|
War With Iran?
There are a number of discussions about a potentially imminent U.S. war on Iran. Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism concludes that a war is more likely than not. Crooke, Mercouris and Diesen are ambivalent (vid) but also seem to expect a conflict.
President Trump (or, more correct, Netanyahoo behind him) has made demands towards Iran that are designed to be rejected:
- End all nuclear programs
- Destroy medium range missiles which can reach Israel
- Stop support for all 'resistance' movements in the Middle East
Iran will of course reject those demands.
It is willing to put its nuclear program back into the parameters of the JCPOA nuclear agreement, which Trump previously discarded, IF sanctions against it are lifted. It is also willing to do lucrative business with the U.S. But that is about it.
The U.S. is trying to impress Iran with military arrangements. Several B-2 bombers were sent to Diego-Garcia, two airforce carriers are in the Middle East, Israel has been supplied with more THAAD and Patriot air defense missiles.
I find that to be a mere show of force mostly for the audience in the U.S. It is not enough for a sufficiently strong attack that aims to defeat Iran. Iran's abilities to retaliate require a much larger force for the opening campaign and many more forces to handle all the calamities which would inevitably follow.
Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff was in Oman today for talks with Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi. The first reactions are positive but there are no words (yet) of any results:
"Talks were held in a constructive atmosphere, based on mutual respect," and the delegations exchanged the views of their respective governments about "Iran's nuclear program and sanctions relief with the mediation of Oman FM," says the MFA statement.
The talks will continue next week.
It is hard to assess what Trump might do. If he does not give a f*** he will attack Iran no matter what. If he still cares for his legacy he will avoid a war that would let energy prices explode and pull the U.S. into another large war without end which it can not possibly win.
My current line of (wishful?) thinking is similar to Larry Johnson's:
My hope is that Trump is smarting from the beating he has taken over the tariff fiasco and that he is eager to score a diplomatic win. If my assumption is correct, Trump will embrace JCPOA 2 as his creation and proclaim himself as the one who stopped Iran from building a nuke.
Then again, as Alastair Crooke reminds us, the current volatile international situation may make random events more relevant than politicies in creating the outcome. Simple moves, from potentially many sides, (an Israeli attack on Iran?) could easily have snowball effects.
About US making war on Iran, I continue to think that this is unlikely. First, in 2007=2009, there was a window of opportunity for such an attack, with Dick Cheney constantly pressing for it, yet Bush did not act, apparently because of opposition from the US military, who assessed that it would be a disaster that would make them look worse than they already looked after Iraq. Nothing has changed that assessment; if anything, the prognosis looks worse for the US now.
While Iran’s warmaking capabilities are untested, that it is well armed and poised to resist is clear, particularly in the areas of missiles and drones. It is a far larger country than nearly all of the post-World War II victims of US aggression, and its geography is more incovenient for the US to attack in many respects, particularly in its direct access to Russian supplies through the Caspian Sea. The US cannot attack it from Armenia, Iraq, Turkmenistan, or Afghanistan, nor will Turkey let itself be used to attack Iran. There is some ambiguity about Azerbaijan, which has been aligned with Israel, which itself has adopted an anti-Armenian attitude, but Azerbaijan also has to cultivate its vital relations with Turkey, and it must consider Russia too. In any case, the idea of a land assault on Iran by the US, apart from possible raids dropped from the air, appears to be completely off the table.
It is only the Zionist maximalists who want to sic the US on Iran like a good dog. They have been constantly beating the drums for this attack for years. Israel itself will never attack Iran in a major way first; indeed, it probably lacks the capacity to do so because of the distance. Like many of the fake “allies” of the US, they want to use the US to obliterate their enemies, which are never the actual enemies of the US, if the US had a rational policy based on realities. If an attack on Iran does finally materialize, it will be only because of the Zionist maximalists. But those Zionists would be better advised to think of all the damage they would be doing to their own side by sticking themselves out so egregiously.
Traditionally, it has always been a Zionist dream to prevent all peaceful relations between the US and the inner part of the Muslim world, the Arabic-speaking countries plus Iran. The Zionists have always tried to sic the US on all and sundry there: the Palestinians, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, and of course Iran. Their idea has been that by making war, it will be possible to continue to demonize the enemy and thereby preserve the domain of all the false Zionist propaganda that has been carried on for over a century and prevent anyone from questioning it. Because of their nationalist fanaticism, which is their religion — and not Judaism — they will go to any lengths including eventually murdering their opponents, so no wonder the US political class have always acted like a bunch of frightened rabbits. But it is so manifestly not in the interests of the US to be at war with Iran, that it remains doubtful still that they can pull it off, and they haven’t yet succeeded despite years of trying.
As for Trump, his threats of war with Iran count for nothing, because he often says one thing and does the opposite. It is part of his way of operating, and he remains very successful at it, so far. The possibility that he could turn against a friend or an ally in a second is always there, and furthermore he can get away with it in most cases because of his oddly still-abiding popularity with nearly half of the US electorate. Thus, no one can be sure what he will do next, and he maintains his freedom of action this way.
As for the use of nukes, as I have said before, that would be unadvisable in any form. It would strongly push every non-nuclear country to do what North Korea has done and make itself safe from attack by getting enough nukes to wreck the world, and even 50 are enough, because the world economy and its distribution systems are so fragile. The more nukes proliferate, the worse for everybody, because the likelihood of their use increases with every new nuclear power. The US bears by far most of the blame for this because of its continuous aggression since 1945. Should Iran be attacked only with smaller nukes, proliferation of nuclear weapons to more countries would certainly result. Should a huge loss of life be inflicted, all the world will hate the perpetrators forever. So it is a no-win for nuke powers.
Posted by: Cabe | Apr 12 2025 17:03 utc | 48
|
