What are the potential consequences of occupying Iran?

[Cyrus]

Its not a perfect democracy ganted, none the less, the people still vote in an election. There are choices.

Its not a dictatorship, its a theology, more exact, an Islamic Republic. But this is not the main issue. Back on focus, my point is that you don't force democracy on people, and expect it to work out like a magic wand.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Democracy can't be forced just like a tree can't be forced to grow. What I suggest is moving the democratic seeds that already exist in Iran out of their little flower pots, to the real soil of society, where they will freely grow on their own.

 

[Cyrus]

Uhhhhh...groan...that was just awful. Think of your own clever quotes.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

:!) :!) :!)

 

[Bilal]

:!) :!) :!)

Is this the result of this discusion?!

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Mass mobilization in Iraq against US-British forces will be at most a nuisance - easily suppressed by the ruthless employment of massive firepower. And Israel will use the opportunity to deal with Syria and South Lebanon, and possibly with its Palestinian problem.

The character of this war will be completely different from the Iraq war. No show-casing of democracy, no "nation-building", no journalists, no Red Cross - but the kind of war the United States would have fought in North Vietnam if it had not had to reckon with the Soviet Union and China.

Paul Levian is a former German intelligence officer.

Paul Levian
I could post more, but we've reached the point of the dull thud of conflicting intuitions. The ball is Bush's court.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

It's also important to consider the effect that a nuclear Iran would have on the potential for a democratic Iran. Its nuclear project is often portrayed as a matter of national prestige, the implication being that any strike against it would rally the regime's domestic opponents to its side. What Iranian dissidents tell us is closer to the opposite. A nuclear Iran would enhance the mullahs' sense of invulnerability and facilitate domestic repression.

From the Wall Street Journal.

 

[Lisa!]

HAHA! And the U.S. would still be a democracy if George Bush disqualified anyone he didn't like from running against him.

Doesn't he do it now?

Not while bloggers are being arrested for complaining about starving during Ramadan.

Oh dear, how can you be sure that these bloggers are telling the truth? Perhpa the reason they're arrested is their lies!

And they also have to right to build nuclear bombs just like any other nation in the world!

As I mentioned before it's the threat of countries like US which leads other countries to build nukes!

That's not what the GI's returning from Iraq say. Talk to a few.

How about asking Bush?

Regards

 

[EnumaElish]

BTW, where are the PF servers located? If Canada or anywhere else, they are fair game for the NSA. And if they're in the U.S., they're fair game for MI6 who will just share anything they learn with the Americans.

Do you really think that the servers being located in the U.S. would stop the NSF spying, through some interpretation of a legalistic device that may be construed as a loophole?

 

[jhe1984]

" Mass mobilization in Iraq against US-British forces will be at most a nuisance - easily suppressed by the ruthless employment of massive firepower. "

This statement is unfortunately erroneous. It is indeed true that mass mobilization in Iraq would be easily put down by superior US firepower. In fact, the US would welcome that scenario because it'd finally give a chance for US firepower to have a medium-sized target that our attack helicopters, jets, and artillery were designed to annihilate.

However, the statement is incorrect and misleading on several points.

First of all, the US would be fighting a two (or three, depending on if you separate Sunni nationalists from jihadis) front war, with the additional front being the Shia, who have up to now been on our side (or at least complacent). This would be a very difficult situation for several reasons, the most pertinent being that Shia compliance is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL to OIF success. Not only do they comprise 60 % of the population, but they also control the only seaport (Basrah-area) from which Iraqi oil flows - which itself is, or is going to, allow for the Iraqi's to take over sovereignty. If this is lost, Iraq becomes unwinnable, no matter what your definition of victory is. There are around a dozen US Navy warships and Coast Guard vessels right now protecting this port, in additional to a couple British tank divisions. No, our superior firepower cannot protect the entirety of the al Basrah pipeline from a simple sabotage, each one taking around a week to fix. This all is overlooking the government effects, insurgent threats, and small to large scale sectarian conflicts that would ensue and would most likely cause a true civil war in Iraq. On that point alone, the author has it gravely wrong.

Secondly - and perhaps more disturbingly - the author overlooks the main threat to US troops from Iranians: medium range ballistic missiles fired into our literally city-sized base camps. Casualties here could range from 5,000 to 20,000 easily - and that is assuming the Iranians fight fair: no chem/bio attacks. Forget Iranian tanks regiments, air force, etc - these are all preventative forces (opposing, in all honestly, a Saddam led ground invasion), yet still able to kill US kids.

So, without even going further, the author's error has miscalculated or underestimates about 30,000 US deaths - almost a fifth of our force. He is not wrong in that a mass buildup of any force, be it Iraqi or Iranian, would be destroyed quickly. Yet it is a critical error.

His points about the region at large are also, theoretically, true, yet they overlook enough points to probably account for about another 10,000 to 15,000 casualties and a few more decades of conflict.

Here's my frustration. The author's presentation, which is indeed based on prevaling wisdom, is not at all an accurate picture of how difficult this war would be. Unfortunately, thus far, most editorials paint this war as a combination of JDAM strikes, cruise missile attacks, and bunker busting bombing with some anti-aircraft facility destruction in between. This is very, very simplified.

My point being not to criticize the author, but to hopefully disprove his (and indeed general) beliefs that this would be, if not an easy, then a one-sided war.

The thread title is inaccurate, yes, we would not occupy Iran like we do Iraq, but if the war is not over in two weeks it will not be over in four or five years. If the victory is not decisive and swift, the war will most likely be larger than Vietnam - and very different.

It is my sincere belief that, if it comes to it, we will use multiple tactical nuclear strikes against Iran. If you find this option incredulous (however immoral or counterintuitive), I sincerely believe you are unfamiliar with military realities. But all of this said, war and rumors of war should be feared, regardless of the side - it is a very serious situation. There will be little armchair quarterbacking in this one. If the war is not over very quickly, a lot of people kid's on both sides will die and a lot more will see combat. Keep in mind, I'm saying this having active duty friends and being of combat age myself. The situation is very serious.

Let's hope (and pray, those of us who pray) that diplomatic pressure is successful. It is exponentially better.

-- my apologies if this seems too melodramatic (nevertheless, I think the logic stands)

Cheers,

James

PS - I think there are one or two other viable military options that are also available and have a good chance of success, but I don't feel inclined to mention them. Not to say I have any special insight, much less a job. Hehe.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Do you really think that the servers being located in the U.S. would stop the NSF spying, through some interpretation of a legalistic device that may be construed as a loophole?

The way I think it works is that the Brits spy on us, and we spy on them, so no one is spying on themselves, and everybody just shares anything interesting that comes up.

 

[jhe1984]

"The way I think it works is that the Brits spy on us, and we spy on them, so no one is spying on themselves, and everybody just shares anything interesting that comes up."

Agreed, and things get even fuzzier I imagine as servers are mirrored in other countries, etc. Then again, things are probably a lot more bureaucratic than we give them credit for

 

[jhe1984]

Thought these maps might be of interest. They're maps and info of Iranian nuclear, chem, bio (NBC) facilities.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/iran_map.htm

 

[alexandra]

The thread title is inaccurate, yes, we would not occupy Iran like we do Iraq, but if the war is not over in two weeks it will not be over in four or five years. If the victory is not decisive and swift, the war will most likely be larger than Vietnam - and very different.

It is my sincere belief that, if it comes to it, we will use multiple tactical nuclear strikes against Iran. If you find this option incredulous (however immoral or counterintuitive), I sincerely believe you are unfamiliar with military realities.

I think you're spot-on, James. I do not, of course, agree that this should happen, but I fear your analysis is correct. The military reality is that Iran will be dealt with ruthlessly in the fashion you suggest. But will this bring 'victory' or will it result in a chain of events that no amount of military power on the part of the US and its allies will be able to contain? It's a gamble, and the stakes are high.

 

[EnumaElish]

Agreed, and things get even fuzzier I imagine as servers are mirrored in other countries, etc. Then again, things are probably a lot more bureaucratic than we give them credit for

If I was part of that bureaucracy and my job was to come up with a rationale to spy on the PF, I'd ask the question "does a given post constitute communication that is entirely within the domestic jurisdiction of the U.S., or entirely from one U.S. resident to another?"

Then I'd argue "the answer is clearly no."

 

[jhe1984]

"But will this bring 'victory' or will it result in a chain of events that no amount of military power on the part of the US and its allies will be able to contain?"

Aye, that's the predicament for sure. Besides a nuclear incapable Iran, what does victory mean?

The way I see it, war at best is like shaking up a muddy glass of water. Yeah things may settle down differently (and perhaps more favorably) but for a while, it gets real messy and real cloudy.

Looking into it, however, I was a little suprised to find that there is a larger amount of unrest (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4410506.stm) in Iran's southern provinces, which are mostly Sunni Arab's. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47956

If the clerical regime does indeed prove unsatisfiable and a more aggressive approach is necessary, perhaps there exists enough of a political underground to make the transition not easy, but at least smoother.

Wow, nation building really creeps up on ya, doesn't it?

"Abandon all hope ye who enter."

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Well, I just heard on the radio that Iran has cut off all trade with Denmark. There goes my idea about Iran becoming the wind power center of the ME. Too bad.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Oh dear, how can you be sure that these bloggers are telling the truth? Perhaps the reason they're arrested is their lies!

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.

Re: James' point about how an invasion of Iran would lead to a two or three front war: Look at a map, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan form one continuous land mass. It wouldn't be like WWII where there were two major wars on opposite sides of the world.

Regarding Iraqian oil pipelines, they're already being sabotaged, and oil is not flowing from Iraq at prewar levels. So much for the theory that the war was about oil. And Basrah's not the only outlet. There's a big pipeline that flows to Turkey in the north.

Secondly - and perhaps more disturbingly - the author overlooks the main threat to US troops from Iranians: medium range ballistic missiles fired into our literally city-sized base camps. Casualties here could range from 5,000 to 20,000 easily - and that is assuming the Iranians fight fair: no chem/bio attacks.

This is not realistic. The worst missile attack in GWI was a lucky hit on an Air Force barracks in Saudi Arabia. It was horrible and killed 28 people, but there's a big difference between 28 and 28,000. The worst threat for inflicting mass casualties are Iran's Sunburn missiles that could potentially take out an aircraft carrier. They only have a range of 100 miles, however, so there would still be plenty of room to navigate in the Gulf--except for the Strait of Hormuz. I wouldn't want to be an Iranian missileman based there.

That said, a war with Iran will not be easy--but it is doable. Don't get me wrong. I am not for war. The thought makes me sick to my stomach. But we of the Western democracies must not be afraid. Most likely, the U.S. will shoulder the white man's burden the way we always do. That's OK. All we ask is that you stay out of the way. American blood and taxpayer's money will make the world safe for you the way it always has.

BTW I just heard on the radio that they're setting fire to trees in a Danish embassy somewhere over there. That is in complete violation of the rules of warfare as set out in the Koran (and the Bible). That is who we are dealing with: insane people who can't even get their own religion straight. I can read the Koran and understand it, but apparently they cannot.

 

[Art]

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.

Re: James' point about how an invasion of Iran would lead to a two or three front war: Look at a map, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan form one continuous land mass. It wouldn't be like WWII where there were two major wars on opposite sides of the world.

Regarding Iraqian oil pipelines, they're already being sabotaged, and oil is not flowing from Iraq at prewar levels. So much for the theory that the war was about oil. And Basrah's not the only outlet. There's a big pipeline that flows to Turkey in the north.


This is not realistic. The worst missile attack in GWI was a lucky hit on an Air Force barracks in Saudi Arabia. It was horrible and killed 28 people, but there's a big difference between 28 and 28,000. The worst threat for inflicting mass casualties are Iran's Sunburn missiles that could potentially take out an aircraft carrier. They only have a range of 100 miles, however, so there would still be plenty of room to navigate in the Gulf--except for the Strait of Hormuz. I wouldn't want to be an Iranian missileman based there.

That said, a war with Iran will not be easy--but it is doable. Don't get me wrong. I am not for war. The thought makes me sick to my stomach. But we of the Western democracies must not be afraid. Most likely, the U.S. will shoulder the white man's burden the way we always do. That's OK. All we ask is that you stay out of the way. American blood and taxpayer's money will make the world safe for you the way it always has.

BTW I just heard on the radio that they're setting fire to trees in a Danish embassy somewhere over there. That is in complete violation of the rules of warfare as set out in the Koran (and the Bible). That is who we are dealing with: insane people who can't even get their own religion straight. I can read the Koran and understand it, but apparently they cannot.

This is funniest post I've seen in ages.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

:!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) Thanks for the complement.:!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!)

 

[Art]

Thanks for the complement.

np but if you don't mind before jumping in and saving the free world would you check first with us to see if we need saving.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

The Irish never needed to save themselves. The Brits were always there to do it for them. Remember WWII?

 

[Art]

The Irish never needed to save themselves. The Brits were always there to do it for them. Remember WWII?

Warren, Ireland like Switzerland were neutral during WW2. In fact the only ones with plans to invade Ireland during WW2 were the Brits - It was Churchill's contingency plan if the Germans invaded Britain. Given the fact the Irish had spent the last 700 years getting rid of the Brits they wouldn't have been exactly welcomed. The second world war started over Britain's concern for her empire. She declared war on Germany for purely selfish reasons. It wasn't until the war was nearly over that people realized what Hitler had been up to in the death camps and suddenly that was being portrayed as the reason for the war. In fact Hitler had many admirers amongst the elite of Britain.

 

[jhe1984]

I've got to respectfully disagree about Iran not having much effective missile counterstrike potential. The Sunburn and Exocet missiles are dangerous, as you mentioned. But as for land based missile systems, they've also got plenty of Scuds (within range of Baghdad) as well as (presumably) several Shahab 3 missiles - of uncertain reliability. But depending on the number of missiles, sheer odds would presume that even a couple of missiles that ended up hitting Baghdad, say Camp Victory or even the Green Zone or Baghdad International (lol), and several of KBR's mammoth facilities in the northern deserts, would/could reasonably kill a thousand or several thousand US troops slash US contract employess (wait staff, etc). I'm also not sure that some missiles couldn't reach Kuwait.

Those Scud attacks you're referring to had to be fired from the few remaining mobile launchers, pretty much on the run: not many were left after SF and the apaches. Iran's got, imo, a noticeably better quality missile network.

However, I concede that those first estimates of 10 to 20,000 were not very realistic, mainly because I neglected two main facts. First, once the Iranian's turn there missile guidance systems on, radar, etc, the US can easily pinpoint and lock on to them. So even if they got off a few dozen or even a hundred on the first salvo, there'd probably not be anyone left to man the second wave. Secondly, with several exceptions, the US Patriot and Israeli arrow countermissile systems could probably down a significant portion of those missiles that were launched. This is all good news for the West. But again, if this scenario occurs, it's basically on from there. Who the heck knows what could go right/wrong from that point. Depending on how much dough we felt like spending, the US might even be able to maintain such a heavy standoff bombardment presence that it'd be unwise for the Iranians to even stick their heads out.

But mainly I agree that it's a matter of bad or worse, with war being the worst solution (I'm not considering Iranian developing nukes much of a "solution").

At first, I was of the opinion that Iran, much like North Korea, was pursuing nuclear weapons simply to have as a bargaining chip at the negotiation tables. But lately I wonder if the clerical regime feels it is backed into such a corner both from the outside and inside that it doesn't think it has any other method of survival without nuclear weapons, which is quite a different and more dangerous challenge than DPRK. Once they got them, they'd be much in the same position as DRPK but I'm not convinced that they aren't hellbent on getting them or going to war trying, as that (as far as I can see) is their only way to stay in power.

Quoting the statesman Jack Black, "The middle east is just a crazy hornet's nest" (repeat verse ~ 15 times for song).

 

[Art]

Iran according to National Intelligence Director, John Negroponte has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East the more modern of which are impervious to the patriot defense system.

Here's what he had to say today

Iran has no bomb but it will hit back, US told
By Alec Russell in Washington and Anton La Guardia in London
February 4, 2006


IRAN'S clerical regime is supremely confident, has a firm grip on power and is ready to retaliate against attacks by the US or Israel with missiles or by activating terrorist allies, the latest American intelligence assessment says.

The National Intelligence Director, John Negroponte, delivered an implied rebuke to those in Washington hoping the West can engineer regime change in Tehran. In Tuesday's State of the Union address, President George Bush issued a veiled call for the Iranian people to rise up against the mullahs.

But on Thursday, as the International Atomic Energy Agency's governing body prepared to vote on a resolution to report Iran to the UN Security Council, Mr Negroponte suggested there was no imminent threat of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Tehran "probably" did not have an atomic bomb or the fissile material to make one, he said. But the risk Iran could make or buy a nuclear device and mount it on its missiles was "reason for immediate concern".

Mr Negroponte told the Senate intelligence committee: "Iran already has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East. And Tehran views its ballistic missiles as an integral part of its strategy to deter and, if necessary, retaliate against forces in the region, including United States forces."

http://smh.com.au/news/world/iran-h...it-back-us-told/2006/02/03/1138958906849.html

 

[WarrenPlatts]

You really do need to do some basic research. Ireland like Switzerland were neutral during WW2. In fact the only ones with plans to invade Ireland during WW2 were the Brits - It was Churchill's contingency plan if the Germans invaded Britain.

Typical. . . . The fact is that Ireland's relation to the UK is like the relation of Canada to the US. No one is going to attack either without going through their more powerful neighbor first. The difference is that Canada has been for the most part, a reliable ally, OIF notwithstanding, whereas Ireland reaps the benefits of anglospheric imperialism without incurring any costs. I haven't heard of any Irish newspapers publishing cartoons depicting the last great prophet, so you're probably not at risk. In any case, Iranian IRBMs can only reach southern Europe so far. But don't worry, we will CYA when the time comes.

 

[Art]

Typical. . . . The fact is that Ireland's relation to the UK is like the relation of Canada to the US. No one is going to attack either without going through their more powerful neighbor first. The difference is that Canada has been for the most part, a reliable ally, OIF notwithstanding, whereas Ireland reaps the benefits of anglospheric imperialism without incurring any costs. I haven't heard of any Irish newspapers publishing cartoons depicting the last great prophet, so you're probably not at risk. In any case, Iranian IRBMs can only reach southern Europe so far. But don't worry, we will CYA when the time comes.

Honestly Warren, you seriously have no idea of the historical relationship between Ireland and England. This thread isn't the place to go into it but if you wish to start another to discuss the topic feel free as I would very much like to hear more about the benefits we gained through 'anglospheric imperialism'. The only advantage springs to mind is all the wide open spaces we have as a result of the Brits starving 25% of the population to death and forcing another 25% to emigrate.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

You are correct of course, Art. That's a whole other thread topic. There's more pressing things to discuss for the present. You guys are alright--don't get me wrong. I see you now have the third highest GDP per capita in world. Those centuries of English occupation didn't hold you down for long. Heck, I wouldn't mind moving out there if you'll take me. :!)

 

[SOS2008]

This is funniest post I've seen in ages.

My personal favorite was this part:

Regarding Iraqian oil pipelines, they're already being sabotaged, and oil is not flowing from Iraq at prewar levels. So much for the theory that the war was about oil.

So...it couldn't be that oil was the reason (or at least a big factor), but as usual Bush's plan was poorly executed?

There must be something in the water in "red" states that causes an "if P then Q" malfunction.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

There must be something in the water in "red" states that causes an "if P then Q" malfunction.

Considering that us red states in the flyover territories are geographically larger by far (especially if you go by county by county basis), if there's something wrong with the water, it's probably in the blue zones.