Iran invasion strategies

[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?

 

[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.

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.
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.
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?