CNN: “Significant” confrontation between U.S. and Iranian navies in Persian Gulf; Update: “[A] heartbeat away from being blown up”
posted at 9:48 am on January 7, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
“Significant” being a relative term: No shots were actually fired, although they were right on the brink. Telling a U.S. Navy ship “You will explode in a couple of minutes” usually isn’t a good idea.
What’s bizarre about it is that it’s hard to believe it was accidental — but it’s also so small-scale that it’s hard to believe it was fully intentional. If Iran wanted to provoke America, this seems like an awfully penny-ante way of doing it. On the other hand, if the military’s right in thinking these were Revolutionary Guard boats, then surely they knew the consequences of attacking American ships. Any theories? Just an exercise in “feeling out” the U.S. response to a provocation? Maybe they mistakenly thought the American ships were in Iranian waters (the excuse given when the British sailors were captured)?
Exit question: Which nutroots blog will be the first to scream “Gulf of Tonkin!”?
Update: There’s no doubt who would have won this skirmish — the Navy ships were a destroyer, a frigate, and a cruiser. But between assurances that the Iranians were a “heartbeat from being blown,” ABC’s Pentagon sources ask a good question — how was it that an Iranian ship ostensibly packed with explosives was able to get as close as 200 yards?
Needless to say, the fact that they were that close destroys the Iranian excuse that the ships didn’t recognize each other.
Update: Iran spins: “That is something normal that takes place every now and then for each party, and it (the problem) is settled after identification of the two parties.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2]
Koz Kidz Konglomorat at it too: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/7/95833/37585/113/432106
William Teach on January 7, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Lost in translation…He was obviously envious of our large American weaponry and was meanig to say, “YOU DA BOMB!”
gozips on January 7, 2008 at 1:19 PM
If the story is correct as reported, the Irani speed boats dropped boxes in front of a Cruiser, Destroyer, and Frigate and “harrassed these ships”. We were just about to fire on the speed boats when they left. Question? What were we waiting for to open fire!
tazmebro on January 7, 2008 at 1:20 PM
Democratic Underpants cracks me up. I just giggle and giggle and giggle.
=====
This was a cool exchange above:
——
“Hey Allah, what did the Boss get you for Christmas?” –Dread Pirate Roberts VI on January 7, 2008 at 10:03 AM
——
VERY NEXT POST:
——
“Psychological intimidation.” –AlexB on January 7, 2008 at 10:03 AM
——
cool
SlimyBill on January 7, 2008 at 1:22 PM
I was wondering the same thing. Probably sailors filling out forms in triplicate so they can chamber a round…
Two hundred yards, sheesh.
SlimyBill on January 7, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Bitter shame we didn’t destroy all three boats.
Jaibones on January 7, 2008 at 2:10 PM
(Mark Jaquith: really? Ron Paul?)
tree hugging sister on January 7, 2008 at 2:13 PM
thanks for the support limowilliam, this is my first day posting, this is going to be fun…
elduende on January 7, 2008 at 2:20 PM
As to how five gunboats got within 200 yards? News flash, gunboats are just a tad more manueverable than either a frigate, destroyer or cruiser.
Or would have had them run away?
Jim708 on January 7, 2008 at 2:24 PM
A bit of a shame, really. I was so looking forward to hearing Rosie tell us that it’s the first time in history that explosives blew up steel.
shaken on January 7, 2008 at 2:26 PM
FINALLY ON HOT AIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ABOUT TIME THE REGISTRATION OPENED UP!!!!
First, a big “HELLO!” to the Hot Air regulars I’ve been reading!
Now, to the issue at hand: The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Navy, and their regular Navy, have played with the USN before and lost big time (Operation Praying Mantis in the 80’s for those of you who could not stay up to watch “Miami Vice” as it was way past your bedtime). The Mark 38’s on all three vessels were locked, loaded, and ready to fire. Those boats would not have made it to 190 yards. Their regular Navy is professional; after all, we trained what is now their top brass, at least those that have not retired. The Revolutionary Guards Navy, on the other hand, wish to meet their 72 virgins in Davey Jones’ Locker…….and may all 72 of them look like CPO Sharkey after a two week drinking binge, smell like three day old yak vomit and be extremely versatile with a very sharp, very prickly trident!!!!!!
Bubba Redneck on January 7, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Yeah!!! I love HotAir!! I have never blogged, but I read you guys all the time and look forward to giving it a shot! As for the Iranian’s….our military
should have blown them out of the water! And then…Fox News could ask Hillary or Obama what they would have done… Might be interesting….
kcd on January 7, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Americans “Look, 5 Iranian dingeys”. This is entertaining.
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 3:31 PM
It’d be hard to forget Nixon’s trip if you lived through the news coverage at the time.
In my response to elduende, in the attempt at brevity, I elected to spotlight Reagan and not drag Nixon into the picture. Reagan’s trip to China was not nearly as controversial as Nixon’s, who worried a lot of anti-communists by acknowledging Mao–he brought William F. Buckley along on the trip to provide some cover.
If possible I avoid Nixon when discussing trends since he was sui generis. Not only is a discussion of his administration so encumbered by Watergate, but also he was a Republican who was not remotely conservative. He governed as a Keynesian who expanded the welfare state and imposed wage and price controls.
Someone with Nixon’s economic positions couldn’t get the Republican nomination today. They possibly couldn’t even get the Democratic nomination.
dedalus on January 7, 2008 at 3:49 PM
Rules of Engagement. The Iranians probably satisfied most of the rules, but I’ll bet they never “lit-off” a fire control radar…..that’s probably what saved them. Any closer, or if a radar had gone active, the CIWS would have taken them out.
vcunn22 on January 7, 2008 at 4:05 PM
Why has Bush not taken out Iran’s nuclear facilities and revolutionary guard yet?? Why is focused on dividing israel and giving the muslim terrorists an independent country in the middle of a soon to be indefensible israel with 6 mile wide borders? Condoleeza Rice I believe deserves far more blame than she is getting!
HaraldHardrada on January 7, 2008 at 4:12 PM
Great points about China and the Soviet Union. I appreciate the enlightened reply.
One rationale for talking to Iran would be similar to the rationale with the Soviets–nuclear containment. With the recent NIE report getting Europe to isolate Iran via sanctions has become much less likely. We have fewer tools at our disposal to influence Iran’s behavior.
Talking now, ahead of further Iranian progress on a nuclear capability gives us more leverage than we will have later on, if their nuclear know-how progresses. The NIE has forecast that Iran can’t build a bomb before 2010, but that is just around the corner and possibly in the middle of a Democratic administration. Is it better to start now with Bush in office and Iran not nuclear or in 2010 with Obama in office and Iran possessing a bomb?
Even if no agreements are reached, talking takes a card away from Iran which they play with our allies whereby they excuse their own behavior due to our unwillingness to talk. It is also possible that Iran would refuse to talk or come out of the talks as intransigent. Either could be used against them in the international arena.
Talks might expose political divisions within Iran. As with the Soviet Union, we simultaneously spoke directly with them and encouraged dissidents. There is no problem with concurrently engaging them and advocating for leadership change.
dedalus on January 7, 2008 at 4:14 PM
And they’re also mothers and fathers like us, so we have nothing to fear…..BOOOM!
Wileygrl3 on January 7, 2008 at 4:24 PM
I’ve been listening to this “Crap” all day. What a crock. Some Iranian boats made what were perceived (and rightfully so) as hostile moves. Some U.S. Navy ships went to GQ (General Quarters or battle stations) as they are trained to do. Perceived hostiles broke contact. Not exactly an end of the world scenario. Bud of mine spent several months in the Gulf back in the early seventies. Said he spent so much time at GQ that the SP phones had to be steamed off his head. Anybody ever hear about that? My guess is that these boats were painted and locked up and that they knew it. It’s just low level sabre rattling. I’d bet that the hot topic on the mess decks of those ships right now is when and where they’re due to hit port again and what the “Goin’ rate ” is.
Babs, just a note. A destroyer is a ship not a boat. A boat is a vessel that can be easily lifted from the water and placed on the deck of a ship. Submarines are also called boats. But that’s just tradition as todays subs displace more than WW II cruisers.
Oldnuke on January 7, 2008 at 4:28 PM
All those virgins breathing sighs of relief.
AubieJon on January 7, 2008 at 6:02 PM
USS Cole anyone? I’m surprised we let them get so close. 200 yards? We should have “tased the bros” at 1 nautical mile.
Guardian on January 7, 2008 at 6:42 PM
As I said before running through the Straights is always nerve wracking, but I am guessing that the Three ships didn’t have the go ahead from 5th fleet command unless the “small boats” were within a closer range etc. That is the only way I can believe that any Captain would let them get that close with the reported threats and actions of the boats.
I wouldn’t think that CIWS would be used to take the boats out I am sure it was running but would want to go after air targets or a larger ship I would have to ask an FC buddy if they could take the small boats with it. More likely they would have used the 5 inch and 3.5(I think on Frigates) as well as the 25 MM and .50 cals.
As noted previously by another in the comments above the Straights are very narrow you can see Iran on one side and if I recall Oman on the other so there is a lot of “close” contacts.
I am still amazed that any of those boats made it home. I can only hope that 5th Fleet changes its engagement rules to allow a captain to not risk an attack.
Ravenlike on January 7, 2008 at 7:17 PM
This quote leads me to believe if it happens again they will be blown out of the water:
Ravenlike on January 7, 2008 at 7:28 PM
Let’s not kid ourselves: The US Navy blinked and showed weakness in a most humiliating way — and NO ONE in the Islamic world (or in China, for that matter) missed that fact!
Radio talk show host Michael Savage nailed it on his show to night, saying (mockingly), “we were just ABOUT to shoot those dastardly Iranians if they had come one millimeter closer!” (Bunk!)
The commander of that US battle group should be relieved of command immediately for permitting a boat that threatened to sink one of his ships to cruise away intact.
TR and Ronald Reagan are turning in their graves at our feminized military in general — and our Navy in particular.
sanantonian on January 7, 2008 at 8:01 PM
Not necessarily — here’s a thought: I haven’t read or heard specifics if the US Naval personnel were able to ID the Iranian boat occupants, so this is all blind conjecture on my part — but what if the Iranian boats were packed with, say, humanitarian supplies, or even women and children? What if the Iranian’s intention was to provoke our Navy into opening fire so that they could weep and wail and gnash teeth on the world stage about the aggression of the evil US? Just trynna think outside the box a little.
LordDilly on January 7, 2008 at 8:44 PM
While it would be nice to keep all non-friendly contacts beyond 200 yards, it doesn’t happen as much as some of you would like. This could be because of certain conditions (strait transits like Hormuz, Gibraltar and Suez can sometimes leave very little room) all the way to people not doing their job. I was on the Cole and have seen responses to be proud of and some that scared the crap out of me.
Anyways, I saw someone wonder about something like CIWS or not. While there are some things here I won’t bring up and will just leave it to some people’s imagination/guesses, some ships with the Block 1B CIWS can engage contacts like these boats.
Just a perspective, you can see my YouTube video for a more or less typical force protection crew served weapon capacity on a warship.
Pilopino67 on January 7, 2008 at 9:18 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]