Author Topic: Iranian Naval 'Incident' - fabricated for GWB  (Read 2251 times)

Offline Dos Equis

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 365
Iranian Naval 'Incident' - fabricated for GWB
« on: January 17, 2008, 02:28:22 PM »
How the Pentagon planted a false story
By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - Senior Pentagon officials, evidently reflecting a broader administration policy decision, used an off-the-record Pentagon briefing to turn the January 6 US-Iranian incident in the Strait of Hormuz into a sensational story demonstrating Iran's military aggressiveness, a reconstruction of the events following the incident shows.

The initial press stories on the incident, all of which can be traced to a briefing by deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs in charge of media operations, Bryan Whitman, contained similar information that has since been repudiated by the navy itself.

Then the navy disseminated a short video into which was spliced the audio of a phone call warning that US warships would "explode" in "a few seconds". Although it was ostensibly a navy production, Inter Press Service (IPS) has learned that the ultimate decision on its content was made by top officials of the Defense Department.

The encounter between five small and apparently unarmed speedboats, each carrying a crew of two to four men, and the three US warships occurred very early on Saturday January 6, Washington time. No information was released to the public about the incident for more than 24 hours, indicating that it was not viewed initially as being very urgent.

The reason for that absence of public information on the incident for more than a full day is that it was not that different from many others in the Gulf over more than a decade. A Pentagon consultant who asked not to be identified told IPS he had spoken with officers who had experienced similar encounters with small Iranian boats throughout the 1990s, and that such incidents are "just not a major threat to the US Navy by any stretch of the imagination".

Just two weeks earlier, on December 19, the USS Whidbey Island, an amphibious warship, had fired warning shots after a small Iranian boat allegedly approached it at high speed. That incident had gone without public notice.

With the reports from Fifth Fleet commander Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff in hand early that morning, top Pentagon officials had all day Sunday, January 6, to discuss what to do about the encounter in the Strait of Hormuz. The result was a decision to play it up as a major incident.

The decision came just as President George W Bush was about to leave on a Middle East trip aimed in part at rallying Arab states to join the United States in an anti-Iran coalition.

That decision in Washington was followed by a news release by the commander of the Fifth Fleet on the incident at about 4am Washington time on January 7. It was the first time the Fifth Fleet had issued a news release on an incident with small Iranian boats.

The release reported that the Iranian "small boats" had "maneuvered aggressively in close proximity of [sic] the Hopper [the lead ship of the three-ship convoy]." But it did not suggest that the Iranian boats had threatened the boats or that it had nearly resulted in firing on the Iranian boats.

On the contrary, the release made the US warships handling of the incident sound almost routine. "Following standard procedures," the release said, "Hopper issued warnings, attempted to establish communications with the small boats and conducted evasive maneuvering."

The release did not refer to a US ship being close to firing on the Iranian boats, or to a call threatening that US ships would "explode in a few minutes", as later stories would report, or to the dropping of objects into the path of a US ship as a potential danger.

That press release was ignored by the news media, however, because later that Monday morning, the Pentagon provided correspondents with a very different account of the episode.

At 9am, Barbara Starr of CNN reported that "military officials" had told her that the Iranian boats had not only carried out "threatening maneuvers", but had transmitted a message by radio that "I am coming at you" and "you will explode". She reported the dramatic news that the commander of one boat was "in the process of giving the order to shoot when they moved away".

CBS News broadcast a similar story, adding the detail that the Iranian boats "dropped boxes that could have been filled with explosives into the water". Other news outlets carried almost identical accounts of the incident.

The source of this spate of stories can now be identified as Bryan Whitman, the top Pentagon official in charge of media relations, who gave a press briefing for Pentagon correspondents that morning. Although Whitman did offer a few remarks on the record, most of the Whitman briefing was off the record, meaning that he could not be cited as the source.

In an apparent slip-up, however, an Associated Press story that morning cited Whitman as the source for the statement that US ships were about to fire when the Iranian boats turned and moved away - a part of the story that other correspondents had attributed to an unnamed Pentagon official.

On January 9, the US Navy released excerpts of a video of the incident in which a strange voice - one that was clearly very different from the voice of the Iranian officer who calls the US ship in the Iranian video - appears to threaten the US warships.

A separate audio recording of that voice, which came across the VHS channel open to anyone with access to it, was spliced into a video on which the voice apparently could not be heard. That was a political decision, and Lieutenant Colonel Mark Ballesteros of the Pentagon's Public Affairs Office told IPS the decision on what to include in the video was "a collaborative effort of leadership here, the Central Command and navy leadership in the field".

"Leadership here", of course, refers to the secretary of defense and other top policymakers at the department. An official in the US Navy Office of Information in Washington, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue, said that decision was made in the office of the secretary of defense.

That decision involved a high risk of getting caught in an obvious attempt to mislead. As an official at Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain told IPS, it is common knowledge among officers there that hecklers - often referred to as "Filipino Monkey" - frequently intervene on the VHF ship-to-ship channel to make threats or rude comments.

One of the popular threats made by such hecklers, according to British journalist Lewis Page, who had transited the strait with the Royal Navy is, "Look out, I am going to hit [collide with] you."

By January 11, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell was already disavowing the story that Whitman had been instrumental in creating only four days earlier. "No one in the military has said that the transmission emanated from those boats," said Morrell.

The other elements of the story given to Pentagon correspondents were also discredited. The commanding officer of the guided missile cruiser Port Royal, Captain David Adler, dismissed the Pentagon's story that he had felt threatened by the dropping of white boxes in the water. Meeting with reporters on Monday, Adler said, "I saw them float by. They didn't look threatening to me."

The naval commanders seemed most determined, however, to scotch the idea that they had been close to firing on the Iranians. Cosgriff, the commander of the Fifth Fleet, denied the story in a press briefing on January 7. A week later, Commander Jeffery James, commander of the destroyer Hopper, told reporters that the Iranians had moved away "before we got to the point where we needed to open fire".

The decision to treat the January 6 incident as evidence of an Iranian threat reveals a chasm between the interests of political officials in Washington and navy officials in the Gulf. Asked whether the navy's reporting of the episode was distorted by Pentagon officials, Lydia Robertson of Fifth Fleet Public Affairs would not comment directly. But she said, "There is a different perspective over there."

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.

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Iranian Naval 'Incident' - fabricated for GWB
« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2008, 03:09:00 PM »
What a surprise.
sand

Offline Nilsen

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18108
Iranian Naval 'Incident' - fabricated for GWB
« Reply #2 on: January 17, 2008, 03:29:24 PM »
Howdy Sandy!

Long time no see :)

Offline lutrel

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 441
Iranian Naval 'Incident' - fabricated for GWB
« Reply #3 on: January 17, 2008, 03:32:56 PM »
As a retired 24 year military veteran, I find it sad when anyone bends the truth around to make a political stand.  

Gareth Porter's story is BS and stinks of political bias. The event happened as reported by the Navy and the bastages were a few seconds from meeting Ala and the 27 hookers or what ever they are blowing themselves up for.  The media quite possibly will be reporting on the sinking of some of those Iranian bath tubs in the near future.  Wasn't but a few of months ago the Iranians screwed with the Brits in the same waters, taking hostages.
Lutrel AkA "Lut"
CO ~Avengers~

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13414
Iranian Naval 'Incident' - fabricated for GWB
« Reply #4 on: January 17, 2008, 03:35:07 PM »
What a stupid comment:

A Pentagon consultant who asked not to be identified told IPS he had spoken with officers who had experienced similar encounters with small Iranian boats throughout the 1990s, and that such incidents are "just not a major threat to the US Navy by any stretch of the imagination".

Who here believes small boats can't be a threat to a naval warship?
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline lutrel

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 441
Iranian Naval 'Incident' - fabricated for GWB
« Reply #5 on: January 17, 2008, 03:45:14 PM »
See Rule #5
« Last Edit: January 18, 2008, 03:30:13 PM by Skuzzy »
Lutrel AkA "Lut"
CO ~Avengers~

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Iranian Naval 'Incident' - fabricated for GWB
« Reply #6 on: January 17, 2008, 03:52:33 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
Who here believes small boats can't be a threat to a naval warship? [/B]


There's a huge difference between a ship at sea and a ship in port.

The attack on the Cole took advantage of two things. First, there we're other small boats in the area working with the ship. Second, the guards we're prohibited from firing by the rules of engagement set by the Pentagon.

A small boat in the open sea isn't a threat. It will be destroyed long before it ever gets close enough to duplicate the Cole attack.
sand

Offline Yeager

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10169
Iranian Naval 'Incident' - fabricated for GWB
« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2008, 04:01:15 PM »
A small boat in the open sea isn't a threat. It will be destroyed long before it ever gets close enough to duplicate the Cole attack.
====
Thats exactly the kind of thinking that gets people killed.  I know you mean well and no doubt believe what you say.  Think outside the boundries of what makes sense, there you will find the truth.  Maybe.
"If someone flips you the bird and you don't know it, does it still count?" - SLIMpkns

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Iranian Naval 'Incident' - fabricated for GWB
« Reply #8 on: January 17, 2008, 04:11:36 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Yeager

Thats exactly the kind of thinking that gets people killed.  I know you mean well and no doubt believe what you say.  Think outside the boundries of what makes sense, there you will find the truth.  Maybe.


It's not that complicated. In port, you have to let people and equipment within your defensive perimeter. At sea, it's not the case. If an unknown vessel closes within X range without communicating will be destroyed.
sand

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13414
Iranian Naval 'Incident' - fabricated for GWB
« Reply #9 on: January 17, 2008, 04:12:48 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman
There's a huge difference between a ship at sea and a ship in port.

The attack on the Cole took advantage of two things. First, there we're other small boats in the area working with the ship. Second, the guards we're prohibited from firing by the rules of engagement set by the Pentagon.

A small boat in the open sea isn't a threat. It will be destroyed long before it ever gets close enough to duplicate the Cole attack.


Those harmless small boats very well could have laid actual mines in the ships paths instead of simulated mines. Lucky for everyone Iran isn't quite yet ready to meet Allah.
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline FrodeMk3

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2481
Iranian Naval 'Incident' - fabricated for GWB
« Reply #10 on: January 17, 2008, 04:30:38 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
Those harmless small boats very well could have laid actual mines in the ships paths instead of simulated mines. Lucky for everyone Iran isn't quite yet ready to meet Allah.


They could have, AK-but they were avoided, and we won't know if they were explosives, or the Iranian's trash from lunch, because the boxes' weren't even investigated. They were simply avoided.

Those boxes could have been anything, I won't argue that. They could have had tape recorders' in them, to find out what frequency's the FFG's sonar operated at. They could have been a homing device for the ASM batteries' located on the Iranian shore. They could have been full of the styrofoam plates' and cups' the boats' crews ate they're lunch off of.

If we had picked up one of the boxes' and found out what it was, that would have explained more. Yes, it's potentially dangerous. However, This isn't open warfare; No state of war exists' with Iran. Because of that, the lack of proof, the Iranians' hostile intentions are only guessed at.

Offline ghi

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2669
Iranian Naval 'Incident' - fabricated for GWB
« Reply #11 on: January 17, 2008, 04:59:44 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lutrel
See Rule #5

:rofl :rofl :rofl
« Last Edit: January 18, 2008, 03:31:11 PM by Skuzzy »

Offline Dago

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5324
Iranian Naval 'Incident' - fabricated for GWB
« Reply #12 on: January 17, 2008, 05:07:43 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lutrel
See Rule #5


Well said.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2008, 03:31:31 PM by Skuzzy »
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, martini in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"

Offline Dago

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5324
Iranian Naval 'Incident' - fabricated for GWB
« Reply #13 on: January 17, 2008, 05:09:11 PM »
See Rule #5
« Last Edit: January 18, 2008, 03:32:09 PM by Skuzzy »
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, martini in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Iranian Naval 'Incident' - fabricated for GWB
« Reply #14 on: January 17, 2008, 05:12:40 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Dago
See Rule #5


Ill considered?

I've been at sea in a warship in the Persian Gulf. I know the drill.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2008, 03:32:27 PM by Skuzzy »
sand