No. of Recommendations: 3
If all the alternatives to nothing don't help - or result in a worse situation than doing nothing - then doing nothing is the right move. If there are alternatives to doing nothing that might result in an improvement, but this specific thing isn't one of them, then you shouldn't to this specific thing. Whether the alternative we should be pursuing is something else, or nothing, it shouldn't be this.And this is the exact same strategic logic that led Stanley Baldwin and Albert Sarraut to sit on their thumbs and allow Hitler to reoccupy the Rhineland in 1936 in a direct violation of the Treaty of Versailles. Had they intervened when Hitler was pulling guns with horse-drawn wagons and had very little naval combat power to offset the Royal Navy and the French Fleet, WW2 might have been prevented. Similarly had Bill Clinton taken action and eliminated Osama Bin Laden and his entourage in the Sudan 9/11 might have been prevented.
Doing nothing is a choice. Strategic inaction has consequences. But they didn't do what they're doing now. They mined the strait and directly attack neutral-flagged container ships. One could argue they did MORE than they did now because they had far more capability relatively speaking at the time (no more Navy or aircraft for them now).
Here's a picture of a flaming Singaporean ship for you:
https://www.history.com/articles/7-historical-figh...Doesn't look like a love tap to me. Since no one will click on the link here's the caption:
The Singapore-flagged, 85,000-ton Norman Atlantic stands ablaze on December 6, 1987, after being attacked by an Iranian warship as it approached the Strait of Hormuz.What Iran is doing is violating the peaceful passage of neutral ships in international waters. It's not any different from Hitler attempting to use his Wolf Packs to close the Atlantic to allied shipping in 1940-1941.
The response from our NATO "allies" should have been immediate condemnation and a pledge to escort tankers and other shipping through the Gulf. That they didn't - when they had the law and moral authority on their side - is a simultaneous demonstration of
moral weakness, cowardice and the lack of any ability to project power.
People tell you they are when under stress. These aren't your father's europeans. (Although the French certainly are).
Just because we really >want them to not have nukes and not have the ability to project power in the Gulf doesn't mean that starting a hot war with them is going to accomplish those goals. Recognizing that isn't saying that people are happy with the status quo - it's just recognizing that bombing them isn't going to have sufficient benefits to change that.LOL.
They were headed down the path of getting a nuclear weapon. Several of them, in fact.
The strategic chicken Barack Obama actually fired one of his national security advisors for daring to ask him the question of "Do you want the Iranians to have a nuclear weapon or not?" and upbraided the guy publicly.
Strategic inaction carries penalties. Severe ones, at times. Trump decided that strategic inaction wasn't a viable choice given all that's potentially about to happen in the Pacific and chose to end the threat now with what he had today.
Ask yourself this: *When* Iran would have built a nuclear weapon and said,
With this holy weapon we will close the straits of Hormuz unless <insert demand here> what would the ability of the western powers to respond be?
