Why We Aren’t Getting into WWIII — or Any Major Action in Iran
After the US drone strike killing Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, the internet exploded in panic. #WWIII started trending on Twitter, and so many people got onto the the Selective Service website in order to dodge a draft that does not exist, they crashed the government servers.
Let’s fight the fear mongering with a tactical strike of facts and reason. Here are seven reasons why you don’t need to worry about World War III — or any major military action happening in Iran.
The Trump Administration, Despite Popular Reporting, Has been Remarkably Restrained
Yes, yes, the pundits and cable news shows will tell you there’s a madman in the White House. But let’s take a look at the facts.
The facts are that the Trump administration has been remarkably restrained in the face of Iranian provocation. The administration has always opted for measured, non-military responses.
- Iran attacked 6 oil tankers in the Straight of Hormuz, and the US did nothing despite international pressure.
- They shot down a US spy drone. We simply disabled some of their missile systems with cyber attacks.
- Iran bombed two oil refineries in Saudi Arabia. The US merely helped the Saudis rebuild.
The only time the US has taken overt military action was when Iran attacked the US embassy in Iraq. And even then, the Soleimani strike is a limited action, done on Iraqi soil not Iran. Soleimani, it should be noted, was in the process of coordinating more attacks on US troops in the region.
To believe that suddenly the Trump administration will completely change its doctrine and opt for an all-out conventional war despite its clear pattern of restraint is, frankly, silly.
Perhaps, in the future, Iran will take some action so egregious the US has no choice but to respond with its full military might. But the pattern of behavior from the administration has so far been one of restraint.
Trump Likes to Use Economic Weapons — not Military Ones
Few people remember, but one of Trump’s 2016 campaign promises was to reduce US military presence in the Middle East.
Although he has largely failed, he has succeeded in an overall reduction of military action. Trump seems to favor economic rather than military tactics.
One of his first moves with North Korea was to tighten the sanctions on oil flowing into that country. He even went as far as to get UN approval for new sanctions against the nuclear dictatorship.
Trump imposed stiff sanctions on Turkey to obtain the release of an American pastor. He threatened the same sanctions if Turkey overstepped their safe-zone border with the Kurds. Those sanctions worked both times.
He has imposed stiffer sanctions on Iran because of their push for nuclear weapons.
He has made the trade war the central piece of his China policy.
Trump will rattle his saber on Twitter, and will authorize drone and missile strikes to back up his threats.
But we have never seen him deploy boots on the ground when economic alternatives were available.
There’s no reason, based on his past actions, to believe Trump is going to get involved in major military actions in Iran.
Trump Wants to Get Reelected
It’s no secret that President Trump would like a second term.
He’s savvy enough to know a war won’t get him there.
As stated above a lot of Trump’s base, especially from 2016, are anti-establishment fanatics who absolutely detested the interventionist policies of both the Obama and Bush administrations. Getting involved in another full scale war in Iran would alienate his base, whom he desperately needs in 2020. Trump can survive without the neo-conservatives. But he can’t survive without the MAGA crowd, and he knows it.
It’s also no secret that any new action in the Middle East is deeply unpopular with independents and moderates. It’s the only sentiment keeping candidates like Tulsi Gabbard in the presidential race. Though not a large group, independents are crucial for any candidate from either side to win a national election.
Trump has the political savvy to know that extended operations in Iran would make him a one-term president. Rational people do no believe a war right now would unite the country.
If the Media Says We ARE Going to War…then We Aren’t
My mother’s family is in Hong Kong, and in Hong Kong it’s said that the best fortune tellers are the ones who are always wrong. That way you at least know what is not going to happen.
The mainstream media is that fortune teller.
The media has led the US populace into believing we are on the brink of war a half-dozen times during the Trump presidency.
Remember when they said WWIII would break out because of North Korea?
Then they warned that a trade war with China could lead to a hot war with China?
Then they warned we would get involved in a shooting war in Venezuela?
Then they warned us the Kurds would all be slaughtered?
It was all wrong.
Not a single prediction made by the experts about Donald Trump or his presidency has come true.
Oh right, and there’s Hong Kong too. Remember when Trump’s image there was going to start WWIII with China? Just stop listening to predictions from news media. News is what is happening now, do not let them “report” on a future that hasn’t happened.
People don’t Understand WWI and WWII
Even if a full scale war did break out, there’s no reason to believe it would lead to World War III. That’s the biggest clue that those spreading the fear know they are lying — because those who spread the fear know enough about the world wars to know there are no similarities between then and now.
World War I happened as a result of a century of imperialist pressure built up in all the major world powers. It required a gordian knot of international treaties that could not be sustained indefinitely. No such situation exists today.
World War II happened (largely as an extension of World War I) because an actually crazy man was hell-bent on world domination, and most the world had no choice but to fight back.
Anyone who thinks those situations have any resemblance to our current “crisis” either do not understand the past, do no understand the present, or both.
The Iranian Military is a Paper Tiger
The gulf between Iranian and American capabilities is enormous, and they know it.
Iran relies on militias that they hire. They have an outdated air force. Their missile capabilities are limited, and despite fake news to the contrary, they are NOT a nuclear power.
They have been a pain the US side by sponsoring other regional actors. Not by taking action themselves.
It’s unlikely that any Iranian military officials would be alive within 48 hours of a US/Iran conflict. I suspect that is a sobering thought for the Iranian war party in the aftermath of Soleimani.
“But the same imbalance of power existed between the US and Iraq in the second Gulf War.”
That is quite true, but that was a war of regime change. The situation in Iraq in 2003 is very different than the situation in Iran today. The Iranian government is deeply unpopular, and the US is not looking for another 20 year rebuilding project.
This whole argument hinges, of course, on the unpopular assumption that the Iranian government is rational. The Left and the Right both think that’s false. The Left thinks all religions are irrational, and the Right believes Islam is a death cult.
But if you look at Iran’s performance these last few years, it’s stellar. They’ve punched way above their weight. Keeping American forces off balance with numerous proxy wars, getting the US bogged down in Syria, reasserting influence in Iraq despite a heavy US presence.
It’s obvious they are highly intelligent and calculating, if you stop and think about it.
They’ve done well for themselves. Unlike with Iraq in 2003, Iran gets a choice on whether it wants to be obliterated by American forces. Are they really eager to undo all their political progress in recent years?
The Iranian People Already Hate Their Leaders
The current Iranian regime has its supporters.
But they have a lot more domestic opponents.
Just last week, 1500 protestors were killed (an effort directed in part by Soleimani) in an effort to quell anti-government sentiment.
Many of Iran’s new, younger generation want an open internet and an open country, and resent being ruled by a radical Muslim theocracy.
You can ignore the reports of crowds showing support for Soleimani — public displays of mourning are easy to conjure in a totalitarian state. In fact, such displays are common and as old as human history e.g. North Korea and the Egyptians.
Many of these dissidents would be happy for revolution with or without US support. They aren’t showed in the mainstream media but can be found in Twitter, with some digging. Soleimani’s death came as a boon to these oppressed people.
People have also forgotten that Iran used to be a Western country. The CIA toppled their democratic government and installed the current radical theocracy. Here’s a picture of Iran in the 50s verse Iran now:
Plenty of people in Iran would like to return to their democratic roots. For these resisters, Soleimani’s death came as a boom — err — boon.
Conclusion
It’s possible to be against war with Iran and still support the US strike against Soleimani.
It’s also possible to be for the Soleimani strike, and also worried about the ramifications.
But it is not reasonable or at all helpful to pretend that we are on the brink of war, especially WWIII.
It’s time to ease tensions within the US, instead of inflaming passions with baseless predictions. It’s time to let facts and pattern-recognition control our responses, instead of a profit-crazed media, desperately trying to eke money from the dying news industry by publishing the most click-bait stories they can make up.
