Is War With Iran Our Best Option?

[Kubra]

Citation on which, that carriers are shitty or that other nations work on countermeasures?

Iran lacks the capability to attack and sink a US carrier. China could, but the Iranians...no. Swarms of small boats would be eaten for breakfast. Please explain exactly what weapons and tactics Iran could plausibly use to sink a US carrier.

That said, the idea that a CBG and a few marines would suffice to topple Iran is laughable. Iran is several times the size of Iraq, which took over 100,000 soldiers to conquer, and that number totally failed to secure the country and stop the insurgency early on. Invading Iran would take the better part of the US military plus an enormous commitment of money.

Did someone say swarms of small boats?
Here's an oldie but a goodie
http://cimsec.org/learning-curve-irania ... 02-2/11640

That aside, it's no secret that Iran is taking the same route as China and investing in road mobile anti-ship missiles, rather than investing in big conventional naval power. They're a far cheaper method of taking down far more expensive equipment. They went as far as building a mock-up USS Nimitz just for test firing.

[Vilatania]

I've been thinking about this subject. Now, before I say this I want to iterate that my stance is in favor of isolationism. I think we need to worry about our own state of affairs instead of worrying about who is killing who in some country on the other side of the planet.

But if we think it's our business to dictate what happens in other countries like Iran or Syria, then why don't we just invade every country we don't agree with and depose their governments. Invade North Korea, give it to the South Korea. Invade the entire middle east, give it to Israel so they can take care of their own damn selves. Invade Mexico so we can put a stop to the illegal immigrant debates. Let's take over Cuba while we're at it. Seriously, if we can't do all that then what the hell are we doing in Iran.

[Imperializt Russia]

[citation needed]

Citation on which, that carriers are shitty or that other nations work on countermeasures?

That carriers are shit.
Since that's one of the most wrong statements I've read in four years on this site.

[Roski]

Comparing it to wars we've won isn't quite fair to your point, is it

If you think we "won" Vietnam, you clearly need to do more reading on the subject.

I read Vietnam as Iraq, my bad

[Imperializt Russia]

Comparing it to wars we've won isn't quite fair to your point, is it

If you think we "won" Vietnam, you clearly need to do more reading on the subject.

America convincingly won the ground war and the air war in Vietnam.
They lost the war at home.

[The United States of The European Union]

We need to LEAVE the middle-east entirely. That is our best option.

That's the genocide option,

agreed.

[Roski]

I wouldn't assume that Iran will fight in a way that they know we'll win at.

Besides which, halfway decent conventional militaries pounding each other would probably result in higher losses than Americans are accustomed to.

It wouldn't be a good old fashioned war without a two-way meat grinder.
They don't necessarily have to meet US forces on its terms, but a combination of a relatively dedicated fighting force with equipment not all from the 70's that has been actively developing countermeasures to US tactics and equipment would result in a far more even war than we're likely to see in our lifetimes.

What's this whole bs about Iran defeating the US?
Iran is using heavily outdated equipment, and everything they are building is heavily outdated as well.

The only fearful thing I've seen is the RPG-29

T-72's with M60 suspension isn't that much of a threat to M1A2 TUSK. Or SEP. Or base model.

Iran's choice of infantry weapons are questionable, Iran's navy could be wiped out with a single carrier strike force, and said carrier strike force has 60+ advanced fighter jets, while Iran is using SU-24s, F-4s, F-5s, F-14, etc etc.

[-United Islamic Emirates-]

I'd say a war with Iran would be Islam's and The Arab's and MidEast's best option but not America or NATO's.

[Arkotania]

Afghanistan and Iraq should have taught America that a "conventional" victory is meaningless. Yes, we might easily beat Iran's military. However, we would also certainly just succesfully manage to destabilize an entire region. Syria is in civil war, Iraq is barely holding together, Yemen basically fell apart, Afghanistan is still a dangerous place and not exactly stable. We break Iran and we'll probably complete a trail sctretching from Syria to Afghanistan where insurgents and terrorists run around uncontrolled.

I'm surprised a scholar of foreign policy blatantly fails to recognize how everytime the US gets involved, the situation gets worse. Even Egyptians arent big fans because of how the US was basically supporting both sides (Brotherhood as well as opposition). Conventional warfare is meaningless in the Middle East. Defeating the "enemy" doesnt magically stop them. It didnt work in Vietnam, and it still doesnt work.

Perhaps these neo-cons should be on the frontlines to see how war really looks insead of urging that war is best option, then sending people to fight and die. Just like those who never experienced war think its glamorous, politicians who never see war don't seem to realize just how nasty the option of war can get.

[Earl of Sandwich IV]

Afghanistan and Iraq should have taught America that a "conventional" victory is meaningless. Yes, we might easily beat Iran's military. However, we would also certainly just succesfully manage to destabilize an entire region. Syria is in civil war, Iraq is barely holding together, Yemen basically fell apart, Afghanistan is still a dangerous place and not exactly stable. We break Iran and we'll probably complete a trail sctretching from Syria to Afghanistan where insurgents and terrorists run around uncontrolled.

I'm surprised a scholar of foreign policy blatantly fails to recognize how everytime the US gets involved, the situation gets worse. Even Egyptians arent big fans because of how the US was basically supporting both sides (Brotherhood as well as opposition). Conventional warfare is meaningless in the Middle East. Defeating the "enemy" doesnt magically stop them. It didnt work in Vietnam, and it still doesnt work.

Perhaps these neo-cons should be on the frontlines to see how war really looks insead of urging that war is best option, then sending people to fight and die. Just like those who never experienced war think its glamorous, politicians who never see war don't seem to realize just how nasty the option of war can get.

Afghanistan is in a better position than it ever was and a million times better of than during the taliban. Syria has descended into chaos because we DIDN'T intervene. Iraq is destabilizied because we didn't intervene in Syria. Kurds are better of than ever. It worked all pretty good if you ask me, except when we listened to people like you.

I'm pretty sure many neo-cons like McCain have experienced war, unlike you.

[Aeyariss]

Where a neo-con writer insists that invading Iran is a far better idea than sanctions and diplomacy. Said writer insists it wouldn't even be that hard. Just a little aerial campaign to bomb their reactors and associated infrastructure. A cakewalk if you will...

What do you people think? Good idea or not? Should I start training for the draft?

I think you should prepare for draft, and brush up on your Mandarin while you're at it. Those chickenhawks neo-con is going to be the end of America as a super power if they keep thinking they can simply use military might while ignoring other considerations. When are they going to realize half the world is anti-America already, and they want to have another war with Iran while Iraq and Afghanistan remained a clusterfuck. I think not.

Iran's military isn't super-advanced either, a carrier strike group with a bit of marines could handle the nation perfectly.

Conventional war, sure, no doubt US can win. But looks like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan hasn't teach Americans anything about post-war insurgency and 4GW. A carrier strike group, and a bit of marines? Right.

[Arkotania]

Yes. I have indeed become death, destroyer of worlds.

Afghanistan is obviously a million times better being one of the most corupt governments in the world. Oh and taking down Saddam, a cruel tyrant but also a key figure in keeping crazy terrorists from roaming free, was definitely a victory of freedom and democracy. Syria has descended into chaos because the US initially believed Assad was a "reformer" and would do the right thing (despite being something along the lines of president for life) even when abusing the rights of peaceful protestors.

[Kubra]

That carriers are shit.
Since that's one of the most wrong statements I've read in four years on this site.

I've elsewhere cited the 2002 Millennium Challenge and the continued development of cheaper and more sophisticated ASBM's.

If existing carriers have any use, it's against countries that can't afford countermeasures, putting their usefulness in the same category as the A-10 you dislike.
That's not to say the concept of a flatbed naval craft for use as a platform for launching and retrieving aircraft isn't viable, but the ones I've got in mind aren't called aircraft carriers, they're called amphibious assault ships. If the F-35B functions as intended, I see no reason they can't (or, if existing amphibs are inadequate, built-for-purpose light carriers) replace the supercarrier.

What's this whole bs about Iran defeating the US?
Iran is using heavily outdated equipment, and everything they are building is heavily outdated as well.

The only fearful thing I've seen is the RPG-29

T-72's with M60 suspension isn't that much of a threat to M1A2 TUSK. Or SEP. Or base model.

Iran's choice of infantry weapons are questionable, Iran's navy could be wiped out with a single carrier strike force, and said carrier strike force has 60+ advanced fighter jets, while Iran is using SU-24s, F-4s, F-5s, F-14, etc etc.

Defeat? Definitely not in the conventional sense. By all accounts Iran would lose, but it wouldn't be a totally one sided loss. But it would be a hell of a war, the movies about it would be heart pounding thrillers where every shootout means a couple characters dying, rather than the slow moving drama of movies like The Hurt Locker or that horrible looking upcoming movie on drones.

"the only fearful thing I've seen is the RPG-29"
understatement of the year. If it were so that the RPG-29 was the only thing Iran had going for it In a region awash with dinky little RPG-7's, we tend to forget the threat of other more advanced anti-tank equipment, like that or the Kornet. Used properly, they're a considerable threat to even those overprotective Merkava's, and of all existing forces in the Middle East that the US is likely to go to war or has gone to war with the Iranians have more of both.
We may even go so far as to discount the Iran's air and armour capabilities, it's unlikely that even Iran itself thinks very highly of its ability to use either. What makes Iran unique as a military is its doctrine of combining above-average technology (outdated, yes, but not nearly as heavily as comparable forces) with an asymmetrical mindset, like the idea of combining remote controlled drones with simple suicide attacks (I'd be very interested in seeing how that system will hold up in actual combat).
And I really don't see where you get off knocking Iran's choice of small arms and man portable systems. They're not cutting edge, but they're not strela-2's and handmade AK's.

[Earl of Sandwich IV]

Yes. I have indeed become death, destroyer of worlds.

Afghanistan is obviously a million times better being one of the most corupt governments in the world. Oh and taking down Saddam, a cruel tyrant but also a key figure in keeping crazy terrorists from roaming free, was definitely a victory of freedom and democracy. Syria has descended into chaos because the US initially believed Assad was a "reformer" and would do the right thing (despite being something along the lines of president for life) even when abusing the rights of peaceful protestors.

You honestly want to argue Afghanistan 2015 isn't better of than during the taliban era? Go ahead. Going to be funny.
Oh, and in case you didn't know, Saddam was a major sponsor of international terrorism.

[Uawc]

War is never the best option, but sometimes it is the only option. In this context, it is certainly not.

America should focus on getting its political and economic shit together before anything else.

[-United Islamic Emirates-]

War is never the best option, but sometimes it is the only option. In this context, it is certainly not.

America should focus on getting its political and economic shit together before anything else.

Iran and the rest of the middle east and Islamic world is not America's war or job this is Islam's war and the Arab's job. America for too long has been sticking it's nose where it dose not belong. Iran should be delt with by local forces such as the Ahwazi Rebellion and Harakat Ansar Fi Balouchistan.

[Arkotania]

Iran also has something of a terrain advantage. Fighting in mountainous terrain tends to make the lives of the attackers far more difficult. Even with air support, if they got tunnels and bases built into the terrain, you aren't going to easily find them and shake em. With Iran's experience in asymmetric warfare, considering how they pretty much train many of the Shia militias and terrorists, does give them the ability to become a difficult pain to deal with even if you conquer their territory.

Id personally hate for the historic sites in Iran to get damaged or destroyed though. They've got quite a history in that region.

[-United Islamic Emirates-]

Iran also has something of a terrain advantage. Fighting in mountainous terrain tends to make the lives of the attackers far more difficult. Even with air support, if they got tunnels and bases built into the terrain, you aren't going to easily find them and shake em. With Iran's experience in asymmetric warfare, considering how they pretty much train many of the Shia militias and terrorists, does give them the ability to become a difficult pain to deal with even if you conquer their territory.

Id personally hate for the historic sites in Iran to get damaged or destroyed though. They've got quite a history in that region.

Not nessicarly because Harakat Ansar uses the same tactics against them as do other armed anti-Ayatollah Islamic resisistances within Iran such as the Ahwaz and Baluchi rebels using IED tactics,Sucide bombers,and general guerilla warfare, I saw a video of an IED attack and sniper ambush on IRGC forcing them to retreat. Because the militias used the very tactis you just described through the hills and mountains.

[Arkotania]

Yes. I have indeed become death, destroyer of worlds.

Afghanistan is obviously a million times better being one of the most corupt governments in the world. Oh and taking down Saddam, a cruel tyrant but also a key figure in keeping crazy terrorists from roaming free, was definitely a victory of freedom and democracy. Syria has descended into chaos because the US initially believed Assad was a "reformer" and would do the right thing (despite being something along the lines of president for life) even when abusing the rights of peaceful protestors.

You honestly want to argue Afghanistan 2015 isn't better of than during the taliban era? Go ahead. Going to be funny.
Oh, and in case you didn't know, Saddam was a major sponsor of international terrorism.

So are a bunch of our "allies" like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. I don't see us knocking down their doors.

[Kubra]

Iran also has something of a terrain advantage. Fighting in mountainous terrain tends to make the lives of the attackers far more difficult. Even with air support, if they got tunnels and bases built into the terrain, you aren't going to easily find them and shake em. With Iran's experience in asymmetric warfare, considering how they pretty much train many of the Shia militias and terrorists, does give them the ability to become a difficult pain to deal with even if you conquer their territory.

Id personally hate for the historic sites in Iran to get damaged or destroyed though. They've got quite a history in that region.

Not nessicarly because Harakat Ansar uses the same tactics against them as do other armed anti-Ayatollah Islamic resisistances within Iran such as the Ahwaz and Baluchi rebels using IED tactics,Sucide bombers,and general guerilla warfare, I saw a video of an IED attack and sniper ambush on IRGC forcing them to retreat. Because the militias used the very tactis you just described through the hills and mountains.

So who's got the higher kill count, the Iranians or the opposition?

Yes. I have indeed become death, destroyer of worlds.

Afghanistan is obviously a million times better being one of the most corupt governments in the world. Oh and taking down Saddam, a cruel tyrant but also a key figure in keeping crazy terrorists from roaming free, was definitely a victory of freedom and democracy. Syria has descended into chaos because the US initially believed Assad was a "reformer" and would do the right thing (despite being something along the lines of president for life) even when abusing the rights of peaceful protestors.

You honestly want to argue Afghanistan 2015 isn't better of than during the taliban era? Go ahead. Going to be funny.
Oh, and in case you didn't know, Saddam was a major sponsor of international terrorism.

Everyone in a position to fund politically convenient terrorism will do so, it's simply smart foreign policy.

[Earl of Sandwich IV]

You honestly want to argue Afghanistan 2015 isn't better of than during the taliban era? Go ahead. Going to be funny.
Oh, and in case you didn't know, Saddam was a major sponsor of international terrorism.

So are a bunch of our "allies" like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. I don't see us knocking down their doors.

The is no evidence that the saudi government sponsors terrorism, these are mostly private citizens. As matter of fact the saudi government is aware of the problem and trying to solve it, for example the saudi govenrment has enacted financial reforms intended to make private donations to ISIS and other terror organistations harder. There's a difference between state actors and private citizens.

[Page]

Hell, let's do it. Not that it's a good idea but because this country kind of deserves a new war that is going to send the economy crashing and burning and strip the US of its superpower status once and for all. And we can have lots of riots and molotov the 1% and have some fun with a world spiraling into anarchy.

[The Batorys]

Citation on which, that carriers are shitty or that other nations work on countermeasures?

Iran lacks the capability to attack and sink a US carrier. China could, but the Iranians...no. Swarms of small boats would be eaten for breakfast. Please explain exactly what weapons and tactics Iran could plausibly use to sink a US carrier.

That said, the idea that a CBG and a few marines would suffice to topple Iran is laughable. Iran is several times the size of Iraq, which took over 100,000 soldiers to conquer, and that number totally failed to secure the country and stop the insurgency early on. Invading Iran would take the better part of the US military plus an enormous commitment of money.

Indeed. Not to mention that Iran's military is in better shape than Iraq's was in 2003, and likely has much better morale and stronger loyalty to their government.

[Myrensis]

Afghanistan is in a better position than it ever was and a million times better of than during the taliban. Syria has descended into chaos because we DIDN'T intervene. Iraq is destabilizied because we didn't intervene in Syria. Kurds are better of than ever. It worked all pretty good if you ask me, except when we listened to people like you.

Yeah, I mean, it's been 4 entire days since a woman was beaten to death and set on fire in Kabul for supposedly desecrating the Koran, Disney is going to be breaking ground on a new theme park any day now!

Intervene for who? The 'good rebels', like the ones McCain had his little photo op with, only for it to turn out that some of his friends had a thing for sectarian kidnapping? I know, we just forgot to remind them to wear their clearly marked name tags saying "Hi! I'm Terrorist Achmed" or "Hi! I'm good guy Hakim!".

Yeah, no, a halfway competent government or military doesn't lose control of half it's country in a couple of months due to 'instability' elsewhere. Iraq is 'destabilized' because the neocons drank their own kool-aid and thought that after being welcomed as liberators we could just wave a hand and Iraq would blossom into a full-fledged stable popular democracy. Surprise surprise, they were as wrong about that as they were about everything else.

About the only accurate thing in your list is that the Kurds are better off, but that's primarily because at this point they're de facto independent, so much for unified stable Iraq.

I'm pretty sure many neo-cons like McCain have experienced war, unlike you.

"I fought in a war against completely different people in a completely different part of the world for completely different reasons 40 years ago." doesn't actually mean McCain has any special insight into..anything. His recent track record hasn't been that great. Iraq was going to be easy because Sunni's and Shi'as have always gotten along splendidly, Secular Democratic Syrian Rebels are color coded for our convenience, we won Afghanistan back in 2005, the following 10 years has just been an extended vacation for our troops there, etc.

[The Batorys]

So are a bunch of our "allies" like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. I don't see us knocking down their doors.

The is no evidence that the saudi government sponsors terrorism, these are mostly private citizens. As matter of fact the saudi government is aware of the problem and trying to solve it, for example the saudi govenrment has enacted financial reforms intended to make private donations to ISIS and other terror organistations harder. There's a difference between state actors and private citizens.

Basically every terrorist group in the region is bankrolled at least partly by the Saudis.

Where do you think the initial startup funds for ISIS/ISIL came from? Are you really that naive?