Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Iran: Bush's Tonkin Gulf Tale Unravels

By Gareth Porter, IPS News. Posted January 11, 2008.


Evidence contradicts U.S. hawks' claim that Iranian patrol boats threatened U.S. ships, but the media keep reporting it as fact.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Gareth Porter

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Despite the official and media portrayal of the incident in the Strait of Hormuz early Monday morning as a serious threat to U.S. ships from Iranian speedboats that nearly resulted in a "battle at sea," new information over the past three days suggests that the incident did not involve such a threat and that no U.S. commander was on the verge of firing at the Iranian boats.

The new information that appears to contradict the original version of the incident includes the revelation that U.S. officials spliced the audio recording of an alleged Iranian threat onto to a videotape of the incident. That suggests that the threatening message may not have come in immediately after the initial warning to Iranian boats from a U.S. warship, as appears to do on the video.

Also unraveling the story is testimony from a former U.S. naval officer that non-official chatter is common on the channel used to communicate with the Iranian boats and testimony from the commander of the U.S. 5th fleet that the commanding officers of the U.S. warships involved in the incident never felt the need to warn the Iranians of a possible use of force against them.

Further undermining the U.S. version of the incident is a video released by Iran Thursday showing an Iranian naval officer on a small boat hailing one of three ships.

The Iranian commander is heard to say, "Coalition warship 73, this is Iranian navy patrol boat." He then requests the "side numbers" of the U.S. warships. A voice with a U.S. accent replies, "This is coalition warship 73. I am operating in international waters."

The dramatic version of the incident reported by U.S. news media throughout Tuesday and Wednesday suggested that Iranian speedboats, apparently belonging to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard navy, had made moves to attack three U.S. warships entering the Strait and that the U.S. commander had been on the verge of firing at them when they broke off.

Typical of the network coverage was a story by ABC's Jonathan Karl quoting a Pentagon official as saying the Iranian boats "were a heartbeat from being blown up."

Bush administration officials seized on the incident to advance the portrayal of Iran as a threat and to strike a more threatening stance toward Iran. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley declared Wednesday that the incident "almost involved an exchange of fire between our forces and Iranian forces". President George W. Bush declared during his Mideast trip Wednesday that there would be "serious consequences" if Iran attacked U.S. ships and repeated his assertion that Iran is "a threat to world peace."

Central to the depiction of the incident as involving a threat to U.S. warships is a mysterious pair of messages that the sailor who heard them onboard immediately interpreted as saying, "I am coming at you…", and "You will explode after a few minutes." But the voice in the audio clearly said "I am coming to you," and the second message was much less clear.

Furthermore, as the New York Times noted Thursday, the recording carries no ambient noise, such as the sounds of a motor, the sea or wind, which should have been audible if the broadcast had been made from one of the five small Iranian boats.

A veteran U.S. naval officer who had served as a surface warfare officer aboard a U.S. Navy destroyer in the Gulf sent a message to the New York Times on-line column "The Lede" Wednesday pointing out that in the Persian Gulf, the "bridge-to-bridge" radio channel used to communicate between ships "is like a bad CB radio" with many people using it for "hurling racial slurs" and "threats." The former officer wrote that his "first thought" was that the message "might not have even come from one of the Iranian craft."

Pentagon officials admitted to the Times that they could not rule out that the broadcast might have come from another source

The five Iran boats involved were hardly in a position to harm the three U.S. warships. Although Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman described the Iranian boats as "highly maneuverable patrol craft" that were "visibly armed," he failed to note that these are tiny boats carrying only a two- or three-man crew and that they are normally armed only with machine guns that could do only surface damage to a U.S. ship.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iran, bush, insanity

*Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in June 2005.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Welcome to propaganda media
Posted by: Lilah on Jan 11, 2008 5:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Welcome to the new Soviet USA....

SO where will we turn for news we can actually trust?
Thank goodness for the internet.
Let's hope that stays free for a while longer yet....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Things Heating Up
Posted by: QQOblivion on Jan 11, 2008 8:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How much you want to bet that the "provocation" will still be used as a reason to increase the rhetoric (and possibly much more) against Iran by the Bush Admn, despite that we SHOULD all know by now that this seems to be a Gulf-Of-Tonkin-like hoax? Just like how the latest NIE is being spun to suggest that Iran IS a threat, so too will this incident to even more of an extent than it has been already, I know.
(It isn't like the Bush Admn has ever LIED before in order to start a war, or anything! Geesh!)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

By The Way, In The News -- There Was NO Gulf Of Tonkin Incident
Posted by: QQOblivion on Jan 11, 2008 8:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I will repost this comment of mine here:
You all may know this already, but there was NO attack in the Gulf Of Tonkin in 1964, admits the NSA. According to which news sites you read, either the NSA has admitted that either that the intelligence was wrong, or it has turned out that the attack was outright faked.
Sound familiar? (It does, and in so many ways!)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Orchestrations
Posted by: Doubtom on Jan 11, 2008 10:51 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Orchestrated provocations are so difficult when the whole world is watching you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Orchestrations Posted by: Ian MacLeod
Ex-Navy
Posted by: Mishma on Jan 11, 2008 11:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comparisons are being made to the suicide bombing of the USS Cole so their are legitimate reasons for concern, however this
incidence is being blown completely out of proportion for a variety of reasons including;

1) The straits are only 33 miles wide and "normal" international waters are 200 nautical miles from the coast line. The same "waters" that the US ships are operating in are also open to anyone.
2) Suicide bombers don't wear life vests-why would they?
3) As far as I can tell the "Iranian" ships were not flagged nor did I see any identifying numbers or letters on the hulls making identification iffy.
4) Special interests within the US want a war with Iran (as well as special interests with Israel)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: x-Navy Posted by: mainspark
» RE: x-Navy Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: x-Navy Posted by: vssmith
Liberal Media?
Posted by: Sissy on Jan 11, 2008 11:12 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hmmmm, where is the Liberal Press? I'll tell you, there isn't any.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Liberal Media? Posted by: babs
» RE: Liberal Media? Posted by: adp3d
hadashito
Posted by: hadashito on Jan 11, 2008 11:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All we ever get since G W Bush took office in 2000 is a steady stream of lies and outright fabrications from the White House, the Pentagon , the CIA, the Justice Department, the EPA, etc., etc., and most definitely, all branches of the U S Military. We must expect that this situation will continue for the remaining year that the Bush administration occupies its catbird seat in Washington. This
administration, with the connivance of the Republican members of the Houses of Congress, has corrupted our government through and through.
The lies by the U S military about the Iranian speed boat
"attacks" are only the very latest of that continuous feed of garbage from this administration. I am, in fact, now more ready to believe that those speed boats we have seen in videos of the incident are really American military or paramilitary speed boats, not Iranians at all, and that this whole pile of garbage is yet another ruse arranged by Dick Cheney, et. al., to frighten the public about Iran in order to foment further fear of Iran.
It is doubtful that the U S government has ever been so thoroughly corrupted as by this criminal administration in Washingtobn. Dick Cheney, his incompetent and intelligence challenged president should be serving long sentences in federal prison, and the lying and plotting military chiefs in the Pentagon and in the field should be serving equally long sentences in the military brig. But we know that won't happen so the only recourse we have is to vote this administration out of office and spend the next five decades hopefuly
cleaning the fiilth outr of our government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Whose head?
Posted by: Sissy on Jan 11, 2008 12:06 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Missed my little point here Babs, IF the so-called Liberal Media was truly "out there", they would be on this story like a fly on cow dung.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Whose head?
Posted by: Sissy on Jan 11, 2008 12:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Missed my little point here Babs, IF the so-called Liberal Media was truly "out there", they would be on this story like a fly on cow dung.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You will explode in a few minutes...
Posted by: Beagle17 on Jan 11, 2008 12:56 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am coming at you.
You will explode in a few minutes.

This sounds suspiciously like the text of the Anthrax letters in my opinion.

The second note that was addressed to Senators Daschle and Leahy read:

09-11-01
YOU CAN NOT STOP US.
WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX.
YOU DIE NOW.
ARE YOU AFRAID?
DEATH TO AMERICA.
DEATH TO ISRAEL.
ALLAH IS GREAT

Here is a good recent story on this HUGE smoking .911 gun.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

High Stakes Game Of Tag
Posted by: penobscotdziekuje@yahoo.com on Jan 11, 2008 2:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This was one example of the news media not checking its facts. There was no way those little boats could take on a warship. Do we honestly believe Iran would make such a colossal blunder? That would validate the Bushies to attack. It's almost like the children's game of tag. If Iran were to attack, those boats would have been sent down in seconds.
And thank goodness for someone to say the news was a ruse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Golly
Posted by: walldodger1969 on Jan 11, 2008 2:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hate to bring this up ..But Hitler used his own troops dressed like Polish troops to invade Poland. The people in the white house are FUCKIN CrAZY to try to start another war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Et tu, Congress?
Posted by: warrior woman on Jan 11, 2008 3:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And Congress will do what? I won't even bother to answer this question myself, we all know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hackbut
Posted by: hackbut on Jan 11, 2008 3:36 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Typical left wing disinformation. The writer's comments about a lack of or light armament displays an abysmal ignorance of the Iranian Navy's plan in case of conflict to attack expensive U.S. ships with cheap, fast speedboats packed with explosives, a la the USS Cole, and in line with the 9/11 attack in which the multiple of the resources expended vs. those of the enemy destroyed was, in the Moslem view, magnificent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: hackbut Posted by: hackbut
Someone Please Explain to Me.....
Posted by: Turiye on Jan 11, 2008 11:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How little toy boats this big ** were provoking three US Naval Warships this humongous >>>>>>>>>>>))))))))))))))>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>)))))))))))))))>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>))))))))))))>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



That Kooky Revolutionary Guard out trying to provoke WWIII with the lil ol' USA, woe is me, sigh....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hackbut Posted by: hackbut
i suppose with the election less than a year away
Posted by: nebgirl on Jan 12, 2008 7:11 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we will be subjected to more and more of these "incidents" to scare us into voting for the republican candidates

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

kymarcos
Posted by: kymarcos on Jan 12, 2008 8:15 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
not all the writers are on strike - looks like the team that gave us the Jessica Lynch rambo fantasy are still on the job

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: kymarcos Posted by: VZEQICVA
No one ever loses in America by lying about Iran
Posted by: wbeeman on Jan 12, 2008 11:13 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sadly, neither politicians nor the press ever are called to task when they denigrate and lie about Iran. Once again Gareth Porter upholds the truth, but it is like crying in the wind. I hope this story will be circulated widely. It is the only way to counter the falsehoods being spread to gin up another violent war in the Middle East.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another Fine Mess
Posted by: carbon-based on Jan 13, 2008 6:14 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article misses quite a bit of reality.

First concerning doctoring the video. If the video was in fact doctored, and known by Bush and Co. that is an immediate impeachable offense. Something even he has to realize. I doubt that such doctoring was done with Bush's knowledge or was done at all. The messages or threats of destruction could have come from the boats or shore installations but it is clear that it was sent in conjunction with the harassing boats and was related.

(But if Johnson could con this country into Vietnam and Bush did it once, who knows, maybe he’d do it twice. )

Second, when one considers the USS Cole (damage inflicted by a small harmless looking boat, or the UK incident where an investigating party was taken hostage by Iran in international waters, one has to approach Iranian actions with extreme caution.

One also needs to look deeper into Iranian naval tactics. They are a small coastal navy, unable to challenge a "Blue Water" navy in the traditional sense. So their tactics are centered around their geography, long rugged coast line, tight passages etc. (Straight of Hormuz). They practice on a regular basis swarm tactics, large number of small boats attacking from different directions causing confusion and trying to distract or draw attention. This could be done in conjunction with shore based missile attacks or from subs which Iran claims they have operated very close to US formations. So considering this you know those commanders were taking this VERY seriously instead of a casual affair the article suggests.


Considering the war like threats coming from Iran on an almost daily basis, I’d believe our country long before Iran.

As for Bush, this is another fine mess you got us into.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Another Fine Mess Posted by: yellows
One oar in the water
Posted by: frank69 on Jan 18, 2008 7:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone who believes the Iranians have a death wish and will attack the US is attempting to row with one oar.
Some of us are old enough to remember Vietnam very well. An earlier fiasco.
The more things change, the more they remain the same.

"Those who do not learn from the past, are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana, in 1905.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]