The "Islamic Republic" is hated by (reliable sources say) about 75% of the populace. The best way to unite them is to give them a common enemy. An invasion of US troops, all fired up by Trump's anti-brown people rhetoric, would be just what the doctor ordered to sway sentiment in Iran against us. I'm sure that back when our intelligence services were worthy of the name (say, prior to January 20 of this year), they were working tirelessly on establishing friendly contacts with the Iranian opposition.
Besides, Republican administrations, for all their tough talk, do not like starting fights with opponents that will shoot back. Who did Reagan end up attacking, after all his tough talk? The Caribbean island state of Grenada! Population of less than 115,000 people, 14 by 21 miles or some such dimension. a REALLY big threat, right? And then Bush, Sr. ? Panama. Bigger than Grenada, but also not exactly in the "formidable opponent" category. Even Cheney (dba Bush, Jr.), with the invasion of Iraq, was not making a change in tactics, but just making a gross miscalculation. Rummy said, on the scene, on national Television, right after the invasion began, that he expected the conquest of all of Iraq to require "maybe six days, maybe six weeks, certainly not six months." Oops. We got mired down in that pile of quicksand because they had not done their homework, and that they wouldn't abandon their WMD fiction. But Iran?
Iran is not speck of land or an expanse of uninhabited desert. It is a heavily populated (and armed) country of over 90 million people. It is multi-ethnic, though majority Persian. If invaded, they WILL shoot back. An invasion of Iran will most definitely NOT produce the kind of instant gratification victory that Republicans like to flaunt. There would be a need for a lot of body bags. If Trump invades Iran, I'm buying stock in the company that makes those body bags, because we will need a lot of them.
= new reply since forum marked as read
