Iran's conventinal military = ?

[Axeman]

If there is one thing we learned from the Iraq-Iran war : technology does not always win. Do not interpert this as a vision that the "evil americans" will be pushed into the sea in the event of a war with Iran , but its worth thinking about.

In the Iraq-Iran war the Basiij were mobilized , men without weapons that would simply run at machine gun nests : the new human wave tactics. Iran would win Phyricc victory after Phyricc victory, now lets look at the big picture?

Will the United States make massive progress? Yes
Will the United States ultimatley prevail in the event of a conventinal war against Iran?
Will the united States Dominate Sky and Sea unconditionally? Yes

But lets assume there is a swift victory like Iraq? Is that in the United State's best intrests? Would it not be better to let the Iranian's bleed themselves dry in the mountains and deserts against massed American firepower and superior American lojistics? A major problem America had in Iraq was the republican gaurd. They were routed from the field , not killed. Then we had 3 Divisions worth of well trained soldiers starting an insurgency with millions of potentinal volunteers. So the question is simple.

In the event of a war with Iran is it in the United States best interests to "bleed-white" the Iranians?

[Romulus_A]

There really is no difference in bleeding them dry, or simply letting them flee to fight them later. If you let them flee, then you'll only end up having to face them later, and if you fight them until their exhausted, then you'll more than likely have the same number of set-backs as you would if you had chosen to face them later.

Now if I was asked to choose between the two, I would pick a quick, and decisive victory. We've seen what happens when we have a slow-moving war with countries (ie. Japan, Vietnam). These types of wars tend to lead to conflicts that didn't even need to happen, had the process of ending the war been sped up.

[Giorgos]

Iran would easily fold before the US arms. The problem comes after the fall of Ahmadinejad's regime. If the US acts on par to what they've been doing in Iraq for the past few years, things will quickly turn nasty for them.

[Luger]

Iran would easily fold before the US arms. The problem comes after the fall of Ahmadinejad's regime. If the US acts on par to what they've been doing in Iraq for the past few years, things will quickly turn nasty for them.

Without support of the Iranian people, they shouldn't be there longer than a few months. Just begin with a naval/air blockade, thrash the conventional Iranian armed forces. And destroy everything nuclear and/or chemical. then commence a tactical retreat, and let them sort their own mess out.

[Giorgos]

That's not the way to win people over. That's the way the perfectly imitate GWB.

[Luger]

That's not the way to win people over. That's the way the perfectly imitate GWB.

Why would you win them over, that is irrealistic.
First attack a country, than occupy them for years, and in the end hope they are going to like you? That is GWB style.

If Iran is ever going to be a threat, than remove it and leave. Stay only if you have the mayor support of the Iranian people.
You can't liberate someone, who doesn't think he's occupied.
War is a dirty business, but sometimes unavoidable, best keep it short as possible.

[Sharrow]

The Iranians are a very proud peoples with a strong culture, that is far more then just Mullahs, violence and intolerance to them. The Regime is not popular (Understatement!) One way to make it popular would be to threaten to invade.

What would a legitimate causus belli for an attack on Iran?

Where would the resources come from?

The best strategy with respect to Iran is not to have to fight a war, or even mount airstrikes. Iran is no basket case, they have been quietly and not so quietly upgrading their defences via the Chinese and Russians. They would be no pushovers thats for sure.

Anyway, given the US hasn't the men, money or, I suspect will* to attack Iran and occupy it, even for a short space of time then I thknk this is a very academci question!

*OK, I know loads of wingnut chicken hawks not in the military will be cheerleading.

[Shi Huangdi]

Why would you win them over, that is irrealistic.
First attack a country, than occupy them for years, and in the end hope they are going to like you? That is GWB style.

If Iran is ever going to be a threat, than remove it and leave. Stay only if you have the mayor support of the Iranian people.
You can't liberate someone, who doesn't think he's occupied.
War is a dirty business, but sometimes unavoidable, best keep it short as possible.

The problem with that, though, is that if we let chaos take over rather than occupying, another Ahmadinejad-style regime is likely to come back to power. We would have to defeat Iran all over again. We can't just invade countries and leave power vacuums.

On the other hand, Islamic nations will be volatile regardless of what we do to "democratize" them. Perhaps you're right--we should just invade, get out, and let chaos run its course.

It's worthy of debate. What do you all think? Maybe Bush really did make a mistake, trying to "fix" Iraq--and maybe we shouldn't repeat that mistake in Iran. Or, if Bush was right to try to make a friend and ally out of Iraq, maybe we should do the same with Iran.

[Luger]

The problem with that, though, is that if we let chaos take over rather than occupying, another Ahmadinejad-style regime is likely to come back to power. We would have to defeat Iran all over again. We can't just invade countries and leave power vacuums. On the other hand, Islamic nations will be volatile regardless of what we do to "democratize" them. Perhaps you're right--we should just invade, get out, and let chaos run its course.

Well it isn't exactly clean, but it would save lives.
In addition after the US leaves, a Islamic coalition could try to bring order again. They much more accepted than foreign western troops, are less likely going to be seen as occupiers. But you will need to have this coalition before attacking, it is essential if a country is going to be a threat again.

It's worthy of debate. What do you all think? Maybe Bush really did make a mistake, trying to "fix" Iraq--and maybe we shouldn't repeat that mistake in Iran. Or, if Bush was right to try to make a friend and ally out of Iraq, maybe we should do the same with Iran.

Afterwards you can say Iraq is a mistake, the lack of mass destruction weapons, proves Iraq wasn't a real threat.
Fixing Iraq is a noble cause, though US politics underestemated the reaction of the Iraqi people. Even with the US present, the vacuum you speak off, still erupted. The difference is, all agression is directed at their former enemy and occupier the US.
If the US would have bailed out early, the second Baghdad was taken.
And a new Islamic peace and stabilization force, would have stepped in, then maybe...
Iran on the other hand could be dealt with without destroying the regime. You'd destroy their militairy capability so servere, that they would think twice, developing nuclear abilities again.

[Sphere]

I don't think people understand the government in Iran. The government is fully elected, though the elections are not "free" in the western sense. The Grand Iyatolla decides who can run for office and who cannot. At the start of the GWB administration, reformists where still in power, having been popularily elected and supported by the Iyatolla.

The reformists diplomatic feelers where regected by the GWB administration, this along with the Afghan and Iraq wars convinced the Iyatolla that the reformists had failed, and so they were removed from the ballot. The conservatives came to power as they had no opposition. However, the conservatives have run an inept government and their popular support is low.

So it is not like there is some despot running Iran. Ahmadinejad is a politician who is in power because the Iyatolla locked out the reformist parties who have more popular support. Most of what I read suggests Ahmadinejad doesn't have more than a few years left, before either his party, or the Iyatolla kicks him out.

[Serious Spamurai]

Only a small part of the Iraqi insurgency is only made up of ex-military, a very small part. Most Ba'athist insurgency died when Saddam's Fedayeen got broken up, a group dispersed amongst the populace prior to the invasion with the sole purpose of creating an insurgency, some minor insurgent groups were lucky and got ex-army to train people in the use of RPGs and SVDs, but they're few and far between. The majority of it is angry kids, that's why most of them shoot like they're at an arcade or something. Whatever way the US tackles it, there will be a substantial insurgency in Iran following the invasion.

[Sharrow]

For good examinations of how and why Iraq went horribly wrong I really recomend either:

Fiasco, by Thomas Ricks

or

The Assassins Gate, by George Packer

The documentary 'No End in Sight' is also worth checking out.

(Apologies if people have already)

[Axeman]

If America invades Iran one thing is for sure : it needs an exit strategy and an after-plan immediatley.

[The Noble Lord]

Hi,


It would be a huge mistake if US invades Iran. I mean that would be one of those doomsday scenarios. To the certain extent.
They are already having too many problems in Iraq and Afghanistan, but if they invade Iran that would be straight forward defeat for them.
You cannot invade a country of 70.4 million people with 2.500 year old history and heritage and expect to win.
Simple as that. Plus, speaking in all honesty I think that Americans dont have a stomach for prolonged warfare. Look at the Vietnam, Lebanon, Kosovo in 1999, and now Iraq and Afghanistan.
If Iran is invaded, then Shia in Iraq and Lebanon will start an uprising and the entire middle east will erupt in chaos.
And the prices of petrol will probably go to $200 a barell.
And for what?? For a group of cowards and string pullers like Rumsfeld, Cheney,Wollfovitz, Richard Pearl and others. The arhitects of Iraq war. They are the same group of people that wanna attack Iran now.
You will never see them on the battlefield, they will always be behind the scenes, pulling the strings and making the moves.
And killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and destroying countries.
Its a good thing that they are finally going to be defeated. Those COWARDS.



CHEERS

[roy34543]

If iran is attacked it will be done with airstrikes. They have little defense against anything that has countermeasures against primitive rockets (well theyre not really primitive, Theyre highly explosive, dangerous and could kill you in a second and are usually accurate. But theyre still primitive if theyre not what america uses today right?) and aircraft carriers could be brought easily enough. Not to mention that america could base its operations in Israel, Iraq (if they stay) or qatar.

[Luger]

If iran is attacked it will be done with airstrikes. They have little defense against anything that has countermeasures against primitive rockets (well theyre not really primitive, Theyre highly explosive, dangerous and could kill you in a second and are usually accurate. But theyre still primitive if theyre not what america uses today right?) and aircraft carriers could be brought easily enough. Not to mention that america could base its operations in Israel, Iraq (if they stay) or qatar.

Well you might reconsider that, they are getting some new AA hardware

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=173511

[czePowerslave]

Any comparing is just pointless. Iran cannot ever compare with military power of the US. However, political support and people in the US itself might be the biggest problems, plus Americans bringing their ways to ppl they "Free", its like changing hundred year of evolution within a day. Not possible.
and to topic conventional military - outunumbered, outgunned, and most important, technically INFERIOR they are. How good is anything against a level bomber?

[the_mango55]

I don't think occupation and nation building is in the plans for Iran.

IF America were to invade, they would go in, defeat the military of the nation, destroy any nuclear facilities they find, and then leave. They would probably leave the government intact (although severely wounded) to avoid even more international outcry over destroying a government and leaving the people to the wolves.

This would happen both quickly and relatively easily, and would prove to the world that America is still a juggernaut at conventional warfare.

[czePowerslave]

Might happen one day...question is shall we hope for or against it?

[Luger]

Might happen one day...question is shall we hope for or against it?

You can't hope for it, it means diplomay has failed and Iran threatenend the world.