Iran about to get wiped from the pages of history

[GinandTonic]

The States can blow the snot out of the Iranians. They will have to do it alone since I dont see who would back them up - certainly not the Brits or any other Euros. Air and Naval supremacy should be no problem - a tougher nut than Iraq but not insurmountable. Clearing areas for special forces work should also be doable.

Even at Iraq levels of troop (under)deployment ground forces are out of the question. Where are you going to find the 600k troops to give similar coverage? More like three quaters of a mil with the terrain.

So in short - At the mo America can destroy Iran but not occupy it.

The question then becomes would blowing up Iran do America any good? Would it be worth loosing what allies they have left?

 

[Winner]

I keep noticing the word empire throughout this thread. I feel embarrassed to have to point this out to so many educated and intelligent people, but the United States is not an empire. We don't have governor generals, military governors, and so forth scattered throughout the world running a lot of nations we've conquered.

Yes, we are very influential, but that certainly does not make an empire.

This term is sometimes used to describe the system of hegemonic power that has been created by the US. We simply lack a better term.

 

[Winner]

The US military is not stretched thin, less then 10% is in Iraq. Most sit in barracks in Japan and Germany. Thats just active duty, include reserves and national gaurd and the numbers go up alott.

AFAIK the only troops that are capable of real fight are in Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

[GinandTonic]

AFAIK the only troops that are capable of real fight are in Iraq or Afghanistan.

A slightly tactless way of putting it, but valid point.

Even if the US got 600-750k troops togeather, could the necessary level of combat troops be assembled without leaving Iraq in the hands of raw recruits or reservists.

 

[skadistic]

AFAIK the only troops that are capable of real fight are in Iraq or Afghanistan.

You know you are right. In fact you should spread that point to as many places as posible.

If you think that the mil. is 10% fighting force what do you think the remaining 1.4 million do with there time?

 

[ravensfire]

I am a little more optimistic of Iran's chances. You are suffering from a certain amount imperial hubris methinks. Pride goeth before a fall brother... Veitnam, Bay of Pigs, war of 1812, etc..

Methinks you misread my comment.

From a purely military perspective, the US could defeat Iran. It's that simple. The Iranian military does not have the training or equipment to stop the US military.

Look at the two contemporary examples - both of the Iraq wars. In both cases, Iraq KNEW the attack was coming. There was no tactical or strategic surprise. Iraq was considered a fairly modern force, with tanks, aircraft and heavy, heavy SAM systems. The end result - complete and utter destruction. In the second war, the US advanced far faster than even their wildest projections.

Iran would fair a bit better, but not much. The US would quickly achieve air superiority, and that would be the end of conflict. No modern military can survive a battle where the other side has air superiority. The lethality of modern weapon systems is just too much.

But that is, as I said before, from a purely military point of view.

Politically, it could not be done. The US does not have the will or support to conquer Iran. An occupation would be significantly worse than Iraq, and embolden suicide attacks throughout the world. We would have even less of a chance of creating a stable government in Iran.

-- Ravensfire

 

[GinandTonic]

Iran would fair a bit better, but not much. The US would quickly achieve air superiority, and that would be the end of conflict. No modern military can survive a battle where the other side has air superiority. The lethality of modern weapon systems is just too much.

But that is, as I said before, from a purely military point of view.

Do you think you have enough boots to hold Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time?

Sure you can bomb it, but can occupy it?

 

[Theryman]

Interesting point Pasi. I wonder what would happen if state governors started announcing that they wanted independance from the united states.

Sorry, the states rights theory was put soundly to rest after the Civil War. There is zero chance of any state seceding, or attempting too, from America.

Why? Money. The federal government gives a lot of money to the states, which they would not get if they left.

 

[CaptainF]

I suppose the next logical step for GW Bush in his quest to inflict more of his faith-based nightmare on the USA is to institute the military draft.
There is no other way for the straining US Forces to cope. For the Republicans, it will serve to clear the streets of minorities and people they
find undesirable. The draft is a great way to get dissidents out of the way, or into jail if they protest. The draft will force Americans to support
the war even more, as it drops them between the teeth of being pragmatic or patriotic.

Few Americans want to be seen as no-loyal or traitors to the cause. Patriotism can be exploited.

The darft will make sure the youth are hardwired to obey and conform. The provision of expendable military drones is not the only benefit the draft gives, it also enables him to push his ideals onto the America's young men. I can see the draft perhaps helping with crime, but if the wars of the Bush regime get out of hand, then more and more people will be grabbed from jobs and homes, forced to fight and die in wars that only serve to further the goals of Bush and his PNAC cronies. And what if the war drags on for years?

Imagine an expensive draft program that saps the youth and skills from the USA,
and an endless war against an fanatical enemy that descends into an eternal jihad.

Where that would leave the Western world?

Open to Asian domination, I would bet.

...

Sadly, I fear you may be right...

Draft comes 'round, and I'm fleeing to Canada, or Britain if it doesn't work out.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Ummm.... If you leave the ones in SK there you could easily send another 300 - 500k troops anywhere to fight. Logistically its very doable. Its the politics that get in the way. I've been to a military base or two over seas and even the AFB have plenty of army and marine stationed on the base. And Germany has the largest stationing of land troops out side the US, even bigger then SK. They are tank , infantry and mech.infantry units.

If you sent that kind of force to Iraq, the operation would last a whole of about one month, and that is even assuming you CAN send that many.

There are only 500,000 troops in the regular army. 180,000 marines. For any sort of extended operation, only about 1/3 of the army can be deployed in a war zone at one time. I am pretty sure the troops in Germany are involved in this rotation as it is. If you sent 500 thousand troops to the ME, the army would be screwed up, very quickly. You cannot stop-loss the entire freakin army.

EDIT: This is not like the First Gulf War, where it was not expected that the troops would be involved in a prolonged occupation, and thus you could send the bulk of the army without worrying about rotation, since they should all be coming home soon. This army is also much smaller.

 

[innonimatu]

stable[/I] Iraq that could be used as a reliable forward base.

That's the public talk. The one that replaced the WMD justification for the war. Any reason to believe this justification is any better than the previous one?

A stable Iraq would never allow american bases to be set up there. Even if it was run by another dictator placed in power by the US. Preventing that outcome (disbanding the iraqui security apparatus, that had survived the war phase more or less intact) was the very first action taken during the american occupation. The British had experienced with a puppet ruler, only to see him toppled. Saddam, a local-bred dictator, had proven to be an unreliable ally – too independent. No, a dictator wouldn’t guarantee those bases to the US.
And a democratic Iraq could never allow american bases in its territory, The american government was hated, distrusted, or both, by all the population, after the war and over a decade of bombings and economic sanctions. A democratic Iraq would also obviously be inclined towards an alliance with Iran. It’s impossible that this would be missed back in 2002, when the war was planned.
The only outcome allowing for permanent american bases in Iraq was a permanently unstable Iraq.

About the "promoting democracy" talk, just look at what's happening in Lebanon: a government supported by a minority of the people refuses elections, despite having lost parliamentary support and facing a very large general strike. And it is being supported by the US, and France - financially and logistically. Or look at Palestine and how democracy was thrown overboard after the wrong guys won... US planners never sought to “promote democracy” here (or elsewhere, anytime it was contrary to US interests) and there is no reason to believe they did so in Iraq. The propaganda about democracy was an excuse to attain other ends, as always.
Perhaps Paul Bremer in Iraq was stupid enough to believe the plans he was following were meant to create a stable and democratic Iraq (why use an actor when you can use a genuine idiot?). But who made those plans? Who would hire the likes of ex-Arthur Anderson consultants to plan for post-war Iraq? I would, if I was looking for a sure way to destroy Iraq, while publicly pretending to be only trying to help - and I would make sure the source of those post-war plans was not publicized… I just don’t buy it that this was only the product of stupidity. Bush plays the part of the idiot pretty well, but he has a whole administration doing the real work, and a lot of experienced, career officers to assist them.

The whole purpose of these wars was, first and foremost, denial or resources to competitors and, secondly, maintaining influence over the whole region. Iran doesn’t have to be occupied or even really invaded, destroying it is enough. By bombing power centres (political and military), then industries and infra-structure. Then keeping the pressure until central government in the country collapses, and slapping economic sanctions (together with occasional attacks) on a toothless enemy, like it was done to Iraq. That seems a likely plan, part of which was rehearsed in Lebanon recently – and failed!

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

@innonimatu. Taking chances with a democracy that may reject them is better than trying to mount an offensive from a place that itself requires massive garrisons. If the United States sent the bulk of its forces to Iran, there would be a vacuum in Iraq that would leave America's supply lines into Iran terribly exposed.

Let's put it this way, if the skeleton force that is left to garrison Iraq fails to maintain control over the supply lines, the entire US force at the Iranian front would be in jeopardy.

They would have to be completely freaking ******** to purposely cause chaos and havoc amongst their supply lines.

 

[ravensfire]

Do you think you have enough boots to hold Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time?

Sure you can bomb it, but can occupy it?

Did you read what I said?

No, the US cannot occupy Iran successfully. They can destroy it, but not conquer it. Politics takes over at occupation time, and the US will not (thankfully) take the measures that would be needed to occupy a hostile country.

-- Ravensfire

 

[BasketCase]

The question then becomes would blowing up Iran do America any good? Would it be worth loosing what allies they have left?

We blew up Iraq (at least, some in here would prefer to describe it that way). Lots of people were saying it would come back to bite us in the ass when the U.S. suddenly needed everybody else's help.

It didn't happen that way. When Katrina hit, the rest of the world forgot all about Iraq (temporarily) and volunteered help. As long as the rest of the developed world is stuck in Nice Guy mode, it's going to keep happening that way, and we aggressive Yankees have nothing to worry about.

Besides, we Yankees won't be acting alone when (or rather IF) the Final War against Iran begins. The entire planet (yes, even the UN) is mad at Iran right now.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Sorry, but I can't help to think back to all the 'doom and gloomers', who over the last few years have said Osama would be captured just before the elections, there would be a major terrorist attack (faked by the U.S. government) just before the elections and by now the U.S. would be a police-state (if you think it is now, then get your head out of the bong and wake up to reality), the US would be conquering the world and making Bush a dictator for life and the draft would be re-instated.

For all of the above scenarios, people said "Can't you see that it is going to happen! It's so obvious!"
I will give some of those people a point if they said the occupation of Iraq (not the invasion) would be a failure, but they lose a bazillion points for all those other 'prophecies' or predictions.

We don't have these crazy conspiracy crap posted every day anymore or have an article from the Guardian about some top-secret US government plans or bases or other 'evil-doings' by those 'evil capitalists' posted every other day like we used to.....Well, that was until the 'rasist' postings started up the last couple of weeks, then it was like living in 2002 all over again (only back then there was more people in support of the OP or conspiracy theories).

CFC OT has grown up since a few years ago. Time for some other people to catch up to the rest of us.

Conspiracy theorists need to realize these 3 things:
1. The world is not out to 'get you'.
2. Not every action has a hidden agenda behind it.
3. Not every event was caused by the person who benefitted from it.

 

[Steph]

IFew Americans want to be seen as no-loyal or traitors to the cause. Patriotism can be exploited.

When I read some comments here about the evil muslim and the God Blessed America, French bashing, basic anti communist propaganda, etc. I'm wondering if Patriotism is the correct word to use?

Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.

 

[zenspiderz]

Methinks you misread my comment.

No I understood your comment and I understand you differentiate between military and political chances of success. But still I think Iran has a better chance of defeating a US assault than you estimate. But either way until it happens (Hopefully it won't!!) neither of us really knows which way it will go.

From a purely military perspective, the US could defeat Iran. It's that simple.

Note I emphasise your use of the conditional tense. Perhaps that was unintentional. If not are you conceeding that Iran might just be able to defeat militarily the US in this much speculated attack?

The Iranian military does not have the training or equipment to stop the US military.

How much do you actually know about the Iranians military as it stands right now?

Look at the two contemporary examples - both of the Iraq wars. In both cases, Iraq KNEW the attack was coming. There was no tactical or strategic surprise. Iraq was considered a fairly modern force, with tanks, aircraft and heavy, heavy SAM systems. The end result - complete and utter destruction. In the second war, the US advanced far faster than even their wildest projections.

In the first Iraq war the Iraqi were under the impression that the US would not intervene in their attempt to annex Kuwait. So they were totally surprised when their former ally and supplier of arms turned on them. What is more most the the damage the US military did to the Iraqi forces occured AFTER Saddam agreed to withdraw from Kuwait when the US air forces bombed the **** out of the off gaurd retreating Iraqi army. This was the infamous 'Turkey shoot' caught by accident by a BBC camera crew. Actually if you are american you may not of heard of this as the US media often covers up this kind of thing.
In the 2nd Gulf war Iraq military was as weak as an anemic kitten before hostilities started; the Swiss Army's bicycle batallion could have successfully defeated them. Iran is not even remotely comparable.

Iran would fair a bit better, but not much. The US would quickly achieve air superiority, and that would be the end of conflict. No modern military can survive a battle where the other side has air superiority. The lethality of modern weapon systems is just too much.

But that is, as I said before, from a purely military point of view.

I am not so sure even the US airforce would have such a very easy time achieving air superiority. Even so as the Veitnese demostrated air superiority does not garauntee an easy victory or even a victory at all.

Politically, it could not be done. The US does not have the will or support to conquer Iran. An occupation would be significantly worse than Iraq, and embolden suicide attacks throughout the world. We would have even less of a chance of creating a stable government in Iran.

-- Ravensfire

Iran already has a stable government unless of course you are using the 'Newspeak' meaning of 'stable' which translates as 'servile'.

 

[SG-17]

we dont need to attack iran, we can incite a rebellion. the iranian youth like and supports western culture, they go to underground clubs that play western music, tv, ect, which is illegal in iran. if we could get the propaganda going we could get the youth to rise against their gov't and establish a western friendly gov't.

and i support any plan that bush puts forth

 

[JohnRM]

If we are going to attack Iran, it had better be just airstrikes. I can't imagine that our forces are capable of taking on an invasion of the country.

 

[ravensfire]

Note I emphasise your use of the conditional tense. Perhaps that was unintentional. If not are you conceeding that Iran might just be able to defeat militarily the US in this much speculated attack?

It would take a third party interceding. Iran, alone, could not defeat the US militarily.

How much do you actually know about the Iranians military as it stands right now?

There's a variety of websites with estimates on equipment, with some general agreement on most number of functional aircraft. Wikipedia is about as balanced as they come, but I consulted others. A quick google search for "Iranian Air Force" will get a lot of responses.

Of particular interest is the Iranian air forces and SAM forces. The general consensus is they have a small number of contemporary aircraft (MiG 29 and SU-27's), plus a variety of aged US aircraft (F4, F5, F14) that lack maintenance and parts. Oddly enough, Iran is currently the only country flying F-14 Tomcats. They do not have the sophisticated technology and training to manage an air battle in the manner the US does. That will ultimately spell the downfall of the Iranian aircraft. They will get some kills, but not many.

SAM's they have more, but nothing like what Iraq had. The majority of their systems are older generation missiles that pose little threat to US aircraft. They do have some current, high performance Soviet and Chinese weapons. Depending on the crew performance, this will get some kills.

Iran already has a stable government unless of course you are using the 'Newspeak' meaning of 'stable' which translates as 'servile'.

My comment referred to trying to create a stable government after conquering Iran. True - Iran currently does have a fairly stable, and reasonably democratic government. There are some rumblings of discontent, but that's true even here in the US.

I hope (and suspect) that nothing from the US will happen. China desperately needs oil, and will continue to use access to their technology and weapons to gain preferred access to Iranian resources. The US cannot stop this. The UN won't stop this.

Eventually, Israel will do something foolish, and be successful but not as successful as their strike on Iraq. This will be tacitly supported by the US. An already bad situation will deteriorate further, possibly leading to more overt actions against Iraq and Israel by Iran.

-- Ravensfire