Relations between the United States and Iran have become increasingly tense as the scheduled removal of Iranian celebrities and the bombing of a Shiite convoy have led to war.
On one side is Esmail Ghani, the new commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards '" Holy City Brigade ", who warns the United States about the death of his former Suleimani:" We warn everyone, be patient, you will See the bodies of Americans all over the Middle East. "
On the 4th, a commander of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards issued another warning, saying that all 35 US targets in the Middle East were within Iran's range.
On the other side, Trump issued a warning: We have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture.
In addition, the US Department of Defense confirmed on the 3rd that the USS Bataan LHD 5 Wasp class amphibious assault ship has cancelled its planned exercises with the Moroccan military and is carrying thousands of Marine Corps to the Middle East. According to US media reports, the Pentagon also plans to increase the number of nearly 3,000 soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division in response to the threat from Iran.
There was a little irritability on both sides, and my eyes were bleeding, and when a little ignition star came out, there was a possibility of burning a sea of fire.
But I still don't think the United States and Iran will start a large-scale war, because Iran has few options to retaliate against the United States.
If Iran wants to attack the United States, it is almost a dream. It is estimated that there are no ultra-long-range missiles, let alone sending ground troops. It is a daydream, there are no doors, and the ground department has not yet gone to sea.
Moreover, Iran may not really dare to start a war. The main thing is not to fear the United States, but to have serious internal problems. Iran 's interior seems calm, but it has already surged undercurrents. More and more people are dissatisfied with the current government. There have been two large-scale demonstrations and protests, even shouting the slogan of religious leaders to death. This was unimaginable before.
Under such circumstances, Iran's war with the United States may trigger domestic unrest, and the risks of the current government are obvious. If you can enjoy everything on the throne of power, why not take this risk.
So will the United States directly send ground forces to fight Iran on a large scale? I think the possibility is also very small.
First, although the U.S. military budget soared during Trump's administration, we know that war is really too expensive.
It used to be that cannon fodder was not valuable and could be used for human tactics. But now, cannon fodder is valuable, that is, people are valuable. Therefore, more and more new technologies and new weapons that do not require too much human have been developed.
These weapons can indeed reduce the use of their own cannon fodder and reduce casualties, but they are also too expensive to die, costing tens of millions of dollars at every turn. Hitting a shot may cost tens of millions of dollars. Going for another trip, the weapons are destroyed, and hundreds of millions of dollars may be gone.
This battle is now fought against money. And Iran 's economic downturn in recent years just happens to be short of dollars. How about hundreds of thousands of troops? Without money, you can't buy any weapons. Millions of troops can instantly become cannon fodder.
Compared with Iraq in the past, Iran does not necessarily have outstanding military strength except ballistic missiles. In the past few years, the United States has made continuous military progress. The gap between the two is not generally large. The United States fought Iraq in more than forty days, and as for Iran. Two weeks is enough, or even shorter.
The United States is indeed rich and rich, and can afford it. But if you can afford it, you don't have to fight it. If there is a better way to solve it, why do you have to fight it? Trump says he wants to stop the war, not to start it. He wants Iran's regime to be changed.
Once the war is over, the money will be very terrible to burn for the after-war construction, and the United States will also worry that it will consume itself because of the war and let the status of the great power of the United States slip. Is this just a cheap country that wants to compete for position?
The other is that after the fight, will Iran become a mess that can't be cleaned up and will cause the United States to consume too much energy?
The strategic position of the Middle East is too important. Many countries, including major powers, are staring here and wrestling here. The United States cannot help but worry.
For the United States, maintaining its number one power status is overwhelming rationality, and will never give up this first-class benefit for the sake of small gains.
Therefore, warfare is a jealousy for the United States. Unless warfare not only consumes oneself, but also makes money, then you can fight.
In order not to drag yourself into the war and drain yourself, the usual practice in the United States is to fight agent wars. Eisenhower once said in a speech that "agent war is a way to maximize national interest and is cheap." It both reduces the financial burden and reduces political risks, and is "the cheapest insurance." He was referring to the fact that surrogate warfare was more in the interest of the United States than a direct military invasion.
In the strategically contested Middle East, the United States has established some allies and has the opportunity to engage in proxy wars and use other countries' resources to fake wars and wage wars. In the Middle East, the most powerful US ally is Israel, and the relationship is also the ironiest. Choosing Israel as the Middle East ally to deal with Iran is undoubtedly the upper choice.
There are many things in the United States. On the one hand, it is necessary to settle Iran in the Middle East, but also other countries and regions in the world. This is a whole game of chess. In addition, the Vietnam War and the Korean War have learned a lot. He will easily devote his national strength to doing something worthless.
Because of this, fixed-point elimination will continue to be a strategy adopted by the United States. This low-cost, low-residue method of hitting opponents will make the core of the opponent's leadership particularly frightened.
Comments
Post a Comment