President Joe Biden’s administration is publicly attempting to avoid a war with Iran, but American officials continue to fan the flames of war with incendiary rhetoric as the war in Gaza risks expanding into a broader regional conflict.

For instance, on Nov. 26, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said the Biden administration needs to take a “massive retaliation” against Iran to end attacks on U.S. assets. Ultimately, congressmembers, the Biden administration, and former defense officials are all sharing sentiments that Washington could escalate its move toward armed conflict in the face of Iranian aggression.

 

But despite the confidence of hawks, a war with Iran would be disastrous for the United States and the broader Middle East.

Regardless of the goals of the mission — from destroying Iran’s nuclear capabilities to regime change — there are only two real paths for Washington to directly attack Iran: an air and naval campaign designed to impose significant costs on the regime; or a ground invasion dependent on establishing air and naval superiority. Both options, however, are more untenable than policymakers suggest, and reflect a fundamental miscalculation of Iran’s military strength.

A campaign that relies on air and naval power to rapidly beat Iran into submission will meet significant challenges. Iran’s military is designed to prevent such an invasion and impose significant costs on any potential attack by air or sea. They have 600-mile range cruise missiles, advanced long-range air defense systems, short-range air defense systems, anti-aircraft missiles, 3,000 ballistic missiles, 6,000 naval mines, and the most capable unmanned aerial vehicles in the region.

 

FULL STORY

Let us hope that doesn’t come to pass I’m afaraid that would play rite into hammas plans for starting their war with Israel 

While i do not think a war with Iran would be a walk in the park, I do recall similar commentary made before the USA wiped the floor with Iraq's armed forces. People do not really get just how powerful the USA military is, especially when gloves are off. There's a reason even hardcore USA adversaries are weary crossing some lines.

A post with content from an unapproved social media source contravening our Community Standards has been removed.  

16 minutes ago, Morch said:

While i do not think a war with Iran would be a walk in the park, I do recall similar commentary made before the USA wiped the floor with Iraq's armed forces. 

What a great success that turned out to be.

Disastrous for who?  I would say it depends who sides with Iran and what kind of support is given.  Most Arab countries don't want to see another potential nuclear power in the Middle East, especially a Persian one governed by religious fanatics.  Both Russia and China do not want to see a nuclear armed Iran.  Besides, Russia is fully engaged in Ukraine and China is busy repairing its economy.

While the U.S. may have bases in the surrounding area within range of Iranian missiles, Diego Garcia is not.  The U.S. already has formidable air power in the area.  I don't think boots on the ground would be necessary to cripple Iran's military and severely damage its already weak economy. 

Personally, I think there are safer and better ways to contain Iran's belligerence without resorting to an all out war.

 

Just now, roquefort said:

What a great success that turned out to be.

 

There's that.

But the topic (and my comment) were in reference to military confrontation.

The OP here should have been labeled in the forum for what it is... an OPINION piece instead of a NEWS report. And one authored by a professor affiliated with the libertarian Cato Institute.

 

"Jordan Cohen is a policy analyst in Defense and Foreign Policy at the Cato Institute"

 

"Cato advocates for a limited governmental role in domestic and foreign affairs..."

 

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

 

The cowardly inaction of the US president is paving the way for a regional conflict by hoping Iran will be nice has only emboldened them, unintentionally or by deliberate intent to incite a war. Either way it’s stupid. The issue with the Houthis should have been settled by now as well as the attacks on the US bases in Iraq and Syria. Instead the US is flinching and hesitating, deadly mistakes.

A more even-handed assessment of the situation recently appeared as a news report in the New York Times, as follows:

 

A U.S.-Iranian Miscalculation Could Lead to a Larger War, Officials Say

U.S. forces and militias backed by Iran have launched tit-for-tat attacks, fueling concerns as Israeli forces have also clashed with Iranian-backed groups.

 

Nov. 29, 2023

 

"Neither Washington nor Tehran wants the conflict in the Gaza Strip to trigger a wider war in the region, officials in both capitals say.

 

But in the seven weeks since the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, Iranian-backed militias have launched more than 70 rocket and drone attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria. The Pentagon, for its part, has responded with four rounds of airstrikes, killing as many as 15 people, U.S. officials say.

 

(more)

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/29/us/politics/israel-iran-gaza-us-attacks.html

8 minutes ago, novacova said:

The cowardly inaction of the US president is paving the way for a regional conflict by hoping Iran will be nice has only emboldened them, unintentionally or by deliberate intent to incite a war. Either way it’s stupid. The issue with the Houthis should have been settled by now as well as the attacks on the US bases in Iraq and Syria. Instead the US is flinching and hesitating, deadly mistakes.

I think it is Lloyd Austin who is calling the shots, is waiting for more American blood to be spilled.  So far no deaths reported, so no real push back.  Waiting for outrage from the American public when lives are lost to actually retaliate is the coward's way out.  The Houthis in Yemen and the insurgents in Iraq are not one bit deterred by warning shots.

Spend a trillion on defense but then get a yellow president, kinda cancels it out.

Russia and China will form a coalition to end US hegemony in the Middle East.  bye bye Washington.. 

1 minute ago, malibukid said:

Russia and China will form a coalition to end US hegemony in the Middle East.  bye bye Washington.. 

 

Russians hate Chinese. Chinese hate Russians. Both Chinese and Russians hate Arabs. Arabs hate everyone.

 

Nothing is going to end.

2 minutes ago, malibukid said:

Russia and China will form a coalition to end US hegemony in the Middle East.  bye bye Washington.. 

 

Of course they will. There there.

1 hour ago, roquefort said:

What a great success that turned out to be.

Yeah now Iraq seems to be a failed state...if there was no oil then the west would depart quickly.  Just like such a great success in Afghanistan - now that country is back to the stone age.  All those females that had jobs, were going to school, etc are now back sitting on floor at home.  Another wasted country

their people and the US debt.

24 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Of course they will. There there.

Yeah they are chomping at the bit...uh failing economies too!  They won't be able to send any military so the locals will bleed them dry just like they did the

Russians in Afghanistan.  

48 minutes ago, novacova said:

The cowardly inaction of the US president is paving the way for a regional conflict by hoping Iran will be nice has only emboldened them, unintentionally or by deliberate intent to incite a war. Either way it’s stupid. The issue with the Houthis should have been settled by now as well as the attacks on the US bases in Iraq and Syria. Instead the US is flinching and hesitating, deadly mistakes.

Settled.....as in how the issue with the Taliban was settled? Handing the country back to them after 20 years, trillions of $ and thousands of US lives lost. Ditto Iraq. The US cannot 'win' these regional wars, they just create another generation of terrorists that grow up hating the US.

Based on what an Iranian friend (currently in Iran) tells me, there seems widespread disgust with the mullahs and the conditions they've imposed to pursue militarism. Note the recent rebellions--that, sadly, were unsupported by the feckless current USA regime. He believes that if real help were given to the disaffected, the mullahs could be toppled and a sane government established. Sounds good. :)

 

Hamas seems to enjoy popular support, however.  Now USA analysts thought the Iraqis would welcome regime change and real democracy as well. Wishful thinking.

25 minutes ago, Celsius said:

 

Russians hate Chinese. Chinese hate Russians. Both Chinese and Russians hate Arabs. Arabs hate everyone.

 

Nothing is going to end.

Except maybe the world...sems even  within "developed" counries there are daily reports of heated arguments leading to peoples' deaths.  No one seems happy

lately except a few of us in Thailand.  Now they will have the winter weather to add to their woes.

31 minutes ago, deadbeat said:

Spend a trillion on defense but then get a yellow president, kinda cancels it out.

hey he isn't yellow, did you hear him say he was awarded a US Naval Academy chance but decided to go to Delware State instead - oh yeahj just another f'n

lie from the # 1 politician...almost lies as much as Trump - another real hero except or heel spurs.

3 minutes ago, roquefort said:

Settled.....as in how the issue with the Taliban was settled? Handing the country back to them after 20 years, trillions of $ and thousands of US lives lost. Ditto Iraq. The US cannot 'win' these regional wars, they just create another generation of terrorists that grow up hating the US.

Started in Korea - government politicions continue to want to control every conflict the US military is involved in.  Our troops get on set of rules that WE must

abide by while the enemy does whatever they want to do...see it every time!  The AFGHAN MOUNTAIN folks beat the Brits, the Russians and the US - and what

did they end up with?  Back to the stone age, just where the men want their women to be - slaves only!

 

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

The OP here should have been labeled in the forum for what it is... an OPINION piece instead of a NEWS report. And one authored by a professor affiliated with the libertarian Cato Institute.

 

"Jordan Cohen is a policy analyst in Defense and Foreign Policy at the Cato Institute"

 

"Cato advocates for a limited governmental role in domestic and foreign affairs..."

 

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

 

Ever since VN, the politicians control what the military can do....

9 minutes ago, roquefort said:

Settled.....as in how the issue with the Taliban was settled? Handing the country back to them after 20 years, trillions of $ and thousands of US lives lost. Ditto Iraq. The US cannot 'win' these regional wars, they just create another generation of terrorists that grow up hating the US.

It’s not about winning wars. It’s about maintaining containment in order to maintaining and keeping commerce flowing and having the upper hand and influence of the global economy. Imagine what your life would be like if the allies completely backed out of the ME. The trillions spent would dwarf the consequences. 

7 minutes ago, BigStar said:

Based on what an Iranian friend (currently in Iran) tells me, there seems widespread disgust with the mullahs and the conditions they've imposed to pursue militarism. Note the recent rebellions--that, sadly, were unsupported by the feckless current USA regime. He believes that if real help were given to the disaffected, the mullahs could be toppled and a sane government established. Sounds good. :)

 

Hamas seems to enjoy popular support, however.  Now USA analysts thought the Iraqis would welcome regime change and real democracy as well. Wishful thinking.

Same thoughts about the Afghani'... In Iran 1989- same thing...the Shah wasn't his oldself, at that time women had total freedom, were going to college free, free medical etc...they traded that so that those priests in exile (France) could come back and make women be slaves again!  got what they deserve for sure but now the rest of the world will be having bigger problems with the Iranians...just wait, like "little rocket man" once he got nukes...Chinese lost any control they had over him.

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

A more even-handed assessment of the situation recently appeared as a news report in the New York Times, as follows:

 

A U.S.-Iranian Miscalculation Could Lead to a Larger War, Officials Say

U.S. forces and militias backed by Iran have launched tit-for-tat attacks, fueling concerns as Israeli forces have also clashed with Iranian-backed groups.

 

Nov. 29, 2023

 

"Neither Washington nor Tehran wants the conflict in the Gaza Strip to trigger a wider war in the region, officials in both capitals say.

 

But in the seven weeks since the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, Iranian-backed militias have launched more than 70 rocket and drone attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria. The Pentagon, for its part, has responded with four rounds of airstrikes, killing as many as 15 people, U.S. officials say.

 

(more)

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/29/us/politics/israel-iran-gaza-us-attacks.html

 

48 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

I think it is Lloyd Austin who is calling the shots, is waiting for more American blood to be spilled.  So far no deaths reported, so no real push back.  Waiting for outrage from the American public when lives are lost to actually retaliate is the coward's way out.  The Houthis in Yemen and the insurgents in Iraq are not one bit deterred by warning shots.

The last time a military general tried to disobey the politicos, (MacArthur) check out what happened to that WWII hero.  Austin can only bow down to the President and the Congress.

46 minutes ago, deadbeat said:

Spend a trillion on defense but then get a yellow president, kinda cancels it out.

If you are referring to Biden, I suggest 'yellow' is preferrable to an orange one with bones spurs.

58 minutes ago, deadbeat said:

Spend a trillion on defense but then get a yellow president, kinda cancels it out.

Will YOU be the first to volunteer to go to a war that nobody wants, and put YOUR body in harms way?

 

Or are you happy enough to be a keyboard warrior and let others stop the bullets instead of you?

21 minutes ago, Presnock said:

Same thoughts about the Afghani'... In Iran 1989- same thing...the Shah wasn't his oldself, at that time women had total freedom, were going to college free, free medical etc...they traded that so that those priests in exile (France) could come back and make women be slaves again!  got what they deserve for sure

Good point. The Iranians are a bit different in that the memory lingers of how things were a lot better under the Shah and his Western-influenced reforms. They also like to distinguish themselves from Arabs. The well-educated are aware of a proud history of the Persians pre-Islam.

 

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how this all plays out. We seem on the cusp of something.

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

The OP here should have been labeled in the forum for what it is... an OPINION piece instead of a NEWS report. And one authored by a professor affiliated with the libertarian Cato Institute.

 

"Jordan Cohen is a policy analyst in Defense and Foreign Policy at the Cato Institute"

 

"Cato advocates for a limited governmental role in domestic and foreign affairs..."

 

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

 

It seems odd that Cato Institute would favor another war, but supporters of the Israeli government's agenda on Iran want to get into any organization where they can have a platform to influence opinion of various elites.

Iran is a puppet master who has it's fingers in every trouble spot around the world either directly or by proxy and they aren't hiding it, so the sooner Iran's mullahs will be gone the better and if it's mean war than so be it because this is how its works in this world...