Iran and Related Geopolitical Defense Issues
- Thread starter LogisticsGuy
- Start date
gazzzwp
Member
I just heard on RT that Iran have threatened the US with action if any of their vessels return to the area. The following news article mentions a warning given rather than the threat of action but it must amount to the same thing.
Iran threatens US over aircraft carrier - FT.com
This is Iran's response to the bill just passed by Obama making it illegal to trade with Iranian banks. Iran's currency has dropped on world markets.
Another indication of a ratcheting up of tensions and that the sanctions are hurting.
I would love to know what the US administration is thinking now regarding further naval presence in the Gulf?
Iran threatens US over aircraft carrier - FT.com
This is Iran's response to the bill just passed by Obama making it illegal to trade with Iranian banks. Iran's currency has dropped on world markets.
Another indication of a ratcheting up of tensions and that the sanctions are hurting.
I would love to know what the US administration is thinking now regarding further naval presence in the Gulf?
Let me explain it. If you put two or three air bases on the island you can control the gulf, not just the strait, and all of southern Iran and much of its costal traffic including its fishing. After you take the island you then just remove all of the civilians (for humanitarian reasons of course) and put them all back on the mainland with their fellow citizens where the Iranian government then has to feed and house them as explains why there have lost their home and where there collective discomfort can be shared with the entire country. With no civilians on the island it becomes a free fire zone, you can fire at anything at any time using overwhelming fire power, then mine the hell out of it so that it is easy to defend with a small force. Also the island is so close the Iran’s major coastal cities those very cities are with artillery range and are in effect held hostage.
@ gazzwp - Read somewhere that the Pentagon has said that it has no intentions of pulling US military assets out of the region and will continue as normal. Which is basically saying, "We're not bothered by the threat." Iran can close the straits and that's going to hurt them much more since those are international waters. IIRC, to do that would be a declaration of war. Not sure who they'd be declaring war against but I'm sure the US would certainly join the party.
@rip
It's like you want to become bogged down in static warfare from a bygone era. And use tactics our grandfathers used. Simply taking the island solves nothing unless the military is crushed, the regime is toppled and replaced with one that can effectively take the reins. And the US track record on that... not very good...
Your entire scenario also assumes that the Iranian Air Force and Navy have nothing to say on the issue. Or it assumes that the US is capable of neutralizing both arms as a threat swiftly. Neither of which seems entirely possible given the US capabilities in the region. And that it cannot hurt the US ships off the coast.
Then there's some logistics matters you've ignored. Where are you staging your invasion force? How are you concealing it? And how is the US going to justify its third (fourth if you count the '91 Gulf war) invasion in the Middle East? I don't see the UN Security Council creating a mandate like it did for Afghanistan - China and Russia wouldn't sign it. The Arab League seems more concerned with Syria than Iran so I don't see them rushing to get American help in the region. Even nominally pro-American ME countries such as Jordan or Egypt would prefer to let things stabilize in the region considering Syria, Libya and the unrest generated by the Arab Spring.
Plus, any explanation to dislocated citizens, especially ones who have been hurt, can simply be explained away as "American imperialist aggression." Any sympathy the US might have would evaporate the moment US combat troops entered Iranian territory with hostile intent. Just like the Chinese in 1937 when the Japanese came knocking. The moment an outsider butts in on a domestic dispute, all disagreements will be forgotten so as to deal with the intruder.
All in all, it would end up as a short term military victory with casualties on both sides and lots of dead innocent civilians. I say the latter because I have no confidence in American "precision" weaponry and the drone strike policy. And friends in ROTC have said that while they're told to avoid shooting civilians, etc, when under fire, just give back more than you receive. A solution, I believe, that results in huge amounts of collateral damage and risk to civilians. Bullets, shells, missiles and bombs don't stop the moment they miss the intended target.
Long-term, it'll hurt the US worse than anything else. Ties with ME countries already on the fence will become cooler, ties with the UN will be even more frayed, and gas prices will increase. That last one will result in a political backlash in the US if the increase is particularly steep. So the cards are there for this dream scenario to spell the end of American overseas credibility. If that's your ultimate goal, I can't think of one with more debilitating outcomes.
The island is close to one major Iranian coastal city, & a small town.
Where are you going to get all the troops to garrison it? It's 1500 km2, 135 km long, & 2 km from the coast at its nearest point. That's so close to the mainland it's hardly better than trying to hold a 135 km perimeter on land.
Swimmers could get across. You'd need to constantly guard the coast against infiltrators, or your valuable aircraft could be blown to pieces by saboteurs. They'd be vulnerable to Hezbollah-style rocket attacks from the mainland. Yes, you could guard the entire coast - but how many troops would it take, even with the best surveillance gear & physical barriers? And how much would security gear cost? Ditto rocket attack. Unless you have 24 hr surveillance of a large area of the mainland, Iranians can plant remote-fired single-use rocket launchers, & harass your bases, very cheaply. Bombard Bandar Abbas, & they scream war crime.
Meanwhile, your economy is groaning under the disastrously high oil price. Is it worth it? Speaking of which, what is it that you're trying to achieve? I can't see anything to be gained from this. If you really, really want a US air base, why not grab Siri? It already has a runway, with some room to enlarge it, & it's right in the middle of the Gulf, safely distant from the Iranian mainland. The nearest land, apart from a couple of uninhabited islets, is Abu Musa, which is Iranian-occupied, but officially belongs to the UAE (grabbed by the Shah, not this lot), so you could legitimately throw the Iranian marines off & hand it over to its rightful owners, along with the Tunb islands.
I was always under the wrong impression (I guess!) that the main reason the US had aircraft carriers was to avoid having to use air bases in foreign countries and we could come and go as we please.
Yeah, let's just get bogged down in one more war, occupying dirt for no reason. The USA doesn't need Qeshm to "control" the Straits, I still believe if it was so important, why isn't there a bigger Iranian military presence? Why isn't there right now 50,000 Iranian troops there?
I agree NICO, It seems that Iran will make the US's decision on striking their facilities or not for them. Its clearly unbelievable that Iran would even put itself in a box by telling the US to keep its carrier out of the gulf, they have to know that threats like that will probably bring that carrier's friends back with her. When a carrier returns to the gulf will Iran attack or just run off at the mouth some more? We have no idea, but I feel certain that the US and several key players will use any action on Iran's part to neutralize its naval and air assests with strikes on any questionable nuclear site to boot.
But I do not believe we have to hold any island to accomplish this, I don't even think troops on the ground will be needed beyond SF units. Use our naval air units and cruise missles to reduce their threat, go right back to enforcing sanctions that obviously are working and see if Iran will open up to inspections.
I understand that pressure is on the US for being the most vocal over Iran seeking nuclear weapons, but right now there seems to be equal concern from many countries. As long as the US is using diplomatic means, UN, sanctions, ect to give Iran a chance to prove their innonce then we should not lose support if we respond to an actual attack by Iran.
But I do not believe we have to hold any island to accomplish this, I don't even think troops on the ground will be needed beyond SF units. Use our naval air units and cruise missles to reduce their threat, go right back to enforcing sanctions that obviously are working and see if Iran will open up to inspections.
I understand that pressure is on the US for being the most vocal over Iran seeking nuclear weapons, but right now there seems to be equal concern from many countries. As long as the US is using diplomatic means, UN, sanctions, ect to give Iran a chance to prove their innonce then we should not lose support if we respond to an actual attack by Iran.
Why would the US get anymore involved in this than they have to? From a long term security PoV the last thing they need to do is become hated even more than they already will be from the next generation of misplaced children. Strikes, let alone invasion forces, will no doubt be kept to the absolute minimum and sanctions and talks will be their focus, and rightly so.
I wonder how much action will result not from the US own desire but from them having Israel in their ear threatening to take matters into their own hands.
I wonder how much action will result not from the US own desire but from them having Israel in their ear threatening to take matters into their own hands.
I am currently reading some Iranian press releases about these comments about the USA should keep it carriers out of the Gulf. It is difficult for a foreigner to understand the nuances and inside politics of a country, what is really meant for internal consumption but some of the remarks we have seen over the last couple of months, where one official says something to be contradicted hours later by another govt official, is starting to make me wonder if we aren't starting to see some major fracture lines inside the govt., between the hard liners that seem to want war and the more dovish officials that probably want to drag this out until they have a nuke and govt survive the sanctions....It has become a pattern that we keep seeing of 2,3 or even more "official" releases, I think it is more than Iranian govt doing the old "good cop,bad cop" routine....
The difficulties that the US has had have arisen mainly from fighting wars lately is where the enemy hides within the general populace and not on the battlefield. How long did it take the US to knock out Iraq’s regular army?
It was the occupation that followed that gave us all the headaches and where we suffered almost all of the casualties by trying to pacify the populace. If you use all the fire power you have, and we have a lot, you kill lot of civilians and are then called monsters, with unacceptable political consequences, even though the enemy you are fighting are cowards so you are as a civilized nation severely disadvantaged. The easiest course is not to occupy at all, no nation building, no dealing with civilians, but just cripple their ability to function as a country. The populace will in time change the government for you just as long as you give them an easy way out and promise to just leave if they do.
If the Iranian people are suffering and they are only suffering because of the aggressive actions of their government, and if they will stop suffering when their government stops acting aggressively, then the government is not a secure one. They will not come together if there is no serious threat to conquer and occupy their country, steal their oil, rape their woman or desecrate their temples but only to stop them from acting crazy.
After the island is taken there will be little additional fighting. The oil through the gulf will continue to flow from the rest of the countries in the gulf to the world at large and taking out the offensive capacity of the Iranian air force and navy is not that difficult. Trying occupying the entire country would be a complete mess but why bother.
As to the occupying force, it doesn’t have to be that large. So what if they infiltrate a few hundred fighters at a time. If they cannot bring in large numbers and heavy equipment they will easily be take care of with massive firepower used in the way that it should be used. Without a populace to feed, shelter and support them, the infiltraters are out on a limb without a chance.
As far as the people sitting on the fence internationally? If the Iranians shoot first that will decide it. I was not advocating a preventive strike, only the best response to attack that they make first.
Agreed. I recall there was a separatist group from an ethnic minority who bombed a mosque in Iran. First report from the BBC was that they were just blaming this group, who had claimed responsibility. Second report from the BBC a couple hours later added that one official denounced as the work of the evil British. Third report by the BBC that night said that a high-ranking cleric had publicly blamed it on the Americans. You see the same with the drone that crashed. The story keeps changing.
Why does this sound so familiar? Oh right! Because the Americans do such a great job destroying everything that the power vacuum is immediately filled by... people who want to get revenge! Cynicism aside, don't you see that you just made a catch 21? You destroy their ability to function as a country yet you expect them to quickly rebuild and carry on as if things were peachy? What dream world is this where an underdeveloped country has the ability to do what you propose? A developed nation like the US (or much of the EU) has enough problems keeping its own economy balanced. No one has yet to recover from 2008 yet you think a country with even less infrastructure and resources is capable of such a speedy recovery? The timeline you'd be looking at is years!
And you seriously think the US is simply going to leave without ensuring the regime change results in one that's friendlier, stable and able to resist the inevitable influx of foreign and rise of domestic insurgents loyal to the old regime? Former Revolutionary Guards gonna sit at home and watch the kids play? Al-Qaeda simply going to sit back and eat popcorn as it watches the Americans? And what do they have to resist these insurgents with after you've trashed their entire conventional military? Churchill-esque speeches about fighting them on the beaches and in the streets?
Each step you propose results in a reality entirely disconnected from the subsequent step. Destroy their ability to function as a nation -> wait for them to rebuild quickly before leaving -> find a way to defend against insurgents without a functional military -> assume everyone is happy with what you're doing.
Excuse me. Let me get the kettle so you can it black. Guerrilla warfare goes back through history. French & Indian War, the American Revolt (remember those Minutemen?), the Peninsular War (where the term guerrilla was coined), Marine Raiders in the Pacific, the IRA (to me they were terrorists, but to many Americans they were freedom fighters), modern day Special Forces. Do you call plain clothes police officers cowards because they keep their occupation hidden whilst hunting for a suspect?
Get over it. You're getting the same medicine (which I had thought had been taken and learned from in Vietnam) which you dealt to others. The presence or absence of a uniform does not determine one's courage. Otherwise, a lot of American revolutionaries and Spanish guerillas would be have to labeled as cowards alongside those insurgents you poopoo.
Not quite sure I understand your run-off sentence. However, I feel like there's a fault in the logic. But since the sentence has too many conjunctions, I'll have to come back to it. Unless someone is able to decipher this for me.
So the US taking an island off their coast that's internationally recognized as their sovereign territory, evicting the 100,000+ inhabitants without recompense, then stationing weapons of war right there with the express purpose of pointing and using them against Iranian assets doesn't count as a "serious threat to conquer and occupy their country?" I mean, you're putting your troops on their land. Sounds like an occupation to me.
How many Taliban and al-Qaeda do you think there are? Hundreds of thousands? Most hard contacts don't go above company strength. The days of massed, concentrated unit formations is long gone.
300 infiltrators are plenty to disrupt an undermanned garrison, not overwhelm it but certainly to severely hamper operations. I need only point to the LRDG, Chindits, Marine Raiders (again) and WW2 SAS. Most, if not all, of these groups operated behind enemy lines without a local populace as their main supply line. Overwhelming fire superiority certainly seems to have solved the insurgency problems around the world. :roll2 Allow me to check with the Vietnamese on that.
I'm sorry, I have to say that what you propose is pure, utter fantasy. And not the kind with elves and dwarves and One Ring to rule them all. That one makes more sense than yours.
Overwhelming firepower coupled with enough boots on the ground to seal the borders, and control roads, towns and villages, seems to work fairly well. The Russians did it in the Second Chechen War. The US did it (quite successfully, despite the public scandals) in Iraq. It really becomes a question of price tag, both in lives and dollars, that you're willing to pay to accomplish the goal.
Before this gets out of hand, it would pay for some to ratchett it back a bit and have a quick read of the forums rules
The answer is almost certainly “Logistics”. The island population appears fairly constant, so the limitation is probably the available water supply. The rock is porous sandstone and the island is surrounded by salt water, so the fresh water aquifer should be in the form a ‘lens’ on top of the salt water that is only refreshed by rain, mostly from the monsoons. Draw to much water from it and the salt water intrudes and it becomes undrinkable. To increase the islands population by 50% you would need either build a large desalination facility or a pipeline from the mainland, assuming that the water is available there.
Now that is a much better idea than invading Qeshm. Small, isolated, sleepy garrison posts at most -- perfect for the SEALs to slip in late at night and go for a bloodless takeover. Then hand the islands [back] over to the UAE first thing in the morning. The Arab League and the Gulf Council will be celebrating the return of the UAE’s stolen property and the US is the good guy for once. Only Iran is angry. Then the UAE can sign a long term lease with the US for a base or 2 on the islands so that the UAE don’t have to garrison them, and then have Iran take them right back.
:hehe
According to some analysts seems that there is an internal battle for power going on between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Parliament vs. the Guardian Council for who will actually control the day-to-day operation of the state.
The first announcement is usually from Ahmadinejad side, then the Guardian Council contradicts it, and the 3rd is some politician. Basically they are all trying to get noticed in the press (Which is why the 3rd announcement is so off the wall, reporters ignore the more reasonable ones.) It is no different in the rest of the world, especially in the US at the moment with the Presidential candidates. That and it sometimes seems that Iran is getting more coverage than most local news in the US.
:unknown
peterAustralia
Member
I have read all six pages of this thread, trying to make sense of it, and have concluded there is not much of quality here. Mod insert: Just a hint, that's probably not the best way to endear yourself or encourage respectful dialogue amongst the members. I'd suggest that if you disagree and have a robust opinion then its better to chew and nibble at the logic rather than be seen as slighting other posters. esp when some of them aren't dim. It's a way to circumvent any losses in translation.
When it comes to a conflict with Iran, other countries are in a difficult positition. Please let me explain. Firstly other nations are way superior in military forces, ships, planes etc. So if a conflict goes beyond a small finite incident, then things would get very bad for Iran,.
But then we have to ask, what would happen next. Iran has thousands of guided anti-tank missiles which the Taliban would love to have, imagine the Taliaban with ten thousands TOW missiles, american casualities in Afghanistan are bound to rise. Iran would no doubt start to increase its activies in Iraq and try and destabilise is all the more
Iran could use missiles, mines and speed boats to block the Straights of Hormus for a few months, sending oil prices sky high, again bad for the US.
Next, Hezbollah could be counted to start another conflict with Israel, which would be difficult to contain, last time things did not go quite as well for Israel as they would like. I am sure that Israel would eventually prevail, but it would not be easy.
Finally Iran is close to getting the a-bomb, short of a ground invasion which would make the Iraq insurgency seem like play time, how are you going to stop that happening. Iran can move its nuclear enrichment plants deep deep undergound, then what happens in 3 or 4 years if they then succeed in getting an a -bomb. They already have enough uranium enriched to 30 percent to make 4 a-bombs, They could smuggle one to a US coastal city and blow it up, Look at cocaine, yes the US can stop most of it, but an a -bomb could be hidden in a container or a truck, an a-bomb hidden in machinery is going to be hard to detect (U235 gives off little radiation, a dirty bomb gives off more).
So if the US starts bombing Iran (whether that is the right thing to do or not) then Iran could see this as an act of war, Give it a few years they (Iran) could then develop an a-bomb and use it against a US city.
Thus the US is in a bind, a ground invasion would be very costly in casualties, not from as much the initial occupation, but the street fighting and counter isurgency that would go on for years, The Iranians would have better access to IEDs and guided missiles than did the insurgents in Iraq. Plus the number of insurgents willing to fight the US would be many, many muliples of what could be found in Iraq. The US is not very popular in Iran.
If the US limits its activities to a large air campaign, the Iranians could then develop an a-bomb in multiple scaitttered deep undergound locations, Then they could smuggle it into a US city, even via a yacht, a semi-submersible, or into mexico and then across the land border, and detonate it.
So yes, militarily the US is far superior, but Iran can fight back using methods which are not very nice.
Iran has launched a satellite into orbit , and has built thousands of gas centrifuges for enriching uranium. Thus they seem to have some people with a degree of technical skill (despite other countries attempts to kill off these technical people)
Irans air force, navy and army and no match for the US in a conventional war. However an unconventional war could be long and costly. No doubt Iran would start sending across heavily armed special forces into Afghanistan to fight the US there, no doubt increasing casualties there.
Please be advised that I am not a fan of the Iranian regime, They shoot dissidents, stifle democracy, and have a poor human rights record. The US is not without blame either, they shot down an Iranian airliner in a commerical air corridor, they overthrew the elected leader of Iran (and istalled the Shah) because that person did not agree with their aims, and they supported Iraq in an 8 year war with Iran which in the long term achieved nothing except to kill and main millions of Iraqis and Iranians, (a war that was started by Iraq).
So whatever the rights or wrongs of the Iranian regime (and the Iranian regime is not very nice) going to war with them is likely to have many adverse consequences in the long term. My guess is that China and Russia would be smart and keep out of it, and let the two of them slug it out. No doubt such a coflict woud be expensive for the US, US debt would go up even more increasing Chinas wealth compared to the US
My main point is that if you start bombing Iran, in the longer term there are likely to be many, many negative consequences
When it comes to a conflict with Iran, other countries are in a difficult positition. Please let me explain. Firstly other nations are way superior in military forces, ships, planes etc. So if a conflict goes beyond a small finite incident, then things would get very bad for Iran,.
But then we have to ask, what would happen next. Iran has thousands of guided anti-tank missiles which the Taliban would love to have, imagine the Taliaban with ten thousands TOW missiles, american casualities in Afghanistan are bound to rise. Iran would no doubt start to increase its activies in Iraq and try and destabilise is all the more
Iran could use missiles, mines and speed boats to block the Straights of Hormus for a few months, sending oil prices sky high, again bad for the US.
Next, Hezbollah could be counted to start another conflict with Israel, which would be difficult to contain, last time things did not go quite as well for Israel as they would like. I am sure that Israel would eventually prevail, but it would not be easy.
Finally Iran is close to getting the a-bomb, short of a ground invasion which would make the Iraq insurgency seem like play time, how are you going to stop that happening. Iran can move its nuclear enrichment plants deep deep undergound, then what happens in 3 or 4 years if they then succeed in getting an a -bomb. They already have enough uranium enriched to 30 percent to make 4 a-bombs, They could smuggle one to a US coastal city and blow it up, Look at cocaine, yes the US can stop most of it, but an a -bomb could be hidden in a container or a truck, an a-bomb hidden in machinery is going to be hard to detect (U235 gives off little radiation, a dirty bomb gives off more).
So if the US starts bombing Iran (whether that is the right thing to do or not) then Iran could see this as an act of war, Give it a few years they (Iran) could then develop an a-bomb and use it against a US city.
Thus the US is in a bind, a ground invasion would be very costly in casualties, not from as much the initial occupation, but the street fighting and counter isurgency that would go on for years, The Iranians would have better access to IEDs and guided missiles than did the insurgents in Iraq. Plus the number of insurgents willing to fight the US would be many, many muliples of what could be found in Iraq. The US is not very popular in Iran.
If the US limits its activities to a large air campaign, the Iranians could then develop an a-bomb in multiple scaitttered deep undergound locations, Then they could smuggle it into a US city, even via a yacht, a semi-submersible, or into mexico and then across the land border, and detonate it.
So yes, militarily the US is far superior, but Iran can fight back using methods which are not very nice.
Iran has launched a satellite into orbit , and has built thousands of gas centrifuges for enriching uranium. Thus they seem to have some people with a degree of technical skill (despite other countries attempts to kill off these technical people)
Irans air force, navy and army and no match for the US in a conventional war. However an unconventional war could be long and costly. No doubt Iran would start sending across heavily armed special forces into Afghanistan to fight the US there, no doubt increasing casualties there.
Please be advised that I am not a fan of the Iranian regime, They shoot dissidents, stifle democracy, and have a poor human rights record. The US is not without blame either, they shot down an Iranian airliner in a commerical air corridor, they overthrew the elected leader of Iran (and istalled the Shah) because that person did not agree with their aims, and they supported Iraq in an 8 year war with Iran which in the long term achieved nothing except to kill and main millions of Iraqis and Iranians, (a war that was started by Iraq).
So whatever the rights or wrongs of the Iranian regime (and the Iranian regime is not very nice) going to war with them is likely to have many adverse consequences in the long term. My guess is that China and Russia would be smart and keep out of it, and let the two of them slug it out. No doubt such a coflict woud be expensive for the US, US debt would go up even more increasing Chinas wealth compared to the US
My main point is that if you start bombing Iran, in the longer term there are likely to be many, many negative consequences
Last edited by a moderator:
Beatmaster
New Member
Another thing to consider is the public opinion that the US has to consider and obviously the next elections.
A war with Iran (Small or big conflict) would do bad for the US.
First because the US despite all efforts fails to show some serious evidence that might justify actions instead of sanctions because atm the only reason why Iran is under sanction is because they violate UN resolutions to comply with the atomic agency other then that there is no legal foundation for military actions and no foundations for sanctions as on CNN has been pointed out.
Secondly the world has seen in the past that US based proof is not always credible...
Without proof and i mean solid proof the claim that Iran is researching the bomb itself is worthless and just a claim, yes its a troubling one and one that needs to be looked into but its still not enough to justify the next step.
Both the US, Israel and NATO knows this and because of this the next step is something they try to avoid at all cost because as i said before in a previous reply IF this all goes wrong then the after effects of the war are even more killing then the war itself.
Also like others pointed out Iran might be not the best army but its a army non the less and because Iran has supported Hezbolah and Taliban and various other groups it has acces to some hardened terrorist groups who would love to screw the west.
And this could proof very very costly for the west.
Look in Afghanistan and Iraq how effective these groups can be and the prize that the west pays in terms of wounded/dead soldiers and equipment that is destroyed and damaged.
My point is if Iran is going to fight a guerrilla war against the US and the west then this war is going to be a very very hard one.
Iran knows perfectly well it will never win any form of conflict however it has the ability to drag the region into it and then the whole region is going to be in flames, look at all Irans neightbours...they are all very unstable and a little spark of fire could lead to a wildfire and this is IMO the biggest and most dangerous poker card that Iran has...
Note that Iraq is a huge nation in size, look at Afghanistan and then take a look at Iran which is bigger then they both combined...now at all those other nations around Iran that are going to be involved if this all goes wrong and you got your self a nearly uncontrollable region.
The US and the west have already shown that controlling a region like Iraq or Afghanistan is nearly impossible as the Taliban and rebel groups keep on coming, despite the 200k US troops and another 50 or 100k NATO troops...
Any idea how much troops it will cost to effective get Iran on its knees and get the region itself back under control?
And thats exactly the point here.....even the US cannot affort that at this point.
Sure if war comes the so be it and the US will get the job done however the aftermath is going to be a horror for anyone involved and i believe that the casualty rate will go up up up to numbers that will not be accepted by the public at home... because of all the rebel groups who will wreck havoc....
And because the bad economic situation it will proof to be one of the biggest challenges the US and NATO have ever undertaken.....knowing that both Iraq and Afghanistan took nearly 10 years to clean up and even now the task is still not even close to be finished....and i got no reason to believe that Iran would be anything different, so short said the war itself will be fought and won no doubt but the aftermath...will be by far the hardest part which neither the US or NATO have the capability and will to complete.
For example look at the Iraq war, the war itself was over in a matter of days with minor losses, Afghanistan same thing.....however the aftermath was the time where the losses started to rise to astronomical numbers.....and do you guys believe that the US and the NATO based public is going to accept this again? NO to be honest the world is sick and tired of war for now.
The public will basically tell the involved governments to go to hell.
Beatmaster
New Member
peterAustralia i forgot to mention, that the odds for Iran making a dirty bomb is going to be slim to non, specially if the want to ship it to the US.
True it might be done but the odds are seriously small.
What worries me more is that they might give vital tools to rebel groups to use in Pakistan and Israel.....i think the results of that might be more dangerous.
Imagine hezzbolah or the Taliban with Nuclear or "dirty" bombs.....
I believe the odds to that are WAY better then getting a dirty bomb shipped to the US...
True it might be done but the odds are seriously small.
What worries me more is that they might give vital tools to rebel groups to use in Pakistan and Israel.....i think the results of that might be more dangerous.
Imagine hezzbolah or the Taliban with Nuclear or "dirty" bombs.....
I believe the odds to that are WAY better then getting a dirty bomb shipped to the US...
Infiltrators don't have to live on the island (hit & run), or even be particularly interested in staying alive long. All they have to do is be able to do some damage, or even die without having done anything more than force you to maintain a force large & well-equipped enough to guard an island 135 km long & 1500 km2 in area. How much are you willing to spend?
You've not considered cost or cost/benefit ratios, you've ignored the question of vulnerability to rockets fired from the mainland, and I repeat, what is the point? What is your purpose in occupying an island, rather than using aircraft carriers, & why does it need this island, rather than another one such as Siri?
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.