I reviewed the tape--if we had had video this good at the Gulf of Tonkin, the world might be different today. I tend to agree with Michael's earlier post that our naval force responded correctly to the incident by capturing it all on tape and maintaining a defensive posture.

However, that tactic was not without risk. 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.