Iran invasion strategies

[kostas-zochios]

Lately I hear alot about the USA and Israel invading Iran. I would like to hear your oppinions about:

1. A possible timeline/deadline of an attack
2. The dangers of such an operation
3. The tactics that will be used

Will the Kurds be used? How? What are the Mahdi (I think...) forces in south Iraq going to do? Will Syria and the Palestinians fight on Iran's side? Could the attack of Iran cause a civil war in Iraq?

[Lanz0r]

Isn't Tony Blair keen on invading Iran too?

[kostas-zochios]

I believe he is keen on the invasion of Iran. But I think that now that France and Germany have nothing to lose (like the petrol for food program in Iraq) if Iran is invaded, Tony won't have a strong opposition in the EU. This way, not only he will find it politicaly easier to attack Iran, but he will be able (with US' assistance) to convince the rest of the EU to attack as well

[Gekko_1]

Lately I hear alot about the USA and Israel invading Iran. I would like to hear your oppinions about:

1. A possible timeline/deadline of an attack
2. The dangers of such an operation
3. The tactics that will be used

Will the Kurds be used? How? What are the Mahdi (I think...) forces in south Iraq going to do? Will Syria and the Palestinians fight on Iran's side? Could the attack of Iran cause a civil war in Iraq?

Hi Kostas,

Here are my guesses & opinions::duel

1.If its going to happen, my guess would be March 29th. Only because it’s a new moon, so total darkness. I guess they could launch with-in a 24-48 hour bracket from that date?

2.The dangers are epic. If they do manage to hit their intended targets they could release radio active material into the air. This radioactive material could be blown by the wind anywhere.

3.My guess would be that they’d use the B-2 Bomber and Submarine launched Cruise missiles. I’d doubt that they’d use anything like F-15/F-16/F-18 types as there is a lot of guess work going on surrounding weather or not Iran does or doesn’t have advanced Russian SAM systems. The U.S. and or Israel cannot afford air crew getting captured.

After that I think it may be a wait and see strategy. I guess there will need to be extensive satellite photo evaluation of the sites attacked to work out if they need to be attacked again?

If Iran retaliates, and I think in order to save face in the region they’d have to, it would have to be quite effective in its scope as they will not be allowed to have a second go.

Therefore if Iran were to attack they’d better be able to knockout a Carrier Battle Group and the U.S. Command and Control assets or Iran could face country wide mass destruction.

Cheers

Richard.

[Izzy1]

Last time I checked, there already was a civil war in Iraq.

We have neither the numbers or the political will to prosecute another major operation in the Middle East - and certainly not to occupy Iran. The US and UK have enough problems dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan as it is.

Air strikes against selected Iranian targets however is another matter.

[Hussain]

I don't think the US is in a position to launch an invasion on Iran. Its military is bogged down in Iran and Afghanistan. The scenario for the US it would appear seems to be getting worse in Afghanistan with the Taliban rapidly gaining strength once again.


I think the US may attempt to strike at Iranian nuclear and missile sites with their huge arsenal of stand off weaponry such as cruise missiles and even conventional ballistic missiles, followed by air strikes from Iraq and Afghanistan. In the short term the US will be able to cripple Iran's nuclear /missile programme. However it would be impossible to destroy Iran's military machine such as as the Revolutionary Guards and the various Hezbullah groupings.

One can then expect a long drawn out campaign stretching from Afghanistan to Palestine with the US military subject to outright Guerilla warfare for the next 20 yrs or so. Will the US then leave the area in chaos, with oil and gas resources in the hands of militias and other private armies?

Anti US feeling can then spread to the rest of the developing world.

[gf0012-aust]

However it would be impossible to destroy Iran's military machine such as as the Revolutionary Guards and the various Hezbullah groupings.

The Iraqi war machine was far more sizeable, complex and dispersed than the Iranians. It was absolutely decapitated within 36hrs.

Once you decapitate C2,3,4,4I then the rest is an amorphous mass with no integrated and sympathetic cohesion. The military proper ceases to function as an arm of national directed and co-ordinated will.

The US wouldn't need to invade Iran - and in real terms I can't see them wanting to anyway. There are some cogent lessons coming out of Iraq which reinforce that.

Some of the analysis coming out from ex CIA staffers is that the US could render the Govt military inoperable as a formal, formative and responding unit within 48 hrs.

[kostas-zochios]

Does anyone think that the americans made a big mistake when they attacked Iraq this time? Maybe Saddam's presence was useful to keep Iran under control. I believe that if the american forces withdraw from Iraq, a power void will be formed and Iran will move in to fill it. Iraq is very unstable at the moment; tis on the brink of a civil war. If america withdraws, Iran will move into south Iraq and then I believe that a total war with Iran is inevitable.

Personally, I am not concerned that much about Iran's nuclear programme. I am concerned about what it represents. I believe that USA's external politics these last years has destabilized the middle and near East (and the Balkans), and including terrorism, has created a fear in alot of countries. I wouldn't be surprised if other countries in the region try to get nuclear weapons to protect them selves from external threats and to strengthen their government's/regime's positions against internal threats. In other words, Iran is not only trying to get nukes to become a "superpower", it is also trying to protect itself from external threats, but more importantly it is trying to become a stabillity island in the ocean of chaos that the Middle East has become. :coffee

[Scorpius]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/13/Middle_east.jpg/492px-Middle_east.jpg

hmmm.....Kuwait,Qatar,Iraq,Afghanistan,UAE too I guess.There are US forces and military personnel in all those countries except KSA.Iran's in real trouble here.they got the US on the east and west and on the south,damn.BTW Iran got a lot nuclear sites which is also a matter to ponder upon I believe.

[Stryker001]

Iran is reliant on suicide battalions, so to protect coalition troops shock and awe would be required. :flame

These situations with rogue nations shows the failing of the world community and the UN in preventing nuclear ambitions.

America and the coaltion of the willing are the only nations that seem proactive in protecting world stability. Israel will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, and will strike first to prevent what will occur in the future. If Iran gains nuclear technology conventional war against Israel is going to occur.

Iran are playing a dangerous game. This is a battle between good an evil its got nothing to do with religion. :daz

[Supe]

America and the coaltion of the willing are the only nations that seem proactive in protecting world stability.

That's not a military assessment.


The Iraqi war machine was far more sizeable, complex and dispersed than the Iranians. It was absolutely decapitated within 36hrs.


Even after a decade of sanctions? Iran though somewhat of a pariah state, did not have the years of debilitating heavy sanctions that Iraq went through. The interim years post Iran-Iraq war allowed Iran to rebuild military infrastructure, re-equip and IIRC professionlise its armed forces and away from the political/religious instrument it doubled as. Saddam also enforced brutal reprisals against ethnic/religious minorities, eroding already scarce military resources - which Iran since end of the original Gulf War (as in Iran-Iraq war) did not have to contend with.

The sanctions, the way Saddam ran his military, the war on Iran - all undermined Iraq and its capability to defend itself. Iran on the other hand is far more cohesive, does not run in strict dictatorship mode like Iraq, did not face decade long sanction, or face the intelligence gathering capability of 'no-fly zones's and restricting how Iraqi forces deployed vital defence infrastructure C4 etc, and has received equipment from Russia and China. While not cutting edge, it still presents Iran as a far more capable adversary than Iraq, especially going by the performance of the Iraqis in GW3.

I would be confident that Iran watched both wars by U.S led forces against Iraq with much interest, particularly the ensuing assymetric wafare being conducted post invasion Iraq - and applying lessons learned would engage U.S in Iraq in this way.

Of course in the end and as you so rightly pointed out - U.S would prevail in symmetric warfare. I just differ in opinion on the comparision of Iran to Iraq and do not think it would be Iraq redux.

[Black Legion]

Iran is reliant on suicide battalions, so to protect coalition troops shock and awe would be required. :flame

These situations with rogue nations shows the failing of the world community and the UN in preventing nuclear ambitions.

America and the coaltion of the willing are the only nations that seem proactive in protecting world stability. Israel will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, and will strike first to prevent what will occur in the future. If Iran gains nuclear technology conventional war against Israel is going to occur.

Iran are playing a dangerous game. This is a battle between good an evil its got nothing to do with religion. :daz

This is a forum that's dealing with military issues, not political:offtopic

And also your stance is so utterly biased and one-sinded, your black and white talk is so neo con it makes me wanna puke, go play Bush somewhere else....thank you in advance

[SABRE]

Iran is no Iraq. They are not divided into sects and they don’t have a dictator imposed upon them. Their President, no matter what the west says, is a democratically elected leader of the nation, unlike the Saddam Hussain of Iraq. The Iranians collectively posses grudge over US and Israel. Any invasion of Iran by these two countries, especially Israel, will not only bring forward union of Iranians against West and Israel, but will also stir criticism among other Muslim countries along with the Russians (probably) and the Chinese. On the Iranian soil there is no chance that American army will get any support, like they did in Iraq war. That is why the West wants to solve to drain the issue through diplomatic pipelines and that’s why the problem has been referred to the UNSC, to impose sanctions over Iran. But what West is not paying attention on is that Iran is in Win-Win situation. They have been through various forms of sanctions & lived through it. If sanctions not imposed, Iran will continue the nuclear research – if sanctions imposed, Iran will definitely continue the nuclear research. In addition, the Iraq now has Shia majority government. The Shias of Iraq have sympathy towards the Iranians. In the past, the Iranians have also supported the Iraqi Shias by giving them amnesty and asylum.
Some of the top Iraqi Shia Clerics were living in Iran, prior to the fall of Sadam Hussain, and today the hand puppets of those Clerics are part of Iraqi legislature. Hence, Iran has support in the Iraqi Legislature as well.

Frankly I believe that it is the West that has adopted a more fundamentalistic approach towards Iran. The policy is pro-Israel. Israel, which has violent history in the Middle East, has a right to develop nuclear facility and also have technology to develop nuclear weapons. And Iran which only has taken single anti-American step, by taking the US embassy members hostage & so far no direct action against Israel, has no right to have nuclear facility in the eyes of the West. This is a Hippocratic policy. No nation/country in its right senses will ever use nuclear weapons, not even US anymore and nor would Iran.

However; if the invasion takes place, Iran doesn’t have much of a defence to go up against either the Western Coalition or US alone. Except for the men power, they virtually have nothing to put up against the invading army.

[Stryker001]

This is a forum that's dealing with military issues, not political:offtopic

And also your stance is so utterly biased and one-sinded, your black and white talk is so neo con it makes me wanna puke, go play Bush somewhere else....thank you in advance

Apologies, don't puke on your puter, my opinion only not playing Bush. Ever heard of Clausewitz's dictum. However I take your comments on board.

Plus if you going to play mods know the rules. I thought the ..... was not acceptable on this forum.

Anyhow one of the long term members pulled me up on my non military assessment, thanks Supe.

[gf0012-aust]

Gentle Reminder:


Mods will do the moderation for the forum. If posters are unhappy with a response then report it - don't take it upon yourself to manage the issue
If Mods don't deal with things straight away its because we actually all have other jobs, families and lives to attend to - so we may not pick up on things straight away. Its not as if we all read every post every moment of the day - hence the reason for the "report this post" option.
Stay clear of politics. This is a military technologies and military discussion site. Politics will "ugly up" a discussion pretty quickly - its why we neutralise them - and its why we changed the discussion rules.

[gf0012-aust]

Even after a decade of sanctions? Iran though somewhat of a pariah state, did not have the years of debilitating heavy sanctions that Iraq went through. The interim years post Iran-Iraq war allowed Iran to rebuild military infrastructure, re-equip and IIRC professionlise its armed forces and away from the political/religious instrument it doubled as. Saddam also enforced brutal reprisals against ethnic/religious minorities, eroding already scarce military resources - which Iran since end of the original Gulf War (as in Iran-Iraq war) did not have to contend with.

thats very true, but the concept of C4I decapitation still applies. you don;t have to kill every C4I node - just a quantum of critical links and interlinks

The sanctions, the way Saddam ran his military, the war on Iran - all undermined Iraq and its capability to defend itself. Iran on the other hand is far more cohesive, does not run in strict dictatorship mode like Iraq, did not face decade long sanction, or face the intelligence gathering capability of 'no-fly zones's and restricting how Iraqi forces deployed vital defence infrastructure C4 etc, and has received equipment from Russia and China. While not cutting edge, it still presents Iran as a far more capable adversary than Iraq, especially going by the performance of the Iraqis in GW3.

Iran is a different capability - and the technology available just in the last 2 years makes the warfighting paradigm completely subject to change again. Again, the issue is that decapitating the nodes is much easier now than before. Iraq was decapitation and compression, then occupation. Iran only requires decapitation which will bring a degree of compression all by itself.

I would be confident that Iran watched both wars by U.S led forces against Iraq with much interest, particularly the ensuing assymetric wafare being conducted post invasion Iraq - and applying lessons learned would engage U.S in Iraq in this way.

Iran has taken the Nth Korean approach of "direct marketing" - they're fighting a PR war first. For all the wargaming that they're currently visibly engaging in - I would guess that they're pretty aware that the US has no interest in engaging in a series of battlefield meeting engagements of "force majeur" when the likelihood of force being visited upon them by PGM's etc is far greater than by having a battlefield presence.

Of course in the end and as you so rightly pointed out - U.S would prevail in symmetric warfare. I just differ in opinion on the comparision of Iran to Iraq and do not think it would be Iraq redux.

I agree its not Iraq redux in the literal sense, but I think the outcome is an "effects redux" as the US is in a far better position to stand off and decapitate way outside of the Iranian defence capability. You don;t have to decimate the standing army to destroy a nations military effectiveness.

[DarthAmerica]

Lately I hear alot about the USA and Israel invading Iran. I would like to hear your oppinions about:

1. A possible timeline/deadline of an attack
2. The dangers of such an operation
3. The tactics that will be used

Will the Kurds be used? How? What are the Mahdi (I think...) forces in south Iraq going to do? Will Syria and the Palestinians fight on Iran's side? Could the attack of Iran cause a civil war in Iraq?

TIMELINE

Well coalition, US or Israeli forces could initiate an attack almost at anytime. Ideally the attack would come before Iran had a nuclear capable delivery system or nuclear weapons. Based on when experts say Iran will be capable of this an attack could come as soon as tonight and as late as 3 to 5 years from now.

DANGERS

Obviously failure to stop Iran from aquiring nukes and events spiraling out of control such that world energy prices reach unsustainable levels or that general open war across the middle east breaks out. All of these threats are managable currently and balanced by the threat of Iran getting nuclear weapons.

TACTICS

Most likely a combination of Air and Special Forces Raids directed at WMD infrastructure, delivery systems, Iranian military units ans systems capable of retaliation outside of Irans borders and possibly the Iranian political leadership.

[csite]

You must be joking, america wouldn't attack iran in a million years. This may look stupid in this dominant western forum, but iran has come on top of this, they ended up the smarter partner.

If America attacks iran, iran will secretly develop nukes, noone will know!
If America doesn't attack iran, iran will develop the know-how on to make nukes (enrichment technology) and make it if threatened.

If America attacks Iran, iran has enough agents and troops and special forces in both iraq and afghanistan to make 500 explosions in iraq every day with far more advanced bombs than the most advanced ied's in iraq today. There is so many scientists in those nuclear plants who are russians, north korean, chinese, probably some pakistanis too. Then there is the risk of the nuclear dust after the explosion, if israel does the strike, iran will most likely launch hundreds of shahabs at israel's nuclear plant which will be far more devastating for israel as they have no oil and they need the nuclear plan to electricity.

Iran's influence in the region is by far iran's biggest weapon. Iran has also armed and trained the badr army of iraq, it will be a battle 100x worse than falluja in iraq if iran is attacked, Iran is a pretty rich country in real terms, but the mullahs generally contribute alot of the oil revenue with other SHIA'S of the world, mostly IRAQIS and Lebanese, so these shia's would fight hard on Iran side because of the support iran has given them since the 1980's.

Then there is the element of the kurds who are split, iran supported the kurds since the 1980's both in iraq and turkey, they are split, some on iran's side and some against iran.

An attack on iran would only mean many more body bags wrapped up in American flags / british flags sent home. Iran would simply start the enrichment in secret, you can destroy the technology, but you can't destroy the know-how iran has, they most likely have secret labs already and have already though about such an attack.

Before anyone even thought iran would ever go nuclear, iran has planned this all out, it's well thought out and it's why iran is so defiant, because america or israel can't do much to iran, the best they can do is completely destroy 1-2 nuclear sites, not much of an achievement when you think about the consequences for both sides.

I like something about Britain, that’s they are very smart, unlike America, after the iran iraq war they re-opened their embassy in iran because they knew iran would be a valuable asset in the area, America is like a big beast, they are generally not very smart, but show their muscles around to scare off the competitors, Britain is the small guy who uses his brain instead of it’s muscles, does attack, but does it under a shield.

America’s biggest mistake was the support of iraq in the iran iraq war, then the total breaking of diplomatic relations with iran. Many don’t know the history but it was actually Britain who removed an Iranian king to replace him with reza pahalvi (his son) who was extremely pro western. But look how Britain came out of this, and how America came out of this. The whole coop of mossadegh was the idea of MI6 in Britain, because mossadegh (then iran’s only democratically elected prime minister) wanted to nationalise the oil from british oil firms, I don’t know how but Britain must have somehow convinced cia to take part in the coop too, Britain has far more to gamble on iran’s oil than America, perhaps America though iran may end up in the hands of the soviets along with their oil. But anyways, the whole point is people of iran shout death to America, Israel or the soviet union, you hardly hear death to Britain while it was Britain who had masterminded this whole crazy politics of iran.

[DarthAmerica]

You must be joking, america wouldn't attack iran in a million years. This may look stupid in this dominant western forum, but iran has come on top of this, they ended up the smarter partner.

If America attacks iran, iran will secretly develop nukes, noone will know!
If America doesn't attack iran, iran will develop the know-how on to make nukes (enrichment technology) and make it if threatened.

If America attacks Iran, iran has enough agents and troops and special forces in both iraq and afghanistan to make 500 explosions in iraq every day with far more advanced bombs than the most advanced ied's in iraq today. There is so many scientists in those nuclear plants who are russians, north korean, chinese, probably some pakistanis too. Then there is the risk of the nuclear dust after the explosion, if israel does the strike, iran will most likely launch hundreds of shahabs at israel's nuclear plant which will be far more devastating for israel as they have no oil and they need the nuclear plan to electricity.


OK, first things first. I do not joke. And I dont think it would be wise for a minor power like Iran to assume the United States is joking. Getting called out by name as one of the USA greatest threats should not be taken lightly. Having said that, I stop short of calling your post "Stupid". Rather you have an opinion that doesnt stand up well against all the evidence that suggest the United States is preparing to strike. One of the most glaring pieces of evidence will take the shape of a mushroom cloud in the Nevada desert in the coming weeks. Its not difficult to imagine why that test is being conducted. For historical references you could also refer back to the Cuban Missile Crisis to see how the US tends to deal with nuclear threats.

As to the issue of "If America Attacks Iran", I dont think any attack will be limited to just taking out a few nuclear sites. I think there will be no partial solutions that involve the current Iranian Leadership. Read Regime change. Either that or unconditional compliance with whatever inspections are deemed resonable to prevent the Iranians from aquiring a nuclear weapons capability.

As to the issue of Iranian terror. That is a threat the US has been prepared to deal with for some time. I imagine initially there will be some action and that it will be painful. But its going to be a punative action that will have little ability to prevent mission accomplishment in Iran.

Just to give a rough Idea of what Iran is dealing with. Within 15 minutes to 4 hours, the Iranian IADs, Airforce and Navy will be fragmented and broken. Within 48 hours the Iranian Government and Military command and control will be essentially destroyed and unable to influence events or provide any tangible degree of sympathy in regard to coordinating counter actions at home or abroad. In other words, as you say, Iran has things very well planned out in advance. And because they will be operating from a script as events unfold. They will be severly limited once events start detouring from what they planned because of no C4I. Over the course of the next 7 to 14 days, Coalition forces will destroy the nuclear program and mop up any surviving Iranian military forces capable of operating abroad and able to resist the manuvers of internal Iranian Opposition to the government. There is no way to say exactly how this will turn out. But I think one thing is clear. Iran will be much worse off at the end in comparison to the U.S. and any Coalition partners.

In conclussion, Iran is posturing and positioning itself now while it still can. A shooting war is not in Irans interest from a military point of view and represents the weakest option they have if the intent is to aquire nuclear weapons. Think about it. If Iran wants nuclear weapons against the will of the internatonal community. What means would best facilitate their wishes? Military or Political? An objective answer of that question best explains why they are putting up such strong rhetoric. Good leadership plays your strengths against the enemies weaknesses.

[turin]

For historical references you could also refer back to the Cuban Missile Crisis to see how the US tends to deal with nuclear threats.

Even though in the end its about nuclear threats I also think this is about circumstances and nearly all the circumstances are just so vastly different that it is really questionable to compare these two events. One may write several pages on this subject but obviously that would take some time and leads us off topic. A notable point would be the by-proxy-approach of the SU on Cuba against Iran where the thread is an indigenous one making the removal of the threat much more difficult.

I think there will be no partial solutions that involve the current Iranian Leadership. Read Regime change.

So what, the US are using military threats to convince Iran to turn away from its ambitions. Nothing new here. But I'd think that the current ambitions most certainly dont go beyond air strikes, for a whole lot of military and political reasons. Actually the whole issue in Iraq shows that the concept of military-based regime change has failed. In Iran the US have no friends and no valid opposition to support. While I can see that this discussion should be about the military aspects and politics are anathema here, its important to acknowledge that without a political option you simply will not have a regime-change. The US however has absolutely no support inside Iran and, currently, not even in the whole middle east, so it lacks the basics to accomplish the change.
To assume that the US alone are capable of etablishing the very basic military conditions in order to allow a political process (which just isnt there) to take place, is a bit bold in light of current efforts in Iraq. This problem involves all the requirements,most notably manpower (boots), money in terms of defence spending and lastly, area to control (which would instantly reach from Baghdad to Kabul).
So the other approach to regime change can only be to stay out and try to establish such a change through different channels. However these channels certainly dont exist and the Iraq embargo has shown that the whole approach, even if there is some indigenous opposition, is very likely going to fail or even make matters worse.

That is why I assume that an air strike will indeed be the "final" solution since it may cripple the nuclear programme for some years even though it will certainly not prevent Iran from trying to continue its efforts. An invasion wont happen for the very simple reasons of lacking the resources and political support. Terminating the current government (one way or another) wont change anything either since the driving force is a combination of ideology and the will of the people in Iran (who elected Ahmadinejad through a proper democratic process).

There just isnt a simple solution for every problem and I think, the iranian situation is such a problem. Sp problem solving now concentrates on the nuclear issue while the regime issue is a bit outside o troubleshooting efforts even though it also is at the roots of all the current issues with Iran.

[kostas-zochios]

:type I believe the overthrow of Saddam was a VERY big mistake in the West's external politics:

Iran is populated and governed by Shia muslims.
Iraq has a Shia majority and is governed by Shias (now).
Syria is governed by Shias (Assad's government).
The Lebanon is under Syria's influence.
:rel
As you can see, Saddam's Iraq (the Sunnis where in power) was a counterweight to the Shias. America failed to see that their real problem in the middle east weren't Iraq's (still missing) WMDs, but Iran. I believe that if the USA had looked into the future, they wouldn't have overthrown Saddam, but they would have used him against Iran. At the moment a power void has formed in Iraq and if the Americans withdraw, Iran will fill it and this will create a Shia controled zone that will extend from the coasts of the Mediterranian to eastern Iran, severing America's access to Central Asia (5 Stans) and eventually handing over the 5 Stans to Russia and China.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/middle_east/images/middle-east.jpg
If America hadn't conducted these "panic attacks" (Gulf war 2, Afghanistan) and Saddam was still in power, the Middle East would be a much stable place and it would be easier for the USA to start working on establishing their position in Central Asia, where vast petrol and gas deposits are found.

[DarthAmerica]

Even though in the end its about nuclear threats I also think this is about circumstances and nearly all the circumstances are just so vastly different that it is really questionable to compare these two events. One may write several pages on this subject but obviously that would take some time and leads us off topic. A notable point would be the by-proxy-approach of the SU on Cuba against Iran where the thread is an indigenous one making the removal of the threat much more difficult.


Irans efforts to obtain nuclear weapons are far from just being an indigeonous effort. Notice where the nuclear materials, nuclear knowledge and political support for Iran are coming from. This is a text book proxy approach if there ever was one.


So what, the US are using military threats to convince Iran to turn away from its ambitions. Nothing new here. But I'd think that the current ambitions most certainly dont go beyond air strikes, for a whole lot of military and political reasons. Actually the whole issue in Iraq shows that the concept of military-based regime change has failed.

There just isnt a simple solution for every problem and I think, the iranian situation is such a problem. Sp problem solving now concentrates on the nuclear issue while the regime issue is a bit outside o troubleshooting efforts even though it also is at the roots of all the current issues with Iran.


The ambitions dont go beyond a raid because there is no need for anything else. Iraq has by no means failed and no objective competent analysis I've ever read has ever suggested that. The only failures in Iraq are in communicating the successes and benefits of OIF by the administration. While this has spawn various protest, outside of that, the conquest of Iraq has proven to be a net gain on a military and political level for the United States and Coalition partners. Also, the strategic location of Iraq is a facilitator to follow on operations possibly including in Iran at some point in the future. With military forces also in Afghanistan Iran is beset on all sides by powerful military forces.

From a military point of view and politics aside. The United States has no need to occupy or to invade Iran outside of raids directed at the Nuclear facilities and possibly to secure the straits of Hormuz through the duration of any conflict. As far as regime change, thats also achievable via airpower within hours.

[turin]

Irans efforts to obtain nuclear weapons are far from just being an indigeonous effort. Notice where the nuclear materials, nuclear knowledge and political support for Iran are coming from. This is a text book proxy approach if there ever was one.

Ehm...no. I think you are mixing Technological origin and political ambition/control.
The cuban scenario, although to Castros profit, was always a "game" between the US and the Soviet Union. The latter had the ultimate word in deciding about the nuclear weapons on Cuba, not Castro or anyone else in the cuban government.

Now in Iran the control about the programme itself and the use of the weapons produced by it is with the iranian government, not with the Russians, Chinese or even North Koreans.

Therefore its no proxy-situation, where some alien power can decide to withdraw its nuclear presence from Iran, this way ending the threat.
Instead the nuclear ambitions and knowledge remain with Iran, despite the external origins of the programme in the first place.

You could compare it to Cuba if Castro would have had active control over the weapons there. This was certainly not the case and the US approach would have been different then.

With military forces also in Afghanistan Iran is beset on all sides by powerful military forces.

Seeing flags on a map one might get this impression. However allied control in Afghanistan is very very far from sure and still concentrates on protecting the "mayor of Kabul" Karzai. Sure, there are operations abroad but overall the Alliance is far from exercising true control over Afghanistan. Warlords still have a considerable say in day-to-day operations beyond Kabul and in the South the Shiite influence upon which Iran can build is quite strong. It goes both ways then and the threat the coalition would face in Afghanistan then would be more comparable to the daily IED bombing now going on in Iraq.

[DarthAmerica]

Therefore its no proxy-situation, where some alien power can decide to withdraw its nuclear presence from Iran, this way ending the threat.
Instead the nuclear ambitions and knowledge remain with Iran, despite the external origins of the programme in the first place.

You could compare it to Cuba if Castro would have had active control over the weapons there. This was certainly not the case and the US approach would have been different then.


I feel that its enough to say that I disagree with you. I'll monitor your responses and chime in where I feel its necessary. But overall you are wrong IMHO. Iran's ambitions and abilities are two different things. Without their technological, military and political benefactors. They arent able to see things through to their desired end state. Also Irans benefactors have a vested interest in either outcome weather the crisis is resolved through diplomacy or military means. Do an analysis of the 5 members of the UNSC and see who has most to gain from either outcome. At the end of your calculus you should have 1 or 2 beneficiaries. As do all things, war by proxy evolves and takes many forms.

Also, do not forget or take for granted Irans proximity to Russia. There is no way that Iran, a fundamentalist radical Islamic state who used to refer to Russia as the "Lesser Satan" is aquiring nuclear weapons capability without AT LEAST the tacit approval and help of Russia. Iran attaining a nuclear capability is militarily destablising to the point that all G-8 nations have to take a position one way or the other in regard to how this helps or hurts their regional interest.



Seeing flags on a map one might get this impression. However allied control in Afghanistan is very very far from sure and still concentrates on protecting the "mayor of Kabul" Karzai. Sure, there are operations abroad but overall the Alliance is far from exercising true control over Afghanistan. Warlords still have a considerable say in day-to-day operations beyond Kabul and in the South the Shiite influence upon which Iran can build is quite strong. It goes both ways then and the threat the coalition would face in Afghanistan then would be more comparable to the daily IED bombing now going on in Iraq.



This is also not true. Being on the ground and having contacts in theatre would provide you certain insight that the MSM cannot. I fear that your views are based on false premises. But you are entitiled to your opinion and I respect that even if I disagree and the facts and my experiences support my disagreement.

As to the influence Iran has in Iraq. You should know that its dependant on functional lines of communication with the Iranian government that would all but disappear in under 48 hours after the start of combat operations. The Iranian priorities after that will be heavily biased towards survival and self preservation rather than manipulating event in Iraq. Of course there will be a brief spike in violence and the Media will blow it way out of proportion as usual. But in the end Iraq will reach a steady state and Iran will be both too busy dealing with the fallout, maybe literally, of local events and unable to do much outside of their own borders.

[DarthAmerica]

Any objective review of Irans military means immediately reveals the following. A preemptive coalition strike against Iran would seriously hurt almost beyond repair Irans ability to coordinate effective and directed relatiation. In fact as was correctly suggested earlier, Iran would have to fall back on a pre defined set of contigency plans. To what extent these plans are valid AFTER a coalition preemptive strike is questionable. For example, the Iranians may have as their plan to disrupt the regional energy supplies through a combination of terrorism, naval activities and ballistic missile attacks on oil related facilities. It seems that the later two methods would be hard pressed to remain valid in the wake of a preemptive strike since the coalition will make the Iranian Navy and ballistic missiles primary targets. Terrorism is an option but again, any coalition strike would also be coordinated with hightened states of alert and increased security of such targets. Remeber, terrorism is an inherently offensive weapon like SOF direct action operations and success is largely dependant on suprise. Any attempted terror operations immediately following a preemptive strike will hardly be a suprise in the strategic sense. Also, no matter how successful initially. Terror operations on this scale are unsustainable and would be highly unlikely to have the type of tempo necessary to have long term effects. Think back to 9/11.

As destructive and successful as the 9/11 attacks were, the Western economies have been proven to be quite robust and redundant in their ability to absorb such attacks in the long run. Going back to naval and ballistic missiles now.

Naval attacks. The number one greatest threat Iran poses from a naval point of view is through Submarine and coastal SSM vs supertankers in the Gulf. Any competent military analysis would say that ANY submarine can be a serious threat due to the inherent stealth of those platforms. But being that this threat is obvious. I am willing to make the following assumptions based on the history of ASW operations. Irans SSK's are probably under constant survaillence and only moments away from being engaged by coalition forces. Futher, Iran not knowing the timing of a coalition attack. Cannot have all its SSKs deployed all the time. The Iranians, like other NAval powers, will have to rotate its forces in cycles to ensure continuous coverage. So I would suspect around 1/3rd of its SSK force to be deployed. Because most of these SSKs are rather primitive and the means by which we can observe areas of interest are so persistent. I'd say that these SSKs would have rather short life spans. Assuming some of them actually live long enough to fire weapons. they would have little hope of survival after that. Even if they are successful initially. The naval forces the coalition can bring to bear have overlaping capabilities and redundancy to take combat losses and still complete the mission. SSKs in port for training or logistical reasons will most likely not survive the opening strikes. Any surviving SSK's after this point will be more of a nuisance rather than a real threat to mission accomplishment. The surface components of the Iranian Navy would simply not be a factor as they have little ability to hide from or defend themselves against the types forces that will attack them. For reference refer to past USN vs Iranian Navy conflicts in the 1980's where the Iranian Navy proved to be no match against the superior situational awareness and PGMs of the USN. The technological and Doctrinal Overmatch is even greater today.

Mobile ballistic and SS missiles today still enjoy stealthiness. But they also have to contend with much more potent defenses and situational awareness. UAV and Space based survaillence are orders of magnitude more capable today and time to respond to spotting them is much reduced lowering their chance of survival. Those units who do manage to fire weapons are going against battle tested and proven PURPOSE BUILT defensive weapons. And they have no ability to saturate the defense ability to process targets through the entire engagement sequence.
All of this is predicated on SURVIVING the intitial coalition assault.


In conclussion, Iran has very poor options for retaliating in a military context post strike. And this doesnt even begin to discuss how they would manage to coordinate their actions in the abscense of an effective C4I. The military options for Iran suggest that the political arena is their best choice and that a military conflict would mean something in their plan went seriously wrong.

[Black Legion]

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/04/09/hersh.iran.reut/index.html

With key nuclear parts for uranuim enrichment being deep underground at the Natanz nuclear facilty, GBU 28 wouldn't be effective, is the usage of the B61 nuclear bunker buster bomb now a very possible scenario?:confused: :(

[gf0012-aust]

I think the thread needs to be made "harder".

Rather than look at a nuclear prosecution - how about the stakes changing to a non-nuclear only solution?

A non nuclear prosecution requires a bit more complexity and finesse - and force compression doesn't always need to consider nukes as the ultimate arbiter of solution.

[DarthAmerica]

I think the thread needs to be made "harder".

Rather than look at a nuclear prosecution - how about the stakes changing to a non-nuclear only solution?

A non nuclear prosecution requires a bit more complexity and finesse - and force compression doesn't always need to consider nukes as the ultimate arbiter of solution.

OK the ubiquitous no nukes qualifier. Very well I'll give it a try. But let me say straight out I think its not realistic to assume they would not be used. I suppose GF's post would best be compared to the President asking, "What non-nuclear options do I have." In that context I will give this a try.

First of all I would say that its only possible to do a very surface level discussion of a conventional operation for several reasons. Among them,

Exact locations and details of the facilities arent known

The defences are also unknown

Therefore its only possible to do a broad overview. From various sources I have heard that their are 16 to 24 sites directly related to the nuclear program that would need to be shut down. I also hear that many of these facilities are buried such that conventional bunker busting munitions would not be able to destroy them. But that claim is unverifiable even if its logical to assume that. The real problem I see is not in striking the facilities themselves. The Various coalition partners have more than enough firepower to hit all the known facilities. The problem I see is in being sure that those facilities are actually destroyed, BDA, and ensuring that you know of all the facilities. But even so there is a much bigger problem. Suppose you actually are successful. I dont see anyway short of putting boots on the ground to ensure that in 5 to 10 years, Iran doesnt simply reconstitute its nuclear program except with the lessons learned and even more secretly and this time with a taste for revenge. You see you can kill the ability of a nation to make nukes. But unless you kill their AMBITION, then you are simply delaying the inevitable and will be back duplicating your efforts but possibly on enemy terms. In my opinion, this completely rules out the possibility of a limited strike only directed at the nuclear program. With that in mind I would advise a broader plan that weakens and underminds the Iranian Goverments ability to control their nation and also reduces their options for regional retaliation. This smells a lot like regime change to me. An operation similar in scale to OAF and lasting about as long would probably be necessary. The difference is that this enemy will have a means to strike back both economically and militarily through asymetric warfare for the duration of the conflict.

With all of that in mind I would suggest a sudden and massive preemptive strike initially heavy on strategic bombers and USN TLAMs with TACAIR sustaining Tempo from regional bases and Carriers. Concurrently with these operations, the coalition should be prepared to deploy and support SOF, Marine and Airmobile forces to secure and access the damage done to Irans coast along the strait of Hormuz, nuclear facilities and oil infrastructure. The withdrawal of coalition troops would be conditional on the destruction of Irans nuclear infrastructure, the death or capture of key individuals(including political leadership) related to the program and the security of Gulf shipping through the strait.

[Rich]

I see no point in even discussing strikes against the WMD targets only because theres no way that alone is going to happen. First off, and in any event, their air defense network is going to have to be crippled before a sustained operation. And if your going to do that you might as well take out their naval assets as well because theres no point in leaving them afloat to cause havoc in the gulf. So now we have a de facto state of war no matter what we call it and theres no point leaving their command and control intact, nor is there any reason to also spare the infrastructure they need to continue on as a somewhat modern 3'rd country, "physically modern" mind you".

If you cant reach the assets you absolutely have to destroy with conventional weapons, and don't wish to go nuclear, the only other option is invasion. Or a heavy airborne drop into hostile territory.

And if we go such a route, and I personally believe its preferable then allowing a bunch of religious madmen get the bomb, our weakest point will be in the US itself. We still don't control our borders, or know who the heck is in the country, and we have made little if any headway in this direction.

Forgive me If I lose out on my chance for a Nobel prize but I think its pretty obvious that North America and Europe will then see terrorism and insurrection from Muslims we have allowed into our countries. Sort of like the Paris riots with the occasional IED. But its not like it aint going to happen anyways.

[DarthAmerica]

I see no point in even discussing strikes against the WMD targets only because theres no way that alone is going to happen. First off, and in any event, their air defense network is going to have to be crippled before a sustained operation. And if your going to do that you might as well take out their naval assets as well because theres no point in leaving them afloat to cause havoc in the gulf. So now we have a de facto state of war no matter what we call it and theres no point leaving their command and control intact, nor is there any reason to also spare the infrastructure they need to continue on as a somewhat modern 3'rd country, "physically modern" mind you".

If you cant reach the assets you absolutely have to destroy with conventional weapons, and don't wish to go nuclear, the only other option is invasion. Or a heavy airborne drop into hostile territory.

And if we go such a route, and I personally believe its preferable then allowing a bunch of religious madmen get the bomb, our weakest point will be in the US itself. We still don't control our borders, or know who the heck is in the country, and we have made little if any headway in this direction.

Forgive me If I lose out on my chance for a Nobel prize but I think its pretty obvious that North America and Europe will then see terrorism and insurrection from Muslims we have allowed into our countries. Sort of like the Paris riots with the occasional IED. But its not like it aint going to happen anyways.


Just a technical note. We dont HAVE TO take out their IAD. We have enough long range PGMs and Stealth Aircraft to hit the targets we know about, including their Navy, and largely ignore the IADs. But as both you and I said, thats pointless and counter productive in isolation because they will retaliate and reconstitute their program. If we do it, we have to do it all they way to the top. Only Nukes or Boots on the ground could achieve that with any degree of certainty.

[Analyst]

With that in mind I would advise a broader plan that weakens and underminds the Iranian Goverments ability to control their nation and also reduces their options for regional retaliation. This smells a lot like regime change to me. An operation similar in scale to OAF and lasting about as long would probably be necessary. The difference is that this enemy will have a means to strike back both economically and militarily through asymetric warfare for the duration of the conflict.


So sorry, but I most humbly disagree! Would the US be able to sustain another longterm conflict? Even with the Iraqi and Afghan theaters still active? You guys ready to pay-up another few billions $$$ and loose another few thousand soldier. Furthermore, if US invades Iran, it's unpopularity factor will increase even more in the Middle East.:confused:

I think a unilateral invasion of Iran and regime change is absolutily out of the question. Notice the president does not seem very keen to use 'pre-emptive warfare' rhetorics against Iran, as he did against Iraq, even tough the former seems to present a more defined danger than the later!

As for NATO allies, I'm not so sure about the common invasion scenario either! It is quite unlikely that Canada participate in such a campaign. I can't talk about other countries, but I beleive France would pass too. As for China and Russia, the both consistently stated that they not support military actions, at least favoring a diplomatic outcome (altough, I agree, such statement don't say much...).

I would suggest:
Covert Operations, sabotage, bribery, selected assassinations and general tradecraft. :idea2

For the moment, estimates from the Pentagon and CIA say that Iran is still far from developping the bomb! Like 10 years or so. Now, CovOps could increase that length of time, maybe up to a point where the leadership decides it is too time and ressource consuming to follow with that program. At the very least, it would deny Iran the bomb until either western countries arraive at a consensus to invade within a multilateral operation OR until other theaters are stabilized, like Afghanistan. Furthermore, such a course would leave the diplomatic avenue open (up until the point where Invasion is officially decided), would ensure far lesser civilian casualties and would cost a lot less.

That's my take!

[norinco89]

Iran has declared it finish uranium enrichment. www.cnn.com

does this mean war?

[P.A.F]

some people really do need to use a little sense. :nutkick
Just look at what REALLY is going on in afganistan and Iraq. the coalition is not liking it there and the costs are increasing rapidly. america is not in a position to attack iran with 2 head-aches weighting it down. if it does so then it would be in co-ordination with israel (very unlikely).
Reasons why them would not go to war:
1) americans themselves are not in favour.
2) Financial strain of 3 occupations is too much.
3) Iran is known too have distructive weapons as late tests have shown. america nor israel for that matter want a loss of heavy life.
4) This would seriously damage US relations with others such a russia and china as well as pakistan (a key ally on the war on terror)
5) Bush would surely loss his job ;)
6) and to sum everything up. IT WOULD BE THE MOST STUPID THINK AMERICA COULD DO IN ITS HISTORY.

[Rich]

some people really do need to use a little sense. :nutkick
Just look at what REALLY is going on in afganistan and Iraq. the coalition is not liking it there and the costs are increasing rapidly. america is not in a position to attack iran with 2 head-aches weighting it down. if it does so then it would be in co-ordination with israel (very unlikely).
Reasons why them would not go to war:
1) americans themselves are not in favour.
2) Financial strain of 3 occupations is too much.
3) Iran is known too have distructive weapons as late tests have shown. america nor israel for that matter want a loss of heavy life.
4) This would seriously damage US relations with others such a russia and china as well as pakistan (a key ally on the war on terror)
5) Bush would surely loss his job ;)
6) and to sum everything up. IT WOULD BE THE MOST STUPID THINK AMERICA COULD DO IN ITS HISTORY.

1, They are less in favor of Iran going nuclear. But what do I know? I only live here.:rolleyes:
2, Whos talking about "occupying them"?
3, I bet we have far, far more. And better ones!
4, Tough!
5, Spoken like a true citizen of a foreign country. try reading our constitution before you post.
6, It has to be weighed against the danger of allowing them to go nuclear. THE MOST STUPID THING WE CAN DO IS "DO NOTHING"!

[P.A.F]

1, They are less in favor of Iran going nuclear. But what do I know? I only live here.:rolleyes:
2, Whos talking about "occupying them"?
3, I bet we have far, far more. And better ones!
4, Tough!
5, Spoken like a true citizen of a foreign country. try reading our constitution before you post.
6, It has to be weighed against the danger of allowing them to go nuclear. THE MOST STUPID THING WE CAN DO IS "DO NOTHING"!

1. everyone is not in favour of them going nuclear but many 99.9% say that that war is not the way to go about it.
2. well with forces in irans east and west borders, i wouldn't be surprised i they tried an invasion.
3. i didn't deny the fact that you have better weapons, but iran is just testing some of it's missiles for no reason???
4. Well what do pro-bush americans ever think about??? Oil, murder????
5. maybe i didn't put that point clearly enough to you. i ment to say that bush and his party would lose there job by the next election for definate.
6. well if your talking about nukes being so dangourous then why don't everyone else disarm theirs??? the only country to use nukes on others is Your country. there is no prof that iran would be so evil. as they said they just need it for peaceful purposes and i think there is nothing wrong with that. if other have it they can have it. if others don't then they iran can't.

[WebMaster]

Read the subject line of this topic... are you awake?

It doesn't ask "IF" iran should be invaded nor does it ask the morality of such action.

Only thing the subject of this thread cares about is that what are some of the strategies that a military force (any force, not really US) would take on to invade Iran.

Even if you are not for invading Iran, can you just pretend you are and if you can't do that, how about not replying to the thread and risk taking it off-topic/derailing it?

Thread needs MILITARY strategies not your political stance on the subject matter. What would YOU do if you were faced with this question? General, we need to invade Iran, get the plan together? Are you going to sit there and explain the political consequences or list safe and effective ways to invade your enemy?