On the rare occasions the US mainstream media refer to the US shootdown of an Iranian airliner in 1988, they sustain the myth it was simply a "mistake".
Today marks twenty-nine years since the shootdown by the USS Vincennes of Iran Air flight 655, which killed all of the plane’s 290 civilian passengers. This shootdown of a civilian airliner by a US naval ship occurred on July 3, 1988, toward the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq War.
This incident is, of course, something that the people of Iran well remember. Americans who rely on the US mainstream media, on the other hand, would have to be forgiven for never having heard about it.
Furthermore, in the rare instances when the media do mention it, to this day they tend to maintain official US government falsehoods about what occurred and otherwise omit relevant details that would inform Americans about what really happened.
The lack of mention of the incident or, when it is mentioned, the deceptive reporting about what occurred illustrates an institutionalized bias in the media. The consequence is that Americans seeking to understand US-Iran relations today fail to grasp a key historical event that has helped to define that relationship.
How the Mainstream Media Report the US Shootdown of Flight 655
If one does a quick Google search for relevant keywords specific to the shootdown, only a handful of US mainstream media reports turn up on first-page results.
Max Fisher in the Washington Post wrote a piece about it several years ago, appropriately titled “The Forgotten story of Iran Air Flight 655”. For context, Fisher asserted that “the Vincennes was exchanging fire with small Iranian ships in the Persian Gulf.” As explanation for how the Vincennes “mistook the lumbering Airbus A300 civilian airliner for a much smaller and faster F-14 fighter jet”, Fisher suggested it was “perhaps” due to “the heat of battle” or “perhaps because the flight allegedly did not identify itself.”
The Washington Examiner a couple years ago ran a piece with the headline “Iran says 1988 airliner shootdown is why U.S. can’t be trusted”. The author, Charles Hoskinson, stated simply that “An investigation revealed that the cruiser’s crew mistook the airliner for an attacking F-14 fighter jet while involved in a confrontation with Iranian gunboats.”
Fred Kaplan in Slate noted in a 2014 piece that the incident “is almost completely forgotten” (at least in the US). His article was appropriately subtitled “The time the United States blew up a passenger plane—and covered it up.” As a journalist who had reported on the incident at the time and challenged the US government’s official story, Kaplan noted that “American officials told various lies” intended to blame the Iranians for the tragedy.
The government had claimed that the Vincennes was in international waters at the time, that the plane was flying “outside of the prescribed commercial air route” and descending at the “high speed” of 450 knots directly toward the Vincennes, and that the plane’s transponder was squawking a code over a military channel.
In truth, the Vincennes was in Iran’s territorial waters, the plane was ascending through 12,000 feet at 380 knots within the established commercial air route, and its transponder was squawking the plane’s identity over a civilian channel.
Like Fisher and Hoskinson, however, Kaplan nevertheless maintained the US government’s narrative that “the Iranian Airbus A300 wandered into a naval skirmish” and on that basis characterized it as a “horrible mistake”.
These are the only three examples from within the past decade that appeared in initial search results for various relevant keywords at the time of this writing. It’s also helpful see how America’s “newspaper of record”, the New York Times, has reported it over the years, by searching its online archives.
Doing various related keyword searches at the New York Times website turns up a smattering of articles. Without going further back, a November 1988 piece acknowledged that, contrary to the US government’s claims, “Flight 655 was behaving normally for a commercial jet”. The Times nevertheless maintained the government’s official line that “Iranian [air traffic] tower officials clearly are guilty of not listening to the dozens of radio warnings broadcast by the Navy and ordering the airliner to change course”.
The following month, the Times revealed that this attempt to blame the Iranians was also untruthful. As the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) determined in an investigation of the incident, seven of the eleven warnings issued by the Americans “were transmitted on a military channel that was inaccessible to the airliner crew.” The other four were transmitted on the international civil aviation distress frequency. Of these, only one, transmitted by the USS Sides “39 seconds before the Vincennes fired, was of sufficient clarity that it might have been ‘instantly recognizable’ to the airliner as being directed at it.”
The Times nevertheless sustained the US government’s narrative that Iran was at least partly to blame by “allowing an airliner to fly into the area at the time when warships were involved in an intense battle with Iranian gunboats.”
In May 1989, Iran sued the US in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over the shootdown. The Times ran a piece in July about how the US was trying to settle the matter by offering to compensate victims’ families with up to $250,000. The only details of the attack the Times offered readers was to relay the claim from a senior State Department official that “the Vincennes was defending itself against what it believed was a ‘coordinated attack’”.
Another Times article that August reported that Iran’s case was proceeding at the ICJ. For context, the Times simply parroted the government’s official line that, “At the time, the Vincennes was part of a group of American warships protecting neutral shipping in the [Persian] gulf during the war between Iraq and Iran.”
(The ICJ case was dropped in 1996 when the US and Iran reached a settlement in which the US “expressed deep regret” and agreed to pay $61.8 million to the victims’ families.)
In 1992, a Times article reported on the further unravelling of the US government’s official account. It noted that, contrary to the government’s claims, Flight 655 was ascending and flying within the commercial air corridor. Vice President George H. W. Bush had told the UN that the shootdown occurred “in the midst of a naval attack initiated by Iranian vessels against a neutral vessel and subsequently against the Vincennes.” In fact, as government officials were now admitting, the Vincennes was in Iranian waters at the time. Furthermore, an investigative report for ABC’s Nightline determined that it was not the Iranian ships that started the naval skirmish, but the US Navy’s.
The US government maintained that, while the Vincennes was admittedly within Iran’s territorial waters, it was the Iranian ships who initiated hostilities. However, even the commander of the USS Sides, Captain David Carlson, whose ship was in the same American convoy, had stated three years prior that the actions of the Vincennes under the command of Captain Will Rogers were “consistently aggressive.”
The Times also noted that neither Captain Rogers nor any other officers or crew of the Vincennes were disciplined.
There are only scarce mentions of the incident by the Times since. Columnist Roger Cohen in an August 2009 piece referred in passing to “the mistaken 1988 shooting-down of Iran Air Flight 655, in which 290 people perished”. A 2015 article mentioned it, stating that the Vincennes was “patrolling the strait [of Hormuz]” and that its crew “apparently mistook the plane for an Iranian F-14 fighter.” The most recent mention that turned up was from February 2 of this year, in an article that states simply that “Iran called the attack deliberate and the United States called it a mistake.”
The above is not an exhaustive list, but these examples illustrate that, on the rare occasions when the US mainstream media do mention the incident, to this day they sustain the US government’s narrative that this killing of 290 civilians was simply a “mistake” for which no one should be held criminally responsible.
So how well does this narrative hold up?
The Facts about the US Shootdown of Flight 655
After the Vincennes shot down Flight 655, as Fred Kaplan noted in his Slate piece, Vice President George H. W. Bush responded by saying, “I will never apologize for the United States of America—I don’t care what the facts are.”
The facts were that the Aegis cruiser USS Vincennes, under the command of Captain Will Rogers III, had entered Iran’s territorial waters and opened fire on and sank two Iranian gunboats posing no threat to the American vessels. (Aboard another Iranian boat the Vincennes was passing by at the same moment Rogers gave the order to open fire, the crew was seen relaxing topside, as captured by the camera of US Navy journalists.)
At the time, as a Navy investigation later acknowledged, the Vincennes detected a plane ascending “on a normal commercial air flight plan profile” and squawking a transponder signal identifying itself as a commercial aircraft.
Aboard the Sides, with identical radar information as received aboard the Vincennes, Captain Carlson determined the plane was a “non-threat”.
Aboard the Vincennes, Lieutenant William Montford warned Captain Rogers that the plane was “possible COMAIR”, but Rogers nevertheless ostensibly convinced himself that his ship was under attack from an F-14 fighter plane and minutes later ordered it shot down.
(Incidentally, the US had sold F-14s to Iran in the early 1970s while it was under the thumb of Washington’s strongman, Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi, who was put in power after a CIA-orchestrated coup in 1953 overthrew Iran’s democratically elected government by deposing Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh for having nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The Shah was in turn overthrown during Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution.)
Well aware that his action might kill civilians, Rogers ordered his gunner to open fire on the plane, shooting it out of the sky.
The Navy’s self-investigation attributed the discrepancy between the known facts and Rogers’ actions to “scenario fulfillment”. Rogers had made “an unconscious attempt to make available evidence fit a preconceived scenario.”
In other words, even though the information the officers and crew aboard the Vincennes were receiving indicated that the plane was ascending along a commercial flight path and squawking its identify as a civilian airliner, Rogers imagined it to be an F-14 fighter jet coming down out of the sky to attack his ship.
US government officials evidently also suffered from “scenario fulfillment” as they proceeded to make claims about what had happened bearing no relationship to reality.
President Ronald Reagan claimed that the killing of 290 civilians was justified as “a proper defensive action”.
Never one to apologize, Vice President Bush, while campaigning for the presidency, called it “just an unhappy incident” and reassured Americans that “life goes on.”
As he was scheduled to speak before the UN Security Council about the incident, Bush said, “I can’t wait to get up there and defend the policy of the United States government” by presenting “the free world’s case” for why 290 mostly Iranian civilians were dead.
Speaking before the Security Council, Bush blamed Iran for allowing a civilian airliner to go about its business carrying passengers to Dubai at a time when an American warship was “engaged in battle”.
He declined to explain how the pilot, Captain Mohsen Rezaian, or the air traffic controllers at the airport in Bandar Abbas, where Flight 655 had taken off, could possibly have known that a US warship with an imaginative captain on board was in Iran’s territorial waters firing at anything that moved.
Bush lied to the Council that the Vincennes had “acted in self-defense” against “a naval attack initiated by Iranian vessels” on the American ship when it “came to the aid” of an “innocent ship in distress.”
Also not wont to question the actions of the US government, the New York Times in an editorial published July 5, 1988, urged Americans via their headline to put themselves “In Captain Rogers’s Shoes”.
Sympathizing with the killer, the Times editors described the shootdown as “horrifying”, but “nonetheless an accident.” It was “hard to see what the Navy could have done to avoid it.” Captain Rogers “had little choice” but to open fire, they opined, assuming the US government’s account “turns out even approximately correct”.
Of course, the official account turned out to be pretty much the opposite of the truth in virtually every aspect, but the Times was, as ever, not over-eager to seriously question the government’s claims.
Thus, the editors maintained the deception that the Vincennes was “in a combat zone” and “engaged in action against Iranian gunboats making high-speed runs against it.”
The editors also relayed as fact that the radar operators aboard the Vincennes had “reported an aircraft heading toward the ship and descending.” Furthermore, they “apparently had indications, which the Navy refuses to discuss, that the plane was a powerful F-14 jet.”
Unimaginatively, the Times editors failed to conceive of the most obvious reason why the Navy would refuse to discuss that claim: because there were no such indications.
The furthest the Times would go to question the official narrative was to state that it was “not yet clear why sophisticated radar did not distinguish between an F-14 and a much larger Airbus.”
The lie the Times was upholding then—as to this day—was that the ship’s sophisticated radar had indicated it was something other than a civilian airliner.
After axiomatically accepting this lie, the editors immediately urged their readers to “put yourself in Captain Rogers’s shoes”. They proceeded to assert that the “evidence” suggested “an imminent attack” by the plane on the Vincennes.
Note that the word “evidence” in this context is being used euphemistically by the Times’ editorial board to mean claims by US government officials that were directly contradicted by the actual evidence available to them.
The Times proceeded to state that, if the US government’s account was at least “largely correct”, then we could safely conclude that the Iran Air pilot was to blame “for failing to acknowledge the ship’s warnings and flying outside the civilian corridor. Iran, too, may bear responsibility for failing to warn civilian planes away from the combat zone of an action it had initiated.”
They concluded that “the onus for avoiding such accidents in the future” fell not on the captains of American warships operating in the territorial waters of other countries, but “on civilian aircraft” flying in their own airspace.
The takeaway lesson presented by the Times was that civilian aircraft should just “avoid combat zones, fly high, [and] acknowledge warnings.”
Finally, the editorial concluded that ultimate blame lay with the government of Iran, with the “accident” instructing the world that it was time for Tehran “to bring an end to its futile eight-year war with Iraq.”
Of course, as the Times editors were perfectly well aware, it was Iraq who started the war, which dragged on for eight long years in large part due to the fact that the US was backing the aggressor.
Far from being held accountable for the mass murder of 290 civilians, Captain Rogers was later presented with the Legion of Merit award “for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service” during his time as commanding officer when the shootdown occurred.
Rogers’ weapons and combat systems officer at the time, Lieutenant Commander Scott E. Lustig, received two commendation medals and was praised for “heroic achievement” for his conduct during the incident.
The entire crew of the Vincennes received combat action ribbons.
Conclusion
The US shootdown of Iran Air Flight 655 receives only rare mentions in the US mainstream media despite being a key incident in the history of the US’s relations with Iran that serves as critical context for understanding how Iranians today view the US government.
When it is mentioned, the media’s tendency is to characterize the mass killing as an honest “mistake”, resulting from an action any other country’s navy would have taken if put in the same position. Although it has long been known that the US government’s account of the incident was a pack of lies, the US media to this day characterize it as though the resulting death of civilians was just an unfortunate consequence of war.
When Max Fisher wrote in in the Washington Post in 2013 that “the Vincennes was exchanging fire with small Iranian ships in the Persian Gulf”, it is hard to fathom that he was unaware that the US warship was in Iranian waters; and yet he declined to relay that critical piece of information to his readers.
It is equally hard to fathom that he was unaware it was the Vincennes that initiated hostilities; yet this fact, too, he omitted.
Fisher also unquestioningly parroted the US government’s claim that the Vincennes’ crew “mistook” the plane for an F-14, which he attributed either to “the heat of battle” or the plane’s failure to identify itself.
It may be true that, as the naval investigation determined, Captain Rogers imagined it to be an F-14. Yet, as Lieutenant Colonel David Evans wrote in the US Naval Institute’s Proceedings Magazine in August 1993, the information received by the American ships from the plane’s transponder unambiguously identified it as an ascending commercial aircraft.
“Both Captain Rogers and Captain Carlson,” Evans noted in his essay, “had this information.”
It is no less hard to fathom how Fisher could have been unaware of the fact that Flight 655 had been squawking its identify as a civilian aircraft, something even the most precursory research into the incident would have revealed to him.
It is therefore difficult to escape the conclusion that Max Fisher’s purpose in writing was not to educate Americans about what happened, but to sustain the central myth that the shootdown was merely an unfortunate accident of the kind that happens in the fog of war.
He was, in other words, dutifully serving his role as a propagandist.
Charles Hoskinson in his 2015 Washington Examiner piece was hardly more forthcoming.
Fred Kaplan was far more forthcoming in his Slate piece from three years ago; yet even in the face of his own contrary evidence, he still preserved the central myth that the shootdown was merely a “mistake” resulting from Iran Air Flight 655 having “wandered into a naval skirmish”.
This is the same false narrative that America’s “newspaper of record” maintains on those rare occasions when the incident receives a passing mention.
The real story, in sum, is as follows:
Twenty-nine years ago, on July 3, 1988, US warships entered Iranian waters and initiated hostilities with Iranian vessels.
The consoles of the radar operators aboard the USS Vincennes at the time unambiguously showed an aircraft ascending within a commercial corridor in Iranian airspace, with the plane’s transponder signaling its identity as a commercial aircraft.
Captain Rogers nevertheless ordered his gunner to open fire on the plane, shooting it out of the sky and killing the 290 civilians on board.
Subsequently, rather than being held accountable for committing a war crime, Rogers and his entire crew received awards for their actions.
Like Captain Rogers, the mainstream media establishment seems to suffer from institutional “scenario fulfillment”, in which this action did not constitute a war crime or, at best, an act of international terrorism.
In the case of the media, the preconceived notion is that the US is an exceptional nation whose government is sometimes capable of “mistakes”, but only ever acts out of benevolent intent.
It is an assumption that, while deemed axiomatic by the mainstream media establishment, is no less self-delusional than Captain Rogers’ imaginary scenario of this “forgotten” episode in US-Iran relations.
This article was adapted largely from material presented on pages 349-350 of the author’s book Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. See the book’s references for additional resources.
I recently – in London – met with a young Chinese woman reporter from Hong Kong.
When I mentioned the Opium Wars of the 1840s between China and Britain, she expressed surprise.
She told me that hardly anyone else she had met in London appeared to be aware of the opium trafficking.
When I responded by asking how many Chinese people had forgotten about it, her answer was simply “None”.
The Chinese have not forgotten the humiliations they suffered at the hands of the British.
It may be the case that American conduct against Iran and other parts of the world will cast an equally long shadow.
I am sure the people of Iran – all of them – will never forgive the USA for the murder of 290 of their citizens.
Americans may have short memories; other people do not.
They will also not forget the SAVAK, the Shah’s CIA and Mossad trained secret police. http://www.angelfire.com/home/iran/savak.html
China Mirage: The Hidden Story of American Disaster in Asia by James Bradley provides insight into the fortunes made by leading America figures who were involved in trafficking Opium in China. Many of what are now considered great American institutions were funded by drug money.
His book “The Imperial Cruise – A Secret History of Empire and War” is worth reading too.
Yes, Savak, Long live SAVAK, New Master, Different name, Same mission only now for Ayatollah Khomeini and His brand of Islamic Terrorism…..
The Chinese, John, also remember the USA bombing Campaign against Mao`s Peoples Army 1946 – 49, they hold an annual service commemorating those actions.
Most Americans have no idea – They also have no idea that USA soldiers marched in Tiananmen Square in a victory march to celebrate “Western Forces” occupation of Beijing – The Chinese remember though.
The USA is “hot under the collar” with regard to The Crimea Referendum when 98% of the population there voted to become part of The Russian Federation.
The USA is still “hot under the collar” imposing sanctions while claiming “It`s an illegal Russian Annexation”. All the time, completely ignoring the USA Annexation of Hawaii in 1879, despite resistance by the locals, who were denied a referendum!
We Brit`s were just the same, most Brits have no idea we burned down the White House, but we got our comeuppance!
Would the gift some power give us – to see ourselves, as others see us.
And a lot of us don’t remember we burned the Government building in Toronto prior to that.
It`s a funny old world, wildthang!
It was called “York” in those days, just a small example of British arrogance at the height of power, John Simcoe (Ist Governor) decided an English name was preferable to the “native” name, despite settlers protests.
I`m British and have long been puzzled why Canada remained strongly British when the same “settler” stock in the 13 colonies kicked us out!
Perhaps they didn’t have as many slaves and perhaps preferred tea to coffee!
Ha!
Perhaps it was something as simple as tea, wildthang, or it could be the some 20,000 American “Royalists” who migrated to Canada after the War of Independence, such people tend to have strong opinions and a desire to express them (even to-day in other parts of the world, the Iraqi fraudster, Challbady, said all that George Bush wanted to hear!), the then establishment would have been keen to promote Royalist propaganda, but who knows.
It`s still puzzling though, particularly when France had had a thriving colony (New France) which was ceded to Britain by a bankrupt post French Revolution Napoleon, even today if you don`t speak French in Quebec the Quebeckers can be disdainful – and there is an ongoing demand for separation from the tea drinking lot!
Or it could be that Canadians are just laid back and easy going, sort of human good natured Golden Retrievers?!
I get the feeling that in some way the French didn’t get what they had hoped for in supporting our revolution, got a retaliatory revolution of their own, sold Louisiana and then attempted to recoup losses by going after Russia instead.
The big part of our revolution was plantation owner afraid of England outlawing slavery plus the population pressures to expand westward that we being held off by England not wanting more Indian Wars when they were fighting in Europe due to France. An interesting sort of feedback loop the US was caught in.
That leads to wars in general as an endless loop and runaway process. Not laid back or good natured.
The one in the Middle-East now an extension of WWI and the switch to an oil based military system. Trade wars with China going back to the days of stealing silk worms or carrying the Forbidden City content back to the museums, selling opium and taking cities hostage by the west and WWII form the days when MacArthur’s ancestor Commodore Perry opened Japan at cannon point..
If I ruled the world, wildthang, I would insist that every politician had a history qualification, it seems to me that they keep on making the same mistakes.
The American war of independence brought a sea change to British policies, and Bankruptcy to France and Spain, Britain produced an unrivaled navy then went on a colonial expansion, removing French Indian colonies (and Dutch), the sea was British and woe betide any who challenged that! America did in 1812 though.
The USA also adopted similar policies with the annexation of Hawaii then took Spanish colonies, diplomacy went out the window! And the USA was well away from the hotbed of European policies, certainly with no neighbors that might give them a bloody nose! (certainly not Mexico, or Canada)
Post WW1 the British imposed all the (artificial) borders we now see in the Middle East (France in the case of Lebanon), it cause chaos then, it`s caused chaos since, and while Britain is a has been power the USA has continued along the same path, modified slightly to be anti-communist and now anti-Arab.
Yesterday Donald Trump criticised Germany for it`s (long standing) trade arrangement with Russia (What`s it got to do with Donald?) The EU was originally formed with the hope that mutually beneficial trade would lessen the chance of war, and in that aspect it`s been hugely successful.
NATO was formed specifically to counter any Soviet military westward in Europe, the USSR is long gone and former Soviet occupied countries are free (The will of the people), some problems such as Russian majorities in north Georgia and the Crimea have required border alterations, but again a result of the will of the people.
And during this time the USA has moved “NATO” forces closer and closer to Russian borders with the EU under USA pressure to contribute, no wonder Putin is talking about Russia`s new super weapons!
Then there is China, soon (if not already) the worlds largest economy, and India, now the worlds 5th largest economy, displacing France. With India forecast to exceed USA production by 2050, it`s going to be interesting to see how two countries with experience of forcible Western occupation conduct themselves.
One thing I hope is that they don`t do as Britain and the USA have done! But it`s going to be interesting.
P.S. It`s good to talk – the magic of the internet eh!
Yes I agree. For a real globalized world all country’s various points of view and past need to have reconciliation and move toward a global view. We certain have to know of our past in hopes the cycles don’t continue repeating themselves against us. I have this article and discussion immensely.
My major conclusion comes down to belief the USS Vincennes likely intentionally shot down a passenger plane in hopes of an election year bombing campaign hoping Iran retaliated directly. They may have retaliated indirectly and Libya was knowingly blamed instead.
I found this year old article on a search inspired by the 30th anniversary and this article on counterpunch.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/04/when-america-downed-an-iranian-airliner-and-celebrated-it/
Thanks for the counterpunch “Forgotten US Shootdown” link, a succinct example of Administration ambiguity when confronted with a hard to justify situation.
“Fearless muckraking since 1993” (It sounds British!) I was unaware of Counterpunch, but any website that uses Robert Fisk deserves to be bookmarked.
I have high hopes for the Internet, voices that were once silent can now be heard, Jeremy Hammond, for example, is to be applauded for his efforts to provide illumination into those dark corners that “the establishment” would rather be kept dark.
10, certainly 20 years ago, “politicians could get away with murder” it`s not so easy to-day, advertising manipulation of voters will still work of course, but the “Will of the People” is now easy ( or easier) to broadcast, and I`m all for that.
Yes only 3 or 4 words in a search turned up this gem of an article up in mere seconds!
Yes, I made it easily findable in search results intentionally. I teach writers this skill (SEO) in my coaching program for journalists:
https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/coaching/
Robert Fisk’s book, PITY THE NATION, The abduction of Lebanon, has to be one of the best journalistic books on the market. A must read, that best illustrates the Israeli part in Middle East wars.
I have high regard for Robert Fisk, jackal, It was Fisk who pointed out the contradiction of the words on all medals issued by Britain to soldiers who survived WW1, they said “The Great War for Civilisation”, possibly the greatest oxymoron of all time.
A book I rate highly is “Western Imperialism in the Middle East 1914 – 1958” by the British historian D.K. Fieldhouse, who lectured at Oxford and Cambridge Universities, he died last October aged 93, arguably the worlds leading imperial economic historian.
Fieldhouse explains the Ottoman system that existed up to 1914 (essential knowledge in my opinion) which was not dissimilar to the current USA system, apart from the lack of formal borders, with Arab representation in the Turkish parliament which has powers and authority similar to the USA federal Government.
All ripped apart in the self interest of Britain, France and the USA, who imposed borders and puppet Governments, causing chaos then and causing chaos now.
The only downside to the Fieldhouse book is; it is hideously expensive (even used copies) but worth every penny!
Your last words ring true already. China is doing what the has-been-powers have done. Quietly and slowly colonizing weak countries such as the Philippines under the disguise of mutual partnerships. Read more about China’s bullying claim of some of the Philippines sea.
The family D in FDR also sold opium from Hong Kong harbor and so did some other prominent US family fortunes arise.
….civilian aircraft should just “avoid combat zones, fly high, [and] acknowledge warnings.”
That is a good piece of advice: MH17 was shot down over Ukraine on 17 July 2014. The obvious perpetrator, according to the governments & MSM, must be Russia, who else. In any case, those who did it also knew they were targeting a civilian airliner intentionally.
There are high chances you are right. I would not exclude an error though : Ukrainian planes used to “hide” under civilian flights routinely, and there were rumors of Russian military jets flying not that far behind their border and causing panic among the ukr pilots.
My opinion is the same as yours, I would even say I believe it was a deliberate provocative shot from the “ukrainians side”. I don’t exclude a rogue element lead/owned by Kolomoïski and backed by guess whom…
So typical of the American media spin .Thank you for the real story Jeremy.
A few words on USA’s vaunted exceptionalism, as written 100+ years before the wanton and cruel slaughter of over one million in the conquest of the Philippines; upwards of 5 million in Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia, and presently more than 1.5 million mercilessly obliterated in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria,Yemen, Somalia, Mali and elsewhere in the quest of empire thoughout the greater Middle East, not to mention US barbarity and exploitation throughout the southern hemisphere:
……”your boasted liberty,…….. your national greatness, (are but)…swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are… mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy — a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.
Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.” – former slave Frederick Douglass -c.1856
Or as Mark Twain stated about the Moro Massacre in the Philippines the US flag should have skull and crossbones for stars.
Watch the BBC hit piece, “Iran and the West”. Not one mention of this cowardly act.
Excellent article. I think the key thing to understand here is that US officials very often see their job as public relations and damage control. Leading “journalists” understand their jobs depend on maintaining access to those liars, so are careful not to offend them. I suspect the president may have ordered this act of aggression against Iran, thus hanging Captain Rogers out to dry would have risked him going public.
The UN is dysfunctional, unable to fairly arbitrate. Here in the US, critical institutions of democracy and the media are in a creeping state of crisis: structurally incapable of serving the public interest with truth and equal representation. We have a lot to fix.
The only thing Americans remember about Iran is that they took Americans hostage. Never mind 1953 or us backing Saddam in that brutal war or this brutal war crime. Bush the first put our arrogance out there for everyone to see. Never apologize for America, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE FACTS ARE.
The so-called “Collateral damage” in spraeding of the Western liberal democracy around the world
People who have a long history tend to have long memories, too.
The Captain of the Vincennes, claimed he attempted to contact The Iranian 747 by radio – what a shame he omitted using the Control Tower frequency. the only one used on passenger flights.
A shameful belligerent act – made worse by the erection of a statue of Captain Rogers in his home town.
USA Governments may think they do no wrong – But it`s only a thought.
Very sad, that both our nations are enemies today instead of allies, as we are meant to be. May our two peoples one day overcome these differences and stand as one.
Great article, small point. You suggest: ‘The Times nevertheless sustained the US government’s narrative that Iran was at least partly to blame by “allowing an airliner to fly into the area at the time when warships were involved in an intense battle with Iranian gunboats.”’
Upon reading the Times article, this is not a quote from the article author, John F. Burns. Rather, he is citing the Pentagon study released on August 19th 1988 claiming the incident can be attributed primarily to crew errors, caused by ‘combat stress’, and to ‘Iran’s action in allowing an airliner to fly into the area at the time when warships were involved in an intense battle with Iranian gunboats.’
He is offering a claim by the Pentagon, in contrast with the findings of a report compiled by a panel of aviation experts who found ‘…over-all the report left little doubt that the experts put the blame squarely with the Navy, and seven of its eight recommendations were directed at the Navy shortcomings it said it had identified.’ I feel Burns clearly advocates this view, something you have somewhat misrepresented.
I’m sorry, I fail to see your point? He is literally showing that what has been cited by the Pentagon is at odds with the findings of an international panel of experts
‘The aviation organization’s report was prepared by a group of experts, who include former pilots, aeronautical engineers and civil aviation executives from among the more than 140 nations that belong to the organization.'(Burns)
Are you advocating he not quote the Pentagon’s findings, even in an attempt to discredit them? How else can he show that their claims are not supported by evidence? This is not ‘sustaining a narrative’, it is quoting the narrative in an attempt to discredit it.
‘The conclusion of the report for the International Civil Aviation Organization, having a STRIKINGLY DIFFERENT EMPHASIS THAN A STUDY BY THE PENTAGON, found that vague and otherwise inadequate precautions by the Navy for keeping civilian aircraft away from combat operations in the gulf had caused ”confusion and danger” before the incident on July 3.’ (Burns)
Sorry, a typo had resulted in my full comment not appearing. I have corrected it. Reposting here also:
You are mistaken. The portion I quoted is not a quote from the Pentagon report. They are the Times author’s words, who, as I pointed out, was relaying the government’s narrative. As I also accurately observed, the Times sustained that narrative by virtue of simply relaying as though fact the government’s false claim that the Iranian airliner had flown ” into the area at the time when warships were involved in an intense battle with Iranian gunboats”.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the Americans were trying to bait Iran into attacking and sinking the Vincennes, which would have surely been a good excuse to declare war against Iran. Of course, we all know that only Israel makes mistakes in similar circumstances – the USS Liberty, for example. If the US and Israel came to blows you can bet the Rothschilds would become involved to see that no harm came to the pet country they founded using bribery, blackmail and subterfuge along with illegal terrorism against both the British and the Palestinians who were the ones who actually had lived in the holy land for thousands of years.
Thank you for bringing in the USS liberty into the picture. It too has been largely forgotten because it happened long beyond the memory of most Americans. It has recently been revived by sailors serving on the Liberty at the time. Another disgusting piece of history. Google for a number of videos on youtube.
In case anyone is still following this story it is priceless>
The date 07/03/88 day before 4th of July patriotic holiday on the election year for Bush to replace Reagan!
Tonken Gulf 2 – a naval vessel is provoking Iran claiming to be in international water(not) fires On Iranian gunboat or motorboats and tries to get then to fire. They panic thinking they are going to get a real attack from an F-14 totally mistakenly and down a commercial aircraft.
So excuse for a Bush bombing attack on Iran in support of Iraq’s failing war to help propel a Bush election has to do immediate damage control instead. Instead he bloviates about never apologizing and puffs up his chest instead.
Meanwhile the LBJ trick fails, 290 Iranian civilian are sacrificed and whole crew gets medals anyway for trying to help get him elected.
How’s that for a 30th anniversary super-power fairy tale???
I suggest this may be better explained by the Tonken Gulf incident. Note the heroic date 7/3 on an election year just like Aug 1964 for LBJ.
Note that it appears to be a provocation and may well have been intended to generate a response bombing perhaps even to influence the Iran-Iraq War.
The best that can be made of it is that in the heat of provocation they did jump conclusions and fire on the Airbus. At worst it might have been intended to produce a response by Iran and thereby create a pretext to a bombing or even entering the Iran-Iraq War as in Vietnam in term of air support at eh very least. The election year context cannot be avoided. The awards too can’t be avoided.
Having provoked no response the best that could be done for electoral purposes is trumpet that we never apologize.
Finally we might also note we never learn either subsequent years with the Iraq War illustrate clearly.
And of course the obvious one of the story that we always make excuses that blame the victim.
Although a tragedy of almost three decades ago BUT remembering such tragedies reminds one that how humans kill each other and hardly feel repentant for such barbarity. Thank you Jeremy for relating the truth.
Amazingly, you don’t mention the most important bit of information to understanding the event: a year before a US navy destroyer in the gulf, the USS Stark,had come within a hair of being sank by a missile launched from a civilian registered passenger jet, an Iraqi registered business jet.
Captain Rogers was obviously seriously flawed, but he was by no means unjustified in being afraid of civilian passenger jets.
It isn’t a matter of his fear being “justified” or not; it’s a matter of whether his killing of 290 civilians was justified or not, and, as explained in the article, it absolutely was not. The facts remain that he was in Iranian waters and shot down Iran Air Flight 655 while it was in Iranian airspace ascending along a commercial air corridor squawking its identity as a civilian passenger plane, and he knew that by ordering it shot out of the sky that the result might be the deaths of civilians.
It was a war crime and an act of international terrorism.
Sorry, just because you found a certificate in your breakfast cereal box doesn’t mean you get to say which facts from that tragic day we may and may not discuss, nor what “war crime” and “terrorism” mean.
Both require intent, and you have to be delusional to believe a navy skipper would want to commit career suicide and shame the navy and the nation as he did by deliberately shooting down a passenger airliner.
Facts relating to motivation are directly related to culpability; you can’t honestly believe that crucial and mitigating facts relating to Roger’s motivation are irrelevant.
My point was that both sides could have done things better, and that flying a civilian jet over a warship engaged in a serious shooting battle with members of your country’s armed forces a few months after a similar warship was attacked and almost sunk by a civilian jet with 37 killed most definitely isn’t a genius move, even if it is completely legal.
The only way we can learn from the past is by knowing and understanding what actually happened; your description of the events simply is not helpful.
For your information a year before, only because a friend cancelled a meeting was he not there when a civilian oil installation in a neutral third country on the Gulf was intentionally bombed by the Iranian Air Force with dozens killed. That comes a lot closer to “terrorism” and “war crimes,” but of course it doesn’t fit into your trash the USA narrative, does it?
I stand by my previous comment.
War crime does not exist on the books of USA – war crime only if decided by those who can easily start a war – and then say the resultant death and destruction is merely ‘collateral damage’.
The USS Stark was hit by an Iraqi launched missiles:http://www.navybook.com/no-higher-honor/timeline/uss-stark-on-fire/. A USA warship did hit a mine, laid by the Iranians. That is why we were accompanied by UK, Dutch and Belgium minesweepers, whilst on Armilla Patrol. The USA did not have any minesweepers?
That’s not the point. The point is that the sailors on the USS Stark saw the airplane attacking them on radar, flying an attack profile against them, but did nothing, because it was Iraqi and because it was a civilian business jet.
Yes, you read that right, the Iraqis had modified a civilian business jet and used it to launch ship-sinking missiles.
The commander of the USS Stark was punished for not assuming that a civilian aircraft was attacking them, and the commander of the USS Vincennes (who probably didn’t realise the Iranian civilian jet was climbing) didn’t want to repeat the same mistake.
The skipper was definitely out of line in needlessly sailing into Iranian territorial waters and more, and horribly incompetent in not looking at flight routes and warning on civilian frequencies (the Iranians were also supposed to monitor the mayday channel) but he wasn’t hallucinating that there was *some* reason to worry that his ship was being attacked, and, of course, he had orders to defend the ship at all costs. A tragic screwup.
A F1 Mirage jet fighter, is not a modified civilian business jet!
Repeating a lie doesn’t make it any truer, or enhance your credibility.
US intelligence believed that a mirage F1 carrying two Exocet missiles would barely be able to fly, and concluded that it was launched from a business jet the Iraqis had modified to carry two missiles. https://medium.com/war-is-boring/in-1987-a-secret-iraqi-warplane-struck-an-american-frigate-and-killed-37-sailors-b341a948fa21
https://www.navy.mil/ah_online/ftrStory.asp?id=100473
An Iranian colleague told me his father was in the Iranian air force at that time. He said their air force had orders to stand down so if this were so, there wd have no Iranian military flying
Written history is made up of lie after lie. Every president is a liar period. Come to think of it, most people are too. After reading the true story of the Mai Lai Massacre, I would assume anything is possible. The human species is a sorry lot.
:Thou ever bubbling spring of lies: This is the old ages definition of history.
this publication is an attempt by the c_a to discredit the US Military, maybe few corrupt officers participated in this crime designed and committed by the c_a, you cannot point finger at the entire crew of the boat because they had no clue what was going on, otherwise they had stopped the crime, that is what the US Military doing currently going after the people who did all these false flag attacks, nine eleven having the largest number of death with more than 3 thousand US citizens and millions overseas.
Riding in the radar shadow of your civilian airline aircraft, Is ripe for mistakes, Yes when you are that close, and being painted by radar for a AAM guess what give the largest feed back to the seeker head of the missile? Yes it was a deliberate launch, But the provocation by Iran was a deliberate act that was usable either as propaganda, sinking an American Warship, or, Making the Americans look like wanton murderers of innocent civilians…… But then Iran has no problems in murdering civilians when it serves Islams purpose……
I’m a retired U.S. Navy Senior Chief Firecontrolman who was involved in training NTDS operators and I know some of the principal watchstanders. Captain Rogers, personally, did not make a determination about what was happening with that aircraft. His Track Supervisor did. That guy, as I recall, his name was Anderson later joined the reserves and I stood CIC watches with him. In my opinion he made a mistake although he steadfastly refused to consider it. How could he? Its a big deal to make a mistake of that magnitude and kill all those people.
I’ll speak “technaleeze.” He had the Airbus “hooked” and his ball tab on the airport where the F-14 was on the ground with its IFF on. The “hook” reports the position and speed of the aircraft and the ball tab reports the IFF return. He lost the mental bubble and he merged the two. I don’t have any doubt how it happened because I had the training, read the reports, and interviewed the person responsible for making that identification. They don’t always assign the smartest people to be investigators or they just don’t interview the right people. That’s why gobbledygook bubbles to the surface.
Commenting further as a former Naval Tactical Action Officer (TA0), I agree with Mr. Freeman’s assessment above. Once you merge the data from two difference sources into one track, the Airbus symbol would have changed from “unknown” to
“hostile” which in turn would heighten the tension in the Combat Information Center particularly for the TAO and the Captain of the ship. Once designated “hostile” it would take a series deliberate actions by either the Track Supervisor (TrackSup) or the TAO to revert the Airbus symbol to “unknown”. (Sorry for the split comment.)
The USA annexed Hawaii in 1898
The flight didn’t answer, they strayed into area of conflict. They made a mistake or were on the attack. It’s war not a tea party. They had bombed one of our ships killing 33 and also clipped a frigget with a mine. I happen to remember this incident perfectly. You left this info out. Let me help you lefty. I was in this history. Want info on jfk and mlk too? Can’t fool the experienced
You really should read articles before attempting to rebut them.
Hi Jeremy! With the recent plane shootdown in Iran all over twitter I’m seeing some push back on the argument that the US didn’t apologize and ran across this tweet on my feed.
“I will never apologize for the United States – I don’t care what the facts are… I’m not an apologize-for-America kind of guy.” The quote, although unrelated to the downing of the Iranian air liner and not in any official capacity, has been attributed as such.[59][60][61]”
I’m interested in why this guy would say it was unrelated. Do you know what preceeded this comment from Bush? I can’t find anything.
Thanks!
It may be that Bush used the “I will never apologize” line on other issues, but the quote in my article was specifically about the US shootdown of the Iranian airliner.
All I can find are articles saying “The quote, although unrelated to the downing of the Iranian air liner and not in any official capacity, has been attributed as such.[59][60][61]”” I can’t find anything saying WHY the comment would be considered unrelated.
The [59] Citation from wikipedia gives a couple minutes preceding Bush’s remark. No mention of shootdown. I can’t find the entire speech anywhere. I’m just a stickler for words here and I’ve always thought and portrayed Bush’s comment as being directly about the facts (of the shootdown) and the apology (for the shootdown of the plane). Was I wrong?