Quick,tell me when John Bolton was put in charge of the Presidency and the US Congress.

If we invade Iran, we're going to end up in a war with China and with Russia, so let's be ready to pre-empt the Chinese nukes, and knock out the Russian boomers.

I guess this is it. We're going to rule the world or go down in flames.

Seems legit.

John Bolton recently stated that America will be in Tehran, Iran before 2019.

Not really "recently". That video is of Ambassador John Bolton speaking to Iranian exiles at the Free Iran gathering in Paris on July 1, 2017.

He wasn't Trump's National Security Advisor back then. Talk about FAKE NEWS!

Not really "recently". That video is of Ambassador John Bolton speaking to Iranian exiles at the Free Iran gathering in Paris on July 1, 2017.

He wasn't Trump's National Security Advisor back then. Talk about FAKE NEWS!

July 1, 2017 is quite recent, are you saying that Mr Bolton had change of heart?

That video is of Ambassador John Bolton speaking to Iranian exiles at the Free Iran gathering in Paris on July 1, 2017.

I was wondering who he was talking to. They were certainly cheering him on. It must be fun telling exiled people what they want to hear and giving them false hopes.

Iran has a population of 81 million, which is more than twice the population of Canada and more than half the population of Russia, and fully 25% of the USA.

Bolton is certainly a war-mongering ass who's presence in Trump's cabinet defies understanding, but we won't be invading Iran. If we tried, it would be the last straw for one or more of the following:

The US dollar
Russia's patience
The American People

It ain't happening, and that's a good thing.

July 1, 2017 is quite recent, are you saying that Mr Bolton had change of heart?

It's not recent, despite the fact that a) the author posted it with today's date, b) with the headline "John Bolton says (not 'said') the USA is invading Iran in 2018" and c) refers to John Bolton in the video as the National Security Advisor which he was not at the time.

A change of heart? He told the crowd what they wanted to hear. No one (except you, obviously) thought he had any power to actually make that happen.

Bolton is certainly a war-mongering ass who's presence in Trump's cabinet defies understanding

I understand. It sends a message to Iran, North Korea and Russia that we're ready for war ... if that's what they want. Or, they can sit down and negotiate.

Couple that with our recent strike in Syria along with a massive increase in defense spending and it reinforces the message.

It sends a message to Iran, North Korea and Russia that we're ready for war ... if that's what they want. Or, they can sit down and negotiate.

Negotiate with each other, you mean?

The US is not interested in any negotiations. Tell me a single thing that the US has conceded to Russia in the last 10 years.

US negotiation: Shut up and get back in line. That's all it's been. The US does not talk to Russia.

I understand. It sends a message to Iran, North Korea and Russia that we're ready for war ... if that's what they want. Or, they can sit down and negotiate.

Negotiate what? Unconditional surrender?

US negotiation: Shut up and get back in line. That's all it's been. The US does not talk to Russia.

And given that we broke Ukraine and overturned the result of a popular election there by supporting minority insurgents, we've really made a hash of things.

Of course, that was under Obama. We could do better under Trump.

For that to happen, this nonsense about "Russian Collusion" needs to end. How much does Trump look like he's colluding with the Russians now?

Answer: He's not. And he didn't. As obsessed as people are with politically "getting" Trump, truth is Trump always said - and meant - that he wanted better relations with Russia, and we COULD. But the Russia collusion investigation means that he CAN'T reach out to Russia the way he would like to, because any conciliatory move he makes towards Russia will be pointed to as proof of collusion.

If we want normal relations with Russia, the "Trump colluded with Russia" bullshit has to be spiked and Mueller's investigation needs to be ended.

Otherwise we can just go on pushing Russia around and causing problems - just like Trump doesn't want to do. The President needs a free hand in dealing with Russia, something that Obama had, and he does not have right now. The political harpies in America are paralyzing our Russia policy. They need to be handed a loss so that more important things, like superpower relations, can go forward.

In truth, I think there are Democrats and Trump haters who would rather see the world destroyed in a nuclear holocaust than back down an inch about Trump.

So therefore we'll have a war with Syria and maybe Iran.

Negotiate what? Unconditional surrender?

Give up their nuclear program.

Negotiate what? Unconditional surrender?

Give up their nuclear program.

If they do it, they will end up like Libya.

If they do it, they will end up like Libya.

Is that their argument?

If they do it, they will end up like Libya.

Is that their argument?

No. They act on it. They just prefer to make stand near Damascus than near Sankt Petersburg/Estonia.

Not really "recently".

What difference does it make, he still said it and probably still means it.

"... he still said it and probably still means it."

Sure. But what did he say? He said America's policy should be the overthrow of the regime.

But not by the United States. Right before that statement he said the center of the opposition is "right here in this room". Meaning, he expects the Iranian people to make the change.

he expects the Iranian people to make the change.

He is late. They already made the change, in 1979.

 we need the draft to put together a 5 million man army that cannot be stopped. 

Iran can field at the start 3 million troops. Take in the account high mountains and that Persians will be fighting on their own ground, you need much more than 5 millions.

Iran is not Somalia.

They already made the change, in 1979.

Yeah. And how's that working out for them?

Yeah. And how's that working out for them?

Ask them.

Iran can field at the start 3 million troops. Take in the account high mountains and that Persians will be fighting on their own ground, you need much more than 5 millions.

They can field them. They can't feed them.

 They can't feed them.

Financial Tribune - Iran's Food Exports Booming

And that was BEFORE the age of the airplane able to blow up trains and supply depots.

If the Iranians put 5 million men in the field, they will have a lot of hungry, demoralized, unarmed men in a hurry.

Medieval armies had the same problem. Against an organized invader, a levee en masse could create a huge army for a few days. But then it would be a huge mass of hungry people starting to get diseases and the like.

The Gauls at Alesia outnumbered the Romans 10:1, but the Romans had logistics, and the discipline, training, tactics and equipment, while the Gauls had courage and little else.

The Gauls lost.

The Iranians could put a big, crappy army into the field, where it would be paralyzed by US airstrikes and, soon enough, starve.

Iran cannot defeat the United States in an all-out war.

It is to be hoped that it does not come to that.

Iran cannot defeat the United States in an all-out war.

On Iranian territory?

It's not going to happen anyway, so why speculate?

Very simple - to evaluate the actual balance of forces.

You see, in 99% of conflicts, it does not come to the blows, because mere evaluation is sufficient to decide the outcome.

If a heavily armed burly policeman meats skinny punk with a small pocket knife, the punk ends up in jail.

But if the punk has bazooka and a few crazed buddies on meth, the police salutes him and moves on to search for easier targets.

That is why proper evaluation is so critical.

If we do our usual chicken-shit, minimal forces and get out, without a full mobilization, Iran would end up a massive Vietnam-in-the-desert for us.