AFP: Pentagon has video, audio of Strait of Hormuz incident

Navigation

User login

Online users

emmettoconnell
jlw
Thad Curtz
Meta Hogan
Dylan Carlson
Katherine
Judith
FRESH
cupric oxide

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

shadowclad_warrior
Lisa P
GRuB
ktcoxster
making a differ...

AFP: Pentagon has video, audio of Strait of Hormuz incident

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Tue, 01/08/2008 - 7:09pm.

AFP: Pentagon has video, audio of Strait of Hormuz incident

The Pentagon charged Monday that five armed Iranian speedboats approached the USS Port Royal, the USS Hopper and the USS Ingraham at high speeds in international waters as they transited the Strait of Hormuz Sunday morning at 0400 GMT.
"What happened between the Guards and foreign vessels was an ordinary identification," Ali Reza Tangsiri, commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' naval forces in the region, told the Mehr news agency.

I'm surprised the Iranian boats were allowed to get so close to the route the U.S. ships were using but I'm really not qualified to comment on the actual danger presented to the ships.

I believe Rob stated he was in the Navy. Maybe he could offer an opinion based on his experience and knowledge from sailing around?

The Fire Inside's blog
Login or register to post comments

USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67)

Submitted by Ehver Green on Tue, 01/08/2008 - 7:18pm.

I was also in the Navy and am surprised (and grateful) at the restraint shown by the vessels. The Iranian fast boats knew their boundaries for sure. A couple more yards and they'd have been sunk. Of course, the ships would have eventually circled back and picked up survivors.

As an aside, the USS Ingraham was one of the United States ships scheduled to visit Olympia this past July.

I served 3 years on the Kennedy from 1994-1997.

Looks kosher.

Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 01/08/2008 - 7:37pm.

I went to boat schools and drove boats in the Navy. Judging by what I see in this video the small boats did nothing wrong. The ship the video was taken from blew it's whistle more than five times in succession, which is an emergency signal to other vessels that either something is wrong or as a warning. It is an internationally known signal. After the whistle was blown, the boats soon changed course and stopped heading at the ship. I believe it's a stretch to say that the ship would have shot at the boats, unless the boats shot first. We would not shoot at another country's boats, if not at war with them, without the president's say so.

This is also coming on the heels of Cheney's threatening speech to Iran on the deck of an aircraft carrier in the Gulf.

The Iranian boats made

Submitted by Norm on Tue, 01/08/2008 - 7:48pm.

The Iranian boats made "threatening" moves toward the U.S. ships and in one case came within 200 yards of one of them, the U.S. officials said.

The U.S. Navy also received a radio transmission that officials believe came from the Iranian boats. 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.

After the radio transmission, one of the Iranian boats dropped white boxes into the water in front of the U.S. ships, the officials said. It was not clear what was in the boxes, the officials said.

No shots were fired, and no one was injured.

From www.cnn.com

The American ships are just minding their own busness.

Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 01/09/2008 - 8:56am.

not threatening anyone.

Battleships vs bayliners

Submitted by Norm on Tue, 01/08/2008 - 7:41pm.

Why did the UN have such a hard time with these guys?

There's no

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 01/09/2008 - 9:31am.

rules about how close one vessel can come to another in the open sea. Obviously, for safety purposes giant ships avoid one another, like planes in the sky do. One vessel can come as close as it wants to another vessel, it only becomes inappropriate when a dangerous situation is created. These Iranian boats didn't get close enough to risk hitting the ships or to cause an accident. There's also no such thing as "threatening moves". The boat drivers were most likely playing around and making erratic course adjustments, but that doesn't equal a middle finger or anything, and being no closer than 200 yards doesn't present much danger to the US ships.

In the background on the tape, I hear one person state that they have "unidentified" contacts, this doesn't make sense to me. When I was in the gulf in '98 I knew every ship and small boat owned by every country in the region. We all were supposed to learn to identify them. There also should have been a flag on the Iranian boat, if it was indeed an IRG boat (I don't see anything on the boats indicating that they are). If it wasn't, then it was some civilians messing around, and they should be sanctioned in some way, and there are governing bodies to deal with that.

As far as the threats go, is there much difference between that and what Cheney did just off Iran's coast a couple of days ago? I don't feel like there is.

Forward Presence

Submitted by Ehver Green on Wed, 01/09/2008 - 2:02pm.

We've always (for as long as I can remember) maintained forward presence in that region and elsewhere for that matter. Cheney being on a carrier didn't change anything. Rob, it's OK for the US to protect itself and its interests.

Should have been a flag? We're talking about Iran here, no? Just because there was no identifiable flag doesn't automatically make it a bunch of civilians getting their jollies.

There are in fact rules about keeping a safe operating distance in international waters. This applies to passing as well and relief is allowable under 'Hot Pursuit' Check the Admiralty and Maritime Law Guide for more information. I didn't have time to read the entire guide.

There's always the possibility that we somehow staged this event to incite the Iranians. I'm being serious here, it's possible.

At 60 mph a fast-attack boat could make up 200 yds. in about 6 1/2 seconds if they were already underway. From a dead stop it would be closer to 10 seconds. I'd call that enough danger in light of NWarty's comment below.

After re-reading the Rules of the Road

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 01/09/2008 - 3:34pm.

I assert that the Iranian, if indeed that's what they were, vessels did nothing wrong under those rules(these are the rules you follow when underway anywhere in the world). If indeed they radioed a threat then that should be dealt with, but we'll probably never know.

As a former small boat driver in the Navy, I agree that small boats are good for attacks, usually of the suicide variety (they load the forecastle with explosive and ram the larger vessel). I hope the Captains of the ships are smart enough to realize that Iran isn't going to attack us unprovoked and will keep their "fingers off the triggers".

Iran is a real country with a real military. They have uniforms and everything. They actually have a pretty cool Navy. During my time there I got well acquainted with their vessels and their flag. Every military vessel from every country is required to fly their flag to identify themselves, I had to do it on my 7 meter RHIB, as does the largest ship. They all do it, Iran is no exception.

Also, if this was the IRG messing with us, it's a pretty common thing as far as cold wars go.

A Merka II frigate just before it struck the USS Caron (DD 970) back in Feb 1988. This maneuver is called "shouldering".

Also, if this was the IRG

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Wed, 01/09/2008 - 7:19pm.

Also, if this was the IRG messing with us, it's a pretty common thing as far as cold wars go.

I agree, but the more incidents there are the greater the probability that someone on the ground is going to respond - from either side - the way they're trained.

You only see a great deal of restraint when there's consideration for a "bigger picture."

That's a tough call to make, though.

Do you risk your life - and if you're in a leadership position, those in your command - in order to avoid being a part of an incident which has a much larger effect?

The movie Crimson Tide does a pretty good job of portraying each perspective when one is actually in a situation where a decision must be made on the spot with the potential for larger ramifications.

Crimson Tide

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 01/09/2008 - 10:33pm.

was all cinema. 'Down Periscope' was a more accurate sub movie militarily. The scene in Crimson Tide where Washington (playing the Executive Officer of the boat) is running to go help put out a fire is garbage, the XO would be no where near the fire in reality. He might be at a repair locker giving orders, but would never be a part of an actual fire team.

Crimson Tide was all

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Wed, 01/09/2008 - 11:02pm.

Crimson Tide was all cinema.

I still thought it was a pretty good movie.

I've found that the more details you know about the real-life, the worse a movie is.

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer and how the berets are worn like French sailors was absolutely terrible.

And Transformers wasn't any better, since it was Airmen running around in Army uniforms wearing berets in situations they would be wearing Patrol Caps (FF:ROTSS had this problem, also).

The briefing in Afghanistan prior to the mission in Lions for Lambs was a pretty realistic depiction.

My older cousin who had been to Haiti, Kosovo and Iraq said Black Hawk Down is one of the better military movies in terms of realism, too.

And how much

Submitted by JT on Thu, 01/10/2008 - 2:23pm.

time do you have on subs Rob. I thought you were a "skimmer puke"?

I agree with you though, all cinema. The XO would have been confined to quarters at a minimum, and quite possibly headshot.

As for the US warships, they used huge amounts of restraint. IMO too much restraint, but I'm not going to Monday morning quarterback them.

With the actions of the Iranians and the verbal threats of a bomb, it smells just like the USS Cole to me.

“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will

GQ

Submitted by Ehver Green on Thu, 01/10/2008 - 2:24pm.

It depends on where his GQ station might be. My XO's GQ was the hangar bay. We had an OBA induced fire (oil and pure oxygen) in the hangar bay while underway and the XO was the first officer suited up holding a halon bottle.

ooh

Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 01/10/2008 - 2:54pm.

How brave!

Are you being serious?

Submitted by Ehver Green on Thu, 01/10/2008 - 3:01pm.

Are you being serious?

My take, and opinion, is

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 01/10/2008 - 3:56pm.

My take, and opinion, is that just being on a sub in the first place is brave. I probably wouldn't be able to handle the claustrophobia, and most of the time they'd be sitting ducks if they didn't have the technology to be practically invisible.

A fire on any waterbound ship, let alone a sub, is dangerous and people fighting it would have to act quick and accurate to put it out and save lives.

Is it true that Submarine duty is 100% voluntary? A friend of a friend of a friend who had sub duty told my family that once.

Yup

Submitted by JT on Thu, 01/10/2008 - 4:01pm.

sub duty is completely voluntary.

Sub duty is a good job, but not as dangerous as some military jobs. On a flight deck of a carrier comes to mind. And of course looking into the steely stare of an enemy as an infantryman.

Sub life for me ended about 24 years ago.

“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will

My nephew served on a Trident out of Bangor, WA

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 01/10/2008 - 4:29pm.

I got a tour of the ship and a short cruise under and on the surface of Hood Canal. The most remarkable thing was how quiet the thing was. I could barely hear the water rushing past when we were standing outside. Not as claustrophobic inducing as "Das Boot," but spending months on that thing would not be my idea of fun.

I've never heard the term skimmer puke before

Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 01/10/2008 - 2:58pm.

I think a CO's job is to NOT make assumptions and to wait until it's absolutely clear that there is a threat. I don't think this is an example of restraint, I think it's an example of good leadership.

Only good leadership

Submitted by JT on Thu, 01/10/2008 - 3:11pm.

since it turned out like it did. He gambled, and the Iranians didn't cross his line he drew mentally. I'm glad it worked out and no Americans had to suffer.

As for "skimmer puke" that is an affectionate name we give our surface dwellers.....or as we also call them....Targets.

“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will

how's that ringworm?

Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 01/10/2008 - 3:14pm.

Ok,

Submitted by JT on Thu, 01/10/2008 - 3:40pm.

I'll bite, what ringworm??

“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will

nevermind

Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 01/10/2008 - 3:42pm.

USS Cole anyone?

Submitted by NWarty on Wed, 01/09/2008 - 1:25pm.

USS Cole anyone?

Can you extrapolate a bit?

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 01/09/2008 - 3:04pm.

Short

Submitted by JT on Wed, 01/09/2008 - 3:33pm.

memory Rob?

No

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 01/09/2008 - 3:36pm.

The Cole was moored, this recent event happened in open water, one a ship was struck by a smaller vessel causing much damage, here nothing happened except some posturing. I'm just wondering what connections NWARTY would like us to make between the two.

Small boat packed with a lot

Submitted by NWarty on Wed, 01/09/2008 - 3:52pm.

Small boat packed with a lot of explosives, blows big hole in ship, killing 17 sailors. I think the connection is quite clear.

I don't see a connection.

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 01/09/2008 - 3:56pm.

That's really not the issue,

Submitted by Ehver Green on Wed, 01/09/2008 - 4:04pm.

That's really not the issue, though. Whether you see it or not weighs very little on the minds of those with loved ones on the ships involved. The connection is quite clear to me.

Rats, it wouldn't let me

Submitted by NWarty on Wed, 01/09/2008 - 4:06pm.

Rats, it wouldn't let me edit for some reason...

Regardless whether the ship was moored or not, the Captain showed extreme restraint. From what I've gathered, the Captain had given the order to fire if the boats had moved within a certain distance of the ship. Luckily, the Iranian boats turned around before that line was crossed.

I'm willing to bet the rules of engagement in regards to warships had changed greatly in the aftermath of the Cole attack. In addition, there was no way of determining their intentions.

No,

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 01/09/2008 - 4:15pm.

The captain would have lost his command and probably faced court-martial had his ship fired on those boats and launched us into war with Iran. I'm willing to bet they don't give captains the authority to just blow up other vessels.

One thing that has been blown up is this entire incident. Comparing it to the Cole is not accurate, feeds fear, and is akin to beating the drums of war.

60% of Global Petroleum Supplies

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Wed, 01/09/2008 - 10:53pm.

The Strait of Hormuz is of critical geo-strategic importance for the free flow of Middle Eastern oil to the rest of the world. I remember hearing that 60% of global oil supplies travel via tanker through the Strait.

Might be more like 30%

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Wed, 01/09/2008 - 11:05pm.

It's hard to get an accurate number. but the actual percentage might be more like 20% or 30%.

It's still a very significant number. 20 or 30% is roughly equal to the percentage of global energy that the USA is responsible for consuming.

Another Perspective

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 01/10/2008 - 8:57am.

I believe

Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 01/10/2008 - 9:19am.

that 60% of the US's oil comes through Hormuz.

It is proper

Submitted by security_six on Thu, 01/10/2008 - 5:40pm.

To warn off boats a captain feels are approaching in a manner dangerous to his vessel. Also a warship, like any other vessel has the right to protect itself from danger. Had one of those small boats approached on a course and speed that indicated it would not turn off from the course opening fire probably would have been proper. It would also have been too late. I see nothing wrong with a warship warning off potentially dangerous craft. When I was in San Diego I maintained as much distance from naval vessels as I could in the narrow channels. I also kept in touch with the Coast Guard escorts when needed. Running around a warship or any other vessel at hight speed is not a nice thing to do. I used to cuss out jetskiers trying to cut across my bows (I had a trimaran) while close hauled.

MSNBC: Six Republicans

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Fri, 01/11/2008 - 12:58am.

MSNBC: Six Republicans debate in South Carolina:

"I think one more step, you know, and they would have been introduced to those virgins that they're looking forward to seeing," said [Republican candidate Fred] Thompson.
[Mike] Huckabee said if it happened again, the Iranians "should be prepared to see the gates of Hell."

I don't think military experience should be the End All, Be All in deciding whether an individual is qualified to be president, but I think prior service is the difference between being president and being Commander in Chief.

McCain, the only candidate with experience in the Navy, refused to second guess the actions of the commander of all the battle groups.

The latter part of that sentence is also important.

Gates of Hell? Oooh Scary talk from Mr TVman

Submitted by Guglielmo on Fri, 01/11/2008 - 9:52am.

Well, I was never in the Navy

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Fri, 01/11/2008 - 8:55am.

but I did ride the Waves.

It would seem to me that the words "international waters" would come to play here (never sailed international but read a bit about it).

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Update

Submitted by Ehver Green on Fri, 01/11/2008 - 4:06pm.

MSNBC is reporting an official report of shots fired in December. Iran's stick is going to break at the bend.

Navy Official: Ship fired warning at Iran boat

Why does this please you?

Submitted by Rob Richards on Fri, 01/11/2008 - 4:10pm.

Why does the thought of us going to war with Iran get you so excited? If that's not the case, you should know that you make it seem like it is.

Mind Reading

Submitted by Ehver Green on Fri, 01/11/2008 - 4:28pm.

You can tell I'm please by what words or phrase? I'm a realist Rob. I don't sugar-coat sh** and I don't believe people always have the best intentions. I'm not pleased about the existence of any war but I am supportive of protecting our country and our service members. If it takes a war to get there, so be it.

Even if it were the case (happy, excited, whatever), which it is not, please STOP telling people what to say and how to talk. It's old already.

keepin it real

Submitted by Rob Richards on Fri, 01/11/2008 - 4:44pm.

It just seemed like ever since this thread went up you've been really banging the drum with comments about blowing them out of the water and such. You didn't seem to be looking for an opportunity for the two countries to deescalate the situation and avoid war, you seemed to be on the edge of your seat about the prospect of attacking them. If I'm completely wrong about all of this I apologize, but this is what I get from your words. I'm not looking for it, I'm not trying to get you upset, and I don't want to argue with you about something neither of us control. I'm just asking questions, I'm sorry I offended you.

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at: