Did you know that there are no international waters in the Straits of Hormuz?

There’s a basic factual error in our mainstream media’s reporting on the recent incident in the Straits of Hormuz.

According to Paul Woodward (see my Dec. 13th post), “Witness the spectacle of an international “incident” that after a few days has devolved into a debate about a Filipino Monkey. The only comfort the White House can take from this drama is that the press never even noticed when the stage upon which it was set, came into question.

“Iranian speedboats threatened US warships in international waters in the Straits of Hormuz. So far only one analyst — Kaveh L Afrasiabi, writing in Asia Times — has pointed out the most basic factual error in this account: there are no international waters in the Straits of Hormuz.”

My point: If the mainstream media can’t get the facts straight, why should we believe anything it reports? My solution? I rely on alternate news sources, including Paul Woodward’s invaluable War in Context. Recommendation: Sign up for daily e-mail alerts.

(map: University of Texas Libraries - double click to enlarge)

An alternate explanation for the Straits of Hormuz incident

This evening, Jim Lobe, who blogs at LobeLog.com, made an interesting observation about the recent naval incident in the Straits of Hormuz. Lobe is best known for his coverage of U.S. foreign policy, particularly the neo-conservative influence in the Bush administration. He is also the Washington Bureau Chief of the international news service agency, Inter Press Service.

In his post, About that Straits Incident...., Lobe raises “…[T]he possibility that the Navy and the Pentagon chose to dramatize the incident not so much to isolate and embarrass Iran as to enhance the chances for a new 'incidents-at-sea’ agreement that they have been pushing on the White House without success for many months now….

“It’s been no secret for some time now that the Pentagon, and the head of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), Adm. William Fallon, in particular, have been pressing the White House — without success — for negotiating a new ‘incidents-at-sea’ agreement with Iran that would reduce the risk of a an accidental confrontation in the Straits of Hormuz and the Gulf itself.

“Frustrated until now in their efforts to get the White House to authorize negotiations over a new agreement, could it be that Fallon … and other Pentagon and Navy officials decided to dramatize the danger just as Bush was embarking on his trip, anticipating that the president would get an earful from his Gulf state hosts about their fears that a naval confrontation could quickly escalate into a real war in which they would suffer significant collateral damage?”

It will be interesting to see if there are any other articles or posts about the “incidents-at-sea” agreement.

See previous posts linking to Jim Lobe’s blog: here, here, here, here, here, and here.

(photo of Jim: LobeLog.com)