Iranian Navy just fails in Darwin Award attempt

[roo_ster]

Lest the local jihadi apologists get too far afield, recall that the incident occurred in international waters and the Iranians made a threat to kill the US ships.

I would not have blamed the squiddies if they had unleashed 5" shells & thier phalanxes.

[Manedwolf]

Lest the local jihadi apologists get too far afield, recall that the incident occurred in international waters and the Iranians made a threat to kill the US ships.

I would not have blamed the squiddies if they had unleashed 5" shells & thier phalanxes.

It would also have been a good excuse to test the SeaRAM, if they have that installed on any of the ships there right now.
(replaces the Phalanx...it can track and hit a Sunburn, the Phalanx can't.)

[Sergeant Bob]

They should have just blown the idiots out of the water. They need to be taught a lesson.

Yeah.  We should nuke the whole country.  Go Bush.

Your logic is ludicious.
Foriegn navy threatens to "explode" one of our boats. They deserved all the 5" shells that would come thier way.  What would you say if I charged you in a threatening manner?

Remember the Cole? If they had approached our ships loaded with explosives and sunk one or damaged it, killing a bunch of sailors everyone would be screaming that we shouldn't have let it happen again.

[Paddy]

All I'm saying is that we need to scale back this international 'mine's bigger than yours' [expletive deleted] we're on.  If you stick it out there long enough, somebody's will cut if off for you.  Our military, our economy and our prestige are all stretched to the max.  We have nothing to gain and lots to lose from this kind of provocation.  It needs to stop.

[Manedwolf]

All I'm saying is that we need to scale back this international 'mine's bigger than yours' [expletive deleted] we're on.  If you stick it out there long enough, somebody's will cut if off for you.  Our military, our economy and our prestige are all stretched to the max.  We have nothing to gain and lots to lose from this kind of provocation.  It needs to stop.

Really basic geography lesson for you.



See that little narrow passage that goes past IRAN? That's where lots and lots and lots of supertankers go past every day. It's what you call a "strategically and commercially vital waterway".

The strait at its narrowest is 21 miles wide , having a six mile wide traffic separation scheme (TSS) with two, 2 mile wide traffic lanes, one inbound and one outbound, separated by a 2 mile wide separation zone and is the only sea passage to the open ocean for large areas of the petroleum exporting Persian Gulf States. Some 20 percent of the world's oil supply passes through the strait, making it one of the world's strategically important chokepoints.

[MechAg94]

All I'm saying is that we need to scale back this international 'mine's bigger than yours' [expletive deleted] crusade we're on.  If you stick it out there long enough, somebody's will cut if off for you.  Our military, our economy and our prestige are all stretched to the max.  We have nothing to gain and lots to lose from this kind of provocation.  It needs to stop.

Fair point in another discussion, but I don't think it applies to this particular case.  We didn't sail up their coast and say "double dare you".  We have naval ships going through that area all the time. 

[Jamisjockey]

All I'm saying is that we need to scale back this international 'mine's bigger than yours' [expletive deleted] crusade we're on.  If you stick it out there long enough, somebody's will cut if off for you.  Our military, our economy and our prestige are all stretched to the max.  We have nothing to gain and lots to lose from this kind of provocation.  It needs to stop.

How is cruising through international waters and protecting a vital international waterway playing "mine's bigger than yours?"
How in the hell did we provoke Iran in this incident?
Shadowing our boats is one thing.  Sending threatening broadcasts and closing to within 200 yards is a whole 'nuther story. 

[Gewehr98]

Here we go...

1.  Note the [expletive deleted] parts.  I did that.  We have younger viewers here, lest we forget, and it's not my responsibility nor is it this forum's to enhance their vocabularies.  Capiche'?  (Riley, aka' PottyMouth, I'm talking to you in particular!)

2.  SS, you simultaneously tire me and disappoint me.  They were in international waters when rushed by the Iranian boats. You're being very selective in your whining, and you'd do much better to protest the location of Russian navy vessels and surveillance ships off our own coasts, as well as the recent penetration of our Alaskan ADIZ by Tu-95 bombers, forcing F-15 and CF-18 intercepts.  IOW, learn what the terms International Waters and International Airspace mean, then get over yourself.   

[CAnnoneer]

Gewehr, I think you are missing the big picture - when they behave like animals, it is okay; when we defend ourselves and our interests, we are the bad guy. Geography, economics, international waters, maritime law and safety, even common sense are secondary considerations. You will do well to get on with the America-hating program already! Why are you being so difficult? Juries are supposed to be malleable!

[roo_ster]

The following sums up my views.

IRAN 1, USA 0

By RALPH PETERS

January 8, 2008 -- EARLY Sunday morning, the US Navy lost its nerve and guaranteed that American sailors will die at Iranian hands in the future.

As three of our warships passed through the Straits of Hormuz, five small Iranian patrol craft rushed them. As the Revolutionary Guard boats neared our vessels, an Iranian officer broadcast a threat to our ships, claiming they'd soon explode.

The Iranians tossed boxes into the water. Mines? Just in case, our ships took evasive action.

The Iranians kept on coming, closing to a distance of 200 meters - about two football fields. Supposedly, our Navy was ready to open fire but didn't shoot because the Iranians turned away at the moment the order was given.

We should've sunk every one of them.

Not because we're warmongers. But because the Iranians had made threats, verbal and physical, that amounted to acts of war. When will we learn that resolute action taken early saves vast amounts of blood and treasure later?

Oh, from Washington's perspective we did the right thing by "exercising restraint." But Washington's perspective doesn't amount to a gum wrapper in a gutter. What matters is what the Iranians think.

They now believe that the Bush administration, our military and the entire United States are afraid of them.

It goes back to the politicized and irresponsible recent National Intelligence Estimate that insisted the Iranians had abandoned their nuclear-weapons program years ago.

They didn't. They're pursuing enriched uranium as fast as they can. That's what you need for bombs. At most, Tehran ordered its weaponeering efforts to parade rest - until it has the ingredients it needs, after which building bombs won't take long at all.

Forget Washington's trust-fund-twit view of all this: Here's how the train of thought rolled down the tracks in Tehran:

"The Americans have told the world we don't want nuclear weapons, even though they know we do want them. That can only mean that America is afraid to confront us, that their weak, defeated president needs an excuse to back down.

"We can push these cowardly Americans now. They've had enough in Iraq. Their spirits are broken. Their next president will run away like a gazelle pursued by a lion.

"Even their military is frightened of us. On Sunday, America's might bowed down to us. They are frightened and godless, and the time has come to push them."

Sunday's incident wasn't a one-off event improvised by the local yokels after a long Saturday night at the hookah bar. It was blessed and carefully planned in Tehran and had practical as well as political goals.

At the tactical level, the Revolutionary Guards' naval arm was testing our responses: How soon do the American weapons radars activate? At what range do the lasers begin to track targets? How close can a small vessel get to a major American warship? How do the Americans respond to possible mines? Can we use phony mines to steer them into real ones? How long does it take an American commander to make a decision?

Above all: Does an American commander have the courage to make a decision on his own? When he doesn't have time to deflect responsibility onto his superiors?

And it wasn't just some madrassa dropout with salt spray on his glasses scribbling notes on the lead Iranian boat. On shore, the Iranians would've had all their intelligence facilities tuned in to map our electronic profile as our ships prepared to defend themselves. Rent-a-Russian military experts would've been onhand to assist with the newest gear purchased from Moscow.

The Iranians may even have had an escalation plan, in case we opened fire. President Ahmedinejad and his posse may seem contemptible to Washington, but the Iranians think several moves ahead of us: We play checkers, they play chess.

On Sunday, the Iranians tested us. We failed. They'll probe us again. And every time we fail to react decisively, we raise the number of future US casualties.

Remember the USS Cole? You bet the Iranians do. They plan to better that attack by an order of magnitude.

For almost 70 years, we've deployed the finest navy in the history of the world. But it looks increasingly as if we've gone from "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" to "Will this interfere with my next promotion?"

[280plus]

At the tactical level, the Revolutionary Guards' naval arm was testing our responses: How soon do the American weapons radars activate? At what range do the lasers begin to track targets? How close can a small vessel get to a major American warship? How do the Americans respond to possible mines? Can we use phony mines to steer them into real ones? How long does it take an American commander to make a decision?

Above all: Does an American commander have the courage to make a decision on his own? When he doesn't have time to deflect responsibility onto his superiors?

That's exactly right...

[Paddy]

when they behave like animals, it is okay; when we defend ourselves and our interests, we are the bad guy.

Our 'interests' are primarily oil.  Why?  Because we're 4% of the world's population yet consume 25% of the world's energy (while remaining a net importer of goods but that's a whole 'nother fubar)-mostly from imported oil. That dependency puts us in a very weak position because we're constantly forced to protect our oil 'interests' with military power.  We've placed ourselves in a submissive position where we're constantly vulnerable.  We're threatened by worldwide political and economic instability.  We're threatened when the dollar weakens and the OPEC countries want to change from a petrodollar standard.  Every little thing that happens internationally worries us.  We're threatened by thugs like that punk Chavez in Venezuela, simply because of our dependence on foreign oil.

As a result, we're forced to strut around the world showing off our military power in a constant attempt to intimidate anyone who would/could threaten our oil supply. It' stupid.  Really stupid.  But then, look at our 'leadership'-or lack thereof.  There is no national energy policy.  None.  Republicans will not fund or assist the development of any alternative energy production. (Because they've been bought and paid for by the oil industry, but again a whole 'nother discussion).  Democrats will not allow nuclear energy nor domestic oil production (think Alaska) to replace some of this imported oil.

The whole thing is completely self destructive and totally unnecessary.

[Brad Johnson]

The whole thing is completely self destructive and totally unnecessary.

Irrelevant.

The situation, restated:

A) Naval vessels from a sovereign country in:

B) International waters and:

C) In a neutral formation and exerting no offensive maneuvers, signals, or intent, yet there were:

D) Overt threats of destruction with the implication of water-borne devices from vessels of a country who has stated in no uncertain terms their wish to see the United States of America wiped from the face of the earth.

Conclusion:  The fact that we didn't turn each and every one of their boats into some much floating debris shows an incredible restraint on our part.  Unfortunately, their cultural mindset will conclude it to be a show of fear and weakness. 

In the end, it would have been more effective, more efficient, and more humane to blow those boats out of the water and establish that we aren't going to put up with that kind of foolishness.  On both a cultural and political level that is the only form of diplomacy they understand.  It would have curbed, if not outright averted, any future events, including any escalation resulting from those events.  Now they see us as weak and vulnerable.  There will be another event which will, in all probability, be much greater in size, much more coordinated, and incredibly bloody.

Brad

[Paddy]

The Iranian vessels did not, repeat, did not attack U.S. ships. If they had, our Navy would have full legal and moral authority to destroy them.   

Nonetheless,  Brad, you say we should take military action against any and every blowhard nation who says bad things about us?  to show them "we aren't going to put up with that kind of foolishness."?

I think you outbushed Bush. Even he's not that irresponsible with military force.

[Nick1911]

The Iranian vessels did not, repeat, did not attack U.S. ships. If they had, our Navy would have full legal and moral authority to destroy them.   

LOL.

If someone pulls out a knife, says "You will bleed to death" and runs toward me, but changes direction at the last second, it's not an attack, right?  You have no legal or moral authority to react, right?

[Jamisjockey]

The Iranian vessels did not, repeat, did not attack U.S. ships. If they had, our Navy would have full legal and moral authority to destroy them.   

Nonetheless,  Brad, you say we should take military action against any and every blowhard nation who says bad things about us?  to show them "we aren't going to put up with that kind of foolishness."?

I think you outbushed Bush. Even he's not that irresponsible with military force.

They didn't say bad things about us.  THEY TOLD THE US SHIPS THEY WOULD EXPLODE THEM IN A FEW MINUTES.  That is a direct threat.  If I walk up to you and tell you I'm going to shoot you in a few minutes.  And I've got a history of hating you and making inflamatory statements about you....might you take me seriously?

[Paddy]

You keyboard commandos weren't there.  A U.S. Naval Commander was, and in his judgment the threat did not rise to a level that required force.  If you're unhappy he didn't sink the Iranian boats and kill their crews, take it up with him.

[Brad Johnson]

The Iranian vessels did not, repeat, did not attack U.S. ships.

They made an overt and intentional threat of attack.  That is, and always has been, just as defensible a position as the attack itself.

If someone is coming at you with a baseball bat, screaming that he's going to beat your head in, are you going to wait until he swings before you do anything?  Of course not.  You are going to counter the threat.  To not do so is to embolden and encourage the attacker even further.

All these people know is attack or be attacked.  What we see as a sidestep to avoid an "international incident" they see as the flinching of the weak.  It is and integral part of their culture and their religion.  To try and advocate otherwise is to ignore a blatant and established fact.  

We can try diplomacy all day long but, in the end, they only thing they understand is if we put up our dukes and give them a big, bloody nose the next time they try something like this.  We don't, and shouldn't, make any kind of pre-emptive action, but we should defend ourselves with all the might and resolve the U.S. can muster.  They may not like it, but they can understand and respect it.

Brad

[Brad Johnson]

You keyboard commandos weren't there.  A U.S. Naval Commander was, and in his judgment the threat did not rise to a level that required force.

Correct, we weren't.  And the commanders actions were remarkably restrained given the overall situation, the history of the aggressors, and the potential outcomes.  It speaks to the quality of our military leaders and the men under their command that the agressor boats and their crews are not currently so much floating detritus.

That still doesn't change the fact that our vessels were directly threatened in international waters by vessels from a nation openly hostile to the U.S..  And it doesn't change the fact that the military and leaders of that nation view our actions not as restraint, but as weakness.  That, in and of itself, guarantees an incident like this will happen again, and that it will be more severe.  They will keep pushing the boundary until the boundary is firmly established through force, ours or theirs.  That is their cultural way.  It always has been.

Brad

[Manedwolf]

All these people know is attack or be attacked.  What we see as a sidestep to avoid and "international incident" they see as the flinching of the weak.  It is and integral part of their culture and their religion.  To try and advocate otherwise is to ignore a blatant and established fact. 

Yup. Proper response:

[Twycross]

A U.S. Naval Commander was, and in his judgment the threat did not rise to a level that required force. 

Actually, according to http://abcnews.go.com/US/WireStory?id=4096825&page=1, the threat did rise to the level that required force.

Pentagon officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said after the Iranian threats a U.S. captain was in the process of ordering sailors to open fire when the Iranian boats moved away.

[MillCreek]

I suspect that both the US political leadership and the USN leadership remember the events of 7/3/88, when the USS Vincennes shot down an Iran Air Airbus, killing 290 passengers and crew.  We will recall that the crew of the Vincennes thought the Airbus was an attacking Iranian F-14 fighter and fired two SM-2 standard missiles, striking the jet approximately 11 miles away, beyond visual range.  At that time, the Navy was keenly conscious of the USS Stark being struck by an Iranian Exocet missile some 14 months earlier. 

Not a lot of easy answers for the commanders on the scene.  Seems to me a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.

[Jamisjockey]

You keyboard commandos weren't there.  A U.S. Naval Commander was, and in his judgment the threat did not rise to a level that required force.  If you're unhappy he didn't sink the Iranian boats and kill their crews, take it up with him.

It was reported that they were in seconds of firing. 
The Iranaians were lucky.  They're probing to see how far they can push us.  Oughta come in handy down the road for them. 

[De Selby]

2.  SS, you simultaneously tire me and disappoint me.  They were in international waters when rushed by the Iranian boats. You're being very selective in your whining, and you'd do much better to protest the location of Russian navy vessels and surveillance ships off our own coasts, as well as the recent penetration of our Alaskan ADIZ by Tu-95 bombers, forcing F-15 and CF-18 intercepts.  IOW, learn what the terms International Waters and International Airspace mean, then get over yourself.   

If Iranian ships sail into international waters off the coast of South Carolina, will they be afforded the same presumption of non-aggression?  And would American ships that menaced Iranian ships off the coast of South Carolina be guilty of aggression? 

I doubt seriously Iranian ships near the US would receive any such treatment-Russia's patrolling notwithstanding.

Yes, I know what the terms international water and international airspace mean.  But they don't mean that Iran would be in its rights to patrol off the eastern seabord; neither do they mean that American naval vessels right off the coast of Iran during a time of hostilities between Iran and the US couldn't possibly be a menace to Iran.

[Manedwolf]

shootinstudent,

1. You do NOT understand what international waters mean.

2. The Straits of Hormuz are a vital commercial corridor that 20% of the world's oil goes through. A narrow 21-mile-wide-in-places bottleneck that has tankers and military vessels from a number of nations going back and forth.

I really am, at this point, at a loss to understand just why you're so adamantly defensive of terrorist acts and terrorist notions and terrorist nations. I'm really fearing that you've been brainwashed and are on a dangerous path. I suggest you stop and think before you go too far down it.