Bingo.
You seem to be mistaking a response with war. They are very, very different. And Iran has a plethora of option at their disposal that wouldn't lead to war.
Not denying this forum has a double standard for this kind of stuff and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. But the previous poster asked for a reason and that's the reason.
Already said that this will definitely lead to a significant increase in missile strikes and terrorist attacks. Still not the same thing as an explicit ground war.
I understand that fear, but even just the actual logistical constraints of war with Iran are gigantic. Iran is not Iraq, Iran has a strong centralized government, large comparatively well-trained and equipped military, and is many times the size and population of Iraq.
Do you think they have total control of their proxies
So again I ask, what is the stopping point here? What action will Iran be able to take that both satisfies the nationalistic fervor brewing and being fed but not be met with additional escalatory actions by the US? Which Iran will then also feel obligated to respond to?
And what stops that from escalating further?
Forget Trump; RGB dying this year might do it. A decision declaring federal tax powers unconstitutional and starve Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security is fully in play at that point.
My guess would be Iran could further disrupt the strait, they could attack an oil refinery, take action against US proxies, etc.
Ok, what do you think would happen if Iran directly attacked the US or assassinated Trump?
So then what happens after each of those actions? You think America responds in the same escalatory manner they have to each Iranian action so far? If not, what magically changes?
It's "their team's" play, so they're gonna stand behind it.
Coercing America's allies? Good luck, he's done everything he can to drive them away from us. Not to mention, we were already on shaky ground after Iraq.
You're talking about two different things. Afghanistan was not a response to the US being directly attacked by a country's military nor the president being assassinated. Again, that was the scenario that I was responding to. I didn't just bring it up for the hell of it.
Can people stop with this nonsense. War with Iran would be the final nail in the coffin of Trump's campaign. It is windy unpopular.
The question is what practical thing are you suggesting? US goes there and kills almost all Iranians? US occupies Iran and declares that it is no longer called Iran and then sell it to highest bidder?
He doesn't know what he's talking about....
There is no scenario where America would not invoke WWIII or universal international sanctioning if our response to a modest direct Iranian attack was glassing the country of 82 million mostly civilians. Or even just the 9 million in Tehran.
Ok, since I don't know what I'm talking about, what do you think the response would be if Iran directly attacked the US or assassinated Trump?
The Trump administration doesn't act according to geopolitical aims in matter of foreign policy
"Assassinated our head of state" is a cassus belli that gets you a lot of leeway in disproportionate response. As long as nukes didn't come out, most of the world outside of the middle east would, sadly, not care in the least if the country was glassed in this hypothetical.
