At Atlantic Krishnadev Calamur muses over whether President Trump will start a war with Iran and concludes that he won’t:
Ultimately, Iran cannot afford a war with the U.S. It is tied up in Syria, Iraq, and, to a lesser extent, Yemen and Lebanon. It finances Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. All this while its economy is in a moribund state and will almost certainly get worse. What Iran can do, however, is make things difficult for Trump in the region. It has broad political and cultural influence in Iraq, which, despite ongoing protests, is on the cusp of stability after years of conflict; it continues to support the Assad regime in Syria; and it has the potential to sow instability in Afghanistan, with which it shares a border. The U.S. is aware of all this. Even if the more hawkish elements of the Trump administration may favor a conflict with Iran—and there’s no public statement to suggest this is true—the president himself has been known to be averse to U.S. military adventurism. And, as he has said, he is “the only one that matters.â€
I certainly hope that’s true. War with Iran would be a mistake and unnecessary. If President Trump actually wants to tighten the screws on Iran, there are plenty of ways to do it, especially by imposing sanctions on countries that trade with Iran in contravention of United Nations Security Council sanctions. That includes most of our largest trading partners.
Meanwhile, I wish the president would put the keyboard down. IMO most of the fulmination against Iran is yet another case of our pursuing other countries’ national interests rather than our own.
Yeah, after you go all caps on Twitter, you’re pretty much out of ammo.
I don’t see a war happening unless Trump cracks on Standing Up To The Rooskies.
He is so easily distracted to his outrage of the day that I do find it difficult to believe that he could focus long enough for a war.
Steve
As long as the IRG continues to give the US Navy a wide berth and/or Hezbollah does not kidnap another US military advisor, Trump won’t have a casus belli that will get folks in line.
BTW, interesting that the EU tried to get the European Bank to give the Iranian government loans, but the bank demurred since Americans buy a lot of their bonds.
“casus belli”= good reason
A war with Iran would be the textbook case of asymmetric warfare. It is ridiculously easy for Iran to shut down all oil exports from the Gulf and all imports to it, including food, medicine and manufactured goods.
One RPG into one freighter would force the insurance comapnies to cancel the insurance on all ships operating in the region. Without insurance, the ship owners would have to remove their ships from the region.
The flip side is near impossible. To guarantee ship safety the US would have to occupy Iran from its coastline to the Zagros mountains. That is at least 100,000 sq mi, mostly heavily populated.
The US/NATO does not have enough ground troops to do that. To attempt it would entail a major ground war lasting decades, not years. Russia and China would supply Iran with all its war needs, just to bleed the US/NATO white.
There would also be major stock market crashes, pension failures and world depression.
Bob- You are such an optimist!
My recollection is that is how it’s generally wargamed.
Iran would be able to shut things down for a time – probably a few months. But the cost would be the destruction of their Navy and Air Force.
Asymmetrical warfare won’t win a contest for control of the Arabian Sea and Persian Gulf.