The Next Gulf War

Should Donald Trump be reelected, there is a possibility of a US war with Iran - but not invasion. Instead, similar to driving Saddam out of Kuwait, the US would drive Iran out of Iraq.

The Trump Administration would, almost under no circumstances, invade Iran.

To invade Iran would not only make the Iraq War look like a tea party - invading Iran would make Vietnam look easy. It has three potential invasion routes: either from the west, through marshland, as Saddam's Iraq tried; from the east, through desert, invading from Afghanistan, or amphibiously. In any of these potential scenarios, US casualties would be obscene - and that well before removing the Iranian regime.

After removing the Iranian regime, the region would be completely destabilized - two to three times as unstable as after the Iraq War and the Arab Spring combined. The US would only be able to win in Iran long-term at the expense of its influence almost everywhere else, forced into a complete withdrawal from the world stage, and China would be the clear winner.

One of the principle reasons President Trump won the presidency was because he said Iraq was a "big fat mistake" to then candidate Jeb Bush during a presidential debate. Campaigning on anti-interventionism largely explains the rise of both Barrack Obama and Donald Trump - but unlike Barrack Obama, Donald Trump did not add any extra wars for the US military, likely guaranteeing him a second election win in November.

But an Iran-China strategic partnership makes war with the US more likely - either in the Middle-East or in the Pacific. Should President Trump be reelected, China would use Iran to apply maximum pressure on the US across the Middle-East. This may lead to US withdrawal from Syria - but in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US response to Iranian funds and supplies would be swift, prolonging both wars and keeping US attention away from Taiwan - which is China's ultimate aim. In Saudi Arabia and Lebanon, too, there is potential for instability and uprising - but it is in Iraq that a war between Iran and the US is perhaps most likely and, for Iran, loss of which would be most costly.

The recent Lebanese and Iraqi protests are a thorn in Iran's side. They threaten regime change in both nations; in Iraq, this would see all of the ruling elite that usurped power since 2003 out of power. In Lebanon, Iran's proxies are likely to survive in tact and may even end up in an enhanced position - but unlike Lebanon, Iraq has firm, US support, and is all the more likely to have the regime change in favour of the US and against Iranian interests.

Should the ruling elite of Iraq be forced out of power, civil war would ensue between the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces and the new government. In this scenario, both the US and Iran would support their proxies against the other and Iraq would, once again, see heavy urban fighting.

But unlike an invasion of Iran and unlike the Iraqi invasion of 2003, US support of anti-Iranian forces in Iraq would likely stabilize the region. Iran is the principle reason for instability in Iraq: Iran keeps the nation weak and amicable to Iranian interests, while fomenting instability and terrorism there keeps Iraqis otherwise occupied. Removal of Iranian proxies from Iraq would provide stability not seen in Iraq since before the Iran-Iraq war.

Instability likely to foment in Saudi Arabia's future increases the likelihood that the US will intervene against Iran in Iraq. This is because limited US military force would likely be used in a Saudi civil war, as Mohammed Bin Salman would need to maintain a certain distance from both the US and Israel to stay in power. Instead, MBS would have to win the war with arms supplied by the US, but largely alone. With US-allied victory not certain in Saudi Arabia, the US would want to see its hand strengthened in Iraq to remain influential in the region.

While US combat troops would be highly unlikely to reenter Iraq, US advisors and superior air and naval forces would likely be used to devastate the Popular Mobilization Forces and force them into Iran and out of Iraq. With Iran's proxies in both politics and military forced out of Iraq, the US would finally be able to see a stable Iraq, and Iraq would finally have an outcome worthy of previous US sacrifices there.

Iran's economy, however, would be devastated. Since 2003 sizable Iraqi profits have been taken out of Iraq and into Iran, draining the Iraqi economy but keeping Iran afloat. Even during current US sanctions, Iraq's oil and finances have kept Iran afloat. Without Iraq, Iran would be forced to rely more than ever on China, and it would redouble its efforts to strike back against the US elsewhere.

While US victory against Iran in Iraq would be likely, Iranian and Chinese influence could see a strong partnership between Iran and Iraq replaced with a different sort of partnership between Iran and Saudi Arabia. It is possible that another branch of the royal family that abhors compromise with Israel and the US would take control of the kingdom during the likely approaching civil war - should that occur, Saudi Arabia would trade its current close relations with the US for close relations with China and threaten instability in the gulf kingdoms, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq. In such an outcome, the Trump Administration's support for intervention in Iraq would be wholly justified, and the future of the region would be in Iraq's hands.