War in the Middle East
Doublethink
Admin, 8th Day Host
So Trump’s America & Israel have started a war of choice with Iran, with the aim of regime change. This is how we got ISIS/DAESH last time.
Do we think that Trump will follow through to his stated goal, will he send ground troops ?
Do we think that Trump will follow through to his stated goal, will he send ground troops ?
Comments
The UK government is being circumspect, and Starmer refused permission for Trump to use American airbases in this country, but AFAIK we are still officially allies of both the US and Israel.
Quite what our response will be if UK bases in the Middle East are attacked remains to be seen.
About the only way to ensure a regime change in Iran is to do a Maduro. They will have to go in to capture the Supreme Leader, dead or alive. But first, you will have to find where he is hiding. Yes, that will mean troop insertion. Yes, that will mean dead personnel. Yes, that will mean body bags. But Trump's approval rating is so underwater (would have used another term, but this is not hell), I do not think it can get much lower.
Mrs. Gramps had been planning on going to a protest gathering this morning. Now they have something new to protest about.
Mr. Trump: you broke it, you own it.
Thanks !
Hard to say -- up to this point he's favored in and out, one and done types of things. We bombed Iran's nuclear facilities last year; he said we obliterated their nuclear capability in one fell swoop, and that was that. He removed Maduro from Venezuela, and again, no follow-up. And there's been a whole bunch of other smaller things: strikes in Somalia and Yemen and other stuff I can't remember. He and his people are treating the boat strikes in the Caribbean like a video game.
But the stated goal here, regime change in Iran, is much larger and much harder. The typical problem with US wars in recent decades is that we don't have an end-game, but this seems even less well thought-out than usual. He seems to think if we drop enough bombs, the Iranians will topple the government. Creating yet more chaos in Iran might or might not further de-stabilize the government; I doubt very much we're hard at work supporting an organized resistance. Reuters reports that a recent CIA assessment concluded that if Khamenei were killed, other hardliners from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard would take over.
So the US would need to send in ground troops if he really wanted regime change. That would be extremely unpopular, but he doesn't care about popularity anymore. It would also likely be unsuccessful, and he might care about that, if anyone has the nerve to tell him about it. Add to that, Trump is incredibly erratic. A lot depends on who has his ear, what he hears on Fox News, what stupid thing he saw on X, how he misinterpreted the one bullet point he might have actually read on the presidential daily briefing, whether someone said "this will make you look big and strong" vs "this is going to make you look weak."
So I'm going to go with where I started: "hard to say" because this whole thing doesn't fit with his usual modus operandi of smaller things he can declare (whether or not they are) immediate and complete successes.
There could be a way we may not have to insert troops, if the SL is gone. But that is assuming the new Iranian revolution on the ground can take advantage of the presumed void.
Displacing a government you don't like through the application of air power alone has been the long unrealized goal of air power enthusiasts. The idea is either that either the middle classes will see the devastation the elites were unable to prevent and depose the rulers or that the working classes have been kept in check only by the oppressive power of the government and will rise up if a bombing campaign gives them a chance. So far neither of these have ever happened, despite repeated trials of the theory.
Yes, that's what I linked to upthread.
Insert Tobias Funke meme.
I think that's what has made it into what it is. Imperial meddling has made the middle east into a blood muddle.
I've also heard that Iran's political structure is built with pretty deep succession lines because of course they knew this was coming. They're not stupid.
I believe the Iranian constitution stipulates if the Supreme leader dies, a trifecta is formed, consisting of the president, a member of the judiciary, and a leader of the Revolutionary Guard. They select the next SL who is then approved in their parliment.
However, it is unknown how many other government leaders have been killed.
Tricky for Reform: they want to suck up to Trump (there’s substantial correlation between Reform supporters of Trump supporters in the U.K) but oppose the “boat people” (takes me back to Vietnam post 1975).
Cognitive dissonance has never troubled them before.
Over the last 5 or 6 years, at the lower-ranking university where I work we have acquired disproportionally-large numbers of Iranian technicians, and a few academics. Most of them are at least OK at what they do, some are good, all are nice to deal with and all give the impression that they are keen to be useful because they have no intention to return. I made the mistake a couple of weeks ago of opining about Trump and his military build-up in their earshot; an experience which reminded me slightly of mentioning Thatcher and Reagan in the company of middle-age Poles. They think this could work to the advantage of normal people in Iran. They are understandably less keen to reflect on Trump's motivations and track record.
Interesting the UK is stalling and has not allowed the US to use their bases.
Australia has backed the action as a good thing.
I wonder how many people will come out with the "rules based order" thing this time. Seems to be a generally popular move.
Apparently the EU are meeting today. Will be interesting to see what they say.
I suspect having seen Trump operate, other nations will be unwilling to join in because they doubt sustained American commitment and fear being left with a messy, expensive, ineffective military campaign with little domestic support.
A prolonged civil war will probably result in more civilian casualties in the near term than the existing regime, long term their fate will depend on who wins - Afghanisatan and Syria are not great omens in that regard. If the aspiration is to stop terrorist attacks originating in support from Iran - I seriously doubt it will be effective. It might retard their nuclear development, but that was supposed to happen last year. So it seems like periodically bombing nuclear facilities does not stop long term nuclear development.
Therefore to meet the nuclear goal, you need a cooperative Iranian government - which depends on the side you want winning a civil war / revolution. Which is a toss up at this point.
(ETA just occurred to me that if Venezuela is anything to go by, Trump might do a deal with a surviving member of the regime for oil, and a victory statement.)
I'm not even sure what "rule of law is". Historically, countries, including the US under various administrations have done whatever they want if it suits them.
Whose law? The UN's? Completely ineffective institution. All words. Little action.
It depends on popularity and how it's framed, whether left or right.
Trump was criticised on Venezuela by some. Let's see if the same happens with Iran.
Evidence, please.
So Australia now supports the murders of little girls at school?
The necessity of a clear objective is what Clausewitz meant by saying war is a continuation of politics by other means.
It's not enough to decide that Iran or the world or the US would be better off without the current Iranian regime. You've got to think that the likely outcome of going to war will be better.
I'll outsource the analysis of this to Bob Pape.
In short, the U.S. can use air power to keep killing Supreme Leaders, but air power alone gives them no influence over who the next Supreme Leader will be, or what kind of system emerges if the current regime collapses.
- Consultation with Congress before introducing U.S. forces into hostilities.
- A report within 48 hours of doing so.
- Termination of hostilities within 60 days unless Congress authorizes the action.
Trump is operating under that law. He formally notified eight Congressional leaders of the pending action. He will have to make a full report to Congress by Monday, I think. Congress has sixty days to authorize continued action.Short wars are the order of the day.
Should say Afghanistan and Iraq were under resolutions justifying counterterrorism operations worldwide
Ah, I'd read that the eight hadn't been consulted.
Search terms: "Iranian's celebrate"
Any verifiable sources? I doubt the parents of the kids Trump murdered are celebrating. Even if some Iranians are celebrating, so what? Some people cheered 9/11 too.
The Washington Examiner (which is a conservative paper) claims Rubio notified the eight leaders before the bombing. Here.
But, they were not consulted during the Maduro operation.
Seriously? 81% of Iranians wanted the Ayatollah gone. I'll tell you which Iranian's are not celebrating-- the 40,000 this regime executed for protesting this regime.
Some Iranians will celebrate, of course, apart from the parents of the dead children. What do you suppose they might be feeling right now?
Somewhere around 600,000 people died in the Syrian civil war.
The death of the Ayatollah only really matters if he is replaced by someone leading a better regime.
I want Starmer gone. Doesn't mean I'd be celebrating if, say, Russia bombed London and killed hundreds to make it happen. Can you not see the difference between an end and the means to it?
But I don’t see a happy quick-fix outcome here. Like @Doublethink I see every possibility of a prolonged Iranian civil war with all the complex and deadly layers such a thing entails, including sectarian and factional violence, backing for one side or another by competing geopolitical blocs and extensive destruction and loss of life.
I hope I'm wrong.