Trump’s foreign policy has been reduced to imperious demands, vulgar threats, and menacing growls. I figure Trump’s frustration of dealing with Putin will reach a peak just in time to coincide with the launch of a US/Israel air campaign against Iran. Will Schryver, military analyst
Trump’s push for a ceasefire in Ukraine has less to do with Ukraine than it does with Israel. In other words, Trump’s hasty negotiations with Putin are not aimed at ending the proxy war with Russia as much they are with shifting the frontlines from the Donbas to Iran. This ‘shift in focus’ has become glaringly apparent in the last week particularly in respect to Trump’s increasingly hostile statements towards Iran. On Tuesday, Trump threatened to hold the Islamic Republic responsible for any attacks by the Houthis on ships crossing the Red Sea. He said there would be “dire consequences” (for Iran) if the attacks continued. He also gave Iran’s government “a two-month deadline for reaching a new nuclear deal”. (even though it was Trump who scuppered the original deal.) In short, Trump is doing what many of his critics said he would do from the very beginning; he is placating his wealthy campaign donors by crafting a foreign policy that promotes their ambitious regional agenda. He’s dragging the United States into a war with Iran to repay the powerful Zionists who got him elected.
This also helps to explain why Trump wants to normalize relations with Russia. It’s not simply because the president wants to stop the senseless killing or establish “a durable peace”. It’s because he wants assurances from Putin that he won’t assist Iran when the United States launches its attack on Tehran. He needs to know that Putin is not going to join the fight on Iran’s side.
As some readers know, Russia and Iran signed a strategic partnership treaty in early 2025. The agreement commits both parties to mutual defense cooperation if war breaks out. “The treaty stipulates that if one party is attacked, the other will not assist the aggressor and will seek to resolve differences diplomatically, suggesting a level of support without guaranteeing direct military intervention.” So, while Russia would not be required to put ‘boots on the ground’, it would be expected to provide weapons, intelligence and logistical support. (Russia has already provided Iran with advanced technology, including Su-35 fighter jets, Yak-130 trainers, and potentially S-400 air defense systems).
Military analyst Will Schryver believes that Russia would directly assist Iran if it were attacked by the United States. In an April 2024 Substack post titled “The Triple Alliance, For Dummies And Neocons,” he wrote:
In a putative war between the United States and Iran, both Russia and China would actively support Iran… Iran would simply be supplemented with arms and other logistical necessities from both its partners — and quite possibly taken under their nuclear umbrella in an explicit act of deterrence.
Schryver suggests that this support—potentially including advanced weapons or nuclear backing—would neutralize U.S. advantages, making a clear win improbable without escalating into a broader, unwinnable conflict. He also adds this chilling observation that must keep the Pentagon’s Top Brass awake at night:
In order for the United States to make war against any ONE of Russia, China, or Iran, it would be necessary to effectively vacate every major US base on the planet in order to concentrate enough military power to undertake the mission.
This suggests that a conflict with Iran would strain U.S. resources to a breaking point leaving it vulnerable on every other front. Schryver doesn’t see this as a prescription for victory but as a blueprint for defeat.
On X, Schryver has expressed doubts about U.S. military effectiveness against Iran’s defenses. In an October 2024 post, he remarked on Iran’s missile capabilities after its strikes on Israel:
Iranian missiles appear to have performed impressively… US/Israeli air defenses were unable to stop many of them.” He contrasts this with what he sees as overhyped U.S. capabilities, suggesting Iran’s ability to inflict damage could complicate any American offensive. Elsewhere, he’s mocked U.S. naval power, calling aircraft carriers “$13 billion piñatas” vulnerable to modern anti-ship missiles, which Iran possesses in quantity.
Schryver is not alone in his skepticism of US military prowess. Retired U.S. Army Colonel and former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, Lawrence Wilkerson, has repeatedly warned that the US is not as strong as many believe and would not prevail in a war with Iran. According to Wilkerson:
A war with Iran would be 10 to 15 times worse than the Iraq War in terms of casualties and costs… And we would lose. We would undoubtedly lose….. Iran is not Iraq… It’s got terrain that’s unbelievable… It’s got a military that’s far more capable—500,000 active forces, probably a million reservists who would come immediately to the fore.
In an interview with journalist Chris Hedges, Wilkerson stated ominously:
Israel is trying to suck America into a war with Iran that could destabilize the Middle East and perhaps terminate the experiment that is Israel and do irreparable damage to the empire that America has become.
Like Wilkerson, economist and political analyst Jeffrey Sachs feels that the US is heading for a war with Iran. In a recent interview that was viewed by millions of people around the world, Sachs placed the blame for the impending WW3 squarely on the shoulders of Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s lightening-rod leader who is behind the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Here’s what he said:
Netanyahu’s been gunning for war with Iran for years, and we’ve been following along… Six wars in the Middle East led by Israel with U.S. backing, and now they want a seventh.
1 minute video— Jeffrey Sachs;
‘Netanyahu responsible for all US wars in Middle East’ Sachs on Bibi
Iran is not alone, nor will they be alone, warned Sachs. Russia’s going to be there, China’s going to be there… This could be the tripwire for World War III, and it’s a nuclear war we’re talking about.
While not as pessimistic as Wilkerson or Sachs, former-CIA analyst Larry Johnson thinks Trump is simply biding his time until the Houthis strike a US warship with a hypersonic missile which will be used as a justification for launching an air war on Tehran. Here’s Johnson in a Wednesday post:
There are unconfirmed claims from Yemen that they fired a combination of missiles and drones at the USS Harry S Truman, an aircraft carrier. The Trump administration, as of this time, has said nothing about such an attack. I am certain of one thing–Yemen will fire missiles and drones at US and Israeli ships in the Red Sea and the US will continue to launch attacks inside Yemen.
If the Houthis succeed in hitting a US ship, I think the Trump administration will use this as its casus belli to attack Iran.
Instead of cowering in fear, I believe that Iran is preparing for the likelihood of a US strike and will retaliate against US military installations in the region. This could get out of hand real quick. If the Saudis allow US combat aircraft to launch against Iran, then Saudi oil-installations also are likely to be immolated. Is the Trump Administration Using Yemen as an
Excuse to Attack Iran?,
Sonar 21
Johnson poses a very plausible scenario, especially when we consider the developments of which the American people are entirely unaware, like this report from a March 6 column at the
Times of Israel:
The Israeli Air Force held a joint exercise with the US Air Force this week, during which pilots “practiced operational coordination between the two militaries to enhance their ability to address various regional threats.”
The drill included Israeli F-15I and F-35I fighter jets flying alongside a US B-52 bomber.
“The exercise aimed to strengthen and maintain the long-standing cooperation between the forces while expanding connectivity and building integrated capabilities for a range of scenarios,” the IDF says.
The drill is potentially aimed at readying the Israeli military for a potential joint strike with the US on Iran.
The IAF has already carried out two strikes on Iran without US support but would likely need the heavy capabilities of the B-52s to effectively hit Iran’s heavily fortified underground nuclear sites. Times of Israel
Or this:
Reports coming out that the Revolutionary Guards have been ordered to put all missile forces on a state of full alert
The Iranian government has brought these ominous developments to the attention of the UN Security Council but, of course, the MSM has made sure that the masses remain virtually ignorant of US/Israel provocations and saber-rattling.
It’s worth noting, that Iran has made significant progress in modernizing its military capability while the US is gradually falling behind. There is no doubt that Iran’s air defense systems and hypersonic missiles are more technologically advanced than anything comparable in the US arsenal. Iran also has a large and well-disciplined army that is trained to repel invaders, and a rugged, mountainous terrain that would blunt any potential military offensive. More importantly, it is not at all certain that the US would prevail in a war with Iran. In fact—judging by the war games that have been used to simulate the conflagration—US Forces would lose. And that is not because Iran has a more powerful military than the United States, but simply because it has shaped its military doctrine to fit its own defensive requirements and its own unique geographical situation. In short, Iran would have the “home team” advantage. Take a look at this excerpt from an article by Jordan Cohen at the Cato Institute:
A campaign that relies on air and naval power to rapidly beat Iran into submission will meet significant challenges. Iran’s military is designed to prevent such an invasion and impose significant costs on any potential attack by air or sea. They have 600-mile range cruise missiles, advanced long-range air defense systems, short-range air defense systems, anti-aircraft missiles, 3,000 ballistic missiles, 6,000 naval mines, and the most capable unmanned aerial vehicles in the region.
…Previous analysts have weighed the chances of success for a campaign reliant on U.S. air and naval power. A 2002 war game that required U.S. planners to change the rules mid-conflict showed that Iran could easily sink U.S. ships, and in 2012, Pentagon officials estimated that such a strategy would require a minimum of 100,000 troops….
If the intention is to use air and naval power to allow for ground operations, Iran is equally prepared. Such an assault would require absorbing massive costs to gain access into the country.
Analysts estimate that any ground invasion would require 1.6 million U.S. troops, almost ten times what the U.S. committed to Iraq at any given time. Upon arrival in Iran, Washington will face the 13th largest fit-for-service population in the world, the 13th most armored vehicles and self-propelled artillery in the world, the 9th most towed artillery in the world, and the 8th most mobile rocket projectors in the world. The human and material costs would be immense.
Iran’s strategy to combat the U.S. would center around making any naval and air assault costly, slow, and predicated on an assumption that eventually Americans will lose their willingness to continue fighting a war. Iran is surrounded by water and will use their anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles to cover their 2,400 kilometer southern coastline as well as exploiting the lack of U.S. minesweepers to slow down the pace of a naval assault. By slowing the pace of war, Iran will attack the political will of U.S. policymakers and the American public, while also giving themselves time to make decisions and potentially even blockade the Straits of Hormuz to the Gulf of Oman.
Despite Washington’s Confidence, US War with Iran Would Be Disastrous, CATO
As grim as Cohen’s analysis might sound, the reality facing the US (if Trump attacks Iran) is even grimmer. According to an exhaustive report on the present state of the US military by the RAND Corporation, “the Empire’s bloated, decaying global war machine… is “not prepared” in any meaningful way for serious “competition” with its major adversaries – (and is) significantly outmatched in every sphere of warfare…. the Empire’s worldwide dominance, are judged to be at best woefully inadequate, at worst outright delusional. Check it out:
From the Rand Report:
“We believe the magnitude of the threats the US faces is understated and significantly worse… At minimum, the US should assume that if it enters a direct conflict involving Russia, China, Iran, or North Korea, that country will benefit from economic and military aid from the others…This new alignment of nations opposed to US interests creates a real risk, if not likelihood, that conflict anywhere could become a multi-theater or global war…
As the Commission report spells out in forensic detail, Washington would be almost completely defenceless in such a scenario, and likely defeated nigh on instantly….
The RAND Commission found Washington’s “defense industrial base” is completely “unable to meet the equipment, technology, and munitions needs” of the US, let alone its allies. “A protracted conflict, especially in multiple theaters, would require much greater capacity to produce, maintain, and replenish weapons and munitions” than is currently in place….
….This “assumption of uncontested technological superiority”…. Those days are long over ….. America’s “defense industrial base” is today crumbling…
We have entered a strange, late-stage Empire era, comparable to the Soviet Union’s Glasnost, in which elements of the US imperial braintrust can see with blinding clarity Washington’s entire hegemonic global project is stumbling rapidly and irreversibly towards extinction…
Collapsing Empire: China and Russia Checkmate US Military, Kit Klarenberg, Substack
While there is no doubt that the US could inflict massive damage on Iranian nuclear sites, critical infrastructure and oil production facilities; there is also no doubt that the US would not prevail in a protracted conflict with Iran. The US simply does not have the industrial capacity, the weapons and missile stockpiles, or even the technological superiority needed defeat a country as powerful as Iran. There is, of course, a very real possibility that President Trump is unaware of these glaring shortcomings and still believes that the American Superpower can ‘crush Iran like a bug’. If that is the case—and I suspect it is—he will probably go ahead and launch air-strikes on Tehran triggering a response that will send oil prices skyrocketing, stock markets tumbling and shockwaves through the global economy. The Straits of Hormuz will be closed, and Trump will have created the conditions that will eventually force the US out of the region.
A war with Iran would be an unimaginable catastrophe for Iran, the United States and the world. It must be stopped.
