Oldenwisdom...قول بزرگ
Trusted Member
Right. Lethal fire on those oil tankers was not needed. A sea captain wouldn't take the risk of passing through if mere threats of violence was made. That was an Iranian mistake. But, per Trita, the American reaction to that too was a disproportionate. There was a middle ground. But here we are. Maybe there are talks going on to come to that middle ground. Maybe!
That assumption would literally make MoU meaningless. The specter of US running a simultaneous southern corridor takes away from Iran's leverage. But it isn't even about leverage... the bottom one is security!
Once SoH control is lost... US warships can go all the way up to Kuwait... providing an access to central Iran with munitions from those ships...
It is first the threat of losing destroyers and potentially even carriers that makes them keep a safe distance.
But it is also the way US went about it... by making those ships turn off their transponders... making Iran expose it's sites to locate ships... to open up new targets by making the commercial ship hostage to US goals. When those ships are not insured during that transit and the companies pushing their crews by offering higher payouts.
You think this is an innocent passage?
They are baits first and a circumventing ploy second.




