by Mike Whitney, The Unz Review:
Trump’s foreign policy has been reduced to imperious demands, vulgar threats, and menacing growls. I figure Trump’s frustration of dealing with Putin will reach a peak just in time to coincide with the launch of a US/Israel air campaign against Iran. Will Schryver, military analyst
Trump’s push for a ceasefire in Ukraine has less to do with Ukraine than it does with Israel. In other words, Trump’s hasty negotiations with Putin are not aimed at ending the proxy war with Russia as much they are with shifting the frontlines from the Donbas to Iran. This ‘shift in focus’ has become glaringly apparent in the last week particularly in respect to Trump’s increasingly hostile statements towards Iran. On Tuesday, Trump threatened to hold the Islamic Republic responsible for any attacks by the Houthis on ships crossing the Red Sea. He said there would be “dire consequences” (for Iran) if the attacks continued.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
He also gave Iran’s government “a two-month deadline for reaching a new nuclear deal”. (even though it was Trump who scuppered the original deal.) In short, Trump is doing what many of his critics said he would do from the very beginning; he is placating his wealthy campaign donors by crafting a foreign policy that promotes their ambitious regional agenda. He’s dragging the United States into a war with Iran to repay the powerful Zionists who got him elected.
This also helps to explain why Trump wants to normalize relations with Russia. It’s not simply because the president wants to stop the senseless killing or establish “a durable peace”. It’s because he wants assurances from Putin that he won’t assist Iran when the United States launches its attack on Tehran. He needs to know that Putin is not going to join the fight on Iran’s side.
As some readers know, Russia and Iran signed a strategic partnership treaty in early 2025. The agreement commits both parties to mutual defense cooperation if war breaks out. “The treaty stipulates that if one party is attacked, the other will not assist the aggressor and will seek to resolve differences diplomatically, suggesting a level of support without guaranteeing direct military intervention.” So, while Russia would not be required to put ‘boots on the ground’, it would be expected to provide weapons, intelligence and logistical support. (Russia has already provided Iran with advanced technology, including Su-35 fighter jets, Yak-130 trainers, and potentially S-400 air defense systems).
Military analyst Will Schryver believes that Russia would directly assist Iran if it were attacked by the United States. In an April 2024 Substack post titled “The Triple Alliance, For Dummies And Neocons,” he wrote:
In a putative war between the United States and Iran, both Russia and China would actively support Iran… Iran would simply be supplemented with arms and other logistical necessities from both its partners — and quite possibly taken under their nuclear umbrella in an explicit act of deterrence.
Schryver suggests that this support—potentially including advanced weapons or nuclear backing—would neutralize U.S. advantages, making a clear win improbable without escalating into a broader, unwinnable conflict. He also adds this chilling observation that must keep the Pentagon’s Top Brass awake at night:
In order for the United States to make war against any ONE of Russia, China, or Iran, it would be necessary to effectively vacate every major US base on the planet in order to concentrate enough military power to undertake the mission.
This suggests that a conflict with Iran would strain U.S. resources to a breaking point leaving it vulnerable on every other front. Schryver doesn’t see this as a prescription for victory but as a blueprint for defeat.
On X, Schryver has expressed doubts about U.S. military effectiveness against Iran’s defenses. In an October 2024 post, he remarked on Iran’s missile capabilities after its strikes on Israel:
Iranian missiles appear to have performed impressively… US/Israeli air defenses were unable to stop many of them.” He contrasts this with what he sees as overhyped U.S. capabilities, suggesting Iran’s ability to inflict damage could complicate any American offensive. Elsewhere, he’s mocked U.S. naval power, calling aircraft carriers “$13 billion piñatas” vulnerable to modern anti-ship missiles, which Iran possesses in quantity.
Schryver is not alone in his skepticism of US military prowess. Retired U.S. Army Colonel and former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, Lawrence Wilkerson, has repeatedly warned that the US is not as strong as many believe and would not prevail in a war with Iran. According to Wilkerson:
A war with Iran would be 10 to 15 times worse than the Iraq War in terms of casualties and costs… And we would lose. We would undoubtedly lose….. Iran is not Iraq… It’s got terrain that’s unbelievable… It’s got a military that’s far more capable—500,000 active forces, probably a million reservists who would come immediately to the fore.
In an interview with journalist Chris Hedges, Wilkerson stated ominously:
Israel is trying to suck America into a war with Iran that could destabilize the Middle East and perhaps terminate the experiment that is Israel and do irreparable damage to the empire that America has become.
Like Wilkerson, economist and political analyst Jeffrey Sachs feels that the US is heading for a war with Iran. In a recent interview that was viewed by millions of people around the world, Sachs placed the blame for the impending WW3 squarely on the shoulders of Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s lightening-rod leader who is behind the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Here’s what he said:
