PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING.
Your subscription is important and supports our editorial integrity. Advertisers are sometimes afraid of being associated with controversial news topics, and your subscription is vital to ensuring we can continue to publish the courageous news we are known and respected for.
Get Insider Access and Expert Analysis Today
or Log In
Join our community. To comment on this article please join/login. Here's a sample of the comments on this post.
Trump is using the weapon he knows best with his sanctions. He has no intentions of starting a war with them. They are acting up because Trump has hurt their economy. There are ways to hurt an adversary than sending in bombers or troops.
Hit the nail on the head. A war is exactly what Iran wants, but that doesn't mean that they should never receive one. They are playing the same game as NK, but they just happened to have pissed off the Orange One instead of falling into his good graces like Kim. The Orange One has been less than awesome on many of his big ticket items so I wouldn't cling to tightly to that idea, but the gist is correct. The U.S. thinks it can afford or somehow coexist with a nuclear Iran, Israel is, as you point out, under no such illusion. I agree with their conclusion for any number of reasons. That being said, I can think of no reason to invade Iran. Bomb? Sure. Small teams of SF (et al.)? Absolutely. Invade? No. One thing to remember though: traditionally when an economy falters, nations go to war. Our economy is due for another cyclical recession.
Nice roundup of the situation with Iran, Steve. Letting Iran sell oil to EU sounds innocent enough, but it seems to me that oil profits are the most important source of funding for terrorist activities in the Middle East and Africa. I always wonder where African groups are getting their funding in such depressed economies. Between drugs and oil, those guys have more resources than the governments that are fighting them.
The world needs more well written pieces like this. Well done.
I'm trying to figure out which democrats you are referring to that are upset that Trump did not take military action? I was under the impression that their position is to repeal AUMF and require congressional approval. Also, you mention Iran wants to bait the US into a shooting war. It makes a lot more sense to me that the recent tanker hijacking was a projection of strength as means of deterrence. It doesn't make sense that they would want war. Just going by charting out the consequences on a game theory table, starting a war would be on their home turf. Meaning the worst consequences for both parties would be Iran's total annihilation in comparison to a very damaged US for multiple generations. The cost/benefit ratio of that outcome doesn't really seem rational from the Iranian perspective...