Iran fires at US drone: the top 3 pressing questions

Iranian military forces fired at a US Predator drone for the first time ever earlier this month, the Pentagon acknowledged this week. It’s a revelation that has raised a host of questions for the US military. Here are the top three.

3. Does this make a US war against Iran more likely?

Despite the Pentagon acknowledgement about this being the first time Iran has fired at a US drone, the incident is not likely to bring about any direct US military retaliation, analysts say.

“The mere presence of our forces is the military message to Iran,” says Michael Singh, senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council during the Bush administration. “The fact that we’re conducting these missions, that the US Navy is present in the Gulf – that’s meant to bolster the credibility of the president’s military threats: that the military option is on the table to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.”

He notes, “I wouldn’t expect any response beyond that.”

However, as America ramps up the pressure on Iran, through economic sanctions and through its extended military presence in the Gulf, “What you have to look out for is some inadvertent conflict with the Iranians sparked by some kind of incident along the lines of this one,” warns Mr. Singh, now managing director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy

“Luckily we have a very professional Navy, and it’s something that’s at the front of their minds all the time,” he says, adding the Obama administration “is right to increase our military presence in the Gulf.” He goes on, “It sends a strong message to the Iranians and gives credibility to our threats.”

Still, even as the administration warily weighs the consequences of economic sanctions against Iran versus threats of an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, it must grapple with another possibility: that a conflict with Iran could come “not just at a time and place of our choosing,” Singh warns, “but at a time and place not of our choosing.”

3 of 3

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.