Summary
Highlights
The class begins by summarizing three major forces pushing the United States towards war with Iran: the Israel lobby (composed of groups like AIPAC and Christian Zionists), America's addiction to empire for 'easy money' (exemplified by Wall Street's influence), and Saudi Arabia, which views Iran as an existential threat. These forces influence key figures like Donald Trump, particularly through Jared Kushner's close ties to Israeli and Saudi leaders. Nikki Haley is also identified as a proponent for war against Iran, driven by support from the Israel lobby. Evidence from the first Trump administration, such as withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal, moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, ignoring MBS's actions, sponsoring the Abraham Accords, and assassinating General Qasem Soleimani, shows how these forces exerted influence.
The US military, while essential for implementing war, has changed its doctrine significantly. Once adhering to traditional principles of massing forces, avoiding encirclement, and protecting supply lines, the military shifted to 'shock and awe' after 2003. This new doctrine relies on air supremacy, technological omniscience, and special forces, allowing for seemingly cheap, quick, and decisive wars without public support. This has fostered a sense of hubris, leading the military to believe it can win any war. However, Operation Prosperity Guardian against the Houthis in Yemen demonstrated the limitations of this doctrine when faced with an enemy that cannot be defeated by these methods alone, particularly due to a lack of infantry and difficulty in resupply. Despite setbacks, the military's hubris prevents it from acknowledging these limitations.
The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps harbors resentment towards the US due to past interference (like supporting the brutal Shah regime from 1953-1979) and continued support for Israel and Saudi Arabia. They also seek revenge for the assassination of General Soleimani. There's a theory that the Revolutionary Guard Corps might have been involved in the death of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi to prevent de-escalation with the US. Iran is actively looking to provoke the US into an invasion, believing it can defeat or at least severely complicate a US military presence, leading to a likely war in the next two to four years.
A speculative scenario for March 2027 is presented: Trump announces 'Operation Iranian Freedom,' a full-scale US invasion with allies like Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UK, Australia, UAE, and Poland. Trump's public justification would include: supporting Iranian protests for democracy, preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons (claimed to be one month away), protecting global prosperity by securing shipping lanes from Iranian proxies, defending allies Israel and Saudi Arabia from attacks, and combating Iranian-sponsored terrorism. He would reassure the public of a quick victory, citing past military successes in Iraq, but this is viewed as an outcome of hubris and a need for justification rather than reality.
In the hypothetical invasion, the US and its allies quickly establish air and naval supremacy and land hundreds of thousands of troops in southern Iran, preparing to attack Tehran. However, the scenario reveals this as a trap. Following traditional military doctrine, the allied forces would be encircled in Iran's mountainous terrain, making it impossible to mass enough forces (Iran has a population of 90 million) and incredibly difficult to resupply. The troops would become hostages rather than conquerors. The expectation that Iranians would revolt against their government is flawed because Iranians remember US destruction in Iraq, resent the US-supported Shah, value their independence, and view the US as 'Satan' due to religious beliefs.
Two historical examples illustrate the 'Iran Trap.' The first is the Athenian invasion of Sicily in 415 BCE. Driven by hubris and addiction to empire, Athens sent a massive expeditionary force against Syracuse, only to have its army wiped out due to an inability to resupply. This led to Athens's defeat by Sparta and the collapse of its empire. The second is the Vietnam War, where the US military, despite knowing the war was unwinnable, escalated its involvement due to 'mission creep' and a desire to maintain credibility, driven by the 'sunk cost fallacy.' Both examples show how misjudgment and hubris lead to costly and unwinnable wars.
The Russia-Ukraine war serves as another contemporary example. The Ukrainian military's refusal to retreat and overextend the Russian forces, instead fighting for every inch, led to significant losses. The subsequent counteroffensive against Russian fortifications was also disastrous. This is attributed to President Zelenskyy's focus on public image over strategic reality, the influence of extremist (Neo-Nazi) elements pushing for continued war, and potentially NATO's strategic advice. This highlights how an emphasis on optics and external influence can lead to military blunders, analogous to what might happen in an Iran invasion.
A game theory analysis reveals the motivations of key players. The US wants to topple the Iranian regime. Iran's Revolutionary Guard wants a US land invasion to inflict heavy casualties and humiliate the US. Israel and Saudi Arabia's optimal outcome is the mutual destruction or weakening of both Iran and the US military presence in the Middle East, allowing them to become dominant regional powers. This scenario means all major participants desire a US invasion, but for conflicting and ultimately self-serving outcomes, painting the US as a pawn in a larger regional power play.
If US troops are trapped in Iran, Trump, to save face, would likely threaten Iran with nuclear weapons. To prevent this, Iran would need an alliance with Russia. Putin, by publicly declaring a no-nuclear-weapons policy (threatening to nuke any party that uses them), could become a global hero while simultaneously trapping the US in Iran. This 'black hole' scenario would force the US to continuously pour resources into an unwinnable war without the option of nuclear escalation. The final problem for the US is its lack of manufacturing capacity for military supplies, making a prolonged conventional war impossible compared to adversaries like China.