“”With the loss of Saudi Arabia as a viable partner in blocking the spread of Iranian power, the Trump Administration would be forced to revisit the oft-repeated notion that Iran is a rational actor. President Trump would have to renege on his campaign promise of ending the terrible Obama era Iran deal. He would have to reverse course and effectively reinstitute the Obama deal with Iran, in order to gain new leverage over Tehran. In other words, Trump would have to surrender the Middle East to Iran, selling out Israel in the process, just as Barack Obama did.”
“A balance of power paradigm that pits one group of foreign states mostly serving American interests against another, is the best way. Enough of over-committing U.S. forces to the field of battle at the outset of any potential conflict. Play all sides until the best deal can be reached.
The United States isn’t opposed to fighting. The country has been engaged in warfare of some kind for 222 out of its 239-year existence (that’s roughly 93 percent of American history). It’s not about being afraid to fight. The issue is when to fight and how (also, why, particularly in the case of the Middle East).
American policymakers cannot formulate a cogent answer to those questions. At least, not until the wonderfully disruptive Age of Trump.”
“Further, I would anticipate spikes in the global price of oil for the foreseeable future (by the way, this undoubtedly would make Moscow happy, since Russia depends on higher-than-average oil prices to sustain its economy and military modernization program). Should these increases continue for the foreseeable future—and if Iran continued both with its illicit nuclear weapons program and regional expansion—the United States will be forced to intervene military.”
“With the two leaders talking–and the Chinese understanding the ramifications of an American invasion of North Korea–it seems unlikely that, irrespective of whether North Korea achieve nuclear weapons capability, the North will push their proverbial luck with a nuclear war against the world.”
“In all, the president has done what very few American leaders before him have been able to do: he has weighed the costs and benefits of the deal and determined that, whatever consequences may befall the world in the short term, the longer-term prospects are almost all in America’s favor. What happens next will be difficult, but ultimately, the difficult choice will have proven to be the correct one.”
“In that case, Americans officials like Mr Bolton and Secretary Pompeo may welcome a confrontation with the Ayatollahs in Tehran that takes place before Iranians were able to acquire nuclear weapons.”
“The president should strike back against Bashar al-Assad for having committed this brazen act of genocide. But, he should also go to Putin and Erdogan—cutting out the Iranians completely—and offer to reduce American presence in Syria in exchange for them forcing Assad (and Iran) to end the civil war peacefully.”
“So, don’t be pulled in by the breathless Western media accounts on the glories of the revolution befalling Iran today. The regime is as in control as it has ever been. I suspect that this will be nothing more than a blip on their proverbial radar. The reason for these riots have little to do with either democracy or liberalism; they were responses to an economic downturn and, specifically, the high-prices of consumer goods. There is nothing about these protests that lend themselves to the over-the-top rhetoric of some Western observers. The regime remains strong.”
The Islamic Republic of Iran’s days are numbered, as geopolitical analyst, Brandon J. Weichert explains to Chris Buskirk of the Seth & Chris Show.
“Like the Soviet system, the Islamic Republic is closed; it is totalitarian; it dominates the national economy; it is grossly corrupt; and it has wasted the country’s time, money, and prestige in needlessly aggressive foreign policy misadventures, that have only further isolated the country and devastated the economy. The Iranian people are fed up.”