Iran

[PhalanxPhlattener]

From iran i only see trouble. I believe that the us will invade iran if it doesn't cease its nuclear program.

[ErikinWest]

From iran i only see trouble. I believe that the us will invade iran if it doesn't cease its nuclear program.

I don't think that is possible without support from the rest of the world.

Erik

[PhalanxPhlattener]

how much support was given to us when we went into iraq.

[ErikinWest]

how much support was given to us when we went into iraq.

Iraq didn't have a competant military. And you kinda played your invade one country card.

Erik

[PhalanxPhlattener]

wat kind of military does iran hav its about equal to the army iraq had when we invaded them for a second time.

[ErikinWest]

wat kind of military does iran hav its about equal to the army iraq had when we invaded them for a second time.

Well Iran has a population of 67 million and a large amount of young people; a very large pool for soldiers. The army has fought a grueling 8 year war from '80 to '88. It has bought advanced SAM's from Russia. It has a radical and ferocious army, and I read, that at one point the Iranian army had more dead than wounded during its offensive. Their army fights to the last man.

Erik

[War Bringer]

I don't think that is possible without support from the rest of the world.

Erik

Anything is possible.

[Matty_P]

the USA could invade iran, yes. however i feel it would cause our military to be totally ridiculed. the iranians' resistance would be uncomparable to that of the iraqis'. it would be a certainty, that no matter the outcome of combat with the iranian army (which itself would be more difficult than the iraqis) the ensuing occupational tension would be unbearable. the USA does not have enough troops to operate and enforce an occupational army in both countries.

it would destabilize the region completely. the people would turn to extremism and the map of the middle east would likely change drastically.


...thats assuming the arab world, china, russia, and the EU dont get involved. any involvement would complicate the situation amazingly. it'd be WWIII. (period.)

[PhalanxPhlattener]

i agree

[Matty_P]

...anything is possible. how about relevant discussion?

[Keresztes]

[Ahiga]

If we could get the Sunni's to join us in some sort of Western/Sunni Jihsade (Jihad-crusade) against the shi'ites, I could see success.

[carl-the-conqueror]

if iran was to be invaded it would be started by saudi arabia, the other countries on the peninsular, and pakistan/afganistan would support them, but as the u.s./britain, would nvade is unlikely as they have iraq to maintain, and it is doubtful that the government would have enough popular support.

[rez]

On the notion of popular support:

I know many Persians who would love to see the U.S. or a coalition force invade Iran. As you all know the government is wildly unpopular as a brutal regime. As a citizen of Iran i can say that on occasion a quick invasion sometimes seems like a nice solution.

However every Iranian fears the sort of shambolic mess that Iraq has become. Furthermore the idea of civillian casualties and collateral damage on as large scale as iraq and Lebanon has inspired many freedom loving Iranians i know to say that they would actually take up arms against the invaders and defend their country, not the government they hate.

It is this that the invader must realise, even if the iranians hate their government with a passion they will still die to save their countrymen. Or at least thats what tell me. Again being a citizen i sometimes feel like them as well and that in the event of a disasterous U.S. invasion i would be in support of the Iranian military. And you all know how much I hate the Islamic republic.

This internal battle for the side of justice would ensue on a massive scale should an invasion occur. Many Iranians would end up fighting and dying against the coalition and for a government they hate.

That could be avoided if only a revolution could be instigated. International support and aid for such a goal would give an oppurtunity for an independantly organised democracy to arise and with a hundred years of friendship to the west who helped them.

A stable and free democratic ally in the middle east would be invaluable don't you think?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

If there's one thing many Middle Eastern militaries have in common it's an ever present trend of being totally defeated by Western armies (or armies using western equipment) whenever they try to fight them.

Please Oh lord tell me you aren't serious.

[Isnogood]

I know many Persians who would love to see the U.S. or a coalition force invade Iran.

Mostly those who currently are not in Iran.

That could be avoided if only a revolution could be instigated. International support and aid for such a goal would give an oppurtunity for an independantly organised democracy to arise and with a hundred years of friendship to the west who helped them.

The power of the regime is not based on the educated urban élite, but on the rural population, as you should well know.The Pasdaran so far has crushed any tiny sign of revolution and everyone who can afford it,leaves the country.

the US wouldn't invade and try to occupy Iran, it's primary objective would be the same as it was in '91: the complete destruction of Iranian forces on the open field.

Fact is, that a war against Iran would be more than the minor inconvenience for the american public, than is the "peace" in Iraq.Iran has many means to retaliate, they can use oil as a weapon, can destabilise the whole region (and therefore world economy) etc.

Here are some links I already posted in another thread:
Arsenal of Iranian Missiles:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/shahab-6.htm
Iran's chemical weapons:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/cw/
Iran's latest arms deal with Russia:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...xportaltop.html

Further risk:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/...,786992,00.html
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?...925-1060102.php

I don't say, the Iran would be able to beat the US militarily, but then, they don't have to.If the US' objective is to destroy Iran's capabilities to develop nuclear weapons, an air campaign won't be enough.If furthermore they do not establish a regime friendly to the US all the efforts are for naught and at best delay Iran's progress while strengthening their will and resolve to do so.

If there's one thing many Middle Eastern militaries have in common it's an ever present trend of being totally defeated by Western armies (or armies using western equipment) whenever they try to fight them.

Would explain, why the Islam does not cover a region from north africa to india, the crusades were completely succesful, Constantinople still is the jewel of christendom and the ottoman empire never existed...

Maybe you should check some colonial history as well, From Algeria to Khyber-pass...to revel some more in the glories of the ever-victorious western armies.

[caratacus]

Of all the countries in the Middle East Iran has the largest percentage of young people in its population. This important component of the poulation are hungry for change and have little sympathy or support for the Conservative minded Government there. The nuclear issue does two things for the Government, it enables a confrontational issue to be made with the West and therefore solidfies nationalistic sentiment behind them and secondly it is based an issue that some (not me) would equate with technological development and therefore advancement. Talk of invasion would only bring joy to the ears of Conservatives in Iran. I am baffled why the American administration has fallen headlong into this trap of diplomacy to the extent of referring to an Iranian problem rather than that of the Iranian Government. This situation also illustrates the complete weakness of the UN who have been completely ineffective in confronting the issue concerning the possible misuse of nuclear power to produce weapons. It seems to me that Russias offer to process the waste to be very good idea and would ensure that at least one of the existing nuclear powers can monitor any misuse that may occur. Why has this not been pursued further.

[PacSubCom]

The goal is regime change. This can only be accomplished by invasion. And invasion will be the end of the USA. Mark my words.

[Hub'ite]

The goal is regime change. This can only be accomplished by invasion. And invasion will be the end of the USA. Mark my words.

I know how much you would love that but no. Would you care to elaborate?

[boofhead]

Twice recently I have noticed Iranian diplomats smirking secretively & claiming they will be testing their 'own technologies'. First at the UN when the representative was talking about their nuclear programme & would be testing their own 'new' tech, and secondly when justifying their current large military exercises, which they claim are to demonstrate their strength against possible Israeli air-attacks and 'test new Iranian technologies'.

Obviously these diplomats have been directed to give the impression that Iran is not to be messed with technologically, and to imply that the arab world is having a resurgence of development/invention etc and that Iran is at the forefront of it, but honestly what could a society like Iran develop that western nations with hundreds of military/scientific companies competing for contracts with the best education systems in the world behind them do?

'Bulletproof turbans'? New lighter, more fashionable suicide vests? Comfier chairs for their nuclear scientists?

[Matty_P]

dont get me started about the 'uber' young people of iran.

they will make little difference. we CANNOT touch iran militarily, not while we still need oil. iran is too strong to be taken via anything reminiscent of persian gulf I or II. the situation is completely different.

i wish persia could be secularized. islam did nothing but ruin persia...the current regime in tehran is a testament to that.