An Iranian warship takes part in a naval show in 2006. (Photo: AP) [/caption] Posted on 04/29/2015 8:58:05 AM PDT by fredericbastiat1
What, if anything, would cause President Barack Obama to step away from the negotiating table with Iran? This is the question I find myself pondering in light of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Navy Patrol’s unchecked act of aggression on Tuesday against America’s interests in the Straits of Hormuz – an act that in a sane world would in and of itself put an end to the president's disastrous nuclear deal with Iran. As of this writing, reports indicate that the Iranian Navy Patrol fired shots at and ultimately seized a commercial cargo ship, the M/V Maersk Tigris, which flies under the Marshall Islands flag. Some believe Iran was even targeting a U.S. vessel.
[caption id="attachment_794376" align="aligncenter" width="179"] An Iranian warship takes part in a naval show in 2006. (Photo: AP) [/caption]
In a helpful dispatch, commentator Omri Ceren notes the significant implications of such an action given that the U.S. is: (i) Treaty-bound to secure and defend the Marshall Islands, and (ii) Committed to maintaining the free flow of commerce in the strategically vital waterways of the Middle East -- as affirmed just one week ago on April 21 by White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, State Department Spokesperson Marie Harf and Pentagon Spokesman Col. Steve Warren. The U.S. fulfilling its obligations to its protectorate, and acting to ensure vital shipping lanes remain open are not trivial matters. Further, this act can be seen as a brazen test of the sincerity of U.S. resolve, as it was timed to coincide with the opening of the Senate’s debate on the Corker-Menendez Iran bill. Yet there is a broader and perhaps more important context in which to consider what Ceren calls an act of "functionally unspinnable Iranian aggression." Even if we ignore the history of Iranian aggression against the U.S. and its allies since the deposal of the Shah in 1979, the firing upon and seizing of the Tigris marks the latest in a long series of such provocations that Iran has undertaken in just the last few months. Consider:
[caption id="attachment_459325" align="aligncenter" width="600"]
Iranian women hold an anti-US sign, bearing a cartoon of US President Barack Obama, outside the former US embassy in Tehran on November 2, 2012, during a rally to mark the 33rd anniversary of seizure of the US embassy which saw Islamist students hold 52 US diplomats hostage for 444 days. This year's rally came just days before US presidential election in which Republican challenger Mitt Romney has made Iran's controversial nuclear programme a top foreign policy issue. Credit: AFP/Getty Images [/caption]
Concerning the content of the nuclear deal being negotiated, it should be noted that the Iranians have stated the agreement accomplishes the very opposite of what the American public been led to believe. With respect to sanctions, Iran says they will be fully lifted upon the execution of the accord. As MEMRI notes, in an April 9 address, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini gave a speech in which he called America a "cheater and a liar" and
publicly set out the negotiating framework for the Iranian negotiating team, the main points of which are: an immediate lifting of all sanctions the moment an agreement is reached; no intrusive oversight of Iran's nuclear and military facilities; the continuation of Iran's nuclear research and development program; and no inclusion of any topics not related to the nuclear program, such as missile capability or anything impacting Iran's support for its proxies in the region.It is no wonder then that the nuclear deal has been lambasted on a bipartisan basis, including at the highest levels of the national security establishment. Even former Secretary of State James Baker is highly critical of the Iran deal – and his animus toward Israel, perhaps the primary casualty of the deal, may be second only to that of President Obama. As to whether Khameini’s portrayal of the deal is accurate, former CIA analyst and Iran expert Fred Fleitz asserts that under the terms of the agreement, Iran will (i) be able to continue enriching uranium, (ii) not have to disassemble or destroy any enrichment equipment or facilities, (iii) not be required to "permit snap inspections and unfettered access to all Iranian nuclear facilities, including military bases where Iran is believed to have conducted nuclear-weapons work," (iv) be able to continue to operate its Arak heavy-water reactor, a plutonium source, in contravention of IAEA resolutions and (v) be subjected to an eased sanctions regime that will be incredibly difficult to re-impose. If this were not enough, so intent is the Obama Administration on reaching a deal that it has been reported that for signing this agreement, Iran may even receive sweeteners including a $50 billion "signing bonus." The contorted logic used by the president in defense of his progressive stance towards Iran is worthy of Neville Chamberlain. During an interview with New York Times soulmate Thomas Friedman, Obama opined:
Even for somebody who believes, as I suspect Prime Minister Netanyahu believes, that there is no difference between Rouhani and the supreme leader and they’re all adamantly anti-West and anti-Israel and perennial liars and cheaters — even if you believed all that, this still would be the right thing to do. It would still be the best option for us to protect ourselves. In fact, you could argue that if they are implacably opposed to us, all the more reason for us to want to have a deal in which we know what they’re doing and that, for a long period of time, we can prevent them from having a nuclear weapon.Sen. Tom Cotton provides a necessary corrective in a recent interview:
I am skeptical that there are many moderates within the [Iranian] leadership … I think it's kind of like the search for the vaunted moderates in the Kremlin throughout most of the Cold War, with the exception that we could always count on the Soviet leadership to be concerned about national survival in a way that I don't think we can count on a nuclear-armed Iranian leadership to be solely concerned about national survival.As for Lord Chamberlain, Sen. Cotton – he of that irksome letter to Iran -- takes a more charitable view, noting:
It's unfair to Neville Chamberlain to compare him to Barack Obama, because Neville Chamberlain's general staff was telling him he couldn't confront Hitler and even fight to a draw—certainly not defeat the German military—until probably 1941 or 1942. He was operating from a position of weakness. With Iran, we negotiated privately in 2012-2013 from a position of strength … not just inherent military strength of the United States compared to Iran, but also from our strategic position.To those who recognize reality, this deal – coupled with our weak response to the ongoing provocations of the Iranian Government -- not only threatens our national security and that of our allies, but reflects an utter dereliction of duty to uphold the Constitution, and protect our people against foreign enemies. In a word, it is treasonous.
What part of my factual post did you not understand? I repeat:
“It wasn’t a US flagged ship but it was registered in the Marshall Islands which although getting independence from the US in 1986 still enjoys the “umbrella” of a US protectorate”
The fact that we are not going to do anything about the Iranians act of piracy has no bearing on the factuality of what I posted.
Why is it our responsibility to do anything about it? Maersk is working with the Danish foreign ministry to find out what's going on. According to the Iranians one of their courts ordered the ship seized as a result of a legal judgment against Maersk regarding some missing cargo. Link
This has nothing to do with the U.S.
“Why is it our responsibility to do anything about it?”
Its a great excuse to back out of the nuclear deal and put excruciating sanctions back on the country. But as we all know Barack Obama will do nothing.
It still has no bearing on my factual post that the Marshall Islands still fall under our sphere of influence. If we wanted an excuse to eff with Iran this is it.
It's not a "deal", it's a treaty ... and that's a big difference.
The Senate has no say in a "deal", but they have (or would have if the GOPE leader had a scintilla of masculinity) a big say in a treaty.
So, Ben, be different from most others on the Right or on the Left -- stop calling this treaty a "deal"!
“The Marshall Islands are under a defense treaty with the United States; the U.S. is obligated to come to the defense of that nation should it be attacked”
What part of "it has nothing to do with us" is so hard for you to understand?
It still has no bearing on my factual post that the Marshall Islands still fall under our sphere of influence. If we wanted an excuse to eff with Iran this is it.
You're not going to be happy until we start a war with them, are you?
“The Marshall Islands are under a defense treaty with the United States; the U.S. is obligated to come to the defense of that nation should it be attacked”
I guess you are pushing for Obama’s “Iran surrender”.
Well have someone attack the Marshall Islands and then we can talk.
Technically an attack on a ship registered through the Marshall Islands is an attack on the Marshall Islands. Just as an attack on a NATO vessel is an attack on NATO. Which we also have a treaty to protect.
We have a treaty with the Marshall Islands to protect them.
Oh for God's sake, the Marshall Islands is a flag of convenience. They will allow any company to register any ship they want under their flag and in return they offer a haven from taxes and regulations. The ships in question never come near the country, do not have any Marshall Island citizens on board, and the Marshall Islands itself couldn't care less what happens to them. And you want to go to war over it.
And you want to go to war over it.
DoodleDawg, you've asked the wrong the question. The question is; Do we ignore our ethical and legal responsibilities because they're inconvenient?
We have no ethical or legal responsibilities in this. The Marshall Islands are a flag of convenience. They'll let literally anyone register in their country so long as they pay the fees, and companies are lining up to do so because of the tax advantages. There is no connection with this ship and the Marshall Islands except on a piece of paper. The ship is not owned by the Marshall Islands. There are no citizens of the Marshall Islands onboard. The ship was not seized in the Marshall Islands so they weren't invaded. There is absolutely no reason why the U.S. should intervene in this. None whatsoever.
There is absolutely no reason why the U.S. should intervene in this.
Whether you like it or not, the United States guarantees freedom to sail in international waters of all American flagged ships (their crews, passengers, cargoes, etc.). Not only ships owned by Americans or American corporation but all ships registered as American, whether not owned by foreigners or foreign companies or not.
By treaty, which both the U.S. and the Marshall Islands agreed to (and enacted into law), the U.S. has to protect all Marshall Island flagged ships just as the do American flagged ships.
This is not an American flagged ship.
By treaty, which both the U.S. and the Marshall Islands agreed to (and enacted into law), the U.S. has to protect all Marshall Island flagged ships just as the do American flagged ships.
No it doesn't. It means we would protect them if invaded. Iran seizing a ship that has no connection to the Marshall Islands whatsoever except on paper in not an invasion. And I certainly don't understand this desire to go to war over the Maersk Freakin' Tigris.
No it doesn't.
The Government of the United States has full authority and responsibility for the security and defense matters in or relating to the Republic of the Marshall Islands.
I hate to be dense, but I'm having trouble understading you. Which parts of the law are you having trouble with? "full authority and responsibility?" "security and defense matters?" "in or relating to?"
How this is in any way a "security and defense" matter.
How this is in any way a "security and defense" matter
All countries defend their merchant ships on the high seas, or they become easy prey. American ships suffered many losses before its navy became strong enough to defend its ships--from Britain after the close of the Revolution, from France during the Quasi-War, from North Africa Moslems countries (ending in the Barbary wars), and from general piracy. For a little background, in one instance, you might study Allen's Our Navy and the Barbary Corsairs (1905).
The Marshall Islands have no defensive forces due the mutual agreement with America to defend and secure the Islands in all "matters in or relating to the Republic of the Marshall Islands." This includes their merchant fleet.
It's a flag of convenience. The ship has no connection to the Marshall Islands except on a piece of paper so to say that it's "their merchant fleet" is a gross exaggeration.
... except on a piece of pape ...
Exactly! The same as any treaty, law, marriage license, car title, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.