Last time we checked in with our foreign policy experts, our State Department was assuring Iran that we wouldn't be stopping any shipments of arms to Iran's allies in Yemen, the Houthi rebels. Sure, we're nearing the end of a capitulation, er, negotiation on Iran's nuclear program that might give someone second thoughts about the value of any deal. And sure, there was a UN resolution we'd pushed for that prohibited arming the Houthis. And sure, we were moving warships (including an aircraft carrier!) toward a convoy of Iranian vessels thought to be carrying a shipment of arms destined for Yemen, but our State Department wanted to make sure everyone understood that we're all bark and no bite. As Spokeswoman Marie Harf explained: I want to be very clear just so that no one has the wrong impression. They are not there to intercept Iranian ships." Oh. Why are they there then? "The purpose of moving them is only to ensure that the shipping lanes remain open and safe."
Today's blog won't rehash the many ways in which this is both depressing and hilarious. (But click here if you'd like to.) In any event, it appears that the Iranians didn't believe the stated commerce-protecting purpose of warships. Perhaps they believed the much less pacific message from the Pentagon instead. The Iranian ships turned around and headed for home. If the Iranians did in fact turn around because of the US Navy, it's despite our State Department's behavior, not because of it. But let's move on to see how we're doing with our stated goal of protecting the shipping lanes.
On Friday, (one day after the Iranian arms shipments turned around for home), Iran's navy intercepted a US-flagged cargo ship in the Strait of Hormuz, the Maersk Kensington. After encircling and following for a time, the Iranians dispersed. Yesterday, Iranian navy fired on and seized another cargo ship, the Maersk Tigris. That ship is headed to port under Iranian escort.
Iran had not been in the habit of using its navy to block shipping lanes until immediately after our President and State Department made a point of saying we'd protect the shipping lanes. I don't pretend to know if it's immediately possible to protect the cargo ships intercepted over the past 5 days, and I'd guess that Iran chose targets a little removed from the center of US naval presence in the region. But it's as if Iran is making a point, no?
Which brings us back to Plan B theory. Our President has publicly stated that he has no alternative to a deal with Iran. He has no Plan B. Iran will get what it wants in terms of nuclear militarization development because our lead negotiator, the President of the United States, believes there is no alternative. He has said so, publicly. His determination to get a deal at any cost, despite missed deadlines by Iran, despite Twitter (!) accusations by his counterpart of lying, cheating and general infidelitude, despite intentional military provocations during negotiations, confirms his desperation.
If you get your opponent on the ropes, keep punching hard until he's down.
