So some sort of confrontation seems to have occurred between the Iranians and the US Navy in the Strait of Hormuz. Like Cernig, I don't trust either official version and was waiting for more information before posting anything.
Some people, of course, have conclusions ready to hand:
We should've sunk every one of them.
Not because we're warmongers. But because the Iranians had made threats, verbal and physical, that amounted to acts of war. When will we learn that resolute action taken early saves vast amounts of blood and treasure later?
Because nothing saves blood and treasure like starting wars without proper preparation or forethought. But the real kicker is just how much Mr. Peters apparently knows about the internal workings of the Iranian regime:
Sunday's incident wasn't a one-off event improvised by the local yokels after a long Saturday night at the hookah bar. It was blessed and carefully planned in Tehran and had practical as well as political goals.
At the tactical level, the Revolutionary Guards' naval arm was testing our responses: How soon do the American weapons radars activate? At what range do the lasers begin to track targets? How close can a small vessel get to a major American warship? How do the Americans respond to possible mines? Can we use phony mines to steer them into real ones? How long does it take an American commander to make a decision?
Above all: Does an American commander have the courage to make a decision on his own? When he doesn't have time to deflect responsibility onto his superiors?
And it wasn't just some madrassa dropout with salt spray on his glasses scribbling notes on the lead Iranian boat. On shore, the Iranians would've had all their intelligence facilities tuned in to map our electronic profile as our ships prepared to defend themselves. Rent-a-Russian military experts would've been onhand to assist with the newest gear purchased from Moscow.
The Iranians may even have had an escalation plan, in case we opened fire. President Ahmedinejad and his posse may seem contemptible to Washington, but the Iranians think several moves ahead of us: We play checkers, they play chess.
I can certainly agree with that last sentence, with the caveat that Bush is a damn poor checkers player to boot. I have to hand to the guy; suspecting the Iranians were prepared for an escalation of an incident the US Navy was obviously unprepared for and yet still calling for them to open up on the Iranians regardless of the consequences. As is always the case with warmongers who don't have to face the consequences personally.
Anyway, reading
another account of the incident brought this information to light:
Cosgriff said the five Iranian boats, outfitted with outboard motors and carrying three to four people each, rapidly approached three U.S. warships — cruiser USS Port Royal, destroyer USS Hopper and frigate USS Ingraham, which were passing through the Strait into the Gulf.
So we're basically talking little speedboats here. Two things come to mind; the first being an account of a war simulation carried out before the Iraq War where the "Red Team" commander sunk a good chunk of the naval forces arrayed against him by using small suicide speedboats in imitation of the USS Cole attack, which explains the nervousness of the naval forces here.
The other was a description of the Gulf traffic in a post I read some time back, (I forget where), that mentioned that IRGC members have a habit of running smuggled goods across the Gulf in such small boats, weaving in and out of the heavy traffic. That post too warned that such activity could find itself causing a confrontation with US naval forces.
I find myself wondering if the white boxes the crews were supposedly tossing over the sides of their boats weren't illicit goods they didn't want to be caught with while their buddies distracted the authorities?
At this point, it's as good an explanation as any.
