Moore55 asked in Politics & GovernmentMilitary · 1 decade ago

if the US warships DID fire on those Iranian boats, what do you think would have happened afterwards?

most likely those boats would sink, do you think Iran would counter attack? not counter attack? outcries in the media to the world?

full out war?

12 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    Iran was intentionally testing U.S. response, and may have been looking for an international incident it could use to its own ends.

    Provocative behavior may yet lead to an exchange of fire or sinking of iranian small vessels. At the moment, Iran is not mobilized for war, and does not seem to be seeking all-out military confrontation with the U.S.

    American patriots should feel proud of the country and of its military strength. However, there is little for the U.S. to gain, and very much to lose, in going to war against Iran, or in launching a very heavy, one-sided aerial or naval assalut on Iran.

    In that event, there will follow substantial international sympathy, justified or not, for Iran, and there could be changes in realtionships worldwide that will seriously damage U.S. interests. Iran WANTS the U.S. to appear to be a "bully" so that it can alter those relationships.

    At stake is the ability of the U.S. to sustain whatever troops and missions are now in place in the entire region. Without active support of such countries as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Dubai, Kuwait, Pakistan, and other powers of the Middle East and Southeast Asia, the U.S. cannot continue in Iraq, and will almost certainly lose in Afghanistan.

    Iran in such a situation takes the position of the principal regional power, and could easily enjoy considerable support from some European states as well as Russia and China. This is a geopolitical goal Iran has been pursuing for some time.

    If the U.S. wants war with Iran, then America must fully mobilize for war, re-introduce the draft, build up the Army and Marines, buy a LOT more military equipment, and completely occupy Iraq to the extent that NO insurgents can survive there. In other words, the U.S. must imitate Germany's occupation of France during WWII - a stiuation for which there is almost no support in the U.S., and even less worldwide.

    Iran is a very large country in a sensitive position. It has considerable military capability and will make the U.S. work very hard to achieve and keep a military victory. The United States at this time is not capable of carrying out such a war, and for many reasons should not even attempt it.

    This is not a matter of peace-loving cowards sewing white flags, or "appeasing" aggressors, as some of the more rabid jingoists who post here have written. It is a matter of practical reality. The U.S. has nothing to gain and everything to lose by going to war with Iran. The matter of iranian weapons development is already actually being addressed and will contin ue - and Iran is nowhere near having nuclear capability soon or for some time yet to come.

    Best keep those ship captain's fingers off the trigger until and unless those patrol boats truly make a move on our ships. As long as it doesn't endanger then lives of our people, even better to let the Iranians commit the first act so when we slap them down, it's a response to aggression and conducted ONLY to an appropriate level of response.

  • 1 decade ago

    I'm not sure Iran would.. or is capable of doing anything but crying about it. I'm sure given the U.S.'s bad pr at the moment many people would criticize the decision. However, decisions made in real time should be judged under the notion that they were made in real time.

    I am in the Navy and will say that you are not allowed to come that close to a warship unless authorized. Personally I am disusted with the CO's decision to not sink those boats to avoid an international outcry. Had those boats wanted to do them harm they would have been succesful and people would have died. Garbage IMO... if I was the CO of a ship my men would come before the rest of the politicle cry babies any day of the week.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Well, Iran wants nukes, correct? We can give them some in the heart of Tehran.

    As for outcries, oh yeah, there would be out cries but who gives a sh**. I stated in another answer "If it had been 3 zodiacs off an American Destroyer coming that close to an Iranian ship, calling over the radio what the Iranians said, the zodiacs would have been blasted to hell."

    Where would the outcries be then? The Iranians would say they were defending their ship, the leftists here in the U.S. would be saying that we need to pull our military out (not that they haven't been saying this before), but it would be more ammo for them.

    As for full out war, if "Am-a-nut-a-job" wants a war, well bring it on you ragheaded bit**. We SHALL send your @ss to ALLAH.

    ACC(AW/SW)

    USN ret.

    To jhillftp - agree 100%. You do not make decisions as a CO based on politics. You base those decisions on what is best for those under your command and the mission at hand.

  • 3 years ago

    They weren't stupid threats. This grew to become right into a calculated attempt by employing Iran to impact the american warship to open hearth. HAD it opened hearth, the full worldwide could be screaming approximately how the vast undesirable US warship pulverized detrimental little Iranian patrol boats that did no longer even have any torpedoes on board -- and how it extremely is unquestionably an unprovoked act of aggression by employing the U. S., by using fact the U. S. grew to become into making plans to do all alongside. those boats did somewhat each little thing they could to impact a violent -- protective -- action, in need of exact taking off hostilities. They weren't going to harm the deliver; their purpose grew to become into to get the deliver to attack THEM. EDITED to Neal: regardless of. the U. S. deliver grew to become into in international waters, no longer Iranian territorial waters. yet then, of direction, everybody screams whilst the U. S. arguably violates international regulation, however an analogous does no longer stick to to Islamic international places. precise?

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The Iranians couldn't sink our ships except by a terrorist or surprise attack, but hey what's new about that.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Liberals would be saying that it was Cheney who fired the shot so Haliburton could cause WWIII in order to make a few bucks...

    Source(s): Vet
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Half of the democrats would be sewing white flags and the other half would want to impeach Bush.

    Henry Waxman would open an investigation of Dick Cheney.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Iran is just asking to get its *** kicked,we could solve many problems by bombing there camel ******* asses into the ground,the supply of arms to the rebels in iraq would stop for one.we should have finished them off back in the 70's when the hostage crisis took place.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I think Iran could not necessarily do much against the US Navy, but they could make life quite miserable for you and me, and ultimately for our troops in the area.

    it would have been stupid to fire on them.

  • 1 decade ago

    It would have become the official beginning of WWIII, which is inevitable.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.