Hmmm. It might be that if the U.S. Navy blew a few of those guys out of the water everyone would be relieved to have them gone.

Hmmm. It might be that if the U.S. Navy blew a few of those guys out of the water everyone would be relieved to have them gone

As long as that is all that happened, yes, you may be right even though Tehran would still leap up and down (they have to really). The trouble is the moment you start shooting people, events have a tendency to take on a life of their own.

The notion of a centralised control structure in Iran is an illusion. This was not, as mentioned above, the Iranian Naval.

They were most likely troops under the IRGC, which is a parallel military organization to the regular armed forces in Iran that operates independently from those regular armed forces and under the control of the most influential Ayatollahs only. They answer to the Supreme Council and they are the chaps that fund, train and manage Hezbollah.

They are in effect, an special forces and intelligence gathering service unto themselves, and they have the resources and the members to cause trouble.

Unlike the regular army the IRGC was not purged and gutted in '79. Most of the current Iranian Senior ministers are from the ranks of the IRGC and/or secret police.

I got this information from a very clever man who sometimes stoops to converse with me.

"Unlike the regular army the IRGC was not purged and gutted in '79"

You mean the Revolutionary Guard was a construct from the days of the Shah? P-)

"Time travel is FAAABULOUS!!!!"

If neither side wants a war, it is not going to happen regardless of any incident occasioned by the nutters or the nervous. It would take real determination - an overt attack by regular forces - by the Iranian régime to start a war if the US really didn't want one. In neither state is the peace party particularly dominant, however. That's when erratic nutters become dangerous.

If neither side wants a war, it is not going to happen regardless of any incident occasioned by the nutters or the nervous.

If a Pasdaran speedboat blows a hole in a USN ship, then there is an excellent chance there will be a war, even if Washington and Tehran are not looking for one. The USN will strike targets in Iran because the politocal pressure to do so will be tremendous (and in fact probably correct) if that happens... and the Iranian government will probably feel it has to hit back regardless. It could very very easily get out of control because of some dickheads operating waaaaay above their pay grades.

If Iran's government is serious about avoiding a war they (probably) do not want (and most in Washington sure do not want), they need to get control of the Pasdaran and pronto. If a bunch of US or UK sailors die in an attack, then war will happen and I for one will be one of the people saying it needs to happen at that point. I would rather us not end up there. Frankly war is already justified (but not a good idea) right now due to the Iranian role in all the IED attacks in Iraq.

If a bunch of US or UK sailors die in an attack, then war will happen and I for one will be one of the people saying it needs to happen at that point.

Do you think America should have gone to war in 1967 to avenge the USS Liberty? Or the USS Stark in 1987?

Do you think America should have gone to war in 1967 to avenge the USS Liberty?

Certainly if another similar attack was a distinct possibility... but as it was probably just a consequence of getting too close to someone else's on-going shooting war, probably not.

Or the USS Stark in 1987?

As above.

Do you think America should have gone to war in 1967 to avenge the USS Liberty? Or the USS Stark in 1987?

Why would they? The USS Liberty was the result of friendly fire and the USS Stark occurred at a time when it would have been detrimental to US interests to pursue the issue further. The situation with Iran is different. An attack on a USN vessel would stir up such a mood in the US that to ignore or try to pacify the attack would be political suicide.

That said, if such an attack occurs I see a quick retaliation from the US and it will end there.

USS Stark occurred at a time when it would have been detrimental to US interests to pursue the issue further

I would say America would have been a lot more justified retaliating over that than it was going to war to protect the Kuwaiti and Saudi monarchies, or going to war to pursue phantom weapons.

An attack on a USN vessel would stir up such a mood in the US that to ignore or try to pacify the attack would be political suicide.

Are you implying that Americans are prone to war fevers? To think I get accused of being anti-American!

I would say America would have been a lot more justified retaliating over that than it was going to war to protect the Kuwaiti and Saudi monarchies, or going to war to pursue phantom weapons.

But that was not the question you asked me.

Are you implying that Americans are prone to war fevers? To think I get accused of being anti-American!

I guess you didn't read the bit where I wrote "and I for one will be one of the people saying it needs to happen at that point."

I guess you didn't read the bit where I wrote "and I for one will be one of the people saying it needs to happen at that point."

I was making the comment a bit in jest. My hope is that Americans aren't inclined to plunge into a war with Iran, even if there is an incident. The likely costs would be huge. Sure, America could bomb Iran, but they can't get rid of Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs. And the Iranians could just unleash their clients in Iraq, Palestine, and Lebanon and tell them to run riot. All the gains that the surge is meant to have achieved would be wiped out very soon.

The likely costs would be huge. Sure, America could bomb Iran, but they can't get rid of Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs.

The US could certainly put Iran in a position where no Iranian cares anymore whether or not the Mullahs are still alive. But the US probably lacks the will to use that power.

And so the situation with Iran will continue to deteriorate until things get very much worse. Oh well! If the Straits of Hormuz are closed, the Europeans may suddenly realize that heckling the US from the cheap seats was never much of a foreign policy. And the Chinese may suddenly realize that, in order to provoke the US, Iran has to cause China serious pain.

If a tree falls in the woods and no one wants to hear it, did it fall?
Washington's response to provocations must be taken on an individual case basis. The exact same incident with different players yields different results at different times.
The excuses offered for the Stark by Washington were done to keep Saddam in the fight, The evidence that the attack was planned and deliberate were overwhelming as was the cover up. Remember one planbe was involved? Sure, since the Mirage had to fly high low requiring two aircraft to reach the area it was operating in. Further it could only carry a single exocet. Problem is the Stark was hit by two exocets. Yeah the Reagan administration really wanted a war with Saddam

Change the timne to taday and have the Iranians do it. Think the government could accomplish the same white wahs?

One additional point, the guardians of the revolution really don't exercise control over the forces that have the largest funding, most modern weapons and direct access to it leaders? Right and I have some swampland that truly is a bargain.

If the Straits of Hormuz are closed, the Europeans may suddenly realize that heckling the US from the cheap seats was never much of a foreign policy.

Chasing after phantom weapons and nationbuilding aren't much of a foreign policy either. Very expensive of course though.

One additional point, the guardians of the revolution really don't exercise control over the forces that have the largest funding, most modern weapons and direct access to it leaders?

Correct. Just as the SS did not control the Wehrmacht.

Perhaps the question should be:

Should the US go to war with Iran to ensure that the international waters in the Strait of Hormuz remain open to lawful military and commercial traffic?

Closure or instability in the Gulf of Hormuz threatens US national interests (not to mention the global economy and global stability) in a way that other naval incidents have not.

Its easy to envision a limited military response that includes the destruction of the Iranian "navy". I don't know if Iran has any shore-based anti-ship batteries that can threaten Hormuz, but if so, throw them into the mix.

I don't know if Iran has any shore-based anti-ship batteries that can threaten Hormuz, but if so, throw them into the mix.

Truck mounted Silkworm missiles and the like.

The thing that makes me most hopeful about Iran is its pervasive corruption. Eventually, someone is going to decide that the fanatics are likely to louse up a sweet arrangement, and a purge will ensue. It might work out very well for us if the purge were only mostly successful and bitterly resisted.