Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Third Option For Dealing With Iran

  1. Jan 19, 2006 #1
    When Alexander the Great swept through the Middle East, he didn't mess around much with occupations or supply lines--he kept his main force together and just kept moving forward, living off the land. This suggests a third option:

    We go in and wreck the place, but we don't stick around to help clean up the mess.

    Over 90% of the casualties in the Iraq War have occurred during the occupation. Thus, the lesson is that we should just skip the occupation.

    What we do is shoot down every airplane in their air force, sink what's left of their navy, and then move in with half a dozen divisions and we'll cut through them like a hot knife through warm butter. If they try to stand and fight anywhere, they will be decimated by the Air Force. Let them send human waves like they did against Iraq all they want. That's the easiest tactic of all to deal with. It will only create a lot of Iranian widows.

    The thing is, we don't stop. We sweep through the country, destroy every weapons facility in the country, capture or kill every mullah and every nuclear scientist we can find, destroy every tank, artillery piece, jeep, and every Ak-47 we can lay our hands on--and then we just leave, taking with us about 200,000 POW's as hostages, and we simply leave the Iranians to their own devices.

    The whole operation from commencement until the last soldier drives back into Iraq and Afghanistan would be over in three months at the outside. Fatalities would be on the order of those incurred during Desert Storm or the initial phase OIF. Supply lines won't be too much of a problem because we will be gone before the insurgency can get fully organized. And there won't be any supplies for them coming from Iraq or Afghanistan.

    Now, this probably will seem crazy at first, but consider the political fallout. The old regime WILL be shattered and scattered. Most government higher-ups will be dead or sent to Abu Graib. The progressives within Iran will justly be able to say that the mullahs brought on the invasion because of their insane hubris; meanwhile, the progressives could not be accused of collaborating with the Americans, because there will be no Americans to collaborate with. The defeat will actually be more humiliating than if we stayed and occupied them because there would be no one to strike back at to exact revenge. And they will be too busy rebuilding to embark on more international adventures.

    And if ten years down the road, they start all over with their plans for the Bomb, well, we just do the blitzkrieg all over again. It's not like we haven't had reprise wars in the past (WWI-WWII, GWI-GWII). The cost in lives and dollars will be less than if we stayed and occupied the place for 10 years.

    On the American side, the public will appreciate the built-in exit strategy. The Iranian civilian infrastructure will not be specifically targeted; thus, the oil will soon flow again. Fortunes will be made in oil speculation as the price spikes and then crashes. Moreover, since it cannot be perceived that the Americans are stealing the oil, since we will have left, there will be less motivation to sabotage the pipelines. If the whole op could be pulled off with fewer casualties than OIF, all will be forgiven. Catastrophic losses of aircraft carriers will be avoided by keeping them out of the Gulf until the missile threat is neutralized beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    Eventually, a new government would form. Most likely, the new government would be sullen, but it would not be openly belligerant like it is now. Most likely, they will cooperate, especially if the families of the Iranian POW's ever want to see their husbands and fathers again. If the Americans know anything, it is how to run a prison system. Moreover, Iranian cooperation with the civilized world will be rewarded with reconstruction aid and trade.
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 19, 2006 #2
    Just go in there and invade them and go out is your plan?It won't work people who don't like it when bomb there country and do nothing help the innocent people victims.Eventally if we did do there your plan terroist take the country and then alot of people in that country whould join which cause even more u.s. causilties
  4. Jan 19, 2006 #3
    You cannot be serious. It would take months and still cost lives. Nuke 'em from space instead. Do it now, along with North Korea. And Tibet, Tibetan bastards... Watch out Canada.
  5. Jan 19, 2006 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    That would have been a good policy in Afghanistan. Not to the 'Sherman's March' extreme that you suggest, but definitely a 'take care of what you came to do and get out' type policy. We had a good reason to invade Afghanistan; additionally, leaving the other non-Taliban factions to fight over which group would be the new rulers wouldn't have been a situation much different than what Afghanistan has gone through for last few decades. In other words, we would have left Afghanistan no worse than it was before the invasion.

    That policy doesn't work for a pre-emptive invasion. By about the second pre-emptive invasion (if not earlier), the world starts to recall Germany's invasion of Poland, followed by an invasion of Denmark and Norway, followed by an invasion of France, Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Belgium.

    You really need to make an extremely legitimate case for a pre-emptive invasion and had better do something that shows there's a difference between the US pre-emptive invasions, the German/Japanese pre-emptive invasions, and the Iraqi pre-emptive invasion of Kuwait. Especially if your pre-war intelligence turns out to have been crap.
  6. Jan 19, 2006 #5
    You must be crazy. You're saying you're going to destroy that country's defenses, then leave it undefended, open to any foreign army attacks? Not very responsible to the civil propulation, are you?

    This is exactly the gun-ho stereotype that is attributed to Americans that I hope is false in general.
  7. Jan 19, 2006 #6
    We would probably bomb for 40 days and 40 nights to soften them up first, but the actual land war would only last a very few months. The road from the Iraqi border through Hamadan and onto Tehran is about 400 miles. If the Army averages just 1 mile per hour (I walk 4 miles per hour), we'll have Tehran surrounded in 2-3 weeks.

    As far as justification goes, the president of Iran has said the holocaust didn't happen and that he would like to wipe Isreal off the map. He has missiles capable of reaching Europe, which is why the E.U. is so concerned about Iran. Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism including groups like al Quaeda, Hizbollah, and Hamas. They can interdict world oil supplies out of the Gulf at will. If they acquire nukes, only their good will will prevent them from slipping a few to al Queada. The standard Al Quaeda tactic is multiple synchronized attacks. A synchronized nuclear attack on several U.S. cities is a risk that cannot be tolerated.

    It's easy for a Canadian to say not to worry, but Montreal hasn't had any skyscrapers knocked down--yet.
  8. Jan 19, 2006 #7
    Iran knocked down the twin towers? That's news to me.
  9. Jan 19, 2006 #8
    Well, we're not going to give them the chance. And by the way, have you looked at a map of the Middle East lately? Who's going to invade Iran after we bug out? Azerbaijan?
  10. Jan 19, 2006 #9
    Iran is not going to nuke Isaril!Jeurelsum is there state reilgon's third most holiest city.They do hate Isaril but they're not going to nuke there holy land(it's called the holy land for all three reilgons that orginated from the middle east).I don't think we should start bombing Iran yet.We should try to get rid of there nukes diplomaticly.But that probally won't work(but it's worth try instead invading them without it)so milltary option is very likely.Were not going to invade right now we have to see if there's any other better ways(it worked for the Cuban missile cirsis)
    It is crazy.Were not like the greeks(btw they called themselves hellans)were not going to go off and destroy a country like that.BTW that gun-ho American stero type is false,They don't exist(obvisoly with expection):smile:
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2006
  11. Jan 19, 2006 #10


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    What I see in the OP is the typical hotheaded anti-Arab mentality in the U.S. You do not even give sincere thought as to why we should be so afraid of Iran in the first place, or the suffering to the Iranian people—or for that matter possible U.S. casualties, or that the Iranians are capable of giving us a good ass whopping right back, or how a peaceful solution would be far more beneficial to all, or that maybe Bush is even more of a maniac then Ahmadinejad.

    Furthermore, you do not stop and think of Iran's history, a history of years of co-existence of Muslims along with Jews and Christians in their country (not to mention U.S. meddling). In fact, during the Persian Empire, Iran did much to help the Jewish people. And just maybe the current leader is making statements with motives other than you think, and that likewise Israel has made inflammatory comments (but that's okay, hmmm?). And maybe the Iranians are far more afraid of the U.S. then we are of them, for obvious reasons, and maybe they want sovereignty as a nation, which can make energy advances like any other country has, most notably the U.S. And if you are really concerned about nuclear proliferation, than let's dicuss this across the board.
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2006
  12. Jan 20, 2006 #11
  13. Jan 20, 2006 #12
    Sorry dude, but the innocents in the war would rebel.

    Aka Terrorism would skyrocket.
  14. Jan 20, 2006 #13


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    :rofl: You must be very impressed by Alexander movie.(I've not watched this movie, but I guess you did)
    this question's been in my mind from some years ago(say about 7 or 8 years ago) that I was watching a program on TV and a architect was proving that this attack might be a myth. I can't remember more though! Now my question is: Is this attack a proved historical fact or people aren't sure about it?
  15. Jan 20, 2006 #14
    Which one? Maybe one in the movie you mention? I haven't seen it.
  16. Jan 20, 2006 #15


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    You know I was asking whether we're sure that Alexander attacked Iran or not! Don't bother yourself with my question though. I thought it's a good chance to get some information about this event, but well we're not in history and humanity forum.:redface:(sounds like that architect is the only person in the world who's in doubt about that attack.)
  17. Jan 20, 2006 #16


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    ...The United States had over 2,000 attack aircraft by even 01. I guess America can always lose if your blindly anti-American enough right?
  18. Jan 20, 2006 #17


    User Avatar

    It would be interesting if the US attacks Iran and it transpires that the North Koreans or Pakistan have already lent Iran a nuke or two. :biggrin:

    In any case I don't think China or Russia would be very happy to see the US impose itself even further in the M.E. and I don't think even the most rabid Shrubites really want to risk an escalation that could lead to WW3.
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2006
  19. Jan 20, 2006 #18
    That film is a discredit to Alexander!

    And to answer your question he took persia, and did some bad bad things to some beatiful cities....
  20. Jan 20, 2006 #19


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    And so? I didn’t say anything about losing a war.

    Perhaps you have not noticed how poorly things have gone in Iraq. Perhaps you are unaware that Iran is a much stronger country than Iraq. Perhaps you have not thought how another military action would place added strain on our forces and coffers. Perhaps you have not considered that the U.S. can lose economically.

    All China, or oil-producing countries like Iran have to do is change their currency from the U.S. dollar and we’ll be in deep s**t. You don’t have to actually lose a war to lose.

    Anti-American people like you want the U.S. to shoot itself in the foot. Not as long as people who have a clue have any say about it.
    Apparently you were posting before seeing the post above yours.
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2006
  21. Jan 20, 2006 #20


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Nice proposal, Warren. Very well thought out and presented. Don't be modest, you've done an excellent job in thinking up a new and intriguing option. Too bad more of the people responding didn't pay attention in English class....:rolleyes: Too much Physics, not enough Literature....

    You forgot to mention that if the Iranian people go hungry as a result of the blitzkrieg, they can always eat their....:blushing:
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Third Option For Dealing With Iran
  1. Iran - third world? (Replies: 2)

  2. A deal? (Replies: 11)

  3. Russia and Iran (Replies: 52)

  4. Iran and Nationalism (Replies: 0)