[Politics] - How Likely is War with Iran?

[Agema]

I think Trump wants to get out of stupid wars but there is a strong pro-war elite in the USA.

Trump doesn't give a shit. Do you think Donald Trump has ever had a meaningful principle or ideological stance on foreign war (except making sure he didn't serve in one)?

Trump has said at times that he wants the USA out of stupid wars. But Trump says anything, as he has done many, many times. We only need the briefest look at his record of action to tell us it's just one of his nonsense brain farts.

I mean, who the hell that wants less involvement in global wars lets John Bolton run loose? In terms of ongoing campaigns, he just handed over military activity to generals to do as they pleased and sat back. Trump could have done a million and one things to get the USA out of foreign wars: he's done absolutely nothing material to get it out of existing ones, whilst stoking up some new tensions and conflict risks.

 

[stroopwafel]

I think Trump wants to get out of stupid wars but there is a strong pro-war elite in the USA.

Trump doesn't give a shit. Do you think Donald Trump has ever had a meaningful principle or ideological stance on foreign war (except making sure he didn't serve in one)?

Trump has said at times that he wants the USA out of stupid wars. But Trump says anything, as he has done many, many times. We only need the briefest look at his record of action to tell us it's just one of his nonsense brain farts.

I mean, who the hell that wants less involvement in global wars lets John Bolton run loose? In terms of ongoing campaigns, he just handed over military activity to generals to do as they pleased and sat back. Trump could have done a million and one things to get the USA out of foreign wars: he's done absolutely nothing material to get it out of existing ones, whilst stoking up some new tensions and conflict risks.

There are some geopolitical issues as well I think, though none of them involve Iran. No doubt the U.S. tries to sabotage the Russian gas pipeline they plan to build through Iran and which will make the U.S. lose significant extortion methods for embargos if it ever becomes a halfway Russian protectorate(same as Venuela and their heavy investments in oil exploration there). Similarly, the U.S. is losing North-Korea to the Chinese, who seem much more open to disarmament talks now under less strict resolutions. The U.S. is losing influence in two of it's most important regions to both it's political and economic rivals. In that context the Revolutionary Guard in Iran is also less cautious to provoke an attack, as lifting of embargo through U.S. sanctions is futile hope anyway.

Is all this worth a military intervention? Probably not, espescially considering the serious risk of escalation and marginal strategic gain. It would be interesting to know what the Pentagon's stance is. Trump only has one approach and that is bluf poker, something he often gets away with due to high stakes being in his favor. When this approach fails though(as now with Iran) there is no back up plan. Best Trump can do now is reign in a warmonger like Bolton who has been extremely damaging already to both U.S. interests and global security with the disastrous Iraq invasion in 2003. Cut his losses and move on despite damage to reputation. The only alternative is yet another pointless tragedy that will haunt the world many decades to come.

 

[Worgen]

I really feel like trump wants to attack them so he can have a nice war to boost his numbers. But, I feel like the public isn't as willing to go with it as they were during the Bush years so they have had to pull back. I don't know, its still somewhat likely, but congress won't approve it and him trying to push a military conflict like that without congressional approval would just be another thing to push democrats to impeach him.

I think Trump wants to get out of stupid wars but there is a strong pro-war elite in the USA. The elite is angry about him not falling for the most recent bait.

I also understand that wars can give a President's approval ratings a bump but it is temporary. If it is a stupid endless war it will cost the party in power that brought us into it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unltD5gzd9I&t=

No, he was really hawkish in all his rhetoric during the election. To think he was anti-war at all is ignoring pretty much everything he said.

I seriously doubt hes smart enough to think ahead that much. He is an ego maniac so he does anything to say hes the best and hes been shopping for a war since he got into office. Didn't work out with north Korea so now hes trying Iran.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Trump is an idiot who probably doesn't know the difference between a tank and ship, so that doesn't matter and he thinks it'll show how "tough" he is.

But hey, Trump could probably start a war and tank the economy into recession, and there's still a decent chance he'll win reelection, because.....BUT HILLARYs EMAILS!

You mean "ship the economy into recession"? Hey?

More seriously, he's still getting his deplorables to yell "lock her up", have they stopped the "drain the swamp" stuff?

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

I really feel like trump wants to attack them so he can have a nice war to boost his numbers. But, I feel like the public isn't as willing to go with it as they were during the Bush years so they have had to pull back. I don't know, its still somewhat likely, but congress won't approve it and him trying to push a military conflict like that without congressional approval would just be another thing to push democrats to impeach him.

I think Trump wants to get out of stupid wars but there is a strong pro-war elite in the USA. The elite is angry about him not falling for the most recent bait.

By 'The Elite' do you mean his advisors, that he himself appointed?

 

[DarthCoercis]

I think Centre Alliance and Lambie are making a coalition of sorts, cutting out people like Hanson and Bernadi.

But yes, Australia is pretty primed to kill some of those evil Muslims.

Do you find that as odd as I do? Lambie is a former Hansonite, and the Centre Alliance have espoused positions closer to that of Anning and Katter than the centre, yet they do in fact seem to be forming a group to block the advances of the totalitarian right (and hopefully the left equivalent).

 

[Agema]

There are some geopolitical issues as well I think, though none of them involve Iran. No doubt the U.S. tries to sabotage the Russian gas pipeline they plan to build through Iran and which will make the U.S. lose significant extortion methods for embargos if it ever becomes a halfway Russian protectorate(same as Venuela and their heavy investments in oil exploration there). Similarly, the U.S. is losing North-Korea to the Chinese, who seem much more open to disarmament talks now under less strict resolutions. The U.S. is losing influence in two of it's most important regions to both it's political and economic rivals. In that context the Revolutionary Guard in Iran is also less cautious to provoke an attack, as lifting of embargo through U.S. sanctions is futile hope anyway.

Is all this worth a military intervention? Probably not, espescially considering the serious risk of escalation and marginal strategic gain. It would be interesting to know what the Pentagon's stance is. Trump only has one approach and that is bluf poker, something he often gets away with due to high stakes being in his favor. When this approach fails though(as now with Iran) there is no back up plan. Best Trump can do now is reign in a warmonger like Bolton who has been extremely damaging already to both U.S. interests and global security with the disastrous Iraq invasion in 2003. Cut his losses and move on despite damage to reputation. The only alternative is yet another pointless tragedy that will haunt the world many decades to come.

Pretty much. The USA is going through the decline and fall of its global supremacy, chiefly to China. "Make America Great Again" is the slogan of trying to fight the inevitability of the rest of the world catching up, the irresistable trend of nations to rise and fall. Unless the USA can find a way to nuke everyone else without reprisal, that's just the way it is. Probably would be tolerable if things were okay at home, but they aren't as the bottom half of the population stagnates its way towards parity with the living standards of middle income countries.

Trump represents a slightly pathetic attempt to throw weight around in the idea that if the USA looks like it can crudely push others around, Americans might think the USA is still the big I am. What it mostly achieves, of course, is to piss everyone off and make them look elsewhere for an ally and ways to get things done. And so the USA hastens the end of its global leadership in the pursuit of pretending it has global leadership.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Pretty much. The USA is going through the decline and fall of its global supremacy, chiefly to China. "Make America Great Again" is the slogan of trying to fight the inevitability of the rest of the world catching up, the irresistable trend of nations to rise and fall. Unless the USA can find a way to nuke everyone else without reprisal, that's just the way it is. Probably would be tolerable if things were okay at home, but they aren't as the bottom half of the population stagnates its way towards parity with the living standards of middle income countries.

Disagree somewhat there, the US isn't in a bad shape to dominate world affairs, it's still the most powerful military, economic and cultural power. There's nothing (immediately) inevitable about it's relative decline. If the US got it's act together, it could continue to reign supreme at least for the foreseeable future.

But deciding to be a shambles when not everyone else is quite as keen on that isn't doing them any favours.

 

[Agema]

Disagree somewhat there, the US isn't in a bad shape to dominate world affairs, it's still the most powerful military, economic and cultural power. There's nothing (immediately) inevitable about it's relative decline. If the US got it's act together, it could continue to reign supreme at least for the foreseeable future.

But deciding to be a shambles when not everyone else is quite as keen on that isn't doing them any favours.

The USA just about has global supremacy, and for decades after it will have global superiority.

But if Iraq demonstrated anything, it's that the USA's reach has significant limits. All across the developing world, China is slowly and steadily making inroads. I was sent to an African country for work recently, and they said China's building their and their neighbours' infrastructure - roads, telecommunications etc. The hooks are sinking in: they know it of course, that there's a price to pay, and China's not doing it for friendship. But the simple fact is that China is willing to serve their needs and wants in ways the USA (/West) won't, and so it grows and supplants the West in power and influence.

 

[Thaluikhain]

But if Iraq demonstrated anything, it's that the USA's reach has significant limits. All across the developing world, China is slowly and steadily making inroads. I was sent to an African country for work recently, and they said China's building their and their neighbours' infrastructure - roads, telecommunications etc. The hooks are sinking in: they know it of course, that there's a price to pay, and China's not doing it for friendship. But the simple fact is that China is willing to serve their needs and wants in ways the USA (/West) won't, and so it grows and supplants the West in power and influence.

Certainly, I meant that it's not so much a matter of what they could do, but what they will do. The US seems content to keep its own house in disorder and let China get on with it, but that's a decision, not something forced upon it.

 

[stroopwafel]

But the simple fact is that China is willing to serve their needs and wants in ways the USA (/West) won't, and so it grows and supplants the West in power and influence.

True, but to be honest that is also in no small part thanks to China looking the other way in the face of some severe human rights violations. In opposition to their heavy investments in infrastructure they have even less scrupules to make deals with questionable regimes than the U.S. for mining of Congolese rare metals or Sudanese oil. Chinese mantra is 'stability' no matter the price. That in combination with their high risk/high reward investment policies obviously makes them very succesful in the third world. If U.S. often have lack of ethics China simply has none. Same for Russia, who is a far weaker country economically but is very shrewd in playing it's cards right. I shiver at the thought of a world with absolutely zero democratic oversight.

 

[Agema]

Certainly, I meant that it's not so much a matter of what they could do, but what they will do. The US seems content to keep its own house in disorder and let China get on with it, but that's a decision, not something forced upon it.

A "decision" makes it sound like a conscious choice. I think it's more flat-out incompetence, under the reign of a buffoon who has little interest or understanding in governance. The USA has surely convinced Europe it's increasingly unreliable, probably also Japan and SK with his ham-fisted NK interventions. Underpinning it is that the State Department still has a huge number of unfilled posts - some very senior - over two years after Trump assumed office. Think how much important diplomatic communication and information will be being lost, and how that's likely to impair the USA'a ability to understand and deal with other countries long-term.

True, but to be honest that is also in no small part thanks to China looking the other way in the face of some severe human rights violations.

It's not just the dodgy countries, though. China's heavily involved with ones with much better records like Tanzania or Botswana as well.

 

[Gergar12_v1legacy]

You guys were panicking about a war with North Korea, and Venezuela some time ago.

Chill out we aren't going to war, Trump will just forget about it as long as Rouhani meets him, or he gets bored.

 

[gorfias]

Trump doesn't give a shit. Do you think Donald Trump has ever had a meaningful principle or ideological stance on foreign war (except making sure he didn't serve in one)?

I don?t think he has a political center. But underneath his surface, I think he is a business Democrat. These wars serve many special interests, but not the USA generally.

Trump has said at times that he wants the USA out of stupid wars. But Trump says anything, as he has done many, many times. We only need the briefest look at his record of action to tell us it's just one of his nonsense brain farts.

I mean, who the hell that wants less involvement in global wars lets John Bolton run loose? In terms of ongoing campaigns, he just handed over military activity to generals to do as they pleased and sat back. Trump could have done a million and one things to get the USA out of foreign wars: he's done absolutely nothing material to get it out of existing ones, whilst stoking up some new tensions and conflict risks.

I saw a clip in which he states he as Bolton to balance out those advisors trying to keep him out of war. Do you think the generals, or Bolton or the military industrial complex (do you think there is one?) were happy when Trump said, ?nah? to bombing Iran over the drone?

No, he was really hawkish in all his rhetoric during the election. To think he was anti-war at all is ignoring pretty much everything he said.

He said he wanted to ?bomb the shit? out of US adversaries and kill their families during the primary. He said that (even though he is describing war crimes!) to differentiate himself from the other dozen or so primary challengers. Everything he said, particularly during the primary, had a goal in mind: to sell himself, period. Going all the way back to the 1980s, Trump was very vocal saying these types of actions were like a bad joke on the USA. And, to be simply self-serving: entering stupid wars ultimately costs. Lyndon Johnson on Viet Nam. George Bush 41 and 43. Why would he want to end up like that?

By 'The Elite' do you mean his advisors, that he himself appointed?

As written above, Trump states Bolton is there to balance out the anti-war crowd so that he can hear from 2 sides, then make a decision. Which makes it sound like the Generals have less free reign than one might think.

EDIT: Have y'all seen this, at 1:20 ??!? Yikes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nICgdE_5Z84

 

[Worgen]

No, he was really hawkish in all his rhetoric during the election. To think he was anti-war at all is ignoring pretty much everything he said.

He said he wanted to ?bomb the shit? out of US adversaries and kill their families during the primary. He said that (even though he is describing war crimes!) to differentiate himself from the other dozen or so primary challengers. Everything he said, particularly during the primary, had a goal in mind: to sell himself, period. Going all the way back to the 1980s, Trump was very vocal saying these types of actions were like a bad joke on the USA. And, to be simply self-serving: entering stupid wars ultimately costs. Lyndon Johnson on Viet Nam. George Bush 41 and 43. Why would he want to end up like that?

I like how you trumples will always say that anything he said in the primaries or during the election was just talk. Seriously, I've been rewatching some old Destiny debates and you guys always handwave anything he said despite all his actions. Never vote for a republican if you want someone who won't be looking for a war or balloon spending, they always do it. They don't want less government spending, they just want it to be spent on the military, which you would think small government people would be against.

 

[gorfias]

I like how you trumples will always say that anything he said in the primaries or during the election was just talk. Seriously, I've been rewatching some old Destiny debates and you guys always handwave anything he said despite all his actions. Never vote for a republican if you want someone who won't be looking for a war or balloon spending, they always do it. They don't want less government spending, they just want it to be spent on the military, which you would think small government people would be against.

Spending is ballooning and that is disconcerting. I don't know about military spending but the MSM does seem pissed off that Trump will not enter war. It was the libertarian right and left that are still pissed about the last Syria bombing which appears to be a hoax. But do not fool yourself into thinking this war hawk stuff is limited to Republicans. The Democratic establishment adores war too. Huge money in it. I'll have to do some checking about what has happened with military spending Trump relative to Obama. Wonder if immigration concerns has impacted the spending. EDIT:

Check 1960-2017 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=US

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

You guys were panicking about a war with North Korea, and Venezuela some time ago.

Chill out we aren't going to war, Trump will just forget about it as long as Rouhani meets him, or he gets bored.

Uhhh...

We just got within 10 minutes of an airstrike last week against one of the three strongest military powers in the region over a drone. Iran has realized that Trump doesn't have the stomach to commit to a war and are still royally pissed off about Trump backing out of the nuclear deal (which was working according to every country except Israel, but including the US) and putting sanctions back on its economy, making it look like the US went back on its word (which it did) and pretty much fucking up its economy.

Now Iran is essentially pushing and pushing him because they know he doesn't want to go to war, so they're willing to risk war in order to make the point that Iran is not a country that you can simply make demands of without real give and take. Diplomatic relations now essentially involve the president tweeting threats that Iran can essentially counter with provocations because they, as every world government knows, that Trump is weak and his bluster is a sign of his weakness. And the top foreign policy and military officials around him are all rooting for a serious military confrontation with Iran because he dismissed, fired, or ignored the officials that urged restraint and deliberation.

So, yeah, I'm a tad concerned we're moving to a war lead by a thin-skinned executive who doesn't even seem to understand how the government he heads up is ran and doesn't appreciate the basics of diplomacy and seems to realize too late that the sycophants he's now surrounded himself with have been using him to advance their own agendas under the cover of his decisions.

 

[Agema]

I don?t think he has a political center. But underneath his surface, I think he is a business Democrat.

I think that's something Republicans tell themselves to assuage feelings of discomfort with a president representing their party. Where he's approved of, no comment. Where he's disapproved of he conveniently becomes a crypto-Democrat.

I saw a clip in which he states he as Bolton to balance out those advisors trying to keep him out of war. Do you think the generals, or Bolton or the military industrial complex (do you think there is one?) were happy when Trump said, ?nah? to bombing Iran over the drone?

In essence yes there is a military industrial complex - all those arms companies and the military itself (personnel, their families, etc.) will form a unified front to favour defence spending, and companies will favour military actions so they can test out their new toys in a live environment. How powerful it is, however, is less clear. When defence spending was nearly ~10% of GDP it was much more powerful than now when it's ~3% GDP.

I don't trust a single thing Trumps says. Nobody should. He lies and bullshits with total abandon. Whatever else anyone thinks about Trump, they must think that nothing he says can be reliably true or even half true. But let's assume he's telling the truth. Why would a president that wants less war appoint the hawkiest of hawks to balance other advisors that counsel against war?

Why is a president who wants less war committing to ever increasing defence budgets? He started off years ago saying it was too high. Then he started campaigning in 2016 and said it wasn't enough and it was time to obliterate the USA's enemies. Then he got in and said he wanted it cut again. Then he agreed to huge hikes.

How on earth do we believe that a president who picks a million fights and tramples over a million and one government conventions can't resist the military-industrial complex? And if he accedes to them, what on earth are we to make of claims to "drain the swamp"? What are we to make of the competence and understanding of a president that announces he wants reduced funding and deployments, and then is convinced to do the opposite a few weeks later?

What are we to make of his desire for grandiose militaristic parades (since aborted)? He's increased overseas deployment of servicemen, much into war zones (e.g. Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan). Although of course due to use of mercenaries - sorry, "military contractors" - it's also unclear quite how much action is being done that can't be readily observed. And then there's his rhetoric and actions which are likely to encourage conflict - and you most certainly can end up in a war by accident. And scrapping nuclear proliferation agreements? Is that really going to make the world safer?

Nothing makes sense about the idea Trump wants less military action. The kindest way we can assess him is a clueless blowhard overseeing policy chaos.