Will "Straits of Hormuz Incident" Be on Schoolchildren's Lips 30 Years From Now?

Some complications from the Australian Herald-Sun and USA Today in the "Iran was trying to start a war in the Gulf" story. Upshot: Iran has conflicting video and audio; Navy admits it can't be sure the provocative audio was actually coming from the supposedly suspicious-acting Iranian boats.

Preemptive strike to commenters who like to read more into short posts than they are saying: My linking to these stories does not mean I think they definitively settle the question of what happened or its meaning.

Comments

Guy Montag | January 11, 2008, 12:44pm | #

But doesn't your title suggest that it is a big lie by the US Navy?

Richard | January 11, 2008, 12:46pm | #

I'll take the US Navy's word over Iran's, thanks. And I'm I supposed to care whether the audio was coming directly from the boat, or from somebody in a bunker in Iran?

"SUPPOSEDLY suspicious-acting Iranian boats"? Really?

MikeP | January 11, 2008, 12:56pm | #

Will "Straits of Hormuz Incident" Be on Schoolchildren's Lips 30 Years From Now?

Yes, but it will be on their lips in Farsi.

Matt J | January 11, 2008, 12:57pm | #

Doherty is obviously on the take from Big Islamofascism.

Bingo | January 11, 2008, 1:00pm | #

I've known a few Persian ladies (hot, also nuts) and from what I've been told the Iranian government is pretty much a bunch of crazy assholes, but they have little to no influence on the people that live there. The demographics skew young and most of them are resentful of the crazies in charge. The worst thing we could do is galvanize the population against us by declaring war on a country that is probably heading toward a peaceful revolution.

So yeah, the whole hyping hostilities thing is pretty scary.

drawnasunder | January 11, 2008, 1:00pm | #

Iranian video doesn't ring true to me: the US officer on the audio doesn't sound authentic. But what do I know?

Opportunity to make Sean Connery/Red October/Trainspotting impersonation: "Have you got it in your sshhights?"

drawnasunder | January 11, 2008, 1:03pm | #

Who's provoking who here anyway... WTF would we do to foreign warships patrolling off the coast of California?

ed | January 11, 2008, 1:07pm | #

whether the audio was coming directly from the boat

My guess is that a couple of stoned U.S. seamen were having some fun in the radio room.

Benoit™ | January 11, 2008, 1:09pm | #

WTF would we do to foreign warships patrolling off the coast of California?

Ve haf vays of makink zem disappear...

KenK | January 11, 2008, 1:10pm | #

They should have sonic weapons like cruise ships use to repel pirates.

Broken eardrums, severe pain and/or disorientation is not the stuff of which great martyrs are made.

de stijl | January 11, 2008, 1:15pm | #

They should have sonic weapons like cruise ships use to repel pirates.

This is the first I've herd of this. I Googled it and all I have to say is "teh awesum!"

capelza | January 11, 2008, 1:17pm | #

The Pentagon/Navy themsleves have admitted that the video and audio were separate..that the audio came from "somwhere" and they put them together.

Many Farsi speakers hav said the accent is very un-Iranian. I agree with Ed. I was reminded of that quip fom Reagan when he thought the mic was off, "We start bombing in five minutes". Borat also comes to mind.

Is WWIII going to start because of some unidentified chatter on channel 16? Especially chatter that certainly didn't come from the small open boats. The ambient noise is in no way like that of a small boat with outboards.

As for "suicide bombers" and "remember the Cole". Anyone else even notice the crew on those small boats were wearing life jackets? Standard gear, implying a wish to live.

And as also been noted, if Iranian ships were that close, say in the waters between Florida and Cuba or the Bahamas, you bet your sweet ass we'd be sending more than glorified zodiacs to buzz them.

Douglas Gray | January 11, 2008, 1:19pm | #

The real lesson here is not who is telling the truth. It's the fact that neither side really wanted start a war.

I don't trust either the U.S. military or Iran to tell the truth. However, with our technology, we can lie more skillfully.

stoneymonster | January 11, 2008, 1:21pm | #

As for "suicide bombers" and "remember the Cole". Anyone else even notice the crew on those small boats were wearing life jackets? Standard gear, implying a wish to live.

Or implying a wish to appear non-threatening. Couldn't have been that?

stoneymosnter | January 11, 2008, 1:23pm | #

I retract my comment, I thought you were referring to the Cole bombers. Apologies.

Jennifer | January 11, 2008, 1:23pm | #

The worst thing we could do is galvanize the population against us by declaring war on a country that is probably heading toward a peaceful revolution.

They were already headed in that direction before our jackass CIC decided to give a speech labeling Iran part of the "Axis of Evil" prior to our occupying the countries on either side of it. Think how Bush's--or any president's--domestic support would increase if China were to occupy Canada and Mexico shortly after the Chinese head of state gave a speech calling the USA the font of evil in the world? Yeah, that's the same boost I expect we'll soon be giving the Iranian theocracy.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 11, 2008, 1:28pm | #

Them Iranians didn't screw with the Brits, neither.

capelza | January 11, 2008, 1:30pm | #

stonymonster...

A desire to appear non-threatening? Perhaps, but more likely just SOP for any mariner. It's been awhile since I was on a boat that had Coast Guard boardings, but they always wore them, though now they may wear flotation suits.

Did any of these small boats cross the bow of the American ships? Have you read the comments from some of the actual naval officers in the area? It wasn't the naval officers that were having a cow over this, it was the admin that pushed this really silly video/audio combo...oh I remember the other thing I was reminded of...the Daily Show, when some fakey Arab accent is used over a video.

It's embarrassing really that the admin (right at the time that Bush is in the ME, natch) should release this sloppy mix-up to bolster his intent to further isolate Iran from it's neighbours. The amateurish nature of the vid/audio is ridiculous. Someone just phoned this one in.

Félix from Spain | January 11, 2008, 1:34pm | #

REMEMBER THE MAINE!

stubby | January 11, 2008, 1:41pm | #

Drawn: I believe that the US ship was in international waters - this is a very heavily travelled area, crucial to international trade. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong cos I'm too lazy to look up confirmation at the moment. Thus, if a ship were cruising in international waters near Florida and doing nothing provacative, I'm guessing we'd do - nothing.

ed | January 11, 2008, 1:41pm | #

Unidentified Voice A: Your bombs exploding...
[Unidentified giggling]
Unidentified Voice A: Your [coughing, giggling] big hairy bombs...
Unidentified Voice B: Here!
[Unidentified giggling]
Unidentified Voice C: Dude, don't bogart it!
Unidentified Voice A: We have Britney Spears...
[coughing, giggling]

bill | January 11, 2008, 1:44pm | #

Hello, Gulf of Tonkin, Hello.

drawnasunder | January 11, 2008, 1:45pm | #

Really - an armada of Persian warships shows up 50 miles off the coast of Long Beach California(an important international shipping port), says they're just policing the area against pirates, interrogates vessels coming in and out or neighbors, and we just let them hang out? Unlikely.

drawnasunder | January 11, 2008, 1:46pm | #

should read:
interrogates vessels coming in and out of our neighbors' waters

J sub D | January 11, 2008, 1:52pm | #

Incidentally, and I mean this out of genuine curiosity, do libertarians think free countries should cooperate to preserve open sea lanes from piracy and esoteric territorial claims that interfere with commerce? The liberty-leaning 19th Century Americans and Britons thought so.

This one does.

MikeP | January 11, 2008, 1:59pm | #

drawnasunder,

There is much to be said for rights of way. The difference between a convoy passing peacefully through the only means to get somewhere else and a convoy sitting somewhere specific is massive in both intent and practice.

Similarly, a protest marching down the street in front of your house to go protest somewhere else is very different from a protest stationed on the sidewalk in front of your house.

It goes back to Roach's question...

Incidentally, and I mean this out of genuine curiosity, do libertarians think free countries should cooperate to preserve open sea lanes from piracy and esoteric territorial claims that interfere with commerce?

As J sub D says: Yes, they do.

Lost_In_Translation | January 11, 2008, 1:59pm | #

Roach,

I know you're a troll, but just for grins, who should the US have declared war against after the Cole blew up?

stoneymonster | January 11, 2008, 2:01pm | #

I know you're a troll, but just for grins, who should the US have declared war against after the Cole blew up?

TERRAH!

J sub D | January 11, 2008, 2:06pm | #

Thus, if a ship were cruising in international waters near Florida and doing nothing provacative, I'm guessing we'd do - nothing.

We'd monitor activity with air assets or possibly a tattletale (escorting warship). Doing stupid shit shown in the video, nah. The Iranians have to know that if they attacked a U.S. ship in an international strait, they would no longer send any oil out by tanker.

BTW, I'd like to bring our troops that are scatterd around the world home as well. One of the reasons for having a Navy is showing the flag, and first response in a crisis. TheInfluence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660-1783 by A. T. Mahan is a very good book to read concerning these matters.

MikeP | January 11, 2008, 2:18pm | #

To everyone else, you need to grow up.

Who are you talking about?

Bhh | January 11, 2008, 2:25pm | #

The mighty Persian Navy appears to consist of my grandpa's fishing boat.

The Pentagon needs to outsource its propaganda to the pros. Maybe they could CGI something more impressive in there. A oil tanker full of orcs or something. I dunno.

Your Good Buddy Johnny Clarke | January 11, 2008, 2:26pm | #

So it appears all the WoMD apologists, who really, really, really believed Iraq was mere seconds away from annihilating the US, are just as ready to fall for the "Iran is mere seconds away from annihilating the US" bit.
Some people just won't learn.

Lost_In_Translation | January 11, 2008, 2:29pm | #

Roach,

History also makes you more cautious about doing rash things in reaction to extraordinary events. You propose that we should have lashed out, but you have no evidence we were ready at that time to lash out and pursue an expensive international campaign.

Guy Montag | January 11, 2008, 2:33pm | #

Maybe it really is a conspiracy? The way you can tell is if you are able to fold fiat money into an image of the event, of course.

Warty | January 11, 2008, 2:39pm | #

I've known a few Persian ladies (hot, also nuts)

When you're not at work, look up one Aylar Lie. Boioioioioioing.

Morat20 | January 11, 2008, 2:40pm | #

They were fucking speedboats. Yes, it is REMOTELY possible that the Iranian government dug up a suicide squad, loaded their boats with their most powerful explosives, and sent them to ram US naval ships.

If they were lucky, they might even have sunk one. They've have killed a number of sailors.

And then what? They could only do it ONCE, after that the US will gun down fuckind speedboats from 5 miles away. And the Iranian Navy, what there is of it, would be sunk before fucking lunch.

So what's the Master plan here?

Step 1, maybe sink a single US navy vessel.
Step 2, ???
Step 3, Profit?

It was the usual sort of ballwaving shit that always happens. It wasn't a "Dry run", it wasn't a threat, it was macho posturing. The US Captains apparently ignored them, and were right to do so.

The Pentagon later tried to make some hay about it, rightly figuring some Americans are so stupid that they'd consider a bunch of speedboats a massive threat to the US Navy.

drawnasunder | January 11, 2008, 2:48pm | #

"Hell.... We are going to have to fight them sooner or later.... Why not do it now while our Army is intact and we can have their hind end kicked back into Russia Iran in three months? We can do it easily with the help of the German Iraqi troops we have, if just arm them and take them with us. They hate the bastards."

"You don't have to get all mixed up in it at all if you are so damn soft about it and scared of your rank - just let me handle it down there. In ten days I can have enough incidents happen to have us a war with those sons of bitches and make it look like their fault."

- George S. Patton
From Patton: A Genius for War, page 763

LarryA | January 11, 2008, 2:56pm | #

The worst thing we could do is galvanize the population against us by declaring war on a country that is probably heading toward a peaceful revolution.

The history of peaceful revolutions in that part of the world is pretty thin.

As for "suicide bombers" and "remember the Cole". Anyone else even notice the crew on those small boats were wearing life jackets?

They were wearing bulky orange jackets. It would be hard to tell if they were stuffed with kapok or C-4.

Standard gear, implying a wish to live.

Navigating an inflatable rubber boat around a moving warship (or any other ship that size) indicates the opposite.

Note that the Navy neither fired at the boats, nor ran one down. I.e. the officers in charge did not allow themselves to be provoked. Professionals all.

The US Captains apparently ignored them,

I would quibble "ignored" is the wrong word. No captain ignores anything in his part of the ocean. "Remained aloof," perhaps.

R C Dean | January 11, 2008, 3:05pm | #

Iran has conflicting video and audio

Iran has a few minutes of video that could have been taken before any run on our ships. Its not conflicting. Hell, its not even inconsistent. Haven't heard the audio, but really, what proof could there possibly be that it is a full contemparaneous account of what actually went down?

The mighty Persian Navy appears to consist of my grandpa's fishing boat.

I believe boats of that size can mount anti-ship missiles.

So what's the Master plan here?

Lemme help you out:

Step 1, maybe sink a single US navy vessel, definitely destabilize the flow of oil through the Straits.
Step 2, >???Oil prices skyrocket, Euros and Chinese with no ability to do anything in the Straits pursue "diplomatic options" like crazy
Step 3, Profit?!!!!!

All that aside, I have no opinion on what actually happened out there, other than it appears the Iranians did something monumentally stupid, and the USN did not.

MikeP | January 11, 2008, 3:15pm | #

Since we can do this so easily and without casualties, what is wrong with it since, it seems everyone is agreed, asshole rouge nations should not prevent free movemetn in international airspace and seas.

Because, so far, no rogue nation has yet prevented or threatened to prevent free movement in international airspace or waters?

Just a guess.

stubby | January 11, 2008, 3:32pm | #

Because, so far, no rogue nation has yet prevented or threatened to prevent free movement in international airspace or waters?


Well, except for Iran kidnapping the British sailors. And yes, Britain says they were in international waters and Iran says that they weren't. I don't think it's unlikely that the Iranians were lying, and looking to stir up trouble, and the Brits by failing to put up any kind of resistance whatsover made themselves easy and useful hostages.

MikeP | January 11, 2008, 3:52pm | #

If you mean "useful" in the "what the hell have you done: now we have to figure out some face saving way to give them back" sense, then I agree.

If you mean "free movement in international waters" in the "the Straits of Hormuz extends all the way to the Shatt al-Arab" sense, then I disagree.

Points I make above about rights of way versus loitering are important. The Iranian capture of the RN personnel may have been a lot of things, but it was not an example of, in Roach's words, failing to "preserve open sea lanes from piracy and esoteric territorial claims that interfere with commerce."

Anonymoose. | January 11, 2008, 4:03pm | #

They were fucking speedboats. Yes, it is REMOTELY possible that the Iranian government dug up a suicide squad, loaded their boats with their most powerful explosives, and sent them to ram US naval ships.

If they were lucky, they might even have sunk one. They've have killed a number of sailors.

Actually, the Iran Navy has developed extensive naval swarming tactics.

I think the U.S. is right to be concerned about what happened, but I also think the U.S. is blowing it out of proportion. There was no reason for those speedboats to do what they did, but if you're going to blow up a couple of ships, you don't announce it over radio first. Some good coverage of the event over here

Morat20 | January 11, 2008, 4:20pm | #

Actually, the Iran Navy has developed extensive naval swarming tactics.

Doesn't work if you see it coming, and one thing the US Navy has going for it is about 85 million ways to see large numbers of ships and light aircraft in a VERY large radius around them.

Satellites, air radar, all the sorts of good stuff we practice so much.

Frankly it just means the US has to drop a lot more ordinance to destroy them all rather than blow up a much smaller number of more conventioanl ships. But with two carriers in the region, it's really not a problem.

MikeP | January 11, 2008, 4:32pm | #

Roach,

I am still curious who you are talking about when you say...

To everyone else, you need to grow up.

stubby | January 11, 2008, 5:28pm | #

you mean "useful" in the "what the hell have you done: now we have to figure out some face saving way to give them back" sense, then I agree.


Yeah, you might be right. I remember reading all the different takes on the British incident and wondering who was right - those who said it was good PR for Iran and helped Ahmadinijad (TLTLUS)* score points with his hardcore nutjob constituency, or those who said that the Mullahs who actually run things were probably furious with the hotheads who started the whole thing. There's really no way to tell. I do think it was an unqualified PR disaster for the Brits though, not least because of the way several of the sailors behaved - the one who cried because his "hosts" told him he looked like Mr. Bean was my favorite.


TLTLUS = too lazy to look up spelling. I think I just made it up.

peachy | January 11, 2008, 7:21pm | #

I have to think the Iranians were just yanking our chains in this case. The proper way to close constricted waters is with mines and shore-launched missiles, not speedboats.

Dave W. | January 11, 2008, 10:21pm | #

So what is the truth about this incident?

Dave W. | January 11, 2008, 11:02pm | #

o yeh and:

GOOGLE Nick Berg

KenK | January 12, 2008, 12:57am | #

Yeah, lets just wait until we have a bunch of sunken ships before we respond. Yeah, thats the ticket. Then we can sue their pants off!

***

There is a reason American military officers express grim concern over the tactics used by Iranian sailors last weekend: a classified, $250 million war game in which small, agile speedboats swarmed a naval convoy to inflict devastating damage on more powerful warships.

In the days since the encounter with five Iranian patrol boats in the Strait of Hormuz, American officers have acknowledged that they have been studying anew the lessons from a startling simulation conducted in August 2002. In that war game, the Blue Team navy, representing the United States, lost 16 major warships — an aircraft carrier, cruisers and amphibious vessels — when they were sunk to the bottom of the Persian Gulf in an attack that included swarming tactics by enemy speedboats.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/washington/12navy.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Dave W. | January 12, 2008, 9:41am | #

In that war game

how many of its own ships would the Navy have to have its faux Iranians sink in such an exercise to get McCain elected in 2008?

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

Guy Montag | January 12, 2008, 7:42pm | #

Good thing nobody wants to molest our navy and cause a ruckus, otherwise I would suspect this was real [/sarcasim]