Hypothetical war with Iran

That is the bottom line for someone who is clueless. A lot has changed since the 1980s. And, besides, you just don't understand even the real lessons from either the Iran-Iraq war or the US wars against Saddam.

 

The same advances that have happened in Iranian warfare have been carried out in double by the US forces since the 1980s.
The real lessons are that the US is really great at blowing things up - not so great at putting things back together.

 

You are entitled to whatever assumptions and conclusions you have, but I had hoped this thread (per the OP) was supposed to be about more substantive arguments than any you are even remotely knowledgeable enough to make.

 

All the rhetoric in the world doesn't replace real world results.

The simple fact is that Iranian Army was stopped in its tracks by the Iraqi army, an army that was destroyed easily by the US.
Wars aren't won by statistics ( yea, Iran built a missile). They are won by real world applications.

I hate the idea of war. But lets not pretend that reality isn't reality.

 

The facts you allude to aren't so much in dispute. The conclusions you draw from them aren't shared by anyone knowledgeable enough about what war against Iran would entail. If you want, I can help you understand the differences, but if the purpose is to simply repeat one or two lines that fit what your knowledge on these issues, then you have had your say.

 

Again. You can throw up data points on the number of missiles, the number of tanks, and claim this has some real world
application. But the reality is that the Iranian soldier doesn't have the understanding of how to win a war. They were stopped dead in their tracks by the Iraqis, despite having overwhelming numbers. They run scared every time the Israelis show their teeth. It's not just about technology - and it certainly would be foolish to claim that Iran has a technological advantage over the US. Beyond which - any US-Iranian conflict would be fought on Iranian soil. Every time Iran destroyed a US plane, we would still have the capability to build another. The US would target your infrastructure in the first few days of any attack. In a war of attrition, the US has the upper hand just in terms of geography.

 

And if you want to claim that the US would have a difficult time invading Iran - fine. We really wouldn't need to. We just sit
back and target your infrastructure from afar until your population has turned against the government. Then we back out and let the Russians take your oil.

 

Please don't waste my time. Please use another thread for your spam.

But since you mention Israel/Iran, let me share with you an informed Israeli perspective on a war with Iran, by Israel's former UN ambassador, where he is trying to set the stage for Israel starting a war and then dragging the US into it. He covers a good deal of detail in his comments about what a war with Iran would entail (albeit the kind of detail that Iran would seriously dispute), but I like to highlight the real purpose for this piece:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/israel-preparing-open-war/601285/
The Coming Middle East Conflagration
Israel is bracing itself for war with Iranian proxies, as Tehran escalates its provocations. But what will the United States do if conflict comes?

In any case, for Iran, Israel is a mere colonial outpost -- and the real fight for Iran would be against the US, whether it involves Israel or not. Handling Israel specifically is subcontracted by Iran mainly to Hezbollah and that is their function. A function they have fulfilled well. Ask Israeli soldiers who fought in the Battle of Bint Jbeil and, more generally, in the 2006 war. They showed their bravery alright!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bint_Jbeil

 

I don't want to single out the Israelis and how they have fared against Hezbollah in the past. The Saudis have been waging war against the Houthis for many years (a war they thought would last a few weeks) and have not fared any better. What Hezbollah and the Houthis have in common is that they are both supported by Iran. What Israel and Saudi Arabia have in common is that they are both heavily armed and supported by the US.

 

Reality is reality.

Iran was stopped by the Iraqis for eight years despite Irans superior numbers.
The US destroyed the Iraqi army in just a few days.

In any discussion of a hypothetical war, that has to brought up.
I'm sorry if it uncomfortable for you to contemplate.
But reality is reality.

 

It doesn't make uncomfortable at all, since the real relevant lessons from those wars are in total opposite of what you imagine. Again, if you want, I can explain those lessons. Just ask. Otherwise, I think both Iran and the US know what happened in 1980s in the Iran-Iraq war. And what happened in the wars waged by the US against Saddam. And I certainly know too.

 

I think it would be a rather short war to be honest. Not unlike say the Tanker War of the 1980's.

Except this time it will be many times worse for Iran. At that point we had no bases in the region. Now we have one of the largest air bases in the world sticking right out into the Gulf. And a permanent presence of a lot of warships.

I think it would likely be a slow escalation, Iran has been trying to do that for decades but we have so far been refusing to play that game. And so far all of the "incidents" have been largely downplayed by both sides.

Now as for that idiotic claim that an attack would be denied, WTF? That is somebody ranting about political crap, and I could not care less about that.

Ultimately, this would depend on how far Iran was willing to prosecute such a conflict. Myself, I do not think the US would give it their full attention, so long as the Iranian Army stayed inside of Iran. You would probably have several waves of aircraft and missile attacks from Iran, and the US would be working just as hard to degrade and eliminate that capability. And after 2 months or so the ability of Iran to strike in this manner would largely be gone.

Iran would be fighting so far out of it's class that it would not be a really hard war. And I think that other than raiding some of their Naval Bases the US would likely not even bother to get involved in a land conflict. Just use their ships and aircraft to push in as far as they could and eliminate their offensive capabilities.

 

The commentary about war against Iran here (and in too many other places in America) seems to be interested only in pushing propaganda. And making people feel good about themselves, repeating these propaganda lines. I was interested in a different debate.

I will say this clearly: I have no crystal ball nor am I a fortune teller to tell what would happen in war with Iran. I am not going to even debate that issue (or pretend anyone's conclusions on that point are necessarily wrong), except (if pushed) to offer my opinion. But I am interested to learn/discuss one thing that is relevant to the issue of how war with Iran would likely proceed: what is America's answer to Iran's ability (through it missiles) to hit at its troops, bases and forces around the region? Is the answer:

a) deny the facts, spin fantastic tales about photo-shop and all, and claim Iran just doesn't have missiles with the range and precision to hit US forces (including naval vessels), bases and interests?

b) claim the US is capable of defending against these missiles because Anti-Missile defenses (e.g. patriots)?

c) claim the US is capable of taking out Iran's missiles despite the evidence from one of the few lessons of Desert Storm relevant to the dynamic of war with Iran, namely the US inability to take out even Saddam's puny and much more easy to detect and attack Scuds?

d) say that the US would take the hits on the chin and rely on hitting Iran even harder?

I am "game" for a serious discussion on the questions I raise. I am also "game" if similar questions as the ones above are to be debated regarding two other which Iran is counting on in war against the US, namely naval swarming tactics as well as the use of its mini-submarines. The conclusions we draw from all of these issues and others are fine and dandy, but they aren't what I am interested in discussing here.

 

Funny thing is, you also completely ignore many other things about conflicts with Iraq. And I am not even talking about the US fighting Iraq.

Under Saddam, Iraq fought 3 major wars with other countries. 1 with Iran, and 2 with the US. And what were those results?

Well, in the first you had the Iran-Iraq War. A 10 year bloody stalemate that even had Iran using child soldiers, and after a huge decade long death toll had the war pretty much end exactly where it started.

As for the SCUDs, you are aware they were pretty much ineffective, right? Kinda like the Iranian missile attack a few months ago. These are terror weapons, great for scaring people and intimidation, but militarily they are actually rather insignificant. You bring up the US inability to hit their launchers, but you ignore how effective those weapons were. And the truth is, not very.

And finally, in the first US-Iraq War, it ended less than 3 days after the Coalition actually went into Kuwait. With most Iraqi units either surrendering in droves, or trying to flee as fast as they could.

Then just over 10 years later, there was the second US-Iraq war. Which ended less than a month later with the Saddam government destroyed or in hiding. In other words, the US did in less than a month what Iran could not do in a decade.

You see, this is the funny thing about propaganda. I actually ignore it, and analyze conflicts like this primarily based on the facts. And very important in this is examining past conflicts.

And you talk about the failure to shoot down the missiles in 1990. You are aware that is 30 years ago, right? Fast forward just 13 years, and of the 9 missiles that Iraq fired that were a threat to coalition forces all 9 were shot down.

 

I was hoping for a different, more enlightening, discussion here. I go back to my last post and quote the question I had raised. If someone wants to tackle that issue and give me their thoughts on it, I would be interested in the exchange. Otherwise, what I am reading here the same old. Here is the question I asked once again:

What is America's answer to Iran's ability (through it missiles) to hit at its troops, bases and forces around the region? Is the answer:

a) deny the facts, spin fantastic tales about photo-shop and all, and claim Iran just doesn't have missiles with the range and precision to hit US forces (including naval vessels), bases and interests?

b) claim the US is capable of defending against these missiles because Anti-Missile defenses (e.g. patriots)?

c) claim the US is capable of taking out Iran's missiles despite the evidence from one of the few lessons of Desert Storm relevant to the dynamic of war with Iran, namely the US inability to take out even Saddam's puny and much more easy to detect and attack Scuds?

d) say that the US would take the hits on the chin and rely on hitting Iran even harder?

Before I address general arguments that go no where, I like to know which of these answers I need to debate.

 

I see refugees... lots and lots of them

 

Actually, I discount the missile attacks because they would not be anything more than a nuisance. Just as the missile attacks by Iraq in 1990-2003. As I have said before, these are terror weapons much more than an actual tactical threat. They are "artillery missiles", and more like large shotguns.

In January, we saw the results of attacks on 2 different bases. Neither of which had any kind of defenses. around 20 missiles fired at 2 different bases. And neither one had any significant damage. Iraq fired hundreds of them at the US, Israel and Coalition forces during 2 conflicts, with no significant damage.

These things are not magic wands, which will sweep the enemy from the ground. They are fairly clumsy weapons, not very accurate, but convenient to use because they do not require a pilot. This makes them very cheap. Kind of the naval attack version of a mine. Cheap to make and use compared to the equipment they are designed to destroy, but not really accurate and you need large numbers of them to really be effective.

And hell, other than the more conventional Rocket Artillery of WWII, rockets have never really been a very good weapon. Hell, Germany launched over 1,400 V2 rockets at England, almost all at London. Of which around 500 hit the city, and certainly did nothing to help Germany win the war. They fired over 8,000 V1 rockets, with about 2,400 hitting the target area. And once again, having almost no effect upon the war itself.

You are making the same amateur mistake I see over and over again. You think some "magic missile" will win a conflict. It will not. They are slow to set up and launch, slow to reload, not very accurate, and actually not really more damaging than conventional artillery is. It just has a longer range. So Iran has a system of missiles that can deliver 20 inaccurate missile strikes that do minimal damage.

Kinda hard to be really impressed at the "threat" of a volley of 20 missiles, when a single B-52 can rain down over 50 bombs in seconds, exactly where it wants to and not in a shotgun fashion.

The main reasons I generally dismiss ballistic missiles as a major threat is that they never really have been unless they have nuclear warheads on them. And this does not even need to be brought up, because at that point you are no longer talking about a conventional war.

Far to many people over the decades have looked at different weapon systems, and never really understood them. Stealth Aircraft and Conventional Ballistic Missiles are 2 prime examples. Stealth is not invisible, and ballistic missiles are not as big of a threat as many people seem to think. And notice, I am not even talking about defenses, as we saw in January even without them they were not a real serious threat. And if the US had decided to, they could have responded in kind 10 times over, but choose not to.

Your thinking is the same kind of fallacy that doomed Saddam. He confused limited or lack of response with "winning", and it only caused him over and over to grow more reckless. Until he finally pushed things so far that the US finally said "enough", and thoroughly trounced him 2 times. One in 3 days, the other in 3 weeks.

Something that Iran could not do a single time in 10 years.

So how about you try to impress us with how powerful and mighty the Iranian military is. The one that could not defeat an enemy in a decade of war that we wiped off the map in under a month 2 different times. And enemy that actually shared a border with Iran, while the US had to travel half way around the world to get there.

But for amusement, I will address your items.

A. Nobody has ballistic missiles capable of hitting ships at sea. The very idea is silly in the extreme, and never actually been tested. It is only used for propaganda purposes. And I do not say missiles can not hit US bases, just that the damage from such would be minimal.

B. Oh, the US has many more defenses than that. But knowing that the threat is not as big as many people seem to think, it can largely be ignored.

C. But also remember that the Iraqi missile attacks were largely ineffective. They literally fired blind, and most of them literally hit nothing but empty desert. And those that did impact on bases did minimal damage. Iraq could have greatly increased their accuracy by taking a lot more time in preparing fixed launch positions (which they had), and firing at known fixed locations on the ground. But because they did "shoot and scoot", they were often gone before the aircraft arrived. And yes, Iran can fire from fixed positions and increase their accuracy, then rick their destruction when the aircraft arrive. Or they can fire mostly blind and do shoot and scoot, and loose a great deal of accuracy.

You can not have it both ways.

D. The US can hit much harder. It took a huge amount of resources to volley a single barrage of 20 ballistic missiles. If the US was so inclined, they could load up a single Ticonderoga class cruiser with 122 Tomahawk missiles, and send them in a single volley in under 5 minutes. That is comparing a large chunk of Iranian ballistic missile capabilities, against a single ship.

Or we can do the same thing with a Burke class destroyer. But then the volley is over 96 missiles. And we have 67 Burke class destroyers. Or we could darken the skies with 70 B-52 bombers, raining down over 3,700 bombs.

Iran would be fighting so far "out of it's weight class" that you can not even compare the two. Yet for some reason you actually seem to think a handful of ballistic missiles overcomes that. Ultimately, they would help Iran about as much as the same weapon helped Germany in WWII. And remember, that was an era where the enemy did not even have anything remotely similar.

 

I am getting to get a headache instead of learning anything here

1- The wars that will teach people the most about the dynamics of any war with Iran are those that are waged by countries using US weapons, US tactics, and US enjoy US advantages/disadvantages against those which use Iranian weapons, Iranian tactics, and enjoy Iran's advantages and disadvantages. There are several such wars to look at, including right now the Saudis fighting against the Houthis in Yemen and, a bit further back in time, Israel's war against Hezbollah in 2006. Otherwise, unless Iran suddenly decides that the way it wants to fight against the US is to pit its forces in 'open desert tank warfare' or line them up on the so-called "highway of death" for the US to take out in a turkey shoot; and unless we are talking about a land invasion of Iran (which no one has ever suggested for good reason to be in option that is seriously considered), the US wars against Saddam are largely irrelevant. The only relevance from them is to see how effective was the USAF in taking out even Saddam's puny Scuds or how effective was the USAF (and not subsequent ground troops) in taking out any of Saddam's leadership, including Saddam himself.

2- The efficacy, including both accuracy and the damage, Iranian missiles are capable of doing is demonstrated in several attacks (highlighted in a graph posted by the person who posted the OP in a subsequent message) which have employed them. Experts have studied them at length. They establish what was already clear from drills which could be seen using these missiles and hitting naval targets as it relates to the accuracy and precision of Iran's missiles. And the payload they carry is pretty clear too. America has some experience being directly hit by Iranian missiles recently. The hit taken by the US was an 'illustration' as the US was given advance warnings and Iran used fixed silos to launch the missiles, giving the US even further warning after they were launched. That allowed the US to have much of the forces in the base evacuated and others to hide in deep bunkers. Otherwise, I am pretty the US knows what would have happened to those soldiers and the US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff somewhat alluded to it himself when talking (alongside US Defense Sec. Esper) about what these kind of ballistic missiles can do.

3- None of the attacks at issue, involved a location defended by US anti-missile systems, except the attack against the Aramco facility in Saudi Arabia (which used cruise missiles and drones, not ballistic missiles). How well or poorly US anti-missile systems can do to protect against these kind of ballistic missiles is indeed an issue I cannot pass judgment on without having to look for examples from ballistic missile attacks by others (e.g. Houthis) against those using the Patriot system (e.g. Saudis). Experts will differ on how well the Patriots have done in defending against Houthi ballistic missiles, but I don't think there is much disagreement when it comes to the fact that there are no really reliable means to defend against low flying cruise missiles.

4- The ultimate conclusion anyone wants to draw from the available data and evidence on how a war with Iran will proceed, is NOT something that I am all that interested in debating. I am not a fortune teller, don't have a crystal ball, and a lot happens during a war which can't be predicated in advance. What I do care about is making sure the arguments are based more on facts, less on propaganda, more informed as opposed to being colored by things I personally know to be false.

 

It's silly to claim any lasting damage to US forces when the conflict will take place on Iranian soil.
Everything and anything that one of your misses hits can easily be rebuilt in US factories thousands of miles from the conflict zone.
Cruise missiles can be launched continuously from submarine based platforms that are untraceable by Iranian defense and the US
can continually build more of said cruise missiles to target Iranian infrastructure and navy. US surface ships don't even need to be
anywhere near the conflict zone.
While the US might not technically "win" the war, life in the US would be unchanged - life in Iran would be continually interrupted and it would give foothold to unrest. Eventually, any profits from Iranian oil sales would have to go to a war effort and the populace would be left with nothing and the US would be free
to keep building more and more war items.

 

I am not interested in getting into another war in the middle east. I only join this conversation as purely hypothetical conversation.

@Iranian Monitor

I think you underestimate the intelligence capabilities of the U.S. Iran's various forces and missile sites are already targeted. They are targeted with precision weapons that very rarely miss. And that targeting is constantly ongoing. Nothing Iran has is hidden from the U.S. And rest assured, there is a battle plan already in place.

In a war with Iran, there would be no point for the U.S. to carry out a ground invasion. I think that if the U.S. wanted to carry out an all-out military assault on Iran, it would be from the air using attack aircraft and naval-based missiles. The U.S. would destroy Iran's missiles, navy, air force, and air defenses from the air in a matter of a few weeks. Infrastructure would be taken out, such as communications, bridges, and command centers. Nuclear facilities would be destroyed. Oil production would be wiped out.

The U.S. could suffer some losses in such a conflict, yes. But the damage to Iran would be devastating, and it would take Iran decades to recover.

Hopefully, Iran's leaders do not want this. It would not end well for them.

Seth

 

No one (certainly not me) has made the argument that Iran would not suffer a lot more from a war than the US. Indeed, it is precisely for that reason, that Iran is NOT the side trying to "bully" the US but the reverse. But since a war with Iran will be much more costly to the US (even directly) than you imagine, ultimately the whole dynamics have made the Iran/US standoff a 'game of chicken'. Neither sides wins from actual war, even if Iran loses much more and in more lasting way. It is still a game of chicken because, unlike Iran, which is trying to keep the US at bay, the US ultimately has little reason to suffer even those losses it will suffer from war with Iran simply to get away with being a bully.

 

You are IMO fundamentally wrong on this issue. Not because the US doesn't have 'all eyes and ears' over Iran's fixed missile sites, but because: (a) missiles fired from mobile launchers that move are notoriously difficult to discover; and (b) even Iran's fixed silos are buried deep underground and cannot be taken out except (if at all) by nukes.

The USAF, incidentally, did not succeed much in terms of taking out Saddam's command and control, his inner circle, Saddam himself, and even Saddam's Scuds which would have been rather easy in theory to take out. They used liquid fuel which required a whole day of advance preparation to fuel them up. And their range made the general area they would have to be fired from easy to figure out and in much more limited territory than covering the entire country of Iran (3 times bigger than the whole of Iraq and 20 times bigger than the area Saddam's missiles had to be fired from). And the US had an air armada and a collection of forces arrayed against Saddam that it may never assemble again. More recently, the US is actively involved (openly so) providing Saudi Arabia with all the information it can gather through all of its reconnaissance and intelligence systems to pick out Houthi missile and other targets. Not much has been taken out. Same was true with Israel against Hezbollah.

I don't discount the US reconnaissance and intelligence capabilities. I just don't overestimate them.

 

If Iran is going to play the bully in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, then it should be prepared to get bullied back. Just the way of the world.
Just remember, Trump is crazy. He is only concerned with Trump branding and we can't control him. If Trump thinks it will help him politically to
attack Iran, he will. He's insane. That takes all other normal considerations off the table. Have fun with that.

 

Dealing with someone like Trump isn't going to be easy and there are risks either way. But, in general, when you back down against bullies, they simply bully more. When you stand up against them, and point your finger at what can hurt them, they will generally back down.

Trump already has backed down against Iran plenty of times, after explicit threats which Iran ignored. He had threatened to use "devastating force" against Iran if Iran attacks any US interests or interest of any US allies when he first dispatched the USS Abraham Lincoln towards Iran. He even said it would be the "official end of Iran". Iran took him up on this, plenty of US and US interests (and US allied interests) were attacked after those threats (Aramco oil facilities, the US drone, oil tankers, seizure of the British tanker etc), and he backed down. Later, when an Iranian general was on a visit that he knew about because it was coordinated by the Iraqis with Trump personally (a visit where the Iraqis wanted to explore acting as mediators to bring an end to the Yemeni war), Trump decided he had General Soleimani in a place he could take him out easily and felt that would counter the charge that he had shown weakness against Iran. After the assassination of General Soleimani, he then went on to threaten to "obliterate" Iran, issued warning that the US has identified "52 targets, including Iranian cultural sites", send a message to Iran through Swiss intermediaries that Iran's Supreme Leader would be personally targeted, IF IRAN ATTACKED ANY US ASSETS in retaliation. Iran retaliated openly against the Al Asad air base. Iran's Supreme leader then announced Iran's attack the Al Asad base in public, sitting relaxed and comfortable where he always gives his speeches. Trump, on the other hand, came out many hours later, surrounded by his political cronies and generals, looking dazed in a very unusual press conference to tell the American people that Iran had backed down and everything was fine. No one was hurt. And that there was little damage from Iran's attack.

There is always a chance that either side will miscalculate and dealing with Trump isn't easy at all. The only thing Iran can do is to make sure it is as prepared as it can be. The rest is up to others.

 

Iranian weapons and tactics?

Wow, really?

How well have those Iranian aircraft worked? Oh, wait, there are none! Iran uses mostly 40-50 year old American aircraft, and a few that are rebuilt copies of 40-50 year old American aircraft.

How about their anti-tank weapons? Oh, wait. Those are all either US or old Soviet era systems, or locally made copies of old US and Soviet era systems.

APCs? Gee, exact same thing. US or Soviet equipment, and a few locally made copies.

Their main tank? The T-72, of which they have around 500. Oh, and around 10 locally made copies. Their second most common tank, the US made M-60. Then around 100 of a mashup, where they threw a T-72 fire control and autoloader in an M-60 hull.

So what exact weapons are we talking about? The small arms? Yea, Iran makes a hell of a lot of AK copies and other such weapons. But those are generic as hell, and literally could come from anywhere.

Then you go back once again to the SCUD, still failing to understand how ineffective that was. Or the literally thousands of similar weapons Germany had used before that. Ballistic missiles do not determine who will win.

I am sorry you have a headache, I guess you are just not used to people saying and showing how wrong you are.