Iran and Related Geopolitical Defense Issues

[rip]

True, however, if Iran closes the Arabian Gulf / Strait of Hormuz, then a whole bunch of support will swing into the U.S. favor and missiles will be flying in short order. The World will not tolerate the blocking of more than 20% of the worlds oil export for long.





I believe the U.S. has learned a lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan, and that is to leave the rebuilding of the Islamic nation to the Islams. The largest portion of American and allied casualties came from the rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't believe we will be doing that for Iran. Not sure where this guerrilla war would be fought, but it won't be in Iran, unless its a civil war started after the bombing ended.



Again, the U.S. would not try to keep troops in Iran. We would most likely destroy Iran's ability to manufacture nuclear materials, bomb the military and civil infrastructure, and then simply leave the rest to whoever inherits the mess.



That depends on the type of war you are waging. I expect this would be similar to the actions in Bosnia and Yugoslavia. Military units, bases, communications centers, infrastructure, weapon and nuclear manufacturing sites would be targeted by bombs and missiles. The risk is of losing aircraft and maybe a frigate or two. I doubt Iran would be able to do more than attack a few oil tankers with mines and RPG armed Boston whalers. I sincerely doubt the U.S. would park a carrier in the Straight where a mere 50 miles separates one coast form the other. Why would they when their power projection reaches hundreds of miles?

The one risk I will agree on is an Iranian invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. With U.S. forces now mostly gone form Iraq, I am not sure what Arab feelings would be about that. Iranian troops in Afghanistan would be harder to dislodge, but feel Iranian casualties would be high. Taliban forces are fighting well simply because they attack in small groups and can withdraw to Pakistan when they need to. An "invasion" would be much harder to conceal from U.S. recon assets and there would be no stipulation on crossing into Iran to hit targets. Since the Taliban and Iran nearly went to war in 1998 (?) I am not sure how much support Iranian forces would get from the insurgents already fighting there, and the ANA would certainly resist (possibly along with India). Again, I don't see Iran coming out on top of that conflict.



Again, there would be no cleanup.

It is good to see an opposing comment. I feel too much is being placed on America's economic problems. While they are large, I don't see it deterring a military option (it hasn't in the past). What it will deter is an economic assisted recovery after the fighting, and probably a more detailed effort at garnering support from the U.N. prior to conflict than would normally be the case.

Let us try to get real for a second. The US is not going to be bullied by any Iranian threats. A carrier task force will once again return to the Gulf areas, as has been the policy of the US government for quite some time and this is nothing new or especially provocative on its part. What the Iranian’s then do about it is your guess is as good as mine. But they have put their reputation at risk, not the US.

If the Iranian’s attack the US fleet as they claimed they are willing and capable of doing, with the stated intention closing down the straight I think we can all agree the response will be far greater than anything we have seen before.


Two questions, first can the republican guard successfully deny the US Navy access to the gulf by force? And if they can, can they cult off gulf traffic?

I think the answer to both is no, even if they can get a couple of blow of their own in.

Then the question is what is next?

Unless there is a change of policy then the game is how do you insure the safe passage of the commerce in the gulf while the Iranians try to droop mines in the waters of the straight, launch repeated small boat attacks, and possibly do commando raids on oil terminals and the like along with all the sabotage their many agents in the gulf can accomplish.

My humble proposal was and I think still is that taking of the island is the best option for many reasons but it is not the only one.

What we can all agree on is that the entire world will not put up with the energy disruption that Iran claims they can produce. Something would be done and as long as the oil flows the way it always has the world will indorse it, privately if not publicly.

 

[My2Cents]

Two questions, first can the republican guard successfully deny the US Navy access to the gulf by force? And if they can, can they cult off gulf traffic?

1. The Republican Guard was Iraqi, not Iranian. You mean the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (IRGC)
2. The answer to the first is ‘No’, but the answer to the 2nd is ‘Yes, but not for long.’

The question is will it be long enough that the resulting political and economic turmoil can be used to force a political settlement in their favor.

 

[Beatmaster]

Well said guys, and yes i agree to most of what you guys said.
Its true that the US and NATO learned countless lessons in Iraq and Afghanistan.
However its save to say that Iran itself has many many more options then Saddams army and all the terrorist groups in both Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
The dangers from Iran are not only limited to their N-Program and their support to the terrorist groups they support.
This is vital for the west to understand before considering any action at all.
Obviously as many have pointed out the world will never accept a blockade by Iran.
Besides the economic backlash and the direct effects of such a blockade there are many other dangers to consider.
So imo regardless what the west wants its vital to maintain some sort of stability in the region.
As some other said the US will not grand Iran the luxury to be rebuild ed by the west after the war.
However i believe that the west will be forced to do something in terms of rebuilding and bringing back some sort of government.
You might think why? well its simple ask yourself the question what direct and longterm effects would be if the west goes into Iran and accomplishes it tasks and then move out again.....

Terrorists and all kinds of religious/ethnic groups will do whatever they can to get a piece of the pie in Iran.
We all see what is going on in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other nearby regions, which is causing already serious stability and other problems.
Imagine Iran that goes into anarchy.
I am not going to explain in detail because it would take to long, however let me be clear the US, NATO and all other nations that are involved in this situation do not act in their own best interest to just walk away.
The dangers from this are arguably bigger then the N-Program itself.
So if anyone goes in then they will have to go in from the beginning all the way to the end.
The middle east cannot afford to have a huge nation like Iran going into civil war or something similar as it will affect any unstable nation in the region and it will give groups like Taliban, Hezbollah and many others the option to grow.
Which in turn will backfire on the west and the region itself.
The results of such a event will be a extremely delicate situation, the middle east is vital to the world and therefor any action in the region is playing with fire......

So in the end of the day its not the US/West who can pick or choose what actions to take and what not.
If they plan actions then they also have to plan for the aftermath....

 

[gf0012-aust]

If they plan actions then they also have to plan for the aftermath....

which is the significant lesson learnt out of Iraq and what scares the crap out of anyone who is seen to take the lead role....

 

[Feanor]

1. The Republican Guard was Iraqi, not Iranian. You mean the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (IRGC)
2. The answer to the first is ‘No’, but the answer to the 2nd is ‘Yes, but not for long.’

The question is will it be long enough that the resulting political and economic turmoil can be used to force a political settlement in their favor.

I suspect that the US will not settle in their favor, as a matter of principle. It would send a very bad message to other Gulf states.

which is the significant lesson learnt out of Iraq and what scares the crap out of anyone who is seen to take the lead role....

Can't they do, what Russia did in Georgia? Occupy 2/3-3/4ths of the country, trash all the military installations, "evacuate" all valuable military hardware, destroy the military with air, arty, and operational-level BM strikes, and then leave? The Iranian military still hasn't recovered from the damage it suffered as a result of the Revolution (they still operate pre-revolution aircraft). How long would it take them to recover from something of that sort?

 

[My2Cents]

I suspect that the US will not settle in their favor, as a matter of principle. It would send a very bad message to other Gulf states.

The US definitely will not want to let Iran off in the slightest. But if there spiking oil prices and economic fears lead to enough turmoil, and the US does not look capable of ending the situation quick enough, then it becomes possible that the governments of the EU, China, Japan, etc. could join together and force the US to accept a diplomatic ‘solution’.

I would consider that response from those other ‘world leaders’ to be stupid, short sighted, and venal. But that is standard procedure in the realm of politics. The news papers seem to have them demonstrate similar behavior at least every other week.
:nono

 

[swerve]

Unless there is a change of policy then the game is how do you insure the safe passage of the commerce in the gulf while the Iranians try to droop mines in the waters of the straight, launch repeated small boat attacks, and possibly do commando raids on oil terminals and the like along with all the sabotage their many agents in the gulf can accomplish.

My humble proposal was and I think still is that taking of the island is the best option for many reasons but it is not the only one.

It's not going to stop any of that. At best, it could hinder it. The Gulf has plenty of small islands belonging to or controlled by Iran, many of them uninhabited but capable of providing hiding places for small boats & raiding parties. And there's a lot of Iranian coast west & east of Qeshm, & not covered by it, from which to harry tankers. The narrowest point of the strait, mainland to mainland, is about 200 km south-east of Qeshm.

All occupying Qeshm would do would be to put US troops within range of Iranian weapons. Putting air bases on it, as you have suggested, would be the height of folly: you'd be putting expensive US aircraft on the ground within range of cheap Iranian artillery rockets. It's so close to the coast it's almost part of the mainland.

 

[NICO]

1. The Republican Guard was Iraqi, not Iranian. You mean the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (IRGC)
2. The answer to the first is ‘No’, but the answer to the 2nd is ‘Yes, but not for long.’

The question is will it be long enough that the resulting political and economic turmoil can be used to force a political settlement in their favor.

Once hostilities break out, not some small skirmish, there's no way a US President is in an election year going to negotiate with Iran. Even if he wanted to, you would first have to reopen the Straits before negotiating anyways, nobody is going to talk with Iran with them mining it or using swarm tactics on civilian tankers or USN. Which means, it will could get ugly real fast. IMO, this time around compared to some of the skirmishes we have seen in the past, once they start, I think USA will go all in and not use restraint, USAF/USN will be ordered to use massive force and go after military installations across Iran.

If Iran has some sort of revolution or anarchy as someone mentioned, there is really no point in US trying to be some kind of "referee", it isn't in our interests, wouldn't work anyways, US public won't go for it and last but not least, the last time the USA had an army/marine corp big enough to do the job was 1944....I don't see the regime crumbling anyways but you never know, we shouldn't count on it...I don't see any use of ground forces, again just some SFs and SEALs.

 

[swerve]

Can't they do, what Russia did in Georgia? Occupy 2/3-3/4ths of the country, trash all the military installations, "evacuate" all valuable military hardware, destroy the military with air, arty, and operational-level BM strikes, and then leave?

Nope. Iran is well over 20 times as large as Georgia, with about 15 times the population, & the USA doesn't have a land border with it. You're suggesting occupying an area at least as big as Iraq & Afghanistan combined, & unless focused on the more sparsely populated regions, with more people, & pretty rough terrain. The USA isn't going to even think about trying a land operation on that scale.

 

[NICO]

It's not going to stop any of that. At best, it could hinder it. The Gulf has plenty of small islands belonging to or controlled by Iran, many of them uninhabited but capable of providing hiding places for small boats & raiding parties. And there's a lot of Iranian coast west & east of Qeshm, & not covered by it, from which to harry tankers. The narrowest point of the strait, mainland to mainland, is about 200 km south-east of Qeshm.

All occupying Qeshm would do would be to put US troops within range of Iranian weapons. Putting air bases on it, as you have suggested, would be the height of folly: you'd be putting expensive US aircraft on the ground within range of cheap Iranian artillery rockets. It's so close to the coast it's almost part of the mainland.

Completely agree, just a bunch of disadvantages with no benefits.

Even if USN were to lose a carrier (difficult but let's assume), USN can bring up another carrier, it would take some time but why couldn't USAF/USN use air bases across the region? I think if things went "bad" for USA, does that mean because we take some loses we run away? I don't see it happening, again because of economic need, prestige, world outcry and presidential elections. All those regimes like S Arabia and Kuwait,etc would collapse, I think it would be in their regimes interest and personal survival to let USAF/USN assets use their air bases. If that happens, when Iran uses swarm tactics, one way to defeat them would be to go after all the small ports/installations , these small boats/ektcoplanes aren't made to operate for any serious length of time, you destroy the fuel/armaments depots and they are useless.

Again, Iran could win the first day by taking out a carrier but than all that does if give the USA "permission" to use massive amounts of air power on Iran...

 

[phreeky]

I don't see it happening, again because of economic need, prestige, world outcry and presidential elections.

I think it's a bit ridiculous to speculate that it being an election year would effect decisions of such a serious matter. Sure in minor conflicts it might play a role, but when things get serious enough even politicians are capable of leaving politics behind and doing what's best for the country's interests.

I think there's a possibility it might remain a purely naval conflict. The international reaction to the nuclear situation is sanctions, and the reaction to a naval blockade being to remove it, and it might be wise to leave those two issues entirely separate (sure they're linked from the Iranian PoV, but is irrelevant for everyone else). Iran will probably suffer some naval losses, do some damage to a USN vessel and throw it on TV and boast about it.

Iran don't want to be bombed into the stone ages, they want a nuclear arsenal because they feel threatened and such a capability provides a pretty good deterrent.

 

[surpreme]

When it all come down to it let pray that this don't become a conflict. The Iranian will do some damage and the US will definitely do alot more damage which spread alot of hatred. The problem I see is the Iranian SF, IRGC, and Jesusalem units that can spread to other area in the Middle East especially Lebanon and Syria some already in Lebanon. This can open a can of worms that will cause heavy damage. They have lots of recruits from within Iran who is willin to die. I don't have to tell you they are highly trained. Overall it will be a be mess on both ends. One thing I must said don't underestimate Iran they have some highly qualified units. The US is not the one to play with either but Iran is not Afghan or Iraq this totally different force that are willin to die in large numbers. If Iranian have mass production of anti-ship missile it has them around the coast of Iran and that a long coastline. It will be nasty situation for any navy if they do have mass production of these anti-ship missile.

The scary thing about the Iranian no one know the real number of anti- ship missile they have. There is no real information on the the Iranian forces because false information they put out. There no real intelligence agents in Iran any western that come into Iran is being closely monitor. The final conclusion is its not gonna to be great for both Iran and the US and other part of the Middle East were looking at hell on earth cause the Iranian are not going to quit if attack. If anyone remember the Iraq- Iran War they still fought when many of there upper command was kill. But a fight against US will intensfied the Iranian they called the US the great satan. In the end the US will prevail but at a cost and the Iranian even bigger cost. The economy around the world will feel this conflict the possible that this will spread to other part of the world is frightening.

 

[Feanor]

Nope. Iran is well over 20 times as large as Georgia, with about 15 times the population, & the USA doesn't have a land border with it. You're suggesting occupying an area at least as big as Iraq & Afghanistan combined, & unless focused on the more sparsely populated regions, with more people, & pretty rough terrain. The USA isn't going to even think about trying a land operation on that scale.

You don't need to effectively control the area, just seize all or most of the military facilities, coupled with a massive air campaign. The point is to destroy the Iranian military, nothing else.

EDIT: I understand the timeframe would be an issue, because of the size, but surely a considerable amount of damage could be done within a limited timeframe.

 

[NICO]

I think it's a bit ridiculous to speculate that it being an election year would effect decisions of such a serious matter. Sure in minor conflicts it might play a role, but when things get serious enough even politicians are capable of leaving politics behind and doing what's best for the country's interests.

I think there's a possibility it might remain a purely naval conflict. The international reaction to the nuclear situation is sanctions, and the reaction to a naval blockade being to remove it, and it might be wise to leave those two issues entirely separate (sure they're linked from the Iranian PoV, but is irrelevant for everyone else). Iran will probably suffer some naval losses, do some damage to a USN vessel and throw it on TV and boast about it.

Iran don't want to be bombed into the stone ages, they want a nuclear arsenal because they feel threatened and such a capability provides a pretty good deterrent.

You have to brush up on your politics if you think that the elections have nothing to do with it. Just look at the GOP candidates positions about Iran and what they are saying during the debates, if Iran were to do something overtly hostile, you think GOP candidates wouldn't say anything if Obama didn't do anything about it? You think they would just stay neutral about the situation? Don't think the media would let them anyways, they would have to take (as some have) a position, you couldn't run for office and just say: "We respect what the President decides". It is a momentous decision where voters/media will want to know the opinion of the candidates and what they would do different from Obama. And if Obama doesn't do anything or negotiates if Iran goes hostile, he's toast....He's a politician, they always want to be re-elected. I doubt he wants to be seen as the next Carter. I am pretty sure the Iranians will follow US elections.

I don't follow all that much Israeli politics but I am sure that Iran topic will come up in upcoming elections...

 

[surpreme]

You don't need to effectively control the area, just seize all or most of the military facilities, coupled with a massive air campaign. The point is to destroy the Iranian military, nothing else.

EDIT: I understand the timeframe would be an issue, because of the size, but surely a considerable amount of damage could be done within a limited timeframe.

The main problem would be the terrain of Iran and the numbered unknown bases and not point out the underground bases. The air campaign will take a long time to complete. You must remember this is close to a million soldiers and lots of equipment spreaded all over Iran not a easy task.

The Iranian also use civilian airport as air bases too. There are numbered of naval depots on the islands in strait of Hormuz that Iranian uses. The military resources to pull this out you need about two carrier fleets as well as using numbered of bases thoughout the Middle East. The Iranian have been rearmed themselves with homemade products and if they are producing them in factories that another problem. You got remember they are making some stuff on there own. Overall the US will rock the Iranian but will take alot air resources to keep the pressure on them. And don't forget there going to be some US jets getting knock out the sky. My point is they have lot stuff spreaded out over Iran.

 

[Beatmaster]

which is the significant lesson learnt out of Iraq and what scares the crap out of anyone who is seen to take the lead role....

Well as we all know both the Iraq and Afghanistan war was a relative cake walk.
However during the aftermath of the war and the rebuilding process it has been proven that the western forces where confronted with a new type of guerrilla war.
Small pockets of rebels who despite facing overwhelming firepower managed to send our boy's back in body bags.
These rebels volunteer to die for the cause, and their believe in their case is so strong that no matter what the west does...they keep on killing soldiers where ever they get a opportunity to do so.
As has been proven the past years despite all the efforts its save to say that groups like Taliban are rebuilding their network and regaining their strength thanks to all the people that join their ranks.
And now the US soldiers are heading home groups like the Taliban can roam free and continue to disrupt the fragile and unstable regions.
A war with Iran will only fuel this specially when Iran is going to send armed forces to Iraq and other regions to aid such rebel groups.
And the biggest lesson the US and Nato has learned is that they are no where near to actively fight a guerrilla war against a foe that is so committed to their goals.

Here a example:

Troops in Iraq - Total 13,000 U.S. troops.

U.S. Troop Casualties - 4,486 US troops; 98% male. 91% non-officers; 82% active duty, 11% National Guard; 74% Caucasian, 9% African-American, 11% Latino. 19% killed by non-hostile causes. 54% of US casualties were under 25

Iraqi Insurgents Killed, Roughly Estimated - 55,000

A UN issued report dated Sept 20, 2006 stating that Iraqi civilian casualties have been significantly under-reported. Casualties are reported at 50,000 to over 100,000, but may be much higher. Some informed estimates place Iraqi civilian casualties at over 600,000.

Source

30,490 U.S. service members have been wounded due to combat actions in Iraq and 2,309 in Afghanistan (32,799 total). The Army experienced 22,948 (70.0%) of those casualties, the Marine Corps 8,721 (26.6%), the Navy 656 (2%), and the Air Force 474 (1.4%).

The Army had 1,515 officers and 19,664 enlisted Soldiers wounded in action. The Marine Corps had 420 officers and 8,178 enlisted Marines WIA. The Navy experienced 35 officers who were WIA, and 621 Sailors. The Air Force statistics include 44 officers WIA and 430 enlisted Airmen WIA.

Iran is twice as big and at least just as hostile and better equipped.....
Most of all the wounded/dead soldiers happened in the aftermath.
Enough said i believe....

One thing is certain. The one thing we can never forget is the cost. of war (any war) is high. The price tag is not measured only in dollars. It's measured in the loss of the most valuable asset of all: The price of war is measured in the loss of human lives.

Cheers

 

[Feanor]

The main problem would be the terrain of Iran and the numbered unknown bases and not point out the underground bases. The air campaign will take a long time to complete. You must remember this is close to a million soldiers and lots of equipment spreaded all over Iran not a easy task.

The Iranian also use civilian airport as air bases too. There are numbered of naval depots on the islands in strait of Hormuz that Iranian uses. The military resources to pull this out you need about two carrier fleets as well as using numbered of bases thoughout the Middle East. The Iranian have been rearmed themselves with homemade products and if they are producing them in factories that another problem. You got remember they are making some stuff on there own. Overall the US will rock the Iranian but will take alot air resources to keep the pressure on them. And don't forget there going to be some US jets getting knock out sky. My point is they have lot stuff spreaded out over Iran.

But the point isn't to get everything. The point is to do as much damage as possible to their military in a short time.

 

[Beatmaster]

But the point isn't to get everything. The point is to do as much damage as possible to their military in a short time.

That would not stop Iran from making a bomb (if they are making one)
So would that not call for a full invasion to flush out any secret lab?
Afterall going in and only slow down Iran will not be enough specially if you want to stop them from making the bomb.

 

[NICO]

EU agrees 'in principle' on Iran oil embargo - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

If EU gets it's act together, this could really hurt. China will probably buy some more oil but I think they will ask for a little "discount" as they are taking a bigger risk. And also, it's good business, where else is Iran going to sell the oil?:lol3

I think the coming weeks are going to be interesting...

 

[peterAustralia]

Thats the dilemma the west faces

To be completely sure that Iran does not get the N-bomb they need a ground invasion. Such an invasion would be very very costly, no doubt the US would prevail but it would not be easy. Remember that most of the casulaties in Iraq came from the Sunni minority, approx 35 percent of the population, or approx 10 million people. Now Iran has 75 million, the great majority of whom do not the see the US as a friend. Iran is more rugged in geography which would aid insurgent tactics compared to Iraq. Iran has a lot more arms than Iraqi insurgents had, they would likely be using TOW missiles from day one, more dangerous that an IED.

An air campaign by itself would not stop the Iranian nuclear program. They have thousands of trained technicians, scientists, machinists, they know how to make uranium gas centrifuges.

So if the US limits its actions to a solely air campaign, then you can bet then that Iran would take all the gloves off and go straight out for as many a-bombs as they can get.

So what happens a couple of years after the bombing started, and now Iran has a few a-bombs. Iran could claim it was attacked in an unprovoked act of war (their thinking), and could see themselves using an a-bomb in self defence. Maybe they would stop at testing one undergound. Maybe they would launch one at a US air force base, maybe they might smuggle one to Mexico and then threaten to take it across the border.

I am sure the smart people in the US have thought about all this, and for this reason they stepped back from the bombing campaign that was being speculated about around 2007.

Thus the US is in a bind.

If they do nothing Iran trains more technicans, scientists. They build more centrifuges and enrich more uranium, At present they have enough at 30 percent to make 4 bombs, what is to stop them from having enough to make forty? What do you do then?

Seems they are resorted to actions that are neither all out war nor doing nothing, Stuxnet, blowing up missiles and killing missile scientists, trying to assaniate nuclear scientists etc etc. Sabotage of equipment, sanctions, supporting dissident groups etc

This can slow down Irans advance to the a-bomb, but it cant stop it.

The Iranians have been smart, enriching uranium to 30 percent but not going further. From 30 percent it takes relatively little time to get it up to the 95 perent or so grade needed to make an a-bomb. So they play the waiting game, keep on building more and more centrifuges, keep on enriching more and more uranium. If they get to have enough uranium to make say twenty bombs, I think then there is a real chance that they will go all the way and may make a bomb.

My guess is that they will be smart and not test it.

Iran also has another ace. It has heaps of oil, and oil prices are very high. This gives them money to buy this and that.

Seems to me at the moment Iran has the upper hand. Just a reminder I am not a fan of the Iranian regime, there was an election and it was stolen by the authoritarian and hardline Armidehanjad (sorry about the spelling)

Its a similar dilemma to North Korea. They have nutters and crooks in charge, but they have a-bombs, so what can you do about them. Push North Korea too hard and they are likely to drop an a-bomb on you. All they can do is contain North Korea and hope that maybe one day a more moderate group of people will get in charge, or alternatively the populace will revolt as in Tunisia or Libya

Rather than a military problem, it becomes a geo-politico problem. Not easy. Thankfully it is not my job to try and sort that mess out.