War with Iran?

[Dill]

(06-17-2019, 05:35 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: The Saudis have told this administration to put pressure on Iran. And because money, this administration feels compelled to comply.

Where does this all end up? Who knows.

Personally, I do not see the U.S. committing troops to a ground war in Iran. The population is divided and has not forgotten the Iraq morass. Also, it is altogether likely that Iran would seek help from the Russians.

Air strikes are likely and probable, judging from the admin's history. Maybe we won't warn them in advance where we are bombing this time.

A U.S. nuclear strike is also possible with this President. After all, the Saudis do have a lot of money. But it is more likely that the admin would just try to slip the Saudis a nuke and let them do the dirty deed.

The one thing I know won't happen is diplomacy. The Saudis don't want to see any of that nonsense.

I agree with most of this. And I don't think Trump, right now, wants a ground war in Iran.

I would just add that we could, nevertheless, end up in a position where we "have" to commit troops because the Iranians took out one of our ships or something of similar magnitude.

Another thing I have not mentioned in previous posts on this thread is the our current Iran policy will allow us to call any attack on an ally by someone we deem an Iranian proxy as an attack on US interests which must be "answered"--this includes a Hamas or Hezbollah rocket into Israel or a Houthi attack on Saudi Forces in Yemen or a mortar landing in the Emerald City.

[Bengalzona]

(06-17-2019, 06:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And you can keep ignoring the fact that we defeated Iraq's Army in about 100 hours. You have no idea what would happen in Iran if we toppled their current government or if our post-war actions would be the same. It could very easily be like Desert Storm.

I've already said any Military action against Iran should be a coalition. I just balked at the suggestion that Iran would be a greater foe than Iraq.   

The terrain in Iran is more like Afghanistan than Iraq for the most part. And Tehran is located in the mountain making it harder to reach. We could take most of the populated areas within a short time. But guerilla forces in the mountains would be a nightmare for our forces, and probably much better armed and motivated than the Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. Ground war in Iran would be ugly and costly.

[*bfine32*]

(06-17-2019, 06:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am not ignoring anything. I am just pointing out how meaningless that is considering 5,000 more troops died after that.  I am sure the parents and families of those dead troops are thrilled to know that they all died after the "conflict" was over.


But, hey, "MISSON ACCOMPLISHED", right?  I mean it said it right on the banner.  What more do you need to know?  

So you're bringing up something that has absolutely nothing with defeating the country and its Army. As I said You have no idea what will happen and I simply balked at the idea that Iran would be a greater foe. But don't let facts stop you when you can nitpick words. 

I know plenty parents proud of their kids that died in combat. Matter of fact I'd love for you to tell some what a failure it was. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-17-2019, 06:38 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: The terrain in Iran is more like Afghanistan than Iraq for the most part. And Tehran is located in the mountain making it harder to reach. We could take most of the populated areas within a short time. But guerilla forces in the mountains would be a nightmare for our forces, and probably much better armed and motivated than the Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. Ground war in Iran would be ugly and costly.

Yeah, that's your opinion and I appreciate it, so we might also have to spin up the New Hampshire NG as well. Personally, I think Iran poses absolutely no threat to our military. We would just have to be better prepared for the power void than we were in Iraq

[Bengalzona]

(06-17-2019, 06:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, that's your opinion and I appreciate it, so we might also have to spin up the New Hampshire NG as well. Personally, I think Iran poses absolutely no threat to our military. We would just have to be better prepared for the power void than we were in Iraq

Iran




Iraq





Afghanistan

[Dill]

(06-17-2019, 06:38 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: The terrain in Iran is more like Afghanistan than Iraq for the most part. And Tehran is located in the mountain making it harder to reach. We could take most of the populated areas within a short time. But guerilla forces in the mountains would be a nightmare for our forces, and probably much better armed and motivated than the Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. Ground war in Iran would be ugly and costly.

Sounds like you are saying that because Iran is bigger and more populous than Iraq and Afghanistan put together, it would be more difficult to invade than either of those countries.

What if, unlike Iraq and the Taliban, they had anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles, not to mention aircraft and armor? And what if, as a more modern state, they could within a month put a million already trained men in uniform, with potential for another 10 million as militia?

And what if, unlike Iraq and the Taliban, they had armed and effective proxies in five other countries who might be willing to escalate and broaden the war? Not to mention some major state backers like Russia?  

Still, who knows? They could just collapse for some reason.  We could take out their SAMs before they took out our jets, and then take out their medium range ballistic missiles before they took our our ships. Except for the missiles underground maybe. And possibly they would let us occupy them with fewer troops than needed in either Iraq or Afghanistan and for a shorter time.  Could be most Iranians would say "They have defeated our military; if we just behave normally and don't work up an insurgency, they will leave quickly." No one knows for sure. Lol.

NB: Just saw your map. That proves they are a lot smaller than the US. We could definitely take them.

[Bengalzona]

(06-17-2019, 06:57 PM)Dill Wrote: Sounds like you are saying that because Iran is bigger and more populous than Iraq and Afghanistan put together, it would be more difficult to invade than either of those countries.

What if, unlike the Taliban, they had anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles, not to mention aircraft and armor? And what if, as a more modern state, they could within a month put a million already trained men in uniform, with potential for another 10 million as militia?

And what if, unlike Iraq and the Taliban, they had armed and effective proxies in five other countries who might be willing to escalate and broaden the war? Not to mention some major state backers like Russia?  

Still, who knows? They could just collapse for some reason.  And let us occupy them with fewer troops than needed in either Iraq or Afghanistan and for a shorter time.  No one knows for sure. Lol.

Their conventional forces are not so much of a concern. They can't stand toe-to-toe with us on an open battlefield, even with ten million men. Our combat multipliers far exceed anything that anyone except Russia could handle in the open field. We know that. They know that.

But terrain is a great equalizer. Millions of guerillas in the mountains with more advanced weapons than the Taliban would be a stalemate. We would own the lowlands, they would own the mountains. Going into the mountains to get them would create casualties far exceeding Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Add Russian influence into the mix and it is a complete nightmare.

I cringe at the thought of the casualties created in trying to protect supply caravans from the coasts into an occupied Tehran.

[*bfine32*]

(06-17-2019, 06:54 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Iran




Iraq





Afghanistan

I wasn't questioning the terrain I was questioning the assertion that the Iranian Army would be so much harder to defeat than the Iraqi Army. You assert organized forces might pose a bigger threat than terrorists, I'm not sure about that in this case. We take Tehran and what reason do those in the hills have to fight? 

[Dill]

(06-17-2019, 07:05 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Their conventional forces are not so much of a concern. They can't stand toe-to-toe with us on an open battlefield, even with ten million men. Our combat multipliers far exceed anything that anyone except Russia could handle in the open field. We know that. They know that.

But terrain is a great equalizer. Millions of guerillas in the mountains with more advanced weapons than the Taliban would be a stalemate. We would own the lowlands, they would own the mountains. Going into the mountains to get them would create casualties far exceeding Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Add Russian influence into the mix and it is a complete nightmare.

I cringe at the thought of the casualties created in trying to protect supply caravans from the coasts into an occupied Tehran.

This sounds like defeatism!! 

Whatever it takes to get the job done!

Nevermind whether we really need to do the job.

Remember that once we took Kabul and Baghdad, what reason had the remaining thousands of armed insurgents to continue fighting?

[*bfine32*]

(06-17-2019, 06:57 PM)Dill Wrote: Sounds like you are saying that because Iran is bigger and more populous than Iraq and Afghanistan put together, it would be more difficult to invade than either of those countries.

What if, unlike Iraq and the Taliban, they had anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles, not to mention aircraft and armor? And what if, as a more modern state, they could within a month put a million already trained men in uniform, with potential for another 10 million as militia?

And what if, unlike Iraq and the Taliban, they had armed and effective proxies in five other countries who might be willing to escalate and broaden the war? Not to mention some major state backers like Russia?  

Still, who knows? They could just collapse for some reason.  We could take out their SAMs before they took out our jets, and then take out their medium range ballistic missiles before they took our our ships. Except for the missiles underground maybe. And possibly they would let us occupy them with fewer troops than needed in either Iraq or Afghanistan and for a shorter time.  Could be most Iranians would say "They have defeated our military; if we just behave normally and don't work up an insurgency, they will leave quickly." No one knows for sure. Lol.

NB: Just saw your map. That proves they are a lot smaller than the US. We could definitely take them.

The Iragi Army had everything you allude to. 

Russia wouldn't get involved As you know; they and Trump are allies. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-17-2019, 07:18 PM)Dill Wrote: This sounds like defeatism!! 

Whatever it takes to get the job done!

Nevermind whether we really need to do the job.

If it is determined that Iran is bombing ships in the gulf would that qualify as a job that needed done or would that get a smiley thingy?

[Bengalzona]

(06-17-2019, 07:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I wasn't questioning the terrain I was questioning the assertion that the Iranian Army would be so much harder to defeat than the Iraqi Army. You assert organized forces might pose a bigger threat than terrorists, I'm not sure about that in this case. We take Tehran and what reason do those in the hills have to fight? 

No. They can't stand force-on-force with us. I just see millions of former Iranian soldiers turning to a terrorist-like guerilla force.

[Bengalzona]

(06-17-2019, 07:18 PM)Dill Wrote: This sounds like defeatism!! 

Whatever it takes to get the job done!

Nevermind whether we really need to do the job.

Remember that once we took Kabul and Baghdad, what reason had the remaining thousands of armed insurgents to continue fighting?

Did you know that Tehran has a larger population than New York? It would sort of be like attacking Denver, if Denver had 15 million people living in the area.

[*bfine32*]

(06-17-2019, 07:23 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: No. They can't stand force-on-force with us. I just see millions of former Iranian soldiers turning to a terrorist-like guerilla force.

I'm just not sure what their motivation would be once we toppled their government. Hopefully if it comes to that and as I've said I put the chances between slim and none we should have a succession plan in place. 

[Dill]

(06-17-2019, 07:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The Iragi Army had everything you allude to. 

Russia wouldn't get involved As you know; they and Trump are allies. 

LOL Trump is Russia's ally. It doesn't work the other way. China is also a military supplier.

You still seem to think we are dealing with 1980s Iran and Iraq.

The Iraq which the US invaded in 2003 did not have intermediate range missiles and effective air defenses, and no anti-ship missiles.  It's total armed forces were about half a mil with low morale--defeated in flat, open desert. Many deserted without fighting. Iraq could not even disrupt shipping through the Gulf in 2003, or the years of US occupation thereafter.

Present day Iran has more, and more effective, intermediate range missiles than any country in the ME except perhaps Israel, with launchers buried deep in mountain rock. And triple the manpower available to Saddam. It's not clear why they would have lower morale than the Iraqi military. Especially if their state of the art anti-ship missiles and SAMs are able to take out large US naval ships and shoot down US aircraft, inflicting the kind of losses the US has not seen since Vietnam. It won't just be a few random 107 mm rockets and mortars dropping on US bases.

Also, as I mentioned above, Iran is a regional power with proxies, something neither Iraq nor Afghanistan were. It has great power to destabilize Iraq and Afghanistan all over again. Send a few more units in there too?  Japan, Germany and other allies would be squealling as the oil flow constricted.

No one doubts the US could eventually defeat Iran in a conventional war. The question is about the price paid for doing so.  You are "balking" at the idea that the US would pay a much higher price defeating the Iranian than the Iraqi military.  Defeat them in 100 hours?  

As the principals sitting around the NSC council discuss the potential costs of military confrontation, and the consequently necessary occupation, imagine how they would stare at some under-secretary who insisted that "we could take out their army as easily as we took out Iraq's; once we take their capital, they'll have no incentive to fight"--giving a big thumbs up with a smile?  I could imagine Bolton saying "He gets it," but seriously why would anyone else even go there?

Most wouldn't. Which brings us to the other danger here, that Trump reaches for some nuclear option to avoid the mess that almost everyone can see would follow an invasion.

[Yojimbo]

Iraq has no allies, Iran is allied with Russia and China, same as Venezuela. Starting a war with Iran isn’t just a war with Iran alone.

[Dill]

(06-17-2019, 07:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If it is determined that Iran is bombing ships in the gulf would that qualify as a job that needed done or would that get a smiley thingy?

Not necessarily. And who is "determining" this--the country looking to pick a fight?

Whatever Iran does, I'll not lose sight of how we went from an international deal which was integrating Iran back into the world system to a foreign policy which has destabilized the Gulf and set us on a course for conflict. 

[Dill]

(06-17-2019, 07:30 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Did you know that Tehran has a larger population than New York? It would sort of be like attacking Denver, if Denver had 15 million people living in the area.

What would you do if you were planning a US invasion? Short of nukes?

The topography looks rather like a vast, natural mountain fort around Teheran.  A bit more open from the east, where there is some desert.

I don't see a flat, open drive to the capital as was the case in Iraq. 

Kabul was also in the mountains, but those mountains weren't bristling with sophisticated AA defenses protected in caves.

The missiles would be my biggest concern, since they are guided and hard to shoot down, and could reach US ships in the Gulf, not to mention any regional allies aiding the US.

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-17-2019, 06:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  I just balked at the suggestion that Iran would be a greater foe than Iraq.   

Just wondering where you are getting this idea?

I called my old company commander Captain Obvious to ask about this Iran is weaker than Iraq thing. He told me the general rule is the foe with more land, troops, and weapons is a greater challenge. Then he said something about their uranium enrichment capabilities but my mind was already blown by his initial response and I tuned out so I didn't catch all of that.

[*bfine32*]

(06-17-2019, 09:17 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Just wondering where you are getting this idea?

I called my old company commander Captain Obvious to ask about this Iran is weaker than Iraq thing. He told me the general rule is the foe with more land, troops, and weapons is a greater challenge. Then he said something about their uranium enrichment capabilities but my mind was already blown by his initial response and I tuned out so I didn't catch all of that.

Because when they went heads up Iraq won. 

Captain Obvious obviously overlooked the obvious.