US Video of Iran Speedboats Doctored;
Iranians Charge Fabrication
The Bush administration's assertion that 5 small Iranian boats confronted big, well-armed US ships in the Straits of Hormuz and threatened to blow up the American vessels is looking more and more like a serious error if not a Republican Party fabrication.
The episode featured prominently in the Republican presidential debate in South Carolina, according to McClatchy:
"One of the most animated exchanges came when the candidates were asked whether they backed the Navy's cautious response recently when Iranian boats reportedly harassed U.S. vessels in the Persian Gulf.
Huckabee said anyone who challenges the Navy again should be prepared to go to the "gates of hell." Thompson said anyone testing the Navy might soon meet the "virgins" that Islamic terrorists expect to meet in heaven.
Texas Rep. Ron Paul called the bellicose language frightening and reminiscent of the reaction to an alleged naval exchange that led to the Vietnam War. "I would certainly urge a lot more caution than I'm hearing here tonight," Paul said.
Romney cracked that Paul should stop reading Iranian propaganda, drawing what sounded like boos from the audience and a glare from Paul."
So the Republicans are embarrassing themselves again, because there was not any reason to send anyone through the gates of hell. Moreover, Huckabee and Romney are not the ones who would suffer if Bush and Cheney managed to get up a skirmish with Iran. Our troops, kidnapped and held in the midst of a hostile Shiite population in Iraq, would be on the line. Getting them blown up for nothing is the opposite of patriotism.
The video released by the Pentagon (at whose orders?) showed these little tiny vessels only a little bigger than what children play with in bathtubs, with no visible armaments. The video does not show anyone dumping white cartons into the water, as was initially alleged (an action which would probably have drawn fire from the US ships if it had happened, lest they be mines). While even a small vessel could be dangerous if it carried high explosives, there is no evidence that they got close enough to the US vessels to form any sort of threat nor that the Iranian government is so foolish as to openly attack the US Navy.
The Iranians analyzed the Pentagon video released to the US media and found that the audio track was not synchronized properly with the video, pointing to serious tinkering.
And sure enough, we now know that the tape is a fabrication in the sense that the Pentagon says the video and the audio were recorded separately and then combined. And they can't even be sure where the audio came from! The NYT reports,
' The audio includes a statement that says, “I am coming to you,” and adds, “You will explode after a few minutes.” The voice was recorded from the internationally recognized channel for ship-to-ship communications, Navy officials have said. Naval and Pentagon officials have said that the video and audio were recorded separately, then combined. On Wednesday, Pentagon officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak officially, said they were still trying to determine if the transmission came from the speedboats or elsewhere."
Wouldn't it have been better to determine if the transmission came from the Iranian speedboats before super-imposing it on the videotape of the Iranian boats and then issuing it in such a way as to possibly foment a war?
A posting to the NYT "the Lede" blog page observed that the frequency used for ship communications in the Gulf is very busy and has lots of extraneous traffic, including the hurling of racial epithets against Filipinos & etc. The experienced former naval officer said, "My first thought was that the 'explode' comment might not have come from one of the Iranian craft, but some loser monitoring the events at a shore facility."
This episode is just about the most pitiful thing I have seen since Bush came to power, and believe me I've seen plenty.
The Iranian Revolutionary Guards issued their own video and audio of the encounter, which shows a routine identity check (see below).
Hamshahri reports in Persian that Sayyid Mahmoud Jazayeri said that questioning passing ships is a completely routine activity for the Iranian speedboats. Jazayeri accused Washington of attempting to paper over its serious defeats in the Middle East with this gimmick.
The USG Open Source Center translates some of the transcript below.
"Iran TV Says BBC, CNN Complicit in 'Falsity' of US Footage
Vision of the Islamic Republic of Iran Network 1
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Document Type: OSC Translated Text
The navy of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps aired a clip of the Hormuz Strait incident, which proves the falsity of the claims by American officials. In pictures aired today, the Iranian vessel only asks a few questions from the American one. The American vessel responds to the questions by Iran and this is a routine matter in the activities of the patrol units in maritime territory.
(Iranian patrol in English) Coalition warship seven, three. This is Iranian navy patrol boat Tatone - 16. Navy warship, navy warship seven, three. This is Iranian navy patrol boat Tatone - 16. Come in, over.
(US navy officer over radio, in English) This is Coalition Warship seven three. Roger, over.
(IRGC officer, English) Coalition warship seven three. This is Iranian navy patrol boat Tantoma - 16. Over.
(Passage indistinct)
(Presenter) CNN had aired a clip in which the Iranians had surrounded the American vessel threatening that in a few minutes time you will explode. The CNN and BBC networks aired Iranian footage today but without the sound.
The Iranian deputy admiral of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps said that the claims of the American officials on threats against the American warships are totally false, because in the main reel the military number of the Iranian person (on his uniform) speaking is shown quite clearly.
Admiral Fadavi added that the conversation between Iranian vessels and other passing vessels is perfectly normal, which happens over and over again.
(Iranian TV aired parts of the video with Farsi caption on English conversations)
(Description of Source: Tehran Vision of the Islamic Republic of Iran Network 1 in Persian -- state-run television). "
The Iranian press is suspicious about the timing of the Pentagon videotape, noting that it was released just as Bush was heading to the Middle East to try to convince the Arab allies of the US to make common cause with Israel against Iran. The Gulf monarchies in particular are very afraid of the Iranian navy, and the Bush administration video would have been useful for pushing the Kuwaitis, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia into agreeing with the Bush grand strategy of surrounding Iran and then cutting it off.
(See also today's posting at the Global Affairs blog by Farideh Farhi on Iranian concerns about US intervention in Iranian domestic politics.)
posted by Juan Cole @ 1/11/2008 06:30:00 AM
42 Comments:
The American people mostly prefer the "gates of hell" types, which is why Paul is doing so badly.
Give the people what they want, is the Golden advice.
If the American public didn't want the bigoted thugs, the thugs, like Bush, wouldn't get to the top. Uh, but its the media. Well, who is forcing people to watch?
Great big ship cruising round left hand side of Atlantic Ocean sees light blinking ahead.
"We are the US Navy vessel USNS Hamburger. Who are you? Identify yourself."
No reply.
"We are the US Navy vessel USNS Hamburger, with 1500 Marines, umpteen F17s, 18s, 19s and a few Tomahawks aboard. Identify yourself!!"
No reply - the challenge is repeated, several times, until a sleepy voice answers:
'This is a goddam lighthouse in Newfoundland, and we can't move it right now."
Was there any stage-management in this, do you think? You know, was there a hope that, while George Bush was watching the dawn in Jerusalem and then walking in the steps of Jesus (but, regrettably, stopping before being crucified), the US would start WWIII in the Gulf? (WWI began with an incident as "small" as this fabricated stand-off.)
Imagine that on a tv split-screen - Cheney and Rumsfeld would have been having orgasms. Bush looking idiotically heaven-sent on one side, and Iran being "sent to hell" by the US military on the other.
Thinking back to 1964, the incident makes one wonder whether the Iranians are so touchy because the Americans are conducting some kind of covert operations against them. Perhaps landing CIA operatives by boat? I'll bet there are terrorist activities sponsored by us that we don't hear about.
Bathtub Boats
The utterances by the 'Christians' Romney and Huckabee prove once more that they are no more than retread 'Constantinians' bent on pursuing argumentative and aggressive behaviours with regard to perceived foes. Of course, when 'cross-eyed' leaders rely on visions and other supernatural phenomena, there are bound to be some oddities that come into the light of day, reminiscent of the various varieties of 'holy man' attestations to being in communication with the Infinite, learning such esoterica as when the World will end. Just as their signals have been weak and uncertain for some two millennia, we can see once more that there are continuing efforts to perpetuating myths about others, based upon distortions of their own personal mythologies. Of course, the Romney guy, the follower of /Moroni/, has a religious history of being persecuted and chased from one location to another by his predecessors' opponents, perhaps a Huckabee or two. And, when making enemies, the paranoid tend to manufacture all kinds of other conditions that endanger the faithful. Too bad that most of the rest of the Americans don't have the simplistic complex associated with being persecuted, one that finds a bogeyman in every boat.
Should the Iranis decide to eliminate a few warships, they have enough other weapons besides little boats with which to attack. I believe that they have something on the order of Silkworm missiles that are almost invisible to any radar or other electronic detection devices and can lay waste to a ship in a matter of seconds.* Then there's the Yingji-82 or YJ-82, another Chinese developed weapon that superceded the Silkworm.** The notion that Iran would resort to USS Cole-style attacks is ludicrous considering that the value and benefit of surprise is lost when using small watercraft, owing to their slowness and obviousness.
If the Americans were operating in international waters, then anyone else can do whatever they want in the same waters so long as the other ships are not impeded. We have seen in American harbours many times many small watercraft escorting large ships, getting close just to be near enough to get pictures or to be like little dolphins playing among the bigger water creatures. There is always the potential for seeming harrassment and accidents but most often there is the sense of playfulness and the joy of being even a smaller version of the largest vessels. Every yachtsman is a captain in his own right, not forgetting that the English used quite a number of small watercraft when they turned tail and ran from Dunkirk, among other places at other times.***
With a degree of certainty and confindence, the same kinds of 'bathtub boats' are not part of today's naval warfare planning, except by desperate extremists with limited resources. The memories of the Cole perhaps still burn painfully in the minds of the anchor-clankers, bringing them within reach of the master conspiracy theorisers, namely Romney and Huckabee whose thoughts are clouded by visions of 'Hell' and jingoistic claims to what is and is not propaganda.
Provocations and taunts are no reasons to start hostilities, unless - of course - the recipients have spines like yesterday's spaghetti, whose reactions are knee-jerk with thoughtless spontaneity. We recall that the concept of 'strength' was demonstrated by Bruce Lee in 'Enter the Dragon' by merely setting a possible molester adrift in a rowboat. Exaggerating threats and seeking the need to sacrifice others' sons (Romney has five who get to have their underwear quirks go undetected by avoiding military service and communal living with the 'unpure'^), panicked response is a sign of uncentredness and lacking in credible information and derived wisdom. This we have seen all-too-often with the Republicans who have come to favour the Wreligious Wrong wringing their pudgy hands, worrying about the ends of the World, plural in that they have predilections for such predictions, all of which have been wrong. The only way to make them 'right' is to create conditions leading to satisfaction of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
We can only wonder 'Why?' when they don't take the 'Jim Jones Option' and down a pint of 'special' Kool-Aid, forgoing the years and years of inner turmoil and fretting, all the while leaving the rest of us alone to get along with people who should never have been the focus of antipathies. The Iranis would only be third or fourth tier waiting in line with the very grateful living.
* http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iran/Missile/1788_1802.html
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-802
*** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_evacuation
^ http://www.slate.com/id/2161933/
My guess, completely a guess, is that while the goal here (with the Straits of Hormuz/Gulf of Tonkin non-incident) is mostly to boost the political affect of warmongering by Republican candidates, while at the same time taking one more step towards war with Iran, this may also be a convenient way of dislodging Fallon from Centcom. I anticipate the administration demanding a Draconian change in the rules of engagement for the Navy that may be unacceptable to some of the apparently more sober-minded officers, such as Fallon seems to be.
You would think with all their resources and money, the Bush administration would be able to fabricate a video that wasn't so obviously faked at first glance.
It's like they're doing it the basement with dad's computer while waiting for their porn to finish downloading.
My theory is that some rightwing blogger with inside sources got ahold of this video, decided to dub some bad voiceover, and it ended up in Dick Cheney's office. Dick watched it with his hearing aids turned down, liked it and said put it out. So they did.
My other theory is that someone inside the Navy don't-use-us-to-start-your-war-with-Iran faction put it out to embarass the administration.
This is a friggin outrage. If we survive the next 12 months without another catastrophe of 9/11 proportions because of the horse's ass in the WH, I may just take up religion.
Dear Dr. Cole,
You have already compiled enough suspicious details to negate the credibility of anything the US government (and the candidates running for Emperor) might say about this incident in the Gulf. Thank you for your careful, diligent efforts to help prevent a disastrous war with Iran.
Last week, I turned on the TV and heard the announcement about Iran taunting the US Navy. My first thought was, "It's January!" Every January, for years and years, the US Navy would taunt Libya during annual January war games practice by sailing as close as they could while "remaining in International Waters" and thumbing our noses at Quaddify. My real concern is that Cheney and his neo-cons will provoke a war with Iran during one of our taunts before the world has a chance to stop it. Otherwise, I would just laugh it off again as being January.
regardless of who wins it will be the economyand i explained that here
poor mr or mrs next president
and iraq ....the new efforts and focus on surge and money will not work . sunni or latter
Th Pentagon and the White House are continuing to promote this kerfuffle in the Gulf for political reasons (international and domestic). The Navy, after an initial scare story, has dropped it.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 10, 2008 – U.S. defense officials were very disturbed by the actions of Iranian attack boats in the Straits of Hormuz on Jan. 6, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said here today . .The secretary said the Iranians engaged in similar incidents against U.S. ships last year, but the number of Iranian boats was fewer and their actions were not as aggressive.
from Gareth Porter: The US warships were not concerned about the possibility that the Iranian boats were armed with heavier weapons capable of doing serious damage. Asked by a reporter whether any of the vessels had anti-ship missiles or torpedoes, Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, Commander of the 5th Fleet, answered that none of them had either of those two weapons. "I didn't get the sense from the reports I was receiving that there was a sense of being afraid of these five boats," said Cosgriff.
There is nothing about the "naval encounter" in the "news from the Fifth Fleet"
http://www.cusnc.navy.mil/
and no current information on the official US Navy website http://www.navy.mil/swf/index.asp
The accent of the Iranians was HILARIOUS.
Sort of like ALL YOUR NAVY ARE BELONG TO US...
www.FEARandSMEAR.com
toshiko,
re: Thinking back to 1964, the incident makes one wonder whether the Iranians are so touchy because the Americans are conducting some kind of covert operations against them.
Thinking back to 1964, there were NO North Vietnamese boats anywhere near the USS Maddox -- it was a complete fabrication and the US knew it. This is according to Commander Stockdale who was overhead at the time, saw everything and reported it through channels. They will lie to do what they want to do, but it's more difficult now with YouTube and bloggers like Professor Cole.
Maybe this was meant to help close the deal in Congress for the $20 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia.
Excepting Ron Paul, the Republican presidential candidates prove they are no more than bullies who should be returned to their elementry schools where they seem to not have graduated.
Gareth Porter at IPS provides good analysis, http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40747 That the primary propaganda networks--M$M--provided a semblance of equal time to the Iranian video is encouraging.
Call me a tinfoiler, but I see a process unfolding as I suspected. After several days of propaganda about what a terrible provocation this (non)incident was, today the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, made a stink about the US Military's deep concern about Iran's supposed strategy of aggressive deployment of speedboats (almost a contradiction in terms1):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080111/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iran
The pattern I see, in the ongoing propaganda, the official diplomatic complaint, and now this statement by the JCOS head Mullen, is one in which the administration is moving towards new rules of engagement for the Gulf, hair- trigger rules intended to both practically guarantee war (in a region so volatile and so crowded with ships and naval activity) AND to sweep out of the way any officers sober-minded enough to to be able to accept such a draconian move.
No one wants to see a repeat of the USS Cole. But I think any US warship is well able to fend off a speedboat attack, such that an attack by speedboats against a US warship would be suicide, pure and simple.
The Persian Gulf of Tonkin Incident: A Polk at Iran.
"Our troops, kidnapped and held in the midst of a hostile Shiite population in Iraq, would be on the line. Getting them blown up for nothing is the opposite of patriotism."
I'm not sure I follow that. Is the idea that if we attack Iran the Shiites in Iraq will slaughter our troops? Why would they do that?
Just one word of caution: no Cole should forget the USS Cole. In that region, commanders of a ship should worry about approache by any object or vessel, even a bass boat with a guy swigging beer and wearing a frumpy hat.
Concerning the audio, it is very unlikely that the camera on the bridge would have mics that pick up the ship radio, or that the camera would necessarily have a direct link recording the simultaneous radio traffic. That would be monitored and recorded separately. Addition of the radio exchanges to the video track would involve digitally importing the WAV sound files, adding them to the sound track of the AVI or MPEG video. It might be possible to sequence both rigorously on a common time scale, but not done in this case.
Most nightly newscasts, to say nothing of Hollywood, take great liberties in editing, adding, or synthesizing sounds and voiceovers. Even the Ken Burns "historical documentaries" rely on sound archives from generic, recreated, actor narrations, or synthesized sources. We take it for granted and do not call if fabrication, although that is literally what it is.
The key question is whether the allged verbal threats came from any of the Iranian vessels at all. Were the Navy to promote a flat lie, easily disproven if the Iranians monitored and recorded the radio exchanges, this would risk exposure and disgrace.
Forensic sound and radio experts could probably deduce the real source of the alleged threating language, but this would require some cooperation of the US and Iranian naval forces, and neither is likely to share information on their communication technology.
Even without the possiblity of fabrication, there is the risk that one side or the other will collide with the other at sea or that, as in 1998, a gunner will down a "menacing" craft that turns out to be civilian or just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Even though this "incident" was screwed up what it reveals is that it was orchestrated as part of some new policy towards Iran and therefore we can expect more "incidents".
The fact that Mullens and Gates both made bellicose statements following the incident shows that they were in on the whole thing.
Iran is going to be pressured, squeezed, and provoked over the next several months in an attempt to trip up the Revolutionary Guard to force them to make a wrong move. And when they do it will create “justification” for some sort of action. And this “justified response” could be Cheney’s so called “surgical strike” which will have the objective of taking out everything controlled by the Revolutionary Guard.
If they are thinking along these lines they are totally out of touch with how things are in Iran.
A far better approach would be to keep a very low profile and allow the Iranian people to elect the reformist back into power during the upcoming March elections for parliament.
Mohammed Alireza. Tehran.
Well, Glad, if you don't understand why starting a new war in Iran wouldn't put our troops in Iraq at more risk...
...I guess you are right up there with Huckabee and Romney as far as foreign policy goes.
Didn't catch much TV news yesterday, but did anyone (besides audio-less CNN) show the Iranian video? I didn't see it on Olberman, which would be the most likely place.
And to think the Iranians even had the courtesy to radio us in English. To put Persian and Arabic-speaking personnel on ships operating in the Persian Gulf is obviously a bit too much to ask of the global superpower.
It's sad that with a nearly $1 trillion military/intelligence/counterterrorism budget (counting non-Defense Dept. spending), we can't come up with a more convincing hoax than this. As if a suicide motor-boater is going to broadcast his intentions three minutes before he strikes! There are about a million teenagers in their basements who could do better.
What's even sadder is that, regardless of what we write on Juan's blog and other similar sites, about 75% of the American public will buy it.
Helena Cobban has suggested that congressional hearings over this incident would be appropriate. If the full truth were to emerge I think we'd find that it was Admiral "Fox" Fallon who asked Admiral Cosgriff to recant and shut up. Fallon has spoken against Iranophobia before, and I think he just did it again.
To add to my previous comment: the key facts displayed in the Iranian video are that the 5" guns on the DDGs are never trained on the Iranian craft as they certainly would if the Iranian boats were deemed any sort of threat and the proxemics--at least a 1/2 mile separates the USN ships and the Iranian boats.
Lastly, the fact that the USG planner of this provokation didn't even think the Iranians would have their own video recording capabilities and savy to refute the incident and reveal it for what it is before the eyes of the world displays an ignorance and hubris straight from the OSP.
One thing I'm curious about is that there were probably have been other ships in the vicinity and, while they may not have seen any putative white boxes, they would have heard the broadcast. Is there any independent verification of the broadcast as far as its content, if not its timing?
That voice on the radio sounded like Borat.
May I ask a very elementary question? How far from the coast of Iran was the American floatilla? Was it 2 miles, 20 miles or 200 miles? What is America's view of where international waters begin and what is Iran's view? Are these same distances applicable to the to foreign ships cruising the coast of the US? What would the US say if Iranian ships were patrolling a like distance from the United States?
The right of ships to be safe during transit passage of an international waterway is long established and has nothing to do with the distance from the Iranian coast. And by all accounts the ships were in the transit zone.
The Iranian ships were hazarding a larger vessel and placing themselves in danger and the US ships would have been within their rights to fire on them.
Its one thing to be critical of the Bush administration-its another to pretend that the Iranians were not stupid here. They are the ones at fault, not the US. The simple fact was the ships showed remarkable patience when they were clearly within their rights to fire and that's a credit to the US Navy.
And as for the edits to the tape-there is no choice. Ships don't have a recording system that displays both audio and video. The Navy was being prudent-because of things like the majority of the commenters here- and getting the facts out.
The Iranians were stupid-period.
The comment of Skippy-san ignores the fact that the Americans have made it very clear that they want to attack Iran and change its regime. To pretend that normal rules must apply here too is very wrong. Period.
And to think the Iranians even had the courtesy to radio us in English. To put Persian and Arabic-speaking personnel on ships operating in the Persian Gulf is obviously a bit too much to ask of the global superpower.
It's a matter of safety, not courtesy, since language problems have contributed to disasters at sea. To minimise the risk of communication errors, a simplified version of English called Seaspeak has been developed, which lays down standard terms and phrases for maritime communications. As far as I know, Seaspeak is the international standard for maritime
communication, just as a standardised form of English is the worldwide standard for air traffic control.
If you watch the Iranian video of the Iranian patrol boat officer talking to the US ship, you will hear both sides using Seaspeak.
The Americans were expecting a huge sigh of relief from Iran and signals of submission after the NIE report was released. That illustrates the poor American understanding of the Persian mind and spirit. Being the skilled chess players that they are the Iranians do not weaken mentally in the middle of the game. They continue to probe the Americans politically and militarily. They are not going to genuflect toward America simply because American intelligence agencies gave unsolicited approval to Iran's nuclear technology intentions after years of hostile words and behavior.
The American government has been making threats against Iran for so long that the Iranians do not take them particularly seriously anymore. They continue to prepare for war, they'd be foolish not to but they're not absorbed with American saber rattling as they were in the past. They get on with their daily lives.
Thus the confident showing of the flag by IRGC naval forces toward American forces in the Straits of Hormuz. They are putting the Americans on notice that Iran is not intimidated and is prepared to fight if the Americans initiate a conflict. In fact there are elements within the Iranian government and military who would welcome a military action initiated by America. It would solidify their official positions and increase their support amongst the public.
By the way, I wonder how well mannered a U.S. Navy patrol would be if it were approaching Iranian destroyers and submarines off the coast of Florida (in international waters). And that "Iranian" voice issuing threats over the radio was more suited to the opening act at a comedy club rather than a speaker whose mother tongue is Farsi. Americans seem to slip into an ambiguous Boris Karloff/Bela Lugosi imitation whenever they're trying to sound "foreign." In addition, if you've ever ridden in a speedboat running at full throttle, due to the engine noise you can barely make yourself understood to a person sitting next to you let alone broadcast clear, studio quality threats over the radio.
I guess I see a big difference between the idea that engaging Iran militarily will put our troops at more risk and the idea that it will lead to the slaughter of our troops by Shiites. The idea that either Iraqui Shiites or Iran could slaughter American troops is the kind of miscalculation that opened the door for the Bush invasion and occupation of Iraq. It's the kind of bellicose, macho rhetoric that plays into the hands of the neocons. I think I understand the anger and frustration that might lead someone to imagine the slaughter of American troops at the hands of Shiites, but the reality of the situation is quite different. The American troops are still occupiers, not hostages. It would not be in the interest of Iraqui Shiites to engage them in a proxy war for Iran. Or do you think it would?
"It would not be in the interest of Iraqui Shiites to engage them in a proxy war for Iran. Or do you think it would?"
My friend, the Iranians have thousands of basij, pasdaran and Irgc member who are fluent arab speakers, mingling among the iraqis. They are very likely to be well placed and active amongst the militias who drove britain from basra city. They are also likely to be very well armed and well organised and just waiting for the signal.
Add to this the Iraqis from badr type groups who spent years in Iran whilst saddam killed thier families, who feel a debt to the iranians. Add to this those who are ideologically close to the khomeinists and seek an islamic state, like dawa and the IISC, and have no interest in seeing the regime their replaced by a secular republic. Add to this moqtadas pledge a few years back that his army will fight if Iran is attacked. Add to this the shia who feel the US are favouring the sunni once more by bringing the hated baath back through the awakening councils and who will interpret an attack on Iran as the last straw in americas war on the shias. Add to this the Shia who have no money and will likely be offered hundreds of dollars to lay Ied's, fire RPG's and guns, give intel, and provide shelter to the Iranian fighters. Add to this the groups like Asaeb al Haq who are already fighting america.
Id say that was a lot of shias with a lot of incentive to attack america.
The shia arent pro-us they are just extremely anti baathi. They are tolerating the occupation while the US fights the baath, but while the baath are brought back though Sahwah expect that shia tolerance to wane dramatically.
Also, this war will spell the end of the US in the Gulf, GUARANTEED. Every one will join together for one last push to heave the US out as there will be no better opportunity.
Of course they will maintain a presence in kuwait, Iraqi Kurdistan, the UAE etc. But the large scale force that moved from Saudi America to Iraq will have to leave.
Objects From Iranian Boats Posed No Threat, Navy Says
By Robin Wright and Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, January 12, 2008
....Middle East experts, Farsi speakers and Iranians in the United States insist that the voice [received on the American ship radio] could not have come from Iran. The accent "sounded Pakistani, South Asian or an American trying to sound Iranian, [or an Israeli, The Lavon Affair involved similar radio broadcast deception] but it definitely didn't sound Iranian," said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iranian-born American at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Here
Interesting. I seem to be getting an extensive education on the attitude of Shiites toward US troops, but not much in the way of information about their capabilities. Weren't they slaughtered themselves when they rose against Saddam Hussein after the first Gulf War? Do we believe the US Military is less lethal than Saddam's forces? And, as far as the US forces leaving Iraq, both Democrats have vowed to end the occupation, so that is going to happen anyway. How incredibly stupid would it be for the Shiites to get killed now, when the occupation is almost over? I think the real message here is that Iraqi Shiites are not nationalists. I'm not sure that is true.
Capabilities? well im pretty sure that when the shooting starts the most pro Iran militias will have similar irani weapons to those used in lebanon to neutralise the feared Merkava. The militias also drove the UK out through nothing other than dogged persistence in their mortar caampaign on the bases in Basrah. The same will happen here but ten times more intensive.
Of course they wont fight the US as a standing army. They will however lay even more IEDs than are currently being deployed by the sunni (Asaeb ahlal haq already have a 'daisy chain IED' which sets off multiple bombs in succession destroying 3 or 4 vehicle convoys as opposed to only one vehicle). they will attack supply trucks and, especially with a lower british presence in the south, will severely disrupt the supply route from kuwait thru iraqs south and to Baghdad and beyond.
Also a lot of the fighters will be iranians under cover. They will likely be joined by ideologues from iraq.
While some Iraqis are nationalistic, you must understand the shia history and mentally. As the brutally oppressed minority of Islam they have a shared connection which bonds them. The shia lay man of iraq has more love toward the shia of bahrain or pakistan than toward an iraqi sunni.
Pan shiaism is more succesful than pan sunnism has been or nationalism. In part the hugely magnetic personality of khomeini made this possible, in that even those who disagree with wilayah faqih, put aside ideological differences to get with the programme. Of course this programme is centred in Iran, as the ME's only strong shia state. The mahdi army organised the biggest rally in the world supporting hezbullah in the war of 06', Even though mahdi army are least pro iran party of the iraqi shias and the Hezbullah are very pro iran.
Shias NEED to stick together, it is a neccessity which outweighs any other concerns, in a sea of increasing sunni oppression and hatred. this is especially true of iraqs shia because they will see a US attack on their only real patron as a path to bringing their old baath oppressors back to baghdad. and they will all die before that happens again.
Also Saddam planned on keeping control of iraq and the genocide on the shia was a neccessity to ensure that power remained. You are naive if you think the US wishes to leave. Despite all the horrors of iraq today The Americans are building new 'enduring bases', and the democrats are merely pandering for election time. They will have to be thrown out. However the americans either cant or wont react like saddam did because, try as they might, they know deep down they havent got roots in this land. Soldiers miss their families, consistent mortar attacks which drove thousands of young british troops to nervous breakdowns will do the same to them etc etc. Once the political and moral price at home, as well as the physical and mental price at the front becomes to hard to bear they will HAVE to leave. Saddam was accountable to no one, God aside, and genocide was a viable option.
Being a democracy doesnt allow for a blatant massacre like saddams one, although i dont doubt many iraqis WILL be slaughtered.
And anyway, the iraqi shia will be able to tell the sunni world 'see, hezbullah alone defeated israel, and now us and iran drove out america, we did in x months/years what you couldnt do in 5 years'.
Itll improve their standing, which is pretty poor now.
Here's some bilge from Anne Gearan and the Associated Press:
Bush says US, allies must confront Iran
By ANNE GEARAN
AP Diplomatic Writer
13 Jan 2008
...."U.S. Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff...told Bush that he took it 'deadly seriously' when an Iranian fleet of high-speed boats charged at and threatened to blow up a three-ship U.S. Navy convoy passing near Iranian waters. The Iranian naval forces vanished as the American ship commanders were preparing to open fire."
First off, Anne Gearan doesn't even mention the fact that the threatening voice heard over the American ship radio receiver cannot be reliably attributed to the Iranians. The U.S. Navy itself is backing away from accusations that the IRGC sailors aboard the speedboat squadron made threats.
Second of all, and this IS a legitimate concern, Anne Gearan writes that the Iranian naval forces "vanished" once American gunners had them in their sights. That can mean only one thing -- Iran has developed a Klingon-style cloaking device.
In the future please mentally substitute the word "Klingon" in any news report or government statement that mentions Iran or Iranians. Picturing them as Klingons will give American citizens a much clearer understanding of the threat we're facing.
Associated Press story Here
I lived there when the Cole was hit.
The ship almost sank and it was only the extremely well trained and dedicated divers and engineers of thE
US Navy who managed to keep it from sinking-it was touch and go. Lives were lost and although nothing in comparison to a lost life loved careers were ruined as the Navy doesn't take such things lightly.
The other boat in question(IN THE cOLE INCIDENT) was much much less threatening than the boats in that video.The video initially looked like some rogue Iranian cowboys or a practice run to see what would happen.
I can assure you the US Navy does not take going to war lightly. From the top down the officers care deeply about the people entrusted to their care. After the Cole was hit the rules became very strict for them out here and
most activity of normal life was curtailed.Significant neighbors told me the top guys were sure something big was going to happen to Americans and urged the most cautious behaviour-and they backed this up with support .The local State Department did not do this.
Soon after -Sept, 11.I will always remember the integrity of the Naval Officers, their committment to serving the nation, their intelligent analysis of the area and their real understanding of what war meant. That was very provocative behaviour with or without the voices and the commander handled it with caution and dignity-let the Iranians be aware of US stupidity and inability to comprehend their behaviour and stop engaging in such provovative activities so the moronic warmongers are kept in line.
Why are the local governments fearful of the Iranian Navy if there is no cause except US calumny or idiocy?
POLITICS-US: How the Pentagon Planted a False Hormuz Story
Analysis by Gareth Porter
WASHINGTON, Jan 15 (IPS) - Senior Pentagon officials, evidently reflecting a broader administration policy decision, used an off-the-record Pentagon briefing to turn the Jan. 6 U.S.-Iranian incident in the Strait of Hormuz into a sensational story demonstrating Iran's military aggressiveness, a reconstruction of the events following the incident shows.
The initial press stories on the incident, all of which can be traced to a briefing by deputy assistant secretary of defence for public affairs in charge of media operations Bryan Whitman, contained similar information that has since been repudiated by the Navy itself.
Then the Navy disseminated a short video into which was spliced the audio of a phone call warning that U.S. warships would "explode" in "a few seconds". Although it was ostensibly a Navy production, IPS has learned that the ultimate decision on its content was made by top officials of the Defence Department.
The encounter between five small and apparently unarmed speedboats, each carrying a crew of two to four men, and the three U.S. warships occurred very early on Saturday Jan. 6, Washington time. But no information was released to the public about the incident for more than 24 hours, indicating that it was not viewed initially as being very urgent.
The reason for that absence of public information on the incident for more than a full day is that it was not that different from many others in the Gulf over more than a decade. A Pentagon consultant who asked not to be identified told IPS that he had spoken with officers who had experienced similar encounters with small Iranian boats throughout the 1990s, and that such incidents are "just not a major threat to the U.S. Navy by any stretch of the imagination".
Just two weeks earlier, on Dec. 19, the USS Whidbey Island, an amphibious warship, had fired warning shots after a small Iranian boat allegedly approached it at high speed. But that incident had gone without public notice.
With the reports from 5th Fleet commander Vice-Adm. Kevin Cosgriff in hand early that morning, top Pentagon officials had all day Sunday, Jan. 6, to discuss what to do about the encounter in the Strait of Hormuz. The result was a decision to play it up as a major incident.
The decision came just as President George W. Bush was about to leave on a Middle East trip aimed in part at rallying Arab states to join the United States in an anti-Iran coalition.
That decision in Washington was followed by a news release by the commander of the 5th Fleet on the incident at about 4:00 a.m. Washington time Jan. 7. It was the first time the 5th Fleet had ever issued a news release on an incident with small Iranian boats.
The release reported that the Iranian "small boats" had "maneuvered aggressively in close proximity of [sic] the Hopper [the lead ship of the three-ship convoy]." But it did not suggest that the Iranian boats had threatened the boats or that it had nearly resulted in firing on the Iranian boats.
On the contrary, the release made the U.S. warships handling of the incident sound almost routine. "Following standard procedures," the release said, "Hopper issued warnings, attempted to establish communications with the small boats and conducted evasive maneuvering."
The release did not refer to a U.S. ship being close to firing on the Iranian boats, or to a call threatening that U.S. ships would "explode in a few minutes", as later stories would report, or to the dropping of objects into the path of a U.S. ship as a potential danger.
That press release was ignored by the news media, however, because later that Monday morning, the Pentagon provided correspondents with a very different account of the episode.
At 9 a.m., Barbara Starr of CNN reported that "military officials" had told her that the Iranian boats had not only carried out "threatening maneuvers", but had transmitted a message by radio that "I am coming at you" and "you will explode". She reported the dramatic news that the commander of one boat was "in the process of giving the order to shoot when they moved away".
CBS News broadcast a similar story, adding the detail that the Iranian boats "dropped boxes that could have been filled with explosives into the water". Other news outlets carried almost identical accounts of the incident.
The source of this spate of stories can now be identified as Bryan Whitman, the top Pentagon official in charge of media relations, who gave a press briefing for Pentagon correspondents that morning. Although Whitman did offer a few remarks on the record, most of the Whitman briefing was off the record, meaning that he could not be cited as the source.
In an apparent slip-up, however, an Associated Press story that morning cited Whitman as the source for the statement that U.S. ships were about to fire when the Iranian boats turned and moved away -- a part of the story that other correspondents had attributed to an unnamed Pentagon official.
On Jan. 9, the U.S. Navy released excerpts of a video of the incident in which a strange voice -- one that was clearly very different from the voice of the Iranian officer who calls the U.S. ship in the Iranian video -- appears to threaten the U.S. warships.
A separate audio recording of that voice, which came across the VHS channel open to anyone with access to it, was spliced into a video on which the voice apparently could not be heard. That was a political decision, and Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros of the Pentagon's Public Affairs Office told IPS the decision on what to include in the video was "a collaborative effort of leadership here, the Central Command and Navy leadership in the field."
"Leadership here", of course, refers to the secretary of defence and other top policymakers at the department. An official in the U.S. Navy Office of Information in Washington, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue, said that decision was made in the office of the secretary of defence.
That decision involved a high risk of getting caught in an obvious attempt to mislead. As an official at 5th Fleet headquarters in Bahrain told IPS, it is common knowledge among officers there that hecklers -- often referred to as "Filipino Monkey" -- frequently intervene on the VHF ship-to-ship channel to make threats or rude comments.
One of the popular threats made by such hecklers, according to British journalist Lewis Page, who had transited the Strait with the Royal Navy is, "Look out, I am going to hit [collide with] you."
By Jan. 11, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell was already disavowing the story that Whitman had been instrumental in creating only four days earlier. "No one in the military has said that the transmission emanated from those boats," said Morrell.
The other elements of the story given to Pentagon correspondents were also discredited. The commanding officer of the guided missile cruiser Port Royal, Capt. David Adler, dismissed the Pentagon's story that he had felt threatened by the dropping of white boxes in the water. Meeting with reporters on Monday, Adler said, "I saw them float by. They didn't look threatening to me."
The naval commanders seemed most determined, however, to scotch the idea that they had been close to firing on the Iranians. Vice-Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, the commander of the 5th Fleet, denied the story in a press briefing on Jan. 7. A week later, Comdr. Jeffery James, commander of the destroyer Hopper, told reporters that the Iranians had moved away "before we got to the point where we needed to open fire".
The decision to treat the Jan. 6 incident as evidence of an Iranian threat reveals a chasm between the interests of political officials in Washington and Navy officials in the Gulf. Asked whether the Navy's reporting of the episode was distorted by Pentagon officials, Cmdr Robertson of 5th Fleet Public Affairs would not comment directly. But she said, "There is a different perspective over there."
Original piece Here
So what's the agenda here?
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Please allow me to inform you that incidents like the Iranian small boat provocation do happen...often. Hundreds of ships exercising the right of "innocent passage" (google it under international maritime law) have to pass through Omani and Iranian territorial waters to pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Don’t forget there was a ‘tanker war’ where Iranian speedboats waged violent attacks upon innocent merchant ships back in the 1980s (If you like fresh food to show up at your local organic market every week, don’t even go there about oil use…‘cause it takes gas to get it there).
As a professional mariner, I know the Omani Coast Guard and Iranian Navy routinely query ships that leave international waters into their territorial waters, going in and out through the Strait of Hormuz. Since ships (yes, US warships too) legally pass through these territorial waters, the Iranians approach vessels (US warships too) for their own reasons. They will get very close to take a look.
Since the Iranians have two different navies (google it or globalsecurity.org), it was probably independent of any formal direction. Remember: Not every nation has the dedication, training invested into, and professionalism (including restraint) of the U.S. Navy. You also discount the fact that there are several hundred men and women on these navy ships, most under 25 yrs old. Ya know…Odds are there might be one or two liberals/democrats who evaded the intense and vicious ‘republican’ screening process (so the republicans can count on the votes) when entering a volunteer military (just kidding…). Considering them part of some republican conspiracy is just pathetic.
The video looks like something some sailor caught with his cell phone camera (go back to the kids under 25 yrs old). The audio you heard must have been recorded from a marine VHF radio. This is similar to a trucker's CB radio, and sometimes used like it. There are thousands of ships on the ocean and they are not all manned by squeaky clean, college educated folks. That is not something a phone camera would have picked up and was probably added to put the clip into context so you understand what the master of the ship was dealing with.
Have a little faith. Please keep any conspiracy theories (Informed comment) for something more plausible.
Post a Comment
<< Home