Will we go to war with Iran?

[Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.]

God I hope not...

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

God I hope not...

-Same here.

[Crumpets]

I'm pretty sure no. Trump may be incompetent, but unless he truly revels in chaos and wants to invade, I have a hard time seeing us go to war with Iran specifically.

I can, however, see us ramping up our involvement in Syria and Iraq, and maybe being drawn into some as yet unforeseen conflict elsewhere.

[ag]

You will. Not right now, but at some point you will.

At some point the going will get tough for Trump domestically, and he would need a diversion. Iran is a relatively non-controversial place to nuke, so it is likely to be one of the first places nuked.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

You will. Not right now, but at some point you will.

At some point the going will get tough for Trump domestically, and he would need a diversion. Iran is a relatively non-controversial place to nuke, so it is likely to be one of the first places nuked.

-Poor understanding of politics here. Trump is the last person to use nuclear weapons.

[ag]

You will. Not right now, but at some point you will.

At some point the going will get tough for Trump domestically, and he would need a diversion. Iran is a relatively non-controversial place to nuke, so it is likely to be one of the first places nuked.

-Poor understanding of politics here. Trump is the last person to use nuclear weapons.

Yeah, you are sure?

I have a great deal on the Brooklyn Bridge for you.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Yes, unless so-called president Pussygrabber is removed from power first.

Given that he's likely to try and use a war to keep himself in power (among other reasons he'll have for one), I fear it's pretty likely. With him in office, our only hope is that his intellectual laziness, boredom and short attention span combine with the efforts of the saner members of his cabinet to muzzle him to prevent war.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

The above two, this is why I keep both you guys on iggy. Make better posts.

[Blue3]

Maybe it's one good thing that Putin's influence over Trump will have.

Flynn seems like the Iran-warmonger.

[Xing]

God I hope not...

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Maybe it's one good thing that Putin's influence over Trump will have.

Flynn seems like the Iran-warmonger.

A war in Iran hurts the US (we spend money, get people killed, wear out our equipment and lose even more respect internationally) while raising the price of oil (which helps Russia).

[Frodo]

A part of me is hoping this is a ruse by the Trump administration (after all these are the same people who criticized Obama for advertising his intentions), and that if we do have to go to war somewhere, let it be North Korea instead. 

[Meclazine for Israel]

Surgical strike by the USA against North Korea.

Then Israel will remove any threats from Iran with the backing of the USA.

I dont think any US soldiers will be on the ground.

Stirring up Iran will not end well.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

A part of me is hoping this is a ruse by the Trump administration (after all these are the same people who criticized Obama for advertising his intentions), and that if we do have to go to war somewhere, let it be North Korea instead. 

You're hoping for consistency AND subtlety out of the Pussygrabber regime? I expect you are in for grave disappointment.

[Shadows]

No. It will be a much bigger blunder than Iraq. Iran will strike back in some form. Iran's population is pretty big too.

Iran is essentially the 1 bastion for Shia Islam, attacking them will completely destabilize the Sectarian balance & would create a Shia group in the mould of ISIS which will be much worse!

[dead0man]

I wonder if the people voting yes are the same ones that just knew Dubya was going to do the exact same thing.  Ya know, to stay in power forever, 'cause he was a Nazi.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The people defending Trump's actions typically invoke a sort of chaos theory explanation: he's not really going to go to war, just wants to make the Iranian leadership freaked out enough to be unsettled. unfortunately, unsettling a foreign country's leadership for no defined reason tends to increase the chance of war, because it gives further power to the ultra-hawks acting in the administration.

I'm not saying that war with Iran is certain or anything, that would be crazy. But it cannot be ruled out, and military actions in Iran is probably more likely than not. If the hardliners start to assert power (especially if Rouhani is defeated) then the chances of war will rise even further.

[BlueSwan]

I would be somewhat surprised and greatly relieved if Trump didn't start some sort of war within the next 4 years.

[GoTfan]

The people defending Trump's actions typically invoke a sort of chaos theory explanation: he's not really going to go to war, just wants to make the Iranian leadership freaked out enough to be unsettled. unfortunately, unsettling a foreign country's leadership for no defined reason tends to increase the chance of war, because it gives further power to the ultra-hawks acting in the administration.

I'm not saying that war with Iran is certain or anything, that would be crazy. But it cannot be ruled out, and military actions in Iran is probably more likely than not. If the hardliners start to assert power (especially if Rouhani is defeated) then the chances of war will rise even further.

Well when Trump backs out of the Iran Deal, then Rouhani ends up with egg on his face. The Ayatollah then tours the country to support a radical Islamist party, saying "I told you that you couldn't trust the Americans. I was right." Then the far-right party gets voted in and tensions escalate further. Backing out of the Iran Deal does no favours for anyone, and only serves to aid the Iranian far-right.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Luckily I think Rouhani is favoured. None of the traditionalists facing him have Ahmedinijad's charisma.

[BlueSwan]

The people defending Trump's actions typically invoke a sort of chaos theory explanation: he's not really going to go to war, just wants to make the Iranian leadership freaked out enough to be unsettled. unfortunately, unsettling a foreign country's leadership for no defined reason tends to increase the chance of war, because it gives further power to the ultra-hawks acting in the administration.

I'm not saying that war with Iran is certain or anything, that would be crazy. But it cannot be ruled out, and military actions in Iran is probably more likely than not. If the hardliners start to assert power (especially if Rouhani is defeated) then the chances of war will rise even further.

Well when Trump backs out of the Iran Deal, then Rouhani ends up with egg on his face. The Ayatollah then tours the country to support a radical Islamist party, saying "I told you that you couldn't trust the Americans. I was right." Then the far-right party gets voted in and tensions escalate further. Backing out of the Iran Deal does no favours for anyone, and only serves to aid the Iranian far-right.

Far-right movements in enemy countries have a tendency to always strengthen each other. Which is good enough reason to fight far-right movements everywhere. Far-roght movements only lead to war.

[Mr. Morden]

I would be somewhat surprised and greatly relieved if Trump didn't start some sort of war within the next 4 years.

Define "war".  I'm sure he'll drop lots of bombs, but since he doesn't seem to be care about nation building, it's not clear that he's going to send in any significant ground forces to any countries where we don't already have them.

[MasterJedi]

Really hope not but Trump and his posse probably want it. Sadly all the crazy vets that I know want the US to bomb the entire middle east. Preferably if it does happen the Trump gov should basically round up all the homeless and unemployed vets and put them back out there for supporting Trump and the war in the first place.

[The_Doctor]

We won't go to war with Iran. It's a 80 million nation, with valuable oil resources, and bordered by mountainous terrain. We're not in a position to force our will on Iran. Besides Russia would need to sign off on it and I don't think they will, no matter how much God-Emperor Trump sucks up to Putin. It would mean, most likely, a destabilized nation close to Russian borders (Ajerbaijan and some tiny insignificant nation are the nations bordering Iran and Russia). 

Trump will have all this explained to him. It's why he will be bellicose and stampede and bray about Iran on Twitter and impose sanctions that won't run afoul of the deal. The United States doesn't have the geopolitical power to go to war in Iran. Even a bombing run to destroy the nukes would have consequences, such as Iran freely stepping up operations against Israel and all kinds of messes, perhaps getting involved in the disaster zone that is Syria, although a bombing run might be something Trump can get away with. But it would mean the end of the deal and Iran reupping their nuclear program almost immediately.

The long and short of it, this is all why Obama struck a deal with Iran and pushed for the moderates to gain power in Tehran. (Their version of moderates, not ours). He knows that an Iran that slowly becomes more moderate and Westernized is an Iran that's less of a danger to American interests. He wasn't interested in bowing to Tehran (there's a reason he placed heavy sanctions on Iran first).

Oh, and sanctions to destabilize Iran will not work. They are only effective to get Iran to the table to strike a deal. The mullahs would love nothing more than renewed sanctions to sideline the moderates and to regain power by pointing to the people "See? These guys got us one lousy deal!"

This is all, by the way, why Trump hasn't cut bait on the deal. He's very much locked into the deal and will maintain it despite bellicose threats. I would not be shocked, in the slightest, if Trump (or one of his more intelligent aides) back channeled to Tehran to say "Hey guys, I need to look tough, so I'm going to slap some sanctions, but as long as YOU uphold the deal, I'm not going to do more than that."

[The_Doctor]

The Trump Right, of course, has lost their minds because they're no longer capable of making strategic geopolitical moves that consider our interests and advance the United States' hegemony. They've become increasingly locked into an idealistic "civilizational" war against radical Islam and indiscriminately now want to lay waste to the Middle East because they have the strategic reasoning of a third grader. They have not the slightest understanding of the basic fact (or maybe they do, and I am underestimating the top Trump hands' intelligence) that we are incapable of killing 2.6 billion Muslims without nuclear warheads and we need Muslim allies.

They came out against the deal with Iran because they wanted to stick it to Obama and now they're stuck holding the bag on Iran and have to functionally uphold the deal.

The man love for Putin seems to be on a completely instinctual level (or in Trump's case, perhaps compromised financially sense). This fig leaf of "Russia and we need to work together on ISIS" seems to mask a deeper love for Russia's authoritarian leadership by many in the Right. So, once again, the Right is not really acting geopolitically savvy on Russia, although I will admit the Right is behaving a little more rationally than in the case of Iran since Russia working with us to take out ISIS isn't the worst thing in the world (but certainly not at the expense of Moscow gaining greater influence in Europe and taking Ukraine).