Iran and a possible invasion

Organic Potatoes

Full Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
10,178
Location
Skillet
Supports
Colorado Rapids
Looking at the geography of that, that kind of military operation would be ridiculously daunting. As flat desert as Iraq is, the entire borderland between Iraq and Iran is a mountain range.

The invasion would have to be almost completely airborne and largely without armor until airbases and airspace had been secured.
It would be one of the most expensive wars in history, at least in terms of firepower expended per timeframe.
 

nimic

Curvy gay
Scout
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
18,285
Location
And I'm all out of bubblegum.
I can't and don't believe even Trump and his hawks would be stupid enough to start a land war with Iran with the goal of at least temporary occupation (if only for a planned quick regime change). If they do start something here, it's surely going to be limited to rocket strikes and bombing runs. That said, if their goal really is regime change, then that's not going to be accomplished from the air.

An occupation seems utterly impossible. Iran is four times as large as Iraq, and more than twice as populous.
 

Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær

Lutefisk is it!
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
76,599
Location
Walkin in a Snowle Wonderland :(
Supports
Moanchester United
I can't and don't believe even Trump and his hawks would be stupid enough to start a land war with Iran with the goal of at least temporary occupation (if only for a planned quick regime change). If they do start something here, it's surely going to be limited to rocket strikes and bombing runs. That said, if their goal really is regime change, then that's not going to be accomplished from the air.
First part of the plan would definitely be try and bomb them into submission. Threaten invasion but hope you don't have to because that will get messy fast.
 

2cents

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
10,345
That said, if their goal really is regime change, then that's not going to be accomplished from the air
There are proxy forces they may try to use but I’m skeptical.
 

nimic

Curvy gay
Scout
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
18,285
Location
And I'm all out of bubblegum.
First part of the plan would definitely be try and bomb them into submission. Threaten invasion but hope you don't have to because that will get messy fast.
Yeah, I reckon as much. I don't give them much chance of succeeding without an invasion, though. If anything, seems like trying to bomb Iran into submission would only harden the regime's support internally.
 

11101

Full Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
9,917
Don’t ever discount the fact that peace is hell, that the defense contractors need real-time arenas to show how improved their weaponry has become, & that the KBRs / Halliburtons / Carlyle Groups have not been making their billions in profits through no-bid contracts like they did in Iraq & Afghanistan.

I don’t believe that we would go into Iran for the oil, it’s just not that much of a necessity for my country, it will be the internal pressure from the entities listed above that will get us embroiled into conflict with Iran. To think we could ‘invade’ a country multiple times bigger than Iraq & multiple times more mountainous than Iraq with the same number of troops is as idiotic as can be. The leaps in quality & force projection of military weaponry from 2003 to now were not as substantial as they were from 1991 to 2003, plus we will be going up against a far more impressive military force.

I am just waiting for the big lie to start being spread. We might be looking at the Gulf of Tonkin incident 2.0 as a pretext for some military intervention into Iran, but it won’t be enough to rally the country behind it. There’s always the GWOT bandwagon to rally Americans behind, but that rings a little stale nowadays. Some lie needs to be cooked up pretty soon to get the drumbeats growing louder.

I want to think that there are smart men & women in uniform & in the intelligence services that will stop the march to war, especially under such a horrific & incompetent president, but I thought the same in 2002.
I doubt there would be much of a conflict. Iran is more capable than other recent adversaries but the US would still make short work of them.

The worry is, as always, what happens when the army is defeated and all the various factions within the country fancy a bit of power. It will just be another endless war we all get dragged into, and at some point these increasing proxy fights with Russia and China are going to spill over into something real.
 

nimic

Curvy gay
Scout
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
18,285
Location
And I'm all out of bubblegum.
I doubt there would be much of a conflict. Iran is more capable than other recent adversaries but the US would still make short work of them.

The worry is, as always, what happens when the army is defeated and all the various factions within the country fancy a bit of power. It will just be another endless war we all get dragged into, and at some point these increasing proxy fights with Russia and China are going to spill over into something real.
There is obviously no doubt that the US could and would crush Iran in a conventional war, but even so they'd probably take more losses than the American people would accept. And as you say, the occupation would be a nightmare.
 

Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær

Lutefisk is it!
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
76,599
Location
Walkin in a Snowle Wonderland :(
Supports
Moanchester United
Yeah, I reckon as much. I don't give them much chance of succeeding without an invasion, though. If anything, seems like trying to bomb Iran into submission would only harden the regime's support internally.
Yeah and the only people who'll die are Iranians and Iraqis while Donny gets to act all tough and whip his base into a frenzy.
 

Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær

Lutefisk is it!
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
76,599
Location
Walkin in a Snowle Wonderland :(
Supports
Moanchester United
I doubt there would be much of a conflict. Iran is more capable than other recent adversaries but the US would still make short work of them.

The worry is, as always, what happens when the army is defeated and all the various factions within the country fancy a bit of power. It will just be another endless war we all get dragged into, and at some point these increasing proxy fights with Russia and China are going to spill over into something real.
Isis needs a new home base.
 

The Firestarter

Full Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
9,413
Is someone seriously thinking the US will actually invade with boots on the ground ? Get real, at most this will be air strikes. Not that this won't be a complete catostrofeck geopolitically , of course.
 

RedTiger

Full Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2013
Messages
14,790
Location
Beside the sea-side, Beside the sea.
I doubt there would be much of a conflict. Iran is more capable than other recent adversaries but the US would still make short work of them.
That's short sighted.

Iran is a country with 10 cities with more than a million population, all spread out throughout the country, that doesn't take into account the dozens of cities and towns with over 100k pop. America could in theory go all Dresden on Iran but millions upon millions of collateral damage will not be good international PR nor will America get internal allies through that option.

Iran is an historically homogeneous society who take almost cult like pride in their culture and identity, they won't capitulate that easily, America might bomb them back to the stone age but what is that to a society that hero worships martyrs?
 

Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær

Lutefisk is it!
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
76,599
Location
Walkin in a Snowle Wonderland :(
Supports
Moanchester United
Why would it be the best option?
Because sitting around doing nothing while a superior air force bombs you into oblivion is a bad idea. If your enemy is ravaging your lands, you ravage theirs or those of their allies. The US might base some forces in Iraq and if not they will use bases in Saudi, whom Iran will have no problem going after. They will be happy to unleash hell on the region and (quite rightly) blame it on the US

Yes, the US will also use carrier groups and those can be expected to become targets as well (think of the USS Cole). Iran will suffer heavy losses but it won't be a walkover like it was vs Saddam's Iraq.
 

2cents

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
10,345
Because sitting around doing nothing while a superior air force bombs you into oblivion is a bad idea. If your enemy is ravaging your lands, you ravage theirs or those of their allies. The US might base some forces in Iraq and if not they will use bases in Saudi, whom Iran will have no problem going after. They will be happy to unleash hell on the region and (quite rightly) blame it on the US

Yes, the US will also use carrier groups and those can be expected to become targets as well (think of the USS Cole). Iran will suffer heavy losses but it won't be a walkover like it was vs Saddam's Iraq.
Yeah they’ll try and bring a halt to all traffic in the Gulf, turn it into a fiery lake of chaos and majorly feck with the world’s oil supplies and economies. UAE, Saudi, Bahrain and Kuwait could all be targeted (Qatar and Oman less likely to be).
 

langster

DJ Stink mouth, so soppy few pints very wow!
Scout
Joined
Jun 28, 2014
Messages
19,406
Location
My brain can't get pregnant!
John Bolton has wanted war with Iran for fecking years as have many Republicans. It's the perfect distraction for Trump AND peace is bad news for weapons contractors, manufacturers and those heavily invested in sending security or helping rebuild war torn countries.

It's all about the Benjamin's (and distraction)
 

Port Vale Devil

Full Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2017
Messages
625
Supports
Port Vale
These chicken hawk feckers should be made to put their own kids on the frontline as they wage their atrocities across the Middle East.

I’m sure Don jr likes a bit of shooting/trophy hunting so send the prick into Iran fully loaded up and see how many photos he takes.
 

The Firestarter

Full Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
9,413
Because sitting around doing nothing while a superior air force bombs you into oblivion is a bad idea. If your enemy is ravaging your lands, you ravage theirs or those of their allies. The US might base some forces in Iraq and if not they will use bases in Saudi, whom Iran will have no problem going after. They will be happy to unleash hell on the region and (quite rightly) blame it on the US

Yes, the US will also use carrier groups and those can be expected to become targets as well (think of the USS Cole). Iran will suffer heavy losses but it won't be a walkover like it was vs Saddam's Iraq.
The moment they attack Iraq they will be seen as the aggressors, and a coalition will be formed against them . Their best shot is to be the victims , without attacking any neighbouring countries , that haven't already attacked them.
 

Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær

Lutefisk is it!
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
76,599
Location
Walkin in a Snowle Wonderland :(
Supports
Moanchester United
The moment they attack Iraq they will be seen as the aggressors, and a coalition will be formed against them . Their best shot is to be the victims , without attacking any neighbouring countries , that haven't already attacked them.
Not if the US bases any forces in Iraq or uses Iraqi airspace. Any country that works with the US will be fair game.

Also, they've already been painted as the aggressors for attacking those ships.
 

Kaos

Full Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
24,997
Location
Ginseng Strip
Not if the US bases any forces in Iraq or uses Iraqi airspace. Any country that works with the US will be fair game.

Also, they've already been painted as the aggressors for attacking those ships.
There’s no chance the Iraqi government would allow the US to mount an offence on Iran from their territory. There’d be an immediate coup by the powerful militias, all who are deathly loyal to Iran.
 

calodo2003

Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
1,466
Location
Florida
The average redneck around here though thinks it'll be a cakewalk. It's so depressing.
Dear god, it will be quantifiably more difficult than Iraq, far less flat areas over which to just speed tanks to assume territory, far more hilly & mountainous terrain that would help their army in its prolonged insurgency.
 

Oldham

Full Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2004
Messages
2,547
Location
Xmurfs
Can't imagine how the regular Iranian people feel now... Maybe being invaded cause of a mad man is in power...
 

Carolina Red

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
22,550
Location
South Carolina
Dear god, it will be quantifiably more difficult than Iraq, far less flat areas over which to just speed tanks to assume territory, far more hilly & mountainous terrain that would help their army in its prolonged insurgency.
We’d be invading a massive, less hospitable version of Switzerland. It’s nuts.
 

calodo2003

Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
1,466
Location
Florida
I doubt there would be much of a conflict. Iran is more capable than other recent adversaries but the US would still make short work of them.

The worry is, as always, what happens when the army is defeated and all the various factions within the country fancy a bit of power. It will just be another endless war we all get dragged into, and at some point these increasing proxy fights with Russia and China are going to spill over into something real.
One of the wild cards that has been verified to exist in the Iranian armory is the conventional Sunburn missile, a massive improvement versus the Exocet which could turn the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, & the Gulf of Oman into shooting galleries, limiting our ability to insert troops & weaponry en masse into the theater & making us rely more on airborne insertions of both. Supplying by air can be faster, but limited in tonnage / personnel delivered per plane.

If any of those Sunburns are nuclear tipped (which some may very well be), then Iran has a true aircraft carrier killer in its arsenal. Such missiles will able to knock out carrier groups instantaneously. Such a scenario would quite likely be endgame for the Iranians, so they would be more than happy to deploy the conventional SS-N-20s onto disposable small boat platforms & unleash a hell never seen before onto our carrier groups. Not being able to effectively force project from those three waterways will reduce our overall ability to wage war in Iran.

Saddam was basically a secularist who understood not to utilize WMDS. No telling what the Iranians will do in that regard.
 

Carolina Red

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
22,550
Location
South Carolina
Not if the US bases any forces in Iraq or uses Iraqi airspace. Any country that works with the US will be fair game.

Also, they've already been painted as the aggressors for attacking those ships.
Not to mention that we don’t need a land base to kick the door in. The US Navy + USMC can land a Marine Expeditionary Force the size of a large Army division pretty much anywhere via sea and land.

Edit: which would set up the type of possible naval missile battle @calodo2003 is talking about
 

Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær

Lutefisk is it!
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
76,599
Location
Walkin in a Snowle Wonderland :(
Supports
Moanchester United
Not to mention that we don’t need a land base to kick the door in. The US Navy + USMC can land a Marine Expeditionary Force the size of a large Army division pretty much anywhere via sea and land.

Edit: which would set up the type of possible naval missile battle @calodo2003 is talking about
I reckon the casualties would be pretty heavy in that scenario. It's going to be a lot of missiles and bombs but that will only succeed in killing people who don't deserve to die.
 

Sweet Square

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
10,668
Location
Ruler Of The Supermarket
What's your point
I don't want to derail the thread but come on its rather odd that when Trump is on the brink of possible starting a war with Iran, your blaming the most anti war voters. Not to mentioned the alternative candidate you wished they voted for is Hilary Clinton, who has a long history of war(Libya has actual slavery now).

But yeah anyway Trump is bad man.
 

Carolina Red

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
22,550
Location
South Carolina
I reckon the casualties would be pretty heavy in that scenario. It's going to be a lot of missiles and bombs but that will only succeed in killing people who don't deserve to die.
Yeah it wouldn’t be pretty. A few of my former players and wrestlers could be on the front line of it too. I sincerely hope it doesn’t come to that.
 

adexkola

Arsenal supporter
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
36,471
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
Not to mention that we don’t need a land base to kick the door in. The US Navy + USMC can land a Marine Expeditionary Force the size of a large Army division pretty much anywhere via sea and land.

Edit: which would set up the type of possible naval missile battle @calodo2003 is talking about
Awesome, a year into joining the Marines, my idiot brother could possibly be deployed to Iran.