Iranian Bully Confronts US, And We Blink

Posted on by ( 23 comments already! )
        

Loading

Just further proof that we need someone in the White House who can deal with a nuclear armed country like Iran. Watch the video, towards the end you will hear the Iranian commander tell the American warship “you will explode in a minute.”

An Iranian confrontation with U.S. Navy ships in the Persian Gulf was a “provocative act,” President Bush said Tuesday, hours before he was to leave for the Mideast on an eight-day visit.

“It is a dangerous situation,” he said at 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 I think it was. I think it was a provocative act. And my message today, to the Iranians, is they shouldn’t have done what they did.”

~~~

New video from the U.S. Navy out after the president’s news conference shows how tense the situation became Sunday for sailors aboard three U.S. warships in international waters in the Strait of Hormuz. At least five Iranian fast boats closed in quickly. A radio transmission believed to have come from one of the Iranian boats said, “I am coming to you.”

Commanders aboard the USS Port Royal, the USS Hopper and the USS Ingraham were ramping up defensive operations when the radio back and forth happened with the Iranians.

“Inbound small craft, you are approaching a coalition warship operating in international waters. Your identity is not known and your intentions are unclear.Request you alter course immediately to remain clear,” the Navy warned.

The response from the speed boat :”You will explode in a couple of minutes.”

The Iranian fleet “maneuvered aggressively” and then vanished as the American ship commanders were preparing to open fire, said Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff. No shots were fired.

In a four-minute, 20-second video released Tuesday by the Pentagon, the small boats — including a bright blue one — can be seen racing near the wake the U.S. ships and crossing close to each other.

The audio and video recordings were made separately, and initially covered much of the more than 20 minute confrontation, but were pulled together and combined by the Navy, the officials said.

In Tehran, Iran’s Foreign Ministry suggested the Iranian boats had not recognized the U.S. vessels. Spokesman Mohammed Ali Hosseini played down the incident. “That is something normal that takes place every now and then for each party,” he told the state news agency IRNA.

Cosgriff disputed Iranian claims that the incident was a routine encounter, saying Iran’s “provocative” actions were “deadly serious” to the U.S. military.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps said that its high-speed boats never threatened the U.S. vessels during the encounter, insisting it only asked them to identify themselves, then let them continue into the Gulf. An IRGC commander defended his force’s right to identify ships in the sensitive waterway.

Cosgriff, the commander of U.S. 5th Fleet, which patrols the Gulf and is based in nearby Bahrain, said the American vessels had already been identified by Iranian authorities earlier in the day before the confrontation occurred.

“The group had been successfully queried by an Iranian ship, possibly a Revolutionary Guards ship, and two or three Iranian (shore) stations and an Omani station,” Cosgriff told The Associated Press in a telephone interview Tuesday.

The U.S. commander also pointed out that the American ships were clearly marked and the incident took place during the day when they could be seen. “I can’t help but conclude that it was provocative,” Cosgriff said.

The Pentagon has said the U.S. ships were on the verge of opening fire on the Iranian boats when they fled.

Two of the Iranian boats went to the ship’s left side, three to the right, he said. The two on the left “were more energetic and made a number of runs toward the lead ship, the USS Hopper.”

This is what the Democrat version of the NIE has wrought. An Iranian regime more bold and daring then they have been in some time.

Also, what the hell were the commanders of our ships thinking? Letting these crafts get within 200 yards of our ships? What the hell!

I’m sure they were afraid of starting an international incident but come on, and some point you have to take action….not after its too late. This just gives them more ammunition in believing we don’t have the fortitude to go to war with them.

UPDATE

Dr. Sanity has a great take on the situation:

The key behavioral factor in extinguishing undesirable behavior is never to reinforce the behavior you are trying to extinguish. This fact is essential to understand, particularly when dealing with bullies who hail from a shame-phobic culture. The desire to preserve honor and avoid shame to the exclusion of all else is one of the primary foundations of the culture, and it has the side-effect of giving the individual carte blanche to engage in wrong-doing when they believe they have the upper hand.

In fact, any and all attempts to placate or reason with them will only result in their behavior escalating. That is because they sense weakness; and your weakness presents them with the opportunity to maximize both their own honor (such as it is) and your shame.

Bullies and thugs will not suddenly develop respect for your profound desire for peace and your non-violent, even appeasing, intentions–no matter how sincerely you express them. On the contrary, they conclude that you are weak and that there will be no consequences if they continue to push you around.

Once again, Iran has confirmed their belief that they are dealing with a paper tiger when they take on the West.

~~~

No matter how you look at it–either from a behavioral or a psychological perspective–it seems clear that things are only going to be going from bad to worse in the immediate future. And make no mistake about it, Iran will do something like this again. And the next time they will be interested in seeing how much further they can go with their antics–Can they kill an American or two without reprisal? How about kidnap some sailors right off the ship? They already know they can send explosives to Iraq and detain Americans without too much outrage or reprisals.

As Peters says at the beginning of his article, our tepid response to the Iranian attempt to humiliate our Navy has ensured that Iranian provocations will escalate.

Iranians kidnap British sailors, and nothing is done. They rush our ships while throwing objects into the water, nothing is done.

The Commander of these ships screwed up big time in my opinion.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
23 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The US Navy did not blink….The Iranians did.

This is the game of chicken at sea, Each side is testing the other.

Had one of those ships fired, the media would have had a field day, about the trigger happy Americans. “shooting those innocent speed boaters”

The Sailors reactions were perfect.

0
Reply

Don’t agree. They gave them way too many opportunities to come within 200 yards of one of our warships. For 30 minutes!

0
Reply

Curt,
USN close in armament has changed a lot since the USS Cole was attacked. The ships are ringed with 7.62mm guns, the old dual 50 CALs, GAU-19 50 Cal (mini-guns), and a pintle mounted 25mm auto cannon (same gun as on the M2/M3 Bradley IFV). The Iranian ships bore down on the US ships in international waters and could clearly see that the USN ships were fully at General Quarters and ready to fire. I am sure the 5-Inch main guns also started traversing.

At 200m, and with commands relayed most likely over open coms the Iranians knew they were about to die. Then they became “I-Ran-Agains” and fled.

Most likely this was a test of close in defense for US Warships in the Straits. Iranian Revolutionary Guard ships broke almost every maritime law they could and considering they refused to identify themselves, could have also been declared pirates/privateers. They also learned that USN captains have full authority to sink them when the US Captain deems necessary.

I can also imagine that this will not happen again and definatly will not happen when a CVN transits the straits. Next time will probably lead to the USN ships opening fire dramatically.

One concern is backstop. We do not know what traffic was around the US ships and if they were worried about hitting civilian targets accidentally as the straits are heavily trafficked.

In the end, rational people will understand that Iran really screwed up on this PR and tactical wise. The USN clearly relayed, in a calm manner, to the harassing/attacking (dropping mines is attacking) ships what would happen to them. The attackers responded with threats and were driven off by brandished US Weapons. Also, it let US commanders get a warning of upcoming events and hopefully prepare. So Iran not only looks aggressive and in violation of international sea laws, but also cowardly and stupid. The next attempt may lose the element of surprise for them.

But then Iran does not respect many laws (sanctity of embassies, human rights laws, embargoes, counter-terrorism laws, international boarders, etc).

In addition, there is increasing talk of who is really running (or not running) Iran. StrategyPage.com has articles on it as may others. Interesting reading and revealing if true. Allegedly, Iran is very short on heating fuel (Nat Gas) and cannot heat all their homes this winter. Also, the grand religious leaders in Iran appear to be in a power struggle. All this with a dying Iranian economy and restless population who hate the government.

This may be some gung-ho lone wolf unit which was recalled before they were destroyed by someone higher up. It did look too rehearsed for that, but may have been and aborted operation.

As I said, with rational people, Iran is clearly the aggressor and loser here. Unfortunately, Leaders in Iran seldom are rational.

0
Reply

I tend to agree. Our Brave men handled it right. At 200 Yards (600 Feet) the Iranians had no wepons that could do real damage to the ship that couldn’t just as easily be used at a thousand or more yards.

SSM (Surface to surface missles) = 1000 + Yard range, many have a range of 10 or more miles.

Torpedoes likewise have a range in thousands of yards.

Guns? On a boat that size, don’t make me laugh.

Maybe a few RPG type rockets might fall into the catagory of a wepon that you need to get to within a few hundread yards, however damage to a ship from one of those would be near laughable.

So unless we are going to start shooting at vessels 1/2 a mile away, waiting til they get to 200yards makes no substantial difference.

Suicide explosive device? Needs to be within a few dozen yards to have any real effect, and prefferably point blank. At 200 Yards it would take those boats another 10 – 20 seconds to close to effective suicide bomb range, and I have faith that are sailors would make swiss cheese of them within 5 seconds of being given the go ahead.

Are brave service men did just fine.

Random

0
Reply

The men did great, as they always do. The leader of that ship did not imo. The Iranians TOLD them that they are going to blow up their ships and then they let their boats get within 200yds….come on.

0
Reply

You keep saying 200 yards.

Yes they let them get to 200 yards. What could they have done at 200 yards they couldn’t have done at 2000 yards? Unless you are suggesting we blow them out of the water at between 1 and 10 miles away the range you keep stateing doesn’t matter.

Random

0
Reply

It most definitely mattered. Why not just let them get to within 10 yards then if the range didn’t matter.

Please.

0
Reply

Please read Post #4. I NEVER SAID RANGE DIDN’T MATTER. I said 200 Yards is not significantly different then 2000 yards. You have yet to show any reason why it is.

However at 10 Yards the boat would be within effective range of a suicide bomb in under a second. That would be foolish.

Now rather then continuing to ignore the question try answering it.

WHY IS 200 YARDS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM 2000 YARDS?!?

If, as I maintain, it is not then using your logic we should be fireing when they are 1 to 10 miles away, since they can do a much damage at that range as they can at 200 yards. Now if your advocting that we hould fire on irnian vesels at 1-10 miles away, then so be it. Thats your oppinion, However t least be honest about it, instead of trying to claim that the commander mishandled the situation by letting the craft get to some magicl 200 yard figure.

200 yards is NOT any much more significnat then 2000 Yards.

0
Reply

Forgot to mention, I specificly state in post 4 that

“Suicide explosive device? Needs to be within a few dozen yards to have any real effect, and prefferably point blank.”

You said

“It most definitely mattered. Why not just let them get to within 10 yards then if the range didn’t matter.”

As far as I am aware “10 yards” is less then “a few dozen” so if you had read my post you would see I already knew that 10 yards WOULD be a dangerouse distance.

Random

0
Reply

Tossing in my opinion. 200 yards or 2000 yards are not significant, since neither one wold afford the time to react to any kind of missle fired from the ship, but neither range is sufficient for a suicide bomb to mean anything. Under twenty yards is too close.

1-10 miles is not feasible in the close waters of the Persian Gulf since that would effective close the waterway: Something we are trying to prevent.

0
Reply

Get this through your thick head Random. The commanders of a US Navy Warship allowed three Iranian boats to rush their ships, as the Iranians are telling them that they will be attacked.

They tossed boxes into the water which very well could of been (for all they knew) mines.

We already know Iran supplies weapons that kill our troops in Iraq. We already know that they are attempting to build a nuke. Now three ships RUSHED our ships while tossing objects into the water and the commander of our ship obviously didn’t believe it was worthy of engaging them. He and the rest of the world already have proof that the Iranians have lost it, what more did this commander need?

Also, check out the update to my post.

0
Reply

Some people just like to PANIC ! and go straight to war with Iran

0
Reply

As for teh Iranians having lost it ???
Sounds more like those advocating PANIC!! have lost it. Thankfully cooler heads stopped this from escalating.

0
Reply

“Thick head?”

I see you are now resorting to Adhominen attacks.

You still after multiple posts FAIL to say why 200 yards is significant as compared to 2000 yards. Your dodgeing the question and trying to now change the debate.

You said in your main article
“Also, what the hell were the commanders of our ships thinking? Letting these crafts get within 200 yards of our ships? What the hell!”

I responded in my first post #4 with a reply devoted almost TOTALY to your statement of 200 yards.

You responeded in #5 about 200 Yards, and in #7 tried to imply 200 yards was the same as 10 yards.

In number 6, 8 and 9 I have maintained that 200 yards is not a significnt number to critisize are military over.

“Thick head?”

I see you are now resorting to Ad hominine attacks.

You still after multiple posts FAIL to say why 200 yards is significant as compared to 2000 yards. Your dodging the question and trying to now change the debate.

You said in your main article
“Also, what the hell were the commanders of our ships thinking? Letting these crafts get within 200 yards of our ships? What the hell!”

I responded in my first post #4 with a reply devoted almost TOTALY to your statement of 200 yards.

You responded in #5 about 200 Yards, and in #7 tried to imply 200 yards was the same as 10 yards.

In number 6, 8 and 9 I have maintained that 200 yards is not a significant number to criticize are military over.

Now in number 11 you try dodging my direct question
“WHY IS 200 YARDS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM 2000 YARDS?!?”

and to change the subject to areas I have never even addressed. In fact in your last post you SUDDENLY don’t even mention 200 yards. I will take it you now acknowledge that 200 yards is not significant? If that is not the case then please repond with a dirrect reply to this question

WHY IS 200 YARDS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM 2000 YARDS?!?

Random

0
Reply

200yds, 2000yds…doesn’t matter. Threatening actions do. When they went in front of the ships-crossing their paths, dropping unknown objects in front of the ships, and sending threatening radio calls to the ships…that’s dangerous. There’s no way to tell what’s inside a bland looking box until it’s hit, goes off, or is passed. What does one do? Blow it off, or blow em away? I think the Navy did a good job, and I can only hope that every weapons mount radar was volted up, targeted, and irradiating the morons as much as possible.

I have a tough time understanding John’s comment that people just want to go to war with Iran, when it was the Iranians making the threatening statements and threatening actions (doing things that appeared to be minelaying right in front of several US ships).

Tip o the hat to the USN, and a flip of the finger to those who even remotely suggest that this is an example of American warmongering, fear-mongering, or anything less than the IRANIAN effort to provoke military action. Such suggestions aren’t only childish, but their dangerous.

0
Reply

Scott, 200 yards is what Curt criticized the naval commanders for. He said….

“Also, what the hell were the commanders of our ships thinking? Letting these crafts get within 200 yards of our ships? What the hell!”

He never even mentioned boxes, Iranian nukes, or any thing else in his attack on the captain. Not until he has made 3 posts dodging the question of 200 yards does he even mention such things.

He has yet to explain why the commander should be criticized for not firing at 200 yards as opposed to 2000 yards. What is the difference?

I take criticizing our service men quite seriously and try to give them the benefit of the doubt, unlike Murtha, and many other who want to condemn them without all the facts.

I don’t know what orders the commander had, do you? Does Curt? They may well have been told by the Commander in Chief himself “Do not fire unless an attack boat gets to within 100 yards.” If that’s the case then Curt is criticizing them for following a direct order.

The boxes may have been small light bread boxes unable to do any real damage, or huge cargo crates. I don’t know. They may have been dropped a mile off and thus been no threat. I have no details, nor have I herd anyone else give such details. Most certainly not Curt, whose initial complaint and for 3 post after was about “200 yards”.

I will be damned before I criticize a US Navy commander with out having these basic questions as well as several dozen other questions answered. Curt seems to want to go the other way, which truly does surprise me.

Our military men have a tough enough job to do without playing politics and to criticize them, in an incident that saw no casualties or gross misconduct, without all the facts on the table is wrong.

It’s wrong when a Liberal does it, and it’s just as wrong when a conservative does it.

Random

0
Reply

If 3 ships are traveling through a strait with no room to turn around, and Revolutionary Guard speedboats radio them, threaten them, then drop “boxes” in front of them, I personally think that’s the time to open fire, but I don’t criticize as much as applaud them for their restraint. Me, well, I don’t have a lot of trigger control; a bit more reactionary in a dangerous situation, and that’s why I applaud them.

0
Reply

Being a Marine I criticized plenty of brass in my time and to suggest that they should never be criticized is asinine. I will be damned if I won’t do it if it’s called for. Everyone makes mistakes, I did when I was in and this commander did imo.

They were threatened and rushed…200yds is just too damn close to me. You don’t agree, so be it.

0
Reply

I never said they shouldn’t be criticized. I said they shouldn’t be criticized until all the facts are in.

As far as I can tell, and from your original statement you feel for some unknown and still unexplained reason that 200 yards suddenly makes them negligent.

How is this any different then when Murtha blasts our troops for incidents that he has not seen all the facts for? Are you saying that’s OK to do?

I’ve already asked you multiple times and will ask you again, WHAT is so magical about 200 yards that doesn’t apply at 300 Yards or 1000 or 2000? And you still have failed to give a logical reasoned response. Your entire response seems to be, “I JUST FEEL IT’S TO CLOSE” Without anything to back it up.

If a liberal said “I feel that our troops are wrong, because, well I feel that way!” You would be all over them.

To top it off, for all any of us know the commanders may well have been ordered NOT to engage at greater then 200 yards, In which case you are blasting them for obeying orders.

Once again, WHAT SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN DANGER WAS THERE BETWEEN 200 YARDS AND 2000 YARDS?

What is the difference between you jumping on the soldiers from an arm chair at home, without all the facts, and a Liberal Blogger, or congressman doing the same thing?

Random

0
Reply

Holy christ…you’re like my wife, nag nag nag. Taking the totality of circumstances, especially the items that we’re dropped coupled with their threats, 200yds is too close.

Could they have been under orders not too fire, sure. But then I would blame the person giving the orders.

0
Reply

And your like my girl friend saying she FEELS something is wrong. I don’t want touchy feelings. 🙂

Once again you say 200 yards is to close. I am not asking for your opinion, I think we all know you FEEL that it is to close. But a WHY is it to close. Let me give you an example.

I would say 20 yards is to close. If asked why I would say that I would answer that as far as I know the speed of the Iranian boats would be sufficient to put the boat within striking range before we could stop it from detonating a suicide bomb, as was used against the Cole, causing massive damage and loss of life.

I could say 5 miles is to close. I would once again justify, albeit with out of date 1980’s-1990’s missile data, that at closer then 5 miles a large number of the missiles that China, France, USSR sell third world countries become effective at that range. Mind you this is taken from data when I used to track cold war armaments, and yes that dates me.

I could try saying 500-1000 yards is to close, and try to justify it, Though very weakly in my opinion, with the fact that hand held weapons start to become effective against Ship personnel at that range. Yes I know in reality they couldn’t hit worth a damn, but that’s an example.

You just keep pulling this magical number up with no backing for it. No reason why. You decry the left for not justifying their claims with reliable data yet you are criticizing the command WITH NO DATA. You decry Murtha for his criticism of troops without waiting for all the information. Don’t you see you are doing the same sort of thing?

0
Reply

Curt you may be misunderstanding me. America in recent years seems to have a policy of don’t shoot, unless you are in imminent danger. From what I see, and all the information I have that point of danger doesn’t occur in this situation until somewhere between 50 and 200 yards. I have shown you different scenarios to back up my assertion. The commander appears to have followed that policy by waiting until they hit 200 yards to open fire.

If you have a problem with the policy, come out and say so. Blame the policy makers. While I MAY not support a change, I can fully see your point, and I would readily agree with the facts that the policy to date has lead to tragedies, Beirut and the Cole being two of the worst. It would be a basis for discusion.

I just see saying 200 yards as a cop out from what you really want. Kicking Iran in the balls when they try this shit. Heck myself and ¾ of the readers here have the same gut feeling.

However I can’t blame a commander for following the policies the US has used up till now, nor the policies that, Arguably, MAY be the best politically for us.

I’ll leave this as my last message as I don’t wish for your wife to become jealous,

Thanks for a great site to voice our opinions.

Random

0
Reply

Thats a policy now? 200 yards? Please direct me to that policy and if it is like you say it is I will then backtrack and say they were just following policy. I won’t blame the commander for following policy, god knows I have to deal with enough of that on the Sheriff’s Dept.

I would then say the policy is bullshit tho. But those are usually written by guys in suits who have no clue what real combat is like.

I’ll leave this as my last message as I don’t wish for your wife to become jealous

Rofl….won’t happen because you know what happens when you tell the ladies they nag too much.

It’s not good.

0
Reply