Hassan Al-Somal
Elite Member
Iran already has the nukes. The civilian nuclear program serves a purpose. The military are following their own thing.......
Iran - Israel/US War: Israel-US declare war on Iran, Iran responds
- Thread starter Khorasan Black Flags
- Start date
Iran already has the nukes. The civilian nuclear program serves a purpose. The military are following their own thing.......
TruthSeeker
Trusted Member
War on Iran Is the Opposite of ‘Realism’
Don’t do it, Mr. President.
www.theamericanconservative.com
War on Iran Is the Opposite of ‘Realism’
Don’t do it, Mr. President.
www.theamericanconservative.com
War on Iran Is the Opposite of ‘Realism’
Don’t do it, Mr. President.No one really knows what goes on inside the mind of President Donald Trump.
But judging by the significant, ongoing U.S. military buildup in the Middle East, one can make an informed guess: He thinks a big war with Iran is a good idea.
If that’s the case, he’s wrong—dangerously so—and he needs a dose of realism.
This administration already claims to be guided by a “flexible realism” in foreign policy. But no variant of realism, however flexible, recommends a U.S. war on the Islamic Republic at this juncture.
Realism holds that geography and the relative distribution of military power among states determine national interests. Iran, being a middling power on the other side of the world, does not pose a military threat to America, the world’s leading superpower.
An implication of realism’s emphasis on power and geography is that realists don’t focus much on what kind of regime a state has. The Islamic Republic is a theocracy with a bad human rights record, but that’s nigh irrelevant from a realist perspective. The purpose of U.S. foreign policy is to promote the safety and prosperity of Americans, not to turn faraway states into liberal democracies, which we’re not good at doing anyway.
America does have an interest in preventing states from developing nuclear weapons, but that’s not necessarily an interest worth going to war over. Tehran’s previous compliance with the defunct 2015 Iran nuclear deal and its present willingness to negotiate shows that, in the case of Iran, this interest can be achieved diplomatically.
From a realist perspective, a U.S. war with Iran seems not merely unnecessary, but obviously foolish. Realists believe that the U.S. should—and does—intervene abroad when necessary to prevent the rise of a “regional hegemon.” We don’t want any foreign state to dominate its neighborhood and project power into other neighborhoods, especially ours.
So, what’s all this got to do with Iran? Really: What the hell does this have to do with Iran?
Iran is not a regional hegemon nor on the verge of becoming one. Indeed, it can barely claim a sphere of influence within its own borders; Israel, with relative ease, established air superiority over Iran in the 12-Day War last June. Iran certainly isn’t poised to dominate the Middle East, a region that includes zero close Iranian allies and multiple rivals of comparable or superior military might.
But the Middle East does feature an aspiring regional hegemon—and this is where America’s belligerence vis-à-vis Iran starts to look foolish.
The region’s aspiring hegemon is Israel, America’s very “special” ally. Israel deems Iran a big obstacle in its quest for regional hegemony. If the Islamic Republic is replaced with a pro-Israel regime, or if the Iranian state collapses, Israel would not only be rid of a chief adversary—it would be freed up to exert power across a region that is vital to the global economy.
In other words, the U.S. appears poised to create a regional hegemon, not prevent one, in the Middle East. That wouldn’t be a good example of “realism,” flexible or otherwise.
Some U.S. officials have argued that taking out the Islamic Republic would enable Washington to retrench from the Middle East, since it would no longer need to check Iran. A realist would advise something like the opposite: Washington should withdraw U.S. forces and assets from the region to allow a natural equilibrium to emerge. Iran, Turkey, and Arab states have grown sufficiently concerned about Israel’s regional designs that they may set their differences aside and collectively balance against it. That’s the best-case scenario from the realist American perspective.
Unfortunately, we’re instead careering toward a big war that, if it “succeeds,” will harm America’s geopolitical interests. And if the war is a failure, things might get very ugly indeed.
Analysts have warned that Iran intends to launch a ferocious retaliation if the U.S. strikes, to restore deterrence. The Trump administration appears to have taken those warnings seriously—but that doesn’t mean it’s backing off. Quite the contrary. In my assessment, the U.S. is preparing a massive attack meant to overwhelm Iran’s defenses and decapitate its leadership to prevent the kind of retaliation envisioned by nervous analysts.
After last year’s U.S. strikes on key Iranian nuclear facilities, Iran hawks mocked antiwar conservatives for predicting a catastrophic war involving mass casualties. That mockery was unfair in the case of The American Conservative. As I showed in a column defending our coverage, TAC had drawn attention to the possibility of a limited engagement.
But a limited engagement is more difficult to imagine now. The U.S. is planning a huge strike, and Iran is planning a huge retaliation; consequently, a huge war seems very much worth worrying about. Plus, it’s not clear what targeted strikes would look like this time around, because it’s not clear which targets it makes sense for Trump to strike.
And we shouldn’t let the Iran hawks intimidate us into declining to warn about worst-case scenarios. If Iran shuts down the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint for global trade, an oil crisis could set off global economic contraction.
Nor is that the absolute worst case. Iran might manage to strike a U.S. warship, perhaps even bombard an aircraft carrier, jeopardizing fighter jets in the process. Even worse, Iranian ballistic missiles could kill U.S. troops, who are sitting ducks in the region. Iran’s supreme leader has threatened an all-out regional war.
There’s no telling how Trump would react to the loss of U.S. troops, and I’d prefer not to find out.
Nuclear escalation isn’t out of the question, even if the U.S. itself is unlikely to push the big red button. Iran might choose to direct its ferocious retaliation against Israel, raining ballistic missiles down on the small country. In such a scenario, Israel could conceivably launch a nuclear attack out of desperation.
The U.S. simply has no interests at stake that justify courting such risks. And even if America’s military buildup in the Middle East is intended to enhance its bargaining position in negotiations with Iran, it raises the chances of war. The U.S. got dragged into war with Iran by Israel last June, and to avoid a repeat, Trump needs to convey to Israel that he wouldn’t provide backup this time around. But sending a third of America’s navy to the region sends the opposite signal.
Among staff writers at TAC, I’ve probably been the most positive about Trump’s foreign policy. But contemplating a war with Iran fills me with a nauseating dread. President Trump must be urged to listen to reason, and to realism.
Andrew Day
Andrew Day is the senior editor of The American Conservative. He has a PhD in political science from Northwestern University.
TruthSeeker
Trusted Member
Protracted war with Iran would haunt Trump in November
Over the summer, I browsed the various kitschy offerings at a Trump-themed merchandise store on a sweltering day in Gatlinburg, Tennessee. T-shirts emblazoned with “OPERATION MIDNIGHT HAMMER” — the official name for Trump’s June strike on Iranian nuclear sites — caught me a bit off guard. Did...
unherd.com
Protracted war with Iran would haunt Trump in November
Over the summer, I browsed the various kitschy offerings at a Trump-themed merchandise store on a sweltering day in Gatlinburg, Tennessee. T-shirts emblazoned with “OPERATION MIDNIGHT HAMMER” — the official name for Trump’s June strike on Iranian nuclear sites — caught me a bit off guard. Did...
unherd.com
Protracted war with Iran would haunt Trump in November
By Emily Jashinsky
February 19, 2026 - 8:00pm
Over the summer, I browsed the various kitschy offerings at a Trump-themed merchandise store on a sweltering day in Gatlinburg, Tennessee. T-shirts emblazoned with “OPERATION MIDNIGHT HAMMER” — the official name for Trump’s June strike on Iranian nuclear sites — caught me a bit off guard. Did anyone care enough about the mission to wear it on their chest?
Now, as President Trump weighs his options in the region amid another military buildup, the politics of escalation are just as complicated. Midterm repercussions would, of course, hinge entirely on how any future attack plays out: a quick success or the start of another grinding conflict? That will matter enormously. Either way, if Trump strikes again, it will throw a wrench into his team’s plan to focus heavily on the economy from now until November, hoping to avoid a blue wave that would put impeachment on the table.
Just this week, Trump’s team huddled on Capitol Hill for a midterm strategy session with pollster Tony Fabrizio. As Mark Halperin reported, the “headline” was “The economy will be THE issue at the polls this November. Not immigration. Not foreign policy. Not Epstein or the border. Not investigations or indictments or Jan. 6 retrospectives. The economy.”
A major foreign conflict will necessarily suck huge amounts of oxygen from this message. Earlier this year, Team Trump already sensed the president needed to shift some of his focus back to domestic politics and spend less time on legacy-building foreign matters that might make the case for a Nobel Prize. He now risks making the same mistake.
To be fair, “Midnight Hammer” polled relatively well in the weeks after the US strikes. A Harvard-Harris survey in July found that 58% of Americans supported it, including 87% of Republicans and 52% of independents. Further, more than half of Americans, a full 54%, actually saw the operation as a “major military accomplishment”.
MAGA elites were more divided. Figures like Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, and Marjorie Taylor Greene were sceptical that the move really represented “America First” foreign policy. Hawks saw the operation’s success as vindication that the anti-interventionists lacked credibility both in terms of politics and policy. The strike worked and the public liked it.
Most would agree, however, that if a protracted military conflict had ensued — hardly an outrageous possibility — this would have been different. Given that Republicans suffered some major defeats in off-year elections last November, a lengthy war in Iran could add more fuel to the Democratic fire.
Before she resigned from Congress, Greene spoke out. “We didn’t elect the president to go out there and travel the world and end the foreign wars,” Greene told NBC News. “We elected the president to stop sending tax dollars and weapons for the foreign wars — to completely not engage anymore. Watching the foreign leaders come to the White House through a revolving door is not helping Americans.” She added: “One of the big campaign issues is Americans were fed up with foreign wars.”
Interestingly, according to Halperin, Fabrizio’s polling shows Trump should start talking more like Greene. Which messages “resonate with key voters”? Fabrizio reportedly found that it was “banning stock trading for members of Congress; promoting greater transparency in health insurance pricing and claims reimbursement; lowering prescription drug costs; and protecting the Trump tax cuts.” For younger voters, housing costs will be important too.
None of this means voters will necessarily punish Trump and Republicans on the ballot in November for attacking Iran. Another quick and successful conflict could either help Republicans or have very little effect at all. Trump and the GOP could find a way to keep their messaging focused mostly on the economy, even as a conflict wages in the Middle East. But in light of the massive military buildup happening far away from America’s shores, that won’t be easy.
i hope and wish what you say is true
925boy
Elite Member
How is Turkey NOT a "collaborator" like Egyptians and Saudis?
ChineseTiger1986
Registered Member
War on Iran Is the Opposite of ‘Realism’
Don’t do it, Mr. President.War on Iran Is the Opposite of ‘Realism’
He was doing exactly what your far right conservative told him to do by take on China first.
However, he is getting chokehold by China in everything, especially the rare earth.
Now he is trying to chokehold China's oil supply line by taking on Venezuela, then Iran.
Good luck with that, China will not let this opportunity to slip away, and make sure this invasion will be turned into a far bigger fiasco than both Afghanistan and Iraq combined.
925boy
Elite Member
I understand your worry as an Iranian, but the "we are done " outcomes you are predicting will only happen IF the Iranian nation doesnt fight against the invaders, and that is not likely to happen. I mean, Iraqis and Afghans fought US till it exited their countries while having much less military power and regional allies than Iran has today (and this could happen with US still doing lots of damage to Iran in the war). Just saying.
925boy
Elite Member
Jordan,shiuid be the first place iran hits HARD. why? We'll thats where US tankers are piling up, and without tankers, the effectiveness and range of fighter and bomber aircraft in usaf drops significantly. Fattah 1s and 2s,maybe Arash 2s also are needed for that job, to reduce rate of AD interceptions by US ,israel ,nato and its gulf minions like Jordan.
tsunset
The Legend
List of online talking points and arguments of Pahlavists:
- You live in a shithole
- Kos nanat
- You are an arab worshipper
- We have Viking ancestry
-We are Persians aryans just like Swedish people
- Islam is a plague
- 90% of Iranians are atheists
- There were millions of people in the peaceful protests
- 100000 killed in the protests
- 40 beheaded babies
- IRGC hides in hospitals and Persepolis basement
- America, please bomb Iran to free us
- If you don't agree with us you are an arab
- You don't speak Persian so your opinion is worthless little arab scum kos nanat
- Trump you are a savior please bomb Iran
- Khamenei is an Indian
- Clerics in Iran are Iraqis
- IRI poisoned water to kill innocent people
- Muhammad was a pedophile (ironic)
- Khamenei is a pedophile (again very ironic)
- Free Kurdistan
- Long live Israel
- Please Trump nuke Tehran so they can be freed
- If you dont agree with us then you are a son of a bitch arab muslim kos nanat
- Give us freedom so women can participate in porn movies and be the new Mia Khalifa
- You live in a shithole
- Kos nanat
- You are an arab worshipper
- We have Viking ancestry
-We are Persians aryans just like Swedish people
- Islam is a plague
- 90% of Iranians are atheists
- There were millions of people in the peaceful protests
- 100000 killed in the protests
- 40 beheaded babies
- IRGC hides in hospitals and Persepolis basement
- America, please bomb Iran to free us
- If you don't agree with us you are an arab
- You don't speak Persian so your opinion is worthless little arab scum kos nanat
- Trump you are a savior please bomb Iran
- Khamenei is an Indian
- Clerics in Iran are Iraqis
- IRI poisoned water to kill innocent people
- Muhammad was a pedophile (ironic)
- Khamenei is a pedophile (again very ironic)
- Free Kurdistan
- Long live Israel
- Please Trump nuke Tehran so they can be freed
- If you dont agree with us then you are a son of a bitch arab muslim kos nanat
- Give us freedom so women can participate in porn movies and be the new Mia Khalifa
Meengla
Elite Member
There is a famous phrase in Urdu language, which comes to something like 'Two swords can't fit into one sheet'.
At some point, China will have to 'react'. When and how. I don't know. But I don't think China will be able to avoid a reaction.
ChineseTiger1986
Registered Member
Of course, China will have to act to help Iran to survive against this incoming onslaught.
However, some pro-US faction within the Iranian government still think something else.
Trump has also pushed himself into the corner, and he has to fire the shot. Otherwise, he and his party will be done by this coming November, and another awaiting bloodbath in November 2028.
For Iran, it has prepared how to fight this war for the best outcome, and not just keep using China as a bargaining chip to keep appeasing the US.
mangekyo
Trusted Member
You didn’t get my point. Iran will defend itself against any millitary aggression. We have no change beating the US and they have no chance beating us. Im worried about the post-war effects
ChineseTiger1986
Registered Member
We Chinese believe that instead of hurting the enemy's ten fingers, it is better to chop off one of his fingers.
If you can sink one of the US supercarrier or at least disable it by destroying all the catapults on the flight deck, it gonna create a psychic shock to the symbolic might of the US military.
They will have to lose all the face, then retreat with extreme embarrassment.
That's how you can manage the post-war devastation.
I would say that to make the two US supercarriers with broken catapults would be better effect for Iran.
Meengla
Elite Member
Really there is such a thing.
Depends on what kind of 'shot'? Another face saving tit for tat like in June 2025, call it a 'victory', de-escalate??
And the 'bloodbath' you mention will happen if there are American casualties, not with a de-escalation.
ChineseTiger1986
Registered Member
The liberal Iranian president still says demoralized thing like that.
Trump has been shown as weak when China puts chokehold on the rare earth, and he has to take down Iran to show to the world that the US is not weaker than China.
