Iran IRGC Ships confront US Navy
That the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps coast guard would play chicken with the US Navy is not that surprising. Enemies at sea often taunt one another, and I think there were similar feints by Soviet subs in the old days. (A kind reader pointed out that it even happened more recently with China.)
What is harder to understand is the Iranian government explanation, which was that the IRGC did not recognize the US naval ships as such. That isn't plausible, and besides, what other naval ships would the IRGC have a problem with?
It is the kind of explanation you would give when your nerdy crazy second cousin threatened to beat up a guest twice his size at your cocktail party. I.e., I don't think the incident was ordered from Tehran, but was some gung-ho local IRGC commander who'd been at sea way too long. I presume they thought the US was in Iranian waters (and the Iranians claim more offshore territory than the standard in international law).
Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei recently said that while it wasn't desirable right at the moment, Iranian diplomatic relations with the US in the future were not out of the question. So if anything the top leadership has been trying to ratchet down the tensions.
Here are the most recent entries from the Iranian press culled by the USG Open Source Center on the IRGC naval forces:
' IRGC Navy Conducts Final Stages of Persian Gulf Exercises (19 December) - The second and third stages of the Iranian Navy exercise "Courage 86" was carried out over an area of 7,000 nautical miles in the Persian Gulf. An IRGC naval commander, Brig. Gen. Ali Razmjoo, said that the second exercise included pre-emptive defensive and psychological operations, mine-laying operations, night-time tracking of vessels, and deploying frogmen from helicopters into the sea. The third stage included chemical defense, shooting targets at sea, intercepting vessels, and capturing hypothetical targets. Razmjoo said several hundred vessels, missile launchers, destroyers, and mine layers have been involved in a series of IRGC naval exercises in an area between northern Bushehr Province and Asalouyeh over a four-day period (IRNA).
Iran Kicks Off War Games in 7,000-Mile Persian Gulf Area (18 December) - Designed to ensure it can protect the nation's territorial waters, islands, and coastlines, as well as neighboring countries, from foreign threats, Iran began four days of war games in the Persian Gulf on 18 December. According to Press TV, the war games will be held in three stages in an area that encompasses northern parts of Iran's coastal province of Bushehr and the southern region of Aslouyeh. The war games will cover 7,000 square miles and employ hundreds of vessels and divers (Fars News Agency). '
The US says it won't protest the incident, which means that they concur it wasn't an intentional provocation from Tehran.
posted by Juan Cole @ 1/07/2008 12:22:00 PM
13 Comments:
Hmmm..., and there haven't been any intentional provocations on the part of the USG, or covert acts of war--incursions into Iranian territory or support for terrorists--over the past several years? Perhaps the IRG doesn't "recognize" the US Navy as "legitimate" and instead classifies it as a terrorist organization.
"That isn't plausible, and besides, what other naval ships would the IRGC have a problem with?"
Zodiacs full of U.S. Marines & CIA-SOG ops?
Well yeah, the U.S. won't protest, but the corporate media are turning this into Pearl Harbor, and you can bet the Republican presidential candidates will do the same.
Stan Goff, the 'Feral Scholar' & ex-Special Forces op had something to say on this.
Then, I want to fully ...illuminate... the last point he makes.
Gulf of Tonkin… er, Hormuz
7th January 2008, 01:57 pm by Stan
December 26
Before the NIE estimate the U.S. mainstream/corporate media was all out bent on war, uncritically accepting even torpid variations of the demonization campaign, such as “Iranian weapons” killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq. I could bet a case of sublime Bordeaux that post-NIE, the U.S. corporate media will accept any other excuse the neocons may come up with to once again demonize Iran. Because the ultimate goal has nothing to do with the nuclear issue: it’s about regime change. The neocons are so desperate that they would go for a false flag operation, or a Gulf of Tonkin gambit, to get their war. Corporate media also loves wars. The 1991 (Persian) Gulf War made CNN. FULL
January 7
The unemployment report on Friday was brutally bad. Unemployment rose in December, while job creation was minimal - and it’s highly likely, for technical reasons, that the job number will be revised down, showing an actual decline in employment. It’s the latest piece of bad news about an economy in which the employment situation has actually been deteriorating for the past year. It’s no longer possible to hope that the effects of the housing slump will remain “contained,” as one of 2007’s buzzwords had it. The levees have been breached, and the repercussions of the housing crisis are spreading across the economy as a whole… they’ve already made their standard pivot when things turn bad - the pivot from hype to fear.
And in case you haven’t noticed, they’re very, very good at the fear thing. FULL
Well, surprise surprise then… In Full @ Feral Scholar
The fear thing... It's what keeps us backing the war criminals on both sides of the terrorist equation.
They have the same underlying philosophy, methods, and goals.
To wit, "The Power Of Nightmares":
The Power of Nightmares was first broadcast on BBC Two in three hour-long parts on consecutive Wednesday evenings in the autumn of 2004. The series was rebroadcast in late January 2005 on three consecutive nights, with the final part updated to reflect the Law Lords ruling from the previous December that detaining foreign terrorist suspects without trial is illegal
This film explores the origins in the 1940s and 50s of Islamic Fundamentalism in the Middle East, and Neoconservatism in America, parallels between these movements, and their effect on the world today.
From the introduction to Part 1:
"Both [the Islamists and Neoconservatives] were idealists who were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world. And both had a very similar explanation for what caused that failure.
These two groups have changed the world, but not in the way that either intended. Together, they created today's nightmare vision of a secret, organized evil that threatens the world. A fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age.
And those with the darkest fears became the most powerful.
Part 1 - Baby it's Cold Outside | 64kbps | 256 kbps | mpeg2
Part 2 - The Phantom Victory | 64kbps | 256 kbps | mpeg2
Part 3 - The Shadows in the Cave | 64kbps | 256 kbps | mpeg2
An NTSC DVD ISO is available to make burning this to DVD easier.
This item is part of the collection: Feature Films
Producer: Adam Curtis
Production Company: BBC
Audio/Visual: sound, color
Keywords: Adam Curtis
Go to Internet Archive for streaming video and more
One possible explaination is that this is a response by the Revolutionary Guard to Khamenei's statement that normal relations with America is possible; they will be the losers if this happens as it will reduce their power.
When their is a threat of war the Revolutionary Guard benefits; there is recent talk of increasing the defense budget in Iran.
On the other hand this incident could be something being blown out of proportion as it lays the groundworkd for Bush's trip; it helps get the Arab's worked up about those dangerous (Shiite) Iranians.
Whatever happens let's hope these BLANK'ers don't end up causing WWIII.
The announcement may have been by the Pentagon but the verbage was pro-war Neocon. And just before the New Hampshire primary too. If this had been the much more dangerous China or Russia rather than Iran, the verbage would have been a neutral "close call" or "bluff" (or "test" if the US Navy had done it). As the recent British hostage adventure there showed, the international boundary isn't exactly clear, and the Pentagon can be expected to admit error only after 2080. What is the US Navy doing there anyway, other than taunting Iran? Iran threaten the US Navy camped on its doorstep? Please. Or is it Thank You?
Hitherto, the news reports have consistently reported a "professional, courteous" interaction between USN and Iranian naval forces, though less so for IRGC naval forces.
This was probably one of the less courteous but quite usual interactions, which is being played up in some quarters for political gain.
Incidentally this was the same area where the US nuclear submarine Newport News collided with a Japanese tanker last year ... not reported much in the US press of course.
Might we not have the rejectionists (perhaps of both sides) seeking to undermine a potential warming of relations between the US and Iran? The IRG apparently recently took over naval operations in the Hormuz Strait. Perhaps to incite something to forestall more realistic forces in Tehren from pursuing relations with the US?
The Neo Con dream is for the Iranians to take a shot at the US Navy some where in the Gulf.
Is the US Navy acting to maintain freedom of transit or baiting?
At this point established power candidates Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Rudy Guliani all think they benefit from trouble in the Gulf.
One of the main problems is that is no agreed maritime borders in the Northern Gulf, either between Iran and Iraq or between Iraq and Kuwait. So 12 nautical miles close to what we see as the the Iran waters could actually be perceived as Iran property by that country itself.
This article talk about it in more depth.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_article_id=445896&in_page_id=1787&in_a_source
The media who are providing maps with clearly defined borders are ignorant at best. The bottom line remains that Iran has one idea of it's borders and the US Navy might have another. IF we had sincere leaders, they'd be having our diplomats work with Iran and come to an understanding about the borders.
Emphasis on "IF."
"The US says it won't protest the incident, which means that they concur it wasn't an intentional provocation from Tehran."
if the US doesn't consider it provocation, why today is the admin using the story to cite Iran as "threat to world peace?" (yeah, and, remind me again which of the two has invaded and bombed and slaughtered more than one sovereign country in the last 6 years?? hm...) the WH has called the incident a "provocative act," warning then of "dire consequences" if it happens again.
and given that such "games" are common and not usually considered precurser's to WWIII, is this the admin propping up this incident in an attempt to rally support for a possible inmpening ruckus?
further, i'd read a while ago following sy hersch's story regarding the US's intention on war with iran, which had supposedly already happened via proxy, that the US naval mobilization in the gulf wqas actually considered an act of war itself?
What is wrong with you people? The US Navy sails all over the world as a tool to protect our interests, those of our allies and many cases, the entire world. The US Navy patrols the Persian Gulf to ensure critical trade routes are secure (you don't hear to much about the virtually non-existent navies of the Gulf states...but you do hear a good deal about little Iranian speed-boats perfectly suited for high-seas piracy of slow moving cargo ships and tankers--put 2 and 2 together and work it out) So many of you talk of what you read and then spew mindless rhetorical drivel you heard by your favorite US political extremist group...touting it as indisputable unbiased fact, while I would wager that none of you have any first hand knowledge of what you are talking about. Stop being sheep. I've lived in Iraq for over three years...all since the invasion and have seen virtually every globally significant thing you all like to talk about--and quite a few you haven't talked about.
Neocons...although I don't care to be friends with many, not every muslim is a terrorist (though many in the US would be). Further, Liberals are not trying to destroy our nation, they just have different ideas about how to protect our interests and freedoms. So, please, for the love of God, stop assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with you hates America.
Liberals...believe it or not, there is no "vast right-wing conspiracy" and not every terrorist in the world is merely "misguided", some of them are just flat out evil and they want us all dead and our wives and children enslaved, regardless of our position on the "Palestinian" issue... so you may as well let it go, they are not interested in talking about it.
The reality is, we have done nothing to deserve their anger or hatred...it is the price you pay for being the strongest, most generous nation on the planet (the proof of both are easily obtainable from the internet). Unless you agree with their program (essentially convert, be monetarily or literally enslaved, or die), they have no time to dialogue. They will tell you this to your face. Anyone who tells you differently (like CAIR), is selling something.
Another point of reality...the Iranians are most certainly providing Shiite militias in Iraq with weapons and training which they use to kill US soldiers (our countrymen) every day. The flyers from the IRGC can be found all over Sadr City, Basra and most any other area with a large Shia population. Coalition Forces regularly come across weapons made in or sold to Iran...it is to the point they aren't even really trying to hide it anymore...only deny it. The Iranian support to Shia militia death squads in Baghdad during the sectarian horrors was common knowledge on the streets and some militia members even brag about being backed by Iran (their Shia brothers). The maritime borders of Iran are in dispute (and have been for a long time), but only where those borders meet Iraq...NOT on the south. Iran has a long history of claiming more turf than they deserve...not unlike Lybia.
The invasion of Iraq, geographically and militarily, was checkmate for virtually every muslim nation in the world (so if WWIII does kick off, they are screwed) and they are well aware of this (look at a map, think like the armchair general you are and work it out in your head).
Additionally, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a more of a move against Saudi Arabia (wahabis, like Usama bin Laden) than Iraq (a society that recognizes good scotch and I love them for it). Iraq has the largest oil reserves in the middle east second to Saudi Arabia (some estimates put these reserves exceeding those of Saudi Arabia, as Iraqi reserves are largely untapped, comparatively)...Saudi Arabia essentially refused to crack down on Al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia after both the WTC bombing in 1993 and the 9/11 attacks. By deposing Saddam and basically threatening to put US money and technology with Iraqi oil (thus breaking their domination on the middle eastern oil market), we merely gave them a nudge...in May 2003 (right after the invasion), Saudi Arabian security services began their first real counterterrorism campaign in the country and it is continuing (I guess the nudge worked to some degree). Al Qaeda came to Iraq because Saudi Arabia and Al Qaeda stand to lose money if Iraq becomes a major, oil-based economic power (AQ gets a good deal of their funding from the wahabis in Saudi Arabia...who get their money from their veritable oil monopoly). BTW...the single largest nationality found among suicide bombers in Iraq since the beginning of the war is Saudi Arabian. The US government doesn't talk about any of this because it makes the rest of the world economically nervous when the worlds largest oil consumer and the world's largest oil supplier seem to be at odds. Neocons and Liberals alike...Neither of you are completely right, nor are either of you completely wrong. This stuff is not that complicated, but it does require you think for yourselves and just figure it out.
Thank you Slayer.
I share your concerns.
of the invasion of Iraq as grand strategy.
My logic is this.
If Iran can be baited into shooting at the US Navy in the Straight, the Straight would have to be secured.
Putting the 'Blue Team' in position to take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies.
I think of the sentiment kicked around in Neo Con circles in 2002.
"Take Iraq and Iran now and we win the war against China before they build the economic base to become a Super Power".
I pray no one at in the White House thinks like I do,
because every thing I know about global strategy comes from video games where its just pixels and not people.
Jim Byrne
Post a Comment
<< Home