Iran vs the US Thread

[Gormwood]

Let's create anarchies perfect for groups like Daesh to set up a base in. Nothing can go wrong.

Again I am not saying we do it for the lols.
Daesh is dead anyways and could not set up in Iran though.

ISIS announces new 'branch' in India after clashes in Kashmir

[Novus America]

Again I am not saying we do it for the lols.
Daesh is dead anyways and could not set up in Iran though.

ISIS announces new 'branch' in India after clashes in Kashmir

“A senior Jammu and Kashmir police officer has rejected the claim.”
A troll claim on the internet is not always true

But Iran is Shia. Obviously Sunni Daesh would not work in Iran.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Let's create anarchies perfect for groups like Daesh to set up a base in. Nothing can go wrong.

Again I am not saying we do it for the lols.
Daesh is dead anyways and could not set up in Iran though.

I strongly disagree with the idea that they're dead. Baghdadi is still running around coordinating things and they're still active. Sure they lost all their directly held territory but they still exist.

[Novus America]

Again I am not saying we do it for the lols.
Daesh is dead anyways and could not set up in Iran though.

I strongly disagree with the idea that they're dead. Baghdadi is still running around coordinating things and they're still active. Sure they lost all their directly held territory but they still exist.

Well as an major group and major threat they are. Some of them are still running around but they are not a major threat.

[Impaled Nazarene]

Iran learned from the Iraq War. They aren't going to make the same mistakes. They could turn it into the next Vietnam and I don't want to be conscripted into it. While I think Iran's government is a horrific abomination bombing the shit out of it isn't going to make it better. US track records for "installing Democracy" is a resounding: 0 Stable Democracies to Millions of Dead Civilians Killed By Corrupt And Extremist Governments installed By The US.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

US track records for "installing Democracy" is a resounding: 0 Stable Democracies to Millions of Dead Civilians Killed By Corrupt And Extremist Governments installed By The US.

Germany
Japan
South Korea

Three stable democracies installed by the US.

The Soviet union is the one you are thinking of.

[Impaled Nazarene]

US track records for "installing Democracy" is a resounding: 0 Stable Democracies to Millions of Dead Civilians Killed By Corrupt And Extremist Governments installed By The US.

Germany
Japan
South Korea

Three stable democracies installed by the US.

The Soviet union is the one you are thinking of.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, all of Central America, Chile and so forth.
If you think South Korea is a stable democracy the Military Junta that was backed by the US for decades would like a word with you.

[Gormwood]

US track records for "installing Democracy" is a resounding: 0 Stable Democracies to Millions of Dead Civilians Killed By Corrupt And Extremist Governments installed By The US.

Germany
Japan
South Korea

Three stable democracies installed by the US.

The Soviet union is the one you are thinking of.

South Korea was a military dictatorship for years, plus Germany and Japan was opposed by a coalition. Who's joining Murica in Operation Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran?

[Zhivotnoye]

That Russian support doesn't count for much. Russia isn't going to risk ww3 over Iran. As for chemical weapons, where exactly do you get that from?

They don't need to. Russia merely needs to supply weaponry much like the Americans did during the Soviet Afghan war.

As for chemical weapons

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_an ... al_weapons

Not to mention dirty bombs that they can easily manufacture.

It probably will supply weapons yes.

The link shows no sign of Iran having chemical weapons, only a U.S. accusation, but we know from experience how unreliable those are...

Oh we can beat Iran without any ground troops.
Not occupy it though.

Idk man, hasn't Iran been getting S-400's and whatnot? I might be mistaken but I could have sworn they were getting some pretty damn good triple A from Russia in recent years.

I believe Iran only got the S-300, and from what i've seen it seems that they have made copies of it (or at least tried to, it remains unclear what their stats are). Russia, at this point, limits quite a lot of exports to Iran because of security concerns (Mainly Israel and the fact that sometimes such weapons sold by the Russians end up with groups like Hezbollah). I have no doubt however that if the current situation continues Russia will become more willing to sell advanced weaponry to Iran.

Nevertheless it's hard to beat Iran without a land invasion. Some military and nuclear facilities cannot be destroyed without sending in forces as they're located deep underground.

[Nakena]

The best thing to happen to Iran would be a total and radical revolt against Islam itself, up to the point where they obliberate it themself from their Nation to the last.

But this cannot come from outside.

This would be best of course. But it unfortunately will not happen.

Islam is loosing traction there. And lets be real it is really the source of all the problems.

[Novus America]

This would be best of course. But it unfortunately will not happen.

Islam is loosing traction there. And lets be real it is really the source of all the problems.

I certainly hope it is loosing traction. But even so the regime has the population completely beat down and afraid.

Ideally they can rise up, toss the kleptomaniac Islamists in the trash bin of history and rebuild their once great civilization. But I am not holding my breath.

[Vetalia]

As of right now, people are not too happy with the current regim (ignore the shah lol). We would be able to take out the command and control facilities very quickly, and wipe out the RG. The most dangerous Iranian asset would be silkworms in the strait of Hormuz.

They might not be happy with the current Iranian government, but they sure as hell hate the US a lot more as every single problem they have faced is a direct result of this country sticking its nose in their affairs...and on top of that nothing unites people more than being invaded by a hated foreign power. Invading Iran would produce a backlash easily comparable to the Germans invading the USSR in 1941; the US would be invading a mostly landlocked, heavily mountainous country with no nearby allies to provide logistical support and direct connection to Russia via the Caspian Sea.

Look what happened when Saddam tried to invade Iran back in the 1980s, he commanded an army vastly superior in arms, training and equipment and a much stronger economy (and not to mention used chemical weapons) vs. a country reeling from the aftermath of its revolution and still couldn't beat them. Today, Iran has a population nearly 40 million higher than back then and a much larger economy than it did back then, along with a modernized, loyal armed forces.

This would be an utter bloodbath costing trillions of dollars and potentially hundreds of thousands of lives, which would achieve absolutely *nothing* other than to weaken the US, possibly irreparably.

[Vetalia]

Germany
Japan
South Korea

Three stable democracies installed by the US.

Germany and Japan were both democratic governments, or at least constitutional monarchies prior to WWII and had been for a long time. The US does deserve credit for preserving and rebuilding those institutions, however, especially while facing the very real nightmare of Soviet and Chinese Communist agitation. You could even add Iraq to the list as it is stable and democratic now that IS has been dismantled.

However, South Korea was an authoritarian state until quite recently but still orders of magnitude better than the hell inflicted by Communism on the countries in the Soviet and Chinese spheres. Nonetheless, it would not have been possible for it to exist and develop as it has without US protection.

[Novus America]

As of right now, people are not too happy with the current regim (ignore the shah lol). We would be able to take out the command and control facilities very quickly, and wipe out the RG. The most dangerous Iranian asset would be silkworms in the strait of Hormuz.

They might not be happy with the current Iranian government, but they sure as hell hate the US a lot more as every single problem they have faced is a direct result of this country sticking its nose in their affairs...and on top of that nothing unites people more than being invaded by a hated foreign power. Invading Iran would produce a backlash easily comparable to the Germans invading the USSR in 1941; the US would be invading a mostly landlocked, heavily mountainous country with no nearby allies to provide logistical support and direct connection to Russia via the Caspian Sea.

Look what happened when Saddam tried to invade Iran back in the 1980s, he commanded an army vastly superior in arms, training and equipment and a much stronger economy (and not to mention used chemical weapons) vs. a country reeling from the aftermath of its revolution and still couldn't beat them. Today, Iran has a population nearly 40 million higher than back then and a much larger economy than it did back then, along with a modernized, loyal armed forces.

This would be an utter bloodbath costing trillions of dollars and potentially hundreds of thousands of lives, which would achieve absolutely *nothing* other than to weaken the US, possibly irreparably.

You can beat a country without invading though.

[Aureumterra]

As of right now, people are not too happy with the current regim (ignore the shah lol). We would be able to take out the command and control facilities very quickly, and wipe out the RG. The most dangerous Iranian asset would be silkworms in the strait of Hormuz.

They might not be happy with the current Iranian government, but they sure as hell hate the US a lot more as every single problem they have faced is a direct result of this country sticking its nose in their affairs...and on top of that nothing unites people more than being invaded by a hated foreign power. Invading Iran would produce a backlash easily comparable to the Germans invading the USSR in 1941; the US would be invading a mostly landlocked, heavily mountainous country with no nearby allies to provide logistical support and direct connection to Russia via the Caspian Sea.

Look what happened when Saddam tried to invade Iran back in the 1980s, he commanded an army vastly superior in arms, training and equipment and a much stronger economy (and not to mention used chemical weapons) vs. a country reeling from the aftermath of its revolution and still couldn't beat them. Today, Iran has a population nearly 40 million higher than back then and a much larger economy than it did back then, along with a modernized, loyal armed forces.

This would be an utter bloodbath costing trillions of dollars and potentially hundreds of thousands of lives, which would achieve absolutely *nothing* other than to weaken the US, possibly irreparably.

The Iranain people want to get rid of the current government asap

[Sidesh0w B0b]

They might not be happy with the current Iranian government, but they sure as hell hate the US a lot more as every single problem they have faced is a direct result of this country sticking its nose in their affairs...and on top of that nothing unites people more than being invaded by a hated foreign power. Invading Iran would produce a backlash easily comparable to the Germans invading the USSR in 1941; the US would be invading a mostly landlocked, heavily mountainous country with no nearby allies to provide logistical support and direct connection to Russia via the Caspian Sea.

Look what happened when Saddam tried to invade Iran back in the 1980s, he commanded an army vastly superior in arms, training and equipment and a much stronger economy (and not to mention used chemical weapons) vs. a country reeling from the aftermath of its revolution and still couldn't beat them. Today, Iran has a population nearly 40 million higher than back then and a much larger economy than it did back then, along with a modernized, loyal armed forces.

This would be an utter bloodbath costing trillions of dollars and potentially hundreds of thousands of lives, which would achieve absolutely *nothing* other than to weaken the US, possibly irreparably.

You can beat a country without invading though.

What? Like cancel the olympics? Put a marine barracks in Lebanon? Maybe arm Al Qaeda? OTOH there's North Vietnam which was invaded and bombed, proving invading a 4th rate power isn't always a win either. .

Actually I am hoping this thread will shrivel up and die bc nothing more will happen on this topic. *prays*

[Nova Cyberia]

We should have destroyed Iran's economy when we had the chance.

[Novus America]

You can beat a country without invading though.

What? Like cancel the olympics? Put a marine barracks in Lebanon? Maybe arm Al Qaeda? OTOH there's North Vietnam which was invaded and bombed, proving invading a 4th rate power isn't always a win either. .

Actually I am hoping this thread will shrivel up and die bc nothing more will happen on this topic. *prays*

By destroying their government and military. We beat the Libyan regime without invading.

But yes, probably nothing comes of it anyways.

[Vetalia]

The Iranain people want to get rid of the current government asap

Then let them do it on their own! Do you seriously think the US would be welcomed by attacking the country and imposing yet another foreign-backed government on the country? It worked out so well the last two times.

[Vetalia]

By destroying their government and military. We beat the Libyan regime without invading.

But yes, probably nothing comes of it anyways.

Iran has a population 12 times that of Libya, a large economy and a well-armed, well-funded and loyal military and is a highly mountainous country that isn't a stone's throw away from Europe. And we can see what a brilliant success it was overthrowing Gaddafi in Libya, who knows what wonderful things would happen if the same happened in Iran?

[Novus America]

By destroying their government and military. We beat the Libyan regime without invading.

But yes, probably nothing comes of it anyways.

Iran has a population 12 times that of Libya, a large economy and a well-armed, well-funded and loyal military and is a highly mountainous country that isn't a stone's throw away from Europe. And we can see what a brilliant success it was overthrowing Gaddafi in Libya, who knows what wonderful things would happen if the same happened in Iran?

Its military is not that well equipped and it has a very inefficient command structure.
It is well prepared for unconventional warfare but that is why we would be stupid to try to fight them by invasion and occupation.

Did I ever say wonderful things would happen? Of course they would not.
I simply said we could win, I never said it would bring peace and happiness and whatever.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

The link shows no sign of Iran having chemical weapons, only a U.S. accusation, but we know from experience how unreliable those are...

"In 2016 Iranian chemists synthesised five Novichok nerve agents, originally developed in the Soviet Union, for analysis and produced detailed mass spectral data which was added to the OPCW Central Analytical Database."

They have openly proven to have developed chemical weapons 3 years ago. They currently openly have a stockpile of nuclear material to potentially create dirty bombs with. At best your argument is as speculative as my own. Regardless as I have already said it is unnacceptable to invade a nation over their weapons development. Oh and the US intelligence network was accurate in 2003 when it told the bush administration that Iraq likely had no wmd's, likely wasn't seeking any, and asked them to stop lying.

[Vetalia]

Its military is not that well equipped and it has a very inefficient command structure.
It is well prepared for unconventional warfare but that is why we would be stupid to try to fight them by invasion and occupation.

Did I ever say wonderful things would happen? Of course they would not.
I simply said we could win, I never said it would bring peace and happiness and whatever.

Much better equipped and commanded than Iraq's was in 1991 or 2003, though, and much more loyal.

That being said, we only "win" if we achieve a specific objective that benefits the US in the long term. As you describe it, all we would achieve is wasting huge amounts money and American lives while simultaneously strengthening the Iranian government as they rally the people of Iran (and plenty of neighboring countries) against an act of aggressive war from the now widely-hated United States, while also making the US look even more like a warmongering bully to the rest of the world than it already does. The intervention in Libya was a disaster big enough for a generation, we certainly don't need another one in that part of the world. By any measure, this is a loss.

Maybe we just don't do anything and let the Iranians be? Lift the sanctions and normalize relations and maybe then we can work on actually achieving peaceful regime change in Iran.

Israel has a powerful military and its own stockpile of nuclear weapons and can more than take care of itself if Iran tries to start anything, especially if we support them in the face of an attack by Iran.

[Novus America]

Its military is not that well equipped and it has a very inefficient command structure.
It is well prepared for unconventional warfare but that is why we would be stupid to try to fight them by invasion and occupation.

Did I ever say wonderful things would happen? Of course they would not.
I simply said we could win, I never said it would bring peace and happiness and whatever.

Much better equipped and commanded than Iraq's was in 1991 or 2003, though, and much more loyal.

That being said, we only "win" if we achieve a specific objective that benefits the US in the long term. As you describe it, all we would achieve is wasting huge amounts money and American lives while simultaneously strengthening the Iranian government as they rally the people of Iran (and plenty of neighboring countries) against an act of aggressive war from the now widely-hated United States, while also making the US look even more like a warmongering bully to the rest of the world than it already does. The intervention in Libya was a disaster big enough for a generation, we certainly don't need another one in that part of the world. By any measure, this is a loss.

Maybe we just don't do anything and let the Iranians be? Lift the sanctions and normalize relations and maybe then we can work on actually achieving peaceful regime change in Iran.

Israel has a powerful military and its own stockpile of nuclear weapons and can more than take care of itself if Iran tries to start anything, especially if we support them in the face of an attack by Iran.

If our objective is toppling the government we can achieve that.

But again I am NOT saying we launch an unprovoked attack.
Just we be prepared if they attack us or allies.
I am not sure why being prepared is controversial.

But lifting the sanctions and normalizing relations would make the regime STRONGER.
Why would we want to bow to the regime’s demands? Why give them anything for nothing in return? What will they give us

Best option is continue the status quo.

[Nakena]

Maybe we just don't do anything and let the Iranians be? Lift the sanctions and normalize relations and maybe then we can work on actually achieving peaceful regime change in Iran.

Iran doesnt wants normal relations. Besides, the only realistic option for that to happen is if the US withdraw entirely from the Middle East alltogether. Which might perhaps not be the worst option.