Iran, a dilemma for 9 presidents.

 POSTPONEMENT OR RETHINKING ATTACK

REAL FEAR OF UNINTENDEND CONSEQUENCES

So far, the much anticipated attack on Iran has not happened. Is it just a postponement to insure success or finally a realization that attacking Iran can be a real loser for the world's economy and possibly consequences too devastating to take the gamble. War should never be a gamble, even so called, sure things, can go wrong, catastrophic and history making wrong. 

Iran, has been on the radar for every President since Dwight Eisenhower, I skipped Kennedy and Nixon, but I am sure that they had thoughts and meetings concerning Iran. While the U.S. had dealings before 1953, it was the overthrow of their first elected government by the CIA, approved by Eisenhower, with pressure from the UK, that started the adversarial relationship between the two countries. The Shah, propped up by the U.S., reigned for 26 years, the current government has been in charge for 47 years. The Shah was a dictator, never heard of calls from the west for democratic elections, and in fact still never hear for elections now, just install the Shah's son, who has not set foot in Iran since a child. No matter, we can run the country for him.

Most American's and Europeans still do not understand the relationship that has festered all these years. The return of the Ayatollah from France in 1979 was a reaction to the Shaw's rule and the increasing decadent influence of the U.S. The holding of the U.S. personnel as hostage's for over a year, probably as a precaution to avoid a U.S. attack, inflamed passions in the U.S. It was followed by an 8 year war, 1980 to 1988, between Iran and Iraq, supported by the U.S., that claimed millions of lives. We could say that it was proxy war that failed to defeat Iran.  Saddam Hussein was then under attack 2 years later, expendable by then.

Iran has been under economic warfare for all these years and it has been able to keep their economy from excelling. It may be that some have decided to just keep up the pressure rather risk the consequences of war. The risk is that if the current trend to an alternative economic system materializes, Iran will be increasingly immune from economic sanctions. The biggest opponent of this ever happening is Israel who believes Iran is a forever threat to their existence and, it may be true that the feelings are mutual. Israel has pressured at least 4 presidents to go to war with Iran, so far, they have all deferred, they may finally be successful with Trump, but it has not yet happened. They have all deferred because the risks were considered too high by all of them.

So here we are, much of the necessary assets are positioned for war, some believe they need more assets and more time to reposition. It has been reported that the military has doubts about the consequences, some believe Israel will be the focused target of retaliation and many do not believe they can prevail without using their nuclear weapons. There will be a world economic price to be paid, a price that many in the west, cannot afford. 

Some say that Netanyahu is threatening unilateral nuclear attack and Psychopath Lindsey, "no good Russians but dead Russians" Graham, appeared to be on the verge of tears on national television. The reality is, that Iran, Israel and the U.S. are all in a serious economic and political situation after 30 years of military action in the region. Will another war finally bring peace or mutual destruction.