Posted on 08/03/2023 10:18:22 AM PDT by McGruff
The U.S. military is considering putting armed personnel on commercial ships traveling through the Strait of Hormuz, in what would be an unheard of action aimed at stopping Iran from seizing and harassing civilian vessels, four American officials told The Associated Press on Thursday.
Since 2019, Iran has seized a series of ships in the strait, the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf, as part of its efforts to pressure the West over negotiations regarding its collapsed nuclear deal with world powers. Putting U.S. troops on commercial ships could further deter Iran from seizing vessels — or escalate tensions further.
The contemplated move also would represent an extraordinary commitment in the Mideast by U.S. forces as the Pentagon tries to focus on Russia and China. America didn’t even take the step during the so-called “Tanker War,” which culminated with the U.S. Navy and Iran fighting a one-day naval battle in 1988 that was the Navy’s largest since World War II.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
Contractors could be viewed under international law as pirates or terrorists whereas regular forces wouldn’t be. However, regular forces could be viewed as a military provocation.
International awl is a wonderful thing it can get you coming & going!
Like Russia, China, and North Korea, Iran sees a weak American President and Administration and feels it can get away with piracy. Democratic Presidents from Truman onward have been seen as weak. Truman and Marshall had previously sold out the Nationalist government of China, allowing the Communists to take over. The North Koreans reasonably thought they could conquer the South with little American opposition. Similarly, when Kennedy failed to support the Cuban exile invasion at the Bay of Pigs, the Soviets believed the U.S. would do nothing if they placed missiles in Cuba.
Two guys with a Gatling gun would do the trick...................
typo
awl = law
This means Iran needs to give Hunter more money... Joe says it’s “stormy outside:... that means the deal needs more cash.
Which means they would have been a Russian Satellite country controlling the Strait of Hormuz.
Yep weak mean lead to hard times.
They’re setting up more of incidents like that.
Interestingly, there are only two prominent countries in the world that have not ratified the current United Nations "open seas" treaty.
One is Iran.
The other is the United States.
The U.S. has no business interfering with the affairs of those countries over there. And we never did.
... they would have been a Russian Satellite country controlling the Strait of Hormuz.
Oh, cry me a river.
Oh yeah. putting armed military on commercial ships, sounds like a good idea. What could go wrong?
Oh my God. The Laws of Unintended Consequences are sure to kick in somewhere just after they clear the Suez or Panama Canals.
As an ex Naval officer I view your comment as ridiculous.
Good.
They’re Human Shields 🛡
Should put armed troops on big democrat city public transportation.
Neocon warmonger.
Maybe we should have left them alone instead.
Which are the other countries we should have bombed and missed out on?
Should we bother to guard the strait?
The last time was in May.
The US is hoping to provoke them, as usual.
Why should we?
Exactly. How about patrolling Chicago?
Oh wait. That’s our own country. Let that rot.
Why can’t commercial ships hire Blackwater or some other armed security force? Is the U.S. being paid for this?
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.