War with Iran?

[Dill]

(07-30-2019, 11:05 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's how you perceive it, that doesn't make it the way it is.  I think it's rather more simple; the UK doesn't want to further ramp up tension by directly cooperating with us militarily in that region.  If Iran chooses to comport themselves in an illegal and aggressive, then yes, shame on them.  State sanctioned piracy is a rather bad look.
OOooo, who will be able to stand against that mighty naval alliance?  Force projection is rather more than simply sending a warship to X spot on planet Earth.
France is the only nation on that list with (1) a real carrier.  Again, this is a face saving measure and for some reason you're completely buying it.

To the bolded, haven't I already said that the UK doesn't want to further ramp up tension, etc.? And the link I posted says that as well. You offer my own point up like a counter point?  Again?

There is more than "a warship" available to the Britain and the EU countries in question. And whatever force projection is, in this case it is proposed to go forward without the US. That's the point.

No, I am not "completely buying" your face saving claim. And apparently you are not going to explain why face needs to be saved and why a call for a coalition accomplishes that. 

(07-30-2019, 11:05 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Nothing italicized argues against my point, bolded above.

Ahh, the old it's this way because I say so argument that you so often decry in others.

 
That I so often decry in your posts. And no, I'm not repeating an unsupported claim in response to a request for support. 

The point I am raising concerns the import of Britain separating from US policy in the gulf. Claiming Britain still needs assistance, true or false, does not really address the question of why the separation.

If the creation of an alternative coalition is "face saving," why the decision to implement a policy which requires face saving? Affirming that Iran is responsible for its own behavior doesn't speak to this issue at all.

(07-30-2019, 11:05 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:What about US policy would force the US' most important ally to go it alone this way? Are they just being stupid?

You always ask these pedantic questions like you're being clever, it's rather obnoxious.  No one is disputing that these tensions have been largely caused by the US reimposing sanctions against Iran.  Although it is worth pointing out that the Iranian piracy was a direct response to the UK seizing an Iranian flagged tanker as that tanker was violating EU sanctions.  So, actually, the Iranian piracy is a response to something that has zero to do with the US and its reimposed sanctions.  The naval alliance, however, must certainly does. 

If Iran seizes a ship in response to Britain seizing a ship because the US has re-imposed sanctions despite Iran holding to the Iran deal, then this "piracy," which would not have occurred were the sanctions not reimposed, does have something to do with the reimposed sanctions.

I am not the only one asking pedantic questions like I'm being clever. This distancing of Britain from the US is a subject of great interest in the foreign policy community. And I re-asked the question about that distancing to keep the discussion on the track of my original post, and away from personal judgments about my motivation and moral assessments of Iran.