By David BRADY
The Iran intervention could well turn into an open-ended misadventure.
In the wake of the 1991 Gulf War victory, then-President George H.W. Bush rode on a wave of public opinion that would not carry him to reelection. Celebrating the recent victory in Kuwait, he uttered one of the most famous remarks of his administration: "It's a proud day for America. And, by God, we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all." American wariness over war stemmed from the quagmire that was Vietnam, along with its domestic protest movements and political instability. Today, we more often talk about Iraq Syndrome: an ill (it seems to some policymakers) where Americans are resistant to long-term foreign engagements and the underlying narratives that push the country toward them.
But, by God, we've kicked the Iraq Syndrome once and for all in the wake of the Trump administration's strikes on Iran last summer and seizure of Nicholas Maduro in January. According to the Edmund Burke Foundation VP and administration sycophant Will Chamberlain, the real problem with the Global War on Terror was its poor execution by the Bush and Obama administrations, as well as their prolonged length.
Venezuela has not bubbled over into a disaster, yet, and that is enough to satisfy Chamberlain that there will be no protracted conflict. The Trump Administration's decision to strike Iran's nuclear facilities last summer didn't provoke an Iranian response against U.S. personnel and bases, which was enough for party men to declare that "President Trump isn't a neoconservative ! His actions are quick, and a wider conflict didn't start!"
Never mind that Benjamin Netanyahu has visited the United States five times since those strikes, two of which to openly advocate for wider intervention on Iran. Never mind the shifting goal posts of "no nuclear weapons" to "no nuclear enrichment at all" to "no nuclear material at all." Nothing has happened yet, the "plan trusters" cry, we must trust the president that we won't see another Iraq or Vietnam. Oops.
After June, the regime's favorite social media celebrities and spokespeople did their own "Mission Accomplished" tour. "He kept us out of war" could have been their slogan-and it would have aged just as well.
Critics of the administration, like Tucker Carlson, who has become the favorite target of the party men, have been denounced as "panicans" (one would imagine they could come up with a slicker sounding insult). The disaster wasn't immediate and that was enough to excommunicate Carlson, The American Conservative's own Curt Mills, John Mearsheimer, and others who warned it could mean a wider war. You will never guess whose predictions aged finer.
Immediately afterwards, rumors began to float out that the mission had not, in fact, been accomplished: some leaks suggested that Iran's nuclear facilities had not been destroyed by the U.S. strikes. The president had, indeed, chosen to deescalate at the time, but the Israelis did not take kindly to that. They wanted to go all the way to Tehran.
Netanyahu must have read his sales book: always be closing--in this case closing on a regime change in Iran. The goal posts moved as the administration inched toward escalation with Iran. The Israeli government was not finished trying to get the United States to do its work in checking Iran. Iran remains the only check on Israel's aims in the Middle East, so it must limit Iran's nuclear ambitions and its ability to fund proxies. A nuclear stalemate does not allow Israel to ignore its "Palestinian problem" or expand further.
It appears that the June strikes only laid the groundwork for the war started this weekend, which may well cost American lives. Not so quick and easy was it, Will?
The administration has proved the "panicans" right. These conflicts are not likely to be over unless Israel gets what it wants or its allies at home are washed out of power. The intervention of choice became a " war of necessity" to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Iran did not capitulate fast enough to U.S. demands to disarm and denuclearize--a move that has historically saved the regimes that decide to listen.
This conflict can go one of two ways: Iraq or Libya. Iran of course is not analogous with its neighbor; in many ways it is far a more intimidating conquest than Iraq. But, Iran, like any other nation, hosts a number of factions, some which are more cooperative with the U.S. and others that are extremists and will fight to the end.
If U.S. boots touch ground to overthrow the Iranian government, it will probably play out like the Iraq war in many ways. Tehran cannot stop the United States in a conventional conflict, so the regime may fall. That will not stop the guerilla fighters or the outbreak of a civil war. U.S. troops will die for the "freedoms of Iranians" or the "security of Israel," depending on the underlying motivation of the specific warmonger. U.S. troops remaining would mean even further deaths. That is the Iraq path.
If the Trump administration is content to extract concessions from the Ayatollah's successor that ensure "Israeli security," that will not appease the Iranian expatriates or the protestors who want the regime gone. If the U.S. simply walks out, content with decapitating the regime, as it did in Venezuela, a civil war could very well break out over the bones of Persia, and Iran will become another "failed state" like Libya. Anti-American, Anti-Israeli sentiment will likely grow further in such a conflict, spelling future terrorism in Israel and here at home--a gateway to another future conflict or future nation building.
There is no reason, should the Iranian regime survive a shorter conflict, for it to take the U.S. at its word as a good faith negotiator. The demands in negotiations have changed time after time, and the United States has shown it is willing to use negotiations as cover for escalation. Mummar Gaddafi's denuclearization did not save his life; it likely would not have saved the Ayatollah's. The Kims of North Korea have avoided a war precisely because they obtained nuclear weapons. If the U.S. finds some temporary ceasefire, there is reason to suggest that Iran's most strategic move would be to dash for the bomb.
U.S. troops will die in a protracted conflict. U.S. bases in the Persian Gulf and the wider Middle East will be struck if the Iranian regime believes it will fall. Israel will likely be bombed, having exhausted much of the THADD interceptor missiles the U.S. had given it last June. Is it worth the life of American soldiers for Israel to be able to expand in the Middle East with no check ? Is it worth it for American soldiers to die for the freedoms of foreigners?
The "mission accomplished" attitude of regime sycophants was misplaced at best and an open lie at worst. It appears that the skeptics were right and that that long war has come.
Original article: www.theamericanconservative.com