Think About the Term "Provocations"

Steven Weisman reports: "Speaking in Israel at the beginning of his visit to the Middle East, Mr. Bush took a hard line on Iran over its nuclear program and said that 'all options are on the table' to guard against more military provocations like the Iranian threats to American ships in the Persian Gulf on Sunday."

Good lord. Just think about the term "provocations." Ponder it for a minute. Does it seem likely that musing about how all options are on the table is likely to deter a provocation? Does a provocation really seem like the kind of thing you can deter? Obviously, if push comes to shove, a US Navy vessel is going to have to defend itself but the way you dissuade an adversary from staging provocations is by indicating that you're not going to give him what he wants. There's an effort under way to goad the United States into doing something that will rally the Iranian people behind its leadership. Unfortunately, from time to time there seems to be a parallel effort inside the US government, rather than a counter-effort to maintain international consensus on Iranian nuclear activities while avoiding any big blowups.

Comments

There's an effort under way to goad the United States into doing something that will rally the Iranian people behind its leadership.

Hardliners on both sides will benefit in the short term, and we'll all be royally screwed in the long term.

What's the Farsi equivalent of "August 1914'", or "Some damn fool thing in the Balkans"?

Posted by Davis X. Machina | January 10, 2008 2:37 PM

How can this be considered an Iranian provocation when the Iranians deny it happened and say the video was faked? When first we are told the scary threatening voice came from one of the boats but later that it might have come from shore? When it happened very conveniently at a time when Bush wanted to discuss peace negotiations in Jerusalem but the Israelis wanted to discuss war with Iran?

Posted by Eleanor Lambertson | January 10, 2008 2:46 PM

People do not understand the level of the threat we are facing here. We are talking about Terrorist Ventriloquists! This was predicted by Michelle Malkin and other serious defense thinkers. I think America's Mayor said it best when he said, "I was watching that old seventies movie, Magic, the other day, and it reminded me of 9/11. That's September 11, 2001. On that day, September 11, 2001, or 9/11, I was the 9/11 mayor, just as I'd be the 9/11, September 11, 2001, president." How right he is! You wouldn't catch America's mayor whining or crying. He's well aware of the level of threat. Iranian ventriloquists throwing phrases out like "I sleep with your respected second youngest sister" on the crowded streets of Gotham could cause mass chaos, as is obvious. Unfortunately, Democrats have thwarted efforts to spend a mere 20 billion dollars on an anti ventriloquism shield (VentPro)developed by a Blackwater subsidiary that is in the planning stages now, but offers us the opportunity of complete pre-emptive voice throwing protection.

I'm glad the Navy's on the case.

Posted by Roger | January 10, 2008 2:59 PM

Was I only one who thought that the timing of the "provocation" of the Iranian Navy in their cigarette boats - the day of the New Hampshire primary - a little odd?

Posted by Peter K. | January 10, 2008 3:06 PM

Peter,

There are also Iranian elections in March, and some recent bad press for A-Jad - including speeches by Khamenei that indicate growing distance.

It was hawkish synergy. Cheney's and A-Jad's respective stars converged.

Posted by Eric Martin | January 10, 2008 3:17 PM

Mr. Yglesias lives in a dream world where he thinks that Iranian students are going to overthrow the Ayatollahs' regime. Unless there is credible evidence of substantial dissent in the Iranian military that he is aware of, it ain't going to happen. The only lesson that the Islamic fascists running Iran got out of this encounter with the US Navy was that the the US government prefers appeasement. The commander of the task force that was harassed should be court martialed for not sinking every raghead torpedo boat.

Posted by SLC | January 10, 2008 3:17 PM

There's an effort under way to goad the United States into doing something that will rally the Iranian people behind its leadership. Unfortunately, from time to time there seems to be a parallel effort inside the US government

Parallel effort to do what? (1) unite the American people behind the (current) leadership? (2) unite the Iranian people behind the Iranian leadership?

As to interpretation (1): nu? this is surprising how? Anyone who thinks that Bush & CO would not do so is dangerously naive and purposefully ignorant and ought to be ignored ... but I suspect that "even the liberal media" would label someone who points (1) out as "strident" and "shrill".

As to (2): pardon me for getting into serious tinfoil hat territory, but it's entirely plausible. Remember, this admin is lousy with Team B folks of the sort who gave us Iran/Contra.

That's why I'm not entirely convinced the admin actually wants war with Iran (and that this is not just theatre for reason #1 and to please the rubes on both sides). This admin is lousy with people who thought arming Iran was a good idea and who gave Iran the present of toppling its enemy Saddam Hussein. These people secretly like Iran (and want to have an Iranian style theocracy here as well).

So it wouldn't surprise me that they are really trying to bolster Iranian support for their own hardliners. Their Manicheanistic support of them in order that they can better be a foil to us is like that of the Televangelist in Dragnet, the Movie, when you think about it ...

Posted by DAS | January 10, 2008 3:17 PM

The commander of the task force that was harassed should be court martialed for not sinking every raghead torpedo boat. - SLC

Lemme guess ... you think Truman was wrong to fire MacArthur?

Nu? Are you gonna volunteer for the Navy so you can confront hostile ships even if it gets you and all the people under your command T-boned and moreover creates a worse international crisis than already exists?

Posted by DAS | January 10, 2008 3:21 PM

three words: Gulf of Tonkin

Posted by freaktown | January 10, 2008 3:21 PM

quel surprise...the provocation that Bush has gotten a week's worth of wartalk is almost certainly bogus:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4115702&page=1

another Gulf of Tonkin style fabricated casus belli. The real provocation are the dishonest methods Bush, Kyl, Lieberman, Clinton and others use to create more unnecessary war for the political benefit of the far right, and to maintain American-Saudi-Israeli power and control in the oil rich Middle East.

Posted by della Rovere | January 10, 2008 3:27 PM

Hey Matt,

I know you have a hands-off policy when it comes to comments, but someone just called a bunch of Iranians "ragheads." I mean, come on now.

Posted by randomkid | January 10, 2008 3:33 PM

No I think that Bush is right on this one. A provocation is something that incites us to an emotional reaction. If we are follow a policy of pre-emptive emotional reaction, then the Iranians would be thwarted in their attempts to provoke us. They could goad out ships all they want, but it would be too late, we would already be acting rashly, so no more provokations.

Posted by Lon | January 10, 2008 3:44 PM

As was the case with North Vietnam in 1964, it is entirely possible that we are conducting hostile, covert operations against Iran. This may be the provocation that has stirred up the hornets' nest.

Posted by bob h | January 10, 2008 3:47 PM

3 explanations for what happened:

(1) gulf of tonkin.
(2) gulf of tonkin.
(3) gulf of tonkin.

meanwhile, who seriously doesn't think that we have (or are trying hard to have) an espionage operation going on in iran at the moment.

and SLC, seriously, go fuck yourself; you racist fuck.

Posted by ben | January 10, 2008 3:55 PM

Every once in a while it's useful to step back and reflect on how fucked up is a world in which U.S. warships, thousands of miles from the United States, can patrol waters a few miles off the Iranian coast and it's the *Iranians* who are described as acting provocatively.

Empire, baby.

Posted by Ryan | January 10, 2008 4:04 PM

SLC,

Ragheads? Seriously?

Please tell me that was a clumsy attempt at a parody of a warmongering bigot.

If it wasn't, you really embarrass me. As a Jew, if you are that. As an American, if you are that. And definitely, as a human being, for I know you are that, even if you appear to forget it at times.

Posted by Gator90 | January 10, 2008 4:07 PM

The only lesson that the Islamic fascists running Iran got out of this encounter with the US Navy was that the the US government prefers appeasement.

Not to mention that you are seriously round the bend if you think that not launching a first strike attack in retaliation for posturing somehow constitutes "appeasement." Save that for when someone actually attacks somebody.

Posted by Brad L | January 10, 2008 4:11 PM

Props to Gator 90, ben, randomkid Re: SLC's racism. Seeing the word he used in print shocked me so that I couldn't focus on the idiocy of applying the term to Persians. Tommy Franks never met SLC, for surely he is even more fucking stupid than Dan Pipes. Good luck finding your way home.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | January 10, 2008 4:17 PM

Weren't the US Navy ships patrolling right off the coast of Iran?

Imagine if the Iranian Navy was patrolling off the coast of Florida in their cigarette boats and sunglasses and speedos. Certain people would go bonkers.

Posted by Peter K. | January 10, 2008 4:34 PM

Re DAS

No, Truman was not wrong to fire MacArthur, although he has to bear some responsibility for the Chinese intervention by not preventing MacArthur from approaching the Yalu River (in Trumans' defense, MacArthur advised him that the Red Chinese would not intervene no matter how close he approached). The fact is that the Korean War had been won, there was no need to provoke the Red Chinese by such an approach. Had MacArthur stopped 20 miles south of the river, it is quite possible that the Red Chinese army wound not have intervened and the war would have been over.

Re random kid

Mr. Yglesias has no legitimate complaint about the use of the term ragheads. He allows Chris Ford, Don Williams, and Richard Steven Hack to freely post much worse epithets about Jews on this blog.

Re ben

Same to you.

Re Gator99

Since according to my Syrian friend Ammar Kanaan I am prejudiced against everybody, I can't be a racist.

Posted by SLC | January 10, 2008 4:42 PM

I'm not prejudiced against your kind either, SLC. Some of my best friends are assholes.

Posted by Gator90 | January 10, 2008 5:26 PM

The US patrols the Straits and the Gulf because it is in its strategic interest to do so. There's also the current issue of a supply line to something going on in Iraq.

When a major portion of some sort of vital commerce begin transiting the Florida Straits on a regular basis, you'll start to see interest from foreign navies. Particularly if the US starts screwing with said commerce.

Posted by cmholm | January 10, 2008 5:30 PM

Re Gator90

Mr. Gator90 is a poopyhead.

Posted by SLC | January 10, 2008 5:47 PM

This is an area where a little knowledge truly is a dangerous thing - and listening to people spewing their ill-informed theories with such certainty is both amusing and frustrating.

It is AMAZING to listen to people who exhibit extreme skepticism to one party and extreme credulity to the other.

One thing forgotten by all the armchair conspiracists out there is that all this talk of war over the past few years has been heard by the would-be target and the Iranian gov't and military would be stupid if they did NOT take the risk of an American attack seriously and prepare for the eventuality.

One type of preparations involves taking stock of your enemies capabilities as well as your own and planning accordingly. Well - SUPRISE! This kind of "buzz" is a long-established method of getting low level tactical intel on your enemies preparations for such an attack and the defensive procedures they will execute in response. At times our Air Force routinely "strays" close to enemy airspace just so we can monitor their communications and the response of their defensive AA systems (locate radar stations and SAM sites, etc). Does anyone really think the Iranians are too stupid, lazy, or benevolent to do exactly the same thing.

These light cigarette boats are Iran's naval defensive weapons of choice - especially regarding the straits of Hormuz - for good reasons. They are cheaper to buy and maintain in large numbers, easier to train crews to operate, can be hidden from our satellites and spy planes MUCH more easily than larger conventional warships (makes it harder for us to know where they all are), and can actually maneuver in the tight confines of the straits of Hormuz.

The effectiveness of their strategy depends A LOT, however, on both the capabilities of our defensive technology (ie. target-acquisition time, minimum effective range, etc) and our tactical procedures. A "buzz" is a good way for the Iranians to get a little more information on exactly these things. They come close, see how we react, and then re-evaluate their own plans in response to what they see (both with their eyes and any electronic monitoring). Furthermore, since if there ever is a conflict between our boats in the straits, the Iranian boats certainly will NOT be identifying themselves to us before they close in, it makes sense that they would NOT identify themselves to us during their "buzz" specifically to see how we react to what they actually would do in a real fight.

So lets see - Iranians are alleged to do exactly what both history and logic tells us they would do, and somehow this points to a conspiracy inside the US gov't?

three words: Gulf of Tonkin - freaktown

39 Words: How the hell can this be a Gulf of Tonkin if (1) we openly admit we were never fired upon, (2) refused to fire on them at the time or since, and (3) haven't reacted by asking for authority to engage in retaliation?

This is as much like the Gulf of Tonkin as Pantload's "Liberal Fascism" is to actual Fascism - they are a lot alike except in every aspect that actually matters.

How can this be considered an Iranian provocation when the Iranians deny it happened and say the video was faked? - Eleanor Lambertson

Are you implying that Iranians are incapable of lying.

quel surprise...the provocation that Bush has gotten a week's worth of wartalk is almost certainly bogus:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4115702&page=1

Re-read it because NOTHING in the article supports the idea that it was "almost certainly" bogus. It said it that the Iranians dispute the American version of events. Wow! Big Surprise!

The only lesson that the Islamic fascists running Iran got out of this encounter with the US Navy was that the the US government prefers appeasement. The commander of the task force that was harassed should be court martialed for not sinking every raghead torpedo boat.

So standing your ground, staring a would-be-aggressor dead in the eye and daring him to throw the first punch, and then watching him slink away without doing so, is "appeasement"?

What other creative definitions do you have for us?

Since according to my Syrian friend Ammar Kanaan I am prejudiced against everybody, I can't be a racist.

Racist? No. You're just incompetent and a would-be sucker for anyone smart enough to use your own fear of looking weak against you ... a group which seems to include the Iranians.

Posted by libarbarian | January 10, 2008 6:14 PM

Re libarbarian

Mr. libarbarian is quite naive. The only language that Islamic fascists like President Amadinejad understand is a kick to their nether regions. I will guarantee him that the Islamic fascists running Iran consider the lack of reaction by US navel vessels a sign of weakness and they will act accordingly.

Posted by SLC | January 10, 2008 6:27 PM

SLC -

They were probing us but they were NOT probing our will or determination - they were probing our tactical doctrine and technical capabilities.

Your little fantasy about blowing the "ragheads" out of the water would have given the Iranians exactly what they wanted - more and better information about the capabilities of our current defensive weapons systems including important info regarding how fast they can acquire and lock on to multiple fast, maneuverable targets at close range.

The best way to conceal the limits of your strength is to never be seen going beyond them. You may want to meditate on the fact that the same is true regarding the limits of your knowledge.

Posted by libarbarian | January 10, 2008 6:28 PM

Re libarbarian

The trouble with Mr. libarbarians' analysis, which sounds reasonable on the surface, is that the whackjobs currently running Iran don't think like westerners do. What they have just seen demonstrated is that the US Navy is hesitant to do anything when provoked. This episode is an enormous propaganda victory for them in the Middle East, where respect is only shown to those who demonstrate strength. I can guarantee Mr. libarbarian that other nations in the Middle East will take note of this display of weakness and will become even more reluctant then they were previously to assist us in opposing Iranian ambitions in the area.

Posted by SLC | January 10, 2008 7:03 PM

Matt starts out strong, and then lapses into language that is......frankly, absurd.

Because the real conclusion here starts with the Gulf of Tonkin incident in which they knew at the time that no attacks had actually occurred.

Now, libarbarian, above, asks how can this be a 'Gulf of Tonkin' moment when we admit no attacks occurred here. The answer is that the Bushies are more sophisticated liars, and they have Fox News (sic) to keep up the 24-7 drumbeat of ominous muttering.

Bush has boldly moved the goalposts here, now demanding that the Iranians must constantly prove to us that they are properly pusillanimous in our presence. The proper response here is that the Iranians have more reason than us to be obnoxious (you may remember a US cruiser shooting down an Iranian airliner in this same area), and we have more reason to question this Gulf of Tonkin look-alike than we have to believe it.

The American armed forces are an accident waiting to happen. It's time to curb this dog.

Posted by serial catowner | January 10, 2008 7:11 PM

is that the whackjobs currently running Iran don't think like westerners do. What they have just seen demonstrated is that the US Navy is hesitant to do anything when provoked. This episode is an enormous propaganda victory for them in the Middle East, where respect is only shown to those who demonstrate strength. - SLC

AFAIK, this may be more true than false(*), but what does a demonstration of strength mean here? Israel, e.g., has consistently taken the approach that "these enemies of ours only understand demonstrations of strength" -- so what do they do? they send fly-boys to bomb targets, fighting in a way that may minimize the risk to their fly-boys (and I don't blame them ... c.f. what I said above to SLC regarding him wanting to get a ship T-boned), but maximizes collatoral damage.

Is that perceived as being strong? Many in Israel seem to think so. But, in fact, it's perceived as being weak, because the Israelis are not exposing themselves to much risk on these missions.

Similarly, unless one of our ships does something rather suicidal in our response to Iran (in which case they will learn our limits -- and would SLC wanna explain to the families of sailors why he gave a reckless order?), we really are not showing "strength" are we?

(*although we need to be careful here ... sometimes we exoticize the other too much: I remember hearing of some training given to our troops in Iraq that they should knock on doors first before busting in because evidently our troops did not realize that Iraqis have this quaint cultural quirk of not liking people to bust into their homes un-announced ... how exotic and different than us!)

Posted by DAS | January 10, 2008 7:13 PM

Re DAS

The reason why the Israeli actions do not demonstrate strength is because, like the US, the IDF is squeamish about collateral damage. Thus, they use precision munitions to avoid such damage. A demonstration of strength would be the application of Hama rules to crush the Palestinian terrorist uprising once and for all, just as the late Hafaz Assad crushed the rebellion in the city of Hama in 1982.

Posted by SLC | January 10, 2008 7:26 PM

SLC of course cannot point to one single racist epithet against Jews in any of my writings anywhere.

Of course, if he considers "Zionist thug" to be a racial epithet, he certainly can point to that phrase, which applies perfectly to him and thus I will continue to refer to him as such. I will only point out that there is no racial component to that phrase other than the simple fact that most - but not all - Zionist thugs are Jews.

SLC's preposterous claim about the IDF being "squeamish about collateral damage" is such a hoot that I wouldn't be able to stop laughing if it was actually funny, instead of simply sick.

The IDF has been explicitly accused and has admitted dumping illegal munitions all over southern Lebanon in an explicit attempt to target the civilian population and deny southern Lebanon to the Lebanese population. This is a war crime and has been identified as such by Human Rights Watch and other NGO's.

The Israeli Air Force deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure in Lebanon and was responsible for the deaths of over a thousand Lebanese civilians unconnected with Hizballah.

The Israelis deliberately placed military installations and assault positions around Israeli Arab communities, inviting Hizballah attack on those communities while at the same time denying those communities the same level of civil defense protection provided to Jewish communities.

The Israelis have deliberately violated just about every war crime stature there is in Palestine in terms of their occupation, and in Lebanon in terms of their attack on that country, and their previous behavior in that country when they occupied it.

Israel is one of the foremost engagers in war crimes and outright murder of any Western nation - other than the US, of course.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 10, 2008 8:18 PM

As for the Iranian incident, I will point out four things:

1) Aside from the US naval video, which shows nothing but several boats approaching and circling the US military vessels, there is no evidence that any of this was a "provocation" any more significant than what the Iranians said - an approach, an identification, a "tit for tat" that goes on daily.

See this article by Jeff Huber:
Iran Aweigh (Again)
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,159657,00.html

2) There was no evidence in the video for the Iranian boats dropping anything in the water as the US Navy claimed.

3) According to Hooman Majd at Huffington Post, the voice on the purported audio tape is clearly not a Persian-speaking Iranian, and is probably a fake.

It's a Fake
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hooman-majd/its-a-fake_b_80682.html

4) If the US Navy allows the Iranian navy to get this close to US ships, I predict that the US Navy will lose several ships to the Iranian navy if a conflict ever does break out. The Iranians have as estimated one thousand small boats armed with anti-ship missiles and other rockets which they will deploy in "swarm attacks" and probably suicide attacks in any conflict.

While the US ships in the current incident were clearly under no significant threat and had more than enough firepower to deal with it, those three ships would have been toast had they been confronting a hundred such small boats loaded with explosives and missiles.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 10, 2008 8:28 PM

Libarbarian, your analysis sounds about right, and you have actually provided some facts, namely what the Iranian boats are and what they are used for - apparently they were just doing their job. Although, taking the US and Iranian releases together suggests that there may have been some sort of breakdown in communication. If the US commanders do not know what you know and have not briefed their personnel accordingly, it would seem that they are not really on the ball.

In regard to your question

"...somehow this points to a conspiracy inside the US gov't?"

It is not unreasonable that some military officers, or perhaps civilian intelligence agents on board, are under orders, formal or informal, to play up any sort of "confrontation". Even if there are no orders, some may take it upon themselves. It seems that the higher brass are not going along with the crazy rhetoric.

Can you say that the Bush administration (not to mention previous administrations of both parties) has never gotten the support of *any* military personnel in furthering their propaganda?

Posted by skeptonomist | January 10, 2008 8:36 PM

Re Richard Steven Hack

1. Mr. Hack, a convicted bank robber who spent 8 years in the federal birdcage in Leavenworth, who, in addition, advocates the assassination of police officers, and has made a threat to do physical harm to radio talk show host Michael Savage is about as credible in his claims against the Government of Israel, the IDF, and denials of antisemitic comments on this blog as George Dubya Bush was about WMDs. All of his charges are bald faced lies. I wonder how many other bank robberies he committed in addition to the ones he was convicted of. His mother must be very proud of his accomplishments.

Posted by SLC | January 10, 2008 10:20 PM

If the US commanders do not know what you know and have not briefed their personnel accordingly, it would seem that they are not really on the ball. - skeptonomist

I'm sure they know a lot more than I do - including that Iran is going to play chicken with us. I also think they held their fire because they they suspected thats all it was - a game of "chicken" and not a real attack. Of course, they can only take so much risk with their men and ships and would have to fire if they got too close or acted too much like they were really attacking. Its a tough call but I think, contrary to the faith-based dogmatic assertions of some people, they made the right one.

It is not unreasonable that some military officers, or perhaps civilian intelligence agents on board, are under orders, formal or informal, to play up any sort of "confrontation".

I agree but I thought calling it a "Gulf of Tonkin" was sloppy thinking and sloppy analysis. "Playing up" a confrontation still requires the other side to help generate the confrontation. "Gulf of Tonkin" however, is used to refer to a completely manufactured incident. Calling it a "gulf of tonkin" implies that the entire thing was staged and that the boats weren't even Iranian.

Of course, dont get me started on the "The Iranians deny it so therefore we know they didn't participate" logic. Where is it written that we have to "believe" the whole story from either side?

Our government is not the only one that lies through it's teeth.

Even if there are no orders, some may take it upon themselves. It seems that the higher brass are not going along with the crazy rhetoric. - skeptonomist

Some, maybe. Most, no. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is solidly against a strike on Iran ("not on my watch") and, from what I hear of his character, would resign rather than oversee it. Apparently SecDef Gates is also not on board with an attack either and I hear he also the kind who would resign if ordered to do it.

I used to be very worried about an attack. Since then I've heard from multiple source that it has made it clear to the president that
(1) while we can hit them hard we cannot hit them hard enough to knock them out, (2) we cannot sustain an attack because of our commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan (3) that they has retaliatory options that could cause us serious problems (esp., but by no means limited to, in Iraq and Afghanistan) and (4) that there are many senior officers in multiple services who will resign rather than preside over what they think will be a utter fiasco.

I may be wrong and an attack may come, but I'm almost completely sure that it won't come by "surprise" - before any attack comes you will see the news reporting multiple resignations within the Pentagon over a very short time.

There was no evidence in the video for the Iranian boats dropping anything in the water as the US Navy claimed. - Richard Steven Hack

I'll bet the navy also interviewed people on the ship about what they saw and it is totally possible that this was based on a sailor's statement of what he thought he saw and not "invented" by people with ulterior motives.

While the US ships in the current incident were clearly under no significant threat and had more than enough firepower to deal with it, those three ships would have been toast had they been confronting a hundred such small boats loaded with explosives and missiles. - Richard Steven Hack

Probably, but since its inefficient to overcommit, the Iranians naturally want to have a better idea of how many boats they really need. The ore they know about our capabilities the more accurately they can know that.

Posted by libarbarian | January 10, 2008 10:51 PM

"I'll bet the navy also interviewed people on the ship about what they saw and it is totally possible that this was based on a sailor's statement of what he thought he saw and not "invented" by people with ulterior motives."

Yes, that's quite possible. It's also not clear that the Navy video was taken from a longer footage which was officially done and intended to record the entire confrontation. If the Navy would make that clear and provide the entire footage, perhaps we could decide. But they didn't do that. The Iranian footage is no better, by the way.

And of course I wasn't implying that the Iranians had any intention of using a hundred boats in this one case. In fact, that might reveal more of their intentions to us than the reverse, so they would be smart not to do so.

The problem is that the only statement I've read from the US Navy about possible Iranian "swarm tactics" was some idiocy about how hard it is to coordinate that many boats. This reveals that the Navy has no clue that the POINT of using "swarm tactics" is that there IS NO "coordination", which is precisely why the tactic is effective.

In the "Millenioum Challenge" war games in 2002, the Navy lost 16 ships by not understanding this. And thus this is evidence that they still don't understand this.

I'm also fairly sure that the Iranian Navy has a pretty good idea of the defensive capabilities of all the US war ships they are likely to face in the Gulf. They will have detailed information already about the weapons systems installed, rates of acquisition and fire, range, etc. All that stuff is pretty easily obtained from open sources. What is not so easily obtained is how fast the US personnel are on the uptake.

The incident the other day was not very good on that basis, as Jeff Huber notes in the article I linked to above.

Basically, though, the incident was merely your standard tit-for-tat. The Navy made a pass near the Iranian shores, the Iranians came out and made a pass around the US ships, that was it. There was no real intelligence gathering being done, it was purely a standard challenge-response.

What is noteworthy, as the Iranians and others have noted, is that the Bush administration chose to blow it up coincident with his visit to Israel. Clearly it was a PR stunt for Bush to use to condemn Iran, which is a big thing in Israel. And sucking up to Israel is what this visit is all about, given that Israel is pissed about the NIE Iran report.

There are reports over at Raw Story that one major purpose of this visit is for the Israelis to outline to the US ways for the US and Israel to attack Iran, despite there being no reason to do so. In other words, this is mostly a Bush-Cheney suckup to Israel and vice versa to try to find a way to start the Iran war.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 10, 2008 11:11 PM

SLC is an Israel hawk that hates Israelis and has never been to Israel, so you don't have to take anything he says seriously.

Posted by Reality Man | January 10, 2008 11:59 PM

What is noteworthy, as the Iranians and others have noted, is that the Bush administration chose to blow it up coincident with his visit to Israel.

Bush didn't "blow up" the incident. Anymore than he and Gates "blew up" the fact that over a thousand Americans have been killed or maimed by Iranian-supplied IEDs and EFP devices.

The Iranians were a threat. The ships had just decided to fire on the 5 boats when the boats finally disengaged. Bush's warning to them was a heads up to both them and the international community that they came very close to a lethal skirmish or to triggering a full war. And that similar antics in the future might...so the Iranians have had their warning and the international community their heads up that the US will defend itself and keep gulf shipping open.

After the Cole and threat of future suicide boat attacks as well as the Iranian threat, US Navy and allied nations vessels are now on near-hair trigger alert.

Swarm tactics are not a big concern in a full war. They might surprise and get a ship or two if they try, but then carrier and land based aviation will clean up the entire Iranian Navy, and Air Force that ventures near the Gulf.

The greater concern is antiship missiles hidden along the shore taking out commercial oil cargo tankers and maybe taking out a few of the frigates and destroyers that would defeat a swarm attack- that will be tougher to knock out.

I do know that we have massive intel, and battle plans ready on Iran and a lot of military folks want to pay Iran back for the EFPs and support of terror groups. No way do we want a preemptive war - we would have no support and serious problems with Iraq being in a defensive pact with Iran and also with the Russians.. But if Iran triggers a war where we start in self-defense, we may have considerable regional and international support to end the Iran threat -definatively -if they start a conflict.

Scenarios -

1. US just destroys immediate attackers. Iran choses not to escalate. Incident ends.

2. Iran launches a calibrated, broad attack but does not use ground troops hitting into Iraq or use missiles. US and allied nations in region then just wipe out the Iranian Navy and any planes near the Gulf.

3. Iran uses surface to surface missiles and antiship missiles against US assets in several countries. Full conventional war with US objectives expanded to include the whole Iranian AF, commercial jet fleet, rail, bridges, weapons factories, refinery, electric gen centers and command and control. Full International crisis. Ground and air war against Iranian forces once airforce is wiped out.

4. Iranian use of WMD. Nerve gas or anthrax against US bases in region. Iranian terror squads using wmd elsewhere, perhaps.
If death count is high enough, US switches from PGMs to the only sort of WMD we now have. US resumes the Draft. National war emergency is declared in the USA. US (in conjunction with several nations) invades Iran in 2nd phase of war to take control of Iranian oil fields, land adjacent to Gulf, and effect regime change.

Posted by chris ford | January 11, 2008 9:31 AM

Ford: "The ships had just decided to fire on the 5 boats when the boats finally disengaged."

Wrong. Read the Jeff Huber article and others. The commanders were stepping through their procedures for confrontation. There is no evidence whatsoever that they had reached the fire command point.

There is also no evidence anywhere that the Iranian boats made any direct runs against the US Navy ships.

"Swarm tactics are not a big concern in a full war. They might surprise and get a ship or two if they try, but then carrier and land based aviation will clean up the entire Iranian Navy, and Air Force that ventures near the Gulf."

You're an idiot. Nobody ever gets everything. Go back and look at Kosovo. We missed ninety percent of the enemy armor. Look at 1991. Missed most of Saddam's SCUDs.

Iran will be firing antiship missiles at us for the duration of the conflict, unless somehow we find enough troops to occupy the entire shoreline of Iran, which is a physical impossibility.

The rest of your nonsense is typical fantasy.

Loony tune.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 11, 2008 8:37 PM