Iran puts its foot down, in the water

[OntheRail]

How bout this ely... we seem to of had eyes on the boat. Could we also of tailed it back to it's dock? So maybe we or maybe one of our allies would like to take a few of them alive to gain intel for further proof and future action?

But regardless... it seems either way with you it's, damned if we do something or damned if we don't.

[TJDave]

Trump does not want war.

The Commander-in-Chief cannot pass the buck.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by OntheRail

How bout this ely... we seem to of had eyes on the boat. Could we also of tailed it back to it's dock? So maybe we or maybe one of our allies would like to take a few of them alive to gain intel for further proof and future action?

But regardless... it seems either way with you it's, damned if we do something or damned if we don't.

Great Britain agrees with us. It was Iran.

Immediate action is the Ely Doctrine, but he is not the POTUS.

[fast4522]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

There is a pretty wide list of options between "responding to tanker attack" and "multinational ground invasion."

Fact is if we knew who was directly responsible we'd be striking back and certainly not pre-emptively ruling out military action which was Pompeo's comments yesterday.

Right now we aren't sure what's happening. When we do know who is responsible punitive actions have to be taken. Not doing so would be a big depart from foreign policy.

You guys all operate in this reflexive "must defend the administration at all costs" when I'm not even attacking it. Just pointing out what has happened so far and the rationale behind it.

We should bomb whoever is responsible... those are our rules...

First is to rebuke your posts as some kind of western world playbook, those rules do not apply here in this ever changing times.

Consider this is a time to impeach a country, this is not a fit in terms of how we use the word. But in short we have to expose Iran for the devastation that will be done to it.

When they attack shipping lanes inside the Gulf of Oman they are attacking the world financial system. When they attack a United States Navy we have a number of hours a duly elected President of these United States can respond without seeking approval from the Congress.

This is what is going on, once they are exposed they will be eviscerated. Again not the correct use of the word but in line with being microwaved.

[elysiantraveller]

You guys are a trip...

I haven't attacked the Adminstration but you're all so reflexive and defensive it isn't sinking in.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by OntheRail

How bout this ely... we seem to of had eyes on the boat. Could we also of tailed it back to it's dock? So maybe we or maybe one of our allies would like to take a few of them alive to gain intel for further proof and future action?

But regardless... it seems either way with you it's, damned if we do something or damned if we don't.

How did you interpret any of this from anything I've said?

[Tom]

Iranian speedboats blocking one of the stricken tankers frm from being towed - those should considered ducks and obliterated on the sopr t- no warning, no nothing but artillery shells.

[elysiantraveller]

Good thread on Iran and the issues with the Trump Administrations Foreign Policy:

https://twitter.com/brett_mcgurk/status/1139621984264839168

[fast4522]

Originally Posted by Tom

Iranian speedboats blocking one of the stricken tankers frm from being towed - those should considered ducks and obliterated on the sopr t- no warning, no nothing but artillery shells.

Did President Ronald Reagan do that in the 80's, works for me.

[jimmyb]

"We received reports that something flew towards the ship," says Yutaka Katada, head of Kokaku Sangyo Co. "The place where the projectile landed was significantly higher than the water level, so we are absolutely sure that this wasn’t a torpedo. I do not think there was a time bomb or an object attached to the side of the ship."


Japanese tanker crew members saw a nearby Iranian naval ship at some point during the attack.


https://www.newser.com/story/276558/...mpaign=rss_top

[elysiantraveller]

Iran will be beyond is uranium stockpile limits in 10 days.

Iran to scale back nuclear deal commitments: Tasnim

This is 3-5% enriched stuff. No good for making bombs but fine for reactors. The JCPOA had limited the amount of reactor fuel they could have on hand.

Meanwhile...

Pompeo says U.S. does not want war with Iran; pushes for international response

So after shunning and unilaterally withdrawing from a international deal we now want a internationalist approach?

See the twitter thread I posted above. More examples of incoherence in foreign policy.

[davew]

Originally Posted by Tom

Iranian speedboats blocking one of the stricken tankers frm from being towed - those should considered ducks and obliterated on the sopr t- no warning, no nothing but artillery shells.

weren't they protecting the tanker from being stolen while they perform an investigation?

[RunForTheRoses]

https://japantoday.com/category/nati...tacked-tankers

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by RunForTheRoses

https://japantoday.com/category/nati...tacked-tankers

Other than the Brits everyone is demanding more evidence.

I'm 90% certain Iran or the IRGC (they're largely autonomous) or another proxy is behind it.

Just shows how low our credibility is now on the matter though.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Tom

Great Britain agrees with us. It was Iran.

Immediate action is the Ely Doctrine, but he is not the POTUS.

I don't really think we know who to blame yet.

Once we do immediate action isn't the Ely doctrine it's the American Doctrine.

Attacks against civilian merchant shipping is intolerable. Especially in one of the worlds most crucial sea lanes. Especially a sea lane the United States has sworn to protect and keep open.