The President, Makovsky said, should "beef up" the U.S. naval presence in the Persian Gulf so that "the U.S. Navy could then blockade Iran to enforce sanctions on gasoline imports passed by both houses of Congress."
In order to enforce "crippling sanctions," then, a naval blockade will be necessary. And while Makovsky does not call this blockade "war," a naval blockade is an act of war by accepted international legal standards. Hence, while one can call it "the naval blockade option," as Lindsey Graham would say "you know what option I'm talking about."
Thus, we have policymakers and pundits claiming an aversion to war, talking about not talking about war with a smile on their face, and yet their solution is merely to call the pathway to war by a different name.
In committing only to pushing forward the most draconian sanctions available, they avoid a true assessment of what will be the costderailing diplomatic options, burning bridges with our allies, and helping snuff out Iran's opposition movement.
The abysmal effort that has been invested in avoiding a war scenario makes it challenging to accept the premise that these policymakers are actually committed to war as only a last option. Hoping and praying is not sufficient. If we know "bomb bomb Iran" is next on the playlist, it is time to get serious and figure out how to change the station.
Crossposted from NiacInsight
Correction: This article was originally attributed to NIAC's Assistant Policy Director, Patrick Disney. OEN apologizes for the error.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
1
