DescentBB

...into attacking the United States in Pearl Harbor in 1941 and its Pacific fleet according to some historians and possibly evidenced by the intelligence president Roosevelt had in his reach at the time of the attack- thus providing Roosevelt with the power to bring the US into the Second World War.

An oil embargo had been imposed upon the militarists of Japan by the US and other western powers...

An oil rich Iran may seem to be immune to such an embargo, though this is untrue because it could bar the selling of its only true cash producing product- bringing the mullahs running Iran under great pressure.

Will there be another 'Pearl Harbor' this year?

EU prepares unprecedented attack on Iranian economy

The European Union is preparing to launch an unprecedented attack on Iran’s economy at a moment when experts believe the confrontation over the country’s nuclear ambitions is entering a dangerous new phase.

An embargo on Iran's oil is due to be agreed by EU foreign ministers on Monday, potentially depriving Tehran of a quarter of its total exports. This step, designed to maximise the pressure on Iran’s leaders to negotiate over their nuclear programme, is also a measure of the scale of concern.

Officials note a series of events, ranging from the storming of the British Embassy in Tehran to the regime’s threats to disrupt oil supplies in the Gulf, and judge that Iranian decision-making is becoming more belligerent and unpredictable.

“This is a dangerous moment. We’re coming to the point where options are narrowing and there’s very little fat left in the system,” said Paul Cornish, professor of international security at Bath University.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... onomy.html

If Japan hadn't had ambitions of taking over the whole Pacific, maybe they would not have done pearl harbor. They saw it as a strategic move that would give them a chance to actually win the war they were already in. They (rightfully) estimated that they couldn't win the war if the US got involved... and so rather than wait and cross their fingers, they decided to try even the odds.

I fail to see Iran's strategic advantage in lashing out against Europe or the US. Maybe they're just as crazy, though.

ThunderBunny wrote:...into attacking the United States in Pearl Harbor in 1941 and its Pacific fleet according to some historians and possibly evidenced by the intelligence president Roosevelt had in his reach at the time of the attack- thus providing Roosevelt with the power to bring the US into the Second World War.

An oil embargo had been imposed upon the militarists of Japan by the US and other western powers...

I trust you took the time to consider why the US and other western powers had imposed the oil embargo? Because Japan's military actions in the Pacific and with it's neighbors had provoked the US and other western powers into imposing the oil embargo.

The controlling powers in Japan had provoked the nations around them, then made their choice to attack Pearl Harbor at what may have been the ONLY opportunity ever to deal such a heavy blow on the U.S. Pacific fleet. It was only by chance (unfortunate for the Japanese fleet) that the U.S. had aircraft carriers out on maneuvers instead at Pearl on that fateful day. If those carriers had been at Pearl that day, it is generally accepted that the U.S. Pacific fleet might not have recovered.

As for Iran...
Everyone knows Iran has been spoiling for a fight for quite some time and going out of their way to provoke the other nations. Hence the embargoes that are in place, and further sanctions that are being considered.

Who you trying to point a finger at, anyway?

Provoked is not the same thing as justified.

With that being said, it is my personal belief that embargos are immoral, as they do more harm to innocent people than the guilty. (Assuming that country is not at war, as there are no innocents when a nation is at war)

Spidey wrote:Provoked is not the same thing as justified.

With that being said, it is my personal belief that embargos are immoral, as they do more harm to innocent people than the guilty. (Assuming that country is not at war, as there are no innocents when a nation is at war)

I can see your point, but at the same time, I think that countries generally save embargos until very late in the game. Given the choice between war and an embargo, I'd take the embargo. The idea is that you prevent war from really breaking out by imposing the embargo.