Iranian Revolutionary Guard gunboats harassed three U.S. Navy warships in the Strait of Hormuz Sunday, in what the U.S. military considers a "significant provocative act."
Military officials told NBC News that two US Navy destroyers and one frigate were heading into the Persian Gulf through the international waters of the Strait of Hormuz when five armed "fast boats" of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard approached a high speed, darting in and out of the formation.
At one point a radio message from one of the Iranian boats warned, "You are going to blow up within minutes."
That is just ducky ... will make a nice bookend to the chaos brewing in Pakistan. A clean sweep for the Bushies - trouble from the coast of the Mediterranean all the way to Kashmir. George must think he is Alexander of Macedonia or something.
Now tell me, when does Congress put a stop to this foolishness?
About the same time any of the Constitution loving canidates get on board with Impeachment. Going along with things means the Congress-kritter will trend towards keeping the lights on and their bellies full. Going against the flow trends towards unemployment, being hungry and in the dark.
(Wayne Madsen http://mp3.wtprn.com/Madsen.xml has claimed there is enough dirt on most everyone in Congress that if one goes down, they all go down)
About the same time any of the Constitution loving canidates get on board with Impeachment.
You mean like Kucinich? He's introduced impeachment for Cheney... No other candidate even comes close to him on the issues. He's the only pro-Peak Oil candidate, as far as I know, and so far as I can tell, the most active on environmental issues. Here's list of issues he discusses in various videos found on youtube:
Peak Oil
- Peak oil is a fact
- being depleted faster than found
- at peak oil
- get off oil
- Government for sustainability
- Rosoe Bartlett referenced http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjiGuOsKr04
Education
- Free pre-school for 3-5
- Universal university/college w/ service programs
- Environmental Ed.
Environment/Trade
- massive infrastructure investment for mass transit
- energy efficient contruction
DOE: disincentives for oil, coal and nuclear incentives for wind and solar micro-technology (and businesses) to provide energy to homes and businesses across the country
- All trade agreements tied to environmental principles
- Cancel NAFTA
- Dept. of Interior: remove all incentives for natural resource extraction, including uranium to protect natvie American lands.
- NASA technology to boost green research
- Gov't as an engine of sustainability
These types of feignts to guage a potential adversary's reaction have been going on forever. In the cold war US and Soviet submarines were constantly tailing and trying to intimidate each other. The US Navy might as well get used to it. The Iranians aren't going to retreat from the Persian Gulf (where would they go?), and no one is served by an over reation.
If Iran really wanted to attack an American Destroyer they would do it with a Silkworm missile barrage, not a speed boat full of trash talking Revolutionary Guards. The truth is that military tensions in the Gulf are significantly reduced from just a couple of months ago. A deal has been cut. The Iranians have stopped supplying IEDs to the Shiite militias and the US in turn has published the NIE that takes the military option off the table.
Bush is headed to the Middle East this week to wave the flag. Iran doesn't want anyone to forget that they are the emerging power in the region. But it would be foolish to misinterpret this naval gamesmanship as a genuine threat.
You totally missed the point Westexas. During the cold war these types of things happened more times than we even know. The Gulf of Tonkin incident is one of thousands of such incidents that happened in the past. While its possible this incident could turn into something, the chances are less than .1%.
I agree, it kind of looks like the moron-in-chief and co. are looking for a new excuse to attack Iran now that their claim about nuclear weapons production has been disproven.
Didn't Iran just recently go and capture a bunch of British sailors claiming that they were in Iranian waters though? Maybe the pissing contest is on both sides.
the administration of President Lyndon Johnson deliberately triggered the Vietnam War by orchestrating the Tonkin Gulf incident and duping Congress
Lets see - fake incident
Daniel Ellsberg, at the November 1995 Vietnam Veterans Institute Conference, was far more critical of those who served in the executive branch and notably more apologetic: "What I did not reveal in the Summer of 64...was a conspiracy to manipulate the public into a war and to win an election through fraud...which had the exact horrible consequences the founders of this country envisioned when they ruled out, they thought as best they could, that an Executive Branch could secretly decide the decisions of war and peace, without public debate or vote of Congress....Senator Morse, one of the two people who voted against the Tonkin Gulf Resolution told me in 1971, '...had you given us all that information...seven years earlier, in 1964, the Tonkin Gulf Resolution would never have gotten out of Committee. And, if it had, it would never have passed....' But there was a time in my life later...knowing the consequences of all these policies...when I did say to myself that I'm never going to lie again with the justification that someone has told me I have to....I've never been sorry I've stopped doing that."
The Gulf of Tonkin incident is one of thousands of such incidents that happened in the past.
So you are claiming there are thousands of fake incidents? Incidents people 'feel bad' about later?
Already did, and like I said it was one of hundreds of these types of military incidents that have occurred in the past. I acknowledged that it could turn into something, its just highly highly likely not to. Best hopes for TOD members not turning into this guy:
You are the one missing the point. Military gamesmanship happened all the time during the cold war. What WT is referring to is that the Gulf of Tonkin was faked. Totally, corruptly faked, in order to gain support for a war that should have never occurred.
I am well aware that there were plenty of cat-and-mouse games played between US and Soviet subs and aircraft during the Cold War. These perhaps served a legitimate purpose in testing each others' capabilities and defenses.
However, I get a very bad taste with this particular one. As you probably know, the Iran Navy is essentially a third-rate force consisting of 3 Russian Kilo class subs plus a handful of frigates, corvettes, fast missile boats, and a whole bunch of tiny patrol boats. So, there really wouldn't be much point in Iran's testing of our capabilities because they have to know they would get thoroughly stomped in any outright armed naval conflict with the mighty US Navy.
So, the questions in my mind are i) WHY? and ii) WHY NOW?
Given the delicate situation between Iran and the US, why would the Iranian government want to provoke the US and give the Bush regime the pretext for the attack it would love to launch against Iran? It would appear to me that the Iranians would have little motivation in creating an incident, whereas the Bush regime has plenty of motivation, much of it quite obvious.
Then we have the question of whether this incident has anything to do with Bush's upcoming visit to Israel, a visit in which what to 'do' about Iran will surely be discussed in exhaustive detail.
As with the Gulf of Tonkin incident, what is made of the incident by the US will be far more important than the physical incident itself. In this case no missiles were launched, no shots were fired, and no vessels from either side were damaged. Yet, I suspect that the Bush regime and the MSM are going to milk this one for all it's worth. How they play this will tell you a lot about what is really going on.
Given the overall situation, I am not so readily inclined to believe that this was just a case of some good 'ol boys in the Iranian Navy having a little fun with the Americans. Could it be that the Iranians have concluded they are going to be attacked by the US one way or the other, so it might be to their advantage to start trouble on their terms and their schedule rather than that of the US?
One could speculate forever, but the proof will be the degee to which this is made out to be a big deal requiring positive military action.
"Given the overall situation, I am not so readily inclined to believe that this was just a case of some good 'ol boys in the Iranian Navy having a little fun with the Americans. Could it be that the Iranians have concluded they are going to be attacked by the US one way or the other, so it might be to their advantage to start trouble on their terms and their schedule rather than that of the US?"
It's quite the opposite, tensions are lower. the Iranians know they won't be attacked, so they are feeling their oats.
Well, tensions at least outwardly APPEAR to be lower, partly as the result of the release of the NIE report stating that Iran ceased its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
However, this is precisely what the Bush regime does NOT want. If Iran's nuclear weapons program has turned out to be a non-existent issue, then I fear the Bush regime will be desperately searching for another justification for attacking Iran. The neocons in the Bush regime have been pressing for such an attack, as has Israel and its backers in the US. Thus, a manufactured or overblown incident would appear to fit right in with that overall strategy.
I don't know .... if I were an Iranian, I don't think I'd feel so confident about not being attacked until after Bush leaves office. Then of course we have the possibility of Israel going free-lance and making an attack all on its own, with the full expectation that the US will automatically come to Israel's defense when Iran counterattacks.
Well, I suppose that about a year from now we'll know for sure whether or not this will have turned out to be a legitimate worry.
If they did not want tensions lowered then why did they put out the NIE?
There was a battle within the Bush administration about how to deal with Iran. It was a battle between the neocons (led by Cheney) and the moderates (led by Rice). That battle is over, the moderates won. That's why most of the neocons have left the administration.
You can see the moderate foreign policy influence on the North Korean policy, and the broader Mideast policy. It is why they went back to Clinton's cash-for-disarmament agreement with North Korea, it is why they sponsored the recent Mideast Peace Conference and backed away from Israel (to a degree), it is why they engineered Bhuto's return to Pakistan to put a non-military face on the elections there.
But most critically it is why the Bush administration backed away from the precipice with Iran. It seems like Rice and Cheney were in a stalemate, but with Gates at DoD, the military clearly opposed confrontation with Iran and tipped the balance.
Is it possible that some rogue neocon (or revolutionary guard) element will try to engineer a confrontation to undermine the detente? Sure anything is possible. But the leadership in Washington and Tehran have struck their bargain. The US gets relative security in Iraq, Iran gets to keep their enrichment program, and the rest of the world gets an uneasy peace.
As I've said before on this site, any rational person must come to the conclusion that an unprovoked attack on Iran by the US/Israel would be political and economic suicide. True, Iran does not have nukes. BUT, Iran has overpowering influence in Iraq. They have 2.5 mbpd export capacity of oil. They also the only bulwark of relative stability in the ME, as horrendous as the regime is.
Bush surprised some with the Iraq attack, but an attack on Iran is not even in the realm of possibility right now or the near future.
Iran may not even need nukes. The way the SCO agreements seem to be written would almost guarantee that if israel goes imperial again and attacks Iran Putin almost has to lay an egg on them.
So, the questions in my mind are i) WHY? and ii) WHY NOW?
Lets see debates last night. NH tomorrow, If people are feeling (because of IN THE NEWS scary stuff), Hmmm. maybe just MAYBE NH would go for a HAWK pro-lets-get-those-guys type of nominee...
The Iranian coastal forces have only one capability that the US Navy might be interested in testing - the various anti-ship missiles it has obtained. Yet from what I hear of the US Navy, its leaders greatly fear any proof that missiles can defeat our ships, especially carriers. If they care more about their ship-based career tracks and their lovely fleets than Bush's schemes, then they don't want to be exposed by one of these new Iranian weapons, any more than the battleship admirals of 1941 wanted to be exposed at Pearl Harbor. Those are epochal events, the kind that renders entire categories of ship (and admiral) obsolete. Consider the likely outcomes of the public outcry of the easy sinking of a US nuclear carrier with 5000 men:
1. We launch a nuclear attack using the Air Force. Navy looks obsolete.
2. We pull back like we had to in 1942, rebuild around submarines, cruise missiles, hovercraft, you name it, and retire much of the existing Naval bureaucracy.
However, the head-on collision of two Navy F-18s in the Gulf today will probably add to the frustration and jitteriness of the crews in the fleet. This is just what the Administration wants.
I'm not exactly sure what point you think is being missed, or by whom.
If it was easy for the US to start a war based on a largely fictional incident, as in the Gulf of Tonkin incident, then why is it not possible for the US to do the same with a real but overblown incident?
The motivation for the Gulf of Tonkin incident was to make LBJ appear tough on the commies and to create a crisis and thus steal some of the thunder from Barry Goldwater in the 1964 election. The motivation for creating a crisis out of this Iranian naval incident would be enable Bush to fulfill his agenda to 'fix' Iran.
Yes, we are in different territory now, but I'm not sure if you mean that it's less or more dangerous than it was in 1964. There are parallels, albeit inexact ones.
I sincerely hope this whole thing turns out to be a big nothing, but the people currently running our country appear to be capable of anything.
I was trying to be kind regarding the single point missed by antidoomer, regarding a largely fictional incident drawing us into a war that benefited few at the cost of many.
Why is beating the war drum not as effective now with something actual but greatly exaggerated? The world has become more complex, too many masters, more people have more access to information than ever before, more distractions, many people in the US are tired of the existing war, more people are distrusting government, dissent among the military, people actually worrying about the environment, I'm guessing.
But we'll get another crisis, and more attacks that did or didn't happen, and eventually there will be war.
We are in a far worse position now than we were then.
The US Navy was being used covertly to protect commando (or terrorist) raids by the Saigon regime against the coast of the North in retaliation for guerrilla (terrorist) attacks. We lied about that, of course.
The US never even talked to the Hanoi regime as though it was a sovereign government, or ever stopped plotting violence against it, from 1954 until Hanoi came close to toppling the post-Diem junta in 1964. It was Hanoi's violence that actually got the US to acknowledge its right to exist. Yet again proving that force is the only thing the US respects - or a successful nuclear bomb program.
Careful Jeff,
Everyones being way too literal about this. That particular dog has been put to rest. Nothing to see here. Tonkin was manufactured from thin air. Tonkin had a purpose. The gubment needed it. The moneymakers needed it. The arms dealers needed it. The vested interests (pick one) needed it. Tonkin was inevitable. This is nothing. So the media makes a big deal. That's MSM. We're at the point in time where the MSM doesn't even need direction from the invisible hand. They're on auto pilot. Just doing what they're trained to do.
Let's not hyperventilate over the incident with the Iranian ships and the U.S. navy. No one fired a shot, and no one got hurt. It's not exactly going to change the world, and the price of oil has even dropped today.
The U.S. Navy also received a radio transmission that officials believe came from the Iranian ships. The transmission said, "I am coming at you. You will explode in a couple of minutes," the U.S. military officials told CNN.
When the U.S. ships heard that radio transmission, they took up their gun positions and officers were "in the process" of giving the order to fire when the Iranians abruptly turned away, the U.S. officials said.
Traders have shrugged it off, though. Oil is down $3 on the January thaw and fear of recession.
Almost doesn't even count in horseshoes and hand grenades. I've almost done a million things. compared to the crap our country pulls, this doesn't even rate as a non issue.
Jeff
PS No more network news for yuse guys without tunin' up the BS filters. ;^}
The war game, which was called Millennium Challenge 02, took place over three weeks last July and August [2002 - GG]. Planned over a two-year period, at a cost of $250 million, the game involved 13,500 personnel from all four services—Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines—who waged mock war in 17 simulation locations and nine live-force training sites. The scenario envisioned a war in a fictitiously named Persian Gulf country that resembled Iraq.
Pentagon war games pit "Red Force" (simulating the enemy) against "Blue Force" (the United States). In this war game, as in many war games over the years, Van Riper played the Red Force commander. In his e-mail (which was promptly leaked to the Army Times then picked up, though in much less detail, by the Guardian and the Washington Post), Van Riper complained about Millennium Challenge 02, writing that, "Instead of a free-play, two-sided game … it simply became a scripted exercise." The conduct of the game did not allow "for the concepts of rapid decisive operations, effects-based operations, or operational net assessment to be properly assessed. … It was in actuality an exercise that was almost entirely scripted to ensure a Blue 'win.' "
For instance—and here is where he displayed prescience—Van Riper used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders to Red troops, thereby eluding Blue's super-sophisticated eavesdropping technology. He maneuvered Red forces constantly. At one point in the game, when Blue's fleet entered the Persian Gulf, he sank some of the ships with suicide-bombers in speed boats. (At that point, the managers stopped the game, "refloated" the Blue fleet, and resumed play.)
I just posted that one over at PeakOil.com. Here's a link:
U.S. says Iranian gunboats harassed warships
That is just ducky ... will make a nice bookend to the chaos brewing in Pakistan. A clean sweep for the Bushies - trouble from the coast of the Mediterranean all the way to Kashmir. George must think he is Alexander of Macedonia or something.
Now tell me, when does Congress put a stop to this foolishness?
About the same time any of the Constitution loving canidates get on board with Impeachment. Going along with things means the Congress-kritter will trend towards keeping the lights on and their bellies full. Going against the flow trends towards unemployment, being hungry and in the dark.
(Wayne Madsen http://mp3.wtprn.com/Madsen.xml has claimed there is enough dirt on most everyone in Congress that if one goes down, they all go down)
One old candidate, George McGovern made the call yesterday. One can only hope the other Democratic candidates will sign on too.
E. Swanson
You mean like Kucinich? He's introduced impeachment for Cheney... No other candidate even comes close to him on the issues. He's the only pro-Peak Oil candidate, as far as I know, and so far as I can tell, the most active on environmental issues. Here's list of issues he discusses in various videos found on youtube:
Peak Oil
- Peak oil is a fact
- being depleted faster than found
- at peak oil
- get off oil
- Government for sustainability
- Rosoe Bartlett referenced
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjiGuOsKr04
Education
- Free pre-school for 3-5
- Universal university/college w/ service programs
- Environmental Ed.
Environment/Trade
- massive infrastructure investment for mass transit
- energy efficient contruction
DOE: disincentives for oil, coal and nuclear incentives for wind and solar micro-technology (and businesses) to provide energy to homes and businesses across the country
- All trade agreements tied to environmental principles
- Cancel NAFTA
- Dept. of Interior: remove all incentives for natural resource extraction, including uranium to protect natvie American lands.
- NASA technology to boost green research
- Gov't as an engine of sustainability
Healthcare
- not-for-profit w/focus on prevention
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqVwkKL859A&feature=user
HR1234
- leave Iraq
- International security and peacekeeping simultaneous to withdrawal
- Leave it stable
- Let them keep their oil
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1AhaH1ozbg&feature=user
Corporate personhood
- Regulate
- Review corporate personhood
- Hold responsible for public interest
- transparency
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6FY3YlxND4&feature=user
all for him. now who are the nominees ?
Bush arrives in the middle east for an 8 day visit - which includes Israel - this week.
One side or the other is rattling the cages in time for that.
Maybe he plans to ascend to Heaven on a mushroom-shaped cloud?
These types of feignts to guage a potential adversary's reaction have been going on forever. In the cold war US and Soviet submarines were constantly tailing and trying to intimidate each other. The US Navy might as well get used to it. The Iranians aren't going to retreat from the Persian Gulf (where would they go?), and no one is served by an over reation.
If Iran really wanted to attack an American Destroyer they would do it with a Silkworm missile barrage, not a speed boat full of trash talking Revolutionary Guards. The truth is that military tensions in the Gulf are significantly reduced from just a couple of months ago. A deal has been cut. The Iranians have stopped supplying IEDs to the Shiite militias and the US in turn has published the NIE that takes the military option off the table.
Bush is headed to the Middle East this week to wave the flag. Iran doesn't want anyone to forget that they are the emerging power in the region. But it would be foolish to misinterpret this naval gamesmanship as a genuine threat.
I agree--just like the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
You totally missed the point Westexas. During the cold war these types of things happened more times than we even know. The Gulf of Tonkin incident is one of thousands of such incidents that happened in the past. While its possible this incident could turn into something, the chances are less than .1%.
IMHO, no, he didn't.
Look to the MSM now.
They are making a big deal of this.
Sure sign it was planned.
I agree, it kind of looks like the moron-in-chief and co. are looking for a new excuse to attack Iran now that their claim about nuclear weapons production has been disproven.
Didn't Iran just recently go and capture a bunch of British sailors claiming that they were in Iranian waters though? Maybe the pissing contest is on both sides.
You totally missed the point Westexas.
And you understand missing the point because?
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/54/106.html
Lets see - fake incident
The Gulf of Tonkin incident is one of thousands of such incidents that happened in the past.
So you are claiming there are thousands of fake incidents? Incidents people 'feel bad' about later?
Oh, pray tell, do you have a list of them?
Do ya think?
The question is, what do Bush/Cheney plan to do. I suggest that you research the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.
Already did, and like I said it was one of hundreds of these types of military incidents that have occurred in the past. I acknowledged that it could turn into something, its just highly highly likely not to. Best hopes for TOD members not turning into this guy:
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b358/Collin24/tweek3.jpg
Already did, and like I said it was one of hundreds of these types of military incidents that have occurred in the past.
Great! Then share with us the benefit of your research, and list the (now down to hundreds, was thousands) other incidents of faked conflict.
Extra points if the people involved later regret involvement.
(over a day later I note you have not responded - and reasonable, informed people thank you for retreating from your incorrect statement)
You are the one missing the point. Military gamesmanship happened all the time during the cold war. What WT is referring to is that the Gulf of Tonkin was faked. Totally, corruptly faked, in order to gain support for a war that should have never occurred.
antidoomer -
I am well aware that there were plenty of cat-and-mouse games played between US and Soviet subs and aircraft during the Cold War. These perhaps served a legitimate purpose in testing each others' capabilities and defenses.
However, I get a very bad taste with this particular one. As you probably know, the Iran Navy is essentially a third-rate force consisting of 3 Russian Kilo class subs plus a handful of frigates, corvettes, fast missile boats, and a whole bunch of tiny patrol boats. So, there really wouldn't be much point in Iran's testing of our capabilities because they have to know they would get thoroughly stomped in any outright armed naval conflict with the mighty US Navy.
So, the questions in my mind are i) WHY? and ii) WHY NOW?
Given the delicate situation between Iran and the US, why would the Iranian government want to provoke the US and give the Bush regime the pretext for the attack it would love to launch against Iran? It would appear to me that the Iranians would have little motivation in creating an incident, whereas the Bush regime has plenty of motivation, much of it quite obvious.
Then we have the question of whether this incident has anything to do with Bush's upcoming visit to Israel, a visit in which what to 'do' about Iran will surely be discussed in exhaustive detail.
As with the Gulf of Tonkin incident, what is made of the incident by the US will be far more important than the physical incident itself. In this case no missiles were launched, no shots were fired, and no vessels from either side were damaged. Yet, I suspect that the Bush regime and the MSM are going to milk this one for all it's worth. How they play this will tell you a lot about what is really going on.
Given the overall situation, I am not so readily inclined to believe that this was just a case of some good 'ol boys in the Iranian Navy having a little fun with the Americans. Could it be that the Iranians have concluded they are going to be attacked by the US one way or the other, so it might be to their advantage to start trouble on their terms and their schedule rather than that of the US?
One could speculate forever, but the proof will be the degee to which this is made out to be a big deal requiring positive military action.
"Given the overall situation, I am not so readily inclined to believe that this was just a case of some good 'ol boys in the Iranian Navy having a little fun with the Americans. Could it be that the Iranians have concluded they are going to be attacked by the US one way or the other, so it might be to their advantage to start trouble on their terms and their schedule rather than that of the US?"
It's quite the opposite, tensions are lower. the Iranians know they won't be attacked, so they are feeling their oats.
Testudo -
Well, tensions at least outwardly APPEAR to be lower, partly as the result of the release of the NIE report stating that Iran ceased its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
However, this is precisely what the Bush regime does NOT want. If Iran's nuclear weapons program has turned out to be a non-existent issue, then I fear the Bush regime will be desperately searching for another justification for attacking Iran. The neocons in the Bush regime have been pressing for such an attack, as has Israel and its backers in the US. Thus, a manufactured or overblown incident would appear to fit right in with that overall strategy.
I don't know .... if I were an Iranian, I don't think I'd feel so confident about not being attacked until after Bush leaves office. Then of course we have the possibility of Israel going free-lance and making an attack all on its own, with the full expectation that the US will automatically come to Israel's defense when Iran counterattacks.
Well, I suppose that about a year from now we'll know for sure whether or not this will have turned out to be a legitimate worry.
If they did not want tensions lowered then why did they put out the NIE?
There was a battle within the Bush administration about how to deal with Iran. It was a battle between the neocons (led by Cheney) and the moderates (led by Rice). That battle is over, the moderates won. That's why most of the neocons have left the administration.
You can see the moderate foreign policy influence on the North Korean policy, and the broader Mideast policy. It is why they went back to Clinton's cash-for-disarmament agreement with North Korea, it is why they sponsored the recent Mideast Peace Conference and backed away from Israel (to a degree), it is why they engineered Bhuto's return to Pakistan to put a non-military face on the elections there.
But most critically it is why the Bush administration backed away from the precipice with Iran. It seems like Rice and Cheney were in a stalemate, but with Gates at DoD, the military clearly opposed confrontation with Iran and tipped the balance.
Is it possible that some rogue neocon (or revolutionary guard) element will try to engineer a confrontation to undermine the detente? Sure anything is possible. But the leadership in Washington and Tehran have struck their bargain. The US gets relative security in Iraq, Iran gets to keep their enrichment program, and the rest of the world gets an uneasy peace.
Possibly the neo-cons have merely been useful to the real power brokers, who did not want to invade Iran? http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2007/12/30/the-post-bush-regime-a-pr...
As I've said before on this site, any rational person must come to the conclusion that an unprovoked attack on Iran by the US/Israel would be political and economic suicide. True, Iran does not have nukes. BUT, Iran has overpowering influence in Iraq. They have 2.5 mbpd export capacity of oil. They also the only bulwark of relative stability in the ME, as horrendous as the regime is.
Bush surprised some with the Iraq attack, but an attack on Iran is not even in the realm of possibility right now or the near future.
Iran may not even need nukes. The way the SCO agreements seem to be written would almost guarantee that if israel goes imperial again and attacks Iran Putin almost has to lay an egg on them.
First Iran is not a member of the SCO only an observer. Second how a link to this susposed mutual defense agreement you think exists.
So, the questions in my mind are i) WHY? and ii) WHY NOW?
Lets see debates last night. NH tomorrow, If people are feeling (because of IN THE NEWS scary stuff), Hmmm. maybe just MAYBE NH would go for a HAWK pro-lets-get-those-guys type of nominee...
Nah, that's too cynical about our Gov.
Or is it?
The Iranian coastal forces have only one capability that the US Navy might be interested in testing - the various anti-ship missiles it has obtained. Yet from what I hear of the US Navy, its leaders greatly fear any proof that missiles can defeat our ships, especially carriers. If they care more about their ship-based career tracks and their lovely fleets than Bush's schemes, then they don't want to be exposed by one of these new Iranian weapons, any more than the battleship admirals of 1941 wanted to be exposed at Pearl Harbor. Those are epochal events, the kind that renders entire categories of ship (and admiral) obsolete. Consider the likely outcomes of the public outcry of the easy sinking of a US nuclear carrier with 5000 men:
1. We launch a nuclear attack using the Air Force. Navy looks obsolete.
2. We pull back like we had to in 1942, rebuild around submarines, cruise missiles, hovercraft, you name it, and retire much of the existing Naval bureaucracy.
However, the head-on collision of two Navy F-18s in the Gulf today will probably add to the frustration and jitteriness of the crews in the fleet. This is just what the Administration wants.
Lotta point missing going on.
The 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, which drew the US into the Vietnam war, never happened as it was reported in the media.
The Vietnamese attack on the USS Maddox may have happened after the Maddox fired first. The attack on the USS Turner Joy didn't happen.
And we are in entirely different territory now than we were then.
710 -
I'm not exactly sure what point you think is being missed, or by whom.
If it was easy for the US to start a war based on a largely fictional incident, as in the Gulf of Tonkin incident, then why is it not possible for the US to do the same with a real but overblown incident?
The motivation for the Gulf of Tonkin incident was to make LBJ appear tough on the commies and to create a crisis and thus steal some of the thunder from Barry Goldwater in the 1964 election. The motivation for creating a crisis out of this Iranian naval incident would be enable Bush to fulfill his agenda to 'fix' Iran.
Yes, we are in different territory now, but I'm not sure if you mean that it's less or more dangerous than it was in 1964. There are parallels, albeit inexact ones.
I sincerely hope this whole thing turns out to be a big nothing, but the people currently running our country appear to be capable of anything.
I was trying to be kind regarding the single point missed by antidoomer, regarding a largely fictional incident drawing us into a war that benefited few at the cost of many.
Why is beating the war drum not as effective now with something actual but greatly exaggerated? The world has become more complex, too many masters, more people have more access to information than ever before, more distractions, many people in the US are tired of the existing war, more people are distrusting government, dissent among the military, people actually worrying about the environment, I'm guessing.
But we'll get another crisis, and more attacks that did or didn't happen, and eventually there will be war.
We are in a far worse position now than we were then.
It was worse than that.
The US Navy was being used covertly to protect commando (or terrorist) raids by the Saigon regime against the coast of the North in retaliation for guerrilla (terrorist) attacks. We lied about that, of course.
The US never even talked to the Hanoi regime as though it was a sovereign government, or ever stopped plotting violence against it, from 1954 until Hanoi came close to toppling the post-Diem junta in 1964. It was Hanoi's violence that actually got the US to acknowledge its right to exist. Yet again proving that force is the only thing the US respects - or a successful nuclear bomb program.
Careful Jeff,
Everyones being way too literal about this. That particular dog has been put to rest. Nothing to see here. Tonkin was manufactured from thin air. Tonkin had a purpose. The gubment needed it. The moneymakers needed it. The arms dealers needed it. The vested interests (pick one) needed it. Tonkin was inevitable. This is nothing. So the media makes a big deal. That's MSM. We're at the point in time where the MSM doesn't even need direction from the invisible hand. They're on auto pilot. Just doing what they're trained to do.
Jeff
That's a nice story, anyway. Boys will be boys, but cooler heads prevail and all is muffled in poetic acronyms.
They'd probably use the Sunburn missile system and do their Russian and Chinese friends a favour with a field trial against US ships.
Let's not hyperventilate over the incident with the Iranian ships and the U.S. navy. No one fired a shot, and no one got hurt. It's not exactly going to change the world, and the price of oil has even dropped today.
But they almost fired a shot.
Traders have shrugged it off, though. Oil is down $3 on the January thaw and fear of recession.
In English, right? They're c-c-c-coming to k-k-k-kill us. Right.
The more we pay attention to this sort of news, the less we know.
cfm in very Gray, ME
Oh c'mon,
Almost doesn't even count in horseshoes and hand grenades. I've almost done a million things. compared to the crap our country pulls, this doesn't even rate as a non issue.
Jeff
PS No more network news for yuse guys without tunin' up the BS filters. ;^}
If I was out there on an American ship, and knew anything at all about recent naval war games I'd be changing my pants right about now.
War-Gamed