Warning from an American analyst: The scope of a war with Iran will be unknown to the United States.

According to Saednews , Steven Wertheim, an American analyst and member of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, stated in an analysis published in The Guardian:

“Two decades ago, during the American debate over whether the country should attack Iraq, a key question arose: Does Saddam have weapons of mass destruction? If he did, then the United States should use military force to disarm and overthrow his regime. If he did not, Washington could reserve that option and continue to contain Saddam through economic sanctions and conventional bombings.

Over time, it became clear that the scope of the Iraq war went far beyond these initial debates. It turned out Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. But suppose he did have the chemical and biological weapons that proponents of the Iraq war claimed he possessed. In that case, faced with an attack aimed at destroying his regime, he would have the greatest possible incentive to use the worst weapons at his disposal. In reality, even then, it would be clear that the Iraq war was a catastrophic mistake.”

Wertheim noted that supporters of the Iraq war aimed to demonstrate American power, dominate the global stage, and reshape the Middle East. He added: “Today, under the presidency of Donald Trump, the United States is again considering the use of military force against a Middle Eastern country that is not preparing to attack the United States. This time the question is whether Iran is developing nuclear weapons and approaching a so-called ambiguous ‘point of no return.’ If you answer yes, then you support U.S. attacks on Iran’s enrichment facilities and probably much more.

The American people must resist this illogical thinking. According to U.S. intelligence agencies, Iran is not close to producing a usable nuclear device. Iran has created the option for itself by enriching uranium, but it has not decided to acquire nuclear weapons nor taken the necessary steps to do so. Iran has entered diplomatic negotiations with the Trump administration in the past two months, and the parties appeared to be moving closer to an agreement that would severely limit uranium enrichment in Tehran and block the path to a bomb.”

This American analyst wrote that during these negotiations, the Zionist regime launched attacks on Iran, claiming to prevent it from obtaining a nuclear bomb but in reality obstructing U.S. diplomacy.

Wertheim emphasized that a U.S.-Iran agreement could have served U.S. interests best but “Israel intervened to prevent this outcome.”

He believes that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took a dangerous gamble with his aggression against Iran and “assumed that the United States would finish his work and cover up his mess.”

He claims: “U.S. efforts over the past decades to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb have been correct, but is such a mission worth going to war over? If the United States joins Israel’s war against Iran to try to complete Israel’s mission, it will enter a war of unknown dimensions against a country of 90 million people. Iran would retaliate against Americans, and a large-scale, open-ended war would ensue.”

He continues: “In that case, Americans themselves will witness that their leaders—regardless of who they are, even someone with the ‘America First’ slogan—do not want to exercise control over events to fulfill their national obligation to end wars in the Middle East and instead focus on the unresolved and worsening problems within the United States that truly determine America’s fate. But if the U.S. steps back from the brink of this war, it will open new opportunities and show that it values the welfare of Americans, does not want them to live in endless and constant fear, and that a rogue ally can no longer block U.S. efforts, dictate its national agenda, and harm its civil life. These are the very opportunities worth fighting for.”