Iran Fires on U.S. Drone Over International Waters

[Master Mew]

Two Iranian Su-25 fighter jets fired on an unarmed U.S. Air Force Predator drone in the Persian Gulf last week, CNN has learned.

The incident raises fresh concerns within the Obama administration about Iranian military aggression in crucial Gulf oil shipping lanes.

The drone was in international airspace east of Kuwait, U.S. officials said, adding it was engaged in routine maritime surveillance.

Although the drone was not hit, the Pentagon is concerned.

Two U.S. officials explained the jets were part of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps force, which has been more confrontational than regular Iranian military forces.

The Obama administration did not disclose the incident, which occurred just days before the presidential election on November 1, but three senior officials confirmed the details to CNN.

The officials declined to be identified because of sensitive intelligence matters surrounding the matter.

The drone's still and video cameras captured the incident showing two SU-25s approaching the Predator and firing its onboard guns.

The Iranian pilots continued to fire shots that went beneath the Predator but were never successful in hitting it, according to the officials.

U.S. military intelligence analysts are still not sure if the Iranian pilots simply were unable to hit the drone due to lack of combat skill, or whether they deliberately were missing and had no intention of bringing down the drone. But as one of the officials said, "it doesn't matter, they fired on us."

The official confirmed the United States protested the incident but has not heard back from Iran.

Iran has, at times, been confrontational in the region. In January, the U.S. military and coast guard had close encounters with Iranian Navy vessels which approached at high speeds and exhibited provocative behavior.

This represents the first time an unmanned U.S. aircraft has been fired upon in international airspace over the Gulf.

 

[99unownoak]

If Iran responds, they'll probably claim the drone was in their airspace.

Imagine America's response if Iran was flying drones around it's country (even in international waters).

It's sort of interesting that it happened just two days before the election but wasn't made public until now. Makes you wonder if it would of had any impact on the election results as it could be interpreted as reinforcing Obama's supposed comparatively soft stance towards Iran.

 

[Master Mew]

Yes, that observation has been floated a lot in the media, but I'm skeptical - people seem to be crying, "Coverup!" a lot lately.

As for what America would do if Iran flew a drone over international waters near their shores, if it were an unarmed drone like this one was, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't shoot it. Not that it matters, it would be most unusual for that to happen, given that Iran only has one drone - the U.S. drone they downed months ago.

 

[ivantuga2]

CNN have for years been known as unreliable. They've been losing ratings for a long time, and for a good reason: one-sided "reporting". Instead of just claiming that the US are "morally supreme" and that everything Iran says "is just obvious denial", they should know that many of their former viewers have gained critical thinking skills (or at the very least pure boredom), hence the "ratings dumpster". They do not simply accept their claims just because it talks in US "interests". I suppose the millions killed in Iraq since 2003 were also for "peace", "freedom" and "democracy", and totally benefited US, right? Sorry, but if you need to kill lots of people "for the greater good" (and not even that was achieved), then there is a lot of room to doubt its moral grounds.

Anyway, there's another, more detailed and interesting article on this, which suggests that the attack actually happened in the waters near Iran, which CNN immediately saw as a good reason for propaganda, and passed off as happening in "deep international waters". And many just take what they say at face value.
One of the very few things that's going to be good with Obama's 2nd term (as his 1st term shown) is that he's more reluctant to start a war for Israel than Romney. But I just don't see how's this going to get more calm as time passes, only more and more warm. As more factual and false provocations are launched, the war is eventually going to become an inevitability. Iran did try recently to reverse this trend. But I guess they just use it as a propaganda tool and likely want to attack US inside its own soil, and is not an attempt to make peace and humiliate the morally bankrupt US government, right? ;-)

Again, I do not approve of many policies that Iran does inside its own borders, and not even entirely this act in itself, as it wasn't on Iranian soil, but I can understand why they'd do it near their borders, when it may have been spying on Iran's military, plus with all the threats and economic boycotts on the country. Let them commit all the injustices they want inside their borders, just stay the heck out of there, US. It's not your business. Stop trying to be the world police.

 

[Caitlin]

Nobody will really tell the public just where those drones were. It's the United States' words vs. the Iranians' words. It wouldn't surprise me if it was shot at over Iranian waters. However...

The Obama administration did not disclose the incident, which occurred just days before the presidential election on November 1, but three senior officials confirmed the details to CNN.

The officials declined to be identified because of sensitive intelligence matters surrounding the matter.

This is the most worrying part in my mind. Obama really needs to get his shit together and just dump his entire staff. They don't care about leaking "sensitive" secrets despite the dangers it poses to national security, the lives of our soldiers and intelligence agents and our spies. This has been going on for years. I'd rather hear nothing than something vague and intrinsically shaky that could end the lives of the people who are just doing their jobs.

As for whether it would have an impact on the election, I very much doubt it. It's not bungling of national security or handling an operation poorly. It's another country shooting at our drones and that likely would have happened if McCain was in office at the time. It's not like President Obama failed to handle Iran so poorly that something like this happened, but the debate is always open and raging away on that point.

 

[Master Mew]

@ivantuga2 The "article" you cited was a glorified editorial, with no sources. It was a reaction piece.

As for the drone being "near Iranian waters," no one is disputing that, but the drone was still above international waters.

If you're going to dismiss the source material as biased, then don't turn around and offer another, "more interesting," article that's just as biased. CNN had sources - you may not like their sources (U.S. officials), but they had sources, they did actually reporting, Glenn Greenwald was just spouting off his opinion.

 

[ivantuga2]

@ivantuga2 The "article" you cited was a glorified editorial, with no sources. It was a reaction piece.

Apparently you missed them.

As for the drone being "near Iranian waters," no one is disputing that, but the drone was still above international waters.

In the Guardian's article Christian Science Monitor is cited stating that an Iranian general did not deny the incident, but appeared to hint that

the US drone was in fact over Iranian waters – less than 12 nautical miles from the coastline

If you're going to dismiss the source material as biased, then don't turn around and offer another, "more interesting," article that's just as biased. CNN had sources - you may not like their sources (U.S. officials), but they had sources, they did actually reporting, Glenn Greenwald was just spouting off his opinion.

Actually, Glenn Greenwald did analyze the situation with more detail and linked to other sources. CNN may on itself be a news source and doesn't need to cite others, but could have just as easily made up some details to paint Iran in bad light (like stating that it was in neutral waters), and we have no way to know they're right beside their own word. In an incident involving US and Iran, I would much rather take neutral sources than those affiliated with the governments (which often can mean any independent agency, even if being from the countries involved), which is exactly what the Guardian's article is.

If you're open minded enough, I would suggest you to read the Friday update section of the Guardian's article.

 

[Master Mew]

CNN is an independent news organization, they are not affiliated with the U.S. Government and have no reason to distribute false information as part of a propaganda machine. You seem to be under the impression that U.S. news organizations try to help the U.S. cover up inconvenient truths - you need look no further than Benghazi-gate to see how wrong that assumption is.

As for "analyzing with more detail," there's plenty of room for third-party analysis of a news report, but don't present that analysis as it's own reporting. There's a distinction. Glenn Greenwald analyzing the CNN report, or anyone else doing so, is just that - analysis. It's no different than what we're doing here. It's hardly a source.

 

[ivantuga2]

CNN is an independent news organization, they are not affiliated with the U.S. Government and have no reason to distribute false information as part of a propaganda machine.

They most certainly are. It's when people only usually watch the mainstream media is when they think it can't possibly be wrong. But there are nice things called alternative media and foreign media from where to get the sources from. While no channel is bias-free and 100% reliable (Russia Today, for example, is pro-Putin and covers up anti-Putin events, but is honest on the US issues, while real political news about Russia can be found on the Ukrainian's Inter+ channel, etc), they can offer more honest and complete reporting on many subjects that others do not, as the likes of CNN and Fox News do show about US. In fact, over time I've come to prefer sources foreign to the country on which the issues are actually happening. Here are some examples of lies or bias from CNN:
CNN - Hijacker's passport found in WTC rubble Saturday - YouTube
Chicago Tax Day Tea Party - YouTube (during the reporting she subtly admits how it's "anti-government, anti-CNN, since it's highly promoted by the right-wing[...]")
Prison Planet.com
With SOPA shelved, anti-piracy advocates take new approaches - CNN.com
Dictators Sponsor CNN | Interview with Amber Lyon - YouTube

I don't expect you to read/watch those links, but they do prove my stance. There also lies by omission (together with other members of MSNBC, they fail to mention the true origin of the conflicts in Syria and Lybia, that had productive economies before the "massive revolution against the tyrants", which was sponsored by the US government, NATO and Israel).

You seem to be under the impression that U.S. news organizations try to help the U.S. cover up inconvenient truths

I'm not under an impression, I'm convinced that's the fact, especially because of past cases like intentionally letting the soldiers die at Pearl Harbour with prior knowledge of the attack that began because of an intentional trade embargo instilled against Japan (and when the US public was overwhelmingly against the war) and then writing in the media that "the Japanese attacked America because of imperialistic expansion" to force US into WWII against the nationalist sides of the conflict; or 9/11, which was used as an excuse to make up lies against Iraq and fight a war that only benefited Israel. Even if you'll dismiss it because it doesn't feel good to hear, these positions are well-researched and documented, and I have links. You need to break your internal mainstream media bias in order to research issues like this and accept that they may indeed have not happened as they are publicly promoted. You'll be surprised at what you find, as long as you stay open-minded and investigate the issues independently from the official version.

- you need look no further than Benghazi-gate to see how wrong that assumption is.

I'd call it "token truth" - one that needs to be said to continue the illusion of a credible news agency. But that doesn't change those instances where they were clearly dishonest.

As for "analyzing with more detail," there's plenty of room for third-party analysis of a news report, but don't present that analysis as it's own reporting. There's a distinction. Glenn Greenwald analyzing the CNN report, or anyone else doing so, is just that - analysis. It's no different than what we're doing here. It's hardly a source.

That analysis did include reporting from other sources, the existence of which you keep denying.
If I work in a mainstream outlet and write a story between US and Iran, putting in mostly a truthful description of the event, but also putting in a few details in a believable way to support an anti-Iran position, do you think it's unlikely or difficult? How are we supposed to know they're 100% right? Just because they say so? Because of their official reputation? Simply because the US officials reportedly claim that it was in international waters? Given the examples above, there's reason to not take what they say at face value. Untruthful reports in the media have been prevalent ever since the printed press was invented, and has existed at all times. It's as strong today as in the past.

 

[Dorothy]

This thread isn't about bias in media. Get back on topic, please.

 

[ivantuga2]

I agree.

Now let's admit it: we know there was an US drone in the Persian Gulf. It's true that Iran shot at it. Now there are different positions on where it happened, but I'm inclined to believe it happened close to Iran's coast, with Iran concerned that it might enter US territory. But since we probably won't agree on where exactly it happened, I'd think a more neutral title would be: "Iran Fires on U.S. Drone in the Persian Gulf". I don't expect even that to happen, but I've made my point.

 

[Nyara♥]

the US drone was in fact over Iranian waters – less than 12 nautical miles from the coastline

From that moment, Iran was able to do whatever thing. Yeah, it was on "international sea", but the difference was minimal, and actually a lot of wars, conflicts and stuff happened with even more distance from border to border. Is that correct? They should fire to anything excesive near from their territory? I don't think so, but they can, and no one can stop them, no even USA (because they did the same, a-lot-of-times on the history). Spy activities can be stopped on whatever way, and everyone knows that spionage is excessive bad for international relations.

 

[TheDarkLord]

Well you have to take into consideration the historical context, that the Us does have a habit to using military forces, the CIA, to topple government that they dont like throughout the world. Especially since the US Iran the militant islamic state what is is right now by supporting a dictator that kill off everyone that didnt adhere to their beliefs. Its no wonder that when the US decides to snoop around with a drone that they immediately shoot it down.