Iran fires at US drone: the top 3 pressing questions

Iranian military forces fired at a US Predator drone for the first time ever earlier this month, the Pentagon acknowledged this week. It’s a revelation that has raised a host of questions for the US military. Here are the top three.

2. Were the Iranians intentionally trying to shoot down the US drone?

Though many of the press accounts stress that the Iranian fighter jets “missed” the US Predator drone in the shots they fired, it’s not likely the Iranians were intentionally trying to shoot down the drone, analysts say.

The Su-25 jets are, after all, combat aircraft, while Predators are slower and less maneuverable. “My interpretation is if they had wanted to shoot it down, they could have,” Harmer says. “There is simply no comparison between the two aircraft, and as a result it’s pretty obvious that they didn’t intend to shoot it down.”

Shooting down a Predator – even without a pilot in it – would have increased tensions “substantially.” Instead, Iran was more intent on sending a message, Harmer says.

It is behavior he saw often in his role with the US Navy Fifth Fleet. He recalls that the Iranians would send their own reconnaissance aircraft “right over” US aircraft carriers.

They would also drop cardboard boxes painted black – and other items meant to resemble mines – in the vicinity of US ships.

The Revolutionary Guard would send their small boats to “swarm” US Navy ships as well.

“We called it the ‘basic harassment package,’ ” Harmer says. “Every time they get a chance, they’re going to harass the US.”

Yet it’s behavior that US military commanders tended not to take too seriously. “It wasn’t really that big a deal because we know they don’t want to start a war accidentally,” he says.

That said, as the Pentagon noted, the Nov. 1 incident was the first time Iran had ever fired at a US drone. Adds Harmer, “We’ve never seen a message quite like this.”

2 of 3

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.