The Geography of War: No Iraq…? No Iran!

Brett Redmayne-Titley

No other country in the Middle East is as important in countering America’s rush to provide Israel with another war than Iraq. Fortunately for Iran, the winds of change in Iraq and the many other local countries under similar threat, thus, make up an unbroken chain of border to border support. This support is only in part due to sympathy for Iran and its plight against the latest bluster by the Zio-American bully.

In the politics of the Middle East, however, money is at the heart of all matters. As such, this ring of defensive nations is collectively and quickly shifting towards the new Russo/ Sino sphere of economic influence. These countries now form a geo-political defensive perimeter that, with Iraq entering the fold, make a US ground war virtually impossible and an air war very restricted in opportunity.

If Iraq holds, there will be no war in Iran.

In the last two months, Iraq parliamentarians have been exceptionally vocal in their calls for all foreign military forces- particularly US forces- to leave immediately. Politicians from both blocs of Iraq’s divided parliament called for a vote to expel US troops and promised to schedule an extraordinary session to debate the matter. “Parliament must clearly and urgently express its view about the ongoing American violations of Iraqi sovereignty,” said Salam al-Shimiri, a lawmaker loyal to the populist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

Iraq’s ambassador to Moscow, Haidar Mansour Hadi, went further saying that Iraq “does not want a new devastating war in the region.” He told a press conference in Moscow this past week, “Iraq is a sovereign nation. We will not let [the US] use our territory,” he said. Other comments by Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi agreed. Other MPs called for a timetable for complete US troop withdrawal.

Then a motion was introduced demanding war reparations from the US and Israel for using internationally banned weapons while destroying Iraq for seventeen years and somehow failing to find those “weapons of mass destruction.”

As Iraq/ Iran economic ties continue to strengthen, with Iraq recently signing on for billions of cubic meters of Iranian natural gas, the shift towards Russian influence- an influence that prefers peace- was certified as Iraq sent a delegation to Moscow to negotiate the purchase of the Russian S-400 anti-aircraft system.

To this massive show of pending democracy and rapidly rising Iraqi nationalism, US Army spokesman, Colonel Ryan Dillon, provided the kind of delusion only the Zio-American military is known for, saying,

Our continued presence in Iraq will be conditions-based, proportional to need, in coordination with and by the approval of the Iraqi government.”

Good luck with that.

US influence in Iraq came to a possible conclusion this past Saturday, May 18, 2019, when it was reported that the Iraqi parliament would vote on a bill compelling the invaders to leave. Speaking about the vote on the draft bill, Karim Alivi, a member of the Iraqi parliament’s national security and defense committee, said on Thursday that the country’s two biggest parliamentary factions — the Sairoon bloc, led by Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, and the Fatah alliance, headed by secretary general of the Badr Organization, Hadi al-Ameri — supported the bill.

Strangely, Saturday’s result has not made it to the media as yet, and American meddling would be a safe guess as to the delay, but the fact that this bill would certainly have passed strongly shows that Iraq well understands the weakness of the American bully: Iraq’s own US militarily imposed democracy.

Iraq shares a common border with Iran that the US must have for any ground war. Both countries also share a similar religious demographic where Shia is predominant and the plurality of cultures substantially similar and previously living in harmony. Both also share a very deep seeded and deserved hatred of Zio- America. Muqtada al-Sadr, who, after coming out first in the 2018 Iraqi elections, is similar to Hizbullah’s Hassan Nasrallah in his religious and military influence within the well trained and various Shia militias. He is firmly aligned with Iran as is Fattah Alliance. Both detest Zio- America.

A ground invasion needs a common and safe border. Without Iraq, this strategic problem for US forces becomes complete. The other countries also with borders with Iran are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan. All have several good reasons that they will not, or cannot, be used for ground forces.

With former Armenian President Robert Kocharian under arrest in the aftermath of the massive anti-government 2018 protests, Bolton can check that one off the list first. Azerbaijan is mere months behind the example next door in Armenia, with protests increasing and indicating a change towards eastern winds. Regardless, Azerbaijan, like Turkmenistan, is an oil producing nation and as such is firmly aligned economically with Russia. Political allegiance seems obvious since US influence is limited in all three countries to blindly ignoring the massive additional corruption and human rights violations by Presidents Ilham Aliyev and Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow.

However, Russian economic influence pays in cash. Oil under Russian control is the lifeblood of both of these countries. Recent developments and new international contracts with Russia clearly show whom these leaders are actually listening to.

Turkey would appear to be firmly shifting into Russian influence. A NATO member in name only. Ever since he shot down his first- and last- Russian fighter jet, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan has thumbed his nose at the Americans. Recently he refused to succumb to pressure and will receive Iranian oil and, in July, the Russian S-400 anti-aircraft/missile system. This is important since there is zero chance Putin will relinquish command and control or see them missiles used against Russian armaments. Now, Erdogan is considering replacing his purchase of thirty US F-35s with the far superior Russian SU- 57 and a few S-500s for good measure.

Economically, America did all it could to stop the Turk Stream gas pipeline installed by Russia’s Gazprom, that runs through Turkey to eastern Europe and will provide $billions to Erdogan and Turkey. It will commence operation this year. Erdogan continues to purchase Iranian oil and to call for Arab nations to come together against US invasion in Iran. This week, Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar renewed Turkey’s resolve, saying his country is preparing for potential American sanctions as a deadline reportedly set by the US for Ankara to cancel the S-400 arms deal with Russia or face penalties draws near.

So, Turkey is out for both a ground war and an air war since the effectiveness of all those S-400’s might be put to good use if America was to launch from naval positions in the Mediterranean. Attacking from the Black Sea is out since it is ringed by countries under Russo/ Sino influence and any attack on Iran will have to illegally cross national airspace aligned with countries preferring the Russo/ Sino alliance that favours peace. An unprovoked attack would leave the US fleet surrounded with the only safe harbours in Romania and Ukraine. Ships move much slower than missiles.

Afghanistan is out, as the Taliban are winning. Considering recent peace talks from which they walked out and next slaughtered a police station near the western border with Iran, they have already won. Add the difficult terrain near the Iranian border and a ground invasion is very unlikely

Although new Pakistani President Imran Khan has all the power and authority of a primary school crossing guard, the real power within the Pakistani military, the ISI, is more than tired of American influence. ISI has propagated the Taliban for years and often gave refuge to Afghan anti-US forces allowing them to use their common border for cover. Although in the past ISI has been utterly mercenary in its very duplicitous- at least- foreign allegiances, after a decade of US drone strikes on innocent Pakistanis, the chance of ground-based forces being allowed is very doubtful. Like Afghanistan terrain also increases this unlikelihood.

Considerations as to terrain and location for a ground war and the resulting failure of not doing so was shown to Israel previously when, in 2006 Hizbullah virtually obliterated its ground attack, heavy armour and battle tanks in the hills of southern Lebanon. In further cautionary detail, this failure cost PM Ehud Olmert his job.

For the Russo/Sino pact nations, or those leaning in their direction, the definition of national foreign interest is no longer military, it is economic. Those with resources and therefore bright futures within the expanding philosophy and economic offerings of the Russo/ Sino pact have little use any longer for the “Sorrows of Empire.” These nation’s leaders, if nothing more than to line their own pockets, have had a very natural epiphany: War…is not, for them, profitable.

For Iran, the geographic, economic and therefore geo-political ring of defensive nations is made complete by Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. Syria, like Iraq, has every reason to despise the Americans and similar reasons to embrace Iran, Russia, China and border neighbour Lebanon. Syria now has its own Russian S-300 system which is already bringing down Israeli missiles. It is surprising that Lebanon has not requested a few S-300s of their own.

No one knows what Hizbullah has up its sleeve, but it has been enough to keep the Israelis at bay. Combined with a currently more prepared Lebanese army, Lebanon under the direction of Nasrallah is a formidable nation for its size. Ask Israel.

Lebanon and Syria also take away the chance of a ground-based attack, leaving the US Marines and Army to stare longingly across the Persian Gulf open waters from Saudi Arabia or one of its too few and militarily insignificant allies in the southern Gulf region.

Friendly airspace will also be vastly limited, so also gone will be the tactical element of surprise of any incoming attack. The reality of this defensive ring of nations means that US military options will be severely limited. The lack of a ground invasion threat and the element of surprise will allow Iranian defences to prioritize and therefore be dramatically more effective. As shown in a previous article, The Return of the Madness of M.A.D, Iran like Russia and China, after forty years of US/ Israeli threats, has developed new weapons and military capabilities, that combined with tactics will make any direct aggression towards it by American forces a fair fight.

If the US launches a war it will go it alone except for the few remaining US lapdogs like the UK, France, Germany and Australia, but with anti-US emotions running as wild across the EU as in the southern Caspian nations, the support of these Zionist influenced EU leaders is not necessarily guaranteed.

Regardless, a lengthy public ramp-up to stage military assets for an attack by the US will be seen by the vast majority of the world- and Iran- as an unprovoked act of war. Certainly at absolute minimum Iran will close the Straits of Hormuz, throwing the price of oil skyrocketing and world economies into very shaky waters. World capitalist leaders will not be happy. Without a friendly landing point for ground troops, the US will either have to abandon this strategy in favour of an air war or see piles of body bags of US servicemen sacrificed to Israeli inspired hegemony come home by the thousands just months before the ’20 primary season. If this is not military and economic suicide, it is certainly political.

Air war will likely see a similar disaster. With avenues of attack severely restricted, obvious targets such as Iran’s non-military nuclear program and major infrastructure will be thus more easily defended and the likelihood of the deaths of US airmen similarly increased.

In terms of Naval power, Bolton would have only the Mediterranean as a launch pad, since using the Black Sea to initiate war will see the US fleet virtually surrounded by nations aligned with the Russo/ Sino pact. Naval forces, it should be recalled, are, due to modern anti-ship technologies and weapons, now the sitting ducks of blusterous diplomacy. A hot naval war in the Persian Gulf, like a ground war, will leave a US death toll far worse than the American public has witnessed in their lifetimes and the US navy in tatters.

Trump is already reportedly seething that his machismo has been tarnished by Bolton and Pompeo’s false assurances of an easy overthrow of Maduro in Venezuela. With too many top generals getting jumpy about him initiating a hot war with Iraq, Bolton’s stock in trade-war is waning. Trump basks in being the American bully personified, but he and his ego will not stand for being exposed as weak. Remaining as president is necessary to stoke his shallow character. When Trump’s limited political intelligence wakes up to the facts that his Zio masters want a war with Iran more than they want him as president, and that these forces can easily replace him with a Biden, Harris, Bernie or Warren political prostitute instead, even America’s marmalade Messiah, will lose the flavor of his master’s blood lust for war.

In two excellent articles in Asia times by Pepe Escobar, he details the plethora of projects, agreements, and cooperation that are taking place from Asia to the Mid-East to the Baltics. Lead by Russia and China this very quickly developing Russo/ Sino pact of economic opportunity and its intentions of “soft power” collectively spell doom for Zio-America’s only remaining tactics of influence: military intervention. States, Escobar:

We should know by now that the heart of the 21stCentury Great Game is the myriad layers of the battle between the United States and the partnership of Russia and China. The long game indicates Russia and China will break down language and cultural barriers to lead Eurasian integration against American economic hegemony backed by military might.”

The remaining civilized world, that which understands the expanding world threat of Zio-America, can rest easy. Under the direction of this new Russo/ Sino influence, without Iraq, the US will not launch a war on Iran.

This growing Axis of Sanity surrounds Iran geographically and empathetically, but more importantly, economically. This economy, as clearly stated by both Putin and Xi, does not benefit from any further wars of American aggression. In this new allegiance to future riches, it is Russian and China that will call the shots and a shooting war involving their new client nations will not be sanctioned from the top.

However, to Putin, Xi and this Axis of Sanity: If American wishes to continue to bankrupt itself by ineffective military adventures of Israel’s making, rather than fix its own nation that is in societal decline and desiccated after decades of increasing Zionist control, well…

That’s just good for business!

Brett Redmayne-Titley has published over 170 in-depth articles over the past eight years for news agencies worldwide. Many have been translated and republished. On-scene reporting from important current events has been an emphasis that has led to his many multi-part exposes on such topics as the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, NATO summit, Keystone XL Pipeline, Porter Ranch Methane blow-out, Hizbullah in Lebanon, Erdogan’s Turkey and many more. He can be reached at: live-on-scene ((at)) gmx.com. Prior articles can be viewed at his archive here.


If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.

Categories: conflict zones, Iran, Iraq, latest
Notify of

oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Omega Shock
Omega Shock
May 29, 2019 5:11 PM

Your first sentence proves that this website is dishonest. Only a lying liar could peddles such drivel, as if it were the truth. I have personal experience – years of it – in seeing with my own eyes that Israel and Israelis do. not. want. war.

Brian harry
Brian harry
May 29, 2019 9:41 PM
Reply to  Omega Shock

Of course they don’t…They want the USA to go to war for them….

May 30, 2019 5:36 AM
Reply to  Omega Shock

Then why did they do that false flag attack on 911? That brought on all kinds of wars. Oh, that’s right, Israel let the stupid Americans fight their enemies.

May 28, 2019 2:36 AM

An inspiring article. Almost makes one optimistic for the future.
My only reservation is on account of things like the violation of air space, or Iraq’s possible resistance to further invasion by the U.S. Frankly, I am certain that Washington simply does not care about such considerations.
For example, it probably thinks, “Well, we charged into Iraq in 2003, so why shouldn’t we just do it again?”
Or, “Violation of air space? What do you mean? Our exceptional country owns as much air around the globe as it wants to.”
For Washington, that means, “Problem solved.”
Having several thousand miles between itself and the Middle East also contributes to U.S. peace of mind, and the media can still be manipulated into not talking about the body bags coming home.
The machinery of censorship is now fully installed.

May 27, 2019 11:44 PM

I doubt very much that the US would want a ground war with Iran. Putting half a million ground troops into the region as an invasion force would be an absolute gift to the Iranian military. Iran is a huge, mountainous country, over 600,000 square miles and 80 million. There would certainly be fanatical resistance and a protracted, bloody war escalating uncontrollably throughout the region over many years, drawing in many other countries, with terrible consequences. The result would probably be something like the 2006 Lebanon War on a vastly greater scale. Hezbollah deployed a force of 4,000 to the south of the country. The rest, about 10,000, were held back intending to fight a main battle at the Litani River, which never materialised. No aircraft, tanks, or navy. The Zionist Regime fielded 75,000 troops, with 600 tanks and unlimited air and naval support. But they were unable to make… Read more »

Brian harry
Brian harry
May 27, 2019 10:15 PM

“If the US launches a war it will go it alone except for the few remaining US lapdogs like the UK, France, Germany and Australia”
AS an Australian, I resent that, but have to admit it is right on the money. Our politicians are among the most pathetic on Earth. We grovel to America, and do anything they ask of us.

May 28, 2019 2:23 AM
Reply to  Brian harry

Thanks for your honesty.
I think the time for “being proud of your country” – WHATEVER it does – has long-since passed, and there are few western nations today whose people can honestly say they are proud of what their politicians are doing when it comes to warmongering.
Nationalism is no longer important to human evolution, although of course national traditions, characteristics and treasures most certainly are.
A wise man said many decades ago that “war is obsolete”. I believe the Dalai Lama also said so.
Its death throes may, however, not be very pleasant to witness.

May 27, 2019 8:15 PM

Good article. I like the strategic thinking. We’ll see if it is realistic – or over-optimistic. The current idiots in charge don’t do this kind of thinking. But lets be positive that something will stop these fools. For some reason I still am.

But I feel the strategic thinking is giving the impression there are those in the US administration are on the same planet as us. Let’s hope there are a few left who might prevail in a nuclear emergency.

May 27, 2019 6:10 PM

Two weeks ago I got a glimmer of hope that peace might prevail–the Iraqi parliament was poised to vote on removing US troops from Iraq. But, as far as I can tell, the vote never happened… Removing US troops from Iraq would also help end the war in Syria (where the US has at least 14 illegal temporary military bases) plus it would give the Iraqis more control over Northern Iraq (where the Kurds have been trying to “break off” and form their own country–largely backed by US military). So why would the Iraqi parliament NOT take the vote on removing US troops? It would have been a WIN-WIN for Iraq–helping to stop the illegal presence of US troops in Syria while giving Iraq more control over Northern Iraq. It makes zero sense why they didn’t vote to remove US troops–unless, of course, if perhaps Iraqi politicians were merely bluffing… Read more »

Brian harry
Brian harry
May 28, 2019 10:25 AM
Reply to  systemicfraud

The Iraqi parliament, voting to “remove US troops from their country” would have been a complete waste of time. The Military Industrial Complex need a base, for their ultimate attack on Iran. Just look at how John Bolton(the real President of the “Military Industrial Complex”) conducts himself.
He’s a Deranged Psychopath…….The USA government is now under “Their” Control……

Not if but when
Not if but when
May 27, 2019 7:25 AM

The Iraqis .. “demanding war reparations from the US and Israel for using internationally banned weapons while destroying Iraq for seventeen years and somehow failing to find those “weapons of mass destruction.”

The problem with this, for US institutions, ‘destabilisation’ and ‘destruction’ are performance targets to achieve.

The Exceptionalists murder people for fun. To be held accountable is totally foreign to them.

Not if but when
Not if but when
May 27, 2019 6:58 AM

I recall reading, during the onset of the invasion of Iraq, under the leadership of the deeply religious US president G. W. Bush, news outlets were instructed not to mention the word Israel anywhere near the news about Iraq.

Brian harry
Brian harry
May 27, 2019 9:57 PM

“news outlets were instructed not to mention the word Israel anywhere near the news about Iraq”.
That instruction to news outlets, probably came from the White House Press spokesman ARI FLEISCHER

May 27, 2019 5:29 AM

According to Vice-Admiral Michael Gilday, and dutifully stenographed by the Gwardian without any reservations, “the US had very high confidence that Iran’s Revolutionary Guards were responsible for the explosions on four tankers, and that Iranian proxies in Iraq fired rockets into Baghdad.” The utter silliness of the latter claim shows they are clutching at straws for a casus belli.

Brian harry
Brian harry
May 27, 2019 10:07 PM
Reply to  0use4msm

“the US had very high confidence that Iran’s Revolutionary Guards were responsible for the explosions on four tankers, and that Iranian proxies in Iraq fired rockets into Baghdad.”

The American Governments record of bold faced lies/Misinformation just keeps getting longer and longer(Include Venezuela in that). Their record of “Bovine Excreta” is unsurpassed, anywhere on Earth.

“The crimes of the USA throughout the World have been systematic, constant, clinical, remorseless, and fully documented, but nobody talks about them”…..Harold Pinter.

May 28, 2019 2:42 AM
Reply to  Brian harry

Well, it took a while, Mr. Pinter, but now we DO talk about them.

Brian harry
Brian harry
May 28, 2019 3:42 AM
Reply to  wardropper

Most of the comments we see on Forums like this, or elsewhere, wouldn’t make it into the mainstream media. “The Guardian” is a prime example. I learned more by reading the comments in the Guardian, than the actual article, but not any more. It’s a disgrace these days.

May 28, 2019 7:24 AM
Reply to  Brian harry


That’s a kind of rule I have. I don’t read the articles (except Fisk, maybe Cockburn and Hitchens) but the comments are more informative and honest. Unfortunately nowadays publications are making it harder to comment (The Independent used to be O.K for this, the Evening Standard, even) Many are changing the formats to discourage informed analysis and debate to a dumb-down model. Evening Standard is classic for this. I think the Guardian can just be dismissed as a mouth-piece for the UK intelligence services.

Brian harry
Brian harry
May 28, 2019 9:39 AM
Reply to  Loverat

I live in Australia so I’m not familiar with some of those sites, but I agree entirely with what you say……and whatever you do, do not take ANY notice of anything that awful “American” Rupert Murdoch says

May 28, 2019 1:21 PM
Reply to  Brian harry

You are certainly right about the Guardian.
Hard not to scream after reading their articles on serious foreign policy issues, followed by a blank where there ought to be comments…
It’s the very reason OffGuardian exists, thank heaven.

Ferdinand Monro
Ferdinand Monro
May 29, 2019 9:53 AM
Reply to  Brian harry

The Guardian was running short of the readies so it decided to outsource its moderation. The highest bid came from Mossad.