All my indicators are reading 'no', 'no' and 'no' on a hot war with Iran. Whereas I knew when Afghanistan was invaded, Iraq would be next. Firstly it might be claimed Deep State will circumvent Trump and force a hot war on him. The reason I don't think this will come to fruition is because this would imperil American imperial interests. In the event of a hot war with Iran, Iran will close the straights of Hormuz, the most critical oil-energy waterway on the planet thus imperiling critical nodes of the American imperial network such as Saudi Arabia. America's string of Middle Eastern client states would be brought to its knees with grave implications upon America's broader global hegemony. Deep State does not want this. Rather by Deep State merely containing Iran by menacing it via sanctions or by indirectly sponsoring colour revolutions so as to trigger an internal coup is optimum for Deep State. Iran is nervous and uncertain but war hasn't reached critical mass in that closing the Straights would do anything for Iran but obliterate the Iranian economy. Whereas in a hot war for survival the Iranians lose nothing by going scorched earth on the straights. === Insofar as Trump himself is concerned, his regime has followed his electioneering remarkably well. He never said he was a non-interventionist and he hasn't been one. He campaigned roughly on a Reaganite platform with some Kissinger-esque brute pragmatism in the mix and he's largely followed that blueprint. That's not a particularly moral blueprint of course but if I could chose between the pragmatism of the gangster and the schizophrenia of the pyromaniac, then I'll hungrily chose the former every time The issue with a rightist challenge to the neocons is that a pragmatic discourse of the trad rightist sounds "peacenik" and gets outmaneouvered with the hyper-militarist jngoistic rhetoric of the neocon. Trump won the election and continues to confound neocon madness because his demogoguery out-demoagogued them, making them look weak compared to him and nutty whilst Trump himself manages imperial overeach. Obviously the neocons are still there so there's a war within the US establishment and Trump has had to concede ground to the pyromaniacs. But he has outmaneouvered them with ultra-demoagoguery and thus won space to manage imperial overreach. Trump's jingoistic pride hurts his statesmanship certainly. But he is a businessman, he has understood and articulated why Bush was so calamitous for the American economuy and he doesn't expand that damage to American interests by many multiples with a hot war on Iran, an Iran that has teeth moreover unlike Iraq. He'll blitz them with sanctions, troll them to high heavens but I don't see a generalised hot war coming from him either. In short, the American Empire thrives on instability, localised proxy wars, color revolutions and the like. A generalised, hot war on a global scale would imperil American imperial interests and I don't believe either Deep State nor Trump will do that. The demagoguery for public and media consumption is probably the most superficial metric in getting an accurate reading of these things.