[Rhodes22-list] The following post is Political, Religious, Educational, point of discussions, Big Al delete!

[Brad Haslett]

Herb,

Here's more info to support the theory posted yesterday that this is an
election ploy.  (Theirs, not ours, John)  -posted this morning on
pajamasmedia.com      Brad


*by Meir Javedanfar*

The release of the recent NIE report on Iran's nuclear program, together
with General Petraeus' declaration that Iran has stopped supplying weapons
to anti-U.S. Shiite militants in Iraq, was interpreted as a sign of
improvement in Tehran-Washington relations by many Iran-watchers. The
Iranian press seemed to be particularly excited. Most notable were those
representing Ayatollah Rafsanjani, who wants better relations with the West.
One of his outlets got completely carried away by the new thaw. This was
shown by an article <http://www.tiknews.net/display/?ID=52851> in Entertain
News, which quoted Russian and Swiss sources claiming that U.S. Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates had secretly met with Ahmadinejad to discuss regional
developments. Meanwhile, some Iranian officials, including Iran's Supreme
Leader <javascript:void(0)>, decided to reciprocate what they viewed as U.S.
efforts to improve relations. This was seen in Ayatollah
Khamenei<javascript:void(0)>'s
statement last week in the city of Yazd that relations between Iran and the
U.S. will not be broken "forever."

However, in a single move, the nascent improvements between the two
countries were pushed aside, and suspicion and recrimination returned to the
forefront of Iran-U.S. relations.

The new crisis centers on reports from the U.S. that on Sunday, January 6,
Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) boats buzzed three U.S. warships in
the Strait of Hormuz in an aggressive manner. The U.S. presented its case in
a video <http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/09/2134682.htm> that was
released by its Department of Defense. The video also showed the USS Hopper
crew asking the IRGC boats to identify themselves and their intention.
However, there was no response. The only voice contact from the IRGC side
was a message threatening the U.S. navy ship, saying that it is going to
explode in a "couple of minutes."

Immediately after that, Iran released its own
video<http://itn.co.uk/news/f357d3ec83f5f03da3e8a5dab98dcbec.html>,
which completely contradicted the U.S. version. In the Iranian video, the
IRGC boats are seen politely communicating with the U.S. ships. Furthermore,
unlike the U.S. video, the Iranian report showed the Iranian boats as
stationary. They were not behaving in an aggressive manner in any way,
shape, or form. To make a difficult case more confusing, two days after the
incident, the U.S. Fifth Fleet
said<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/11/wiran111.xml>that
it had "no way to know" that the explosion threat came from an Iranian
boat.

For now, the international community should be thankful that the U.S.
warships held fire. Even if there are doubts about the Iranian warning that
the ships would explode, what cannot be ruled out is the way in which the
IRGC boats were playing chicken with the U.S. ships. This was very
dangerous. The U.S. navy has been on tenterhooks since the attack on the USS
Cole <javascript:void(0)> in Yemen, which was also carried out by a small
boat <javascript:void(0)>. Furthermore, in the 1980s, Iran used many such
small boats to attack U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf <javascript:void(0)>.
Therefore, from what can be seen, the U.S. had every reason to protest and
to feel threatened.

Judging by the past behavior of Iran's Supreme Leader, he should frown upon
the IRGC's recent action, as it could have dealt a heavy and unnecessary
blow to Iran's recent diplomatic achievements . Khamenei is a calculating
strategist. To him, international opinion and consensus are important, much
more important than they were for Ayatollah Khomeini, his predecessor. This
is why Iran has been so successful in its foreign policy adventures in
Lebanon and Iraq during his term, whereas during Khomeini's term Iranian
foreign policy achieved far less.

However, when it comes to dealing with the international community, Iran's
president is not so careful. This is because Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's position
inside Iran is in a downward spiral. Inflation is twice as high as it was
when he took office. He has failed miserably in his promises to cut
unemployment and corruption. Meanwhile, Ali Larijani, his rival, seems to be
back in action. His recent trips to Egypt and Syria, as the representative
of the Supreme Leader, were taken by Ahmadinejad's supporters as a challenge
to the president's efforts to control Iran's foreign policy.

With parliamentary elections coming up on March 14, 2008, Ahmadinejad needs
to do something to improve his position. Otherwise, his supporters would
lose badly, as they did in the municipal elections <javascript:void(0)> of
December 2006. One factor which could boost his position is a conflict with
the U.S. In fact, this could be the only savior of his failing presidency.
The recent incident in the Persian Gulf could have been a move by
Ahmadinejad and his IRGC allies, who are also disappointed with Ayatollah
Khamenei's order to reduce their anti-U.S. activities in Iraq.

With eighteen months to go before Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stands for reelection
as president, it is possible that he and his IRGC allies will try similar
provocative moves, especially against Israeli and U.S. interests. Jerusalem
and Washington should be careful not to fall into Ahmadinejad's trap.
Meanwhile, Ayatollah Khamenei should ensure that his president does not take
his country into an unnecessary conflict for the sake of cheap
electioneering.

Meir Javedanfar is the co-author with Yossi Melman of "The Nuclear Sphinx of
Tehran – Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the State of
Iran<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0786718870/pajamasmedia-20>."
He runs Middle East Economic and Political Analysis
(Meepas)<http://www.meepas.com/>



On Jan 12, 2008 12:21 AM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:

> Hmm, first you imply that our ship was in Iranian waters, then you say
> you didn't "blame" anyone, then that my "faith in human nature" was
> misplaced. How so. Are you now actually blaming someone (BTW, I've
> acknowledged all along that that those at the scene didn't know where
> the broadcast came from. I think maybe it's YOUR  cycnicsm  of the US is
> what's misplaced.
>
> john Belanger wrote:
> > one more thing, herb, i didn't blame anybody for anything. our forces in
> the area are on high alert. ready for anything, especially in confined
> areas, post u.s.s. cole, and here comes a flotilla of speed boats. did you
> hear who they blamed the radio transmission on? some a-h';e aboard a navy
> ship. your confidence level in human nature is admirable but misplaced.
> goodnight and good luck.
> >
> > Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:   Yes, we might send
> someone out to investigate. Now, we would not send
> > out speedboats with no radio contact. And maybe (but I doubt it) you
> > "wanted to point out the danger", instead, you claimed that "we would
> > have done the same thing". I say wrong. You keep saying it, but offer no
> > proof.
> >
> > And even now, you "blame America first". Even the Iranians acknowledge
> > that the US ship was not in their territorial waters. Maybe you'd like
> > to go help them out next time?
> >
> > john Belanger wrote:
> >
> >> herb,
> >> well then, we do react the a same way. if a chinese destroyer popped up
> 12.5 miles off port aransas, (remember china now has economic interests in
> sa) would we not send out someone to investigate? i know satellite imagery
> and helicopters would know who they were, but without them, your coastal
> patrol boat would be the first one on the scene. the old way was a shot
> across the bow. all i wanted to point out was the danger involved in that
> encounter. we did keep our cool, but, who knows next time. high level
> communication with cool heads is needed. a red phone would be nice. it
> doesn't matter who fires the first shot, the result is the same. john
> >>
> >> incidentally i looked at a map of the straight on wiki. map #4
> (bathymitry) the line for the territorial border line for iran cuts slightly
> into the westward shipping lane at the top of the straight and all shipping
> lanes in the western part are in irans claimed territory.
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Strait_of_hormuz_full.jpg
> >>
> >> and an explanation of the rules of navigation here.
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz
> >>
> >> Herb Parsons wrote:
> >> They don't? Are you sure? Sure seems like I saw 3 speed boats with 50
> >> caliber automatic guns mounted on them when I passed the US Naval
> >> shipyard in Port Aransas.
> >>
> >> Regardless, the point remains the same. We have not "reacted the same"
> >> when the "shoe was on the other foot". What we were doing was normal.
> >> It's what we've done for years, having a ship pass through
> international
> >> waters. What they were doing was not. We would not react the same. I
> >> again challenge you to show differently.
> >>
> >> john Belanger wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> we don't use speedboats for coastal patrol. our navy doesn't patrol
> our shores with swift boats either. the other foot (implies) (infers) (;-))
> to the roles being reversed and what we would do if we were in their shoes.
> ;-)
> >>>
> >>> Herb Parsons wrote: Yes, we would react. However, you're now
> contridicting yourself.
> >>>
> >>> Previously, you said "when you put the shoe on the other foot, we
> would
> >>> do the same thing". Now you say "we would react quickly. and NOT with
> >>> speedboats" - so which is it, we'd do the same thing, or we'd do
> >>> something different?
> >>>
> >>> As far as "near our shore" we were there because it's the only way in.
> >>> We were in recognized international shipping lanes. We were doing
> >>> nothing out of the ordianary.
> >>>
> >>> john Belanger wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> herb
> >>>> i seem to recall a little skirmish with n korean boats off their
> coast, there's gulf of tonkin, shooting down 707 off kimchatka, reaction by
> soiets to u2's, and that recon plane the chinese forced down. what i'm
> getting at is if a russian plane or ship showed up near our shores, we would
> react quickly. and not with speedboats. if the iranians had sent out a
> warship or any unknown vessel at night, we would not be debating it now.
> very dangerous.
> >>>>
> >>>> Herb Parsons wrote:
> >>>> Absolute BULL. We would not "do the same thing." I challenge you to
> back
> >>>> it up. Show me one instance where we have ever rushed a Chinese,
> Korean,
> >>>> Russian, etc. ship with high speed boats and ignored radio hailing.
> >>>>
> >>>> No, we don't know where the radio transmissions came from. However,
> were
> >>>> it me on one of those high-speed boats, and the ship was hailing me,
> you
> >>>> can be there'd be transmission from ME.
> >>>>
> >>>> Unless of course, I WASN'T just "checking things out".
> >>>>
> >>>> And I agree, we'd be better off as allies. They don't want us as
> allies.
> >>>>
> >>>> john Belanger wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> herb,
> >>>>> when you put the shoe on the other foot, we would do the same thing,
> as have the chinese, koreans, russians, etc. when our ships or planes show
> up near their shores. complicated by narrowness of the straits of hormuz.
> its very dangerous in those waters but i have to emphasize one thing. we
> don't know where the transmission came from, as far as i have heard so far.
> i'm not excusing their actions. i think we were very restrained. i still say
> they and we would be better off as allies. if you think about it the whole
> situations results could have been very different if those boats had showed
> up at night. close call.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Herb Parsons wrote:
> >>>>> What a bunch of bunk. We weren't in their waters. They didn't "send
> >>>>> someone out", they sent five high speed powerboats with full crews,
> and
> >>>>> there were radio transmissions that the naval ship was going to be
> >>>>> "blown up".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But then, I forget; there are some people that are bound and
> determined
> >>>>> that no matter what this country does to defend itself, it's the
> wrong
> >>>>> thing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> john Belanger wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> the solution we seem to be going for seems to be control. i will
> ask the obvious question: if ships of a foriegn nation were passing close to
> our shores, would we not send someone out to see whats going on? would we
> have any shortage of volunteers? think about this: make iran an ally. its
> much cheaper. if iran is on our side, many problems go away. no, really,
> think about it. even israel would be happy. better yet, who would be
> unhappy? bolton?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> Herb Parsons
> S/V O'Jure - O'Day 25
> S/V Reve de Pappa - Coronado 35
>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>