A New War Revives an Old Pattern

The latest conflict involving Iran has revived a familiar debate about the long history of American military intervention in the Middle East — and the risks that come with it.

Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has acted as the dominant outside power in the region. Yet time and again, US presidents have promised to reduce involvement there, only to find themselves drawn back in.

The current conflict, driven by military action under Donald Trump against Iran’s leadership, is widely viewed by analysts as the third Gulf war. And many warn it may prove the most dangerous and unpredictable yet.

For decades, attempts to reshape governments across the Middle East have produced consequences far beyond Washington’s expectations. Critics say the pattern is clear: interventions aimed at removing regimes often trigger instability that is harder to control than the governments they replace.

The First Gulf War: A Limited Success

The first major Gulf conflict came in 1990 when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, triggering a US-led coalition response.

Under President George H. W. Bush, coalition forces launched the Gulf War to push Iraqi troops out of Kuwait. The campaign was swift and decisive, with the ground war lasting just 100 hours.

Crucially, Bush chose not to advance on Baghdad or attempt to overthrow Saddam’s government, limiting the war’s objective to restoring Kuwaiti sovereignty. The decision helped preserve international support and maintain a broad coalition of Arab states.

Yet the conflict left important lessons. Kurdish and Shia groups inside Iraq were encouraged to rise up against Saddam but were left exposed when US forces stopped short of intervening directly. Both uprisings were violently crushed by Iraqi forces.

The war also marked a turning point in the region’s military landscape. Hundreds of thousands of US troops deployed to the Gulf, and in the years that followed, American bases spread across the region — forming what analysts later described as the infrastructure of long-term US military dominance.

The Iraq War: Ambition and Miscalculation

More than a decade later, the Iraq War launched by George W. Bush would dramatically reshape the region.

The invasion was justified largely on the claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. But no such weapons were ever found, exposing a major intelligence failure that damaged US credibility internationally.

Supporters of the war believed removing Saddam Hussein would transform the Middle East politically. Advocates argued that a democratic Iraq could inspire reform across the region.

Among those who publicly supported the removal of Saddam was Israeli political leader Benjamin Netanyahu, who predicted the fall of the Iraqi regime would have “positive reverberations” throughout the Middle East.

Instead, the collapse of Saddam’s government unleashed forces that US planners had not anticipated.

Sectarian tensions between Sunni and Shia communities escalated into violence. State institutions weakened or collapsed. Iran’s regional influence expanded significantly, particularly inside Iraq.

Former British intelligence chief John Sawers later described the situation after the invasion as “total chaos,” arguing that little preparation had been made for governing the country once Saddam was removed.

The war’s human and financial costs were enormous. Estimates suggest the conflict may have cost the United States roughly $2 trillion and contributed to the emergence of the extremist group Islamic State.

Analysts say the experience highlighted a deeper flaw in the concept of regime change itself: removing an authoritarian government does not automatically produce a stable political system.

Building the Case for War

Before the Iraq invasion, the US government made extensive efforts to justify military action.

In 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell delivered a dramatic presentation at the United Nations Security Council, using satellite images and intelligence reports to argue that Iraq had biological weapons programs.

The claims later proved inaccurate, but the presentation illustrated the effort to secure international legitimacy for the war.

In contrast, critics say the current confrontation with Iran has unfolded with far less public explanation.

Inside the Trump administration, officials have offered multiple justifications for military action. Some cite Iran’s nuclear ambitions; others point to missile development or the threat posed to US forces and allies.

Key figures including Marco Rubio, JD Vance and Pete Hegseth have each presented different rationales for the campaign.

One argument advanced by Rubio suggested that the United States acted pre-emptively because it expected an Israeli strike on Iran would lead to attacks against American forces.

Critics counter that Washington could instead have attempted to restrain Israel, highlighting the complex political relationship between the two allies.

The Dangers of Regime Collapse

One of the biggest uncertainties surrounding the current conflict is what might happen if Iran’s government collapses.

Iran is a large and diverse country with numerous ethnic minorities, including Kurds, Baloch, Arabs and Azerbaijanis. Analysts warn that weakening central authority could open the door to fragmentation or internal conflict.

Such a scenario would echo fears raised during earlier wars in the region.

After the fall of Saddam Hussein, the collapse of Iraqi state institutions helped create a power vacuum that armed groups quickly filled.

Similar risks now loom over Iran. If the country were to fracture into competing regional authorities, it could become a hub for terrorism, smuggling and organised crime.

An Unanswered Question

The history of US involvement in the Middle East suggests a consistent challenge: military victories do not necessarily translate into political stability.

During the Iraq invasion, US commander David Petraeus famously asked a question that captured the uncertainty surrounding the campaign.

“Tell me how this ends,” he said.

More than two decades later, as conflict with Iran escalates, that same question continues to haunt policymakers in Washington.

Based on original article

Not sure how it ends, but along the way we're seeing $115/bbl WTI Crude, up 26% just from Friday.

Nikkei is down 7% so far Monday morning.

US Dow futures are down 1050 in the pre-market.

One way it ends is a massive Blue Wave in November, with Dems retaking the House and Senate, and Trump effectively neutered.......and that is before the body bags start arriving at Dover in bulk. Trump can then, if he lives, go about spending another $71 million per year for his golf, and spend the rest of his time talking to interior decorators about how to deck out his Qatari B747 for his retirement years.

Trump had better make up a definition of "success" and then claim he achieved it and stop the madness, lest the entire world tumble into Depression. There's way too much debt and fallout from the introduction of AI, plus tariffs, plus already falling employment and GDP, to then add $115 oil on top of it.

Iran seems destined to become a second North Korea, with a deeply radicalized, staunchly anti-Western, hereditary government (but whose founder was blown up in an American military attack), with 208 to 209 billion barrels of proven crude oil reserves and more than ever determined to consolidate the regime with thermonuclear bombs.

Imagine how vicious Kim Jong Il would have been if his father, sister, and niece had been blown up by H.S. Truman.

What could possibly go wrong?

37 minutes ago, AndreasHG said:

Iran seems destined to become a second North Korea

I think stopping Iran from becoming a second Nth. Korea is more to the point and a second Nth. Korea ran by fundamentalist Islamic terrorists bent on the destruction of the west.

Replace "intervention" with "aggression and theft", and everything comes into place. When Americans are around check your pockets whether everything is still there. Ask the Venezuelans where is their oil.

"Kurdish and Shia groups inside Iraq were encouraged to rise up against Saddam but were left exposed when US forces stopped short of intervening directly. Both uprisings were violently crushed by Iraqi forces."

Just to be clear, it was George. H.W. Bush who encouraged them. And he was roundly condemned for it once it became clear that he would do nothing to support these Iraqis.

I disagree with the premise of the OP, and just another USA hit piece, since not including the UK's MI6 along with CIA's involvement of Iran's government control.

Though have to go back a few decades, before 1990 Gulf War. All started with Shah's return to power with the 1953 overthrowing of democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, known as Operation Ajax. Which also gave the UK control again, of Iran's oil, via what is now known as BP.

Of course that all changed with the 1979 revolution, and evil Islam became a dominant force now, with the funding of terrorism by the supreme leader against all us infidels.

Since losing control of the oil, what better way to control the price of, than controlling the terror, and an acceptable level of middle east instability. Iran getting a little too strong now, with greater capabilities to reach outside the middle east, so needs to get knocked back a few decades.

Enough is enough, and a new sheriff in town. Israel needs to expand, so while at it, lets take down Iran, and IF all goes well, CN will be the big loser with Iran's regime change.

CN saw the writing on the wall, and explains the big push toward BEV development, along with controlling as much raw materials as possible. It's all and always about money & trade. Nothing more, nothing less.

22 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

I disagree with the premise of the OP, and just another USA hit piece, since not including the UK's MI6 along with CIA's involvement of Iran's government control.

Though have to go back a few decades, before 1990 Gulf War. All started with Shah's return to power with the 1953 overthrowing of democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, known as Operation Ajax. Which also gave the UK control again, of Iran's oil, via what is now known as BP.

Of course that all changed with the 1979 revolution, and evil Islam became a dominant force now, with the funding of terrorism by the supreme leader against all us infidels.

Since losing control of the oil, what better way to control the price of, than controlling the terror, and an acceptable level of middle east instability. Iran getting a little too strong now, with greater capabilities to reach outside the middle east, so needs to get knocked back a few decades.

Enough is enough, and a new sheriff in town. Israel needs to expand, so while at it, lets take down Iran, and IF all goes well, CN will be the big loser with Iran's regime change.

CN saw the writing on the wall, and explains the big push toward BEV development, along with controlling as much raw materials as possible. It's all and always about money & trade. Nothing more, nothing less.

There is only one time in aerial war history that a surrender was brought about by bombing, i.e. the US nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Nothing will go well in this war, just like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. The Strait of Hormuz is indefensible. Can you imagine the cost of the US Navy escorting each and every oil tanker through there?

Boots on the ground won't happen. Trump would be impeached by both sides of politics if he tried, and no ally is going to be suckered into participating either.

IIRC it was Curtis Le May who threatened to bomb Hanoi back to the Stone Age. That went well, didn't it?

^ There are already boots on the ground and may more will follow.

46 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

There is only one time in aerial war history that a surrender was brought about by bombing, i.e. the US nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Nothing will go well in this war, just like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. The Strait of Hormuz is indefensible. Can you imagine the cost of the US Navy escorting each and every oil tanker through there?

Boots on the ground won't happen. Trump would be impeached by both sides of politics if he tried, and no ally is going to be suckered into participating either.

IIRC it was Curtis Le May who threatened to bomb Hanoi back to the Stone Age. That went well, didn't it?

No need to surrender anything, just a different head of govt.

UK & US have been escorting, providing safe travel through the straits for decades.

... UK, officially since Stena Impero in 2019

... US, during 'Tanker War' back in 1987, and usually a CSG in the area, to keep Iran in check and US shipping lanes open.

Boots on ground aren't needed, or in the game plan.

Japan was more concerned of being controlled by Russia, seeing RU make their way through CN unimpeded, so chose losing to USA.

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

UK & US have been escorting, providing safe travel through the straits for decades.

... UK, officially since Stena Impero in 2019

The UK is NOT escorting anything in the Gulf region now as it has no Naval assets there at all.

The last frigate was withdrawn last year and the last MCMV arrived back on a sealift vessel this month!

PS; The USN no longer has any dedicated MCMV's in the Gulf either now.

16 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

The UK is NOT escorting anything in the Gulf region now as it has no Naval assets there at all.

The last frigate was withdrawn last year and the last MCMV arrived back on a sealift vessel this month!

PS; The USN no longer has any dedicated MCMV's in the Gulf either now.

UK only having 63 naval vessels, some even sea worthy, so wouldn't expect much help, and not needed since USN keeps a presence in the area.

UK does operate RAF in the area, and apparently other assets ...

Interesting fact:

Trump's war of choice is already less popular with the American people than the Vietnam War was the day in April 1975 when the last helicopters were leaving the roof of the US embassy in Saigon.

Wars even tend to get less popular with time.

6 hours ago, CharlieH said:

A New War Revives an Old Pattern

And the propaganda used to manufacture the consent of the public to go to war is the exact same pattern that has been used for decades.

Target a country to be overthrown.
Dehumanize them by calling them a regime.
Make outrageous allegation (lies) like "the regime kills its own people" and "the regime is a dictatorship, "the regime oppresses its own people and puts them in concentration camps."
Invoke that the "regime" is on the cusp of using weapons of mass destruction."
Invoke that the "regime" is about to invade their neighbors and plan to take over the region, (country, world).

Endlessly repeat the lie.
Wait for the media and public to begin to parrot the propaganda.
Suggest to the public that they'll benefit from the resources that the US will steal once the country is overthrown.
Go to war.

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

No need to surrender anything, just a different head of govt.

UK & US have been escorting, providing safe travel through the straits for decades.

... UK, officially since Stena Impero in 2019

... US, during 'Tanker War' back in 1987, and usually a CSG in the area, to keep Iran in check and US shipping lanes open.

Boots on ground aren't needed, or in the game plan.

Japan was more concerned of being controlled by Russia, seeing RU make their way through CN unimpeded, so chose losing to USA.

Khamenei's son is now the Supreme Leader. I suppose one could call that a different head of government. Definitely not regime change.

None of the shipping at the Gulf states can get marine insurance in wartime. 90% of traffic is at a standstill. A few ships are getting through by turning off their AIS transponders.

No US Navy ships are currently escorting oil tankers through the Strait. Normally, an average of 120 cargo ships of various kinds transit every day.

Total US naval forces in the region amount to 30 warships, including 2 aircraft carriers. Do the math, they'd be busier than one-armed wallpaper hangers.

What game plan? From where I sit, it looks like another US clusterf**k to me.

20 minutes ago, Wingate said:

Interesting fact:

Trump's war of choice is already less popular with the American people than the Vietnam War was the day in April 1975 when the last helicopters were leaving the roof of the US embassy in Saigon.

Wars even tend to get less popular with time.

The newest generation don't have the generational memory regarding war, so they are vulnerable to the propaganda. However, Gen-Z doesn't strike me as the types who want to "go to war to defend their countries by engaging in pre-emptive (offensive) military strikes." Can't blame them.

3 minutes ago, connda said:

And the propaganda used to manufacture the consent of the public to go to war is the exact same pattern that has been used for decades.

Target a country to be overthrown.
Dehumanize them by calling them a regime.
Make outrageous allegation (lies) like "the regime kills its own people" and "the regime is a dictatorship, "the regime oppresses its own people and puts them in concentration camps."
Invoke that the "regime" is on the cusp of using weapons of mass destruction."
Invoke that the "regime" is about to invade their neighbors and plan to take over the region, (country, world).

Endlessly repeat the lie.
Wait for the media and public to begin to parrot the propaganda.
Suggest to the public that they'll benefit from the resources that the US will steal once the country is overthrown.
Go to war.

Iran pretty much checks them all off ...

... "the regime kills its own people"

... "the regime is a dictatorship

... "the regime oppresses its own people and puts them in concentration camps." (prison)
... "regime" is on the cusp of using weapons of mass destruction."

If the US begins conscription as the did during 'Nam, I'd begin to recommend to members of the Gen-Z cannon-fodder to register as conscientious objectors.

4 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Khamenei's son is now the Supreme Leader. I suppose one could call that a different head of government. Definitely not regime change.

... I'm complete different than my father was. So if they don't bump him off, it's a start

None of the shipping at the Gulf states can get marine insurance in wartime. 90% of traffic is at a standstill. A few ships are getting through by turning off their AIS transponders.

... They can if they want to pay for it, but why bother, it will be over soon enough and I think down 94%

No US Navy ships are currently escorting oil tankers through the Strait. Normally, an average of 120 cargo ships of various kinds transit every day.

... No need to, as they'll just take out any Iran base that poses a threat

Total US naval forces in the region amount to 30 warships, including 2 aircraft carriers. Do the math, they'd be busier than one-armed wallpaper hangers.

What game plan? From where I sit, it looks like another US clusterf**k to me..

... any war is always a clusterF**k, and I am, and always have been against the use of any US military not protecting the USA. With a couple 100M folks, and more firearms that owners of, nobody is invading the USA. So IMHO, USA doesn't even need a military, except to secure the border.

7 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Iran pretty much checks them all off ...

... "the regime kills its own people"

... "the regime is a dictatorship

... "the regime oppresses its own people and puts them in concentration camps." (prison)
... "regime" is on the cusp of using weapons of mass destruction."

... "regime" is on the cusp of using weapons of mass destruction."

Really? Anything to back up that claim with?

PS. Don't worry, no need to reply. We all know you've got nothing.

1 minute ago, BLMFem said:

... "regime" is on the cusp of using weapons of mass destruction."

Really? Anything to back up that claim with?

PS. Don't worry, no need to reply. We all know you've got nothing.

They were developing nukes, and if successful, pretty sure they'd take out Israel with the first one.

... "Death to Israel, Death to America" ... ring any bells

4 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Iran pretty much checks them all off ...

... "the regime kills its own people"

... "the regime is a dictatorship

... "the regime oppresses its own people and puts them in concentration camps." (prison)
... "regime" is on the cusp of using weapons of mass destruction."

🐂💩 Bravo Sierra my friend. Well, pack your kids up to go fight in the US new wars to promote Mom, Ford Trucks, and Apple Pie and "Truth, Justice, and the American Way", and a few Billion Dollars for the dynasty of Trump and Friends. Gotta have cannon fodder to be used in regime change. Sucks when you're damaged in a war and told by the VA Hospital to go "pack sand." Once a US soldiers is no longer of use to the US regime, you're discarded.

Btw KhunLA, when did you become a stenographer for the propaganda arm of the US regime? Good job. If you're too old to fight and die for this new US adventurism and foreign wars (religious war as well it seems), send your kids and your grand-kids off to be cannon-fodder.

What a sad-ass state of affairs. And my fellow Boomers are literally the worse. Didn't you people learn a god-dam thing from the Vietnam War no less the rest of the wars that Team American World Police have drawn us into from the end of WW2 until the present. <Head-Shake> 🙄 Gawd help us.

You war-lovers can have the thread. I'm outta here.................

I'll leave with this.

Russian Oil Stocks as of today thanks to Operation Epic Fury. Congratulations Trump Administration!

Putin thanks you. ❤️ Great Job!!!

9 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

18 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Khamenei's son is now the Supreme Leader. I suppose one could call that a different head of government. Definitely not regime change.

18 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

There is a hefty premium for additional wartime insurance.

IIRC Trump said he would end the Ukraine -Russia conflict in 24 hours. So excuse me for being skeptical about his 4-5 week forecast.

I agree completely with your last comment. What on earth is America afraid of? Why does the USA spend more on its military than the next 9 countries combined?

Or could it be, as Eisenhower inferred in his farewell address, that the military-industrial complex wants perpetual conflict to sustain it?

Eisenhower deliberately left out "political" from the phrase, although he knew kickbacks to politicians on both sides were going on by defense industry contractors.

15 minutes ago, connda said:

🐂💩 Bravo Sierra my friend. Well, pack your kids up to go fight in the US new wars to promote Mom, Ford Trucks, and Apple Pie and "Truth, Justice, and the American Way", and a few Billion Dollars for the dynasty of Trump and Friends. Gotta have cannon fodder to be used in regime change. Sucks when you're damaged in a war and told by the VA Hospital to go "pack sand." Once a US soldiers is no longer of use to the US regime, you're discarded.

Btw KhunLA, when did you become a stenographer for the propaganda arm of the US regime? Good job. If you're too old to fight and die for this new US adventurism and foreign wars (religious war as well it seems), send your kids and your grand-kids off to be cannon-fodder.

What a sad-ass state of affairs. And my fellow Boomers are literally the worse. Didn't you people learn a god-dam thing from the Vietnam War no less the rest of the wars that Team American World Police have drawn us into from the end of WW2 until the present. <Head-Shake> 🙄 Gawd help us.

The wars is the same as all wars after WW2 ... corporate enrichment.

stenographer ... Don't care for any administration, just correcting silly statements people make.

15 minutes ago, connda said:

You war-lovers can have the thread. I'm outta here.................

I'm against all wars, as I stated elsewhere ...

... "I am, and always have been against the use of any US military not protecting the USA. With a couple 100M folks, and more firearms that owners of, nobody is invading the USA. So IMHO, USA doesn't even need a military, except to secure the border." ...

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, Roosevelt described it as "a day of infamy". It united America.

Why the Iranians would think differently about being attacked is beyond my understanding.

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

They were developing nukes, and if successful, pretty sure they'd take out Israel with the first one.

... "Death to Israel, Death to America" ... ring any bells

You have heard of Mutual Assured Destruction?

Every nuclear power knows if they use a nuke, everyone else will pile on to destroy them.

Israel has had nukes for 60 years. It has never used them. Why do you think that is?

6 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

You have heard of Mutual Assured Destruction?

Every nuclear power knows if they use a nuke, everyone else will pile on to destroy them.

Israel has had nukes for 60 years. It has never used them. Why do you think that is?

Mango & papaya comparison to a nuke war.

If Iran nuked Israel, don't think anyone would really care. A bit different if USA, RU, EU/NATO & CN started nuking each other.

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, Roosevelt described it as "a day of infamy". It united America.

Why the Iranians would think differently about being attacked is beyond my understanding.

Folks can think all they want, not much they can do