaring "front runners" and not allowing equal time to the poeple the MSM hasn't declared "front runners"

There is very little difference between national level politicians in Iran or US.

What bothers me about this incident is just as Mrs P said- we are so freaking stupidly predictable. FINALLY - the bushbots have another "gulf of Tonkin" moment. Congradulations poeple, you have been hoodwinked and you know it, but won't admit it.

Seriously- how do you go about believing what either side say in this incident- it is a "made for propaganda uses and aired on Faux TV, Al-Jazeera -"live" moment.

Both countries will have weak people believing every word that thier media tells them.

I agree. Iran had hatred and worked against us for decades and it will not change as we go forward. Iran is far more a threat to the “region” than he is to the US yet we cannot ignore this region since we are so damn dependant on the oil.

I just hope that some of the economic sanctions on Iran can be held up for long enough to get the people there real mad at their nutty leaders and to do something about it.

The sooner we drastically diminish out dependence on foreign oil the better.

And I agree with you on China and see Russia as heading down the same road back to totalitarian rule.

Okay I'll bite..



The premise of a PR trap only holds if you can prove the uniqueness of the incident. If the radio communications is standard procedure than the attention grab shifts from of Iranian to American manufacture because to the Iranians this was a routine occurence. Sure we had some speedboats jumping through the water but the shots were really cut up from the American feed weakening the idea of aggressive manuevering.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that if we were within an inch of firing the captain of this collosal ship would warn the vessel they would be fired upon? I'm not the only one who noticed this small but significant little detail!

The part to be debate and unfortunately missed by the authour of this thread is "how authentic was the I'm going to blow you up" line which which was quite humourous to listen to considering there was no background noise or no Iranian accent.

But the humour doesn't stop there, pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman replies to the Iranian denials saying, "allegation [of fabrication]is absurd, factually incorrect and reflects the lack of seriousness with which they take this serious incident." Whitman's statement had me rolling on the floor when it was they who were responsible for mixing the pre-recorded footage in the first place! Lordy I haven't laughed like that in years.

Thankfully some semblance of order takes root forcing the pentagon to tacitly admit the feeds could have come from a secondary location.





It bears noting UHF channel 16 is used in a rather impromptu less than professional way in the Gulf.




Whoever put together that feed had to seriously question why that infamous line sounded so out of place. The individual would have had to consider the above before giving it to the press. Whoever gave the order to release that distorted voice displayed some pretty questionable judgement.

Ahh Ted... this one was fun

Well, he did have an accent. He sounded exactly like Arnold Swarzenager.



I agree with the above. But I think my conclusions are probably different than yours. Seems to me someone was trying to instigate an incident, and they were feeding the radio calls that this ship was receiving while the Republican guard came in close proximity. And I don't think it was the Pentagon.

This whole incident is looking more and more like a deliberate distortion to promote the Neocons and Bush's propaganda effort against Iran.
The so called threatening message may not have been broadcast at the time of the incident, it was on an open channel used for all kinds or slanderous communication, no background noise from a speedboat is audible, the boat that came closest to the US vessels was unarmed and the others lightly armed, one of the Iranians on it hailed one of the ships, unlike mines the white boxes dropped floated, and the video shows no attempt to run up to the American ships. The commander of the 5th fleet attempted to play it down but in Rovian style the distorted story now has its own legs.

(See Gareth Porter Article).

They are not sure where the “blow you up” signal came from but it did happen at the time right after the warning was issued – so if the boats had shore radio support the difference is moot.


And this is not the first time the boats have come at US ships. See below – warning shots have been fired.

As for the “boxes” dropped in the water – any explanation for that TedN5? Just having some fun were they? Ya I know it is a neocon plat orchestrated by the “vast right wing conspiracy” - sure.

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) — The U.S. Navy said Friday that one of its ships fired warning shots at a small Iranian boat in the Strait of Hormuz in December during one of two serious encounters that month.
The USS Whidbey Island fired the warning shots on Dec. 19 in response to a small Iranian boat that was rapidly approaching it, said a U.S. Navy official.
"One small (Iranian) craft was coming toward it, and it stopped after the Whidbey Island fired warning shots," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
It was the first official confirmation that the United States had fired warning shots in any recent confrontation with Iran in the Gulf.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hiAbsRG...YZd09QD8U3TFRG0

So very true. The fact of the matter is that no one is entirely sure what it is that has sparked the Not-So-Contra Affair. I hear news outlets reporting that it was an over zealous officer rattling his saber, but that would be like the Coast Guard threatening to sink an air craft carrier from their patrol boats. If you haven't been on a Coast Guard patrol boat, sometimes the most wicked weapon on board is either a.) a pistol or [more likely] b.) a good sense of humor.

Now, I'm not saying our friends in Iran responsible for this incident had a wild night back at the base and decided to provoke the American Infidel [it's not like anything like that's never happened before to our ally Israel via the Iranians now is it?], but I think our friends in Iran just had a wild night back at the base and decided to provoke the American Infidel.

If this were Iran trying to get under our skin, wouldn't they send a legitimate warship, or at least, a bona fide Armed Services individual to make the threat? Someone who Condi and George Bush would know by name? I'm not so certain "unnamed Iranian solider in speed-boat" sounds as legitimate a threat as Admiral Mahmod Ali Arafat or what have you.

It has become very clear that it was US personnel operating with authority from at least as high as the Secretary of Defense that hyped this routine event into a major incident. (See Pentagon Planted a False Story).

Ted, I really have to question your source. They are a self-declared "anti-imperialism" and a "non-interventionist" website devoted to writing literature and news stories, trumping them up as gospel and then hoping people bite like fish onto the "wisdom" present in their message. This entire site when you poke around is full of criticism, conspiracy theories and farfetched sentiments.

Listed on their "Who We Are" page are a bunch of researchers and advisors, but mum is the condition on which they were educated, what areas of experitise are present, the affiliation of these workers, etc. At a glance, it looks like none of them are experts on foreign policy and this same writer may have been doing a story on a Bolivian uprising an hour earlier.

There are documented cases of low-ranking Iranian soldiers or naval officers heckling United States and international ships they feel are too close to Iran. Why would this one case be a hoax? Bush has already apologized for being mistaken on the whole nuclear program ambitions, so this won't be pushing us into the war your source fears. With the body of evidence in favor of the Pentagon, it's hard to imagine why they would fake this story now.

The speed boat can be a “warship” (ot as deadly as one) as we learned from an even smaller boat that damaged the USS Cole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing

The boats are fast and maneuverable and if they get to close, after being warned off, they should be shot out of the water. The alternative is to risk sailors lives and the potential sinking of a US warship.

And just what was the throwing of white boxes in the water all about? Has Iran clarified this?

I don't know. Buoys? They were floating, so that rules out mines.

If the Iranian Republican Guard decided to attack our ships via swarming suicide bombing tactics, it would be pretty obvious to everyone, wouldn't it? Iran is as likely to send in suicide-bombing small boats on a raid to attack our ships as they are to send in kamikaze planes. Should our ships fire on planes they perceive as too low also, just in case?

I most certainly agree the capacity exists for armed combatants to use a smaller means from which to launch an assault, as you have proven. However, it seems suspect that radio communication was initiated and that the distance was so-so and every report I have read of the situation suggests a lack of danger in the sense that the Navy did not shoot to sink in this case.

And taking into account Iran's fractured Armed Services situation, it is not within fantasy's reach to suggest that those responsible were not acting on orders of any higher authority.

With ships that can cost billions carrying hundreds or thousands of men you simply don’t ask the questions you pose – you keep them away. They could have attacked al la the Cole and later said they were not “Iranian”. Our men would be just as dead.



You can be sure the Navy has ROE that include what actions are taken and at what distances. The speed boats apparently were smart enough to veer away rather than take it to the next level, in the most recent encounter.

Now why can we give our own men the benefit of the doubt and not apply the same goodwill to the Iranians? I know that sounds farfetched and many Americans believe we have no reason to trust Iran, but why not? Thirty years ago the American attitude toward Iran was very secular in that we only disliked the Islamic leadership. But now since the War on Terror, we cannot separate the secular from the religious and it's causing unnecessary friction. The Armed Forces of Iran are very fractured, ask almost any international affairs expert with a concentration in the Middle East.

If I may derail for a moment, Ted, I would like to point out many conservative bloggers and radio spinsters have used this to bolster Bush's suspiscion of the Iranian government. While there are similiar incidents, there has been no proof that any of them have come from the government and there is even less evidence to suggest the offendor's immediate superior officer was involved in the sense of operations of the uniformed Armed Forces.

Well, yes actually you do ask those questions. In international waters, as far as I know (unless you can offer some credible counter evidence of this and so far I haven't heard any), those little boats have as much of a right to zoom around as our large multi-billion dollar ships do. This isn't a warzone, it's international water and I don't think there's anything in the rulebook regarding issues of 'personal space' in the sea, short of hostile action. For that matter, an Iranian submarine could launch a torpedo at our ships! What are we going to do? Eliminate all of those within striking distance, too? They aren't that stupid, and we don't need to provide any fuel by doing something stupid either. What do you think they're hoping for?

What could be their motivations?

I'd like to pose an interesting theory. What if Iran's only motivation in all this is to make sure that people are still aware that it exists? Like any celebutante, it controls the world stage only so long as it has a good and proper antagonist waiting in the wings--I.E. us.

I mean, hey. If the US wasn't mucking about around in their affairs with all the subtlety of a blunderbuss, who would remember Iran? Like Iraq, Kazakhstan , and Afghanistan, it would be just another one of those funny countries with unpronounceable names and funny-looking turban-headed men. Iran isn't petulantly looking for attention, it's desperate.

Is Iran trying to garner sympathy in the area by getting their boats shot up by provoking US warships?

"We are going to blow you up" hardly sounds like something that would provoke sympathy. Why try to guess? No matter how much we scrutinize this, I doubt we'll hit a real answer. THe only reliable source that could possibly shed light on this would be Iran itself, and we've already heard their version. Outright denial.

Grain of salt, anyone?

Well, there is a contemporary parallel to be drawn to such behavior, and I would have to say your theory could prove accurate. Kim Jong-Il's North Korea is infamous for similiar stunts to keep eyes on it or keep its name in the press. The venom and rhetoric they give us about Israel without decisive action has been speculated as simply being Iranian's towing the partyline and it not reflecting the overall sentiment inside the government. So it is quite possible the whole tension they seek to create simply a smoke-screen for more benign reasons.

So you are a Libertarian and not an "anti-imperialist" and a "non-interventionist"? You must really reject Ron Paul. He has written numerous article for this site! Antiwar.com is run by Libertarians. They contract for some articles and reproduce others from both Libertarian and left wing sources. It is true that they have consistently opposed the run up to the invasion of Iraq, the mistakes of the occupation, the lies both before and after the invasion and the attempts by the Neocons to provoke a military confrontation with Iran. In short, when compared to the mainstream media they have been much more accurate.

What you should have concentrated on is the article I linked and partially reproduced. It was written by Gareth Porter who usually writes for Inter Press Services. He is a prolific writer and investigative reporter stretching back to Vietnam. It is possible to find errors in his career including his position during the early part of the Pol Pot Regime in Cambodia; however, most of his work has been solid. In any case, what is important here is the accuracy of his account in the article. Just which facts do you find fault with?

Of course Iranian boats inspect (heckle) vessels passing a few miles off their coast in what may not be international waters, at least not for the US. (See this Asian Times Article). After all, one US ship mistakenly shot down an Iranian commercial airline from a location not far from the straits during the Iraq/Iran War. But then past provocation don't count for them, only for us.

There are several plausible scenarios that could motivate this fabrication. Chief among them is the President's continued efforts during his current trip to solicit support (see Asian Times Article above) from Arab regimes to continue to isolate Iran. The incident provided a nice back drop to continue to frighten governments in the region. Also, Cheney and the Neocons may have lost out to the realists and the intelligence community at least temporarily. However, they haven't given up and many of them still are well positioned to create all kinds of mischief.

The President apologized? I must have missed it. Please provide a link.

I may be a Libertarian, but I'm no idiot.

If you wish to engage me on the hypocrtical stance of Ron Paul, my inbox always has room.

And that may be true, but the fact of the matter is that they were in international waters according to satallite imagery. I don't really think this is a Goldeneye situation here.

Being positioned to fabricate does not prove fabrication is taking place. I doubt any civilian has full knowledge of the intelligence community's assets or placements in this era of history. It is absurd to believe American Intelligence or the Military would compromise even more American lives and resources to get this nation engaged in another war. The morale of the citizenry would not tolerate it, as evidenced by Bush's continued decline in opinion polls.

So I choose to place some faith in the establishment for not actively lying to the American people in such trivial matters as Iranian speedboats.

Bush's Quasi-Apology

His exact language is one of admittence that Iran gave up it's nuclear program, but he chooses to keep up the pressure.

Um, you seem to be forgetting (or ignoring, or are just unaware) that the Iranians were mining the Gulf at that time. One of our ships had been recently struck by a mine and we were in active hostilities with Iran. That's why the airliner was mistakenly shot down (due to a number of catastrophic errors from radio failure to faulty equipment on the ship). The ship was in a high state of alert and attack was not only possible, but probable. Furthermore, our naval ships served as escorts for Kuwaiti tankers, at the beheast of the Kuwaiti government...because they were being attacked by Iran during passage.

At present time, we are not encountering active hostilities with Iran, but if they start laying down mines in the Gulf again, well, then my opinion on what to do to those little boats would change.

It is your memory that is selective, not mine. At the time the US had tipped support to Iraq in the war even though Iraq was the aggressor. Iraq, not Iran began the attack on oil facilities and tankers. Iraqi missiles even struck a US ship without retaliation. A US vessel did strike a mine that we chose to identify as Iranian (not Iraqi) and our country retaliated by attacking Iranian ships and an oil platform. The incident had very Little to do with the shooting down of the airliner but is another reason for the historical animosity between the two countries. Incidentally, the USS Vincennes, an Aegis class vessel, was in Iranian waters when it fired the missile. (See this Wikipedia Article for a reasonably objective account of the incident and background to it).



Suit yourself. I believe their track record which is littered with lies and spin. And which establishment spokesman do you believe in this incident - the Pentagon spokesman or the commander of the 5th Fleet who originally played down the seriousness of the event as I pointed out in an earlier post. We also know that they spliced the audio onto the video tape before releasing it. This wasn't an effort to deceive the public?

I also note that you continue to take issue with facts presented in the article.

Which article? The uncredible AntiWar.com piece? You won't catch me giving any credibility to that group ever. That's neither here nor there.

There's nothing wrong with playing down the incident because nothing happened. Nothing is not a basis for aggression or continued hostilities. Nothing cannot be the impetus for invasion.

I work at a film company. I call that the Boredom Principle. Why would I want to watch a video of pretty boats with no audio? Placing the audio was a favor, not a spin.

True. Not sure when you think it was that I denied this. More specifically, we "tipped support" towards Iraq (tipped from neutral, as we never supported post Islamic Revolutionary Iran) after Iran invaded and took the Fao peninsula in February of 1986...which was after Iraq had asked for a ceasefire and the UN had demanded a ceasefire. It looked like the Islamofascist revolution might take over Iraq, so we sided with Iraq at that time (along with nearly every other country in the world). Per your other point, the very first paragraph of your own link: As I said.



Yes, we "chose to identify it as Iranian" because it was Iranian. Wikipedia agrees (see photo and caption). Then, our divers found more mines at the bottom of the gulf and those were identified as Iranian as well. Iran also employed mine-laying ships (plenty of pictures of those on the net for your perusal). Not sure why they'd need those if they weren't laying mines. To deny this, you are denying basic and accepted historical fact. Do you deny the Iranian government at the time showed how devout its martyrs were by unleashing human waves of children across mine-riddled fields (also historical fact)? Or did they do that, but alternately would never, ever, lay a mine against ships in the gulf?

Edited to add:
If Iran were the same today as it was back then, we'd be in some trouble. So, if Iran starts mining the gulf again and attacking oil tankers passing through again things will change. And, no, the transit passage through the Strait of Hormuz isn't Iranian property, it is accepted international water and Iran doesn't have the option to stop boats and inspect them in international water. And it will remain international water by necessity, because a large portion of the economy of the entire globe (not just the US) depends on it. Nor does Iran have the option to threaten boats in international water. Contrary to what your article said, boats are permitted defense...they do not become automatic targets to be picked off at the leisure of the Iranian government. That was an odd article indeed...just a few things I found wrong in the first five minutes of reading (from the list of our supposed ‘violations’):

We didn't threaten anyone. We are permitted self defense, that is an inherent right.


Unless sonar activities are conducted during transit passage, this doesn't apply.


Said helicopter was hovering in international airspace. Neither launched nor landed nor taken on board during passage. Doesn't apply. Furthermore, right next door is Oman, also friendly airspace.

Here’s a beauty:

So now the Iranians have the right to board and inspect ships that are traversing the international passage I’d love to see the legal claim to that one. 'Customary international law' does not permit on-board inspections in international water. Or alternately, if Iran has the 'legal right' to inspect our vessels in international war then we also have the 'legal right' to inspect theirs in international water. And US warships do not stop being warships, nor does anything stated in these articles indicate as much. Yes, I'm sure they are refraining from exercising their technical "legal rights" in this matter. Reticent folk.

Mrs. Pigpen, I don't desire to engage you in a long exchange on the Asian Times article nor the provisions or the UNCLOS. I only cited it to illustrate the lack of serious attention to whether the Iranians behaved within their rights during the incident in question. The relevant passage is as follows:

(Asia Times Article)).

If the US ships were "in transit passage" within Iranian territorial waters and not in international waters, the rights of the Iranians to approach US ships is more clear cut. It is also worthy of note that the US is claiming rights under the UNCLOS without ratifying it and without being bound by its restrictions.



You are incorrect. We tipped toward Iraq early in the Reagan Administration. Your account only pertains to when we involved ourselves militarily.

(See This Wiki Article).

I raised this issue not to be critical of past policies (although I think that ignoring the use of gas by Iraq was despicable) but to try to make people understand why Iran is sensitive to the presences of US forces in the region.

Also, I object to the use of the term "Islamofascist" with respect to revolutionary Iran. The term didn't exist during the Iran/Iraq War (only being invented in the past few years by the Neocons). Iran may have been and may remain characterized in many unsavory ways but Fascist should not be among them.

Under the 1982 LOS Convention, ships of all states have a right of innocent passage through the territorial. Whether they officially 'ratify' the convention or not, it even (at this time, from what I've read) applies to non-signatories by the provisions customary international law. But, warships which do not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal state concerning passage through the territorial sea can be ordered to leave the territorial sea immediately. The rest of the article tries to argue that we broke the rules on that point, but I don't believe that we did. Self defense is/would be permitted under the law. So, yes, the Iranian approach to US ships makes a lot of sense in that context. The Iranians, under the UNCLOS, do not have the right to inspect vessels or forbid their passage to ships which comply with the sea law, but if they can instigate a disproportional response from US warships, they can claim the right to order the ship out, and score some substantial propaganda points.



In 1982, we hadn't even reestablished diplomatic relations with Iraq. We did that at the very end of 1983, in December (when that picture of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand was taken). That picture marked the beginning of restored diplomatic relations. Not sure how strong of a case can be made that we were actively supporting a country we refused to even talk to. We regarded Iraq as essentially a Soviet satellite at that time.



Fair enough. I'll call them an Islamic theocracy, which they were (and still are to a much lesser extent). I'm not sure there's much if any difference between one term or the other.

On your overall point, I do agree that there's a lot of baggage between us and Iran, and nothing that we've done in the past eight years has helped ameliorate that, if anything it's the opposite...we've undone a lot of positive progress. We're certainly no angels or innocent children in this. And if I were Iran, I wouldn't appreciate warships going back and forth (albeit 'peacefully') right next to me, nor would I appreciate US military airplanes in flight patterns right up to my borders. I'll concede you are right there. Point taken.

Navy ROE are to keep unknown or potentially hostile ships, planes and subs away from out ships. The importance of doing this was made clear by the Cole incident. Little ships, big ships – makes no difference. We have the right to warn off the Iranians (or anyone else). They get too close and we fire warning shots and then blow them up.

These boats were known Revolutionary Guard boats know to be potentially unfriendly. What imo they were trying accomplish was to put the focus back onto the US ad the enemy in Iran and away from the economic disasters caused by the current president.

Thus I would use caution, as out ships did, before firing at or sinking the little boats. That said I would not risk American lives.



Well than this is even worse because if they are rouge elements that Iran can claim were not under government control and one of them blows a hole in a ship and kills Americans who do we blame?

As far as the nonsense about Bush hyping this – if this were so we would have heard a lot more about the incident where we had to fire warning shots wouldn’t we? I think the opposite is true. Bush has a plate full and doen not need or want armed conflict with Iran, That said it IS clear they are a dangerous, regime with intensions to have nukes who supports terrorists groups and at some point may have nuclear weapons.

I'd really like to see your source for this. You sound very confident, but have not yet provided a source for this claim. I simply find it doubtful that our ROE permit the Navy to blow boats out of the water if they get "close". Please cite that one for me. The Cole was bombed while in a harbor, incidentally, not while traversing international water/transit passage/rough equivalent.

Edited to add: In fact, we use the technique of "shouldering" too. Link

It sure sounds like they let 'em get pretty darned close.

This is at least the third time in six months that Iranian boats have harassed U.S. ships in international waters, Orr reports.

CBS News has learned from Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman that the three ships - the guided missile cruiser USS Port Royal, the guided-missile destroyer USS Hopper and the guided missile frigate USS Ingraham - were transiting the Strait of Hormuz into the Persian Gulf when they were approached by 5 Iranian fast boats, some of which were assessed to be visibly armed.

The five small boats began charging the U.S. ships, dropping box-like objects in the water in front of one of the ships and forcing the U.S. ships to take evasive maneuvers, said Cosgriff, commander of the 5th Fleet and of naval forces in the U.S. Central Command region.

The Iranian boats came to less than 500 yards from the U.S. formation and at one point broke into two groups, one group going to one side and the other to the others side of the Americans. Officials said there were no injuries.

The ROE are obviously, as with the Army, classified. In fact the purpose of the manuvers by the boats may have been to learn what are ROE are so that they can be exploited by Iran or their terrorist buddies:

"Without specific reference to this incident in the Strait of Hormuz, the United States will confront Iranian behavior where it seeks to do harm either to us or to our friends and allies in the region," McCormack told reporters. "There is wide support for that within the region and certainly that's not going to change."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/07/...in3681683.shtml

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/intro.htm

How does anything in your above post support your conclusions on the ROE? There is nothing in either of your links that support your statement that our navy is free to 'blow out of the water' boats that "come too close" because they "don't know their intentions". Frankly, I find that statement very irresponsible towards the side you are ostensibly "supporting". Your contention, makes our navy sound like a bunch of cowboys set on taking over the seas by unjustified levels of force. And (again) if you are going to make such claims you really need to provide evidence.

The Navy can certainly act if they are genuinely under threat. Placing this into perspective, over 200 attacks were made on shipping in the Persian Gulf during 1987, 1988, and 1989. The ROE of that time were, therefore, different than now. What recent attacks has Iran made that would indicate they would do a 'USS Cole' style of attack on our ships? None. The principle of proportional response applies. You can't draw some attack that happened in a harbor in Sudan eight years ago, and claim that the US now has the right to blow anyone out of the water, anywhere in the world, that looks at them sideways.



Yes, I'm quite sure that the Iranian Republican guard was testing our ROE. They can, just as we test their defenses I'm sure. Doesn't mean we should 'blow them out of the water' simply for screwing with us, unless they are engaging in a hostile action. I suggest you review my link on 'shouldering' above, again.

Certainly “little boats” can be deadly as the Cole disaster proved and you can bet that the ROE has something to say about the distance a small boat is allowed to come before they are fired upon.

As for “What recent attacks has Iran made that would indicate they would do a 'USS Cole' style of attack on our ships” - WHO CARES. Do you really think that the captain of a billion dollar ship is going to be thinking in those terms as a craft approaches? Of course not.

He is going to signal, avoid, warn verbally and then warn with a gun (warning shot) and finally fire. What the criteria for that series of events is classified and that is all I am saying. But if you think ANY speed boat or other craft is going to drive right up to one of our ships I thing you are incorrect.


“Hostile action” can include ignoring repeated warnings to stay away can it not?

Do you know what the ROE are (other than the simple words of the acronym)? From what you say in the last paragraph above, it doesn't seem so. The ROE place limitations for action upon commanders. They are based on the Laws of Armed Conflict, and are determined by necessity and proportionality. Politics, legalities, operational considerations all come into play there. Recent history of hostilities matters a hell of a lot to that concept. If there is no history of hostilities, it's hard to make a case for blowing someone out of the water because they came too close, particularly when our own policy permits us to get right up within spitting distance to other vessels and force them to turn. The political consequences of an unnecessary and disproportional response would be dire....more costly than the price of that ship.



Well, from what I posted above about shouldering I am correct.

I never said you were wrong. All I am saying is that we can be sure that no Iranian or any other “boat” is going to be allowed to drive up to an American warship.

Some suspect that the purpose of the little game played by theses fools was to determine the limits and pass the info to others who could then use it to damage or sink an American ship.

Needless to say there is no foolproof way to verify whose “boat” is approaching – so I maintain that any Capitan that does not fire at some point is in dereliction of his duty to protect his ship and men. And that means that at some point he will order that the boat be “blown out of the water”.