The Iran-U.S. War, incoming

U.S. says Iranian boats harassed warships
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22537199/

WASHINGTON – Iranian boats harassed and provoked three American Navy ships in the strategic Strait of Hormuz, threatening to blow up the vessels, U.S. officials said Monday.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry said Monday the confrontation was “something normal” and was resolved, suggesting the Iranian boats had not recognized the U.S. vessels. National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said the Bush administration urges Iranians “to refrain from such provocative actions that could lead to a dangerous incident in the future.”

When considering a news source w/two sides like this, I try to put it through a thought-grid of sorts:

• Both sides are telling the truth
• Neither is
• Only one side is
• There’s something bigger going on

So: Iran is telling the truth, and they just can’t recognize U.S. warships. … which always carry flags, as i remember …? So they’re idiots (unlikely), or they’re trying to provoke something (implied by the U.S. statement), or they never existed.

I think that’s slightly unlikely, if only because faking something of this magnitude would have someone up in flames.

So perhaps the Iranians were just harassing the U.S. to make a point, that it’s their space.. and the U.S. took the moment to make a point; we’ve got muscles, and we’re not afraid to use ‘em.

We have to read intentionality, too; what does ‘threatening’ mean in this context? (that’s what US soldiers said of villagers during the Vietnam War, too, and sometimes the villagers had guns, and sometimes they had fishing poles …)

This is the bit that really worries me: “The Bush administration urges Iranians “to refrain from such provocative actions that could lead to a dangerous incident in the future…”

That’s a pretty damn clear signal, if you ask me. — “don’t make me come back there…”

So i suspect there was an incident; the Iraqis trying to make a point (bad idea, badly carried out), the U.S. using the incident to make their own on the international stage (“don’t mess with Texas,” heh).

But what’s the bigger picture here? The U.S. sees Iran as dangerous, by virtue of its Muslim government (Achmadinijad is only nominally head of state; he was elected and is effectively controlled by a set of mullahs… well, here, check this out:

Note that the president (Achmadinijad, who made all the noise at Columbia University during the UN meetings in NYC) is not the supreme ruler. The supreme ruler and armed forces hold a great deal of power and they’re nominally elected from .. well, aside from some citizen input to the “Assembly of Experts” (not ‘balanced’ elections in US terms), the overriding power-granting force in Iran rides with spiritual and military leaders.

Achmadinijad is basically a puppet wielded by the magician that is the larger government of Iran. He exists to distract the viewer while the magician performs the impossible.

This all makes the U.S. nervous. Meanwhile Iran, looking at a growing power vacuum in the Middle East, seeing schisms between even the U.S. and old allies (Saudi Arabia, etc) – feels it can move quickly in the gap to gain nuclear weapons – and, therefore, bargaining power.

Also it feels untouchable, perhaps? This might explain the nonsense.

We could also postulate it’s got an ace up its sleeve, and is hoping to provoke the U.S. into war.

We could argue this all serves a greater purpose; the U.S. cannot extend into another war/occupation. Cold hard numbers and the collective American will says no; a refusal to respond to a blatant act of terrorism would give the signal to the rest of the world that the U.S. was in retreat – we’d lose face – while another major military commitment, along with the inevitable concomitant loss of prestige and goodwill in the world community – that’d be disastrous for us as well.

So what I want to know is, what’s going on here, why, and how? I don’t for one minute believe, as Iran says, that it was all just a case of mistaken identity.