Iranian vessels come dangerously close to U.S. military ships

By Idrees Ali

 

Four Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGCN) vessels, some of several to maneuver in what the U.S. Navy says are "unsafe and unprofessional actions against U.S. Military ships by crossing the ships’ bows and sterns at close range" is seen next to the guided-missile destroyer USS Paul Hamilton in the Gulf April 15, 2020. U.S. Navy/Handout via REUTERS

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Eleven vessels from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGCN) came dangerously close to U.S. Navy and Coast Guard ships in the Gulf, the U.S. military said on Wednesday, calling the moves "dangerous and provocative."

 

While such interactions had occurred occasionally a few years ago, they had stopped in recent years, and this incident comes at a time of increased tensions between the two countries.

 

According to the statement, the Iranian vessels approached six U.S. military ships while they were conducting integration operations with Army helicopters in international waters.

 

At one point, the Iranian vessels came within 10 yards of the U.S. Coast Guard cutter Maui.

 

The U.S. ships issued several warnings through bridge-to-bridge radio, blasts from the ships' horns and long-range acoustic noise maker devices.

The Iranian ships left after about an hour, the statement added.

 

There was no mention of the incident in Iranian media.

 

"The IRGCN's dangerous and provocative actions increased the risk of miscalculation and collision, (and) were not in accordance with the internationally recognized Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea," the U.S. military's statement said.

 

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, asked in a Fox News interview whether he had discussed the incident with the Pentagon, said: "We've talked as a team. ... We're evaluating how best to respond and how best to communicate our displeasure with what ... took place."

 

Tensions between Iran and the United States increased earlier this year after the United States killed Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s elite Quds Force, in a drone strike in Iraq.

 

Iran retaliated on Jan. 8 with a rocket attack on Iraq’s Ain al-Asad base where U.S. forces were stationed. No U.S. troops were killed or faced immediate bodily injury, but more than 100 were later diagnosed with traumatic brain injury.

 

Earlier this month President Donald Trump said that Iran or its proxies planned a sneak attack on U.S. targets in Iraq, and warned they would pay a "very heavy price."

 

Maritime security sources said on Wednesday that a Hong Kong-flagged tanker was briefly detained in Iran after armed Iranian guards in speedboats directed the vessel into its waters while it was sailing through the Gulf of Oman.

 

The sources said the SC Taipei chemical tanker had been sailing in international waters on Tuesday when it was stopped.

 

(Reporting by Idrees Ali; Editing by Chris Reese and Sonya Hepinstall)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-04-16

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

Yeah, i will suppose that Iranian wessels are more normal and have much more right to be in the gulf, than a couple of American warships. Maybe they should consider that factor before complaining. Another possible action would also be to leave the Gulf.

How dare they. Again a total lack of respect to the social distancing rule.

The US Navy should have used those toy boats for target practice. What in the hell Iran using little every day pleasure craft. If it was a real attacks it would have been suicide for the Iranians.

The U.S. ships issued several warnings through bridge-to-bridge radio, blasts from the ships' horns and long-range acoustic noise maker devices.

What was the noise maker? Did someone fart into a microphone?

5 minutes ago, JohnOFphon said:

The U.S. ships issued several warnings through bridge-to-bridge radio, blasts from the ships' horns and long-range acoustic noise maker devices.

What was the noise maker? Did someone fart into a microphone?

 

The US Navy is full of incompetent officers with almost zero seamanship abilities. They only command a ship as it is part of the path to higher rank. There are about 5 times too many people on the bridge of a US naval ship. 10 times more than on the bridge of a US merchant ship. If you don't have a watch officer that can't assimilate all information immediately, with out a dozen people channeling information to him/her your ship is likely to risk failure. One only has to look at the string of USN collisions in the Western Pacific to see the evidence.

1 hour ago, Matzzon said:

Yeah, i will suppose that Iranian wessels are more normal and have much more right to be in the gulf, than a couple of American warships. Maybe they should consider that factor before complaining. Another possible action would also be to leave the Gulf.

Brutal islamic dictatorship = good

Western efforts to protect world oil supply = bad

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

 

The US Navy is full of incompetent officers with almost zero seamanship abilities. They only command a ship as it is part of the path to higher rank. There are about 5 times too many people on the bridge of a US naval ship. 10 times more than on the bridge of a US merchant ship. If you don't have a watch officer that can't assimilate all information immediately, with out a dozen people channeling information to him/her your ship is likely to risk failure. One only has to look at the string of USN collisions in the Western Pacific to see the evidence.

Yes, exactly! As a lowly second mate I took a ULCC though Hormuz at night with only a man on the wheel for company. Situational awareness decreases with number of bodies on the bridge.

Just another sign how weak USA has become.

 

China or Russia would have lit them up.

2 minutes ago, JimmyTheMook said:

Just another sign how weak USA has become.

 

China or Russia would have lit them up.

That's bar stool chat....????

Just what Trump wants/needs at this present moment in time........quick, look over there.

12 minutes ago, mohinga said:

Yes, exactly! As a lowly second mate I took a ULCC though Hormuz at night with only a man on the wheel for company. Situational awareness decreases with number of bodies on the bridge.

 

I was 2nd Mate on a ship going through the Straits of Hormuz at night during the first 1st Iraqui war. Some A-hole on a US Navy ship shined a beam straight into our wheelhouse and asked us to identify ourselves, blinding us, even though we'd been communicating our entrance for the previous 10 hours. Incompetents.

2 hours ago, Matzzon said:

Yeah, i will suppose that Iranian wessels are more normal and have much more right to be in the gulf, than a couple of American warships. Maybe they should consider that factor before complaining. Another possible action would also be to leave the Gulf.

 

Which part of "International Waters" do you fail to understand?

It was a U.S. coast guard vessel... in the Persian Gulf. The 'Mericans now calling it the "Arabian Gulf"; but to mariners it's still the Persian (i.e. Iranian) Gulf.

1 minute ago, mohinga said:

It was a U.S. coast guard vessel... in the Persian Gulf. The 'Mericans now calling it the "Arabian Gulf"; but to mariners it's still the Persian (i.e. Iranian) Gulf.

And knots are not kilometers p/h........????

22 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Just what Trump wants/needs at this present moment in time........quick, look over there.

Do you really believe Trump arranged for the Iranians to harass the USN as a deflection?

I assume the Iranian boats were in Iranian waters and the US was 'testing their defences' by ignoring their sovereignty over those Iranian waters.

4 minutes ago, Pedrogaz said:

I assume the Iranian boats were in Iranian waters and the US was 'testing their defences' by ignoring their sovereignty over those Iranian waters.

 

I assume the US Naval vessel was in International Waters, as is their right. I also assume that the Iranian vessels were either in International Waters or Iranianian sovereign waters, which is their right. If the Iranian vessels were truly a threat, I have no doubt the USN would have fired on them. It is a non story. Hopefully it enhanced the learning of the USN officers in command in understanding what is and is not a threat.

Sink 'em and nuke the rest of their 'civilization'.

And now I get a ban, but that's what I believe in.

19 minutes ago, Deli said:

Sink 'em and nuke the rest of their 'civilization'.

And now I get a ban, but that's what I believe in.

 

I've never met an Iranian I didn't like, although their leadership is horrendous. I'd say the same about America but I've met plenty of Americans I haven't liked.

2 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Which part of "International Waters" do you fail to understand?

That can be disputed, and it will probably only be USA that are holding to that they are on International Waters just because they are positioned in the Strait of Hormuz. However, today that is only a controlled passage way that are owned by Iran and Oman.

1972 was the year when Oman claimed an expansion of their territorial waters with 22 kilometer. The result of that was a total closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and suddenly the border between Iran and Oman covers the territory completely. Today they are still calling it the Strait of Hormuz, because it´s a regulated passage way for transport and cargo ships.

 

In other words, it doesn´t matter what USA tries to say once again, because they have never recognized this expansion of borders. How they can refuse that, is out of touch with reality and just another thing that they should feel ashamed of.

4 hours ago, Sickocock said:

Brutal islamic dictatorship = good

Western efforts to protect world oil supply = bad

Never said it was good. Although, you can not just make a drone strike in a country and kill a general, and then think your warships around their country is going to be loved. Protection can be done in much better ways.

2 hours ago, Deli said:

Sink 'em and nuke the rest of their 'civilization'.

And now I get a ban, but that's what I believe in.

You should not talk about the Americans that way.

7 hours ago, Matzzon said:

Yeah, i will suppose that Iranian wessels are more normal and have much more right to be in the gulf, than a couple of American warships. Maybe they should consider that factor before complaining. Another possible action would also be to leave the Gulf.

Not sure why you even bother commenting.

6 hours ago, pmarlin said:

The US Navy should have used those toy boats for target practice. What in the hell Iran using little every day pleasure craft. If it was a real attacks it would have been suicide for the Iranians.

You have no clue what these small boats are outfitted with.

1 hour ago, EVENKEEL said:

Not sure why you even bother commenting.

How strange reply! It´s totally clear that you are confused and do not understand my post. The real question is why you post such a reply?

 

1 hour ago, EVENKEEL said:

You have no clue what these small boats are outfitted with.

No and neither do you. I would say they have a bridge, a pentry and some bunks.  What are they going to do? Throw an onion and a bed at the warship?

8 hours ago, Matzzon said:

Yeah, i will suppose that Iranian wessels are more normal and have much more right to be in the gulf, than a couple of American warships. Maybe they should consider that factor before complaining. Another possible action would also be to leave the Gulf.

International waters.

5 hours ago, JimmyTheMook said:

Just another sign how weak USA has become.

 

China or Russia would have lit them up.

Silly logic. You can't just "light up" boats that come near you in international waters.

5 hours ago, Surelynot said:

Just what Trump wants/needs at this present moment in time........quick, look over there.

So Trump conspired with Iran to arrange this incident? Or did he conspire with some greedy corporation to arrange for these boats to appear?

 

This is virtually a non-story. Tiny boats versus a huge ship. No one cares.

5 hours ago, mohinga said:

It was a U.S. coast guard vessel... in the Persian Gulf. The 'Mericans now calling it the "Arabian Gulf"; but to mariners it's still the Persian (i.e. Iranian) Gulf.

Gee, that makes sense. From now on, US ships must yield to Mexican ships in the Gulf of Mexico international waters. Seems only fair. </sarcasm>