War with Iran?

[Dill]

(06-17-2019, 11:40 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I would use diplomacy and try not to put troops on the ground. Outside of the deserts in the east, the whole country is pock full of natural ambush sites. The American public won't tolerate casualty lists two to three times larger than those from Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

Barring that, I would try to find some other country to persuade to invade them instead of us. This tactic worked really well for us in the Cold War. Unfortunately, we have already invaded two of Iran's seven neighbors.

Turkmenistan is sort of a write off. I wouldn't expect them to have much of a military. Likewise, I don't think the Armenians or Azerbijanis would be much help. What have we ever done for them, eh?

Turkey is like seriously mad at us now. They are like a rebellious child: flaunting Islamism and dating Putin on the side. I wouldn't expect much help from "our allies" at this point. Heck, I doubt if they would allow us to even fly through their airspace to support the mission.

Maybe we could persuade the Pakis to invade (we'd probably have to stop calling them "Pakis" first, though) and pay them with Saudi money. This would quite seriously be my second option. But, the Pakis aren't dumb. So they probably wouldn't do it. Besides, they are too busy worrying about India.

Russia no longer shares a land border, but they are just across the Caspian Sea. Putin wouldn't do it. He has trimmed down the Russian military into primarily a defense force. Besides, he is too busy trying to get us bogged down into it (using my own strategy against me.... that turd!!!).

So, removing the diplomacy option from the table because that's "not something real 'Mericans do anymore" and being unable to persuade the Pakis and Russians to do it for us, I guess we have to look at how it could be done with troops on the ground.

Diplomacy is different now, post the broken Iran Deal.  Big pay offs would be required for minimal cooperation. The US allies would have to be SA, UAE and Israel--the latter being as much a liability as an asset. Or there would be no allies. Britain would finally draw the line. I think there would be world wide protests greater than before the invasion of Iraq, perhaps a movement to sanction or divest or otherwise discourage US behavior.

(06-17-2019, 11:40 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I doubt if the Iraqis would be cooperative with our efforts, seeing as such a large number of Shi'ites live there. In fact, they could really cause a great deal of problems if the border turn porous and/or if a nasty civil war breaks out between the Iraqi Sunnis and Shi'ites (which absolutely will happen if we move against Iran). I think you probably would need to jump off from Kuwait (if they would allow) and have Marines and Special Ops land to seize Bandar Mahshhr and Bandar Imam Khomeini so that you have port facilities and airports to support the invasion independently while the Navy blockades the Iranian coast. I think you would then need to drive north to seal off the border with Iraq. Bear in mind, this is mountainous terrain. Outside of the initial landing, tanks won't be a big help. It will be a slow-go. Once the border is secured, you then would need to hook east and move on Tehran. Acheiving that could be a good stopping point, if they were willing to talk and we were willing to listen. Barring that, you maybe start a campaing from Afghanistan (if they are willing) and roll up the open areas on the east side and the northeast. At this point, the country's borders would be secured and what remains of any resistance would be in the mountains. Outside of the fact that it would probably be costing billions of dollars and scores of lives every day, you would not have to move fast to root out the resistance. Just sit and wait them out. It would probably only take a couple of decades.

My number one concern with the kinetic aspect of an invasion is their rocketry. It's not clear we could gain control of the air. And even if we do, both launch sites and production are under yards of rock. VERY hard to take out.  It is possible that the US would lose major assets like ships. And in a short time. Could a massive airlift get troops over the mountains with minimal loss to take, not just Teheran, but Qom and Isfahan? Seems VERY risky to me.  And then, as you know, the fighting would just continue in the mountains, against a foe better organized and better armed and more numerous than the Taliban.

The Iranians would not have to defeat our military, only stall it and drain blood and treasure.

Also, I would expect problems in Iraq. The government there would perhaps pay lip service to the US, but certainly it would face resistance, perhaps an insurgency that returns the country to chaos.  I really don't see why a war against Iran would only be fought in Iran, given their allies and assets in the region.

Our military would have to know this. And Trump might understand this could stall his great economy.  That is why I think he might reach for crazier options, like tactical nukes. I am pretty sure that would produce an anti-US coalition, including many European countries plus China and Russia. Perhaps many of their clients as well.  Not good.

I guess a final question is what happens AFTER the win?  How many troops would be required to "nation build"?