The MOU was signed between the US and Iran. The US did not break its part. Did Iran expect Israel to raise its hands as soon as it was signed? Did it not see the increasing friction between the US and Israel on it, the first time ever? Instead, it attacked those vessels and flung the US exactly where Israel wanted it. Foolishly threw the baby out with the bathwater. How did that serve Iran? I keep repeating this to emphasize that your premise is faulty. The question is not what Iran is justified to do but what will serve it best?
Not what I argued against, either. Morality, or even any treaty, holds no sway on the matter.
Iran knew exactly what the US response would be. Yet, it went ahead with it. To What End? The day that Iran has the means to pull this off, it can go back and do whatever it wants. Premature attempts will only delay it from achieving those means and make its people suffer needlessly.
Within their means while not jeopardizing what has already been achieved.
Who would you have picked to oppose, Iran or the US?
That exact belief is my contention. Iran cannot, to the extent that its hardliners and its posse here wish it could. Their political leadership knows this and was guiding them through it remarkably well until those vessels were hit.
They are, in power. One geriatric manchild can kill dozens of innocent Iranian children with impunity on a vile whim. The naivety is in pretending it's anything different. Taking sides is natural based on personal and national interests. The naivety of personal interests is another matter.
But naive. Leaves us throwing hissy fits after futile attempts to force it.
