By John Q. Hosedrinker Following President Trump’s statements of support for Iranian protestors, Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf warned the US against any attack, stating that any such action would result in Tehran targeting Israel and US military bases. This warning comes amidst reports of preliminary discussions within the Trump administration about potential attacks on Iranian military targets, though officials stress no imminent strike is planned. A senior US intelligence official views the situation as an “endurance game,” with the opposition attempting to maintain pressure on the government. Israel is on high alert, but has not signaled a desire to intervene in the escalating tensions between the two nations.
Read the original article here
Iran’s threats of retaliation against Israel and U.S. bases in the event of a Washington attack seem to be the order of the day right now, and the rhetoric feels noticeably more pointed than usual. It’s hard not to wonder if this heightened tone is a result of internal pressures. It’s almost as if the powers that be are trying to project strength, perhaps to mask underlying vulnerabilities.
If the U.S. were to launch an attack, the Iranian response would likely target Israel, with American bases also in the crosshairs. The logic, or lack thereof, is something to behold. It’s like a script ripped from a fantasy novel, not a strategy for the real world. Many are skeptical that such a response would be effective. The existing relationship with proxies and previous attacks that didn’t amount to much seem to indicate that the US might not be so easily intimidated.
The Iranian leadership seems to operate on a different plane of reasoning. They have a history of making threats that are, frankly, divorced from reality. Remember, there was a point when they had good relations with Israel. Now they blame Israel and America for their country’s problems, which suggests a strategic deficit.
The US has shown its capabilities previously, and the results speak for themselves. The U.S. military is quite formidable and any attack will be far more devastating than the Iranian leadership might imagine.
There’s a certain feeling that this saber-rattling is more about posturing than actual capability. Some suggest it’s more about the internal struggles within Iran and maybe a desperate attempt to stay in power. They’ve got a lot on their plate already and have not learned from previous encounters. The question is, can they sustain any kind of prolonged conflict with the US?
The geopolitical considerations are complex. The US doesn’t want gas prices to skyrocket. The focus of the US is less likely to materialize due to their current predicament, stretched too thin.
The internal problems within Iran seem to be ignored while placing resources on things such as threatening the U.S. and Israel, which is a common tactic. The people of Iran are not being served.
There are many who believe that the U.S. should strike. The moral aspect of Iran, and its current practices towards its citizens is, in some circles, considered to be a reason to remove this government.
The key question is what happens after the initial strike. Does Iran have the capacity to sustain a response? Would the US want to risk a prolonged conflict when it has other things on its plate?
The outcome would likely not be what Iran expects. The U.S. is not likely to engage in a tit-for-tat exchange, and the consequences for Iran would be severe. The days of proportional responses are over. The next time could be a total cleanup operation.
Some feel the U.S. military would quickly take out the Iranian leadership if they had free reign.
The reality is that any attack on U.S. bases or Israel would be met with a far more devastating response, potentially leading to the regime’s swift demise.
The history of the relationship and recent events suggest that Iran’s threats are mostly bluster. Israel seems to be doing fine, and the US has the firepower to end any conflict swiftly.