Is it just me, or might we get our asses kicked if we attack Iran

[walldude]

Or if Israel attacks Iran? I mean no offense to our military but Iraq had barely a freakin militia for an army. Here we are, having a hard time as an occupying force fighting against a small band of rebels/insurgents who are attempting to secure their own independence(wow that sounds kind of familiar...) and there is all this talk about attacking Iran. The difference is Iran actually has a military, and it's not a small one. These pictures are from 2003: http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_249.shtml and you can go here to see the current numbers of the strength of Iran's military: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/ . Warships, Subs, Fighter Jets, Anti-Aircraft batteries, Missile's, Rockets, they are armed to the teeth. I'm not worried about anyone coming here but, if we attack them, we might as well just paint a bullseye on the backs of every American in Iraq and this time it's not going to be a few rebels with homemade IED's who are coming after them. Since I have no serious knowledge of the extent of our military I could be wrong about this, but somehow I get the feeling if we move on Iran, nukes will end up being the final solution. And I do mean final.

[Codeblue]

1. We would...as things stand

IF we withdrew our forces from Iraqq, that would make a difference. Also, if a draft was implememtned, not many countries could stand up to that. I mean. I'm no patriot, but I do respect the amount of firepower the U.S. can bring to bear when it wants/needs to.

However, if we attacked them right now, we would get demolished and morale would drop. It could have a huge effect on things back here. However, Israel might not have a lot of manpower, but it seems like they can also do a number on things when they feel like bringing their forces to bear. I think they have a better chance than we do at this point.

[hogwyld]

79. Yeah, Israel did such a bang up job on Hezbollah

A LOT to be said about supplying an army halfway around the world when Iran is playing in it's own backyard.

[marmar]

2. And if we do get our asses kicked, we would deserve it....

Wannabe empires learn nothing from past wannabe empires. Every conquering nation - France, Britain, the USSR - that waltzes into the Mid-East or subcontinent with dreams of empire limps out with its tail between its legs.

[walldude]

4. I agree with that.. you did notice the comparison

I made to the U.S. Revolution didn't you? I thought it insanely ironic that Bush brought up Washington and the Revolution when he was talking about Iraq last week.

[AngryAmish]

88. Like the Mughuls in India

Those darn Timurids only lasted as a dynasty more than, what, three hundred years.

[AngryAmish]

89. Oh the Raj can only be considered a failure

They left, eventually, but only after taking what they wanted for hundreds of years.

[oldtimecanuk]

3. You will get your asses kicked if you attack Iran.... How many of you...

think that China and Russia, Syria, and a host of other countries are going to just stand by while Israel and the US attack and trounce Iran? Duhhhh Don't think that is going to happen..... The US is already the most hated nation in the world thanks George and Dickey..... God these two Fuckers need to be brought to justice.... They really suck big time...

ww

[Bobbie Jo]

9. Exactly. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

11. Me. I think China Russia and Syria will watch.

I've heard they like to watch.

Why would they get involved in our next disaster? They will instead do nothing while we defeat the Iranian military, and then watch our Iranian Folly make the Iraqi Blunder look like a good decision.

We are defeating ourselves. Why would anyone want to intervene?

[oblivious]

19. I agree. There is no reason for them to intervene. A weakened US military can only be good for them.

They have no defence agreement with Iran, just economic interests, just as Japan, India and Italy do.

[walldude]

23. Do they have anything going with Iran? Oil deals?

I know China has increased it's oil consumption considerably and predictions for it's future count a 60% increase in the next 10-20 years. To be honest for the last few years I have not been paying much attention to what's going on anywhere but in Iraq and at home. I know that's lame but there is only so much time in the day to stay informed. I could certainly see them all sitting back waiting to pick up the pieces once we have screwed the pooch again..

[oblivious]

24. China, Japan, India and Pakistan have massive oil, gas and pipeline deals in the works.

I may be wrong about defence agreements. I think Iran and Syria have one.

[oldtimecanuk]

28. Yep, I heard that... Not sure what that will do for them if the US and Israel...

decide to attack, but they have a buddy agreement as far as I know.

ww

[Warren Stupidity]

57. Syria is not a military factor.

Russia and China are, but neither is really too interested in directly tangling with us. As others have noted, they will be happy to make sure that our decline continues, that our misery is monumental, and that our Big Asian Expedition is the end of our stupid reign on top. All without ever firing a shot. What a deal.

[oldtimecanuk]

25. I have thought about that theory as well, and you might be right....

and then come along and mop up the suds.... However, in the meantime they will be supplying Iran with whatever they can to do a major job on both the US,Iraq Green Zone, and Israel.... Now that works for me... and hey, both George and Dickey don't really give a shit, they are both super rich...

ww

[knight_of_the_star]

73. All they would have to do is stir the pot

Send in weapons and advisers and "mercenaries" to go help Iran fight. They don't need to get directly involved to fuck us over if we go into Iran.

[ORDagnabbit]

5. The Worst US Naval Disaster Since Pearl Harbor

I was looking up info on the yakhont missle and came across this report

Operation Millennium Challenge is a US war game that ran during the summer of 2002. It was set in the Persian Gulf, and simulated a conflict with a hypothetical rogue state. The "war" involved heavy use of computers, and was also played out in the field by 13,500 US troops, at 17 different locations and 9 live-force training sites. All of the services participated under a single joint command, known as JOINTFOR. The US forces were designated as "Force Blue," and the enemy as OPFOR, or "Force Red." The "war" lasted three weeks and ended with the overthrow of the dictatorial regime on August 15.

At any rate, that was the official outcome. What actually happened was quite different, and ought to serve up a warning about the grave peril the world will face if the US should become embroiled in a widening conflict in the region.


Van Riper (leader of Force Red) made the most of weakness. Instead of trying to compete directly with Force Blue, he utilized ingenious low-tech alternatives. Crucially, he prevented the stronger US force from eavesdropping on his communications by foregoing the use of radio transmissions. Van Riper relied on couriers instead to stay in touch with his field officers. He also employed novel tactics such as coded signals broadcast from the minarets of mosques during the Muslim call to prayer, a tactic weirdly reminiscent of Paul Revere and the shot heard round the world. At every turn, the wily Van Riper did the unexpected. And in the process he managed to achieve an asymmetric advantage: the new buzzword in military parlance.

Astutely and very covertly, Van Riper armed his civilian marine craft and deployed them near the US fleet, which never expected an attack from small pleasure boats. Faced with a blunt US ultimatum to surrender, Force Red suddenly went on the offensive: and achieved complete tactical surprise. Force Red's prop-driven aircraft suddenly were swarming around the US warships, making Kamikaze dives. Some of the pleasure boats made suicide attacks. Others fired Silkworm cruise missiles from close range, and sunk a carrier, the largest ship in the US fleet, along with two helicopter-carriers loaded with marines. The sudden strike was reminiscent of the Al Qaeda sneak attack on the USS Cole in 2000. Yet, the Navy was unprepared. When it was over, most of the US fleet had been destroyed. Sixteen US warships lay on the bottom, and the rest were in disarray. Thousands of American sailors were dead, dying, or wounded.

If the games had been real, it would have been the worst US naval defeat since Pearl Harbor.

What happened next became controversial. Instead of declaring Force Red the victor, JOINTFOR Command raised the sunken ships from the muck, brought the dead sailors back to life, and resumed the games as if nothing unusual had happened. The US invasion of the rogue state proceeded according to schedule. Force Red continued to harass Force Blue, until an increasingly frustrated Gen. Van Riper discovered that his orders to his troops were being countermanded, at which point he withdrew in disgust. In his after-action report, the general charged that the games had been scripted to produce the desired outcome.


more at the link
http://www.rense.com/general64/fore.htm

[TomInTib]

15. Van Riper was right

See #12

[walldude]

16. Interesting.. and Welcome To DU n/t

[pnorman]

18. And thanks also for that!

It's brand new info and insight to me (and probably to many others here). I just started to Google "Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper", and I may be at it for much of the night.

I LOVE my DU!

pnorman

[Ian David]

20. PBS touched upon Operation Millennium Challenge in a documentary

They corroborate what Rense.com says.

[knight_of_the_star]

74. Beautiful

It doesn't inspire me with hope that our military doesn't actually do wargames when it says it does.

[CrazyOrangeCat]

6. I have a Iranian friend.

One of the smartest engineers I ever ran across. The country has long been known for it's mathematicians.

Cheney and the boyz are gonna get us all killed. They're the biggest fuck-ups of all time . . . .

[pnorman]

7. You are absolutely correct!

It most definitely will NOT be a "cakewalk" as in the case of Iraq. It could be far worse, and by a degree of magnitude!

pnorman

[gordianot]

8. Destroying nuclear facilities, using nuclear weapons, sinking nuclear ships.

Only an ass would consider this kind of war and everyone gets their ass kicked.

[Ian David]

22. Then again, a small nuclear exchange could reduce Global Warming....

by kicking enough dust up into the air.

I presume Bush's ranch in Paraguay will be clear of the fall-out patterns?

Could that be where all those people who have "resigned to spend more time with their families" are?

[oldtimecanuk]

42. LOL... Well you have plenty of Asses in the White House that would convey...

those orders to the Pentagon...

ww

[Warren Stupidity]

10. No I believe that we can blow away any conventional army

of just about any size, as long as we can provide the combat support airpower and command and control systems that go with our ground troops.

Iran just barely managed to avoid disaster in their eight year war with Iraq's army, which army we decimated in Gulf Farce I in a matter of two weeks. I would give Iran's army three weeks.

We can blow apart any conventional army. Well perhaps the Chinese or the Russians might manage to avoid a total route. That isn't the problem. So we blow up the Iranian Army until they refuse to fight. Then what? Have we learned yet the limits of our power? I suspect not.

[mitchtv]

21. What then you ask?

I would suspect a small nuclear device detonated in Long beach or somewhere like that. Baltimore maybe, like in the "sum of all fears"

[Pavulon]

39. Then

the material would be compared to the IAEA samples from iran's enriched sources and what we have on file from other nations. If any nation provides a nuclear weapon or detonates a nuclear weapon here it will cease to exist. Period.

That is pretty hard to grasp, we would exterminate every living thing in the nation that initiated an attack. Not a tactical response.

We have 3000 or so megatons spinning. That would be used never mind nuclear winter or whatever.

Those are the rules.

We retain the ability to end life on any and every continent on this planet. Any use of nuclear weapons against the US by any nation directly or by proxy would create death on a scale hard to imagine. An order of magnitude or more times every casualty fought in the history of modern war would be the result.

[hogwyld]

58. And if the terraists got the material on the black market

Say from a corrupt Russian or Pakistani general? What are you suggesting, that we nuke Russia? That would only bring about our own annihilation since they have quite a few of their own warheads pointing back at us. What if the material was stolen from an EU country? Nuke Britain? Not everything out there is stamped "Made in Iran".

[hogwyld]

31. Your assumption is only half correct

The only way we could "win" is to turn Iran into a glass factory. Conventionally, we couldn't do much as our current army is pretty well worn out. Our morale is shit, our tanks, humvees and other hardware are all in need of some major overhaul after 4 years of abuse. Our supplies are used up as we can't even get body armor for our troops, or armor for the humvees. Unlike Iraq which is mostly flat desert, Iran is very mountainous which is not very conducive to armoured movement. Iran has China and Russia's backing, which would be happy to supply portable SAM's, negating our air and helicopter fleets.
In fact, given our current popularity in the world, there could be a "coalition of the willing" of about 150 nations against us. Not to mention that our economy, which is already dying, a serious final death gasp as gas costs go to $10 bucks a gallon.

[Pavulon]

36. Air War..

air power would be the only force used in Iran. There is no reason to take and hold ground. That is what an army does. Airplanes that Iran can not see would destroy its radar and air defense.

Then big fat airplanes that carry 100k lbs of payload would bomb the shit out of anything that was of any value.

Any attack in Iran assumes an open war. That means massive air power. Not shock and awe, 3000 sorties a day 10 - 50 tons of bombs per sortie.

China and Russia would not respond to a us retaliation strike.

No sam is effective against f117, b2, or f22 aircraft. They would only have what is in inventory because if something started no ship or plane would move in Iran as it would be destroyed by some equipment it can not see from over the horizon or under the sea.

Our economy is growing, not as much as it should be, and our 3 biggest oil suppliers are within this hemisphere.

However any ATTACK on Iran would be a tremendous mistake.

[oldtimecanuk]

40. Sorry, but I don't agree that Russia and China would not retaliate...

They might bide there time, but at some point they will respond for certain.... And who knows with countries like Pakistan, Indian, etc..... Bush, Cheney, et. all have gotten us into this so who knows where other countries allegiance really lies.

ww

[Pavulon]

41. Why would Russia or China

respond if we did not initiate a war. That was my assumption.

Now if we just attack Iran out of the blue that would be very different.

[hogwyld]

59. Dream on....

Most of the airfields near Iran can be attacked by Iran and taken out. I'm pretty sure they have already worked on their special forces for such contingencies. Their assymetrical warfare abilities can neuter our aircraft carrier battle fleets. So we'll be redduced to flying from Diego Garcia, or from Europe, whick will NOT be cooperative. I'm sure Russia and China have been active in the past 20 years in stealth detection abilities. They'll be happy to give Iran the arms to test out on us. Please don't regurgitate the military industrial complex's biggest/baddest military on earth speel.

[Leopolds Ghost]

85. "there is no reason to take and hold ground" -- Au contraire

We will take and hold ground where mobile emplacements of Silkworm missile launchers (and their decoys) are hiding, all up and down 1,000 miles of sparsely populated, mountainous coastline.

It will be like invading the Big Sur (why do you think the Japanese never did that?)

We will also take Khuzestan, where all the oil is: the flat area across the river from Basra.

Thus eliminating Iran's incentive not to deploy its oil weapon.

We will have no ability to take and hold anything else.

The rest of Iran is behind high mountains, remember?

[oldtimecanuk]

44. Your post pretty much summed up what the reallity is if the US were...

to follow thru with an attack on Iran.... There is no good solution to doing that, it would cause major pain, and probably totally, and I do mean totally bankrupt the US (as if it isn't alrealy)

ww

[oldtimecanuk]

37. And who is paying for this blow em up route? I wonder when the average...

American citizen will say enough is enough and hit the streets in a major civil disobedience?

ww

[windbreeze]

80. Hang on a second....

during the Iran/Iraq war...we helped both sides...WE, the US, determined who won that war....we decimated the Iraqi army....???? Seems to me, I recall that they just melted into the countryside when we arrived...and is it possible, they are who we are still fighting four years later....?? Remember they had been under serious sanctions for about 12 years...so we did have quite the unfair advantage, I'd say....Iran is not going to be the same thing...and if we think they are...I'd say we are making a serious misjudgment of their abilities, AND the weaponry that China and Russia and everyone else has provided them with....

Sure the ones arming Iran, might step back and watch the fireworks w/o getting involved...but...I am not too happy about anyone thinking with confidence, it will for sure turn out that way....the point is, we don't know how they will react, and that is one big question mark to deal with...R/C and how many other countries have a vested interest in keeping Iran's gas/oil flowing freely...do we think that those countries would be willing to stand by and let us take control of natural resources that Iran has guaranteed them?? I seriously doubt it...especially considering that oil is supposedly running out..or if they have already paid for that promised oil/gas with weapons...

Van Riper, from what I recall...defeated those forces in the war games, by using tactics people native to the ME just might use themselves...and he did it that way to prove that you don't need the newest and best of anything to defeat an enemy...all you need is brains, rudimentary weapons and determination...the fact that the defeat he handed out was not accepted, just tells us how far out of touch our higher ups are...damn the torpedos, full speed ahead...
wb

[Warren Stupidity]

93. Yes Iraq's army was soundly defeated both times.

Gulf Farce I and II were total routs. The first war had Baghdad surrenduring to UN cease fire terms after 13 days of ground combat, their army wrecked. The second war rolled the Iraq Army back to Baghdad within two weeks, at which point the army ceased fighting as an organized force. In neither case was the Iraqi army able to sustain any serious organized resistance to our forces.

That said, and as I have pointed out elsewhere in this thread, it is the post traditional combat phase - i.e. the occupation - that is the problem. As you note, the Iraqi Army's sunni contingents melted away and re-organized themselves as the current insurgency. That is exactly what is likely to happen in Iran: the Iranian Army will not be able to sustain an organized resistence to our forces, but will be able to regroup and re-organize as an informal insurgency and make our occupation yet another total disaster.

Van Riper's exercise is an interesting data point: a gifted military leader could in fact cause our very predictable actions against Iran some serious trouble. I don't deny that this in fact could happen, I just think it is very unlikely. Equally unlikely would be the direct intervention of any other regional powers. Indirect intervention? Almost certainly, but Russia is not going to send in troops or make ultimatums, and nor is China. As I said elsewhere - why would they take that risk when most likely we will destroy ourselves without their having to risk anything?

[TomInTib]

12. A couple of well-placed Silkworm missiles could shut down the Straits

After that, no military outcome would really matter.

A salvage and tow operation would be next to impossible and the deepwater port at Dubai is far too risky for the carriers to berth. They would be left sitting in the Gulf like big, slow targets.

The WH must be expecting some Divine Intervention.

[GreenZoneLT]

64. Whereupon Iran would starve to death.

Iran imports two-thirds of its food, mostly by sea. They can't afford to shut down the Straits. What makes you think those carriers deployed to the Persian Gulf are actually IN the Persian Gulf, anyway? We attacked Iraq from the Red Sea, the eastern Med and the Arabian Sea in 2003.

[TomInTib]

70. The Stennis is in the Gulf

I have friends on-board.

And yeah, we attacked Iraq from all of the points that you highlighted.

We kicked thier asses, didn't we?

If the Straits are cut off, we will feel the pain before (and many more times over than) the Iranians will.

There is nothing good that can come of this.

[Leopolds Ghost]

84. Iran's access to the sea and over the Zagros would already be cut off. They'd have nothing to lose.

If Iran were smart they would destroy the Khuzestan fields with US-made bombs during the initial bombardment

(they got plenty of those from Nixon and Reagan)

since Iran's pumping and refinery capability is hopelessly out-of-date.

This would lead to an infusion of Russian, Chinese, and Dubai cash after the war is over, to rebuild their oil infrastructure.

They could also target stuff like oil refinery here at home, using
Iranian secret service sabouteurs.

That is a serious risk that I hope we're prepared for.

But yeah, cutting off the Straits would be easiest.

[Richard D]

13. Not only that . . .

. . . but what would a gallon of gas cost here and what would that do to the domestic economy.

[Initech]

14. Here's my theory:

I think Bush is trying to outsource the attack on Iran by trying to pit Isreal and Iran against each other. Then once Isreal attacks Iran, it'll give him the perfect excuse to charge forward.

Either way, it'll end up with us getting our asses kicked pretty badly.

[mainegreen]

17. Hell, Isreal will NOT allow Iran to go nuclear.

It would take very little prodding from *. I think they just want to be reassured that they have his approval.

[piesRsquare]

46. Definitely

And myself, I'm almost at a point where I'm thinking that if this administration is hell-bent on attacking Iran, have the Israelis do it. The US will probably blackmail them into doing it anyway.

The IAF/IDF have been making more fuck-ups in recent years, but they still do things a hell of a lot cleaner than the US. Their plan is already complete, the IDF has drilled and practiced it, and, at the time it was making the news a couple of years ago, Sharon went on record stating that there would absolutely be no occupation. The plan was hit the nuclear sites by air, send in ground troops to sweep for intelligence/tech/etc, then high-tail it out of the country; I believe he said it would be a two- to four-week operation.

I don't want anyone attacking Iran; I want this done diplomatically. But dammit, if it's gonna happen, I honestly believe far fewer people will die and far less damage will be done if the Israelis do it. No fucking way do the Israelis want to hang-out in Iran.

Bush will simply have all of Tehran flattened, as "Shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out" seems to be his policy.

[gordianot]

27. The Bush family has a real Nazi history, conscience has never been a family flaw.

[patrice]

26. There's a Ph.D. cite on this topic linked here . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x282846

[patrice]

29. Read DU member Devon77. n/t

[walldude]

33. You have a specific thread?

That person only has 16 posts...

[patrice]

38. He's in this one a couple of times . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x277535

On edit: And I gave an overview of one of his sources here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=282846&mesg_id=282846

I just read him/her for the first time lastnight. I intend to search the uname. S/he's kind of new here.

[walldude]

50. Thanks.. great stuff

makes you pretty sure that an attack on Iran is inevitable.

[patrice]

52. Yep . . . but scarey. Oh yeah, check out Emit too in the same thread. n/t

[gravity]

30. We can kick any country's ass in a conventional war

Maintaining the peace afterwards would be the problem.

[A Simple Game]

54. Not quite right.

We can kick butt in any battle.

Wars(occupations) we seem to have a hard time winning.

[blonndee]

32. Indeed. n/t

[Pavulon]

34. Nope

Now before I speak I am not putting this forth as a solution or course of action...

Assumes a pure open war. Gloves off all conventional resources on the line.

We spend billions on defense Iran spends a tiny fraction of that. Iran does has no technical export capability. Can not manufacture an airframe.

Reality check The US air force maintains the ability to remove air cover with 2nd and 3rd generation stealth aircraft, right now. Iran fields soviet shit flown by poorly trained crew. They die first, at night. The air force and navy have been designed around fighting a large scale war against this specific equipment. Not a CI war, no ieds or insurgents just destruction of things that people build..

We don't do CI well. We are very good at large scale wars against powers fielding old soviet shit. Like gw1.

So in 3 days nothing flys or shoots up in Iran that can hit jets dropping tens of thousands of tons of bombs on everything man made. Civil works(dams power water), military targets, ports, ships, whatever we decide to target. 509th is has equipment in hours of iran. That allows first strike, conventional or no notice nuclear (not gonna happen)

The Air Force and Navy are idle. There are assets to run a 6 month bombing campaign against Iran.

We have no reason to take and hold ground. Just smash the shit out of equipment and kill hundreds of thousands of people by bombing and disrupting food water and medicine.

That is an open war. Iran has no defense against jets it cant see. It can take action but we have no naval assets in the straights for them to shoot. They have no blue water navy. We have carrier groups with attack subs in the region. Remember the Falklands war. Any thing floating would be dead before it had a chance to get in range to fire.

Now THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN. WE WILL NOT ATTACK IRAN. Europe who is in the range of their ICBM will continue to pressure them economically and they may reform.

It they attack us large scale or Israel large scale all bets are off. Of course any nuclear attack by them would be met with asymmetrical response.

Bottom line. We have the ability to reduce Iran to the functional level of Sierra Leone or nigeria in function in weeks.

There is no strategic gain in this action. It is not a solution to a regional problem. It is not smart. It is possible.

[Leopolds Ghost]

87. That is BS, I'm afraid.

If what you said were true, there would be no reason not to attack Iran, which is why the argument "An attack on Iran will never happen, but the consequences of such an attack would not be militaryly adverse" are full of shit.

Iran is defeloping its own manufacturing capability to build aircraft, as it happens, but that is irrelevant since, like Russia in the 1930s, developing industrial might takes a back seat to the size of the country, terrain, impossible distances needed for multiple sorties, and size of population, and the strategic need of the US to occupy the entire Iranian border region, including the oil province, thus disproving the essence of the "Air only" argument.

The reason we won the war in Iraq so easily was simple: the entire Iraqi officer corps was subverted for cash. They all wanted Saddam gone -- including the ones who took their troops, stood pat, and instructed their men to melt into the countryside with 500 TONS of explosives in tow.

Helpful Hint: it takes MILITARY RESOURCES to move 500 tons of explosives. The dissillusion of the Iraq military was a strategic maneuver implemented on high long before we "ratified" it by "disbanding" an army we had never actually fought in a stand-up battle. Saddam wanted us to penetrate Iraq as far as possible, into the settled areas, so he could bleed us dry. He said so before the war. We fell for the trap. Then the generals cut him loose after his sons died, took the CIA bribes not to fight (10 million per battalion) and the entire infrastructure of the Iraqi army, including all the ordinance, and converted it into an effective guerrilla force.

And folks like you still don't grasp the implications of that.

Iran would be far worse. Since we can't penetrate the core populated Iranian heartland with anything other than long-range bombers, they have no need to turn their army into a guerrilla force. Instead they will send their guerrilla force into Iraq as "pilgrims" to wipe out American soldiers on the existing battlefield, in Shi'ite areas where no action is taking place currently.

Iran is a far more urban and culturally homogeneous country than Iraq. Think Russia or Germany in the early 1900s. Do you know what happened to the US-trained and equipped special armored division of the Iranian army during the 3-day Iranian revolution? They were wiped out in a day... not surrendered... surrounded and wiped out by a mob of angry Iranian civilians one million strong... not before 60,000 of the mob were killed before they were shut inside the armory section of the barracks and set on fire.

These are the people folks on DU claim are some sort of mickey mouse regime capable of being destroyed the minute its tanks go into hiding.

What do you bomb when the tanks and decoy SAM batteries and decoy SSM batteries go off our scopes, like they did in the first Gulf War?

Do you think a million Persians will rise up in Iran like they did in Serbia, under your "Serbian style air assault against civilian infrastructure propping up the regime" option?

No, a million trained Shi'ites will rise up in IRAQ -- the south of Iraq -- the day after the bombing campaign is over and drive Americans back into the far corner of our bases. The recent incursions into Karbala and the Green Zone have been a feeler for this approach. Consider Tet a dry run. We will kill hundreds of thousands in the crowd, but you can't get em all.

[AZBlue]

35. I agree with you - because it won't just be Iran coming back at us!

[The Straight Story]

43. We would kick their ass like we did in Iraq (during the 'war')

We beat down the Iraqi army quite handily, and we would theirs as well.

The current situation is that we are not fighting an army, and we cannot kill all within our sites.

If we wanted to totally defeat Iraq we could just pull out and bomb em silly, but the objective now is to restore order - that is a lot more different than killing the enemy.

Give us a target, and we can eliminate it. Put our soldiers in a neighborhood, tell em to watch their backs and not to kill anything that moves, and we become the target.

[Pavulon]

49. Bingo

We cant seem to get this CI war right. After Vietnam you thing they would listen to the smart people in the army voicing concern, nope.

We would absolutely fuck up their military and infrastructure. However there is no chance we could "occupy" in any way shape or form.

[BeHereNow]

45. Depends on how you define "we."

"We," as in the average citizen on the planet?
Absolutely; "we" will not be able to recognize the world as "we" knew it.

"We," as in the global elite?
No, they will be just fine.

As a matter of fact they will be better than fine.
And THAT is the plan the average American has yet to understand.
Except for maybe the victims of Katrina.
They get it.

BHn

[walldude]

53. Hehe, We as in the average guy who is going to get

totally screwed if this goes down. What really scares me here is that I was so far off base as laid out by Straight and Pavulon that combined with the links Patrice provided about the strategy of taking over Khuzestan, and my knowledge of how the WH works and how Bush thinks, there is no reason to think they aren't going to go ahead with an attack. Pretty soon we may all be victims.

[BeHereNow]

56. "Pretty soon we may all be victims." Count on it. As sure as if you lived in NOLA before Katirna.

Yes, the storm is brewing and once again, they fully know the cost;
they do not care.
The storm will be economic among other things and there
will be no "knights on white horses riding in" to save anyone-
There may be however, military forces, not necessarily US ones
brought in to quell the masses.
And don't forget FEMA is standing by to house those
who are transferred by executive order "for their own protection."

Uh-uh.

BHN

[patrice]

47. Even Noam Chomsky is saying he can't decide for sure whether Cheney

will do it or not.

He puts a great deal of emphasis on the fact that the Oil Gang CANNOT tolerate a free and independent Iraq (i.e. U.S. Troops out) and one very useful solution would be to help a "secessionist" region of Iran, Khuzestan, that just happens to be the sum and total of Iran's oil fields, thusly creating an excuse to stay in the region.

Khuzestan is also quite flat and other sources are saying there's a bunch of our heavy armament that is of no use in the counter-insurgency going on in Iraq that would be suitable for going into a place like Khuzestan.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x277535

[Warpy]

48. We WILL get our asses kicked if Stupid attacks Iran

our military is a sitting duck. Iran is three times the size of Iraq and has nearly three times the population. Their army isn't a bunch of under supplied and underfed dispirited men trained by a man they don't believe in. Their army are crack troops. The terrain is even more difficult than that in Afghanistan. They have had troops massed at the border since Stupid invaded Iraq. If Stupid lobs a few bombs at them, the retribution will be swift and the slaughter complete.

I would sincerely hope there are enough of us to light a fire under Congress's overfed collective arse and get this bunch out of office if that happens.

This has the potential to start the next world war. We will not win this one and most of us will not survive it.

[Pavulon]

51. Massed troops are what cluster bombs are for

we would wipe the fucking floor with their military. We have a massive air force and naval air wing idle. These threads loop over and over.

Iran has nothing to gain from an open war with us. We have nothing to gain from an open war with Iran.

If Iran attacked us they are fucked. We strip their air cover and kill anything that moves with air power. They go to normal nation to everyone trying to find food and water. Massive crushing air strikes would result from an iranian attack on us. Anything they have that floats, flys, or burns fuel is blown up.

Not to many tomahawks flying these days. Bet a buck they are resupplied and deployed. 509th is sitting waiting to turn the lights off in iran.

This would not be an infantry war.

I do agree attacking them is pointless and stupid. I do not advocate it, but do not subscribe to the concept that we are helpless.

[patrice]

55. "Not helpless"

Especially since 90% of their oil is located in the southwest corner of the country on a flat plane on the Persian Gulf.

[hogwyld]

60. And just how many Tomahawks do you think we have??

So you think air power and a bunch of Tomahawks will solve everything? Sorry to dissapoint you, but it won't. We surely don't have ten's of thousands of them sitting around. Airpower is very limited in what it can do. sure it can blow up buildings and such, but it can't occupy a country. Another thing you seem to be overlooking in your glorious air power is the whole logistics issue. Iran is in it's backyard, while we have to ship supplies through the vulnerable straits of hormuz. No fuel, no bombs, no parts, and your shiny, glitzy air power is worthless. No food, no ammunition for our ground troops either. At least not enough to hold off 97 million angry Iranians.

[GreenZoneLT]

66. Sheesh.

You are correct that we can't invade and occupy Iran. It's too big, and the population couldn't be pacified without a few million more troops. But we could destroy Iran's military without too much trouble. We get fuel in Iraq from Kuwait, which doesn't require shipping, and can import food from Turkey.

The Iranians are just as dependent on imported food and fuel as we are (they are way undersupplied in terms of refinery capacity). And we've got plenty of air bases outside the Persian Gulf that are close enough to Iran for air attacks; heck, B-2s can hit it from Missouri, and B-52s from Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. We've got enough Tomahawks to hit what they're meant for (radar, command-and-control facilities), and LOTS of iron bombs and satellite guidance kits to take out hardened installations. As for troops, you just dump cluster bombs on them from B-52s after you take out their air defense network.

This would all be really stupid and pointless, of course, but Iran has pretty much zero shot of mussing our hair in a conventional war. They have no expeditionary warfare capability. They can defend themselves from ground attack, and lob missiles, but they can't invade anybody else without running out of gas, ammo and food in a couple days.

One thing to remember that should be reassuring: any attack on Iran IS dependent on bases in countries that are afraid of Iran (the Gulf Arab states, mainly), and they're EXTREMELY opposed to a U.S. attack on Iran. Forget the Pentagon; Cheney would have to convince the Saudis, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE that an Iranian nuke is just too dangerous. I don't think they'd ever go for it.

Oh, yeah, and our bases in Iraq are supposedly here at the request and with the permission of the elected Iraqi government, the majority of whom are pro-Iranian Shiites. Not gonna happen, Dick.

[hogwyld]

69. As Stalin once said quantity has a quality all of it's own

Cluster bombs, might disrupt them a bit, but it is Iran's backyard with an ability to call up massive numbers of troops. We'd likely run out of ammo before they ran out of troops.

[GreenZoneLT]

72. Uh, no.

Stalin had the largest military machine in the history of the world. Iran spends about $7 billion a year on defense, because that's all they can afford.

[hogwyld]

77. But don't forget that the Iranians held off a superior Iraqi army.

Iraq had the best weapons the soviets could supply as well as a lot of help from us. The poorly trained Iranians held off the Iraqis for 8 years. And remember, this was right after the military was purged after the fall of the shah. Now that they have stability in the higher ranks, it would be tougher.

[MGD]

91. And don't forget operation praying mantis.

We've fought Iran before and we hurt them. What's more, we demonstrated our ability to hurt them far worse than we did. I doubt we will be so merciful this time around.

[GreenZoneLT]

63. Where do you get this crap?

Iran hasn't fought a war in 19 years, and their army is mostly made up of draftees, so I'm not sure where these "crack" troops are coming from. They have one of the smaller military budgets in the world, comparable to Israel's, which has a fraction of their population. They do have a lot of troops, but not anywhere near enough transport to move or feed them, and their best tanks were proven obsolete 15 years ago.

The only thing outstanding about their military is the number of ballistic missiles they have, mostly Scud derivatives that are accurate to within a couple miles. Those are fine if you're waging a strategic bombing campaign against a civilian population, but fairly useless as a tactical military weapon.

Now, don't get me wrong, a U.S. attack on Iran would be a disaster from a geopolitical standpoint, and a U.S. invasion is completely infeasible because of Iran's size. But they don't have a chance against our military in a standup fight, in a purely tactical sense, and they certainly couldn't invade Iraq without getting slaughtered. All those "massed" troops are just so much B-52 fodder; that's what cluster bombs were designed for.

[Warpy]

81. History

You might try reading some.

Geography

You might try looking at a map.

Besides, how do you think the rest of the world is going to feel about having the Middle East's oil shut off because of Stupid's wars?

Please realize that everything the military is telling you is to their advantage, not yours and certainly not ours.

[Warren Stupidity]

82. The problem with your post is that you didn't address a single

point made against you. History shows that Iran just barely managed to hold off Iraq in their eight year war. Iraq's army was absolutely no match for our military forces at all, in either Gulf Farce I, when they were fully equipped and trained, or Gulf Farce II when they were a mere shadow of their former third rate self. Iran's army would suffer a similar fate. The disaster would be the aftermath of defeating the Iranian army, not the war itself.

Geography? Did you actually have a point there? Geographically we are in a position to shut off the vital shared waterway around Basra and to occupy the vital Iranina oil fields and oil platforms in the south within days of the start of hostilities. The Iranians might be able to threaten oil shipments and our fleet in the gulf. My guess is that we will be able to neutralize their threat although we may lose some ships and they may be able to disrupt oil supplies for a short time. Eventually our superior air and naval forces will end that threat.


The rest of the world is going to feel outraged and is going to do nothing. See other posts on this subtopic here. China Russia and India,the largest powers directly concerned with Iran, will sit back and watch us destroy ourselves in a second unwinnable occupation. They will not directly intervene. Certainly India is not going to do anything direct or indirect. China and Russia might make sure that our expedition in Iran is a long and bloody failure, but they will do so indirectly. The rest of the muslim states are not going to do anything to help shiite Iran, they are almost all sunni dominated. Syria has motive to make sure our occupation fails, but shares no border and cannot help. Hezbollah in Lebanon also has an interest in seeing us fail, but once again cannot do much to help Iran.

The military seems to be saying, almost uniformly, that they are not terribly eager to take on Iran. They will be ignored and they will follow orders.

[GreenZoneLT]

61. You don't know what you're talking about

Iraq had a very capable ground army, by world standards, even in 2003 (not as good as in 1991, but they still had hundreds of thousands of trained, well-armed troops and thousands of first-line tanks). We're really that good. It's all about air supremacy, and Iran's air force and air defenses aren't anywhere near good enough to slow down a U.S. attack. For that matter, NOBODY's air defenses (including ours) are good enough; stealth technology and precision-guided munitions have really tipped the scale to offense at the moment. And once you give up air space, you're done on the ground.

Iran has a lot of missiles, but none of the surface-to-surface ones are precision-guided, so they could mainly kill a lot of Iraqi civilians unless they got a lucky hit on a U.S. base. Their ship-killer missiles and subs could be a problem, but not for very long. We might lose a few ships, but they'd lose the lot within a week or two.

The Iraqi militias, btw, shoot real, non-homemade stuff at us all the freakin' time. Rockets, mortars, up to 120mm. It mostly lands in open space, or is soaked up by all the concrete blast walls we're surrounded by.

[hogwyld]

68. And once the chinese leak the ASAT tech to Iran

And take out the GPS capabilities, our high tech weaponry is useless. Germany had the best tanks in WW2, but not the quantity. Iran has 90 million people at the doorstep, while we have 130,000 tired troops. Also, what happens when Iran silkworms a couple of ships and shuts down the straits? You gonna truck all the the supplies through Saudi Arabia? Talk about a trip through IED alley. Logistics my friend is the achilles heel of our folly.

[GreenZoneLT]

71. You truck the supplies from Turkey.

OK, 20 years from now when Iran has a heavy-lift space program, we worry about GPS (which isn't the only precision-guided capability we have, just the best and cheapest).

You get the fuel from Kuwait, which is right next door. 90 million people don't matter; if they all tried to take the field at once, they'd die of thirst in three days. If Iran shuts the straits, they starve to death in a few weeks; they import 2/3s of their food, much of it by sea.

Iran is a Third World country with a sizable Third World army. They're not a conventional military threat. The Brits or Israelis could destroy any piece of Iran they want, let alone us. A fight would cause a diplomatic and political catastrophe that would wreck any chance of U.S. success in the Middle East, but not because Iran's military could stand up to ours.

BTW, the Silkworm missile is 50-year-old technology, basically a copy of the Soviet Styx (the first ship-killer missile). You can't hit anything with it unless you've got active radar contact first, and the first thing to go in Iran would be their radar.

[hogwyld]

78. And what makes you think Turkey would help us?

They had no interest in the Iraq invasion, so why in the hell would they get involved in this? I believe that the entire NATO states would not only stay out of this, but probably not allow use of the bases there either. Or should we bomb Turkey until they allow us to use them as a transfer point?

[Leopolds Ghost]

92. Iran is not a Third World Country -- you just destroyed the credibility of your argument

With such ignorant talk.

Iran already has the infrastructure in place to put 3 million men in the
field. It is amazing what an urbanized, industrial, populous nation will
achieve when its home country is directly attacked. Think Russia in the
early 1940s.

The 3 million Iranian irregulars would not "fie of thirst". They would be fighting in the marshalands of IRAQ, remember? Where they are already being fed and sheltered by Shi'ite militias using US funds. There are more Iranian "advisors" in Iraq working with our friends, the Shi'ites, than we had in Vietnam.

Do some research!

Iraq is a flat country with an excellent US-built highway system that Saddam instructed his troops to leave in place (not to blow any bridges) and to disband the army and carry off anything not nailed down so as to lure the Americans in as far as possible as fast as possible, to maximize support for a well-funded and equipped guerrilla army composed of the disbanded Saddam military. Not a single Iraqi regular unit bothered to put up a fight. They "surrendered", having already stashed all Iraqi armaments in places unknown to us, and melted into the countryside. We gave the generals $10 million each for this privelige. Remember, they and their troops were still alive to surrender -- so much for air power -- and they knew Saddam himself would not be the ruler of the guerrilla insurgency he set up years before to fight the Americans.

Iran is a mountainous country with no access to the interior from US allied nations. The Persian culture is "never retreat, never surrender" in the face of attacks on Iranians. They don't engage in dealmaking and subversion like the Ba'athists do. They prefer out-and-out special ops warfare, suicide squads, dispersed infantry willing to die in defense of the homeland, allied to Shi'ite militias in safe houses throughout Iraq.

We would lose ground in Iraq, not gain any in Iran.

[JCMach1]

62. Yes, let's spread Democracy by attacking the most democratic country

in the region...

We should be finding ways to embrace them...

Instead, we will maintain our BFF status with the Communist Dictatorship of China.

Sorry, but :wtf:

[Eurobabe]

65. Our friend from Turkey, a very successful and highly educated businessman

Says the US is playing with major fire if they think they can take Iran. This asinine notion that they can take them out with nukes etc. is ridiculous and will further inflame the Middle East to the boiling point. He cannot believe these dumb shits are even CONSIDERING such a move.

[GreenZoneLT]

67. Certainly would give a whole new list of Terra enemies

Yeah, that'd be brilliant. Let's make America safe by siccing Hezbollah and Hamas on us in addition to Al Qaeda.

[Imagevision]

75. Bush would get his rocks off going nucler..

[knight_of_the_star]

76. Here's the best part

Thanks to their oil reserves, all Iran REALLY has to do to bring us to our knees is close the spigot. Think of how fast this country will crash when gas hits $30 a gallon.

[blues90]

83. We would get our ass kicked in a number of ways

Even if we don't attack Iran , attacking Iran would certainly speed things up .

As time goes by with our lousy economy and loss of jobs and jobs that replaced good jobs with low pay garbage jobs soon many of us will hit the brick wall and suffer a great depression and it will be war on the home front .

If we attack Iran not only will there be alot more american deaths in the middle east there will be mass deaths right here .

I don't see anyway to stop this madness , it is already full steam ahead .

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

86. Considering our notable success in subduing Iraq, a much less populated country...

I would think achieving yet another spectacularly glorious defeat by BushCo and the geniuses at the White House and Pentagon is assured.

[NickB79]

90. Doesn't matter, they'd destroy the international oil markets

Block the Strait of Hormez with a sunken ship, or hit a few of Saudi Arabia's and Kuwait's oil refining and exporting centers with missiles, and oil prices will skyrocket for months, if not years.

How long will the US economy last with oil selling at $100/barrel or more?