# Occupation of Iran

bobg said:
Actually, I wasn't looking for that. I was comparing the latest Quadrennial Defense Review to the 2001 QDR and to Bush's campaign promises (back then, Rice and Rumsfeld were the only good thing you could say about Bush). The words about transforming the military are still there, but the effort seems to be running out of gas (the QDR sets the vision while the budget tells how effectively the vision is being implemented).

We saw the impact even a partial transformation into a lighter, faster, more lethal military could have during the Iraq invasion. That's fine for America's traditional goals, when invading and occupying a foreign country was the last thing on anyone's mind. Unfortunately, faster and lighter aren't that effective for a stationary army of occupation. The US military is designed to respond to crises, not to create them.
So slower and heavier is better for a stationary army of occupation? I don't think so. The military has to constantly transform itself in response to a fluid environment. Rumsfeld is correct in that the current Army is battle-hardened with three years of experience in an often hostile terrain. There is no reason at all to think that the allied forces of reason cannot prevail in Iran as well.

WarrenPlatts said:
There is no reason at all to think that the allied forces of reason cannot prevail in Iran as well.

Haven't you noticed that Islamic radicals don't respond favorably to our forces of reason. We have been in Iraq nearly three years and we are pumping less oil now than immediately after the invasion.

If we go into Iran we will still be there forty years from now or until the oil runs out whichever comes first.

So slower and heavier is better for a stationary army of occupation? I don't think so. The military has to constantly transform itself in response to a fluid environment. Rumsfeld is correct in that the current Army is battle-hardened with three years of experience in an often hostile terrain. There is no reason at all to think that the allied forces of reason cannot prevail in Iran as well.

10 years of war and 1 million killed, thats what you call 'battle hardened,' warren. Not 2 weeks of war and 2.5 years of occupation.

Mk said:
Has anybody read Prof. Richard Muller's writing of "Lessons Learned in Iraq." Comments?
http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/30-Lessons_of_Iraq.htm
That's a good, brief sitrep, Mk. It also shows how things will probably go in Iran, and why be should have confidence in our armed forces.
Cyrus said:
10 years of war and 1 million killed, thats what you call 'battle hardened,' warren. Not 2 weeks of war and 2.5 years of occupation.
The Iran-Iraq War ended in 1988--18 years ago, so except for the 10 year old kids that were used, most Iranian veterans of that war are getting up there. The median age in Iran is 24, that entails that half the population was aged 6 or under at the end of the war. So, the war lacks the hold on the collective consciousness that it once had. Also 1,000,000 KIAs says something about Iranian bravery, perhaps, but it doesn't bode well for Iranian strategy and tactics.

An all out invasion of Iran is simply not feasible from an economic point of view. If we invade they will do as the Iraqi's did and start blowing up oil pipelines. That much disruption in the global oil supply would be a drain on the global economy and possibly be devastating to our own.

Could we militarily defeat Iran? Of course, but not withhout severe economic consequences, and excessive loss of life.

Could we knock out thier underground nuclear development facilities? Not entirely, at least with conventional weapons, but we could stop any supplies from moving in or out. We could also isolate the development facilities without bringing about an oil crisis.

Any operation against Iran will have to be a prolonged stand off attack against selected targets. We are currently preparing for this.

The new capabilities that Block IV Tomahawk brings to the Navy's sea
strike capability are derived from the missile's two-way satellite data link
that enables the missile to respond to changing battlefield conditions. The
strike controller can "flex" the missile in flight to preprogrammed alternate
targets or redirect it to a new target. This targeting flexibility includes
the capability to loiter over the battlefield awaiting a more critical target.
The missile can also transmit battle damage indication imagery and missile
health and status messages via the satellite data link. For the first time,
firing platforms will have the capability to plan and execute Global
Positioning System-only missions. Block IV will also introduce an improved
anti-jam GPS receiver for enhanced mission performance.
The Navy and Raytheon are entering into a five-year procurement contract
to replenish Tomahawk inventory at the most affordable cost. The legacy
program Tomahawk missile is the Navy's weapon of choice for critical, long-
range precision strike missions against high value, heavily defended targets.
The Block IV costs about half the price of a newly built Block III missile.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=149999&TICK=RTN&STORY=/www/story/08-18-2004/0002234457&EDATE=Aug+18,+2004 [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator:
I think that war with Iran is unavoidable. This is a golden opportunity for Israel to destroy its most powerful enemy, since due to the current situation american involvement is guarranteed and any action Israel takes to that end will be presented as semi-legitimate (as in Iraq in the 90's).
I dont see the US setting up another invasion in Iran, given the costs and the situation in Iraq but the alternative is even worse.

alexandra
newp175 said:
I think that war with Iran is unavoidable. This is a golden opportunity for Israel to destroy its most powerful enemy, since due to the current situation american involvement is guarranteed and any action Israel takes to that end will be presented as semi-legitimate (as in Iraq in the 90's).
I dont see the US setting up another invasion in Iran, given the costs and the situation in Iraq but the alternative is even worse.
This is a short-sighted view, IMHO. It will only result in the further destabilisation of the Middle East, and anything could happen as a result (including the total extinction of the human race - and a number of other species (except cockroaches, I believe!) - through nuclear warfare). Not that wise - but if human beings are so stupid, so be it. The universe does not guarantee the survival of the stupid; to the contrary - the universe would be better off without the existence of 'intelligent' life forms that are prepared to use nuclear weapons against members of its own species. Ha-ha - go for it, USA government!

Some mod plz fix my post above, I meant 80's :surprised

I thought about saying something. No worries, everyone's got at least several benefit of the doubt cards: just don't play em all in the same thread.

And what exactly do you mean by that friend?

alexandra
Update

Thousands would die in US strikes on Iran, says study

· Report warns of effects of American or Israeli strikes
· Military operations would mean long confrontation

Monday February 13, 2006
The Guardian

A surprise American or Israeli air strike on Iranian nuclear sites could cause a large number of civilian as well as military casualties, says a report published today.

The report, Iran: Consequences of a War, written by Professor Paul Rogers and published by the Oxford Research Group, draws comparisons with Iraq. It says the civilian population in that country had three weeks to prepare for war in 2003, giving people the chance to flee potentially dangerous sites. But Prof Rogers says attacks on Iranian facilities, most of which are in densely populated areas, would be surprise ones, allowing no time for such evacuations or other precautions....

Prof Rogers, of the University of Bradford's peace studies department, says: "A military operation against Iran would not ... be a short-term matter but would set in motion a complex and long-lasting confrontation. It follows that military action should be firmly ruled out and alternative strategies developed." [added bold italics for emphasis]

More: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1708567,00.html

Last edited by a moderator:
Lol, nothing at all, except that we all make typos. Sorry if it came out wrong.

poststruct
alexandra said:

Thousands would die in US strikes on Iran, says study

Depends what this Guardian article means by "civilian". If they mean the engineer civilian who is loading the P2 centrifuge with UF6 and purifying it to 95%, then he is one combatant "civilian". This guy is illegally building a bomb to either attack or blackmail world civilization. Same category as McVie and Oklahoma.

SOS2008
Gold Member
We've discussed the many downsides of an invasion. I think it would be interesting to discuss motives and benefits as well -- Who would profit, and how. And I'm not referring to some unsubstantiated premise of national security, but rather war profiteering.

"We've discussed the many downsides of an invasion. I think it would be interesting to discuss motives and benefits as well -- Who would profit, and how. And I'm not referring to some unsubstantiated premise of national security, but rather war profiteering."

Yes well on that point you get into two issues. One is the fundamental "captains of industry vs robber barons" question (but which is a philosophical question that is superfluous here.

The second issue must be clarified however before we can proceed: what scope (and result) are you asking about?

If you mean initially after the invasion or attack (could be two weeks to a year, depending on what kind of assault), almost no one profits. Actually the only people who profit are those individual investors who have stock in oil companies (yes, that could be you) and the oil companies themselves. Of course, this is assuming that oil exports from Iran are interrupted, which is a logical assumption considering that it's not typical for troops, equipment, and strategy to be diverted so that the oil flow may be maintained. A great example of this is in Iraq, where the oil export level is still well below pre-invasion levels. And even though we now have a sizable military contingent (both US Navy and a lot of British troops) focused on maintaining that oil, this is only because (militarily speaking) major combat operations have ceased, except in western al Anbar province near Syria. But whatever your opinion about our initial motives regarding Iraqi oil, the fact is that now the oil is being maintained in hopes that it will significantly pay for Iraqi reconstruction - and Bush will be able to stop going in front of Congress and requesting an additional 50 to 100 billion to fund the war/reconstruction efforts. Basically, we're now protecting it because it is part of our only ticket out. Of course, a good oil flow also theoretically lowers the price of oil, which does benefit oil consumers like the US and hurts oil producers like Venezuela, Iran, and Russia.

But back to Iran. Again, what type of war and how it goes is crucial. If it is a purely western-led war, then Russia presumably loses big time over the long term - as they currently have the most substantial and hopeful oil contracts with Iran. That is why, if Russia enters the war, pay close attention to where they do it. If it's in the same region most of their tenders are located in, which is closed to Russia anyway (n'eastern Iran), this is no coincidence.

The second main losers are Pakistan and India. Neither produces enough oil to supply themselves, and w/ India especially, if they are to grow long term, they need a large supply. That is why there are large scales plans currently being developed to build a pipeline from Iran through Pak to India. When you hear about India being on the fence and being pressured from both sides, this is the main reason why.

On the winning side, you've mainly got the UK and the US. The UK since they've got the longest history of oil projects and interests - although none currently - in Iran. The US because, if we were to attack other than just bomb, it'd be doing most of the fighting, which means that it'd hold most of the territory. Thus, it'd mainly influence who got the tenders afterward (which would be favored in US). This is biased, sure, but maybe not unreasonable, since the US troops would also do most of the dying.

Then you've got the reconstructors which mostly comes down to one or two corporations. Most likely, Halliburton and their subsidiary, Kellog, Brown, and Root (now KBR). This is the "robber baron vs captain of industry debate" simply because, yeah they're probably sleazy and prone to pushing profit, but then again, there is simply no other corporation with the manpower, resources, and experience to get this job done. In short, you don't like it, tough. (That'd be their thinking and not mine, btw.) After all, it's not like the average small business owner or even start-up corporation has the ability to purchase, ship, and construct hundreds of billions of dollars worth of facilities and infrastructure. Other corporations might say they could, but in short, they're either bullsh**ing or overestimating. Building stuff on a semi-timely basis during war time - where you control start to end process - is tough work. And there's a strong case to be made that controlling all aspects of production is necessary in wartime construction simply because this stuff needs to be built cause it impacts stability and security. T/f the haggling, delaying, and bidding that makes the free market so cost-effective and ultimately desirable might simply not be the best choice in war, solely because things are tied so closely to security ops and fighting. Now, the flip side is that there is little impetus for competition and therefore little force to improve services - which is what we've seen in Iraq. But again, tough. If someone else has a company that can do it faster and cheaper, by all means get started. But the reality is that there is little room for error and it's a lot easier for the gov't/DoD to light a fire under a single corp's ass than try to speed up an entire process. **My apologies b/c this last issue is a very debated one, sometimes politically and other times economically, which doesn't bode well for keeping the thread on track. Who knows what hell I've called down now. :uhh: **

(unrelated, it might be wise to create a sequel to this long and important thread - if nothing else to peak back interest. If so, feel free(/please) to copy and paste these points.)

SOS2008
Gold Member
jhe1984 said:
(unrelated, it might be wise to create a sequel to this long and important thread - if nothing else to peak back interest. If so, feel free(/please) to copy and paste these points.)
Since the title of this thread is Occupation of Iran, I feel it is completely on topic to have this discussion (and I enjoyed your post).

We now know the many REAL reasons for invasion of Iraq, and wouldn’t it have been nice if the public had known these things before the invasion. One of which is the same argument that WMD might fall in terrorist hands, assuming these even exist, and if/how this can most realistically be contained.

In addition to recent revelation that Bush did not request intelligence for post-war occupation of Iraq until after a year into the war, similar concern is relevant in discussion of occupation of Iran:

The unsavory prospects of war profiteering in the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq, and its alleged "reconstruction", were proclaimed in a January 21, 2004 press release (http://www.southernstudies.org/) by the Institute for Southern Studies: a "New Investigation Reveals 'Reconstruction Racket' in Iraq." The latest issue of the Institute's publication "Southern Exposure" provides an "in-depth report by Pratap Chatterjee and Herbert Docena ... one of the first on-the-ground accounts of how U.S. taxpayer money given to Bechtel, Halliburton and other companies is being spent."

An "investigative team spent three weeks in Iraq visiting project sites, analyzing contracts, and interviewing dozens of administrators, contract workers, and U.S. officials. Among the findings:

· Despite over eight months of work and billions of dollars spent, key pieces of Iraq's infrastructure - power plants, telephone exchanges, and sewage and sanitation systems - have either not been repaired, or have been fixed so poorly that they don't function.

· San Francisco-based Bechtel has been given tens of millions to repair Iraq's schools. Yet many haven't been touched, and several schools that Bechtel claims to have repaired are in shambles. One 'repaired' school was overflowing with unflushed sewage; a teacher at the school also reported that 'the American contractors took away our Japanese fans and replaced them with Syrian fans that don't work' - billing the U.S. government for the work.

· Inflated overhead costs and a byzantine maze of sub-contracts have left little money for the everyday workers carrying out projects. In one contract for police operations, Iraqi guards received only 10% of the money allotted for their salaries; Indian cooks for Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root reported making just three dollars a day.

"The [Southern Exposure] report also reveals further details of Halliburton's contracts: for example, that of Halliburton's $2.2 billion in contracts, only about 10% has gone to meeting community needs - the rest being spent on servicing U.S. troops and rebuilding oil pipelines. Halliburton has also spent over$40 million in the unsuccessful search for weapons of mass destruction.

"'A handful of well-connected corporations are making a killing off the devastation in Iraq' observes Chris Kromm, publisher of 'Southern Exposure'. 'The politics and process behind these deals have always been questionable. Now we have first-hand evidence that they're not even doing their jobs.'"
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=War_profiteering

It just seems it would be useful to avoid the Monday-morning quarterbacking of such things.

Oh, I meant unrelated to the rest of my post. Your point was completely on topic.

And don't get me wrong, the loopholes and grey areas that characterized the KBR & Bechtel period from 2003 to 2005 were so wide you could probably build a Mac truck factory inside them.

Although, it is my general feeling that things have tightened up a little more since then on the Pentagon/business side. But, even if that's the case, all that it means is that the US is doing our part to "spend" the money (as opposed to just pocketing it) - which basically means that we're shifting a large part of the corruption from American contractors to Iraqi council and project managers. Hardly an improvement: the school doesn't get built either way.

But then again, maybe that's what is meant by "letting the Iraqis take over".

(Also: if you watched the annual testimony of the nation's intel leaders a week or so back, a fairly big point is made about the issue of Iraqi corruption and how much of a threat it is to the rebuilding process. An interesting figure that'll never appear would be the percentage of US/DoD dollars that end up directly funding the insurgency. )

Last edited:
I dont believe that attack to Iran will happen for US and UK to exploit Iran's oil. As we have seen this hasnt happened appreciably in Iraq, a devastated and hungry country whose military was a pushover. I think that occupation of Iran will prevent several developing nations to increase their oil supply and become more advanced. An attack on Iran will also destroy the most powerful haven for the most fanatical and coherent religion in the world. A direct benefactor from Iran's defeat is Israel, which will lose a very powerful and supported adversary soon with nuclear capabilities (the Moscow talks are just delaying technique) and beyond its reach. The other arab countries are more or less influenced by the US and Israel can handle Syria and Jordan easily.