The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has presented an updated military plan to President Donald Trump that envisions sending as many as 120,000 troops to the Middle East should Iran attack American forces or accelerate work on nuclear weapons, the New York Times reported by quoting U.S. officials. The number is close to that of the American force deployed in the Middle East in 2003 to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime.
The U.S. would launch a war against Iran? This suspense is quite shocking. President Trump dismissed the report on late Tuesday night, local time. However, the U.S. often minces words and it is hard to trust their words.
But it is already quite a shock even if the U.S. just released this news to “intimidate” Iran, because it shows the possible level the U.S.-Iran conflict could reach once being intensified. That means, sending the ground forces to invade Iran is an option for the U.S., since it is absolutely unnecessary to send troops of this size for just launching air strikes.
Look what the U.S. government is doing to a mostly peaceful era. China and the U.S. are engaged in the largest trade war in history. In Venezuela, the situation is a bit like “two rival regimes” and U.S. military intervention is more and more possible. In Iran, there has been a drastic change from having a stable nuclear deal to U.S. planning for military strikes against Tehran or even conquest.
Today’s Washington is too arrogant, and they seem to revel in the illusion that American power is omnipotent. In fact, the Greater Middle East has taught enough lessons to the U.S. after the Cold War. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq consumed the national power of the U.S., without leaving a legacy worth cherishing. Afghanistan and Iraq have become two big burdens of the U.S.
Many people believe that if the U.S. experiences another war involving Iran, it may indeed be dragged down into decline.
It can be said that the U.S. will not impulsively wage a war against Iran. Although Iran is much weaker than the U.S., it will fight more desperately than the U.S. because the conflict is a matter of life and death for itself. Moreover, no other country the U.S. attacked after the Cold War has been ever stronger. Today’s Iran is relatively the most difficult one to deal with.
For all the disadvantages, Washington still chose to warn Iran like this. Perhaps “taking a tough line”has been regarded by the current U.S. government as the lifeline of its foreign policy. The U.S. wants to use extreme pressure, a complete no-brainer approach, as a master key to open locks of various issues of the world.
However, what is very embarrassing is that the key of extreme pressure has not yet unlocked a single major lock. From North Korea to Venezuela and Iran, the situations are all in a mess. In the past week, the trade agreement between China and the United States, which had been expected to be concluded, was suddenly hit by the extreme pressure from the U.S. The China-U.S. conflict returned to the climax of confrontation.
We believe that the U.S. attitude towards Iran is strongly upsetting Pyongyang, leaving the latter to think about the reason why the U.S. constantly waves its military fists to Iran and now even plans to send 120,000 troops to the Middle East. Doesn’t this equate to undisguised bullying of a country with no nuclear weapons?
All countries in the world need to be wary of possible attacks by Washington’s “America first” policy. Washington is shaking the world. The U.S. thinks it benefits too little from a relatively peaceful and stable world. Disrupting the world to some extent can help the U.S. use its power to coerce individual countries and remake the rules for countries to transfer benefits to the U.S.
However, Washington does over-estimate its control over this risky process and seriously underestimate the determination of countries to defend their core interests. The U.S. will get busy sending itself into a quagmire-like conflict one after another, only to find that it gains nothing more. Instead, the U.S. would have gained a lot should it choose co-existence and cooperation with the world.