USA to declare war against Iran before 2020?

Overheal

Seems pretty simple to imagine, it's just a matter of what will be the trigger - and if it will be a genuine flag attack or not.

2017 NDA Bill increases recruiting and retention of personnel, Army expands recruitment bonuses:

https://www.armytimes.com/articles/the-army-is-offering-two-year-contracts-and-cash-bonuses-to-grow-the-army?utm_content=buffer09b48&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Press Secretary Sean Spicer falsely states that Iran perpetrated an attack on a US vessel:

https://theintercept.com/2017/02/02/press-secretary-sean-spicer-falsely-accuses-iran-of-attacking-u-s-navy-vessel-an-act-of-war/

President-in-hiding Steve Bannon served in the Navy during the Iranian hostage crisis, and indicated that his politics were deeply shaped by the event which was considered to be a failure:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/13/wapo-steve-bannons-navy-service-carters-iran-hostage-crisis-shaped-politics/

“I have the perfect word” for how the crew felt upon learning that the mission failed, said Andrew Green, one of Bannon’s shipmates. “Defeated. We felt defeated.”

As Bannon has told it, the failed hostage rescue is one of the defining moments of his life, providing a searing example of failed military and presidential leadership — one that he carries with him as he serves as President Trump’s chief strategist. He has said he wasn’t interested in politics until he concluded that then-President Jimmy Carter had undercut the Navy and blown the rescue mission.

A review by The Washington Post of Bannon’s naval career, based on interviews with more than 25 shipmates and an examination of deck logs stored at the National Archives, found that his service was steady but unremarkable. Bannon’s naval service is the least-known part of his career, and many details have not been previously reported. The records show that his deployments never involved warfare, and the closest he came to conflict may have been his brief experience at the edge of the hostage-rescue fiasco.

Kinda reminds me of this idea of people going to serve, being deployed in a war zone and never firing a single shot. Sorta like that movie Jarhead, but with more reality and far less Jake Gyllenhaal.

Building tension in the sea:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/shots-fired-persian-gulf-iran-warns-encroaching-us-ships-will-be

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/09/politics/us-iran-warning-shots/

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/02/trump-leading-warpath-iran-170203105946707.html

And the middle finger to the Iranians and Palestinians:

http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Bloodshed-will-follow-if-Trump-moves-US-embassy-to-Jerusalem-477323

J.pilkington

2+2=987?

I don't think the US are that dumb. Recent US history has shown that they haven't been successful at taking on / "rescuing" large countries with a huge army (e.g. Iraq/Afghanistan) and the only outcome is a prolonged war with a large amount of casualties, colossal spending, pissed of American voters and then leaving a country in a pretty sh1t state when they get fed up and exit (and then have to continue funding via the country via the back door)

Even if they were to go there they wouldn't want to go alone, who would join them? The UK with their own current problems(and also recent war lessons) certainly won't. Same with France.

Peregrinus

J.pilkington wrote: »

2+2=987?

I don't think the US are that dumb.

I don't think even Trump is that dumb. Since shortly after the Iraq war began (in 2003) he has been denouning it, and he has persuaded himself that he was opposed to it even before that. It has been one of his relatively few consistent positions; he recognises it as a catastrophic error, and he generalises from that; it's simply not, in his view, the business of the US to intervene in other countries, effect regime change, be the world's policeman, etc.

Bannon might favour war with Iran; Trump certainly will not.

BuilderPlumber

The US needs to think long and hard about what it is to do. Starting or getting involved in another stupid Middle East war would be a disaster. Iran and America should improve their relations and if they did a lot of other things in both countries as well as the world would also improve.

Steve Bannon should be got rid of ASAP as he has very negative policies. He has stated he thinks America could go to war with China. Enough said then about how mad this guy is. He would have no qualms then about destroying Iran.

If America was to go to war with Iran, what would trigger it? I believe something such as this:

Ali Khamenei, the current leader of Iran, dies. He is replaced by a weak compromise leader who has to rely heavily on the Revolutionary Guards who flex their muscles. There are anti-regime protests in Tehran and other cities. Some 'incident' happens between American and Iranian ships in the Gulf and America launches a war and supports MEK and Reza Pahlavi, the son of the last Pahlavi Shah.

The war would last about 2 months and would see the fall of the current Islamic Republic of Iran. What would follow up would be a Revolutionary Guards insurgency fighting against a weak and divided government compromised of Pahlavi, MEK and perhaps early Islamic Republic figures who fell out with the system. The insurgency would drag on forever. Iran's oil production and economy would be greatly curtailed. World economic downturn would follow and billions more of American taxpayers' money would have been squandered on yet another stupid, mindless war. Meanwhile, ISIS and al Qaeda would take advantage and would no doubt set up states in Balochistan and Kuzestan where Sunnis are in the majority and these would cause headaches not only for Iran but for Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan too. Such a war would only give ISIS and al Qaeda a new lease on life as the Iraq war and the Arab spring already did.

ScumLord

J.pilkington wrote: »

Even if they were to go there they wouldn't want to go alone, who would join them? The UK with their own current problems(and also recent war lessons) certainly won't. Same with France.

I think plenty of America's allies could easily back away from any wars. Hasn't Trump torn up all the agreements? Wants to end NATO? Wants to readjust all the trade agreements so they're more favourable to America. America wouldn't want to go declaring any kind of wars until they find out where they stand with all their allies.


Putin has been warning the world for a while that AMerica wants to go to war with Iran. I'd say Americas all lined up for that war, they could probably be within Iranian borders within hours and it's just a matter of finding the right excuse.

BuilderPlumber

ScumLord wrote: »

I think plenty of America's allies could easily back away from any wars. Hasn't Trump torn up all the agreements? Wants to end NATO? Wants to readjust all the trade agreements so they're more favourable to America. America wouldn't want to go declaring any kind of wars until they find out where they stand with all their allies.


Putin has been warning the world for a while that AMerica wants to go to war with Iran. I'd say Americas all lined up for that war, they could probably be within Iranian borders within hours and it's just a matter of finding the right excuse.

Traditionally America will tolerate and even support regimes that are officially 'enemies' for years and may or may not end this toleration. Thus far Iran's regime has been tolerated by America as it has been a useful proxy against common enemies. America is well aware that Iran is one of the few relatively stable countries in the region and (while they won't officially let on) they also know Saudi Arabia is a liability and depending on them is not healthy.

The 1980s was probably the most likely logical time for an America v Iran war but Oliver North and the Irangate scandal showed us that America's and Iran's relationship was not what it seemed. Official policy seemed to be to keep the Iran Iraq war going to keep both sides weak. By 1988 both sides were weak and beaten but Iraq was the loser. Iraq supposedly was America's ally in that war but if America wanted Iraq to win, it would have done so. America clearly wanted Iran to do better than Iraq out of this and today Iran is a relative success story by ME standards whereas Iraq is a total mess.

For the time being, America and Iran will keep their traditional strategy going. Out and out enemies in public, pragmatic to deal with each other unofficially in private. Iran knows America needs its help across many issues and America knows that an unstable Iran will only add to the problems facing the region.

The only 3 ways a war between them would start would be these. Firstly if Iran was to blatantly attack America or American interests. Unlikely. Secondly, if a revolution and civil war broke out between IRI insiders or between IRI and monarchists and MEK. America could side with whoever it prefers to rule Iran. Finally, if America saw Iran as becoming too powerful (heading to be a superpower), then it may do something to set it back. It could be argued that both Iran and Iraq had superpower potential prior to 1978 and the era of the Iranian revolution and the Iran-Iraq war.

Final points I make relate to America's experience. After the defeat of Hitler in WW2 regime change was a dream. Europe post WW2 was a success story and countries like Germany and Italy rose to be great countries. As did Japan post WW2. The argument was that all the killing lead to better. Not so Iraq though. Sweeping away a dictator proved easy but it was keeping the peace that was hard there. What replaced Saddam was far worse.

WRT Iran: sure, there are nasty things being done by the government directly and indirectly there. There are laws that need to be gone. But would destroying the regime and thus the country solve those issues? Would someone like ISIS take hold in some parts and implement much more brutal laws? Would a preferred candidate of the west like a Rajavi or a Pahlavi prove popular in Iran? Or would they prove divisive? MEK are considered too close to Saddam's Iraq for comfort by most Iranians and a return to a Pahlavi would not rest easy either with many. It is hard to comprehend what is the best but a reform of the existing system seems the most logical.