One fact which upped the seriousness of the US/Iran boat incident was the claim of a verbal threat issued while Iranian speed boats were menacing the US ships. The US "elevated the encounter into an international incident" partially based on the "threatening language," and Bush characterized the incident as "provocative" and "warned of serious consequences" if it happens again. Now, the Pentagon reveals that the threat did not come from the Iranian military; experts opine that the voice was not Iranian, but could be an American trying to sound like an Iranian, and a former Navy officer who served in the Gulf indicates that this radio channel was used as a CB radio where threats and chatter were commonplace. It all makes me wonder if this threat was some sick joke that just got out of hand.
Given that Bushie wants to add Iran to his war chest, and there are numerous interactions at sea between US and Iran, it is important that we understand the facts of this incident.
Here was the threat:
I am coming to you.
You will explode after a few minutes.
This is the CNN tape of the threat:
Focusing only on the tone of the voice, and not the words, the first time I heard this threat it sounded like some robotic version of a D-rated horror film.
Several facts make me wonder if someone played a sick joke by issuing this threat.
First, the US video of this incident was the product of editing the video and audio portions of the tape:
The Pentagon has said that it recorded the film and the sound separately, and then stitched them together - a dubious piece of editing even before it became known that the source of the voice could not, with certainty, be linked to the Iranian patrol boats.
Second, on Wednesday, Pentagon officials revealed that the "threatening voice heard in the audio clip" is "not directly traceable to the Iranian military" and clearly did not originate from the Iranian patrol boats because the recording did not have any "ambient noise --- the sounds of a motor, the sea or wind."
Third, on Thursday, the Pentagon disclosed that the verbal threat "may not even have been intended against U.S. targets." A Rear Adm. explained that the threat was carried on "radio channel 16, a common marine frequency used by ships and others in the region" and thus the threat could have been "aimed at some other nation or a myriad of other things."
Fourth, experts say that the voice was not an Iranian, but could have been a "Pakistani, South Asian or an American trying to sound Iranian, but it definitely didn't sound Iranian."
Fifth, a former naval officer who had served as a surface warfare officer aboard a US Navy destroyer in the Gulf commented at the New York Times blog that his first thought was that the threat came from "some loser monitoring the events at a shore facility," not the Iranian boats because this radio channel is used as CB radio by many people for "hurling racial slurs" and "threats":
Folks, I’ve sailed through that area, in my past life as a surface warfare officer aboard a U.S. Navy destroyer (I also stood watch as officer of the deck (OOD), the person responsible for driving the ship.)
I can tell you right now that this harassment episode is totally believable; these ships no doubt were trying to interfere with our ships’ navigation through those waters, and really put themselves in danger. The fact that our ships came close to firing really helps me understand the immediacy of the perceived threat.
What we DO need to be careful about, though, is where that "explode" comment came from. All ships at sea use a common UHF frequency, Channel 16, also known as "bridge-to bridge" radio. Over here, near the U.S., and throughout the Mediterranean, Ch. 16 is used pretty professionally, i.e., chatter is limited to shiphandling issues, identifying yourself, telling other ships what your intentions are to avoid mishaps, etc.
But over in the Gulf, Ch. 16 is like a bad CB radio. Everybody and their brother is on it; chattering away; hurling racial slurs, usually involving Filipinos (lots of Filipinos work in the area); curses involving your mother; 1970’s music broadcast in the wee hours (nothing odder than hearing The Carpenters 50 miles off the coast of Iran at 4 a.m.)
On Ch. 16, esp. in that section of the Gulf, slurs/threats/chatter/etc. is commonplace. So my first thought was that the "explode" comment might not have even come from one of the Iranian craft, but some loser monitoring the events at a shore facility. The Navy even seemed to admit as much today when they said the transmission could not be traced directly to the small boats.
So I hope everybody exercises great caution here and doesn’t jump to conclusions, given the circumstances and potential for escalation.
What I do want everybody to know is that those Navy crews are doing their damned best out there, and given the current situation/previous experience with the USS Cole, would certainly be justified in shooting at any small craft that makes aggressive runs at them, especially after being warned.
And, finally, now that the entire incident is being questioned, and a bit unraveled, it is being reported in tomorrow's edition that there were two prior incidents with Iranian speedboats last month in which the US did fire warning shots:
[T]he Navy announced a few hours later that two other incidents occurred last month in which its ships had close calls with Iranian speedboats. On Dec. 19, the USS Whidbey Island fired warning shots when a single Iranian boat came within 500 yards of it in the strait. On Dec. 22, the USS Carr emitted warning blasts as three Iranian vessels sped close by in the same area, a Navy official said.
Despite five days of questions about the pattern of encounters in the Gulf, this is the first time the Pentagon has mentioned the December events. At a briefing Monday, Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff said U.S. and Revolutionary Guard naval units come across each other "regularly."
History has shown that the close presence of small boats can be a serious danger to our ships. But, there are so many questions arising from this incident and the drip drip of more facts by the Pentagon may indicate that it is not in synch with whatever motivations Bush may have to aggravate tensions between the US and Iran.
UPDATE: MichiganGirl points out in comments that "Navy Times is reporting that threat may be prank of local heckler:
The threatening radio transmission heard at the end of a video showing harassing maneuvers by Iranian patrol boats in the Strait of Hormuz may have come from a locally famous heckler known among ship drivers as the "Filipino Monkey."
The puzzling information is that "for 25 years there’s been this mythical guy out there who, hour after hour, shouts obscenities and threats." So, if this prankster or pranksters has existed for so many years, why was our government so quick to use this audio threat as at least partial grounds for elevating this into an international incident? Given the apparent common knowledge about this prankster, it would only be a matter of time before the existence of the prankster would be publicly revealed.