Avatar feed
Responses: 6
COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM
3
3
0
A few thoughts regarding the Tasnim News Agency claiming "extensive information" obtained from US Sailors.
- Consider the source. Tasnim is a private news agency in Iran (opened in 2012) whose stated aim is to defend the Islamic Republic against negative media propaganda campaign. Not exactly the neutral media that we are supposed to have in the West.
- Think logically. A dozen low level sailors in two boats under Iranian control for less than 24 hours. What could the Sailors provide even if they spilled their guts about everything that they knew?
- Look at the words. What does "extensive information" mean? The report could be factually accurate but still meaningless if "extensive information" is meant to include name, rank, and service number times 11 or 12 Sailors.
(3)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SPC David S.
1
1
0
Something is not right with this - comm and navigation failure, no self rescue. These guys were were either snagged in international waters or they were inserting/doing Spec Ops. However I'm going with the first idea - as Defense Secretary Ashton Carter at a press conference stated the sailors “made a navigational error that mistakenly took them into Iranian territorial waters." The two boats not only have radar, but multiple GPS devices, including chart plotters. Say Again - navigational error by both crews. However I thought it was a mechanical problem and they drifted into Iranian waters.

If it was a Spec Ops. it was likely about tapping into an underwater cable running to Farsi Island back to the mainland.

As to the intelligence I see this as propaganda - if they snagged divers in the water with gear all would know about via Iranian news.

Either way this smells of a State Dept. cover up in an attempt to save face in lifting sanctions with Iran. If I had to make a bet - I see a gag order on the Sailors/Marines involved and a bunch of missing nav equipment.

http://cimsec.org/from-russia-with-loveto-ceuta-2/20028
(1)
Comment
(0)
CPO Steelworker
CPO (Join to see)
>1 y
Good points but the numbers for the crew are what they run with and they would not have the diver capabilities in those numbers it would be a plus up mission with UCT that is trained to do the tap in mission. They do how ever conduct transport of HVT's and can do that with the numbers they had.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SPC David S.
SPC David S.
>1 y
Yes I agree the plus up mission is highly unlikely and thus my claim the capture was in international waters. There were other third party problems that I feel contributed to the "navigational" problem. I think the Saudi's informed 5th Fleet that the transit through their waters would no longer be allowed and forced the boats to use a northern transit. Saudi's had cut ties to Iran a couple of weeks before the incident occurred. We're talking diplomatic and economic relations with Iran. This was in response to attacks to their diplomatic assets after they executed a cleric. As well I'm sure they were/are not to pleased with us in lifting sanctions as a part of the nuke deal with Iran. The removal of safe passage in Saudi waters was their diplomatic response. The boats then had no other choice than to shoot the gap between Farsi Island and mainland Iran. Again information the State Dept. really would like to keep out of the spot light - thus the half cooked excuses for how and why this happened. If it wasn't for the billions I feel this could have easily turned into another hostage crisis.
(0)
Reply
(0)
CPO Steelworker
CPO (Join to see)
>1 y
Yes, and CRF has been conducting the same mission for over 14 years so you know Iran has been watching and waiting. I am pretty sure they had their Jammers on but if not they could have been jammed forcing NAVGEAR to go down. I have trained with these guy's before and trained them in Land Convoy OPS and they use same principles as we do running convoys. I was part of Expeditionary planning command to help them develop tactics so do have some concept of what they were doing and I know NECC master Chief and a couple of RIVRON CPO's they belong to what is called NECC that is part of the community we belong to Providing special trained Expeditionary forces to Combatant Commanders. I would say they may have been on a HVT mission because there was a report that they did not hit their fuel link up that mission does not require that and could lay claim to what you stated.
(2)
Reply
(0)
CPO George Mac
CPO George Mac
8 y
They were not inserting a SPEC OPS team...that kind of thing would be way out of their ability and training. You mentioned radar, this works on these kind of craft only if you have a fixed point of reference. Not an option. Chart plotters work if you have an idea how to navigate...look ta the actual background of these sailors. They were Master At Arms...Navy Security. There was no secret mission, but the real reason was a total failure on the part of their leadership. The kind of stuff everyone describes here would have been handled by SWCC....a part of NAVSPECWAR. No big Navy
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
LCDR Sales & Proposals Manager Gas Turbine Products
1
1
0
Edited >1 y ago
I'm with SN Wright on this one.

Unless there's something "fishy" about their track...etc...I'd say all Iran has is the crew's personal text messages, emails back home, and, er...ehm..."pro-vid" collection.

Iran's acting like they captured a DDG-Geez.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close