A possible Iran war with minimal US forces on the ground

[Pseudo Sane]

This is just stupid.

Iran has 80 million people and is one the most mountainous countries on earth. Tehran is in the very north of Iran and has 10 million people. Just who exactly will be criss-crossing the Zagros mountains and making their way to Tehran without getting lit-up?

Which magical group of arabs will be joining this venture: the incompetent Saudi's who can't even conquer the poorest country on earth - which literally borders their own. The sheltered Emirati's or Bahraini's?

Nobody short of the US is invading Iran, and even then that's very unlikely.

Seriously. Saudi Arabia is a nation of trust fund kiddies. They can't accomplish shit on their own. The idea of the Saudis successfully invading anyone is laughable.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

No, not all allies are good guys. But all our allies have interests that are aligned with ours. Iranian interests are pointed in the opposite direction. I can't think of too many big issues where we would both want the same thing, so no, they aren't a natural ally.

Where do our interests diverge outside of our one-sided rivalry relative to our other allies in the ME?

So I am guilty via the transitive property? I can think the OP is stupid while still thinking that a war with Iran is stupid.

Nobody said you were guilty of anything, a guilty complex, sure, obviously, but nobody even accused you of that. It’s rather telling that you are attacking posts of people who don’t think we should go to war with Iran while agreeing g with posters that want to go with Iran.

That's not true. We've both been at odds with one another, or are you forgetting that they took American hostages in the 70s, took American sailors hostage in 2016, aided the insurgents in Iraq, and a myriad of other things? They're definitely bad guys, and we shouldn't help them out. That doesn't mean that we should attack them either, but if something devastatingly terrible happens to Iran, we can appreciate our good fortune.

Why did they take hostages?

 

[PEDS Help me Post]

In South Florida where these pill pusher doctors were notoriously lax in prescribing these pills there was an increase in illegal opiod use once there was a crack down on those doctors. Makes me wonder if its better to have doctors pushing opiods than street dealers but either way the effect is, as Trump might say, "not good"

I would think that's it better that nobody is pushing opioids. They have their uses but prescribing them for any chronic pain is just silly. Hell, I had a tooth infection and the doctor asked if it hurt and when I said yes he prescribed me morphine. I ended up just taking Tylenol instead and it was fine.

 

[Juventud]

@Tropodan @sub_thug @Seaside .....

Just replace SA with Iran.

Being force fed Fox News war propaganda for the last 12 years.

Bolton: "Iran is the DEVIL!"

I'm sure you all jizzed your pants when Trump appointed him.

How's your stocks in Lockheed, Boeing & BAE going you soulless sacks of shit? You're the stereotypes of why America is labeled a war loving, war mongering country.

Your tune would change if you were all being put on the front lines of your next hard-on war. Only supreme pussies beg for war from behind a computer.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

@Tropodan @sub_thug @Seaside .....

Just replace SA with Iran.

Being force fed Fox News war propaganda for the last 12 years.

Bolton: "Iran is the DEVIL!"

I'm sure you all jizzed your pants when Trump appointed him.

How's your stocks in Lockheed, Boeing & BAE going you soulless sacks of shit? You're the stereotypes of why America is labeled a war loving, war mongering country.

Your tune would change if you were all being put on the front lines of your next hard-on war. Only supreme pussies beg for war from behind a computer.

I'm in the fucking military you smug idiot, and I'm not American. I'm also on the record on this forum criticizing Bolton I think he's evil.

 

[Pseudo Sane]

I wouldn't mind Americans pushing for war in Iran if they were able to articulate a coherent policy reason for doing so. Seriously; if someone cheerleading an American war (proxy or otherwise) can explain how they think American foreign policy interests will be substantially improved in any way by regime change in Iran, I am all ears.

Without even delving into how America has bungled many earlier interventions in the Middle East, lets focus on the most recent shitstorm; Syria. America was never going to win in Syria, despite being by far the most powerful actor involved in the conflict, because they wanted something impossible; the removal of Assad AND the defeat of ISIS. Both of those things couldn't happen because by the time the USA got majorly involved there was no other significant local actor other than the Kurds who wasn't supporting either Assad or some form of genocidal Sunni rule.

America couldn't thread that particular needle, because ISIS was so cartoonishly evil that even though America's stated goal in the beginning was the removal of Assad from power, they couldn't stomach the only obvious force in a position to take him out; namely, ISIS. The idea that there were ever 'moderate' groups of any particular importance on the ground was a stupid pipe dream.

So Iran and Russia, because they actually had a clear goal in Syria (protect their proxy, Assad), accomplished this goal pretty handily.

So, that said, lets look at Iran. An important thing to note about Iran is that the country is mostly Persian, and mostly Shia. There are minority populations of Azeris and Kurds. There are very few Arabs, and very few Sunnis. Most people speak Farsi, not Arabic. The terrain is also fairly mountainous.

So right off the bat, everyone should understand that what OP is proposing--that a force of soft-ass Gulf Arabs are going to occupy Iran--is bugnuts crazy. Local populations do not respond particularly well to occupation by people who are a different race, religion and language, and Shia Muslims love martyrdom like nobody's business. During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, Iran would send waves of unarmed young men running ahead of their attacking forces to clear the Iraqi minefields for their attacking forces. These people do not fuck around. The hardcore Shia live for this shit; if you picture Waco but with the martyrdom turned up to 11 you will have some idea of what to expect if you put the Iranians' backs up to the wall.

So lets say that America gets involved in a big way and carpet bombs the Iranian regime into submission, and sends in troops to take Tehran. I have zero doubt this is possible, even with Russian air defense systems being used by Iran, because America's air superiority is overwhelming and a middle power like Iran, even with serious support from Russia, cannot hope to compete with America's ability to project force. So America wins handily, maybe even with minimal casualties, the same kind of cakewalk as Iraq.

What then? Iran isn't going to turn into a sectarian shitshow like Iraq or Syria, because they are mostly Persian, and mostly Shia, in the core of the country especially. So you are likely to deal with a very aggressive insurgency focused like a laser on maximizing American casualties, without the distraction of murdering each other, like in Iraq and Syria.

And how do you extricate yourself from this problem? You can't liberate Iran. There is no way, zilch, zero, of installing a pro-American democracy in Iran, because the majority of the country, especially the hicks in the sticks, actually support the regime, especially if the alternative is an American puppet. So if you actually let them vote, they are going to vote America out, and probably bring in some kind of kind of government which hates America with every fiber of its being. Which leaves the option of installing some sort of pro-American autocratic ruler, like a Shah or someth-. Oh wait. I think I know how this story ends. I know, I know; 1979 is long ago, it is easy to forget.

You could also do the traditional British imperial thing, and pick some minority population and put them in charge of basically everything, so they are totally dependent on you, and then use them as a proxy to control the country. I don't see this working particularly well either, for a couple of reasons:

1) America has traditionally been absolute shit at this sort of traditional empire building, because it is too raw an exercise of realpolitik to square with the American public's view of itself;

2) There isn't a large enough group that America could hope to put it in charge of the Persian areas of Iran and hope to hold them for any length of time; and

3) Even when you are good at this, the way the British were, that sort of setup tends to play out with massive ethnic cleansing and/or genocide a generation or three down the road. See Rwanda as an example: the Belgians put the Tutsis in charge of the Hutu, and well, the rest is history.

America just doesn't have the stomach for the losses that a longterm occupation of Iran would cause, and the Iranians and everyone else knows this. America will eventually just give up, at which time an even angrier Iranian regime will arise.

So enlighten me, someone. Once Tehran is rubble, what's the game plan, exactly?

 

[Limeade]

no thank you. I have no interest in the decades it would take to occupy and pacify yet another country.

this is not a move in a strategic direction. instead of paying for the military adventurism of foreign countries, why don't we focus on the real American challenge like reigning in mandatory spending or opioid overuse.

 

[Seaside]

@Tropodan @sub_thug @Seaside .....

Just replace SA with Iran.

Being force fed Fox News war propaganda for the last 12 years.

Bolton: "Iran is the DEVIL!"

I'm sure you all jizzed your pants when Trump appointed him.

How's your stocks in Lockheed, Boeing & BAE going you soulless sacks of shit? You're the stereotypes of why America is labeled a war loving, war mongering country.

Your tune would change if you were all being put on the front lines of your next hard-on war. Only supreme pussies beg for war from behind a computer.

I dont watch fox news and dont even live in the USA. I just saying what I think is best truth.

 

[Seaside]

The Sunni states are garbage at fighting. There is zero chance of any of them managing to occupy Iran. Zero. The only way they could hope to invade Iran is with massive support from the USA.

There is a reason that the Israelis worry about the Shia states but not the Sunni ones.

You see I keep hearing people saying this. But it can't be true forever. Sunni world is 90% of islamc world. You have be high with drugs to think Iran can be all alone and and defeat them all. Not to mention when Iran itself is half progressive for muslim country and no homogenous.

The number of Arabs and turks could overthrow. Man power still matters when not totally out matched and Iran is no US.

 

[tramendous]

The insurgents killing other Iraqis was terrorism. Insurgents, most of whom are foreign fighters btw, is also an act of terrorism. These aren't mutually exclusive ideas.

I highly doubt that most insurgents were foreign fighters when they were fighting the US troops. Im sure AQ guys might have been but the mahdi army and the tribal sunni militias of the sunni triangle were not. Its also ironic that the 'foreign fighter' line is pushed by the US when every US soldier was a foreign fighter occupying a country over a false casus belli.

 

[lfd0311]

Also I'm somewhat surprised to see not take the anti-Iran stance here. Not that I peg you as a fan of Iran but in general I expect Iraq war vets to be anti-Iranian because of Iranian meddling in that occupation. Easy for me to clinically discuss it from a distance but I try to understand when some people might their own reasons for seeing it differently like having personally experienced Iranian interference in Iraq.

I'm not Pro-Iran by any means, and Iran certainly meddled in our dealings in Iraq and got a lot of Americans killed. But I can put those feelings in thier own box and look at the situation from an objective standpoint and see that Iran is a country like any other country that is simply trying to do, from it's own perspective and from it's own way of life, what is best for it and the people who share that way of life, what it sees as best. Yes, Iran did a lot to cause us harm in Iraq, but the Iranians took great steps to provide food, clothing and medical supplies to the Shia people of Iraq, as they see themselves as the same people. Our interests and their interests are simply counter to each other, and I don't hold that against them.

Secondly, there is so much ignorant propaganda in that post that it borders on the absurd. Of course Sunni nations are willing to declare Iran a Terrorist nation, they're mortal enemies. It's obvious by that post and the way these stories are reported and understood by your typical Westerner that after 15 years in the region people still don't know anything about the people on the other side of the conflict, and that makes me very, very angry.

 

[lfd0311]

I highly doubt that most insurgents were foreign fighters when they were fighting the US troops. Im sure AQ guys might have been but the mahdi army and the tribal sunni militias of the sunni triangle were not. Its also ironic that the 'foreign fighter' line is pushed by the US when every US soldier was a foreign fighter occupying a country over a false casus belli.

Almost all of the Sunnis, especially in Al Anbar where foriegners. A good chunk of the Mahdi army were Iranians and Shia from Syria. Never at any point was this thing contained simply to Iraqis, and the fact that 15 years later people will still argue that it was simply makes me sad.

 

[tramendous]

You see I keep hearing people saying this. But it can't be true forever. Sunni world is 90% of islamc world. You have be high with drugs to think Iran can be all alone and and defeat them all. Not to mention when Iran itself is half progressive for muslim country and no homogenous.

The number of Arabs and turks could overthrow. Man power still matters when not totally out matched and Iran is no US.

@Pseudo Sane is only half right. The problem isnt sunni or shia fighting ability its more of a arab states fighting ability. Sunni Chechens, pashtun Afghans, Kurds etc can all make fierce soldiers. If it was simply sunni/shia thing then a few hundred ISIS guys would not have routed the entire shia iraqi army.

And if it was simply sunni inferiority, iran should have easily beat iraq in the 80s.

This is all kind of pointless anyways, i highly doubt there will be a ground war. Iran's terrain is basically like afghanistan once you get away from the iraqi border. All mountainous and urban city centers. Not a fun time for the best armies let alone the highly incompetent ones of the gulf region.

 

[tramendous]

Almost all of the Sunnis, especially in Al Anbar where foriegners. A good chunk of the Mahdi army were Iranians and Shia from Syria. Never at any point was this thing contained simply to Iraqis, and the fact that 15 years later people will still argue that it was simply makes me sad.

I'll take your word for it but there are highly conflicting reports. I.e. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111602519.html

Its also not surprising that the occupying force would exagerrate the foreigness of the enemy.

 

[Seaside]

@Pseudo Sane is only half right. The problem isnt sunni or shia fighting ability its more of a arab states fighting ability. Sunni Chechens, pashtun Afghans, Kurds etc can all make fierce soldiers. If it was simply sunni/shia thing then a few hundred ISIS guys would not have routed the entire shia iraqi army.

And if it was simply sunni inferiority, iran should have easily beat iraq in the 80s.

This is all kind of pointless anyways, i highly doubt there will be a ground war. Iran's terrain is basically like afghanistan once you get away from the iraqi border. All mountainous and urban city centers. Not a fun time for the best armies let alone the highly incompetent ones of the gulf region.

Are people retardded in here or do they really think the government cannot be overthrown from massive air strikes and then elite ground forces capturing the capital. How the fuck is iranian government going to run country when most of them are dead and the military is destroyed? air superiority can give tons of ground cover.

 

[lfd0311]

@Tropodan @sub_thug @Seaside .....

Just replace SA with Iran.

Being force fed Fox News war propaganda for the last 12 years.

Bolton: "Iran is the DEVIL!"

I'm sure you all jizzed your pants when Trump appointed him.

How's your stocks in Lockheed, Boeing & BAE going you soulless sacks of shit? You're the stereotypes of why America is labeled a war loving, war mongering country.

Your tune would change if you were all being put on the front lines of your next hard-on war. Only supreme pussies beg for war from behind a computer.

You're mad, huh?

 

[tramendous]

Are people retardded in here or do they really think the government cannot be overthrown from massive air strikes and then elite ground forces capturing the capital. How the fuck is iranian government going to run country when most of them are dead and the military is destroyed? air superiority can give tons of ground cover.

how would elite ground forces simply capture the capital? you would need to invade the whole country. The reason why everyone wants to avoid that isn't because they are worried they won't be able to overthrow the fucking government of Iran. They are worried about the mess afterwords.

 

[Deleted member 196663]

For the first time the US has the luxury to go to war without being the majority of the forces on the ground but provide with about 10-12% of the ground forces.

The Iran Nuclear deal plus Irans global ambitions and the regional unrest it has created pushed things to a point of no return. A military confrontation at this point is as certain as the white wall on your room is white.

A similar campaign against the Kurds will soon enough come against Iranian IRGC regime. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, UAE, Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia and Malaysia will declare them as terrorist state and all the people and groups linked to it also. No U.N or International laws will be able to politically stand in the way of this intensive hunt and invasion on all individuals allied with the current IRGC led-regime and their political views and they are basically accountable for the destablization of the region and arming the houthis. They will probably declare war on them within the next 1-2 to year if not late this year. The US will mostly definitely join and take this huge opportunity to their advantage and to finally finish off a foe with the asistance of others who have issues with that same foe.

As a result Israel might attack south-Lebanon and even invade it while Yemen will also get fully invaded by the new Saudi coalition either hired Asian army or Egyptians.

Iran is away from war 1 missile launched into another region as it has been providing houthis and this will give the Saudis and their coalitions the green light on international laws to defend it's security against any terrorist entity. The Iranians will soon become Kurds 2.0 once blacklisted worldwide and then you will see an intense manhunt to follow. No International law, United nations, NATO or anyone will be able to contest this or deny it. The Saudi led-coalition will be absolutely in the right to put this to a stop just like how Turkey is hunting the Kurds everywhere they see them from Syria to Iraq. I forsee the Iranian IRGC and the Ayatul Khoemini supporters to come under 10-times larger man-hunt and blacklisted everywhere plus a very large invasion from different axis at the same time happening

Did you just apply to Halliburton or something?

 

[Islam Imamate]

@Pseudo Sane is only half right. The problem isnt sunni or shia fighting ability its more of a arab states fighting ability. Sunni Chechens, pashtun Afghans, Kurds etc can all make fierce soldiers. If it was simply sunni/shia thing then a few hundred ISIS guys would not have routed the entire shia iraqi army.

And if it was simply sunni inferiority, iran should have easily beat iraq in the 80s.

This is all kind of pointless anyways, i highly doubt there will be a ground war. Iran's terrain is basically like afghanistan once you get away from the iraqi border. All mountainous and urban city centers. Not a fun time for the best armies let alone the highly incompetent ones of the gulf region.

I agree with your larger point about the issue being more about the Arab variable rather than the sectarian one but in Iran's defense when they faced Iraq they had just gone through the turmoil of a revolution and a subsequent purge of the military so they were vulnerable. Plus Saddam had the Gulf states and the US supplying funding and arms so the deck was stacked against Iran and yet they were able to stave off the invasion and IIRC even turn the tables here and there.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I'm not Pro-Iran by any means, and Iran certainly meddled in our dealings in Iraq and got a lot of Americans killed. But I can put those feelings in thier own box and look at the situation from an objective standpoint and see that Iran is a country like any other country that is simply trying to do, from it's own perspective and from it's own way of life, what is best for it and the people who share that way of life, what it sees as best. Yes, Iran did a lot to cause us harm in Iraq, but the Iranians took great steps to provide food, clothing and medical supplies to the Shia people of Iraq, as they see themselves as the same people. Our interests and their interests are simply counter to each other, and I don't hold that against them.

I think its admirable you can do that though I don't expect that to be the norm among Iraq war vets. Do you think that's the case, that more often than not Iraq War vets are anti-Iran? Or am I exaggerating this? Maybe they don't usually care about the geopolitical big picture like you and sub_thug?

Beyond that, do you think its possible we could realign our interests so that we might have a rapprochement with Iran? They have "elected and reelected" a "reformist" president so I do think there is a cohort of Iranians open to such a rapprochement even if the elite are more split and mostly against it. Like I alluded to earlier I think Iran as an ally has certain advantages over our other regional allies.

Secondly, there is so much ignorant propaganda in that post that it borders on the absurd. Of course Sunni nations are willing to declare Iran a Terrorist nation, they're mortal enemies. It's obvious by that post and the way these stories are reported and understood by your typical Westerner that after 15 years in the region people still don't know anything about the people on the other side of the conflict, and that makes me very, very angry.

I think you're larger point here in response to dragonfly is right but at the same time I would also suggest that you don't put too much stock into the sectarian divide in an of itself, in many cases the sectarian divide is more an issue of identity and in-group/out-group dynamics. Even if you don't care about theology as a Sunni in Iraq you're better off working within your community and its support network.

But the sectarian gulf is not always insurmountable. Many Sunni militants were inspired by the Iranian Revolution and looked up to the Islamic Republic. On an anecdotal level my father is a Sunni Muslim who is more supportive of the Iranians than the Gulf and the Sunni countries. He doesn't consciously think of himself as anti-imperialist but that's more or less his stance on international relations and I believe there are many Sunni Muslims like him who, because of their anti-imperialism, have more affinity with the Islamic Republic than the Sunni states. In my father's case he's not from a country where the Sunni/Shiite divide is politicized so he's never had any issue with the Shiites and has even prayed at their mosques for the heck of it.