Talk:2008 Iran–United States naval dispute

Historical context

Seems to be a few who want to delete any historical context on this article. As there has been considerable tension between the two countries and naval attacks over the last twenty-five years which have resulted in the sinking of several ships and the downing of a civilian airliner, why do some not want this mentioned?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Herne nz (talk • contribs) 13 January 2008, 06:09

I don't know much about the historical context. If such incidents occurred, and they have been mentioned in news or other articles about the naval dispute, they should be added. If they are not mentioned in these articles, we shouldn't include it ourselves, as it would constitute OR - because we then say that these events are related. So please go ahead if you think you have the sources that connect these incidents, and do it a NPOV way :) Sijo Ripa (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think some of what you are looking for is at United States-Iran relations. This entry has a narrow focus on the recent naval incidents in the Strait of Hormuz. Pugget (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

These incidents have been happening for years now. It would seem to me that that above is correct when speaking about some sort of historical context. As far as the media reporting the incidents, what does that have to do with anything? Does a connection have to be made by the media at all. It would seem enough that Coalition vessels that have been escorting ships through the Straits have continually reported similar events. There are countless articles in several "Jane's" publications as well as other Defense related publications that describe similar events. If you use the media as a standard, there wouldn't be a US or UK military prior to 9/11/01. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.96.123 (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

==Reference/link 4 is broken== & Reference 5 seems to be fraudulent "over the Strait that killed 290 civilians, an incident for which the U.S. has never apologized.[4]"

Sorry but I do not know where the reference to the non-apology and 1988 shoot down are; but it does seem important for background. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

InterPressService (IPS) does not have an article titled "How the Pentagon Planted a False Hormuz Story", and has only two stories on the referenced date that respond to a search for 'Pentagon', neither of which has to do with the Hormuz incident. Further; the reference link actually links to a website 'CommonDreams.org' which appears to be some sort of radical leftist blog. They refer to IPS, but their link is so badly broken it doesn't. Common Dreams does not seem to meet the criteria for R/S.

Gulf of Tonkin

I do not understand why the reference to the Gulf of Tonkin keeps getting added to the See Also section. It may be (barely) valid to mention that some have compared the incident to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, but putting it in See Also section is really starting to push the view that this incident was also fabricated. There is no evidence this is true, as the whole thing can easily be written off as a combination of misunderstanding and interference by a third party. If you have evidence otherwise, then by all means add it to the main article! Cheers, Pugget (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And alternatively, if that section were to stay, it seems misleading to state "Declassified files subsequently revealed that there was only one, not two, attacks by the North Vietnamese Navy." and not note that the one attack that did occur was carried out after the Maddox (US warship) fired first. 128.117.194.163 (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any proof that the Maddox fired first? - Schrandit (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read the Gulf of Tonkin Incident page and the NSA document cited there. Second, I don't see why this page needs any discussion of the Gulf of Tonkin at all, beyond just a mention of those who are linking the two. Even that seems tenuous. Cheers, Pugget (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree it's a stretch if the Gulf of Tonkin incident was accepted by all parties as having been fabricated but it too had some kind of deniability and is also seen by many as just 1 more dubious accusation based on sloppy communications and assumptions in which case the 2 incidents would be not only similar but almost exact. So, since we are NPOV, I think we should not assume anything about intent in which case the factual similarity as stated by all concerned justifies the reference. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me make sure I am following your argument properly. You are saying that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was caused by sloppy communication and poor assumptions, and it appears that the same may be true here as well. I'll agree with the first point, as that does seem to be a commonly accepted historical opinion on the Gulf of Tonkin, but I think your logic falls off the rails after that. How do you know communication was sloppy or the assumptions poor in this case? In fact, what we do know is the Iranians and Americans switched radio channels to try and get rid of interfering communication. Also rather different (and important) is that neither side fired a shot. Nor has Congress lead the country intro war. Big differences. The only similarity I really see between the two is that some people see both events as attempts by the U.S. to provoke hostile fire. Fine, that's a valid view, but until there is evidence that can be referenced, it's not NPOV, and adding a link in See Also implies just that connection. Cheers, Pugget (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, on your "please obtain consensus" comment in your edit message: why is keeping it in the page until the end of a discussion better than leaving it out? It seems the more wikipedian thing to do is to keep information under discussion out until it is approved. Cheers, Pugget (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have read the Gulf of Tonkin article - the Maddox fired 3 .50 cal warning shots and then the North Vietnamese launched torpedoes. Both incidents involved American ships, beyond that there isn't a whole lot of connection; different country, no shots, no follow-up conflict and the Tonkin incident is already mentioned in the body of the article - why does it need to be mentioned again as a See also? - Schrandit (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it does not belong. The connection is extremely subtle yet maybe quite profound and perhaps too subtle and profound for an encyclopedia. Let me try an analogy which is always risky. What if 2 Spanish airplanes were hijacked by al-Queda linked arabs over Madrid and were shot down before they were flown into any buildings...and that's all the information we had. Would a reference to the 9/11 attacks be appropriate? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 06:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that I think there are a number of factual similarities between GOT and this event just as there are factual similarities in my analogy; and if such similarities are enough to justify a 9/11 reference in my analogy article then they could justify this GOT reference. The similarities I see between GOT and this naval encounter are :

• A background of increasingly bellicose rhetoric coming from american political and military heads directed towards an "evil" adversary.
• Huge and likely intimidating American war ships prowling the waterways right up against the coastal borders of the adversary.
• American leaders ratcheting up the pressure on regional neighbors of the adversary to recognize and deal with the threat the adversary presents.
• A sudden media explosion of u.s. government and military allegations that the adversary has made combative gestures toward american ships.
• A subsequent realization that the substantive aspects of the u.s. government and military allegations were exaggerated if not false. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

While the discussion is underway I'll remove the reference as Pugget has a good point about that. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 06:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not that I don't see the similarities, but it's point five above that's the most important for this page, and the most presumptive. The other points are largely background and they would certainly be appropriate in the context of the main article on United States-Iran relations. But if point five was firm, I could see inclusion here in the links. However, various military media outlets quickly challenged the original story, and it now seems no one is ready to accuse the Iranians of sending the threatening message. The U.S. admits that the white boxes were harmless trash. And while the U.S. still calls the actions provocative, they also say that the situation was not that abnormal. This all quite unlike the Tonkin incident, where at has taken years for the government to correct its story.

I think it makes sense to keep the mention of Tonkin in the article as a note on media reaction, just as it is now. But I do not think there is a preponderance of evidence pointing for a link in See Also, which, to me, would state that the two events were much more similar, ie, a semi-fabricated event that was used to justify military strikes. Cheers, Pugget (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very good observation about the time difference in the challenges and backing off of the original story. I thought of that as well and I credit that time difference entirely to one thing that exists in 2008 which did not exist in 1964; internet access. I'll agree to leaving GOT as it is now but I'd also sure like to read more about who decided to dub the filipino monkey's voice over the video and what,if any, discussions led to that decision. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, agreed! If you find any information on who decided to do the dub I'd be interested as well. Cheers, Pugget (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The Navy Times' article indicates Admiral Gary Roughead and Pentagon Navy media person, Cmdr. Jeff Davis, decided to do the dubbing.

“Based on my experience operating in that part of the world, where there is a lot of maritime activity, trying to discern [who is speaking on the radio channel] is very hard to do,” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead told Navy Times during a brief telephone interview today...Cmdr. Jeff Davis, a Navy spokesman at the Pentagon, could not say if the voice belonged to the heckler...When asked if U.S. officials considered whether the threats came from someone besides the Iranians when releasing the video and audio, Roughead said: “The reason there is audio superimposed over the video is it gives you a better idea of what is happening.” Similarly, Davis said the audio was part of the “totality” of the situation and helped show the “aggressive behavior.”

Davis was accused in 2003 of misleading media about the use of napalm-like chemicals in Iraq when he was a Lt. Cmdr.. When one watches the pentagon's ridiculous video it is hard to believe that these two seemingly intelligent,competent and professional Commanders would have sincerely thought the filipino monkey's voice was connected in any way to the Iranians; and I do not believe that they thought that for 1 millisecond; these 2 men are not idiots (Davis has a MBA from George Washington University). This whole thing is an embarassingly transparent hoax committed by the Pentagon upon the world. Whether that can be part of this article is questionable but this whole thing was an obvious hoax, in my opinion. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"Ships transiting the Strait follow a Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) in two two-mile-wide traffic lanes."

This is almost correct, with some caveats: 1) It's perfectly legal to _ignore_ the TSS and use the waters outside of it on either side, unless one violates a 12nm zone in the process 2) It's not generally acceptable (but not strictly illegal either, this is at any captain's discretion) to _violate_ a TSS, i.e. to drive in the wrong lane, basically 213.211.211.214 (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As the strait is 21nm wide, ships have to go through someone's territorial waters. And UNCLOS Article 41 says "Ships in transit passage shall respect applicable sea lanes and traffic separation schemes established in accordance with this article." So it doesn't look proper/legal to ignore the TSS in the Strait itself, where the TSS is in territorial waters. Rwendland (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

While not proper to disregard, UNCLOS doesn't hold any sort of legal standing to Afghanistan, Bhutan, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Iran, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Malawi, Niger, Rwanda, Swaziland, Switzerland, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, United States, Andorra, Azerbaijan, Ecuador, Eritrea, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Peru, San Marino, Syria, Tadjikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vatican City, Venezuela. Ignoring established sea lanes is sort of like saying "all ships must use Bowditch," or "all ships must use Dutton's," it's entirely the masters discretion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.96.123 (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, I added the fact that Iran has not signed either. Cheers, Pugget (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Although the U.S. hasn't ratified, it accepts large parts as a proper codification of accepted international law, including transit passage:

The U.S. position on transit passage is well known. In the Proclamation extending the territorial sea of the United States, President Reagan stated:

In accordance with international law, as reflected in the applicable provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, within the territorial sea of the United States,...the ships and aircraft of all countries enjoy the right of transit passage through international straits.

In a December 1984 aide-memoire delivered to Sweden the United States described the legal regime followed by U.S. warships navigating through international straits:

...warships of the United States navigate through territorial seas in straits used for international navigation in accordance with international law as reflected in Part III of the 1982 Convention of the Law of the Sea. As is true of innocent passage in non-straits waters, exercise of the appropriate navigational regime in straits poses no threat to the security of the coastal State and constitutes no violation of its territorial integrity.[1](page 65)

Iran's position according to the U.S. is:

LOS Convention Signed December 10, 1982, with a declaration that purports, inter alia, to reserve the right to require prior authorization for warships to exercise the right of innocent passage through its territorial sea and to limit the right of transit passage through straits used for international navigation to those states that have signed the LOS Convention. U.S. protested this declaration in 1983, 1987 and 1994.[2](page 77)

and Oman requires permission for nuclear vessels:

LOS Convention Signed July 1, 1983, with a declaration; ratified August 17, 1989, with declarations, including the requirement for foreign, nuclear-powered, warships to obtain permission prior to entering the territorial sea. U.S. protests this claim in 1991. Became party, by accession, to Part XI Agreement, February 26, 1997. (page 117)

So U.S. vessels at least should stick to the TSS within territorial waters. Rwendland (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Contributions

Against my better judgment, I decided to edit this page, here are some of my edits:

• Restored what the Iranian Revolutionary Guard said per the BBC, "Iran says US video was fabricated" [3], from dubbed[4] (which does not appear in the article) to the exact BBC quote.

• Added fact tags to the following commentary:
  Early U.S. reports indicated that because of the Iranian boats continued to circle the U.S. warships and had been seen to drop several packages into the water, the U.S. ships had no choice but to take the threats seriously and maintain a defensive posture.
  The other radio communications between the coalition ships and the Iranians do not match those in the American video, suggesting that the Iranian video is from a different point in the encounter than the U.S. video. This was confirmed when the U.S. released the full 36 minute video of the incident.
  The "no choice" statement is particularly troublesome. Who in the US military said this? There is only one and only one choice that the US had? If someone could find a source to this statement please.
• I replaced the factually erroneous:
  "The U.S. ships were preparing to fire warning shots when the Iranians retreated. Several sources have claimed that the U.S. ships were only moments away from firing when the small crafts moved away, but this has not been confirmed."
  With an actual BBC quote "The US Pentagon says the American ships were about to open fire when the Iranian boats withdrew.".[5]
• I removed "The threatening message could not be tied to the Iranian patrol boats, and may have come from another vessel or the shore a few miles away." from the first paragraph, which is discussed in detail in the next few paragraphs. For continuity and clarity, the first paragraph should probably only mention the incident itself, then later paragraphs can explain new developments.

Trav (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edits all look great to me. Cheers, Pugget (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

thank you so much, I was really hesitant to edit wikipedia again. I have moved around a lot more info, removing repeated sentences, and added a little bit myself. I still am really confused about the "spliced" allegation, and I thought it was maybe leftist propaganda, but I have found

alot of sources, so I am not sure now what to think. But since it is covered so much in the media, I figured one sentence about this would be appropriate. Trav (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

removal of historical context

These inconsistencies have given rise to comparisons with the Gulf of Tonkin Incident during the Vietnam War which was used by Lyndon Johnson to provide a casus belli for escalating the conflict.

The reference is not valid, check link and as I was unable to find a link between the gulf of tonkin incident and the subject of this pageJacob805 (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on 2008 U.S.–Iranian naval dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110516205229/http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411366/1544810 to http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411366/1544810
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081129011747/http://www.aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=77778 to http://www.aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=77778

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141129080650/http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080708/wl_nm/iran_nuclear_dc_8 to http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080708/wl_nm/iran_nuclear_dc_8
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080111164148/http://www.defenselink.mil/dodcmsshare/briefingslide/320/080107-D-6570C-001.wmv to http://www.defenselink.mil/dodcmsshare/briefingslide/320/080107-D-6570C-001.wmv

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2008 U.S.–Iranian naval dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110522104304/http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/nationworld/story/249684.html to http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/nationworld/story/249684.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2008 U.S.–Iranian naval dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080113042406/http://www.ipsnews.net:80/news.asp?idnews=40747 to http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40747
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080113042406/http://www.ipsnews.net:80/news.asp?idnews=40747 to http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40747

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)