POLL: Will the US go to war against Iran?

Remove all ads!

Oh, indeed. Those making noises about Iranians supplying munitions to the Shia in Iraq had best consider what will happen if MPADs, ATGMs, and HMGs start flooding into the country. Particularly if they're accompanied by Iranian troops.

Short version: America's decisive advantage in armor, and to a lesser extent airpower, would be neutralized. Helicopters would be so many skeet (see the battalion of Apaches that was rendered combat ineffective by small arms fire in the initial invasion. Now imagine what would happen if the small arms were combined with MPADs).

The result of choppers = skeet is that the American logistics system will collapse. At present, a great deal of the supplies are ferried by air for the simple reason that it's much safer to be in a chopper than to be on an Iraqi road. If that changes, expect casualties to skyrocket.

I don't think so. As Petain said, firepower kills. The firepower at the disposal of the American military is sufficient to annihilate the Iranian military--if the Iranians are A: attacking and B: doing so in the sort of conventional manner that leads to overruning.

The Iranians would extact a toll in such an attack, no doubt. But they'd be fighting precisely the sort of battle the American military excells at, and would pay for doing so. Exposing themselves to American air and artillery attacks would result in death on a massive scale.

Of course, as you point out, 1:20 is fine if they can take the 20 longer than we can take the 1. Just ask Ho Chi Minh.

 

That firepower kills is fine and well, but there is a thing called maneuver, too. The Iranians will likely travel light and fast. They will take maximum advantage of terrain, and fight in cities or from ambush in favourable terrain from prepared defensive positions.

If I were Iran I would do this: The US Army in Iraq needs to import fuel and pretty much everything. My focus would be on the easy and rewarding targets: The supply lines and the logistics trail. Fuel trucks, convois and the contractors are easier targets than US troops. Drive out KBR, and the US troops are without food, supply, infrastructure, laundry and transport. I would try to make the civilian contractors ask themselves the question if the pay is really good enough to die for. Make them panic. Attack the green zone. More IEDs. Contractor companies are interested in profit, not glory. They might just pull out if hit hard enough.

The attacks in helicopters would be stepped up, too. Already the US regularly face ambushes when trying to rush to the crash site of a downed chopper. That's military tactics. The enemies get better the longer they fight the US, which is a good reason to keep wars short, or avoid them altogether. It wasn't so much Iran that bred Hezbollah, but the constant bitter fight against Israel, that only let survive the capable leaders and good tacticians.

If the Iranians manage to cut the supply lines the US troops will be in a precarious position. Out of fuel the US army would be immobilised or at least slowed down, and once engaged they'd be out of ammo soon - US fuel and ammo consumption are legendary - without fuel they'd be blind and deaf once their vehicle's generators run out of gas and eventually their batteries die. 'Tankers on foot' rhymes with 'don't fight so good'. The Iranians would then face a much less lopsided battle.
They're real soldiers and not an armed rabble like the militias the US encountered so far. If they bring with them real anti tank missiles and MANPADS the threat to the US would gain a different quality, as they would be able to outrange US defenses. If Hezbollah conduct is any indication, that's what they will do.

And likely the Iranians would be joined by the Shia in Iraq. The primary US supply lines come from Kuwait through the Shia south. With a Shia uprising US soldiers would be isolated, outnumbered, and caught in a static ambush in Mesopotamia. A US defeat is entirely possible.

That said, I don't believe the Bush crew thinks a defeat is possible, and only because bombing Iran would be a stupid, reckless and irresponsible idea, that doesn't mean they won't give it a shot. After all, they famous for knowing best.

 

There will be no ground war in Iran. There's no need for one. First, close the border. Then you destroy the Iranian navy and air force, as well as the nuclear facilities in question. It's that simple. That would leave the Iranian army with no air cover. And in modern war, no air cover means you are dead. And then you set up, say, a twenty kilometer buffer zone on the Iranian side of the border and destroy anything that enters it.

 

Okay, but then we're not talking about overruning a la the Chosin Reservoir.

Otherwise, I'm mostly in agreement.

 

I might be wrong but I thought the terrain was fairly flat desert. If it is, then there will not be many places for the Iranian army to hide from US warplanes, which will simply drop bombs on them, and watch them die in large numbers. The US would do well to just entrench their forces and let the Iranians attack in numbers (much like the Iraqi army did in the First Gulf War). The US will probably mostly use its air power, and many Iranians will die. But so will many American soldiers on the front lines. It will be a mess....

Ragusa - My great uncle was the commanding general at Stalingrad, and I have not only heard the story of this battle many times "around the table" from family members - and assorted others who are more than willing to comment on it, once they learn that I am related to Paulus - but I have looked at it a bit in history. There were many mistakes made at Stalingrad, most of which were ordered by Hitler himself, such as poor aircover (almost none), the panzer divisions, which were sent north to capture Russian oilfields, and the German 6th Army missed vital opportunities to break out of the Russian circle that enclosed it (because Hitler refused to order them to do so), and cut them off from their supply lines. The truth is that the German 6th was under siege, much like a garrison in a medieval castle, and was mostly starved into submission by the Russians. Hitler refused every reasonable request that Paulus made, at least that is my understanding.

[ February 23, 2007, 05:34: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

America seems to have problems closing the border with Mexico, never mind the ~3400 miles of land borders and ~1500 miles of coastline that Iran has.

The country is described as:

and

Iran is four times the size of Iraq and, ignoring the "military" which the US could fairly easily beat, has a population of over 80 million from which to gain militants and suicide bombers from.

[ February 23, 2007, 10:06: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]

 

I mostly agree with Montresor. Iran is a big country, and a good deal of it is not exactly the flatland Iraq is (Chandos, Iraq is quite flat, but the mountainous terrain starts close to the border). It has a notably bigger and more modern army, more territory and population, and isn't devastated by air strikes and an embargo.

Does this mean that in a straight war, it could go toe-to-toe with the US? Probably not. It will be a lot harder than Iraq, definitely, and the casualties would definitely be much higher, but the US would probably win. Of course, holding the territory would be a heck of a lot harder than in Iraq. There are fewer friends on the grounds (no Kurds), no oppressed majority, and the terrain is almost as good for guerilla wars as Vietnam. So, yeah, the US could take on Iran, although it might be smarter to not do it alone and be prepared for serious losses, but trying to occupy it would best be avoided. And of course there is the "minor" isse of Iran using every shred of influence they have to cause any group or regime friendly to them to go for broke. So far in Iraq the Sunni have done the most damage - and they're the minority. If the Iraqi Shi'ah, Hezbollah, the Afghani Shi'ah and all other Iran-friendly groups decide to go along with that, there's going to be a big mess in the Middle East.

As for air strikes, there are two problems.

- hitting the centrifuges: well, if you know where all of them are, it could work. If not, there's a possible problem. Of course, chances are that if Iran could build them now, they can do it later.
- "bombing Iran into submission": the use of air power to win wars is somewhat overrated. It could tilt a country's position somewhat, but even in Serbia it wasn't completely effective (and that was with an unpopular leader, a much smaller country with a viable opposition and ridden with dissent AND Russia stepping in to mediate). With Iran, it's not likely at all imo.

[ February 23, 2007, 13:28: Message edited by: The Shaman ]

 

Kazadman,
I'm talking about ground war in Iraq.

Chandos,
the terrain is either marshland in the south, in the north it becomes hilly. Have a look at the maps of Iran and Iraq .

Montresor,
nothing personal, but I think that's rubbish

Shaman,
the US will bomb everything. They'll try to kill the Iranian leadership, ministries, government facilities. They still want regime change. They will attack barracks, military facilities. They won't limit themselves to the nuclear facilities. When the Iranians strike back, and Bush can't show up success there will be a call for escalation, which will mean ground troops in Iran, likely around the street of Hormuz.

When that fails, too, and the US take severe losses, the US might go nuclear. Under Bush they have adopted a policy to also strike non-nuclear opponents, and to strike them first. If you don't believe me, read Bush's national security strategy. If that happens, pick a city - Boston, Pittsburgh, New York - there will be retaliation, after all, the US attacked first, and from a Muslim view pretty much unprovoked, and that is all that counts.

Except for the lack of surpise after all the brinksmanship and sabre rattering, a US attack will be like Japan's attack on Peral Harbor.

 

I think you're exaggerating a lot and even border being paranoid to be quite frank. If the US decides to bomb Iran they will realize that there is no way they can go for a regime change. It's simply unrealistic. Bush might be an idiot but I'd like to believe that he has some kind of grasp of reality. Also using nuclear weapons against Iran won't be happening, nukes were not used in Vietnam and they won't be used in Iran. The oil prices and the enitre world economy would take such a giantic blow from it that no-one would do it.

The Bush adminstration would have to be completely insane to go for the scenario that you propose, and while I do not hold them to very high regard I do believe that they will have enough working brain cells to identify a complete disaster when they see one.

 

There is no need for a land war. And they can be contained. With their navy taken out, they will not be able to bring anyone in by sea. And Turkey will not aid them by allowing them free passage through their western territory.

 

The largest mistake was entering the city to begin with. It could and should have been bypassed.

 

@Ragusa: I can agree with the first part, but I don't see a nuclear strike happening (I don't know but I think there must be some safeguard that doesn't allow for dropping nukes on the POTUS's whim). That will set off such a reaction that Iran might not even need to retaliate.

 

Shaman, Morgoroth,
I also don't see a nuclear scenario happening with notable probability, but there is the escalation potential that can lead to it. I neither see cruise-missile- and airstrikes nor the other options having a chance to achieve the Bush administrations policy goals, and I don't see either of them having chances for success, and I do not think the consequences can be contained in any case. Bush is the guy who foolhardy picks escalation over admitting mistakes or defeat.

It is a possibility, not a prediction. What it not useable nuclear weapons is the Bush crew's nuclear earth penetrator about? And the preventive use of nukes was one of the novelties the Bushies have written into codex with their national security strategy. That means they consider it a real ioption. That also means the military is planning accordingly.

Monty,
the US army can beat Iran? How? Or with whom? All their shiny, expensive, fuel guzzling gizmos need to me manned. With what forces? The US armed forces are already going to great pains to be able to even maintain their tropp levels in Iraq and Afghanistan, by armtwisting Reservists and forcibly prolonging terms - and this is being exacerbated by the escalation, aka 'surge'.
A 160.000 head US army and some 50.000 mercenaries are not that many people. Being outnumbered they can very well be beaten. And don't forget, with Iran it'll be a real war.

If the US mobilise their nation that's something different - then, of course they can win, and are probably going to, but is a little war of choice worth it? Not to mention that it would take at least up to a year to train the draftees to a degree of usefulness.

 

I got to revise one of my statements slightly: I interpreted Bush's utterances along the lines 'no plans to invade' as leaving out bombing, thus retaining that option in the sense of: 'Heh, I only spoke of not invading!'. That was admittedly silly.

When Bush sais he has no plans to attack, he means he has not made the decision to attack, and is not interested in attacking at this time. It's a difference in nuance, but an important one.

As Cheney likes to say: 'All options are on the table'. He means it.

 

Well, you never know what he means though. He had all options on the table and attack was the last case scenario in Iraq, too.

 

On a semi-related note: Let's Bomb Iran!

Heh.

 

AMaster,
go read Iran and Barbara Ann

Reality is beats fiction it seems.