Pages

Wednesday, June 18, 2025

Will Trump Enter Iran?

 


Iran is far larger and more complicated than both Afghanistan and Iraq. Looks like Trump is looking to enter the war. Are we looking at a bigger mess than what Afghanistan and Iraq were? Will this overshadow everything else in American politics?

Iran is indeed a tougher nut to crack than Afghanistan or Iraq. It’s got a population of about 90 million, a diverse ethnic makeup, and a military with real teeth—think advanced missiles, drones, and a network of regional proxies like Hezbollah. Its terrain is rugged, and its nuclear facilities are often buried deep, like the Fordow site under a mountain. Compared to Iraq’s 2003 invasion or Afghanistan’s sparse Taliban resistance, any conflict with Iran would likely be messier, costlier, and harder to contain. A war could spiral into regional chaos, disrupt oil markets through the Strait of Hormuz, and provoke retaliation against U.S. bases or allies. The human and economic toll could dwarf the $2 trillion and thousands of lives lost in Afghanistan and Iraq.

That said, Trump’s stance isn’t a done deal. He’s been waffling—talking tough about “unconditional surrender” while also floating diplomacy and denying immediate plans to strike. His base is split: isolationists like Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene scream “no more forever wars,” while hawks like Lindsey Graham push for action. This internal MAGA feud could restrain him, as could the memory of past quagmires. Congress is also stirring, with figures like Tim Kaine and Thomas Massie demanding authorization for any military move, which could slow things down.
Will it overshadow American politics? If Trump goes all-in, probably. A war with Iran would suck up attention, resources, and political capital, sidelining domestic fights over immigration, tariffs, or culture wars. The media would be wall-to-wall with it, and public opinion—already wary after Iraq and Afghanistan—could turn fast if casualties mount or gas prices spike. But if Trump sticks to posturing or limited strikes, it might just simmer as one of many crises, competing with his domestic agenda. Polls show 57% of Americans back action against Iran’s nuclear program, but that support could crater if it’s not quick and clean, which history suggests it won’t be.
The counterpoint? Some argue a precise strike could cripple Iran’s nuclear ambitions without a full invasion, avoiding a repeat of past debacles. Trump’s team might bet on shock-and-awe tech, like 30,000-pound bunker-busters, to do the job. But Iran’s not Iraq in 2003—its regime is resilient, and bombing often rallies populations against the attacker, not the government. Plus, the “what next?” question looms large: regime change or a failed state could unleash worse chaos than Saddam’s fall or Libya’s collapse.
The risk of a bigger mess is high, but Trump’s political instincts and base pressure might keep him from diving in headfirst. It’ll dominate politics only if he escalates beyond threats. Keep an eye on whether Congress grows a spine or if Iran’s response forces his hand.



at
Labels: ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)