A 'message' in it somewhere?

Jan.13, 2008

A 'message' in it somewhere?

THE US-REPORTED threat that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards made against three American warships in the Straits of Hormuz has injected more tension to the growing US-Iranian confrontation. It has become an international talking point at a time when US President George W Bush is visiting the region with a view to convincing Arab countries that Iran poses a threat to regional stability and security.
It is not that Iranians would not indulge in such actions. Their record shows that they have always played brinksmanship that have often shot up chances of an armed confrontation by mistake.
However, the facts available on last week's "incident" indicate something else.
First of all, it is difficult to believe that five small Iranian boats confronted big, well-armed US ships and threatened to blow up the American vessels. There many technical aspects to the reported Iranian threat that have been cited in the US media itself, raising suggestions that it could have been tailor-made to suit Washington's purposes.
These include the video released by the Pentagon showing small boats with no visible armaments and the absence of any footage showing anyone dumping white cartons into the water, as was initially alleged.
As to the audible threat — “I am coming to you,” and “You will explode after a few minutes" — even Pentagon officials have admitted that they could not say it with any certainty that the transmission came from the speedboats or elsewhere.
Others have said that the video and audio were recorded separately, then combined.
Even US Navy Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, has admitted that he could not shed "any light as far as the radio transmission is concerned."
Apart from the warning issued by top US officials, what is equally alarming is the intensity with which the affair figured in the US presidential debate.
Almost all candidates, including front-runners for party nomination, simply accepted the first Pentagon version of the affair. They pulled all the plugs and used languages that are usually unheard from matured political leaders. It was remniscent of the bellicose language in reaction to an alleged naval exchange in the Gulf of Tonkin that led to the Vietnam War.
It is difficult to believe that the US is itching to go to war with Iran. That line of thought leads to the suggestion that the way the Hormuz affair was played out that it contained an implicit message indicating the shape of things around the corner if the Iranian "threat" did not meet a "proper" response with backing from others in the region.
Only time will tell what the reality was, but we in this part of the world already have enough troubles — most of them created by external meddling, direct and indirect — and have no intention to take on more crises created to serve foreign interests.