Iran vs the US Thread

[Rio Cana]

Wonder if a US - Iran war would set off a larger regional war. Russia does not want the US near Russian areas of influence. Then there is the fact that historically, Iran is the balance to Turkey. With Iran out of the picture would Turkey get brazen and invade Armenia which has important economic ties to Iran. Of course, this would set off the Russians. Would Azerbaijan, Turkeys ally, then invade the republic of Nagorno Karabakh.

Map of the region - https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/mapa-de ... 510235.jpg

[Vetalia]

A US-Iran War would be a catastrophe never before seen in American military history. It would be like invading mainland Japan in 1945 in terms of ferocity of opposition combined with unlimited aid from Russia and China. Just compare the populations of Iran and Iraq and the geography to get an idea of what would happen.

[Aclion]

No I mean a major war is the only way the democrats can avoid a pounding.

Um no. The democrats aren’t really going to get pounded if 2018 is anything to go by

replying in the US election thread to avoid a derail

[Thuzbekistan]

The idea of war with Iran is actually really frightening. we would be looking at tens of thousands of deaths, especially since everyone seems to underestimate the Iranians. The best way to act against Iran is through the U.N. and the United States needs to fully support the U.N.

[Scomagia]

And?

It’s not entirely unreasonable to believe that America may possibly intervene even if unprovoked.

Still baseless at this point though. It's possible but there's nothing indicating it to be true.

[Badb Catha]

I don't get it from anywhere; nothing I said was untrue.

*source: dude trust me*

You did not ask for a source, and I do not need a source for historical fact. The reign of the Shah was a prosperous time for Iran; the "revolutionaries" were always a minority. You can find this in any history book.

[Aureumterra]

I don't get it from anywhere; nothing I said was untrue.

*source: dude trust me*

Sure did seem like most people liked the Shah better

[Saiwania]

A US-Iran War would be a catastrophe never before seen in American military history. It would be like invading mainland Japan in 1945 in terms of ferocity of opposition combined with unlimited aid from Russia and China. Just compare the populations of Iran and Iraq and the geography to get an idea of what would happen.

Japan in 1945 was more bark than bite, the country was starving and rapidly running out of raw materials for small arms ammunition and industrial capabilities because Japan's infrastructure was completely wrecked. Like in Germany, they could only muster the equivalent of Volksturm for defense of the home islands. Their best army was routed in China by the Red Army and the Kuriles were quickly lost, with a ton of their military isolated throughout the Pacific with all of their supply lines cut.

Japan's geography was favorable for an insurgency if well armed enough but given their situation, I don't expect for anything that could be cobbled together to be all that effective. It'd be a repeat of the Okinawa campaign at best, where once the main line of defense was broken, the rest would have to retreat or capitulate because the best remaining units and resources were all used up or destroyed and no longer available for the field of battle.

An insurgency won't automatically win in that it needs outside support. People will run away or bide their time if the situation is too hopeless to salvage. North Korea and Vietnam at least had the benefit of Soviet and Chinese equipment and weaponry regularly going to them.

Iran's military is in far better shape, we can look to their performance against Iraq in the 1980s and apply any technological or economic progress Iran has made since then, to get a rough idea of what conflict with them will look like. What we know is that the US Navy easily wrecked Iran's during Operation Praying Mantis and some other minor engagements.

[Infected Mushroom]

A war on iran could prove to be a disaster.

Defeating the Iranian militayr may be a certainty but being able to convince the Iranian people/the subjects that the USA is there for the good of the country will be harder. The US might not be able to inspire any love or respect (only fear).

Also, if the USA is not careful and uses overwhelming force against Tehran or Iran as a whole, it may win a war only to become "King of the Ashes."

With the US' experience in places like Iraq and Afghanistan (but also with successes in Libya(qualified success?)), I think the track record shows that whenever the US starts one of these wars its essentially flipping a coin. I'm not sure the risks make sense.

[North German Realm]

A few points of Order.
1- Iran lacks a viable navy. Its main forces in the sea are kamikazi motorboats. They lack an actual, working navy with the large ships one assumes a navy should have. Given the type of defenses an aircraft carrier normally has, taking Hormuz and then the Persian Gulf isn't going to be hard.
2- A War with Iran doesn't need to be land-based. Hell, to make it more accurately it needs not to be land-based. Any land-based warfare in a country with as diverse a climate as Iran would be a doozy and -inevitably- costly like hell. On the other hand, the country's infrastructure is crumbling. Both military and civilian. There are more deaths by traffic accidents in the country than the number of casualties in Iraq, just to give you guys a hint. Military bases, a few exceptions aside, are firmly outside civilian zones, their defensive systems are so wack the last time they tried to hit something from home, the missiles fell onto a few border cities in Kermanshah. The myth that Iran's military is something impressive is just that. A myth.
3- Russia has shown time and time again this last 3 years that when push comes to shove, it won't back Iran. It hasn't backed Iran in Syria (where Israel keeps bombing their paramilitary stations), it hasn't backed Iran in Iraq (where the new president pretty much threw out all of the Iranian "advisers"). It hasn't backed Iran when it took over most of the rights to Khazar in a honestly-terrifyingly-similar way to how the Brits and Russians used to get concessions from the Qajar dynasty. If the US doesn't fuck this up? Russia (and friends) won't intervene.
4- The Iranian State is extremely unpopular now. It has been just unpopular throughout the last 12 years, except for a short period of two years after Rouhani got elected the first time. The Workers haven't been getting paid for more than 2 years now, there are strikes and protests happening everywhere. Some of them are pro-monarchy, some of them are republican, some of them are labor oriented. Everyone in the country has a reason to hate the government, including the fundamentalist Muslims; scratch that, especially the fundies.

[Spodehaven]

A US-Iran War would be a catastrophe never before seen in American military history. It would be like invading mainland Japan in 1945 in terms of ferocity of opposition combined with unlimited aid from Russia and China. Just compare the populations of Iran and Iraq and the geography to get an idea of what would happen.

Japan in 1945 was more bark than bite, the country was starving and rapidly running out of raw materials for small arms ammunition and industrial capabilities because Japan's infrastructure was completely wrecked. Like in Germany, they could only muster the equivalent of Volksturm for defense of the home islands. Their best army was routed in China by the Red Army and the Kuriles were quickly lost, with a ton of their military isolated throughout the Pacific with all of their supply lines cut.

Japan's geography was favorable for an insurgency if well armed enough but given their situation, I don't expect for anything that could be cobbled together to be all that effective. It'd be a repeat of the Okinawa campaign at best, where once the main line of defense was broken, the rest would have to retreat or capitulate because the best remaining units and resources were all used up or destroyed and no longer available for the field of battle.

An insurgency won't automatically win in that it needs outside support. People will run away or bide their time if the situation is too hopeless to salvage. North Korea and Vietnam at least had the benefit of Soviet and Chinese equipment and weaponry regularly going to them.

Iran's military is in far better shape, we can look to their performance against Iraq in the 1980s and apply any technological or economic progress Iran has made since then, to get a rough idea of what conflict with them will look like. What we know is that the US Navy easily wrecked Iran's during Operation Praying Mantis and some other minor engagements.

Yes but don't forget about The Millenium Challange where the US troops got crushed by "Insurgents" that looked like Iran. Of course, this was a war game but the whole cover-up is very sketchy.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

In terms of foreign policy, a war with Iran is probably the worst decision the Trump administration could possibly considering going through with.

[Neanderthaland]

In terms of foreign policy, a war with Iran is probably the worst decision the Trump administration could possibly considering going through with.

Oh my sweet summer child...

[Zhivotnoye]

*source: dude trust me*

You did not ask for a source, and I do not need a source for historical fact. The reign of the Shah was a prosperous time for Iran; the "revolutionaries" were always a minority. You can find this in any history book.

Nice joke.

*source: dude trust me*

Sure did seem like most people liked the Shah better

And what exactly in that article claims such a thing? Oh right, nothing.

[MeinKrafft]

And?

there is no genocide in Israel, rather, the Palestinians want to exterminate the Jews. In fact, they were openly supported by Hitler
https://www.ushmm.org/research/publicat ... -palestine

So were Jewish parties trying to move out of Germany and into what is now know as isreal. What's your point?

[Diopolis]

Wonder if a US - Iran war would set off a larger regional war. Russia does not want the US near Russian areas of influence. Then there is the fact that historically, Iran is the balance to Turkey. With Iran out of the picture would Turkey get brazen and invade Armenia which has important economic ties to Iran. Of course, this would set off the Russians. Would Azerbaijan, Turkeys ally, then invade the republic of Nagorno Karabakh.

Map of the region - https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/mapa-de ... 510235.jpg

Azerbaijan tries to invade Nagorno Karabakh whenever they think they can get away with it, so probably.

[Ostroeuropa]

A war with Iran can be won, it depends on the goals of the war and the amount of men and material we're prepared to expend.

Topple the government and GTFO?
Easily done, especially in cooperation with a grassroots uprising.

Fuck shit up and GTFO?
Even simpler.

Occupy the place and purge resistance?
...
Doable. Provided our will doesn't break after seeing boatloads of coffins return home.



Iran is not in a position to mount a defense against anything except an occupation and they know it, so they've put all their eggs into making occupation as bloody and difficult as possible.

A limited war with naval bombardment, air superiority, and occupation of only coastal towns and cities would be the most effective bang for buck kind of war, but if Iran refuses to capitulate and continues to fight from the hills and mountains then that occupation could last decades. Actually going in to the hills and mountains to root them out? That's where the coffins start coming home.

It'd doable in technical terms, just not political ones.

It will also radicalize the populace and the region, and especially radicalize the mountain regions if we resort to bombardments and starving the fighters out, since fighters eat before civilians do.

[Diopolis]

A war with Iran can be won, it depends on the goals of the war and the amount of men and material we're prepared to expend.

Topple the government and GTFO?
Easily done, especially in cooperation with a grassroots uprising.

Fuck shit up and GTFO?
Even simpler.

Occupy the place and purge resistance?
...

Doable. Provided our will doesn't break after seeing boatloads of coffins return home.

Rebuild a secular liberal democracy with the will of the local people? Not doable.

[Gormwood]

Welp, looks like Trump was right and Hillary did drag us into war...

[Zhivotnoye]

A few points of Order.
1- Iran lacks a viable navy. Its main forces in the sea are kamikazi motorboats. They lack an actual, working navy with the large ships one assumes a navy should have. Given the type of defenses an aircraft carrier normally has, taking Hormuz and then the Persian Gulf isn't going to be hard.
2- A War with Iran doesn't need to be land-based. Hell, to make it more accurately it needs not to be land-based. Any land-based warfare in a country with as diverse a climate as Iran would be a doozy and -inevitably- costly like hell. On the other hand, the country's infrastructure is crumbling. Both military and civilian. There are more deaths by traffic accidents in the country than the number of casualties in Iraq, just to give you guys a hint. Military bases, a few exceptions aside, are firmly outside civilian zones, their defensive systems are so wack the last time they tried to hit something from home, the missiles fell onto a few border cities in Kermanshah. The myth that Iran's military is something impressive is just that. A myth.
3- Russia has shown time and time again this last 3 years that when push comes to shove, it won't back Iran. It hasn't backed Iran in Syria (where Israel keeps bombing their paramilitary stations), it hasn't backed Iran in Iraq (where the new president pretty much threw out all of the Iranian "advisers"). It hasn't backed Iran when it took over most of the rights to Khazar in a honestly-terrifyingly-similar way to how the Brits and Russians used to get concessions from the Qajar dynasty. If the US doesn't fuck this up? Russia (and friends) won't intervene.
4- The Iranian State is extremely unpopular now. It has been just unpopular throughout the last 12 years, except for a short period of two years after Rouhani got elected the first time. The Workers haven't been getting paid for more than 2 years now, there are strikes and protests happening everywhere. Some of them are pro-monarchy, some of them are republican, some of them are labor oriented. Everyone in the country has a reason to hate the government, including the fundamentalist Muslims; scratch that, especially the fundies.

A few corrections:

1- Millennium Challenge 2002 begs to differ.

2- It in fact does have to be land-based if you want it to be a success for the U.S. Enough of Iran's military and Nuclear facilities are dug in deep underground.
Iran's defensive system are not as 'wack' as you claim. In 2017 it launched six missiles towars Syria, targeting Daesh with some degree of success. Nobody claims Iran's military to be 'impressive', though it's without a doubt capable of dealing some serious damage to whoever attacks it.

3- I'm not sure anyone ever claimed that Russia would come to Irans aid, or at least nobody who knows the diplomatic theatre. At most Russia will provide arms and intel to Iran, but it won't go any further than that. More dangerous are the many militias around that region who, without a doubt, will join the war in support of Iran.

4- The popularity of the Iranian state, and what 'popularity' implies are very much up for debate. Nonetheless, the state not enjoying popular support does not magically mean that a foreign invader would get that support.

[Diopolis]

A few points of Order.
1- Iran lacks a viable navy. Its main forces in the sea are kamikazi motorboats. They lack an actual, working navy with the large ships one assumes a navy should have. Given the type of defenses an aircraft carrier normally has, taking Hormuz and then the Persian Gulf isn't going to be hard.
2- A War with Iran doesn't need to be land-based. Hell, to make it more accurately it needs not to be land-based. Any land-based warfare in a country with as diverse a climate as Iran would be a doozy and -inevitably- costly like hell. On the other hand, the country's infrastructure is crumbling. Both military and civilian. There are more deaths by traffic accidents in the country than the number of casualties in Iraq, just to give you guys a hint. Military bases, a few exceptions aside, are firmly outside civilian zones, their defensive systems are so wack the last time they tried to hit something from home, the missiles fell onto a few border cities in Kermanshah. The myth that Iran's military is something impressive is just that. A myth.
3- Russia has shown time and time again this last 3 years that when push comes to shove, it won't back Iran. It hasn't backed Iran in Syria (where Israel keeps bombing their paramilitary stations), it hasn't backed Iran in Iraq (where the new president pretty much threw out all of the Iranian "advisers"). It hasn't backed Iran when it took over most of the rights to Khazar in a honestly-terrifyingly-similar way to how the Brits and Russians used to get concessions from the Qajar dynasty. If the US doesn't fuck this up? Russia (and friends) won't intervene.
4- The Iranian State is extremely unpopular now. It has been just unpopular throughout the last 12 years, except for a short period of two years after Rouhani got elected the first time. The Workers haven't been getting paid for more than 2 years now, there are strikes and protests happening everywhere. Some of them are pro-monarchy, some of them are republican, some of them are labor oriented. Everyone in the country has a reason to hate the government, including the fundamentalist Muslims; scratch that, especially the fundies.

A few corrections:

1- Millennium Challenge 2002 begs to differ.

2- It in fact does have to be land-based if you want it to be a success for the U.S. Enough of Iran's military and Nuclear facilities are dug in deep underground.
Iran's defensive system are not as 'wack' as you claim. In 2017 it launched six missiles towars Syria, targeting Daesh with some degree of success. Nobody claims Iran's military to be 'impressive', though it's without a doubt capable of dealing some serious damage to whoever attacks it.

3- I'm not sure anyone ever claimed that Russia would come to Irans aid, or at least nobody who knows the diplomatic theatre. At most Russia will provide arms and intel to Iran, but it won't go any further than that. More dangerous are the many militias around that region who, without a doubt, will join the war in support of Iran.

4- The popularity of the Iranian state, and what 'popularity' implies are very much up for debate. Nonetheless, the state not enjoying popular support does not magically mean that a foreign invader would get that support.

But...But haven't you listened to Hillary and Dubya? Every foreign regime is unpopular because they want America to invade them.

[Novus America]

A few points of Order.
1- Iran lacks a viable navy. Its main forces in the sea are kamikazi motorboats. They lack an actual, working navy with the large ships one assumes a navy should have. Given the type of defenses an aircraft carrier normally has, taking Hormuz and then the Persian Gulf isn't going to be hard.
2- A War with Iran doesn't need to be land-based. Hell, to make it more accurately it needs not to be land-based. Any land-based warfare in a country with as diverse a climate as Iran would be a doozy and -inevitably- costly like hell. On the other hand, the country's infrastructure is crumbling. Both military and civilian. There are more deaths by traffic accidents in the country than the number of casualties in Iraq, just to give you guys a hint. Military bases, a few exceptions aside, are firmly outside civilian zones, their defensive systems are so wack the last time they tried to hit something from home, the missiles fell onto a few border cities in Kermanshah. The myth that Iran's military is something impressive is just that. A myth.
3- Russia has shown time and time again this last 3 years that when push comes to shove, it won't back Iran. It hasn't backed Iran in Syria (where Israel keeps bombing their paramilitary stations), it hasn't backed Iran in Iraq (where the new president pretty much threw out all of the Iranian "advisers"). It hasn't backed Iran when it took over most of the rights to Khazar in a honestly-terrifyingly-similar way to how the Brits and Russians used to get concessions from the Qajar dynasty. If the US doesn't fuck this up? Russia (and friends) won't intervene.
4- The Iranian State is extremely unpopular now. It has been just unpopular throughout the last 12 years, except for a short period of two years after Rouhani got elected the first time. The Workers haven't been getting paid for more than 2 years now, there are strikes and protests happening everywhere. Some of them are pro-monarchy, some of them are republican, some of them are labor oriented. Everyone in the country has a reason to hate the government, including the fundamentalist Muslims; scratch that, especially the fundies.

I would be careful on the first part. Iran does not need a good navy to cause shit in the Gulf.
Unfortunately the Gulf is a relatively constrained area.

The best option in a hypothetical war would be to avoid sending carriers to the gulf. Instead they should hit Iran from out in the Indian Ocean. Suicide boats would be useless and Iran would not be able to pinpoint the exact location of the fleet for using missiles.

Once we have sufficiently degraded Iran’s forces then we move into the Gulf.

But I agree that an Iraq style ground invasion would be insanity.

Instead in a hypothetical war our goal should be limited to destruction of the existing government, not creating a new one.

[Infected Mushroom]

A war with Iran can be won, it depends on the goals of the war and the amount of men and material we're prepared to expend.

Topple the government and GTFO?
Easily done, especially in cooperation with a grassroots uprising.

Fuck shit up and GTFO?
Even simpler.

Occupy the place and purge resistance?
...
Doable. Provided our will doesn't break after seeing boatloads of coffins return home.



Iran is not in a position to mount a defense against anything except an occupation and they know it, so they've put all their eggs into making occupation as bloody and difficult as possible.

A limited war with naval bombardment, air superiority, and occupation of only coastal towns and cities would be the most effective bang for buck kind of war, but if Iran refuses to capitulate and continues to fight from the hills and mountains then that occupation could last decades. Actually going in to the hills and mountains to root them out? That's where the coffins start coming home.

It'd doable in technical terms, just not political ones.

It will also radicalize the populace and the region, and especially radicalize the mountain regions if we resort to bombardments and starving the fighters out, since fighters eat before civilians do.

Have you ever considered working for British counter intelligence/military policy analysis think tanks?

I’m always taken aback by the level of cold but very precise razor sharp mindwork that goes behind these posts especially as they relate to military and political matters

[Gormwood]

So the best option for an Iran invasion is to topple the government and leave behind a power vacuum that can be filled by the likes of the Daesh remnants and give Iranians as a whole even more reasons to be resentful of the West on top of the Shah and the Iranian Revolution.

Just brilliant.

[Arcturus Novus]