President Trump Can Still Avert A Catastrophe With Iran, And He Should

[corbe]

President Trump Can Still Avert A Catastrophe With Iran, And He Should
 
It appears President Trump is cognizant of the slow drift to war with Iran, and is not very happy about it. Someone needs to remind him who is the president.

By Sumantra Maitra   
May 20, 2019
 
It appears President Trump doesn’t want to go to war with Iran, and is not happy about his administration’s rush to conflict. While leaks are to be taken with skepticism, there is almost uniformity of daily reports that state Trump is frustrated that “some” in his administration are pushing for a war with Iran, without him even knowing about it.

“‘He is not comfortable with all this ‘regime change’ talk,’ which to his ears echoes the discussion of removing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein before the 2003 U.S. invasion, said the official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations,” The Washington Post reported.

“President Trump has sought to put the brakes on a brewing confrontation with Iran in recent days, telling the acting defense secretary, Patrick Shanahan, that he does not want to go to war with Iran, administration officials said, while his senior diplomats began searching for ways to defuse the tensions,” The New York Times echoed, adding that this “sent a message to his hawkish aides that he does not want the intensifying American pressure campaign against the Iranians to explode into open conflict.”

<..snip..>

https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/20/president-trump-can-still-avert-catastrophe-iran/

[truth_seeker]

Article suggests Trump is the problem, and suggests his advisors are the problem.

Not a hint that Iran is the problem.

Thanks for posting,however. It depicts how to comb the news, to portray Trump negatively.

[corbe]

Article suggests Trump is the problem, and suggests his advisors are the problem.

Not a hint that Iran is the problem.

Thanks for posting,however. It depicts how to comb the news, to portray Trump negatively.

   @truth_seeker I got neither of those points from the Article, (probably a byproduct of my TDS).  The guy's writing style is a bit discombobulated but taking into account that he is a Brit I thought he brought forward some interesting points worthy of intelligent discourse here. 
   Leave it to a Trumper to find the hate in anything that doesn't totally revere their main squeeze. 
   Thanks for proving that I am not on your Ignore List.

[Absalom]

Catastrophe w/Iran??? For whom??? Journo is a brainless hysteric!
We have absolutely nothing to fear from Iran. Nothing!!!
It is Persia in the 21th century, now occupied by Muslims rather than
Parthians, which makes zero difference.
A militarily inferior Iraq stalemated Iran, in an 8 year war, in 1988.
The Mullahs are indeed ME trouble makers who need replacement.
Suggestion: Close the Straight of Hormuz, 60km/35 miles wide from
Dubai to Bandar-Abbas and let the rag heads move their oil via pipeline
over hostile lands in the Region and Caucasus.
Alexander destroyed the Persian Empire at Arbela, Mesopotamia in
330 BC in a matter of hours. It would take us about as long!!!
That is, once Trump's cat and dog advisers agree.

[TomSea]

If we can't defeat lesser nations in Afghanistan in 17 years, why would be able to defeat Iran?  Yes, we might if we made the real commitment, I don't see that happening.

While Trump might not be knowledgeable about the day to day understanding of international relations, he is still broadly instinctively non-interventionist.

Trump might not be Lord Palmerston or John Quincy Adams, but he understands that never-ending wars in the Middle East are stupid—especially when there’s a gigantic threat in the eastern horizon, a former Cold War rival returning to Cold War form after 20 years of liberal optimism and utopia.

And in a way, I think a lot of us know this now from experience. I don't see this article as being "anti-Trump" and I don't think the Federalist is generally speaking, ever anti-Trump.

The analysis seems okay to me.

[TomSea]

Federalist just had another good article posted last week.  I'd thought their internationally oriented articles were good but often they do quite a bit better than even that.

I think the "war with Iran" threat dissipated about Saturday. The Federalist's only fault with me, is sometimes, these articles are a bit after their relevant date but that is true with almost all publications.

[Absalom]

If we can't defeat lesser nations in Afghanistan in 17 years, why would be able to defeat Iran?  Yes, we might if we made the real commitment, I don't see that happening.

While Trump might not be knowledgeable about the day to day understanding of international relations, he is still broadly instinctively non-interventionist.

Trump might not be Lord Palmerston or John Quincy Adams, but he understands that never-ending wars in the Middle East are stupid—especially when there’s a gigantic threat in the eastern horizon, a former Cold War rival returning to Cold War form after 20 years of liberal optimism and utopia.

And in a way, I think a lot of us know this now from experience. I don't see this article as being "anti-Trump" and I don't think the Federalist is generally speaking, ever anti-Trump.

The analysis seems okay to me.

-----------------------------------
That 'we can't' is utter nonsense, rather we don't crush the likes of
Afghanistan because we intervene to pacify rather than defeat them.
This policy has been in place since WW2, and is as obvious as 2+2=4.
The ancients understood human nature and the reality of war, that
when you strike your enemy you must intend to kill him.
We don't, because we are too pious and sanctimonious.
Iran is a 3rd world military joke.

[goatprairie]

If we can't defeat lesser nations in Afghanistan in 17 years, why would be able to defeat Iran?  Yes, we might if we made the real commitment, I don't see that happening.

While Trump might not be knowledgeable about the day to day understanding of international relations, he is still broadly instinctively non-interventionist.

Trump might not be Lord Palmerston or John Quincy Adams, but he understands that never-ending wars in the Middle East are stupid—especially when there’s a gigantic threat in the eastern horizon, a former Cold War rival returning to Cold War form after 20 years of liberal optimism and utopia.

And in a way, I think a lot of us know this now from experience. I don't see this article as being "anti-Trump" and I don't think the Federalist is generally speaking, ever anti-Trump.

The analysis seems okay to me.

I'm certainly not plumping for war, but the Iranians appear to be more intelligent than the Afghans. It's like the phrase "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." I think Islam is too much a part of the average Afghani's mental makeup. Many Iranians are not quite as bullheaded about their religion.
There are certain ethnicities for whom democracy might not work....like the Afghanis.
Iranians had a great empire at one time, and it seems a large percentage of them are tired of rule by despotic mullahs.
But all means other than direct invasion/war, unless Iran stupidly tries something first, should be considered. Unless the mullahs attack one of our ships or fire missiles at us or our allies, we should let them rant. I don't think they're quite that stupid to start a war where they know Allah would not save them.

[TomSea]

At this point, we probably would be bombing reactors if something happened and there would be no land invasion.

[Fishrrman]

"President Trump Can Still Avert A Catastrophe With Iran..."

I WANT to see a "catastrophe" insofar as Iran is concerned.

I want THEM to be the nation upon which the catastrophe is waged!

[TomSea]

The revolution was in 1979, the Iran/Iraq war started in about 1980... Iran wasn't ready for it after the revolution, I don't think any of the big powers really took their side, not the US and from what I understand, the USSR at least, at times, definitely armed Saddam as we did some.... it's a whole case history in itself, so I'd discard discussion of that war.

[Absalom]

I'm certainly not plumping for war, but the Iranians appear to be more intelligent than the Afghans. It's like the phrase "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." I think Islam is too much a part of the average Afghani's mental makeup. Many Iranians are not quite as bullheaded about their religion.
There are certain ethnicities for whom democracy might not work....like the Afghanis.
Iranians had a great empire at one time, and it seems a large percentage of them are tired of rule by despotic mullahs.
But all means other than direct invasion/war, unless Iran stupidly tries something first, should be considered. Unless the mullahs attack one of our ships or fire missiles at us or our allies, we should let them rant. I don't think they're quite that stupid to start a war where they know Allah would not save them.

--------------------------------
A reflection.
History will determine whether or not Iran is done w/Islam.
If so, suggest credit to their brief governance by the Phalevi
Dynasty, Father and Son, post WW 1 up to bozo Carter who
was instrumental in their abdication.