P. David Hornik:
Last week Iranian naval vessels subjected U.S. warships to what U.S. officials called “harassing maneuvers risking dangerous escalation.”
In an incident last January, Iran illegally detained a group of U.S. sailors—using the fact that their boats had veered into Iranian waters as a supposed justification.
In last week’s incidents, Iran couldn’t even use that excuse since the American ships were in international waters.
First, on Tuesday, Iranian ships buzzed the USS Nitze, a destroyer, in the Strait of Hormuz. They “ignoredrepeated radio, whistle and flare warnings from the Nitze and slowed their approach only when they were within 300 yards of the U.S. ship.”
And in last Wednesday’s even more serious incidents, ships of the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) harassed two U.S. coastal patrol ships and a U.S. destroyer in the northern Persian Gulf.
Finally one of the coastal patrol ships, the Squall, had to fire three shots in the general direction of one of the IRGC ships to get it to stop chasing after the Stout, the destroyer.
As Stephen Bryen and Shoshana Bryen note, Iran is[testing a] tactic called the “swarming boat” to destroy U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf.
The swarming boat attack is just what it sounds like: a number of fast boats equipped with missiles and torpedoes attack enemy ships from multiple angles to damage or destroy them as quickly as possible.
On Thursday the State Department hit back by calling the Iranian ships’ actions “unacceptable,” which should put fear in the hearts of the power-holders in Tehran.
And that was last week.
Further events this week might not have the drama of a precarious naval standoff, but are at least as significant.
On Monday it was reported, and visually recorded, that Iran had deployed its Russian-made S-300 missile-defense system at its Fordo uranium-enrichment site.
If these iranian scum rats keep on yanking on the eagles tail their going to get clawed to peices
Really? How close did they fly by overhead?
Perhaps the State Department’s statement should be taken in conjunction with something P. David Hornik mentioned a few lines previously:
Does Mr. Hornik not understand that words to a nation’s government from the State Department regarding the unacceptable conduct of their naval vessels and shots fired “in the general direction” of one of that nation’s offending patrol ships should be taken as two parts of the same message? Is that too difficult for him to figure out? Maybe he just assumes his readers won’t be able to do so.