About the gunboats "Seized" by the Iranians...

[catnhatnh]

First of all I was curious about the boats themselves. Info here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CB90-class_fast_assault_craft

On the incident I'll say this-we are damn lucky the Iranians are being nice. Our government isn't even denying we were in their waters. We've given two explanations:
1. One boat lost power and they drifted into Iranian waters...except there were 2 boats and 10 crewman with expertise in small boat handling, which includes taking another craft under tow.

2.Both lost contact with the navy and then one or both lost their navigation systems and they strayed into Iranian waters. Except if you lost radios and navigation on both boats while approaching restricted areas why would you not reverse course and head home by dead reckoning???

The true explanation is obvious-we were probing and we were caught. The Iranians could have played either nice guy or not-so-nice guy and we got lucky. The real question is how far up the chain of command this action was approved.

[jonno99]

1. I'm curious too...nt

[dumbcat]

2. Alternatively,

They may have been drawn off course by GPS meaconing (the Iranians have the technology) and their radios jammed (they also have that technology.)

Defense news reports that all their GPS and course plotters were confiscated before the boats were released, so we won't have that evidence. My friends in the EOB Intel world confirm.

[catnhatnh]

3. Yeah but

Loss of contact by both boats alone should have turned that around especially since jamming should be easily detectable. Any flaw that hit both boats simultaneously should have been a hint...

I don't think the Iranians are angels but I am sure we were snooping/testing.

[dumbcat]

9. Well, I guess if you are sure

that must be it.

[sharp_stick]

4. Alternatively it could have been an accident

just like the Iranians and Americans said.

[catnhatnh]

5. Yeah

And Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny could be doing Jello shots with the Tooth Fairy.


But I doubt it.

[LanternWaste]

8. Correct; as accidents have never, ever happened in a region full of shipping and conflict.

Correct; as accidents have never, ever happened in a region full of shipping and conflict.

It's always a nefarious scheme by Dr. X (or Pres. Y, or Prime Minister Z), despite our dramatic lack of supporting evidence; and should be met with instant dismissal as you just did, never allowing for additional and rational possibilities...

melodrama uber alles.

[sharp_stick]

10. Not everything that happens

has to have a nefarious reason for happening. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the one that actually is correct.

I'll put my money on incompetence somewhere along the command chain as the only reason these boats were out there in the first place. These boats should never have been there, they were designed to run in rivers and shallow coastal waters.

You assume they were probing. Probing what and why? Why are they using small naval boats and regular sailors instead of Seals and their specialized equipment?

The navy can run a submarine up to the beach of almost any shoreline on Earth and not be noticed. There are sattelites trained on Iran that can tell you which General didn't tie his shoes in the proper way.

The navy has no need to probe Farsi Island what they need to do is figure out which idiot thought it was a good idea to send two CB 90s out on the sea without an escort.

[1939]

13. SEALS don't have their own boats

SEALS depend on Small Boat Units (SBU) manned by non-SEAL sailors for their water borne functions.

[Kaleva]

15. The CB 90s routinely operate in the Persian Gulf

They were in transit from Kuwait to Bahrain and en-route, they would have passed Farsi Island which is part of Iran. I do not think it far-fetched that if one boat developed mechanical problems, they would have soon drifted into Iranian territorial waters.

[sharp_stick]

16. Really

I didn't think they would be out there alone. Thanks, you learn something new every day.

[dumbcat]

22. Why wouldn't the other boat tow the broken one?

I'm not buying the "drifting" bit, no matter what either government says.

[Kaleva]

37. I don't know if they were equipped to tow another

You'd need heavy line for that task.

[jmowreader]

38. These boats are really heavy

According to the link, "standard load" is over 33,000 pounds and they have 1200 horsepower. We don't know the sea state in the Gulf at the time of the incident.

WAY too many questions for speculation...

[Mr Dixon]

11. LOL

OMG 2 Funny

[snooper2]

17. The tooth fairy doesn't do shots of any kind, she just likes lines of cocaine

She is fucking busy!

[Human101948]

27. I'd bet my eye teeth on that!

If I still had them.

[yellowcanine]

21. The quick release suggests that.

If the Iranians had any suspicion that the U.S. was "probing" they would not have released the boats. They might have released the sailors after a few days just to make a point. But they seemed to want this to go away quickly just as much as the the U.S. did so that suggests that they think it was an accident.

[ronnie624]

6. The likelihood is,

it is part of the two an a half decades-long covert terrorist war against Iran, perpetrated by the US, UK and Israel.

[catnhatnh]

7. Does this mean no jello shots? EOM

[Blue_Tires]

12. You're saying it like it's a bad thing

or Iran wasn't already an established adversary...

[ronnie624]

14. "Established" by US aggression.

You say that like it's a good thing.

[Blue_Tires]

18. Oh, so Iran now gets a pass on everything?

That's the official DU position now?

Because Iran is easily the most aggressive actor in the ME, and has been for decades...

[marmar]

24. So if Iranian gunboats ambled into US waters, they'd be greeted with lattes and croissants?

Love that "when they do it, it's because they're terrible; when we do it, it's because they're terrible" logic.

[Blue_Tires]

33. If some behind-the-scenes diplomacy was worked out, why not?

[ronnie624]

25. Iran is the most aggressive "actor" in the ME?

What a truly bizarre thing to say.

Iran has never preemptively invaded and destroyed another country, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths. It has traditionally, throughout the time period you refer to, been a victim of Western imperialism.

You don't even exist in objective reality. Your world-view is defined by a self-serving narrative, promoted by US pop media, and it renders you incapable of drawing even the most obvious rational conclusions. The fact that you can sit here, on a liberal/progressive forum, and say such things without a trace of embarrassment, illustrates what the progressive cause is up against.

[Human101948]

29. During the Iran-Iraq War, we were best buddies with Saddam Hussein...

In 1983, President Reagan sent a special envoy to Baghdad. He was Donald Rumsfeld, and that visit resulted in the now famous picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein. This was in December of 1983. This was at a time when the US was secretly aware that Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians almost daily. There's evidence that the battlefield intelligence provided to Iraq helped the Iraqis better calibrate their gas attacks against the Iranians. Around this time, the administration concluded that Iraq's defeat in the war would be contrary to US interests in the Persian Gulf. The economic aid to Iraq started in 1983, and by the end of the war amounted to more than a billion dollars.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4859238

[ronnie624]

31. +1. n/t

[Blue_Tires]

32. So apologia for Iran wasn't enough and now you want to get to the ad homs?

brilliant...

Sure, why not?

Just one more thing I'll have to educate you folks on... I should get tenure of something...

I am amused that many of the same DUers decrying U.S. "aggression" in the Middle East are the same ones excusing (if not promoting) military aggression from Russia and China, but that's another discussion... But rest assured, since you insist on remaining confused, I will most certainly straighten your shit out this evening...

[ronnie624]

39. By virtue of its firepower in Iraq alone,

the US is the biggest aggressor in the ME. The US also has a decades-long history of duplicitous, interventionist policies, designed specifically to sow chaos and violence throughout the region, including a drone war that has killed thousands of civilians (mostly women and children). Iran has no history of overt violence.

Your interpretation of events in the ME, indicates a very distorted view, doubtless, as a result of exposure to propaganda, and it is not an ad hominem attack to point that out.

[Blue_Tires]

40. One simple clarification:

I thought it was assumed, but I was saying Iran is the biggest aggressor among Middle East nations...

If you disagree with that, or still want to say Iran is some innocent angel who never did anything to warrant U.S. attention, I'll still be happy to school your ass...

Personally, I don't know what in fuck's name happened to this forum because I've hit the trifecta this week: Folks defending Assad as a good guy, Howard Dean of all people being thrown under the bus, and hand-wringing because poor little defenseless Iran had their territorial waters briefly invaded by two Navy patrol boats... Folks, I can only put out so many fires at once here....

[malaise]

34. Sorry Ronnie

I read it wrong

[stone space]

35. Yes, I can still remember looking out my office door...

...from the Math Department to see hundreds of Yahoos chanting "Iranians go home!" in front of the Administration Building.

I still remember the Ames restaurant with the sign posted, "Iranians not welcome here!"

I can still remember a friend, who was married to an Iranian, being attacked in a dormitory elevator by 5 guys, and suffering cuts and bruises and multiple broken ribs, just because she was married to an Iranian.

It was an ugly time.

or Iran wasn't already an established adversary...

[malaise]

19. Heard an even better question

If there was a mechanical fault or they had run out of gas how come they used said boats to leave once they were freed.

[yellowcanine]

20. They may not have known their navigation was messed up in time.

Hard to know. That is why the Navy is investigating. With the details we have so far it is a little useless to be speculating.

[dumbcat]

23. Both boat's GPS units failed at the same time?

Look up "meaconing."

[exboyfil]

26. Could one have been following the other

and not paying attention to their own GPS?

[dumbcat]

30. Not likely

GPS plotter is right in front of the helm. Own Ships Position is always critical information.

Knowing a little bit about such things, being able to pull off the GPS positions doesn't surprise me that much. The fact that both boats "lost" multiple means of communications at the same time bothers me a lot more. That is a much more difficult thing to accomplish without notice. I'm sure our COMINT folks know exactly what happened, but we won't hear about it.

[yellowcanine]

28. Well see, I don't know that and neither do you.

As I said, speculation at this point is pointless.

[ManiacJoe]

36. According to a brief video clip

from one of the sailors on last night's (Wednesday) CBS(?) news, the boat pilots knew where they were, and there were no mechanical or other problems, they were where they were on purpose. The purpose was not mentioned.

The video seemed to be filmed while they were still in Iranian custody, so take that as you will.