In the hallways of Washington and the media centres monitoring the Middle Eastern conflict, two vastly disparate predictions have been made regarding a possible American strike on Iran. These predictions differ not only in degree but also in kind, revealing a profound divergence of opinion between seasoned analysts of the same data. This divergence presents a stark choice between two irreconcilable predictions that the people around the world must weigh in considering one of the most important decisions the Trump administration must make.

One of these analysts, Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, suggests that if American military action does indeed take place, it will be a calculated restraint, ultimately proving to be a face-saving measure. This action will be limited in scope, unilaterally executed, and intended above all to resolve the political puzzle that currently faces Trump. In stark contrast, the analysis of two former CIA intelligence officers, Larry Johnson and Ray McGovern, suggests that American military action could take place within days, resulting in a conflagration that will engulf American bases, Israel, and the global economy.

What could only be considered a stark contrast between two irreconcilable predictions lies at the heart of this analysis. While Professor Mearsheimer sees a calculated restraint born of military futility, Johnson and McGovern see an inexorable march toward war.

The case for calculated restraint

Professor Mearsheimer’s framework is built on a grim reality: that regime change in Iran remains militarily unachievable and would carry massive negative regional consequences. Indeed, his analysis suggests that American military commanders informed Trump on January 14 that they could not guarantee regime change in Iran, particularly in response to the failure of CIA-orchestrated street protests throughout Iran. This........

© Middle East Monitor