I mean attacking via missiles and drones.
The article you linked said "In the most recent incidents, Iran alleges that the tankers
Niovi and
Purity were seized over separate legal disputes regarding ownership, and that the
Advantage Sweet was taken due to a collision with an Iranian ship."
Sure, Iran's motives can be questioned. But that is a marked difference from the outright attacks that have happened after the US started the war.
Technically we are not in a state of war, i mean if we’re going to split hairs let’s split hairs.
you missed my point about attacks carried out or facilitated by Iran over the last forty years. Which in reality have created a de facto state of low grade war for decades.
This is all just a natural progression of events.
Yes the US has taken a major pivot over how to respond to this low grade state of war or conflict and proxy attacks.
Is there a clear legal or historical demarcation where nations progress from low grade hostilities, to blockaids / nation state piracy, to out right war?
It only matters as a justification.
We’ve always only had three paths forward with Iran, negotiations, containment or subjugation.
It’s splitting hairs
Now is this pivot with direct targeted attacks against Iran a wise course of action that will produce positive results for the US and region. Who knows? I certainly don’t know if it will achieve the stated or imagined goals.
I simply see no point in dissecting who has the moral authority based upon their actions compared to the very similar actions of an adversary.
That is navel gazing. The only question is what best achieves the interest of your nation.
Is our best interest to ignore iran under the ayatollahs, contain them or remove them.
We’ve tried the first two repeatedly.