Assuming the above to be true what is the next appropriate step for the United States? That’s pretty much it I would like to hear some different perspectives. Thanks.
Probably either “sanctions” (which would sound like a toothless measure) or some limited military response - perhaps, for instance, a strike on the specific SAM battery that took out the drone, but nothing further.
<paranoia>
What a perfect provocation! Fly an unmanned drone into Iranian airspace, just close enough to claim it never left international airspace. Iran shoots it down, and tensions are instantly ratcheted up one more notch. No one without access to satellites or radar can dispute your claim about where exactly the drone was, and most of those people work for you. (And the ones who don’t are socialists and/or radical Islamic sympathizers.)
</paranoia>
Well, if it falls within international legal parameters, it’s legal. To use a sports analogy, it’s perfectly fair to try to draw your opponent offsides.
Trying to start a war is abhorrent and murderous.
But who’s to say the drone was actually in international airspace? The US Navy?
This, too. We’re not talking about a five-yard penalty here.
Going to war with Iran would be catastrophic, and IMO likely to be much, much more harmful to the US, in terms of lives and resources lost, than the war in Iraq. Iran is much larger, more advanced, more wealthy, and more unified, than Iraq was.
I doubt we’re going to start a war over one drone being shot down, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they ratchet up provocative behaviors. There is a threshold when a small response of some kind, may be appropriate but not over this. Iran seems to be in a desperate situation economically with the sanctions being put back into place. It seems more an act of desperation than anything.
Exactly, and no “BUT IT WAS LEEEEEEEGAL!!!” argument should make us forget that fact.
If our government is trying to engineer situations wherein a lot of people get killed, our government needs to go.
Exactly right.
The answer is…it depends. The aircraft in question was a drone, so there is a gray area. Also, it’s unclear if it was in universally agreed upon ‘international waters’, as Iran’s claims aren’t exactly agreed upon by all parties in the region. So, both the US and Iran can accurately say totally different things here, depending on their own perspective as to what ‘international waters’ actually are. And other countries could and do have other opinions on this as well. Kind of like what’s going on in the South China Sea region, or other disputed waters.
As to what would be appropriate steps, that depends as well. Are you asking what we, the posters think are appropriate, what the US would think is appropriate or what Trump et al would think is appropriate? If it’s the former, then myself I’d be looking to de-escalate the situation, though, frankly, I wouldn’t have brought it to a head in the first place at this time when we have China and North Korea to deal with. Our plate seems, um, a bit full right now. Not to mention tensions with Mexico, the EU, Russia and, well…the list is kind of long. It would be easier to find countries we DON’T have some sort of drama going on with right now. Anyway, I don’t think shooting down a drone in disputed territory constitutes an act of war, if that’s what you are asking, nor even an excuse for military action. Now, assuming those bombs put on the various tankers that have been attacked lately lead back to Iran, well, that could be another thing. But this particular situation? I think what happened here should lead the US to taking the appropriate steps of de-escalation and some dialogue re-opened with Iran to try and defuse the situation before someone does something that crosses a line that, frankly, no one but some of the US war-hawks and Iranian hardliners want crossed.
Yes I have to wonder if this and the attacks on the oil tankers are simply a way for the Iranian government to divert attention from economic problems. Create a small containable external crisis that it can point to.
Even assuming the a/c was in what is generally considered international airspace, people criticizing the US policy could easily adjust their argument to say it’s excessively provocative to operate recon a/c near an adversary’s air space.
But historically Iran has not actually made legal claims to control of the water or air in the middle of the Straight of Hormuz, the position given by the US side, which I don’t think there’s actually a lot of reason to doubt. They’ve attacked various ships in particular there time to time, because they just have, not AFAIK based on a legal theory. Also the Iranians named a town in Iran in this case implying though not explicitly stating the a/c was over Iran where there wouldn’t be a legal dispute.
Legalism as often is somewhat secondary. Although, if the US sent an a/c into what the US considered Iranian airspace for the purpose of provoking it being shot down, that would be notable. I personally doubt that’s the case though, with a big expensive, and relatively easy to shoot down umanned a/c like the MQ-4C reported. Also recently the Iranians according to the US shot at but didn’t hit a smaller easy to shoot down MQ-9 and don’t seem to have claimed that was in Iranian air space (it was checking out the tankers alleged to have been mined by the Iranians per the US). If an ostensibly difficult to detect (eg. semi-black program) drone were shot down it would be more straightforward to assume it was penetrating Iranian air space or intending to.
There’s already a massive external crisis that’s directly linked to their economic problems, US sanctions. This is definitely not to create a diversion, it’s to prove they won’t roll over.
And if reporting is accurate, the question remains if this is a signal/message being sent by the entire Iranian government or only the hard line hawks in the military.
I can’t hold anyone responsible for shooting down a spy plane. Especially a drone. It might be legal for me to stand on the sidewalk and stare into your bedroom window, but you’d be morally right to beat my ass for doing so.
What if the missile was fired when the drone was, in fact, in Iranian airspace, but the drone returned to international airspace in an effort to avoid the missile and was subsequently hit there? The encounter still began in Iranian airspace as far as I’m concerned.
Just so everyone has a clear picture of what we’re talking about, here is a picture of an RQ-4 Global Hawk.
They aren’t the same as the drones you and I own; they are huge. They can fly for over 14,000 miles with a top speed of 391 mph. And they cost, back in 2013, $222.7M each.
I pity the poor guy who had to explain to Donald that there were no casualties on the drone. If the drone was in international airspace, it may have been close enough to Iranian airspace so that a mistake could be made, which is what I think happened. Moral- don’t fly the drones so close to the line that a mistake like this could happen.