A possible Iran war with minimal US forces on the ground

[Seaside]

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.

yeah i am saying they will invade the country and make way to capital. It doesnt matter to the gulf arabs (my guess) if the country afterwards is a mess it will be ruined for the next 20 years or so.

 

[tramendous]

yeah i am saying they will invade the country and make way to capital. It doesnt matter to the gulf arabs (my guess) if the country afterwards is a mess it will be ruined for the next 20 years or so.

Youre not gonna take the capital and the country with "elite" forces. Youd need the general army and US forces. The US and allies used almost 400000 troops to invade an impoverished iraq in 2003. Theyd need at least just as much or more to take iran.

It will be ruined for a lot longer than 20 years. Yes they do care in the sense that it will be a mess in their back yard and they will have to spend political power, economic, military power trying to make the pieces fall in their favor. If it was easy as youre saying saudi arabia would have overrun yemen in 2 weeks rather than turning it into shit show siege thats going on for years now. I dont even get the point of trying to do regime change and ground invasion.

The us did what youre talking about in iraq and the baathists and other sunni insurgents gave US forces hell. Iran monitored and learned from that closely. Their country is like Afghanistan but a much higher population, a better equipped and prepared military and theyd be going up against incompetent Saudis and war weary, casualty sensitive us forces that will be a tight schedule to pull out by opposing political parties and the general population. You are not thinking this through.

 

[lfd0311]

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?

Most of your dudes in their early 20s don't care at all. I know tons of guys who fought in Iraq who have very detached, objective opinions about what we did over there then and what is happening there now, at least from a geopolitical perspective. That just comes with age and distance from it. I think actually having been there and seeing the people of the region for just that, people, not some dark and sinister force, helps most of us be able to understand what is happening there.

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.

I don't know. I mean, look at how we still treat Russia despite how long it's been since the Soviet Union has fallen. We've been at odds with Iran for 40 years and I don't know if that is something that can be given up over night. I do think if we could have a mulligan in the region though, it would be to get in bed with the Iranians instead of the Saudis/Sunnis. My experience with dealing with the Shia, and from what I know of the few Iranians I met while I was there, they are much more pragmatic and reasonable than the Sunnis.

[/QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

Within the context of Iraq, Iran and the Gulf States, from what I saw that divide is very real. When I was there in 2004 it was like the South in the 60s. It was as segragated as it could be.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Most of your dudes in their early 20s don't care at all. I know tons of guys who fought in Iraq who have very detached, objective opinions about what we did over there then and what is happening there now, at least from a geopolitical perspective. That just comes with age and distance from it. I think actually having been there and seeing the people of the region for just that, people, not some dark and sinister force, helps most of us be able to understand what is happening there.

I see.

I don't know. I mean, look at how we still treat Russia despite how long it's been since the Soviet Union has fallen. We've been at odds with Iran for 40 years and I don't know if that is something that can be given up over night. I do think if we could have a mulligan in the region though, it would be to get in bed with the Iranians instead of the Saudis/Sunnis. My experience with dealing with the Shia, and from what I know of the few Iranians I met while I was there, they are much more pragmatic and reasonable than the Sunnis.

Yeah its not likely to happen in the short to medium term I think, I just think there are certain advantages that could be exploited if it did happen.

Within the context of Iraq, Iran and the Gulf States, from what I saw that divide is very real. When I was there in 2004 it was like the South in the 60s. It was as segragated as it could be.

Oh I'm sure, I'm just saying its in part due to the politicization of the sectarian divide and how sect came to be the primary identity marker determining one's in group whether they individually liked it or not. From what I understand the segregation really intensified after the violence increased as each sect retreated to the safety of their own community. So even as a Sunni or Shiite who might not personally care about sect and wish to be above it you were still safer and had more opportunities among your own sect.

That's not as much the case in other countries where the sectarian divide doesn't get politicized. Ironically then Shiites might be safer in countries with a 99% Sunni majority since the sectarian identity is less likely to be used for identity politics since virtually everyone is Sunni and sect fades into the background in favor of some other identity marker like tribal, ethnic, class, urban/rural etc.

I hope that all makes sense.

 

[Quequeg]

It will be a "cake walk" and we will be" greeted as liberators", lets do it, USA, USA, USA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[tramendous]

I see.

Yeah its not likely to happen in the short to medium term I think, I just think there are certain advantages that could be exploited if it did happen.

Oh I'm sure, I'm just saying its in part due to the politicization of the sectarian divide and how sect came to be the primary identity marker determining one's in group whether they individually liked it or not. From what I understand the segregation really intensified after the violence increased as each sect retreated to the safety of their own community. So even as a Sunni or Shiite who might not personally care about sect and wish to be above it you were still safer and had more opportunities among your own sect.

That's not as much the case in other countries where the sectarian divide doesn't get politicized. Ironically then Shiites might be safer in countries with a 99% Sunni majority since the sectarian identity is less likely to be used for identity politics since virtually everyone is Sunni and sect fades into the background in favor of some other identity marker like tribal, ethnic, class, urban/rural etc.

I hope that all makes sense.

Ya theologically, i have beliefs that might raise eyebrows of any Sunni but in terms of where i'd fit, it would definitely be sunni because its either that, being a shia or other religion which im not. My family is Sunni so that would automatically make me one to everyone else anyways.

 

[Seaside]

Youre not gonna take the capital and the country with "elite" forces. Youd need the general army and US forces. The US and allies used almost 400000 troops to invade an impoverished iraq in 2003. Theyd need at least just as much or more to take iran.

It will be ruined for a lot longer than 20 years. Yes they do care in the sense that it will be a mess in their back yard and they will have to spend political power, economic, military power trying to make the pieces fall in their favor. If it was easy as youre saying saudi arabia would have overrun yemen in 2 weeks rather than turning it into shit show siege thats going on for years now. I dont even get the point of trying to do regime change and ground invasion.

The us did what youre talking about in iraq and the baathists and other sunni insurgents gave US forces hell. Iran monitored and learned from that closely. Their country is like Afghanistan but a much higher population, a better equipped and prepared military and theyd be going up against incompetent Saudis and war weary, casualty sensitive us forces that will be a tight schedule to pull out by opposing political parties and the general population. You are not thinking this through.

didnt the US take Baghdad in like almost 3 weeks? I think it will take them no more than 2 months to get Tehran and destroy Iranian military. If you do that i dont think they care. It likely maybe that Iran with it large moderate population might become more moderate? idk.

 

[tramendous]

didnt the US take Baghdad in like almost 3 weeks? I think it will take them no more than 2 months to get Tehran and destroy Iranian military. If you do that i dont think they care. It likely maybe that Iran with it large moderate population might become more moderate? idk.

2 months is a long ass time in modern war and i think youd be very surprise how fickle 'moderate' people are. Moderate people dont fight. They'll just immigrate somewhere else. Combine that with the fact that iranians are very nationalistic in general and as persians wont take well to being invaded by Arabs.

Especially since the enemy is actually fully prepared and has been preparing to fight an irregular war for decades. This is not Iraq where you can exploit some sectarian divide. These are people who did human wave attacks in like 1980 and were willing to die by the hundreds of thousands. A ground invasion is just a stupid move. Good luck trying to slog through mountains against them and big ass cities.