Video and audio recordings clearly show Iranian boats confronting U.S. Navy ships in the Persian Gulf, and a voice speaking in heavily-accented English can be heard threatening that the American vessels were going to explode, military officials said Tuesday.
The incident, which President Bush denounced Tuesday as a “provocative act,” was videotaped by a crew member on the bridge of the destroyer USS Hopper, one of the three ships that faced down five Iranian boats in a flare-up early Sunday.
The recordings were described by several military officials who viewed them. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the recordings were still being reviewed and had not been released to the public.
“It is a dangerous situation,” Bush said during a White House news conference. “They should not have done it, pure and simple. … I don’t know what their thinking was, but I’m telling you what my thinking was. I think it was a provocative act.”
Recent events at the San Diego Zoo have shown that it is not good for one’s health to taunt a tiger, even if that tiger is noted for its discretion.
President Bush is going to find a reason to attack before he gets out of office. It won’t take much.
Sometimes I really love living in a transparent society. Instead of the classic ‘he said, she said” argument, just whip out the video and show what really happened.
Having said that, I hope the video gets made public soon.
Brian from T19 sure exhibits an open mind, doesn’t he? Presented with video evidence of Iranian provocation, his BDS-warped mind spins out a conspiracy theory. Here’s hoping either Clinton or Obama ends up winning in this next cycle so his overwrought synapses can reset to base-line sane… 😉
Cabbages, you may be right. It might be worth four years of Clinton Redux just so they’d stop whining.
Reply to #2.
Brian you said
“President Bush is going to find a reason to attack before he gets out of office. It won’t take much.”
You know, back in 1941, a number of people believed that Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a Democrat president might have allowed the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to occur inorder to advance a plan designed to get an isolationist electorate to accept the United States becoming involved as a combatant in World War II.
Brian #2, I think the President from Texas that you’re refering to is LBJ, not Bush. And the event took place in the Tonkin Gulf, not the Persian Gulf.
I’m guessing the Iranians were trying to provoke the US before Bush’s visit to the Middle East.
And the video and audio are up.
There will be no attack on Iran so long as we have 150,000 soldiers surrounded by 19 million Shi’ite Muslims.
Brian,
The truth is that Iran has long been trying to provoke some reaction out of the US. I believe that the best response is a “soft” power response of arming and training democracy and reform minded rebels in Iran. It is the nature of a tyranny that it will collapse given enough time.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
[comment edited to keep the focus on the main topic]
The rebel groups you’re referring to are ethnic separatists. The majority of Iranians elected Ahmedinajad. They chafe under the corrupt mullahs, but as you note, market forces and human desire will eventually wear away at their influence.
Iran is actually a very complicated place with a middle class, ski resorts, shopping malls, pop culture, etc. I get the idea most Americans think of Iran as a vast desert caliphate where sheiks trade their daughters for ivory handled daggers. Or they view it as a larger version of the West Bank. It bears no resemblance to either.
I posted this at The Lobster Pot and share it here, too:
All we have to go on are the news reports. Those on the scene, the OTC (Officer in Tactical Command) and the ship’s COs & TAOs (Tactical Action Officers) were certainly constrained in their actions by the rules of engagement under which they are operating. It was also reported that at least one of the Iranian vessels was flying the Iranian flag. I must assume our guys acted within those constraints. All that being said and if one or more of the Iranian vessels did indeed pronounce a threat I believe our ships should have destroyed at least the vessel making the threat and I would hope the ROEs would be revised to direct not only that action, but to call for making a large smoking hole in the water of all threating vessels in company. If there were no Iranian flags in evidence the ROE should direct the immediate destruction of any threating vessels at the first instance of provocation.
A gentle approach will buy us nothing but more of the same. We have to avoid or succeed against the threat every time. The bad guys only need to get through once to ring up a major political and psychic victory.
Well said, Dilbertnomore.
[blockquote]President Bush is going to find a reason to attack before he gets out of office. It won’t take much. [/blockquote]
I keep hearing this braying from the port-side herd, but all I see is Iranian IEDs killing our soldiers, Iranian operatives directing attacks against our troops, the Iranian navy kidnapping British sailors (and violating the Geneva Conventions in the process) and Iranian speedboats threatening our ships in international waters.
All of these appear to be acts of war. Not that the Left cares a whit about our troops being threatened and killed until it becomes politically useful.
I can’t believe nobody’s blamed this on US Special Forces (ala Tonkin) yet; or even brought up Tonkin at all considering the old rush to “Vietnam” parallels in the media.
For me, the major question about jumping into Iran is not, “Is it justified?” The question is, “How exactly would we prosecute a war against Iran when we’re strained to our military limits keeping up with the wars we’re already in?”
[blockquote]I keep hearing this braying from the port-side herd, but all I see is Iranian IEDs killing our soldiers, Iranian operatives directing attacks against our troops, the Iranian navy kidnapping British sailors (and violating the Geneva Conventions in the process) and Iranian speedboats threatening our ships in international waters.[/blockquote]
Then you shouldn’t have handed the keys to the place to Iran’s allies. Maybe next time we’ll stick with the devil we know.
And here is some more eveidence for my “conspiracy” theory:
BUSH CALLS IRAN ‘THREAT TO WORLD PEACE’
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/01/09/us.iran/index.html
and AnglicanFirst, the FOIA documents show that FDR knew there would be an attack on Pearl Harbor. The intercepted messages were in mid to late November.
Reply to #18.
Brian, the FOIA process has resulted in the declassification and release to the public of documents relevant to the period of time just prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. I know that credible theories have been advanced, but I am not aware that any of those theories have, in fact, been proven.
Bur if FDR did “know” that there would be an attack and that the deployment toward Hawaii of the Japanese carrier strike force was underway, then he should rank alongside Benedict Arnold in American history books.
Re #19
Brian,
Get a grip. I don’t like Bush. I happen to think he is a terrible president. But he did not orchestrate this incident. The Iranians did that. Bush is correct (even a stopped clock is right twice a day) when he says that Iran is a threat. They are destabilizing Lebanon and Iraq and have been backing terrorist attacks on Israel via their client organization Hezbollah for years. They are attempting to establish regional hegemony.
As for your conspiracy theories vis a vis FDR the intercepts you mention do NOT establish that we knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked. The United States was aware that Japan was preparing some form of military action against the United States but we did not know where. The general theory at the time established the most likely target as the Philippine Islands. Military alerts were sent out warning of possible Japanese aggression. However they were not taken very seriously by the commanders in the Hawaiian Islands who believed they were too far from Japan to be attacked. The intercepts were not made public for the very obvious reason that it would have meant tipping the enemy off that we had broken at least some of their codes.
May I suggest a little more serious history and laying off the Oliver Stone movies for a bit?
ooops…
my previous should be IRT #18
I don’t think Brian was implying that the incident was staged. I do think if they thought they had the capability that the Bush administration would seize on any incident to go to war with Iran.
[i] Edited by elf. [/i]
One motive for Iranian games in this arena is to keep oil prices up, since oil exports are the only part of the Iranian economy that really matters.
BrianT19, Reactionary et al : 2 question.
1) What do you think is more likely: a) Iran is trying to instiage the “Great Satan” into responding foolishly; or, b) the Bush administration is looking for an opportunity to go to war with Iran?
2) Who has benefited the most from the conflicts in the region and the higher cruge oil prices: a) the gov’t of Iran; or b) the Bush administration?
I’d be curious to hear your resonse.
Stevejax
1. b
2. b
No matter how it turned out, this would be and was a win for Iran in their eyes; albeit a ‘lesser win.’ Because the U.S. did not shoot at the gunboats, they can claim (and are doing so over the various Muslim media outlets) that the U.S. is afraid of them and really a paper tiger. Had the U.S. forces fired on them or even sunk them, they would portray it as U.S. hegemony in Persian waters, picking on the Muslim, a slap at Muslim honor, etc.. in an attempt to stir up anti-U.S. demonstrations in the Gulf and elsewhere. The video and audio don’t even matter – the truth is secondary to honor being served. The captain of the HOPPER showed remarkable judgment and restraint in not playing into the Iranian’s larger purpose, even if it caused the Navy’s nose to be tweaked a little.
RevK, trust me. The ships acted as they did in the face of Iranian provocation because the rules of engagement under which they operate directed the course they followed. Very little is left to chance at this time in that part of the world.
#25,
Really? The Bush Administration has benefited from high oil prices? Gee, it’s made them so popular. And made it much less likely that a Democrat will succeed him, right?
I don’t recall if you are a Truther, Brian, but based on this thread I’d estimate that you are.
No Ed. not a Truther. But I do believe in taking a critical look at the motivations and actions of all players on the world stage (whether liberal or conservative). I’ve never been a ‘my country right or wrong’ kind of guy.
More of a “My country’s enemies, right or wrong” kinda guy?
#30 – Zing! If this was the first thread I’d ever seen Brian participating in, I’d assume he was a reverse moby plant along the lines of the classic: “I are a lifelong republican and even I think [insert liberal talking point du jour”]…
#27 DilbertNoMore
I’m sure the ROE have enough flex built in to allow the Commanders some use of their discretion. I suspect that they Iranians designed their various runs in to get a handle on our ROE and how each skipper would handle the situation. I also suspect that they might be wondering if all of our electronic systems were turned on and operating (ala USS STARK).
#32 RevK
Agree there is likely to be some latitude in the ROE. Greater latitude in situations where a range of possible outcomes has less impact – less latitude when the opposite exists. Given President Bush is in the area conducting delicate work along with shakey economic situation we’re enjoying right now alongside the tinderbox nature of our situation with Iran, I’m betting we’re bending over backwards not to smack ’em unless its just crystal clear. I’m also betting Iran will do its best to exploit the situation to learn as much as it can. Viscerally, I’m disappointed we didn’t smoke ’em into a well deserved encounter with Allah. Pragmatically, we did the right thing to put this off for another day. Every so often my pragmatic side wins out over my visceral side. Good thing it went that way this time.
One more thing, RevK. When you consider the COs of the Destroyer type ships out there are ~38-42 years old. CO of the Cruiser is ~mid-40’s. Our nation trusts them to do the right thing under unimaginably tough circumstances. The consequences of them not measuring up are huge. They know it. They handle it. And they are prouder than you can image to have the honor to do that job. Selection for Command At Sea is metered out very carefully and denied to many very good officers. And one minor screw-up will get one’s command taken away very abruptly, along with almost no likelihood of further promotion. The compensation for this all-encompassing, 24/7/365 trip is less than $100K along with lots of time away from home. There are directly paralleling people and circumstances to be found in the Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard. We are more fortunate than nearly all of us can imagine to have such people serving in our Armed Forces so we can sleep soundly at home. If you don’t already include a Collect for the Armed Forces in each of your services, I suggest you consider adding one. If you already do so, you have my gratitude and thanks.
#33 DilbertNoMore
Agreed. I suspect that the HOPPER’s skipper was holding the OPORDER and eyeballing the paragraph that said, “Do not engage unless aggressively approached within….” I also suspect that he was on the radio asking the Battle Group commander the 2 Kings 6.21 question (Shall I kill them, my Father?). It may be that we announced over the bridge-to-bridge radio what our ROE stated in order to establish a legal ‘cordon sanitaire’ and the Iranians tweaked our nose a little knowing what they could get away with. I also think that we bent over backwards and my gut would have been to ‘smoke’ one and see what the others would do in response.
In 1984, I was on a ship on GONZO station off the coast of Iran. Each day the Iranians would fly aircraft – usually a C130s, but often an F14s – at us. They got closer with each attempt until one day when we locked on them with our fire-control radar. After that, they remained at a respectful distance.
#34 DilbertNoMore
All true. Did you serve?
31 years all together, enlisted and commissioned.
Thanks for your good service to our country.