Either you don't win much at chess, or you just aren't very good at analogies. I sure in the heck wouldn't sacrifice a knight just to be sacrificing, unless capturing another knight or a rook. I don't see how this sacrifice is up to the potential gain unless Iran has incredibly good board position. Iran has sucky board position.
No, time to line up US and UK forces on the border of Iran's territorial waters, with guns pointed towards Iran, an start to sail VERY slowly inward ...
That would all depend on what the rest of the board looked like at the time, wouldn't it? Was there another Knight or Rook on the square my Knight is supposedly occupying?
Perhaps the opposing Knight or Rook was the piece that was placing my King in check. I would expect that Knight or Rook to be protected elsewhere...usually by the Queen or a Bishop.
If that protecting piece is moved to capture my Knight, will the opposing King be exposed to check?
I think there are far too many variables that could be in play to simply shoot a hole in my analogy based on your reticence to sacrifice a Knight. There are plenty of scenarios where placing a Knight in jeopardy is acceptable when the King is in imminent danger.
Aside from all that, the analogy was simply made based on GeorgiaDawg32's usage of the term 'check'. Which to me means the King is in danger.
Perhaps the term 'sacrifice' was not strictly correct in terms of how one plays chess. Should I have said, "Time to move a Knight to block."?
Or perhaps a different piece since Knights are generally best used for offensive purposes?
But it did convey my meaning rather well with regard to the situation with Iran and the role that the skipper of the boat may yet play. A man I did not wish to denigrate by referring to him as a pawn...which is why I used the term 'Knight'.
So you see...the larger discussion isn't about chess but the situation with Iran. That much is clear, isn't it?