Yeah, they are.
Vietnam in 1955 had a population of 31 million and a GDP, in current (adjusted for inflation) US dollar of 15 billions. GDP per capita: about 480 dollars.
Iran in 2019 has 80 million people and a GDP of 450 billions. GDP per capita: 5625 dollars. An order of magnitude higher.
Vietnam was split into communist North and capitalist South. Iran isn't. Iran is a nation-state shaped by its own history, instead of an arbitrary confederation of mutually-hostile tribes put together into a pseudo-country by the colonial conquests of others. That makes it like China or Russia in that regard, the national sentiment is strong and Iranians will fight to defend their country even if they do not like their regime.
No one doubts the capacity of the USA to ruin Iran. It is, after all, what they're already doing just by forbidding everyone else to engage in any sort of trade with Iran. The US could certainly spend a lot of ordnance on a big "shock and awe" operation to cripple Iran. But what will it achieve? You've got to be beyond stupid to think that ruining a country is enough to make you win. We've seen that exact scenario with Iraq, not that long ago. The USA turned the country into a smoldering heap of debris, and then? Did they achieve whatever objectives they were planning to achieve, which was turn Iraq into a US puppet state and seize all the oil pits? Nope! They got bogged down into a gigantic insurgency which served as a training ground for a new generation of international jihadist terrorism, and destabilized the world further.
So what happens after America goes on its "Let's bomb the Persians into the stone age at the behest of our Israeli and Saudi masters" rampage? Million of extremely angry Iranian militants, radicalized and fanaticized, go on an international terrorism campaign against America and her allies. Great. This is an extremely productive use of American hardpower and influence.
US goals in invading Iraq changed a few years post invasion & stabilizing the country. We speculate that the reason the US invaded Iraq was to turn it into a puppet state & control it's oil reserves. I, for one, doubt if that was the sole reason behind the invasion.
People suppose that the US invaded Iraq to dominate it's oil fields. Yet by the time Bush left office in 2008 -09 , the US discovered huge reserves of Shale oil in its own backyard. Are we supposed to believe that the US government was totally ignorant of such huge reserves it was sitting on back in 2003 when it invaded Iraq? I find it a bit hard to believe including buying into the premise that it was oil & only oil which was responsible for the US invasion of Iraq.
I think there was more of personal antipathy towards the Saddam Hussein regime by Bush personally. A sort of a grudge. Apparently, SH personally ordered the assassination of the senior Bush during a private visit to Kuwait somewhere in 1998 .The plot was foiled exposed and Clinton ordered retribution through renewed attacks in Iraq targetting SH. These weren't successful as is apparent.
Although, in retrospect, even this doesn't quite explain why the US under Bush did what it did in Iraq as the entire premise of a grudge is in itself a bit flimsy. None of the Middle East supported the invasion. In the event, that single event did more towards destabilizing the entire ME than any other. Including take the US's attention off the larger War on Terror being waged in Afghanistan & of course, on China.
Coming back to Iran, while there's no doubt they are a formidable opponent & the US may have resigned itself to see Iran as of nuisance value in the ME, their pursuit of Nuclear Weapons is alarming. One isn't sure that the JCPoA put a permanent lid on the NWP of Iran or merely postponed the inevitable to a later date. For if there are any doubts on that point, that alone is enough to support Trump & his reneging from the JCPoA. The last thing the world needs is a mullah regime in the region with massive oil reserves and NW in the basement or out of it. For the Israelis that constitutes an existential threat. For the Saudis, it makes Iran the regional hegemon - a prospect the House of Saud loathes but this loathing would also be shared by the entire region's Sunni Arab Muslims and their rulers, irrespective of the condition of their own mutual relationship with the House of Saud.
Now, much like the premise reason behind Bush's decision to invade Iraq ( I'm not buying into the widely discredited theory Colin Powell went around the world marketing - Iraq's possession of WMD's) , we aren't quite sure if the JCPoA puts a permanent lid on Iran's WMD programme. If there's the slightest doubt that the JCPoA can & does postponeme the inevitable, I think Trump ought to be supported in his endeavor, however destabilizing it will be in the interim in the ME.
I'm not sure, the US is in the mood for an invasion. In the case of Iraq, as we've seen, the propensity of a regime to stay in power far outlasts the terrible effect Sanctions have on the general populace and the economy. To that extent, irrespective of the sanctions US imposes on Iran, the regime will continue. All such hopes of using sanctions as a tool to inspire mass insurrections by ordinary Iranians against the regime are and will be optimistic at best.
In which case, where do we go from here. The Iranians will continue to needle the sheikhdoms and short of a war will do everything to jeopardize the production & distribution of oil by these shekhdoms. The Iranians hope of provoking these sheikhdoms into war will also not bear fruit as these sheikhdoms realize that they aren't any match to Iran. Which would lead them to inveigle the US into fighting their wars. Which is what seems to be happening.
War in the ME then seems contingent on 2 premises - the ability of these sheikhdoms to withstand punishment from Iran & the US will to go the whole 9 yards. In between these lie options like precision strikes by the US decapitating Iran's oilfields, it's airforce & naval assets and it's nuclear facilities as retaliatory measures. In which case the onus would be on Iran to escalate.In effect, what I'm driving at is this is turning out to be a game of "chicken". I wonder if Iran has factored this in its calculations. We seem to be labouring under the impression that the Iranians have been pushed into a corner and have nothing to lose - an impression the Iranians too have done their utmost to create & sow fear in the minds of their adversaries. Yet is this the actual case on the ground? I have my doubts.
In the interim if oil prices keep soaring, nations like India and China will be sorely tempted to defy US sanctions. As it is we haven't seen China comply with the US demand that they suspend oil imports from Iran. How far will they continue remains to be seen.
P. S -
@randomradio ;
@A Person
Please avoid analogies to Vietnam. It does nothing to further the discussion on the US Iran flare up and serves as a distraction. Both are unique cases. But the Vietnamese were fighting what they viewed as an independence campaign against the French and a reunification campaign against the US. In both cases, apart from the terrain & national resolve, China was a very big factor apart from the ex USSR. Iran is completely surrounded by hostile powers or neutral ones. They're in it alone plus their population knows all these actions are targeted against the regime although it's the ordinary Iranians who'd end up paying a big price.Hence , those who pick up arms to defend their country will also be doing so to defend the mullahs - a distinction the Iranians won't be unaware of. Big difference in the two situations.
