Navy commander surrendered to Iran to protect Obama’s nuclear deal
Navy commander surrendered to Iran to protect Obama’s nuclear deal
By Carlo Muñoz, Washington Times , June 30, 2016
The Navy commander in charge of a pair of patrol boats captured by Iranian forces in January opted to surrender rather than fight back, citing later fears that a confrontation could endanger the Obama administration’s efforts to lock in a deal with Tehran on its nuclear program.
In an interview with investigators looking into the January incident, the commander said he surrendered the vessels after calculating that his sailors would not be in danger because Iran “wants this nuke deal to go through.”
The interview was one of several stunning revelations in the often scathing 170-page report compiled by Navy investigators, chronicling the chain of events that led to the apprehension and detention of the 10 American sailors by the Iranian military after a pair of U.S. patrol boats drifted into the country’s sovereign waters in the Persian Gulf….
Nine Navy officers have been fired for their involvement in the incident, in which the two Navy patrol boats, running late on their assigned mission, drifted into the costal waters near Farsi Island, home to an Iranian naval base.
The Navy officers fired included squadron chief Cmdr. Greg Meyer and Capt. Kyle Moses, head of Combined Task Force 56, the unit in charge of the boat crews.
Heavily outgunned and outnumbered by members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Navy commander — whose name was redacted from the report — told investigators he calculated that Tehran’s desire to keep the nuclear deal with the U.S. alive would also protect the 10 American sailors if they surrendered.
“I didn’t want to start a war with Iran. … I didn’t want to start a war that would get people killed,” the commander said.
“I guess this was a gamble on my part. … I made the gamble that they were not going to kill us. I made the gamble they were not going to parade us around like prisoners of war because they want this nuke deal to go through.”
Mr. Obama, the unidentified commander said, would not want me to start a war over a mistake, over a misunderstanding.”
‘Adverse to U.S. interests’
The partially redacted report was also critical of the behavior of the U.S. sailors once in Iranian custody.
One sailor reportedly made “statements adverse to U.S. interests” during interrogation. As the Iranians videotaped their captives for later display on state television, another sailor encouraged the U.S. crew members to accept food offered to them.
One unidentified sailor was said to have violated the code of conduct standards when he “acquiesced” in making an Iranian-scripted statement on camera in exchange for the crew’s release.
“It was a mistake that was our fault and we apologize for our mistake,” a U.S. sailor, identified as the commander of one of the patrol boats, said during the videotaped apology. “It was a misunderstanding. We did not mean to go into Iranian territorial water. The Iranian behavior was fantastic while we were here. We thank you very much for your hospitality and your assistance.”…
Tags
Who is online
65 visitors
I have a few thoughts here.
Considering that the US trusts Iran to uphold its commitments in the nuke deal, one has to wonder how trustworthy Iran is to have arrested the sailors instead of simply guiding their ships back out of Iranian waters, as any nation would do when the trespasser was not an enemy.
I wonder what went through Xi Jinping's mind when he saw the reports on this. On the other hand, how did Taiwan, Japan the the Philippines feel about it?
The US is said to police the seas. Britain once did too:
Rule Britannia! Britannia rule the waves Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.Nothing lasts forever.
Obama's nuclear deal Buzz? You remember there were a bunch of other countries involved in the negotiations right?
Keep the headline if you want, but if you really think about the circumstances, it is very doubtful that local commanders on both sides are going to be worried about what is happening in a conference room full of politicians. The Iranian sailors were doing their job by protecting their waters, and the errant US Sailors were trying to protect their ships and crews given their unforgivable mistakes at all levels.
In fact I just read the declassified 179 page COMUSNAVCENT report dated 28FEB16. The actions of the Riverine boat commanders, and the crew is disgraceful. The entire command was hosed up as it seemed to be focused on it's "management-centric" proficiency rating than it was about combat readiness. Just more assholes worried about their careers more than their missions. Even worse, it seemed as if the boat crews had never even heard of the Code of Conduct for Members of the United States Armed Forces.
Again, nothing short of disgraceful.
I did not and would not change the headline for the Washington Times article. It's their headline, not mine.
As for the "other countries", don't make me laugh. They sat back and let the US do the job.
You know better than anyone on this site that Maritime Law would normally be carried out in a practical manner by Iran guiding the US ships back into international waters rather than arresting and humiliating the sailors.
Again, the actions of local "jr" commanders on both sides unknowingly yielded a political bonanza for Iran at the time.
And as far as the other countries sitting back.... Please!!! With all of the potential for political posturing/grandstanding available to the leaders of the likes of China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States; plus Germany in the Iran negotiations to be had....? We both know that political leaders of any nationality have never seen a photo-op they wouldn't avoid, and a political negotiation they couldn't resist putting themselves in the middle of.
It looked to me that only America talked the talk - from all the news articles I saw during the negotiations.
Think about it for a bit Buzz...... Russia wants to sell arms to Iran. Think they kept quiet at the negotiation table?
Here.... follow the money. This link will point you to the countries that really wanted to "make the deal" (spoiler alert...Russia, France, Germany, and China) Those with cars, banks, oil/production, telecommunications industries, and weapons wanted the deal to go through..... in other words all of them.
Besides...... the Iran deal may just fall apart without Iran being allowed to obtain any of it's reported $100-billion.
I don't believe Iran has formally signed the deal as yet anyway. I'm sure they'll hold out until they get ALL their wishes granted.
Those other countries had the motive for the deal, as you pointed out, but I still say it was the US that took the lead and then made all the concessions to Iran in order to get Iran to agree.
Besides...... the Iran deal may just fall apart without Iran being allowed to obtain any of it's reported $100-billion.
Do you still think so Fly, with them holding our service men? I don't think so. They make great leverage, without us looking like we are paying a ransom.
All the squids and the equipment have been returned to the US with the exception of two SIM cards taken from communication equipment Perrie.
FUBAR pretty much covers the incident.
You're being too kind Kavika!
And, don't forget SNAFU.
In fact I just read the declassified 179 page COMUSNAVCENT report dated 28FEB16
I would like to read it, but have been unsuccessful in finding it. Can you point me in the right direction? Or better yet, post it separately as an article or seed?
One thing I have been able to determine is that the extremely conservative Washington Times has included information in this article that cannot be construed as anything other than outright lies...not exaggerations or yarn-spinning, but outright lies. I'm sorry, but that bugs the shit out of me. And frankly, I can't figure out why it doesn't bug the shit out of everybody commenting here.
This is a link to the US Naval Institute Press where I have access to the embedded report. Unfortunately it may be locked to those without a subscription to Proceedings Magazine.
Best I can do for you.....
Thank you.
Sister: Please point out the lies and provide the truth where necessary. I have no idea what the political leanings of that particular medium were. Just saying it's biased or as you said "extremely conservative" does not establish that it does not provide actual facts. Are the quotations fictional? Is the photo photoshopped to show the sailors surrendered when actually they didn't?
Sister: Please point out the lies and provide the truth where necessary
My comment was in no way meant to criticize you or your decision to seed the article. I apologize if it came across that way.
From this article:
Nine Navy officers have been fired for their involvement in the incident, in which the two Navy patrol boats, running late on their assigned mission, drifted into the costal waters near Farsi Island, home to an Iranian naval base.
Two officers were relieved of duty.
*edit!!* I've been reading the investigative report and forgot to finish this. I found some info that pertains to what is said here, but I want to make sure I understand it before I flap my yap.
Again, no disrespect was intended toward you.
I never considered it an insult or being disrespectful of me, so you need not apologize for that. It's just that I seek the truth, sort of like Emile Zola did in the Dreyfus case. I stand by his statement: "The truth is on the march, and nothing will stop it." So don't just criticize a source unless you can provide evidence that the statements made were false - they may well be the truth.
I admit that there are some sources I will criticize because most of what they publish is outright anti-Semitic falsehoods and blood libels such as rense.com, stormfront, veterans today, but I will damn well rely on Gatestone Institute because even if there is some bias, and John Bolton is involved with it, it relates facts and many of the articles are written by Muslims. I do not post articles by Pamela Geller or Robert Spence because I believe they provide too much negative opinion, even though some of the articles contain factual matters that cannot be refuted (other than by someone whose only argument is that they are biased).
The sailors fucked up. In the old days this would have happened.
I gotta say, if this dip shite actually surrendered for the reason he claims than I don't want him on my team. It's not for him to reason or ponder. He has protocol and orders that he should be following. That's what has made us so successful militarily in the past.
I also have to agree with what some have pointed out regarding how other Countries view us and our strength. How we've responded to Russia is definitely a factor. We've allowed Russia to frame the message that the US is weak. They understand that it doesn't matter what happens behind close doors. What matters is how the public sees and perceives their actions and our lack of action. It's all about public perception and they're winning IMO
We recently sent the Looser Too news team to interview some typical Russians about this critical international dilemma -
for translation send $29.95 plus postage
Who the heck still wears briefs?!!! eeeeeeek
works for me
And they went and found Trump supporters...... way to follow instructions.