Iranian Boats Shadow U.S. Aircraft Carrier
BY Herschel Smith
12 years, 10 months ago
Currently in the Persian Gulf.
The American aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln has passed through the Strait of Hormuz, shadowed by Iranian patrol boats.
But there were no incidents on Tuesday as the Lincoln’s battle group crossed through the narrow strait, which Iran has threatened to close in retaliation for tighter Western sanctions.
Several U.S. choppers flanked the carrier group throughout the voyage from the Gulf. Radar operators also picked up an Iranian drone and surveillance helicopter in Iran’s airspace near the strait, which is jointly controlled by Iran and Oman.
Make no mistake about it. These boats are a threat to U.S. sea craft. And consider what I have reported before.
… consider what happened (I have reported this before) with the 26th MEU in 2008. The USS Iwo Jima was in vicinity of the very subject of our discussion (somewhere in the Persian Gulf, or Strait of Hormuz), and an Iranian helicopter virtually landed aboard the ship. The Marines at that time judged a threat and prepared to engage the enemy, but Navy officers, not wanting an incident, of course, ensured that the Marines didn’t respond.
An Iranian aircraft virtually landed on board the USS Iwo Jima, hovering above the deck for minutes. The U.S. Navy did nothing. And you can rest assured that the Navy will do nothing concerning Iranian sea-borne threats either.
On February 16, 2012 at 9:41 am, Rich Buckley said:
In our last discussion we discussed the legalities of “high seas” vs. “recognized territorial jurisdictions.” Your readers offered a number of insights on the matter. When I map the Straights using Google, it’s clear the expanse is about 100 miles shore to shore at it narrowest. However some articles by AP use 30 miles to describe the “channel.”
What equipment would we deploy to remove mines?
There was also a discussion last time about the “assumption” that the US Navy would continue to do the same thing a second time by allowing any Iranian helicopter from repeating the hovering maneuver right above the deck of the Iwo Jima.
Plus if I were going to attack the US Fleet to start something, I would not want to present the entire world with the image “that I started it.”
A subset within the US forces, I think of as and refer to as the “White Hats,” rumor has it, is working to prevent any scenario from occurring that can in any way be historically unraveled by physical evidence, by witness testimony, be whistleblowers testimony, that would enable a growing body of evidence to indicate a False Flag Operation was enabled.
The thing is we have Iran surrounded on all sides militarily, with airbases and troops and what was the last count, 3 aircraft carriers within striking range?
I don’t believe US Public opinion would accept for a minute that Iran attacked the US Navy in International waters. The White Hats need to win this engagement.
On February 16, 2012 at 2:22 pm, Herschel Smith said:
You believe the way you do because you see things through Western eyes. It is inconceivable to you that Iran (or anyone else) would be involved in something that wasn’t in the interest of their survival.
But the radical Imams have said that they don’t care about the existence of Iran. Nationalism, to them, is evil. They want to usher in the Caliphate, and have said that they are willing to witness the conflagration of Iran to bring the twelfth Imam and world government by Sharia.
The difference between you and me is that you don’t believe that the Imams really believe the things that they say. I do.
On February 16, 2012 at 2:59 pm, Warbucks said:
That may seem like the difference between us but I sense the difference is somewhat other. I think the Imam’s base is crumbling from below them through a natural process of shifting awareness and sophistication of their own population in the regions of high density urbanization.
The old theology is crumbling away, the Imam’s themselves are being shown up as lacking, and another social reality is emerging which is interconnected with the rest of the world. There is a race underway to the finish line. The old top down Sharia structure is losing some of its appeal.
Now I don’t doubt for a second the Imam’s mean what they say, it’s that they are talking in a room with fewer and fewer listeners.
Something similar is happening here in the US as well but in a different social structure through The Tea Party and The Occupy Movements.
I still believe Herschel, as I’ve said before, that one of the most successful ways to bring change for the better in Iran is not to engage them in War, but to embed their society with greater and greater forms of back up technology that prevents their government from shutting off their own youthful dissidence movements from being able to be shut down by the government’s ability to shut down the media.
We should invest in links that prevent their government from being able to shut down communications…. sort of a takeover of free speech electronics that provide back up phone and communications systems to hand held comm-devices used locally.
There is nothing as revolutionary as their youth in the streets filming the protests of against their own leadership.
It’s like a big church, it tells you the way things are going to be as long as they can get away with it and keep collecting the money from their true believers to continue telling you what to believe…. sort of an endless closed loop of babel. But when the church empties, and the pews fail to fill no matter what, they church leadership then start to listen.
Well, the Imam’s are “just starting to listen.” That’s the difference between us I think. I don’t want to use the old False Flag ruse to go fight another war, I think we can beat them with open, transparency because we may not agree with the Imam’s but I find it hard to disagree with the youth. In my limited review of what the youth seek, they do not seem to be much different than the rest of the world, a democratic process, schools, food and shelter in an open system, freedom of speech and tolerance. These kids are worth investing in. They are not calling for Sharia Law and the Caliphate across the Middle East. I think they are pretty much on board with Salman Rushdie
http://www.randomhouse.com/rhpg/features/salmanrushdie/
… a man of great courage who must be considered in the historic context of making a difference toward the evolution of spiritual tolerances and softening of the Qur’an into the softer: Qran
On February 17, 2012 at 1:48 am, Blacque Jacques Shellacque said:
Those little boats ain’t anything that a RIM-66 couldn’t take care of…
On February 17, 2012 at 11:41 pm, Herschel Smith said:
There’s not just a little bit of conflation of issues and misunderstanding over this post.
First of all, any vessel, undetected or undeterred, is a threat. The USS Cole proves that.
But it would be silly to suggest that I am suggesting that we should use Iranian shadow boats to … ahem … “start” a war with Iran.
Iran has been at war with us for 30 years. It’s stolid to think otherwise. If we were going to attack Iran with large scale military assets (I would assume that it would be mainly air assets), using boats as a pretext for that would be wasteful and juvenile. That misses the point of the post.
The U.S. should develop doctrine for military sea vessels that we apply without reservation, in all cases, without exception, and without apologies. When a vessel comes within (x) meters of our vessels, it gets destroyed. Period. No negotiation over it.
If it is perceived to be a threat even if it is outside that distance (at the discretion of the skipper) it is destroyed. And so on … you get the point.
If we cannot come up with such an approach, then we should bring all sea vessels home and put them in port. They are worse than worthless for lack of will to use them for anything. They have become an embarrassment.
As for war with Iran, I have always advocated covert warfare and a robust program of assassinations (coupled with support for the Green movement and fomenting of an insurgency) prior to large scale conflict. See my articles on Iran.
On February 19, 2012 at 12:22 am, Rich Buckley said:
For me, the concept of openness and transparency of government strips away and conflicts directly with the historic level of casualness we readily apply as a people to conducting covert warfare.
The level of complexities of modern life, the over use of classifying all that goes on, the seemingly obvious failure of mainstream media, the pop-surprise of new laws like NDAA, the absolutely compelling and abundant evidence of deceptions played upon us all by government …. all just continue to stun me almost daily that as brilliant, prescient and instructive as your commentaries are, that you do not seem to regard False Flag operations as even worthy of consideration as a threat. This singular characteristic escapes my understanding.
The White Hats have to win this one. And I agree with your above analysis on fleet security. But, False Flag has throughout my lifetime, been Standard Operating Proceedure and it must be stopped.
It’s not to say we should seek indictments and trials. I feel strongly this country needs to experience a collective catharsis and foregiveness through some sort of amnesty program to bring some level of truth back into the face of our foreign policy.
On February 22, 2012 at 4:13 pm, Warbucks said:
The rumor mill produces some fascinating topics regarding Iran for sure. John Kettler ….
http://tinyurl.com/3quxlrj
… indicates that Iran served as an intermediary to ship 40 dirty bombs, the warheads produced by North Korea, shipped to Iran where they were mounted on 2800 nautical mile range Russian Missiles and then forwarded to Venezuela into Maracaibo and off loaded by Hugo Chavez. Apparently the US is “causing something to happen” to intercede the process according to Kettler.
I do not know anything more about John Kettler. If anyone cares to comment on his background, I’m all ears as he is reporting on intelligence matters with seemingly enormous importance and consequence.
It is interesting to note that under the US Law, Home Land Security can declare one a “potential terrorist” under its discretionary power to interpret the law. Accordingly, John is only repeating what his sources tell him, and I have only repeated what John discusses. Does that make everyone in the chain of discussion a potential terrorists because we all report scary stuff and share an awareness of living inside the 2800 nm range of the missiles in the hands of Hugo Chavez?
It seems to me that John F. Kennedy used a better approach to handle the “terrorism” of the Cuban Missile Crisis in that Kennedy made the American people partners in the bad news while work went on behind the scenes to resolve the matters. The people had a sense they where being kept abreast by their President even as some of the story took 30 years to get out.
Nowadays fewer and fewer people trust anything the Government says except in rare instances and while government probably lied as often then as it does now, the feelings we held about our government were not as negative. I could be wrong, of course.
In summary, it seems that one can always find a reason to go to war. The hard part is sorting through how not to go to war that too many seem to want, especially Iran.