You are the leader of Iran...

[Sparta]

You are completely unable to strike back at the US naval assets pounding your country, or the planes dropping the bombs on you.

Just as an aside, here is a [likely highly biased, yet still interesting] article regarding Iranian ambitions with respect to the Russian Sunburn supersonic anti-ship missile. I have no idea if the info presented is reasonably legitimate or not; it was just something I had stumbled onto long ago and found somewhat interesting, and I thought you might find some of it interesting as well.

Even if we disregard some of the more outrageous claims of the article, I think a case could still be made for the Iranians making an effort to 'claim' parts of the Persian Gulf by controlling the Straits of Hormuz via anti-ship missiles launched from mobile missile launchers. I suppose that would fall apart if/once the ground occupation reached those areas though.

Anyway; I just wanted to throw that in, in case anyone was interested. There seem to be some very solid ideas here already. If anything, I would just try to replicate the Iraqi insurgency idea of just not losing, rather than attempting to somehow win stand-up battles. You don't have to fight a conventional war with a superior army if you are willing to let them enter your turf before stepping up your resistance. Guerrilla tactics could prove superior to committing large amounts of resources in one place against an enemy who can outproduce you.

Oh yeah, and kudos on the interesting conversational query!

 

[Little Raven]

But remeber how shocked we were at Hezbollahs missile capability? What reason do we have to doubt that Iran has some significant surprises in store for us as well in the missile department?

We were surprised at how many they had, not at how accurate they were. Hezbollah couldn't hit the broad side of a barn...and they were only shooting a few dozen miles. The Baghdad is over 100 miles from the Iranian border. I don't doubt they could hit it, but they couldn't hit a particular zone or building. And given that Iran will have a whole lot of friends in Baghdad should we start bombing them, it doesn't make any sense to start randomly putting missiles into the city. Hit the wrong mosque and all of sudden you've alienated a huge and very friendly militia.

 

[nonconformist]

We've got the world's fastest torpedo, we'll damn well use them.
Try to inflict a crippling blow on the US fleet, using whatever means necessary, including suicide aircraft.

Have the Revolutionary guard, and other special forces cross over into Iraq, join up with the Mahdi Army and other Shia mil;itant groups, and fight, ununiformed, a guerilla war of resitance against US troops Iraq; full blown war there will soon rack up US casualties.

Have them capture US troops, take them back to Tehran, and do the whole parade on TV style thing.

Have all Muslim countries in the Middle East try to form some sort of attack on Isarel; Hizbollah will be all to happy, as I suppose Hamas will.

Take the war to America; the answer is bombings on Ameircan soil, and lots of it.

What we're scoring for isn't a miltiary win, it's Vietnam all over again. Demoralsiation at home is the key.

 

[IglooDame]

Has there ever been an effective sleeper agent? Ever? I'm not aware of any...

Depends on the definition. Were any of the 19 9/11/01 hijackers sleeper agents?

I considered attacking Saudi production, but decided against it at least until it was clear that an invasion was coming. I think the government of Iran could survive a Shock and Awe campaign, and thus as the leader of that government, I wouldn’t want to do something that drastic because I’m going to have rebuild my country when the bombs stop, and that’s going to be a lot easier if I’m not seen as the aggressor.

Now, if it’s clear that US isn’t going to stop until I’m dead, the situation changes.

Obviously sinking tankers and stopping your own oil production is going to send fairly large economic shockwaves throughout the world. I'd think further exposing that weakness (while looking like the aggressor) would further force uninvolved powers' hands, and/or force the US to reconsider. Has the US doing its "empty the arsenal routine" on anyone ever resulted in economic ramifications outside the borders of the target country?

I'd add (thinking of it) that assisting Nigerian rebels and of course promising President Chavez anything he wants to restrict production in the US would also be a good idea.

At what oil price per barrel does the US have to (or truly get forced to) back down?

 

[Little Raven]

You mean besides 9/11?

The 9-11 hijackers were hardly sleeper agents. They received regular payments from abroad, they travelled abroad often, and made no real attempt to integrate into American life. Granted, we weren't very good about putting two and two together, but that doesn't make them sleeper agents.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Sparta, whoah, talk about missile surprises. First Ive heard of the Sunburn. If the Iranians have got those, we could be out a couple of aircraft carriers.

The 9-11 hijackers were hardly sleeper agents. They received regular payments from abroad, they travelled abroad often, and made no real attempt to integrate into American life. Granted, we weren't very good about putting two and two together, but that doesn't make them sleeper agents.

Whatever we want to call them, if Iran already has some teams like that already in place, this coming war with Iran could be the first war we finally experience here in the homeland, first hand (aside from the 9/11 sneak attack).

 

[Little Raven]

Obviously sinking tankers and stopping your own oil production is going to send fairly large economic shockwaves throughout the world.

Well, it's pretty obvious that my own oil production is going to stop while my ships and planes are being blown into dust. I don't think anyone will hold that against me. Sinking tankers is a bit more on the agressive side, granted, but they will be close by and I can somewhat credibly claim fog of war. (Plus, tankers have relatively few crew on board, so I won't be racking up much of a body count.)

It's true that attempting to further limit the supply by attacking Saudi Arabia would highten pressure on the oil supply still further, but at a considerable price. It pretty clearly shifts me from being a defender to an attacker, and let's face it...if I'm gonna win this, I'm gonna need sympathy points. (again, this is assuming a situation in which the aim of the US is not to destroy my government. If they're committed to my destruction, then I've got nothing to lose.)

At what oil price per barrel does the US have to (or truly get forced to) back down?

Depends on who you ask. I would argue that realistically, we're pretty darn close to that point already, but if you assume a truly insane President, we could go pretty high. The Strategic Reserve holds what...700 million barrels or so? That won't run the country for more than a week or so, but if you're willing to direct it all to strictly military needs it could go quite a bit further.

 

[IglooDame]

Just as an aside, here is a [likely highly biased, yet still interesting] article regarding Iranian ambitions with respect to the Russian Sunburn supersonic anti-ship missile. I have no idea if the info presented is reasonably legitimate or not; it was just something I had stumbled onto long ago and found somewhat interesting, and I thought you might find some of it interesting as well.

Even if we disregard some of the more outrageous claims of the article, I think a case could still be made for the Iranians making an effort to 'claim' parts of the Persian Gulf by controlling the Straits of Hormuz via anti-ship missiles launched from mobile missile launchers. I suppose that would fall apart if/once the ground occupation reached those areas though.

Anyway; I just wanted to throw that in, in case anyone was interested. There seem to be some very solid ideas here already. If anything, I would just try to replicate the Iraqi insurgency idea of just not losing, rather than attempting to somehow win stand-up battles. You don't have to fight a conventional war with a superior army if you are willing to let them enter your turf before stepping up your resistance. Guerrilla tactics could prove superior to committing large amounts of resources in one place against an enemy who can outproduce you.

Oh yeah, and kudos on the interesting conversational query!

The Iranians would not need Sunburn to close the Strait. Given the narrowness of that waterway and the close proximity on three sides to Iranian turf, the US Navy would take serious losses in trying to keep it open.

We were surprised at how many they had, not at how accurate they were. Hezbollah couldn't hit the broad side of a barn...and they were only shooting a few dozen miles. The Baghdad is over 100 miles from the Iranian border. I don't doubt they could hit it, but they couldn't hit a particular zone or building. And given that Iran will have a whole lot of friends in Baghdad should we start bombing them, it doesn't make any sense to start randomly putting missiles into the city. Hit the wrong mosque and all of sudden you've alienated a huge and very friendly militia.

Why would you need to do that? Just blame it on the US or Sunni Iraqis or something.

 

[Little Raven]

Why would you need to do that? Just blame it on the US or Sunni Iraqis or something.

Granted, that would give you pretty good cover, but it's still a waste of good missiles. The odds of hitting any significant American assets are almost nil. It would be like trying to shoot the needles in a haystack. If there are any American bases relatively close to the border, it would make sense to aim at those, but we tend to build those away from cities for some reason....

 

[IglooDame]

Well, it's pretty obvious that my own oil production is going to stop while my ships and planes are being blown into dust. I don't think anyone will hold that against me. Sinking tankers is a bit more on the agressive side, granted, but they will be close by and I can somewhat credibly claim fog of war. (Plus, tankers have relatively few crew on board, so I won't be racking up much of a body count.)

It's true that attempting to further limit the supply by attacking Saudi Arabia would highten pressure on the oil supply still further, but at a considerable price. It pretty clearly shifts me from being a defender to an attacker, and let's face it...if I'm gonna win this, I'm gonna need sympathy points. (again, this is assuming a situation in which the aim of the US is not to destroy my government. If they're committed to my destruction, then I've got nothing to lose.)Depends on who you ask. I would argue that realistically, we're pretty darn close to that point already, but if you assume a truly insane President, we could go pretty high. The Strategic Reserve holds what...700 million barrels or so? That won't run the country for more than a week or so, but if you're willing to direct it all to strictly military needs it could go quite a bit further.

I guess I'm operating under the assumption that the US is pursuing regime change. If I haven't invaded anyone lately, what other reason do they have to shockn'awe me? To get me to back down off my nuclear ambitions? Yeah right...

And sympathy doesn't do jack to make China, India, Russia, or the EU push back on the US. Holding their economic balls in my fist does. I'm not being all that sympathetic in holding British sailors hostage, and you don't see the EU doing squat about it. If I show the capability to make OPEC dry up, you bet their GNPs they'll (privately) be screaming at the US, and maybe rattling their own sabers.

 

[Knowltok]

Why the suggestions for attacking the US at home? If your goal is to erode support, blowing up the mall down the street from me isn't a good idea. If the war is on the other side of the world and gas is $5 a gallon, I'm pissed at GW. If they blow up my friends and neighbors, I'll be buying war bonds and paying $10 a gallon with a smile. I'll also accept just about anything the military wants to do to Iran short of a nuke.

We don't think about it much, but we haven't seen what terror can truly be unleashed from the air. We talk about infrastructure and we mean power, some strategic bridges, communications, etc. What happens when an airforce moves on from there to starting hitting the arteries of food and water production, and doesn't stop?

As long as we are safe and secure in our homes here in the US, we will only tolerate so much civilian casualties. Start attacking us here, and you're likely to see a mindset that'll condone wholesale slaughter. It isn't pretty, and we don't want to think it about ourselves, but we aren't as civilized as we might like to think.

 

[Slaughter]

I would't go melee against the USA. My tatic would be hide my army, and use part of it on guerrila atempts. It's pretty easy for the USA to fight a army. But not guerillas. If they conquer my country, I would wait until they leave it, and take the power back.

 

[amadeus]

It'd be hopeless to stay and fight, so I'd load up my presidential aircraft with money and artificats from the national bank and whatever else of value that isn't nailed to the floor.

 

[Little Raven]

I guess I'm operating under the assumption that the US is pursuing regime change. If I haven't invaded anyone lately, what other reason do they have to shockn'awe me? To get me to back down off my nuclear ambitions? Yeah right...

Well, that's certainly the A-numero option among a certain crowd in Washington these days...

But under your assumption, yeah, blowing Ras Tanura to bits is about as effective as it gets.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

I would become best friends with the American media and use the internet to circulate videos of Americans bombing schools, hospitals, mosques, and dead children, headless women, that sort of thing. I would make vocal appeals in the UN (I wouldn't expect the UN to do anything but I want to cause a stir).

 

[cubsfan6506]

Call up my buddy kim jung sung get a nuke. Here comes the iranian mindset. Nuke Isreal.

 

[zenspiderz]

In real life Iran is tooled up with the unstoppable russian onyx (sunburn) ship killer. With these missile systems Iran can sink any ship large or small military or not in the persian gulf and straights of hormuz. So 1st thing I would do in the event of a US attack is would be to put as much of those shiny expensive US carriers and support ships to the bottom of the sea as I could. Probably quite a lot given the US does not yet (allegedly) have any effective counter to onyx. The battle would then be over. unfortunately Iran does not have nuclear weapons or ICBMs to deliver them so when washington finds out their fleet is decorating the sea floor I will have no deterrant to stop washington in a petulant rage launching its strategic nuclear ICBMs at my major cities and reducing Iran's population to a tiny percentage of its current 80 million. 'Duck and cover' boys and girls, 'duck and cover'.

 

[cubsfan6506]

Washington wouldn't nuke it. I imagine they would take out wherever they launch thes onyx from.

 

[Babbler]

...The United states has just begun bombing your cities, severing your infrastructure, and generally giving you the global superpower version of Israels Lebanese Hezbollah 'strategy'. Youre options are limted. You are completely unable to strike back at the US naval assets pounding your country, or the planes dropping the bombs on you. The only thing that you CAN do, is to attack US forces directly in Iraq. Would you do it? Or just take the beating from the US quietly?

And be "greeted" as "liberators"? No thanks.

edit: or a tactician? I always get strategy and tactics mixed up.

I think you are right.

 

[IglooDame]

In real life Iran is tooled up with the unstoppable russian onyx (sunburn) ship killer. With these missile systems Iran can sink any ship large or small military or not in the persian gulf and straights of hormuz. So 1st thing I would do in the event of a US attack is would be to put as much of those shiny expensive US carriers and support ships to the bottom of the sea as I could. Probably quite a lot given the US does not yet (allegedly) have any effective counter to onyx. The battle would then be over. unfortunately Iran does not have nuclear weapons or ICBMs to deliver them so when washington finds out their fleet is decorating the sea floor I will have no deterrant to stop washington in a petulant rage launching its strategic nuclear ICBMs at my major cities and reducing Iran's population to a tiny percentage of its current 80 million. 'Duck and cover' boys and girls, 'duck and cover'.

You think the US will leave their carriers in the Persian Gulf while attacking Iran? Further, you think American air power begins and ends with the USN?