Trump: War President or Anti-Interventionist?

Pat Buchanan has had opinions about everything for a very long time, many of them oppositional in nature. On the issue of Iranian nuclear ambitions and accomplishments, he betrays his origins in the last century— when reliance on our ‘intelligence” analysts was considered a reasonable basis for decision making.

No serious person today would make that mistake.

Can't fault your analysis, Nathan Bedford (except the part about Vietnam) - but that's because you aren't actually echoing Buchanan's position.

War with Iran is more likely than not because president after president have punted the ball further downrange (including St. Ronald Reagan), avoiding responding to the atrocities committed against us. The message the mullahs have come away with is that we talk big and inpose economic sanctions (which our "allies" happily circumvent) but we are loathe to fight.

Sometimes, it's better to commit to combat to prevent a much bigger war later, i.e. Manchuria, Ethiopia, and the Sudetenland. Meanwhile, Russia's entering the argument as Iran squeezes the Straits of Hormuz.

Your last remark about Russia taking a hand prompts me to repost my initial reply on the subject after the drone attack, if you have the stamina for long read:

USA:

The relevant question, where lie America's national interests?

The Straits of Hormuz, like the Straits of Malacca, Gibraltar, Suez Canal and Panama Canal are fundamental strategic points on the seas. The Straits of Hormuz and the whole Persian Gulf are vital because it is a chokepoint for much of the world's flow of oil. Without reliable and reasonably priced oil the world's economy will crash.

What are America's interests in protecting a reliable and reasonably priced flow of oil? There are both an upside and a downside for America in a disruption of the supply of oil through the Straits. Thanks in part to the technology of fracking and in part to Donald Trump’s deregulation, America has now become self-sufficient in oil. Indeed, America has now become a net exporter. To the extent that the flow of oil is cut off, the price of oil goes up and America prospers in a balance of trade sense. If the price does not go too high, America prospers without severe damage to the world's economy.

If the price of oil goes too high because there is an insufficient flow of oil through the Straits of Hormuz, the world economy crashes and America would be left with no rich markets into which to sell its oil and no market into which to sell its exports. Our economy would founder. America's interests are to maintain a certain level of flow of oil through the Straits.

America's allies, including Japan whose ships were recently sunk while Prime Minister Abe was in Iran, are more dependent on oil from the Mideast yet they will be among the last to participate in any military action to secure freedom of the seas but they will be among the first to repudiate it. Many will secretly wish for America to act militarily while they hypocritically criticize the action as adventurism and demonize Donald Trump. Their reaction will no doubt put even more strain on the transatlantic mutual defense relationship, a consequence of American military action which no doubt would please Vladimir Putin who has long sought the disintegration of NATO.

There is simply no appetite among the American people for land-based military operations in Iran. Beyond the frustration of the Iraq experience, Americans have not entirely forgotten the folly of the Tonkin Gulf incident as casus belli . The president campaigned and won election promising to disengage the American military from the Middle East and to refrain from fighting pointless, endless wars there. John Bolton is probably being used by the president in a good cop, bad cop negotiating ploy with Iran. The probability is that the administration is not divided about the unwisdom of invading Iran by land.

Airstrikes and naval operations in the Persian Gulf are quite another matter.

Iran:

the main question, assuming Iran is guilty of attacking ships, is whether it is doing so as a puppet of Russia or rather lashing out in desperation because the corrupt, theocratic regime fears mounting discontent as the country's economy disintegrates under the pressure of sanctions imposed by Trump after his withdrawal from the Obama/Iran deal. Trump’s sanctions have brought the Iranian regime to a desperate place, inflation rages at 37%, unemployment is massive, there are electrical outages even food shortages. Unsurprisingly, civil unrest is increasing.

Whatever their motivation, it is vital to understand that if Iran should undertake to close the Straits after it becomes possessed of atomic weapons, the entire picture changes immediately. American military operations are reduced almost to the point of extinction because we cannot discount the possibility that crazed, theocratic mullahs in Iran would be apocalyptic enough to welcome Armageddon. Our costs of a land operation against an atomic Iran prohibit even the contemplation of putting boots on the ground. The risks of maintaining stand-off air and sea operations increase exponentially when applied against a nuclear Iran.

Iran is a far more powerful military state then was Iraq where we learned to our sorrow that invasion is one thing but occupation is quite another. I have come to believe that one of the major downsides of the war in Iraq was that it served to make an invasion of Iran a political impossibility even though Iran is a far more dangerous enemy than Iraq. Consider the stalemate in Korea, once Korea has the bomb the equation changed entirely. If Iran gets the bomb the geopolitical power situation in the Gulf inverts. Our ability to intimidate Iran by threatening it, as I believe John Bolton has been commissioned to do, will be dramatically diminished when Iran gets the bomb. Iran’s ability to break the fragile anti-Iran alliance that America is trying to cobble together among surrounding Gulf states will greatly increase.

All this is the cost of waging the wrong war, at the wrong time, against the wrong enemy, Iraq.

Russia:

Russia has only a weak economy based on the sale of minerals but primarily based on the sale of petroleum products. If the flow of oil through the Straits of Hormuz is reduced, the price of oil rises and Vladimir Putin's regime, generally believed to be suffering under sanctions and needing oil at a minimum of $80 a barrel to payoff Putin’s apparatchiks, prospers and its survival is more assured. Putin will have more resources to conduct more adventurism such as we have seen in Georgia, Crimea and Ukraine and to pay his henchmen. Supplying oil to Europe through pipelines, Putin will be in a leveraged position to push apart NATO.

Russia has extensive relations with Iran, even to the point of supplying them with nuclear know-how and equipment. It is not known to the general public what if any commitments or incentives the Russians might have given the Iranians to engage in mischief in the Straits of Hormuz but it is easy to calculate advantages running to Putin. We ought not to forget that the Austrians declared war on the Serbians in 1914 because they had a green light from Germany. The North Koreans invaded South Korea in 1950 because they got the green light from Stalin. We civilians simply do not know how motivated Vladimir Putin might be to do mischief through proxies. What ever action America might as the world's policeman undertake in protecting the flow of oil, we must never forget that Russia is still a nuclear superpower.

China:

China is insatiably thirsty for oil and it certainly does not want to see it supply interdicted or the price of oil spiked. Nevertheless, China has other very significant considerations on its plate. It is in a make or break war with the United States to become the world’s dominant economic and military power. Trump has directly confronted that ambition and threatens to derail it. In breaking off trade negotiations and reneging on its agreements, China has concluded that it must prevail over Trump if it is to realize its ambitions. It might be thinking that it need not prevail over the United States, merely temporize until the 2020 election or until internal domestic pressure to withdraw tariffs becomes too great for Trump to withstand.

Given this is state of affairs, it is not unreasonable to suspect that China is giving Iran every tacit support it can extend if it believes that Iran’s mischief in the Persian Gulf might so distract America or undermine Trump that China can prevail in this trade war. The extent or nature of this support simply cannot be known by armchair civilians. It might be coming in connection with support from Russia. It might be a prelude to these nations attempting to break through the sanctions currently crippling Iran.

Israel:

The threat of atomic war increases exponentially as Israel must ponder a pre-emptive strike against an Iran armed with the bomb to avoid annihilation. This possibility is not to be summarily dismissed. Committed to “never again,” Israel will certainly not passively submit itself to be extirpated again this time in a nuclear holocaust.

Trump:

Donald Trump will be presented with a serious conundrum. If he permits the price of oil to spike to dangerous levels, he will be blamed. No doubt the Democrat media will blame him for antagonizing rather than appeasing Iran, that is, for breaking the Iran deal and applying sanctions. If Trump acts by putting boots on the ground in Iran, he will probably forfeit his re-election.. If he acts to keep the Straits open by deploying elements of air and see, he will undoubtedly be excoriated by the left and firmly supported only by his resilient personal base.

Is it within the United States' capability to maintain reasonable flow of oil through the Straits of Hormuz without too great an expenditure of blood and treasure?

My arm chair Guess is that by deploying elements of air and sea power together with selected missile strikes against land targets in Iran, the flow of oil can be maintained for a reasonable amount of time.

Crunch time, if it comes, will be a real test of Donald Trump’s character. Events may generate a crisis or Iran might simply get a bomb. Hence, Trump runs severe risks for the nation if he temporizes. His moral dilemma, if he acts he runs risks, if he delays he runs different risks, political risks not the least among them.

Democrats, committed to a green dream, do not necessarily want to maintain the flow of oil. Indeed, they would sacrifice the national interest of the United States in a heartbeat if it would unseat Donald Trump. Establishment Republicans might well prove as unreliable allies as Europeans.

In the real world of politics, he must weigh all of his priorities, all his hopes, which are dependent upon his re-election against a threat to the nation with both upside and downside potential as described. He must calculate that he will be acting almost entirely alone. Any failure, any perception of failure, even any protraction of the dilemmas presented by Iran’s mischief, can leave him beleaguered before the media and abandoned by all but his hardened base. If he missteps he might be confounded in the long-term existential economic war with China.

If the fails to take military action, he risks economic disaster and eventual nuclear war. If he uses military force, but fails to get the proportions exactly right, he risks defeat in 2020 and a socialist take over of our country. After Trump, the deluge. After Trump, the risks of economic and nuclear winter are not diminished in a new dark age brought down upon us by any one of the 23 America hating, Islam loving, socialist obsessed, arrogant, elitist candidates.

After Trump, the Chinese.

Trump talked a lot about Iran while campaigning. He was right in my opinion, and he's now working to undo the damage Obama (and others before him) have done with respect to Iran.

I think Trump wants to avoid war, but wants to wield our military as a tool to keep Iran in check with their mischief. He's trying to make them come to the table using sanctions and other non-military pressures, while using the military as a threat for them to behave at least a little.

Meanwhile, many in our swamp government would like to see another big war... some for economic reasons, others (Kerry, Obama, etc.) see a war now as a way to kill Trump politically.

I think he's on the right path, and is aware of the risks... but is doing what's going to yield the best results.

A strong and perceptive discussion Nathan Bedford! (As a funny aside, my real first name is Forrest).

You hit some important points most casual readers have never heard of, much less thought about - but you have always been better-read than 98% of the commenters on the forums.

That said, there are military perspectives to the world situation that need to be added to your assessment:

The US survives as an economic and military superpower that, if everything is going right, ensures that we and our allies have free access through the sea and air arteries that would keep us capable of full-on fighting if it comes to that again. Oil is the lifeblood of war and the seaways through the Straits of Hormuz, around the Horn of Africa, the indian Ocean and the Straits of Malacca are choke points that are vulnerable to interdiction - which would threaten the survival of our Pacific allies - South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and Australia/New Zealand. China has stealthily expanded their transportation and military access through their "Belts and Roads Initiative" where, among other things, they have established naval ports along the upper Indian Ocean and the Horn of Africa. Without fanfare or rising to the notice of our media, China has achieved a strategic capability only dreamed of during Japan's WWII ambitions. You are correct that China is the main beneficiary of Iran's threats against us.

Iran, and its Shiite government is the mad dog of the world. Their ambition isn't merely to stay where they are "live and let live". Their leadership is committed to the destruction of Israel, hegemony over the Persian Gulf and the Muslim "Holy Sites" and eventually over the whole Muslim world. Unlike rational states, the Shiite leaders have visions of some sort of final Armageddon where their "12th Imam" shows up after the world is turned to ashes - and they are busily building the very equipment needed to do the job. Our long term memory as a nation is about the same as a that of a butterfly but Iran has made it's madness and visceral hatred for us and our values known over decades of mass murder and helping others kill us and the Israelis.

You are correct that our President has conundrum with Iran and how to deal with them but everything isn't about reelection or even the economy: it's about the survival of all we stand for the future of our children. If Iran goes nuclear, there is a very high probability that those Shiite nutjobs will use those weapons. They have the long-range delivery systems and thanks to Obama, we don't have the missile detection systems in place in Eastern Europe that were intended to give us early warning. As you point out, Iran becomes a much harder nut to crack.

The President's job is to assess the true proximity of that threat and deal with it, as required. Take out the ports? Take out the Shiite leadership? Take out all nuclear development, production, and storage facilities? Charge in and perform a "change of government ceremony?" I don't know - but we can't waste too much time wringing our hands about "boots on the ground". Sometimes that's the only real way to finish off an enemy and end a war - no matter what the Air Force says.

As an aside, I've heard a couple of rumbles from you about Vietnam and the Gulf of Tonkin resolution as casus belli: we didn't have any choice at all. Vietnam was where the Soviets had chosen to showcase their "National Liberation War" Tactic (Externally supported civil war) as their next phase in global communism. Vietnam lies next to the Straits of Malacca and the Soviets and its Warsaw Pact and the Chinese funneled Billions of dollars in weapons, munitions, advisors, and high-tech equipment to ensure everything went Ho Chi Minh's way. They picked the place and we had no choice but to counter their move. And we did it for eight long, hard years - in the most difficult kind of war where our primary mission was to protect the people we came to support while killing just the enemy. Meanwhile the American communists put their effective 5th column to work and sponsored and directed an "antiwar" movement to oppose us and just this war and to get the enemy to win against us. And the rest of our country's efforts were devoted to the monstrously expensive "race to the Moon", the Civil Rights crisis, the War on Poverty, the Cold War, and football, as if nothing was actually going on with the lives of all of us who were fighting that war.

Nonetheless, we did what we were sent to do and I haven't any doubt that our sacrifices demonstrated American manhood and had a critical effect on the eventual demise of the Soviet Union.

Like I said, sometimes you have to fight and waiting too long make the job much more expensive in lives and treasure - while China and Russia wait like vultures and watch for their opportunities.

You Two need to read more: the Mosaddegh government in 1953 was moving the Iranians closer to Moscow while the Cold War was really at a critical stage the Soviets had just tested their first thermonuclear weapon).

Had the Soviets gained access to Iranian ports and of course the critical chokepoint of the Straits of Hormuz, the West would have been effectively cut off from most of our sources of oil. Oil is crucial in time of war, and this was an unacceptable risk to the West.

Mosaddegh's overthrow didn't cause Khomenei: the Shah and Savak - and a weak President - caused Khomenei.

I am aware of these things. And yet, 66 years later the matter remains unresolved and we are still dealing with the consequences of that act.

If we try to assess the situation independently of the coup, we will come to nonsense answers because nobody there sees anything through this lens that cuts off all data before 1979.

We have to look at things through our lens and not worry excessively about our people's lenses.

The matter at hand in 1953 was the rapid escalation of the Cold War and the real potential of massive thermonuclear war - WW III and annihilation.

Through today's lens we have a theocratic state who attacks us and kills our people and continues to develop nuclear weapons and intercontinental delivery systems. No surprise that we are considering our options, right?

The Soviets were already out - the issue at hand was oil nationalization and the concessions held by the British.

A little bit of fair play back then on that issue could have saved the world a lot of grief.