Trump's Iranian Gambit – The Saker

[Y_Participant 4591]

Trump’s Iranian Gambit – The Saker

Today I bring you an extract on Iran from one of my favourite political and military heavyweights bar none- The Saker. He can be reached at “http://thesaker.is/”.

Expert in:
Military analysis, intelligence issues, Russian geopolitics, traditional Orthodoxy (Christian)

Bio:
“The Saker” is a pseudonym for a top level American military analyst who lives in Florida, the author of the leading blog covering the Ukraine crisis, The Saker gets an astounding 50,000 page views per day. His articles are some of the most popular on Russia Insider.

Of the many blogs covering the subject, his has shot far ahead of the others, due to his sharp analysis and insight. Readers thought it so important that volunteers have begun putting out French, German, Serbian, and Russian language versions. There is even a New Zealand edition. These editions add another 20,000 views per day to his global reach.

I disagree on one point only in this article – and that is the basis of confrontation is in essence a Zionist domination theory. My view is more that of a Neocon geopolitical move to control oil and currency in the region, with Israel as a convenient excuse to achieve these ends. However that dos not impact on the excellent strategic and tactical aspects of the Iranian Gambit put forward here.

A Saker is a very large falcon, native to Europe and Asia.)

This article was written for the Unz Review: http://www.unz.com/tsaker/trump-presidency-first-snafus-already/

It is a rare privilege to be able to criticize a politician for actually fulfilling his campaign promises but Donald Trump is a unique President and this week he offered us exactly this opportunity.

There was the absolutely terrible press conference by General Flynn which you can see here

So not only did Flynn put Iran “on notice” like a high-school principal would do to a rowdy teenager, but FOX TV is already speaking about “lines in the sand”. Wait – were “lines in the sand” not one of the dumbest features of the Obama Presidency? And now, just one week in the White House, we see Trump doing exactly the same?

This also begs the question of whether a very intelligent man like Flynn seriously and sincerely believes that he can bully or otherwise scare Iran. If he does – then we are all in a lot of trouble.

There is also the troubling aspect of the language chosen. Instead of speaking about “international concern” or the will of the UN Security Council, Flynn decided to use the kind of language typical of a wannabe World Hegemon. Again, been there – done that. Do they really think that this kind of imperial hubris will work better for them than it did for the Neocons?

I sure hope that this week is not a harbinger of what the rest of the Trump Presidency will look like.

Still, It is not too late to change course and return to reality-based politics.

The big problem right now is Iran. Well, not Iran itself, of course, but the stupid anti-Iranian rhetoric of the Trump campaign before the elections. My biggest fear is that while Trump and the people around him have apparently come to the (correct) conclusion that they cannot bully Russia into submission they have decided that they could do that with Iran. If that is really their plan, then they are headed for a major disaster.

For one thing, Iran has been living with the threat of a AngloZionst attack since 38 years, including 23 years of Neocon power in the USA. To think that right now they will be suddenly really frightening and will meekly comply with Uncle Shmuel’s demands is very naïve. The Iranians have been preparing for a war against the US and Israel for almost a quarter of a century – they are fine ready, both militarily and psychologically. Oh sure, the US can most definitely strike at Iran with cruise missile and air-strikes, but at what cost and what would that exactly achieve?

In terms of achievement, it would have a beneficial psychotherapeutic effect on those Americans who feel insecure about their military size and who want to feel big and powerful again. It will also kills plenty of Iranians and destroy some unknown amount of Iranian targets, including possibility missile technology or nuclear technology related ones. But it will not change Iranian policies by even a tiny amount, nor will it prevent Iran from further pursuing nuclear or missile technologies.

But this has never been about nuclear or missile technology, of course. That is all nonsense, “informational prolefeed” so to speak.

In reality this was always about only one thing: Israel wanted to be THE regional superpower in the Middle-East and Iran was to be prevented from threatening this monopoly status by any means. In other words, if an Islamic country is mismanaged and run by incompetent fanatics, this is great.

But when an Islamic country is run by an extremely capable leadership which cannot be overthrown due to the fact that it has popular support, then this Islamic country becomes an absolutely unacceptable precedent. And Iran, with its advanced technologies, powerful military, strong economy and generally successful political and social model is an immense affront to the delusions of the Zionist regime.

Add to this that Iran dares to *openly* defy the United States and you immediately will see the real reasons for all the saber-rattling and constant threats. The problem for Trump is exactly the same as the problem for Obama, Dubya or Clinton: the US cannot win a war against Iran. Why?

Because a war has to have some political objective, a definition of what “victory” means. In the case of Iran, there is no possible victory. Even of the US launches 1000-2000 missile strikes against Iran, and all of them are successful, this will not be a “victory”.

Many years ago I wrote an article entitled “Iran’s Asymmetrical Response Options”. It is dated now, a lot as happened since 2007, but the fundamental conclusions are still valid: the USA cannot win and Iran has plenty of asymmetrical options ranging from riding out the attack to attacking CENTCOM targets all over the Middle-East. But the biggest change since 2007 has been the civil war in Iraq and Syria and Trump’s promises to eradicate Daesh. This is crucial.

There is simply no way, none at all, to eradicate Daesh without putting boots on the ground. I think that we can all agree that these boots won’t be American. They won’t be Russian either. Obama’s approach was to use a mix of Iraqi, Kurdish and Turkish boots, with the threat of Saudi and other Gulf State’s boots thrown in for good measure. We all know how that worked: it didn’t. And it won’t. So here is the ugly secret that everybody knows or, at least, ought to know: the only boots on the ground to defeat Daesh have been, still are and will be, Iranian boots.

That is a fact of life, sorry. The Turks are out, after the attempted coup against Erdogan and the subsequent purges the Turkish military is only a shadow of what it used to be. The Kurds have no desire whatsoever to be used as cannon fodder in a dangerous and difficult war against Daesh. The Saudis and the rest of them are a joke, barely capable of terrorizing civilians, but they will be instantly defeated by Daesh in the first skirmish. So unless the Canadians, the Brits, the Poles, the Lithuanians and, say, the Georgians want to lead the struggle against Daesh (just kidding!), the only country which can make Trump’s campaign promise happen is Iran (and Hezbollah, of course).

Furthermore, I submit that Iran is powerful enough to prevent *any* policy of being successful in the Middle-East unless Iran at least passively okays it. In a way, Iran’s position in the Middle-East is similar to the Russian position in the “near abroad” (the former Soviet Union): while Iran/Russia cannot impose anything against everybody, Iran/Russia can veto/prevent any policy or outcome it does not want.

The main consequence of this is that even if Iran decided to completely renounce any kind of retaliatory counter-attack against the US or Israel, Iran could *painfully* retaliate against such a strike by simply telling Trump “we will make darn sure that you fail everywhere, in Iraq, in Syria, in Pakistan, and Yemen and everywhere else in the Middle-East”. And that won’t be an empty threat: the Iranians absolutely can deliver on it.

A US attack on Iran is also going to send the US-Russian-China relationship into a tailspin. How much of a disaster this will be will depend on how bad the attack on Iran is, but while Russia will not militarily intervene in a US-Iranian conflict, Russia will not allow the US to get away with it either and the main political cost will be that an attack on Iran will further reinforce the Russian-Iranian-Chinese triangle.

Do I need to spell out here how an attack on Iran will be perceived in Beijing?

If it happens, the US attack on Iran will look very much like the 2006 Israel war on Hezbollah, and it will achieve the same results, only on a bigger scale. To put it simply – it will be a total disaster and it will mark the failure of the Trump presidency.

Right now Trump still has an immense political capital. It’s not like the world truly trusts him, it is way too early for that, but there is a lot of hope out there that Trump’s America will be a different one, a civilized one which will act as a responsible and rational international actor. Not like an Obama 2.0.

But listening to Flynn’s condescending and, worse, empty (not to mention wholly illegal) threats against Iran, I am left wondering whether the US can mend its ways and be meaningfully reformed or whether it will take a cataclysmic collapse (military or economic) to finally see the end of the wannabe World Hegemon.

The Saker

PS: for whatever this is worth, the first statement by the US rep at the UNSC just reinforces my worst fears, see for yourself:

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

Three thoughts about this:

a) Iran is not a military giant–if they were then their loaned-forces helping the Iraqis would not have needed two years to beat up isis. During the Iran/iraq war back in the 80s Iran never made much progress against the Iraqis—a force the US wiped out–twice. (and in terms of manpower Iran not fully recovered from the long wars with Iraq.)

b) As the green revolution (that obama refused to support) indicated not all Iranians are on board with the hard line government, and the sanctions were having an effect.

c) there are other military options besides missiles bombs et al. We are a naval power and naval blockade can be devastating.

So its a good article but I don’t necessarily agree with all the conclusions. I do agree that Russia isn’t going to allow Iran to collapse–any more than Syria so we have to be prepared to be reasonable.

[Y_Participant 4591]

PistolPete wrote:

So its a good article but I don’t necessarily agree with all the conclusions. I do agree that Russia isn’t going to allow Iran to collapse–any more than Syria so we have to be prepared to be reasonable.

Thanks for responding PP and I just got back on tonight (today your time).

I would like to answer your three important comments.

Iran is not the state it was back in 1980. At that time Iraq and Saddam invaded Iran with their new toys from Uncle Sam and effectively started cleaning house including chemical warfare.

After the Iraq pushback to the border Iran started to modernise its forces. True it is not a match for US conventional forces – but it was never meant to be.

In the Middle East at this point in time – in terms of capability to wage a defensive war of attrition – Iran is second to none.

Iran follows the Russian doctrine of asymmetric engagement and guerilla warfare. It is not necessary to meet the enemy force with like. An alternative can be found to achieve the same effect in order to neutralise the enemy.

Iranians – both civilians and military will pick up arms and retreat to regions with limited large army mobility and protection from air bombardment. American air power by itself cannot succeed and there must be boots on the ground to take and hold the ground.

It does not matter if they have a beef with their government or not. In the face of an external aggressor everyone will pick up arms to defend their nation.

How the big question – what is ‘victory’ and what cost is the US willing to pay to hold the ground? There was no victory in Iraq or Afghanistan and the Iranians have been playing this game for the last 3000 years at least.

There will be no coalition like in Iraq. The EU is out of the fight. It will be solely the US and some weird ragtag of token UK, Israeli. Saudi and ‘moderate rebels’ in a show of ‘international support’.

Unlike Iraq, Iran is a homogeneous society and the Ayatollah is the ultimate leader of both Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran is mountainous and rugged. Conventional armies will face Vietnam – like conditions with biter cold winters and limited supply lines that can be cut. There is a de-centralised command structure that the Iranians take from Vietnam to strike independently and at specific targets of value.

Iran can close up the Straits of Hormuz very easily with mines and hundreds of small attack boats that can sink carriers. This was proven in a US simulated exercise in 2002 – Iran won the sea battle.

Iran has medium-range ballistic missiles capable of striking most US bases in the region. Add to that Hamas and Hezbollah carrying out terror attacks on Americans anywhere they can reach – with Israel as the first target.

With the Russian S300 (and under a war footing a possible loan of S400 missiles) US air power will be put back to a large degree.

Both Russia and China have carrier-killer missiles which they will be only too happy to loan out as well. The days of the aircraft carrier as a symbol of naval and air superiority are well over.

Modern armies like the US are weak in guerilla and attrition warfare and if the expedition lasts for any length of time Trump may have no choice but to pull out. With the enemies he has at home his war will be finished before it starts. Congress will refuse to fund the war and lefties will create another Vietnam revolution all over again. This time a lot of Republicans will be on board as well.

Whatever happens this will be seem as Trump’s major failure and a monumental lie – just like Obama and US presidents before that.

Then again – is the American taxpayer willing to foot the bill for another war and take care of all the vets who return possibly for the rest of their lives.

This is a war the Iranians have been planning for the last 30-odd years. It is very doubtful the US can achieve their objectives – if they have any – without severe repercussions internationally and at home.

The Iranian support of Syria was only sufficient enough to achieve
victory. The Iranians know how to deal with terrorists – it takes time to really clean them out.

I really hope stupidity does not win in Washington – but with Trump in charge anything is possible.

[FrostByteParticipant 19005]

I can’t contribute to this because you guys are way over my head.
I do enjoy reading it as it moves me closer to a better understanding of what is going on in the world. So please continue and thanks!

If you rescue a damsel in distress, all you will get is a distressed damsel.

[Author]

Posts