Esp. Military Experts: What would a US-Iran War look like?

[markses]

It seems to me that a US-Iran war would be a very, very bloody affair, making the Iraq War look like a fairly minor police raid. Iran, as far as I know, has a functioning air force, and is much more well equipt than the sanctions-ravaged and demoralized Iraqi military was in March 2003. Moreover, Iran is wealthier, more diverse in geographic features, and probably has a better trained military than the Iraqis did under the sanctions. The Iranians also have - I expect - a senior officer corps who got their stripes in the killing fields of the Iran-Iraq War. They understand the tactical and logistical problems of the border region better than the Americans would, on the ground. If I'm not mistaken, the Iranians could also at least threaten any US naval vessels in the Gulf, however difficult these challenges would be.

On the other side, of course, the US has firepower, airpower, and training advantage, as well as a pretty good crop of now seasoned soldiers on the ground in Iraq (I'm avoiding, of course, the question of how Iraq would hold if the obviously needed manpower went trapsing off on some other adventure). The US will be able to take out airfields, armor and artillery in short order, and may also be able to put a serious dent in POL supply lines. Then again, I remember that everyone was shocked how much Serbian armor had avoided the onslaught, and how many of the targets in the Kosovo war had turned out to be decoys. Given the 30 year suspicion of the Iranians, you can bet that their strategists have developed similar ways of avoiding US airpower.

So what would it look like? I think it will be a slaughter: 10,000 US casulaties in the first 2 months, a percentage of those KIA.

Obviously, I am not supporting any of this. It is an insane venture from top to bottom. I am, howver, curious what people more versed in Iranian and American military strategies think about how it would go - at leats at the outset.

[markses]

1. Kick

[mn9driver]

2. Kin you spel nu-cu-lar?

Georgie can.

[REVOLT823]

3. Also factor in that the troops in Iraq are seriously fatigued and have

very low morale right now. Plus, I'm sure that the last thing they want to do is turn their back on the current shitstorm in Iraq, with a large majority of the Iraqi population willing to support their Shia? borthers in Iraw, and face a much more formidable army in Iran. We will not be blowing into Iran like we did Iraq, and as you mentioned, I am sure they are not going to go down without a real nasty fight.

[wuushew]

4. What if they had a war and nobody came?

Iran will not happen without a draft.

[SoCalDem]

5. Look at the SIZE of Iran...

They have a more religious-nutso government..they have weapons..Iraq had rusted junk..

Iran has allies.. We would lose ..bigtime.

[maveric]

25. Population of 76 million.

More than 3 times that of Iraq.

[leftist.]

30. Re: Iraq had rusted junk

you forgot about the weapons of mass destruction :P

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
Bush Radio Address
October 5, 2002

[okieinpain]

31. we wouldn't lose, but folks would quit being so gung-ho.

[SoCalDem]

62. There is more than one way to "lose"

If we end up using "tactical" nukes (which * is just itching to do), we become the pariah (we are on our way there now).. or do we "viet nam/afghanistan" it??

We could knock out their military forces, but we could NEVER win the hearts & minds of the people..

The middle east is NOT Europe...it is NOT Japan.. Those models do not work here..

The way to "handle" Iran, is to realize that they have a very young population, and with some covert support , THEY will deal with their ayatollah-run government.. They young people in Iran actually like the western ways, and with patience, Iran will change..

In the meantime, we need to stop the sabre-rattling..

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

68. Yep. Bribe them into secular civilization.

Every religious fundamentalist state should be dealt with that way. Wanna goodies? LOTS of goodies? Gimme civil rights first.

[tabasco]

6. City capture and endless guerrilla war in cities and mountains.

- Assuming an invasion with three full up Army Corps (10-15 divisions)- This would require leaving only a skeleton crew in Korea and Afghanistan, with a huge support base operating out of Iraq. The National Guard & Reserves would have to be fully activated.
- We would destroy them in a conventional war, due largely to air power.
- They would kick our ass in the attempted occupation. Our rear echelons would be vulnerable in Iraq also, with most combat forces deployed in Iran.
- Invading Iran (in the current situation) would be sheer lunacy and I think the US military would come close to rebellion.
- IMO, the Bush cabal is rattling sabers for political gain. Not entirely rational, but either was the Iraq invasion. They want to portray themselves as tough in foreign policy, but reasonable people should see them as lunatics.

Just my humble.

[Marvelous_Smarty]

7. I think it would be a rout on the same scale as

how the Iraqi Army folded up like an old lawn chair. Their Army is not anymore motivated than the Iraqis were.

Do not underestimate the resolve of American troops. Not losing to Iran would be motivation enough. American soldiers are not going to rollover and lose a war because they deem it unjust or wrong.

The conventional war would be over in weeks. The "Peace" would be a bitch! Much like Iraq is now. But then if we put into play the lessons learned in Iraq, it may not be so bad.

Conventionally, only the Chinese stand a chance against the US military. And that is only because of sheer numbers.

[wuushew]

9. But we had superior equipment in Vietnam and we still lost

I guess it depends of what one's definition of victory is.

[Marvelous_Smarty]

11. Vietnam was not fought as conventionally as Iran would be.

Like I said, the "Peace" would be a bitch.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

38. Why do you believe that Iran would be willing to fight conventionally?

[markses]

13. This seems like a strange analysis to me

I suppose I could buy the following:

The American Armed Forces have such a large degree of superiority, that the significant differences between the current state of Iran's military and rthe state of Iraq's military in March 2003 seem null. Much like, for example, the space between a 30 story building and a 5 story building, as seen from outer space. I guess that makes sense to me. It still seems, however, that Iraq was so completely weakened that a similar result wouldn't obtain with a prepared military. Mybe I'm just nuts. Am I seeing a difference where there is none. I suppose another answer would be this: Iraq wasn't that weakened; they just looked weakened in the face of the US onslaught (cuz it was that powerful). This solution, however, flies in the face of the 12 years of sanctions to which Iran has NOT been subject. Just sayin'.

[jmowreader]

60. But right now we don't HAVE a superior military

Can you say "used up"?

[Bush was AWOL]

14. Yeah, but Iran has more allies in the region

Do you think that would have any effect?

[Marvelous_Smarty]

21. The Allies of Iran would send conventional forces.

So they would not matter much. All of the conventional armies in the area are not very motivated and would scatter like a bunch of cats sprayed with a waterhose.

The motivated ones are the whatever-jadeen that would participate.

[bobbyboucher]

29. Do you really think that after Iraq,

or even before Iraq, that the iranians would be stupid enough to fight us on a battlefield?

The cat is out of the bag my friend, we are fucked.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

37. They would send conventional forces to the aid of Iran???...

You must REALLY believe Middle Easterners are dumber than a box of rocks!

Those "stupid" Middle Easterners in Afghanistan and Iraq are exacting quite a toll so far...sure glad they're not smart like us!

(major sarcasm off)

[Jackpine Radical]

61. I despise the current admin & have no motivation to fight

for the glory of the empire, but if we were invaded, I'd get my fat old carcass up in a pine tree with a deer rifle if I thought I could take out a few of the invaders by doing so. The Iranians despise their own gov't, but I'm sure the one thing that would unify them behind the mullahs would be a foreign invasion.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

35. I guess you've forgotten that Iraq endured a softening-up process....

...that started with the Desert Storm air campaign and has continued up until present time. During that time, Iraq's military was SERIOUSLY degraded. What we're facing with this most recent invasion is a very small shadow of the military Saddam had built up prior to Desert Storm. The country's infrastructure is all but destroyed. Water supplies are polluted, and electricity is minimal at best. Additionally, Iraq is a nation of about 23,000,000 people living in a country about twice the size of Idaho...about 440,000 square miles.

And yet, we're losing people on a near-daily basis, and our military is getting demoralized.
========================================

With Iran, you have a completely different animal. Their military has NOT been worn down by 10-12 years of constant air attacks, and they haven't fought a war since the 1980-1988 Iraq-Iran War. They have a population of about 65,000,000 people with about 900,000 in the Iranian armed forces. The country is about 988,000 square miles in size...almost two and one half times the size of Iraq.

Iran's people are not stupid. They have had quite some time to watch our tactics, and to see which of the tactics employed by Iraq are currently being successful.

We will need half a million troops to take out Iran...and the only way you're going to get them is by implementing the military draft as the NeoCons are planning in mid-2005.

Our military is rapidly becoming disenchanted with the strategies being employed by the NeoCons...I really don't see them being very happy about the idea of invading yet another Middle Eastern country when we are having major difficulties dealing with our current situations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Invade Iran? Bad idea...VERY, VERY bad idea. Stupidity personified.

[okieinpain]

36. that's bullshit, they would fight. and a lot of our allies in the area

would be in deep trouble. Egypt, and Saudi Arabia could possibly fall to the fundies.

[alfredo]

45. Iran would have to disrupt our supply lines. Our equipment has

not been well maintained, and as the Washington Post article reported, we are having a hard time keeping an adequate supply of bullets.

Yeah, we would win the first battles, but they will collapse into the cities and towns just like Iraq did, and then just start picking our men off, one by one.

North Korea knowing they are next, will strike out at us.

[jayfish]

49. Pure Folly

Where do you guys come up with these fantasy's? Lets get one thing clear. THE IRAQI MILITARY WALKED OFF THE BATTLE FIELD WITHOUT FIGHTING! They walked away from millions of tons of perfectly good small arms, armor, artillery and modern, man-portable, SAMs. The Iranian armed forces have lots more of the same (with the addition of a substantial anti-ship capability and an air-force)and will not make the same mistake. They see what's become of the Iraqi armed forces in the wake of this war. They are out of work their country is in ruins and their people have been subjugated by an occupying power. Attacking Iran would put this idea that America can bomb it's enemy's into submission unimpeded to the test. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Iranians strike first along the Iran/Iraq border once they decided that any force build-up was meant for them. Look at the havoc the fadayeen<sp?> wrought on American supply lines with little more than RPG's, small arms and maybe some mortar tubes. In addition, we have the fact that attacking Iran would open up a true two-front war. We would be fighting the insurgency and a totally stoked (once Iran was attacked) indigenous Shia population, both of which the mighty US armed forces are having a hard enough time dealing with, on one flank and the Iranian armed forces on the other. It wouldn't be easy, it wouldn't be quick and it wouldn't look anything like Iraq.

Jay

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Marvelous_Smarty]

64. Have you served?

Do you know what esprit de corps is? Soldiers do not fight for their country. They fight for thier unit.

[NuttyFluffers]

74. in essence we agree, yet i just want to point one thing out

when someone refuses to play your game you are already in a huge disadvantage. and the rest of the world knows what our (loudly proclaimed and displayed) game is - so like fools we tipped our hand and the opponent can then just skirt around our tactics.

what you correctly labeled conventional war and "peace" should be restated to ingrain the lesson here. war isn't over until it is over and it is not beyond capacity for feints and lures to be played. the conventional war would be the facade of the war to lure us into doom. the "peace" would be the part of the war that would (once again) school us.

and then this speaks of nothing about the supply logistics that already are on the brink. and nothing about the stability factor, civil unrest and economic troubles, that is also already on the brink. there is *no way* we can successfully resolve this 3rd war. it will spell the death knell for america. many another nation has show that this path is folly, and yet we still follow. madness. unadulterated madness.

[Robb]

8. I think that's a spot-on analysis.

The only possibility for action against Iran would be a sustained air-only campaign, which we could do for a very long time. But little would actually be gained, even for political purposes, and I agree they'd have every military advisor in the country telling them not to do it.

Although we know bombing things is good for the MI-complex economy, so hell, maybe it'll happen. The backlash would be terrific, however. I'm not convinced we could adequately secure the support mechanisms we'd need in Iraq, even.

[CRK7376]

10. Just look at what

you see next door in either direction...mostly West...Iraq Iran same thing change last letter....Massive kick butt armor/mech invasion followed by insurgency.....

[Must_B_Free]

12. How many troops do they have?

In my recollection it was something like 500,000?
(that's a lot of troops)

Anyone have the link to the stats in the CIA factbook?

[Bush was AWOL]

15. Little over 500,000 K

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ir/Military

[happyslug]

16. US will win like it did in Iraq

First the US Air Power (Both the US Air force and the US Navy Air Power) is so overwhelming that no other Country can withstand an all out attack by the US Air Power. This Air Power will destroy any Iranian Air Planes on the Ground and if any do survive the Iranian Air Planes will be shot down within 1-2 days of the fighting (Remember Desert Storm I? Saddam's Air Force was destroy within days of the start of the Air Campaign, the same thing will happen to Iran).

Please note Iran will try to launch guerrillas attacks in Iraq against US Forces and these will become more blatant whenever the Air War begins. This is to tie up US troops chasing the Guerrillas and thus making sure such troops are NOT available to help the invasion of Iran (and this is the chief reason some people believe Iran is helping the Iraqi Guerrillas now, to tie up US Troops so the US does not have enough troops to both hold Iraq and take Iran).

Once we have Air Superiority in a second series of Air Attacks, the US will use its Air Power to destroy any concentration of Ground forces, especially Tanks and other Armor Forces (The Iranians will counter with dispersing their units into small company size or smaller units).

A third series of Air Attack will be on the supply lines to the front (Including Bridges, Tunnels, Highways, Air ports, ports, Shipping), the Iranians will counter by camouflaging important links in the supply chain and protecting them with Anti-Aircraft Weapons.

A Fourth series of Air Attacks will be on the remaining infrastructure of the Country (More to tie up resources of the Country fixing what has been destroyed than any other Military Value). The Iranians will counter by trying to protect such infrastructures AND to disperse its populations so the affect of such attacks will be lessened.

Once the above is done than a ground attack will commenced. If the Iranians learned anything from US Attacks on Serbia and Iraq is that the US will NOT launch a ground attack until the Iranian Ground army has been destroyed (and the best way to avoid that destruction is to disperse the units forcing the US to use one plane per sortie per vehicle hit).

The Iranians know just like the Serbs knew, if you are attacked by the US you have to give the US pilots something to hit. False targets will be provided. Example of these will be obsolete Tanks filled with Concrete with a fire during under them to give an infrared Red heat signal to the US Planes. The Serbs did this and the US Pilots had a habit of hitting the same obsolete concrete reinforced tank over and over again. Such false targets will be provided so the US can "waste" its smart weapons on such cheap decoys. Fake Bridges will be built so the US can hit them instead of the nearby real Bridge (Another act done by the Serbs). Death Traps will also be set with vital defense area heavily protected by Anti Aircraft Fire (Just like the Viet Cong did in Vietnam).

Now the Iranians will also try to cut off the US Supply line to Iraq by launching Shore to Ship Missiles into the Persian Gulf (And this is why I think the first US attack will be Syria and Lebanon NOT Iran. Once the US has Lebanon it can reset its supply line to be from Beirut instead of Basra and the Iranian Threat to the Persian Gulf become meaningless).

Anyway if no Syrian Invasion than a fight over the Southern Coastline of Iran as the US tries to destroy those Terrorist Shore to Ship Missiles being used to destroy the supply ships supplying the arms to be used to invade Iran (Remember this is if Syria is NOT attacked first).

If Syria is attacked first than no southern Iranian Battlefield (Unless Iran decides to invade Saudi Arabia to divert US Attentions, but even than just a Minor battle compared to what it would be if NO prior Syrian Invasion). The main purpose of this Iranian Attack would be to shut down the Saudi Oil Fields so to cut off some of the oil supply to the US Army and the United States proper.

With the Air War won, and supplies secured (Either through Beirut Syria to Baghdad supply route OR a taking of Southern Iran securing the Persian Gulf) than a large Ground Attack against Tehran. The US could pick any one of the river valleys going from Iran to Iraq (The US may decide to attack through all of the valleys so to tie up Iranian forces trying to defend all of them). Tehran will fall in a week (if it lasts that long). Than the US will occupy Iran just like it did Iraq. If the US again fails to supply enough troops to occupy the WHOLE country, Iraq on a larger Scale will occur.

The subsequent guerrilla war in Iran was will be worse than the present one in Iraq. Iranians tend to view themselves as one people (Iran has some minorities but no where near the minorities of Iraq with its three ethic/Religious Groupings). Iran also has a larger population than Iraq, a more unified country than Iraq, a more mountainous and tree covered area than Iraq and a strong tradition of following national leadership. These are all advantages Iran has over Iraq in starting and winning a Guerrilla War Campaign against the US.

Thus in any war with Iran, just like Iraq, the real fighting does not begin till the Occupation, just like the real war is only starting now in Iraq, over a year after the conventional forces of Iraq where defeated.

[Must_B_Free]

34. with only a 4:1 kill ratio against Saddams forces

we would have to invest a minimum of 125,000 troops to take on the Iranian army along. If there were rebels in the civilian population which would probably be quite significant considering that occupation is the best motivator, we're looking at several hundred thousand US lives to invest in this ambitious venture.

[okieinpain]

69. once again bullshit, we need support from allies to have

sustained bombing runs. if we go after iraq, we will lose a lot, if not all support in that area. iran also has a air force and would be able to do some damage to battle groups in the area. remember the falkins, it wouldn't take much to put one of those aircraft carriers out of action.

also I haven't seen any discussion about what this would do to the gas prices, we already have a economy that can go either way (dow butting heads with 9900 today). the gas prices would go through the roof, and I would bet damn good money that the saudis would be hanging on to power for dear life.

war with Iran would be nothing like war with a boxed in and alone Iraq.

[Yupster]

17. It would look more like the Serbian War

It would not be a graound offensive. Iran is too big and too mountainous.

The US would bomb the government and military for weeks or months and work for a coup, maybe like Afghanistan.

At the most, the US might seize the small Gulf Area. There would be no attempt to occupy Iran. It's simply too big.

[bobbyboucher]

18. We've been exposed. It's obvious now, lay back

and fight with the intent of defeating us in 5 years, or at least we leave.

Any nation in the world should only buy AKs and plastique and anything else to make bombs and then just spread them out throughout their country and justlay in wait. Then once we are in, slowly kill us one at a time, two at a time. Make it so that the troops can never feel safe. Eventually, we would leave, then they win.

[tritsofme]

19. Is Iran now markedly more powerful than Iraq in 1991?

I don't think they are.

Someone who knows something about the subject could probaly answer.

[wuushew]

22. Iraq chose the worst possible military strategy in Gulf War I

Saddam had thousands of different combinations of various military and political actions he could have taken.

He could of invaded Saudi Arabia to prevent an American military build up. He could have also attacked Israel earlier and with more force to ensure that no effective Arab coalition cooperated with the United States or he could have partially or incompletely withdrawn from Kuwait in order to foil to strategic aims of G.W. Bush. Instead he sat in the desert with his tanks and allowed his entire army to be destroyed.


Remember superior strategy defeats superior force every time, as witnessed by the mock wargames setup by us prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom. After inflicting humiliating virtual losses the commander of the opposition was forced to reset the battle until a favorable outcome occurred.

[bemildred]

20. Some numbers:

Iran
Manpower
Total Active 540,000
Regular 350,000
National Guard & Other 120,000
Reserve 350,000
Paramilitary 40,000
Army and Guard Manpower 540,000*
Regular Army Manpower 350,000
Reserve 350,000
Total Main Battle Tanks*** 1,565
Active Main Battle Tanks 1,565
Active AIFV/Recce, Lt. Tanks 865
Total APCs 670
Active APCs 670
ATGM Launchers 75
Self Propelled Artillery 310
Towed Artillery 2,085
MRLs 889+
Mortars 5,000
SSM Launchers 51
Light SAM Launchers ?
AA Guns 1,700
Air Force Manpower 52,000
Air Defense Manpower 15,000
Total Combat Aircraft 306
Bombers 0
Fighter/Attack 163+
Fighter/Interceptor 74+
Recce/FGA Recce 6
AEW C4I/BM 1
MR/MPA** 5
OCU/COIN/CCT 0
Other Combat Trainers 35
Transport Aircraft**** 68
Tanker Aircraft 4
Total Helicopters 628
Armed Helicopters**** 104
Other Helicopters**** 524
Major SAM Launchers 250+
Light SAM Launchers ?
AA Guns -

PDF

[leanings]

23. At the moment

it's almost an impossibility. We could do it if we absolutely had to, but not without leaving Iraq in total anarchy and using up what little strategic reserves we retain. Militarily, the war would be an ass-kicking; the Iranians are in no better shape than the Iraqis were in '91. Probably worse shape, actually. The Iranians are still primarily equipped with antiquated weapons systems for which they have few spares (altho they are geniuses at improvisation). They have no tactical intelligence assets. They have no AWACs capabilities. Their SAMs suck. They don't have any appreciable all-weather day/night capabilities. Their officer and NCO corps were blooded, true, but in the last great trench war of all time.

I think because of the greater distances to be covered and our experiences with supply lines in OIF we'd see an air campaign more like '91 which would pretty thoroughly destroy most of Iran's organized combat power on the ground. The Iranians could threaten resupply thru the Strait of Hormuz, but that threat could be dealt with relatively ease. Would we have some interdiction of Persian Gulf shipping, however, and that would be a constant draw on assets.

This is kinda all just off the top of my head and I've have to look at the geography of the border to get any inkling on what a ground war would look like. It would, however, be very difficult to imagine any country in the world standing up to the US for very long in a set piece battle, especially Iran. But it's the assymetrical stuff that gets you; the post-maneuver war situation would be far worse than what we're seeing in Iraq. We would be exhausted, all of our combat power committed, stretched as thin as is imaginable. You could spool up a draft, OK, but you can't magic up Bradleys and JDAMS and 5.56 rifle ammo. It would be a totally untenable situation.

The only feasible way to go about toppling the Iranian government would be to instigate some sort of uprising, a la Mossadegh, and then support it with small numbers of SF, like the Northern Alliance. But to my knowledge there's no intact revolutionary movement or opposition force that we could use as a proxy and we don't have any assets on the ground with which to influence Iranian politics thru covert means.

Acting militarily against Iran right now would be the biggest strategic mistake since Operation Barbarossa.

[Strelnikov_]

24. An Invasion Of Iran Would Be Where The Myth . .

of United States military power meets reality.

(I am not a a military expert, but like they say, opinions are like a**holes, and here's mine)

It appears from media reports (reading between the lines, of course) that if the U.S. takes military action against Iran, it will be in the form of a preemptive air strike on Iran's nuclear (alleged WMD) facilities.

For the U.S. to invade Iran, there would probably have to be a draft first. My guess would be at least three Army Corps would be required (9 divisions) before the Joint Chiefs could be coerced to attempt it. Even with this large of a force, along with draftee reinforcements, we would eventually lose, because the United States could not withstand the catastrophic economic and social cost of occupying a country as large as Iran.

During the pre-Iraq buildup in the summer and fall of 02 I told anyone who would listen that our military is not large enough to take on the Iraq operation. While I fully expected that we would defeat the Iraq army militarily, I felt that we would fail during the occupation due to a lack of resources and due to inherent weakness in our force structure. Now, 1-1/2 years after the invasion, I feel that the demands of the Iraq occupation has so wore down our ground forces that undertaking of any operation against Iran would be folly.

The United States military was designed to project the threat of mutually assured destruction to the Kremlin. As such, it was designed around the concept of maneuver warfare (or Air-Land, Blitzkrieg, or whatever they are calling it this week). Highly mobile, 'high-tech', well trained forces, supported by ground attack aircraft made possible through air superiority, would slash into the rear of Soviet formations, breaking up the attack of a much larger force.

The problem with our military is that most of the advantages our military has as a maneuver warfare force are lost during urban combat or occupation. As we have witnessed in Iraq, the modern assault rifle and RPG-7 can counter U.S. forces once they leave the maneuver field, and the firepower of the U.S. can be a two-edged sword when trying to win the 'hearts and minds' of the occupied. My conclusion is that even with our great advantage in maneuver warfare, when the missions degenerates to occupation traditional force level estimates still govern (I have seen figures of 500,000 for the Iraq occupation).

Another concern I have had for years is the cost and complexity of our military. Again, our military was designed for a short, high intensity war against the Soviets. We are now using these high cost, complex weapons for occupation. Due to the time and cost required to replace these systems, have we jeopardized our short term security?

However, my biggest concern is that Iraq has highlighted the inherent weaknesses of our military to potentially hostile nations. Before Iraq, the implied threat of U.S. military action could probably help defuse most crises at the diplomatic level. I am afraid that the 'stick' now looks a lot smaller. While our military is more than adequate for defense and 'protecting our interests', it is nowhere near large enough for a jihad of mideast conquest.

[PsN2Wind]

26. We seem to be talking conventional warfare here

I would not be surprised if Iran, North Korea and any other country that sees themselves now the target, or potential target of the US, have not put in place in this country the means for some significant reprisal against the US, on our turf. If a had a neighbor that was always threatening to kick my ass, and I knew he had the capability to do so, I would probably be carrying a little surprise for him in my pocket. We've been threatening these countries for years and Bush has shown that he feels he can attack whoever he wants whenever he wants. Prior to the invasion of Iraq they might have thought it only bluster, now they know that ain't so. With hundreds of thousands of illegals coming into this country each year, who thinks that there might not be hundreds or thousands of agents from the threatened countries in place with the means to do grievous damage here. If I was leader of any of these countries I would have done so. You cannot have "homeland security" with porous borders.

[Norquist Nemesis]

51. Yes, conventional from our side

and I agree with you. Add to what you've said about non-conventional in this country, it's not unreasonable to consider another country with military capabilities (like China) attacking us on our shores while we're engaged elsewhere.

Global economy. Global War.

[Bush was AWOL]

27. Does anybody see this happening eventually?

[Strelnikov_]

28. Attack On Bushehr Nuclear Facility Possibly This Fall

The administration will argue that the timing of the attack was due to an accelerated fueling schedule at the facility.

F-117's were forward deployed to S. Korea earlier this month.

There are 5 CSG's currently deployed to Asian-Pacific region (which is unprecedented per media reports).

Strike will probably be made with F-117's and B-2 bombers. The 5 CSG's are probably to provide air cover in the event Iran attempts to retaliate against U.S. forces in the Gulf region.

The indicator that an attack is imminent will be redeployment of AWAC's to the gulf region.

[tritsofme]

40. Why not just let Israel do it?

To keep from muddying our hands?

[Strelnikov_]

42. There Have Been Articles That An Israeli Attack Is Planned

The air power we are moving into the region may be there to back up the Israeli's play.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

43. Correction: 7 Carrier battle groups in the Pacific....

2 older non-nuke carriers: Kitty Hawk + JFK
1 older nuke carrier: Enterprise

...plus...

4 new-model nuke carriers

<http://www.ocnus.net/cgi-bin/exec/view.cgi?archive=47&num=12279>

[Aidoneus]

32. I'd say you're correct

You've covered much well enough, much more has been said, but it's the volunteer factor is something I'd be more interested in. The official state military is one thing, and I think they could actually hold their own against whatever invasion force could be mustered up (mining the Gulf if need be, the ramifications incredible if it came to that), but I suspect it'd provoke something much, much bigger than whatever the State could muster up. For example, waves of half a million volunteers marching first to Karbala` and Najaf, then on to al-Quds..

[bemildred]

39. I have trouble taking an invasion seriously.

For what? The idea of occupying Iran is ludicrous, and in
tandem with the current occupation of Iraq even more ludicrous.

[Aidoneus]

44. I can't imagine it happening either

The fallout, even from a slight provocation, would be interesting though if anybody was stupid enough to try. Some "tough talk", maybe, but nobody seems to be afraid of that anymore.

[bemildred]

47. Yes. I do not believe anybody knows what would happen.

But I am pretty sure it would not be neat, and I expect it
would be "interesting" to watch. I do find the suggestion that
it would be a walkover like the conventional prelude in Iraq
unlikely, so we agree there too, but there are so many ways
that analogy is wonky I don't know where to start. I do think
that both Russia and China would take countermeasures at that
point, if they are not pissed off enough already. It is not
an accident that Russia is involved in Bushehr, and they will
not overlook it's destruction.

[Swede]

33. Hell on earth.

We'd kill a bunch of them,they'd kill a bunch of us.

[Lost147]

41. It all depends

If Irans military attempted to engage in standard warefare they would simply be stomped out in a matter of weeks. The "seasoned" officers from the Iraq/Iran war woudln't know how to deal with the American military because our strategy is based on mobility and air power. the Iraq/Iran war was almost trench styled.

Its pretty simple to invade the country but its never easy to hold it. Hopefully we learnt some important lessons on occupation from Iraq.

[Baltimoreboy]

46. Why invade?

I will stick with your hypothetical. The U.S. goes to war with Iran. But why invade. Why not just blow the shit out of them from the air and sea?

America could wipe out their air installations and ships and then just systematically destroy everything that mattered. Maybe Iran wouldn't surrender, but no one would care. They would be knocked, quite literally, back to the stone age. Bridges, roads, dams, power plants, TV stations, radio stations, ports, airports, etc. would be wiped out. And few American lives would be lost.

If occupation is the big problem -- like Iraq -- the obvious response is to ignore it. If there are one or two key points, you take them and hold them and just declare martial law in those areas and make them American forces only.

[agincourt]

48. Iran is quite beatable, however......

like the third anti-christ ,it has a secret weapon; the swagger, the hubris, the incompetence, the incontinence, the belligerency, the ass-headedness,the superficiality , the delusion, the falseness, the dishonesty, and the pampered jingoism of GWB and the neo-cons. That is it's trump card. Against mature heads of state, it wouldn't fare so well.

[Zynx]

50. Short version-we lose. Long version (long, but read, please)....

We're way light on troops to control Iraq-we should have at least twice as many given the degree of resistance we're experiencing. Maybe as many as a half a million to really own that country.

Iran is about three and a half times larger than Iraq. Any idea for occupying it that doesn't involve at a bare minimum a million and a half soldiers on the ground is out to lunch. You need at least three times that, with one soldier training for Iran and another recovering from being there. You also need enough troops left over to fight the DPRK if they pull a stunt. And troops for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Simply put, the United States does not have the military manpower to do Iran right, cannot afford to field that much manpower, and would need to resort to a universal draft in order to attempt that many soldiers, nevermind how much this costs.

Since this is not going to happen, you can rest assured that we won't do Iran right. And occupying it matters a lot more than wiping out organized military resistance (I'll get to that), because the Iranians hate our guts for screwing with their country repeatedly. You will not get a regime you like if you just kick over the Ayatollahs, even assuming you could do that.

Forgetting the occupation, which we know will not work, let's go to the invasion. Which also does not work.

Realistically, the US needs to invade with at least 15 divisions just due to the size of the country, and the degree of resistance rationally expected. Screw the lighter, faster army stuff. Obviously, this poses a problem, as the Army doesn't have this many divisions total, much less up and ready to go to Iran. So the US can't gear up for Iran overnight. It needs perhaps a year or two years to actually get this many units in the field. You cannot just use Guard or Reserve units because these units frankly are not up to par with line Army or Marine units. You could re-equip and whip them into shape, but that's gonna take so much effort you might as well just draft new troops.

Backing off that (because it also isn't going to work very well), let's assume we send everything we've got now that isn't in Korea. 1st ID, 1st Armored, 3rd ID, 4th ID, 1st Cav, 82nd Airborne, 101st Airborne, and 10th Mountain (which you will need) and two Marine Divisions. This would be us just up and leaving Iraq and throwing everything at Iran.

That's ten divisions. Rule out international help, we're not getting any for this. I'm also stripping everything out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Backed up by every carrier and bomber we've got. Which is stripping everything from possibly protecting Taiwan or South Korea, but those are also different issues.

Now, as soon as a war starts, oil is going to go to at least $50, and probably over $60 a barrel. Why? First, Iran produces a decent amount of oil, unlike Iraq. Second, you've just turned the whole Persian Gulf into a warzone. Kuwait, Iraq and Saudi Arabia will all have trouble exporting, and their fields may well come under attack from Iranian missiles. The Iranians have shot at tankers in the past. Setting aside any embargos, this level of oil price is going to break the US economy, as well as that of the world.

Now, let's get to the actual fighting. Iran is not under anywhere near the same degree of sanctions Iraq was, and they have a decent military. Limited offensive logistics, but plenty of manpower for defense. They also have likely millions of young Islamic fanatics outside the military, who would gladly die for the Ayatollahs. Remember, they used human waves against the Iraqis. These people will *fight.*

Where will they fight? Iran is almost nothing but mountains and cities. This is the toughest fighting in the world to do, and most of our troops are not conditioned for it. An actual city war is quite simply dreadful. Additionally, US airstrikes and armored mobility are simply not of much use in a country like Iran.

I suspect the Iranians also have little intention of fighting us out in the open. They've seen Saddam lose twice in doing that. They would probably have their units and Islamic fanatics use geurrilla tactics, and save any major divisional battles for cities like Tehran, which we would have to take block by block.

As an important note, Iran has a *large* cruise and ballistic missile arsenal and a great deal of chemical weapons. Their cruise missiles can probably endanger US Navy and oil shipping in the Gulf (no one is sure exactly how many or what type they have). Their ballistics are a potential nightmare threat against Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Israel.

There also is the little issue of Hezbollah. They're Iranian buddies, so they would probably start fighting us and fighting Israel as soon as we started invading Iran. Hezbollah could easily blow up targets in the United States.

Beyond this, we have to run our logistical tail through Iraq, the southern part of which is Shi'a, like Iran, dominated by militias with Iranian influence, and so lawless that Hezbollah could operate there at will.

The US has a major complication in fighting an enemy like Iran: we only have enough ready-made smart weapons for around thirty days of sustained operations. Then we start running out and our effectiveness nose-dives. There are too many targets in Iran even if they don't go back into the hills, which they almost certainly will. US airpower cannot be deceisive here. You are not going to shock and awe the Iranians-you didn't do that to the Iraqis, for crying out loud. The Iranians will also fight. The US effectively has no option other than a long, slow slog through Iran on the ground, fighting a very robust insurgency 24/7.

Post organized resistance, Iran turns into Iraq times 50 and we're stuck there until we give up and leave.

As far as casualties, 10,000 is way low. You'd lose two or three times that just taking Tehran from a couple of divisions of Revolutionary Guards and a bunch of crazed holy warriors. Total casualties for all of "organized combat" could easily total 50-60,000. This is a couple times the effective ground combat strength of every US division involved in the most extreme current scenario (my 10 division attack stripping everything from everywhere except the 2nd ID from the ROK). We then will lose dozens per day to insurgent violence until we give up and leave, assuming we take the country in the first place. We also may lose several Navy ships to Iranian missiles or mines, possibly including an aircraft carrier. We will be exhausting the carrier strength of the USN for years.

Financial costs for the war would run into the trillions for just military operations, and this excludes economic damage done from the spike in oil prices and rebuilding of the country. The US would be financially ruined. Plain and simple.

In short, we can't take Iran with our present forces and can't afford, create and maintain the forces that it would take to defeat and occupy Iran-and it would still be bloody, even for them.

[theboss]

66. Do you think Iranians will fight for the mullahs?

The big mystery of any war with Iran (which would be a mistake let me say) is whether the Iranians would fight for the current government. While overt resistance is pretty much dead in Iran, the government has almost no popular support. The people have pretty much decided to ignore the mullahs most of the time.

[Ms. Clio]

76. Why would the Iranians be fighting for the mullahs?

I think they would be fighting to keep their families safe from Americans.

[megaplayboy]

52. Iran and Syria pre-empt our buildup....

...if they're smart. First, thousands of militia and spec ops types come over the border into Iraq, while the American build up is just beginning. That has a destabilizing effect on the Iraqi government, and likely forces us to keep more forces in Iraq than we'd like. These troops also prep the area for an eventual pre-emptive invasion.

Syria and Iran then send around 50,000 troops each across the eastern and western borders of Iraq. They split these forces into fast-moving mechanized companies, so there's about 400-500 separate target groupings per front(that's an awful lot of air sorties). Simultaneous with this would be SCUD/cruise missile strikes on American airbases in Kuwait/Qatar/wherever, spec ops assault on American airbases in Iraq. Iran sends about a third of its combat aircraft on a suicide mission, flying down on the deck with standoff missiles to try to score a carrier kill(or two). The rest of the committed aircraft are sent up to draw off American airpower, essentially as a screen for the ground invasion.

The Syrians link up with Baathist sympathizers mid-country, while the Iranians coordinate with Shia insurgents to cut off resupply.

If the initial effort shows signs of success, the two countries pour another quarter million troops across the border, while still holding some forces in reserve. Force the Americans to fight at a disadvantage in Iraq, rather than sitting in static formations in their homelands, waiting to die.

Smart pre-emptive maneuvering can frustrate airpower.

the above is very risky for Iran and Syria, but success would probably lead to the first American military battlefield defeat in a long time.

[jpgray]

53. We could rig it, as we did Iraq, and buy off people

Of course, the Iranians may have more social cohesion and a better sense of nationalism--the Iraqis were also fairly good in that department, but I believe Iran is even better. They also have better terrain to fight us in, a stronger military than Iraq, and an actual nuclear program bolstered by aid from Pakistan. The Iranians actually are slowly being democratized step-by-step, so the 'free the peace-loving Iranian people' doesn't so work so well seeing as they are trying very hard to save themselves already. Our meddling could ironically allow for a 'justifiable' crackdown on those who oppose the fundamentalist leadership.

[Sufi Marmot]

54. Some potential geopolitical consequences...

1) Iran shares borders with both Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, where we have oil and natural gas interests - in the event we attacked Iran it wouldn't surprise me if those resources were targeted for terrorism either by Iran itself or via its agents.

2) Iran also shares a border with Turkey. Given the current Turkish government, I sincerely doubt Turkey would endorse any use of its space for an invasion of Iran, but if Iran wanted to it could possibly cause serious problems for Turkey, if only by supporting Kurdish radicals on either side of the Turkey-Iraq border. What happens if Iran declares war on Turkey and NATO gets involved?

3) There are more ethnic Azeris living in northwest Iran than live in Azerbaijan - if, after an invasion/occupation of Iran they began agitating for the formation of a "Greater Azerbaijan", (that is, unification with Azerbaijan proper), Armenia, supported militarily by Russia, would likely take action. The entire Caucasus could be plunged into war. Turkey would be caught in the middle.

4) Pakistan shares a border with Iran also - I doubt US military action in Iran would have a positive effect on the stability of the Mussaref regime.

-SM

[Disturbed]

55. It won't happen.

The US will not invade Iran. Israel will take out the nuke facilities. What will Iran do about that?

[tommilator]

59. Maybe they'll

Arrange for mushroom clouds to cover Israel with a little help from Pakistan or North-Korea. Who knows.. maybe they already got the bombs just like Israel and nuclear war will be here. Maybe Israel should learn to keep their planes in their own airspace and seek security through friendship instead of intimidation and deception.

[quaker bill]

56. Very costly and very stupid.

In Desert Storm the Iraqi's lined themselves up "Maginot line" style in open terrain along the Kuwait border. This was the perfect formation for our carpet bombing B-52's and strafing A-10 warthogs to decimate. Saddam attempted to fight us the way he did the Iranians. Reports are that we killed at least 100,000 troops with air power before the invasion began.

Saddam's formations of older Russian tanks did not have the range or armor to contend with M-1 Abrahams tanks. The Russian tanks have to stop and aim before they can fire effectively. The Abrahams tank has a computer controlled gun that can accurately fire from greater distance on a moving target while the tank itself is in motion. They never stood a chance.

The Iraqi airforce, for the larger part, bailed out and flew to Iran.

One thing should be quite clear to the military leaders in Iran. You do not win a war against us by standing up massed columns and formations and swapping blows. As Iraq has proven, fighting the US military is far more effective at close quarters where our technical superiority is far less in play.

I have heard that Iran has a supply of chinese "silkworm" missles. They are a cruise type weapon that proved effective against the Brits in the Faulklands. I would not be surprised to see an attack on our fleet with such weapons. I would also expect alot of close quarter fighting. Since we have not been bombing their air defenses for last 12 years, I would expect a bit more of a fight there as well.

I expect we could defeat them militarily but at vastly higher cost. But where it would really get bloody would be in the attempt to occupy both Iran and Iraq at the same time. This is where we would lose.

[HamdenRice]

57. Iran will be much EASIER than Iraq

It is actually quite scary that if Bush does this, it could be a big boost to him because it will be easier than Iraq.

What most of you are forgetting is the famous dicta, now cliche, of Clauswitz that "war is the continuation of politics by other means."

What is the political goal of war with Iran? It is deposing the mullahs and installing a pro-Western government willing to sell oil and favorable prices. Democracy of some kind would be nice, but is not really an over-arching goal.

The big difference between Iraq and Iran is that Sadam had utterly destroyed Iraqi civil society, particularly the potentially political portions.

Iran has a vibrant diverse civil society and already has an emerging pro-Western democratic sector. The fantasy the neo-cons had about Iraq -- that all we had to do was shove aside Sadam and a new system would emerge -- was wrong for Iraq but far more likely for Iran.

So what would the US-Iran war look like? It will be entirely unconventional -- on our side. An intensifying few weeks or months of assassinations, strikes, anonymous bombings from shadow groups -- demonstrating that the mullahs have lost legitimacy and the ability to protect society. The US role would be an entirely hidden hand. There will be no airstrikes, artillary duels or armor charges.

Take the Bushista junta at its their word on this one -- they already announced that they will take on Iran through subversion, not direct military confrontation.

[Sufi Marmot]

70. What are the chances of that scenario actually working?

After all, China's pro-democracy movement was a spectacular failure, culminating in the Tienammen Square massacre.

I think that any notions on the part of the Bush administration that it can catalyze "soft" regime change in Iran are naive and misguided, at least over the time scale they're proposing. Even many liberal Iranians are not likely to endorse or support a US-installed government, and the mullahs will attempt to leverage any civil unrest into anti-Western sentiment.

I would also add that even if the mullahs are thwarted by a more moderate regime, there's no guarantee that it would be particularly Western-oriented - Iran has its own geopolitical and economic objectives, which don't necessarily jibe with Western interests.

Finally, Islam is certainly going to be a major factor in Iran's political climate regardless of who's running the country. I don't see Iran becoming a "secular" Islamic nation, ala Turkey, any time soon.

-SM

[troublemaker]

72. WTF? Don't Bogart that kool-ade!

Tossing in phrases like "Bushista junta" doesn't disguise that this post is a distillation of the world according to PNAC.

[donkeyotay]

75. I'll have what they're having and make mine a double

Ohmygawd! And this is where the liberals hang out? I must be getting old, but I'm thinking of Jimmy Carter's article prior to invading Iraq. He went over the 5 conditions for a just war... none of which were met.

[jukes]

58. an invasion of iran

wd provoke a mideastern jihad beyond anything imaginable. we wd have some initial success, as in iraq, but the neighboring muslim hordes mustering to iran's defense (since many muslims already view our actions as a religious genocide) wd overwhelm an already over-stretched military. even w/ a draft we cd not train & field enough troops quickly enough to withstand the flood of determined muslim volunteers dedicated to crushing us. and if we cd scrape up enough conscripts w/the bare essential training, we cdnt arm them; we're already purchasing munitions from barely industrialized countries.


it *is* going to happen, & our country will be bled into obscurity.

the american empire is already history, w/ the final chapters about to be written.

[theboss]

65. Depends on how the Iranians themselves respond

The Iranian population is by and large more pro-Western and more pro-American than the rest of the Middle East. The vast majority of the population does not remember the Shah and those that do have put up with 25 years of the theocrats. If the young people in the country view a war with the US as an opportunity to finally get rid of the mullahs once and for all, resistance could collapse within a few weeks, with relatively few US-inflicted casualties.

If the Iranian government was able to rally the populace and maintain control of the Army, it could be ugly. The US would eventually win, but it would probably take weeks to destroy Iranian defenses before an invasion could take place.

And I have no idea how we would manage to occupy Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan with our current troop levels.

[midnight armadillo]

67. let's ask Colin Powell

"We do deserts, we don't do mountains." - Colin Powell, circa 9/30/01

Geography and strategy and great equalizers in battle. Consider Thermopylae - which was what, 300 Greeks vs. 100,000 to 1,000,000 Persians? The Greeks held out for several days...due to the terrain (and fighting spirit, but on a plain they would have been massacred).

Iran is largely mountainous. Iraq is largely desert. Ask the Soviets how easy it was to invade another mountainous country, Afghanistan.

[Tight_rope]

71. An invasion on Iran would be a fatel mistake for the US...the world

will not stand by and watch another Hitler raise to power. And this is exactly what Bush would look like. A mad man going about killing people because they don't share the same religious interest.

[NuttyFluffers]

73. easy to figure out, and many already stated it.

there's already a working script to beat our style of military each and every time.

opponent will decoy or underground their targets, military will deflate in the face of america's first attack (in order lure us in like dimwits), we'll be given a sense of reprieve and success, then the guerrilla warfare will begin and we'll have a war of attrition where we have less of a stomach for occupation and conquest than other empires. oh yeah, and have a lot of kalishnikovs and RPGS. tah-dah, ensured victory against USA.

there's no way we can win. we'd have close to 100 million people to occupy and defend in the three countries of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran. sure, they're all interconnected, but it's not like you can easily drive across those nations. it's not like our big western states with a wonderful infrastructure and fantastic freeways. we keep forgetting about regional information and adapting to the new variables. this is a sure fire way to guarantee failure. never disobey the lessons of sun tsu, or you will be handed defeat *each* and *every* time.

our leaders' hubris and arrogance will bring this once great country down. these zealots in our own country must be stopped.