Well this is a start, EU to impose oil embargo.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn....n-oil-embargo/

Soft power is looking good so far.

(Backed up by hard power, carrier to Arabian Sea.)

I hope the carrier group missile defense systems are up to snuff.

That continues to worry me. The Chinese and Iran have close ties.

http://the-diplomat.com/china-power/...arrier-killer/

I think they should send another carrier group in addition to the one already in the area, just as back up.

already on their way, I would suspect.

That would be extremely bold of China plus I don't think it is in their best interest. I understand the importance of Iranian gas and oil to China, which explains most of their actions, but I really doubt they would arm Iran with something so powerful because of the repercussions.

Basically, if Iran did use one of those on a US aircraft carrier, it is all-out-war and Iran would lose. Hard. If that happens then no one is getting Iranian gas and oil. China's "loyalty" to Iran is based on Iran's natural resources, not anti-western worldview.

They don't need to actually provide the missile, just the technology as they have done so with the info from Khan and the North Koreans in their nuke program.

Iran has very little ability to produce gas. Hit their refineries and the country would come to a halt in a matter of days.

There continues to be a huge disconnect between Iran's civilian power, military power, and the ruling clerics. That is why it is unstable, unpredictable, and dangerous in it's current form.

That requoted sentence was incorrectly quoted. We know they are concerned. No doubt about it. And no reason to believe otherwise.

Their concern was never in doubt. That quote reposted to subvert reality.

The unknown is what 'they' are willing to do about it. Who 'they' are. And how committed other parties are to those sanctions. We don't even know if and by how much others (ie Russia, Turkmenistan, Pakistan) are onboard. All three questions need be answered.

Military strikes on Iranian refineries would not cause "the country would come to a halt in a matter of days." Those numbers and conclusion are obviously wrong.

UT is 100% on target. Amazing how the most militaristic demonstrate no grasp of basic military concepts. UT has defined how all great powers operate (as opposed to dying powers so ‘George Jr’ and ‘Nixon’ dumb as to waste resources in 'Nam or "Mission Accomplished"). Meanwhile, bad military deployment would have a second carrier enroute to the Gulf. Foolish military deployment would have any carrier task force in the Persian Gulf. Even dumbest are those politicians who advocate a unilateral (Pearl Harbor) attack on Iran with nuclear weapons. Yes, a few that dumb are even trying to become president.

Currently happening is posturing. Rooster huffing up its feathers to intimidate another rooster.

Now, what should concern everyone is 'who in Iran' is actually in power. Again, which "Iran" is capable of converting 'huffed feathers' into action. I still do not see a single post that says 'who in Iran' has the power. There is no monolithic Iran as so many posts assume.

Just another reason why those with better grasp understand well proven concepts from 2,500 years ago - soft power.

Soft power turns out useful -- especially to one Iranian fishing boat taken over by pirates.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/06/wo...s-navy-rescue/

Jumping late in this thread, but I say hit Iran and enable a revolution. Also I would seize oil assets to pay for recent war ependitures. Iran is a major supplier of IED technology, components, and training even to Sunnis.

What if the post-revolution Iranian government is worse than the current? How would the Iranian population react to the US taking over oil assets? How would the world react?

just my thoughts, destabilize iran and affect global terrorism. seize the oil, like we should have in iraq. the more oil we control, the less power the wahhabist have. if we gained control and held southwest asia, we would restore our economy and stabilize most of the world.

you know, i have given this topic much thought...

a chinese hagmoney presents problems that the american hagmoney doesn't.

the way companies and organizations lobby the chinese isn't by lobbying them (there's really no campaign money issues), but by lobbyings others [markets] for them.
in receant years the decline in oversea markets (from china's POV) have allowed them to go nationalistic - favoring chinese companies and organizations over international. this might be temporary setback of the current financial world, but it might also be a sign of what's to come as the chinese economy keeps growing.

say what you will about the US as a police force, if you have money you don't need to be american to finance who gets the vote, and as much as we'd like to think that its evil corporations (and us jews), the reality is that almost everyone in the world has an interest group in washington. and its actually not that expansive to lobby congress at all - policies have being passed for as low as 5 grand.

america makes for a better world police because it actually gets to be controled by everyone in the world.in china, the chinese economy is the only interest that is of anyone's concern.

so... yes, what big sarge said. its not a fair world but it is the lesser evil world.

This strategy may have worked....100 years ago. It won't work today, in my opinion.