What do you think a war with Iran would look like?

Question

Knowing that their armed forces are 10 times as powerful and much more armed as Saddams were.

And, knowing that our military is already stretched to the max in Iraq. What would it do to the region?

Answer 1

It would be a loss or a crippling win. America has lost all support from other nations other than Britain by the Iraq war. The UN won't back us, so we will have to actually fight 1 country vs another on their soil. But unlike Iraq, Iran has the ability to hurt us. They are organized and their leaders aren't totally off their blocks like Sadam was. I think a war with Iran was only an option pre-Iraq war. Now they know we don't have the international support, financial resources or military personnel to attack them.

Answer 2

It's not the war with Iran that would be the problem

Russia has a billion dollar pipeline from Iran to Moscow flowing with oil -

Europe is heavily dependant on oil

The Americans are good at air attacks (the best actually )

But as ground troops they suck -

In order to be successful is to imediately ocupy the oil fields . That sort of ground power would be slow and hard with many casulaties -

The other issue is the US would have to cease control the straits for oil ships - The US Navy could have that done within hours - but without the ocupation forces in the oil fields it would be useless

The diplomacy behind the scenes would have to be intricate before hand - Iran's biggest threat is the oil market and that buys them allies - Russia China and Europe would all have an interest in preventing a lengthy war

Sides and allies could shift fast when a nation doesn't have the resources it needs

The best bet (and this is really bad)

Is to have the US Navy blockade the straights and cease every last ship - as a nuclear war head was exploded about a mile over the major cities - This would emit an electro magnetic pulse rendering communication and other electronics to fail .

Launch a major ground asault from Iraq just before the Nuclear bombs take out communication - That will direct the major forces west -

Then the Iraq asault has to retreat - pulling Iranian soldiers as far into the desert as possible - While the true invasion comes from the sea way to cease the oil fields

It would be best to stage this at the same time as a natural disaster if that was possible

Answer 3

It would not be good, we would never engage them directly, only from the air.
Imagine not only being shot at but also women and children strapped with bombs, we would not shot them and they in turn would know this is one of our weaknesses.
If it ever turned into a ground offensive we would be repelled fairly quickly, we woould have to knock out infrastructure, oil pipelines, depot, and processing plants.
Anything that would help them make any money, then it would be a waiting game, we would try and see if the citizens rebel and overthrow the extremists.
I think if we go near I ran that it would galvanize the entire Muslim, Islamic movement, either radical and or conservative.
The peoblem is and this is something we are missing is that the Radicals are increasing in numbers, the young are drawn into the movement as well. they want change and they want it now.
We simply don't have the heart for another war with anyone.
We are spent but the bad thing is the terrorist know this, they are sitting and waiting, soon the tide will turn and we will be living in a differnet world, one in which your personal saftey is the main concern.
We have already lost the war, they know it, just we don't know it yet.

Answer 4

It would probably originate from forward air stations in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Afghanistan. There would be deafening and crippling air attacks to force attrition and disable the infrastructure. Iranian troops and armor would push forward into Iraq, claiming a historical precedent of some sort (the Iran-Iraq war), but a US led counteroffensive with Iraqi troops would contain the assault.
I believe that would be the conventional scenario, which would quickly be won by the U.S. and true-blue Iraqi forces. The catch here is the unconventional, guerilla war which would inevitably come to the fore: suicide bombers, teams of fanatical guerillas, insurgent infiltration of bases, terrorist targeting of civilians, etc.
The unconventional front or asymmetric warfare is something the US and its allies will need to address and restrict.

Answer 5

Anyone who thinks we are just going to stroll over Iran is ignorant. They have the capability to shut down the Straits of Hormuz for long enough to cause chaos to our industry. If you think oil is expensive now, see what it is like when cargo carriers can no longer cross the straits because of mines and rocket boats. Don't think our mighty naval vessels are susceptible - anyone remember the first Gulf War? How about USS COLE? Believe me, we would lose ships and people before we could even set foot in country. Yes we could bomb them - but bombs don't win wars, especially against religious zealots. It is the guy on the ground that wins wars.
I can already hear people talking about nukes - well guess what, if we had dropped nukes at the beginning of WWII, before we decimated their army, air force, and Navy - all we would have done is stir up a hornets nest of suicidal kamikazes.

Answer 6

It would be WW III, and the Russians and the Chinese would be involved then. You could bet North Korea's Million man Army would be let loose then too. Our Country would be the aggressor and the rest of the World most likely would side against us over any attack. America wouldn't be safe from terrorists then, but don't fret this action because we have a new Democrat Congress that isn't going to allow this unless America is attacked by them first. None of it will ever happen; nonetheless, the rhetoric from the right is nothing but blabber. You can also think about a instant draft being put into effect before this could ever take place, yet no one is being drafted are they? A draft in our Country would shut the Middle East down as a threat of it's own if it ever did come to anything real. Smoke and mirror tactics are all your hearing from the right wingers, and they need the Democrats if they ever want to win anything.

Answer 7

Back in the 90 gulf war, we caught the Iraqi Air forces on the ground and destroyed them. Some modest number of planes did escape to Iran and Iran kept the planes!
Iraq never rebuilt its air force, leaving it highly vulnerable to the U.S. air force. In modern warfare, its critical to control the skies. Remember shock and awe?
Iran does have an air force and, if they're smart, they'll get their birds in the air.
They have the capability, then, of causing serious casualties on the ground if they're willing to sacrifice a chunk of their jets to strike American ground forces when being dogged by the U.S. air force.
We can bomb the heck out of Tehran and other Iranian cities. Their torpedoes will destroy a few of our destroyers.
Of course, if war is justified, then we should use nuclear weapons. If we're not willing to do that, then we're acknowledging that the war isn't justified. It isn't.

Answer 8

It would go like this:
-The US Navy would flood into the Straight of Hormuz to protect the valuable strait.
- The USAF would pummel Iranian military, government, and economic targets.
- Iran would seek to retain it's honor by invading southern Iraq. This would unite Sunni and Shia Iraqis against a common enemy - Iran. That would end the insurgency during the course of the war. (It will probably restart after.)
- We destroy enough government targets to allow the pro-democracy insurgents in West Iran to easily take control of Tehran.
- Ground forces will be largely unnecessary. Although American troops will probably cross the Iraq-Iran border river in order to secure Iraq. And Special Forces will be used to "paint" targets for the AF as well as assassinating mobile Iranian targets.

Effects of the war:
-Russian-American relations will be heavily damaged.
-Syria will remain the only state supporting the Iraqi insurgency.
-International HAMAS will strike American/Israeli embassies in a variety of countries in south Asia, South America, and Africa.
-Oil prices triple.
-Increased Arab support for the US.
-Increased alienation of radical Islamics.


If I thought the American population had the will to do take part in this war, I would support it. The positive effects far outweigh the negative effects. Iran is the capital of the global radical Islamic network, taking it out would take out the funds of terrorist networks everywhere.

Answer 9

Bombing, death, destruction, etcetera. Maybe we kill the Ayatollah with a well-aimed cruise missile. If they do happen to have WMD capability we might find out map of the Middle East missing Israel. Any troop commitment would be next to nothing, however.
More likely we'd have to convince some other countries to go in with us. Likely just Israel, considering that they're the only ones with good enough reason to get involved. If Iran does have nuclear capabilities already, and uses them, Israel will probably level most of Iran with its atomic weapons.
And even less people will like the United States, or Israel.

Answer 10

That would be the the first use of tactical nuclear weapons and the re institution of the draft!

That is a slippery slope, and I think Bush, who seldom knows what he is talking about, let someone else handle it!

Oh, and he might start abiding by international law by allowing the International Red Cross to visit those in Cuba under the Geneva Conventions. We always made an issue of it if they weren't allowed to see ours! And he might start going by the NPT, the same treaty Bush claims Iran is in violation of, by issuing the required reports on how many nukes we have.

Bush is getting us involved in wars we are not capable of fighting conventionally. They think a grunt is outmoded, but they are who fights the wars. They are putting too much money into technology and little for our troops!