Iran invasion strategies

Status
Not open for further replies.

kostas-zochios

New Member
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?
 

kostas-zochios

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
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

New Member
kostas-zochios said:
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

Banned Member
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

New Member
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

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Hussain said:
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

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
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

New Member


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.
 
Last edited:

Stryker001

Banned Member
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

New Member
Stryker001 said:
America and the coaltion of the willing are the only nations that seem proactive in protecting world stability.
That's not a military assessment.

gf0012-aust said:
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

New Member
Stryker001 said:
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:eek:fftopic

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

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
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.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=56721
 

Stryker001

Banned Member
Black Legion said:
This is a forum that's dealing with military issues, not political:eek:fftopic

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

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro


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

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Supe said:
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

Supe said:
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.

Supe said:
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.

Supe said:
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

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
kostas-zochios said:
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

New Member
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

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
csite said:
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

New Member
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.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top