In the hallways of Washington and the media centres monitoring the Middle Eastern conflict, two vastly disparate predictions have been made regarding a possible American strike on Iran. These predictions differ not only in degree but also in kind, revealing a profound divergence of opinion between seasoned analysts of the same data. This divergence presents a stark choice between two irreconcilable predictions that the people around the world must weigh in considering one of the most important decisions the Trump administration must make.<\/p>\n
One of these analysts, Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, suggests that if American military action does indeed take place, it will be a calculated restraint, ultimately proving to be a face-saving measure. This action will be limited in scope, unilaterally executed, and intended above all to resolve the political puzzle that currently faces Trump. In stark contrast, the analysis of two former CIA intelligence officers, Larry Johnson and Ray McGovern, suggests that American military action could take place within days, resulting in a conflagration that will engulf American bases, Israel, and the global economy.<\/p>\n
What could only be considered a stark contrast between two irreconcilable predictions lies at the heart of this analysis. While Professor Mearsheimer sees a calculated restraint born of military futility, Johnson and McGovern see an inexorable march toward war.<\/p>\n
The case for calculated restraint<\/p>\n
Professor Mearsheimer\u2019s framework is built on a grim reality: that regime change in Iran remains militarily unachievable and would carry massive negative regional consequences. Indeed, his analysis suggests that American military commanders informed Trump on January 14 that they could not guarantee regime change in Iran, particularly in response to the failure of CIA-orchestrated street protests throughout Iran. This leaves Trump with a series of painful options.<\/p>\n
\u201cSimply adding more military force to the region does not make regime change any more achievable,\u201d Mearsheimer argues, \u201cand this is precisely Trump\u2019s problem, which he brought on himself with his bellicose rhetoric.\u201d The only option left for him now, he states, is to launch \u201ca limited strike, which would be a face-saving way to declare victory and then get out.\u201d However, this too poses enormous risks, since \u201cIran has made it clear that any military strike, no matter how limited, will trigger full-bore retaliation.\u201d The consequences of such an event would be easy to predict: \u201cIranian missiles falling on American targets throughout the Middle East, attacks on Israel in spite of Israel\u2019s attempts to stay out of this war, and perhaps even an attack on the Strait of Hormuz, an act which would have devastating consequences for the world economy.\u201d One of the core assumptions of Mearsheimer\u2019s argument is his assertion that American policy towards Iran is motivated not by legitimate security concerns but rather by the Israel Lobby. He cites the attempted rapprochement with Iran by the Clinton administration as an example of how American presidents are prevented by the (Zionist) Lobby from pursuing policies beneficial to Israel, and how this creates an ever-present danger of war between the two countries, even when such a war is counterproductive for American interests.<\/p>\n