When the scary stuff happens, who we have as commander in chief matters:
The United States is in no position to advise Iran against cutting global oil supply in case of sanctions against its petroleum industry, a top Iranian commander said on Thursday.
The comment by deputy chief of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Hossein Salami came after the U.S. Fifth Fleet said on Wednesday it will not allow any disruption of traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial waterway in the distribution of worldwide oil supply.
[. . .]
Tensions over Iran's nuclear program have increased since the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported on Nov. 8 that Tehran appears to have worked on designing a nuclear bomb and may still be pursuing research to that end. Iran strongly denies this and says it is developing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
Iran has warned it will respond to any attack by hitting Israel and U.S. interests in the Gulf, and analysts say one way to retaliate would be to close the Strait of Hormuz.
We could argue all day about Obama's foreign policy. My own view is that he's been much better than we might have expected on anti-terrorism stuff but pretty much a Jimmy Carter-like failure in most other areas. Keeping the strait open and the oil flowing is so vital to U.S. interests that it's hard to imagine any president not taking it seriously, so we can only hope that the Navy's tough talk reflects the administration's resolve.
UPDATE. From a Wall Street Journal editorial:
The Hormuz threat is another opportunity to set boundaries on Iran's rogue behavior. Washington, along with London, Paris and Riyadh, should say plainly that any attempt to close or disrupt traffic through the strait would be considered an act of war that would be met with a military response. That response would be robust and immediate, and it would target Iran's military and nuclear assets, perhaps even its regime. Iran's mullahs need to understand that an act of aggression would jeopardize their own survival.
The Hormuz flap should also underscore the strategic damage that would result if Iran does get the bomb. Fortified by a nuclear threat, the mullahs would be more willing to blackmail their neighbors and press for regional dominance. Would the U.S. dare resist Iranian aggression if it meant putting American forces at risk of a nuclear reprisal? Better to act now to stop Iran before we have to answer that terrible question.
When and why to use military force is always an open debate in this country, which means trying to have a current understanding of what constitutes an "act of war." Every presidential candidate should be asked for his or her definition, and, come to think of it, I don't know Obama's, either.
