Iranian boats "provoke" U.S. Navy ships in Hormuz: CNN

[maddezmom]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Five Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats harassed and provoked three U.S. Navy ships in the Strait of Hormuz on Saturday, CNN reported.

The CNN report on Monday, citing unidentified U.S. officials, said the Iranian vessels came within 200 yards (meters) of the U.S. ships and that after a threatening radio communication, U.S. sailors manned their ships' guns and were very close to opening fire.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080107/ts_nm/usa_iran_ship...

---

U.S. says Iranian gunboats harassed warships
Officials describe incident as a 'significant provocative act'
WASHINGTON - Iranian Revolutionary Guard gunboats harassed three U.S. Navy warships in the Strait of Hormuz Sunday, in what the U.S. military considers a "significant provocative act."

Military officials told NBC News that two U.S. Navy destroyers and one frigate were heading into the Persian Gulf through the international waters of the Strait of Hormuz when five armed "fast boats" of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard approached a high speed, darting in and out of the formation.

At one point a radio message from one of the Iranian boats warned, "You are going to blow up within minutes."

more:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22537199/?loc=interstitials...

~snip~
Citing unidentified U.S. officials, CNN said the Iranian vessels came within 200 yards (metres) of the U.S. ships in the strait on Saturday.

A radio transmission from one of the Iranian ships said, "I am coming at you. You will explode in a couple of minutes," CNN reported, citing a U.S. official.

After the threatening radio communication, U.S. sailors manned their ships' guns and were very close to opening fire, it said.

There was no immediate U.S. comment.

The incident occurred on the eve of a visit to the Middle East by U.S. President George W. Bush, who said last week that one of the aims of his trip was to counter Iran's ambitions in the region.

more:http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N07391390.htm


This is what it's all about, IMO.

Will Bush find Gulf takers for war with Iran?
Analysts predict Gulf Arab states will not support US President for military action against Iran.


By Lydia Georgi - DUBAI
US President George W. Bush will not win any support for military action against Iran when he visits four Gulf Arab allies later this month, political analysts in the region say.

While Gulf states are concerned about Iran's nuclear programme, they would be even more fearful of a US-Iranian conflict.

"It might not spell the end of Iran as a military power, but merely spark Iranian reactions against Gulf states which are more than these countries can take," Kuwait's Ayed al-Manna said.

Although Washington rode roughshod over the Gulf states' opposition to its 2003 invasion of Iraq, they can be expected to urge Bush "not to escalate militarily with Iran because of the consequences that military action would have in the region" and to pursue a peaceful settlement instead, said Emirati analyst Mohammed al-Roken.

more:http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=23785

[Le Taz Hot]

1. Gulf of Tonkin. Part Duex.

n/t

[maddezmom]

2. agreed n/t

[bemildred]

5. Word. nt

[BB1]

12. First thought too.

what a bullshit.

Actually, my first thought was: "So, its starting, then?"

[PATRICK]

32. Considering THAT precedent

All America has a right to demand photo footage and rigorous proof of the incident BEFORE any action or debate is taken. The Gulf of Tonkin incident didn't even happen. One can justly ASSUME that US ships pushed close to a privileged area and chased the Iranian Coast Guard around until someone seemed to swear at them in Arabic.

Exactly how does a puny Iranian navy "provoke" our massively armed force? Strategically attack, possibly, but taunt with pea shooters. WE are in the aggressive permanent position in those waters.

[Le Taz Hot]

38. The action has already taken place.

It's called Kyl-Lieberman. At least that's what the Evil Ones will use as an excuse to bomb Iran out of existence and make us even more of an international pariah than we are now.

Are we taking bets yet as to how fast the REAL story will begin to filter through American Pravda?

[PATRICK]

43. It won't at all

and even Tonkin history will be suppressed.

[kineneb]

69. note- Iranian speak Farsi (Indo-European language family)

they -ahem- are not very fond of the Arabs or their language...

[The Stranger]

34. Beat me to it.

[saigon68]

45. Where is the Maddox and the Turner Joy ????

Been there seen that.

[INDIA]

48. So those British sailors weren't really captured?

This was all an elaborate hoax to start a war that will never happen? And wouldn't a gulf of Tonkin type incident require an actual attack?

Is that you Rosie?

[chatnoir]

49. Took the words out of my mouth n/t

[underpants]

52. *------Polk's War? -----*

In 1846, after Texas was admitted into the Union, Polk sent militia under General Zachary Taylor to the Rio Grande to protect Texas. Taylor ignored Mexican demands to withdraw to the Nueces. He constructed a make-shift fort (later known as Fort Brown) on the banks of the Rio Grande opposite the city of Matamoros, Tamaulipas. Mexican forces under General Mariano Arista prepared for war.

On April 24, 1846, a 2,000-strong Mexican cavalry detachment attacked a 63-man U.S. patrol that had been sent into the contested territory north of the Rio Grande and south of the Nueces River. The Mexican cavalry succeeded in routing the patrol, killing 11 U.S. soldiers in what later became known as the Thornton Affair after the slain U.S. officer who was in command. A few survivors returned to Fort Brown.

On May 3, Mexican artillery at Matamoros opened fire on Fort Brown, which replied with its own guns. The bombardment continued for five days and expanded as Mexican forces gradually surrounded the fort. Two U.S. soldiers were killed during the bombardment, including Jacob Brown, after whom the fort was later named.

On May 8, Zachary Taylor arrived with 2,400 troops to relieve the fort. However, Arista rushed north and intercepted him with a force of 3,400 at Palo Alto. The Americans employed "flying artillery," the American term for horse artillery, a type of mobile light artillery that was mounted on horse carriages with the entire crew riding horses into battle. U.S. artillery had a devastating effect on the Mexican Army. The Mexicans replied with cavalry skirmishes and its own artillery. The U.S. flying artillery somewhat demoralized the Mexican side, and seeking terrain more to their advantage, the Mexicans retreated to the far side of a dry riverbed (resaca) during the night. It provided a natural fortification, but during the retreat, Mexican troops were scattered, making communication difficult. During the Battle of Resaca de la Palma the next day, the two sides engaged in vicious hand to hand combat. The U.S. cavalry managed to capture the Mexican artillery, causing the Mexican side to retreat — a retreat that turned into a rout. Fighting on difficult terrain, his troops scattered, Arista found it impossible to rally his forces. Mexican casualties were heavy, and the Mexicans were forced to abandon their artillery and baggage. Fort Brown inflicted further casualties as the withdrawing troops passed by the fort. Many Mexican soldiers drowned trying to swim across the Rio Grande.


Declaration of war
By then, Polk had received word of the Thornton Affair. This, added to the Mexican government's rejection of Slidell, Polk believed, constituted a casus belli. His message to Congress on May 11, 1846 stated that Mexico had "invaded our territory and shed American blood upon the American soil." A joint session of Congress approved the declaration of war, with southern Democrats in strong support because they saw the annexation of Mexico as an opportunity to increase the number of slave states. Sixty-seven Whigs voted against the war on a key slavery amendment, but on the final passage only 14 Whigs voted no, including Reps. Abraham Lincoln and John Quincy Adams. The United States declared war on Mexico on May 13, 1846. Mexico officially declared war on July 7 (sometimes the manifest from President Paredes on May 23 is considered a declaration of war, but only Congress had the power to declare war).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican-American_War

[Rambis]

71. Ding ding ding!

the bells went off right away! another lie another war-

[fujiyama]

91. Exact thought right after seeing this

nt

[Mr_Monday]

92. Damn, read my mind. nt

[IsItJustMe]

114. Here we go again. You would think a new script is in order, by now. But the same old B.S. always

seems to work for the sheeple.

[panader0]

3. This is way too convenient for bush and cheney.

If there was a real incident, I'm sure there will be video and audio recordings. I would like to see them and hear them.

[Demeter]

4. What You Said

Maybe George is looking for an excuse NOT to go to Israel? I wouldn't go, if I were him, but maybe that's because I'm neither drunk nor stupid....

[IDemo]

9. They have been burned in the West Wing for security purposes n/t

[Jim__]

6. "I am coming at you. You will explode in a couple of minutes,"

Was that said in Farsi or English? If in Farsi, who translated? If in English, how clear was the English?

I agree with the above posters. This sounds like pure bush bullshit.

[Jennifer C]

10. Good question

Explode = "We may crash, move out of the way"

[nbcouch]

21. Why does this remind me

so much of Reagan's radio ad lib "we start bombing in five minutes"?

[SpiralHawk]

7. "Them there Eye-ranians is Evil Doers. Smirk." - Commander AWOL

"Yup, just like our republicon homelander propaganda machine has been claiming, Eye-ranians is just the mostest Evil Doers ever. We better nuke them now. I will be sending YOUR sons and daughters in uniform over there to get their loot for my republicon cronies. Oh yeah, and to protect you proles from (smirk) evil and stuff."

- Commander AWOL

[SpiralHawk]

8. CNN cites "unidentified U. S. officials..." WTF

CNN calls this 'reporting.' Bull shit....

[maddezmom]

11. have you seen this? For Pentagon and News Media, Relations Improve With a Shift in War Coverage

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/washington/07military...


Oh happy day!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

16. When the byline is "Shanker..."

Beware!

[mac2]

29. Since when is any war and killing

"optimistic"?

[maddezmom]

28. and another: Pentagon says ships harassed by Iran (of course anonymous)

Pentagon says ships harassed by Iran
By PAULINE JELINEK Associated Press Writer
Article Launched: 01/07/2008 06:39:28 AM PST


Click photo to enlarge
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, foreground, is seen during... (AP Photo/Hasan Sarbakhshian)«1»WASHINGTON—In what is being called a serious provocation, Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats harassed and provoked three U.S. Navy ships in the strategic Strait of Hormuz, officials said Monday.
U.S. forces were on the verge of firing on the Iranian boats in the early Sunday incident, when the boats ended the incident and turned and moved away, said a Pentagon official.

"It is the most serious provocation of this sort that we've seen yet," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record.

The incident occurred at about 5 a.m. local time Sunday as a U.S. Navy cruiser, destroyer and frigate were transiting the strait on their way into the Persian Gulf.

more:http://www.mercurynews.com/natbreakingnews/ci_7902511?n...

[havocmom]

35. All the missing $$ sent to Iraq would buy plenty of help to 'harass US Navy ships'

Even if there was video, I would be damned hard to convince this incident was real and not another sucker punch by cheney.

I am still confused as to how passports of 'the terrorists' were so easily found in the rubble of the World Trade Towers after fire and explosions hot enough to vaporize steel and bring those towers down.

[Fainter]

106. Oh, That's EZ! It Survived The Atomizing Plane Crash & Fluttered...

down on top of the heap just in time for The FBI to find it! :> ))

[coalition_unwilling]

77. Maybe Robert McNamara has made a stealth return to the Pentagon -n/t

[Xipe Totec]

13. In what part of US territorial waters is the Strait of Hormuz? (nt)

[boricua79]

27. simple, but excellent response

[balantz]

14. Indications were it could begin there.

I'm so sick of this game.

[BB1]

15. Want help? Attack and Divide Iran in four.

Give a part in custody to the Saoudis, and Bob's your Uncle. The gulf states bought some 20 bln in arms last summer, so they might want to kick in some 'rockets for oil'.

[pingzing58]

17. Aren't there pirates in that area? I don't know if they were speaking Farsi could they have been

Sudanese pirates? Just wondering.

[mac2]

26. Or Blackwater?

[havocmom]

36. Or some more of Chalabi's gang

Chalabi works all sides of the border anyway.

[lonestarnot]

118. Johnnie Depp on crack.

[focusfan]

18. Bush is obsessed with Iran

if someone would just stop him

[mac2]

23. Obsessed with Iran and world government rule

before his "Daddy dies".

[maddezmom]

19. Brent oil rises after Iran boats 'provoke' US ships

Brent oil rises after Iran boats 'provoke' US ships
Mon Jan 7, 2008 9:09am EST Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single Page | Recommend (0) <-> Text <+>

LONDON, Jan 7 (Reuters) - ICE Brent crude futures rose above
$97 on Monday after a news report that several Iranian boats
threatened U.S. naval ships in the Strait of Hormuz.
- CNN reported that five Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats
harassed and provoked three U.S. Navy ships in the international
waterway on Saturday. The CNN report said the Iranian vessels came within 200
yards of the U.S. ships and that after a threatening radio
communication, U.S. sailors manned their ships' guns and were
very close to opening fire.

more:
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssEnergyNews/idUSL0714...

[Political Heretic]

20. Does anyone expect us to fall for this anymore.....*cough* Tonkin *cough*

Hey let's fake some more reasons to go to war!

[mac2]

22. A reason for war

is on the Bush agenda. Why believe anything out of our media and representatives. They lie.

What about meeting with the Iranians instead of Israel while you are in the Middle East President Bush? Setting up your invasion soon before the elections? Are we to see Military Rule for world war against Islam soon? Look after our best interest (since we are broke).

Bush is like a loose bullet destroying everything everywhere he goes. Impeach the murdering,lying, robbing, traitor Congress! You gave him a blank check. What were you thinking? Empire?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

56. I believe this Middle East meeting with Israel...

is really about, "Okay, fellas, I have one more year to do Iran -- how do we accomplish that?"

Bush is not leaving office without having taken some sort of action against Iran -- and the current gang in the Israeli government knows Bush is their best bet to hammer Iran.

[IsItJustMe]

115. Seems to be their man, that's for sure.

[coalition_unwilling]

79. The similarities to the Gulf of Tonkin incident are eerie and do not stop with the presence of

U.S. warships in disputed international waters.

During the Gulf of Tonkin incidents, it was subsequently revealed that the U.S. had been sponsoring terrorist raids by South Vietnamese puppet forces across the DMZ into Vietnam (thereby explaining Vietnamese forces being on a higher state of alert). According to Seymour Hersh, a similar dynamic has been playing out with the BFEE sponsoring raids into Iranian territory by the terrorist group Mujahedeen e Khalq.

And we all know who won the Vietnam War . . . (hint) it wasn't America.

[Jennifer C]

24. CNN news vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2IrelAO52M

[boricua79]

25. The irony of this posting...

U.S. Warships...originally from a landmass in North America in the Western Hemisphere...claiming that Iranian ships in THEIR Middle Eastern neighborhood are harrassing them.

How about turning that around...the presence of an aggressive, foreign military navy in the Middle East is NOT provoking Iran?

If we don't like their behavior...get the hell out of their neighborhood. Return to American coastal waters and do the job the Navy was designed to do: defend OUR territorial waters and national territory.

[mac2]

31. I want you as my General!

[IsItJustMe]

116. I'll second that motion. Common fricken since would be nice for a change.

[Sweet Pea]

37. Does Anyone Here

know anything about the right of vessels to pass through international waters and international straits, of which Hormuz is one? The Straits of Hormuz do not belong to Iran any more than they belong to the US. Harassment by Iranian speed boats has been going on since the days of Khomeini - sometimes more, sometimes less.

And as far as the "...job the Navy was designed to do", it is doing just that - "The mission of the Navy is to maintain, train and equip combat-ready Naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression and maintaining freedom of the seas."

If you don't like that, then get someone elected who will change that mission statement to one that stipulates the Navy will be nothing
more than a national coast-only naval capability and let the freedom of the seas go to hell.

[boricua79]

53. U.S. ships do not have to be in the Middle East

despite international law allowing ships to pass. Nobody would complain if the ships involved were commercial or passenger ships. No nation (including the United States) wants to have the foreign navy of an aggressive power that has made threats against them in waters right off their coast. If the Iranian Navy was to schedule travel in international waters near the U.S., we'd hear about it very clearly. WHy the double standard.

The "maintaining freedom of the seas" stipulation is imperial in nature. Did the United Nations authorize the United STates to maintain the freedom of the seas? Are all the seas in the world owned by the United States and policed by its sovereign forces?. That's imperialism

If it wants to train to win wars and deter aggression, it can do so in American territorial waters. THere is no reason, save legitimate self-defense, conduct of a legal war, or U.N.-approved international intervention, why the United States should have its navy patrolling along the horizon of other countries' coastlines.

Imagine someone doing the same around YOUR house. Patrolling their car up and down your street. How would you feel about it.

I don't blame the Iranian Navy at all. Get the HELL out of their neighborhood.

[Sweet Pea]

88. LOL

Iran was responsible for damaging over 500 tankers and commercial ships (the vast majority Kuwaiti) during the 1984 Tanker War that began in the gulf. Any bets on what they would/could do if they had unfettered access to do what ever the hell they wanted to do? Hormuz would end up an oil tap, to be turned on and off by Iran as they please.

Your assignment is to describe what a global recession would be like if the world's supply of oil is controlled by a radical Islamic regime. Pick three nations at random and describe in detail how their economy would fare if their oil supply were to drop by 50%. Extra points if you include a discussion on ways and means to avoid this scenario. Bear in mind "Everybody play nice!" is not a viable geostrategic policy. Spelling and grammar count.

Maintaining freedom of the seas is "imperial" in nature? When is the last time you checked to see what nations have the market cornered on registered ships? I'll give you a hint - it AIN'T the US. Maintaining free and open sea lanes of communication for commerce is simply good smarts. You don't know what you are talking about when you say crap like that. The US doesn't *own* any of those seas, but if the Law of the Sea and territorial limits are not enforced by any and all sea going ships, military or otherwise, what is the use of a law of the sea? Are you prepared to just let all the other nations around the world set their own laws regarding off shore entities? Are you prepared to forsake international law? get back to me on the aforementioned assignment. I don't like .
late papers.

[boricua79]

102. so,

if you feel so strongly about your scenario, you make it an agenda item of the U.N. to mandate a multinational force to patrol the Strait of Hormuz. You could also involve Iran in the decision making process, so it is clear to them that this is an interest and concern of the entire oil-consuming world. When it's just the U.S. with its carrier groups near Iran, and you have a President that saber-rattles against them, your message about safe passage and defending the Law of the Seas falls on hollow ears. It certainly does on the Iranian regime's leaders. They're not saying to themselves, "oh...they're out there in case something bad happens...they mean us no harm". No, they're saying to themselves, "they're preparing to attack us in the future...prepare countermeasures".

There's also a question of whether or not they are international waters. I'd like to know the GPS location of American battleships and carriers in the Strait of Hormuz. Are they in Omani, Iranian, or UAE, or Iraqi waters?

And if they're in Iraqi waters, are they there simply because they have a puppet regime in Iraq that allows them the privilige of stationing their military forces within attack range of Iran?

Check this map out

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Sweet Pea]

104. A UN Multinational Force?

You have a great deal more faith in the UN being able to accomplish something than I do.

[boricua79]

107. no, I don't

but I see through your thought process.

And you incorrectly assume I don't know nothing about political theory (a very incorrect assumption, considering I have graduate degrees in Political Science).

You're thought process comes from the Realpolitik school of thought. You assume that in the absence of a coercive military force (the U.S.), that the Iranians will act in their national interest, to the detriment of the rest of the world. Therefore, if the rest of the world is to be assured access to free shipping lanes, SOMEBODY has to be the police...and naturally, that somebody is conveniently the United States.

That's your view.

My view is that these issues can be resolved through agreed international frameworks, and that when nations do not follow the frameworks, they can be coerced to follow these agreements through multinational frameworks. One nation can certainly attempt coercion...but that nation incurs great reputational, economic, and military consequences for "going it alone".

There are smarter ways to resolve issues related to the Strait of Hormuz that do not involve the a priori / non negotiable idea that American carrier groups MUST be in the Strait's waters.

I highly doubt the Iranians, who are very aware of how isolated they are in the world, will make such a drastic move as cutting off the "tap" of the Strait of Hormuz for pure "national interest" motives. As with the scenario with Saddam Hussein using his WMDs, the Iranians are most likely to resort to economic warfare via strangling the Strait of Hormuz if they feel they that they're about to be attacked or have been attacked. I do not see them doing such a drastic move in the absence of a provocative presence (the U.S.).

The best way to deal with Iran is through negotiations and a simple thing called respect. The Iranians are tired of having Israel threatening to bomb them, and of being called part of an "axis of evil". I don't have to like they're theocratic, abusive government (I don't) to know that we're provoking much of their hardline foreign policies. Leave them alone. Address their misdeeds when they occur. Don't base our foreign policy on the a priori belief that they WILL act bad and therefore, that we must be there. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. And when they do act bad, address those moments through international channels. We succeeded in this when Iraq invaded Kuwait (an act worse than strangling the Strait). We went to the U.N., received a consensus support that Iraq had to be expelled militarily, organized a coalition of nations behind our effort, and succeeded in removing Saddam. Iraq 1 had a lot of respect from people in the world. Iraq 2 stands as a case-study in how NOT to conduct a war, both the beginning and the actual transpiring of it. What's the difference? One was done within international frameworks and was seen as a world action to rectify a wrong (invasion of Kuwait), and the second was (correctly) seen as an act of oil-greed imperialism/arrogance, on the part of a right-wing American administration, with no legitimate basis.

[Sweet Pea]

124. This conversation....

is slowly meandering off topic, but I'll close with this.

If you want to go on placidly down the road of an idealistic approach to foreign policy, go right ahead. It is what brought is the 1930's and the 1940's, though, but knock yourself out. negotiate your ass off, if you want, with a regime like Iran and I'll laugh at your feeble attempts. Why don't you negotiate with bin laden while you are at it?

I prefer a realistic view of the world - how the world *is* vice what it should be. And how the world *is* includes historical knowledge and experience that an Iran or Horn of Africa pirates or terrorism or rogue states or how "negotiation" with some entities in this geopolitical element is an absolute waste of time and effort.

But, like I said....knock yourself out!

[mac2]

70. The point being Sweet Pea

is that we don't belong all over the world threatening war when we can't defend our own boarders. Many American bases and ports have been closed yet we are all over the world.

[Sweet Pea]

86. Huh?

Many American bases and ports have been closed because we don't need them. Are you saying we need more ports and bases?

On Sept 2 1945 we had nearly 7,000 ships and 3 and a half million men and women engaged in the sea services. Today? We have less than 280 ships and 334,000 personnel. Are you saying we need the same support infrastructure now, even though we have 96% less ships?

95% of the world's commerce still travels via sea. The sea lanes of communication that kept Britain alive 70 years ago are still just as important in keeping many nations economies alive today. The Navy isn't going around the threatening war any more than any other nation is. The 21st century pirates off Somalia and the Horn of Africa would love for us to go home. The Iranian's in the self-same Hormuz would love for us to go home - that would leave the Arabian (not Persian)Gulf all theirs to do whatever they want, and if you think Iran wouldn't hesitate for a nanosecond to pull some hooliganism in the straits without someone to throw the bullshit flag, you're deluded. Iran has for decades claimed Hormuz as their own, ignoring the fact that a sovereign nation owns the land on the other side.

Same with Gibraltar, Malacca, Suez, Panama and any other strategic choke point around the world. "Let local navy forces control them!" you may cry. Bullshit. There is no "local navy" to fight the pirates off Somalia. Leaving Hormuz to the Iranians is to give Amadinijad (you remember him...the "There are no gays in Iran" guy) a tap to turn on or off the world's oil. Panama has no navy to speak of, Egypt has questionable ability to keep both ends of Suez open, and as far as the Straits of Malacca goes, Indonesia is less capable than Egypt and Panama combined.

Having a global capability on the high seas is an advantage to the US. Pure and simple.

[boricua79]

103. so when they start pulling the "hooliganism"

get a U.N. mandate to secure the Strait of hormuz.

No nation in the world (including China and Russia) will complain when nations counter-act an Iranian act of hooliganism in the Strait. Until then, positioning our forces there is an act of provocation, and you know that's how the Iranians see it.

And they're ready for our ships with their Russian-made Sunburn missiles.

[coalition_unwilling]

80. It is a matter of dispute whether straits of Hormuz are truly

"international waters" I would say.

[endarkenment]

83. Only a very small section actually is.

Look at the maps. The international shipping lanes are the only part that is international territory. Where exactly were our warships?

[coalition_unwilling]

84. And if Mujahedeen e Khalq commandos were mounting

terrorist operations inside Iranian territory (shades of Tonkin there) . . .?

[Sweet Pea]

89. Really?

Could you elaborate? I'm curious regarding your interpretation of a 30-mile-in-width stretch of water that has one nation on one side and a different nation on the other side and you say it is not international waters. Your interpretation, whatever it is, flies in the face of international law of the sea tenets.

But go ahead...make my day

[coalition_unwilling]

90. Only international sea lanes are "international waters". Rest of

the straits are disputed territorial waters of Iran and UAE. Unless you care to elaborate or source your rebuttal?

[Sweet Pea]

97. Well...

Without getting snarky, you really don't know much about this subject, do you?

The piece of land that sticks out of the Arabian peninsula towards Iran is actually Oman, not UAE.

As far as elaboration or sourceing my rebuttal, I'd recommend you start by picking up a copy of "The Law of the Sea", Third Edition, edited by Churchill and Lowe. Take a gander at chapter 5, succinctly titled "Straits".

Then, if you have the time, and you can do this with an online PDF, take a gander at the ANNOTATED SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMMANDER’S HANDBOOK ON THE LAW OF NAVAL OPERATIONS and go to page 203 for starters (read whatever you'd like, afterwards, but I'd highly recommend chapter 2, again specifically chapter 2.3.3 on International Straits.

Read up on how the 12 mile territorial limit is handled here, especially in light of the fact that the narrowest part of the Straits of Hormuz is 29 miles. 12 and 12 is 24, which leaves a 5 mile transit zone for international shipping, and that includes US warships, to transit. If Iranian gunboats came within 200 yards (600') of the Navy ships in a hostile manner, they were doing so in international waters. Even if Iran's 12 miles of territorial waters is measured from the low tide elevation, which appears to be the case in the narrowest part of Hormuz, international law is clear with regards to the right of ships to execute innocent passage: "THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ PROVIDES A CASE IN POINT; ALTHOUGH THE AREA OF OVERLAP OF THE TERRITORIAL SEAS OF IRAN AND OMAN IS RELATIVELY SMALL, THE REGIME OF TRANSIT PASSAGE APPLIES THROUGHOUT THE STRAIT AS WELL AS IN ITS APPROACHES INCLUDING
AREAS OF THE OMAN1 AND THE IRANIAN TERRITORIAL SEAS NOT OVERLAPPED BY THE OTHER. (NOTE: THE ESSENCE OF TRANSIT PASSAGE IS THAT A VESSEL OR AIRCRAFT IN A STRAIT CONTINUOUSLY AND EXPEDITIOUSLY MOVING BETWEEN TWO BODIES OF WATER (IN WHICH THE FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION AND OVERFLIGHT IS THE APPLICABLE REGIME) NEED NOT BECOME SUBJECT TO THE REGIME OF INNOCENT PASSAGE WHEN REQUIRED TO ENTER A TERRITORIAL SEA IN THE STRAIT OR ITS APPROACHES." (page 189, Annotated Supplement).

Go get a copy of the Law of the Sea Convention, abbreviated LOSC, and read up on article 38 which states, with regards to transit of international straits: “…all ships and aircraft enjoy the right of transit passage, which shall not be impeded…”

I could go on and on here, but I think the point is made. Hormuz has *historically* been a strategic choke point/transit strait and international law covers such situations.

BTW, where did you get that idea that the rest of the straits are disputed territorial waters of Iran and UAE? National territorial sea extends out to 12 miles, and both Iran and UAE can claim such.

Some nations like to claim a Security Zone that extends beyond their territorial seas. This "claim", as put forth by the above Commander's handbook, "...claimed the right to establish military
security zones, beyond the territorial sea, of varying breadth in which they purport to
regulate the activities of warships and military aircraft of other nations by such restrictions as
prior notification or authorization for entry, limits on the number of foreign ships or aircraft
present at any given time, prohibitions on various operational activities, or complete
exclusion."

Problem is, again from the afore referenced handbook: "International law does not recognize the right of coastal nations to establish zones that would restrict the exercise of non-resource-related high seas freedoms beyond the territorial sea. Accordingly, the U.S. does not recognize the validity of any claimed security or military zone seaward of the territorial sea which purports to restrict or regulate the high seas freedoms of navigation and overflight."

The US was perfectly within its right to do what it was doing and Iran was, if not blatantly then at least tacitly, breaking international law with its actions.

[coalition_unwilling]

112. My mistake on Oman vs. UAE. Actually, relied on an obviously false memory.

Thanks for the copious documentation and, no, I am a "generalist," not a specialist in the laws of the sea. I apologize that I came across as snarky - chalk it up to detailed study on the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 and its many obvious and not-so-obvious parallels to this latest incident with the U.S. Navy.

That said, we do not really know for sure exactly where US ships were operating (unless you also have specifics on that score you have not yet shared). Furthermore, you write that "If Iranian gunboats came within 200 yards (600') of the Navy ships in a hostile matter . . ." All reports I have seen (cannot remember sources offhand but one was undoubtedly National Petroleum Radio, aka NPR) have put the closest approach of the Iranian speedboats at 500 yards, not 200 yards. "Hostile manner," like beauty, rests somewhat in the eye of the beholder, I would submit.

I am seriously impressed, though, by your obvious command of the small details. I wish everyone showed the same respect for law that you manifest.

[ohio2007]

95. Crew members of the USS Cole know

complacency kills

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuafaALL4l4&feature=rela...
they won't be taken captive like the Brits near Basra,
they fooled again

[slackmaster]

105. Getting out of the ME is going to take a major initiative to develop alterantive energy

That's the bottom line.

[hatrack]

30. Yes, and the USS Vincennes was "menaced" by a commercial Airbus

[mac2]

72. President Johnson and The Liberty

Johnson did not get upset when our Navy ship Liberty was "actually" shot at by Israeli planes trying to blame the Egyptians. He didn't threaten war.

[ohio2007]

85. but he got mad when the Maddox was attacked by three N.VietNamese gunboats

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution
Maddox was a warship, Liberty was a spy ship.

[originalpckelly]

33. All together now: G U L F--O F--T O N K I N, Gulf of Tonkin

One war is not enough,
One tragedy not enough,
These people are insane
They're at it once again

P E R S I A N G U L F, once again
P E R S I A N G U L F, yes again
All together now:
G U L F O F T O N K I N, Gulf of Tonkin

These people are insane
They're at it once again
One war is not enough,
One tragedy not enough

Now Gulf of Tonkin is spelled:
P E R S I A N G U L F

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

39. Catchy, especially the so f***ing true part.

MKJ

[ohio2007]

40. Problem is,neither side fired. The Iranians dumped some "boxes" in to water.....

The US Navy should have fished at least one of those boxes out and had a look at it or,
if the "boxes" floated, shoot em up.

I'm sure in a few days video from either side will make it its way to the internet. That's something during LBJ's watch that wasn't possible.

[mac2]

73. Were the boxes full of tea?

Might this be a "copy cat" attempt like the Boston Tea party against the big bully Empire?

[ohio2007]

82. Iran has been bragging about high tech weapons........ doubt it was tea, most likely

boxes of "head games".

[mac2]

76. They have many wars and tragedy under their belts

and should be stopped. They belong at the Hague since they are the same as the Hilter types...for Empire and God.

[coalition_unwilling]

81. FYI: Hitler used special German commandos dressed as Polish soliders

to fake an attack on German border posts in order to justify the invasion of Poland in September '39.

[ohio2007]

41. A convenient reason to get the price of oil to spike up is more likely

..mission accomplished.......but by which side?

[fascisthunter]

42. BS - America Has Been Baiting Iran for Years Now

hoping something like this would actually happen so that the US would have an excuse to attack. How disgusting and transparent.

[BB1]

46. That's right. But remember how

Iran treated the 15 captured British marine-personnel a while back? Not a scratch, and, subsequently, no cause for war!

[redqueen]

44. Uh huh. Sure.

How many U.S. citizens are still credulous enough to believe this schtick any longer?

[Nihil]

101. I'll be able to give you an accurate count ...

... just after the election ...

From past experience, that means there are a LOT of credulous citizens.

[redqueen]

110. *sigh* guess so...

I just saw the "breaking news" about the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" being faked.

Who knew?!

[Kablooie]

47. If Bush gets us into a war with Iran would it affect the primaries?

I'm wondering if any short sighted Democrats would switch their vote to Hillary
because ehe is selling herself as a stronger war president?

[ohio2007]

50. The mullahs are putting out "feelers" to the canidates

what kind of respones will they give?
Dennis, Hillary, Barak?

[Magleetis]

51. Sorry

but US "officials" have no credibility and therefore can't be trusted to tell the truth.

I believe nothing that comes from this admin.

[paparush]

54. This coming right on the heels of "Bush to meet with Isreal to discuss Iran Nuke Program"

The table is being set.

The plates of lies are stacked high.

Get ready to be spoon-fed another meal of bullshit.

[maddezmom]

55. more: not even sure it was Revolutionary Guard or reg navy

~snip~

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

Whitman said the Pentagon will work with State and National Security Council officials to determine "the appropriate way to address this with the Iranian government."

The U.S. vessels were in international waters, making a normal transit into the Gulf, Whitman said, adding that the Iranian boats were operating at "distances and speeds that showed reckless and dangerous intent — reckless, dangerous and potentially hostile intent."

He said the episode lasted 15 to 20 minutes but wouldn't say whether officials know for certain whether the were vessels were Iranian Revolutionary Guard or regular Iranian navy. The Revolutionary Guard forces have been known to be more aggressive than the regular navy.

"At least some were visibly armed. Small Iranian fastboats made some aggressive maneuvers against our vessels and indicated some hostile intent," Whitman.


m ore: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080107/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/u... ;_ylt=AhxKZhM9Db81.xSLDaRacqes0NUE

[kineneb]

74. put an Iranian behind the wheel of a boat? Oh, No! Do you know how they drive?

like maniacs. I have lived there. I know how my step-father steered his ski boat...

"distances and speeds that showed reckless and dangerous intent - reckless, dangerous and potentially hostile intent."

They were just doing normal maneuvers.

Another place where not understanding the local culture is dangerous.

[endarkenment]

78. At least some were visibly armed!

unlike our warships which, as everyone knows, are unarmed.

If this incident actually happened I would like to know exactly where in 'international waters' these Iranian 'fast boats' were how far off the Iranian shore?

[lovuian]

57. So I guess the war with Iran is on the table again and it will

be a Tonkin incident to get us in it

If we go to war with Iran it will be totally different than Iraq
they do have a navy its not big but it is something to worry about
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SOL0j0yqqMM

this is coming saw the signs awhile back just like Turkey's invasion on the Kurds

[paparush]

58. Here We Go - Pentagon Says Ships Harrassed by Iran

Source: AP

WASHINGTON - In what U.S. officials called a serious provocation, Iranian boats harassed and provoked three U.S. Navy ships in the strategic Strait of Hormuz, threatening to explode the American vessels.

U.S. forces were on the verge of firing on the Iranian boats in the early Sunday incident, when the boats — believed to be from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's navy — turned and moved away, a Pentagon official said. "It is the most serious provocation of this sort that we've seen yet," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record. Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman called it a "serious incident. This is something that deserves an explanation."

Iran's Foreign Ministry said on Monday that the weekend incident was "something normal" and was resolved.

National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said the United States urges the Iranians "to refrain from such provocative actions that could lead to a dangerous incident in the future."

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080107/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/u...

---

Can anyone say "Gulf of Tonkin"?

[RainDog]

59. I can: GULF OF TONKIN

I cannot believe that there are any americans stupid enough to fall for this, but of course there are. the bush league must want to make sure it gets its war on before they leave the white house.

no need to impeach or anything, tho.

[sakabatou]

60. Let the carpet bombing begin!

[DLnyc]

61. ?? Dick getting Georgie out of town so he can party ??

Not a good idea, since Russia has alligned with Iran now.

Does help distract attention away from interesting Democrats and sickeningly pathetic Republicans, though.

[Bigmack]

62. Check out "An American in Iran"

in the January 17 issue of the New York Review. It's yet ANOTHER piece of evidence in the obvious argument that ONLY the village idiot would go to war with Iran to try to force developments that would MOST likely occur anyway in the fullness of time if Iran is "allowed" to seek and find its own path into the future! Military strikes on Iran will CLEARLY reverse the emerging liberal and modern views of many, if not MOST Iranians. Besides...wouldn't the US be VERY ON ALERT if ships of a potentially hostile nation proceeded into the Strait of Juan de Fuca (at the northwest corner of the US)? Ms. Bigmack

[Christa]

63. One has to take this with a whole bag of salt

I dont believe a word of it

[LuckyLib]

64. Let the games begin.

[LeftHander]

65. Strait of Hormuz -REALLY NARROW....

I think this report is bogus. I don't suppose they also noted the laughter in the report.

Anytime two ships are in the lanes in the straight they are likely going to be rather close. The navigable lanes in the strait is about 5 miles in width. if they were in the same lane going the same direction the faster smaller boats would be able to overtake the larger ones.

[mac2]

75. Good point

It is very narrow. Doesn't Iran have a right to be there since they ship their oil and need to protect it? There are oil pirates in the oceans today.

[MilesColtrane]

66. From The Guardian:

"It is the most serious provocation of this sort that we've seen yet," said one US official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

"Five small boats were acting in a very aggressive way, charging the ships, dropping boxes in the water in front of the ships and causing our ships to take evasive manoeuvres.

He added that the Iranian boats turned away "literally at the very moment that US forces were preparing to open fire".

Officials said the captain of one US vessel was in the process of giving the order to shoot when the Iranian ships began turning away.

A radio transmission from one of the Iranian ships said, "I am coming at you. You will explode in a couple of minutes," a US official was reported as saying


http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2236771,00.html...

That shitheel's tired of just being the Occupation President now, and wants to be a War President again.

[paparush]

67. I'm sure there are interpretters standing by on the bridge, to translate any

radio communications directed at the US navy by "small boats".

Maybe there are.

Anybody know?

[ohio2007]

93. US Navy should blast them with a little Ted Nugent on their own 1 MC speakers

if they want to talk trash...........
\



yep
thats what I'm talking about !

[kineneb]

68. Praise Allah- man the bass boats! Kill the spawn of Satan!

Iran's navy is rather less than impressive. The Persians have never been an ocean-going people.

[ohio2007]

94. They only have to get lucky once....

throw boxes over the side until you catch them napping.... when three of the five cigarette boats keep the cimtex on board.


http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfi...


They want the bigger fish and imo, they will go after a president

[Thothmes]

96. Doubt these were regular Iranian navy forces. Suspect

they were some of the very conservative militia. (don't recall their name). I have operated with ships of the Iranian Navy before. They can hold their own. Their ship handlers are as good a seamen as we were. They were equipped with very old ex U.S. Navy vessels.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ignis]

87. I thought your K/L vote wouldn't have any impact, Hillary...

Yet here we see an incident where the IRG (which you voted to declare a terrorist organization) had direct interaction with US forces.

As many others have mentioned upthread, K/L + one little "Gulf of Tonkin"-esque incident like this = War with Iran.

So much for a meaningless amendment that was only a bit of political showmanship.

[IndianaGreen]

98. US Navy has been deploying SEAL teams into Iranian territory

US is trying to provoke an Iranian response.

[Sweet Pea]

125. Got Any Proof?

Or is this just your opinion?

[Pacifist Patriot]

99. They report this like it's anything new. Give me a break.

[humbled_opinion]

100. If I was Captain of the Port Royal...

I would have blown them out of the water and said nothing else about it... Remember the Cole would be my mantra and you know what let the Iranians cry and squawk about it all they want.... The next time they wouldn't get too close now will they....

Hahaha..

[boricua79]

108. that would have provoked

the Iranians into sinking the American fleet in the Strait with their Sunburn missiles.

ANd that would have provoked an American retaliation and commencement of bombardment against Iran.

That would have provoked war....a war we do not have the resources to wage.

Iraq cost us 1 Trillion dollars and counting...you think the Iranians will be a pushover?

[Octafish]

111. JFK Would NEVER Have Fallen for Phony INTEL!

His successors did, however.

JFK Would NEVER Have Fallen for Phony INTEL!

[Thothmes]

123. Don't know about that

He allowed himself to be convinced that the Bay of Pigs was a doable operation. Circumstance would later prove that it was not.

[ohio2007]

113. Raw Video

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=02f_1199833174

no audio at this time

[IsItJustMe]

121. Lake Michigan?

[Pavulon]

122. Iran acked. it

not like they denied the incident. Those guys are very lucky not to be coming out the south end of a north bound fish at this time..

[Dover]

117. Tehran Times: American Psyops

Persian Gulf incident part of U.S. psyops: Majlis speaker
Tehran Times Political Desk



http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=160903

[fascisthunter]

119. !!!!!!!!!

[fascisthunter]

120. Yuh... They Were Shouting "Go Home!", while throwing sand

Fricken, give me a break. What a bunch of craven morons we have in the Pentagon and the Bush Administration.