Last Monday the DoD released information regarding an encounter in the Strait of Hormuz, off the coast of Iran, between three US naval warships and five Iranian Republican Guard speedboats. Included in this information were short video and audio clips- at the time the audio clips were thought to be recordings of the Iranian boats' radio transmissions.

Following the release of this information, Bush administration spinsters began to shape the incident in a way that provided greatest advantage for the administration’s hawkish position on Iran. White House spokesman Gordon D. Johndroe said, “We urge the Iranians to refrain from such provocative actions that could lead to a dangerous incident in the future.” President Bush got into the act, declaring: “all options are on the table to protect our assets.” Countless other officials have commented- most painting a picture in which the five Iranian speedboats were the aggressors towards the US Warships.

These scenarios conjured up memories of the 1964 Vietnamese gunboat attack(s) on US ships in the Gulf of Tonkin, the Al Qaeda attack on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000, and the fearsome claims about WMD in Iraq- the first and last becoming dubious incidents used by US Presidents as causi belli.

At the conclusion of the week (after rabid internet speculation on the veracity of the US version of events) the Pentagon has began to backtrack from its initial comments, while the White House grew altogether quiet on the subject. Referring to the alleged Iranian radio message to the US ships (“I am coming to you. You will explode in a few minutes”), Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell kicked off the backpedaling on Friday saying: “No one in the military has said that the transmission emanated from those boats. But when they hear it simultaneously to the behavior of those boats, it only adds to the tension.” Navy spokesman Rear Adm. Frank Thorp IV took the denunciation farther, explaining to the Post: "It [the threat] could have been a threat aimed at some other nation or a myriad of other things."

Morrell is correct—no one from the military has directly said that the radio message came from the Iranians. Rather, it was officials at the Pentagon and White House who gave the impression that the video and audio were one in the same. Furthermore, they gave the impression that this information came directly from the naval commanders themselves. This incident may simply be another example of overzealous civilians within our government attempting to shotgun policy at the expense of military officials who take the fall if the information proves to be false or misleading. By this point, military personnel must realize that any action they take or word they utter may be taken out of context by politicians thus creating a no win situation for members of the military.

The fact of the matter is that the US military is frequently involved in these engagements- on the sea or in the air- and most go unreported in the mainstream media. It is commonplace, especially in international waters, for militaries to probe each other’s defenses. Typically nothing happens, however in the Middle East today, all bets are off. It was, after all, a little less than a year ago when Iranian naval forces detained 15 British sailors and marines, ostensibly in an effort to show a public image of strength under increasing pressure from the US and its allies.

Looking at the incident objectively, albeit far removed, in the US video the Iranian speedboats are enough to make anyone savvy on suicide-vehicle-borne IEDs nervous. Conversely, in the Iranian video, in which sent and received message traffic is clearly audible, the conversation seems pretty benign.

There are many possible reasons for the incident. The Iranians may have engaged our warships to probe our procedures or simply as a display of strength or pride and responsibility for their backyard. Or perhaps their intent was to affect the world oil market for a short period of time and create a small price bump- The Straight of Hormuz is one of the region's most important strategic chokepoints as approximately 30% of the world’s oil exports is transported aboard westbound tankers through the 21-mile-wide gap. The point is, there are a number of plausible explanations for the encounter that extend beyond the “Iran intends to harm us” narrative.

This incident ultimately serves as yet another example of the administration’s evaporating credibility. No longer can the international rebukes and political salvos from President Bush, or anyone associated with this White House be considered anything more than ideological rhetoric. The international community does not take the US seriously any more, creating the ultimate "Peter cried Wolf" dilemma.

By giving the world reason to doubt our claims, the Bush camp has in effect emboldened the Iranians to probe our military defenses further, to put our military leaders in newly tenuous positions and our service members in greater danger. It also provides conspiracy theorists a platform of strength when espousing the message that America is nothing more than an evil empire. Lastly, it invites a situation where the Iranians may attempt to provoke the US military into engagement but we would be unable to retaliate with full measure because our allies will not stand with us, doubting our justification. When it turns into a “He said, She said,” who will you believe when neither the US nor Iran appears to tell the whole truth?


Further Reading: Washington Post: Radio Threat May Have Been Bogus NY Times: Iranian Boats NY Times: Bush on Iran

Further Viewing: US Video on Youtube Iranian Video on Washington Post