American Generals German Generals German Battles World War 2
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 U.S. 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 at any time.
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 in 2008.
Possibilities for another 2008 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 the Bush administration likes soft touches ( Iraq War was supposed to be a cake walk - remember we were going to be greeted with "flowers and candy!"). Also, Venezuela, while the military soft touch the Bush administration dreams of for future oil wars, has greatly increased its international clout, in particular its Latin American clout, over the past few years and might get a temporary pass. An attack on Venezuela in 2008 would be very unpopular both here and abroad and, particularly, in Latin America.
The U.S. is less likely to get involved in a future Syrian war, leading to occupation of Syria, with the business in Iraq far from finished although Syria would also be a soft touch, militarily. Syria has little oil so why democratize it? Oil wars are essentially for obtaining oil supplies.
So the Bush administration is in a quandary. They may think they need a new war somewhere to up their flagging political strength with the 2008 presidential elections less than one year away. Also, Cheney is not stupid. He knows we will eventually need to grab a big pot of oil to survive the arrival of peak oil.
Where will future U.S. wars be? Let us look at some of the possibilities for the next war.
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 and President Bush does not like to be challenged. And President Bush, particularly, does not like to be challenged by a leftist president with little military strength to back up his mouth.
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 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).
But there is a lot of oil in Venezuela and the U.S. may eventually need it.
Venezuela may be temporarily saved from U.S. invasion by growing anti-U.S. sentiment in the rest of Latin America (much of it instigated by Chavez). If Venezuela is hit first, these other Latin-American countries, particularly the oil-rich countries, may start asking: who will be next?
Former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld likened Chavez to Hitler. Could Venezuela be moving up on the Bush administration hit list? Venezuela would be the soft touch that Bush dearly loves. It looks easy. But the international ramifications could be great, particularly if Venezuela put up a fight and U.S. casualties became substantial. The ramifications would be even worse if a protracted guerrilla war, as discussed above, broke out in the jungles of Venezuela.
Could this be the decider's last screw-up before leaving office.....A war between the U.S. and South American countries!!
(Note: Since writing the above section, Venezuela and Columbia have become engaged in a bitter dispute and the U.S. is strongly supporting Columbia. Don't say I didn't warn you!!)
Things have not gone well for the Bush Administration in Latin America. Although democracy has spread and free-market economies are 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 involves new democracies becoming U.S. stooges!
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. An exception might be Cuba.
Cuba. If things should really start going bad for the Bush Administration, a U.S. war with Cuba followed by occupation of Cuba might be in the cards - just to bolster up the right wing elements that now run the show in the U.S. Such an occupation would find plenty of supporters in the U.S.
The possibility of a quickie war with Cuba became more possible with the illness of Fidel Castro who is about 80 years old. Cuban liberation groups wanted to hit Cuba while Castro was ill. However, several reasons will probably save Cuba from an immediate U.S. attack:
1. So much of the U.S. military is tied up in the Iraq War and, now, with the observed difficulties of the Israelis in the "quickie" clash with Hezbollah behind us, do we really have enough extra force to quickly conquer Cuba? There is no doubt that Cuba will fight and we would not want any drawn-out struggle in Cuba. Other Latin nations, while they may not particularly like Castro, might see themselves as being next on the U.S. target list. They would be squawking to high heaven!
2. The Bush Administration may feel that the communist government in Cuba may fall of its own weight now that the powerful Fidel Castro has resigned and placed his more temperate brother, Raul, in power. I doubt that such a collapse will happen anytime soon, but the not-too-bright right-wing Republican elements may think otherwise.
On the other side of the coin, there are reports that Cuba has found a huge offshore oil deposit (5 billion barrels of valuable light oil). I can just see the eyes of the Bush Administration oil men glisten at the very thought of getting their hands on that size of light oil deposit close to the U.S. (Although, to be fair, the major U.S. & British oil companies were apparently offered the mammoth Iraqi oil deposits at pennies on the dollar by the Bush Administration, and, to the companies' credit, turned down the offer - they don't like government takeover and giveaway deals.)
So, Venezuela and Cuba, keep your eyes open for possible war! The rest of Latin America gets a free ride. For now!
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 unless the administration really becomes desperate for a military victory as the result of the right-wing defeats in the 2006 midterm elections and the bogged-down struggle in Iraq. A war with Syria would be a popular war in the U.S. particularly as a quick victory should be almost certain. (Of course, after the performances of the U.S. in Iraq and of Israel in Hezbollah-Lebanon, I don't see a certainty of quick victories for either nation - even against weak Syria.)
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.
Yes, Syria is in the hot seat now with the Israel-Hezbollah battle concluded and they show every sign of knowing it and of trying to avoid war. They may escape with their skin intact, but it is not a certainty that that will be the case. Their time may have come! They need to do some serious crawling!
A few Syrian officials have been smart-mouthing Israel since the Hezbollah's success in their clash with Israel. But that could be dangerous. Syria is not Hezbollah!
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. The hard-line right wing Republicans now running the U.S. see all this and may be tempted to make a move - even before the democratization process in Iraq is completed!
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. Can you picture $150+ per barrel oil and $5+ per gallon gasoline?
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, apparently, also hopes 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 when their turn comes. They will not go down easily in a future war with the U.S.
Rumors have it that the U.S. would like to have moved on Iran as early as 2005 or 2006. But Iran was just too tough to handle while Iraq is still alive and kicking. What about 2008 with the end of the Bush administration in sight? Has Iran's turn come? The administration may feel they can wait no longer than 2008. On the other side of the coin, the Hezbollah - Israel clash has strongly demonstrated that the Iranian military may be much stronger than previously thought. The Iranian-trained Hezbollah fighters have been impressive, to say the least, and the Iranian-built rockets and missiles obviously have the capability to shut down tanker traffic from the Persian Gulf.
Three-day Shock and Awe Attack on Iran. In the last couple of months, a rumor has spread that either the U.S. or Israel would soon launch a massive 3-day assault on Iran with the purpose of destroying their entire military. You can read the details at Iran | War On Terror.
I doubt such an attack will occur but I have been wrong before. For example, I believed that the Iraq War would end quickly and six years later............
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.
In July of 2006, war broke out between the Hezbollah militants located in Lebanon and Israel. That war ended in a cease fire after weeks of a bitter struggle that resulted in many military and civilian casualties and left Lebanon devastated.
Hezbollah is apparently heavily financed and supported by Iran with some additional support coming from Syria.
Hezbollah was formed in 1982 as Israel invaded Lebanon. Hezbollah was implicated in the 1983 suicide bombing of the U.S. marine barracks in Lebanon that killed over 240 U.S. marines and led to a U.S. pullout of troops from Lebanon.
Iran gained a lot from the Hezbollah - Israel war. They were able to showcase their excellent homemade weapons and also their military training techniques. And Iran did not get a scratch from the war.
Although any war in the Middle East, Venezuela, or North Korea would be called part of the War on Terror, I limit my 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.
As the war in Iraq proceeds poorly for the U.S., there has recently been 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.
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. Certainly, until after the Olympics at the very earliest.
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. Election 2008. Conservatism vs. liberalism is the major background political issue in the U.S. today.
2. Iraq War Compared to World War 2. George Bush is making 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?
3. 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.
Oil Company Stocks Large Oil Company Stocks Energy Crisis
Last Updated: 05/11/08
e-mail me @ vanc13@cox.net
Looking for Next U.S. War? Try Google Search: