Iran will not surrender, may let the country to implode and lead to civil rife.
That would be the least cost option
Iran has two weeks
Coon lingo, not for international politics.
He's the American president. He needs to be understood. How he speaks is irrelevant. I find Trump to be an excellent communicator. Very clear and engaging.
btw, only reason I wanted Trump to win, let the world see what true 'murica is.
What is 'true' America for you?
For me it's the US as provider of security post WW2 to the three regions mentioned earlier. A guarantor of SLOCs from interference. An enabler of global trade. A hegemon.
The Indian preference for multi-polar precludes the chance of any power becoming a hegemon. That's the draw. India isn't necessarily onboard for a world dominated by the US or any one else for that matter, India included. This gives us the most room for maneuver. More strategic autonomy.
Would such a world be stable? Friction is bound to buildup and the formation of power blocs will be the same. But where would deterrence come from. A hegemon provides that. The final say in any matter.
This is a debatable point. Would a world with/without a hegemon be more stable or not? I'll throw this question at the General and see what he has to say.
Without a hegemon, I think the 19th century and an understanding of British power politics in that period is how it will be. Think great game everywhere. Gunboat diplomacy. Areas of influence by major regional powers. This will not be a peaceful period like we had post WW2. It will be a period of contestation everywhere. Because every major power sees opportunity or feels threatened by another. That's a recipe for constant conflict which we are starting to see but is being misinterpreted as WW3. The current conflict we see will be precursors for WW3 if regional power imbalances aren't righted. Ukraine is an attempt to resolve the imbalance between Russia & NATO. Gaza/Iran is about Iran vs Israel & Gulf Arabs. If Russia or Israel lose then we are heading into more conflict.
A common reason wars happen is when one belligerent sees an opportunity. An opportunity to grab something. In the past this sort of contestation led to WW1 & WW2. Because after all this contestation we have to have semi-final and then final with gold medal for the winner. A hegemon is crowned whether he likes it or not.
Trump's global security assessment in his first term concluded as much by stating we were entering an era of competition and the US had to be prepared for such a world.
The US only has to worry about China as a future contender. At the end of the 18th century, globally speaking, the British were up against the French & Spanish. At the end of the 19th century, Brits were up against the US, Germany & Japan. The only reason I think the Brits never went to war with the US is because of British investments there.
The trend is for a dominating power to counter a rising one. Athens vs Sparta for example. Out of sixteen such matchups throughout history only four resulted in no war between the reigning hegemon and a rising one. Britan vs US is one of them.
