Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday August 26 2016, @04:16PM   Printer-friendly
from the Boaty-McBoatInYourFace dept.

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.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 26 2016, @04:41PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 26 2016, @04:41PM (#393557) Journal

    Warning shots? FFS - if you didn't have to kill anyone, then it wasn't even an incident.

    Back in the day of wooden ships, and iron men, people EXPECTED you to fire warning shots now and then. We fired a few warning shots at Colonel Khadafy, and accidentally killed one of his daughters.* THOSE became reportable incidents.

    * Or, did we kill one of his daughters?

    http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2088074,00.html [time.com]

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday August 26 2016, @04:58PM

    by bob_super (1357) on Friday August 26 2016, @04:58PM (#393566)

    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

      by frojack (1554) on Friday August 26 2016, @05:32PM (#393590) Journal

      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

        by bob_super (1357) on Friday August 26 2016, @05:57PM (#393603)

        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

          by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 26 2016, @06:02PM (#393604) Journal

          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

            by lgw (2836) on Friday August 26 2016, @06:09PM (#393606)

            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

              by bob_super (1357) on Friday August 26 2016, @06:56PM (#393634)

              > 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

                by Osamabobama (5842) on Friday August 26 2016, @07:56PM (#393656)

                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

                  by bob_super (1357) on Friday August 26 2016, @08:40PM (#393671)

                  > 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

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @08:20PM (#393663)

            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

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 27 2016, @11:33AM (#393909)

              Divide and Rule.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Spook brat on Friday August 26 2016, @05:05PM

    by Spook brat (775) on Friday August 26 2016, @05:05PM (#393570) Journal

    Seems like the Iranians haven't figured out that teasing a warship is a good way to get yourself dead. There is little difference between a "high speed intercept" and a ramming run; there's a reason that warships insist on maintaining a clear perimeter around them, namely, that if/when it's time to go to war the friendly sailors don't find out by being torpedoed by a kamikaze boat.

    There's two main things I take from this article:
    1) the U.S. Navy is doing a great job training its sailors on not rising to the bait when harassed. A more hot-headed skipper might have authorized a kill, a less skilled gunner might have sunk the Iranians with the "warning shot".

    2) the Iranians have some agenda here, not clear what exactly. Maybe they think that "standing up to the Yanks" will win them some standing among their neighbors, who knows. Maybe they are actually trying to justify starting a war with the U.S., and hoping to provoke the U.S. Navy into giving them an excuse. Wars have certainly been started over less.

    Regardless of their motive, this article is definitely news, and I'll be watching whether this escalates or de-escalates over the coming weeks. I'm not looking forward to the U.S. going to war with yet another country in the middle east, and that's exactly what the Iranian boats are risking by pulling stunts like this.

    --
    Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
    • (Score: 3, Funny) by bob_super on Friday August 26 2016, @05:13PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Friday August 26 2016, @05:13PM (#393577)

      I love the contrast between your comment and mine...

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Spook brat on Friday August 26 2016, @09:52PM

        by Spook brat (775) on Friday August 26 2016, @09:52PM (#393701) Journal

        I'm encouraged by the comparisons that can be drawn. We each in our own way are saying we're suspicious of the Iranian motives, and that we need to be VERY careful to not get drawn into yet another war.

        The comparison, in my mind, is that you're asking whether the President and Joint Chiefs are doing the right thing by sending the Navy there there at all; I'm asking whether the sailors on site are making the right choices once ordered to be there.

        Both questions need to be asked, and seriously considered for National Defense to be done right. And if the National Command Authority makes the right decisions, there's fewer times when a sailor can start a war by making the wrong decision. Keep questioning stuff like this, it keeps our Republic healthy!

        The soldier above all others prays for peace, for it is the soldier who must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war.

        Douglas MacArthur

        --
        Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Joe Desertrat on Friday August 26 2016, @10:07PM

          by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Friday August 26 2016, @10:07PM (#393706)

          The Iranians have absolutely no interest in drawing the US into a real war with them. Regardless of how costly and unpopular such a thing might be to the US, it would be suicide for the Iranian government. I'm sure any confrontations are for "cold war" propaganda purposes. They can use our response as an example of how the US threatens them and that Iranians should continue to support the current regime.

    • (Score: 2) by gnampff on Friday August 26 2016, @05:28PM

      by gnampff (5658) on Friday August 26 2016, @05:28PM (#393586)

      So would the US agree with Iran patrolling the Caribbean sea with warships? Because that is the rough equivalent of the shit going on down there.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by frojack on Friday August 26 2016, @05:55PM

        by frojack (1554) on Friday August 26 2016, @05:55PM (#393601) Journal

        Yup. The US would agree. So would the UN.

        Law of the sea.
        Rights of innocent passage.
        Freedom of navigation

        All these new things you've never heard of before, which have been around for hundreds of years.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @06:44PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @06:44PM (#393631)

          And so would almost all the countries of the world who have sailing ships. You've got to be a pretty big dumbass to not know that laws governing the seas have been around as long as their have been floating trade vessels and navies.

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by fritsd on Friday August 26 2016, @09:46PM

            by fritsd (4586) on Friday August 26 2016, @09:46PM (#393698) Journal

            Actually, the idea of "the ocean is for everyone" was worked out in detail about 400 years ago by Hugo de Groot [wikipedia.org] (a lawyer; but, a good one apparently).

            The book's called Mare Liberum [wikipedia.org] and caused quite a stir with its invention of international law.

            The reason why it was published, and he wasn't just burned at the stake with all the existing exemplars as kindling, is that it was to the benefit of the Dutch republic government of the time.

            So that's why the seas are currently free.

            What I learned about it from primary school history class: he escaped from prison inside a box of books, and he was a filthy protestant.
            (So much for primary school history classes)

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by gnampff on Friday August 26 2016, @07:53PM

          by gnampff (5658) on Friday August 26 2016, @07:53PM (#393654)

          I know that they should be fine with Iranian ships patrolling the US coast. I just doubt that they would be as cool about it as they would have to be if that ever actually happened.
          The US like to raise their finger from time to time and talk about what is right and good but when it comes to actually signing all the conventions the UN produced to codify the Right Thing(tm) they backpedal.
          I do not see why I am supposed to put my trust into a nation that refuses to sign a few pieces of paper saying that they will adhere to minimum standards about human rights.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 27 2016, @01:10AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 27 2016, @01:10AM (#393797)

          The US doesn't really agree with the Laws of the Sea. Or they would have signed the treaty of said name...

          The Iranians are simply upholding their rights of navigation. They don't want the Americans to think they can get away with blockading their country, who knows when we may try to overthrow their government again?

      • (Score: 2) by tibman on Friday August 26 2016, @07:50PM

        by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 26 2016, @07:50PM (#393651)

        As a kid i did a caribbean cruise (senior trip). Our port of call had several non-US "warships" posted there. Dashed all my hopes of being a pirate. Those guns were serious.

        --
        SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
  • (Score: 2) by Subsentient on Friday August 26 2016, @05:35PM

    by Subsentient (1111) on Friday August 26 2016, @05:35PM (#393592) Homepage Journal

    Because cnn.com is down at the moment. Just a white page. Great.

    --
    "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @05:42PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @05:42PM (#393596)
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by edIII on Friday August 26 2016, @06:46PM

      by edIII (791) on Friday August 26 2016, @06:46PM (#393632)

      I don't think you can make that statement about Jill Stein.

      “Hi I’m Jill Stein. I want to say a few words about why we must not go to war with Iran. We must use diplomacy to deal with the possibility of Iran being a future nuclear threat in the region.

      But we must also use diplomacy to deal with nuclear threats that already exist right now in the region, and around the world – because there’s no such thing as a survivable or a local nuclear war.

      That’s why we need to push for a nuclear-free Middle East and a nuclear-free world.

      And I also want to point out that the potential for war with Iran is just one flashpoint in a foreign policy landscape created by Republicans AND Democrats, which has been an overwhelming disaster.

      For decades now, our military interventions have cost countless lives, displaced millions, and provided powerful recruiting material for violent extremists.

      When it comes to conflicts in the Middle East, U.S. foreign policy is too often a major part of the problem, and not the solution.

      If I run for president, it will be to give voice to a very different foreign policy: one based on diplomacy, international law, and human rights.

      So If you want a foreign policy that creates allies not enemies; if you want to redirect trillions of dollars being wasted on immoral wars and occupations which make us less secure, not more secure; if you want to put our tax dollars towards critical, unmet needs here at home; and if you want a voice for a just and effective foreign policy in the 2016 Presidential election instead of war with Iran then sign up by clicking the link below.”

      Diplomacy, international law, and human rights is hardly singing love songs to hostile foreign countries. Diplomacy doesn't imply that, nor does international law, and only human rights *might* be interpreted that way. The latter could just as easily be interpreted as "sanctions until you stop abusing your own people".

      Sorry, I didn't read a love note there, and she is committed to a nuclear free Middle East. Hardly sounds like a push-over.

      --
      Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @07:10PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @07:10PM (#393637)

        In other words, "false equivalency is false." News at 11.

      • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Friday August 26 2016, @10:14PM

        by fritsd (4586) on Friday August 26 2016, @10:14PM (#393708) Journal

        Women in politics, eh!

        Let's all give a small cheer to:

        and of course their counterparts in the Iranian government, dr. Mohammad Javad Zarif [wikipedia.org] and his negotiators.

        http://www.politico.eu/article/the-women-behind-the-nuclear-deal/ [politico.eu]

        Years of serious negotiations >> dicking around with armed boats in each others vicinity

      • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday August 26 2016, @11:12PM

        by butthurt (6141) on Friday August 26 2016, @11:12PM (#393731) Journal

        I don't see a huge gulf between "a foreign policy that creates allies not enemies" and "we should make love not war to Iran and they could be our friends." The latter has a pejorative tone but they're not 29 miles apart.

        • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday August 26 2016, @11:28PM

          by edIII (791) on Friday August 26 2016, @11:28PM (#393742)

          Yeah, I don't see creating allies as synonymous with making sweet love to them :)

          The statement implies to me that it would be better to create mutually beneficially relationships than it is to make enemies. Common sense to me.

          --
          Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 26 2016, @10:24PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 26 2016, @10:24PM (#393713) Journal
      We don't have enough reminders that there are stupid people on the internet. I too yearn to vote for the perfect US president and my sole criteria will be how well their immense unicorn herds tame the Iranians.
      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Saturday August 27 2016, @12:01AM

        by bob_super (1357) on Saturday August 27 2016, @12:01AM (#393761)

        Good trick to infiltrate: the Iranians always welcome unicorn herds, because of the cost-cutting that results on virginity tests.
        We need to ask our best friends across the gulf if they still have a few spare ones, or if they all got stoned after having contact with impure women rounded up by the morality police.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 27 2016, @11:37AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 27 2016, @11:37AM (#393912)

          You against men marrying cute female children, faggot?

          Old Testament allows it too.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @06:10PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @06:10PM (#393607)

    geez, i totaly agree with the munitioned navy boat.
    this northern end of the Persian Gulf walmart parkign space totaly belongs to me.
    i have been waiting for days to get a parking space "5000 miles from home". no way i'm going to allow you cheap shot ballon-blow-up pick-up-like-truck dingy to snatch it from me!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @06:30PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @06:30PM (#393622)

      Your posts shows us just how ignorant of international maritime laws you are.
      Bravo, bravo.

      And FYI, don't charge a warship, a tank, or a police officer without expecting a tragic end. But hey, you'll at least win a Darwin award.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @07:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @07:54PM (#393655)
      It's more like me planting a sentry gun 5000 miles away from my house but across the street from your house, and if your stupid kids get too close to it, it's their fault for dying. After all the sentry gun is to protect "everyone"'s interests.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 27 2016, @07:09AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 27 2016, @07:09AM (#393874)
        And everyone knows they should not come within 200 yards of a sentry gun and definitely not charge at it. They are the bad guys for trying to threaten our brave and precious sentry guns. Which are courageously taking risks to defend us 5000 miles away.