The Mystery of Iran’s Wandering War Ships
Did they dock in Syria, or didn’t they? Last week, two Iranian war ships, a destroyer and a supply ship, passed through the Suez Canal into the Mediterranean. According to Iran’s government, they docked in the Syrian port of Tartus. According to the U.S. government, they did no such thing.
More specifically, on Saturday Iran’s state-owned PressTV reported that the two Iranian vessels had docked in the Syrian port of Tartus. On Tuesday, a Pentagon spokesman, George Little, told the press, “We have absolutely no indication whatsoever the Iranian ships ever docked in Syrian ports.”
What’s going on here? One day there are two Iranian ships docking in Syria. Three days later, it seems that, like the Flying Dutchman, they never made port. Whatever they did during their swing through the eastern Mediterranean, they are now reported as having left the area, heading back through the Suez Canal.
These are not phantoms, or flyspecks invisible to the hi-tech eye. These are ships, substantial objects, which the U.S. certainly has the ability to track. I can’t claim to know what actually happened, and, alas, I have no inside sources here. So this is pure speculation. But it sounds as if the Iranian ships were indeed heading for Tartus, and then ran into some reason to back off — leaving the Iranian government to bluster that the ships had docked, rather than admit they’d chickened out.
If so, what might have blocked those ships? We know this much: There was no “Freedom Flotilla” launched from, say, Turkey, to try to deflect the arrival of Iranian war ships potentially stuffed with supplies for the terror-sponsoring regime of Syria’s dictator, Bashar al-Assad, now using heavy weapons against his own people. There was no naval blockade mandated by, say, the United Nations, where China and Russia are now blocking any Security Council resolution on Syria. There was no grand effort put forth by the combined naval forces of the Arab League.
Assuming that something, or someone, intervened in some way to persuade those ships to wave off, that was good work. I’d like to think that the deciding factor was a sharp warning from the U.S. — though if that was the case, it would have been far better had America found a way to deter Iran before those ships ever entered the Suez Canal. Or, as with too many showdowns on the front lines of Tehran’s aggression, was the job, and the risk, left to the Israelis?
And if the Tartus docking was an Iranian lie, it does not obviate the fact that Iran’s regime felt free to send war ships through the Suez Canal for the second time in a year, and this time felt free to boast they’d docked in Syria. Within the propaganda fog are real ships, real guns, real threats. What next?
Someone must have told them to turn back or die
Turkey, Israel or the US are the only powers in the area with the armed might to say don’t go past this line or you will be sunk.
The pentagon is usually more reliable than Iran as a news source. very interesting.
I apply Occam’s Razor here as there is one significant power with ships always between the mouth of the Suez Canal and Syria. Who could that be…
I agree (and also with “Jack Reynolds” below, that it probably was NOT the U.S., which, practically speaking, leaves Israel.)
If they were turned back in mid-passage by Israel, that event would have been an interesting thing to be a fly upon the wall at.
Two options, covert message thru diplomatic channels, or a quiet confrontation out at sea.
heh
One destroyer and one oiler do not an Armada make.
This is the mullahs making propaganda for their own consumption.
Either the USN or Israel could snuff them out at will.
The “destroyer” in question is the Admiral Naghdi, which has a displacement of 1,135-tons, much smaller than what would be considered a destroyer by most navies nowadays.
The Admiral Naghdi was actually built in the US in the 1960s and sold to the Shah before the revolution. It was originally described as a “PF-103 large patrol corvette”.
One “destroyer” and a supply ship may not make for an armada, BUT, one nuclear missile launched about 100 miles above Israel (or the US) would do horrendous damage to their electrical infrastructure by way of EMP.
I’m not sure how hardened they are (one assumes much) but such a pulse would still create mass public chaos as their power grid crashed and every electronic device and system outside their military was damaged or destroyed. It also would likely blind the military for at least a few minutes – probably long enough to launch a real nuclear strike on the rest of Israel.
My guess. They were gathering some sort of signal intel from Israel. Maybe searching for subs as well. When there are no Israeli subs in the Med that would be an indicator.
We’re all in agreement as to the capabilities of the US. The Iranians will be asymetrical with conventional mixed and probably WMD with ongoing terrorist attacks within US territory.
Possible EMP burst, China using the excuse on something to monkey around. Someone else bring Israel into the fight on purpose, North Korea deciding now’s the time, etc. those are the things that a World War makes. And they all seem very likely.
Iran’s manuevers are important. They must be followed and blocked in every way shape and form.
I am not looking forward to a WW with Barry and company at the helm, especially with recent acts, drones, and his penchance to do as he wishes regardless of Rules laws regulations, etc. Terrorist attacks in the US WILL bring a form of martial law, and we don’t trust this guy as it is.
We’re at the breaking point for a serious outbreak – regarding employment police abuses, government intrasience against it’s citizens, etc. – of violence and Iran’s the powderkeg to light it.
I think this is one war Barry and Co. are actually hoping occurs.
The massive surge in gunbuying in the US is not a coincidence. We think a war’s coming. We can feel it.
An EMP burst! China! North Korea! World War! Martial Law! War is Coming! I sure hope your food supplies are safe.
This was a decent post about a real threat, not a call for paranoid meanderings. Come back when you are ready to have an adult conversation about the Iranian threat.
Okay, happypants. I won’t bother to try and imagine where things can go.
I’m just going to keep staring 3 feet in front of me, because that’s the event horizon. No one culd possibly think Iran might be capable of playing chess rather than connect four or checkers.
Paranoid… *groan* Do you not read ANYTHING with history in it?
People like you are so tedious.
Speaking of which, where are your incredible revelations and analysis of the situation? Because your part of the conversation was chastising me for extrapolating a possible future based on our weakeness, current trends, technology and geo-political manuevering with a decent knowledge of historical events.
I mean, you’re the big boy part of the conversation, right? Shaming speech much?
Well done, Brutus! Your insightful and witty remarks have added to the conversation in such a fundamental way that all others have paled by comparison.
Your withering condemnation of someone’s ability to extrapolate current events, geo-political manuevering, economic indicators, Nuclear ambitions of a terrorist state with known ties to South American countries that can exploit out southern border (And are looking for an excuse to do so), along with their published intransience such as magnetic radio bombs across several countries and a plot to assasinate the Saudi Ambassador in the US, while also keeping in mind that we have an extremely corrupt administration that has orchestrated such hits as Obamacare, Soylandra, Government Motors, Gibson Guitars, Acron, RACISSSST!, and Fast and Furious into a possible future scenario, that actually seems somewhat plausible given the state of the union and the world, especially when you look at what set off previous world war level conflicts – your ability to troll that person is just outstanding. You are given the internets for the day. Now be a big boy with it. Since you’ve added so much to the conversation all ready, I expect to see much, much, more.
From Michael Leeden today on this same site:
“…First, because the Middle East–no, make that the whole world–has been destabilized to a fare-thee-well, and many fuses have been lit. All the big countries are unstable. Russia is convulsed, China is facing angry Tibetans and frustrated Han, Japan has already blown up, Europe is a mess, and we’re waiting for the next act in the Great Recession. The Middle East follows suit with multiple domestic insurrections and renewed terrorist attacks (Iraq, for example). None of that was caused by any Israeli attack on Iran;
–Second, the United States is a revolutionary country. Our very existence is destabilizing, especially to the tyrants who are trying very hard to kill us. You know all about that, General, because your guys are getting shot and blown up in Afghanistan every day. A lot of the mayhem, from the killers to their weapons and explosives, comes from Tehran. Not to mention the Iranian plans to assassinate one of their targets in downtown Washington. Even Senator Schumer is worried about Iranian-backed terrorists in Manhattan.”
Man, I really MUST be paranoid, eh?
FYI,
A destroyer needs to visit a gas station every 5 to 7 days. Fuel supply can be pushed out further but at risk of getting too low to respond to anything. Supply ship is not an oiler and Iran does not know how to refuel at sea (A US tour de force and a NATO skill set).
So, where is the Iranian getting gas? The world wants to know.
So Sorry, the supply ship in question is in fact an oiler as well as a replenishment ship. The KHARG was built in the UK and is an adaptation of the OI-class replenishment oilers. The frigate, the ALVAND, is also British made.
I don’t know for sure, but if these were built to NATO designs I would presume the capacity for fueling at sea. And don’t forget that fueling at sea needn’t be done quite the way we do it. In WWII, for instance, the German tanker ALTMARK refuled the pocket battleship GRAF SPEE by trailing a fuel hose aft for the warship to pick up. It appears to have worked.
Agreed. Something very odd about this whole thing. By operating conservatively, the destroyer could have made it from Port Said and back between 17 Feb, when it reportedly entered the Med, and its return for a southbound transit through the Canal on the 21st (again, according to reports). That would imply refueling in Egypt.
There are discrepancies in this whole incident. Originally, the Mehr News Agency reported that the ships arrived in Syria on the 17th. (Maybe; although a tad doubtful if the ships were northbound in the Canal on the 17th.)
Press TV then said they arrived in Syria on the 18th. That was the story picked up by all the world’s news agencies. Israeli military spokesmen were interviewed that day on the Iranian warship issue, as were Suez Canal officials, who said the ships were declared for Tartus.
The next wave hit on the 20th, Monday, when foreign news agencies started reporting that the ships had arrived in Tartus on the 20th.
On the 21st, the reports came out that the ships were headed back for the Canal, presumably having left Tartus that morning.
Syrian News (a heavily propagandistic website aligned with the Assad regime) reported on the 20th that the city of Tartus welcomed the Iranian flotilla over the weekend, seeming to confirm the reports of arrival on the 18th.
A new online news site, The Times of Israel, quoted Al Jazeera as doing a phone interview with the captain of the Iranian destroyer during the period when the ships were reportedly in Tartus. In the interview, the captain referred to the ships being in Tartus.
In the past day, Lebanese and Israeli reporting quotes Syrian opposition sources as saying that the Iranian supply ship offloaded weapons and electronic warfare equipment for the Assad regime.
There are no photos of the ships in port at all, which would seem to be telling, although the Syrian regime is so hunkered down that it might not be able to (or want to) bring off photo or video documentation. The Russians run the naval base at Tartus, but it is not clear which area of the port complex the Iranian ships supposedly stopped in.
A number of reports circulating in Europe and the Middle East referred to the ships “dropping anchor” in Tartus. That may have simply been ignorance and the inaccurate use of nautical expressions, but there is also the possibility that one or both of the ships spent most of their time anchored offshore, rather than moored to a pier in the port complex itself. The offshore depth is shallow a good way out from the Syrian coast, and commercial imagery from recent years shows lots of tankers and cargo ships still anchoring out, a long-time practice in the area. To offload cargo, the Syrian supply ship would have gone to a pier, but perhaps not for more than 8-12 hours, and perhaps during a period when there was no US surveillance.
One would want a little more detail about this incident to accept that it just didn’t happen. But it would be good to think that, even if we don’t stop Russian ships from bringing arms to Syria, or Venezuelan ships from bringing diesel fuel for tanks and APCs, we are stopping the Iranians.
The Iranian supply ship, KHARG, is a fully functional oiler AND Supply ship ( copy of a British design, O-I class) The Frigate, ALVAND, is also British-built (Vosper MK V). NATO design usually means NATO layout. No reason they can’t refuel at sea.
The reason is that the Iranians don’t perform underway refueling. The Kharg has the equipment for it, but the Iranians don’t do it. They’ll be taking on fuel in port.
Something smells bad here. For a long time now, people have wondered if Assad had his own supplies of chemical or biological weapons. Saddam Hussein may have even sent some of those weapons to Syria for “safe keeping.” In any case, I wonder if Iran is either shipping any of these weapons to Syria, or is taking some of these weapons out of Syria for “safe keeping” and bringing them back to Iran? Ships like this don’t go to Syria for nothing. “Showing the Iranian Flag” with only two ships is laughable. But there may be a reason why these ships are going to Syria. I’m betting Assad maybe thinks his days are numbered and wants some of his “personal propoerty,” i.e., money or gold, shipped out of the country under Iranian military guard. That way, when Assad and his wife finally has to run away, he’ll have a nice “little” nest egg to fall back on. Perhaps in Switzerland? Isn’t that where all dictators go to retire?
It was speculated early in 2003, in the build-up phase before the invasion of Iraq, that Saddam had sent anything he didn’t want to be caught with to Syria. We found the facilities fot the WMD’s but no WMD’s. Saddam was a leader of the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party and Assad is a regional leader of the Ba’ath party. They both are (were for Saddam) Sunni and from similar regions. The opportunity was there for Iraq to move the weapons that everyone (including dems) recognized were there and an ally to move them to. It now seems that they may move to Iran where they will in all probablility finally be used against Americans or Isrealis.
Assad is not Sunni. He’s an Alawite. This is why Saudi Arabia (Sunni) and Iran (Shia) are fighting a proxy war in Syria.
I believe you’re correct that Saddam trucked his weaponry (perhaps nuclear and chemical) to Syria and/or Lebanon with the aid of the Russians at the beginning of the Iraq War. And these weapons may have been uploaded to the Iranian (or Russian) ships.
One other thing the Iranian ships may have been doing is supplying Gaza w/weapons — just by dropping them in the sea — or allowing bombs to float to Israel.
A picture of the Iranian ships might show if they dropped off cargo because they would be higher in the water if they did. Of course, this wouldn’t be the case if they also picked up other cargo at the same time.
The poxy war in Syria wasn’t clear:
Sunni Muslims, such as in Saudi Arabia, don’t like non-Sunnis, such as Assad, killing Sunnis. Syria is a puppet state of Iran. So Iran (shia) is supporting Syria, while Saudi Arabia is shipping arms to the opposition, who are mostly Sunnis and/or Muslim Brotherhood.
No way it was the U.S. This country’s current pathetic leadership doesn’t have the guts.
Jack,
You took the words right off my fingertips. I seriously doubt Obama had anything to do with dissuading those Iranian ships from a port call in Syria (if indeed they were dissuaded). If anything, Obama’s sympathies lie with Syria, as do his proclivities. Just a short time ago Obama and Clinton defended Assad as a reformer; this was after Assad began murdering Syrians en masse.
Picking up weapons or dropping off, mines, swimmer commandos, or most likely ELINT gathering and testing reaction and response time of belligerents.
perhaps it’s a dry run of a Yamato type suicide attack. You can haul a lot of boom in a ship.
Question? How is it that 20 years of various types of sanctions, freezing of Iran’s bank accounts, trade impositions, etc. hurt Iran?
Here, they have two wandering sea vessels (costs a bundle to operate). Continued developments of very sophisticated, expensive nuclear technology (for what?). Heightened military expansion, addition of sophisticated missile technology, expansion of “boots-on-the-ground” military and a command-and-control network rivalling developed nation’s capabilities. Iran exports bellicose equipment, knowledge, plans, and technology.
How can a so-called impoverished nation afford, pay for and acquire 20 years worth of all this largesse if they’re “on-the-ropes?” This, according to UN reports, foreign news sources and american press releases!!!
Stuff just doesn’t add up. Either UN and international community don’t have any idea of what really is going on in Iran, or news reports are total fabrications. which is it?
As long as Iran can export vast quantities of oil at a high price, there’s not much they can’t afford. NATO, including the US, thus *strengthened* Iran by disrupting oil out of Libya and thus driving the price higher.
“How can a so-called impoverished nation afford, pay for and acquire 20 years worth of all this largesse if they’re “on-the-ropes?”
Follow the money. Who has been buying their oil. Who was illegaly buying oil from Saddam. Hiding the oil exports when the UN was managing the “Oil for Food” program? Look no further than our “friends” in the UN.
So, Iran is “bartering?” Stuffing cash under the mattress? Or both?
Stuff just doesn’t make any sense. It’s obvious they’re rolling in dough! If it’s from oil, where do they stuff such largesse? Iranian Banks have to be exploding with unreal excesses of cash on hand.
Reports on what is REALLY happening in Iran lead one to believe Western World Iranian reports are about as reliable as a SpongeBob story…somebody’s imagination.
Therefore, leads one to believe, Israel has the really verifiable inside story on WHAT’s REALLY happening in Iran…and Iran’s end game.
Why aren’t all in USA’s intelligence community locked into and onto Israel’s intelligence gathering network, HUH?
Our administration is pulling a Neville Chamberlain, again! God Bless America!
If anyone wants to know where they are just ask Israel, not that they will tell you but you can be rest assured they are probably in the sights of some Israeli sub.
“We have absolutely no indication whatsoever the Iranian ships ever docked in Syrian ports.” Seems somewhat slippery to me. It is possible Mr Little and the mouse in his pocket were kept uninformed. It wouldn’t be the first time the US Government told the people something other than the absolute truth. You can bet both the rent and food money the US Navy knew exactly where those ships were, at all times, that’s one of the things they do best. We must also understand this administration’s lack of association with the truth.
Another speculation – remember when a Iranian ship was taken over by pirates and the pirates started dying of some mysterious ailment, one that sure seemed like acute radiation syndrome?
Perhaps this was another maritime dirty bomb sorte?
I heard nothing about this. Do you have any references for this story?
I seriously doubt Obama had anything to do with dissuading those Iranian ships from a port call in Syria (if indeed they were dissuaded). If anything, Obama’s sympathies lie with Syria, as do his proclivities. Just a short time ago Obama and Clinton defended Assad as a reformer; this was after Assad began murdering Syrians en masse.
What we need is wikileaks Iran. But Mr Assange would be swimming with the fishes had he attempted something like that, or in Russia, China or the Arab world. It would be nice if he could admit and it would be publicly known that he didn’t have the courage to expose the really bad guys.
Do note that had Julian Assange done what he did to Iran, they’d try and bump him off just like they tried to do to the Israeli ambassadors.
Whether they’d succeed at it is another matter, but they’d definitely leave a mark (even if it is on them instead of their intended target).
There were other port along the ships’ route. They had docked in Jeddah in the Red Sea before traversing the Canal and presumably refueled. Was Kharg’s cargo unloaded in the Eritrean port of Assab located at the strategic Bab el Mandab and where Iranian forces have been sited in recent years?
My guess is that someone has a sub off the port being very noisy, ‘ping ping, make my day’. It may have been a US hunter killer or a NATO member that wants to limit the Assad and Iran without flagging too much involvement. It could also be a Sunni country. Saudi Arabia has been negotiating for 8 French submarines. Could one have been handed over to them in France on the sly?
I noticed that the Iranians stopped at Jedda, strange port of call given the Sunni vs. Shiia conflict but then American ships visited soviet ports and vise verse. I suspect the Saudis would sweep the harbour for nasty surprises after they left. Once the Iranians go back though the Suez Canal I suspect all the mine sweepers will be doing a check there too.
A third frightening alternative is that the Obama administration has put the genius that came up with Gun Walker in charge of gathering intelligence and the US government is just wrong again. It did dock but but the Pentagons George Little can’t admit that the US intel may also be now flying blind in Tartus and the rest of Syria. Remember the the CIA’s massive Intel losses in Lebanon, that network was blown by sloppy covert operations, it may have compromised the whole regional network.
@Martin Owens
Are you assuming the “destroyer” in this story is the UK-built frigate Alvand because this ship was paired with Kharg when the two entered the Med via the Suez Canal in early March 2011? They returned through the canal later the same month.
I’m assuming the “destroyer” is the US-built corvette Admiral Naghdi, because Iran has been mentioning it in conjunction with the Kharg more recently in anti-pirate operations:
http://iran-times.com/english/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3506:navy-has-ships-in-different-seas-at-same-time&catid=98:whats-left&Itemid=425
Of the most recent reports involving Syria, I can’t find any specific mention of the identity of either of the ships. Can you?
Not that it really matters much. It’s clear that the “destroyer” is not really a destroyer and that most of Iran’s claims as to its missions are bunk anyway. Check out the story at the above link, catching the navy spokesman in obvious contradictions as to the ships’ whereabouts.
I wonder, how seriously the Iranians would take a threat from the current US Administration? I doubt that this administration or the Israelis would even threaten an unprovoked attack on the high seas, much less carry one out. A diverson would be more like it. Syrian operations seem to be picking up, which suggests at the very least, resupply. If Assad gets taken down it will be by the opposition without western help. Look for just more talk from Obama & Co. That would be a good thing!
Sojourners -
Who would have thought that fat Mohammed was a sailor?
The rather portly Islamic soothsayer probably wrote the first Iranian nautical guide for the Dark Ages – it is now used by the Navy of the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution and that is what makes it so hard to keep track of their ships!
If we have no idea of the comings and goings of naval vessels belonging to Iran – then Oby has caused an even quicker degrading of our services than many have thought.
Keep the faith people – our military knows what is happening in the Mediterranean and the happenings in Syria – I think the expression is ‘need to know’ and the best way to stay informed is to disregard anything you may hear from the State Department – Mrs. C is really in a quandary when it comes to Syria.
Also know that if we don’t offer up ‘total support’ for Israel in any future confrontation with Iran – Oby and his supporters will be gone even before they could be voted out of office.
Pray that the nation can soon find relief from our communist leader and his rather ‘not very bright’ cohorts!
I’m curious – Exactly WHY should the Iranians be blocked from sailing their ships wherever they please? One of the USN’s missions has ALWAYS been guaranteeing the freedom of the high seas.
Sure, I don’t like having them wandering about and up to (I’m sure) no good – but what real reason do we have to say “Go home!”?
Orion
If you have to ask the question, you won’t get the answer.
Just heard on the John Batchelor Show that the Iranian ships were ‘used to disrupt communications’. Though it’s not clear what this means.
These ships may also have been on an intelligence gathering trip because, apparently, Iran’s military intelligence isn’t that good.
It is probably no more complicated than one of the rusty buckets broke down.
Ms. Rosett.
Love your work.
This time though, the answer may be simpler. The U.S. lied to you.
Why admit or deny anything, especially if it makes the administration look weak. The ships probably docked. We didn’t do anything. Then they lied to you. Isn’t like it would be the first time, or the thousandth.