[Ad0i89Od]

pre-Desert storm is irrelevant. We are comparing Op Iraqi Freedom with a possible invasion of Iran.

No, it's not irrelevant and no we weren't comparing OIF to invading Iran. I specifically said Desert Storm. Iraq had a huge army and we expected to have a decent amount of casualties in that fight. We were hardly scratched. The same would happen with Iran.

[Falik]

Lost in all this is the general lack of need to put ground troops in… at least in any large numbers or formations.

A very doable plan might go something like this:

An air campaign to remove their air defense systems and coastal
An air campaign to damage their nuclear facilities
An air campaign to destroy their major military formations and equipment not listed above.
A sea blockade shutting down all oil exports and all imports of any type including gasoline.

All the while calling for the current government to surrender and hand themselves over to the UN. Not the US… to the UN. The UN then to sponsor, and monitor new free and open national elections in 90 days.

If necessary take and hold (from the sea):
Kharg Island,
Lavan Island
Kish Island,
Abadan,
Bandar Mahshar,
and Neka,

While keeping the Strait of Hormuz, open and flowing.

40k air and sea personal?
12-15k Marines IF, if we have to take the oil terminals. And hey… just what might they do? Human wave? They don’t have an air force. They don’t have much of a Navy… and will have less after the first 24 hours. Army? Most would be destroyed in the same opening air assault. So… they going to fade away? Fine… won’t be a guerrilla war if there is no occupying force now will there? Attack the Marines holding the terminals? With full air and naval support? Good luck with that.
On a limited, but overwhelming force campaign it is Iran that quickly runs out of options not the US.

If we wanted to go a step further, the regime is already on unstable footing. It wouldn't take a whole lot for us to disrupt the regimes forces, and let the Iranian people already in the streets do the rest. Having a few division sized formations set loose in the Iranian interior to help secure the major cities would go a long way.

The greatest risk is the stranglehold the regime has on the mechanisms of civilized life. We saw in Iraq what happens when the trained bureaucrats pack up and go to ground. In this case I think there is enough opposition politicians to fill the gap, so that we can avoid a long term occupation.

On that same note, thats why it is so vital at home to avoid dependence on government.

[tmobmobfil]

No guerilla war? Hello, Iran borders both countries that the US is occupying.

Re-read my post

No occupation = No guerrilla war

[putza]

No, it's not irrelevant and no we weren't comparing OIF to invading Iran. I specifically said Desert Storm. Iraq had a huge army and we expected to have a decent amount of casualties in that fight. We were hardly scratched. The same would happen with Iran.

Given similar circumstances, that's undoubtedly true. The problem is, we don't know what the circumstances would be for this theoretical invasion of Iran. Who would be our allies? Who would be Iran's allies? What would be the status of Iraq and Afghanistan? Hundreds of other variables come into play. Without knowing what some of those are, there's no answer to this hypothetical. No doubt, the worst-case scenario would be thousands, rather than 10's of thousands, so long as we didn't stick around for nation building (in which case it could go conceivably over 10 thousand). Without more information, this is a fool's game, but I'm sure you already know that.

[bF8CCmmr]

If we wanted to go a step further, the regime is already on unstable footing. It wouldn't take a whole lot for us to disrupt the regimes forces, and let the Iranian people already in the streets do the rest. Having a few division sized formations set loose in the Iranian interior to help secure the major cities would go a long way.

The greatest risk is the stranglehold the regime has on the mechanisms of civilized life. We saw in Iraq what happens when the trained bureaucrats pack up and go to ground. In this case I think there is enough opposition politicians to fill the gap, so that we can avoid a long term occupation.

On that same note, thats why it is so vital at home to avoid dependence on government.

Re-read my post

No occupation = No guerrilla war

No large formations, no taking the cities, nothing like that.

[DownloadADOBEsoftware]

There is no realistic call for invasion of Iran. I don't know where you dreamed this up from but it's just not there. The only reason there is a slightest hint of people thinking about it is because no one wants to see a nuclear Iran.



Yes, we'd roll right over them. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want us there but that is irrelevant. Yes, they could do gorilla warfare, just like what is happening in Iraq and what is happening in Afghanistan. The point is that we would roll over the Iranian military establishment.

And my point was that wouldn't matter one tinker's damn. The whole point of guerilla warfare is that the 'superior' enemy is tricked by his own victories over the 'weaker' opponent. He 'wins' battle after battle until he finally loses the war.

If we wanted to go a step further, the regime is already on unstable footing. It wouldn't take a whole lot for us to disrupt the regimes forces, and let the Iranian people already in the streets do the rest. Having a few division sized formations set loose in the Iranian interior to help secure the major cities would go a long way.

The greatest risk is the stranglehold the regime has on the mechanisms of civilized life. We saw in Iraq what happens when the trained bureaucrats pack up and go to ground. In this case I think there is enough opposition politicians to fill the gap, so that we can avoid a long term occupation.

On that same note, thats why it is so vital at home to avoid dependence on government.

Wait, wait, wait. Less than 35 years ago these people raided our Embassy and kicked us out of the country. Since then the main thing that has kept them going through wars oppression and hardship has been their hatred of the Great Satan, us. While there is opposition none of it is favorable to the West and there is still, afaik, no credible armed resistance to the present regime of any kind.

And now you think that they're going to welcome our invading Army? for god's sake HOW do you come to that conclusion???

Re-read my post

No occupation = No guerrilla war

No large formations, no taking the cities, nothing like that.

I know, I know, until the people lay down their arms to welcome the Americans.

I'm sorry but I just don't believe there is an American inside every muslim fighting to get out. It is historically proverbial by this point that all bombing alone does is stiffen resistance. All you would do would be to cut off our gasoline, increase terrorism by a thousandfold, cost us several trillions more and ultimately involve us in yet another unwinnable land war when you were finally forced to send ground troops in.

[rsdefwgxvcfdts]

Wait, wait, wait. Less than 35 years ago these people raided our Embassy and kicked us out of the country. Since then the main thing that has kept them going through wars oppression and hardship has been their hatred of the Great Satan, us. While there is opposition none of it is favorable to the West and there is still, afaik, no credible armed resistance to the present regime of any kind.

And now you think that they're going to welcome our invading Army? for god's sake HOW do you come to that conclusion???

Evidently you've only been listen to the regime and their weekly kill the great satan parades.

The truth is the vast majority of the population was born after the revolution, and has no particular hard feelings against us, loves their country, and dislikes the regime.

Thats plenty of common ground.

[SasortFkire]

Evidently you've only been listen to the regime and their weekly kill the great satan parades.

The truth is the vast majority of the population was born after the revolution, and has no particular hard feelings against us, loves their country, and dislikes the regime.

Thats plenty of common ground.

You really have to stop getting all your insight on foreign affairs from those anonymous emails.

[RooxiaNof]

Actually, Bush's Office of Special Plans did speculate a possible invasion of Iran, also did Pentagon's Iranian Directorate, this was prior to invading Iraq, late 2002. They reached the same conclusion as I did before, that it would be insane.

That's why Obama was silent post-Iranian election. Bush would have done exactly the same, or McCain for that matter. These people know better what they are dealing with.

Please stop trying to act as if these are rational people. Rational people don't tirelessly defend an idiot who bankrupted us by invading the wrong country becuase they dissed his daddy.

McCain and Bush were setting us up for war with Iran before the election, but it wasn't worth it as they were actually insane enough to believe McCain would win. McCain would have almost surely invaded if he was in the office during the Iranian election riots, our economy was bad and he's a classic Argentinean general type; things are off domestically? invade somebody.

[Nafheense]

Please stop trying to act as if these are rational people. Rational people don't tirelessly defend an idiot who bankrupted us by invading the wrong country becuase they dissed his daddy.

McCain and Bush were setting us up for war with Iran before the election, but it wasn't worth it as they were actually insane enough to believe McCain would win. McCain would have almost surely invaded if he was in the office during the Iranian election riots, our economy was bad and he's a classic Argentinean general type; things are off domestically? invade somebody.

Please present so evidence of this idiotic drivel. Obama is following Bush's foreign policy to the T. McCain would have done the exact same as Bush and Obama.

[BGThomasis]

Please present so evidence of this idiotic drivel. Obama is following Bush's foreign policy to the T. McCain would have done the exact same as Bush and Obama.

I don't see how I can present evidence of what McCain did when elected as, thank all the fucking gods, he wasn't. The OP called for speculation and that is what I did.

[SodeSceriobia]

And is so often the case, your speculation is divorced from any rational basis.

[NewYorkDoctorD]

And is so often the case, your speculation is divorced from any rational basis.

I am speculating about Republicans

[Frannypaync]

No, it's not irrelevant and no we weren't comparing OIF to invading Iran. I specifically said Desert Storm. Iraq had a huge army and we expected to have a decent amount of casualties in that fight. We were hardly scratched. The same would happen with Iran.

Desert Storm was not an invasion. Iraqi troops were ordered to withdraw, and believed they were allowed to after pulling from Kuwait. Coalition troops pursued with the aim to destroy the Iraqi military, and turned around long before reaching the capital. The whole ground campaign lasted about 3 and a half days. If you think that makes a good comparison to a ground invasion of Iran with the intension to occupy it, okay.

[opelayday]

I don't see how I can present evidence of what McCain did when elected as, thank all the fucking gods, he wasn't. The OP called for speculation and that is what I did.

That's why I didn't ask for proof, just evidence, which, as is so often the case, is still too difficult for you. Just explain why you think McCain would have had a more aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East than Bush or Obama (who is following his predecessor's strategy to the letter).

[Kt-viagra]

Desert Storm was not an invasion. Iraqi troops were ordered to withdraw, and believed they were allowed to after pulling from Kuwait. Coalition troops pursued with the aim to destroy the Iraqi military, and turned around long before reaching the capital. The whole ground campaign lasted about 3 and a half days. If you think that makes a good comparison to a ground invasion of Iran with the intension to occupy it, okay.

Why are you assuming we'd occupy Iran?

[PZXjoe]

Why are you assuming we'd occupy Iran?

What would happen if we don't? I don't think the critics of the administration or the public in general would approve of it.

oh plus, if you want the black gold, you have to.

[newspetty]

Bah.

There is no need to invade Iran. Crack a history book, and check out the "Tanker War" from the 80's.

Iran's economy is still very dependent on their off-shore facilities - facilities that we can easily destroy. We know, and they know it.

Matt

[WGfg4CCZ]

What would happen if we don't? I don't think the critics of the administration or the public in general would approve of it.

This administration has demonstrated time-and-again they don't give a rat's ass who approves of their actions,even when the vast majority of Americans disagrees with them.

The critics would, none the less, undoubtedly be the minority. The US public isn't ready for another long-term military engagement. The most they'd accept is a large-scale aerial campaign and special forces missions.

[Seeseeskeva]

This administration has demonstrated time-and-again they don't give a rat's ass who approves of their actions,even when the vast majority of Americans disagrees with them.

The critics would, none the less, undoubtedly be the minority. The US public isn't ready for another long-term military engagement. The most they'd accept is a large-scale aerial campaign and special forces missions.

Well, suppose Bush pulled out immediately after the overthrow of Ba'ath party's rule of Iraq, let's say, end of April 2003, no American or coalition troops left in the region, suppose we left them as they were after the lootings. You don't think the protestations from Dems, Americans, and service members in general, not to mention the rest of the world including our coalition allies, would make a political dent on GOP's rule, or popularity, and diminish it's financial support from its corporate contributers including the energy conglomerates and military contractors- for the next 10 years to come?

I think it will. And I didn't even mention the Iraqis, or the terrorists, which are consequences in their own right. But the GOP (or Dems) never cared about those two so we can keep those outta the picture.

Unless you are talking some kind of intermediary solution, between an occupation like the one in Iraq, and pulling out comepletely. Well, what would that be?