Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
GUNBOATS IN THE GULF.
As has beenreported in a lot of places, a group of Iranian boats buzzed a trio of USN vessels in the Gulf this morning. It's unclear whether the Iranian ships were gunboats or simply fast boats with small arms, but the USN vessels included a cruiser, a destroyer, and a frigate. Apparently, no shots were fired by either side. Had it come to fisticuffs, the USN ships would almost certainly have destroyed the Iranians without loss in a matter of minutes.
Right Blogistan is predictably incensed. Captain Ed calls it a "dry run" for a replay of the Cole Incident, asks breathlessly "How close were we to war?", and demands the any future encounters end in the destruction of the Iranian ships. Malkin more or less echoes these sentiments. All of this, of course, is utterly silly. U.S. superiority, both tactically and strategically, is presumptive. Were the Iranians indeed to launch a Cole-style attack (seems unlikely to me, but there are undoubtedly some crazy folks in the Revolutionary Guard), the rest of the Iranian Navy would have a lifespan of several hours before facing destruction from USN missiles and aircraft. Indeed, this would be a perfectly appropriate response to an Iranian attack, and I'll call for it myself if such a thing ever happens. But it hardly makes sense to court war by shooting first.
Some of those calling for an aggressive response now believed that 15 young British sailors and marines ought to have died for the honor of their country when they were kidnapped several months ago. It's always easier to call for someone else to lay down his or her life for national honor. In the world of grown-ups, cooler heads appear to be prevailing. It's also wrong to assume that the behavior of a group of Iranian boats is indicative of a particular policy decision of the Iranian state, rather than of the Revolutionary Guard or the Iranian tactical commander, although it certainly does indicate that elements within the Iranian state seek confrontation, and that those elements aren't fully reined in by more moderate forces.
--Robert Farley
COMMENTS (6)
I am rather skeptical that the events happened the way the Pentagon claims.
Posted by: todd | January 7, 2008 7:51 PM
"Were the Iranians indeed to launch a Cole-style attack (seems unlikely to me, but there are undoubtedly some crazy folks in the Revolutionary Guard), the rest of the Iranian Navy would have a lifespan of several hours before facing destruction from USN missiles and aircraft. Indeed, this would be a perfectly appropriate response to an Iranian attack, and I'll call for it myself if such a thing ever happens."
So if the administration announced that an Iranian ship had fired on a U.S. Navy vessel, you would support the destruction of the entire Iranian navy?
Posted by: Michael S. | January 7, 2008 9:28 PM
The British weren't "kidnapped". They entered what the Iranians consider Iranian territorial waters, and were captured.
Likewise, it appears that the Bush administration is trying to create an incident by having US ships patrol in seas claimed by the Iranians.
Of course, if shots are fired I would expect a counter-attack. But don't fall for the Bush administration's repeated attempts to create a Gulf of Tonkin incident.
Posted by: Joe Buck | January 7, 2008 11:25 PM
Farley, how did you get through that whole post without typing the words "Gulf of Tonkin incident"?
Posted by: CJR | January 7, 2008 11:44 PM
I would love to see a comparison of the construction and maintenance costs of the three US Navy ships against that of the fearsome fleet of speedboats that is apparently a legitimate threat to destroy them.
Posted by: Midwest Product | January 8, 2008 9:41 AM
I have a hard time believing this administration's side of this without seeing video of the incident or getting Iranian confirmation.
Posted by: Ron | January 8, 2008 10:57 AM