Iranian gunboats trying to provoke US Warships - better video

[JohnR]

Almost surprised nobody was discussing this incident. Here is the article from the Globe. The Navy released a more detailed video that works better than the 20 second clip on TV but they still edited out 10+ minutes of the video for security reasons: http://www.defenselink.mil/dodcmssha...-6570C-001.wmv

Five Iranian gunboats threatened US warships in the Persian Gulf on Sunday, racing within striking distance of the three vessels before retreating, according to the US Navy's top officer, who called the provocative maneuvers "extremely unprofessional, unsafe, and unhelpful."
Admiral Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations, also said that US officers commanding the three ships - a destroyer, a cruiser, and a frigate - picked up threatening radio transmissions after unsuccessfully trying to contact the Iranian vessels.
"They came within a couple of hundred yards of the ships," Roughead said in an interview with the Globe yesterday. "They approached the ships in an aggressive manner and maneuvered close aboard."

The confrontation, which occurred in international waters just days before President Bush is due to make a high-profile tour of the Middle East, prompted a strong reaction from US military leaders who are seeking to avoid an armed conflict with Iran. It also raised new concerns about the hair-trigger tensions in the region and the potential for a deadly miscalculation between two navies that have no official mechanism to communicate concerns.

Over the radio, the admiral said, the US ves sels picked up comments "that were aggressive" and indicated the gunboats "were closing" in on the USS Hopper, USS Port Royal, and USS Ingraham.

In a conference call with Pentagon reporters, Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, commander of the US Fifth Fleet, said the transmissions were to the effect that the "US ships would explode" - sparking fears of a repeat of the suicide bombing of the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen in 2000 that killed 17 US sailors.

But Roughead said it was unclear whether the radio warning came from Iranian vessels or from shore along the Straits of Hormuz, a narrow, 34-mile opening into the Persian Gulf, through which an estimated 40 percent of the world's oil supply is shipped. Sunday's incident occurred at 8 a.m. local time when the three American vessels were entering the Persian Gulf through the straits.
"In that part of the Gulf, who was saying what [is] sometimes very difficult to determine," Roughead said.

Cosgriff also said that two of the Iranian boats dropped white "box-like objects" that floated in the path of the Ingraham, the final ship in the formation, but caused no damage.

Roughead said it was unclear whether the five so-called "fast attack" craft, which are outfitted with small-caliber weapons but not anti-ship missiles, were operated by the Iranian Navy or by the more aggressive Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps or by both.
US officials described the incident as the most significant since the Iranian Navy temporarily took 15 British sailors hostage last year after alleging their vessel entered Iranian territorial waters in the northern Persian Gulf. They suggested that the US ships were only moments away from firing on the Iranian naval vessels before the Iranians retreated.

"We urge the Iranians to refrain from such provocative actions that could lead to a dangerous incident in the future," said Gordon Johndroe, a White House spokesman.

Mohammad-Ali Hosseini, the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, said the Iranian vessels merely made a routine acknowledgement of the US ships. Iranian officials said they had no knowledge of any boxes or radio communication threatening explosions.

But Navy officers, who have frequent, businesslike radio interactions with individual vessels in the Iranian Navy, were concerned about the incident.

Iran controls the eastern side of the Strait of Hormuz, and Iranian Navy officers make contact with ships that pass through, asking them to identify themselves and state their course and speed. US naval officers respond by giving the name of their ship, the speed, and their course through international waters.

Sunday's incident, where it occurred and the hostile nature of the Iranian boats' maneuvers, are what "made this one so unusual," Roughead said.

"Professional navies do not operate that way," he said, during an interview with Globe reporters and editors. "That to me is an issue that does not help the security and stability in that part of the world. It is a very constrained passage, a very critical passage for so many countries. That sort of behavior is extraordinarily unhelpful."

The move follows a period of relative calm in the heated rhetoric between the United States and Iran. US military officials in Iraq recently have noted that the number of Iranian-made weapons entering the country has declined. Meanwhile, the latest National Intelligence Estimate determined Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

As Bush makes his first visit to the region, analysts said, the incident may have been intended as Iran's warning that it will not be isolated or ignored. The confrontation may have also been a signal for Arabic states in the Gulf, "who have to make their continuing decisions about aligning more closely with the United States, or accommodating the Iranians," said Paul Pillar, a former CIA analyst now at Georgetown University. "Whatever ideas the US may have to push Iran around, Iran has options to push back."

Others said they believe the Iranians may have been probing the United States' willingness to engage their military. "I think it was an effort to test the US reaction," said Kenneth Katzman, a specialist on the Persian Gulf at the Congressional Research Service, the research arm of Congress. Katzman has written a book on Iran's Revolutionary Guard.

"I think in the wake of the release of the US intelligence estimate, they were probing to see how the US rules of engagement might have changed, whether US contemplation of military action is more or less likely," he said.

The strategic waterway has been a flashpoint before.
In what came to be known as the 1987 Tanker War, Kuwaiti oil tankers sailed under US flags after the Iranian Navy mined the strait and fired on ships at the height of the Iran-Iraq war. The next year, US forces destroyed two Iranian offshore military installations after 10 American sailors were injured by a mine that Iran was believed to have planted.

After another US warship was damaged by a mine, Americans sank two Iranian warships and several armed speedboats. The one-day battle severely damaged the Iranian Navy.

Several security experts insisted yesterday the Iranian vessels are no serious threat to the American warships. They also doubt that the Iranians would want to shut down the straits, which are critical to their own economic well-being.

John Pike, who runs the think tank GlobalSecurity.org, noted that the Iranian gunboats that menaced the US warships lack heavy firepower and do not pose a significant threat, unless they are used in suicide attacks.

By contrast, Pike said, the US ships are armed with sophisticated, large-caliber guns that would "just shred" the Iranian craft. The Iranians, he added, "can do whatever they please to unarmed oil tankers, but why would they want to? Their financial situation is more precarious than everyone else's."

Nevertheless, Admiral Roughead said he worried such behavior could have escalated unintentionally into a military confrontation before either side could call for a halt. "I do not have a direct link with my counterpart in the Iranian Navy," he said. "I don't have a way to communicate directly with the Iranian Navy or Guard."

Article here: http://www.boston.com/news/world/mid...ress_us_ships/

[BigFish]

Should have blown them out of the water! You play with the bull, your gonna get the horns! International incident?? What isn't?? Its gonna happen sooner or later!

[fishsmith]

Iran has to be looking for war pulling this shi%, and the hijacking of British sailors last year.

Now what will the UN do? Nothing is my guess.

I can't imagine the anxiety the crews on our ships felt, expecially with the boxes (I"m sure they assumed they were mines) tossed from the small speed boats.

What make me nervous is that by doing nothing, the next time this comes up, the small boat could be a suicide mission.

[The Dad Fisherman]

I always wondred what one of these would do to a patrol boat full of Iranians

[beamie]

I am very surprised they didn't toast 'em all.......Those boats were way too close for Force Protection standards......

[Mike P]

Originally Posted by BigFish

Should have blown them out of the water! You play with the bull, your gonna get the horns! International incident?? What isn't?? Its gonna happen sooner or later!

Or, to quote Tom Clancy, if you're going to twist the tiger's tail, you'd better have a plan for dealing with his teeth.

[RIJIMMY]

I have mixed feelings on this. Did you see the pics of the US ships compared to those Iranian speedboats ? Why weren't they fired upon immediately?
I'm all for wiping them out but I feel like this is kind of like a big strong kid getting teased by a little wimp and the big kids goes and whines about it.
I think it makes the US look weak. We should have sunk them or shut up about it. I dont think this is an international incident.

[fishsmith]

RIJIMMY - tell that to the crew of the USS COLE, one of those wimpy little kids ripped a hole in the side of their ship.

[BigFish]

It would have been an International Incident had we responded with force.........which I think we should have! You warn them and they do not listen......blast away!

[animal]

Keep poking the bear,Mohammed.

[JohnR]

There is not a bunch of info out there yet, just speculation. Scuttlebutt has that the CO was in the process of giving the order to fire when they turned away - but that is just rumor. But the guns were manned and ready.

What were their Rules of Engagement? Don't fire until fired upon? Don't fire until the last possible moment (that moment was really close)? Sounds like the Navy was doing everything in accordance with law and seamanship.

If they did fire, would we be in a shooting war? Sure the Iranians were deserving to meet Allah, but this was probably just a probe to find out what it would take to or attempt to provoke the US into responding, or yet another time when Iran stirs the pot just before some big global meeting where Iran will get drug out on the carpet...

This has happened before and will happen again, I just hope the next time doesn't turn into a shooting war and if it does, Iran doesn't get its licks in first.

Pretty reckless by the IRGN

[spence]

I don't really think this is all that big of a deal. They were probably just seeing what they could get away with and what we might do. It's not like Iran wants any piece of a fight with the US.

They know we're not going to let another USS Cole happen, no Navy Capt'n is going to let that happen to their crew if they can help it.

So here we're supposed to be concerned about this "most dangerous nation on the planet" and all they can do is zip by the US Navy in a speed boat that needs a good hull painting?

This is the biggest threat to our national defense? Give me a break. We have bigger issues to worry about.

-spence

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by spence

IWe have bigger issues to worry about.

-spence

I need to give you your casserole dish back

[Backbeach Jake]

Don't they realize that there is a submarine nearby capable of starting Armageddon? Why in the World would you provoke such a response? Oh yeah, it's us, we'll either talk it to death or just plain Eff it all up.

[basswipe]

Originally Posted by spence

This is the biggest threat to our national defense? Give me a break. We have bigger issues to worry about.

-spence

The very biggest issue.Taking on a third arab country?VERY BIG.We're stretched thin already.Iran knows what it's doing,they prayed to allah we'd fire so they could "legitimately" enter into the current stupidity.When you truly believe god says its ok to kill you do it.

Add N.Korea,Pakistan,India,China etc. to the mix,then what...WW3maybe.We've done it twice already and no one saw it coming or they didn't believe it could happen.

This isn't paranoia,its reality.The possibility is real.

We should've CRUSHED our enemies when we had the chance but we blew it and now the world's sentiment is against us.

The rest of the world seems clueless these days how important America is to them.Ask anybody of Eur-Asian decent born on or before 1945.

Islam is scary in the 21st century.No more "lead,follow or get of the way".It's now "follow or die".

I would truly feel better knowing that an asteroid was plunging towards Earth than I would about the reality of our world situation.

After saying all that my recommendation would be drink heavily(or do some killer drugs) and hook up with the woman as often as possilble, try to get some fishing in.Don't worry be "happy"(drunk,stoned and laid).

That ain't just stirrin' the pot...its smokin it!

[fishpoopoo]

feeling each other out. keeping oil prices up.

Iran, U.S.: Ongoing Naval Incident Fallout
Stratfor Today » January 10, 2008 | 1640 GMT

Summary

Rhetoric has continued to fly regarding the Jan. 6 Iranian-U.S. naval confrontation, with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps now having released a video of its own to bolster its argument about how the incident played out. Of greatest significance, however, is the line Washington has drawn in the sand as a result of the incident.

Analysis

Rhetoric over the Jan. 6 incident in the Strait of Hormuz between U.S. warships and Iranian gunboats continued to fly Jan. 10 with the release of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGCN) footage of the incident.

Both U.S. Navy and IRGCN videos (if authentic) appear to feature the same three U.S. warships. The vessels appear to be in the same formation, initially with the USS Ingraham (FFG-61) bringing up the rear. The IRGCN video also includes very clear shots of the bow markings of the USS Port Royal (CG-73) and the USS Hopper (DDG-70), as well as at least one Iranian gunboat of the same size and color as depicted in the U.S. video. At one point, the Hopper’s ship horn can be heard.

Notably, the U.S. video released Jan. 8 did not show a U.S. SH-60B Seahawk helicopter in the air, as the IRGCN video does. That a SH-60 was in the air for the transit is unsurprising, but it raises the possibility that there is unreleased U.S. footage shot from the helicopter. That the IRGCN also documented the encounter, though not guaranteed, similarly could be anticipated; such encounters in international waters commonly are recorded by navies everywhere. This is especially true of military encounters, where filming can allow tactically significant nuances of standard operating procedures to be observed.

Of course neither side has released raw, uncut footage of the entire incident, and both sides’ releases clearly are meant to highlight their respective governments’ claims about the incident. Thus the Iranian force’s behavior as depicted in the IRGCN video naturally appears very nonthreatening.

What matters at this point is not the details of this past incident, or whether one side or the other has overplayed its hand. What matters is the implications for future incidents.

Ever since World War II, the United States has sought to ensure freedom of the seas. Its warships routinely conduct transits of key disputed waters to demonstrate that the waterways remain international. With at least a fifth of global oil production flowing through that Strait of Hormuz and heavy U.S. naval operations in the Gulf in support of operations in Iraq, the strait’s importance is evident. Washington has every intention of keeping the Strait of Hormuz open and free of shenanigans.

Harassing U.S. warships is not the same thing as deliberately interdicting the free flow of maritime traffic through the strait — but this is not a distinction the U.S. Navy is interested in making. Maintaining free movement for U.S. warships in international waters is a key tenant of U.S. geopolitical security and prosperity. To Washington, that free movement sets a precedent for the free flow of international maritime trade. Thus, U.S. President George W. Bush warned Jan. 9 of “serious consequences” should such an incident occur again.

Thus, what happened in the Strait of Hormuz on Jan. 6 is increasingly irrelevant. What now matters is the way Iran chooses to respond to Washington’s line in the sand. No doubt, the IRGCN will continue to observe U.S. warships, especially in the strait, but whether Tehran will choose to play hardball remains unclear.

Three things are clear, however. First, whenever the next encounter occurs, it will be extremely well-documented by both sides. Second, U.S. commanders have been issued very clear guidance on their standing rules of engagement based on the events of Jan. 6. Finally, should the IRGCN push too hard, it will find out just what being on the business end of a 25mm cannon means.

[spence]

Originally Posted by fishpoopoo

feeling each other out. keeping oil prices up.

Exactly. They have to love how a few speedboats in the right place can illustrate the potential for oil disruption.

At the same time they're enjoying the higher costs of global energy all the way to the bank.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by basswipe

The very biggest issue.Taking on a third arab country?VERY BIG.We're stretched thin already.Iran knows what it's doing,they prayed to allah we'd fire so they could "legitimately" enter into the current stupidity.When you truly believe god says its ok to kill you do it.

Do you seriously believe that this incident had ANYTHING to do with militant Islam?

One thing the extreme Right Wing has done to the great detriment of all of us is to consistently insist that all issues with Arabs or Muslims are ultimately driven by religious militant extremism.

This in effect has taken potentially legitimate political issues off of the table leaving no middle ground for a public facing moderate stance.

Iran's position today is driven foremost by their government's need to maintain a balance of power with the Sunni Muslim world, and ensure a defensive position against Israel now that Iraq isn't in between them.

The notion that Iran seeks to destroy the US for fundamental religious reasons, our freedoms etc...is based on neoconservative rhetoric, not reality.

This does in no way mean that there isn't a threat from Iran, or that regional stability isn't a BIG issue (especially in terms of our economic security). But we need to fight the battle as it is, and not what some would like it to be.

-spence

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't really think this is all that big of a deal. They were probably just seeing what they could get away with and what we might do. It's not like Iran wants any piece of a fight with the US.

They know we're not going to let another USS Cole happen, no Navy Capt'n is going to let that happen to their crew if they can help it.

So here we're supposed to be concerned about this "most dangerous nation on the planet" and all they can do is zip by the US Navy in a speed boat that needs a good hull painting?

This is the biggest threat to our national defense? Give me a break. We have bigger issues to worry about.

-spence

OMG ! I agree with Spence!

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by fishsmith

RIJIMMY - tell that to the crew of the USS COLE, one of those wimpy little kids ripped a hole in the side of their ship.

exactly, so why didnt we shoot them asap? if we were threatened, we should defend oursleves, if not , dont take it to the media and whine about it.