OP-ED: THE HORROR COMING: MERGING WARS, PART I

YANKEE TEA NEWS

Monday, July 27, 2026

President Trump has been blowing hot and cold on the Iranian leadership; but lately , more hot than cold.  Still, it has been talk.  We are reminded:  “Ignore what President Trump says, and pay attention to what he does.”

True enough, but analysis of the problem that is Iran leads to some disturbing conclusions for America.  First, they have been planning for our attack for many decades.  One suggestion is that Iran concluded they could not win an outright war with America, but Iran could make it extremely costly.  So far, they are right.  Even if we have shattered some of their assumptions, they are still able to fight back and present considerable threats for some of America’s plans of attack.

Second, the constant messaging that the IRGC will fight to the death is giving America pause.  While some Americans are fine with that, it’s bad optics for the rest of the world.  That the IRGC makes Iran an international pariah is easily forgotten.  The image of millions of innocent civilians killed in massive American military attacks in order to eliminate the IRGC  will turn America into the pariah nation instead.

The IRGC’s claims of a willingness to fight to the death seems similar to Japan in World War II.   A ground invasion in both cases would be very costly to America.

 Third, the lack of a real political opposition, and with it, a robust political culture, is probably the greatest barrier to a successful regime change in Iran.  A military takeover is meaningless without a true domestic political movement ready to take control of the government institutions.

Design Principles for a Ground Invasion

The fact of the matter is that talk of ground invasion is growing.  Many pundits see this as a mistake.  But America and its allies may have no choice.  So, if we are somehow forced into this, it may be helpful to the reader to recall some of the basic design principles of a ground invasion.

Still, it should be noted that Iran poses the risk of becoming a “forever war”.  Also, the hard lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan warn the U.S. leadership of all the things that can go wrong despite the besting planning efforts.  Nonetheless, there is the argument that this must be done and now since Iran has shown how destructive it can be to its neighbors.

Hit Them Where They Ain’t – General MacArthur was famous for this tactic.  It serves at least three purposes:  1)  Minimizing casualties, 2) Forcing the enemy to waste time and resources repositioning, and 3) Establishing an invasion area of control rapidly and with minimal losses.

Deceit -  This is a standard tool for any military conflict.  How it gets used against an opponent who has been preparing for nearly 50 years becomes a special consideration.  One can be sure that the U.S. military is carefully studying different methods of deceit to impose on the IRGC.

Do the Unexpected  - A key to success in the D-Day invasion was that the allies picked a place the Germans least expected because it would be “impractical” and “illogical”.  Still, to make it work, much deceit was needed.  I reference Project Mincemeat as an example.

Especially in a country the size of Iran, you cannot defend everything.  They have to rank and prioritize their assets.  A point to consider is that the Iranian leadership may have already thought through what losses they may have to accept and still survive.

Resistance Movement Coordination -  Mossad is often cited as the group most deeply embedded in the Iranian government and in the best position to run any resistance movement.  However,  there are other parties to keep in mind.  What has the CIA been doing?  SAS?  Anyone else?  How about any domestic movements such as the Immortal Guards? The Kurds? To be effective, there needs to be someone coordinating these efforts.  There is only so much the Iranian military can do.

Distraction – Iran is a big country.  There are lots of places where distractions can be staged in order to divide and reduce the effectiveness of their military.

Divide and Conquer – The reporting which suggests the Iranian leadership is already fighting with each other is just one part of a larger set of conflicts confronting that government.  They know they have been infiltrated, but they are not sure where.  So, mutual trust inside the Iranian government may be low.

Additionally, the growing pressure of civilian unrest, the ethnic tensions, other areas of infiltration and erosion of their economy and finances all put them in an increasingly precarious situation.

What Next?

Jim Rickards, who is on Steve Bannon’s Warroom a lot, has listed three possible outcomes for the situation with Iran:  1) Surrender, 2) Stalemate, and 3) Escalation.  Mr. Rickards teaches at the Naval War college and is a highly respected strategist.  He may be right about these three points, but he could have explored each of them a little bit more for the audience’s sake.  The one that actually deserves the most attention is stalemate.  Is it really a stalemate we are talking about here?  Or is it a “dynamic stalemate” in the sense that even as not much seems to be changing, the condition for the Iranian leadership is degrading daily?

 Sustained and selective military strikes are an important part of bringing about regime change.  Still, they are not enough.  There has been a hint that Mossad is poised to eliminate the regime because of how deeply they have infiltrated the government and the military.  Since timing is everything, there will come a moment when Mossad must act.  The question for the Iranian leadership is:  Do you feel lucky?