Reply #107: no, I don't

[boricua79]

but I see through your thought process.

And you incorrectly assume I don't know nothing about political theory (a very incorrect assumption, considering I have graduate degrees in Political Science).

You're thought process comes from the Realpolitik school of thought. You assume that in the absence of a coercive military force (the U.S.), that the Iranians will act in their national interest, to the detriment of the rest of the world. Therefore, if the rest of the world is to be assured access to free shipping lanes, SOMEBODY has to be the police...and naturally, that somebody is conveniently the United States.

That's your view.

My view is that these issues can be resolved through agreed international frameworks, and that when nations do not follow the frameworks, they can be coerced to follow these agreements through multinational frameworks. One nation can certainly attempt coercion...but that nation incurs great reputational, economic, and military consequences for "going it alone".

There are smarter ways to resolve issues related to the Strait of Hormuz that do not involve the a priori / non negotiable idea that American carrier groups MUST be in the Strait's waters.

I highly doubt the Iranians, who are very aware of how isolated they are in the world, will make such a drastic move as cutting off the "tap" of the Strait of Hormuz for pure "national interest" motives. As with the scenario with Saddam Hussein using his WMDs, the Iranians are most likely to resort to economic warfare via strangling the Strait of Hormuz if they feel they that they're about to be attacked or have been attacked. I do not see them doing such a drastic move in the absence of a provocative presence (the U.S.).

The best way to deal with Iran is through negotiations and a simple thing called respect. The Iranians are tired of having Israel threatening to bomb them, and of being called part of an "axis of evil". I don't have to like they're theocratic, abusive government (I don't) to know that we're provoking much of their hardline foreign policies. Leave them alone. Address their misdeeds when they occur. Don't base our foreign policy on the a priori belief that they WILL act bad and therefore, that we must be there. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. And when they do act bad, address those moments through international channels. We succeeded in this when Iraq invaded Kuwait (an act worse than strangling the Strait). We went to the U.N., received a consensus support that Iraq had to be expelled militarily, organized a coalition of nations behind our effort, and succeeded in removing Saddam. Iraq 1 had a lot of respect from people in the world. Iraq 2 stands as a case-study in how NOT to conduct a war, both the beginning and the actual transpiring of it. What's the difference? One was done within international frameworks and was seen as a world action to rectify a wrong (invasion of Kuwait), and the second was (correctly) seen as an act of oil-greed imperialism/arrogance, on the part of a right-wing American administration, with no legitimate basis.