War with Iran Would Be Trump's Waterloo

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
14,560
2,432
113
Ghawar
President Trump should tell Neocons to go jump in a lake.

John Leake
APR 18, 2025

For decades, U.S. foreign policy wonks such as Paul Wolfowitz, Raymond Tanter, Douglas Feith, and Richard Perle, argued that U.S. military power could reshape the Middle East, somehow transforming it from the tribal and religious mess that it is into an American-style liberal democracy.

The primary beneficiary of this miraculous transformation would—they claimed—be Israel. Both Tanter and Wolfowitz grew fond of the notion that “the road to Damascus leads through Baghdad,” meaning that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the first step to getting rid of the Assad regime in Syria, thereby eliminating Israel’s troubles with its two of its most bloody minded rivals.

It’s been obvious to anyone with eyes to see that none of the Neocons’ childish scheming has worked. They finally succeeded in getting rid of Assad, but he has been replaced by former Al Qaeda gangsters.

The primary intellectual deficiency of the Neocon clique is that all of their mental energy is directed at getting rid of bad guys, with apparently zero thought given to who will replace them. This is especially evident in the case of Russia. If these schemers and their friends in the CIA succeed in getting rid of Vladimir Putin, who do they believe will replace him?

It was precisely this kind of scheming that led the British and the French to believe it would be a good thing to get rid of Ottoman rule in the Middle East. In 1916, the British and French essentially redrew the map of the entire region with their Sykes–Picot Agreement.

One could easily make the argument that all the bloody tribal and religious conflict in the region that has happened ever since probably wouldn’t have happened if the Ottomans had remained in charge.

Neocon policy wonks are—like millions of Americans—given to the comic book concept that humanity can be neatly divided into good guys and bad guys, and that improving humanity is always just a matter of getting rid of the bad guys. This overlooks this essential fact that is expressed (literally or metaphorically, take your pick) in the Book of Genesis—namely, that man is a fallen and fractured created who must constantly contend with his own depravity.

After making a mess of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, the same gang—suffering from incurable learning disabilities—wants to drag the Trump administration into war with Iran. This would be a total disaster for the American people and almost certainly for the Israeli people as well.

Here it is worth recalling that President Kennedy expressly warned Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and his successor, Levi Eshkol, that if Israel succeeded in developing a nuclear bomb, everyone else in the neighborhood would want one. They didn’t listen to President Kennedy, despite the fact that he was obviously right about this.

War with Iran would be President Trump's Waterloo. Iran is a huge country with mountainous terrain and a population of 80 million people. All the problems the U.S. military operation in Iraq encountered would be amplified manyfold.

Going to war with Iran would certainly result in an array of terrible consequences—many unforeseen— for the United States and the entire region, as well as for world trade. The Strait of Hormuz—with most of Middle East oil running through it—would be closed, as would the southern end of the Suez Canal.

The world economy and financial system is already in a precarious state, and the U.S. is already trapped in a debt sink, with annual interest payments now over a trillion dollars. The U.S. simply cannot afford war with Iran.

In other words, regarding Iran, President Trump should tell the obtuse Neocons to go jump in a lake. He should also be very wary of Benjamin Netanyahu doing something foolish to draw the U.S. into war with Iran.

Every great power in history was ultimately been sunk by foolish people who refused to accept the limits of their financial and military power. President Trump should stick with his instinct to negotiate with people instead of trying to get rid of them.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Klatuu

Insidious Von

My head is my home
Sep 12, 2007
41,093
8,124
113
Trump is a living God, like Moses, he'll unleash the Angel of Death on Iran. And he doesn't need no future stinkin elections.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Klatuu

tastingyou

Well-known member
Dec 5, 2014
744
1,201
93
President Trump should tell Neocons to go jump in a lake.

John Leake
APR 18, 2025

For decades, U.S. foreign policy wonks such as Paul Wolfowitz, Raymond Tanter, Douglas Feith, and Richard Perle, argued that U.S. military power could reshape the Middle East, somehow transforming it from the tribal and religious mess that it is into an American-style liberal democracy.

The primary beneficiary of this miraculous transformation would—they claimed—be Israel. Both Tanter and Wolfowitz grew fond of the notion that “the road to Damascus leads through Baghdad,” meaning that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the first step to getting rid of the Assad regime in Syria, thereby eliminating Israel’s troubles with its two of its most bloody minded rivals.

It’s been obvious to anyone with eyes to see that none of the Neocons’ childish scheming has worked. They finally succeeded in getting rid of Assad, but he has been replaced by former Al Qaeda gangsters.

The primary intellectual deficiency of the Neocon clique is that all of their mental energy is directed at getting rid of bad guys, with apparently zero thought given to who will replace them. This is especially evident in the case of Russia. If these schemers and their friends in the CIA succeed in getting rid of Vladimir Putin, who do they believe will replace him?

It was precisely this kind of scheming that led the British and the French to believe it would be a good thing to get rid of Ottoman rule in the Middle East. In 1916, the British and French essentially redrew the map of the entire region with their Sykes–Picot Agreement.

One could easily make the argument that all the bloody tribal and religious conflict in the region that has happened ever since probably wouldn’t have happened if the Ottomans had remained in charge.

Neocon policy wonks are—like millions of Americans—given to the comic book concept that humanity can be neatly divided into good guys and bad guys, and that improving humanity is always just a matter of getting rid of the bad guys. This overlooks this essential fact that is expressed (literally or metaphorically, take your pick) in the Book of Genesis—namely, that man is a fallen and fractured created who must constantly contend with his own depravity.

After making a mess of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, the same gang—suffering from incurable learning disabilities—wants to drag the Trump administration into war with Iran. This would be a total disaster for the American people and almost certainly for the Israeli people as well.

Here it is worth recalling that President Kennedy expressly warned Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and his successor, Levi Eshkol, that if Israel succeeded in developing a nuclear bomb, everyone else in the neighborhood would want one. They didn’t listen to President Kennedy, despite the fact that he was obviously right about this.

War with Iran would be President Trump's Waterloo. Iran is a huge country with mountainous terrain and a population of 80 million people. All the problems the U.S. military operation in Iraq encountered would be amplified manyfold.

Going to war with Iran would certainly result in an array of terrible consequences—many unforeseen— for the United States and the entire region, as well as for world trade. The Strait of Hormuz—with most of Middle East oil running through it—would be closed, as would the southern end of the Suez Canal.

The world economy and financial system is already in a precarious state, and the U.S. is already trapped in a debt sink, with annual interest payments now over a trillion dollars. The U.S. simply cannot afford war with Iran.

In other words, regarding Iran, President Trump should tell the obtuse Neocons to go jump in a lake. He should also be very wary of Benjamin Netanyahu doing something foolish to draw the U.S. into war with Iran.

Every great power in history was ultimately been sunk by foolish people who refused to accept the limits of their financial and military power. President Trump should stick with his instinct to negotiate with people instead of trying to get rid of them.

You can pretty much count on TRUMP [ and the even stupider cabinet that he has assembled ] to make the stupidest decision possible. Much like every other decision and announcement that he has made since he assumed the role of POTUS. It is like he feels that he has a new reality show starting daily and he has to create chaos every day .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Klatuu

niniveh

Well-known member
Jun 8, 2009
1,372
524
113
You can pretty much count on TRUMP [ and the even stupider cabinet that he has assembled ] to make the stupidest decision possible. Much like every other decision and announcement that he has made since he assumed the role of POTUS. It is like he feels that he has a new reality show starting daily and he has to create chaos every day .

Did Bibi, & The Lobby (with Ted Cruz' help) Manage To Land Their Agent At The NSA Iran-Israel Desk?

 

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
24,422
2,555
113
The Zionist lobby will get their war...they always do. What I want to know is how far does Russia and China go to support Iran during said war
Well apparently the AD system that Iran and Russia has built is very formidable. In the last attack Israeli F-35s were painted by a radar unknown to them outside Iranian airspace. So who knows.
 

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
24,422
2,555
113
The Suez and the Straits will still be open to Chinese shipping that is not US bound.
 

Vinson

Well-known member
Nov 24, 2023
2,509
2,193
113
Old news. The US will not go into a full scale war with Iran. They'll hit their nuclear facilities. Iran's economy and the ayatollahs are in the pits. The Persians will rise against the Mullahs if they start up with the US. They've agreed to the diplomatic solution, they understand, they're not going to get away with nuclear weapons. Neither the US, Israel and other countries won't let them. Lots of business to be made in Iran, they know it.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
96,388
24,828
113
Old news. The US will not go into a full scale war with Iran. They'll hit their nuclear facilities. Iran's economy and the ayatollahs are in the pits. The Persians will rise against the Mullahs if they start up with the US. They've agreed to the diplomatic solution, they understand, they're not going to get away with nuclear weapons. Neither the US, Israel and other countries won't let them. Lots of business to be made in Iran, they know it.
And Iraqis will welcome american forces with open arms.
same old
 

niniveh

Well-known member
Jun 8, 2009
1,372
524
113
Ansarallah Continue Resistance

US: If You Resist A GENOCIDE We Will Bomb You
$30,000,000 USD per Reaper Drone



Yemen’s Houthi rebels fire missile at northern Israel, the first time for group to reach area
Jon Gambrell
Dubai
The Associated Press
Published 42 minutes ago

Yemenis attend the funeral of people killed in reported U.S. strikes, in the Houthi-controlled Yemeni capital Sanaa on April 23.MOHAMMED HUWAIS/AFP/Getty Images


Yemen’s Houthi rebels launched a missile early Wednesday toward northern Israel, the first such attack by the group to reach the area as a monthlong intense U.S. air strike campaign continues to target them. The Houthis separately claimed shooting down another American MQ-9 Reaper drone over Yemen.
Sirens sounded in Haifa, Krayot and other areas west of the Sea of Galilee, the Israeli military said.
“An interceptor was launched toward the missile, and the missile was most likely successfully intercepted,” the Israeli military said.
Those in the area could hear booms in the predawn darkness.
Houthi military spokesman Brig. Gen. Yahya Saree later claimed the attack in a prerecorded message, claiming they targeted Haifa with a hypersonic missile. But while Saree has claimed attacks on Haifa in the past, Wednesday’s attack was the first to reach the area, the Israeli military acknowledged.
American air strikes, meanwhile, continued targeting the Houthis on Wednesday morning, part of a campaign that began on March 15. The Houthis reported strikes on Hodeida, Marib and Saada governorates. In Marib, the Houthis described a strike hitting telecommunication equipment, which has previously been a target of the Americans.
The Houthis in response have stepped up their targeting of American drones flying over the country. Late Tuesday, Saree said the rebels shot down an MQ-9 Reaper drone over Yemen’s Hajjah governorate.
The U.S. military acknowledged the report of the drone being downed, but said it could not comment further.
Saree said the rebels targeted the drone with “a locally manufactured missile.” The Houthis have surface-to-air missiles – such as the Iranian missile known as the 358 – capable of downing aircraft. The Houthis claim they downed 26 MQ-9s over the last decade of the Yemen war.
Iran denies arming the rebels, though Tehran-manufactured weaponry has been found on the battlefield and in sea shipments heading to Yemen for the Shiite Houthi rebels despite a United Nations arms embargo.












General Atomics Reapers, which cost around $30 million apiece, can fly at altitudes over 40,000 feet (12,100 meters) and remain in the air for over 30 hours. They have been flown by both the U.S. military and the CIA for years over Afghanistan, Iraq and now Yemen.
The U.S. is targeting the Houthis because of the group’s attacks on shipping in the Red Sea, a crucial global trade route, and on Israel. The Houthis are the last militant group in Iran’s self-described “Axis of Resistance” that is capable of regularly attacking Israel.
The new U.S. operation against the Houthis under President Donald Trump is more extensive than attacks on the group were under president Joe Biden, an AP review found. The new campaign started after the rebels threatened to begin targeting “Israeli” ships again over Israel blocking aid from entering the Gaza Strip.
From November, 2023, until this January, the Houthis targeted more than 100 merchant vessels with missiles and drones, sinking two of them and killing four sailors. That has greatly reduced the flow of trade through the Red Sea corridor, which typically sees $1-trillion of goods move through it annually. The Houthis also launched attacks targeting American warships without success.
Assessing the toll of the month-old U.S. air strike campaign has been difficult because the military hasn’t released information about the attacks, including what was targeted and how many people were killed. The Houthis, meanwhile, strictly control access to attacked areas and don’t publish complete information on the strikes, many of which likely have targeted military and security sites.
Last week, a strike on the Ras Isa fuel port killed at least 74 people and wounded 171 others in the deadliest-known attack of the American campaign.
 

southpaw

Well-known member
May 21, 2002
819
781
113

niniveh

Well-known member
Jun 8, 2009
1,372
524
113
President Trump should tell Neocons to go jump in a lake.

John Leake
APR 18, 2025

For decades, U.S. foreign policy wonks such as Paul Wolfowitz, Raymond Tanter, Douglas Feith, and Richard Perle, argued that U.S. military power could reshape the Middle East, somehow transforming it from the tribal and religious mess that it is into an American-style liberal democracy.

The primary beneficiary of this miraculous transformation would—they claimed—be Israel. Both Tanter and Wolfowitz grew fond of the notion that “the road to Damascus leads through Baghdad,” meaning that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the first step to getting rid of the Assad regime in Syria, thereby eliminating Israel’s troubles with its two of its most bloody minded rivals.

It’s been obvious to anyone with eyes to see that none of the Neocons’ childish scheming has worked. They finally succeeded in getting rid of Assad, but he has been replaced by former Al Qaeda gangsters.

The primary intellectual deficiency of the Neocon clique is that all of their mental energy is directed at getting rid of bad guys, with apparently zero thought given to who will replace them. This is especially evident in the case of Russia. If these schemers and their friends in the CIA succeed in getting rid of Vladimir Putin, who do they believe will replace him?

It was precisely this kind of scheming that led the British and the French to believe it would be a good thing to get rid of Ottoman rule in the Middle East. In 1916, the British and French essentially redrew the map of the entire region with their Sykes–Picot Agreement.

One could easily make the argument that all the bloody tribal and religious conflict in the region that has happened ever since probably wouldn’t have happened if the Ottomans had remained in charge.

Neocon policy wonks are—like millions of Americans—given to the comic book concept that humanity can be neatly divided into good guys and bad guys, and that improving humanity is always just a matter of getting rid of the bad guys. This overlooks this essential fact that is expressed (literally or metaphorically, take your pick) in the Book of Genesis—namely, that man is a fallen and fractured created who must constantly contend with his own depravity.

After making a mess of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, the same gang—suffering from incurable learning disabilities—wants to drag the Trump administration into war with Iran. This would be a total disaster for the American people and almost certainly for the Israeli people as well.

Here it is worth recalling that President Kennedy expressly warned Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and his successor, Levi Eshkol, that if Israel succeeded in developing a nuclear bomb, everyone else in the neighborhood would want one. They didn’t listen to President Kennedy, despite the fact that he was obviously right about this.

War with Iran would be President Trump's Waterloo. Iran is a huge country with mountainous terrain and a population of 80 million people. All the problems the U.S. military operation in Iraq encountered would be amplified manyfold.

Going to war with Iran would certainly result in an array of terrible consequences—many unforeseen— for the United States and the entire region, as well as for world trade. The Strait of Hormuz—with most of Middle East oil running through it—would be closed, as would the southern end of the Suez Canal.

The world economy and financial system is already in a precarious state, and the U.S. is already trapped in a debt sink, with annual interest payments now over a trillion dollars. The U.S. simply cannot afford war with Iran.

In other words, regarding Iran, President Trump should tell the obtuse Neocons to go jump in a lake. He should also be very wary of Benjamin Netanyahu doing something foolish to draw the U.S. into war with Iran.

Every great power in history was ultimately been sunk by foolish people who refused to accept the limits of their financial and military power. President Trump should stick with his instinct to negotiate with people instead of trying to get rid of them.

Hard to Believe I Concur With JD Vance, Tucker & Steve Bannon

 
  • Like
Reactions: southpaw

lomotil

Well-known member
Mar 14, 2004
6,695
1,550
113
Oblivion
Can Trump’s MAGA American simultaneously cope with a military campaign with Iran while Trump is engaged in difficult efforts towards successfully ending the Ukraine while having started an economic war with China and the economic annexation of Canada, Greenland and the Panama Canal ? The answer is a big NO !!,,

Israel would not be able to handle sustained missile fire from a retaliatory Iran if Iran was bombed by the US ”bunker buster” ordinance. It is not possible to pummel Iran into submission to resemble Gaza



It is far too late now to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program by military force or diplomacy . Trump may have to but on a show to sugar coat broken promises but certainly future POTUS will have to face the reality of a nuclear armed Iran.
 

southpaw

Well-known member
May 21, 2002
819
781
113

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
96,388
24,828
113
Can Trump’s MAGA American simultaneously cope with a military campaign with Iran while Trump is engaged in difficult efforts towards successfully ending the Ukraine while having started an economic war with China and the economic annexation of Canada, Greenland and the Panama Canal ? The answer is a big NO !!,,

Israel would not be able to handle sustained missile fire from a retaliatory Iran if Iran was bombed by the US ”bunker buster” ordinance. It is not possible to pummel Iran into submission to resemble Gaza



It is far too late now to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program by military force or diplomacy . Trump may have to but on a show to sugar coat broken promises but certainly future POTUS will have to face the reality of a nuclear armed Iran.
Israel wouldn't be able to afford the genocide domestically if it weren't for the US.
There is no way they can fund a war with Iran too.

Texas is already taxed too highly, even they are rebelling.

 
  • Haha
Reactions: southpaw

niniveh

Well-known member
Jun 8, 2009
1,372
524
113
But Tucker and Bannon are bad guys! They're MAGA!

I Seldom Bother With Cato I's Pablum; But This One Is Worth A Read


Will Donald Trump Say No to War with Iran?
War should require a serious and imminent threat to vital or critical interests. Iran falls short in every way.
May 1, 2025 • Commentary
By Doug Bandow
Share
https://x.com/intent/tweet?text=Wil...hare&via=CatoInstitute&related=Libertarianism
https://www.facebook.com/dialog/sha...m=facebook&utm_campaign=Cato%20Social%20Share
https://www.linkedin.com/shareArtic...le=Will Donald Trump Say No to War with Iran?
https://reddit.com/https://www.cato...ium=reddit&utm_campaign=Cato%20Social%20Share

This article appeared in The American Conservative on May 1, 2025.

TOP



The Trump administration and Iranian government concluded another round of nuclear talks on Saturday. A “senior Trump administration official” termed the discussion “positive and productive.” Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said he was “hopeful but very cautious.”
Much depends on whether President Donald Trump is seriously committed to reaching a deal with the Islamist state. He long has appeared to be in thrall to a disparate group of uber-hawks and neocons, many of whom promoted the Iraq debacle and are now campaigning for war against Iran. Although the president claims that he wants a diplomatic solution, he has been moving, per a report in the War Zone, “B‑2 stealth bombers, fighters, support aircraft, another carrier strike group, air defenses, and more” into the Mideast.
Last month Trump declared, “If they don’t make a deal, there will be bombing. It will be bombing the likes of which they have never seen before.” In an interview published Friday he dismissed concern about the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s persistent campaign to drag Americans into war with Iran, stating, “I may go in very willingly if we can’t get a deal. If we don’t make a deal, I’ll be leading the pack.”
No doubt, rather like China in its policy toward Taiwan, Trump hopes intimidation will deliver a favorable result. But like Taipei, Tehran has spent years resisting pressure. What if Iran rejects the president’s terms? Before approving military strikes on its nuclear facilities, he should remember that acting in haste is often followed by repenting at leisure—in his case through the rest of his term and probably well beyond. Launching an unprovoked war against Iran would make George W. Bush’s disastrous legacy look good in comparison.
War should require a serious and imminent threat to vital or critical interests. Iran falls short in every way.
Of course, the radical forces that dominate the current Tehran regime are malign. Unfortunately, multiple U.S. administrations have done much to turn Iran, the state and many of its people, into adversaries if not enemies. In 1953, at the behest of Great Britain, angry over Tehran’s nationalization of British oil assets, President Dwight Eisenhower helped overthrow the elected prime minister, Mohammed Mosaddegh, and empower the shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was mostly a figurehead. For a quarter of a century Washington supported its often difficult, but always corrupt and autocratic, partner. President Jimmy Carter, who ostentatiously promoted human rights, hosted an embarrassing state dinner for the shah and reciprocated with a sycophantic visit to Iran. Ironically, it was this nominal American ally which began Tehran’s nuclear program.
Growing public dissent eventually ended the Pahlavi dynasty, despite the Carter administration’s support for a deadly crackdown. Reported the New York Times:
Over lunch at the Knickerbocker Club in New York, [President Jimmy] Carter’s special envoy to Tehran, Gen. Robert E. Huyser, told the Project Eagle team that he had urged Iran’s top military leaders to kill as many demonstrators as necessary to keep the shah in power. If shooting over the heads of demonstrators failed to disperse them, “move to focusing on the chests,” General Huyser said he told the Iranian generals, according to minutes of the lunch. “I got stern and noisy with the military,” he added, but in the end, the top general was “gutless.”
Ignoring the Shah’s many crimes, the U.S. gave sanctuary to the dying dictator.
A radical Islamic state followed, but, despite the early kidnapping of American diplomatic personnel, Tehran never seriously threatened the U.S. Rather, it was Washington that constantly threatened Iran. Successive administrations had provided sustained support for and weapons sales to the Shah’s repressive regime. While his forced modernization was understandably welcomed by both educated elites and the West, it fostered resentment and opposition among more traditional communities and spurred the Islamic revolution.
After the shah’s overthrow, the Reagan administration supported Iraq’s bloody aggression against Iran, even reflagging oil tankers to protect Baghdad’s revenue stream. The result was eight terrible years of conflict and a million or more casualties. The U.S. also armed Saudi Arabia and Israel, Iran’s principal regional rivals, imposed economic sanctions on Tehran, repeatedly threatened military action against the Islamic regime, deployed air and naval assets around Iran, assassinated Qassem Soleimani, the influential head of Iran’s Quds Force, and actively intervened on Israel’s behalf even after the latter initiated military attacks on Iranian personnel and interests, including on a diplomatic facility in Syria and a government building in Tehran. It should come as no surprise that many Iranian policymakers desired to build a potent retaliatory nuclear arsenal.
Nevertheless, despite the outsize role of the militant Islamic Revolutionary Guards, there are more moderate and responsible leaders, who negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with the Obama administration. That agreement constrained the Iranian nuclear program. Moreover, successive Iranian governments forged a détente with Saudi Arabia, whose de facto ruler, Mohammed bin Salman, once called Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei “the new Hitler of the Middle East.” In mid-April, the Saudi defense minister traveled to Tehran for talks, the first visit by a senior Saudi royal in almost 30 years.
Although Washington’s war lobby dismisses Tehran’s suitability as a negotiating partner, the Iranians abided by the JCPOA. Washington, on the other hand, proved to be faithless. Congress opposed the agreement and undermined its implementation. The Obama administration did little to ease the spillover effects of remaining U.S. sanctions, which continued to discourage trade with and investment in Iran. Despite Tehran’s continued compliance, Trump abandoned the pact and reinstated sanctions, leading the Islamic regime to revive its nuclear program. Then the Biden administration, rather than restore the agreement, sought to take advantage of its predecessor’s breach to force harsher terms.
After all this, the U.S. is threatening military action. But war is not just another foreign policy tool. It is unique, sending Americans into combat, killing and disabling many. It also means visiting death and destruction upon other peoples and lands. The economic costs, too, are high. Imagine America if thousands of lives and trillions of dollars had not been squandered in Washington’s foolish wars over the last quarter century. Conflict with Iran would only increase the criminal toll.
The situation with Tehran is one of Uncle Sam’s great policy failures, but war is not the answer. Indeed, military action would not be justified even if it seemed likely to be successful in some abstract sense. War should require a serious and imminent threat to vital or critical interests. Iran falls short in every way.
First, the JCPOA demonstrated the success of diplomacy. The agreement placed serious restraints on the Iranian nuclear program, made proliferation less likely, and “ensured that in the worst-case scenario, Iran would be proliferating from a lower baseline.” Neither Riyadh nor Jerusalem, along with their advocates in Washington, were happy with the accord, because they were committed to a U.S. war against Tehran, irrespective of the cost—to Americans and Iranians alike. Nevertheless, the JCPOA benefited both the U.S. and Middle East, avoiding unnecessary war and nuclear proliferation.
Unfortunately, after Trump resumed economic war, Iran predictably revived its nuclear program. As a result, today Tehran is better positioned to weaponize the results. Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has threatened to join the nuclear race. And the Israeli government risked war by targeting aspects of Iran’s program and threatening broader strikes, even though it likely lacked the means to halt weapons development.
Second, Iran is not an easy target. It has three times the population of Iraq and, unlike the latter, was not an artificial creation of the West. Even younger Iranians who want liberalization aren’t likely to welcome American bombs. While the Iran would lose a shooting war, it could cause serious U.S. casualties and regional damage. The Iranian military commander Amir Ali Hajizadeh warned: “The Americans have at least 10 bases with 50,000 troops in the region, meaning they are sitting in a glass house”—and should be wary of tossing stones. Military action would likely only delay development of a bomb and would certainly convince any regime doubters that they required a nuclear weapon to survive. Moreover, an extended military campaign likely would be necessary to have a serious chance of halting Iranian nuclear development. The Washington Institute’s Michael Eisenstadt predicted that “a preventive attack likely won’t be a one-off but rather the opening round of a lengthy campaign employing military strikes, covert action, and other elements of national power. Such a campaign…could presage either a more stable order for the region or a new, dangerous phase.”
Moreover, war would threaten Tehran’s neighbors. A desperate Iran might strike at facilities hosting U.S. forces throughout the Gulf and seek to block oil traffic. Angry populations might challenge royal regimes with negligible popular legitimacy. Which helps explain why even Saudi Arabia, once an enthusiastic advocate of American military action against Iran, has urged the U.S. and Israel not to let slip the dogs of war.
Third, Tehran would not use nuclear weapons against the U.S., given Washington’s ability to retaliate on a massive scale. Iran is seeking deterrence in a bad neighborhood, where nuclear-armed Israel’s depredations dramatically demonstrate its conventional superiority. Moreover, the latter has long been informally allied with several of the Gulf kingdoms and other Arab states, with Iran their primary target. Although the latter has greatly improved its relations with its neighbors, it remains vulnerable. The region would benefit from an effective balance of power.
Indeed, 13 years ago Kenneth Waltz, at the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies, provocatively contended that a nuclear Iran “would probably be the best possible result: the one most likely to restore stability to the Middle East.” Israel’s brutal treatment of Palestinians within its control and Arabs elsewhere demonstrates its dangerous mix of excessive ambition and power: “Israel’s regional nuclear monopoly, which has proved remarkably durable for the past four decades, has long fueled instability in the Middle East. In no other region of the world does a lone, unchecked nuclear state exist. It is Israel’s nuclear arsenal, not Iran’s desire for one, that has contributed most to the current crisis. Power, after all, begs to be balanced.” Best would be an agreement by Tehran to forego nuclear weapons made possible by corresponding Israeli and U.S. military restraint.
Fourth, America has ever less at stake in the Middle East and Persian Gulf. The region was never a vital interest. The Cold War fear was a Soviet attempt to cut off oil to the US and Europe. Now Russia’s military weakness, China’s dependence on imported energy, increased diversity of the international market, and expanded American energy production, have steadily reduced threats to and importance of Middle East oil. A secondary fear was for Israel’s survival, but the greatest threat to Jerusalem today is internal, the growing impossibility of Israel being both democratic and Jewish.
In any case, the heedless desire for cheap gasoline and bizarre conflation of Biblical and modern Israel provide no justification for the U.S. going to war. As noted earlier, over the last quarter century Washington policymakers have promiscuously sacrificed American lives and wealth in reckless Mideast conflicts. Adding Iran to the list of misbegotten U.S. targets would be criminal.
Trump surely knows better than to start shooting at Iran. He campaigned against forever wars. He criticized George W. Bush’s criminal attack on Iraq. In 2019 Trump refused to retaliate against Iran for its shootdown of an American drone and for the attack on Saudi oil facilities. Neither warranted war. Nor is there cause for conflict with Iran today. When even Riyadh is urging the U.S. and Israel not to ignite the Mideast, the president should keep the peace.






About the Author
Doug Bandow Cropped
Doug Bandow
Senior Fellow, Cato Institute
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts