politics

I’m surprised when some people say, "There’s a high chance the U.S. might attack Iran, and it could actually happen."

The truth is, even the slightest conflict of interest between the U.S. and Iran doesn’t automatically mean war. The U.S. actually needs Iran as an active player to maintain balance in the Middle East. At the very least, Iran helps counter Turkish ideological influence. And without a strong and stable government in Tehran, the Caucasus region would almost certainly fall into chaos and war.

Let me leave you with this quote from Obama’s book:
"Iran was a constant adversary, but one whose interests occasionally aligned with ours more than we liked to admit."

Seems like you assume that this administration is acting within the framework of general American interest, but it may not be actually the case.

cognitive science, functional contextualism, tattarrattat

Countries act based on their interests. What I find interesting is that some of Iran's interests in the Middle East align with those of the U.S., and having a controlled Iran is far more beneficial than a weak government in Iran.

Do you think a governance system that defines itself based on the strategies of Washington's strategists would allow Trump to make a mistake on such a scale? Even the smallest mistake could hand the initiative over to China.

I’m not sure how much we agree on this, but the premise of the question above is that the overall policies of a country aren’t determined by a single politician — rather, the politician enforces those policies using various tools.

I agree, that's usually the case. But do you think Trump's geopolitical agenda is actually motivated by the best interest of the U.S.?