News What are the potential consequences of occupying Iran?

[Art]

Obviously if the US wage total war there is no doubt they can turn Iran into a hole in the desert but given the strategic importance of Iran it seems a more limited engagement would be necessary so let's have a look at the US military's options and the likely consequences;

1) The US could stand off and bomb from afar using cruise missiles and smart bombs.

Cruise missiles would be ineffective against the hardened underground targets they would be going after and it would be dangerous for bombers as Iran has a sophisticated anti-aircraft system which has not been degraded by years of bombing.

Iran would also probably respond with a massive missile attack on US forces in Iraq and on Israel. The shi'ites in Iraq would probably also rise up against the US forces leaving them with only possibly the Kurds left supporting them. Another key problem is that if Iran has secret nuclear facilities working on creating a nuke they will remain unscathed but the chances of Iran using a nuke once ready would escalate exponentially. And if in fact they don't have these secret facilities then there is no justification for attacking them in the first place.

2) The US could gather together a new invasion force in Iraq with a view to occupying the country.

Would probably result in the same consequences as option 1. It means they have more chance of finding any hidden weapons programs but the casualty count would likely be enormous especially as learning from Iraq's experience the Iranians are unlikely to sit back whilst the US builds up it's forces in the hope that it will all blow over and that they'll just go away.

Anybody any other options??

 

[jhe1984]

Cool find with that Negroponte article, Art. Quite relevant!

 

[WarrenPlatts]

2) The US could gather together a new invasion force in Iraq with a view to occupying the country.

the Iranians are unlikely to sit back whilst the US builds up it's forces in the hope that it will all blow over and that they'll just go away.

Anybody any other options??

An Iranian invasion of Iraq, Kuwait, or Afghanistan would be ill-advised, although the option of just sitting and waiting isn't much better. An early advance might be expected, but then they would be pinched off the way the Germans were in the Battle of the Bulge, or the Iraqians when they tryed to invade Saudi Arabia.

 

[Art]

An Iranian invasion of Iraq, Kuwait, or Afghanistan would be ill-advised, although the option of just sitting and waiting isn't much better. An early advance might be expected, but then they would be pinched off the way the Germans were in the Battle of the Bulge, or the Iraqians when they tryed to invade Saudi Arabia.

True an invasion would be unwise but cruise missile / ballistic missile strikes against incoming ships or the unloading docks would I imagine be effective and hard to counter?? Bear in mind I don't imagine the Iranians would think for one moment that they could win the war but would concentrate simply on making it as painful as possible for the US.

Air reinforcement would be limited as the main US battle tank is too heavy to move by air in any useful quantity.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Air reinforcement would be limited as the main US battle tank is too heavy to move by air in any useful quantity.

All they have to do is drive over the border.

 

[jhe1984]

Air reinforcement would be limited as the main US battle tank is too heavy to move by air in any useful quantity.

Not sure what you mean here. Why would tanks be needed for air reinforcement?

If you're thinking along the lines of a pre-Gulf war I buildup and border crossing, I don't think that'd work for several reasons. First, the centerpiece of Iranian military configuration is protecting its western border with Iraq. This stems not so much from the US presence (although that hasn't helped) as from the hard lessons learned during the decade long war with Hussein, fought mostly around this border line.

Plus I'm not sure a tank invasion would make any sense unless we're trying to occupy Iran, which itself makes little sense. Firstly, we'd be coming through the Ahvaz region (which is for the most friendly to anti-regime forces anyway) and second the targets that we're interested in are spread out all across the country.

Actually, I reconsider. If you were going to occupy the country in order to overthrow the regime, the smartest initial move you could make would be to drive quickly to take over the border. This would ensure control of a lot of Iranian reserves as well as protect the vital sea route. But this is talking full scale war including a lot of naval battles.

If you're simply talking about suppression of air defenses, tanks wouldn't be required as much. We'd use Apaches, f-18s and (hopefully) F-22s [i'd kinda like to see how those perform, as sadistic as that may be], and special forces operators, much like we did in first stages of Gulf War I and mostly in Desert Fox campaigns. If I had to guess, I'd say this operation would look a lot like a mixture of the Osirak raid and US Desert Fox campaigns, suppresion and attack.

PS - I've been reading about another option - Israel flying through Turkey to Iran (bypassing SA and Iraq). Any thoughts?

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Israel will stay on the sidelines--unless they decide to invade Syria. Don't worry, the U.S. and NATO et al. will do what is necessary.

And why do you think the Ahvaz region is the most likely route? The main thrust will go through Khordestan province.

You heard it here first.

 

[Lisa!]

There aren't enough beds in the U.S. prison system to house every American blogger that lies online. No, the reason they get arrested in Iran is because they tell the truth. Why would someone lie about sneaking food to work during Ramadan? I'd do the same. I thank God I'm not Islamic. I don't have to worry about entering doors right-side first because the left side is unclean, like one friend told me she used to do.

1. So your government just want to keep in touch with you and be more close to you by monitoring what you do over the internet and your personal calls?
2. why should they tell lies? Simple! For attracting more people to read their blog!(wow, it really worked because even Americans are interested in these blogs!)

Forget the 2 above, warren! I don't want to accuse them of telling lies because I'm not sure about it. That's not important at all! Just 1 thing:
If the situation is not good in Iran, if there are violations of humans' right, IT IS ONLY IRANIAN WHO SHOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT not other countries especially US. You know these excuses don't work in Iran case. They simply don't believe that you want to give them their freedom:

1. during the 8 years war against Iran, US was reinforcing Iraq by different kind of weapons. Humans rights = chemical weapons, am I right?
(tell me I'm lying but that's what Iran claims all the time and almost all Iranian believe it. note that US has to deal with Iranian in Iran not with UN or other people in the world)

2.well there are lots of examples that US proves that they don't care much about humans when it comes to hostility! Hurting the enemy at any price.
like this 1
well tell me it was a mistake. Oh my God how do you want to go on a war by this awful navy? (never mind it was many years ago, but the majority of population in Iran think that was deliberately.)

Warren whether you want to believe it or not US would have a very harder time in iran than Iraq.
I)the war last so long!
II) even if they win the war, they would have a hard time in Iran. At least Iraqies was hopeful to get rid of Saddam, but Iranian are still hopeful to do changes by their own.

Anyway man, I'm getting to like you!
P.S. don't waste your time to reply to this post, I was just trying to argue the way some people do(not you of course), so I admit that it might be a pointless post.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Forget the 2 above, warren! I don't want to accuse them of telling lies because I'm not sure about it. That's not important at all! Just 1 thing:
If the situation is not good in Iran, if there are violations of humans' right, IT IS ONLY IRANIAN WHO SHOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT not other countries especially US. You know these excuses don't work in Iran case. They simply don't believe that you want to give them their freedom:

Look, if the situation were somehow reversed, and I couldn't eat food during the daytime, and if American bloggers were being arrested for posting whatever they wanted, I would be one of those Northern Alliance guys that would welcome a foreign force to liberate me and my friends and family--be it Mexican, Canadian or even Irish.

And if the U.S. was somehow involved in selling chemical weapons to Iraq, I will be the first to say that those responsible should be strung up by their ****s. I don't believe that is the case, but I might be wrong--although selling hundreds of tons of insecticide could definitely be construed as such an attempt.

Regarding the unfortunate tragedy involving the good ship USS Vincennes, as a sailor in the evil navy during GWI, the scuttlebutt that I heard from fellow sailors was that the people on the airliner were already dead--that is, that the people fished out of the ocean already had rigor mortis. But hey, that's just a second hand rumor that I heard from fellow enlisted blokes. Do not quote me.

In any case, the USS Vincennes did not know that they were not under attack. Remember the USS Stark? Things were hotter with Iran then than they are now.

 

[Lisa!]

Look, if the situation were somehow reversed, and I couldn't eat food during the daytime, and if American bloggers were being arrested for posting whatever they wanted, I would be one of those Northern Alliance guys that would welcome a foreign force to liberate me and my friends and family--be it Mexican, Canadian or even Irish.

Liberate them? well dear, I told you they couldn't trust US. 1.They know that US isn't stupid enough to attack their country for liberating them.
2. Most of Iranian have very bad impression of US politicians.

3. suppose you're right and people don't have the right to eat food during a month, but don't forget that the majority of population in Iran are musims and have no problem with that. and some of them even don't give a damn to a i blogger who wants to eat during the dattime in that holly month. Anyway as far as I know some people(like sick people) are allowed to eat even during ramadan. so I can't believe what this person says. he can simmply eat and others might think he's sick.

And if the U.S. was somehow involved in selling chemical weapons to Iraq, I will be the first to say that those responsible should be strung up by their ****s. I don't believe that is the case, but I might be wrong--although selling hundreds of tons of insecticide could definitely be construed as such an attempt.

well how can you be sure that your country hadn't done that? Either way that couldn't be important since here the Iranian's judgement is important not you!
Just a question: so how did saddam get those weapons?

Regarding the unfortunate tragedy involving the good ship USS Vincennes, as a sailor in the evil navy during GWI, the scuttlebutt that I heard from fellow sailors was that the people on the airliner were already dead--that is, that the people fished out of the ocean already had rigor mortis. But hey, that's just a second hand rumor that I heard from fellow enlisted blokes. Do not quote me.

Come on! mistaking or shooting a airliner full of dead people? They'd better to stick to their first lie. The second 1 doesn't make sense to me at all. how could they know that they were already dead befor shooting them and why would they want to shoot a ghost airliner?
Anyway again that doesn't make any big difference. Most of people in US are brain washed against Iran and well Iranian are brain washed against US. Just think about it!

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Suppose you're right and people don't have the right to eat food during a month; but don't forget that the majority of the population in Iran are Muslims and have no problem with that. And some of them even don't give a damn to (sic) a i blogger who wants to eat during the daytime in that holy month.

The blog I was thinking of, Iranian Girl said this--not me. Maybe she's lying. Read her words yourself and decide. Hmm. No posts since October 28, 2005 with no explanation. I hope she's OK--and so should you.

Come on! mistaking or shooting an airliner full of dead people? They'd better to stick to their first lie. . . . How could they know that they were already dead before shooting them and why would they want to shoot a ghost airliner?

The United States Navy did not want to shoot down anybody. The sailors who pressed that fatal button did not know that the airliner was full of dead people--if that is in fact the case. On the other hand, a Navy frigate had almost got sunk from another (albeit Iraqian) attack, the Identify Friend or Foe device on the Iranian airliner was apparently not working, and the airliner was descending towards the Vincennes in the middle of the Gulf.

If you were the captain, what would you do?

 

[Lisa!]

The blog I was thinking of, Iranian Girl said this--not me. Maybe she's lying. Read her words yourself and decide. Hmm. No posts since October 28, 2005 with no explanation. I hope she's OK--and so should you.

The United States Navy did not want to shoot down anybody. The sailors who pressed that fatal button did not know that the airliner was full of dead people--if that is in fact the case. On the other hand, a Navy frigate had almost got sunk from another (albeit Iraqian) attack, the Identify Friend or Foe device on the Iranian airliner was apparently not working, and the airliner was descending towards the Vincennes in the middle of the Gulf.

If you were the captain, what would you do?

well warren, I guess you're missing my point here. It's not important that whether The US navy shot down the airliner deliberately or not, or that girl was lying or not. The important thing here is what Iranian think of these 2.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Well, if I was Iranian Girl, I might not think it impossible that my government might fill an airliner full of dead people from the morgue and send it on a suicide mission against an American Aegis cruiser just in order that it would get shot down. (And I'm hoping that they would at least use dead people--live people didn't stop the WTC attacks. So I'm trying to give the Iranians a bit of credit.)

In addition, if I was sitting in jail for blogging about starving during Ramadan, I think I might welcome the Americans--not for their MRE's, but for freedom.

 

[Lisa!]

Well, if I was Iranian Girl, I might not think it impossible that my government might fill an airliner full of dead people from the morgue and send it on a suicide mission against an American Aegis cruiser just in order that it would get shot down. (And I'm hoping that they would at least use dead people--live people didn't stop the WTC attacks. So I'm trying to give the Iranians a bit of credit.)

In addition, if I was sitting in jail for blogging about starving during Ramadan, I think I might welcome the Americans--not for their MRE's, but for freedom.

Well dear, you can see the world the way you want!

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Well dear, you can see the world the way you want!

I don't know the true story regarding the USS Vincennes tragedy. But somebody does. At best let's hope it was an accident. I don't believe that the Navy would shoot down an airliner on purpose. What possible gain is there, even if you think we are that Machiavellian?

 

[Lisa!]

I don't know the true story regarding the USS Vincennes tragedy. But somebody does. At best let's hope it was an accident.

Ok, I hope so!

 

[russ_watters]

I haven't been following this thread, but I saw one thing I want to comment on:

2.well there are lots of examples that US proves that they don't care much about humans when it comes to hostility! Hurting the enemy at any price.
like this 1 [snip] (never mind it was many years ago, but the majority of population in Iran think that was deliberately.))

Whether it was a mistake or deliberate, it doesn't have anything at all to do with that "hurting the enemy at any price" thing. Ie, if it was a mistake, then it was just self-preservation of one ship captain taken too far. If it was deliberate, then it was murder - which doesn't have anything to do with conduct of war. In neither case was there a legitimate target in the area that the captain was attacking "at any price".

well tell me it was a mistake. Oh my God how do you want to go on a war by this awful navy?

This incident is used as a case-study at the Naval Academy. It is a good example of how the heat of battle can make people overreact. But it was not unreasonable for that captain to be wary of possible attack from the air since he had just finished a surface battle.

Anyway, there really is no good reason to believe that it was deliberate. I know some Iranians will believe that it was, but that isn't a rational belief. And that's setting aside that conspiracy theory about the plane being a set-up. I was in the Navy too and I've never heard and don't buy that one. It's about as likely as...well...it being deliberate on the side of the US.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The Aegis cruiser was then new and its self-defense radar/missile system had never been used in actual combat against air attack. The commander was wrong and was censured, but it requires great animus to see this as a deliberate action. Do yoiu suppose they positioned themselves where they were just in case an airliner would dip low over them? Come on!

 

[Lisa!]

Whether it was a mistake or deliberate, it doesn't have anything at all to do with that "hurting the enemy at any price" thing. Ie, if it was a mistake, then it was just self-preservation of one ship captain taken too far. If it was deliberate, then it was murder - which doesn't have anything to do with conduct of war. In neither case was there a legitimate target in the area that the captain was attackign "at any price". This incident is used as a case-study at the Naval Academy. It is a good example of how the heat of battle can make people overreact. But it was not unreasonable for that captain to be wary of possible attack from the air since he had just finished a surface battle.

Anyway, there really is no good reason to believe that it was deliberate. I know some Iranians will believe that it was, but that isn't a rational belief. And that's setting aside that conspiracy theory about the plane being a set-up. I was in the Navy too and I've never heard and don't buy that one. It's about as likely as...well...it being deliberate on the side of the US.

Thanks for the information! I'd be grateful if someone enlighten me on chemical weapons as well! :shy:

P.S. I can't prove 'hurting the enemy at any price' thing here. So I take it back. Perhaps I had other things like wwII in my mind when I said that, but I don't think it would apply to this case as well! So we have no argument here!

The Aegis cruiser was then new and its self-defense radar/missile system had never been used in actual combat against air attack. The commander was wrong and was censured, but it requires great animus to see this as a deliberate action. Do yoiu suppose they positioned themselves where they were just in case an airliner would dip low over them? Come on!

well for sure there are people who have that great animus to see this as a deliberate action!

 

[jhe1984]

"And why do you think the Ahvaz region is the most likely route? The main thrust will go through Khordestan province. "

Mainly, I think Ahvaz (khuzistan) because I think we're already there, not tanks but sf. From there, linking up with Ahvazi arab resistance, it'd be reasonably possible to coordinate some sort of afghanistan-esque sf air controller movement while the armor, if it needed to, could cross from Khordestan.

If it becomes a tank battle, I agree Khordestan 100%, except that it's probably heavily mined. It'd slow us down a little if we were thinking some sort of lightning raid into Iran. Plus, it might be fairly easy to land in Khuzestan (marines, etc) and march up from there. Also, it secures the ports.

But yeah, if we're talking armor, it's probably a "pick your thrust/pick your feint" exercise.

 

[Art]

All they have to do is drive over the border.

Unless they already have sufficient heavy armour in place then they still have to get the heavy weaponry from America to the battle zone. Afghanistan is landlocked, Iraqi and Israeli ports are within missile range and for domestic reasons it is highly unlikely Pakistan will allow them to enter through their ports.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

James, you're right about the need to secure Iranian ports and the Gulf coast. So, there will have to be at least two lines of attack. I mentioned Khordistan because it is the shortest way to Tehran, and the Kurds and Azers there might not mind toppling the central regime.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Unless they already have sufficient heavy armour in place then they still have to get the heavy weaponry from America to the battle zone. Afghanistan is landlocked, Iraqi and Israeli ports are within missile range and for domestic reasons it is highly unlikely Pakistan will allow them to enter through their ports.

I believe that there is already a lot of armor in the Gulf region. If more is necessary, the sea lanes are open for now. If worse comes to worse, they can always land on the Red Sea coast or on the other side of the horn like by Fujarah. There's also Turkey, but yeah, they aren't too reliable. And if there is more to come, they will most likely come from Europe where they are collecting dust for now.

 

[jhe1984]

"I believe that there is already a lot of armor in the Gulf region. "

Agreed. Most likely, the Abrams and other heavy armor are the most underused pieces of equipment in Iraq right now. Since we can't really whack at the flies with the sledge hammers, they're probably just sitting around.

If anything they'll just have to drive east from al Anbar to Sulemiyah.

If I recall correctly, though, they were a b**ch to get in there, cause Turkey was closed.

 

[BobG]

Are you sure Bush is the man to set out on this quest?

Something has to give, and it’s giving. Resources are over-stretched. Frustration is up, as families are separated and strained. Morale is down. Recruitment is more difficult. And many of our best people in the military are headed for civilian life.

I will order an immediate review of our overseas deployments – in dozens of countries. The longstanding commitments we have made to our allies are the strong foundation of our current peace. I will keep these pledges to defend friends from aggression. The problem comes with open-ended deployments and unclear military missions. In these cases we will ask, "What is our goal, can it be met, and when do we leave?" As I’ve said before, I will work hard to find political solutions that allow an orderly and timely withdrawal from places like Kosovo and Bosnia. We will encourage our allies to take a broader role. We will not be hasty. But we will not be permanent peacekeepers, dividing warring parties. This is not our strength or our calling.

Oh, wait, that's what he said in 1999 - http://www.seanrobins.com/documents/bush%20george%20w/Bush_GW_1999_09_23.htm

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.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

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.

 

[edward]

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.

 

[Cyrus]

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, that's what you call 'battle hardened,' warren. Not 2 weeks of war and 2.5 years of occupation.

 

[Mk]

Has anybody read Prof. Richard Muller's writing of "Lessons Learned in Iraq." Comments?
http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/30-Lessons_of_Iraq.htm

 

[WarrenPlatts]

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.

10 years of war and 1 million killed, that's 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.

 

[edward]

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 their 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

 

[newp175]

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 don't see the US setting up another invasion in Iran, given the costs and the situation in Iraq but the alternative is even worse.

 

[alexandra]

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 don't 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!

 

[newp175]

Some mod please fix my post above, I meant 80's

 

[jhe1984]

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.

 

[newp175]

And what exactly do you mean by that friend?

 

[alexandra]

Update

I just read this article:

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

Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor
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

 

[jhe1984]

Lol, nothing at all, except that we all make typos. Sorry if it came out wrong.

 

[poststruct]

I just read this article:

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]

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.

 

[jhe1984]

"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. **

(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]

(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.

 

[jhe1984]

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. )

 

[newp175]

I don't 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.