Sea Ladder of Escalation in the Perisan Gulf Posted by David Shorr

Interesting NYT op-ed today by military historian David Crist on Iran's recent provocations in the Persian Gulf. He's right of course about the importance of preserving the open sea lanes in the Gulf, and he has some good ideas about mobilizing international support. We need to take a close look, though, at his ideas about how an escalated confrontation can be controlled and kept from mushrooming into a full-blown war. Our own Max Bergmann last week picked up on Fred Kaplan's point about the dangerous lack of communication channels with Tehran.

I have a few questions about the moves that Crist considers measured responses:

1. Would "any attempt by the Revolutionary Guard to interfere with the free navigation of international waters" really be equivalent to a terrorist attack?
2. Are you sure that American attacks on the islands of Abu Musa and Farsi would be seen as minimally provocative in contrast to striking the mainland? I agree that the Iranian government is susceptible to pressure, but this seems like a huge assumption with extremely high stakes. The author is relying on a kind of universal language of military 'signals,' a pretty risky business.
3. How can we be sure that Tehran will respond just as they did 1988? When I was in grad school, they taught us to look at the differences as well as similarities between current situations and earlier ones.
4. In sum, then, what if you're wrong? Will we be just as confident about the wisdom of brushing the Revolutionary Guard back this way if Iran doesn't back down?

Recently I saw a preview of an interesting new documentary, "Virtual JFK," by Errol Morris and the makers of "Fog of War." The film focused on Pres. Kennedy's repeated caution in avoiding military moves that could be escalatory. Seems to me we could use that kind of prudence.