Potential war with Iran

[cam427]

Nutters crappy thread got me wondering. What is everyones position on a potential war with Iran?

I think it would be pretty disasterous but would be made considerably easier by having a base to work out of like Iraq which shares a huge border.

I have to admit though. The thought of a war with Iran, in Iran, scares the crap out of me.

So the next question is... what would they have to do to make a war necessary? Would the production of a nuke be enough? What about the use of a nuke (lets assume on Israel)? How far would they have to go before you would see a military assault as a viable option?

Cam

[nutter]

Well without Arab support it ain't going to be practical right. Mike Brewer completely misses the relevance of this statement right cos he blindly worships the might of his beloved armed forces. But in so doing right he ignores the geopolitical and strategic practicalities of invading right.

The US has three basic fronts open to them to launch an invasion: a) Amphibious landing, b) Afghanistan and c) Iraq right.

The insurgency war in Iraq is already tying down shed loads of troops yeah. If America is to invade Iran right then the Shia in Iraq would not be on US side so insurgency would increase right tying down more troops than already.

If the Arabs denied the US air bases in the Gulf, then US aircraft operations would be limited to US carriers and long ranged bomber flights. Close air support would be in really short supply. If the US attempted to base combat aircraft in Iraq or Afghanistan they would need massive amounts of troops just to guard the aircraft right.

In times past right invading armies used brutality to deter insurcency on territory taken and even then it was not always sufficient. But the modern US cannot do that so instead it needs to commit shed loads of soldiers just to maintain the footprint of its advance and rear basing areas like Iraq. The logistics, cost and resource strain would be massive innit.

So Mike Brewer, take your misguided creative editing abuse of mod powers and go stick it right mate. Listen to what people have to say right.

[nutter]

We would need global support, and as much as it pains me to say it, nutter is right that we would need local support. Not necessarily Arab (since Iranians are Persian, not Arab), but certainly Muslim support across the board.

Yeah, that's why you edited my saying so innit mate. You agree that US can't practically invade Iran without Arab, or as you extend the caveat, Muslim, support right. That is what I said and you just called it "bullshit comments about the US and our military". Why am I not surprised at your hypocracy mate?

[gregimotis]

Excepting that our armies are somewhat tied up occupying Iraq, why would an invasion of Iran be more difficult than the invasion of Iraq? I recall in the lead-up to the Iraqi invasion (both of them), many pundits were worried that the Iraqis had a powerful military -large and experienced.
Wouldn't the same strategy of bombing the lights out and then roling in the tanks work again, or there something fundamentally different here?

[GonzoStyles]

excellent reply Mr.Mike, easy to see how butter, I mean nutter is a complete ignoramus when it comes to the history of the area. "arab" support butter? the arabs were very content to let Saddam rule for years, we had little to no Arab troops helping in Gulfwar 1, and we were defending Kuwait then! The US armed forces IMO would roll over Iran, suicide bomber squads aside, but maintaining an occupying force would be out of the question, like I said simply my opinion. BTW butter WHEN have the good guys had any Arab military support? That is one of my main gripes is that we could cut back on OPEC oil (ala the conservation efforts made in ww2) and lean on Arab states to start taking care of their own backyard. the last time we had Arabs fighting on the right side was when TE Laurence was fighting in the deserts of North Africa. on another note Mr.Mike's artful editing of butters comments shows a creative side that I for one would like to see more of on these forums, especially when it comes to butters posts......

[nutter]

Excepting that our armies are somewhat tied up occupying Iraq, why would an invasion of Iran be more difficult than the invasion of Iraq? I recall in the lead-up to the Iraqi invasion (both of them), many pundits were worried that the Iraqis had a powerful military -large and experienced.
Wouldn't the same strategy of bombing the lights out and then roling in the tanks work again, or there something fundamentally different here?

There's no escaping the logistical issues of Iraq but if there was mate, then yes this would be quite a tougher fight than Iraq. In GW1 the US was invading a country where relatively few of the soldiers supported their leader and few wanted in the fight. But Iran would be different right. and the Iranians have better weapons and tactics too. In GW1 and GW2 the US relied heavily on air bases in Arab states, without those the US would have limited air power projection even with the whole carrier fleet in the gulf right, where they would face credible threat from the Iranians anyway right.

[cam427]

Gerg,

The difference is huge. Your argument is like saying Britain succesfully attacked the Falklands so surely thay could use the same methods and be successful against America.

Iran is a wealthy, well armed country with a large and well equipt army and airforce (by regional standards). It also has a large and determined population who would be prepared to fight for their country and vehemently dislike the US whom they blame for all of their problems (since they overthrew their democratically elected government and installed a dictator).

Mike is correct that you would have to take the WW2 approach and kill, capture or drive forward every civilian and soldier as you passed through each town to prevent massive problems in your armies rear.

They are also the home of Islam. Try and explain to the worlds muslims why you had to bomb Mecca. They would not care if the devil himself was hiding there.

There are many reasons why this campaign would suck. I know the US military are good but dont get carried away. A man defending his home is a tough opponent.

Cam

[totaltwatdeano]

So much war.. it's a real shame.

[gregimotis]

Iran is a wealthy, well armed country with a large and well equipt army and airforce (by regional standards). It also has a large and determined population who would be prepared to fight for their country and vehemently dislike the US whom they blame for all of their problems (since they overthrew their democratically elected government and installed a dictator).

I'm not advocating either way, I simply remember all these things being said about Iraq during the Kuwait build-up and was wondering if there were concrete reasons why Iran is different - excepting perhaps the hardening of tensions in the area during the last few years.


To be honest, I don't know enough about the area to feel that I can do much except ask questions. Although I know a heck of alot more than Nut... ah well, at least I know I'm ignorant.

[nutter]

Although I know a heck of alot more than Nut... ah well, at least I know I'm ignorant.

If that is so mate, tell me why I'm wrong on this topic mate.

[nutter]

Mike mate, as we know it's an open secret that Israel possess nuclear ballustic missiles capable of destroying Iran, defence analysts don't even question that fact right. So Iran possessing nukes actually balances the situation deterring Israel from using theirs. This also means that Iran won't actively attack Israel directly due to the nuclear deterrent right. They may continue to support Palestinian terrorism and talk big of how bad Isreal is, but not a real war.

I don't want Iran to get nukes but then I don't like Israel and Belgium having them either right. But there is hypocracy in all this mate.

[jubaji]

They are also the home of Islam. Try and explain to the worlds muslims why you had to bomb Mecca. They would not care if the devil himself was hiding there.

?????????????????????????????

Exsqueeze me? I thought we were talking about Iran.


You might want to consult your map again.

[jubaji]

It also has a large and determined population who would be prepared to fight for their country and vehemently dislike the US whom they blame for all of their problems (since they overthrew their democratically elected government and installed a dictator).

That's a bit misleading. Iran has a very young population, and the US is actually pretty popular among the younger crowd (who are not super thrilled with the theocracy), but I do think an invasion would galvanize support for the ruling regime at least in the short term.

[jubaji]

I'm just sayin'...

And by the way, nutbag, Iran elected Ahmadenijad. Ahmadenijad was elected on 17 June 2005. Ahmadenijad ran against Rafsanjani, and he won the election 62% to 36% with 2% of the ballots spoiled.

Don't forget that a lot of people who were slated to run for President as well as for legislative seats, were taken off the ballot when the ruling theocrats invalidated their candidacies(at which point a whole bunch more withdrew in protest). A whole lot o' folks were dissillusioned by Rafsanjani's inability to act as the reformer he had orignally touted himself to be (within that system he couldn't be an effective reformer even if he really did intend to be) and sat out the vote or cast for Ahmadenijad in recognition of the reality the ruling class was gonna make happen anyway.

[BoarSpear]

Hey Mike, it seems to me the British and the USA already helped rig one election in Iran...remember? We installed the government WE wanted them to have...now we are ready for WW3...how is this different from the other governments we created so we would have an enemy?

We had ZERO problems with Iran until we replaced the shah in 1979...then we got the iranian hostage crisis in the same year!!! It goes to show how important setting things into play properly is to get the world you need.