Buchanan: Is War With Iran Now Inevitable?

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

With his declaration Friday that the Iran nuclear deal is not in the national interest, President Donald Trump may have put us on the road to war with Iran.

Indeed, it is easier to see the collisions that are coming than to see how we get off this road before the shooting starts.

After “de-certifying” the nuclear agreement, signed by all five permanent members of the Security Council, Trump gave Congress 60 days to reimpose the sanctions that it lifted when Teheran signed.

If Congress does not reimpose those sanctions and kill the deal, Trump threatens to kill it himself.

Why? Did Iran violate the terms of the agreement? Almost no one argues that - not the UN nuclear inspectors, not our NATO allies, not even Trump’s national security team.

Iran shipped all its 20 percent enriched uranium out of the country, shut down most of its centrifuges, and allowed intrusive inspections of all nuclear facilities. Even before the deal, 17 U.S. intelligence agencies said they could find no evidence of an Iranian nuclear bomb program.

Indeed, if Iran wanted a bomb, Iran would have had a bomb.

She remains a non-nuclear-weapons state for a simple reason: Iran’s vital national interests dictate that she remain so.

As the largest Shiite nation with 80 million people, among the most advanced in the Mideast, Iran is predestined to become the preeminent power in the Persian Gulf. But on one condition: She avoid the great war with the United States that Saddam Hussein failed to avoid.

Iran shut down any bomb program it had because it does not want to share Iraq’s fate of being smashed and broken apart into Persians, Azeris, Arabs, Kurds and Baluch, as Iraq was broken apart by the Americans into Sunni, Shiite, Turkmen, Yazidis and Kurds.

Tehran does not want war with us. It is the War Party in Washington and its Middle East allies — Bibi Netanyahu and the Saudi royals — who hunger to have the United States come over and smash Iran.

Thus, the Congressional battle to kill, or not to kill, the Iran nuclear deal shapes up as decisive in the Trump presidency.

Yet, even earlier collisions with Iran may be at hand.

In Syria’s east, U.S.-backed and Kurd-led Syrian Democratic Forces are about to take Raqqa. But as we are annihilating ISIS in its capital, the Syrian army is driving to capture Deir Ezzor, capital of the province that sits astride the road from Baghdad to Damascus.

Its capture by Bashar Assad’s army would ensure that the road from Baghdad to Damascus to Hezbollah in Lebanon remains open.

If the U.S. intends to use the SDF to seize the border area, we could find ourselves in a battle with the Syrian army, Shiite militia, the Iranians, and perhaps even the Russians.

Are we up for that?

In Iraq, the national army is moving on oil-rich Kirkuk province and its capital city. The Kurds captured Kirkuk after the Iraqi army fled from the ISIS invasion. Why is a U.S.-trained Iraqi army moving against a U.S.-trained Kurdish army?

The Kurdistan Regional Government voted last month to secede. This raised alarms in Turkey and Iran, as well as Baghdad. An independent Kurdistan could serve as a magnet to Kurds in both those countries.

Baghdad’s army is moving on Kirkuk to prevent its amputation from Iraq in any civil war of secession by the Kurds.

Where does Iran stand in all of this?

In the war against ISIS, they were de facto allies. For ISIS, like al-Qaida, is Sunni and hates Shiites as much as it hates Christians. But if the U.S. intends to use the SDF to capture the Iraqi-Syrian border, Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and Russia could all be aligned against us.

Are we ready for such a clash?

We Americans are coming face to face with some new realities.

The people who are going to decide the future of the Middle East are the people who live there. And among these people, the future will be determined by those most willing to fight, bleed and die for years and in considerable numbers to realize that future.

We Americans, however, are not going to send another army to occupy another country, as we did Kuwait in 1991, Afghanistan in 2001, and Iraq in 2003.

Bashar Assad, his army and air force backed by Vladimir Putin’s air power, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran, and Hezbollah won the Syrian civil war because they were more willing to fight and die to win it. And, truth be told, all had far larger stakes there than did we.

We do not live there. Few Americans are aware of what is going on there. Even fewer care.

Our erstwhile allies in the Middle East naturally want us to fight their 21st-century wars, as the Brits got us to help fight their 20th-century wars.

But Donald Trump was not elected to do that. Or so at least some of us thought.


BigJim Bud Melvin Tue, 10/17/2017 - 18:20 Permalink

 If Congress does not reimpose those sanctions and kill the deal, Trump threatens to kill it himself.I read this as "If Congress does not reimpose those sanctions and kill the deal, Trump threatens to kill himself" and felt a surge of joy.Just fucking die, Trump, you lying warmonging motherfucker. I don't know what percentage of your vote came from people who were sick of the US sticking its nose where it doesn't belong, but this is probably going to be the final straw for most of them.And no, I doubt Hilary would have been any better. Even worse, probably, probably, because every progressive MSM jounalist (read: virtually all of them) would have let this go completely unchallenged.

In reply to by Bud Melvin

BigJim BigJim Tue, 10/17/2017 - 18:33 Permalink

Hey, I've got an instant downvoter! Every time I post I get two downvotes (but no comments) within seconds!Show yourself, coward. I know you're just one twat with another sockpuppet account open in a different browser.... and no, I don't mind downvotes. But I do despise cowards. They have no place in Fightclub.

In reply to by BigJim

macfly BigJim Tue, 10/17/2017 - 20:08 Permalink

Finally an intelligent comment I actually agree with. I’ve been greatly saddened by the descent into stupidly, and the conquest of division that has descended on ZH over the last 18 months.

We all need to remember this is a game, and we are being played. Don’t be distracted by their games, fotget the elephant and donkey, or Punch and Judy.

We need free thinkers to shape the new world once these idiots destroy ours. Nobody is considering what life in a defeated America would look like. We whole are left standing need to study Germany in 1945-47 because loosing WW3 is going to be the result of the IMC’s arrogance and their neocon idiocy.

In reply to by BigJim

new game BigJim Tue, 10/17/2017 - 21:01 Permalink

plez explain how she could be worse. an inquiring mind is curious. war is fuking war. and trump is becoming a menace to the world. i fear that i am guilty by association as a citizen of the untied states of warz. blood and death? for what? zionist jewish state? mic money grab? fuk you trump-send your son over there, u fuking bastard.one party tyranny...

In reply to by BigJim

Paul Kersey Bud Melvin Tue, 10/17/2017 - 18:25 Permalink

"War is a racket", and with an administration filled with neocons, goldmanite banksters and Generals, Trump's got to start a war with some country. If not Iran, then there is always Syria, Afghanistan and Yemen. So much money to be made by going to war with so many countries and there is so little time.

"To 'wag the dog' means to purposely divert attention from what would otherwise be of greater importance, to something else of lesser significance."

Team Trump has got a lot of things of importance from which to divert attention.

In reply to by Bud Melvin

BigJim Paul Kersey Tue, 10/17/2017 - 18:36 Permalink

lil' Kim might just bite back a little too hard.On the one hand, the Norks dropping conventional weapons on Japan's nuclear powerstations and starting up a dozen Fukushimas, as well as a couple of nuked carrier groups is great for business. On the other hand, people might start thinking twice about being the US' allies, or lending them any more money.

In reply to by Paul Kersey

Hans-Zandvliet Paul Kersey Tue, 10/17/2017 - 19:02 Permalink

North Korea may be even more exciting to make a killing from weapons sales, but Iran may be a somewhat safer bet.Then again, look at the map:

  • The capital Teheran is almost 400 miles away from the Persian Gulf: that's a long way to fly over enemy territory protected by Russian S-400 and Kalibr missiles...
  • Teheran is only 65 miles away from the Caspian sea, so can be easily resupplied by Russia's Caspian navy.
  • The Caspian Sea is an inland sea, inaccesable to the US navy and even practically out of reach for the US airforce, so Russia can resupply Iran effortlessly.
  • Iran is a mostly mountainous country and is almost 4 times the size of Iraq (which is mostly flat and open terrain) and 2.5 times the size of Afghanistan: the US wasn't able to win its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; war with Iran will turn out to be a staggering defeat.

In reply to by Paul Kersey

chubbar Bud Melvin Tue, 10/17/2017 - 19:07 Permalink

I remember a time in this country when these serious decisions were the topic of days of serious deliberations in congress. What the fuck are those people doing? How can these folks KNOW that this is their job yet sit there knowing their inaction is going to result in thousands, perhaps millions of deaths if things go badly? I really don't get it? Trump is co-opted, he's now a neo-con. WTF is going on?????

In reply to by Bud Melvin

HRClinton BabaLooey Tue, 10/17/2017 - 18:31 Permalink

If we were to go to war with NK or Iran, to please our (((Global-Lust Masters))), then you'd still have many ZHers, who'd claim that "Thump was as better choice than HRC.Rather than admit that both are False Choices, they stick to some weird arbitrary notion that a rabid German Shepherd is less dangerous than a rabid Rottweiler -- cause one is more pleasing than the other. 

In reply to by BabaLooey

Hans-Zandvliet HRClinton Wed, 10/18/2017 - 00:44 Permalink

On election day, I also had a slight hope that the Donald would be less disasterous than Hitlery, though it wasn't much more than a fool's hope. Nevertheless, there was, back then, a rational reason for it: where Hitlery had called Putin "the new Hitler" (already back in 2014, after the reunification of the Crimea with Russia), the Donald was calling for normalizing relations with Russia.We will probably never know, but I give Trump the benefit of the doubt that he had serious intentions to "drain the swamp". But allas, he couldn't pull it off, mainly because of the relentless acusations of Russia Gate and Trump being a Russian agent. Contemplate for a while how outrageous it is to accuse (for almost an entire year now, without any evidence that can stand up to scrutiny) the elected president of the US of being a Russian agent: it's really beyond insane!!! Such a vitriolic political climate makes it all but impossible for a new president (especially one without any political background and friends) to deliver on his promises: he would immediately be accused of high treason, just for getting friendly with Putin.In any case, this just shows that it doesn't really matter anymore which sock-puppet sits in the White House. Nowadays any US president is just a salesman of the Deep State, so the entire discussion about who would have been the better choice (or more exactly: the less disaserous one) has become rather irrelevant. The deep state is in charge and which talking head sits in the White House is really beside the point.

In reply to by HRClinton

General Titus BabaLooey Tue, 10/17/2017 - 18:41 Permalink

Netanyahu the former furniture salesman turned Nuclear Messiah (With illegal Nukes stolen form the US) has been claiming that Iran is close to a Nuclear weapons since the early 90's!  They are in alliance with Saudi Arabia, who are the puppetmasters of the fake terrorist groups ISIS & Al-Qaeda (and who they told us did 9/11 yeah right) who Iran, Syria, & Hezbollah fight. In truth the US should be allies of Iran, Syria, & Hezbollah, and enemies of Israel, Saudi Arabia!

In reply to by BabaLooey

Hans-Zandvliet Dugald Tue, 10/17/2017 - 19:18 Permalink

Pearl Harbour was no Japanese surprise attack: FDR new it was comming for weeks in advance, but kept it quiet.FDR let Pearl Harbour happen to have the perfect excuse to enter the fray of WW-2. Besides, he could have limited himself to the Pacific War with Japan: the war against Hitler had practically nothing to do with Japan.But FDR wanted to get involved in the war in Europe, so yes: fighting Englands 20th century wars.

In reply to by Dugald

Slack Jack Hans-Zandvliet Tue, 10/17/2017 - 20:05 Permalink

"The war had gone exceedingly badly for the Soviets and there was a fear that Japan would attack from the East, at this time when the Soviet Union had no way of defending itself. It has been speculated that (the Jew) Roosevelt deliberately goaded the Japanese into war with the United States, in order to prevent this outcome.

Also, a Japanese-American war could be usefully used by the Jew Hitler as a pretext for a declaration of war against the United States and thus allow the United States to participate directly in the European theater. But how could Roosevelt be sure that Hitler would declare war?"

Quote from http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=1174

In reply to by Hans-Zandvliet

Hans-Zandvliet Slack Jack Tue, 10/17/2017 - 23:56 Permalink

You're correct that by December 1941 (the attack on Pearl Harbour) the Soviet Union was in dire straits: the battle of Moscow and the siege of Leningrad were in full swing (though stagnated in trenches, much like WW-1).You're even correct about the US (and UK and the Netherlands) goading Japan into declaring war on the US: in July 1941 (4 months before the Pearl Harbour attack) they started a blockade of oil (from the Dutch East Indies, nowadays Indonesia), iron ore and coal, cripling Japan's war machine against, until then mainly, China.However, limiting itself to the Pacific War, the US could easily have put up sufficient pressure on Japan in the Pacific, to disuade them from opening up an entirely new front in the east of the Soviet Union (when the going gets tough, it's not wise to open up an entirely new front with yet another enemy).As for your obsesion with half the world's leaders (in the past and in the present) being jews, I regard that as absurd and/or irrelevant. For example, on of the headlines of the article you refer to states: "Hitler was a jew, working for the jews". Absurd!: what a way of "working for the jews", gasifying them by the millions. FDR didn't do much to come to the aid of jews in concentration and extermination camps either (though reports of them had already been circulating a few years before the end of WW-2. So whether he was a jew or not, seems rather irrelevant to me.

In reply to by Slack Jack

Collectivism Killz Tue, 10/17/2017 - 18:09 Permalink

I hope all the remaining Trumptards and Replublitards realize that war with Iran will guarantee a democrat majority for at least a decade. If we go down this road, I foresee sweeping gun control and massive tax increases, all so we can make Israel Great Again.

Give_me_liberty_or Collectivism Killz Tue, 10/17/2017 - 18:28 Permalink

"I hope all the remaining Trumptards and Replublitards"There's nothing to realize for them, it's religious faith and zealotry, just like hillbots.  When Trump says we have to rally to MAGA, he really means "rally around me."Somewhat OT: I was watching this documentary on netflix about Japanese "Idols."  It's not just fans these idols have, it's religious devotees and disciples.  They are completely honest, transparent, and realistic about it too.  Full grown men spend all their time and money going to shitty concerts, and "handshaking events."  Reminds me of politictards.here it is: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt6039532/

In reply to by Collectivism Killz

HRClinton Collectivism Killz Tue, 10/17/2017 - 18:37 Permalink

If we go to war with NK or Iran, we frikkin DESERVE the things you listed (sweeping gun control and massive tax increases, all so we can make Israel Great Again).That's because lame-ass libertarian pacifists don't deserve low taxes or gun rights, of they're not willing to stand up in unison and ACT.In the final analysis, "A people deserve its leaders". They truly do.

In reply to by Collectivism Killz

BigJim Brazen Heist Tue, 10/17/2017 - 18:24 Permalink

They didn't directly attack Syria. Do you have any doubt that if the US had pulled a Saddam on Assad (before Putin woke up and realised that the US wants global hegemony, not gloabl democracy) and invaded, Syria wouldn't have disintegrated the way Iraq did?You can argue that the Zios fucked up because now most of Iraq is conjoined with Iran in terms of Shia aims and goals, but that's a different matter.If the US attacks Iran the way the went for Iraq, the Oded Yinon plan will be complete. But I suspect it'll ultimately bring a very bitter harvest for Israel.

In reply to by Brazen Heist

Winston Churchill cynicalskeptic Tue, 10/17/2017 - 18:37 Permalink

The CIA's threat assessment of the mirv nuke warheads that Iran purchased during the fall of the USSR wasthat the Iranians did not have the scientific knowledge to keep them in working order.That has proved as faulty as most CIA product.Iran is already a nuke armed country, maybe the Ayotollah hasn't been told.They're never going to give up those warheads,so what the real game here is blocking the OBOR, just as Afghanistan was about stopping oil pipelines between Iran and China.China and Russia are not going to let that happen.

In reply to by cynicalskeptic

cynicalskeptic Tue, 10/17/2017 - 18:18 Permalink

That PNAC list of regimes to ovrthrow remains in play how many Presidents mlater?They've been trying to get a war going with Iran for eons....I wonder how many Americans realize the history there.... the US overthrew the democratically elected gov in 1953 (at the behest of oil interests) and put in the Shah.... Iranians got fed up and deposed him via the only option left - the religious zealots....  the US then paid off Iraq to go to war with Iran for a decade costing millions of lives....  the blowback from 1953 has been unending and immense(actually it all goes back to the colonial divisions pre WWI and the aftermath of that comflict.... the west dominting other nations for the control of ntural resources)

Watchingtheweasels cynicalskeptic Wed, 10/18/2017 - 07:33 Permalink

The number of Americans who know this history is tiny indeed...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#News_cove… that anyone who was alive in 1953 and of sufficient age to take notice of and remember such events (say 20 years old) would now be 84 years old...and that their memories or interpretation of those events would likely be as only a puzzle piece in the larger cold war between the USA and the USSR.It's not taught in the public school system.  For most of us who are alive today, Iranian history begins with the 1979 Iranian Revolution in which the Americans were taken hostage, which in turn gets grouped roughly into the same "Muslims gone wild" basket as 9-11, ISIS, knife wielding Palestinians and accounts of terrorists in Europe running over pedestrians with their cars.

In reply to by cynicalskeptic