NationStates Jolt Archive

If push comes to shove..............what would be the best way to do it?


The US has a military bogged down in Iraq and to a lesser extent Afganistan. The could probably spare a sizeable amount from the latter, although they could probably squeeze few from Iraq if the really need it. There are a fair few troops based in germany (not doing a great deal), and they do have a large reserve in the US itself.
Special forces are hugely important in my belief, and should be fairly easy to spare in fact, given the importance of this endavour.

In fact I think they have the manpower to pull it off, but not the money. The largest problem would be getting approval from congress for the billions needed to effect such an endavour. This is where I really am stumped.



I believe the best course of action would be as follows (assuming financing is accounted for):


They would have to be quick, agile and strike with meticulous precision and sychronisation in all stages of this invasion. I have faith as, from what I can remember, they were actually able to do this at the start of the (ongoing) iraq war.


It would be hugely favourable for the US if it was a preemptive strike, if Iranians didn't expect it, it would give the US military some, although a maybe limited element of surprise. The Iranians are probably aldready on standby for this sort of thing, given that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has probably seen season 2 of 24 (pirate copy, of course).

Still, I believe an effective preemptive strike would enable the US to incapacitate the Iranian Navy and Airforce, and key military sites (AA, missile silos) which is a huge plus, a must in fact.


The way to go iASAP after preemptive strike would be to destabilize the Iranian military, to strike it in key places to ensure it is uncoordinated. Electronic warfare is the key here, radar jaming, power source neutralisation, "hacking" I suppose could be used to, to some extent, acheive this, ruining their IT infastructure. Elimination of key figures such as generals and other high ranking officers would be hugely desirable, as with little or no leadership/centralised authority and hence cohesion, the military becomes hugely weaker.

However this would not be easy, and require exceptional intellegence, as does every step of this plan. The Iranians have safeguards to protect such people and military infastructure no doubt.


If the above was achieved, at least to a sizeable extent, large chunks of this fragmented military now would be less able to counterattack/defend from the US.


Now, here's the even trickier bit - taking out the suspect nuclear sites, this requires even more outstanding intel - next the US should comandeer all the suspected nuclear sites with a quick strikes (preferably by spec ops soldiors), which I believe it easily could if it does not waste time trying to control any cities/population centres, jam packed with civilans and blood hungry guerilla militias ten times worse than those in iraq (unless suspect sites are based there).

Along side/before doing this, the US military should comandeer key sites where useful intelligence may be obtained,and oilfields with again spec ops forces if possible, as covertly and quickly as possible.


All of these tasks should to be done almost simulataneuosly, overlapping as much as reasonably possible.



A huge burst of manpower would be required initially, however, upon completion of these above stages, much of this manpower, (mainly army divisions I would expect) could be relieved, and sent back to the sidelines, to (relative) safety in Iraq and less so to Afganistan. Hopefully this would prevent the overall cost spiraling too much.


Throughout the invasion it is hugely important that the US does not attack the political, civil or economical infastructure where the military is not involved, allowing as much normality in the Iranian civilian population as possible. It bodes well in terms of PR (also saves money, time and manpower), there is, I believe though, no point in trying to actively keeping it going, the iranians *should* do this all by themselves, as they a far less polarised people than the iraqis, only shia (no sunni) muslims, so this means enough cohesiveness in the civil population to keep day to day things going. I don't believe the remaining militias will try to fuck this up (as has been the case in iraq) consequently. (Maybe restoring power and oil supply after the above stages but nothing more should be needed for such a unified people)


After having dealt suspect/intelligence/key military sites, the US forces should leave them ASAP, where they are near population centres (militia), guarding only the oilfields and pipelines, and contract shell /strong corporation to keep oil flowing (iranian oil is currently controlled by pro iran company). Remember that, if the US dont take the oilfield first thing, the Iranians will stop the oil flowing in protest to the invasion, as a form of blackmail. Prior contracts should be honured upon aquisition of the oil fields, at least indefinetly, with shell/large pro US replacement oil company taking the royalties instead of the NIOC. Other countries will get pissed off if that oil doesn't keep running smoothly *looks nervously at china*

OOOO....a lucrative multibillion dollar/pound contract for at least one large multnational corporation.......this could result in corporate support to help Bush get congress approval and even ease financial worries directly (although this is less likely).



The Isrealis would be more than willing to help, and they have an excellent military and probably better intel than the US on Iran (being a middle eastern country and all) so thats a plus. They could be wired into the equation somehow. Perhaps a few other countries could ease the burden; germany, uk and saud may be persuaded to also contribute in a less overt way also.

IF the entire thing is pulled off successfully, the US can't remain in just the oilfields indefinetely.......or can they, as long as they have military control of the oil, Iran has no other source of electricity (nuclear stuff was destroyed, duh), so the US could keep Iran at bay after the invasion on this premise.


I do realise there are flaws. It is a problem not easily solved.....................lets hope it never comes to this (having to invade Iran).

Well now you've posted the plans on the internet the Iranians are just going to use them against you.

Bombings... that's the only thing I say we're going to do. Full scale invasion is not necessary. The US has a bad habit of having its heart in the right place, but its planning in the wrong place. Iraq needed regeime change... but it didn't need an invasion, per se. Anyway, I say surgical strikes, special forces raids, and assasinations will do the trick. Kill off the big leaders, bomb their military into complete submission, and arm/otherwise support dissident groups.

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and everyone else who thinks it's a good idea to invade should be dropped out of an airplane over Teheran (parachute optional) armed with their ray-guns and wearing their Rambo Underoos. That would certainly give us the desired result.

Hahaha, an iranian terrorist cell is going to come after me............ they do claim to have over 30000 cells all over the world ready to strike in the event of an invasion.



Bombing will not be effective as many of the nuclear sites are believed to be underground........... bunker busters are an unknown in terms of effectiveness.

If the bombing don't work Isreal is fucked.

I think the question really is just how badly does Bush want the Republicans to do in November. It looks incredibly likely to me that the Democrats should win and be able to stop Bush starting any war after November. However, if Bush is able to start a war before November then I forsee the Republicans getting completely annihilated in November and thus completely paralysing the President in his last two years of office.

An Iran war will not be a popular one. It won't be as easy to defeat Iran as it was Iraq or Afghanistan, because for one they actually have an airforce and a couple of other things that help in wars - like a trained regular army. The Iranian population is no where near as fragmented as Iraq or Afghanistan in terms of culture and politics, and so if defeated would be able to mount a unified resistance that wouldn't attack itself a lot.

the best way to for the US to invade iran?


put $50billion into a swiss bank accont in PUTIN's name and get him to invade iran with russian troops.

there is no way for us to win a war with iran. it would make the invasion of iraq look like a splendid success.

put $50billion into a swiss bank accont in PUTIN's name and get him to invade iran with russian troops.
You are forgetting that Russia lost to Afghanistan. A battle zone where a US coalition has more or less gained victory in. Also, how is Russia to defeat Iran when they cannot overcome Chechnya?

An Iran war will not be a popular one. It won't be as easy to defeat Iran as it was Iraq or Afghanistan, because for one they actually have an airforce and a couple of other things that help in wars - like a trained regular army. The Iranian population is no where near as fragmented as Iraq or Afghanistan in terms of culture and politics, and so if defeated would be able to mount a unified resistance that wouldn't attack itself a lot.

The iranian airforce would be incapacitated by preemptive strikes, regular army is also, to a lesser extent I would image though.

My plan involves avoiding attacking/affecting civilans / cities as much as possible, the iranian's civilian unity can be used to the US' advantage in fact, as the US doesn't then have to worry about stabilising civil infastructure due to an unfagmented population, as was the case in Iraq. read my plan man, its all there!

You are forgetting that Russia lost to Afghanistan. A battle zone where a US coalition has more or less gained victory in. Also, how is Russia to defeat Iran when they cannot overcome Chechnya?
oh im sorry, i guess i should have been more specific. i didnt mean to suggest that i think that the russians could succeed in an invasion of iran when the US cant. i think that its impossible for anyone to successfully invade iran. therefore the best course of action for the US is to get someone else to do it. better the russians suffer the humilliating defeat than we do.

I may as well be first to say that it's "if the USA were to..." :)

The iranian airforce would be incapacitated by preemptive strikes, regular army is also, to a lesser extent I would image though.

My plan involves avoiding attacking/affecting civilans / cities as much as possible, the iranian's civilian unity can be used to the US' advantage in fact, as the US doesn't then have to worry about stabilising civil infastructure due to an unfagmented population, as was the case in Iraq. read my plan man, its all there!I'm sorry, but to preemptivly strike something you need the element of surprise. I don't think the US possesses that. You think the Iranians have just left all their military hardware and personel out on a bullseye in the middle of a field?

The Iranian military is probably already mobilised or in a state of high alert, and will be able to scramble very quickly if and when the US does attack.

Why do you assume the Iranian civilian population will be sympathetic to the US agressors. If we just note that precision strikes aren't all that precise, then attempting to bomb any military targets in civilian areas will undoubtably result in civilian casualties. The Iranian government will use in propaganda. What's more they will probably use 'evidence' of US/UK forces attacking Shia civilians in Iraq. Finally, Iran would probably do its best to spark Iraq into a full blown civil war to preoccupy US forces based in Iraq.

The Iranian Navy and Airforce is VERY important to disrupt otherwise they could easily threaten supply lines in the Persian Gulf that are carrying supplies to US forces in Iraq. Iran would probably distroy oil pumps in Iraq to damage oil supplies and send oil prices through the roof. It would also try and send oil shipments overland to China and Uzbekistan where it can still sell oil to China and Russia, and not have to worry about naval blockades.

Throughout the invasion it is hugely important that the US does not attack the political, civil or economical infastructure where the military is not involved, allowing as much normality in the Iranian civilian population as possible. It bodes well in terms of PR (also saves money, time and manpower), there is, I believe though, no point in trying to actively keeping it going, the iranians *should* do this all by themselves, as they a far less polarised people than the iraqis, only shia (no sunni) muslims, so this means enough cohesiveness in the civil population to keep day to day things going. I don't believe the remaining militias will try to fuck this up (as has been the case in iraq) consequently. (Maybe restoring power and oil supply after the above stages but nothing more should be needed for such a unified people)



Have you any idea of Iranian history, other than whats been on the TV since this Nuclear business came up?

The iranian airforce would be incapacitated by preemptive strikes, regular army is also, to a lesser extent I would image though.

My plan involves avoiding attacking/affecting civilans / cities as much as possible, the iranian's civilian unity can be used to the US' advantage in fact, as the US doesn't then have to worry about stabilising civil infastructure due to an unfagmented population, as was the case in Iraq. read my plan man, its all there!


If you think that the US has anything near the amount of resources to invade Iran, that the invasion can be done on the sly, or that if we simply left the Iranians to sort out the mess it'd be fine, or that we wouldn't face a serious insurgency, or that avoiding civilian casualites would be a peace of cake, or that it would not be a complete international relations disaster, if you believe any of the above, then you are out of your mind. Invading Iran and being back in time for tea is foolhardiness of Rumsfeldian proportions.

Invading Iran is not nessary. If we strike Iran it will be a bombing campaign much like the way the Serbian/Bosnian war was handled. We can hit all thier well defended sites wih cruise missles etc. Regardless of how protected and buried the nuclear reactors are, disrupting its electricity, bombing the parking lots the employees park in, destroying entrances to the underground facilities etc. are just a few of the zillion virtually risk free things we can do to Iran on a daily basis. They couldnt do thing one about and it would make them doing any form of research virtually impossible.

Invading Iran is not nessary. If we strike Iran it will be a bombing campaign much like the way the Serbian/Bosnian war was handled. We can hit all thier well defended sites wih cruise missles etc. Regardless of how protected and buried the nuclear reactors are, disrupting its electricity, bombing the parking lots the employees park in, destroying entrances to the underground facilities etc. are just a few of the zillion virtually risk free things we can do to Iran on a daily basis. They couldnt do thing one about and it would make them doing any form of research virtually impossible.The only problem with that is that there are loads of US military targets in Iraq and Afghanistan that the Iranians can bomb in retaliation. They might even end up invading those countries to attack air bases in those countries. Wouldn't surprise me. Iran is already shelling positions in Iraq from across the border.

I'm sorry, but to preemptivly strike something you need the element of surprise. I don't think the US possesses that. You think the Iranians have just left all their military hardware and personel out on a bullseye in the middle of a field? The Iranian military is probably already mobilised or in a state of high alert, and will be able to scramble very quickly if and when the US does attack.

I do realise that, but the US can still have some shock factor if they do it very suddenly, with no apparant military build up (Hard, I know). They would need good intelligence, spies and undoubtly recon, whether it be through satellite or spyplanes to pull off the initial phase of the invasion, it would really help if they strike on multiple fronts simultaneuosly, with the help of Isreal and maybe others, and use electronic warfare to a maximum (not impossible).




Why do you assume the Iranian civilian population will be sympathetic to the US agressors. If we just note that precision strikes aren't all that precise, then attempting to bomb any military targets in civilian areas will undoubtably result in civilian casualties. The Iranian government will use in propaganda. What's more they will probably use 'evidence' of US/UK forces attacking Shia civilians in Iraq. Finally, Iran would probably do its best to spark Iraq into a full blown civil war to preoccupy US forces based in Iraq.


I don't assume the civilians will be sypathetic, and a certainly don't assume that civilians wont die. It doesn't matter, with respect to acheiving the objectives of the invasion, if a few thousand civilians die. Remember the US avoids population centres as much as possible and doesn't interfere with day to government public acitivites as much as it can. So what if the civilians hate the US some more because of pro shia/anti US propaganda, the US wont care if it is avoiding population centres anyway (and how much more can they hate the US, come on, they are aldready pretty charged up over there).
Doubtless there will be quite a few targets to aquire and/or destroy in populated areas. If the US moves in and out quickly, with as much covert force as possible, this shouldn't be a problem. The oil, what really matters (apart from nuclear sites) isn't in populated areas.


The Iranian Navy and Airforce is VERY important to disrupt otherwise they could easily threaten supply lines in the Persian Gulf that are carrying supplies to US forces in Iraq. Iran would probably distroy oil pumps in Iraq to damage oil supplies and send oil prices through the roof. It would also try and send oil shipments overland to China and Uzbekistan where it can still sell oil to China and Russia, and not have to worry about naval blockades.

Yep, as I said, a well planned, rapid, preemptive strike should neutralise the navy and airforce, using in turn the US (and allied) airforce and navys.
Iran doesn't expect Europe to help the US militarily, but if the US can get Europe onside, covertly, then there will be some surprise for the iranians, when they unexpectedly meet european / freed up US airforce on the way to bomb iraq. Getting Europe onside will be hard, but aint impossible if enough scaremongering is done.

Iran will try to start civil war in iraq, and to that I say, let 'em, if the iraqi based US patroling forces retreat to Iraqi oilfields while the Iraqi shias and sunnis get angry (at eachother + US), they should be in less danger. Iraq is almost in civil war anyway. A lot of newly built up infrastructure may be destroyed in the areas where both sunnis and shias live (baghdad, and a few other cities), but not in the mainly sunni or shia areas, in a civil war. US can move back in, after it has dealt with Iran.

As I have said in the plan, the US takes the oil fields in Iran first thing, so Iran can't blackmail / raise funds for itself that way anyway.

If you think that the US has anything near the amount of resources to invade Iran, that the invasion can be done on the sly, or that if we simply left the Iranians to sort out the mess it'd be fine, or that we wouldn't face a serious insurgency, or that avoiding civilian casualites would be a peace of cake, or that it would not be a complete international relations disaster, if you believe any of the above, then you are out of your mind. Invading Iran and being back in time for tea is foolhardiness of Rumsfeldian proportions.


The US doesn't neccesarily have the resources need to conduct a full scale military invasion of Iran like they did with Iraq. But with backing (if they can scare/ win over enough prospective allies) , I argue that they can take the oilfields and neutralise any suspect/useful intel containing sites, and neutralise the military to a large extent. In avoiding taking over civilian areas, the US largely avoids the insurgency, except where suspect sites are based in population centres (unlikely for anything nuclear, but maybe intelligence).

The US would have to sit on the iranian oilfields for quite some time before they could get out of the mess, as I have implied in my first post in this thread, I am sorry I gave the impression the US would be back in time for tea in that post - certainly didn't mean to. Was just formulating a possible course of action they could take militarily.

Look at a map of population densities of Iran and where the major oil port is. There is a large population centre virtually on top of the the port area. No oil is leaving the country unless you control that civilian area.

Have you any idea of Iranian history, other than whats been on the TV since this Nuclear business came up?


Yes. I had relatives living there up until recently in fact, and I am partially of persian decent, so it has been in my interest. Iran had a civil war in 1979, whereby Islamic revolutionaries took control, and ensured as thorough enforcement of shia islam as possible following this. There are quite a few ethnic groups in Iran, but I just don't think they would attack eachother in a US invasion, just to spite the US. My understanding is that there is no real animousity between the various ethinicities of Iran. The main religion is shia Islam, 99% plus according the cia world factbook, because of this, I do not believe there would be any in fighting, as the population is uniformly Shia, and hence very unified.

I can tell you more about Irans history if you would like, but you would probably think I looked it up on the net just now, that I didn't know it in the first place,so there's no point really, meh.

7% of the population is Kurdish, and 9% is Sunni Muslim. That's enough to cause problems.

Look at a map of population densities of Iran and where the major oil port is. There is a large population centre virtually on top of the the port area. No oil is leaving the country unless you control that civilian area.

That port appears to be adjacent to the population centre - which means it is seperated by at least a few dozen miles - they don't need the population centre to be able to control that port, although it would be useful. As long as the US can avoid doing patrol work, and keep a covert presence in any civilian area it ventures into, it should be able to avoid the full brunt of any insurgency.

Post a URL for the map you used, I'm off to bed though, and I'll look at it tomorrow.

The US has a military bogged down in Iraq and to a lesser extent Afganistan. The could probably spare a sizeable amount from the latter
The US does not even have a sizeable amount of troops in Afghanistan.

The most it will come to is a few bombing runs á la Iraq 1998. Trying to invade Iran will be another Vietnam, most likely bogging down America for decades.

That port appears to be adjacent to the population centre - which means it is seperated by at least a few dozen miles - they don't need the population centre to be able to control that port, although it would be useful. As long as the US can avoid doing patrol work, and keep a covert presence in any civilian area it ventures into, it should be able to avoid the full brunt of any insurgency.

Post a URL for the map you used, I'm off to bed though, and I'll look at it tomorrow.Who's going to work the ports? Even then you need to keep the pipelines secure. They could easily be attacked as you can't keep proper patrol out on the pipeplines everywhere.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iran_population_density_2004.jpg
PLUS
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iran_major_oilfields78.jpg
The maps shows a town called Bander-e-Emam Khomeyni to be where the port is. And a quick google comes up with a sizeable population of 73600 for the town.

edit: Bander Mahshahr also has a population of 104,506. There are a lot of people living in this area. A large chunk of whom are probably employed in a job related to the port.

Mmmm ... armchair military tacticians ... delicious.

Best way to invade Iran: Bend over and get ready to take it right up the poop-chute from a China/Russia coalition.

Mmmm ... armchair military tacticians ... delicious.

Best way to invade Iran: Bend over and get ready to take it right up the poop-chute from a China/Russia coalition.He started it! I was just trying to talk about the political consequences back in the US.

He started it! I was just trying to talk about the political consequences back in the US.

Now you two play nice or I'll be forced to separate you.

*Notes that so far no real attention has been paid to repeated assurances by Shi'ite leaders in Iraq to help Iran, should war break out*

Iran is much bigger and much less ideal to modern tank warfare than Iraq. No huge flat deserts there, but a lot of mountains.

So let's make it conservative, and say you need 400,000 or 500,000 men. That's more than three times what is in Iraq right now.

Add another 100,000 at least because Iraq sinks into complete chaos when many of the Shi'ites side with Iran.

It's do-able, but it would be the biggest war the US has fought since WWII. And that's not exactly politically wise right now.

And this is assuming that for some reason US Forces could win a war without taking major population centres.

If you can't control the oil industry in Iraq, you definitely won't in Iran.

>snip<and require exceptional intellegence>snip<

So it'd be a tremendous failure, then.

So it'd be a tremendous failure, then.

*giggle*

Mmmm ... armchair military tacticians ... delicious.

Best way to invade Iran: Bend over and get ready to take it right up the poop-chute from a China/Russia coalition.
How many of them are teenagers who've never seen the business end of a gun, you think?

How many of them are teenagers who've never seen the business end of a gun, you think?

Oh I dunno ... I'm sure they've played Halo ... or maybe Call of Duty.

or maybe Call of Duty.

Well.... its not a bad game. :p

Hey, I've played CS. I've been there, man. I was there when we stormed cs_havana that night. Never saw the sniper in the gazebo. Lost ten guys. :(

If push comes to shove.........................what would be the best way to do it?

Hey China! If you invade Iran for us you can keep all their oil! All their base belong to you!

I know! Close the straights! Without oil sales the Iranian regiem will soon collapse and they'll have no money to develop nuclear weapons. Sure the price of oil will go up, but America is more than willing to make that sacrifice to do what is right. (HA HA HAHAHAHAHA! Sorry, I'm laughing out loud so much it's a LOLercaust!)

Neu Leonstein's comments pretty much sum up my opinion as well.

Just to add:
You seem to have over estimated the available forces and under estimated the forces needed. While yes, some forces could be deployed for this plan, it is highly unlikely that they would be without much more serious provocation.

On the first point, here are two articles dealing with the availability problem:

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200511123.asp
http://www.slate.com/id/2121793/

Note that while these were written just over a year ago, the current deployments are at essesntially the same levels.

There is no possible way that the required forces could be deployed without Iran catching wind of it.

The nuclear sites are not all known.

You completely ignore the diplomatic fallout and the eventual retaliation.

And the biggest flaw is the exit strategy. Or should I say complete lack thereof. How on earth do you expect the US military to get out of the mess your plan has just made of Iran?

Now you two play nice or I'll be forced to separate you.Please do...

How many of them are teenagers who've never seen the business end of a gun, you think?I have seen the business end of a gun twice in my life. Luckily neither situation was a combat situation. The odd thing is both situations were within about 4 months apart from each other.

The first was in Uzbekistan, just after what happened in Andijan. The policeman got pissed off with us for some reason. I still have no idea as I had no idea what he was saying. Maybe he was looking for a bribe, I dunno. I didn't have any money on me so he wasn't going to get one.

The second was in Bradford Bus station a couple of days after 7th of July. I was on the UK part of a cultural exchange and my counterpart from Uzbekistan decided it'd be nice to have a photo of the Policemen carrying guns in the Bus Station. Needless to say that they noticed before I realised what my friend was up to. That required some smooth talking. I managed to get them to back down from confiscating the camera to just getting my friend to delete the photos.

There might be one more time when, my family and I, were going on a skiing holiday when I was young. I think I must have been so excited to get to the ski resort and start skiing that I ran straight through passport control.

If push comes to shove..............what would be the best way to do it?

By giving Iran a seat in the UN security council and the IAEA board. If you cannot beat them, make them join YOU.

Please do...

I have seen the business end of a gun twice in my life. Luckily neither situation was a combat situation. The odd thing is both situations were within about 4 months apart from each other.

The first was in Uzbekistan, just after what happened in Andijan. The policeman got pissed off with us for some reason. I still have no idea as I had no idea what he was saying. Maybe he was looking for a bribe, I dunno. I didn't have any money on me so he wasn't going to get one.

The second was in Bradford Bus station a couple of days after 7th of July. I was on the UK part of a cultural exchange and my counterpart from Uzbekistan decided it'd be nice to have a photo of the Policemen carrying guns in the Bus Station. Needless to say that they noticed before I realised what my friend was up to. That required some smooth talking. I managed to get them to back down from confiscating the camera to just getting my friend to delete the photos.

There might be one more time when, my family and I, were going on a skiing holiday when I was young. I think I must have been so excited to get to the ski resort and start skiing that I ran straight through passport control.


Yo. Been there. Good question, worth it's own thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=482473).

Invading Iran is not nessary. If we strike Iran it will be a bombing campaign much like the way the Serbian/Bosnian war was handled. We can hit all thier well defended sites wih cruise missles etc. Regardless of how protected and buried the nuclear reactors are, disrupting its electricity, bombing the parking lots the employees park in, destroying entrances to the underground facilities etc. are just a few of the zillion virtually risk free things we can do to Iran on a daily basis. They couldnt do thing one about and it would make them doing any form of research virtually impossible.

Iran however, can utilize it's airforce to cripple any oil shipments coming out of the Gulf you realize? And if they actually can put together a decent strike force, maybe even hit some of the stationed naval units there like carriers. Once a strike like that goes off, those ships become legit targets.

Oh I dunno ... I'm sure they've played Halo ... or maybe Call of Duty.

Operation Flashpoint ftw!

Oh yeah, and this idea is poorer than Chad. There is no way that the US is going to get away with carpet bombing Iran.

And destabilising a country is the kind of thing that brings about dictators. Hardly spreading democracy, especially when their president is an elected one.

America Should not Invade Iran.

Bush just wants the oil. If he wanted to "save the world", his first target would have been north Korea, not Afghanistan.

Yes. I had relatives living there up until recently in fact, and I am partially of persian decent, so it has been in my interest. Iran had a civil war in 1979, whereby Islamic revolutionaries took control, and ensured as thorough enforcement of shia islam as possible following this. There are quite a few ethnic groups in Iran, but I just don't think they would attack eachother in a US invasion, just to spite the US. My understanding is that there is no real animousity between the various ethinicities of Iran. The main religion is shia Islam, 99% plus according the cia world factbook, because of this, I do not believe there would be any in fighting, as the population is uniformly Shia, and hence very unified.

I can tell you more about Irans history if you would like, but you would probably think I looked it up on the net just now, that I didn't know it in the first place,so there's no point really, meh.

Perhaps I should have made myself clearer. What makes you think, given the animosity towards the US amongst a great deal of the population, that they're going to accept American occupation, given that the US backed the Shah for a few decades?

How many of them are teenagers who've never seen the business end of a gun, you think?


You don't need to have been threatened with a gun to be a good tactician - not saying that I am though. I think what you are getting at is that you need experiance in the military maybe? And you'd be right in assuming that I don't have any such experiance - so I am just using some form of logic and the facts I do know to formulate a possible plan of action. I don't have the perspective that, say an experianced general or lieutenant may have, no.


Oh wait......... I have played battlefield 2 (better than halo, COD, CS) and generals so I know all about li3k ub3r /\/\ilit4ry t4ct1x, and how 2 use them 2 pwn Iran.


One of the main problems is the (shi'ite) insurgency in both iraq and Iran that would ensue upon invading. Population centres in Iran can largely be avoided, but not so easily in Iraq, which is still rebuilding its infastructure and has rampant crime, and also needs US troops on patrol in some areas that are religiously polarised, like Baghdad.



*Notes that so far no real attention has been paid to repeated assurances by Shi'ite leaders in Iraq to help Iran, should war break out*

An invasion of Iran by the US would serve to unite Iraq's Shiasthen , in anti US anger. This would be good in terms of civil unity in Shia areas - less infighting between the various Shi'ite factions. The US won't need troops here as much - except that they contracted western companies to rebuild infastructure, and they need protection - ouch, one major flaw I cannot counter. It depends on how much rebuilding still needs to be done, this is a somewhat complicated issue, so on this basis, invading Iran would not be good, at least until Iraq is a helluva a lot more stable *not gonna happen for a while yet*


Iran is much bigger and much less ideal to modern tank warfare than Iraq. No huge flat deserts there, but a lot of mountains.

How adept at operating in such climes US armour is is something of an unknown to me, and my plan does depend somewhat on armoured might in that it is essential for support and assualt of any large, important military bases. Assuming it is crap, no invasion, but if it is effective in mountainous regions, why not.


So let's make it conservative, and say you need 400,000 or 500,000 men. That's more than three times what is in Iraq right now.

Add another 100,000 at least because Iraq sinks into complete chaos when many of the Shi'ites side with Iran.

Yes the US army will be stretched pretty thin, but the manpower can be mustered, the main obstacles are that it requires just too much money and visible military build up for it to be done effectively. Iraqi Shi'ites will be angry at the US, they wont fuck up their own civil infastructure just to spite the US, if the US pulls out of shi'ite areas, they may just remain stable and not fight themselves on this basis. However they may take out those doing the infastructure rebuilding (mainly foreigners) so Iraq will be chaotic in that sense I conceed.


It's do-able, but it would be the biggest war the US has fought since WWII. And that's not exactly politically wise right now.

If you read my plan, you see that the large burst of manpower is needed only for short time, then it can largely be relieved. The political fallout is something I cannot see how to counter. Unless the US has European/NAto backing in the first place (hard, but maybe not impossible). Then it wont be so bad.


And this is assuming that for some reason US Forces could win a war without taking major population centres.

They can! As long as they avoid disruption of trade routes, oil flow, localised/lower level government, they can save themselves a lot of trouble. Iran will keep plodding along more or less, although it will require thorough planning and intel on the part of US military tacticians.

I'm all for any plan that involves US citizens to get drafted.

I would love to see generation X come home without a limb or two, after finding out that real war isn't like a damn computer game.

You are forgetting that Russia lost to Afghanistan. A battle zone where a US coalition has more or less gained victory in. Also, how is Russia to defeat Iran when they cannot overcome Chechnya?

And how is America to defeat Iran when they can't defeat Iraq? Russia's defeat in Afghanistan was under completely different circumstances than our invasion, and was not a military defeat but a political one much like our Vietnam.

I think that, after facing Iranian troops without the help of planes or tanks, the US soldiers would run away screaming for mommy.
Iran has shown in the Iran/Iraq war that they can muster huge armies, composed of soldiers who are excellent fighters and don't care if they live or die. Couple this with the fact that Iran has developed its infrastructure a lot since the late 1980's, and now has far more advanced weaponry and killer dolphins (I kid you not) in its army, the US would probably be defeated, unless it nuked the entire country, but that would destroy the oil.

However, I don't think that the US will invade Iran. The in my opinion, the current president only pretends to be a nutjob for political gain. He will do stupid things, but he's not suicidal.

One of the main problems is the (shi'ite) insurgency in both iraq and Iran that would ensue upon invading. Population centres in Iran can largely be avoided, but not so easily in Iraq, which is still rebuilding its infastructure and has rampant crime, and also needs US troops on patrol in some areas that are religiously polarised, like Baghdad.
.

NO, if you invade Iran you can not avoid its population centers, that makes no sense at all. Those population centers are also transportation and logistical hubs, they can not be avoided in an invasion.



An invasion of Iran by the US would serve to unite Iraq's Shiasthen , in anti US anger. This would be good in terms of civil unity in Shia areas - less infighting between the various Shi'ite factions. The US won't need troops here as much - except that they contracted western companies to rebuild infastructure, and they need protection - ouch, one major flaw I cannot counter. It depends on how much rebuilding still needs to be done, this is a somewhat complicated issue, so on this basis, invading Iran would not be good, at least until Iraq is a helluva a lot more stable *not gonna happen for a while yet*
.

Your kidding right? What would happen with the Shiites would dwarf whats going on with the Sunni's now. If you invade Iran you will touch of a massive Shiite insurgency. The Shiite are backed, supplied, paid by and trained by the Iranians, on top of the fact that they share the same beliefs. you would need even more troops to hold down Iraq should Iran be invaded, the Shiites are much better equipped and organized than the Sunni's, remember a year ago when Shiite militia's under Sadir(Wow I butchered his name) got into a little scrap with American forces? How many cities did they manage to actually take CONTROl of? And that was one Shiite faction without the support of the majority of the Shiiite's. No, invading Iran would ignite Iraq.




Yes the US army will be stretched pretty thin, but the manpower can be mustered, the main obstacles are that it requires just too much money and visible military build up for it to be done effectively. Iraqi Shi'ites will be angry at the US, they wont fuck up their own civil infastructure just to spite the US, if the US pulls out of shi'ite areas, they may just remain stable and not fight themselves on this basis. However they may take out those doing the infastructure rebuilding (mainly foreigners) so Iraq will be chaotic in that sense I conceed.
.

Manpower is a much bigger problem than money if your talking about the Government, now the economy, will take a huge hit after gas prices go soaring but i'm not gonna go into explaining that.

As for the Shiite's, yes they will, its not like the have much infrastructure to lose.



They can! As long as they avoid disruption of trade routes, oil flow, localised/lower level government, they can save themselves a lot of trouble. Iran will keep plodding along more or less, although it will require thorough planning and intel on the part of US military tacticians.

The oil flow will be majorly disrupted, and not just in Iran.

How adept at operating in such climes US armour is is something of an unknown to me, and my plan does depend somewhat on armoured might in that it is essential for support and assualt of any large, important military bases. Assuming it is crap, no invasion, but if it is effective in mountainous regions, why not.

Armor units aren't designed for boxed in terrain where the lines of sight are crap and the ground is very uneven. They just don't do well there by nature of their design. It's like city fighting, only worse.

You don't have to be an "armchair strategist" who walks around in camo trousers to open up an atlas, look at the page with Iran on it, and see that any land war would be fought by a million infantrymen on foot, praying that the bombers don't miss.

Why is the only country named in this thread the "US"?

I thought that Germany, France, and GB were also standing opposed?

Hmm.

Why is the only country named in this thread the "US"?

I thought that Germany, France, and GB were also standing opposed?

Hmm.
LOL. They're not even getting out of bed for this one, and you know it. :p

"If the US was to invade Iran.............. "

No one is going to invade Iran. The Israelis might bomb the crap outta Iran's nuclear facilities, but even they aren't going to invade. There's no percentage in it.

No one is going to invade Iran. The Israelis might bomb the crap outta Iran's nuclear facilities, but even they aren't going to invade. There's no percentage in it.
They have a thriving date growing industry.

And how is America to defeat Iran when they can't defeat Iraq? Russia's defeat in Afghanistan was under completely different circumstances than our invasion, and was not a military defeat but a political one much like our Vietnam.

Iraq is defeated... you'll note that the government changed and that the guys now wearing Iraqi Army uniforms are on our side, yeah?

Iran? Eek. That's much different though, you're right.

They have a thriving date growing industry.
Woo hoo. Wheee. :rolleyes:

LOL. They're not even getting out of bed for this one, and you know it. :p

Now, let's be fair: the UK does back itself up with action very often.
France and Germany have been a bit weak in that regards, but did show up for Gulf War I and are in Afghanistan.

But you may be right. :(

I'm all for any plan that involves US citizens to get drafted.

I would love to see generation X come home without a limb or two, after finding out that real war isn't like a damn computer game.

Um... who the hell do you think served in Gulf War I, Afghanistan, and is in Iraq right now? A bunch of 40 year olds? :headbang:

I would love to see generation X come home without a limb or two, after finding out that real war isn't like a damn computer game.

"What do you mean you don't respawn back at base?!"

America Should not Invade Iran.

Bush just wants the oil. If he wanted to "save the world", his first target would have been north Korea, not Afghanistan.

Afghanistan = not have oil. Well, it probably has a little bit, but it is pretty useless oil wise. Maybe if you count building an oil-pipeline, but we hardly had to bring down the Taliban to build that.

"What do you mean you don't respawn back at base?!"
Sometimes I think I wanna join the Army. I mean, it's basically like FPS, except better graphics. But what happens if I get lag out there? I'm dead! And... I even heard there's no respawn points in RL! (http://www.putfile.com/media.php?n=FPS-doug)
:rolleyes:

Iran however, can utilize it's airforce to cripple any oil shipments coming out of the Gulf you realize? And if they actually can put together a decent strike force, maybe even hit some of the stationed naval units there like carriers. Once a strike like that goes off, those ships become legit targets.

Did you just say Iranian Air Force with a completly straight face? Name one country in the last 20 years that launched a fighter plane sucessfully against a single US ship or military target on land or at sea? The notion of the Iranian Air force being a threat to anything is laughable at best. Its like the Canadian Army trying to threaten to take over Austrailia. If anything Iran will fall over themselves to ship thier planes to Syria so they wont all be blown to smithereens on the ground. An enemy airplane or navel vessel couldnt get within 50 miles of modern nuclear aircraft carrier. See Iraq for an example of complete US air superiority.

Sometimes I think I wanna join the Army. I mean, it's basically like FPS, except better graphics. But what happens if I get lag out there? I'm dead! And... I even heard there's no respawn points in RL! (http://www.putfile.com/media.php?n=FPS-doug)
:rolleyes:

I would love to see people like that performing a stealth attack in real life by running towards the enemy while yelling "boom at ya !" and try hit me !".

Sometimes I think I wanna join the Army. I mean, it's basically like FPS, except better graphics. But what happens if I get lag out there? I'm dead! And... I even heard there's no respawn points in RL! (http://www.putfile.com/media.php?n=FPS-doug)
:rolleyes:

Boom ... headshot.

Well, the best course, and the easiest, would be to smart bomb their nuclear facilities, we have sattalites watching their every move, and we could launch a cruise missle from the gulf, or have an UAV fly undetected, or have a stealth F117 precision bomb it, if worst comes to worst, they will deploy more troops from the US, and take troops out of Korea, Germany, Britian. No need to take troops out of Iraq/Afghanistan. Also there are plenty of Special Forces groups sitting around, for example, the 10th SFG is just sitting in Colorado Springs. The 5th and the 3rd are very busy in Afghanistan, but many are just training right now.

Iraq for an example of complete US air superiority.
Yeah, our planes totally blew away their phantom, as in not existant, air force. That will show them who has real air superiority.

Yeah, our planes totally blew away their phantom, as in not existant, air force. That will show them who has real air superiority.

I think he was referring to 1991.

America Should not Invade Iran.

Bush just wants the oil. If he wanted to "save the world", his first target would have been north Korea, not Afghanistan.

"Ahhh, herro Mr. Bricksh..."

I think he was referring to 1991.
Ah, the First Gulf War, with its epic air battles. :p

Did you just say Iranian Air Force with a completly straight face? Name one country in the last 20 years that launched a fighter plane sucessfully against a single US ship or military target on land or at sea? The notion of the Iranian Air force being a threat to anything is laughable at best. Its like the Canadian Army trying to threaten to take over Austrailia. If anything Iran will fall over themselves to ship thier planes to Syria so they wont all be blown to smithereens on the ground. An enemy airplane or navel vessel couldnt get within 50 miles of modern nuclear aircraft carrier. See Iraq for an example of complete US air superiority.

Iraq barely had an air force. Iran does have an air force. Iran is actually swiftly becoming more and more capable, militarily, and by the time any potential invasion does happen, is likely to cause severe issues for US naval assets - particularly with it's new torpedoes, which have already got US Navy planners worrying, I should imagine.

And everybody knows that USAF pilots ain't the cream of the crop: they have things way too easy, and have far too little air-to-air combat experience. Like most Western states.

Those who advocate targeted air strikes, beware. They will not work against Iran. Iran would retalliate with missile strikes against Israel, US bases in the region, and attacks in Iraq. Iran cannot hit the USA directly, but it can cause a lot of trouble for the US in the MidEast, which it will do if it is attacked. That means the only way the US or any coalition of countries can defeat Iran with limited Allied casualties is by waging Total War - bomb indiscriminately, go in guns blazing kill everyone in sight, wipe out so many enemy civilians and soldiers that the enemy chooses surrender rather than face complete extermination. Since no one has the stomache for this type of warfare, the US and others should not take any military action at all against Iran.

Ah, the First Gulf War, with its epic air battles. :p

Well, yeah! In comparison to Gulf War 2: Electic Boogaloo. ;)

Iraqi Shi'ites will be angry at the US, they wont fuck up their own civil infastructure just to spite the US, if the US pulls out of shi'ite areas, they may just remain stable and not fight themselves on this basis.
You know, when I say "support Iran", I actually mean support Iran. In other words, the Mahdi Army and so on will go and fight the US Military in Iraq.
Unless you leave the country, you're gonna have to defend yourself against that.

If you read my plan, you see that the large burst of manpower is needed only for short time, then it can largely be relieved.
You're fully aware that that is ridiculous. No war in history has ever been fought like that - things always go wrong. And if you think that Iran will somehow just lie down and die and then be all peaceful just because the US has managed to catch and destroy a few divisions (of course avoiding population centres :rolleyes: ).

They can! As long as they avoid disruption of trade routes, oil flow, localised/lower level government, they can save themselves a lot of trouble. Iran will keep plodding along more or less, although it will require thorough planning and intel on the part of US military tacticians.
And those thorough planners are saying right now that: "There is no way in hell we can invade Iran!"

the US and others should not take any military action at all against Iran.

It will rapidly get to the point where unfortunatly there will be few other choices. That is if you object to Iran getting nukes.

It will rapidly get to the point where unfortunatly there will be few other choices. That is if you object to Iran getting nukes.


Personally I don't mind if Iran has Nuclear weapons. I'm just thinking about how the US would go about taking military action, and by US, I mean the Bush administration. Congress just aren't gonna hand over dozens of Billions of dollars, it would be like trying to take candy from a ..........well......... an Iranian Nuclear installation.



You know, when I say "support Iran", I actually mean support Iran. In other words, the Mahdi Army and so on will go and fight the US Military in Iraq.
Unless you leave the country, you're gonna have to defend yourself against that.

Yes those Mahdi fellows will probably cause quite a stir up, in attacking US forces and probably Sunni areas given that US forces would be strained being in Iran and all.



You're fully aware that that is ridiculous. No war in history has ever been fought like that - things always go wrong. And if you think that Iran will somehow just lie down and die and then be all peaceful just because the US has managed to catch and destroy a few divisions (of course avoiding population centres ).

The US would be in something if an undesirable predicament if population centres are essential logistical hubs. The Iranian army would probably use them to best effect in this sense, using them as cover and basing other important things around them. Not to mention important trade and hence transportation routes flow through them in almost every country anyway.


It would certainly seem that the US would have to be prepared to take a casualty count of Vietnamic proportions, if they were unable to avoid operating population centres for a marked period of time. In this case they would need far too much manpower, a stable, friendly Iraq and a lot of money, (especially if they can't muster European and Isreali support).

Thats good amount of obstacles, I hope the US doesn't invade Iran for its own sake, the Iranians sake and the Iraqis sake. Although if it does it will make exciting TV, and god knows the news is bloody boring at the moment.

oh im sorry, i guess i should have been more specific. i didnt mean to suggest that i think that the russians could succeed in an invasion of iran when the US cant. i think that its impossible for anyone to successfully invade iran. therefore the best course of action for the US is to get someone else to do it. better the russians suffer the humilliating defeat than we do.

Gee, isn't it amazing how many Turd-World countries there are who just can't be successfully invaded? Good thing Nazi Germany wasn't that kind of country or who knows, we might still be fighting WWII :p

We don't need to invade Iran. If we're smart about it, we'll support regime change and let Iranians do the fighting. The moolah-cracy's popularity, especially with the younger people, makes George W.'s polling look like the worship of a god-king.

Doesn't mean we don't do things like air support and targeting some choice moolah-crats, not to mention the moolahs' puppet president. Just don't have to have massive numbers of boots on the ground.

Iran will eventually be liberated. Ahmadi-nejad, Khamanei and the rest of the bombheads running Iran will soon get getting a lead injection :mp5: