Jim Lobe suggests that the Pentagon’s release last Tuesday of a fear-inducing report (backed up by audio and video) of Iranian patrol boats allegedly threatening US Navy ships in the Persian Gulf may have been part of a sophisticated ploy by the military (as opposed to civilian) leaders there to force the administration to conclude an “incidents at sea” agreement with the Iranian navy. Such an agreement would most likely include the kind of hot-line agreement I have been arguing for for a long time, but would probably also go further than that in defining procedures to de-escalate any tensions that may arise from the close operations of these two navies in the Gulf and in particular in their narrow entry channel, the strategically vital Straits of Hormuz.
I blogged here yesterday about the seriousness of the “scare video” incident, the need for urgent and full congressional investigations into who released the misleading video footage on Tuesday and why, and the need to prevent further unintended escalations through the establishment of a secure hotline between the two navies.
Lobe writes:
- I wonder whether this was the Pentagon’s equivalent of the intelligence community’s NIE on Iran’s nuclear program.
… [T]he timing of the Pentagon’s decision to publicize what really an apparently not-particularly-threatening incident involving Revolutionary Guard speedboats is particularly intriguing as I suspect there have been more serious incidents in the recent past. [HC comment: there have been.] Frustrated until now in their efforts to get the White House to authorize negotiations over a new agreement, could it be that [Centcom chief Adm William] Fallon (who worked very hard to improve military ties — sometimes over the objections of Donald Rumsfeld — with China as the commander of the Ninth Fleet), Cosgriff, and other Pentagon and Navy officials decided to dramatize the danger just as Bush was embarking on his trip, anticipating that the president would get an earful from his Gulf state hosts about their fears that a naval confrontation could quickly escalate into a real war in which they would suffer significant collateral damage?
An interesting hypothesis, to be sure. Also, if this was indeed the back-story, then the fact that Secdef Gates backed up the seriousness of the brass’s warnings about this event could also mean he supports their campaign to win an “incidents at sea” agreement.
Lobe also very helpfully links to this September column by the always well-informed David Ignatius, who wrote:
- America’s top military commanders in the Gulf favor an “incidents at sea” agreement with Iran that would reduce the danger of a confrontation… An unexpected opportunity for discussion occurred last weekend, when Central Command’s naval chief, Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, appeared on a panel with the brother of the commander of the Revolutionary Guard. This chance encounter at a Geneva meeting of the International Institute for Strategic Studies should be pursued.
The United States and Iran are playing a game of “chicken” in the Middle East. A collision would be ruinous for both. Each side needs to be careful to avoid miscalculation and to act in ways that avert a crackup.
If the Lobe version of this incident is correct, then I would judge that issuing the very misleading, if not actually mendacious, “scare video” on Tuesday was still an extremely unwise and inflammatory thing for these guys– or anyone else in the Pentagon– to do. Not least because the US presidential campaign is now in full swing, and any hints that Iranian naval forces might be preparing a showdown with the massive US naval presence in the Gulf can clearly be expected to be demagogued to the hilt by the candidates– especially those on the Republican side.
This McClatchy report (hat-tip Juan Cole) from a GOP debate in South Carolina gives us a taste of how the GOP hopefuls dealt with the issue. Only the admirable Ron Paul retained some sense of good sense and dignity. He referred directly to the Gulf of Tonkin incident and said, “I would certainly urge a lot more caution than I’m hearing here tonight.” Candidate Mitt Romney then “cracked that Paul should stop reading Iranian propaganda.” (Ho, ho, ho. Why am I not amused?)
Well, the crucial goal I see in all this is still the establishment of a much more robust deconfliction regime in the crowded naval arena of the Gulf. Certainly including a hot-line agreement but also, yes, a broader “incidents at sea” agreement would be good, too. I don’t know how broad an agreement can be reached there in the absence of much broader political discussions between Washington and Tehran over the whole range of their current disagreements. But surely, at the very least, they could agree to establish a secure, dedicated channel of communication that is not subject to the same kind of external intrusion/intervention that their existing channels are.
As to the prospect of congressional investigations– yes, I still think these would be excellent. But they should focus as much on the urgent need for a hotline and other deconfliction mechanisms going forward as on investigating the still very murky past history of the compiling, authorizing, and issuance of the scare video.
With 1964 in mind, I wonder whether the CIA might be conducting covert activities directed against Iran,
perhaps landing agents by boat, and whether these might be the source of Iran’s touchiness. I am sure we are not hearing the full story of American provocations against Iran.
I don’t buy Lobe’s theory because (1)it assumes a strategic sophistication probably lacking in the navy and (2)it conflicts with Admiral Fallon’s whole demeanor regarding military relations.
Let’s face it, the US is already at war with Iran and these are threats of escalation. Sanctions, PKK terrorism, propaganda, support for regime change, bombing threats, fleet activities off Iran’s coast, financial penalties, congressional attacks and who knows what else. The American people have been propagandized to believe that Iran is a threat and anti-Muslim feelings are rampant, both of these being reflected in the views of American politicians.
A great empire must have one or more enemies. Iraq is no longer, North Korea has been neutralized, Syria must be a part of a ME I/P accord — that leaves Iran, a country resisting US ME hegemony.
The navy milblogger Galrahn has a new posting up on the continuing confusion. He too smells a fox.
http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/
from the Navy Times:
The threatening radio transmission heard at the end of a video showing harassing maneuvers by Iranian patrol boats in the Strait of Hormuz may have come from a locally famous heckler known among ship drivers as the “Filipino Monkey.”
Rick Hoffman, a retired [US Navy] captain who commanded the cruiser Hue City and spent many of his 17 years at sea in the Gulf was subject to the renegade radio talker repeatedly, often without pause during the so-called “Tanker Wars” of the late 1980s.
“For 25 years there’s been this mythical guy out there who, hour after hour, shouts obscenities and threats,” he said. “He could be tied up pierside somewhere or he could be on the bridge of a merchant ship.”
And the Monkey has stamina.
“He used to go all night long. The guy is crazy,” he said. “But who knows how many Filipino Monkeys there are? Could it have been a spurious transmission? Absolutely.”
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/01/navy_hormuz_iran_radio_080111/
From the LobelLog.com blog that Helena was kind enough to link this morning:
“As pointed out in an important Washington Post column by David Ignatius last September, the big problem isn’t the regular Iranian navy but the naval forces of the Revolutionary Guard.”
precisely the point I was trying to make on another thread here.
Interestingly, what gets lost – or at least obscured, or at the very least overlooked – in nearly all the reports and discussion about this incident is the extremely provocative nature of the current U.S. military presence in the Gulf.
I LOVED Bush’s description of the American warships as “sailing peacefully along in the Gulf” when they were “attacked” by a few tiny little unarmed or barely armed speedboats (kind of like an elephant being “attacked” by a handful of baby mice). Those warships have not been sent there for peaceful purposes, they have been sent there to attack, or at least threaten to attack, Iran, and the people who sent them there have made no secret of that.
I think Bahrain is the key to Iran, Bush’s visit as well the welcoming he received is the goal of this infamous president to further stir more crimes against sovereign nations.
The majority of Bahranians are Shiites, however they are ruled by Sunni minority.
Most Arab leaders are trying to pass the remaining of Bush’s rule as peacefully as possible, this man is a wild bull with no heart. The damage he has created and the human losses and tragedies that resulted during his reign are beyond any human comprehension.
His visit to Jerusalem had proved, without any doubt that Israel is a proxy entity of the United States of America, peace is not something Washington will ever want for the Jewish people, perhaps, one day, when the outcome of the Iraqi blunder is settled, and who knows what the outcome will look like.
If Iran is on their hit list, they will try to further the damage and kill as many birds with on stone.
This is the mentality of the free world!!
What a world specially …
a few tiny little unarmed or barely armed speedboats
more than it took to kill 17 young American sailors in the bombing of the SS Cole off the coast of Yemen…and Bush was not yet in office!
The Iranians did not have anything to do with the USS Cole, nor have they ever had anything to do with or share the goals and philosophy of the group that did the USS Cole.
Iran is a sovereign state and a member of the UN. The people who did the USS Cole are a gang of outlaws who are not from any one state, let alone part of military of a state. One significant factor relating to that is that it is easy for members of a gang of outlaws to avoid being discovered. Not so a state.
On the same note, the small boat involved in the USS Cole incident was not a vessel belonging to or manned by personnel of the Navy of any state. That makes it rather difficult to identify, locate, and attack the responsible group. If a state sends its own clearly marked navy vessels manned by its own clearly identified navy personnel to attack an American warship it is impossible NOT to identify and locate that state, and it is a virtually absolute certainty that there would not be much left of that state when the United States military was finished with it. Some people might enjoy the delusion that the Iranians are suicidal madmen, but the evidence indicates otherwise.
Other than those small differences, though, I guess the two incidents were similar.
you missed my point…I wasn’t suggesting that the navy of the Revolutionary Guards (let alone the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy) should be confused with those Al Qaeda terrorists in Yemen during the Clinton Administration…just that asymetrical warfare on the sea could prove very, very costly for American warships…there was an article to that effect in today’s New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/washington/12navy.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin
Can an American admiral be sure that he could tell the difference between a probe by approaching speedboats and a very damaging attack in earnest?
1. Are you really suggesting that an American admiral would not be able to tell the difference between clearly marked Iranian naval boats manned by uniformed Iranian naval officers who clearly identified themselves and members of some Sunni fundamentalist outlaw gang bent on attacking their ships?
2. You ARE making a pretty good case for establishing official communications channels and clear protocols for communication between the U.S. and the Iranian military, aren’t you?
You still insist upon conflating the navy of the Islamic Republic of Iran with the navy of the Revolutionary Guards…the former, I agree, would probably be somewhat cautious with respect to maneuvers at sea that could be misinterpreted by the Americans.
But the Revolutionary Guards’ navy plays by its own rules and appears to be far less risk averse. …for example it was they who seized 15 British sailors earlier this year and held them in captivity for two weeks.
I hardly think the Revolutionary Guard is likely to do anything that is likely to result in a U.S. attack on Iran.
PS I also do not believe that suicide attacks are quite the style of the Revolutionary Guard. And the capture of the British sailors may have been quite legitimate. There IS evidence they were in Iranian territory, where they had no right to be.
Q: Can an American admiral be sure that he could tell the difference between a probe by approaching speedboats and a very damaging attack in earnest?
A: Yes. Admiral Cosgriff: “I wouldn’t characterize the posture of the US 5th Fleet as afraid of these ships.”
Suicide bombing as such may not be a trademark of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards (IRG) but they widely engaged in “human wave” attacks during the war with Iraq.
You have far more confidence than I do that the IRG, which is not under the command of the regular Iranian military and whose doctrine emphasizes asymmetrical warfare, can be counted upon to prudently avoid behavior that might lead to a confrontation with the Americans at sea.
Truesdell– the IRG are special elements responsible almost directly to the highest decisionmakers in Tehran. (Analogous to the US’s own Special Forces.) It is ludicrous of you to suggest the IRG might capriciously jerk the whole Islamic Republic into war with the US, or that the national command authorities would be happy to allow them to do so.
In the present discussion, the only valid reason to make a distinction between the IRG and the regular Iranian Navy is to make sure that any deconfliction agreements concluded with the Navy would also cover the IRG units. I think we can leave it to Iran’s command authorities to ensure that they do.
Come on, Truesdale! Are you really as fond as you seem to be of trying to make a single fruit out of an apple, an orange, and a bananas?
Human wave operations during an active war with a more or less evenly matched enemy (which began when said enemy attacked Iran) hardly indicate an inclination to provoke what is bound to be a devastating attack on ones own country at a time of tension, but no active war by a military power that could turn the entire country into a burning pile of rubble within minutes.
And surely you are not suggesting that their very possibly legitimate capture of 15 British sailors who, evidence indicates, may well have been intentionally inside Iranian territory is an indication that they could make an attack on an American warship.
The Iranian Revolutionary Guards are not out-of-control nihilistic madmen who are prone to bring death and destruction on their own country, including themselves and their families. They are not ignorant savages who are unaware of what the consequences would be of attacking an American warship. And there is also absolutely no evidence to substantiate most of what they have been accused of, including their supposed involvement with the insurgency (sic) in Iraq, and particularly including their alleged presence and killing of Americans in Iraq (who, I must point out, would not be getting killed there by anyone if they were not there killing and tormenting Iraqis).
The Culture of Suicide bombing
Shirin,
who clearly identified themselves and members of some Sunni fundamentalist
Read this isn’t just Sunni fundamentalist
Message From Iran Triggered Bombing Spree In Kuwait, The Washington Post, February 3, 1984
Baalbek Seen As Staging Area For Terrorism, The Washington Post, January 9, 1984
Beirut Bombers Seen Front for Iranian-Supported Shiite Faction, The Washington Post, January 4, 1984
10 Pro-Iranian Shiites Held in Kuwait Bombings, The Washington Post December 19, 1983
KUWAIT NABS 10 SHIITES IN BOMBINGS 7 IRAQIS, 3 LEBANESE ‘ADMIT’ TERROR ATTACKS
The Miami Herald, December 19, 1983
Yesterday’s enemy today’s friends in Iraq!!!
It leads us back to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the ruling figure in Iran; to Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, the militant Lebanese Shiite leader who has been implicated–despite his denials–in the Marine and French bombings in Beirut; to Hussein Musawi, Fadlallah’s strong-arm lieutenant; to the Hakim brothers in Iran and their connections to the Middle East terrorism industry.
The terrorist group that claimed responsibility for the bombing of the U.S. Marine compound and the French military headquarters here may be a front for an exiled Iraqi Shiite opposition party based in Iran, in the view of a number of Arab and western diplomatic sources.
world peace,
The majority of Bahranians are Shiites, however they are ruled by Sunni minority.
Wondering why US went to Iraq and support the majority to take control from the minority after the freedom war but in Bahrain there is a DEMOCRATIC system supported by US and the minority ruling the Shiites majority.
Just can’t find answer to this?
This discussion is interesting but a little off topic. The recent events in the Gulf involved a “provocation” in which, unlike on at least one previous occasion, warning shots were not deemed necessary. The fleet admiral has said that his ships were not in danger.
Who are we to second-guess the ship captains and Admiral Cosgriff? You can claim that these little blue boats were potential bombs ’til the cows come home but the US Navy ship captains obviously didn’t feel threatened. All they did was blow their ships’ horns. So, armchair admirals, back off your specious theories and accept reality. We pay these guys to do a job and they’re doing it. If you don’t like the job they’re doing then criticize them directly and don’t beat around the bush with irrelevant history.
Some Repub presidential candidates, some navy milbloggers I read and others would love to start a war with Iran over a non-threatening provocation. War is what they love and what they live for, a great clash of arms starting on the open sea — what could be more entertaining than that and more emblematic of a great power.
Fortunately the US Navy employs cooler heads, and I believe there is none cooler than Admiral “Fox” Fallon, CENTCOM Commander, at the moment. This is my hope, anyhow, and it seems to be borne out by facts. Now that Bush is stepping up his war dance we’ll need Fallon more than ever. Let’s support Fallon and not criticize him for not starting WWIII just yet.
It is ludicrous of you to suggest the IRG might capriciously jerk the whole Islamic Republic into war with the US.
I was not suggesting that the IRG would start a war without the approval of the Supreme Leader…just that they would probably be less risk averse when it came to tactics like using approaching motorboats to test the reactions of the Americans. At some point exercises like this coud possibly to lead to a fatal misunderstanding between ships, particularly when the reaction time is narrow and given the IRG military doctrine grounded in asymmetrical warfare.
Salah,
Was it not a female Christian Palestinian who was raised in Lebanon, that was responsible for attacking the marines ? her name escapes my memory
Regardless, when Fadllallah and for that matter any of Hizbullah’s officials deny any involvement in the suicide attack, I will take their word.
The reason why they are respected in the Arab world and by their enemies, is their honesty. Regardless weather one agrees with their ideology or not.
OK, Truesdell, so the next question is for what purpose would the Revolutionary Guard want to test the reactions of the Americans using speedboats?
And what actual evidence do you have that the Revolutionary Guards are less risk-averse?
The reason why they are respected in the Arab world and by their enemies,
Oh yah their enemies? Is it the Israelis who made them? Correct me if my info wrong.
The respect they got mostly because the hatred attitude toward US in ME, US invasion of Iraq, US polices in ME in regards to Palestine these more likely behind the respect , but every one hold his views and he is free to it.
1983 Beirut barracks bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing
After some years of investigation the bombing was thought to have been committed by the Lebanese Shia militant militia and political party Hezbollah while it was still “underground,” though opinion is not unanimous. (Hezbollah went public in 1985,
world peace, I suggesting to you go and correct the info wiki with your info?
comment from The Washington Monthly:
The only thing that would have made this funnier is if the Iranians had been pulling waterskiers.
LOL!
I have heard that there is a video out there somewhere of the Iranian boats towing a water skiing squirrel!
Squirrels are suspected of gathering nuts and nuts are a danger to society — get them to GITMO!!
Don linked to my blog in this thread which allowed me to observe this conversation, I’d like to add a few comments to better inform the readers.
Someone noted the comment “clearly marked Iranian naval boats manned by uniformed Iranian naval officers”
Uhm, the blue boats are a clue, but not like that. No one has really reported such, but blue boats in the Gulf are operated by the Pasadaren Guard. The Gulf States suspect these vessels to be used mostly for smuggling, but they are elite forces of the IRGC and exercise with the Iranian Navy often, and will again this upcoming Feb.
The Pasadaren Guard is the only state funded military unit in the world claimed to have a suicide boat force, or a suicide soldier force of any kind. Whether it actually does or not is debated in military circles, but the possibility factors into the intelligence those warship captains are dealing with.
They are accurately described as the true Revolutionarys in Iran, and can act directly on behalf of the leadership, and outside the instruction of the government leadership from time to time. These are very serious dudes, underestimating them would not be a wise approach.
That the blue boats even approached in the direction of the US Navy is rare, normally they move away from US Navy warships. This probably contributed to the leadership concerns during the incident. These are not regular Iranian Navy, the regular Iranian Navy is very professional, and in comparison to other Gulf navies perhaps one of the most professional to interact with, comments by members of the US Navy and sailors involved in the commercial shipping trade all confirm as much.
“Blue” isn’t just a descriptor, it is a big clue no one has picked up on yet. The British sailors taken in March of 06 were taken away on blue boats.
Another question raised:
“so the next question is for what purpose would the Revolutionary Guard want to test the reactions of the Americans using speedboats?”
This is easily answered. How often does the US intimidate Iran? Under this administration, fewer than once a week is the wrong answer. OPEC put an end to the ‘shut down the straits’ implied message Iran used to send out, so they have moved on to exploit other methods to intimidate the US back. The expectation they will sit there and constantly be intimidated without responding is unrealistic in my opinion, so they appear to be probing with small boats to play directly into the fears of the US Navy regarding small suicide boats. I would say their intimidation techniques are effective judging from the Navy’s own reaction.
I blogged about that too.
http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/01/5th-fleet-focus-fox-fallon-factor.html
I don’t buy the conspiracies, I’ve blogged the reasons why, rather I buy there is politics at work in that other organization where politics sometimes raises its head, the Pentagon. The central question I see in debate here is, should the US handle these types of probes by putting it out there for public political support, or contain the incidents and handle them in quiet. Those sailors dealing with this in the Gulf are probably split on that issue, some thankful for the public political support, while others concerned it could escalate the situation. Fallon and Gates have always liked the quiet approach. Bush, not so much.
Interesting information, Galrahn.
“That the blue boats even approached in the direction of the US Navy is rare, normally they move away from US Navy warships.”
According to two former U.S. military officers I am acquainted with, who spent a good deal of time in the Gulf, that does not conform to their experience. Since their communications were public, I can quote them directly here without concern:
One of them referred to his experience of “Having been buzzed innumerable times in Hormuz by what we called, “Go-Fast,” boats…”
The other wrote this:
“I served a board a US frigate in 1986 during the Tanker War. We regularly had incidents withe IRGC like what you see on the USNavy’s recently released video. It is my opinion that this type of confrontation, if it can even be called a confrontation, has been going on for the last 20 some years. The Bush administration is attempting to use these incidents to trick the public into supporting a strike against Iran by the US and it’s Gulf allies.”
So, according to these two officers with experience in the Gulf, these types of incidents happen all the time.
PS I really believe that Bush is working very hard to find a way to justify attacking Iran. His nuclear threat fabrication has fallen into difficulties, and somehow his (extremely hypocritical) claims that Iran is “interfering” in Iraq, and “killing Americans” there, etc., etc. don’t seem to be gaining enough traction. So now, it appears to me, he is trying to create some sort of incident in the Gulf that he can use.
This is an extremely dangerous game he is playing to say the least.
claims that Iran is “interfering” in Iraq, and “killing Americans” there,
Its very hypocrite the denial of Iranians “interfering” in Iraq.
What about those 300,000 Iraqis from Southern Iraq who spoke just weeks ago about Iranian fiddling in the south?
Iranians fiddling in Iraq by killing Iraqis not Americans and to copy there ruthless homogony of Khomeini style state as we seeing now in Basra where Iraqi women killed on the streets of the city because they did not cover their heads some Christian also these crimes never ever been in Iraq before the only criminals who are doing these sort of things thoughts guys supported and funded by Iranian government.
May I pick your attentions to the incident years ago when student from Basra university on trip when one female student (Christian faith) where murdered by guys in front of their colleges student who try to defended her but they injured by guys reported cam in 4-wheel drive cars their Arabic accent are Iranian accent!! Reported wildly in Iraqi news and other at a time.
Whatever reasons GWB talking about Iran in Iraq to enhance his agenda in ME but you should say to GWB and highlights that Iranian are there in Iraq because you let them in like Al-Qaeda went in Iraq.
He “slipped into the green zone of Baghdad” oh yah slipped yah, as if there are open roads no checkpoints and no special permission should be issue with special card ID and so on and so forth.
Talks behind back doors for what?
Iran’s Nuclear power? ………….No
Iran’s Holocaust denial? ………..No
Iranian’s Hostages taken by US? ….No
Gusset what?
This is before the Gulf incident and GWB ME tour!!
The videos presented of the described incident portray the IRGC navy aggressively patrolling its territorial waters at the Straight of Hormuz. It is within their demonstrated character to do so, and is not uncommon for other nations of the world’s militaries to perform in similar fashion. For example, the USN and USAF are quite aggressive in confronting foreign weapons systems, such as Russian Tu-95 Bear warplanes, that approach US airspace/territorial waters.
The timing of the initial video release is key to understanding the political nature of the “incident”, from the US perspective. Interesting that, like the previous Gulf operation that saw capture of sailors from the UK, the Pasdaran provided its own video of the event.
Kaveh Afrasiabi offered an interesting perspective today at Asia Times Online, regarding the territorial rights of Iran at the Straight of Hormuz. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA15Ak02.html
“the USN and USAF are quite aggressive in confronting foreign weapons systems…that approach US airspace/territorial waters.”
Can you imagine what the reaction would be if the tables were turned? I mean, what if Iranian warships, some possibly nuclear armed, were patrolling up and down the U.S. coasts? And what if they were doing so absent any provocation toward Iran from the U.S.? How long would it be before they were blown out of the water?
the Pasdaran provided its own video of the event.
The pentagon video as turned out editorial one, so what make you to believe Iranians released video version?
How much trust you put on IRGC
Shirin,
As for the Tanker Wars, I totally agree, even said as much.
For the most part though, I would disagree with the comment “all the time”, it is the exception, not the norm. While not falling out of the list of expectations (which would imply some previous events), that kind of activity is not very common.
“How much trust you put on IRGC”
Sadly, I put less trust in the Bush regime than I do in the IRGC.
The Pasdaran video clearly showed the USN warships approaching, with accompanying audio of standard radio messaging. That is to say, additional audio was not added, as in the US version. Also, in the US version, the standard Pasdaran messaging seems to be absent.
There is a flip side to the so-called Tanker wars. Iraq was the first to target merchant vessels in the Gulf. Retaliation and escalation followed. The US even lost a destroyer due to Iraqi fire. Ultimately, in an act of belligerent intervention, the USN was ordered to sink the Iranian merchant convoy escort fleet, as part of a policy of Americanizing the Iran-Iraq War, that forced Iran into accepting a ceasefire with America’s ally, Sadaam Hussein.