Bush calls Iran Out for Gulf Incident

[Benpercent]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/01/09/...iref=newssearch

From the responses I have seen on other sites in regards to this issue, a lot of people seem to believe that Bush is trying to provoke another war by "fabricating" the video of the confrontation. A faking of a "non-incident" as I've heard someone else say.

Summarized, what happened is that a few speed boats came near the Persian Gulf and just drove around in the area, ignoring the requests from the American navy to identify themselves. They made a death threat ("I am coming at you. You will explode in a few minutes."), threw some strange boxes into the water (which were said to not have been picked up, due to risk), and left several minutes later. Bush has threatened action against Iran if such happens again, but Iranian officials deny the validity of the tape.

I find it strange that they deny that the tape is real rather than deny that the ships are even from Iran. What disturbs me the most is this quote:

An Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman downplayed the incident, calling it "normal," state-run news agency IRNA reported. "The case ... was similar to the past ones and it was a regular and natural issue," Mohammad-Ali Hosseini said, according to the news agency.

That statement is much too nonchalant for such an issue as this. Continuing to threat this so lightly will result in a few dead soldiers on their hands. Then again, this is what evil does, isn't it? Laughs at the good until the good retaliate, then evil can do nothing but be shocked and submit.

What do you guys think?

[Acount Overdrawn]

Based on my limited knowledge of this incident, I very much agree with your concern: why didn't the Iranian government simply deny any such Iranian ships entering foreign waters? One could easily suggest that, while they accept responsibility for the action, they deny that someone caught them on video-tape.

I find this to be cause for concern: when manned speed boats threaten to blow up members and equipment of our Armed Forces, and an Iranian spokesperson comments that this is considered a regular and natural issue.

Does anyone know the Navy's policy on responding to direct threats issued by boats on our waters, especially directed towards Navy ships? If nothing else, I would have fired warning shots and demanded that they pick up the boxes they suspiciously dropped in the water. And of course to leave the area with all haste.

[adrock3215]

Based on my limited knowledge of this incident, I very much agree with your concern: why didn't the Iranian government simply deny any such Iranian ships entering foreign waters?

Does anyone know the Navy's policy on responding to direct threats issued by boats on our waters

This incident occured on international waters.

[Benpercent]

This incident occured on international waters.

We still have the problem of the threats and the boxes, plus the denial.

[DavidV]

Both sides are pretending to be at war and at peace at the same time, to reap political gain from their victim status. The reality is that Iran is waging a covert war against the U.S., while the U.S. puts up a cowardly and pathetic defense. I am increasingly convinced that this situation is politically advantageous to everyone but the people paying for it, in dollars and human lives.

[Benpercent]

Both sides are pretending to be at war and at peace at the same time, to reap political gain from their victim status. The reality is that Iran is waging a covert war against the U.S., while the U.S. puts up a cowardly and pathetic defense. I am increasingly convinced that this situation is politically advantageous to everyone but the people paying for it, in dollars and human lives.

The general response I have seen is that people are against a war in Iran simply because the current one in Iraq is a mess. Lots of "peace-mongers" if you will, as peace alone is useless.

Disturbing to think that the cowardice of the US is being encouraged. As said before, to outlaw war you first have to outlaw force. Wouldn't this be a good quote to introduce to the American people?

[DarkWaters]

This incident obviously confuses me. I recognize that Iran is not to be trusted and is a beacon of militant Islam, especially the fanatics associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

However, what could they possibly have to gain from this? Were they hoping that the U.S. would fire on them in international waters so that they could use it as propaganda? Were these the actions of just a few rogue gunmen who were not acting on centralized orders?

In addition, why does the voice of the Iranian gunboat sound so loud and clear? How come it is not distorted and difficult to understand? For example, watch the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F478uYNk5s.

Again, this incident befuddles me.

[TheEgoist]

It could be that the transmission was cleaned for public release, as is often the case. Either way, Iran has again proven their aggression towards any U.S forces, even in INTERNATIONAL waters.

[D'kian]

However, what could they possibly have to gain from this? Were they hoping that the U.S. would fire on them in international waters so that they could use it as propaganda?

This kind of thing was very common during the cold war. More recently, do you recall the collision between an American spy plane and a Chinese fighter over international waters? Same thing. It's called brinksmanship. The main two reasons for doing so are 1)to show the other side your capabilities, 2) to gauge the other side's response.

Iran now know to what provocation America will respond and how long she takes to make up her mind.

Were these the actions of just a few rogue gunmen who were not acting on centralized orders?

Unlikely. But power is divided inside Iran. Was this an act ordered by the president or by the mullahs?

[aleph_0]

I find it strange that they deny that the tape is real rather than deny that the ships are even from Iran.

I'm betting that the reason they claim the tape is a fabrication is to accuse the U.S. of manipulation, rather than saying the incident was the fault of a third-party. Most anti-American charges seem to try to undermine people's sense of trust in American action and information.

[adrock3215]

Another development. DarkWaters is right, this is a confusing story so far.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4115702&page=1

"The Navy never said specifically where the voices came from, but many were left with the impression they had come from the speedboats because of the way the Navy footage was edited. Today, the spokesperson for the U.S. admiral in charge of the Fifth Fleet clarified to ABC News that the threat may have come from the Iranian boats, or it may have come from somewhere else.

We're saying that we cannot make a direct connection to the boats there," said the spokesperson. "It could have come from the shore, from another ship passing by. However, it happened in the middle of all the very unusual activity, so as we assess the information and situation, we still put it in the total aggregate of what happened Sunday morning. I guess we're not saying that it absolutely came from the boats, but we're not saying it absolutely didn't.

The Iranians have denied using the threatening language and are saying U.S.-released video is fabricated. Today, the Iranian government aired its own video of the event on state-run TV there. On the audio, the voice that the Iranians say is the communication from their vessel can be heard identifying itself to the American ship, "Coalition warship No. 73 this is an Iranian navy patrol boat."

[agrippa1]

Another development. DarkWaters is right, this is a confusing story so far.

The clarity of the transmission is not puzzling, nor is the "confusion" as to the origin of the transmission.

At that range the signal-to-noise ratio of the received transmission would be quite high, making for a clear, steady, intelligible audio signal. To block background noise, radios use squelch, which is a threshold set just above the noise floor, below which received signals are blanked. When a signal rises above the squelch setting, it is unblanked, but what is heard is the signal audio plus the background noise. Automatic gain controls amplify the audio signal so that all received transmissions are at about the same audio level. If the signal is weak (just above the noise floor) this means that both the signal and the background noise are amplified, resulting in a very noisy, or garbled, or "hissy" audio signal. If the signal is strong, however, the automatic gain adjustment does not have to amplify as much, so the apparent background noise is much less. The clarity of the signal received in this case indicates a very strong signal, and supports the original assumption that the signal was coming from a nearby source, that is, the Iranian speed boats.

The fact that there were no other attempts to answer the U.S. ship's warning also supports the assumption that the signal came from the speed boats. To believe otherwise is to believe that a secondary source was transmitting the responses to the U.S. ship, and that the speedboats were maintaining radio silence, and were willing to let someone else speak for them (assuming they were listening to the channel).

The U.S. ship would not normally be using direction finding equipment in the radio band, so the direction and thus the source of the transmission is necessarily unclear. To state that we can't be sure of the origin of the transmission is technically true, but the conclusion that the signal is likely to have come from another source is not supported by the evidence. Of course, the press, eager to show evidence of a "rush to judgment" as Ron Paul so vigorously accused last night, was quick to jump on this statement by the admiral, probably made in response to an absolutist question from a politically motivated "reporter."

The inference here, that the statements of the Iranian military can be used as evidence of a U.S. fabrication I find particularly despicable (though not surprising). The idea that Iran just happens to tape all operations of even small boats, and that they create and maintain synchronized audio records of all operations is implausible. Of course nobody ever accused our press of critical thinking.

[softwareNerd]

Related to this encounter with Iranian speedboats, the New York Times had an interesting article about a Navy war game that took place in 2002.

The "red team", playing the role of the gulf state, used a strategy of swarming the "blue team" with speed-boats and missiles fired from land and air.

When the Red Team sank much of the Blue navy despite the Blue navy’s firing of guns and missiles, it illustrated a cheap way to beat a very expensive fleet. After the Blue force was sunk, the game was ordered to begin again, with the Blue Team eventually declared the victor.

In a telephone interview, General Van Riper recalled that his idea of a swarming attack grew from Marine Corps studies of the natural world, where insects and animals — from tiny ant colonies to wolf packs — move in groups to overwhelm larger prey.

[Tenure]

You guys might find this interesting. I saw it in the paper yesterday (and no, I don't read the Grauniad; I read it in The Times ):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2240533,00.html

[DavidV]

Either way, Iran has again proven their aggression towards any U.S forces, even in INTERNATIONAL waters.

According to this article, there is no "international water" in the Strait of Hormuz, as it is a narrow passage between Iran and Oman. According to naval treaties, foreign ships may transit the passage, but that is all. If the article is right, the U.S. was in violation of international law when it staged military operations in Iran's territorial waters.

[adrock3215]

According to this article, there is no "international water" in the Strait of Hormuz, as it is a narrow passage between Iran and Oman. According to naval treaties, foreign ships may transit the passage, but that is all. If the article is right, the U.S. was in violation of international law when it staged military operations in Iran's territorial waters.

That may be the case, and it is definitely an interesting possibility. I don't know enough about the Strait to state if it is international or territorial waters. I do certainly consider it possible that the US could have been in violation of international law. For what it's worth, there is also mention on Wikipedia that the waters are territorial in nature. I am going to do more research on the Strait and post more later...