As you already know, Iran seized two US Riverine Command Boats a few days ago. The crew and the boats were soon released, but not before being humiliated by the Iranian navy. The obama administration has been desperately trying to smother this incident. On the news sites left wingers were spewing all sorts of reasons that the boats fell into trouble. I saw engine trouble, ran out of gas, navigational errors, ran aground- all sorts of things. As of today the official story is this:
One of the boats began to have its engine “run roughly” during the transit from Kuwait to Bahrain, according to the details of what the crew has said. It’s not yet clear at what point they drifted off course, or if they even understood they were off course. It’s not believed the engine trouble was the cause of going off course.
But when they got so close to Farsi Island, and were approached by the Iranians, it is believed the U.S. boats could not rapidly get out of way because of that engine trouble.
Defense Secretary Carter said this:
“I think that this much is clear, there was a navigational error of some kind,” he said at a press conference on Thursday. “All the contributing factors to that we don’t know yet, and we’re still talking to those folks, and we’ll find out more … but they were clearly out of the position that they intended to be in.”
Carter is clearly under pressure to dispense with the issue:
“What we are most happy about here in the State Department is that we were able to get them home in less than 24 hours, (with) 10 fingers, 10 toes, nobody hurt. They are all safe and we got our boats back, and I think that is the most important thing.”
From the Navy Times:
The boat crews were arrested by Iranian forces after they skirted by Iran’s Farsi Island in the Persian Gulf. The sailors seem to have mistakenly entered Iranian waters aboard their top-of-the-line riverine assault boats. Their navigation systems appeared to be working and the boats had fuel.
Officials are trying to ascertain how they wound up off track, leading to the run-in with Iran’s paramilitary forces based on the island, according to a source familiar with the debriefings.
A refueling rendezvous gone awry is the likely explanation for why the boats got off track, according to a U.S. official who asked for anonymity to discuss information from the debriefings.
This nautical adventure has a fishy scent to it. First, something about the boats. They’re fast and mean:
The boats have a crew of 5 and can carry up to 20 passengers. Forty-nine feet long and more than 12 feet wide, the RCBs use Swedish-made Scania diesel engines coupled to Rolls-Royce FF410 waterjets to reach speeds of more than 43 knots. The RCB has a draft of only three feet, allowing it to operate effectively in shallow waters. It has a range of 320 nautical miles.
The RCBs bristle with weaponry, averaging a weapons station every ten feet. There are four mounts for machine guns, which can handle M2HB .50-caliber heavy machine guns, GAU-19 .50-caliber miniguns, and M240 medium machine guns. Typically a RCB mounts one of each, with one .50 caliber station sometimes mounting two heavy machine guns (see above). The boats are also equipped with a Mk49 remote control weapons station equipped with a M2HB heavy machine gun. Developed by Israeli defense contractor Rafael, the Mk49 has a 360 degree arc of fire.
And they don’t get lost easily:
Riverine Command Boats are packed with sensors and communications gear, too. The Sea FLIR III infrared sensor system features a thermal imager sensor, laser rangefinder, and autotracker, all on a gyro-stabilized package to keep the image stable on a rocking boat. The latest in communications allows the boats to communicate with other navy ships, aircraft, and even ground forces.
These boats make nearly 1300 horsepower. Why mention that? Because given the technological capabilities of these boats, getting lost is just not realistic. Not knowing where you are in the Persian Gulf? Not buying it. Not knowing you were drifting into Iranian waters? Not buying it. If one boats truly has a problem and I’m the skipper of one of these boats, as soon as I realize we’re drifting where we’re not supposed to be I put a tow line on the disabled boat and get it the hell out of there. Does anyone really believe that sailors on these boats don’t understand the gravity of their location?
No.
Upon their capture the sailors were utterly humiliated, forced onto their knees with their hands behind their heads.
The female sailor was forced to wear a hijab. The Iranians even stripped them of their boots.
The Iranians made and released a video of the capture. Our dumbass Secretary of State Kerry thanked Iran and the White House slobbered.
Most stunningly, the BBC reported that Kerry himself apologized to the Mullahs of Iran.
And the White House released a separate statement that our sailors had been “afforded the proper courtesy that you would expect.”
Proper courtesy? Sometimes you wonder on what planet these idiots are. Had the situation been reversed would we have done this?
So, for the record, if an Iranian boat had suffered a mechanical failure and come nonthreateningly into American waters, accompanied by another Iranian vessel attempting to render aid, we would not have: stripped the Iranians of their gear, at gunpoint, and forced them to their knees; made a video of same, for use as propaganda; ransacked their property, possibly including sensitive communications gear; forced them to wear clothing that suited our religious sensibilities; detained them overnight, while interrogating members of the crew on camera; and finally released edited footage in an effort at humiliation.
None of this was “standard nautical practice,” as Vice President Joe Biden claimed. Nor was it something for which we should thank the government of Iran, as Secretary of State Kerry was quickto do, while claiming that the sailors had been “well taken care of.” Presumably neither man had seen the footage released by Iran when they made those remarks, but the mere fact that the sailors and their boats had been kept overnight should have been concerning enough to give them pause. Even without its more theatrical elements, the detention alone was objectively a hostile act, despite surreal protests to the contrary from the U.S. government.
Viewed in isolation, this event is bad enough but it’s not an isolated thing. Last April Iran detained a US cargo ship. In December Iran test fired several rockets within 1500 yards of the USS Truman. The RCB seizure is just one more provocative action, one more Iranian stick to the eye of Barack Obama. Iran is putting on a show, letting the world know how far they can shove a shoe up Obama’s back side.
I don’t believe these guys were lost. I really don’t believe they were in Iranian waters. The Iranians have a good grasp of Obama’s narcissism. They know how badly he wants his lousy nuclear deal to hold for the Obama legacy. Obama recently blocked Visa waiver reforms in order not to upset Iran. They know there’s probably almost nothing he wouldn’t do to save it. That stirred a memory of a show I watched on Netflix called “Black Mirror.” The first episode was called “The National Anthem.” In it, the Duchess of Beaumont is kidnapped and the ransom calls for the Prime Minister to have sex with a pig on live television and eventually he does. It’s not hard to imagine the nuclear agreement as the Duchess.
The Iranians already have Obama by the short hairs and they know it.
There’s more to be told about this story and IMO these boats and crews were hung out to dry. I’m waiting for the other anchor to drop.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
The technical details of these boats was new information to me, but I had already assumed that they were technologically advanced and well armed. Further, the point of ONE boat having engine trouble and the other boat not towing it to shore or to a support craft was the FIRST thought in my mind.
However, this much is clear; there is so much needing much explaining but not explained that it is impossible to even JUMP to a conclusion… which one would it be?
One thing you can count on, though… this stinks.
Kerry should show his appreciation to the Iranians for not making him drop his pants and kiss his own ass on national television. Nice of them to accept doing it symbolically as proof enough of their cowardice.
Disagree completely — Obama is a Russian/Iranian agent !! — That’s all there is – there is NO more!!
From the post:
Do not leave out the Iranian’s capture and humiliation of the crew over several days of a British patrol boat – ten years or so ago!
In one of the pictures of the capture, an Iranian attack boat was shown. It was a Boston Whaler type with a total armament of one AK-47 with a smiling Iranian stooge. Is this what it takes for our Navy to surrender?
Something is dreadfully wrong with our leadership.
@Skookum:
Yes if our Navy enters foreign waters by “mistake” they do not fight their way out
Then
Yes they are under orders NOT
To fight they way out
Real life is different from Tom Clancy fiction
If you had bothered to look at a map. With a distance scale you might have questioned why they were under orders to be 30 miles off the rhumb course between Kuwait and Bahrain
The US Navy was up to something, apparently Dr J thinks they should not have been doing anything provocative
@Skookum, #4:
U.S. military craft entered their territorial waters without permission. We were in the wrong, even if by error. The Iranians were fully within their rights to detain their crews until the situation was clarified.
Nations don’t patrol their territorial waters just to have an opportunity to wave at foreign military vessels that sail into them without authorization. The Iranians didn’t fire on us. They pulled us over. If we’d reacted by firing on them in their own territorial waters, it would have been an act of war.
By the way, the government of Iran just announced that they have removed the core of their heavy water nuclear reactor at Arak. Once it has been permanently disabled, their path to any future manufacture of a plutonium-based nuclear weapon will be greatly extended. An inspection will be conducted to confirm the reactor’s status.
This would be the second step toward compliance with the provisions of the nuclear deal. Their stockpile of enriched uranium was removed from the country late last year. With it, they could have assembled a uranium-based nuke in only a few more months.
The tin foil hate types on the right are jumping all over this bullshit story. Too fun!
@Reem: Yeah, everything about this story seems pretty straightforward, right? No open ends or unanswered questions.
After Benghazi, America has learned to be skeptical of anything and everything this administration says regarding any and every international incident.
And, it seems with good reason.
The Iranian spin?
Our military Code of Conduct?
This leaves me wondering if Obama even realizes Iran is our nation’s enemy.
@Nanny G, #10:
Iran is not the enemy, as the term would be understood in the context of the U.S. armed forces Code of Conduct. A state of war does not exist between Iran and the United States. What happened was a diplomatic incident, not a military engagement. International law is applicable.
As Commander in Chief, Obama understands correctly. Iran is not our enemy. Iran is a geopolitical adversary. ISIS is our enemy. We’re conducting a war against ISIS, and have been for over a year now.
I too have my doubts about that. We have only the word of the Iranians and an administration who will lie at the drop of a hat. The Captain’s “admission” was one given under duress and thus qustionable. (Especially if he was ordered by the State Department or his CiC to speak it).
As for the engine problem, it is entirely possible that crew members of both vessels may have been at work trying to repair the problem when the Iranian’s showed up. We do not know for a fact whether the boats were or were not in Iranian waters. Perhaps their GPS system “Might” have been able to verify, but by some reports the GPS of both boats was removed by the Iranians.
@Nanny G:
If the captain received orders from the President of the United States to apologize, it puts him in a position of either keeping to the Code of Combat, or follow the orders of his CiC. You have to consider which would be the worse potential Courts Martial offense: Violating the Code of Conduct under the order of your CiC, or to disobey a direct order by the CiC in order to follow the Code of Conduct. The Captain was in a “Damned if you do – Damned if you don’t” situation.
Having a vengeful. narcissistic CiC who detests the military, and who doesn’t give a damned for military personnel (or veterans). The Captain had a very difficult decision to make, and we would be wrong to second guess him.
@Nanny G:
I am not wondering at all whether both Iran and Obama are our nation’s enemy. The SOB is a Russian/Iranian agent.
@Ditto:
No hat dropping required!
@Greg:
Ohhh… we aren’t enemies…. we are mere adversaries.
enemy
: someone who hates another : someone who attacks or tries to harm another
: something that harms or threatens someone or something
adversary
: one that contends with, opposes, or resists : enemy
Yes, that clears things up. Now I see why the Iranians forced our sailors to kneel with their hands on their heads and forced an officer to apologize on video. Because we aren’t enemies… we are merely adversaries.
Next, I’ll look up the difference between apologistic bullshit and liberal talking points.
@Greg: Typical idiotic hairsplitting from you. In no way should our men issue an apology or words of comfort to a belligerent foreign entity irrespective of whether you wish to refer to them as an enemy or adversary. Do recall dear moron Greg that, while we have not declared war on Iran, they have declared war upon us.
Considering that Obama and state department called Iran to aid our ‘lost/malfunctioning’ boats stranded nearby – there is nothing else needed other than a traitorous action delivered by the leader of the US and his lacky!
I am sure that those 3 Civil Affairs soldiers knew that the Iranians were not the enemy when they were executed in Southern Iraq. Iran has been the enemy for a very long time. The difficulty is that this administration and their enablers here and other places fail to understand the difference between a friend and an enemy!
Without a friend or relative who fought in Iraq, Greg is unlikely to recall that Iran manufactured and supplied explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs to Shiite militias across the border in Iraq so that they could destroy U.S. Humvees and breach tank hulls.
At least 500 of our men were killed, many more maimed, by these Iranian weapons of war used against us.
We are presently fighting a proxy war against Iran in that we are trying to oust Assad in Syria.
Iran, in the meantime, fires across our Navy ships’ bow and goes into International waters to capture our navy men and woman.
Want to bet that any GPS data from the incident is lost?
@Bill, #15:
Sorry, but in the context of military and diplomatic understanding, “enemy” means something much more specific than you seem to think. When the Code of Conduct refers to “the enemy,” it isn’t talking about a backstabbing coworker, a hostile neighbor, or somebody’s vindictive ex-wife. Nor is it talking about the military forces of an unfriendly nation where a state of tension exists. It’s talking specifically about the military forces of a nation state or entity with which we are at war.
Different laws and rules apply when a state of war exists. Any military commander who doesn’t grasp this fact has no business whatsoever being a military commander. Not understanding it would make such a person a disaster waiting to happen.
@Me, #16:
No, they have not declared war on us. That, too, is something having a very specific meaning. When a state of war exists, an entirely different set of rules govern how hostile nations’ military forces behave toward one another. If Iran were at war with us, we could have expected them to have called in Iranian air support and opened fire on our boats. If we were at war with Iran, there would be no diplomacy going on in an effort to avoid a war, which could be disastrous for both nations.
Did any of you people pay attention in history class? When talking about the affairs between nation states, an ally is something specific; an enemy is something specific; a state of war is something specific. This is not a matter of hairsplitting. It’s a matter of clearly understanding how things work in the real world.
@Greg:
Really? They why did you use a term, in place of “enemy” that means the same thing as “enemy”? People that aren’t the “enemy” don’t usually “help” by forcing our personnel to get on their knees and keep their hands clasped on their heads and then force them to apologize for anti-US propaganda. Maybe you need another mis-directing, ambiguous euphemism.
Maybe you need to think a bit more and criticize a bit less.
@Nanny G, #19:
As if we supplied weapons of war to no one… The volume is staggering.
@Greg: Yes nombnuts, they DID declare war upon us in 1978. We did not respond in kind, because we did not have any concern about them actually launching a successful attack. We haven’t had an embassy in Iran since 1978 as a direct result of their declaration of war upon us, and their general belligerence besides. You are so insanely retarded it is a wonder your mom allows you to play with something as dangerous as a keyboard. I feel certain that matches are out of the question for your imbecilic self, however.
@Greg: Relevance? Once again your dipshittery beclowns you. You make it so easy, retard.
@Me, #25:
No, Iran did not declare war on the United States in 1978, nor have they done so at any other time.
Reagan ordered U.S. attacks on Iranian oil platforms in Iranian waters during 1987 and 1988, after a U.S. warship was damaged by an Iranian mine. Two Iranian naval ships were sunk and a third severely damaged in the process, with a loss of 56 Iranian sailors. In 1988 we shot down an Iranian passenger jet on a regularly scheduled flight in Iranian airspace.
It’s understandable why Iran might regard us with a certain degree of suspicion.
Greg,
Actually, Iran did declare war and take action as such in 1978 –
When it attacked and invaded our embassy in Tehran
444 days; 52 hostages.
@Greg:
Excuse me…
@Greg:
Anyone that thinks, Greg, becomes critical of this failed regime. People who refuse to think merely digest liberal talking points for excusing the failure and pass them along as their own thoughts.
when the Turks shot down Russian jets for encroaching into their airspace the same distance it seemed like a proper response to some
But again please look at a map and explain how if they were on a course from Kuwait to Bahrain they ended up so close to that iranian island.
Bill if heavily armed Irainian boats entered our waters what do you think would be the proper response? If it was accidental don’t you think that the US should have alerted the Irainians to the problem? Any explanation to why one boat did not even TRY and tow the other a mere 1.5 miles so as to be out of their waters?
This was a cover up, but of a naval mission that went wrong
@john: Excuse me, but, in case you missed it, Russia has been sending their naval ships inside our limit for months now.
Obama’s response has been to ignore them each time.
@john:
Why, apologize to them, of course! At least for another year, anyway.
@John, #28:
The taking of the U.S. embassy and hostages in Tehran took place in November 1979, not 1978. The shah had been ousted in February 1979 and allowed to enter the United States. The embassy was overrun by a student revolutionary group known as the Muslim Student Followers of the Imam’s Line, who demanded that he be returned for a trial. We refused, so they refused to release their hostages.
Ayatollah Khomeini, the new leader of Iran, supported the students after the fact, but the hostage taking wasn’t initiated by the new government. A constitution wasn’t even in place until the following month. Khomeini did exploit the popularity of the ongoing hostage situation and hostility toward the United States as a means of unifying revolutionary factions and consolidating his power. There was no declaration of war against the United States, however. Actually going to war with the United States would have been about the last thing they needed. They already had their hands full with the Iranian cultural revolution and a war with Iraq, both of which commenced in 1980.
As was mentioned earlier, a state of war between nations is a specific state of affairs. Different rules and laws apply in peacetime and in time of war. Iran’s hostage taking and their treatment of the hostages was an egregious violation of international standards of conduct that apply when a state of war does not exist, but such a violation doesn’t automatically redefine the situation.
@Greg: You work hard at your abject stupidity, don’t you? A declaration of war, issued by a belligerent which could be easily disregarded is the joke it seems to be, is treated as such.
Reagan’s saber rattling in the region was exactly that, a cold -war feint meant to get the attention of those bent on a greater conflagration. Message sent: not on Ronnie’s watch. Didn’t happen on Ronnie’s watch did it?
The vacuous stupidity which defines your position almost always results in greater trouble around the world.
You are too stupid to grasp that simple point. Thankfully there are actual adults who can undo most of the damage you and your imbecilic cohort perpetrate upon the rest of the sentient ammong us.
@Me, #35:
And the ramping up of the insults as your anger rises reveals a particular individual’s personality, whatever name tag you happen to be wearing at the moment.
@Greg: I am not angry. Further, making note of the results of your stupidity is not an insult. It is rather an accurate observation.
@Me, #37:
I’m not one who automatically falls in line when someone decides to reconfigure a relatively minor and quickly resolved event into an international incident of epic proportion.
You want an accurate observation? The sad truth is that the wishful thinking is showing. At this particular pre-election juncture, the right would have welcomed a politically useful incident that didn’t end so quickly or didn’t end so well. At this point they would welcome any negative news that could be pinned on their political enemies. There’s a corollary, too: If it fails to turn up, they’ll have no qualms about making it up. They’re certainly giving it a go with this one. At the very least, they’re hoping to neutralize what might be viewed as a suggestion that better relations with Iran really could be possible.
As long as all of you continue to feed the troll, you will be driven to exasperation. Please consider your sanity in dealing with one who is not sane.
One article mentioned that the Iranians could have used GPS spoofing and maybe they were over reliant on the GPS. If they double checked their compass and used a range finder on the island to see if they were too close. The Iranians used spoofing before to capture a drone that was flying in Afghanistan. The Iranians could have jammed the radios preventing a call for help and used a laser to disable one of the boats.
@Gregory Dittman: Why would they do that? We’re buddies.