Hypothetical war with Iran

I have said all that needs to be said, but maybe you will trust the former First Sea Lord of the Royal Navy instead:
https://www.devonlive.com/royal-navy-admiral-slams-idiots-2896215
Royal Navy Admiral slams 'idiots' who want war with Iran

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/iran-war-invasion-middle-east-16778457
US would need ‘one million soldiers’ to invade Iran, warns Brit admiral

Of course, he thinks the US and UK and company would defeat Iran:

 

Dude. You're posting on a Flukin internet message board. YOU are wasting your time.

Do not think that the US needs to put a single ship within reach of Iran to level the ENTIRE Iranian military infrastructure.

Cruise missiles, bombers, ICBMs.

Whatever you may think happened in Iraq remember this. The US expended less than 20% of its military capacity to bring Iraq militarily to its knees.

You should take those assessments with a grain of salt. Most often the military produces those assessments to convince Congress they need more. More bombs, more aircraft, more missiles.

And do not get me wrong. War with Iran would be every bit the disaster that the war with Iraq was.

I am no expert on the Iranian people but I do know this. It is not the Iranian military that worries me. It is the people.

 

You are entitled to your views, but they aren't shared by anyone with a clue. The US has too many bases and forces in the region and too many interests to engage Iran successfully in an aerial campaign without getting sucked into a wider war. And those forces the US has to hit Iran, while considerable in terms of being able to inflict what I have referred to as 'aerial vandalism', cannot take out the main Iranian military asset, namely Iranian missiles.

In terms of the 'assessments' I posted for you, they have NOTHING to do with any acquisition requests. There is nothing in those assessments that believe the answer to fighting Iran is through more acquisition of weapons. They were war games led by people who were quite flustered actually at the results, as they are people who wanted to see the side playing the US win. In one case, they even dismissed the Marine general who played the role of Iran, redid the entire war game which had seen 18 US naval vessels sunk, and basically choreographed the war game to see the US win.

Nor are the assessments I shared only given by US military experts and officers. I posed the assessment by the one of the most highly regarded admirals in the Royal Navy. And I can give you even more blunt and less favorable assessments by others if you insist.

Believe what you wish, but do go around pretending you know things you don't. Before you can talk about Iran's military capabilities, you need to at least know something about the subject beyond your imagination and the fact that Iran and Iraq are neighbors that fought a war in the 1980s which was inconclusive but the US ended up beating Saddam easily. There is simply very little, other than the US failure to take out Saddam's Scuds (or even Saddam and his high command) through aerial bombardment that has ANY relevance to war with Iran in 2020.

 

Everything you say is in line with what they were saying about Iraq in 2003.
Size of the army.
Number of weapons.
Aircraft
Missiles

Iraq tried expanding the war in 1991 by launching missiles into Israel. Didn't work. Know why? Because Israel knew there was nothing they could bring to the table that the US didn't already have.

Who's Iran going after? Russia? Turkey? Israel? Saudi Arabia? Afghanistan? Pakistan?

Which of those countries do you think is run by idiots?

War with Iran would be stupid.
But not for the reasons you're saying.
It would be stupid because there is no military objective that could be worth the cost.

 

No. That is not true at all. In 2003, Saddam was just basically the mayor of Baghdad and didn't have much of any force left. Not a single assessment imagined that Saddam could mount a serious military challenge. At most, some thought that he could engage in some urban warfare in Baghdad, but even there, his generals had already been bribed by the CIA and left their posts when the US approached the Iraqi capital.

In any case, you just have no clue and are imagining things that simply aren't at all the same. You really don't know this subject. Nor the mood and views of the US military then.



As it relates to 1991 and Desert Storm, the two situations are very different. I have dealt with the issue at length elsewhere and if I felt it did any good, I would do so again. For now, however, rest assured: those who do these war games and simulations and consider how a war with Iran would proceed, are already well aware of whatever you know about Desert Storm. They just a lot of things you don't know. Things I could explain to you but I don't think it would be much use.

 

Perhaps you should be a bit less full of yourself. Self aggrandizement on a chat board is, well, kinda silly. No one here believes you're anything other than a Keyboard Kommando sitting in his parents' basement drinking yoo-hoo and fantasizing about being a battlefield commander in your imaginary war.

I'm willing to have these theoretical discussions because they're kinda fun, kinda interesting. But make no mistake.

If it comes to it and the US decides to fight unlimited war then Iran's lifespan is measured in hours. All out war with the US is not some cute strategy game. We killed 2% of our population in the civil war. WW-II was a matter of overwhelming might (check the photos of Dresden) with a couple of nuclear exclamation points at the end. We have made the decision across every administration since WW-II to avoid all out war but do not mistake that conscience decision for an opportunity should full war occur. We laid waste to one of our largest cities UNNECESSARILY during the Civil War. If necessary, it would not be difficult to lay waste to Iran.

 

As someone who in his 50s, I am a bit too old to be sitting in my parent's basement. But the idea is not without its appeal to me, as it invokes life without much responsibility. Which I have always wished for but haven't managed yet.

As for what the US capable of doing to Iran in an all out war, that is not actually something I would dispute. That is a different point than what I had mentioned. The US would very well destroy Iran. I have called that, euphemistically, 'aerial vandalism'. That is America's ultimate 'trump card' in what is otherwise a game of chicken between the two sides. Iran has its own trump cards too -- and the US is well aware of those as well. These aren't trump cards the US could destroy quickly at all. And these aren't trump cards Iran will be giving up easily too, even though the US wants to make sure it takes away each of Iran's trump cards before it goes for the kill.

While obviously Iran has a lot more to lose from war than the US, for Iran, the best recipe to avoid war, has been to follow the path it has pursued. It entails risks, but the other paths promise a future for Iran worse than Iraq or Syria.

 

Collateral damage? Sure, why not.

I think the US would be best served by apologizing for the last 80 years of our treatment of Iran. We should remove all sanctions and unequivocally renounce any intentions of forcing or supporting regime change outside Iran's legal framework.
If we, as a nation, had stepped up like men and acknowledged our wrongdoings and apologised then supported the new government back in 1980 this would be a much different world today.
I believe if we went back to Obama's framework then we would have a basis for negotiating further reductions in tensions.
But, the people in Washington are morons. Especially the military whose interests are always in more, bigger, deadlier weapons and justifying them.
So no one with the ability to change the dynamic is willing to try because as long as its soldiers and Iranians dying then it's all good.

We are now the largest producer of oil. Despite Trump our consumption continues to go down. These two are joining to make the Middle East less important to out nation interest.

So why the hell can we not just back out of this mess and go home? I think its ego. We do that and all the dying and all the money is "wasted."

 

I would love for the US to follow the path you suggest, but that is unfortunately not in the cards.

For the longest time, US foreign and national security policy revolved around the so-called "containment" doctrine, focused on its rivalry with the Soviet Union. The whole process turned the US into an imperial power, with far flung bases and a lot of vested interests who earned their pay checks, and profits, from the myriad of industries, think tanks, positions, and more, that had a piece of the larger US defense and national security budgets and positions, along with the spin-off from all of it.

The cold war ended and, for a short time, the US under Bill Clinton began to downsize the military, while trying to justify what remained of its force structure and such to pursue an agenda that wasn't all that aggressive in purpose or design. But that created a huge backlash, predominately among two groups: first, the military industrial lobby and second, the (then) Likudniks who were still engaged for a fight for the future of Israel against the vision of Israel as suggested by the (then) labor party in Israel. These folks, and their very different but ultimately similar counterparts in America's Christian Zionist/evangelical movement, along with the military industrial complex, charted a new project or path for the US. It was once called the Project for a New American Century. Its various justifications and details aside, its main goal was to establish US hegemony around the globe, while securing the ME region for US/Israeli dominance to allow for the greater Israel the Likudniks dreamed about. As both the military industrial complex, and the Israel lobby, have influence that cuts across both political parties in the US, once the Likudniks had won the political battles in Israel, the pro Israel lobby began to parrot their agenda as well. As such, even when the neocons had left office, strong remnants of the PNAC project remained despite Obama himself not being in favor of it. The mere fact that Obama was a 'reluctant' warrior in implementing those plans, putting some breaks especially as it related to Iran with the JCPOA he negotiated, made him despised by these people. And, of course, the 'race' issues, immigration, and the whole vision of what America was to be like in the future, along with some others points that differentiated the more 'globalist' vision of the new Democratic party (the one after Clinton) and the PNAC driven Republican party on foreign affairs, created an environment for these special interest groups to further fan the fire and promote their propaganda campaigns to make sure America would follow the course they had set for it.

For Iran, their policy is not to go to war per se, but to create the conditions for what they once coined an IMPLOSION. They basically want Iran to become something like Syria: weakened by internal strife, devoid of much resources, and too feeble to trouble any of their plans. They may sometimes use military force as a form of 'sanctions enhancers', but their real plan for Iran is actually worse than the one they had for Iraq (and in which they failed). If they wanted Iraq to become a symbol of what working with America would entail (to use that against Iran), what they want for Iran is basically for the country to be torn apart and so weakened that it could never (under any regime) become a headache for their plans. They also have similar ideas and plans for some others including Turkey.

 

I think Iran's actions in the ME (Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia) is more toward building a defensive wall rather than spreading their version of Islam. Make Syria, Iraq, and SA anti US and you deny the US any significant base from which to mount a ground attack. Similar to the Soviet Union and its European satellites. It is the only rational explanation for their actions. Iran would be better served economically by stable governments in Iraq and Syria. Peace along those lines would allow them to reduce defense spending while allowing them to sell oil to their neighbors without the need for ships or long pipelines. Unfortunately, the US threat must be taken seriously. After all, the US has invaded or placed troops in every neighboring nation except to the north. That and us rhetoric would seem to encourage Iran along that path.

I have no solutions although I do argue it out in my mind regularly.

 

Iran is entire defense and national security posture and policy is defensive in nature. And Iran is NOT at all trying to 'spread' its version of Islam, even though it does find those who aren't from the "other version" much less likely to want to kill Iranians!

 

Agreed. Which is why the US attitude here is so frustrating. It appears we're willing to promote war and famine because our panties have been in a wad since 1979.

It's stupid and I had hopes that the agreement reached over their nuclear program would have been a first step backwards for everyone involved.

Then Trump got elected.
Hopefully Biden will get us on the right road. I hope but...

 

While Biden will follow a more 'multi-lateral' course, and not be as erratic and outrageous as Trump, ultimately it won't make as much difference on US policy towards Iran. Especially when something negative against Iran is set, it is almost impossible to undo it. There are very few issues that get votes like 99-0 (or 98-1, with Sanders sometimes voting against) in the US senate, but one of those things is more sanctions against Iran!

 

yep, we can't afford another 10+ year war, this is why so many upset Trump ended the best deal we could have got, now we have nothing

 

I was no fan of the JCPOA for different reasons (including always thinking it wouldn't be really observed overtime by the US and others who signed it), but even less a fan of Trump unilaterally tearing it apart. And, worse yet, forcing the rest of the world (all the kicking and yelling aside, rather successfully) to go along with everything except trying to pretend the JCPOA only applies to Iran and what Iran does! Ignoring all the provisions of the JCPOA for everyone else who signed it.

 

yep, it's sad Trump broke our word on the deal, I always figured it would be Iran that did that, not us

 

If anyone has a brain, such a war will forever remain hypothetical.

 

I'd suggest to you that there are more efficient ways to render most of Iran's missile arsenal ineffective than destroying the missiles themselves. For example, targeting command and control facilities and radar sites, of which Iran has far fewer than they do raw missiles sitting in warehouses / stockpiles. I posted early an article that suggested Iran only has "up to 50" MRBM launchers. Do you have anything that refutes that? If not, that seems like a fairly weak link between the arsenal of missiles and the destruction Iran hopes to rain down on the region.

 

Iran has several hundreds (in fact, probably several thousand) dedicated mobile launchers, never mind that many of these missiles can be launched from practically any platform, including regular trucks.

As for the ability to take out Iran's command and control, I am not sure based on the history that exists. The US wasn't able to do so against Saddam through aerial vandalism and targeting. The US has had a tough time even against non-state groups like AQ and ISIS. The Israelis weren't able to touch Hezbollah's command and control and leadership during the 2006 war. The Saudis haven't been able to do much to the Houthis in this regard either.

That said, the US will probably be able to take out Iran's Supreme Leader (and suffer a similar effort from Iran in return), as Iran's Supreme Leader is unlikely to be moving anywhere outside his normal residence and headquarters. Even when Iran attacked the Al Assad air base, Iran's Supreme Leader remained where he always stays. So he would not, personally, be a difficult target, although I am not sure how taking out an 81 year old cleric is going to affect Iran's actual military command and control capabilities as I am sure Iran has plans to deal with that contingency.

 

Do you have a cite for that? Maybe by missile type / range?

 

Iran uses what are basically converted trucks and trailers to launch its missiles. And we have thousands of such trucks in Iran on our roads! Besides the ones Iran has imported from outside, and besides over 20,000 other types of trucks produced by Iran Khodro Deisel each year, after the Germans left a joint venture project with Iran on production of heavy duty Mercedes civilian trucks, Iran has begun producing the "Chapar" truck at home.

See: https://www.msn.com/en-xl/middleeas...roduction-line-after-germans-leave/ar-BBYwvej

Besides the civilian lines that produces trucks that can easily be used to launch these missiles, these are military trailers produced in Iran to carry heavy tanks.



This is not a real issue. Not worth arguing about IMO.

I should also mention this: military satellite launch vehicle, it was launched from a mobile launcher.

https://spacewatch.global/2020/04/irans-military-satellite-launch-full-of-surprises/

Also, while not exactly on your point, note that Iran has equipped its fighter-bombers with long range cruise missiles. For instance, this report about this squadron of Su-22 fighter bomber being equipped with 1,500 km cruise missiles:


I just don't think Iran has (or will have) any shortage of launch vehicles and platforms, even if not all of them are now deployed in peace time for this purpose.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/17/inf...ran-struggles-to-stem-rising-food-prices.html

The mouthpiece of Iran is hilarious.

 

A simple "no, I don't have a cite for that" would have sufficed.

 

If you read any cite, the missile are launched from the same type of Mercedes trucks/trailers I posted. Besides thousands of such trucks on the road, Iran has launched a production line that can produce up to 50 such trucks each day. You do the math.

 

The sanctions alone have crippled Iran. They are like a rat trapped in a corner. I hope they fire a shot at one of our patrol ships. Would be nice to send some Freedom Seeds into that sand box