Zraver,
The retaliation won't happen in a conventionnal way otherwise the only one that would be wiped off the map, or whatever the translation, would be the Iranian military. It would more likely take the shape of repeated and devastating terrorist attacks in Afghanistan, Iraq or Lebanon but not the straight of Hormuz, that would amount to tight the loose on the world's neck, leaving them completely alone. And anyway that would make more harm to their economy than anything else. The closing of the straight is just a gratuitous threat they can't possibly execute and they know it.
I'm amazed when I read some posts which take it as granted that the Islamic Republic is like Nazi Germany, with one leader, a fanatized population marching like one man, stopping all its activities for the prayers and all resolved to destroy Israel even if it leads to the sacrifice of their own lives.In case people forgot, Iran is a democracy.
Then the nuclear issue being as you say a national cause they can't back down. I would apply the same rehabiltation process Syria is curently experiencing without prior conditions. Years of tensions only strengthened Iran's standing in the ME. If the country turns nuclear that would amount to a "soft landing" if it does not, well, no more reasons to continue the saber rattling.
The Iranian presidency is only one factor among many (supreme leader, Iranian Guards, the business establishment, the public opinion..)when one has to take the gravest decision for this country which is, of course, a direct confrontation with the US. As the recent comments by Ahmaninedjad showed "I can assure you something certain, there will be no war in the future"
And they will obey the political and religious authorities, there's no pronunciamento in sight.
As the person playing Paul Reverre as it concerns the Iranians, retaliation isnt thier strong suit. It implies the US acted first and in a US-Iran war who strikes first strikes hardest. Retaliation implies reaction, and after the 1st an second waves Iran won't have the number of assets it needs to both close the Strait, and then the much harder goal of keeping it closed vs an enemy at nearly full streangth. Iran's only hope is to get in some good blows early to knock back any US responce past the point the oil in transit reaches its ports of destination.
There is quite the behind the scenes battle going on inside Iran. Cleric's loyal to the Supreme Leader have made some interesting comments about A-jad and there was a recent shake up of the Guards command. I think the clerics are finally realizing that men giing special rights in all three of the important spheres (military, economic, and political) are not loyal like dogs, but treacherous like snakes. We will probalby see soe serious bloodletting in a show down within the next 10 years or so. That beign said, the clercis find themselves wedded to the nuke issue as one of national pride. I don't think they think they can backdown without looking like they betray the people as long as the guards keep tooting the nuclear horn. I think they fel it might cause a politcal shift they don't want.
Then the nuclear issue being as you say a national cause they can't back down. I would apply the same rehabiltation process Syria is curently experiencing without prior conditions. Years of tensions only strengthened Iran's standing in the ME. If the country turns nuclear that would amount to a "soft landing" if it does not, well, no more reasons to continue the saber rattling.
I really wish the state department's experts were listened to. I know I can't be the only one traking the press blurbs about what cleric says what about who and drawing the conclusion that all is not right inside Iran. But US policy is backing the clerics into a corner instead of giving them a way to unravel the guards building grip on power.
PS. the Guards are now the single biggest economic and military force in Iran. They have the money and the guns.
Comment