The Next War?
War-weariness is fairly high among Americans who have had to deal with over 15 years of war in Afghanistan and 12 years of warfare in Iraq. However, another war may be on the horizon in a country sandwiched between Afghanistan and Iraq.
America’s hostilities towards the Islamic Republic date back to the 1979 Revolution which overthrew the American-backed Shah, Mohammad Pahlavi, and ensuing hostage crisis which still resonates in the American conscious. In 1983, Iran was also pointed to as the ultimate culprits behind the barrack bombings, perpetrated by Hezbollah, in Beirut which killed over 200 American Marines and dozens of French soldiers and civilians. The ensuing decades have seen small skirmishes between the Untied States and its allies against Iran along with numerous proxy conflicts. Yet a major military confrontation between Iran and the United States has yet to happen, and the results could be as bad as America’s blunder in neighboring Iraq or worse.
The President-elect ran on a campaign that contrasted itself from the mainstream Republican candidates and from Hillary Clinton as a person who would have been against the war in Iraq and wouldn’t be as trigger happy. This wasn't a peacenik campaign though, the campaign was reeked with rhetoric about how America’s 21st century’s wars weren’t done right, not that they were inherently wrong to start with. This new administration seems to be chocked full of the same old faces who itched for war during the last decade with Iran. With a president who seems to follow the advice from the last person he talks to, this could lead to a conflict that is nearly 4 decades in the making.
One cannot just invade Iran, as you have to have some sort of Casus Belli. With Iran, you have the same justifications as the Bush administration had with Saddam’s Iraq. Nuclear weapons and terrorism. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (the Iran deal) has done its job in removing military aspects of Iran’s nuclear program, intensive inspections of facilities, and opens up the Iranian economy, yet the problem lies in that the deal is a perfect scapegoat for an American populace that doesn’t trust Iran. There are few members of Trump’s known cabinet that want to abide by the deal while most consider it worthless and should be shredded and insist the Iranians are inches away from flattening Riyadh and Jerusalem. This combined with any evidence (true or false) of a new Iranian military nuclear program could be a perfect excuse to invade the nation of 77 million people.
Iran is regularly named as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, which is primarily attributed to Iran’s large network of support for Lebanon’s Hezbollah, but also of Hamas(but this support has been reduced recently due to differences over Iran’s involvement in Syria), Shiite militias in Iraq, and of Houthi rebels in Yemen. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps(IRGC) and specifically the Quds Force (roughly equivalent to Navy Seals or CIA operatives) play a major role in helping these groups carrying out their activities. Yet none of these groups have carried out large scale attacks against American civilian targets for years, in fact many of these groups, besides Hamas, is usually in direct conflict against groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS. These are not the same groups as the Salafist-Jihadi death cults that constitutes America's actual enemies on its War on Terror.
Al Qaeda, ISIS, and up until recently, the Taliban have all been enemies to the Iranian state. Iranian forces helped America’s invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 in Herat and is currently embroiled in fighting in Iraq and Syria against Al Qaeda and ISIS. This hasn’t stopped many, especially among Trump’s inner circle of foreign policy ghouls, to tie Iran to these terrorist groups that Iran is actively fighting. The lack of scrutiny of many claims of Iranian-Sunni terror links that don’t lead to anything suggest that this any tie is either bullshit or as arbitrary as Iran’s short alliance with the United States in 2001.
Now the ghouls. General Michael Flynn will be the new National Security Adviser. His job will be to guide Trump’s foreign policy decisions and will likely have the last say as he’d likely get to talk to the President the last. Now Flynn believes that regime change in Iran is the best way to stop Iran’s nuclear program and that Iran will continue to develop nuclear weapons as they are “evil.” Flynn believes Iran presents a “clear and present danger” and that the thought of reconciliation with Iran is “wishful thinking.” Flynn has also been reported to have pushed unsubstantiated links between the Benghazi embassy attacks and Iran. Flynn’s opinion on Iran would be worrying if he was alone, he’s not.
Trump’s pick for Secretary of Defense in General James Mattis. Mattis is highly respected and is likely to be a great pick as Mattis wants improvements between the civil-military divide and is likely to make better weapon procurement suggestions due to his Marine background. Yet, Mattis is also on the warpath with Iran who he believes is not an actual state, but a “revolutionary cause devoted to mayhem.” Mattis has also suggested that Iran colludes with ISIS and ISIS is nothing but an excuse for Iran to spread chaos. Mattis’s grievance with Iran dates back to the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings, and throughout Mattis’s later career, there’s been constant criticism of his attitudes towards the republic.
KT McFarland will be the Deputy National Security Advisor has repeatedly stated that Iran is a couple months away from a nuclear weapon and that the United States can either have regime change now, bomb Iran, or let them have the bomb. General John Kelly will be the Secretary of Homeland Security and has little connections with the Middle East, but has warned of a mythic Iranian threat in Latin America. Mike Pompeo will be the new director of the CIA has stated his intent on ripping up the Iran deal and doesn’t seem to have any reservations on escalating tensions between the two countries. Meanwhile, John Bolton, who is likely to be the next Deputy Secretary of State is more worrisome as Bolton has repeatedly called for the bombing of Iran, support for the cult-terrorist MEK organization(shared with Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich, two of the major campaign stalwarts), and American-backed regime change. Bolton’s a pure war hawk and having him in the new administration is a massive red flag as if the other appointments were not.
Trump’s pick for Secretary of State is an interesting one, as Exxon exec Rex Tillerson doesn’t seem to have ties to anti-Iranian interest groups, but may not be much better. With America’s past experience with Iraq, having a fossil fuel company CEO be the last line of defense against the Untied States invading a oil-rich Middle Eastern nation is strange, but Tillerson may be the best option in convincing the president that open relations with Iran will deescalate tensions and can further improve American investment in Iran’s natural resources. That’s the optimistic take, as there’s certainly pessimistic ones. One rather pessimistic one is that Tillerson’s controversial relations with Russia may help America’s war with Iran by isolating Iran off from one of its only international partners. This is rather speculative as Tillerson has no known political slant towards or against Iran, but his appointment does little to calm the nerves.
Elsewhere in the foreign policy blob are hordes of people waiting for the opportunity to strike Iran. Other former Secretary of State hopefuls like Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney have pushed for preemptive strikes and support for terrorist and insurgent groups within Iran itself. In Congress, many representatives and senators share the same hatred of Iran from Trump-backing Tom Cotton to anti-Trump John McCain and Lindsey Graham. The Republican schism over Trump can be mostly resolved by creating an external enemy, which Iran fits the perfect mold. Democratic opposition isn’t likely to strong as the Democrat’s Senate minority leader is the hawkish Chuck Schumer. Hillary Clinton isn’t likely to speak against a war mongering administration, and those who would (libertarian republicans and leftist democrats) have been marginalized by the greater foreign policy sphere. The think tank dominated landscape of Washington DC is also a breeding ground of anti-Iranian rhetoric, thanks in part of funding from Israeli and Saudi groups who flood these think tanks with millions of dollars.
The new president will be surrounded by men and women who believe Iran should be attacked and they are surrounded by the Military, the Saudi and Israeli lobbyists, the neo-con/neo-liberal think-tankers, the intelligence community, and finally an American populace that has no love for Iran.
This all doesn’t mean that war is inevitable, but it is.
