the world never changes.

Sorry couldn't help myself.

Given that in 1980s the US Navy had its biggest fight since WWII in the Gulf, the snakes operating small boats is what I would be afraid of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis

Even RT, in 2011, reported that the Russia Navy considered the Iranian Navy no match for the US forces in the Gulf.

http://rt.com/politics/iran-us-russia-strait-hormuz-919/

On the other hand the Iranians have the ability to do SOME DAMAGE, like they did in 1987, but relatively mino compared to what the US Navy can do to Iran.

just like our rightwing nuts do and they both use religion as an excuse.

And if the US Navy fires on them, is it the beginning of WWIII?

agreement, or if it's payback for Yemen. We aren't directly assisting SA bombing, but we are refueling their bombers (we are specifically not doing it in Yemeni airspace).

I do NOT see the Iranians doing anything that would lead to actual shooting, but tit for tat will occur. Hopefully this will NOT get out of hand,

seize a ship? Also, multiple countries helped block Yemen, it will be interesting to see if Iran goes after any of their ships.

But the US DID BLOCKED Iranian ships from being off the coast of Yemen. It is for THAT act I suspected the Iranians did what they did. Technically the ship they stopped was NOT an American Ship, but everyone knows better. Liberia, Panama, Marshall Islands all have rules that say they are NOT US Ships, but have rules that the US Coast Guard can stop them even in the high seas as if they were an American Ship. This permits the crews of those ships to be lower paid Non-Americans, Filipinos were at time made up most of the crews of such ships, but other nationalities, mostly third world, have been recruited over the years (Starting in the 1990s a lot of Citizens of former Warsaw Pact nations became a source of crews, with Russian Sailors being preferred on actual sailing ships).

As to taking the ship over, Iran probably has a good case that it did violate Iranian Territorial waters. I suspect that happens a lot of times given the size of modern tankers and the narrowness of the strait (and how many other ships are using those Straits). I also suspect, that given how often this occurs, someone in Tehran decided it was time to retaliate for the American Blocking of Iranian ships off Yemen, but taking over the next American Owned Ship that violated Iranian Waters (Could be a Panama, Liberian or other flag of Convenience ship). Iran can say it is just making sure no one violates its territorial waters, even through it is probably done all the time.

Thus my comment this is tit for tat, if the US wants to prevent Iranian ships from being off the coast of Yemen, then the US better make sure its ship stays out of Iranian Waters. If the US is ready to give in on this matter, so will Iran.

Remember the Iranians did seize a Marshall Island Registered ship Maersk Tigris and harassed a US Flagged ship the Maersk Kensington, Earlier in this week'
'
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/30/politics/us-navy-escort-cargo-ships-iran-strait-of-hormuz/

Iran is now claiming it took the actions it did over a debt with the owner of those ships dating to 2005.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/01/world/middleeast/iran-maersk-tigris-container-ship-seizure.html

The Article mentions a 3.6 Million dollar verdict against the Ship's owner, but NOT when that Verdict was entered. Could be recent, and this is just a taking of property to satisfy that verdict. It may be ancient and dragged out to justify the taking of the ship, when the real reason was tit for tat for Yemen. Lets see what it is.

The destroyer captain would likely interpose his ship between the Iranians and the cargo ship, if that fails and the Iranians continue to close, then
the captain would try to warn the Iranians off be signaling them via radio, loudspeaker and light messages, if that fails and the Iranians continue to close, then
the captain may fire warning shots, if that fails or if the Iranian choose at any point to open fire on either US ship, the destroyer will sink the Iranian ship or ships involved in the incident.

boarding a US flagged ship is an act of war.

This does not make my day.

there is no extra cost to you.

those ships are there already burning fuel regardless of whether they are escorting ships or not.

So there are absolutely no costs associated with having all those ships there. And deploying more ships costs us nothing either. The Navy is practically free...

but the Persian Gulf is the one place you really want the Navy to be.

Those ships will now be in continuous use on a specific mission, not to protect the United States, but to protect oil shippers who are taking most of their product to Europe and Japan.

I'm not the one claiming that there are no additional costs.

...all ships, Navy or otherwise, consume fuel. Unless they're dead in the water-which is not a desirable situation for any ship.

The US Navy hasn't been a sailing force for a long time.

...I didn't insert a smilie.

Or ships/boats.

...but who am I to judge.

As for ships, tread carefully. You're making assumptions that might make you look bad.

You made that claim. As an indication of general marine knowledge, it's pretty damaging.

Also you thought I was saying you needed to insert a sarcasm smilie. Lack of caffeine?

...So me to make amends. All ships require an energy input. Better?
I thought you understood me: "...The US Navy hasn't been a sailing force for a long time...." . My Bad.

This is another taxpayer subsidy to US business.

I disagree with you. It is, however, not an issue worth fighting over. Peace.