I suspect they are planning to finish off Syria this year.
Can't get away with venezuela as you said, and syria opens possibilities to iran. So this year or next at most. Except we've already started a major move on syria. See what I mean by accelerated time table?
A move on iran would look like and likely start with a move on syria.
Anything more direct would be too closely tied to the u.s. elections and Iran could rightly accuse us of having cynically waited until after and preplanning the whole thing.
If we can't move on Iran directly, and a color revolution would fail in syria (Iran, Turkey, and Russia would put it down), and the pentagon wants an excuse to be there anyway, then the next step would be regime change and 'peace keeping' in syria. And that acts as the launching pad to attack or destabilize iran.
The only way I can see this happening is if we nuke Tehran when we knew the leadership was there and the US wrote it off as a "Iran built a nuclear bomb and fucked up". But the US would have to blitzkrieg their way in since the Russians would try to grab the northern part of the country. No mullah mother fuckers mean the Iranian military would either not fight or fight. There is also a chance the military could make a run for it into Russia, fearing annulation.
I think the U.S. would go for sabotage, color revolution, and 'counter insurgence' through proxies first--aided and supplied from bases out of syria.
Yeah, that's the usual way. The playbook has always been to instigate a war. Not fire first. Why else would the U.S military go to so much trouble training all these rebels in the middle east if they could just lob a few nukes at their enemies.
(post is archived)