I think Obama will handle it much better than a President Cruz or President Graham. Those dudes seem to be looking for any confrontation they can find.

Just to give some context here, how many foreign commercial ships does the U.S. detain annually? What about other countries?

We Are Marshall (islands)!

Nobody in this thread compared Obama to any of the alternatives. In fact, I am inclined to agree with you. Cruz and Graham haven't shown me anything impressive.

That doesn't mean he didn't set American foreign policy back 70 years. They still hate you, but at least they used to respect you.

It's not the honour of the Marshall Islands we're concerned about, but sweet troll bro.

I don't know, that's a good question. But the issue is more nuanced than that: in what areas are ships being seized (i.e. known international trade routes or exclusive territorial waters), what conventions and customs are being violated (related to above), what threat to commercial value and sovereignty exists, etc.

Well, this is unsurprising:
The comments are juicy.

Hahaha they are indeed.

So your entire thread premise, that the USA must launch a war against Iran is nothing more than hyperbolic neocon spew.

See I am not a-s ,that's just your guttetal instinct as usual. I merely hate ******ed war mongers like you. Your ideals are stupid, like the false hasbara you keep shoveling. The second paragraph link, where you try restate the referred quote is pathetic. To all but your faction

Legitmate lol at this one.

So, you agree that you are alluding that war is the answer? I mean, you subtly tucked it in at the end of your post, but it's there. And you made it a link, so you clearly think it's one of the best options you trotted out (hint: the ONLY option). Do you have alternatives?

Regarding the second paragraph, did I make any statement about my position? Of course not, but keep on being you Gamblor.

A+

Read the thread bro.

[quote]
Regarding the second paragraph, did I make any statement about my position? %

which is likely the aim of the people responsible for it.

civilian control of a country's armed forces wasn't brought to earth 2000 years ago by Jesus. its not the rule for every country. there are competing power structures within the Iranian government. very powerful Iranian elites (many within the Rev. Guard) are among those most opposed to an Iranain-US rapprochement. the bedrock of their ideology since 1979 has been anti-Americanism.

i wouldn't be surprised if the 2 people most incensed by this are the President and Foreign Minister of Iran. they're trying to drag a large section of their country's government kicking and screaming towards a less hostile relationship with the US and normalized engagement with the world. this is likely the "kicking" part.

no, Obama shouldn't scrap his plan for advancing American interests in the Middle East for the next 5, 10, 50 years over a single ship from the Marshal Islands.

Over under on the number of citizens who can name what ocean the Marshall Islands are in?

It's in the American Ocean, right?

Yeah, they did it with a "court order" (I don't know the details of the Iranian commercial list) for money owed to the IMPO (their Port Authority). So it's not a purely civilian commercial debt.

I agree if this was the only issue. the question is how other American allies are going to interpret this. If I'm a smaller European price-taking country or Gulf oil country and I'm deciding how to arrange my alliances, I'm taking this as a sign that the US's "protections" will not include my commercial rights to travel Hormuz unless I am a big deal. It will not be long before commercial ships from other countries are paying Iran "protection money" for safe passage without the hassle of being boarded and seized.

If I'm Russia, I am moving in on the rest of Eastern Europe, and building stronger alliances with the Middle East and Asia.

Can you specify the time frame here a little more precisely so I know when to dig this prediction out and prove you ridiculously wrong?

Scratch my previous post, I totally failed at identifying your by far stupidest comment ITT.

That's the only reason Marshall Islands come to my mind.

I just googled it and I knew about where the MI were. Set the O/U at 2 please.

for some reason i doubt whether or not Russia starts World War 3 hinges on the fate of this cargo ship.

Consider that the last time a rogue state actually sunk a military vessel of a key US ally and the lolbama administration only sabre rattled in response but ww3 didn't break out then! But then 8 years of aggressive bush foreign policy also led to Russia militarily annexing a portion of a former USSR state and amazingly again no ww3. Sound familiar?

We should let some third party decide the ship's fate and then disclaim any moral responsibility

It. Israel and Russia can be girls if they want to. Germany can be a fatherland. America is not gendered imo.