I want to know something. What were the frickin' Rules of Engagement that says it's okay to allow the armed forces of a threat nation to board a ship of war and take prisoners by force of arms? I don't care if they were in Iranian waters! When I teach a CCW class for the Florida permit, one of the first things I DRILL into women is: (not yelling, but emphasis) NEVER, EVER GET INTO A CAR WITH A BAD GUY!! Get in the car and you're raped or dead. Or both. You don't need to move to get robbed. Anything that requires a bad guy to move a victim for reasons of privacy is going to be B-A-D for the prisoner. Same here. At the point of the initial contact there is hope and there is probably combat but it is righteous. Killed like a sheep taken for slaughter by the muzzie wolf has no honor. I hope the U.S. has learned from this and altered the ROE accordingly. What on earth were the Brits thinking?
A ruse to draw US naval assets into the region? LOL Be careful what you wish for! Given the right ROE, antiship missiles can be destroyed before launch at the point of origin.
Not sure what the Brits ROE was, but they should have been on their toes. As far as getting what they wish for, you are correct. However, the maneuvering room is kinda tight and I remember the amphib assault ship that was hit during desert storm. I certainly hope that if the USN deploys some additional assets to contest the waterway, they have hair trigger orders to fire.