The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
War with Iran Would Become 'Trump's War'
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

President Donald Trump cannot want war with Iran.

Such a war, no matter how long, would be fought in and around the Persian Gulf, through which a third of the world’s seaborne oil travels. It could trigger a worldwide recession and imperil Trump’s reelection.

It would widen the “forever war,” which Trump said he would end, to a nation of 80 million people, three times as large as Iraq. It would become the defining issue of his presidency, as the Iraq War became the defining issue of George W. Bush’s presidency.

And if war comes now, it would be known as “Trump’s War.”

For it was Trump who pulled us out of the Iran nuclear deal, though, according to U.N. inspectors and the other signatories — Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China — Tehran was complying with its terms.

Trump’s repudiation of the treaty was followed by his reimposition of sanctions and a policy of maximum pressure. This was followed by the designation of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a “terrorist” organization.

Then came the threats of U.S. secondary sanctions on nations, some of them friends and allies, that continued to buy oil from Iran.

U.S. policy has been to squeeze Iran’s economy until the regime buckles to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s 12 demands, including an end to Tehran’s support of its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

Sunday, Pompeo said Iran was behind the attacks on the tankers in the Gulf of Oman and that Tehran instigated an attack that injured four U.S. soldiers in Kabul though the Taliban claimed responsibility.

The war hawks are back.

“This unprovoked attack on commercial shipping warrants retaliatory military strikes,” said Senator Tom Cotton on Sunday.

But as Trump does not want war with Iran, Iran does not want war with us. Tehran has denied any role in the tanker attacks, helped put out the fire on one tanker, and accused its enemies of “false flag” attacks to instigate a war.

If the Revolutionary Guard, which answers to the ayatollah, did attach explosives to the hull of the tankers, it was most likely to send a direct message: If our exports are halted by U.S. sanctions, the oil exports of the Saudis and Gulf Arabs can be made to experience similar problems.

Yet if the president and the ayatollah do not want war, who does?

Not the Germans or Japanese, both of whom are asking for more proof that Iran instigated the tanker attacks. Japan’s prime minster was meeting with the ayatollah when the attacks occurred, and one of the tankers was a Japanese vessel.

Writing in The Wall Street Journal Monday were Ray Takeyh and Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a neocon nest funded by Paul Singer and Sheldon Adelson.

In a piece titled, “America Can Face Down a Fragile Iran,” the pair make the case that Trump should squeeze the Iranian regime relentlessly and not fear a military clash, and a war with Iran would be a cakewalk.

ORDER IT NOW

“Iran is in no shape for a prolonged confrontation with the U.S. The regime is in a politically precarious position. The sullen Iranian middle class has given up on the possibility of reform or prosperity. The lower classes, once tethered to the regime by the expansive welfare state, have also grown disloyal. The intelligentsia no longer believes that faith and freedom can be harmonized. And the youth have become the regime’s most unrelenting critics.

“Iran’s fragile theocracy can’t absorb a massive external shock. That’s why Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has, for the most part, adhered to the JCPOA (the nuclear pact) and why he is likely angling for negotiation over confrontation with the Great Satan.”

This depiction of Iran’s political crisis and economic decline invites a question: If the Tehran regime is so fragile and the Iranian people are so alienated, why not avoid a war and wait for the regime’s collapse?

Trump seems to have several options:

–Negotiate with the Tehran regime for some tolerable detente.

–Refuse to negotiate and await the regime’s collapse, in which case the president must be prepared for Iranian actions that raise the cost of choking that nation to death.

–Strike militarily, as Cotton urges, and accept the war that follows, if Iran chooses to fight rather than be humiliated and capitulate to Pompeo’s demands.

One recalls: Saddam Hussein accepted war with the United States in 1991 rather than yield to Bush I’s demand he get his army out of Kuwait.

Who wants a U.S. war with Iran?

Primarily the same people who goaded us into wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen, and who oppose every effort of Trump’s to extricate us from those wars.

Should they succeed in Iran, it is hard to see how we will ever be able to extricate our country from this blood-soaked region that holds no vital strategic interest save oil, and America, thanks to fracking, has become independent of that.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2019 Creators.com.

 
Hide 19 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. There are compelling economic and political arguments for avoiding war with Iran – global recession and re-election. Even energy security is no longer a vital factor, for the US at least. Yet the two nations seem set for collision. In the summer of 1914 there were voices in Berlin and Vienna advocating war, confident of victory. But someone always has to lose; being blindly certain of victory is no guarantee of winning. If Iran were to turn into a ‘blood-soaked’ battlefield Russia and China could be dragged in. They also claim to have vital interests in the region. That will be a world war: everyone will lose.
    https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/

    • Replies: @anon19
    , @follyofwar
  2. peterAUS says:

    If the Revolutionary Guard, which answers to the ayatollah, did attach explosives to the hull of the tankers, it was most likely to send a direct message: If our exports are halted by U.S. sanctions, the oil exports of the Saudis and Gulf Arabs can be made to experience similar problems.

    Yep.

    ….blood-soaked region that holds no vital strategic interest save oil…

    Save oil?
    Funny.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
  3. Art says:

    “This unprovoked attack on commercial shipping warrants retaliatory military strikes,” said Senator Tom Cotton on Sunday.

    Oh dear — did AIPAC give their dependable little popup Cotton boy a wedgy?

    (Has he ever smiled?)

  4. KenH says:

    Who wants a U.S. war with Iran?

    Primarily the same people who goaded us into wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen

    And just who are the (((same people))) who goaded us into all the other wars? Is it the illuminati and the Rosicrucians?

    In 1990 Pat had the courage to call out “Israel and its amen corner in the U.S. Senate”. In 2019 that amen corner now consists of the entirety of both chambers of Congress, every major news network and the oval office.

    • Replies: @Art
    , @anonymous
  5. Art says:
    @KenH

    And just who are the (((same people))) who goaded us into all the other wars?

    Well in this one it is Pompom Pompeo – he is the main Iran War cheer leader. He is so exciting and cute in his pompoms and toto doing jumping jacks and then the splits! What a guy!

    (All color coordinated Blue and White – Israel to the core.)

  6. Anon[408] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    It would really be another War for Zion… but goy puppets get the blame.

    • Agree: anon19
  7. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @KenH

    And, while you’re at it, just who are “us”?

    It’s important to keep in mind that Mr. Buchanan always tucks some pronoun propaganda into his columns. An example: “For it was Trump who pulled us out of the Iran nuclear deal, …”

    The truth is that most of “us” are just tax aphids or cannon fodder. And that “Mr. Paleoconservative” is just a sentry on the Right edge of Establishia, helping to keep Americans brainwashed into identifying with the people who want to run the world from Washington so that they’ll vote every two years to decide whether their crumbs are red or blue.

    This columnist may look dissident now, but by the time the next Most Important Election Ever rolls around, he’ll have explained why you need to vote GOP — including for the likes of Senator Cotton — to save Our Republic.

    • Agree: TimeTraveller
    • Replies: @KenH
  8. anon19 says:

    America must not fight another war for Jews and Israel.

  9. anon19 says:
    @peter mcloughlin

    Don’t disagree with what you are saying, but there were also voices for war in London, Paris and St. Petersburg too.

  10. manouche says:

    What Iran is goin to do,in case of being attacked by the americans,is launching submarine missiles on the Pentagon,and CIA headquarters.This would take out a lot of evildoers and wake up the american public to the fact that the evil their government spreads all over the world,could reach them as well.

  11. @peterAUS

    But Iran does hold “vital strategic interest” for Israel. And it seems that is all that matters to our ZOG.

    • Agree: anon19
  12. @peter mcloughlin

    For the second time that I can recall, PJB has written a column which indicated that any war would just involve US v Iran. Does he think that such a conflict would be contained between these two countries, and not result in a much wider war? Does he think that Russia and China would just sit on their hands as the US death machine pummels yet another ME country into submission? After Iran has lost many of its own fighters in Syria, in order to help Russia and Assad’s military defeat the enemy, will Putin repay them by doing nothing? I find Buchanan’s analysis incomplete.

  13. No Patrick, any voluntary war with Iran by the United States on behalf of Israel would be known as the:

    “trump/bibi/likud/thom kaplan/paul singer/bernie marcus/shelly adelson/michael oren/mort klein/alan dershowitz/danny danon/ron dermer war”

    (n.b. Did I overlook any more Israel-Firsters/America-Lasters ?? They do tend to all parrot the same memes and behave in the same disgraceful and treacherous fashion…)

  14. Castellio says:

    @13

    Schumer… never forget Schumer

  15. Paul says:

    “Such a war [with Iran], no matter how long, would be fought in and around the Persian Gulf, through which a third of the world’s seaborne oil travels. It could trigger a worldwide recession and imperil Trump’s reelection.”

    It would be more like a worldwide depression as ships refuse to transit the Strait of Hormuz. The price of oil would skyrocket. Trump has painted himself into a corner. His advisor John Bolton has got to go!

  16. As we all know, Operation Praying Mantis dragged on for decades. While it destroyed half the Iranian Navy, it continues to reverberate throughout history as Reagan’s quagmire:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis

  17. KenH says:
    @anonymous

    And, while you’re at it, just who are “us”?

    He’s using it as a synonym for merica. But he does use pronouns in such a way as to imply that we’re all for one and one for all and Trump and a select number of other elected officials truly represent that portion of the electorate that put them in office.

  18. Trump is actually quite astonishing.

    He has betrayed his base on every single issue.

    I know that politicians lie, but my God…….he’s done the exact opposite of what he said he was going to do.

    I don’t buy that it’s the “Democrats fault” that he hasn’t delivered on his promises.

    I just read that Texas gained 9 hispanics for every white resident last year.

    America is doomed.

    Zion Don is just another stupid sellout loser.

  19. American politicians seem to love war:
    = as long as they or their relatives are not on the bleeding edge.
    = but when they were draft age and there was a war they evaded active service.
    -but when the adversary suffers millions of casualties and keep on fighting the US gives up
    =but when a few American boys come home to their Mommies in bags the US gives up

    They love war when they win which has been a non existent occurrence since WW2

    The love war in far off places most Americans cannot find on Google Map but they cannot control their own borders.

    Yank politicians are living proof that human beings CAN live without a brain !

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?