The cost of a war with Iran is not likely to be 3x the cost of a war with Iraq.
The primary costs in Iraq were the cost of creating and sustaining a system of occupation within Iraq. It required maintaining 150,000+ troops and another 100,000 contractors within Iraq and completely rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure.
There is absolutely no one, even in WINEP that would suggest the prolonged occupation of Iran. The proposed options for dealing with Iran stop at air strikes on Iranian military facilities and nuclear sites. The cost of such an operation is not likely to be anywhere near the cost of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
You are using a straw man argument and it is intellectually dishonest.
According to their public positions, the Japanese and the Korean governments are open to replacement supplies for Iranian oil. Their foreign ministers have been visiting the Gulf states very recently.
Likewise the Turks are exploring their options.
That leaves the Chinese and the Indians. It is true that they have expressed an unwillingness to stop receiving supplies from Iran. We shall see whether American pressure and Saudi oil can change their minds.
I would point out that the Saudis are capable of single-handedly replacing all Iranian oil exports. Given how much they fear Iran they might be willing to accept very low prices for their oil...
There is good reason for the Iranians to be concerned.
The Iranians have already been forced to accept a lower price for long-term contracts with the Chinese. Whether the concept of a two tier oil market is laughable or not is somewhat irrelevant given that one already exists.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
The cost of a war with Iran is not likely to be 3x the cost of a war with Iraq.
The primary costs in Iraq were the cost of creating and sustaining a system of occupation within Iraq. It required maintaining 150,000+ troops and another 100,000 contractors within Iraq and completely rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure.
There is absolutely no one, even in WINEP that would suggest the prolonged occupation of Iran. The proposed options for dealing with Iran stop at air strikes on Iranian military facilities and nuclear sites. The cost of such an operation is not likely to be anywhere near the cost of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
You are using a straw man argument and it is intellectually dishonest.
According to their public positions, the Japanese and the Korean governments are open to replacement supplies for Iranian oil. Their foreign ministers have been visiting the Gulf states very recently.
Likewise the Turks are exploring their options.
That leaves the Chinese and the Indians. It is true that they have expressed an unwillingness to stop receiving supplies from Iran. We shall see whether American pressure and Saudi oil can change their minds.
I would point out that the Saudis are capable of single-handedly replacing all Iranian oil exports. Given how much they fear Iran they might be willing to accept very low prices for their oil...
There is good reason for the Iranians to be concerned.
The Iranians have already been forced to accept a lower price for long-term contracts with the Chinese. Whether the concept of a two tier oil market is laughable or not is somewhat irrelevant given that one already exists.