|
1972
|
|
giovedì, gennaio 10, 2008
Il mare d'inverno. Una ricostruzione alternativa di quanto potrebbe essere successo nello stretto di Hormuz. Sul WSJ Walter Russell Mead spiega perché l'incidente è così importante:
Geography and interest have made freedom of the seas a persistent flashpoint in U.S. history: The U.S. is relatively safe from land assault, but our commerce is vulnerable to naval attacks. And international trade has been a vital interest. British restrictions on colonial trade stoked American anger, and British closure of the port of Boston helped turn discontent into revolution. The record is plain: Those who interfere with American maritime activity, whether naval or commercial, strike at a vital interest that Americans for more than two centuries have consistently defended by, if necessary, war. Such crises tend to unite American opinion behind even unpopular presidents. Two centuries of experience have created a broad consensus in the U.S. that the freedom of the seas cannot be compromised or abandoned. The link between global freedom of the seas and foreign policy has been a driving force in modern world history. Like Britain before us, the U.S. is a commercial power whose economic interests have led it to play a unique global role in the interests of making the world hospitable to its investments and trade. The Pax Britannica and the Pax Americana have both rested on sea power, and any country that challenges America's ability to secure vital sea lanes risks the full weight of U.S. military power. The Straits of Hormuz, site of the weekend provocation, are exceptionally sensitive. The ability of the U.S. to protect the free flow of oil through these waters is absolutely vital to the global economy. Any U.S. military response to a challenge there would be swift and overwhelming -- perhaps far greater than the Iranians expect. Ayatollah avvisato... |
A Fabio.
A Luisa.   Asia e dintorni Normblog |
