https://x.com/RezaNasri1/status/2027289919819854086
Vice President 's claim that a war with Iran wouldn’t drag on for decades rests on a subjective belief that Donald Trump would somehow handle it better than George W. Bush.
That is not a serious strategic or geopolitical assessment, nor is it rooted in a deep and nuanced understanding of Iran or the region. It is a political statement that ignores the realities on the ground.
The idea that a war with Iran would be limited, controllable, or somehow less disastrous than Iraq is a dangerous illusion. Iran is not Iraq. It is far larger, far more populous, and far more prepared. Nearly 90 million people, a massive territory, and a state that has spent decades planning for confrontation with the United States. Add Iran’s geostrategic position—at the crossroads of regions and vital energy routes—and the fantasy of a neat, contained war collapses.
Even if Washington somehow managed to weaken or topple the central government, that would not end the conflict—it would mark the beginning of a far more dangerous phase. Unlike Iraq, Iran has millions of deeply committed supporters who see resistance as both a national and moral obligation. They would not vanish with the state. Hundreds of armed groups would emerge, fighting U.S. forces, regional allies, and anyone viewed as imposed from outside. The insurgency that followed the invasion of Iraq would look small, brief, and far less consequential by comparison.
Most importantly, regardless of what you’ve been told by Israeli advisers or so-called “Iran experts” in the monarchist diaspora, Iran’s leadership is not comparable to Iraq or any other country in the region.
Iran's Supreme Leader is not a secular, conventional politician comparable to other heads of state. Ayatollah Khamenei is a marja-e taqlid, a source of religious authority revered by millions of Shi’a Muslims well beyond Iran—and respected even among Sunnis—across the Middle East, South Asia, the Muslim world, and much of the Global South. Any attempt on his life would not be seen as a routine act of war or regime change. It would be perceived as a religious and civilizational assault. The likely response would include mass mobilization, new religious fatwas calling for resistance, and grassroots pressure for armed struggle that would reverberate far beyond Iran itself.
If the U.S. moves against Iran’s Supreme Leader, it would be the first time in Islamic history a marja-e taqlid has been directly targeted by a foreign Western power. JD Vance’s belief that this could happen without severe long-term repercussions for Americans is dangerously naive.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.