Farsi for Tonkin

Spencer Ackerman says "Hormuz" may be Farsi for "Tonkin" as he reads Robin Wright report that, in fact, the Pentagon has no idea what happened and the radio threats "may not have come from the five Iranian Revolutionary Guard speedboats that approached them" and may not have been directed at US forces.

Yes, that's right, the threats against US Navy ships made by IRGC speedboats may not have been made by IRGC speedboats and may not have been against US Navy ships. Nevertheless, the Bush administration chose to leap to conclusions and warmongering.

Now the converse is that I wouldn't hang too much on the idea that this whole thing was just made up by the Bush administration. If the Bushies cooked it up out of nothing, then it's not a good idea to raise tensions with Iran. If things went down exactly how they were originally reported, then it's not a good idea to raise tensions with Iran. The problem is with the administration's misguided strategic approach to Iran, not with the details of this or that possibly-made-up incident.

Comments

Now the converse is that I wouldn't hang too much on the idea that this whole thing was just made up by the Bush administration.

'Cause they'd never do that. Ever.

Posted by ed | January 11, 2008 3:01 PM

This was all cooked up on the eve of Bush's trip to the Middle East to help him make his pitch to Arab states to participate in an anti-Iran bloc. But as a piece of propaganda it seems rather inept and lackadaisical. It looks like the Bush administration has grown weary of its own schemes, and can't even lie with conviction anymore.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 11, 2008 3:03 PM

So I guess in the weird universe Matt lives in, Navy ships not firing on potentially threatening ships, and the president then merely warning Iran against trying anything similar - that's warmongering?

As to the idea that a bunch of small boats are no threat - tell that to the men who died on the USS Cole.

I suppose you also consider harsh language warmongering. Seriously, Matt, find a clue.

Posted by James Robertson | January 11, 2008 3:27 PM

It is altogether obvious that the audio that the Pentagon edited onto the visual tape does n ot come from an Iranian motorboat. I am sure Powerline which is (according to their own press) so good at uncovering this type of fabrication is at work on this now. For the rest of us, just listen to the audio...it might come from an Iranian source (NOT a powerboat, but much more likely from a Pentagon source itself.

Posted by della Rovere | January 11, 2008 3:29 PM

Here's a weird angle: Petty Officer Second Class Menelek Brown apparently fell overboard from the U.S.S. Hopper sometime Saturday, and our forces conducted an extensive air and sea search before declaring him dead on Sunday.

Wouldn't that have quite possibly led the Iranians to come out and see what the heck was going on?

Posted by elle loco | January 11, 2008 3:29 PM

Um, James Robertson, in your eye, pal. Check out my crackpot theory about how OUR activity might have brought them out there. Not that you give a damn. It's always TORA TORA TORA with guys like you, innit? Because it's worked out so well in the past few years.

One more thing: Petty Officer Brown is from, wait for it... Roswell, NM.

Posted by elle loco | January 11, 2008 3:32 PM

And I LOVE that they got Slim Pickens from outta the grave to read the crucial you-are-about-to-explode line!

Posted by elle loco | January 11, 2008 3:41 PM

I think "elle loco" is involved in projection. I don't want to see war with Iran; I rather suspect that Iran's regime will die on its own if we let it.

In the meantime, it's entirely possible that the Iranians will try to cook up incidents that approach (but do not become) war in order to create an internal "rally around the flag" effect. There's a lot of bad things happening in Iran right now, and totalitarian regimes don't tend to act sanely when internal dissent ratchets up.

It's entirely possibly to believe that Iran is dangerous, and also believe that war with Iran would be a bad thing. On the left, holding those two thoughts at the same time is apparently impossible though.

Posted by James Robertson | January 11, 2008 3:48 PM

On the right, too, J.R.: If you watched the GOP debate last night, you heard the saber rattling about the incident--straightforward warmongering; and as I write, the wires are buzzing with headlines about U.S. military leaders speaking direly of war. Sure would help McLiebermancain! Can't deny it!

Never mind my theory, BTW; Brown was declared dead on Friday, the Slim Pickens "incident" was Sunday. So could possibly be vaguely connected, but no hot-pursuit-of-whattup scenario holds here.... Sorry!

Posted by elle loco | January 11, 2008 3:57 PM

I think of Ron Paul as only slightly to the left of lunacy, but I've admired his willingness to give the finger to the jingoism that masquerades as foreign policy in the GOP. Give him credit for making the Gulf of Tonkin comparison at last night's debate.

Of course, as with all things Paul, every laser of insight drags about three pounds of crazy with it.

Posted by Brian | January 11, 2008 4:05 PM

elle loco: I watched the debate, and all of the candidates said that they would not second guess what the commanders on the spot did - which seemed reasonable to me.

In light of the USS Cole incident, any navy commander has a right to be nervous about small, fast boats approaching. Again, if I had to guess, the Iranian government was trying to create an incident that was short of war, but gave them an opportunity to denounce the US.

Posted by James Robertson | January 11, 2008 4:12 PM

James Robertson, your hypothesis makes no sense. If the Iranians wanted an incident for propaganda purposes, then they would have played it up and flogged it, while at the same time attributing the provocation to the US. But in fact Iran didn't release this story; the US did. The Iranians did not then accuse the US of provoking their patrol boats, wandering into Iranians waters, or anything like that. Instead they downplayed it: they simply denied the incident had occurred, and claimed that the only contact between the US ship and Iranian ship was a totally routine one. This is hardly the sort of thing that is likely to spark much of a rally-around-the-flag response.

It also makes no tactical sense for the Iranian government to engage in such a provocation on the eve of Bush's visit. Iran's relations with Arab states have been approving, and those states don't seem much interested anymore in the containment and isolation strategy Washington has been pushing. Why would they want to give Bush that sort of ammunition?

On the other hand, it does make sense from the perspective of the Bush administration for the US to either invent or exaggerate an encounter with Iran in the Straits of Hormuz. The timing of this event suggests to me that it was part of the preparatory diplomatic rollout associated with the Bush trip.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 11, 2008 4:40 PM

I said:

Iran's relations with Arab states have been approving.

but meant:

Iran's relations with Arab states have been improving.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 11, 2008 4:43 PM

James,

The issue is not whether American naval boats were trigger-happy, the issue is whether the Pentagon is being fully transparent about what happened. If you read the Washington Post article that Matt linked to, the Pentagon is already backtracking from claims that the radio threats ("you will explode") were made by Iranian boats.

Posted by Peter H | January 11, 2008 4:56 PM

The quality of American disinfo and propaganda is really plummeting. I can't figure out if I should be encouraged by this, or discouraged.

Posted by sglover | January 11, 2008 5:32 PM

That is the creepiest audio ever.

Posted by bjk | January 11, 2008 5:41 PM

The audio sounds like a prank from somebody who's lived in the US and speaks idiomatic English. For instance, the deep-throated threat uses a little onomatopeia: you will explooooode in a few minutes.

Posted by bjk | January 11, 2008 5:46 PM

SJK,

You might be interested in this comment on the New York Times blog:

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/tapes-to-answer-doubts-on-confrontation-with-iran/#comment-281887

Posted by Peter H | January 11, 2008 5:53 PM

Sorry, BJK.

Posted by Peter H | January 11, 2008 5:54 PM

The initial threat "I am coming to you" sounds like "I am coming to yooooooou." It sounds like somebody doing an Ahnold impression.

Posted by bjk | January 11, 2008 5:54 PM

"Those dumb stupid sailors were shootin' at flyin' fish!" Lyndon Baines Johnson, in a moment of candor, years too late for it to matter.

At least these sailors didn't shoot. This whole business is odd, but isn't it true that Admiral Fallon is part of faction of our once awesome, now battered, military that doesn't want a war with Iran?

If someone on that ship concocted a video and a narrative that falls in with Bush/Cheney, rather than with Admiral Fallon...

And others from the same ship are leaking counter information...

We are in serious, serious trouble.

Posted by wobbly | January 11, 2008 5:55 PM

Thanks Peter H. That seems to explain things better. The chances that audio came from the speedboats is very small.

Posted by bjk | January 11, 2008 6:05 PM

Much as I consider former Governor Huckabee to be totally unqualified for the office of president, I am forced to agree with his comments in the GOP debate last night. The only language the ragheads in Tehran understand is a kick to the nether regions, both front and back.

Posted by SLC | January 11, 2008 6:23 PM

It was pretty unimpressive fakery. However, I don't think Matt should discount Bush lower downs making up things like this by analyzing the act in terms of who benefits. Bush lower downs engage in acts of corruption that are clearly going to blow up in their faces all the time, but they do so for a number of reasons. Not least of them is the sheer stupidity that derives from the bubble of impunity Bush has been able to cast over the actions of his people. I mean, Andrew Moonan was able to get drunk, murder the Iraqi guard of the vice president of Iraq, and have his record whitewashed by the State Department, the acting ambassador in Iraq assist in his homicide by sending him to the U.S. on a plane, and for dessert, he was even hired back by a private security firm contracting for the U.S. in Kuwait. And this appeared in headlines in the NYT, and absolutely nothing was done about it. Cause nobody cares. It isn't every administration that condones murder, proudly renews contracts with mercenary companies even after they engage in afternoon massacres, and makes no effort even to engage in window dressing investigations about the whole thing, but this one does. The schizoid right is, after all, their only audience. A stupid provocation of the Iranians for short term political gain seems par for the course.

Posted by roger | January 11, 2008 7:25 PM

It's now super clear that the audio was a prank by some nitwit referred to as the "Filipino Monkey" who broadcasts nonsense on the ship-to-ship radio frequency. Apparently everybody in Gulf shipping knows him (or them).

Navy Times has an article on it, quoted over at TPM.

Now the REAL issue here is that almost certainly everyone involved in the incident would KNOW that. The fact that the audio was spliced in with the video when the audio was clearly questionable makes it UNquestionable that the intent was a PR move against Iran for Bush's benefit.

Also, there is no evidence in the Navy video that the Iranian boats headed directly toward the US Navy ships in a confrontational manner. The video only shows said boats circling the Navy ships.

Also, the Navy video shows no "white boxes" being dropped in the water in front of the Navy ships. There has also been the suggestion that the IRGC is known to smuggle cargo across the Straits in such boats and may have been dumping stuff they didn't want to be caught with - especially since one of the Navy ships involved used to have an anti-smuggling mission. It's an iffy explanation, but given no actual Navy video of the supposed "mine-laying", I'd say it's as likely as any other explanation.

There's absolutely no evidence of any serious "Iranian provocation" here, and thus the Bush administration has to be presumed to be making it up to gin up support for Bush in Israel on the Iran issue, since the Israelis are pissed about the Iran NIE.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 11, 2008 7:39 PM

Y'know, every time I see the letters "SLC," I automatically think "Sarah Lawrence College." Which is funny, because I'm pretty sure the person that posts here under those initials is in no way affiliated with that institution.

Posted by James Gary | January 11, 2008 7:45 PM

Re James Gary

Mr. Gary is quite correct. I've never even heard of Sarah Lawrence College and have no idea where it is located.

Posted by SLC | January 11, 2008 8:14 PM

Fallon said that while the U.S. was still trying to determine the source of the threatening radio call, he remained convinced that it was related to the actions of the Iranian boats.

"The voice is very strange. I don't know whether it came from the boats or one of the shore stations," Fallon said in a telephone interview from U.S. Central Command headquarters in Florida. "But the timing of it is pretty suspicious. In my mind, it is related to the maneuvers."

"It certainly doesn't sound like a third party that just happened to say something threatening at that moment," he added.

This seems right to me. While I don't trust the Bush administration in the slightest and they are overdoing the propaganda, I do trust that our military commanders take their jobs seriously, especially if what Wobbly says is true and Fallon is a relative dove. I admire the restraint that our sailors displayed in not blowing these ships out of the water. I have no idea what the Iranians thought they were going to accomplish, but I don't believe incomprehension is proof of a conspiracy. Lord knows I love a good conspiracy theory, unfortunately this is not a very good one.

Posted by Just Karl | January 11, 2008 8:54 PM

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/005061.php

Los Angeles Times
November 12, 1987,
MESSAGES FROM ROGUE RADIO OPERATOR COULD PROVOKE ATTACK;
FILIPINO MONKEY: ON BACKS OF MANY IN TENSE GULF

---
A cargo ship was sailing through the Strait of Hormuz recently when it was challenged by an Iranian warship demanding to know what it carried.

Iranian gunboats in these waters frequently attack vessels they suspect of carrying war materials to Iraq, and for the crew of the cargo ship, it was a tense moment.

"What is your cargo? What is your cargo?" the voice of an Iranian officer crackled over the radio.

Before the ship's captain could respond, a third voice came on the air: "I am carrying machine guns and hand grenades to Iraq . . . and the atom bomb."

The Filipino Monkey had struck again.

What part of that doesn't Admiral Fallon get?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 11, 2008 11:02 PM

Richard, that doesn't explain what the boats were doing charging our warships. We were in international waters, even the Iranian video demonstrates this. Unless you believe that the boats didn't act crazy and make threatening moves, the source of the message isn't all that relevant. The message in absence of the boats would not have been considered a threat, but the actions of the boats in absence of the message would still have been suspicious behavior.

Posted by Just Karl | January 11, 2008 11:35 PM

You mean there's another "Filipino Monkey" besides Michelle Malkin? I was thinking that the Monkey would have to have seen the little speedboats, but of course he could have just been listening to the channel, figured out the situation, and then chimed in. It looks really reckless for the administration to put this out there as a provocation on top of the speedboats, when in fact it's just some bored guy with a radio.

Posted by bjk | January 11, 2008 11:40 PM

Just Karl, what part of "there is no evidence the Iranian boats 'charged' the US Navy ships" don't you get?

There is NO - repeat, NO - evidence of this. The US Navy video shows no such thing. It shows these boats circling the US ships in international waters - which happens to be perfectly legal.

Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, Commander of the 5th Fleet, did not at any time state that the Iranian boats "charged" the Navy ships. Furthermore, he said the Navy commanders felt no need to issue warning shots, or any specific warning to the Iranian boats other than the initial warning.

It's also naive of you to believe that this isn't regular behavior on the part of both sides in the Gulf.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 12, 2008 12:24 AM

It's also naive of you to believe that this isn't regular behavior on the part of both sides in the Gulf.

Perhaps, but as a recreational boater I have had experience with idiots on jet skis that buzz around the boat trying to jump the wake. It's stupid, aggressive, and dangerous behavior. Also, if channel 16 is monitored by all vessels, it would be incumbent upon the Iranian boats to denounce the Filipino Monkey when they heard his provocative remarks. I know if I was on that boat I would immediately get on the radio and make sure there was no misunderstanding. Now, obviously, if there was no radio message, they could not denounce it. But that doesn't excuse their recklessness in circling our ships at 200 yards or however you prefer to characterize the episode. What the hell did they think they were doing?

To be clear, I don't want war with Iran and I never wanted war with Iraq. I'm not looking for an excuse to believe otherwise. I view this confrontation as stupid behavior, not reason to escalate tension.

Posted by Just Karl | January 12, 2008 1:21 AM

Yes, I remember the USS Cole, call me naive, but I'm just a bit mystified why this whole incident is perceived as so disturbing and/or a threat, etc, etc, considering we're talking about billion dollar Destroyers, massive weopanry, etc, etc, versus some $35,000 speed boats with some guys and a few AK-47's....

Seems like a metaphor for this whole Mid-East debacle...

Posted by Bravo Maverick | January 12, 2008 8:32 AM

SLC:

"...The only language the ragheads in Tehran understand is a kick to the nether regions, both front and back."

The word "raghead" seems to flow so easily from you in this post. I think there were previous examples from you but I'm not sure.

How would you feel if the shoe was put on the other foot and Israelis were referred to as "hebes" or "yids" or some other pejorative term?

Posted by viewfromafar | January 12, 2008 3:24 PM

"But that doesn't excuse their recklessness in circling our ships at 200 yards or however you prefer to characterize the episode. What the hell did they think they were doing?"

What they're supposed to do - presenting themselves to the US Navy in a challenge-response situation - which is exactly what the Navy was doing.

There WAS NO "incident" - except that Bush wanted to play one up. Just as there IS NO Iranian "nuclear weapons crisis" - except that Bush and Cheney wanted to create one.

It's that simple.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 13, 2008 12:24 AM