SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
CNN reports that a U.S. Navy patrol craft fired warning shots at an Iranian vessel:
A US Navy patrol craft fired three warning shots at an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps boat Wednesday after US officials said it had harassed that patrol craft, CNN has learned. Another US patrol craft and a Kuwaiti Navy ship were also harassed in the incident, which took place in the northern end of the Persian Gulf.
At one point, the Iranian boat came within 200 yards of one of the US Navy boats. When it failed to leave the area after the Navy had fired flares and had a radio conversation with the Iranian crew, the US officials said, the USS Squall fired three warning shots. Following standard maritime procedures, the Navy fired the three shots into the water to ensure the Iranians understood they needed to leave the immediate area.
Also at Reuters.
The incident occurred a day after four Iranian vessels made a "high speed intercept" of a U.S. warship.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday August 26 2016, @04:58PM
So, the US navy is preventing those Evil Iranians from getting too close to San Diego, that's good ...
Where? Hormuz? Then why the fuck does a US navy ship think it's got the right to "patrol" and prevent the Iranians from coming near? They don't have maps on US ships anymore?
Even more seriously: Can the US Navy not help the Iranian hard-liners, who are as pissed at the nuclear deal as the Israeli and the Republicans, cause a naval incident to score points against their moderate(r) president? Pull the bloody US ships out a bit, the regional wars are not near Hormuz and we need the Iranians to focus on themselves a bit longer...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Friday August 26 2016, @05:32PM
So its the Iranian Persian Gulf then? Because the entrance is narrow? The Canadians own the great lakes for the same reason? The Straits of Hormuz is 21 miles wide. Gibralter is only 9. So who owns the Mediterraiian?
Pull the ships out a bit?? Cede an entire shipping route to a bunch of thugs just because its narrow?
Who is it that doesn't have a map?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday August 26 2016, @05:57PM
I wasn't aware that an international shipping corridor didn't exist unless there is an American Warship patrolling it, even in peace time, to keep away the thugs of the adjacent countries' navies.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ikanreed on Friday August 26 2016, @06:02PM
The US Navy has taken to enforcing water-way rights as a matter of course.
This is hardly the first time we've done things like this on behalf of other nations that have some disagreement with a nation we don't get along well with. For example, sailing carrier groups through a portion of the South China Sea that China declared theirs by fiat, simply because the Philippines would have had their ships sunk if they'd been the ones keeping the peace.
I don't like it, but that's Pax Americana for you.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by lgw on Friday August 26 2016, @06:09PM
I'm having trouble parsing your comment, but it is indeed the case that shipping in the region needs patrols from the US (or some other Western power) to keep shipping lanes open. From time to time there have even been "Persian gulf freighters" armed with CIWS of one sort or another, and it takes a lot for a shipping company to be willing to accept the responsibilities that go along with arming a ship, even defensively.
Iran is just showing the region how tough they are by shaking their fist at the US, as has become tradition. This sort of thing has very little to do with US actions: we're just a convenient foil for local politics.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday August 26 2016, @06:56PM
> it is indeed the case that shipping in the region needs patrols from the US (or some other Western power) to keep shipping lanes open.
Citation needed.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Osamabobama on Friday August 26 2016, @07:56PM
I'll bite. Normally citations are used to support statements of fact, and this is clearly the writer's judgment based on the conditions and actions that are typical of the region. As to those conditions, since the GP didn't spell it out for you, here is a sample story of Iranians boarding a cargo ship [theguardian.com].
Some of it is probably a policy holdover from the tanker wars [usni.org] in the 1980s, and the piracy off the coast of Somalia [wikipedia.org] in recent years, but protecting shipping has long been needed.
Maybe, though, you have a quibble with the word "needs." That's a clear judgment call, but there is a long history of things going badly when there is no protection.
Perhaps you don't think the need has to be provided by "the US (or some other Western power)." That's a valid point, but when we look at capability and interest, there aren't a lot of other options.
I hope I have addressed your concerns.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday August 26 2016, @08:40PM
> here is a sample story of Iranians boarding a cargo ship.
Which turns out to be a seizure based on an unpaid judgement.
Iran said the ship was detained because of a legal dispute between the Danish company chartering it, Maersk, and a private Iranian firm.
Maersk says the dispute dates backs to 2005, when it delivered 10 containers to Dubai for Pars Oil Products. The containers were not collected and the cargo was disposed of after 90 days by the UAE authorities, it asserts.
The Iranian company subsequently accused Maersk of default and claimed $4m (£2.6m) as the value of the cargo. Maersk said it challenged the suit successfully and in 2007 the case was dismissed.
However, an appeals court ordered it to pay $163,000 (£107,400) in February.
Iran's Ports and Shipping Organisation said permission for the release of the ship was given on Thursday after Maersk "ensured the provision of a letter of guarantee for the enforcement of the judicial decision".
A Maersk statement said the release followed "a constructive dialogue with the Iranian authorities, including the Ports and Maritime Organization, and the provision of a letter of undertaking in relation to the underlying cargo case".
The gulf war is pretty far in the past, and Iran threatening to close the strait (a lot less often than their foes threaten to bomb them) is a lot less credible when they can again export their oil, which also has to go through.
> there is a long history of things going badly when there is no protection.
Well, apparently the Iranians are keeping a close eye on anything that floats nearby, so the shipping lanes are pretty safe from piracy.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @08:20PM
I don't like it, but that's Pax Americana for you.
The USA supplies oil, matches, training to people who might start fires and pretends to be the hero when the fire starts and they "fight" it.
The US funded the Syrian opposition and supplied arms (and thus setting the stage for the Syrian Civil War and the rise of the radical Islamists).
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-syria-wikileaks-idUSTRE73H0E720110418 [reuters.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all [nytimes.com]
The resulting mess and the growth of the ISIS was what they wanted:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/newly-declassified-u-s-government-documents-the-west-supported-the-creation-of-isis.html [washingtonsblog.com]
there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime
Some may not like the truth but that's the real Pax Americana for you. The track record of the USA hasn't been that great: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 27 2016, @11:33AM
Divide and Rule.