From irritation and fury at the Defense Department. They were the ones deciding to send out this video to broadcast how dangerous Iran was, the Navy was apparently not really upset.
The initial press stories on the incident, all of which can be traced to a briefing by deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs in charge of media operations, Bryan Whitman, contained similar information that has since been repudiated by the navy itself.
Then the navy disseminated a short video into which was spliced the audio of a phone call warning that US warships would “explode” in “a few seconds”. Although it was ostensibly a navy production, Inter Press Service (IPS) has learned that the ultimate decision on its content was made by top officials of the Defense Department.
The encounter between five small and apparently unarmed speedboats, each carrying a crew of two to four men, and the three US warships occurred very early on Saturday January 6, Washington time. No information was released to the public about the incident for more than 24 hours, indicating that it was not viewed initially as being very urgent.
These actions take place regularly in the Persian Gulf. The Navy knew about the Filipino Monkey and his constant threats. So... this little boat skirmish exposes the desires of the Bush administration, to start a war with Iran just before Bush leaves office:
In the June 2007 issue of Commentary, neoconservative icon Norman Podhoretz laid out “The Case for Bombing Iran,” in which he argued that “the only prudent–indeed, the only responsible–course” is to “strike” Iran “as soon as it is logistically possible.” Though the recent NIE has slowed down hawkish belligerence towards Iran a bit, Podhoretz is still arguing that President Bush should take “military action” against Iran “soon.”
Iran can still be stopped from getting the bomb and even more millions of lives can be saved–but only provided that we summon up the courage to see what is staring us in the face and then act on what we see.
Podhoretz isn’t alone in his desire to keep pushing for an attack on Iran. Ever since Podhoretz’s recent article was released online, right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt has been promoting it, encouraging his audience to “read the whole thing. Twice.” Hewitt has also been asking his guests, including New York Times columnist William Kristol, if they agree with Podhoretz’s assessment. Scarily, they do.
We can't get these creeps out of office soon enough.
So what exactly were we claiming as we sailed our warships through them?:
Tension spiked markedly last week when Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) speedboats were involved in an "incident" with three US Navy vessels, which claimed they were international waters.
Yet there is no "international water" in the Strait of Hormuz, straddled between the territorial waters of Iran and Oman. The US government claimed, through a Pentagon spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the three US ships "transiting through the Strait of Hormuz" were provocatively harassed by the speedboats.
The article goes on to discuss the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, (UNCLOS) and makes this point:
However, irrespective of how Congress acts on the pending legislation on UNCLOS, the fact is that the US cannot have its cake and eat it. That is, rely on it to defend its navigational rights in the Strait of Hormuz and, simultaneously, disregard the various limitations on those rights imposed by the UNCLOS - and favoring Iran.
Thus:
In other words, US warships transiting through Hormuz must, in effect, act as non-war ships, "temporarily depriving themselves of their armed might". And any "warning shots" fired by US ships at Iranian boats, inspecting the US ships under customary international laws, must be considered an infringement on Iran's rights. This technically warrants a legal backlash in the form of the Iranians temporary suspending the US warships' right of passage. Again, the US could be technically prosecuted by Iran in international forums for conducting questionable activities while in Iranian territorial waters.
Weather obs from Musqat showed that pressure went down to 993mb and stayed there for three hours, and winds have been steady at around 30mph with gusts to 50mph.
The AP reported, 'Oman's eastern provinces were cut off, with heavy rains making the roads unusable and communication lines severed. "We have no communication with them, nothing," said a senior police officer.'
GulfNews notes: 'Azhar Al Kindi, a member of Oman's National Committee for Civil Defence, said the government was working to restore power to the region.
He added: “There is extensive damage to properties in most towns in the eastern region including Sur and Ras Al Hadd.'
Gonu has weakened and is moving parallel to the Oman coast, but enough offshore that there will be very little in the effects of wind -- however surge and waves will still be a problem, and possibly rain.
Oman’s economy is heavily reliant on oil revenues, which account for about 75 percent of the country’s export earnings and 40 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP). During 2006, Oman’s real GDP grew at an estimated rate of 4.2 percent, down from 5.7 percent in 2005. The slowdown in economic growth occurred largely as a result of declining oil production in Oman. To help offset these declines, the government has devoted considerable resources to new exploration and production activities, enhanced oil recovery projects, and introduced policies aimed at diversifying the country’s economy away from the oil sector. The development of natural gas reserves in Oman is a central part of this effort, and natural gas production is likely to expand considerably during the next several years.
All of Oman’s domestic energy consumption is supplied by natural gas and oil, reflecting the country’s relative abundance of oil and natural gas reserves.
And don't forget the nine warships we have bobbing about in the Persian Gulf.....
So what if it's right on off the coast of Iran? The Persian Gulf is a small place! With all the warships and subs we have here, there might just be an acci... OMG!! Did you see that? One of our ships had a collision!! Bomb Iran! Bomb it now!! Bom... oh. Just us. Jeez, tell the admiral to stop making the ship do wheelies.
Carry on:
THE US today threatened new UN sanctions to punish Iran's nuclear drive as it ratcheted up tensions with the biggest display of naval power in the Gulf in years.
A bristling US armada led by two aircraft carriers steamed into waters near Iran for exercises, hours before UN watchdogs said Iran was expanding its uranium enrichment program in defiance of international sanctions.
[snip]
The US Navy said the Gulf exercises were not directed at Iran but Mustafa Alani, senior analyst with the UAE-based Gulf Research Centre, said it was no coincidence the powerful flotilla arrived on the day of the IAEA report.
"The aim of this step, which coincides entirely with the end of the UN deadline (to suspend enrichment), is to send a clear message to Iran that a military option is available to Washington," Mr Alani said.
The carriers USS John Stennis and USS Nimitz sailed through the Strait of Hormuz into the Gulf along with a helicopter carrier and amphibious assault ships carrying an estimated 2200 marines.
And here:
WASHINGTON - As the United States and Iran prepare to hold talks on stabilizing Iraq, tensions between Tehran and Washington are ratcheting up again.
The U.S. Navy on Wednesday began its largest war games off the Iranian coast since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, with two nuclear-powered aircraft carriers leading a flotilla of nine ships, dozens of combat aircraft and more than 2,100 Marines.
As the air and sea exercises commenced, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency reported that Iran is expanding its nuclear program - which U.S. officials charge is aimed at developing nuclear weapons - in defiance of U.N. Security Council demands that it suspend uranium enrichment.
Iran also has stepped up arms shipments to insurgents battling American troops and the U.S.-backed governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. officials said. For the first time, Iran has begun supplying the Taliban in Afghanistan with explosively formed projectile bombs, which have been used to destroy U.S. armored vehicles in Iraq, the officials said.
These developments are part of a wider pattern of tit-for-tat actions and reactions that some members of Congress, U.S. officials and Arab governments worry could escalate into an armed confrontation.
Another example of the back-and-forth: As U.S. forces in Iraq continue to hold five Iranians it seized from a diplomatic facility in Irbil in the Kurdish zone, Iran has detained three Iranian-Americans, among them Haleh Esfandiari, a leading Middle East expert at the at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C.
Let me just repost what I put up February 12 of this year:
U.S. Navy nuclear submarines maintaining vigil off the coast of Iran indicate that the Pentagon’s military plans include not only control over navigation in the Persian Gulf but also strikes against Iranian targets, a former commander of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, Admiral Eduard Baltin has told the Interfax news agency.
“The presence of U.S. nuclear submarines in the Persian Gulf region means that the Pentagon has not abandoned plans for surprise strikes against nuclear targets in Iran. With this aim a group of multi-purpose submarines ready to accomplish the task is located in the area,” Admiral Baltin said.
He made the comments after reports that a U.S. submarine collided with a Japanese tanker in the Strait of Hormuz.
“American patience is not unlimited,” he said. “The submarine commanders go up to the periscope depth and forget about navigation rules and safety measures,” the admiral said.
Currently there is a group of up to four submarines in the Persian Gulf area, he said. So far they only control navigation in the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, and in the Arabian Sea, he said. They might receive different orders in future: to block off the Gulf of Oman, that is the Iranian coast, and, if need be, launch missile strikes against ground targets in Iran, he said.
We've packed so many warships and subs into the area, 'accidents' are bound to happen:
The Straits of Hormuz carry a vast quntity of the worlds oil in a huge number of ships. Traffic is very heavy there. There is a “Traffic Separation Scheme” in place that separates opposing shipping traffic to reduce the possibility of collision in this vital, and narrow, passage.
The USS Newport News and the Mogamigawa were travelling in the same direction so the “Traffic Separation Scheme” did not offer any protection to them. Since the USS Newport News was fully submerged the Mogamigawa was not even aware of her presence and could not take action to avoid the collision.
Somehow I always thought it would be other guys who would sink a tanker in the Strait of Hormuz to block the Persian Gulf. I reckoned without the peculiar incompetence of this administration and the bad luck our military has had in the region.
Update: And Francis Townsend (a White House 'Counter Terror' Official) sounds just a little bit too excited to tell us that Bush is keeping all options on the table (starts at 1:13):
The US navy has begun its largest demonstration of force in the Gulf since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The exercises, just off the coast of Iran, involve more than 10,000 US personnel.
Kevin Aandahl, a US navy commander, declined to say when plans for the exercises had been drawn up.
The manoeuvres bring together two strike groups of US warships and more than 100 aircraft to conduct simulated air warfare in and above the crowded Gulf shipping lanes.
[snip]
Overall, the exercises involve more than 10,000 US personnel on warships and aircraft making simulated attacks on enemy shipping with aircraft and ships, hunting enemy submarines and finding mines.
So.... what happens when we're just stretching, our fist just happens to land on Iran's nose....?
