Why regime change in Iran won't be pro-US

After leading the charge against Communism for 50 years, the Iraq war and the Afghan war, the last thing the American people want is war and occupation of Iran.

Under President Trump, the United States is waging economic war with a variety of nations - from Asian nations China and North Korea to Russia, Turkey and Pakistan. But nowhere is economic war more focused than against Iran.

The objective of sanctions against Iran, according to President Trump - and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu - is to get a new deal to replace the previous Iran Deal negotiated by Barrack Obama. However, should Iran Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei not comply, the Iranian economy will continue to erode and regime change will be inevitable.

Yet there is no chance Iran will erupt in civil war. Though the Iranian people are frustrated with the current regime, they are more terrified of instability than of Khamenei and the mullahs. Seeing instability in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya is the main reason for this.

Like in 1979, the next Iranian revolution will not be bloody. There are two alternatives, and neither of them would be pro-United States.

The first alternative is that Qassem Suleimani will become the next leader of Iran. Should Iranian protests grow and Ali Khamenei order the Quds force to fire on civilians, it is possible that Suleimani will claim Khamanei has lost his Islamic legitimacy and take control of Tehran. Should that occur, it would be a nightmare for the US, Israel and their allies.

The second alternative is that the Iranian army will engage in a military coup against the Iranian regime and take control of Tehran. Military coups are common in the Middle-East, with the most recent one taking place in Egypt in 2013.

In either scenario, relations between Russia and Iran would strengthen and the US would not be able to make inroads. The Middle-East is well aware that the United States has had an incompetent track record in its foreign policy in the region - conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria were all exacerbated by American idealism over any real interest to engage with regional issues.

The most recent example of this would be the United States still calling for a return to the Geneva talks in the Syrian conflict, though Geneva has proven much less successful than the Russia-backed Astana and Sochi talks.

On the other hand, Russia is on the ascendancy in the Middle-East because it has largely cooperated with regional actors and sought the best for each nation on balance. For Syria, Iran, Turkey and Israel, Russia under President Putin has engaged in delicate diplomacy to provide the best needs for each regional actor in the context of the Syrian crisis. First and foremost, it has restored control of Syria to the Syrian Arab Army and has cleared out the majority of the region from ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

For Israel, Russia has made sure that the Syrian-Israeli border does not become a stage for another proxy war with Iran. For Turkey, Russia has allowed the country to militarily intervene against Kurdish separatists in northern Syria. It is likely that Turkey will acquiesce to Bashar Al-Assad controlling Syria on the condition that the Kurdish enclave in northern Syria be disbanded.

Because of this, in the event of regime change, Iran is unlikely to realign with the US-Israeli-Gulf axis. Instead, Iran is likely to keep its current alliances and only shift rhetoric. Whether the rhetoric turns more extreme or less will depend on whether the Quds force or the Iranian military take charge after the mullahs.

Trump faces risk in Afghanistan as Putin did in the Ukraine

With the collapse in US-Pakistani relations, Pakistani-Russian reproach risks surrounding Afghanistan with Russian allies, forcing the US into a very uncomfortable position.


President Trump's South Asia strategy is working. The worsening instability in Afghanistan is a byproduct of a successful strategy: if the Taliban and Pakistan weren't worried, the violence would not be at the level of intensity that it is now.

As a result of the South Asia strategy, Indian-US ties are strengthening and Pakistani-US relations are worsening. This re-calibration of US alliances in South Asia is leading Pakistan and Russia - who traditionally have not been allies - into solidifying an alliance that leaves Afghanistan surrounded on all of its borders by Russian-Chinese allies.

This would not normally be an issue - except that, should China and Russia deal the US a defeat in Afghanistan, the US' ability to rival China as a superpower would be threatened in the long-term. Beneath the mountains of Afghanistan are an estimated trillions of dollars-worth of minerals. The minerals in Afghanistan are some of the last major mineral monopolies not held by China. Should the US be driven out of Afghanistan, it would also be driven out of one of the last major mineral monopolies, and its ability to compete economically with China in the future would be seriously challenged.

As in 2011, Pakistan may close off its land and air routes into Afghanistan, leaving the US to take the long route through central Asia. But in 2011, Pakistan relied on a later improvement in US-Pakistani relations. Today, it no longer relies on the US as it has both Russian and Chinese backing. In short, it could close off its land and air routes into Afghanistan indefinitely with less to lose than in 2011.

This makes it easier for Russian/Chinese allies to choke off all supply by sea for Afghanistan. Not only does Afghanistan border Pakistan - it borders central Asian countries to the north, which are closely allied to Russia, and it borders anti-American Iran to the west.

Such a scenario would leave President Donald Trump as hamstrung in Afghanistan as President Putin was in Ukraine in 2014. Like Ukraine for President Putin, Afghanistan is central to American geopolitical interests.

Should supply be held off by all countries bordering Afghanistan, President Trump would be forced into either withdrawal from Afghanistan - which would threaten US interest in Asia - or into forcibly seizing a sea route from one of Afghanistan's neighbours. The more likely choice? President Trump would be more likely to seize a sea route from one of Afghanistan's neighbours and, of the countries which border Afghanistan, Iran is the most likely candidate for US invasion.

Yet like George H. Bush's foreign policy with Iraq, President Trump would not want to invade and occupy all of Iran, as this would inflame tensions between Russia and the US to breaking point. Instead, a limited operation to annex a south-eastern province from Iran would be the ideal strike against the Russian ally. Not only would Afghanistan be able to have access to the sea and Iran's nuclear program be threatened - annexing Iran's south-eastern province would separate Iran from Pakistan. They would no longer border each other.

Such a precision strike by the US would humiliate the Iranian Army - which has long backed the Ayatollah and the Iranian regime - but would also be far easier than regime change, as Iran's south-east is sparsely populated and ethnically close to the Afghans.

It would create tensions between the Iranian Army and State which could be manipulated by the US for years to come. It would aid President Trump in his struggle for Afghanistan, reassure Israel and Middle-East partners of President Trump's willingness to tackle Iran and, crucially, connect Afghanistan to the wider Middle-East.

This risk of President Trump annexing Iran's south-eastern province is vividly similar to President Putin's own annexation of the Crimea from Ukraine. Faced with losing dominance over the Black Sea and less of a buffer between NATO and its own borders, Russian President Vladimir Putin annexed the Crimea from Ukraine to defend its interests against Europe and the US. Given that both Putin and Trump base their foreign policy on putting the needs of their own countries first, in desperation, President Trump is likely to try such a brazen move as Putin did in his own desperation.

With the collapse in US-Pakistani relations, Pakistani-Russian reproach risks surrounding Afghanistan with Russian allies, forcing the US into a very uncomfortable position. But, like Vladimir Putin with Crimea, it would still be likely to go President Trump's way.

Why President Trump is not a war President

Though many of President Trump's political enemies would love him to be painted in such a light, President Trump has shown curious restraint that many other candidates of the 2016 election - both Republican and Democrat - would not have.

The most famous - and frightening - call for war from Presidential candidates of 2016 was for an invasion of Syria against the Russians, to establish a no-fly-zone - something Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham and Hillary Clinton all pushed for in their foreign policy. President Trump, while bombing Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib, Syria, did so as a stunt against North Korea and to keep his foreign policy looking unpredictable.

Nor is it likely that President Trump will go to war with North Korea. Intense diplomatic pressure has been put on North Korea, China and Russia to deal with the threat Pyongyang represents to the region by seeking to acquire nuclear missiles. Contrary to Media narrative, the diplomatic pressure has been highly successful, and President Trump has been able to avoid war on the Korean peninsula while crippling the regime with harsher and harsher sanctions.

With the exception of the war on ISIL, Afghanistan is about the only war President Trump has committed to. This is in line with President Trump's "America First" foreign policy, as a stable Afghanistan not only denies terror safe havens for Al-Qaeda, ISIL and the Taliban - US presence in is also strengthens bilateral relations with India against the growing influence of China, as well as curbs Pakistan's dangerous moves in support of the Taliban.

President Trump seems highly uninterested in starting a war - whether it be against Syria and Russia, North Korea, or even Iran or Pakistan. Trump is more interested in finishing wars - that is, cleaning up the mess left behind by both the Bush and Obama Administrations, namely in Iraq and Afghanistan, and using such nations as platforms from which to shine the hope of democracy into the Middle-East and Asia.

It is such a shock to the world that a US president who acts as Donald Trump does would be more interested in peace than either of his predecessors. But that is the reality: President Trump is interested in stabilizing both Iraq and Afghanistan, followed by turning US focus back home, to make America Great Again and restore the US' reputation globally.

US-Russian reproach to follow Pakistan debacle?

The US needs a stable route into Afghanistan.

More important for the US than economic security for their mission in Afghanistan - which is what Pakistan has provided for the US over the last 16 years - is regional security. Pakistan has continued to show that it is unwilling to give up on its dangerous foreign policy, which allows US troops to use Pakistan as a base while also funding the very Taliban the US are trying to destroy.

Should Pakistani-US relations continue to sour - as seems highly likely under the Trump Administration - the US will be forced to use the more expensive Central Asia route. The route through Central Asia forces the US to deal with its strained relations with Moscow, for to have access to Central Asia requires Russian approval.

The US would likely be able to reach common ground on Afghanistan with the Kremlin, as Moscow is in no position currently to tackle the jihad threat in that region, but thorny issues like Ukraine and Syria present a difficulty for the two world powers. One sure way to ease tensions between Washington and Moscow would be for the Trump Administration to tacitly approve the political process in Syria, allow Bashar Al-Assad to stay in power and stop the rhetoric of regime change.

Such thawing of Russian-US relations also has the potential to drive a wedge between Russia and China, as Russia is far more concerned about the rising terror threat in the region than its counterpart in Beijing. China sees Pakistan and its foreign policy as advantageous to holding back India and gaining leverage over mineral reserves in Afghanistan. Though Russia has also been eying those mineral reserves, the Kremlin is aware that mineral monopoly is not worth risking instability and terrorism for the Russian Federation.

Given President Trump's long held view that he would get along well with President Putin, it is time for a thawing of relations between the two world powers regarding Afghanistan. Otherwise the US will be unable to achieve the results it desires for Afghanistan and the South Asia region.

Trump's Afghanistan Strategy is an Asia Strategy

In late August President Donald Trump recommitted US forces to Afghanistan, to defeat the Taliban and to help the US achieve military victory there as part of his South Asia strategy. But President Trump's strategy represents more than victory over the Taliban, and has implications even larger than just South Asia. President Trump's strategy in Afghanistan is an integral part of a successful US pivot towards Asia.

President Trump is using his strategy in Afghanistan to reshape US alliances in Asia. In President Trump's speech, rhetoric against Pakistan was made harsher and an invitation was extended for India to invest more fully in Afghanistan. The US has calculated that in Asia, India is an essential long-term ally and will thus receive the lion's share of benefits from Afghanistan at the expense of Pakistan. The US is turning the Afghan War into a proxy war between India and Pakistan, a proxy war that India is likely to invest in victory for.

As a result of this policy, US-Pakistani relations are deteriorating. This gives India the reassurance they need that they will be a highly prized US ally and will be able to commit long-term to the US over other geopolitical contenders, such as Russia. Pakistan, on the other hand, will be forced to rely more exclusively on China and Russia and, given Pakistani links to terrorism, Pakistan will taint Russian and Chinese reputations in Asia.

The geopolitical calculation of the Trump Administration is that together, the US and India are a powerhouse which can match growing Chinese influence. Victory in Afghanistan would see an enormous economic boost for India and the US, and would allow both countries to rely less on China for unearthing rare minerals. Estimates put the minerals in Afghanistan as worth trillions of dollars, and securing those resources with a government in Afghanistan friendly to India and the US would mean that India and the US would compete with China in the minerals' monopoly.

The South Asia strategy, together with harsher measures on North Korea and more open US-Taiwanese relations, sees a US that is pivoting away from quagmires in the Middle-East and towards Asia. In a stronger Indian-US alliance cemented in Afghanistan, China is finally faced with a worthy adversary.

Trump to ignite proxy war with China in Afghanistan

In the Presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised to be harsher on China. Today, President Trump's actions are beginning to match his campaign rhetoric.

More US pressure has been exerted on China from a number of fronts. First of these is North Korea, with President Trump pushing for President Xi Jinping to reel in its unstable neighbor. As well as this is increased relations between Taiwan and the US, largely unnoticed in the American media.

But perhaps the most serious challenge to China is President Trump's ambition to continue the Afghan War. The US has long backed the Afghan government, previously headed by President Hameed Kharzai and now headed by President Ashraf Ghani. China, on the other hand, backs Pakistan who, in turn, back the Taliban. And Al-Qaeda leader, Ayman Az-Zawahiri, pledges allegiance to the Taliban leader.

Trump's aim is to expose Chinese tacit support of terrorism in Afghanistan. China is a staunch ally of Pakistan, and Pakistan arms and gives safe haven to the Taliban. For Trump, exposing Chinese support for the Taliban would allow the US to monopolize on the minerals which lie at the heart of Afghanistan.

Over the last 15 years, US has been unable to win either Afghanistan or Iraq, and has also accrued enormous levels of debt. The Iraq War decreased support for America globally and distracted the US from the Afghan War. George W. Bush also increased government spending while increasing tax breaks for American workers, resulting in a 5.8 trillion dollar increase to the US national debt.

Under President Obama, relations between select allies was strained by several contradictory policies, such as support for the Arab Spring, the overthrow of Qaddafi, support to Syrian rebels and the Iran nuclear deal. Obama policies on Afghanistan and Iraq allowed the Taliban to resurge and ISIS to proclaim a Caliphate. And under Obama, the debt soared to even greater heights, an addition of a staggering 11 trillion dollars.

For Donald Trump, Afghanistan is more than just a terror safe haven needing to be eradicated. US influence internationally is waning; Chinese and Russian influence is growing. One way to sustain US influence internationally is by monopolizing on the minerals in Afghanistan, of which some estimates conclude are up to 3 trillion dollars in worth. But should the US fail to win the war, China would have total dominion over all major mineral reserves, and the US' status as a superpower may be challenged as never before.

For US strategy in Afghanistan, there are worrying signs from key members of President Trump's staff. Rex Tillerson, the Secretary of State, has stated that the US may not win on the battlefield, but neither will the Taliban, undermining Trump's rhetoric of winning in Afghanistan, and Trump's suggestion that the Taliban may not even want to negotiate. Both Tillerson and General Nicholson have stated they wish to push the Taliban to the negotiating table, a flawed strategy and counter to Trump's own Afghan policy speech.

In Afghanistan, President Trump wants to defeat the Taliban - and, by extension, Pakistan and China - which is why he has brought India into the forefront. India, like China, is an emerging superpower. Letting India have more influence in Afghanistan is more likely to achieve a lasting victory.

Since the Iraq War, the US has been unable to score many lasting victories in their foreign policy. Should the US lose the Afghan War, it would add to their long list of military disasters which have transpired over the last 14 years.

Trump laments failures in Afghanistan

According to a report by NBC news, Trump has been unwilling to sign off the new Afghanistan strategy because it does not represent a sizable enough shift from the Bush-Obama era:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-says-u-s-losing-afghan-war-tense-meeting-generals-n789006

He lamented bitterly, complaining that though US troops were fighting and dying there, China was making the most profit out of the conflict, while Trump continually called for the firing of General John Nicholson, in charge of the war in Afghanistan. He also complained about the use of NATO and the incompetency of the generals to win the war after 16 years. Amusingly, he compared the generals' strategies to a business proposal in a failing New York restaurant, and said that the veterans of the Afghan war had given him more sound advice than the generals had.

Trump is right to be critical of US policy in Afghanistan. Obama's strategy has been rightly called wanting to 'not lose the war' and including absurd policies like announcing surges and withdrawals simultaneously. At its height, 100,000 troops were in Afghanistan under Obama, but due to announcing their withdrawal at the same time, the Taliban just hid and waited them out. The only positive which happened under Obama in Afghanistan was the killing of Bin Laden in neighboring Pakistan.

Bush's strategy on Afghanistan was one of negligence. The first two years of war showed remarkable success against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, but this was all wasted by the Iraq War, which saw Afghanistan fall into the background. With ISIS almost defeated in Iraq and Syria, Trump will likely do the opposite: Iraq will fall to the background and Afghanistan will be brought to the foreground.

Trump's own ideas behind Afghanistan are remarkable. His ideas include taking control of the mineral reserves which bankroll the Taliban - while this would likely require a significant troop surge, the goal of securing the mineral reserves offers something tangible to both Afghan and US troops: economics.

What is paramount is that Trump needs to make a decision soon. Morale among Afghan troops is waning, the Taliban continues to win the war, and many Afghan war veterans are worried that their sacrifice will be in vain. Winning the Afghan War is crucial for stability in the Middle-East and for Trump's own credibility. Trump cannot afford another Vietnam.