When the Donald Trump administration decided to withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement, tensions with Iran increased. What followed after this decision was more sanctions on Iran. Another provocation was designating the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. The United States has escalated the situation further by sending more troops to the Middle East. President Donald Trump has stated he does not want war with Iran. Actions and policies indicate that the United States is intending to ignite a large conflict. The neoconservatives present in Donald Trump's cabinet have made it clear that Iran could be the next target for regime change. If more attempts at instigation are made, there could be a US-Iran War. The repercussions of such a confrontation could be devastating on multiple levels. War creates refugees which could result in a large humanitarian crisis. Instability would spread to Central Asia. The loss of human life would be immense for both civilians and soldiers. A war between the United States and Iran would generate a response from other world powers. Russia and China would most likely have to act, in response to a critical situation. Russia would seem more willing to get involved considering their investments in Syria. The European Union countries may be forced to fight with the US simply as a measure to prevent more refugee traffic from previous conflicts. The influx of refugees and migrants from economic devastation as well as war creates an unmanageable situation. That would mean a humanitarian crisis could spread to three continents of Asia, Europe, and possibly Africa. The Iranian Revolution that occurred in 1979 was the point in which Iran and the United States become enemies. When the Iran-Iraq War broke out in 1980, the US decided to favor Saddam Hussein in hopes that a military victory would bring an end to the Islamic Republic. A more complicated reality existed with the Iran-Contra affair, which revealed the US was technically arming both nations in the conflict. The use of chemical weapons and arms provided by the United States inflicted much devastation on Iran. The war ended with a cease-fire in 1988 and by that time, international politics was changing. Decline in Soviet power and a Middle East going through transition to new era was occurring. Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 altering the balance of power in the region. The reason Iraq was not occupied in the 1991 war was that it would have increased Iran's regional power. When Iraq was invaded and occupied in 2003, Iran's influence expanded. The removal of the Baathist government created a power void in which Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel would compete to have dominance. Past events have created an atmosphere for eventual confrontation. This can be prevented, but it requires a revision of US Middle Eastern policy.
The amount of death that would occur in a US-Iran war would be astronomical. The highest amount of casualties normally tend to be the nation that is being invaded by the United States. Civilians are the first victims of aggressive warfare. The same method of attack the US could use would be to use the aircraft to bomb select targets. Similar to the Iraq War, a ground invasion could happen. There should be an expectation that the majority of the Iranian civilian population will arm themselves. Very few countries in the world welcome invasion or occupation by a foreign military. The error and arrogance of the United States was the assumption the US would be welcomed as liberators in Iraq. Iran's population only may think the US means harm to them collectively. Sanctions do not harm the leadership rather the population as a whole. If an invasion or some form of strike happens, it only encourages more support for the Islamic Republic. A large portion of the population would be willing to die for their nation who are not in the military. If the Iranian government were to collapse under the strains of warfare, fighting would not stop. Some Iranian citizens will never accept the rule of an occupying force. More death would come from US attempts to pacify an armed civilian resistance. Conventional warfare contributes to the loss of human life, but what comes afterwards only adds more violence. The United States with much effort could win the war, but it would be another one that follows afterwards. The desire of neoconservatives would be the full use of army, navy, and air forces directed at Iran. The Islamic Republic of Iran does not have the same military capacity of the United States. The development of missile systems would at least cause some trouble for the US Air Force. The best chance Iran has at fighting the United States is through asymmetric based warfare or prolonged guerrilla warfare tactics. If this happens Iranian resistance could continue indefinitely. This conflict may not even be confined to the Middle East itself.
The era of globalization and international politics demonstrates that war can hardly be contained between two nations. One of the biggest fears is that a conflict with Iran would ignite a regional war leading to a much larger global confrontation. There are three major power blocks operating in contemporary international politics. There is the US and EU block which is conflict with a Russia-China alliance. The developing nations of Africa, Asia, and South America are caught in the middle of these world powers and subject to their geopolitical designs. Developing nations either have the strategy of allying with one block or another as well as resistance to violations of national sovereignty. Iran has moved closer to Russia ever since the Syrian Civil War. Both Syria and Iran are important to Russia's foreign policy in the Middle East. This is similar to the relationship that the United States has with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar. The diplomatic issues with Qatar and other Gulf states could harm this coalition with the purpose to either isolate or attack Iran. Oman would be the least likely to engage in conflict with Iran seeing as it maintains good relations with the country. Oman may remain neutral, unless forced or convinced to change its Iran policy.
Seeing as there is a delicate balance of new alliances emerging along with older ones, Middle Eastern nations will have to select sides. A network of rival alliance systems appears to be present. A major factor is Turkey's growing power and desire to have more influence in the Arab world.Which faction it would chose to side with seems unclear, but its actions in Syria puts it indirect conflict with Iran . A large regional conflict would involve Russia, America, the UK, France, and China. The trade war with China, if it lasts long enough may force it to be more active in other regions of the world to reduce economic strain. There has already been a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia in Yemen's military struggle. Iran has been supporting the Houthi rebels in response to armed groups in Syria and Iraq. Saudi Arabia has attempted to reinstate Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi as president, even though he resigned and fled the country during when Houthi rebels were gaining control of certain sections of Yemen. Smaller armed conflicts would merge into a larger one based around the rival alliance systems both regionally and internationally. Israel under the leadership of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been more belligerent in its political position in relation to Iran. Israel would be part of a US-Iran war, or either the initiator of it. The reason Israel has not engaged in warfare with Iran has do with the factor of US support. Hezbollah also could be a concern in regards to Israel's northern border and the military intervention in Syria. Israel has conducted airstrikes since the conflict broke out in Syria in 2011. Iraq as well as Syria, would be encircled between both a hostile Israel and Iran. One mystery remains in possible outcomes is how Egypt or Jordan would respond in such an event of a massive regional multiple nation war. Depending on which side Egypt chooses Israel could be fighting a war on multiple fronts, if the treaty between the two nations were to suddenly be terminated. Jordan has come to terms with Israel's existence. Both countries would not be fighting for Israel or any other Arab nation. Any collaboration that would occur would be the result of a common fear of Persian power in the Middle East. Israel and Saudi Arabia could fight one another first, followed by external allies getting involved directly. Russia and the United States forces would come to assist fighting one another directly. Thus, smaller conflicts escalate int bigger ones, while simultaneously attracting world powers and neighboring countries.
War between Iran and the United States would mean some form of fall out into Central Asia. Iran's neighbor to the north Turkmenistan could see either an influx of refugees or an increase in terrorism. Afghanistan, which has been in a state of war since 2001, which seems to have no end in sight. The war with the Taliban remains a conflict that cannot be won through battles. Attempts for peace have been made by both Iran and Qatar. Talks of peace have failed multiple times. President Hassan Rouhani and President Asharf Ghani have agreed to bilateral cooperation related to fighting terrorism from ISIL or ISIS active in their region. The reason Iran wants to maintain a friendly relationship with Afghanistan for two reasons. It prevents the US waging a two front war from both Iraq and Afghanistan. It also prevents the Taliban rising again becoming a possible Sunni Muslim competitor. What complicates the situation further is Iran's relations with both India and Pakistan.
India wanted greater access to global markets so it decided to agree with both Iran and Afghanistan for the establishment of the Chabahar Port. The transport and trade corridor was agreed to by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2016. US military action would cause more instability in Afghanistan and ruin India's attempts to expand in global markets through economic projects in Central Asia. Pakistan and India seeing as they would be the most stable countries would try to gain more influence in a post-war Iran. The Central Asian leaders who are either presidents for life or have an authoritarian style of governance under a region with a war torn Iran will find their governments struggling for survival. The two most powerful leaders President Gurbanguly Berdimudamedow and President Emomali Rahmon could face Sunni Muslim radical political Islamist insurgencies. Iran's relations with Tajikistan have been less than spectacular with accusations of inference relative to internal affairs. This fragile relationship can be broken with a sudden regime change in Tehran. Relations with Turkmenistan are significantly better with bilateral collaboration in the energy sector. The destruction or collapse of Iran would mean these two countries would lose a trading partner. As a result Turkmenistan and Tajikistan would become more reliant on China and its former colonizer Russia. From this perspective a regime change in Iran would be an economic disadvantage to the United States. The only way the United States could out maneuver both Russia and China would be through India. Pulling India away from Iran would in effect undermine both powers. Gradually, this may be happening with the Trump administration's Indo-Pacific policy. The United States does not have as much influence in Central Asia in comparison to Iran, Russia, and China. The United States attempted to expand influence during the early 2000s in Central Asia. The argument of the Bush administration is that the Central Asian states were needed in the War on Terror. Therefore allying with longtime authoritarian leaders was justified in the name of fighting Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The US involvement in Central Asia has not established a positive or long term relationship. Growing resentment over US occupation and military presence in Afghanistan only generates negative images with the people of the Central Asian states.Removal of a large Shia Muslim nation would create some form of power void, which would reverberate across a struggling region.
There are attempts by Central Asian nations to increase economic development. Iran although a difficult partner in terms of trade and the energy sector, it somewhat gives them less dependence on their former colonizer Russia. If Iran was no longer a functioning state, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan will lose a pivotal source of trade. The risk of the whole region being destabilized become even more frightening, with the end of the Nursultan Nazabayev presidency in Kazakhstan. Power transition in the country may not be as simple, which adds to the complexus of regional affairs in relation to Iran. These states have been held together by authoritarian leaders attempting nation building out of the former Soviet Union. The sudden collapse of the former super power created new complications and political challenges. The deterioration of economic conditions from loss of a trading partner would lead to events similar in North Africa and the Middle East. Rapid regime changes induced by economic turmoil and inequality may follow from a large scale war with Iran. Long term conflict would inevitably put Central Asia in peril of being a series of failed states. The US-Iran war would spill over from the Middle East and has the potential to spark mass global conflict.
When the fighting stops what arises is the question of refugees and resettlement. The section of the Iranian population that has the ability to flee will seek safety in other countries. Leaving so many people in a horrid condition if a massive war is waged generates global condemnation. The United States, France, Germany, or the UK would have to provide refuge for civilians of Iran. Otherwise, there will be large populations of internally displaced people. The refugee traffic could be so enormous, it light require United Nations assistance. The burden of so many people to aid may require more nations to take Iranian refugees from a war. Australia or New Zealand are possible options. The European and North American countries have to consider what happens afterwards. Refugees may want to stay permanently and if so there must be a means to obtain citizenship. Governments will have to provide jobs, healthcare, education, and adequate facilities for the large amounts of people they let enter their countries. If the economic situation is in a state of deterioration in Europe or America, this will on cause more hardship for refugees who do not have citizenship in host countries or stable employment. A US-Iran war would only exacerbate a refugee crisis that has been a around since the Arab Spring. Programs of resettlement and assistance should be in place prior to any large scale military action. If not, such programs do not exist another humanitarian crisis would be the final product. Iranian citizens who flee and resettle will face serious trauma and psychological shock from the wave of violence as well as the long journey to a new country. The option for a route would be to enter Turkey and then make it to either Bulgaria or Greece. Assuming Turkmenistan and Tajikistan are not disturbed too much by the war, that would be a destination for Iranian refugees. Africa would also be effected by a US-Iran conflict. Sudan still remains active in the war with Yemen being allied to both the UAE and Suadi Arabia. Even with the fall of Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese government wants to remain in the Yemen War. Sudanese troops remain in Yemen and active in the Saudi led coalition. Sudan, Saudi Arabia, or the UAE would not take refugees after a US-Iran war. The burden and planning would fall mostly to the US-EU block.
President Donald Trump when he withdrew from the Iran nuclear agreement, my have triggered a collision course for war. Unlike North Korea, Iran has not launched or conducted nuclear tests. So far, the country has been compliant with the measures of the agreement. The real issue is that there is a policy that has become more belligerent since the Bush administration. National Security Advisor John Bolton served in both the Reagan White House and the George W. Bush administration. He continues to pursue what some view as a bellicose and hostile approach to Iran. On his current visit to US allies in the Middle East John Bolton had accused Iran for the oil tanker attacks and it engaged in a region wide conspiracy of sabotage. There is little evidence that Iran has orchestrated acts of terrorism.However, there is the possibility that the Sunni Muslim armed groups fighting in Syria will turn against the Gulf monarchies. The Soviet-Afghan War was an example of the lethal nature of blowback and how it later caused more violence. Groups that are armed by furtive means will not disband when fighting stops. Only with proper investigation can it be determined what caused damage to the Saudi oil tankers. Excuses are being made for a war, but so far it appears Iran has not been responsive to US demands. The death and disorder that follows an US-Iran war would be a series of failed states and a region falling backward. The economic consequences could last beyond the conflict itself. Markets may panic at the prospect of a long term war. The United States would have to increase taxes even more to keep its war machine going. Combined with the occupation and reconstruction of a war torn Iran the cost would increase to enormous sums . The United States has accumulated so much debt from wars and military spending it is impossible to pay off. The fall of Iran can result in a drastic change in the world map. Instability could swing between the Middle East and Central Asia. One factor that should be considered is how the Kurdish population would react. The desire for independence has not come to fruition, but it become more in reach with a weakened Iraq, Syria, and Iran. Turkey is the only state that could prevent the formation of a Kurdistan. Without Iran, there would be another regional power void in which the stronger states would fill. Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Turkey would be the strongest states. It would only be a matter of time before these countries would be in conflict with one another. War is not a rational or safe solution to disputes with Iran. The only way to prevent war and maintain peace is to reenter the nuclear agreement. A peace plan must happen in Yemen with simultaneous withdraw of the Saudi coalition and Iranian support for the Houthi rebels. Intervention in Syria must come to an end by both Gulf states and Iran, so that Syrians can determine the future of their country. The United States must halt attempts at nation building or spreading its paradigm of liberal democracy. If US and Iranian tensions are not solved diplomatically the world may witness of the worst mass global conflicts spanning multiple continents.
The amount of death that would occur in a US-Iran war would be astronomical. The highest amount of casualties normally tend to be the nation that is being invaded by the United States. Civilians are the first victims of aggressive warfare. The same method of attack the US could use would be to use the aircraft to bomb select targets. Similar to the Iraq War, a ground invasion could happen. There should be an expectation that the majority of the Iranian civilian population will arm themselves. Very few countries in the world welcome invasion or occupation by a foreign military. The error and arrogance of the United States was the assumption the US would be welcomed as liberators in Iraq. Iran's population only may think the US means harm to them collectively. Sanctions do not harm the leadership rather the population as a whole. If an invasion or some form of strike happens, it only encourages more support for the Islamic Republic. A large portion of the population would be willing to die for their nation who are not in the military. If the Iranian government were to collapse under the strains of warfare, fighting would not stop. Some Iranian citizens will never accept the rule of an occupying force. More death would come from US attempts to pacify an armed civilian resistance. Conventional warfare contributes to the loss of human life, but what comes afterwards only adds more violence. The United States with much effort could win the war, but it would be another one that follows afterwards. The desire of neoconservatives would be the full use of army, navy, and air forces directed at Iran. The Islamic Republic of Iran does not have the same military capacity of the United States. The development of missile systems would at least cause some trouble for the US Air Force. The best chance Iran has at fighting the United States is through asymmetric based warfare or prolonged guerrilla warfare tactics. If this happens Iranian resistance could continue indefinitely. This conflict may not even be confined to the Middle East itself.
The era of globalization and international politics demonstrates that war can hardly be contained between two nations. One of the biggest fears is that a conflict with Iran would ignite a regional war leading to a much larger global confrontation. There are three major power blocks operating in contemporary international politics. There is the US and EU block which is conflict with a Russia-China alliance. The developing nations of Africa, Asia, and South America are caught in the middle of these world powers and subject to their geopolitical designs. Developing nations either have the strategy of allying with one block or another as well as resistance to violations of national sovereignty. Iran has moved closer to Russia ever since the Syrian Civil War. Both Syria and Iran are important to Russia's foreign policy in the Middle East. This is similar to the relationship that the United States has with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar. The diplomatic issues with Qatar and other Gulf states could harm this coalition with the purpose to either isolate or attack Iran. Oman would be the least likely to engage in conflict with Iran seeing as it maintains good relations with the country. Oman may remain neutral, unless forced or convinced to change its Iran policy.
Seeing as there is a delicate balance of new alliances emerging along with older ones, Middle Eastern nations will have to select sides. A network of rival alliance systems appears to be present. A major factor is Turkey's growing power and desire to have more influence in the Arab world.Which faction it would chose to side with seems unclear, but its actions in Syria puts it indirect conflict with Iran . A large regional conflict would involve Russia, America, the UK, France, and China. The trade war with China, if it lasts long enough may force it to be more active in other regions of the world to reduce economic strain. There has already been a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia in Yemen's military struggle. Iran has been supporting the Houthi rebels in response to armed groups in Syria and Iraq. Saudi Arabia has attempted to reinstate Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi as president, even though he resigned and fled the country during when Houthi rebels were gaining control of certain sections of Yemen. Smaller armed conflicts would merge into a larger one based around the rival alliance systems both regionally and internationally. Israel under the leadership of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been more belligerent in its political position in relation to Iran. Israel would be part of a US-Iran war, or either the initiator of it. The reason Israel has not engaged in warfare with Iran has do with the factor of US support. Hezbollah also could be a concern in regards to Israel's northern border and the military intervention in Syria. Israel has conducted airstrikes since the conflict broke out in Syria in 2011. Iraq as well as Syria, would be encircled between both a hostile Israel and Iran. One mystery remains in possible outcomes is how Egypt or Jordan would respond in such an event of a massive regional multiple nation war. Depending on which side Egypt chooses Israel could be fighting a war on multiple fronts, if the treaty between the two nations were to suddenly be terminated. Jordan has come to terms with Israel's existence. Both countries would not be fighting for Israel or any other Arab nation. Any collaboration that would occur would be the result of a common fear of Persian power in the Middle East. Israel and Saudi Arabia could fight one another first, followed by external allies getting involved directly. Russia and the United States forces would come to assist fighting one another directly. Thus, smaller conflicts escalate int bigger ones, while simultaneously attracting world powers and neighboring countries.
War between Iran and the United States would mean some form of fall out into Central Asia. Iran's neighbor to the north Turkmenistan could see either an influx of refugees or an increase in terrorism. Afghanistan, which has been in a state of war since 2001, which seems to have no end in sight. The war with the Taliban remains a conflict that cannot be won through battles. Attempts for peace have been made by both Iran and Qatar. Talks of peace have failed multiple times. President Hassan Rouhani and President Asharf Ghani have agreed to bilateral cooperation related to fighting terrorism from ISIL or ISIS active in their region. The reason Iran wants to maintain a friendly relationship with Afghanistan for two reasons. It prevents the US waging a two front war from both Iraq and Afghanistan. It also prevents the Taliban rising again becoming a possible Sunni Muslim competitor. What complicates the situation further is Iran's relations with both India and Pakistan.
India wanted greater access to global markets so it decided to agree with both Iran and Afghanistan for the establishment of the Chabahar Port. The transport and trade corridor was agreed to by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2016. US military action would cause more instability in Afghanistan and ruin India's attempts to expand in global markets through economic projects in Central Asia. Pakistan and India seeing as they would be the most stable countries would try to gain more influence in a post-war Iran. The Central Asian leaders who are either presidents for life or have an authoritarian style of governance under a region with a war torn Iran will find their governments struggling for survival. The two most powerful leaders President Gurbanguly Berdimudamedow and President Emomali Rahmon could face Sunni Muslim radical political Islamist insurgencies. Iran's relations with Tajikistan have been less than spectacular with accusations of inference relative to internal affairs. This fragile relationship can be broken with a sudden regime change in Tehran. Relations with Turkmenistan are significantly better with bilateral collaboration in the energy sector. The destruction or collapse of Iran would mean these two countries would lose a trading partner. As a result Turkmenistan and Tajikistan would become more reliant on China and its former colonizer Russia. From this perspective a regime change in Iran would be an economic disadvantage to the United States. The only way the United States could out maneuver both Russia and China would be through India. Pulling India away from Iran would in effect undermine both powers. Gradually, this may be happening with the Trump administration's Indo-Pacific policy. The United States does not have as much influence in Central Asia in comparison to Iran, Russia, and China. The United States attempted to expand influence during the early 2000s in Central Asia. The argument of the Bush administration is that the Central Asian states were needed in the War on Terror. Therefore allying with longtime authoritarian leaders was justified in the name of fighting Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The US involvement in Central Asia has not established a positive or long term relationship. Growing resentment over US occupation and military presence in Afghanistan only generates negative images with the people of the Central Asian states.Removal of a large Shia Muslim nation would create some form of power void, which would reverberate across a struggling region.
There are attempts by Central Asian nations to increase economic development. Iran although a difficult partner in terms of trade and the energy sector, it somewhat gives them less dependence on their former colonizer Russia. If Iran was no longer a functioning state, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan will lose a pivotal source of trade. The risk of the whole region being destabilized become even more frightening, with the end of the Nursultan Nazabayev presidency in Kazakhstan. Power transition in the country may not be as simple, which adds to the complexus of regional affairs in relation to Iran. These states have been held together by authoritarian leaders attempting nation building out of the former Soviet Union. The sudden collapse of the former super power created new complications and political challenges. The deterioration of economic conditions from loss of a trading partner would lead to events similar in North Africa and the Middle East. Rapid regime changes induced by economic turmoil and inequality may follow from a large scale war with Iran. Long term conflict would inevitably put Central Asia in peril of being a series of failed states. The US-Iran war would spill over from the Middle East and has the potential to spark mass global conflict.
When the fighting stops what arises is the question of refugees and resettlement. The section of the Iranian population that has the ability to flee will seek safety in other countries. Leaving so many people in a horrid condition if a massive war is waged generates global condemnation. The United States, France, Germany, or the UK would have to provide refuge for civilians of Iran. Otherwise, there will be large populations of internally displaced people. The refugee traffic could be so enormous, it light require United Nations assistance. The burden of so many people to aid may require more nations to take Iranian refugees from a war. Australia or New Zealand are possible options. The European and North American countries have to consider what happens afterwards. Refugees may want to stay permanently and if so there must be a means to obtain citizenship. Governments will have to provide jobs, healthcare, education, and adequate facilities for the large amounts of people they let enter their countries. If the economic situation is in a state of deterioration in Europe or America, this will on cause more hardship for refugees who do not have citizenship in host countries or stable employment. A US-Iran war would only exacerbate a refugee crisis that has been a around since the Arab Spring. Programs of resettlement and assistance should be in place prior to any large scale military action. If not, such programs do not exist another humanitarian crisis would be the final product. Iranian citizens who flee and resettle will face serious trauma and psychological shock from the wave of violence as well as the long journey to a new country. The option for a route would be to enter Turkey and then make it to either Bulgaria or Greece. Assuming Turkmenistan and Tajikistan are not disturbed too much by the war, that would be a destination for Iranian refugees. Africa would also be effected by a US-Iran conflict. Sudan still remains active in the war with Yemen being allied to both the UAE and Suadi Arabia. Even with the fall of Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese government wants to remain in the Yemen War. Sudanese troops remain in Yemen and active in the Saudi led coalition. Sudan, Saudi Arabia, or the UAE would not take refugees after a US-Iran war. The burden and planning would fall mostly to the US-EU block.
President Donald Trump when he withdrew from the Iran nuclear agreement, my have triggered a collision course for war. Unlike North Korea, Iran has not launched or conducted nuclear tests. So far, the country has been compliant with the measures of the agreement. The real issue is that there is a policy that has become more belligerent since the Bush administration. National Security Advisor John Bolton served in both the Reagan White House and the George W. Bush administration. He continues to pursue what some view as a bellicose and hostile approach to Iran. On his current visit to US allies in the Middle East John Bolton had accused Iran for the oil tanker attacks and it engaged in a region wide conspiracy of sabotage. There is little evidence that Iran has orchestrated acts of terrorism.However, there is the possibility that the Sunni Muslim armed groups fighting in Syria will turn against the Gulf monarchies. The Soviet-Afghan War was an example of the lethal nature of blowback and how it later caused more violence. Groups that are armed by furtive means will not disband when fighting stops. Only with proper investigation can it be determined what caused damage to the Saudi oil tankers. Excuses are being made for a war, but so far it appears Iran has not been responsive to US demands. The death and disorder that follows an US-Iran war would be a series of failed states and a region falling backward. The economic consequences could last beyond the conflict itself. Markets may panic at the prospect of a long term war. The United States would have to increase taxes even more to keep its war machine going. Combined with the occupation and reconstruction of a war torn Iran the cost would increase to enormous sums . The United States has accumulated so much debt from wars and military spending it is impossible to pay off. The fall of Iran can result in a drastic change in the world map. Instability could swing between the Middle East and Central Asia. One factor that should be considered is how the Kurdish population would react. The desire for independence has not come to fruition, but it become more in reach with a weakened Iraq, Syria, and Iran. Turkey is the only state that could prevent the formation of a Kurdistan. Without Iran, there would be another regional power void in which the stronger states would fill. Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Turkey would be the strongest states. It would only be a matter of time before these countries would be in conflict with one another. War is not a rational or safe solution to disputes with Iran. The only way to prevent war and maintain peace is to reenter the nuclear agreement. A peace plan must happen in Yemen with simultaneous withdraw of the Saudi coalition and Iranian support for the Houthi rebels. Intervention in Syria must come to an end by both Gulf states and Iran, so that Syrians can determine the future of their country. The United States must halt attempts at nation building or spreading its paradigm of liberal democracy. If US and Iranian tensions are not solved diplomatically the world may witness of the worst mass global conflicts spanning multiple continents.
No comments:
Post a Comment