Strait facts

Gigantic errors severely undercut latest "Gulf of Tonkin"


Strait facts
by Daniel M Pourkesali

Iran's release of the video taken on the morning of Sunday January 6th in the Strait of Hormuz, clearly debunks Pentagon's hype of depicting a routine patrolling operation by the Iranian Navy as an act of unfathomable aggression against the United States.

Timing of this so called 'provocation' incident in the Persian Gulf just before Mr. Bush's trip to the region was also very convenient as he went on reminding the world and all the client Arab states in the region during a press conference in Israel yesterday that they must fear this menacing "threat to the world peace" and prepare for a joint U.S./Israeli action to deal with Iran.

Some have rightfully compared it with another eerily similar 'incident' in the Gulf of Tonkin on August 2, 1964 when another government lie started a war leading to over 50,000 American deaths and millions of Vietnamese casualties.

But several gigantic errors and miscalculations severely undercut this latest concoction. First, this is not 1964 and thanks to internet people no longer have to rely on radio, television, and newspapers version of the events which often report such official claims as absolute truths.

Second, Iranians unlike their American counterparts do remember and have learned quiet a bit from their history with the United States especially in the aftermath of the 1953 CIA coup which put an end to their budding democratic government.

The amateurish video audio hodgepodge released by DoD to bolster U.S. claims has instead raised more questions and exposed the U.S.'s hostile intent rather than portraying it as victim of the Iranian mischief. According to a report published in the New York Times, unnamed Pentagon officials are saying that the threatening voice heard in the audio clip which was recorded separately from the video images and merged together later by the Navy, "is not traceable to the Iranian military".

That voice spoken in an unfamiliar accent was the dead giveaway for many Iranians including this writer that the video was a hoax. To the contrary, the Iranian version appears realistic with audio and video perfectly synchronized in what appears to have been shot with an ordinary camcorder most of us are familiar with. The Navy men speak in a very familiar accent while going about their business of patrolling and identifying ships sailing in or near Iranian territorial waters.

Here is the text of the conversation that took place between the two patrolmen on the Iranian Navy speed boat as translated from Persian:

0:07 #1: "Announce its position"

0:30 (Patrolman #2 calls the other by name with a reference to need for safety procedures)

0:45 #1: "Slowly get a little closer… can't make out the ship number"

0:50 #2: "Did you get it?"

0:51 #1: "Yeah, it is not clear"

0:56 #1: "Wait just a moment"

0:57 #2: "It is better now"

1:16 #1: "Is it 73?" (Boat proceeds to pull a little closer)

1:32 #1: "I hear something being announced from its loudspeakers, what is it saying?"

1:50 #1: "I think they're talking to us"

2:35 #2: "Channel?" (Getting ready to establish radio communication)

2:36 #1: "16"

2:37 #2: "What was the ship number?"

2:38 #1: "73"

2:40 (Then patrolman #2 starts the radio communication in English)

Wouldn't the U.S. Coast Guard be doing exactly the same if a Russian or Chinese war ship sailed into the Gulf of Mexico just off the Florida coastline?

At the very end of this 5 minute video one of the Iranian patrolmen is heard reciting the ship's position: "26 and 30 minutes north and 0 and 56 minutes east" and the American ships are shown sailing away west without incident.

Welcome to the Persian Gulf.


Recently by Daniel M PourkesaliCommentsDate
Neither wrong nor illegal
Dec 06, 2010
National Interest
Jun 17, 2009
True intentions
May 13, 2009
more from Daniel M Pourkesali

TO: Daniel Great Analysis & TO: AMERICAN: Go read US History

by Arezu (not verified) on


Your assessment of the situation seems to match the recent news that is coming out from the Pentagon after the Iranians showed their own version of the video and the full 36 minute video that was recently released.

Obviously this crisis was concocted by the Pentagon to either create a “Gulf of Tonkin” type incident, or to have President Bush, continue raising the Iran threat during his recent visit to Israel and some of the Arab states. After all fear has to remain in the air both for domestic consumption and justify U.S. gun boat diplomacy and the petrodollars have to be re-cycled back to the U.S. for more arms sales.

The Pentagon released the full 36-minute video of the encounter on Friday. According to the Pentagon, additional close-ups on the footage show the Iranian boats. None of the boats had more than a four-man crew, each wearing an orange lifesaving vest. None of the boats appeared to have any mounted weapons.

While, The USS Port Royal, an Aegis cruiser, has a crew of about 360 and carries missile launchers, torpedoes and artillery. The USS Hopper, a guided-missile destroyer, has a crew of about 350 and is armed with anti-ship cruise missiles, torpedoes and artillery. The USS Ingraham, a frigate, has a crew of about 215 and carries torpedoes, artillery and two helicopters. The video shows a U.S. helicopter flying over the Iranian boats.

The verbal threats cannot be heard in the video because they were in a separate audio recording released earlier in the week.

With respect to the voice, “coming to bomb you…..” Middle East Farsi speaking experts from the Carnegie Endowment from Peace indicated: “The accent "sounded Pakistani, South Asian or an American trying to sound Iranian.” They have no clue where the voice is coming from. This is being reported by The Washington Post not some b.s. web-link publishing false information.

Furthermore as Gareth Porter (investigative historian, who writes for Inter Press Service. His latest book is called Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam ) states in his interview with Democracy Now:

“If you look carefully at the transcript, which was not reported accurately by the media, or not reported at all practically, the commander—or rather, Vice Admiral Cosgriff actually makes it clear that the ships were never in danger, that they never believed they were in danger, and that they were never close to firing on the Iranian boats. And this is the heart of what actually happened, which was never reported by the US media.

So I think that the major thing to really keep in mind about this is that it was blown up into a semi-crisis by the Pentagon and that the media followed along very supinely. And I must say this is perhaps the worst—the most egregious case of sensationalist journalism in the service of the interests of the Pentagon, the Bush administration, that I have seen so far.”

Now they are saying that the U.S. Navy is sensitive about small boats because of the 2000 al-Qaeda attack on the USS Cole in Yemen.

I would say the Iranians have more reason to be concerned with American warships in the Persian Gulf. Let’s not forget several incidents in the Persian Gulf by US warships.

On April 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war, the USS Roberts struck an Iraqi mine and then conveniently launched an attack against Iran in the Persian Gulf the largest naval action involving US surface ships including USS Enterprise, USS Wainwright, USS Strauss, USS Simpson et al. The Iranians lost one of their most modern warships as well as a torpedo boat.

As if this was not enough the U.S. warships came back to repair another warship in the Persian Gulf, and on July 3, 1988, the USS Vincennes launched several Aegis surface-to-air missiles which destroyed an Iranian regularly scheduled commercial airliner, Iran Air Flight IR655, killing all 275 passengers and 15 crew.

The Pentagon’s response to this was they mistakenly identified the Iranian Airbus to one of the F-14 TomCat fighters sold to the Shah. Now how can the almighty, high tech U.S. warship not be able to distinguish a commercial aircraft from an F-14 fighter is beyond logic. I mean with all the billions of dollars spent on these sophisticated weapons they can’t distinguish a passenger flight!! That’s not the end; the U.S. naval commanders and sailors received gold medals for such a barbaric act.

Even, Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, said: "Extreme caution is always appropriate before drawing conclusions ... that might leave to violent conflict. That's almost so obvious that I feel embarrassed saying it, but there is a history of mistaken interpretations of these kinds of encounters that ought to teach us humility."

But of course humility and caution are not the traits of a trigger happy, warmongering Bush Administration.

I really wonder who is harassing who in the Persian Gulf, and what business do three U.S. warships have in the narrow waters of the Persian Gulf?

AS FOR YOU AMERICAN, obviously you are either just an arrogant patriot, or really have no clue about U.S. history and foreign policy.

You show us one country that the U.S. brought democracy, freedom and liberated their people from their dictators, and I can assure you, you will receive tons of material of how many dictators the U.S. propped up, how many popular elected leaders the U.S. staged a coup against; how many mercenaries, guerrilla groups it funded to bring down governments in order to prop up its own puppet rulers that served its own political and economic interest; how it has lied repeatedly to the American people by engaging in illegal wars and destruction of lives of the innocent people of such countries including the American soldiers.

You speak about democracy and freedom, give me a break; let the Bush Administration give us back the freedom that is our right under the U.S. Constitution before attempting to spread it to other countries. We should clean our house first and abide by the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Geneva Convention, the UN Charter, before we have any credibility to speak about democracy and freedom for others.


From: //ginacobb.typepad (re: 567)

by Anonymous123 (not verified) on

your verboseness has reverse correlation with your common sense. You are forgetting that we are dealing with a gang (neocon/AIPAC) that cooked up the case for a whole war. Cooking up a small event for these chefs is easy.
Losers like you are even behind your spiritual leader in learning abilities. Haven't you got it yet that these neo-crazies (as conservative Pat Buchanan calls them) are disaster for us and the whole world?


From: //ginacobb.typepad

by 567 (not verified) on


Huffington Posts Disgraces Itself With Pro-Iranian, Anti-U.S. Navy Hit Piece from Unqualified Source
The Huffington Post has once again reached into the bottom of the barrel to dredge up and publish a pro-Iranian, anti-American hit piece by a music producer, Hooman Majd, who offers his "expert" opinion that Iranian Revolutionary Guard patrol boats were not acting in a hostile manner toward U.S. Navy ships in the Strait of Hormuz over the weekend.

It's all about short-term political partisan advantage, of course. The mindset of the Huffington Post and the far left in general: The current American president is a Republican, ergo, every enemy of the president is a friend of mine, and the long-term consequences of siding with America's enemies be damned. Never mind that Iran represses, hangs, and imprisons its people and routinely chants "Death to America" in public rallies (and in its own parliament on the day it voted to resume uranium enrichment).

Publishing the military opinions of a record producer as if they were expert military opinion is doubly foolish. The Huffington Post would have been better off to remain silent if it could not offer a qualified expert.

For the Huffington Post to go so far out on a limb to take sides in favor of a nation that has sworn to destroy America may not be treason, but it's still the kind of stain that doesn't wash out.

From the Weekly Standard:

The teaser for the piece reads, "At the risk of sounding like an apologist for the Islamic Republic..." The author is Hooman Majd, who accuses the Pentagon of manufacturing the incident with Iran in the Gulf this week.

The Pentagon's version of the encounter in the Strait of Hormuz on Sunday morning, involving U.S. Navy warships and Iranian Revolutionary Guard patrol boats is, at the very least highly suspicious. On Tuesday, the Navy released video footage and an audiotape to back its claims that the Iranian boats acted in a threatening and provocative manner, but neither the video nor the audio are particularly convincing as proof that Iran had hostile intentions. The video, which shows what is claimed are Iranian boats speeding around U.S. ships, doesn't show any of the boats hurtling directly towards any of the navy ships, nor does it show what the Pentagon claimed the Iranians then did, namely dropped "white boxes" in the water.

It goes on like that--analysis of the accents, Iranian naval tactics, etc. And what are Mr. Majd's qualifications for such an analysis?

Hooman Majd has had a long career as an executive in the music and film businesses. He was Executive VP of Island Records, where he worked with a diverse group of artists including U2, The Cranberries, Tricky and Melissa Etheridge; and Head of Film and Music at Palm Pictures, where he executive-produced James Toback’s “Black and White” and Khyentse Norbu’s “The Cup” (Cannes 1999).

Watch the tape for yourself--no one but an apologist for the Iranian regime could possibly claim that the boats shown were not acting in a threatening and reckless manner. And Majd has absolutely no evidence on which to base his accusation that the Pentagon manufactured or concocted any of this.

It'd be one thing if Arianna got some expert in Naval tactics to write a piece saying that, from the video available, it isn't clear that the Iranian were acting in the aggressive manner the Pentagon alleged--though I doubt she could find a reputable expert to say any such thing. But to have some record producer accuse the military of a conspiracy based on...what exactly? The Huffington Post would have been better off just posting the Iranian regime's propaganda. It draws the same conclusion, yet much more elegantly.

Environmental Republican, who has had prior experience with Iran in the Straits of Hormuz, weighs in:

Let me tell you all a story about my experience with the Iranian military. In 1992, my ship was traversing the Straits of Hormuz on the way to Oman. Iranian gunboats encircled the ship and got dangerously close--this was pre-USS Cole days mind you. I was stationed on a starboard-side .50 cal gun mount and was tracking the boats awaiting the word to open fire. It's not hard to hit a small boat with a rapid fire weapon, you just walk it in. But alas, we didn't wish to cause an international incident and were told to safe the weapons. I was ready to take them out as soon as ordered to do so and I wished they had done so as a warning to steer clear of US warships in international waters.

Flash forward to present, the Straits are a thin strip of water and the Iranian's are always in the area when we travel through them. They have made hostile gestures to us for years and--keeping in mind the USS Cole attack--the captain was indeed cautious, if not entirely foolish to not at least fire a warning shot but he was there and I was not.

[Quoting Majd:] Iranian patrol boats do indeed, as Iran freely admits, check on ships that enter the Persian Gulf, in this case only three miles outside its territorial waters, much as one would expect them to do (and as the U.S. Coast Guard would undoubtedly do if a foreign fleet of warships cruised within fifteen miles of say, Miami Beach), but apart from the arrest of the British sailors last year, there is hardly ever even a sharp exchange of words. At the risk of sounding like (and as I'm sure I will be accused of being) an apologist for the Islamic Republic, the encounter with the U.S. Navy as described by the Pentagon just doesn't ring true. Coming as it did on the eve of President Bush's visit to the Middle East, the encounter as described is doubly suspicious.

Ding ding! We have a winner. You don't sound like an apologist for the Islamic Republic, you sir are an apologist for that vile regime (you know, the country that "has no gay people"). He freely admits that Iran has a right to harass US shipping in international waters. To most people, that's an act of aggression. To Mr. Majd, it's Iran's right to do so in the a strait that is devilishly thin.

I'm sorry if I don't acknowledge the expertise of a record producer over that of a US Navy Commander so at the risk of sounding like an apologist for the Navy and being that he sounds exactly like an apologist, Mr. Majd's hypothesis sounds doubly suspicious. The fact that Iran--your birth country and the nation you now defend--was complicit in taking 52 Americans hostage and holding them for 444-day, was responsible for the death of hundreds of Marines in Beirut and now arms both Syria and Hezbollah makes me triply suspicious, sir.

An eminently qualified source, defense analyst Stuart Koehl, says the U.S. Navy did the right thing by maintaining a defensive posture and capturing the incident on tape, but that there is a real risk that the Iranians are preparing for a suicide attack at sea:

The type of boats used by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps are quite similar to the "cigarette boats" favored by drug smugglers off Florida and the Gulf Coast. Essentially big engines and massive fuel tanks wedded to the smallest possible hull, they are capable of speeds in excess of 40 knots, but are wildly unstable in anything other than calm seas, and therefore make lousy weapons platforms--if your weapon of choice is something like a gun, rocket, or shoulder-fired missile. On the other hand, you can fill one of those boats up with about a quarter ton of high explosives (more if you ditch some of the fuel), in which case you have a very nice manned torpedo (the Japanese were gearing up for that at the end of World War II). Because of their speed and maneuverability, it doesn't take too long for those boats to close inside the engagement zone of a major warship (e.g., the Ticonderoga class cruiser in the video), so if you let them get too close, there is a good possibility they could ram you, if that is their intent.

If you look at the video, you can see them crossing and recrossing the wakes of our ships, then pulling up alongside at a distance of a hundred meters or so, then breaking away and repeating the process. To me, it looked as if they were practicing for just such a suicide attack--checking out the angles, the times and the distances involved, looking over the ships to determine the arcs of fire for the close-in weapon systems.

Now, since the Cole incident, the U.S. Navy has invested a lot in close-in defense against small surface craft. They added pintle-mounted machine-guns along the rails, added electro-optical sensors to provide better target acquisition capability, and most of all, they modified the Mk.15 Phalanx Close-in Weapon System (CIWS) to engage surface as well as missile targets. So there is a good chance that, given adequate warning, our ships could destroy those boats before they could strike home. On the other hand, how long does it take a boat going 40 knots to close 100 meters? About two seconds. So, if the boats approach from the right angle, they may get inside our defenses before we have a chance to shoot. Or, assuming that we do hit the boat, it is moving so quickly and is so close that it could "go ballistic" even if severely damaged; i.e., it would continue on to hit the ship anyway.

If these provocations continue in the future, the U.S. will have to take some action, simply because treating them as "business as usual" creates an atmosphere of complacency. The first 99 times the Iranians do this, nothing happens--then on the 100th incident, they press the attack. This is a very old ruse of war--set up a routine to lull the enemy into a false sense of security, then strike. Worked for the Israelis in 1967, for the Egyptians in 1973--for that matter, it worked for Joshua more than 3500 years ago. The way to avoid the problem and minimize the danger is to swat the fly away--to show the enemy that you won't be diddled with impunity. You don't actually have to shoot at anyone, not when you're driving a 9100-ton cruiser and they have 30 ton speedboats--all you have to do is pass a little too closely while cranking 30 knots, and let your bow wave and wake do the rest. If you're feeling charitable, you can lower a boat and pick up survivors.


So which is it? Yesterday

by vb (not verified) on

So which is it? Yesterday the Iranians were claiming, "These things happen all the time and it's no big deal." to today's "You faked the video."



Daniel: I thank you for your

by Ali (not verified) on


I thank you for your well written and informative article. I hope that it will be distributed to the other media outlets. Any one with an ounce of respect for the life and dignity of other people cannot support this administration’s (or the Republican Party’s) bellicose stance towards Iran. No matter what government is in power in Iran, be it democratic or the religious dictatorship that it is now, one cannot support a totally baseless and unjustified attack on Iran. An attack on Iran will very likely lead to countless deaths, civil war and fragmentation in Iran and the destruction of Iranian infrastructure (bridges, power stations, radar installations, etc.). It would leave Iran in a perilous and bleeding state a la Iraq after the 1st gulf war. The repercussions for the US and those complicit in such an attack include many fold increases in anti-Americanism and terrorist activities, a total revolt of the Shia in Iraq against the US, the destruction of the Saudi Arabian and the Gulf Arab states’ economies and an accompanying rise in oil prices that will undoubtedly lead to a global economic depression. Any one who would support such bellicose actions either hates Iran and the Iranian people (such as the majority of the Israeli and the American right) or is desperate to come to power at any price (the end justifies the means rationale). Let’s hope that this administration will leave Iran to the Iranians to deal with, as they no doubt will someday.


At the siege of Vienna in

by mnb (not verified) on

At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe. We are in a new phase of a very old war



by lkj (not verified) on


The newly-released tape of the Iranian patrol boats pushing in on U.S warships shows just how close we are, routinely, to a major conflagration with unknowable consequences.

That the crew of the USS Hopper did not open fire on the speedboats and cause a serious international incident is a tribute to their discipline, particularly given the memory of the suicide bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen.

To be able to resist pulling the trigger when someone says “I am coming at you. You will explode in a few minutes” is nothing short of a miracle.

But it is exactly the type of attack that U.S. forces are most worried about-a large-scale attack by an enemy that embraces death rather than seeking to inflict damage but live to fight another day. This is what makes what may once have been routine harassment measures into what must now be viewed as serious, lethal threats.

In reading the literature of radical Islamists, both Sunni and Shia, the narrative told of embracing death for the sake of Allah leading eternal and immediate reward is pervasive.

This teaching is embraced and propounded not just by recognized jihadist groups like al Qaeda, who embraced the tactic on 9/11 and since. That might be easier to isolate and discredit.

However, the narrative has gained widespread public currency with the most prominent of the supposedly “moderate” members of the Muslim Brotherhood such as Yousef al-Qaradawi and Azzam Tamimi.

The Brotherhood’s endorsement and sponsorship of this tactic, and all that in entails in the loss of civilian life, serves as a powerful motivating factor for young people to embrace suicide bombing.

Given the Brotherhood’s control of mosques, teaching materials and the public face of Islam, both in Europe and the United States, the group’s active endorsement of this tactic has a broad reach, with catastrophic consequences

Such a step is only possible if one has been convinced of the ultimate benefit of the suicide. The Brotherhood leaders, among others, provide that justification.

It is interesting to note that those like Tamimi, who claims to be willing to be suicide bombers, or Qaradawi, who ask others to blow themselves up, live quite in comfort in London and Qatar.

I have often wondered how people like John Esposito, Bob Leiken and others who sit on boards with Tamimi and Qaradawi, cite them as moderates and seek to engage them, rationalize this issue away.

How do you join forces with people who happily send others to their death (both the bombers and their victims) while sitting in London giving fiery speeches? Not an easy intellectual or ethical journey, I would guess. Do they think it is a simple religious difference that can be overlooked? A cultural issue?

It is not possible to know if the speedboats charging the U.S. ships in international waters were acting under orders, going for a little fun, or seriously wishing to provoke an international incident.
But it is clear that such incidents, in today’s world, are deadly serious, and must be treated as such.

The risk is simply too high to assume that Islamists acting on behalf of Allah will behave in a way we find rational or non-lethal.

“Rational” and “non-lethal” are simply not terms by which one can define those who embrace an Islamic-dominated world governed by a new Caliphate, who believe the Crusades of ancient history are going on today, and who believe their life has no value except at death. Those concepts are so foreign to the rest of the world that we all struggle to get our collective minds around such beliefs. But, conceptually-foreign or not, those beliefs are real and heartily embraced by those who wish to bring chaos and carnage to civilized nations. We must recognize and acknowledge their every threat. Each is a bona fide attempt to radically and permanently alter our very way of life.


They won't quit! (Re: Dear Iva)

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

Iva says: "...dogs a.k.a. fascist pigs won't quit until they start another war to distract people from major economical issues.."

Dear Iva! you are so right, some mad dogs are following a policy of distraction along with their ongoing destruction policy.
Policy of distraction because they have increased the deficit to over $1.5 trillion and have made our economy so vulnerable that our stock market behaves as if it has the mad cow disease (check last week's Dow)!
With a group of mad dogs (necon/AIPAC) in charge there is no surprise to have a mad cow diseased Dow and Nasdaq! Is there?


America is obliged to BOMB the Islamic Republic if

by American (not verified) on

it turns out that the "terrorist" revolutionary guards indeed make provocative attempts toward the US Navy ships that are there to protect peace and stability. The Islamic Republic must realize that America has outlasted all criminal regimes in the world and the mullahs are no exception. It is simply because democracy and human rights, the tenets of America will always prevail evil, the basis of the Islamic Republic!

It is time to bring hell to the two most criminal organizations in the world, the IRGCs and the Islamic Republic of Iran respectively!

God Bless America
God Bless President Bush



by Faribors Maleknasri M.D. (not verified) on

I´m afraid just the islamists would. as soon as they see that the "other side" pays better they would over give him thier weapons. To understand this we must make clear who are islamist? They are the ones who misuse the islamic ideology to perform unislamic actions. The ISLAMIC REPUBLIC of IRAN can not be Islamist. It is founded by Moslem Iranian Nation with the help of guidance of most accepted Moslem Leader. That moslem nation would never give up protecting what it has achieved during the last 30 years, since the ISLAMIC REVOLUTION in IRAN. Even if the death would be the price to pay. it means also in future there will be routinly Identity check in the Gulf and all other places as far as - by the Iranian nation most beloved - PSSDARANE ENGHELABE ISLAMI of the ISLAMIC REPUBLIC of IRAN see it as necessary. INSHALAH. by the way I just found the following comment in "IRANIAN".
the date is sept. 2007. it is not from me. But it fits:
Khoda zani kardan behtar az MOZAKHRAFATE to yekie. Az nazarate digaroon khoshet nemiad, rooto kon oonvar.
I find it good that "IRANIAN" gives every body a chance. so - up to my opinion - shall all the useres and visitors do. I do it too. No earthy words no commands no criticism but only logical and clear arguments. Greeting


Iranian Irony!

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

Dan, a few feet away from me, my American coworker with his son serving in Iraq was more suspicious of these news than the war monger Iranian posters (mostly Monarchists and MKOs) here.
I think these retards got their hopes up again that the war is going to start soon!
Dan, thanks for posting another objective article.



by Faribors Maleknasri M.D. (not verified) on

Instead of many words please acknowledge the following as a perpetuation of evidence of provocative yankees:
Huckabee warns Iran of 'gates of hell'
Sat, 12 Jan 2008 16:28:00
Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee
Republican candidate Mike Huckabee has warned Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) to prepare to face "the gates of Hell."

The former Arkansas Governor went to extremes in a South Carolina Republican debate in which he was asked about the Strait of Hormuz identification check incident.

"Be prepared, first, to put your sights on the American vessel. And then be prepared that the next thing you see will be the gates of Hell, because that is exactly what you will see after that," said the embattled candidate.

The Pentagon backtracked on allegations that five IRGC speed boats had threatened to 'blow up' three US Navy warships, after US Navy spokesman Rear Adm. Frank Thorp IV said the apparent radio threat 'may not have even come from Iranian boats at all'.

Political analysts believe that a series of conflicting messages by Huckabee will eventually hurt his chances of winning the GOP nomination.
From a logical and neutral point of view every body sees at once who is procating. The friends of devils CAN see the things from thier own point of view. it would be strange if they did not act like this. But I think it is better not to get personal with poeple who do not stand for thier ideas and interpretations of the daily incidents on the politicl szene. And I think further the last word has the Iranian nation. To that nation count up to my opinion the ones who have founded thier ISLAMIC REPUBLIC of IRAN, are living there and are willing to protect what they have achieved in the last 30 years. regarding the US-friends and those who are on the side of USA: Also they do have the right to bring in "IRANIAN" whatever they think and whatever they want to bring in. Hier is nothing sacred. On the other side it was for me clear that the yankees are the real provocatores. alone because they march in the persian Gulf. Thousand of mile away from thier "home". The tiny and - comparing with Mighty and rich ISLAMIC REPUBLIC of IRAN - just less than a zero Island is the host of the devils. Better that country thinks over what it is doing. Iranian will - I hope so - also in future check the identity of any stranger who enters or leaves the Gulf. and all these barkings and gruntings would not help the not any more so great satan who lays just in its death bed. may be I will experience the day as it ends for ever. Inshalah.
I was just surching for the version of the Identity check from the side of ISLAMIC REPUBLIC of IRAN. Now I have it. Thank you for preparing it. Greeting


Excellent article - thank you very much

by Anonymous-2 (not verified) on

Dear Daniel:

Thank you as always for writting this factual, un-biased,article. Exceptionally written. Now if some of these monarchists, or MEK apologists want to distort this, the hell with them. They are the ones who are just as desparate as the Bush Administration in finding any excuse that would lead to an attack.


Shahollahis & Rajavists say what CIA & Mossad pay them to say

by Iranian nationalist (not verified) on

Scumbag Shahollahi and Rajavist propagandists posting on this website are saying what their paymasters in the CIA and Mossad are directing them to say by trying to provoke an invasion of Iran, because it is their only chance of coming to power again in Iran. Keep dreaming, Rajavists and Shahollahis. The Iranian people fought against you when you supported Saddam's invasion in the 1980s and they will fight against you now.


Islamist won't quit

by Iva (not verified) on

islamist dogs a.k.a. fascist pigs won't quit until they start another war to distract people from major economical issues that Iranians are facing. Economic vows that started with famous saying by the mad dog himself "economy is for donkeys".

And those idiots manning the islamists' boat don't realize that they are nothing but worms at the end of a hook!

Kouroush Sassanian

That's okay those hizbollahee were shot at today!

by Kouroush Sassanian on

I think the Hizbollah Navy would sink within an hour!!! Popcorn time!



by samuel on

Its still unbelievable for me that why some people simply say something that is truth, some other even without knowing him or any background or knowledge want to name him an agent of the Islamic regime! It is always a question for me that why some uneducated people think that there are only two colors! If its not white, it should be black! Is that mean that every thing US is doing is right and every thing is doing in Iran after this terrible regime is wrong!? I personally don't think so. Be honest with yourself please. For example, Karbaschi, even though an Iranian politician, I think he did great as a former mayor for Teheran. There are some more examples. It doesn't mean that we accept the brutality of the Islamic government. The same for the US. It doesn't mean that every thing they do is right! We never forget the coup they organized against our democratic Mosadegh government. So, no government is perfect! So, please don't think that every thing the US government is doing is right and they are perfect and anybody criticizes them should be an agent of the Islamic regime, please!


Daniel Speaks the Truth

by Anonymous - Patriot (not verified) on

I can't beleive these bunch of Hyenas attacking your well written article. It is obvious to me that the pathalogical liers in Pentagon and the US administration have struck again, fabricating the tape just like they fabricated the Iraq WMD's and the Iran nuke weapons story. The whole America is a big lie and these traitors can't see it. I don't care if an idiot is against the regime, when a vile enemy threatens Iran, everyone but the lowest F'ing traitor would be ready to defend her; but not this bunch of dogs.


My favorite IR degenerate is back.....

by Jesus (not verified) on

Daniel, some of the posters have asked you several good questions. Please answer those. For a man who has lived in the west for the past 40 years, you show how little you have learned. You are truly a degenerate of a kind, only matched by that Soraya ulrich something...

The video does not "CLEARLY" debunk jackshit, unless you are a big, and I mean shit eating supporter of mullahs, and their cronies. There is nothing more clear in that video than the one used by the United States. Neither of the governments have credibility, neither of the videos are convincing in any way. The Iranian video is clearly edited. There are several discontinuity in the video. We rarely see any of the Iranian boats, and only see the guy who is on the radio. Only in the last 20 seconds do we see an Iranian boat coming back.

Again, you are such blind degenerate supporter of the regime that in the face of obvious truth(the video itself), you are still lying through your teeth. I don't know how you came to the conclusion that the video clearly debunks anything, but than again, I am wasting my breath trying to ask for a RATIONAL explanation from an obvious islamist.


Daniel the IRI's sentinel.

by Anonymous22 (not verified) on

Daniel the IRI's sentinel. HOw much do you charge the SAVAMA per line?


Do you? Do you?

by Chicken-micken (not verified) on

Do you tell your family Daniel that you feed them with blood money?
Do you tell them you re a whore of the IRI, and feed them money that comes from the blood of Iranian men, women and children?


cnn rehashing the same crap

by no_name (not verified) on

Just watched CNN now and as usual they are rehashing the same crap and unbalanced. You can post your complaints to and demand more journalistic balance in their reportings: //