According to a recent LBC report (October 2023) and an old Haaretz report, Iran has a small base in Eritrea. Israel is also mad at Eritrea lately. If the Iranian base is still open, the only way to prevent the Houthis from tracking ships is to attack Eritrea. Should the USA attack Eritrea?
Great article, as always Dr. Bryen (suck it auto-correct). Now that Persia is a former member of BRICS+, I could forsee the PLAN base in Djibouti playing an important role in supporting the Houthi activities (under the guise of "protecting the sea lanes."). The Russians are integrating AI into their drones in Ukraine. I wonder how long until they're made available to "friendly," countries?
Moves and counter-moves. The wise chess master sees ahead several moves. We all know how important chess is to the Persians and Russians; especially with American led NATO forces playing tiddlywinks.
Persia non existe pa. You mean Iran. Persia was conquered and destroyed by Alexander the Great in 331 BCE. Regarding AI, the Russians are making claims they have integrated an AI solution in their Lancet kamikaze drone. While they have given the Lancet some interesting capabilities including being able to cooperate with other Lancets in target selection, I would need to know more before saying it really is an AI application. But they are certainly heading in the AI direction.
Is not the AIS used by commercial shipping to avoid accidental collisions?
I'd worry that in a constricted space such as the Red Sea, this cure might be worse than the disease.
Also, would safe ships such as those carrying Russian oil to India not prefer to keep their AIS on to avoid getting confused with ships targeted by the Houthis?
The idea is to turn them off and on so that the Houthis and Iranians would have trouble getting a real time fix for their drones and missiles. I can also see turning them off in clear weather. (Smugglers use ghost AIS to fool the authorities.) I don't see where the off and on routine would cause a safety problem except in bad weather.
Stephen, again this is more excellent work for those of us less knowledgeable.
The problem is that a few fixes may be a problem for the Houthis and allies, but it will not deter them and we could end up with another undeclared war. Well, we're kinda, sorta in another one already.
Certainly, if one is in a conflict that is so, but as past is prologue, I can't see a good one.
If we have lost a plane and crew, that is probably far more than all the expenditures of the Houthis and any one supporting them and blinding irridium does not stop that.
- Thuraya is also an option for satellite communication, and easily available online - The US will need to persuade Al Nahyan (UAE) to turn it off over the region too.
- Russia has two satellite communication companies that use their own satellites - Russian Satellite Communications Company (rscc.ru) and Gazprom Space Systems (gazprom-spacesystems.ru). China also has its own (yandex it, google supresses that info for whatever reason)
- Then GPS supressing does not work anymore the way it did few years ago - most modules connect to all existing satellite systems and compare data. This is if you change the location, not supress all signals (for which you need lots of power nearby)
I am inclined to beleive US intelligence is keeping Iridium operational (not asking the company to stop some specific data transfer) as they try to monitor its Ansar Allah and Iran use. And they know the enemy will to switch to other operators that will be very hard for the US to penetrate /get data from. The technical detail to know (I'm not a telecommunications specialist) is whether you can switch off service in a certain area but still gather secretly usage data and conversations. We know Andoid can do it, but I have no idea how it works on a satellite phone. I bet it does not.
You can switch it off, delay transmission, or change coordinates and forward the wrong information to a drone. These things and more are possible. (You can also create ghost AIS readings)
We used to be a creative country. I wonder nowadays
Well, this gives some hope. Perhaps it's just a technical issue that will be solved - I'm sure there are some brilliant engineers in the US.
Speaking of which, I recently learned that the "normal" mobile phones we have in our pockets have an antenna that is good enough to receve a signal from a satellite and now someone in the US is doing it - a space network, with satellites instead of 5g towers:
Perhaps this has something to do with the sim cards in the Gerans/Shaheds - they may adjust their coordinates if a satellite is communicating with them (using existing mobile phone modules/technology)?
All cellphones receive information from satellites --that is what the GPS system is. Not only that, most cellphones can receive GPS from the US system, from Glonass, the Russian system, and from the Chinese system BeiDou, the Chinese satellite system. It is not difficult to build ia space-based system to a phone for direct satellite communications, but it both expensive and unnecessary since cellphones do an excellent job. However systems like Musk's Starlink service are now being integrated with commercial cellphone carriers such as T Mobile.
But I'd be interested to learn more on Houthi target selection before attacks.
The Houthi spokesman claims they only attack ships with an Israeli connection, or US / UK warships trying to interdict their attacks. Indeed they claim they have a legal right and even duty to sanction such shipping under the Genocide Convention.
This is all of course, very far-fetched, but despite frequent claims by Israeli amd Western politicians, spokespersons and media that the targeting is 'indiscriminate', I've yet to see details of any 'arbitrary' Houthi attack (or for that matter of any proven Iranian direction of the attacks by what our media and politicians always call 'Iran-backed Houthis' rather than just Houthis).
The only ships I've seen actually mentioned as attacked but having no connection with Israel are Unity Explorer and Number 9, cited by Daniel Hagari.
Yet both have tenuous Israeli connections, easily found once their names and rough positions were known through AIS.
"[Number 9] did not visit Israel and did not transfer goods to or from Israel. Security officials discovered that the Houthis' original target was a partially Israeli-owned ship, but they misidentified it and attacked the British ship despite the fact that it had crew members from all over the world - but not from Israel. The mistake in identification is probably explained by the fact that, four years ago, the ship had a connection to Israeli ownership.
"Another ship that was attacked by the Houthis, Unity Explorer, is also not Israeli and does not carry an Israeli flag but is owned by a British firm that includes Dan David Ungar, who lives in Israel and is the son of an Israeli shipping billionaire, as one of its officers. No Israeli crew members were known to be on board."
I'd be interested to learn of any clearer examples of completely arbitrary targeting of another ship in the Red Sea.
Of course the attacks are outrageous and illegal, but as far as I can see there's more method in Houthi madness than their critics and adversaries want to admit.
A quick reply: it seems the Houthis are now attacking ships that have no connection whatever to Israel. Some are clearly owned or operated or connected in some way with the US. Others make no sense. Many of the Houthi weapons miss their targets, also complicating the picture. The genocide convention is strictly nonsense, since any allegations about it are not adjudicating by attacking anyone. (They also are directly targeting US and UK warships, an act of war, by the way. You sort of omit that in your comment.)
I'm not of course attempting to justify Houthi attacks, just trying to clarify their official position and rationale - which although it is largely nonsense, seems to be perhaps more coherent or systematic than its representation in our media.
Again, I've seen no specific data on attacks agaiinst vessels with no (at least imagined) relation to Israel - just general assertions that they're taking place.
As for attacks on US / UK warships, the Houthis explain those as a response to attempts to break their blockade, which they claim is based on the UN Genocide Convention.
As Sun Tzu said, it helps to know your enemy - unless perhaps representing them as just crazy proxies of evil crazy Iran fits another agenda.
The attack on ships unconnected with Israel are well documented and are not "just general assertions." The Houthi argument about US and UK warships attacks are much more than you assert and the argument about the genocide convention is totally ludicrous. It seems to me you are taking the Houthi side, without much evidence to boot.
I've looked unsuccessfully for specific open documentation without success, and for evidence in the public domain that Iran is directing the attacks.
Please post links if I've missed something.
More generally I''m certainly not taking the side of crazy Houthis or of reactionary Islamists in the Muslim Brotherhood / Hamas, or fanatical mullahs in Qom.
I reject the idea that I must 'take a side', and be uncritically for or against 'Us' in Israel, America or elsewhere.
I think the constant refrain of 'Us v Them' is the main problem in our global community .
Like Tom Paine, I try to take the side of humanity
"“The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.”
PS: The fact that maritime insurers are urgently seeking disclosure of 'any Israeli connections' of cargoes passing through the Red Sea suggests I'm not the only person taking the - as you say ludicrous - Houthi targeting claims, however 'misguided' their missiles and drones, seriously.
It suits the Houthis to suggest that ANY connection, however tenuous, of a ship or cargo to Israel is a risk or liability - and in the complicated, sometimes murky world of ownership, management, and other aspects of international shipping, it seems often pretty difficult to prove that negative.
A sort of Houthi version of Madman Theory - but again, with some method in the madness, which must to some extent add additional leverage on some actors to press for a Gaza ceasefire.
And given the proven resilience of the Houthis in their isolated stronghold, it's not a totally crazy strategy. Again: understand your enemy.
It is not that they think the claims are ludicrous but that the Houthis will act on them, so they charge higher rates. I think the Houthis could be utterly destroyed, but the US does not want to do that because Washington is deeply conflicted. Anyway I did not say they were madmen, though they are talking themselves into annihilation.
Well, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and AQ tried for 10 years with US & UK assistance, to utterly destroy the Houthis in their mountains, but didn't get very far.
And Yemen isn't small urban Gaza, which can just be levelled in the attempt to utterly destroy an enemy (so far with no great success).
It's much more like Afghanistan, the mountainous dead end of several empires.
According to a recent LBC report (October 2023) and an old Haaretz report, Iran has a small base in Eritrea. Israel is also mad at Eritrea lately. If the Iranian base is still open, the only way to prevent the Houthis from tracking ships is to attack Eritrea. Should the USA attack Eritrea?
"Iran also maintains a military presence in the southern port of Eritrea" https://www.lbcgroup.tv/news/news-bulletin-reports/731047/unveiling-eritreas-role-a-geopolitical-chessboard/en
"Both Iran and Israel Have Military Bases in Eritrea"
https://www.haaretz.com/2012-12-12/ty-article/.premium/israel-iran-have-bases-in-eritrea/0000017f-efe8-d497-a1ff-efe863340000
if the base has a radar it can be jammed fairly easily
Great article, as always Dr. Bryen (suck it auto-correct). Now that Persia is a former member of BRICS+, I could forsee the PLAN base in Djibouti playing an important role in supporting the Houthi activities (under the guise of "protecting the sea lanes."). The Russians are integrating AI into their drones in Ukraine. I wonder how long until they're made available to "friendly," countries?
Moves and counter-moves. The wise chess master sees ahead several moves. We all know how important chess is to the Persians and Russians; especially with American led NATO forces playing tiddlywinks.
Persia non existe pa. You mean Iran. Persia was conquered and destroyed by Alexander the Great in 331 BCE. Regarding AI, the Russians are making claims they have integrated an AI solution in their Lancet kamikaze drone. While they have given the Lancet some interesting capabilities including being able to cooperate with other Lancets in target selection, I would need to know more before saying it really is an AI application. But they are certainly heading in the AI direction.
Something to be said about proof reading, and then posting. Persia is formally a part of BRICS+.
One of these days I'll figure it out. Sheesh!
Is not the AIS used by commercial shipping to avoid accidental collisions?
I'd worry that in a constricted space such as the Red Sea, this cure might be worse than the disease.
Also, would safe ships such as those carrying Russian oil to India not prefer to keep their AIS on to avoid getting confused with ships targeted by the Houthis?
The idea is to turn them off and on so that the Houthis and Iranians would have trouble getting a real time fix for their drones and missiles. I can also see turning them off in clear weather. (Smugglers use ghost AIS to fool the authorities.) I don't see where the off and on routine would cause a safety problem except in bad weather.
Stephen, again this is more excellent work for those of us less knowledgeable.
The problem is that a few fixes may be a problem for the Houthis and allies, but it will not deter them and we could end up with another undeclared war. Well, we're kinda, sorta in another one already.
Yes, any outcome is possible. My argument is to close as many doors as possible
Certainly, if one is in a conflict that is so, but as past is prologue, I can't see a good one.
If we have lost a plane and crew, that is probably far more than all the expenditures of the Houthis and any one supporting them and blinding irridium does not stop that.
I'm not sure this is going to work...
- Thuraya is also an option for satellite communication, and easily available online - The US will need to persuade Al Nahyan (UAE) to turn it off over the region too.
- Russia has two satellite communication companies that use their own satellites - Russian Satellite Communications Company (rscc.ru) and Gazprom Space Systems (gazprom-spacesystems.ru). China also has its own (yandex it, google supresses that info for whatever reason)
- Then GPS supressing does not work anymore the way it did few years ago - most modules connect to all existing satellite systems and compare data. This is if you change the location, not supress all signals (for which you need lots of power nearby)
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005004131946090.html
I am inclined to beleive US intelligence is keeping Iridium operational (not asking the company to stop some specific data transfer) as they try to monitor its Ansar Allah and Iran use. And they know the enemy will to switch to other operators that will be very hard for the US to penetrate /get data from. The technical detail to know (I'm not a telecommunications specialist) is whether you can switch off service in a certain area but still gather secretly usage data and conversations. We know Andoid can do it, but I have no idea how it works on a satellite phone. I bet it does not.
You can switch it off, delay transmission, or change coordinates and forward the wrong information to a drone. These things and more are possible. (You can also create ghost AIS readings)
We used to be a creative country. I wonder nowadays
Well, this gives some hope. Perhaps it's just a technical issue that will be solved - I'm sure there are some brilliant engineers in the US.
Speaking of which, I recently learned that the "normal" mobile phones we have in our pockets have an antenna that is good enough to receve a signal from a satellite and now someone in the US is doing it - a space network, with satellites instead of 5g towers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPOH0E0tzro
Perhaps this has something to do with the sim cards in the Gerans/Shaheds - they may adjust their coordinates if a satellite is communicating with them (using existing mobile phone modules/technology)?
All cellphones receive information from satellites --that is what the GPS system is. Not only that, most cellphones can receive GPS from the US system, from Glonass, the Russian system, and from the Chinese system BeiDou, the Chinese satellite system. It is not difficult to build ia space-based system to a phone for direct satellite communications, but it both expensive and unnecessary since cellphones do an excellent job. However systems like Musk's Starlink service are now being integrated with commercial cellphone carriers such as T Mobile.
Great analysis, as always.
But I'd be interested to learn more on Houthi target selection before attacks.
The Houthi spokesman claims they only attack ships with an Israeli connection, or US / UK warships trying to interdict their attacks. Indeed they claim they have a legal right and even duty to sanction such shipping under the Genocide Convention.
This is all of course, very far-fetched, but despite frequent claims by Israeli amd Western politicians, spokespersons and media that the targeting is 'indiscriminate', I've yet to see details of any 'arbitrary' Houthi attack (or for that matter of any proven Iranian direction of the attacks by what our media and politicians always call 'Iran-backed Houthis' rather than just Houthis).
The only ships I've seen actually mentioned as attacked but having no connection with Israel are Unity Explorer and Number 9, cited by Daniel Hagari.
Yet both have tenuous Israeli connections, easily found once their names and rough positions were known through AIS.
"[Number 9] did not visit Israel and did not transfer goods to or from Israel. Security officials discovered that the Houthis' original target was a partially Israeli-owned ship, but they misidentified it and attacked the British ship despite the fact that it had crew members from all over the world - but not from Israel. The mistake in identification is probably explained by the fact that, four years ago, the ship had a connection to Israeli ownership.
"Another ship that was attacked by the Houthis, Unity Explorer, is also not Israeli and does not carry an Israeli flag but is owned by a British firm that includes Dan David Ungar, who lives in Israel and is the son of an Israeli shipping billionaire, as one of its officers. No Israeli crew members were known to be on board."
I'd be interested to learn of any clearer examples of completely arbitrary targeting of another ship in the Red Sea.
Of course the attacks are outrageous and illegal, but as far as I can see there's more method in Houthi madness than their critics and adversaries want to admit.
A quick reply: it seems the Houthis are now attacking ships that have no connection whatever to Israel. Some are clearly owned or operated or connected in some way with the US. Others make no sense. Many of the Houthi weapons miss their targets, also complicating the picture. The genocide convention is strictly nonsense, since any allegations about it are not adjudicating by attacking anyone. (They also are directly targeting US and UK warships, an act of war, by the way. You sort of omit that in your comment.)
I'm not of course attempting to justify Houthi attacks, just trying to clarify their official position and rationale - which although it is largely nonsense, seems to be perhaps more coherent or systematic than its representation in our media.
Again, I've seen no specific data on attacks agaiinst vessels with no (at least imagined) relation to Israel - just general assertions that they're taking place.
As for attacks on US / UK warships, the Houthis explain those as a response to attempts to break their blockade, which they claim is based on the UN Genocide Convention.
As Sun Tzu said, it helps to know your enemy - unless perhaps representing them as just crazy proxies of evil crazy Iran fits another agenda.
The attack on ships unconnected with Israel are well documented and are not "just general assertions." The Houthi argument about US and UK warships attacks are much more than you assert and the argument about the genocide convention is totally ludicrous. It seems to me you are taking the Houthi side, without much evidence to boot.
I've looked unsuccessfully for specific open documentation without success, and for evidence in the public domain that Iran is directing the attacks.
Please post links if I've missed something.
More generally I''m certainly not taking the side of crazy Houthis or of reactionary Islamists in the Muslim Brotherhood / Hamas, or fanatical mullahs in Qom.
I reject the idea that I must 'take a side', and be uncritically for or against 'Us' in Israel, America or elsewhere.
I think the constant refrain of 'Us v Them' is the main problem in our global community .
Like Tom Paine, I try to take the side of humanity
"“The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.”
PS: The fact that maritime insurers are urgently seeking disclosure of 'any Israeli connections' of cargoes passing through the Red Sea suggests I'm not the only person taking the - as you say ludicrous - Houthi targeting claims, however 'misguided' their missiles and drones, seriously.
It suits the Houthis to suggest that ANY connection, however tenuous, of a ship or cargo to Israel is a risk or liability - and in the complicated, sometimes murky world of ownership, management, and other aspects of international shipping, it seems often pretty difficult to prove that negative.
A sort of Houthi version of Madman Theory - but again, with some method in the madness, which must to some extent add additional leverage on some actors to press for a Gaza ceasefire.
And given the proven resilience of the Houthis in their isolated stronghold, it's not a totally crazy strategy. Again: understand your enemy.
It is not that they think the claims are ludicrous but that the Houthis will act on them, so they charge higher rates. I think the Houthis could be utterly destroyed, but the US does not want to do that because Washington is deeply conflicted. Anyway I did not say they were madmen, though they are talking themselves into annihilation.
Well, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and AQ tried for 10 years with US & UK assistance, to utterly destroy the Houthis in their mountains, but didn't get very far.
And Yemen isn't small urban Gaza, which can just be levelled in the attempt to utterly destroy an enemy (so far with no great success).
It's much more like Afghanistan, the mountainous dead end of several empires.
Good analysis