In my September 22, 2019 op-ed at The American Spectator, I assessed where Iran will inevitably attack and how it might use asymmetrical warfare in an attempt to weaken President Trump’s reelection chances in 2020 (and why all of Iran’s plans are doomed to fail).
In my September 15, 2019 op-ed for The American Spectator, I argue that the United States must spearhead the creation of an Israeli-Saudi Arabian NATO-like alliance to balance against Iran’s growing threat.
Trump is playing a high-risk-high-reward game of geostrategic chicken with Iran. If we wins, he’ll get a real deal with Iran. If not, it’s war.
In my recent op-ed for The American Spectator, I argue that President Trump’s decision not to bomb Iran was the correct one and that the Washington foreign policy elite are wrong to undercut Trump on this issue while at the same time denying critical arms sales to Saudi Arabia.
As Iran extends its reach in the region, the United States and its allies push back against it. This has forced Iran to get bolder in their attacks against the U.S. and its allies. Oddly enough, there are quarters in the West that seek to accommodate Iran while abandoning Israel and Saudi Arabia. This will weaken the U.S. and empower Russia and China.
“The new Tanker War, then, is just the beginning. At the same time, unless Saudi Arabia and the Israelis are willing to take the point in this new campaign against Iran, the United States will have to fight the Tanker War 2.0 tit-for-tat, just as the Iranians are. We must never forget that the Iranians will not abandon their quest for nuclear arms and we in the West simply cannot allow for them to acquire these nuclear capabilities. Therefore, one can anticipate the global price of oil to continue to increase–despite what many of the so-called “experts” claim. This will mean that Russia will become more belligerent over time with the West. Ultimately, though, the United States must do what it can–along with its regional allies–to deny Iran the potential to use nuclear arms against U.S. allies, such as Iran and the Sunni Arab states.”
In my estimation, the costs of invading Iran presently outweigh any benefits. Trump should rein in Bolton and the others in his administration until a better strategy can be crafted.
“”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.”
“Fact is, under present conditions, without some form of peaceful mitigation of tensions, it is likely that some form of conflict with Iran is at hand–this is especially true if the Iranians blockade the Strait of Hormuz. The United States, at that point, would have no point but to respond immediately. There are simply no viable alternatives out of transporting Mideast oil through the Strait of Hormuz.”
“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.”