Emptywheel claims the Borat voice came from a UFO.

So much for the credibility of the U.S. Department of Defense.

At the end of the video it looked like the speedboats were wake-jumping. Maybe the speedboat drivers were jus' havin' fun.
Not hard to see why the navy gets jumpy about these things. A speedboat loaded with explosives on a suicide mission could at least blow a hole in the side like what happened with the Cole.

You'd hear engine noise in the background of the voice transmission only if the sender were using a standard microphone. There would be no ambient noise if the transmission -- which could be prerecorded or software-generated -- was sent via a computer/radio hookup.

While all hasn't come to light yet, why the incident should be called "baffling" at this point is indeed quite baffling! It's been well pointed out that the tape released by the Pentagon is a fabrication in at least the sense that it falsely combines audio and video; that the voice allegedly making the threats is neither Persian nor that of the person speaking on the Iranian boats; that the Pentagon video does not show any boats approaching the U.S. ships (vs. circling) some distance away; and that the boats are so small relative to the U.S. ships that they would have been hard pressed to do any damage without being blown out of the water first; i.e., that the Iranian captain would have had to act entirely irrationally for this to have been an actual threat, which pushes credulity. Moreover, the actual position of the U.S. vessels has not been pinpointed, thus it's impossible to know what exactly the Iranians were responding to, or if this was standard behavior on their part, as alleged.

Yes, it remains unclear to us what happened on water, but it's clear that you still buy the Pentagon's and Bush Administration's basic story, as evidenced by your speculation citing William Arkin and the absence of any comment about how "the incident as threat" could just as well be a fabrication, a political ploy by Bush to bolster his visit. The U.S. has a long history of those (including at last the admission this week that the Gulf of Tonkin incident never happend).

some interesting discussion of the legitimacy of the Iranian video is here:

http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=354

Tom O:

Well, if you're going to go down that road you might as well ask what country or corporation would benefit from tension or conflict.

Tom O wrote on January 11, 2008 11:12 AM:
Black Op? What other nation in the area could benefit from increased tension between Iran and America.

Well, it could be the Saudis, the Pakistanis or the gulf states who, predominantly Sunni, hate Shi'a Iran and are looking for a reason to war against them.

It could be Blackwater, a nation unto themselves who act under their own authority to start a war for their psycho fundamentalist religious masters; or just helping Bush try to salvage his legacy, which isn't working here in this buffoonish incident.

It could be the Russians, looking to ramp up tensions to get more contracts out of the Iranians, moving the bishop in the neverending chess game with America.

Who knows really.

"Occam's razor here, folks. Let's not get carried away with speculations beyond what we have in the video. Pre-recorded or software generated voice transmissions is way beyond mere speculation."

I have only heard the recording once, but my immediate impression was that it was a computer generated voice, not a human one, Persian or otherwise. It then immediately occurred to me that would make sense if they have a Persian to English translator program. It also followed that it made not a lick of sense for the Americans to be sending their threats in English if they expected to be understood (unless they have a reverse translator). It's typical though, since Americans believe that every person on the planet, without exception, should understand their native tongue, while they go out of their way to not learn anyone else's language.

So frankly, my Occam's razor is that it WAS a computer voice until someone proves otherwise, because that is precisely what I believe I heard.

The Voice: My first impression is that it was the naval interpreter, translating any radio transmissions. It does the captain little good to be hearing farsi he doesn't understand in a tense situation. So he wouldn't necessarily hear the radio transmissions directly, but an intel/translation seamen would be calling out what was being heard over the air.

That said, I don't trust the Bushies to walk my dog, let alone run the nation. But the speculation of the voice seems to be a bit much.

Israelli Mossad? They would like to see us take out Iran. They were not please about the NIE.

This didn't come from Bush, this came from the Pentagon. I support our sailors in this one. They could've made a mistake about who was actually threatening them but under the circumstances I think they showed wise restraint.

Our military succeeds because they are well trained professionals, not because of anything Bush has done. Remember that and it might give you some perspective on incidents like this.

I think I trust the interpretation of our sailors more than the opinions of the Mullahs. Our sailors may well be mistaken about some facets of the incident but the Mullahs are simply lying through their teeth.

And who cares what Bush says? It's the same old tired rhetoric. He can't go to war with Iran because he'd end up in a Federal jail cell faster than you can say "Howdy-Doody". People are too wise to his bull-**** to believe anything he says. Lame duck.

How exactly did we get to where the US is less credible than Iran's Revolutionary Guard?

If Bush said it is the truth , then it is a lie . I have a Bush decoder ring btw. :)

IT'S ALL ABOUT CREATING FEAR OF AN EVIL DARK ENEMY THAT'S MALICIOUSLY PROVOCATIVE TOWARDS US

People in the military and or in the White House should lose their jobs over this irresponsibly instigating sensationlization of what appears to be an unarmed speed boat doing a fly by of fully armed warship. The voice added edit sounded like a bad Darth Vader impersonation. Where are the white boxes? Who stated that white boxes were seen? Why weren't they gathered and identified? Did they float or immediately sink? What are the names of the captains/officers of the deck who saw the white boxes, heard the "voice" and or were about to give orders for a ship of war to fire on unidentified speed boats? What the Navy's prescribed procedures that determine what a ship of the line must do before it is authorized to fire it's weapons? THERE ARE MORE HOLES IN THIS STORY THAN IN THE GULF OF TONKIN FABRICATION!!!!

If Arkin is correct, and it was intended to send a message to Iran's neighbors, then the Bush administration once again did a great job of inadvertenly boosting Iran's influence.

As always we have a leader who's playing checkers with a country that invented chess...

Beyond the speculation, I think that the USN had reasonable grounds to be irritated and concerned with these speedboats.

I don't think that a "fire and forget" anti-ship missile could be launched from a craft of this size, don't imagine that the USN will allow another speedboat to ram a USN destroyer.

I think the incident has been played to politcial advantage and was disappointed with last night's questions at the GOP debate.

I think that the commander of these platforms need to make difficult calls and that they are cognizant of the ramifications of their decisions.

There has been advancements in COTS NAVNET Furuno technology that makes navigating a boat to a target easier than say a Darpa Land race activity, and the proximity of small craft could use chaff or blocking devices to confuse other attacks to target.

Evaluating Mach Speeds and the distance to target in the straights illustrates why the USN gets concerned.

I'm not pimping for war, know that sailors will bleed and die on vessels, and know that the professional soldier seeks to avoid the use of force.

But the video's clearly show the hailing at close quarters, and that is under maritime conventions and considering the circumstances an act that both sides understand to be creating a frenetic environment to the USN.

Was the response over-played by politicians and not soldiers? Yes. Was the USN correct in identifying these craft's as threats? Yes.

If the craft veers torwards you, and the occupants bail, then shoot it out of the water! If it stays on course and leaves a narrow margin of response where the inertia of the craft can take it into close proximity of a craft, again blow it out of the water.

All animals great and small have a universal right to defend themselves and it is foolish to provoke an incident and then cry foul if you get your nose bloodied.

I commend the commanders on their handling of the situation and the political BS they have tio put up with.

Mike H. wrote on January 11, 2008 11:41 AM:
I'd like to know: Do these types of things happen on a regular basis in the Gulf? And, I wouldn't accept the word of anyone connected to the U.S. government.

Were they trying to get some radar to lock on? Was it a re-con by the Iranians trying to get the big guys to give up another radar frequency?

Did any one else notice the head lines the day this incident happened to the effect that the pentagon made shit up during Viet Nam? I thought some one was trying to say something on that.

What happen ?
Somebody set up us the bomb.
We get signal.
What!
Main screen turn on.
It's you!!
How are you gentlemen!!
All your base are belong to us.
You are on the way to destruction.
What you say!!
You have no chance to survive make your time.
Ha Ha Ha Ha ....
Captain!! *
Take off every 'ZIG'!!
You know what you doing.
Move 'ZIG'.
For great justice

During the Kosovo conflict commercial microwave ovens were used to attract targeting systems, where the US focres would fire on that decoy to reveal their position in an attempt to then sitch on air defenses and defeat US aircraft. These are lessons learned in war.

One of the initial attacks carried out in Iraq against a hotel had rockets fired from an asse (a donkey) where the donkey was walked up to the target, abandoned, and rockets fired hitting the building.

The book of five rings makes these crafts threats.

Even if you disagree with US policy don't undermine your adversaries, they might offer no quarter and ill intent.

The USN has a right to defend itself in prudent circumstances and in lieu of the US policy.

Yes, imagine the reverse- a foreign, fully armed warship in the Straight of Juan de Fuca, and a few americans buzzing the ship in a speedboat.

IT'S ALL ABOUT CREATING FEAR OF AN EVIL DARK ENEMY THAT'S MALICIOUSLY PROVOCATIVE TOWARDS US

People in the military and or in the White House should lose their jobs over this irresponsibly sensationalized/fabricated account of what appears to be unarmed speedboats doing a fly-by of fully armed warships. The voice added edit sounded like a bad Darth Vader impersonation unworthy of YouTube. Where are the white boxes? Who stated that white boxes were seen? Why weren't they gathered and or identified? Did they float or immediately sink? How close were they to the Navy ships? What are the names of the captains/officers of the deck who saw the white boxes, heard the "voice" and or were about to give orders for a ship of war to execute hostile fire on unidentified speed boats? What are the Navy’s prescribed procedures for determining what a ship of the line must do before it is authorized to initiate hostile fire on speedboats? THERE ARE MORE HOLES IN THIS STORY THAN IN THE GULF OF TONKIN FABRICATION!!!!

FYI – Fly-bys were a common practice/SOP during the decades of the cold war and certainly during Vietnam. For a time, I was on an ASW Destroyer Escort with a group of U.S. warships that was cruising through the Bering Sea, and we had Russian planes buzzing above with Russian warships so close we could count the gun and rocket mounts on their decks. And as I was stationed on the bridge, I know the chatter between forces was constant.

The Iranians cruising off the Florida coast really are just wakeboarding.

If you want to run a story of consequences then run the story:

"US would 'regret' Pakistan operation"

Last night's debate and the reckless rhetoric is heard around the globe.

You liberals are maddening, yes the USN has the right to protect itself, and that is 'un-connected' to the political dialouge that is occuring. As if by definition political opportunist and scoundrel's haven't made a living wrapping themselves in flags, or conjuring external dissent as they pander in the absence of results.

Not seeing the two as seperate, is a mistake.

I was disappointed with some of the GOP's responses in dealing with the Pakistan issue, and felt FAUX did a disservice to US foreign policy by asking these emotive questions, and ommiting inquiry into genuine issues.

Healthcare, energy independence, etc.. instead each one of the candidates tried to 'ought tough' the other in some macho rhetoric that makes the job for the military tougher.

One other question. At 400 billion a year why do we have WWII quality video. I take better home movies at the office Holiday Party.

All ship-to-ship radio transmissions between vessels of different nations are in English, just as aviation transmissions are. What you hear a lot of in the Persian Gulf is merchant vessels screwing with each other, since there's no international FCC to actually do anything to them.

You hear this: "Jebel Ali, Jebel Ali, Jebel Ali," which is the port authority in Dubai being called. And this: "Filipino MONKEY," which is some racist of non-Filipino origin making fun of a Filipino's accent (A LOT of Filipinos are sailors on flag-of-convenience ships).

The Strait of Hormuz is in international waters, and our navy is the reason why Iran can't blackmail the world by cutting off the oil tankers going through it.

Gulf of Tonkin anybody? Seems like a rerun of a war I've already seen.

"I would be interested to know how much the top 2% in this country have converted dollars to euros."

I am not in the top 2% in this country, but I have been buying and selling euros (for absurd profits) since last summer, when the euro was about $1.27, until now, when it is about $1.45 - $1.46 or more. If my profits are any indication, you can be sure that most large US banks and corporations are investing heavily in the euro, in anticipation of the Bush gang's contrived attack on Iran. All of them do it anyway, but given the direction and the speed with which the euro is moving right now, it is clear that there are some VERY big fish in those waters, and that they know something we don't.

Forget the stock market, which will tank when Bush attacks Iran: open a forex account now, so that when Bush does his thing before leaving office, which is a done deal, you too can rake in the profits on the euro without being in the top 2% in this country. (If it's good enough for the Carlysle Group, it should be good enough for you.) And thanks to the banking lobbies, the highest tax rate you can pay on profits from foreign currency trades is about 25% (60% of all profits are taxed as long-term capital gains, even if you made the profits in one day, while the remaining 40% is taxed at your normal income tax rate). Sweet.

I think that the video, from the US perspective, shows Iranian speed boats paralleling the ships, and that they were zigging and zagging in a way that would indicate to me a couple of options:

1: Having a bit-o'-fun
2: Gauging US Naval reactions to speed boats, and response times.
2a: Which would give them the sense of "how close can we get before they tear us apart?"
2b: Also, what can the American ships do, while sailing under full speed, when threatened?

We do this all the time, and so I would view this as a standard, "oh yeah, well, show us what you got, big boy!" type of meeting.

Gee .... for those of you who aren't old enough to remember ..... this whole bizarre incident is VERY reminiscent of the Gulf of Tonkin, The Turner and the Maddox Joy ...... where the powers that be manipulated us into an escalation of Viet Nam

Underlying the incident in the Strait of Hormuz, I can only ask what probable attitude would prevail among Americans if, say, some 'super-power' which had provoked a war, with maybe Mexico, by lying, was maintaining vast naval task forces in close proximity to the Texas Gulf coast and threatening to attack the U.S.?

While Freedom of the Seas is a well-known fixture of international relationships, the maintenance of huge aggressive naval forces on a nation's doorstep is, in itself, an act of war, or a prelude to a planned war.

How stupid are these idiots to actually release this video to the press.

Nobody seems to be mentioning the odd coincidence that speedboat tactics in the Gulf are how General Van Riper sank a substantial portion of the US Navy during the Millenium Challenge war game. (The Pentagon then rewrote the rules and reran the game so that Riper ould lose.)

I don't know how this fits into the puzzle, but it certainly seems like a piece that should fit somewhere....

Nobody seems to be mentioning the odd coincidence that speedboat tactics in the Gulf are how General Van Riper sank a substantial portion of the US Navy during the Millenium Challenge war game. (The Pentagon then rewrote the rules and reran the game so that Riper ould lose.)

Don't imagine loosing the 5th fleet was lost upon the commanders of these vessels, they have an allegiance to one another as crew, they would not go down without a fight, there was lessons learned!

The USN has an ethic all their own, if you provoke them, you'll feel their wrath, it was an unwise and unprofessional act by Iran.

I don't trust the administration and I would believe our sailors over the Iranians. With that said, I have to call some of you to task.

Those of you mentioning the Gulf of Tonkin do not know your history. The Gulf of Tonkin was not 1, but 2 events. The first incident is generally considered to have occured, but the second was the one that was definitely fabricated.

Shots were reportedly fired in the first Tonkin incident. No shots were fired in this incident. We had no evidence in the Tonkin incident except for a single bullet hole in an American destroyer. Here we actually have a video of the boats and once again for the record, **nobody fired on anybody**.

If we hear of another incident with scant information then by all means, start making the comparisons. Until then this actually points to a recent Iranian pattern of behavior. Remember the British sailors who were captured and held? How quickly we forget.

So quit making ignorant comparisons when the facts don't support your argument. It muddies the waters. Nothing happened here, the commanders of the ships did what they should've done and no resolutions have come up before Congress. Get a grip.

actually sounds like Governator Ahnold on the radio.

Supdog wrote on January 11, 2008 11:42 AM: How exactly did we get to where the US is less credible than Iran's Revolutionary Guard?

How exectly did we get to where this question is as likely to be taken at face value as it is to be presumed ironic?

Can you say "mobile weapons labs"?

What a sad state of affairs this has become, this once honorable republic of ours.

Inquiring Minds Want to Know:
How is it that this information was so promptly the subject of media attention if not by deliberate act of the administration?
Who was the "U.S. Official" the NYT attributes as the source tying the audio message to the video?
The voluminous identified sources quoted in the story for small parts while the main actor is anonymous. It seems unlikely to me that the admirals quoted would be willing to do so without administration guidance/approval.

Let's stop being children.

Cheney and Bush want to hit Iran and they're running out of time. This amateurish video has all the same earmarks of the forged "yellowcake" memo and yet Bush went ahead and mentioned it in the State of the Union after he was told it was a discredited forgery. Then they committed treason by exposing a covert CIA operative.

So you really think these scumbags are going to stop at releasing a fake video to ratchet up the sheeple to let them bomb Iran?

Dee Illuminati: To begin with you miss the point...The Soviets of a quarter-century ago had not invaded and laid waste to a neighbor of the U.S. The ascent of Fidel to the dictatorship of Cuba was a direct result of the Eisenhower foreign policy that refused overtures from the Cuban revolutionaries to establish a friendly relationship with the U.S/. ('Twas not the only time that John Foster Dulles screwed up, BTW.)

And, with all due respect for your opinions, please do NOT lecture me on the characteristics of U.S. Naval personnel, enlisted or commissioned officers...I spent just about five years in that worthy organization, including combat service in WW II and additional non-combat service during the Korean 'police action'.

The point is that the U.S., as part of an utterly failed Middle-East policy championed by the Douglas Feith's, the R. Perle's, the Paul Wolfowitz's (whose agenda put the interests of ANOTHER nation ahead of those of the U.S.) and by the insatiatable greed of the 'big-oil' crowd who, in 1999 and 2000 were Dick and W's biggest financial supporters (and still are), has maintained a provocative stance toward Iran and massed huge forces (naval) in their immediate proximity, hoping for an excuse to carry on the nit-wit ideas of those elements just mentioned.

Thanks for your lengthy, albeit un-necessary, explanation to me of how U.S. Naval personnel operate.

chucky: Yeah, it's obvious that Cats is behind this.

Do a search on Kevlar hulls, do a search on NAVNET and wireless integration, and then consider again why the USN minding itself on the street should allow a nasty ass whino with his hand in a brown paper bag to be greeted with anything else but a gun barrel spitting plutonium?

I'll trust the USN and go along with better safe than sorry.

You have no idea what the boutique boat industry is capable of.

A hailing is a greeting not an invitation to be approached and the creation of a frenetic scenario.

If you do come from a Navy background then you could understand how some would have an impulse to slap you to the dirt when you impugne Navy.

OMG!! Speed Boats!! And they probably had some kind of death ray on board!

Jeebus people are gullible.

As others have mentioned, our Naval Warfare engineers didn't forget about speed boats when designing our ships. :rolleyes:

They have a system called Phalanx CIWS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWSrotary

Which are rotary cannons with extremely high rates of fire, that are designed for point defense against aircraft, missiles, and high speed surface vehicles like speed boats. They would pulverize those boats, firing 3000 20mm rounds a second, in about 2 seconds.

The USS Cole was docked, and had it's guard down.

Having said that, is it possible that enough boats could kamikazi and potentially overwhelm the defenses of a US warship? Sure. But not likely, nor is it likely there would be much damage or high casualties, as unlike the USS Cole, sailors would be at station. And if it did happen once, it would be the last time speed boats get anywhere close to a warship. As it is, I suspect they'll fire warning shots sooner after this.

Chances are it was one of the thousands of hyper wealthy "princes" with his buddies, doing it for bragging rights.

"buckheaddad" and "gcs" have nailed it.Who the hell believes jack shit from "W" "or "Dick"?
They have no honor and dissemble nothing but self-serving drivel.
Yet another tsunami of blather to take the heat off a failed,criminal administration

what people are not thinking about is what would the US do if there were (nuclear capable?) ships of a hostile nation within 40 miles of the coast of the US? Oh, that's right... nearly start world war III, that's what.

I understand that the buffoon near the top of the Iranian regime is not so smart (battle of the idealogues, anyone?) On the whole, though, I think that we underestimate the Iranians' restraint.

The Illegality of our conduct in the whole situation is not even allowed to be talked about...

This FAR more LAME than the Gulf of Tonkin incident and by a wide margin.

The North Vietnamese craft were at least gunboats (or a PT type boat), actual military vessels.

All from memory, but, in the first encounter in the Tonkin Gulf, the report was that a gunship launched a torpedo, a subject of some dispute to this day.

Now we have speedboats and they may have dropped a white box in the water.

Our excuses for blowing stuff up keep getting chintzier.

This "incident" wasn't worth reporting to the American public. Which sure makes it look all the more suspicious.

Robby love is off base by arguing the details of tonkin - the comparison is very valid. LBJ said that we could have been shooting at whales for all he knew.

Point is: the details of WHETHER this confrontation happened or HOW it happened are insignificant (as they were in Tonkin) - keep your eyes on how the administration will use a largely fabricated incident to ratchet up a causi belli.

That is the valid comparison to Tonkin, not how it went down.

I loved how John Stewart and even the MSM brought up the Gulf of Tonkin in association with this. Now, can we talk 9/11?

I find it fascinating that this report came out right before the NH primary. Is it possible that wasn't just coincidental?

Here's the Iranian navy's video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GZCX5RliWI&feature=related

If the link doesn't work just do a search on YouTube.

As Iran has been claiming all week, there was nothing extraordinary. Iran wanted to ID the warships.

If 2 or 3 US warships started hanging around the perimeter of our Canadian waters, I'm sure we would send out patrols for info on identification, position and "what is the purpose of your visit."