Contrary to the protocols of the US State Department, the Pentagon and even customary ‎references by the US Navy, US Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of ‎Staff, deliberately called the Persian Gulf the Arabian Gulf. Following the recent incident ‎between the 5 small speed boats belonging to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and 3 US ‎warships in the Straits of Hormuz, the US commander in the Persian Gulf rashly and ‎irresponsibly hurt the pride of the Iranian nation through his remarks. He seems to have ‎forgotten that the presence of US naval fleet in Iran’s territorial waters is clearly a threat ‎to the security of Iran.‎

More than displeasing the feelings of regional security specialists, the inappropriate ‎labeling of the waterway by a senior US commander is an opportunity to better ‎understand the weak intellectual constructs of US military strategists regarding the ‎national and domestic sensitivities of the Iranian nation: A nation that in the words of US ‎statesmen is different from the government of Iran and is viewed as a friend of ‎Americans. The tense differences between White House officials and Tehran should not ‎lead to discrediting valid historic and international documents. The direct presence of US ‎military in the Persian Gulf for half a century is related more to protecting and ‎strengthening the balance of power and control of this international oil channel, ‎according to documents and strategic studies of centers in the US, rather than a need ‎stemming from international and security arrangements.‎

From 1949 till today, US naval presence in the region is for the survival of the newly ‎established and volatile Arab states. But Iraq’s military invasion of Kuwait in 1990 ‎increased the attachments of the Arab states to their US protectors many fold. And now it ‎appears that this costly presence will continue until the last consignment of oil sails ‎through the Straits of Hormuz. ‎

By recognizing the volatile global energy situation and the deadly activities of Islamic ‎fundamentalists in the region, one can understand US’s insistence on its military in this ‎strategic waterway. But being in Iranian territorial waters and insisting on changing the ‎ancient name of the waterway is nothing but the weakening of the national independence ‎of Iran and its historic identity.‎

Trying to compare the military might of the US and the operational capabilities of its ‎naval fleet with a handful speed boats is mute. But the repeated calls by US officials that ‎the these boats and their proximity up to 200 meters of the US vessels sound more like a ‎joke. The mention of this issue by the president of the US and the relegation of warning ‎Iran to him rather than the Secretary of Defense, or the US National Security Advisor ‎may also be interpreted as an ugly or unprofessional behavior of US diplomacy.‎

Even though the inability of America’s political leadership to politically or militarily ‎confront Iran’s rulers is today the subject of discussion of university classes around the ‎world, the US should not resort to simplistic justifications for the lack of its proper ‎planning and weak foreign policy decisions by declaring Iranian speed boats worth a few ‎thousand Dollars to be a threat against its multi billion military machinery. This kind of ‎talk provides the conditions for a naïve belief that perhaps one day would fall pray to the ‎idea of starting another unjust war.‎

The US has also announced that the control of the Persian Gulf has been recently ‎relegated to the Passdaran Revolutionary Guards. The fact is that from the day of its ‎inception the Passdaran has been responsible by law for the protection of the country and ‎the values that have been defined by the Islamic Republic rulers. As a loyal force of the ‎regime and of the values advanced by the Islamic Republic, the Passdaran force has for ‎years been working to replace the Imperial Iranian military. The recent remarks of ‎American officials about the Passdaran are indicative of their lack of precise knowledge ‎of Iran’s current military and security structure.‎

The responsibility of international and foreign security lies completely with the Passdaran ‎Revolutionary Guards. The most senior political officials of Iran today are primarily ‎those that have been trained by this military force. American officials raise these issues ‎with such surprise and importance as if they have just learned about the new political ‎structure of a country called Iran.‎

Even though the security of the Persian Gulf these days lies in the hands of Admiral Mike ‎Mullen, he should not forget that keeping the tranquility of this waterway is possible with ‎the cooperation of the most powerful country in the Persian Gulf, which is Iran, and not ‎by humiliating or discounting the national and historic identity of Iranians.‎