Why Did the Editorial Board of The New York Times Fail to Accurately Describe the Attack on the USS Mason?

Tweet

In an editorial entitled "America’s Moral Duty in Yemen," The New York Times wrote on Tuesday (my emphasis in red):

"On Monday, Houthi rebels who have been fighting with the Yemeni government reportedly launched a ballistic missile deep into Saudi Arabia, and on Sunday they may have fired on a United States Navy destroyer, but missed.

The Saudi strikes killed more than 140 mourners and wounded hundreds at a funeral in Sana, the capital, which is controlled by Houthi rebels, an indigenous Shiite group with loose connections to Iran."

I subsequently noted that the Times's claims that the Houthis "may have fired on a United States Navy destroyer" (they indeed fired on the USS Mason) and that the Houthis maintain "loose connections to Iran" amounted to pure rubbish.

As reported today by DEBKAfile in an article entitled "US Tomahawks destroy Iran's radar bases in Yemen":

"Tomahawk cruise missiles launched by US Navy destroyer USS Nitze early Thursday, Oct. 13, destroyed three Iranian-Yemeni coastal radar stations, after C-802 anti-ship missiles supplied by Iran to Yemeni Houthi rebels were fired at US naval vessels off the Yemeni coast.

. . . .

A highly advanced radar installation is required for the use of the C-802. Two radar stations set up outside Yemen’s two principal Red Sea ports, Mokha and Hudaydah earlier this month were operated by [Iranian] Rev. Guards missile and radar teams until they were destroyed Thursday, DEBKAfile’s military sources report. The third station was added for triangulation. The destruction of all three by a US Tomahawk has knocked out the Houthis’ ability to use C-802 missiles and Iran’s threat to blockade the Red Sea.

. . . .

Contrary to Tehran’s assurance to Washington in August that Iranian arms supplies to Yemeni Houthi rebels had been suspended, the rebels took delivery last week of the largest consignment of Iranian weapons to date.

According to DEBKAfile’s military sources, the shipment included highly sophisticated Scud D surface-to-surface missiles with a range of 800km; and C-802 anti-ship missiles (an upgraded version of the Chinese YJ-8 NATO-named CSS-N-8 and renamed by Iran Saccade).

They came with Iranian Revolutionary Guards officers and radar systems to fine-tune the targeting of these missiles by Iran’s Yemeni proxies."

So why hasn't the Times's editorial board acknowledged its mistake? Could it possibly have anything to do with a desire not to undermine faith in Obama's bogus unsigned nuclear deal with Iran? I wonder ...