The ‘few minute’ warning

On Jan. 6, three U.S. warships reported being confronted by five Iranian speedboats while traveling in the international waters of the Strait of Hormuz (a narrow waterway between Oman and Iran that connects the Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean). According to U.S. military sources, the speedboats charged the warships while a radio broadcast warned “I am coming to you. You will explode in a few minutes.” Fortunately, right before one of the warships was going to fire on the speedboats, the speedboats turned away and conflict was avoided.\nAt least a conflict involving bullets was avoided. In the aftermath, a war of words has erupted between the U.S. and Iranian governments. The Americans are warning Iran that threats to U.S. ships will not be tolerated and the Iranians are claiming that nothing unusual occurred. Both governments have released video clips supporting their side f the story. Meanwhile, uncertainty has emerged over the radio threat’s source – Iran disowns it, and veteran U.S. sailors say it could have come from a land-based prankster.\nIn the U.S. media, the question has become, “What should the government do?” Is the Bush administration “warmongering” for the sake of cynical domestic political gain, or is it giving a tepid reply to a grave threat from a terror-sponsoring, theocratic dictatorship?\nPreferring that international waterways stay clear of the malevolent designs of the Iranian government, but also preferring rattling sabers to thundering bombs, we’re inclined to say that the U.S. response has been fairly appropriate, if a little simplistic. \nThe U.S. government is right to warn that it will respond with force if American ships are attacked, especially because the Iranian government kidnapped 15 British sailors from Iraqi territorial waters in April. By venting its collective spleen at a supposedly unitary “Iran,” the Bush administration is (as usual) botching the public relations war.\nThe Hormuz incident has all the hallmarks of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s domestic politicking. Unpopular with Iran’s citizenry for his failed economic policies and social repression, and seen as reckless by government insiders, Ahmadinejad has repeatedly sought to bolster public support and outflank rivals by provoking the U.S. government, thereby generating temporary “rally-round-the-flag” popularity. Given that Iran was benefiting from decreased U.S. and global pressure following the claim in December’s National Intelligence Estimate that it had halted its nuclear weapons program, it’s difficult to see how the regime’s geopolitical ambitions are served by drawing attention to itself again (rather than quietly challenging the United States through, for example, its support for Iraqi Shiite factions). It’s not, however, difficult to see how this might benefit Ahmadinejad and his hard-line supporters.\nRather than rail against Iran in general, the U.S. government should crib a line from Columbia University president Lee Bollinger’s introduction of Ahmadinejad preceding his Sept. 24 speech and talk about how this incident is just a bluster from “a petty and cruel dictator” desperate to save his hide from a domestic drubbing.