Hypothetical war with Iran

If I felt it would make a difference, I would give you detailed responses to the questions you pose. I have pretty much dealt with all of them before and could do so again. For now, let me just point you to some articles and videos that should give you a better factual perspective on what you mention.

This article discusses a war game conducted almost a decade ago (See NPR report HERE). At the time, Iran's ability to strike a US aircraft carrier was more limited than now.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/i-fought-a-war-against-iran-and-it-ended-badly/
I Fought A War Against Iran—And It Ended Badly

This one was from almost two decades ago, when Iran's abilities were MUCH more limited than now.


The title of this article tells you what I feel you need to know:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/09/30/the-u-s-navy-isnt-ready-to-take-on-iran/
The U.S. Navy Isn’t Ready to Take On Iran
That’s why, for now, tough talk may remain just that.

Or you can listen to the Office US Naval Intelligence had to say as far back as 2009:

https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/a...n-intelligence-preparation-of-the-battlefield

Or you can take the necessary lessons from this simple quote and passage in the article in the Military Times much more recently.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/2019/06/04/what-war-with-iran-could-look-like/
What war with Iran could look like

Or you can read this article by James Holmes, Chair of Maritime Strategy at the US Naval War College
Could Iran Win a Naval War Against America?

Or you could watch these videos and get a sense of how Iran sees war with the US unfolding -- the "propaganda" nature of the video notwithstanding.

 

That sounds like about the level of response I'd expect for a sunken aircraft carrier. I'm more skeptical that 100 missiles would be enough to do the job, or that Tehran could get that many ready and in a firing position at the same time, with accurate targeting data to launch, but pretending for a minute that it was and they could, I'd expect the US military to end whichever nation launched the attack that sank a carrier.

 

What makes you think that the Iranians could launch 100 missiles at a U.S. carrier in the first place?

And you should know that the typical Carrier Battle Group carries between 3-400 interceptor missiles. More than enough to stop most of such an Iranian attack.

And I wouldn't give much weight to a Marine officer or the officer from a nation allied to the U.S. being able to take out a carrier. Such officers have inherent advantages that the Iranians would never have.

 

The world has forgotten a lot since the results of Hiroshima and Nagasaki made the front pages, and are pretty complacent about nukes now. We're in for another lesson about them soon, especially when these criminal vermin rogue states are allowed to steal and buy the technology to build them. The open threats they make alone justify rubbing them out immediately; no point at all in waiting. Waiting for 'Everybody Else' to fire the first shot is just a kid's schoolyard game, and in no way a requirement for modern warfare; Iran has already committed several acts of war against us, and even more so against our allies. Their capacity to commit atrocities is endless.

 

True. But if the U.S. uses a nuclear weapon against a nation that doesn't have them then the whole world will be on our back. For years probably.

 

A war game is based on realistic scenarios of what each side is capable of doing and not on fantastic notions such as the ones you harbor. And these war games are from a decade ago, before some of Iran's most critical and significant military assets to add to the equation were developed.

In the real world, which war games try to simulate, Iran can launch not 100, but thousands missiles at US forces. And unlike your notions from fantasy land, the US cannot take out these missiles even if it had an air armada as vast as the one it put together against Saddam for Desert Storm.

All I need to say to you is this: in dozens of war games conducted simulating a war with Iran, by the Pentagon, the DIA and CIA and others, the outcome has never (to my knowledge) favored the US. In all of them, the US has been forced to ultimately look at using nukes or going for a WWII style invasion and occupation of Iran. Of course, these are simulations and not the real thing -- and it is always possible that things will proceed differently for the US. I am no more a fortune teller than you. But what I can tell you as a matter of fact is this: there have been no shortage of threats against Iran by the US, verbalized and communicated in many different ways and formulations. None of have managed to cow Iran into submission. I doubt you can raise the level of threats beyond leaking a change in Pentagon doctrine allowing use of nukes against Iran (as has been done since the Bush years) and have the US president threaten to "obliterate Iran", to bring about "the official end of Iran", and more. If the US (especially the US military leadership, which is actually the main voice against any military engagement with Iran) really felt they could start and win a war with Iran easily, I can't believe you will ever find a more ready made excuse than sitting on the receiving end of waves of ballistic missiles fired by Iran (with attribution) at a major US military base and doing nothing about it, either to prevent the attack in the first place, during the attack or afterwards.

 

This is as close you can get to understanding what Iran would do in case war starts. This is actually what Iran was planning to do -- and which US intelligence was easily able to pick up (which is why the US backed down). 400 installations targeted involved thousands of missiles that would have been launched. If this had happened, the US would have then needed to decide how to respond?
https://www.newsweek.com/iran-air-c...argets-if-washington-retaliated-after-1499989
IRAN AIR COMMANDER CLAIMS FORCES WERE READY TO HIT 400 U.S. TARGETS IF WASHINGTON RETALIATED AFTER JANUARY ROCKET ATTACK

Here is a part of General Hajizadeh's comments translated by MEMRI (an Israeli affiliated group):

Listen to the comments on your own.

At that point, the choice for the US would have been between an (a) all out land invasion of Iran; (b) massive aerial vandalism (hitting mostly civilian infrastructure, including Iran's civilian nuclear program, while real military targets -- besides large surface vessels and such --- aren't as easy to take out with Iran's most important weapons, such as mobile launchers or missiles in deep underground bunkers, ones the US would not be able to take out at all), with Iran being able to hit back at even more targets across the region; (c) using nukes against Iran. Those are the real world options available to the US in any war against Iran.

 

As for 'how many missiles' Iran has, and how many it can launch, the real answer isn't obvious. The US simply puts the estimates on Iranian missiles (ballistic missiles and cruise missiles) in the thousands (even tens of thousands), while you have "propaganda" videos affiliated to Iran's revolutionary guards try to claim the number is around 100,000.

Anyway, its propaganda component aside, this is actually a good video as it put together many of Iran's publicly revealed missile launches in one package.

 

Maybe that is how the US would respond, but the fellow who laid out that response isn't typical of the Pentagon officials who are a lot more mindful about what war with Iran would really entail. The guy who said those things is a neocon "Iran hawk". While all the drills/games simulating war against Iran (which follow guidelines which require every move to be credible and possible based on intelligence assessments of the actual forces and their capabilities in each instance) have made many 'neocons' mainly favor the same "maximum pressure" course Trump is following in lieu of outright military conflict with Iran, there are still some 'die-hard' warriors who are willing to play Russian roulette with other people's lives.

Otherwise, the "depending on how Iran responds" to a "massive aerial bombardment of its air defenses and nuclear installations" is euphemism for what is clearly predicable about how Iran would respond. And what that would entail for a lot of American servicemen, the global economy, and US allies in the region. All that, to then get the chance to 'invade' Iran to bring about regime change? I don't need to tell you perhaps, but lets be clear: very few people are interested in that course!

The "nuclear option", regrettably, is more realistic. I am sure Iran is aware of it as the US has done enough to make Iran aware. But I don't think Iran will be cowed by threats regardless. (And Iran can be assumed to have some tricks up its sleeves, even if we don't know what they might be).

 

Iran already has a detrimental food supply. Just to buy a chicken in Iran is very expensive. My cousin's fiance recently escaped Iran.

 

Whatever "formal" military capacity Iran may have would be wiped out in a matter of hours.

Then we face another Iraq war.
Is that what ANYONE wants?

40 years ago the US got its collective panties in a wad when the Iranian revolution overthrew the Shah. The US then under Carter continued to openly support the Shah and was working to restore him to power when the hostage thing happened. Then Carter's disaster in the desert.

Since then, for the last 40 years the US has been playing "regime change" with Iran. Our continuous attempts to overthrow a democratically elected government, the only one in the region has never been a good look.

So, my advice, stop assuming the US has the answer to the question of who should govern and how for every country in the world.

Then questions like this become moot.

 

You obviously have no idea how war games involving U.S. forces are conducted. War games against U.S. forces are always conducted with the absolute worst possible outcomes against U.S. forces given the greatest likelihood of happening. They even do this at the National Training Center at Fort Hood, Texas.

 

What an outrageous and, in light of recent events, even more ironically preposterous lie. Iran faces no such problems, while everyone knows the situation in the US since the Covid-19 pandemic.

As for poultry prices in Iran, it is true that in 2018 (when Trump pulled out of the JCPOA), there was an increase in poultry prices -- and a concerted effort by the usual suspects, including the US funded propaganda network, Radio Farda, to encourage panic buying and shortages.
This was in 2018:
https://en.radiofarda.com/a/iran-pu...d-depriving-many-of-chiken-meat/29673289.html
Rising Poultry Prices In Iran Is Making It Too Expensive For Many

But as it turned out,, Iran ended up with the reverse problem!!

The spin from Radio Farda (a US government funded network and branch of Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty) was funny:
https://en.radiofarda.com/a/million...-of-demand-and-shortage-of-feed/30577727.html
Millions Of Chickens Destroyed In Iran For Lack Of Demand And Shortage Of Feed

In reality, in reaction to the sudden rise in poultry prices in 2018, and the attempt to create an artificial demand way in excess of the needs of the country, Iran began producing a lot more chickens that it needed. Poultry prices plummeted.

https://en.farsnews.ir/newstext.aspx?nn=13980827000480
Oversupply, Export Tariff Depress Chicken Price in Iran

To help increase poultry prices, and create an export market for them, the tariff on poultry products was recently abolished in Iran. But you still had enough of an over supply that 16 million chickens were destroyed because of excess production.

 

I have a very good idea of how these war games are conducted. And what assumptions are meant to be tested.

There has not been a single war game that has produced a positive outcome for the US. Even when the war games were conducted under the control of those who wanted a positive outcome. In fact, General van Ripper was basically taken out of the war games in the Millennium 2002 war game because he was winning

 

Really??? You have no clue what you are talking about.

 

@Iranian Monitor I'd be interested to hear your answer to this question. As a follow-on, what's the largest swarm of missiles Iran has launched to date?

 

And don't you find that a bit "suspicious"? That what everyone acknowledges is currently the greatest military power on Earth NEVER wins a single war game?

 

I think Iran would be able to do so easily, and more, simply because it has the necessary launch platforms (mobile launchers, drones, vessels, submarines, aircraft) that carry many times that number of missiles. Not a real issue, not even for those who base their war games on US intelligence assessment of Iran's capabilities. And assessment that is now admitted by many to have simply totally underestimated Iran's capabilities.

While these missiles aren't that expensive, they aren't totally free of charge either. Nor is it entirely safe for international shipping to have a 'swarm of missiles' fired at once, as a few can go off course and hit other things. So Iran isn't going to waste too many in any drills at once, but rather do the drills that simulate their launch -- while actually launching enough of them from different platforms to test them.

 

No. Because the war game results match my expectation and understanding of how a war would unfold. The US doesn't win, not in the sense that Iran is going to defeat and occupy the US. The US doesn't win because it ultimately cannot do much to dent Iran's ability to hurt US forces (and allied interests) in the region, leaving it with choices it prefers not to have to make. Those choices being what I have already mentioned: decide on a full scale, WWII style, invasion of Iran. Or to simply engage in aerial vandalism and hope Iran will have to capitulate at some point from all the damage (ala the Saudi tactics against the Houthis, or what the Israelis sought to do to some extent against Lebanon in 2006). Or to even consider using nukes. The latter an option that became available to the US military, despite previous restrictions on their use against non-nuclear foes, under Bush and since then.

 

In other words you are admitting that you want Iran to "win" such a war so you are accepting anything that validates that claim.

Don't know whether to compliment your actual honesty or condemn your intellectual dishonesty.

 

I think we have had out debate on this issue and are now veering into the kind of unsupported, generalized, speculative, or often purely fictional, grounds (worse yet, personalized commentaries and attacks) which I had hoped we could avoid here. I, at least, don't feel I have more to add to the discussion, as long as everything I have said and posted is read carefully. And all the videos I have posted are also watched carefully with a discerning eye. Ultimately, the fate of war with Iran, or US policy towards Iran, isn't going to be decided here. So what anyone of you then take from all of this is your business.

 

You don't know I guess that U.S. naval warfare doctrine which was relentlessly refined during the Cold War against the Soviet Union was to NEVER allow missile launching platforms a chance at a "free launch" of anti ship missiles against U.S. carrier groups.

The U.S. was never going to allow 50 Backfire bombers carrying 100 anti ship missiles to simply fly to within 200 miles of U.S. carriers and launch their missiles. U.S. doctrine was to meet them 300 miles out and shoot down 40 or so of the bombers before they launched and the remainder after they launched. The U.S. Navy destroying launch platforms BEFORE they released their missiles was relentlessly exercised by the U.S. Navy.

What makes you think the U.S. Navy would simply allow Iranians to launch against U.S. forces unmolested?

 

That's okay. You didn't add anything to the discussion to begin with.

 

I'm sorry. I forgot where you graduated from West Point and all your training and experience planning and fighting this type of engagement. The US has not lost a direct military engagement since Korea. Before making stupid assumptions it would be wise to study a little history.

 

Dude, you are the one who hasn't read any of the 'history" you allude to. Your clueless comments where about how long and what it would take to destroy's Iran's military capabilities (e.g., missile arsenal) and your otherwise unsupported assertions. There is no history whatsoever to support the nonsense you had posted.1 And the analysis I have offered has relied mostly on America's own military experts -- people who have not only graduated from places like Annapolis and West Point, but lead those institutions in teaching America's military officers.2

Please do your homework before you again waste my time.

------------------------
1- Here is the history lesson you need -- and which you could have found if you had bothered reading what I have posted already:

Saddam had a smaller, of a much more limited range, and much less precision, missile arsenal compared to Iran. Yet, the largest air armada assembled (nothing like the number of aircraft available to the US in the region today), even going on a hunt to take out liquid fueled missiles that needed a day to fuel (making it easier to target and find), with a range that made their launch locations easy to map out to a relatively small part of western Iraq, couldn't take them out. Saddam was able to launch his Scud missiles at Israel and Saudi Arabia until the last days of the war. The difference is that his Scuds were not precise and couldn't do what precision guided missiles can do. But the US invested a good bit of resources (much more than it has available to invest against Iran) to take them through aerial bombardment and couldn't. It is the same story with the Saudis and their numerous air sorties (backed up by US reconnaissance and other assets) to take out Houthis missiles. And the same with Israel during its war with Hezbollah. That is the real lesson from history about the efficacy of air power to prevent or destroy missile launches.

2- Here are the credentials of some of the people whose writings I have been quoting from or whose assessments I could cite:

-- James Holmes: holds the J. C. Wylie Chair of Maritime Strategy at the Naval War College....A former U.S. Navy surface-warfare officer, he was the last gunnery officer in history to fire a battleship’s big guns in anger, during the first Gulf War in 1991. He earned the Naval War College Foundation Award in 1994, signifying the top graduate in his class.
See: Could Iran Win a Naval War Against America?

-- Sam Gardiner: retired US Air Force colonel who specialized in war-gaming at the National War College.
See: Will Iran Be Next? Soldiers, spies, and diplomats conduct a classic Pentagon war game—with sobering results

-- Harry J. Kazianis: senior director at the Center for the National Interest, a Washington, D.C.-based national security think tank founded by President Richard Nixon. He also serves as executive editor of its publishing arm, The National Interest. In the past, Harry served as a foreign policy adviser to the 2016 presidential campaign of Sen. Ted Cruz
See: I Fought A War Against Iran—And It Ended Badly

Also, see more generally:
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/2019/06/04/what-war-with-iran-could-look-like/
What war with Iran could look like
The article is co-authored by four veterans of the US military based on their interviews for the Military Times with:

The passage I had quoted specifically from the article:

Is the assessment of the US Office of Naval Intelligence:

Or you can read this if you want an updated view of things:
https://www.csis.org/analysis/uncomfortable-lessons-reassessing-irans-missile-attack
Uncomfortable Lessons: Reassessing Iran’s Missile Attack