E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
/
A U.S Navy helicopter flies over the 21st U.S. escorted convoy on Dec. 21, 1987. The convoy originated in Kuwait and consisted of two tankers and two U.S. guided missile frigates. The so-called Tanker War started properly in 1984 when Iraq attacked Iranian tankers and a vital oil terminal at Kharg island.
“You are standing into danger! Alter course now!”
The American warship radio operator repeated the warning, saying we had entered its self-proclaimed two-mile exclusion zone in the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow channel through which 35 percent of all seaborne oil flows. Suddenly, while the U.S. Navy was threatening us with lethal force, an Iranian frigate opened fire without warning.
It was the second-half of 1987 and tensions were as high in the Strait of Hormuz as they are today. Iran was laying mines in the Gulf and strait to target oil tankers from Iraq, with which it was at war. I was working for NBC News as a cameraman, filming activity on the strait from a Bell Jet Ranger helicopter.
We had just passed about half-a-mile away from an unidentified frigate on a parallel course. I suspected it was Iranian and started filming. Seconds later it opened fire on us with its double-barreled 35mm anti-aircraft guns.
I figured it would be too late to warn NBC’s helicopter pilot, Grant Witham, and still filming, braced myself for being knocked out of the sky.
It didn’t happen. Witham was still talking to the angry U.S. Navy radio guy who was convinced we had entered his exclusion zone, trying to persuade him we were nowhere near his ship. I interrupted and shouted over the intercom, “Grant, that warship on the starboard side, it just opened fire on us. It must be Iranian!”
Witham dropped the helicopter like a stone, pulling out just above the water and started a zigzag course away from the Iranian warship, telling the U.S. Navy radio operator we were coming under fire. Amazingly, the American radio operator changed from threatening us to telling us they were headed in our direction to offer help.
Afterwards, we pieced together what happened. The previous day a BBC News helicopter had flown right over the Iranian warship, which had threatened over maritime radio to shoot it down if it came close again. We didn’t have maritime radio aboard our chopper and the Iranians had no way of communicating through our aircraft frequencies. So they had radioed us on the marine channel, threatening to shoot at us as we flew close by, but we were oblivious to the danger.
In the meantime, Witham had been tied up talking to the American ship, which had mistaken us for another helicopter that had intruded into its “zone,” and he was too busy to notice the frigate on our right.
All of this happened seemingly in less than a few minutes, and demonstrates to me at least, just how tense and dangerous the region can be. One or two small mistakes or misunderstandings can suddenly escalate and the results can be catastrophic.
None less so than the accidental shooting down of the Iranian Airliner Flight 655 on July 3, 1988, with the loss of all 290 passengers and crew. The USS Aegis Cruiser Vincennes had incorrectly identified the Airbus A300 as an Iranian F-14 Tomcat fighter and targeted the airliner with two missiles with devastating results. (Read a Washington Post story on the incident here)
More from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- Interpol faces legal threat for helping oppressive regimes hunt dissidents
- Egyptians want new parliament to 'hear our voice'
- EU adopts Iran oil embargo amid 'Lockerbie' fear
- North Korea marks lunar New Year with flowers named after dictator
- Megaupload suspect Kim Dotcom denies Internet piracy, money laundering
- Thai man marries dead girlfriend, posts to YouTube
- Texas family survives Honduras plane crash into ocean
- Slideshow: Slices of life in Iran
Leave a Comment:
Let the Iranians close it. Then every ship they try to get out of it confiscate the ship and the oil in it headed for Russia and China and see how damn fast they open it up. If not, they would have to transport the oil to Russia or China, via land, and I would like to see them do that. Call their damn bluff for once. The American people have had enough of this tiny brown zealot!!!!!!!!!!!!
@bmac,
The Straits of Hormuz is not international waters. The ingress channel into the Persian Gulf is in Iranian waters. The egress chnnel is in Omani waters. Iran and Oman are allies. Iran does not export oil by sea to Russia. Russia has a surplus of oil. Much going to China goes by pipeline.
It would be perfectly legal for Iran, in conjunction with Oman, to shut down the Straits of Hormuz. It is their territorial waters and USN ships are only allowed to transit the Straits if they check in at least 24 hours in advance, make no stops while transiting, conduct no business (including military) while transiting and make at least 3/4 speed.
The US Navy has no more rights to the Straits of Hormuz than the Iranian Navy would have in the Great Lakes.
Chris,
You are wrong. It is a transit strait according to international law and may not be closed.
"The ships and aircraft of all nations, including warships, auxiliaries, and military aircraft, enjoy the right of unimpeded transit passage in such straits and their approaches." Wikipedia
Chris and Citizen
You miss one very important point. If Oman and Iran tried to shut down the strait that would be the same as declaring war on the entire world. I can garantee that after such a show of agression things would not end well for both countries. If they really want to commit suicide they'll follow through with their threats, otherwise it's just hot air and saber rattling.
Technically, Chris is correct about the strict use of the term "international waters." However, the term "transit passage" is what is in play. Transit passage is open to all in the Straight including normal operation of warships and is codified in the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The UNCLOS tries to strike a balance between the sovereign rights of coastal states and the right of passage of foreign ships, requiring concessions from both sides. Obviously, the UNCLOS is complex and most just use the technically-incorrect term "international waters" as a shorthand denoting the right of transit in this case.
Under the terms of the UNCLOS, Iran (or anyone else) does not have a legal right to close the Straight. It could and indeed might assert such a right and then they would have to defend that claim by force of arms.
Many countries have made claims and assertions about its territorial waters just have other countries make various doctrines about their position on these claims. Part of the rationale of the UNCLOS to to address territorial claims is a common and even-handed way, particularly in complex and important waters like the Straight.
Remember Lybia's claims that Gulf of Sidra to be within Libyan internal waters and Gaddafi's declared "Line of Death." The world's navies (including the US Navy) often conducted Freedom of Navigation (FON) operations to counter claims like this and still do.
As far as oil shipments, according to the USIP:
• On average, 14 crude oil tankers per day passed through the Strait in 2011, with a corresponding amount of empty tankers entering to pick up new cargos. More than 85 percent of these crude oil exports went to Asian markets, with Japan, India, South Korea, and China representing the largest destinations.
• About three-quarters of Japan's oil imports and about 50 percent of China's pass through this strait.
Well Chris, using your thought processes, The United States can claim the moon since we were the first ones there.
The Vincennes shootdown of Iranian Air Flt 655 is a good example of exactly how a miscalculation can occur. The commander of the Vincennes was a hot dog who had a history of "aggressive maneuvering" --- trying to provoke a response by the Iranians. He ordered two missiles fired at a "heavy" identified on radar, which he claimed was attacking the Vincennes despite:
1) IA Flt 655 was a regular scheduled daily flight between Tehran and Dubai. The flight was exactly on course and exactly on time and exactly where it was supposed to be. No one even bothered to check to see if there was an aircraft that was supposed to be there at that time.
2) The aircract was identified as a "Heavy" whereas an F-14 would have been a Lt. There is a significant difference between the radar return of an Airbus and a Tomcat. The aircraft was actually ID'ed on the CIC plot screen as HVY 14.
3) The aircraft was still ascending and had not reached cruise altitude and speed. A Tomcat setting up for an attack would not have been ascending, it would have been descending. This was clearly indicated on the CIVC plotboard.
4) Flt 655 was squawking its Mode III transponder. While the CIC tag did initially identify it as "IA655", that was manually overridden at some point. Apparently the CIC staff blew it off without even checking because they reasoned that Mode III is used by both civilian and military aircraft. They failed to consider that a Tomcat has ONLY a Mode II IFF and was not capable of squawking Mode III.
5) The airspeed was consistent with an Airbus and too slow to be a Tomcat maneuvering to attack.
6) The Airbus was over Iranian airspace when it was shot at and it fell into Iranian territorial waters in the Strait of Hormuz.
7) The Vincennes apparently tried to contact the Airbus on military emergency channels, hailing it as "Unidentified commercial aircraft". A commercial aircraft would not have had the equipment to monitor Guard.
8) The Vincennes already had a history of intruding into Iranian and Omani territorial waters and shooting at Iranian and Omany naval assets. Because the Vincennes had goine into Iranian waters to attack Iranian naval craft, it was still in Iranian territorial waters when it fired at Flt 655.
9) While the Vincennes commander claims to have tried to contact the airliner on both civilian and military emergency freqencis, he failed to hail them on the Air Traffic Control frequency which would have been the primary channel being monitored since Flt 655 was still ascending from takeoff. The problem with hailing "unidentified commercial aircraft" and "unidentified heavy" is that even if the Airbus had received the call, it had no way of knowing what aircraft the hail was intended for. It could have been any aircraft within a 500nm diameter circle.
10) The lone F-14 identification ignored the fact that Iranians virtually always launched F-14's in pairs. This is because the Iranians were extremely paranoid about IAF pilots defecting. Most fighters in combat areas launch in pairs or flights so that they pilots can cover each other's backs.
The conclusion of the naval inquiry stated, "The data from USS Vincennes tapes, information from USS Sides and reliable intelligence information, corroborate the fact that Iran Air Flight 655 was on a normal commercial air flight plan profile, in the assigned airway, squawking Mode III 6760, on a continuous ascent in altitude from take-off at Bandar Abbas to shoot-down." When questioned in a 2000 BBC documentary, the U.S. government stated in a written answer that they believed the incident may have been caused by a simultaneous psychological condition amongst the 18 bridge crew of the Vincennes called 'scenario fulfillment', which is said to occur when persons are under pressure. In such a situation, the men will carry out a training scenario, believing it to be reality while ignoring sensory information that contradicts the scenario. In the case of this incident, the scenario was an attack by a lone military aircraft.
This is just how a miscalculation can take place. All you have to have is one rogue commander, one mis-identification, or one mis-communication for 290 innocent people to die in a horrendous fashion. And, as in this example, it is just as likely for the party in the wrong to be the US as it for it to be Iran.
The US never owned up completely to the event, never paid full reparations, never apologized, and never punished anyone for such incredible ineptness. Perhaps so to show support for our wonderful ally, Sadaam Hussein.
As the rhetoric heats up, I would be certain that Flt 655 is in the back of everyone's minds. Just the incredible lack of trust that the Iranians have for this country alone is fuel for rapid escalation. Just one guy with his finger on a shore-to-ship missile whose cousin died on Flt 655 would be all it would take.
It was a huge mistake and tragic. However, you fail to mention that in the close confines of the gulf the Tomcat IFF was correctly identified as an Iranian warplane nearby.
That does not excuse the mistake, but it might help someone understand that the Vincennes confused an incoming aircraft because of a near simultaneous appearance of an Iranian warplane IFF signal coming from the same azimuth. Also it is a common missile attack profile, such as if one had been launched by the Tomcat, to come up and overhead before striking straight down at the target.
shooting down that Iranian airbus was no mistake ... as the poster noted this commander was a hotdoger, meaning he usually shot first and then asked questions. Commanders like this Vincennes one need to be courtmartialed instead of being promoted upstairs for their negligence. He is a murderer with a licence to kill.
Just a minor addition:
According to Wikkipedia:
"In February 1996 the United States agreed to pay Iran US$131.8 million in settlement to discontinue a case brought by Iran in 1989 against the U.S. in the International Court of Justice relating to this incident, together with other earlier claims before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal. US$61.8 million of the claim was in compensation for the 248 Iranians killed in the shootdown ($300,000 per wage-earning victim, $150,000 per non-wage-earner). It was not disclosed how the remaining $70 million of the settlement was apportioned, though it appears a close approximation of the value of a used A300 jet at the time. Further compensation was paid for the 38 non-Iranian deaths. The payment of compensation was explicitly characterized by the US as being on an ex gratia basis, and the U.S. denied having any responsibility or liability for what happened."
Hey Chris, are you doing propaganda for Iran?
Chris. I guess you don't know that the Vincennes was shooting at Iranian gunboats which had attacked the ship's helicopter in International waters before it shot down the Airbus. Just thought I would let you know that.
All it takes is one mistake, right? Then we could be at war, which we cannot afford. Where does all that oil go that is being shipped out of there? Someone said China gets theirs by pipe line, Russia has it's own. So just who get's the oil? It's not the US, the majority of ours comes from south of the border.
So who ever gets the oil should have their ships there, either in conjuction with ours, or just withdraw ours. We cannot afford to be the world cops, and we damn sure cannot afford another war.
Last time I checked, there are no gunboats or naval blockades at the Canadian border. To bad we aren't building the KeyStone XL pipeline, but we have to protect the Ogalala aquifer. Never mind the fact that the Ogalala covers the entire state of Nebraska, and huge parts of Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas....the sand hills region is special. Ignore the fact that all these state are already crisscrossed with existing oil and gas pipe lines, we just can't risk the environmental impact of one more. I am sure the Canadians will just give up on their massive natural resource since we won't build them a pipe line. I am happy we are all safe until after the November election when this gets approved anyway (Republican or Democrat).
For Canada no Keystone is not a problem.
The Chinese will take whatever oil Canada can deliver to the planned Kittimat port. And don't forget that China shortly will be the worlds single largest oil consumer of oil.If you are not in the game now it will be much harder to join later on when all oil has been tied up in long term contracts
India just agreed to pay for the Iranian oil in GOLD and China is thinking about it.
So much for that stupid oil embargo that the USA, AIPAC and Israel are putting in place and locking up all bank accounts from Iran
Iran should be smart and immediatly right now cut all oil supply the the coutries that are participating in this oil embargo.
It will be interresting to see how the world economies react to that.
Better make some investments in gold. The US dollar as the worlds reserve currency will be toast when they start paying in gold.
Reposted above.
I'm not sure why 1984 is considered the start date by the author of this story. We were there in 1983 onboard USS Lawrence DDG4 doing exactly the same duty (Tanker Escort Duty) and the Iran-Iraq war was in full swing by then as well. Iranian boats and aircraft were harassing us all along and we regularly fired warning shots on them as well as opening fire (and destroying) an oil terminal that was being used to launch harassment sorties by the Iranian military. I believe Straits of Hormuz Tanker Escort Duty operations kicked off as soon as the Iran-Iraq war went full tilt. So, 1984, used as a start date by the author,is off by about a year.
How about a canal (or two) through the peninsula that creates the Straits??