No. of Recommendations: 1
Yeah, pretty sure.
Reagan sank some of their Navy and wrecked a bunch of their oil platforms. What would Harris be willing to do?
Again, the difference between a strike and a counterstrike. Iran had mined the waters and caused the near-destruction of a US warship - so a direct response to Iranian military activity is something that a regime can easily back away from.
The Iranians were laying passive mines in international waters then. Now they're supplying direct weapons to the Houthis to use on our ships. In some ways, that's worse.
Why do you think the US and others are applying restrictions to what the Ukrainians can and can't do with the weapons we give them?
The US still has an amazing amount of military firepower, but Iran is now the pre-eminent conventional military force in the region, and Iraq is an ally. They have naval allies in the Chinese, who have a nearby military base in Djibouti. They won't face the military pressure to back down. And because the Iranians haven't directly attacked the US military, there's not really a face-saving opportunity for the Iranians to slink back and claim they gave as good as the got.
So again, according to you, due to the overwhelming superiority of Iranian firepower in the region, we should just sit there and take it.
BTW. What's the most advanced aircraft that the Iranians operate?
The answer might give you a hint as to what China/Russia think of Iran as a client state.
