US must respond to Iranian ship hijacking?
In the aftermath of Tuesday's
Iranian hijacking of a Danish (corrected) ship bearing the flag of the Marshall Islands in the Strait of Hormuz, Eli Lake and Josh Rogin report the Marshall Islands has a
defense treaty with the United States that bars it from taking action on its own.
When asked if his country would request that the U.S. rescue the
cargo ship from Iran, Junior Aini, the charge d'affairs for the Marshall
Islands Embassy in Washington, told us he was still awaiting guidance
from his foreign ministry. But he also suggested that his country had no
other recourse than to hope the U.S. responds.
"The United States has the full security responsibility over the
islands and for the defense of the islands, this is what our treaty
says," he told us. Aini was referring to a 1986 accord between the U.S.
and the island nation that set the terms for independence. The Marshall
Islands has no standing army. News that Iran had boarded the Maersk
Tigris surprised Aini. He said he initially learned about the
incidentfrom watching Fox News.
Aini also said his nation is barred by the 1986 agreement from doing
anything that would challenge America's role in this regard. "We cannot
take any action that will impact the U.S. responsibility," he said.
Under a 1983 Compact of Free Association, the U.S. has “full authority
and responsibility for security and defense of the Marshall Islands,” according to a State Department fact sheet.
...
By taking a non-U.S. ship under questionable circumstances at a moment
of high tension in the region, Iran has again put Washington in a tough
spot. Given that the U.S. Senate is simultaneously debating its bill on
oversight of Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, the repercussions are going
to spread far beyond the Strait of Hormuz.
The Israel Project's Omri Ceren reports by email that the Obama administration is already trying to avoid taking action.
The first wave was about how the security arrangement between the U.S. and the Marshall Islands affects Washington: is the Obama administration now affirmatively bound to confront the Iranians over the capture? The short answer is that it's not clear. Some analysts have defended potential White House inaction by saying there’s a legal loophole, under which a vessel so flagged would not count as part of the Marshall Islands conducting its foreign affairs.
Ceren argues that trying to avoid taking action would be a disaster, further expanding on Lake's and Rogin's last paragraph above.
American inaction under this scenario would be a one-two punch to Washington's credibility: the Americans locked up the Marshall Islanders' freedom of action by promising to take care of defense for them, and then when the time came the Obama administration refused to act. It would be a nightmare scenario: the U.S. would be using security assurances not to shield allies from Iran but to shield Iran from allies.
Gulf leaders, who will be in Washington next month to discuss how the U.S. can protect them in the aftermath of a bad Iran deal, would not miss the signal. There’s already a healthy about of regional grumbling about the U.S. using its leverage over the Israelis and the Saudis – leverage that it has as a protector – to hold them back on Hezbollah and Yemen.
The State Department briefing this afternoon was inconclusive:
Reporter: What do you consider the Iranian act? Is it a -- an act of piracy, act of violence?
Rathke: Again, I'm -- this I think is underway. I'm not going to apply an adjective to it right now. We are following the situation very carefully, but I'm not going to...
Reporter: But do you condemn it?
Rathke: Well, again, we're gathering more information. I don't have further reaction at this point. Yes, Brad? (http://www.c-span.org/video/?325639-1/state-department-briefing at 13:57)
Keep in mind something else here: 40% of the World's oil supply
passes through the Strait of Hormuz. Will the US allow Iran to choke that supply off? If it does, US credibility will be zero, but how exactly will other countries react?
What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Iranian navy, Iranian nuclear threat, Marshall Islands, Strait of Hormuz, US State Department
While Kerry cuddles with Zarif, Iran goes to work in the Strait of Hormuz
US Secretary of State John Kerry and chief 'negotiator' Wendy Sherman became
the first US officials to set foot on Iranian soil since 1979 on Monday, when they popped into the Iranian Ambassador to the UN's New York office for a meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif.
Iran's response? Lots of 'goodwill.' And the
seizure of a Marshall Islands-flagged ship in the Strait of Hormuz.
The Pentagon said at least five Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps
Navy patrol vessels approached the Marshall Islands-flagged Maersk
Tigris cargo ship at 4 a.m. eastern time as it was transiting the
Straight of Hormuz and directed the ship to proceed further into Iranian
waters.
When the ship’s master declined, the Iranian ship fired
shots across the bridge of the cargo vessel, Pentagon spokesman Col.
Steve Warren said. After shots were fired, the ship proceeded into
Iranian waters near the vicinity of Larak Island. It was boarded by
members of the Iranian coast guard and is now being held in Iranian
waters with about 30 people aboard.
...
The Maersk Tigris issued a distress call, prompting U.S. Naval Forces
Central Command to send the U.S. destroyer Farragut to the site as well
as aircraft to observe the interaction, Col. Warren said. The destroyer
is currently on the way, with no clear timetable of when it will arrive
on the scene.
The U.S. assets are being sent to “monitor the
situation,” Col. Warren said. Naval Forces Central Command have been
communicating with representatives from the shipping company, he said.
The
shipping route through the Strait of Hormuz is in Iranian territorial
waters, but ships typically pass through with no issues under rules of
innocent passage, which allow ships to pass through as long as they
follow international law.
There are no Americans aboard the cargo
ship and currently no injuries reported among the crew, Col. Warren
said. It is unclear what sort of cargo the ship is carrying.
It should be an interesting briefing at the State Department today.... What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, diplomatic relations, Iran, Iranian navy, Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry, Mohammad Javad Zarif, Strait of Hormuz, US Navy, Wendy Sherman
It's come to this: US Naval destroyer flees Iranian naval drill in Sea of Oman
Once upon a time, I would have dismissed this report as the ravings of a fascist government. Now, unfortunately, this type of report has become totally believable. According to Iranian television, a US Naval destroyer fled the area of the Sea of Oman where Iran was conducting a naval drill after being 'warned' to leave.
Let's go to the videotape. The 'highlight' is from the 2:00 mark to the end.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, degrading US military capabilities, Iran, Iranian navy, US Navy
Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler
A gutten zummer - a good summer to everyone (that's what we say after the Shavuoth holiday).
I'd like to remind you all that I have only one holiday day because I live in Israel and that's why I am back online tonight (okay, this post is being done on Friday afternoon before the holiday started, but that's how I get posts up immediately after the Sabbath or a holiday end).
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Friday, May 25.
1) Israel's image
Recently, Ambassador Michael Oren wrote a column asking What Happened to Israel's Reputation? (or to access the complete article click on the link from here.)
There was a panoramic portrayal of Jerusalem, described as "the focus of Jewish prayers for 2,000 years" and the nucleus of new Jewish neighborhoods. Life emphasized that in its pre-1967 borders, Israel was "a tiny, parched, scarcely defensible toe-hold." The edition's opening photo shows a father embracing his Israeli-born daughter on an early "settlement," a testament to Israel's birthright to the land.
Would a mainstream magazine depict the Jewish state like this today, during the week of its 64th birthday?
Unlikely. Rather, readers would learn about Israel's overwhelming military might, brutal conduct in warfare and eroding democratic values—plus the Palestinians' plight and Israeli intransigence. The photographs would show not cool students and cutting-edge artists but soldiers at checkpoints and religious radicals.
In a nutshell, Oren explains:
It began with PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat's 1974 speech to the U.N., when he received a standing ovation for equating Zionism with racism—a view the U.N. General Assembly endorsed the following year. It gained credibility on college campuses through anti-Israel courses and "Israel Apartheid Weeks." It burgeoned through the boycott of Israeli scholars, artists and athletes, and the embargo of Israeli products. It was perpetuated by journalists who published doctored photos and false Palestinian accounts of Israeli massacres.
Jeff Jacoby takes issue with Oren's argument and responds, The peace process battered Israel's reputation:
The real answer is that Israel's global standing has been debased not despite the "peace process," but because of it.
For 19 years Israel has clung to a policy of appeasement that has made it seem weak and irresolute -- a policy that successive Israeli governments have justified by denigrating Jewish rights to the land, while playing up the Palestinian narrative. Ehud Barak infamously said in 1998 that if he had been a Palestinian, he might have joined a terrorist group, and that "there is legitimacy for a Palestinian to fight." Were an American presidential hopeful to suggest that under other circumstances he could see himself becoming an al-Qaeda terrorist, his White House ambitions would instantly implode. But Barak's remarks didn't prevent him from becoming prime minister.
With its embrace of the peace process, "Israel stopped defending its own claim to the West Bank and Gaza and instead increasingly endorsed the Palestinian claim," Israeli journalist Evelyn Gordon has written. "And with no competing narrative to challenge it any longer, the view of Israel as a thief, with all its attendant consequences, has gained unprecedented traction."
I understand Jacoby's answer, but it's not entirely convincing. During the past nineteen years, clearly statements like Ehud Barak's have fed or justified the growing anti-Israel sentiments we see in the media. But even before Oslo, there was plenty of bias. For example, in honor of the 20th anniversary of the Six Day War, Tom Brokaw hosted a special, Six Days Plus 20 Years: a Dream Is Dying on NBC.
In the United States, though, I'd take issue with Ambassador Oren's concerns. It's true that in certain segments of the opinion making community, there is a strong tendency to blame Israel first. Fortunately, that doesn't seem to have affected the American public as a whole. According to Gallup's latest country ratings 71 percent of Americans look at Israel favorably compared to 24 percent unfavorably. Israel is also viewed more favorably than the Palestinians by a rate of nearly four to one. Granted, without the biased coverage of Israel, I believe Israel's ratings would be even better, but in the United States the hostility of the media and academic elites has not had a major impact on Israel's image.
2) Brag about a pirate day
CAMERA noticed that Iran's boast of having saved an American ship from pirates was denied by the shipping company, but that CNN never published the denial.
So it's interesting to read The Lede blog from the New York Times and see the denial mentioned but ...
The Danish company that operates the ship, the Maersk Line, said its onboard guards repelled an attack from multiple pirate skiffs after the attackers opened fire on the vessel, the Maersk Texas. “Despite clear warning signals, the skiffs continued their direct line toward Maersk Texas and the embarked security team fired warning shots,” the company told the maritime news site gCaptain. “The pirates then fired upon Maersk Texas, and the security team returned fire per established U.S. Coast Guard rules of engagement.”
But Iranian state media had a different interpretation of events on Thursday, crediting the safety of ship to a nearby Iranian naval warship. “An Iranian naval ship was patrolling the area when it received an S O S from the American cargo ship,” read a report on IRNA, the state-run news agency, that quoted Iran’s naval authorities. “Upon arrival of Iranian forces the pirates who had attacked the American ships aboard some speed boats had to flee the scene.”
"[D]ifferent interpretations?" One account is true and one is false. The next paragraph attempts to inject a little more uncertainty:
Lt. Cmdr. Mark Hankey, a spokesman for Combined Task Force 151, an international counterpiracy team off the coast of Africa, was unable to confirm Iran’s role in the episode, though he said such behavior would not be surprising. “If the Iranians responded to a mayday call, then that’s perfectly normal activity,” he told The Associated Press. But, he added, the nature of the episode was not certain. “It is not clear from the information available to date whether this was a piracy event,” he said.
So this source is quoted as saying that Iran may well have checked out the situation and that even at that it may not have a real instance of piracy. The Lede notes reasons that Iran might want to boast about having helped an American ship, but overall seems determined to explain away Iranian claims that seem exaggerated, if not false.
3) Fighting Kirk
In his dispatch over the political battle brewing between the State Department and Sen. Mark Kirk, Josh Rogin reports:
For the people involved in the issue on the ground, the distinction is not as important as the U.N. mission to feed and support these 5 million Palestinians. They see the Kirk amendment as part of a pattern of legislative moves against UNRWA in the U.S. Congress, including a drive to cut off U.S. funding by House Foreign Affairs Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL).
They also note that the drive to redefine how UNRWA classifies refugees is supported by Israeli President Bibi Netanyahu and a similar drive is led in the Israeli parliament by lawmaker Einat Wilf.
"There are some individuals that believe if they unilaterally in America make changes, that will solve peace processes, and that's really naïve," one U.N. official said. "It has to be done by the parties involved, not the U.S. Congress."
There's a point that Rogin is missing here. The UNRWA isn't just about feeding Palestinian refugees, but about maintaining them (and their grievances against Israel.) So one of the effects of UNRWA is to expand the definition and thus the number of Palestinian refugees.
Assaf Romirowsky and Alexander Joffe write in Palestinian Refugees Forever?
It is long past time that limits are set on the never-ending expansion of Palestinian refugees. A new proposal from Kirk therefore sets out a more precise series of definitions for American aid to UNRWA, to be specified in the Memorandum of Understanding with the organization.
The draft amendment states that "a Palestinian refugee is defined as a person whose place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who was personally displaced as a result of the 1948 or 1967 Arab-Israeli conflicts, who currently does not reside in the West Bank or Gaza and who is not a citizen of any other state."
Refugee status would therefore no longer be heritable, at least if UNRWA were to continue to receive U.S. funding. The amendment would also require the secretary of State to report to Congress about the notoriously slippery numbers of refugees and what measures the U.S. government is taking to ensure these limits are abided by.
According to Rogin, in addition to the State Department, Sen. Leahy and the government of Jordan oppose the Kirk amendment.
I'm actually glad Jacoby wrote that column and I think he makes a valid point.
Labels: Ehud Barak, Iranian navy, Jeff Jacoby, Mark Kirk, Michael Oren, Middle East Media Sampler, Middle East peace process, Oslo accords, Soccer Dad, US State Department
Saudi writer claims Iranians can't block Straits of Hormuz
A Saudi writer claims that
the Iranians are not capable of blocking the Straits of Hormuz - the entrance to the Persian Gulf.
Iran doesn’t have the military capability to close the strait. About three years after the 1988 battle with the Iranians, the US Navy aircraft carrier USS Nimitz, while patrolling the Arabian Gulf, launched F-14, F-18 and E-2 aircraft day and night.
The Nimitz was cruising at a speed of 2 knots (3.7 kilometers per hour). So, if the Nimitz can launch planes at this speed, this means it can cruise for three straight hours crossing the Strait of Hormuz six-mile navigation channel in perpendicular fashion and not worry about any maneuver. The Iranians knew about what the USS Nimitz can do. The Iranians later on decided to use a safer approach to defend the Iranian shores. They installed Silkworm Anti-Ship Missiles. But, later on they realized they can’t protect these missiles. They remembered what happened to the Syrians when they had their missiles in the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon without air superiority.
The Iranians don’t have the sophisticated torpedoes, sophisticated surface to air missiles and they don’t have any airborne radar (AWACS) capability. As for their outdated diesel submarine, the Iranians are not well trained for sophisticated under-water operations and their submarines have a very limited underwater capabilities. And the weakest Iranian military point is that they don’t have an air force. The F-14 (Tomcat) and F-4 (Phantom), the Iranian high-tech planes are very old and their radar system, like the F-14’s AWG9 radar is not working because of lack of maintenance, spare parts and age. Their pilots are always operating in the dark because they have no command and control. The only strength the Iranian have is the land forces. They could mass hundreds of thousands of soldiers. But, these forces will be useless for sea battles. And these land forces have no air support.
Hmmm.
Labels: Iranian navy, Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz
Iran deploying naval task force in the Atlantic Ocean
It is said that the way in which the United States projects its power worldwide (or used to until the current President took office) is through its navy. If that is correct,
this has to be a matter of serious concern.
It is one of Dyer’s Axioms that a nation doesn’t change its naval posture because it is content with the status quo. Iran continues to validate the axiom, and the latest announcement from her busy naval leadership is that the Islamic Republic will deploy a naval task force to the Atlantic in the near future as “part of a program to ply international waters.”
The development is not surprising, considering that Iran has maintained an antipiracy task force presence off Somalia for nearly three years now, sent a two-ship task force on an expedition to Syria earlier this year, and announced the deployment of a submarine to the Red Sea in June.
Granted, the Iranian navy hasn’t precisely bolstered its credibility with a near-simultaneous Pyongyang-style announcement that “enemies are dazed (amazed/surprised) by Iran’s huge naval achievements.” But an Atlantic deployment will be no particular stretch for the seamanship or technical capabilities of the navy (Iranian civil mariners ply all the world’s oceans anyway). Iran can get a three-ship task force – two warships and an auxiliary – over to the Atlantic without exhausting her capacities. The question about this deployment, assuming the political leadership remains constant, is not “if” but “when.”
There is another question about the deployment, however, and that is what the waypoints will be.
Continue reading
here.
Labels: Atlantic Ocean, Iranian navy
