Geo-Strategy #8: The Iran Trap
By Jiang Xueqin
In his May 29, 2024 class, Jiang Xueqin explains that an American invasion of Iran would be a catastrophic mistake. If Trump were to win a second term, he would likely contemplate invading Iran. While an initial invasion would seem successful, American forces would quickly become bogged down in Iran’s mountainous terrain.
The American invasion would be similar to Athens’ invasion of Sicily in 415 BCE, as described in Thucydides’ The Peloponnesian War. Despite its initial successes, the Athenians couldn’t resupply themselves, and their entire expedition was wiped out. This disastrous defeat turned the war in Sparta’s favor and spelled the downfall of the Athenian empire.
Could the American empire in Iran suffer the same fate as the Athenian empire in Sicily?
The Forces Pushing Toward War
Three major interest groups are pushing the United States toward war with Iran. The first is the Israel Lobby, which comprises both Jewish and Christian interests. AIPAC represents the Jewish interest with about 100,000 members — many of them billionaires — making it the second most powerful lobbying organization in the United States. The Christian Zionist organization Christians United for Israel adds 7 million members to this coalition. Together, they form an extremely powerful force in government pushing for war in the Middle East to advance Israel’s interests.
The second force is America’s addiction to empire. Empire represents easy money, with all money channeled through the US financial system. Wall Street has become extremely powerful in American politics by speculating on money rather than producing goods.
The third force is Saudi Arabia. The major conflict in the Middle East is actually not between Israel and Iran but between Saudi Arabia and Iran. For Israel, Iran represents a security threat because it supports Hezbollah and Hamas. For Saudi Arabia, Iran represents a threat to its very existence.
The Trump Connection
These three forces manifest themselves through Trump, who serves as their champion. Privately, Jared Kushner — Trump’s son-in-law, married to Ivanka Trump — happens to be very good friends with both Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and Mohammed bin Salman, the leader of Saudi Arabia. Jared Kushner’s father was a prominent sponsor of AIPAC; when Netanyahu visits the United States, he stays with the Kushner family. The relationship is so close that on one occasion, Netanyahu stayed in Jared’s bedroom while Jared slept in the basement.
Kushner is similarly friendly with MBS. When Kushner started a private equity fund, Saudi Arabia invested $2 billion. Through Jared Kushner, these three forces exert influence on Trump.
It’s very likely that Trump will become president again in November, and he will likely pick Nikki Haley as his VP. Nikki Haley would be the one in the Trump White House pushing for war against Iran, as she makes most of her money from the Israel Lobby and the anti-Iran lobby.
Evidence from the First Trump Administration
We know from the first Trump administration that these forces exert tremendous influence. Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal that would have secured peace between the US and Iran. He moved the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, causing major friction in the Middle East. He ignored the fact that MBS killed a journalist. He sponsored the Abraham Accords, trying to bring peace between Israel and other Arab countries and unite them against Iran.
Most importantly, in January 2020, Trump ordered the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani, the leader of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. From all this, we can suspect that in a second Trump term, war with Iran will be a major priority.
The US Military’s Transformation
Even with forces pushing for war, the US military must implement it. If the military refuses, war can’t happen. Unfortunately, the US military is very different from what it was 30 years ago.
Thirty years ago, the US military maintained standard military doctrine with three principles: mass forces, avoid encirclement, and protect supply lines. When you fight traditional warfare, you must have public consent because the public sends soldiers, provides money, and gives political support.
But in 2003, the US military changed its doctrine to "shock and awe." This doctrine says you don’t have to follow those three principles anymore. You can use air supremacy, technological omniscience, and special forces to fight wars cheaply, quickly, and decisively — without public political support.
This created hubris in the American military. Because of the 2003 Iraq war, they believe they can win any war, any place, against any enemy.
The Houthi Reality Check
We know this doctrine isn’t true because of Operation Prosperity Guardian. A few months ago, the Houthis — a rebel group in Yemen — started attacking ships in the Red Sea. A lot of global trade goes through the Red Sea. The American military dispatched a massive naval force against the Houthis.
Were the Americans able to defeat the Houthis? No.
What can they do about it? Nothing. The American military has no solution. Why? Because they don’t have the forces necessary to undertake an operation against the Houthis. They have special forces, air supremacy, and technological omniscience with satellites — but they don’t have infantry. They don’t have lots and lots of ships.
Joe Biden has admitted: "We know we are losing the war in the Red Sea. We know we cannot stop the Houthis. But we are going to continue on this path." This is hubris — not knowing your limitations, and when faced with your limitations, refusing to accept them.
When the US military is given the order to invade Iran, they’ll probably go along with it because they cannot imagine the possibility that they could be defeated in Iran.
Iran’s Revolutionary Guards
The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps wants war with the United States. They’re angry about US interference in Iran. During the Shah regime — a brutal police state from 1953 to 1979 — the Americans backed this police state. They’re angry that the US continues to protect Israel and Saudi Arabia. They’re angry that Trump killed General Soleimani.
It’s possible that the Revolutionary Guard Corps killed the president of Iran, Ibrahim Raisi, last week because he was preventing war. They want war with the United States.
The logic is clear: forces in the United States push toward war; Trump has already escalated with Iran; within the Trump White House, Kushner and Haley will push for war; the US military has so much hubris they think they can win; and Iran wants to provoke the United States into invading. The US is looking for a reason, and Iran wants to give them one. War between the US and Iran is very likely in the next two to four years.
The Hypothetical Invasion: March 2027
Let’s pretend it’s March 2027. Trump goes on TV to announce Operation Iranian Freedom — a full-scale US invasion of Iran with Israel, Saudi Arabia as main partners, plus the UK, Australia, UAE, and Poland.
Trump explains to the American public why the US is fighting this war:
First, for the past year there have been violent protests in Iran — religious, political, and ethnic protests. The Iranian people are sick of the Ayatollah, sick of the dictatorship. They want democracy and freedom. The regime is killing thousands of protesters. Iran is on the brink of civil war. Therefore, the United States has an obligation to protect the people of Iran.
Second, US intelligence, along with Israeli intelligence, has discovered that for the past two years Iran has been working very hard on developing a nuclear bomb. Iran is only one month away from having three nuclear bombs. New York City, San Francisco, and Los Angeles could all be destroyed. To prevent this, we must strike first.
Third, Iranian proxies — the Houthis, Hezbollah, many groups — have been disrupting shipping in both the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz. Forty percent of the world’s oil passes through that region, mainly to East Asia: China, Japan, South Korea. Global prosperity is at stake. The US as the world hegemon has a responsibility to protect global prosperity.
Fourth, Iran has been launching attacks against our allies Saudi Arabia and Israel. Hezbollah has been violently attacking Israel, killing dozens. The Houthis have been attacking Saudi oil fields, damaging their economy. We have an obligation to protect our allies.
Fifth, we know for a fact that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is a sponsor of terrorism. Last week, gunmen killed 107 people in a mall. Our intelligence says it was most definitely an Iranian operation.
But don’t worry, Trump will say — this invasion will be successful. We have many allies. Our special forces are already in the country looking for air bases and missiles. We’ve been in contact with Iranian opposition groups who want to overthrow the regime. Our American military is the greatest in the world. In 1991, we defeated Saddam Hussein in 100 hours. In 2003, we defeated him in less than three weeks. We will defeat Iran in only two weeks.
Why Iran Has Already Won
After this speech, the operation launches. The USS Gerald Ford — a $13 billion supercarrier designed to destroy countries — prowls the Strait of Hormuz. America establishes air supremacy quickly, with complete control over the skies. A massive invasion force lands in southern Iran: 100,000 US troops, maybe 200,000 Saudi troops — 300,000 to half a million troops ready to strike Tehran.
At this point, who has won the war?
Obviously, Iran has won. Why?
Using traditional military doctrine — mass forces, avoid encirclement, protect supply lines — the US has already lost. First, they’re encircled. Iran is all mountains — it’s a fortress. To get troops into the country, you have to airdrop them. But once they’re in, you can’t get them out.
Second, they failed to mass forces. Iran has a population of 90 million. You need at least three to four million soldiers to even think about conquering the country. They’ve got 100,000. You can’t move tanks through mountains; they’re not designed for mountain warfare.
Third — and this is the biggest problem — they cannot be resupplied. They have no supply lines. Airplanes have to drop ammunition and food, but in mountainous terrain, it’s easy for Iranians to shoot down planes. A guy with a rocket launcher can shoot down a helicopter, which is what the Afghans did to the Soviets. A drone can take down any airplane.
These 100,000 troops aren’t soldiers — they’re hostages. Too many people in the country to extract, not enough to launch a strike against Tehran, no resupply, and encircled by Iranian forces.
Why Iranians Won’t Revolt
The American hope is that once troops are in the country, all resistance to the regime will rise up and strike against Tehran. The Iranian army will mutiny. Why won’t this happen?
First, Iranians hate Americans. They remember the Shah from 1953 to 1979 — the American-supported Shah running a brutal police state so oppressive that everyone revolted.
Second, look at what happened next door in Iraq. From 2003 to 2011, America destroyed Iraq. America said it would bring freedom, democracy, prosperity, and wealth. Instead, it destroyed the country. American soldiers ran into houses every night, pointing guns at children, destroying homes, arresting men for no reason. Iranians saw this on TV and heard about it from neighbors. They know that if America comes, it’s to destroy the country, not bring freedom.
Third, Iranians believe they belong to a great civilization. They value their freedom and independence. They’re not going to submit to a foreign conqueror.
Fourth, religion. Iranians are religious; they believe America is Satan and they have a religious obligation to fight Satan.
There’s no way the Iranian people will stand with America. A minority might, but most will resist.
Would Americans actually believe the Iranian people will rise up? Yes — because of hubris. When you have access to nuclear weapons, when you can kill anyone in the world, when you can see everything in the world, it makes you think you’re God. The Greeks believed the worst thing is hubris because it makes you think you’re God — but you’re not, and you’re going to get into a lot of trouble.
Historical Analysis: The Athenian Precedent
The year is 415 BCE. Athens has been fighting a brutal war against Sparta for 17 years. It’s a stalemate. Then a man named Alcibiades suggests: to win the war against Sparta, let’s go invade Sicily. Nicias objects: why would we invade Sicily? It’s far away. Alcibiades argues: because it has a lot of money, and if we invade, we can take their money.
The people of Athens support this argument because the war was costing them money, and they’d become addicted to the easy money of empire.
Nicias tries to convince people not to go to war by saying: Sicily is huge, it has a navy, we need a massive expedition force — at least 5,000 soldiers and 100 ships. He’s trying to scare people. Instead, the Athenians say: that’s a great idea — let’s send a massive force so the war can be won quickly. Shock and awe.
But Athens had never before sent a large expedition force against another power. When the Persians invaded, they invaded Athens — Athens didn’t invade Persia. The biggest problem with sending a massive expedition force? Resupply. The Athenians never thought about this because they’d never fought this kind of war.
They sent this huge expedition against Sicily and Syracuse. For the first year, the Athenians destroyed the Syracusan army, which retreated into their city. The Athenians laid siege, controlling the sea — very similar to the situation in Iran.
But then the Athenians couldn’t resupply themselves. Syracuse had a navy and could stop the Athenian navy from resupplying the troops. The Athenian army was wiped out in Sicily. This caused Athens to ultimately lose the war against Sparta and the Athenian Empire to collapse.
Historians have long tried to figure out why the Athenians would do something so stupid as sending a huge army against Syracuse, where the risk of failure was catastrophic. The only answer: hubris. They’d never really lost a war and had become addicted to empire — the same situation America finds itself in today.
Vietnam: Knowing the War Is Unwinnable
In 1960, most Americans had never heard of Vietnam. By 1969, half a million American soldiers were there, destroying everything but also getting destroyed — 58,000 US soldiers died.
In 1971, the Pentagon Papers revealed America’s involvement in Vietnam dating back to the 1950s. They made three major points. First, American military leadership had been expanding the war without public knowledge — mission creep. Maybe first they sent observers, then advisors, then trainers, then soldiers. Things escalate slowly.
Second, American leadership from very early on knew the war was unwinnable. This was the greatest military in the world. They dropped more bombs on Vietnam in the 1960s than all bombs dropped in World War II — and they could not win.
To win a war, you need three things: clear military objectives, adaptation to the battlefield, and the will to fight. Ask three questions: Does this side have clear military objectives that everyone understands? Is this side adapting to the battlefield? Does this side still have the will to fight? If yes to all three, that side will most likely win.
Even though America killed three million Vietnamese, it wasn’t destroying the enemy’s will to fight — it was making them angrier, making more people willing to fight.
So why did America stay in the war? Credibility — they didn’t want to lose face, to be laughed at by the Chinese, Soviets, and Europeans. Also, the sunk cost fallacy. Once you’ve invested so much, you cannot leave. You have to get that investment back. That’s why even though America knew it couldn’t win, it kept fighting.
Ukraine: The Danger of TV Leadership
In February 2022, Putin ordered a special military operation against Ukraine. Russia attacked from three axes: north to take Kyiv, east to take Donbas, and south from Crimea. The north failed, but the east and south succeeded.
If you’re the Ukrainian president, facing an extremely powerful military invading your country, there’s really only one way to fight using traditional military doctrine: retreat. Pull back your forces. Why? To overextend your enemy. Ukraine is huge. Russia only sent maybe 160,000 soldiers. Give them space, they’ll outrun their supply lines. Then you can encircle them and disrupt their supply. That’s the only way to win.
What did the Ukrainians do instead? They refused to give up space. They fought for every inch of territory. Eventually, because Russia had more forces, they pushed through.
Then last summer, Ukraine launched a counteroffensive. Russia had developed fortifications — three lines of defenses with artillery. The Ukrainian military sent tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of soldiers against this artillery. The Russians blew them all up.
Why did Ukraine do this? First, President Zelensky is a TV actor. He doesn’t think strategy — he thinks about what looks good on TV. For the first two years, we watched on TV and thought Ukraine was winning. People said Ukrainians would march to Moscow and overthrow Putin. Zelensky is a master of public image manipulation, distorting reality through television. But reality on the ground is very different from TV.
Trump is exactly like Zelensky — concerned about what looks good on TV. "I must look strong. We must look as though we’re winning." He doesn’t care about strategy. That’s why he’d order a land invasion of Iran — because it would look good on TV.
Second, extremists in the Ukrainian military — neo-Nazis — pushed for as much war as possible. Third, NATO was helping devise strategy. It’s an open secret that NATO military advisors planned the summer offensive.
If Ukraine loses — if it doesn’t have enough soldiers to continue fighting — what will NATO do? Based on Vietnam and the Athenian expedition, the most likely outcome is that NATO sends its own troops against Russia. Macron has said France wants to send soldiers. The British prime minister has considered conscription — young British citizens drafted to fight Russia.
Game Theory: Who Wants This War?
Why would the United States send 100,000 troops into Iran? Let’s look at individual motivations.
The United States wants to topple the regime in Iran. You can only do that with a ground invasion.
Iran — specifically the Revolutionary Guard Corps — wants to kill as many Americans as possible. They want to force a US invasion, knowing that if the US invades, it has to lose. Iran can send suicide bombers, force the US into a trap.
What does Israel want? Israel wants Iran defeated. But what’s Israel’s optimal outcome? If Iran is destroyed as a country and the United States is destroyed as a military presence in the Middle East, Israel becomes the top dog in the Middle East, able to control the entire region. The optimal outcome for Israel is that both Iran and the United States are destroyed.
What about Saudi Arabia? Exactly the same as Israel. Which would leave the Middle East to Saudi Arabia and Israel — but Israel has a far superior military. Game theory shows that all major participants want an invasion of Iran, but they want different outcomes. Saudi Arabia and Israel most benefit if 100,000 US troops are in the country and can’t get out — creating a sunk cost fallacy where the US can only pour in more soldiers.
The Nuclear Question
The United States has nuclear weapons — its ultimate trump card. Trump can say to Iran: "I have 100,000 troops in your country. You have to let them go, or I will nuke you." Trump needs to look strong. The only way to save face is to threaten Iran: either let my guys go, or I’ll nuke the entire country.
How does Iran protect against this possibility? Russia.
Before this war happens, Iran and Russia must come to an agreement where Putin declares from the onset: no one is allowed to use nuclear weapons. "If the US uses nuclear weapons, I will nuke the United States. If Israel uses nuclear weapons, I will nuke Israel."
If Putin says this, how will the world react? He’s a hero — he saved humanity. But because he says this, the United States is now trapped. Iran becomes a black hole where the US can only send in more troops, can’t get any out.
What’s wrong with sending more troops? No one wants to fight. The military can’t recruit soldiers. But even with enough troops, you can’t resupply them. And there’s a bigger problem: America has no manufacturing capacity. America moved all its manufacturing to China. For every one ship America can build, China can build 232 ships, according to the Pentagon.
If this war were to happen, there’s absolutely no way America can win. It’s completely trapped inside Iran. Once trapped, sunk cost fallacy kicks in, and America pours all its resources into a black hole. They cannot use nuclear weapons because Putin said from the onset: you are not allowed.
The question then becomes: why would Putin involve himself in this war? That’s what we’ll discuss next class.
