The next U.S. war will likely be with Iran. Some future wars for the U.S. could be considered oil wars, although they are likely to be called " terror wars" U.S. conflicts will not end with Iraq and the involvement of the U.S. in struggles for the security of oil supplies is just a matter of time.
To a large extent, the conservative Bush administration appeared to have, early on, decided to solve the energy crisis (Peak Oil) by use of force (wars) rather than full-scale development of alternative energy sources. (Development of alternative energy sources has quickened in the past few years so maybe I am being a little too pessimistic!).
The countries (exceptions Syria and North Korea) most at risk of war with the U.S. under the "next war" scenario have one common resource in abundance: oil. In the past year, the projections for the arrival of peak oil have changed somewhat and peak oil is now not considered as imminent as once thought though still in the near future. The delay of peak oil arrival has reduced somewhat the likelihood of the next U.S. war breaking out in the immediate future. A possible war with Iran is the exception and some sort of war between the U.S. and Iran could occur.
Four likely American war possibilities - with Venezuela, with Syria, with Iran, and with North Korea - will be examined. Some time will also be spent on a potential U.S. conflict with the combined forces of Iran and Syria and on a possible struggle pitting the US and Israel against Iran and Syria.
Although the War on Terror and the Iraq War are not exactly over, an alert citizen senses that the next conflict involving the United States, or our close U.S. ally, Israel, could begin some time in the near future.
Possibilities for a war involving the U.S. or Israel include a a missile or air force bomber attack on the nuclear facilities of Iran. A quick-hitting, land-based, commando attack, using ranger-type troops, on Iranian nuclear facilities is not out of the question, although this is a less likely scenario since Iran, vis-a-vis - Hezbollah - has shown it can fight and that it has good weapons to fight with .
Iran and Syria would defend themselves against localized attacks but are unlikely to attempt massive counterattacks over such limited forays. A full-scale war that might bring other combatants into the clash would thus be prevented. I also project, at this time, that all military actions will be performed by the U.S. U.S. action would be more acceptable to the world community in general and Israeli involvement might bring other Muslim countries into the fray. Also, since the Hezbollah war has shown they are no longer invincible, Israel needs to be selective who they tangle with.
A possible full-scale oil war directly involving the U.S. could occur with Venezuela or Iran. However, Iran is big and tough as the Hezbollah - Israel war indirectly showed, and, Venezuela, while the military soft touch the Bush administration always dreamed of, has greatly increased its international clout, in particular its Latin American clout, over the past few years. An attack on Venezuela would be very unpopular both here and abroad and, particularly, in Latin America. Additionally, the election of Obama as president almost certainly rules out the possibility of a U.S. attack on Venezuela. Obama is just not that kind of president to attack a Latin American nation without severe provocation.
The U.S. is less likely to get involved in a future Syrian war, leading to occupation of Syria, with the business in Iraq and Afghanistan far from finished although Syria would also be a soft touch, militarily. Syria is not much of a danger to anyone so why should the U.S. be concerned.
Venezuela has lots and lots of oil. Even if you discount Venezuela's difficult-to-recover tar sand deposits, there is lots of oil in that country. And the gargantuan tar sand deposits themselves may also be a tempting target to a nation like the U.S. which is rapidly running out of conventional crude oil and which should be able to develop the technological know-how to handle the tar sands, particularly with all the research and development work underway on the somewhat similar oil sand deposits in Canada.
Another reason for U.S. concern about Venezuela is that Venezuela has been hinting that they might like to be paid for their oil exports with a mix of currencies instead of with only U.S. dollars as at present. Iran is also talking this language. It should be noted that Saddam Hussein switched from the U.S. dollar to a mix of currencies just prior to the U.S. attacking them. Hugo Chavez (and Iran), beware! The U.S. needs to keep the dollar standard to keep the U.S. economy on an even keel (don't ask me to go into detail on currency exchange.)
In addition to oil, Venezuela also has a leftist president - Hugo Chavez - a supporter of ex-dictator of Cuba, Fidel Castro. Chavez has a big mouth. He has constantly smart-mouthed the US over the past few years.
In his audacious speech to the U.N. in September of 2006, Chavez called Bush the "devil" (El Diablo) and said he could still smell the "sulfur stench" of Bush who had spoken to the U.N. the previous day. How anti-Bush can you get?
Chavez often appears to be attempting to put together a large coalition of undeveloped nations against the U.S.
Venezuela has a small (125,000 to 150,000 men) but well trained military and could more than hold its own in a future war against their chief rival in the area, Columbia, but could offer little resistance to a competent invading army like that of the U.S. Fortunately for Venezuela, the U.S. is totally occupied in Iraq and Afghanistan at this time.
The U.S., namely the CIA, has already made several attempts to overthrow Chavez but the attempts failed. It is possible that the next U.S. war will feature some sort of invasion of Venezuela by Columbia, the U.S. ally in the region. Columbia, alone, could not handle Venezuela, but such an incident could provoke U.S. intervention. (Note: while Venezuela has no chance against the U.S. in a direct confrontation, Venezuela has Vietnam-type jungle terrain, perfect for a guerrilla war. Just what the U.S. needs, an insurgency struggle in Iraq and a guerrilla jungle war in Venezuela at the same time).
Things did not go well for the Bush Administration in Latin America. Although democracy spread and free-market economies are now the rule, the democratic governments the people of various countries have elected are not what the Bush people wanted. Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Ecuador have all freely elected left-leaning or left of center governments. A slap in the face to President Bush and his right-wing concept of democratization which involved new democracies becoming U.S. allies!
All of these countries have weak militaries and would be easy meat for the U.S.
Other than Venezuela (discussed above), the Latin American countries are not in any immediate danger of attack from the U.S. Public opinion in this country would be too much against it. And President Obama is not the type president to go around starting wars.
If things had really started going bad (in a political sense) for the Bush Administration, a U.S. war with Cuba followed by occupation of Cuba might have been in the cards - just to bolster up the right wing elements that were running the show in the U.S. Such an occupation would have found supporters in the U.S.
The possibility of a quickie war with Cuba became more possible with the illness of Fidel Castro who was about 80 years old. Cuban liberation groups wanted to hit Cuba while Castro was ill. Thank God, the U.S. was too tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan to even consider such an action.
There are reports that Cuba has found a huge offshore oil deposit (5 billion barrels or more of valuable light oil). I can just see the eyes of the U.S. oil men glisten at the very thought of getting their hands on that size of light oil deposit close to the U.S. There are reports that China might help Cuba develop the deposit. If the tale of the oil deposit is true, it should be interesting to watch the U.S., Cuba, and China maneuver around each other.
Since the assassination of former Lebanon Prime Minister Rafif Hariri, accusations have been hurled at the Syrians who maintained about 15,000 troops in Lebanon. They were accused of instigating the assassination even though no credible evidence to this effect has been presented. Syria denied any involvement but to placate the Americans, began cooperating (sort of!) with the U.S. in the Iraqi war, namely by turning over Saddam's half brother to the Americans. Additionally, the Syrians withdrew their troops from Lebanon.
Syria has a weak military (about 200,000 poorly trained men) and could offer little resistance in either a war with the US or Israel. But, more important, Syria does not have excess oil unlike their brothers in Iraq and Iran. So, why should they be in any danger? I don't believe they are in danger from the US.
Syria has apparently talked to Iran about a mutual defense pact. This could draw Syria into an unplanned war if Israel and/or the US decide to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.
Syria is certain to have closely observed how effective the unconventional Hezbollah fighters were in the Lebanese war with Israel. Syria needs to forget about a large conventional military and organize Hezbollah-style. But smaller dictator-controlled countries like Syria, for political reasons, love to have a conventional military of large size to impress their neighbors and it is unlikely they will drop their conventional military for a smaller, more flexible, force similar to that of Hezbollah. Syria's conventional forces will likely be quickly slaughtered in any showdown with Israel or the U.S.
The U.S. immediate concern (expressed concern, anyway!) with Iran is over the nuclear enrichment program that Iran is restarting. The fear is that Iran might use the enriched uranium to develop nuclear weapons. They would still be no threat to the U.S. with its 10 to 20 thousand nuclear weapons or Israel with its hundreds of nuclear weapons, but, the expressed concern is that Iran might turn a bomb over to terrorists.
The above is the publicly-stated U.S. problems with Iran. To me, it looks like the nonexistent WMDs of Iraq all over again. Iran has very large deposits of oil and incredibly large natural gas reserves, and with peak oil just around the corner, their energy resources would virtually insulate a conquering country from the ill effects of peak oil. If hard-line right wing Republicans are able, in the near future, to regain control in the U.S., they may be tempted to make a move on Iran.
Iran won't be an easy U.S. target though!
When Iran fought Iraq back in the eighties, the Iranian military was not in good shape. The Ayatollah Khomeini had taken over Iran and purged the military, slaughtering anyone he thought might be a threat to his regime. Practically the entire officer corps was wiped out. This included the Iran's well-trained air force pilots. (Iran's air force was one of the best in the world and had been trained and equipped by the U.S.) So the air force had practically ceased to exist. It is on its way back but slowly.
Against Iraq, the Iranians resorted to often letting religious leaders lead the military. The results were crude human wave attacks wherein tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of Iranian youths were slaughtered. Still, even with all their problems, the Iranians held their own against an Iraqi military that was large but equally incompetent. The U.S. and most Arab countries poured many billions of dollars and aid into Iraq to bolster them.
Iran is unlikely to fight so stupidly again.
Iran's conventional forces are no match for the U.S. in a war, and, possibly, not Israel, but they are improving their conventional forces as time goes by. They have a significant rocket and missile force that they are enlarging and this would pose a threat to Israel in the highly unlikely event that Israel would attack Iran. The rocket and missile force could also pose a threat to the U.S. naval ships in the Persian Gulf, and, more seriously, in the event of a future war, could enable the Iranians to shut down oil shipments from the Persian Gulf - at least for a short time. This could create a Persian Gulf oil disaster. The resulting world oil shortage would put a tremendous amount of pressure on the U.S.
The relatively strong Iranian economy (very largely based on oil exports) is also a problem for either the U.S. or Israel. Iran has ample funds to continue improving their military and, several years from now, an attack on them will be even more dangerous than at present. The Iranians have not rushed pell mell into buying foreign weapons although they have purchased a substantial amount. Instead, they have been more intent on building up a strong weapons production industry within Iran. This defense industry infrastructure was not present during their war with Iraq and they suffered because of that lack and they are trying to remedy that situation.
Iran also may hope to become a major exporter of weapons to third world countries and and hopes to compete with the U.S., France and others in this area. Their weapons modernization effort has moved somewhat slowly, but steadily, as they build their defense plants. Fortunately for them, the ongoing Iraq insurgency war has provided them with some lead time as the U.S. is presently heavily engaged there and really can't afford to tackle Iran immediately.
Geography is less favorable for a U.S. invasion of Iran than it was for the Iraq invasion. The capital city, Tehran, is located far inland. Unlike the Iraqi campaign where Baghdad lay fairly close to the border, a U.S. invasion force would not be in Tehran in two weeks and probably not for two or three months. Such a long campaign would entail many more casualties than the U.S. suffered in the Iraqi campaign.
It should also be noted that Iran has closely watched the next-door war in Iraq and has, no doubt, planned accordingly for if their turn comes. They will not go down easily in a future war with the U.S.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Of course, the elected president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has not helped matters with the U.S. and Israel by publicly stating that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth. He also repeatedly insults the U.S. Is he asking for war or what?
Ahmadinejad is an educated leader (civil engineer) and, with Iran's massive natural resources and relatively large population, could easily lead Iran into the upper ranks of the developed nations of the earth. But he can't do that by adopting the concepts of the extreme Islamic movements. Hopefully, he is just placating these extremist groups while he gets the country up and running. And then again, maybe I am just giving him the benefit of the doubt which he may not deserve.
If Israel were also involved in a two front war involving Israel, the U.S., Syria, and Iran, Syria would not be much of a factor since Israel would likely quickly knock them out of the war. However, Israel would probably be asked by the U.S. to stay out of such a war to avoid drawing in other Muslim nations, e.g., Egypt (also Muslim Pakistan, a U.S. ally looms in the background).
Syria's cooperation with Iran in a future war against the U.S. would not be a major factor because of Syria's weak military (and Syria is not going to get much stronger - they don't have the economy for it.) The same basic strategy as discussed above regarding a U.S. struggle with Iran would still apply.
Although any war in the Middle East, Venezuela, or North Korea would be called part of the War on Terror, I limit this discussion to the "actual" War on Terror, i.e., Afghanistan and the adjacent nation of Pakistan.
In Afghanistan, the United States, has again dropped the ball and the once-won war is heating up again. The Taliban is resurfacing! Where the Taliban was once strict on enforcing the ban on growing opium, they now have apparently joined the party, and the opium money is flowing to them.
Pakistan is also heating up with assassinations and suicide bombings. Pakistan is a major problem because they possess nuclear weapons as does their rival, India.
A few years ago, as the war in Iraq proceeded poorly for the U.S., there was increasing talk of the country being partitioned into three small units or countries - A Shiit southern unit, a middle Sunni unit, and a northern Kurdish unit. A major problem with an Iraq partition is that Iraq's huge oil deposits are in northern Iraq and southern Iraq. Central Iraq has little oil and the Sunnis who are located in the center are not going to sit still if they are denied their share of oil revenue. They are not going to settle for a gentlemen's agreement on splitting the revenues. Since they are the probably the toughest fighters, they are apt to try to take some oil fields. This could likely set off a war with the Shiit-controlled south.
Don't think the Kurds get a free ride if there is a partition. Oil-poor Turkey who has heartburn over the Kurds anyway, is likely to move in and take over some of the Kurdish oil fields and give the Kurds a thrashing for good measure. Iran is apt to aid Turkey in that effort as, apparently, there has already been some communication between Turkey and Iran over the "Kurdish problem."
So a partition of Iraq is no guarantee that all Iraq problems have been solved and the U.S. can safely pull out of the country. Like Colin Powell said, "if you break a country, you have to fix it." We are learning that lesson in Iraq.
In recent months, as the war has proceeded more favorably for the U.S., talk of a Iraq partition has virtually stopped.
A U.S.-North Korea war is always possible, but because of North Korea's large conventional army and nuclear capability, the U.S. is acting with great restraint with North Korea. If war does break out, the North Korean army would probably occupy South Korea quickly, forcing the small "trip-wire" force of Americans there to withdraw. A long campaign with huge American casualties, would be necessary to reoccupy South Korea. No wonder the U.S. moves delicately with North Korea.
A U.S. war with North Korea would not be an oil war as defined earlier.
It should be noted that relations between the U.S. and North Korea have improved recently.
A U.S.- China conflict over Taiwan is possible but very unlikely. China wants to retake Taiwan but doesn't want a confrontation with the U.S. and the U.S. certainly does not want a war with China, a nuclear power. If China does decide to occupy Taiwan, it will probably be with the U.S.'s reluctant OK, U.S. tough-talk to the contrary.
Taiwan, you are probably on your own! At some point, you may want to make a deal with China for a peaceful merger. Either that or get your butt kicked big-time with the U.S. silently looking on.
Fortunately, relations between mainland China and Taiwan appear to have improved recently so there appears little chance that a conflict between the two countries will occur anytime soon.
A U.S.- Soviet war is equally unlikely because the two countries are not competing as much as they formerly did. In fact, in many ways, they are slowly becoming allies although Putin is making some noise as if he wants to restore the old Russian empire. Accidents can happen between two countries and the tens of thousands of nuclear weapons possessed by the two countries scares hell out of me. I'm not ready to move to Mars yet.
No other major U.S. conflict are foreseen at this time. But when peak oil hits in a few years, look out! This country may flail out in all directions to obtain fuel to keep the SUVs and giant pickups rolling. And China and other oil-deficient countries are not going to sit still, either.
Get ready to rumble!
1. Iraq War Compared to World War 2. George Bush made the same mistakes that Hitler made! After conquering Iraq with brilliant Blitzkrieg tactics, we starting messing around with the conquered population. Hitler did the same thing with France and Russia and it didn't work. Will we ever learn from history?
2. Post-World War II. After World War 2 came the Cold War and now the War on Terror. Will these wars ever stop?
A future U.S. War could be against Iran and/or Venezuela and could be considered an oil war because of the developing energy crisis. Other possible U.S. wars could be against North Korea, Syria, Cuba, or, much less likely, against China or Russia. The U.S. appears likely to remain engaged in some sort of war for the foreseeable future.
Last Updated: 06/02/10
e-mail me @ vanc13@cox.net