Just wanted to talk about "victory" in Iran.

[WarGamer]

Some people don't seem to understand the dynamics of war with Iran and comparisons to Iraq.

Let's start

1) Iran is a fortress. It's a mountainous huge country. Tehran is isolated by desert on one side and the Zagros on the other.

2) A WW2 or Shrub Style Invasion of Iran would take an effort that would dwarf Shrub's Iraq invasion.



Having said that... that's not the way to win the war.

It's unnecessary.

90% of Iran's oil exports transit through the Gulf.
Iran relies on the gulf for IMPORTS.
The Gulf produces a large quantity of food consumed in Iran.


If Iran loses control of the Gulf... they've lost the war by any logical rationale.

Since Iran has no air force, no navy and fewer military assets every day, there's not much they can do about it if/when the US takes control of Kharg, Hormuz, Bandar Abbas...

Problem for the US... this mission is winnable, fairly easily I'd say... but will the US public accept thousands of casualties?

I'm not willing to sign off on that.... if I had a voice

As many have said... I'd love to have been a fly on the wall when the Generals were briefing Trump on what would happen if he attacked... all of this was predictable and no I don't believe it when he says they were surprised.

In addition... since Iran poisoned relations with her neighbors... the major Arab powers are all in favor of bringing Iran to heel.

We all want to see a resurgence of the Persian people... who have been suffering under the yoke of Islamic extremists for a half century...

But I doubt if this gang can pull it off.

We'll see.

[SamuelTheThird]

1. 'this mission is winnable, fairly easily I'd say.'

LOL oh really?

How many troops do you need to keep installed in Iran for how many years to ensure no drones are launched?

You've been wrong all along, maybe time to stop and learn from others.

[WarGamer]

3. Fairly easily means does the US have the military might to do it

The answer for any thinking person is yes of course.

It's the political cost I've referred to that is the real question.

[SamuelTheThird]

4. You haven't demonstrated this

You'd need to permanently put troops all along the coast of Hormuz, for one thing. It isn't feasible, so, no the US doesn't have the 'might' to do it.

[WarGamer]

5. The second part is internal strife...

you don't think that an Artesh Commander might just switch sides? You know there are already conflicts in Artesh vs IRGC right?

If you control the Gulf and use internal disorder to topple the regime that's another way to win.

[SamuelTheThird]

7. Imagine Iraq is where Iran is

Do you not understand the Baath resistance, and then ISIS, would have been launching drones at ships - for years?

[WarGamer]

11. The difference is... Iraq is a sectarian bag of m&m's...

Iran is a much more cohesive society and established culture.

It simply comes down to the IRGC and the Basij.

How many are suicidal? How many are just fighting for their power positions in the regime? There's a difference.

[SamuelTheThird]

14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrdom_in_Iran

Baath resistance was a lot more secular (before joining up and helping ISIS) than Iranian would be

[WarGamer]

15. Shrub fucked up the Ba'ath resistance... incorporate them into the next gov't and they don't fight

[SamuelTheThird]

18. lol yes, after firing on protestors the people will embrace them

Simplistic solutions to complex problems don't work out well

Let me add-

Do you know what would happen if a full-scale invasion occured?

Say goodbye to all the energy infrastructure in the gulf = worldwide economic depression (France already reports 20-30% has been fucked up)

Say goodbye to the desalinization plants in the gulf= unbelievable humanitarian crisis.

All of that would occur rapidly.

[leftstreet]

2. I don't think that was the mission

Problem for the US... this mission is winnable, fairly easily I'd say... but will the US public accept thousands of casualties?

It looks like the Trump administration had NO INTENTION of any conventional warfare

That's why they're spinning out of control right now

[D_Master81]

6. Easily winnable??

How are you gonna say it’s easy and then say will we accept thousands of casualties? 😂 That sounds like it would make it “not easy”.

[Ilsa]

8. Confiscate Krasnov's ill-gotten billions to help pay for this. nt

[malaise]

9. The attack was illegal

The US and Israel committed and are committing genocide and war crimes continue.
That is the end of my contribution.

[WarGamer]

12. Isn't every war illegal by that definition?

Was the Norman Invasion of England in 1066 illegal?

the Umayyad invasion of France in 732?

Was the sacking of Carthage by Scipio Aemillianus "genocide"?? Or is genocide only a modern term?

[Ms. Toad]

16. To be illegal, there has to be a law prohibiting it - and a means to enforce it.

The laws governing how war may be waged were generally established in the late 1800s to mid 1900s.

[ColoringFool]

23. No, But Hey---Let's Go Back To The Canaanites, Why...

Don't we?

Oh, you mean that the INITIATOR has always been "illegal"?

No. Re: The Norman Invasion. BAD LEAD-OFF EXAMPLE. Before croaking, the King of England had promised the throne to both Harald and William. But then---and here's where proximity counted---he chose Harald. And it was Katy, bar the door.

[PeaceWave]

10. Iran is a paper tiger. If the U.S. commits to taking it, it will...

Remember Saddam's vaunted Iraqi Republican Guard? The U.S. invaded Iran on March 19th, 2003. Three weeks later, on April 9th, Baghdad fell. The only question is whether Trump is prepared to make that kind of commitment of ground forces. Thus far, he has appeared unwilling to do so. Honestly though, Iran is playing with fire. They've gone from posing an existential threat to the rest of the world to facing their own existential threat.

[WarGamer]

13. Precisely. A voice of reason.

[Red Mountain]

21. They'll welcome us with open

arms......

Heard that somewhere before. Didn't really turn out that way. We did eliminate Iraq as a regional threat for the near future, for sure.

Cost: a little under 5000 us military. More contractors. 50 or 60k Iraqi military/insurgents. Maybe more. 100K-1m civilian deaths, depending on where you look. Numbers are ALL over the place.

Short of it is: lots of death. Not even considering wounded and broken lives.

Somebody pointed out that Iran is not Iraq. Much larger population. More cohesive society.

Will they embrace our efforts and reform their society as we desire or push back against the invasion?

My guess is that it will be much harder to occupy Iran than it was to occupy Iraq. Will our losses be proportional to the population size? Best hope not.

I wouldn't be willing to bet on it. One thing you can take to the bank......Donald will be willing to bet on it because he doesn't give a shit about any potential consequences. And he's surrounded himself with yes people.

The generals won't say no.

[PeaceWave]

27. Iran had a plan. Not a very good plan. But, they had a plan. And, as Mike Tyson once said...

[fujiyamasan]

46. Right now the global economy is getting punched in the face

Or better yet kicked in the nuts.

[SamuelTheThird]

19. All Intel agencies say the regime is firmly ensconced

So where on earth are you getting the idea that they are about to be jettisoned?

[fujiyamasan]

24. Why haven't you volunteered yet?

Your posts are so obvious. You want ground troops. Come out and actually say it!

[Kingofalldems]

35. There you go.

[dpibel]

28. Existential threat?

I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.

A non-nuclear power with, at least according to you and at least one other person hereabouts, a trivial military.

How in the name of all that is right and holy does that constitute "an existential threat to the rest of the world"?

Do words not mean anything anymore?

And no, Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon would not make it "an existential threat to the rest of the world." You do know about the US nuclear arsenal, don't you? Not to mention the Russian one. And the Israeli one.

And, while we're at it, you seem to remember an easy victory over the Iraqi military. Can you remind me how that quick victory played out over the next several years?

[PufPuf23]

17. USA could win with overwhelming force otherwise,

as Trump is finding out, war with Iran will be a long slog with no true win for civilians in the USA or most countries in the Middle East. Winners will be more military industrial complex and fossil fuel corporation billionaires some becoming trillionaires and evil politicians drunk on power and violence.

Just like Iraq on steroids with a strong likelihood of global economic and world order meltdown.

The aftermath will be bountiful opportunity for disaster capitalism. Many people, mostly innocence will die, more indirectly than actually by military action. Soldiers will be killed and have lives degraded to build wealth and ego of war criminals.

Big problem is that Israel's war of expansion will not stop but be encouraged to continue.

A resurgence of the Persian people is up to the Persian people, not at the whim of Western powers nor Israel. I find this type of statement irritating.

Some of us should stick to board and computer games.

[Arazi]

20. The US will lose in a battle of a thousand pinpricks

This will be Vietnam redux with guerilla fighters persisting in droning tankers, destroying them with “suicide” boats, stealth mines in the Strait etc. The GCC will force Traitor and Co to their knees sooner than later when their precious oil remains hostage.

Beside that, the country has NEVER been conquered.

Ever.

The “Great Satan” will fail like every other empire that’s tried before, at the hands of a motivated and educated population that will refuse to submit.

Once we attack, we are guaranteed to lose thousands of troops. The American public will never support the years and deaths ahead of us if we start down this path.

[PeaceWave]

22. How many Democrats I wonder agree with your characterization of the U.S. as the "Great Satan."

Words I can never imagine being included in any Democratic platform. That's for sure.

[fujiyamasan]

26. More deflection

You can’t put up a defense of the war so you attack others on this forum.

Quit putting words in others mouths. You’re no better than Fetterman!

[dpibel]

30. You should learn about punctuation

Those " thingies have functions.

One of those functions is to distinguish the writer's words from another.

But hey. Do not let me get in the way of your straw-grasping.

[Arazi]

41. Every Iranian alive today has been marinating in propaganda portraying the US as the "Great Satan"

For many many years.

That’s what the Iranians call us. And after many weeks of unrelenting bombing any shreds of goodwill towards us is gone.

[fujiyamasan]

25. Suit up and ship out!

Volunteer to be canon fodder for Trump’s grand “excursion”. After all it’s just a game!

[Kingofalldems]

36. Along with Barron, Eric and Kai.

[dpibel]

31. How many goalpost relocations do you reckon it will take?

Before you find one that constitutes the clear win you've been promising from the start?

[BannonsLiver]

33. Why it seems like just yesterday the OP was opining about freedom for the Iranian people.

And how that was about to be easily achieved through air strikes alone. Concerns about ground troops were dismissed as irrational.

🤦‍♂️🤣

[WarGamer]

38. puzzling to see so many folks reading Russian Channel 1 scripts...

I wonder of those who do... know they are?

[dpibel]

42. Russian Channel 1 reads DU?

I'm having a hard time figuring out what you're trying to say here.

Russian Channel 1 is issuing scripts about what you say on DU?

I had no idea!

I mean, there's probably something here far too clever and subtle for me. But such is life.

[BannonsLiver]

32. I guess that neocon think tank you've talked about dropped another memo.

So you’re saying if we overwhelm them with force we could…win? Wow!

[WarGamer]

39. I suppose I could ditch ISW for something truly intellectual like Meidas Touch or Raw Story

[dpibel]

44. Would that be this ISW?

The political stance of ISW has been described as "hawkish" by journalists at Politico,[5] Time,[9] Wired,[10] Vox[11] and The Guardian[6], while writers for NPR described its position as "sometimes hawkish".[12] ISW has been described as neoconservative by writers for Business Day,[13] The Nation,[14][15] Arab Studies Quarterly,[16] Strategic Studies Quarterly,[7] The Hankyoreh[17] and Foreign Policy[8]. James A Russell, writing in Small Wars & Insurgencies, described the think tank as neoconservative and right wing, comparing the organization to The Heritage Foundation and The Washington Institute for Near East Policy.[18] The Washington Post has described the group as favoring an "aggressive foreign policy".[19] Writing for The Intercept, journalist Robert Wright described the think tank as "ultra-hawkish" and its objectivity as "dubious".[20]

Of course, that's merely Wikipedia.

But if just a fraction of that is correct, it seems a surpassing strange source to be relying on to post on DU. I have a vague recollection of something about posting information from right-wing sources.

But, as always, what do I know?

[dpibel]

45. Another classic example of the fallacy of the excluded middle

"If you don't believe ISW, you must be relying on Meidas Touch or Raw Story."

Do you actually believe that there are no credible, truly intellectual, actually informed voices that are calling into question The Majestic Iran Excursion?

Come on.

I keep saying you're better than that. But I'm starting to question my judgment.

[Kingofalldems]

40. Boom!

[fujiyamasan]

47. For a "wargamer" he or she sure has a lot of brilliant insight!

[BannonsLiver]

48. Funny you mention that!

Last edited Thu Mar 26, 2026, 11:52 PM - Edit history (1)

It was just 2 weeks ago that the OP was dismissing the idea of the US targeting Kharg Island in the thread linked below. Now it's their strategy for "victory."


I don't think Kharg is the target for the US...
Reply to WarGamer (Reply #48)
Fri Mar 13, 2026, 11:23 PM
They'd have to bring forces past the strait... in reality they are probably bringing the USS Tripoli battle group is going to take JASK not KHARG.

Iran has spent over $200M in recent years for this very purpose, a second oil export port in case of war.

It's also a major military base and hub.

Take JASK and Iran exports no oil. Especially with Kharg shut down.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=21095747

[gab13by13]

34. We can take Kharg

And decimate Iran’s economy, turn them into cornered rats with nothing to lose.

Taking Kharg does not reopen Hormuz, we will need more troops.

The Houthis have been decimated but not eliminated, they are waiting on the word to clog up another strait.

Taking Kharg Island will give Krasov what he wants, his Iwo Jima moment.

[maxsolomon]

37. I doubt "the Generals" briefed President ADHD at all.

If they did, he didn't absorb or retain jack.

[HesNotHere]

43. The mission is to enrich a criminal enterprise on the back of the public

I agree with you that they can pull this off. Only them.