Question of the week: “If Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, should the United States intervene militarily?”
– Karen Anderson: “No. The Arab League can deal with Iran. I think it is unlikely Iran would do that to its neighbors. Iran might posture but I doubt for long.”
– Dave Appling: “Yes, after first exercising diplomacy (sincerely and urgently, but not patiently) and orchestrating international support. Hormuz is a critical international waterway through which passes one-sixth of the world’s oil supply. Neither Iran nor anyone else can be allowed to close Hormuz, nor any other international waterway, e.g., Malacca or (perhaps more topical today) the Korea Strait.
– Bert Berson: “Yes. Providing that the intervention is done by a multi-national force, preferably including Russia and China. Their inclusion is politically wise. Also they will know about Iran’s weapons. These two have sold a bunch of weapons to Iran. The catch is that if Iran can somehow do serious damage to a U.S. warship it will be a huge political win for them.”
– Chris Bryant: “Yes, however it must be limited. We do not need another war. Elimination of their capability to close the Gulf should be enough but only if it was absolutely warranted.”
– Bob Chidester: “Yes. We should be able to sink their boats and turn them into fish food without starting WW III. The ironic part of their action is closing the Strait of Hormuz will do more harm to their crazy neighbors than it will to the U.S. Instead of always thinking war, we should be drilling off both U.S. coasts and building the Keystone pipeline. Our goal should be to become energy independent so we do have to worry about those crazies in the Middle East. Duh.”
– David Cohen: “Not immediately. Pressure from Iran’s oil neighbors should first be applied. If the blockade occurs and continues beyond the behind the scenes and the diplomatic efforts, I would support an effort against Iraq that was similar to the first Gulf War.”
– Dennis Kennedy: “Yes! For the limited purpose of keeping the Strait open.”
– Julian Mancias: “Yes. But, it should be a united effort since France and Great Britain also have warships in the Persian Gulf.”
– Henry Miller: “Most definitely. Maintaining our security is why we have a military force. Hopefully, it can be done without ground troops and more like the Libyan affair and with the support of other nations, including Saudi Arabia.”
– Lisa Pampuch: “No, not until all other avenues of resolving the problem are exhausted, and even then, not until and unless a cost-benefit analysis justifies it, a solid definition of success is formulated, and a careful exit plan is developed.”
– Jeff Smith: “Of course we should, but I doubt Iran will do that. Ideally we should utilize the abundant resources we have in our own country so we wouldn’t need to buy oil from Iran and thus fund their terrorist regime.”
– Steve Staloch: “Yes, if all else fails, but I would bet a tank of gas it will never happen. As the portal for 20 percent of the world’s oil supply, cutting off this vital supply would damage the world economy, but it would devastate Iran’s. It would also likely result in military action against facilities suspected of contributing to Iran’s prized nuclear weapon program.”
