One View On How The US War With Iran Will End?

[PeterRS]

I have paid little attention to the pundits on TV and elsewhere about the Middle East War, partly because I do not trust a word of what politicians and so-called decision makers in any country are saying. However, as I sometimes do, I pick up nuggets from youtube. Some admittedly is crap - and I have recently been guilty of repeating one crap entry, for which I again apologise.

This morning, though, I listened to a video explanation by Canadian educator Jiang Xueqin (who is not actually a professor) of how he believes the war has to end. Hong Kong's South China Morning Post has dubbed him China's Nostradamus. I have never listened to any of his vdos before - and i admit I am slightly baffled by the comment on the top left "Altered or synthetic comment" as I do not know what it means! But I find much of what he says to be logical and worth hearing. Part of the reason for going to war was new to me - especially the petrodollar issue. And part of what he predicts could be one of the outcomes with shifting alliances in a Middle East without an American presence is at the least very interesting. I believe he is correct in sugeting that Iran will never trust America, if only because every time they have been in the midst of previous negotiations, the USA has torn them up. He believes that the USA has to withdraw from the Middle East partly because it will be overextended militarily, and that the resultant vacuum will be filled by Israel and Iran. The remaining Middle East states willl then align with one or the other - for their own interests. He believes that eventually Israel and Iran will eventually agree to co-exist - and that I do find more than somewhat difficult to believe. But then I really have no idea what to believe. I just find this analysis interesting. 

His entry on wikipedia states this -

Jiang's Geo-Strategy episode, "The Iran Trap" (2024), has attracted international attention, predicting the re-election of Donald Trump in 2024 and escalating U.S. involvement in a conflict with Iran (cf. the 2025 and 2026 conflicts) and eventual U.S. loss in a prolonged conflict, the first two of which have come true as of 2026. According to India Today, other analysts had made similar predictions but "Jiang packaged them early and memorably."

[caeron]

Trump made them play their own trump card, the strait of hormuz. The only real answer is invasion. Trump's politically in a corner about the war already. Ordering a ground assault and an occupying force would end him. He's an idiot, but I don't think he's that much of an idiot.

So, I don't see Trump getting what he wants at the negotiation table even if the Iranians negotiated in good faith.  They're very bad people, but they're not stupid people. For all their suffering, they have defeated us. They have a big chunk of the world's oil and gas hostage. 

Whether we withdraw more from the middle east, everybody is looking around for more trustworthy allies than the US. We elected that buffoon twice. They need to prepare for whoever the third will be.

[Pete1111]

Does Jiang Xueqin explain how Netanyahu persuaded Trump to attack Iran while Obama and Biden rejected that idea?

 It's peculiar he produces AI generated videos of himself.  Perhaps this is the efficient way to do it, since his geopolitical theories are also from AI

 

[PeterRS]

1 hour ago, Pete1111 said:

Does Jiang Xueqin explain how Netanyahu persuaded Trump to attack Iran while Obama and Biden rejected that idea?

 It's peculiar he produces AI generated videos of himself.  Perhaps this is the efficient way to do it, since his geopolitical theories are also from AI

Do we know for sure that Netanyahu persuaded Trump? To me that is spin and I have no idea if it is true or false. I believe Netanyahu is very much at the bottom of the quagmire the US is now in, but I doubt if Trump would have started a war unless he knew Netanyahu was going to back him up with a vast arsenal of weaponry. 

I know little about AI. But if his vdos are AI speak, they sure make a great deal of sense.

[Pete1111]

9 hours ago, PeterRS said:

Do we know for sure that Netanyahu persuaded Trump? To me that is spin and I have no idea if it is true or false. 

 

...e.g.  Former Secretary of State, John Kerry spoke about it.

 

[Pete1111]

This is the NYTimes article referenced by Kerry and Psaki, above.

It's behind a paywall. 

Basically Netanyahu pitched that an acceptable regime change was possible if the US attacked. 

The CIA, Rubio and Vance disagreed. 

Hegseth and Trump were convinced Netanyahu's plan had merit.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/politics/trump-iran-war-takeaways.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Z1A.S29h.2QIhz-im5ikR&smid=nytcore-android-share

10 hours ago, PeterRS said:

 

I know little about AI. But if his vdos are AI speak, they sure make a great deal of sense.

I am not an expert, but AI can include capturing information in the Cloud to craft evidence that agrees with an agenda.

It is worrisome how such AI conspiracy theories can persuade others.  Sounds like it works.

His theory Iran and Israel will become cooperative power brokers in the Middle East seems as farcical as how the CIA defined Netanyahu's regime-change scenario.

[PeterRS]

4 hours ago, Pete1111 said:

His theory Iran and Israel will become cooperative power brokers in the Middle East seems as farcical as how the CIA defined Netanyahu's regime-change scenario.

Thanks for taking us behind the paywall. As far as the above comment is concerned, today it does indeed seem farcical. But looking 2 or 3 years into the future, is it any more farcical that Germany would become an ally of the UK and the USA, or that Vietnam become an ally of the USA?

Israel is never going to get rid of Iran and Iran is never going together rid of israel. I can certainly see a situation where the Middle East is torn apart and then carved up between them. Surely that would be preferential to a bunch of individual states which were carved out of the desert and created from scratch by Brtain and other colonial powers?

[unicorn]

Either the US occupies Iran, and sees a real regime change via fair elections (monitored by the UN and/or US), or Trump goes down in defeat with his tail between his legs. No way for Trump to gets what he wants without changing the people at the top. He can't bomb his way to success.

[PeterRS]

4 hours ago, unicorn said:

Either the US occupies Iran, and sees a real regime change via fair elections (monitored by the UN and/or US), or Trump goes down in defeat with his tail between his legs. No way for Trump to gets what he wants without changing the people at the top. He can't bomb his way to success.

There is no way the US can occupy Iran.

[vinapu]

10 hours ago, PeterRS said:

Israel is never going to get rid of Iran and Iran is never going together rid of israel. I can certainly see a situation where the Middle East is torn apart and then carved up between them. Surely that would be preferential to a bunch of individual states which were carved out of the desert and created from scratch by Britain and other colonial powers?

preferential to whom ?  In Middle East carved between Israel and Iran where one will see place for 300 millions of Arabs ?  Will they prefer Israeli paradise or Iranian one ? What about  Turkey, after all former master of most of Middle East and still formidable power .

What makes  you thinking that British forced partition is better than Israeli / Iranian forced unification?

Israel's strength comes not from internal power although that is formidable. It's based on unwavering US support and division  among their Arab neighbours. Neither fact is eternal. All it takes is US antisemitic president preoccupied with troubles at home or Latin America and at the some time some Arab unifier  who manages to rise to prominence before is killed by Israelis  and picture  in the area  may be changed .

Atomic bomb if great deterrent but if , God forbid,  would be used, retaliation  will be much more devastating for country of 30000 sq. km than one 10 or 30 times bigger.  

[vinapu]

4 hours ago, PeterRS said:

There is no way the US can occupy Iran.

now you are talking

[unicorn]

15 hours ago, PeterRS said:

There is no way the US can occupy Iran.

I'm not implying that it's necessarily wise, and I doubt even Trump would do it, but the US did occupy Iraq and at least was able to oversee free elections there, so the US probably could occupy Iran. I doubt the IRG loves their Supreme Leader so much that they'd be willing to die in droves to support him. What will probably happen is just what happened in Venezuela. One dingbat replaced by another, no elections, and the status quo remains (but with an even more hostile leader). Just getting rid of a few leaders is just a silly plan destined to failure. Of course, even after elections are held, if the people won't fight for the leader they elected, it's ultimately hopeless (i.e. what happened in Afghanistan, where the people don't believe in democracy). Trump is a childish cur who acts on impulse and doesn't think things through (nor would he ever hire someone who could give him good advice). If there's any silver lining, it's that the independents in the US can now see what a disaster the Republicans are, and there should be a major swing in the US Congress with November's elections, which will finally put some brakes on Trump. 

[PeterRS]

1 hour ago, unicorn said:

I'm not implying that it's necessarily wise, and I doubt even Trump would do it, but the US did occupy Iraq and at least was able to oversee free elections there, so the US probably could occupy Iran.

The US could not occupy Iran. Let's get that very clear. It did indeed occupy Iraq with near disastrous consequences for it had no clue what it was really doing - one result being the rise of ISIS. But Iran is four times larger than Iraq - four times! Further, the deserts in Iran are nothing like the deserts in Iraq. They are not sand. They are basically a wide mix of some of the highest stony sand dunes on the planet, barren salty desert and high rugged mountains. Desert areas cover more than 50% of the country. Only around 10% of the country is what we might call lowland. 

Then there is the heat! Some of the hottest temperatures ever recorded on our planet were 82.2ºC (180ºF) near Iran's Qeshm Dayrestan Airport in August last year. For a long time the Lut Desert had the highest temperature ever recorded on earth at 70.7ºC. That was exceeded last year when the Lut Desert recorded 80ºC.  Humans die at such temperatures if exposed for much more than ten minutes without massive hydration. How long would troops carrying a lot of equipment last? Remember, too, that Iran has a severe shortage of water. While we're at it, let's also recall that if the present negotiations in Pakistan fail and Trump is idiotic enough to try and invade, he will be doing so at the hottest time of the year. I would certainly fear for the lives of US forces in such conditions, the more so as you have to cross deserts to get to many population centres. On my two-week trip to Iran in 2017, I had to spend two days crossing deserts and each time I prayed the car I was in would not break down!

Then there is the population. Before the war, Iraq had a population of between 24 and 25 million with 432,000 in its armed forces. Iran's population is generally agreed to be around 92 million and we know that it has much larger armed forces than Iraq in the Revolutionary Guard. We also know that Iranians are a proud and passionate people, jealous of their 2,500 year old Empire. Iraq only became a state in 1921. America's forces are already almost overstretched. A ground war would require massive conscription. After the disaster of Vietnam, the US public will never stand for that again unless the US homeland is being invaded.

https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/human-induced-climate-change-compounded-by-socio-economic-water-stressors-increased-severity-of-5-year-drought-in-iran-and-euphrates-and-tigris-basin/

[unicorn]

Again, I'm not saying it's a good idea, but I doubt the IRG or the people would put up much of a fight, especially if the US were to guarantee free elections. Obviously, there wouldn't need to be a US soldier in every corner of the country. The government would just have to resign (or be captured). I definitely agree that Trump has put the US into a big mess of a problem.

[Keithambrose]

3 hours ago, unicorn said:

Again, I'm not saying it's a good idea, but I doubt the IRG or the people would put up much of a fight, especially if the US were to guarantee free elections. Obviously, there wouldn't need to be a US soldier in every corner of the country. The government would just have to resign (or be captured). I definitely agree that Trump has put the US into a big mess of a problem.

"but I doubt the IRG or the people would put up much of a fight, especially if the US were to guarantee free elections."

 

I couldn't agree less!

[PeterRS]

4 hours ago, unicorn said:

Again, I'm not saying it's a good idea, but I doubt the IRG or the people would put up much of a fight, especially if the US were to guarantee free elections. Obviously, there wouldn't need to be a US soldier in every corner of the country. The government would just have to resign (or be captured). I definitely agree that Trump has put the US into a big mess of a problem.

You think the Iranian people are fighting for free and fair elections? What planet are you on? Hardly any now know what that means! Ever since the Brits and the CIA mounted the coup that got rid of their last freely elected Prime Minister Mosaddegh in 1953, there have never been free and fair elections. Iranians have only known dictatorships, increasingly repressive, megalomaniacal and murderous ones. Iranians do not forget that it was the USA's weapons and cash that enabled the hated Shah to hold on to power and to continue through his Sawak Secret police his murderous regime. Without all that American aid, the Shah could never have survived - and the result of that would almost certainly have been no Khomeini. Nor do Iranians forget that when Saddam Hussein started the 8-year Iraq/Iran War, it was with Saddam that the USA sided. And what happened to Saddam? The Iranians know well that the USA turned 180º against him. Further, as we now know from CIA documents declassifed in 2013, the USA never once pushed Saddam to stop using chemical weapons against the Iranians.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/08/26/215733981/new-details-on-how-u-s-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran

Which country called Iran part of the "Axis of Evil"? Which country has not only frozen vast sums of cash owed to the Iranians, it has persuaded others to do so as well leading to the Iranians being owed around $100 billion of its own cash? Which has led the movement to place sanction after sanction on the country? You clearly forget these were all actions of or started by the USA and pressed on its allies. And if you think Iranians in general might even consider placing any trust in the USA which with its ally Israel has also bombed the hell out of them in recent weeks - starting, let's recall with a US missile which murdered 170+ girls aged 7-12 in their school - you have with respect very little idea about Iranian thinking.

FYI this mural still remains on the wall of the old US Embassy building in Teheran!

PS: I doubt if the Iranians hold much faith in free and fair elections. They wiill have noted that such a process elected Trump and Netanyahu!

[jimmie50]

9 hours ago, unicorn said:

Trump has put the US into a big mess of a problem.

Truer words have not been spoken.  He surrounds himself, not with experienced experts, but those who will always agree with him and pledge their loyalty...not to the country but to him personally.  Even then, he isn't interested in their opinions or advice.  The decision to enter into this joint venture with Israel was impulsive without any thought given to possible longterm ramifications.  He has created the mess, but has no clue how to get out of it now.  

[PeterRS]

And Trump and his acolytes have zero idea of the lessons of history. Had he just looked at the quagmire of Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, he would have kept well away from Iran. One look at the several major disasters from Bush 2's war with Iraq would have been another lesson. One reading of Robert McNamara's long mea culpa In Retrospect would have brought home precisely how the disasters and deaths happening in Vietnam were a direct result of the misguided and wrong policies which he and his Washington colleagues were actually advocating. He would have realised that the American Consul in East Pakistan was almost daily begging Washington to take action with West Pakistan to stop its monstrous bloodshed which they described as "selective genocide." Washington did nothing. No one knows how many actually died but historians estimate it could have been as high as 3 million.

[zoomomancs]

12 minutes ago, PeterRS said:

And Trump and his acolytes have zero idea of the lessons of history. Had he just looked at the quagmire of Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, he would have kept well away from Iran. One look at the several major disasters from Bush 2's war with Iraq would have been another lesson. One reading of Robert McNamara's long mea culpa In Retrospect would have brought home precisely how the disasters and deaths happening in Vietnam were a direct result of the misguided and wrong policies which he and his Washington colleagues were actually advocating. He would have realised that the American Consul in East Pakistan was almost daily begging Washington to take action with West Pakistan to stop its monstrous bloodshed which they described as "selective genocide." Washington did nothing. No one knows how many actually died but historians estimate it could have been as high as 3 million.

Most of you will know this but not everyone: people in Laos are still killed and maimed today by unexploded bombs dropped by the U.S. during the Vietnam War (1964–1973). Over 80 million cluster bomblets failed to explode. While annual casualties have dropped from 200–300 in the 1990s to around 50 today, many victims are children who mistake the small, toy-like cluster submunitions for playthings.

[caeron]

 

I think the theoretically ability to possibly invade and occupy Iran is irrelevant in the face of the political realities. There is no support for that kind of massive campaign and losses. Hell, most voters don't even support the billions spent on bombs. Trump is losing his diehard supporters over this war already. Does anybody really think the American public would sit still for the massive loss of life that an invasion and occupation would entail?

Maybe large parts of the IRG would fold, but as we learned in Iraq it takes very few people to keep a war alive and the US casualties continuing. There are plenty of actors in the world who would like to see us bleed like that, so you can be sure those forces would get support. I suspect Iran would make Iraq look like a picnic.

We're in a quagmire, and we're likely to stay there. Iran has no reason to capitulate to our demands. They have already demonstrated their willingness to kill their own people, they are certainly willing to let us do it. They can take that pain longer than the west can take the pain of the global economic shocks of this war.

 

 

 

[Suckrates]

38 minutes ago, caeron said:

 

I think the theoretically ability to possibly invade and occupy Iran is irrelevant in the face of the political realities. There is no support for that kind of massive campaign and losses. Hell, most voters don't even support the billions spent on bombs. Trump is losing his diehard supporters over this war already. Does anybody really think the American public would sit still for the massive loss of life that an invasion and occupation would entail?

Maybe large parts of the IRG would fold, but as we learned in Iraq it takes very few people to keep a war alive and the US casualties continuing. There are plenty of actors in the world who would like to see us bleed like that, so you can be sure those forces would get support. I suspect Iran would make Iraq look like a picnic.

We're in a quagmire, and we're likely to stay there. Iran has no reason to capitulate to our demands. They have already demonstrated their willingness to kill their own people, they are certainly willing to let us do it. They can take that pain longer than the west can take the pain of the global economic shocks of this war.

 

 

 

And since the reality IS that Trump lost the Iran war, although he continues to repeat that HE WON,  he now sets his sights on Cuba, currently making a DEMAND for the Cuban President to step down.   The Bully never Stops (unless someone or something STOPS him)   

[unicorn]

10 hours ago, PeterRS said:

You think the Iranian people are fighting for free and fair elections? ...

Obviously, they can't fight for free and fair elections. Even those who protested, much less fought, were slaughtered by the thousands (maybe tens of thousands) by the theocratic regime. However, most would probably be pleased were free and fair elections to happen. As much as Trump is trying to destroy the US's free and fair elections, there's just so much he can do, and his reign of terror will come to an end. I agree with most posters that there's no way for the US to exit gracefully at this point. Bombing infrastructure, as Trump has threatened to do (obviously illegal), will only turn the people against the US. Hopefully the US military leaders will resign rather than commit such war crimes, but who knows. No country has ever capitulated in a war due to bombing alone (other than Japan in WWII). Outside of Iran, the Iranian diaspora mostly hope that Trump will invade, resulting in a true regime change. I suspect that's too big of a risk to take.