The United States has been in a constant state of war since 1945. However, the last war the United States won a fighting war against a worthy opponent was the War in the Pacific against Japan. Every other war has been against a Third World Banana Republic, even Vietnam. As an imperialist power, it seeks power and control in the name of empire disguised as “freedom and democracy.”
Syria is proving to be a pushover, but Iran is another story and became this way via the United States invasion of Iraq.
However attacking Iran takes an excess of propaganda. Trump, as Chomsky states what every schoolyard bully knows: “You attack people if they can't defend themselves.” This is why Trump wants a call from Iran.
James Risen in State Of War: The Secret History of The CIA and the Bush Administration (2006) Iran was an unappreciated ally in Bush's War on Terror resulting is being labeled by Neoconservative David Frum via his George W. Bush Axis of Evil speech, as a member of the Axis of Evil in the Middle East.
Risen declares that Iran was strongly supportive of the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan because of Tehran's deep hatred for the ruling Taliban, Sunni Muslims heavily dependent on Pakistani support to retain power in Kabul. Shia-dominated Iran long feared the Taliban's radical influence on its own Sunni minority. Tehran also wanted to retain its influence over western Afghanistan, particularly the trading center of Herat.
Iran also supported the opposition Northern Alliance against the Taliban, and after 9/11, Iranian officials at the Geneva meetings (with American intelligence that had begun during the Clinton administration) were actually impatient with the sluggish start to American military operations in Afghanistan. Publicly, the Iranians said little about the war and provided little overt support to the Americans, apart from promising to allow rescue operations for any downed pilots over its territory. But in Geneva, Iranian officials were eager to help and even brought out maps to try to tell the United States the best targets to bomb.
Iran also held some al Qaeda operative who tried to flee Afghanistan into Iran. But by 2002 cooperation ended with Bush's Axis Of Evil speech.
In May 2003, one month after the fall of Baghdad, the Iranians approached the United States once again, offering to turn over top al Qaeda lieutenants, including both Saif al-Adel, al Qaeda's chief of operations, and Saad bin Laden, Osama bin Laden's son. In trade for these Tehran wanted the Americans to hand over members of the Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK), an Iranian exile terrorist’s organization that had been supported by Saddam Hussein and based in Iraq since 1986.
Although MEK had been a puppet of Saddam Hussein, conducting assassinations and sabotage operations inside Iran from its sanctuary in Iraq and were listed as a foreign terrorist group by the State Department; back in the 1970s, the group had killed several Americans living in Iran, including CIA officers based there during the shah's regime; Hardliner in the Pentagon: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz seemed to think that the MEK could be useful in a future war with Iran, and so they appeared eager to keep the group in place inside Iraq, [and gave the status in Washington, D.C].
Thereby the War on Iraq has been in the planning by the State Department since 2003.
Risen posits that MEK's political arm, the National Council of Resistance of Iran understands how to gain attention in the West, particularly after watching the prewar success of the Iraqi National Congress, the Iraqi exile group headed by Ahmed Chalabi. Like Chalabi's group, the Iranian exiles have used the American press to issue claims about Iran's nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs in order to build the case for a tougher U.S. policy toward Tehran.
If we look beyond Sheldon Adelson's money on Trump, as well as the Jewish stereotype which is Benjamin Netanyahu (as an international war monger), and the White Protestant Right-wing living out preparations for The Final Days and Christ's Parousia, it is better to return to Noam Chomsky & Gilbert Achcar's Dialogues on Terror, Democracy, War, and Justice (2007). Achcar states, “I think the likelihood of strikes on Iran, whether by the United States or Israel, is quite serious. I am not saying they are certain, but we should not consider them improbable.”
However Chomsky says that his guess is different, but it's all speculation. Let me comment on the issue of Iranian nuclear weapons. I don't know for sure, but I suspect the Iranians are working on nuclear weapons. One of the leading Israeli military historians Martin Van Crevel had an article in the International Herald Tribune, in which he said that of course he didn't want the Iranians to have such weapons, but if they're not developing the, they're insane. Any state that under the kind of threat would be developing a nuclear deterrent.
If they are developing nuclear weapons it's not for use—they can't use them: They'd be instantly destroyed. But it's a deterrent. They've got U.S. forces on two borders. They're surrounded by nuclear armed states—Israel is a major nuclear power, the United States and Israel are openly threatening them with destruction and attack. So my guess is that they likely are developing a nuclear deterrent.
However, if one is seriously concerned about Iranian nuclear weapons, there are simple ways of increasing the probability that they won't develop them. For one thing, if the pressures against Iran were relaxed, they would have much less incentive to create a deterrent.
Chomsky posits that there are deeper issues having to do with proliferation. One thing I agree with the Bush administration is that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty does need revision. Article IV of the treaty allows countries to develop civilian nuclear power freely, and so far there isn't any evidence that Iran is going beyond its treaty obligations. However, that provision is too weak.