I agree with you. I was discussing an extremely unlikely hypothetical to get at the issue of the world’s reaction. I don’t think a president acting like that would be wise or appropriate, and I don’t think it’s going to happen either.
How would you damage it, Ditka? Many of the sites are going to be Superfund-equivalent in operation, before high explosives start breaking things. If the Iranians are generating fissile material through, say, irradiating U-238, breaking that reactor is going to leave one big mess. (Which is why the Israelis bombed Osirak in 1981 before it started operation, and who knows what happened with the big cube on the Euphrates in Syria.) I guess the tunnel entry points at someplace like Natanz or Qom could be bombed, and the Iranians inconvenienced for as long as it took to dig out the entrances.
But bombing something like Bushehr is going to be an incredible problem.
When the entire operation is stupid, I’m not going to waste time breaking down the individually stupid parts.
I think such a unilateral action will have far more wide-reaching consequences than Kosovo or Libya, both of which had at least the semblance of western political backing via NATO. If Mr. Trump ordered extensive bombing of Iran without even flying NATO colors, I expect a strong international rebuke. The U.S. would be forced to veto what will likely be an otherwise unanimous UNSC resolution condemning the U.S. for a flagrant violation of international law. Even Israel will probably be dumbfounded although publicly supportive. You can bet all the usual actors will have a field day pointing out how reckless the U.S. is - Russia, China, Syria, even Republicans. Whether that means boycotts or sanctions, I could not say.
Then there is the chance, however slim, that Iran has a secret defensive pact with say Russia or N. Korea. They already have a defensive pact with Syria if I recall correctly, but I don’t think it has any teeth.
Then we have the logistical problems of actually bombing the nuclear capability out of Iran. I’m no expert but it seems possible that dropping conventional bombs on a nuclear power plant that secretly holds a nuclear weapons research facility is a really bad idea that could easily backfire and cause fallout to float around. Wikipedia says meteorological conditions caused Castle Bravo’s fallout to move over 500km downwind, while the Bushehr power plant and Kuwait (U.S. military bases) are separated by about 200km of ocean. Or what if fallout from Bonab somehow floated over to Armenia, which has a defensive pact with Russia? And of course, everything is for naught if we don’t actually crush Iran’s nuclear capability.
And then let’s not forget that potential nuclear facilities aren’t all out in the middle of the desert. Darkhovin is on Iran’s only major river, Bushehr is the 15th largest city in Iran, and after all Tehran is the capital city. Indiscriminate bombing comes at the risk of high civilian collateral and possibly a tragic nuclear disaster.
How strongly the international community reacts will depend on specifics I could not dream about, but the reaction will surely be strong and negative.
~Max
The whole point of a defensive pact is lost IF YOU KEEP IT A SECRET! Why don’t they tell the world, eh?
I see what you did there, Dr. Strangelove! 
I think it would be like this guy:
Before he does his extraordinarily unadvisable thing, he displays brash confidence. Soon after, that is not even a distant memory.
This is easily my all-time favorite poster/post combination. And Max S. just teed it up so perfectly! Also, it makes avatars worthwhile, at least for one post, because seeing him there made it all the more perfect.
And that’s before you start bombing Iran for no reason.
Are polls allowed in Elections? I’d like a quick poll right here: Does this development make you proud of (or sad about) the present Administration. I’ll check ‘Sad.’ How do our Republican Dopers vote?
As a Canadian, the thing that makes me sad is that the US is going to take us down with it. Other parts of the world could withdraw from engagement with the US, and while it would hurt in the short term, they’d survive in the long term.
But Canada is pretty much stuck. Simple geography means we’re tied the US whether we want to be or not, and I can’t see that changing. Even Mexico has more options than we do for developing other major trading relationships.
As OP, I actually meant a death spiral for Trump’s political future, though his actions would still damage US reputation and economy, especially if Trump takes the bait.
Iran and China are both hoping to ride out Trump until 2020 and, more importantly, put the nail in his coffin. Trump can be easily manipulated to either crush his own chances for re-election, humiliate himself, or most likely both.
If Trump continues the trade war, the stock market will tank before the economy does. China cares about their economy, but they know Trump is obsessed with day to day stock market swings. Trump will hit his pain threshold first. The trade war is also hurting his prospects in middle America. Trump won’t win this; the best he can do is stop losing more.
Iran is a little more difficult because Bolton is now in Trump’s ear claiming he’ll get a war popularity boost from a “easy” war with Iran. That’s pretty far from assured given that his base voted him in partly because of his isolationist policies. I think when you balance that with the fact that Trump avoids direct confrontation (rather than aggressive bluffs) and has expressed this during the Iraq war when he wasn’t in power, you’ll probably find he may escalate as a bluff, but won’t call for the all out conflict that will get him a popularity boost. If he does, it will tank the stock market. Again, he can’t win; he can only lose stop from losing more. He has no good options anywhere on the world stage.
I think there’s probably about a 50/50 chance that Trump loses the popular vote and technically the electoral college vote by just a smidgeon on election night, but still ends up being president after 2020.
Well, I meant pointless escalation in the sense of wrecking their communications, public utilities and transportation infrastructure far beyond the area where the Iranian naval/air forces would be engaged. Basically going and wrecking that kind of thing in Tehran, Mashhan or Tabriz wouldn’t have a whole lot of military utility, beyond maybe the military headquarters in Tehran.
I suppose going after their nuclear program would be reasonable, at the point that we’d already committed to bombing stuff inside Iran. I mean, at that point, we’re in for a penny, in for a pound, so there’s not much reason NOT to hit their plutonium separation and uranium enrichment facilities. I don’t doubt we know where those are. And I’m not so sure we’d even want to hit the reactors themselves- that could easily turn into another radiological event a-la Fukushima/Chernobyl. But the enrichment/separation facilities wouldn’t be as bad; they’re essentially chemical plants dealing with radioactive materials.
Are you talking about a scenario where the Ds apparently win 270+ ev, but the GOP cheaters, lawyers and criminal Governors go into action and make the E.C. pick Trump, possibly with assistance from a 5-4 Scotus decision?
I’ll agree that that is a real possibility, though doubt its odds are higher than 5%. There’s another 5% to 15% chance the R’s will attempt this, but be foiled, perhaps by one of the Scotus scums turning against the R’s.
I agree with your odds based on your end result, but if he’s suggesting Trump will, even if he believes he lost, claim voter fraud and contest the vote beyond reason all the while riling his base into possible violence, then I thing his odds are right.
Of course, if Trump sees this headline:
It’s Bolton’s World. Trump’s Just Living In It
then it’s over for Bolton.
I’ll walk it back a little because I probably shouldn’t put real odds on it without actually looking at the electoral math, the polling, and so forth. But I see the 2020 race coming being really close even with a strong Democratic nominee like Biden (I say he’s strong because he’s polling well now).
Yes, I could see the race coming down to one or two states, with Trump on the losing end by a few thousand votes in one or two contests and then, depending on where the losses occur, I could absolutely see partisan coordination in blocking certification and doing anything they can to block that 270th electoral vote from being cast by the EC. Hell, I wouldn’t put it past them to bribe a few electors here and there.
I expect crazy shit next year.
I’m afraid you may be right, asahi. 
I think there’s
a 20% to 30% chance that Trump will (involuntarily) not run at all,
a 15% to 25% chance that Repub cheating before the election obviates their need for post-election cheating.
a 10% to 15% chance that Trump will win 270+ ev with neither pre- nor post-election cheating needed,
a 15% (*) chance that the Ds will win by a large enough margin to avert R mischief.
a 5% chance, Trump and the Rs will cheat post-election and be successful
a 5% to 15% chance there will be a significant post-election cheating effort by the Rs but it will fail
a 10% to 15% chance there will be only isolated R post-election cheating and attempted cheating.
a 5% chance that Rs are fed up with Trump, support his candidacy but do not offer to cheat on his behalf.
(These fuzzy numbers sum to about 100%. Pennsylvania has a D Governor and an R state assembly — I’ll assume that keeps most R cheating in Penns. in check; lower the * estimate to 5% to 10% if not.)
As you can see, my low 5% estimate for successful GOP post-election cheating has nothing to do with GOP honesty, just the higher probabilities of alternative endings.
There are already rumors that Trump will fire Bolton. Personally, I don’t think Trump himself is looking to go to war with Iran, and that it would take some extreme geopolitical scenarios to force his hand. However, if he felt it would it would save him from losing the 2020 election, then I think he’d do it in a heartbeat.