The Syrian leadership is Allawi, so even though they’re sort of Shi’ites, they’re not much like the Shi’ites in Iran and Iraq. Besides, they’re Baathists and secular.
Ahh ok.
However, that does not change that I think if we went to war with Iran that would be World War III, and it wouldn’t be worth it. It’d probably be less damaging to the world just to let them nuke a city or two, and to nuke Tehran and be done with it.
Erek
We can control Iran, provided we were willing to do things which we are not willing to do. Since we are not, we can’t.
Such as?
As has been pointed out, we could certainly blow up the infrastructure, kill as many of the ruling elite as we can catch (plus whoever gets in the way), and leave. However, this would be very stupid. In addition to disrupting world oil supplies, it would create yet another broken-down “failed state”, this one very large and with a young, well-educated and very very pissed off population. Failed states are great refuges and training grounds for terrorists. (They’re also great havens for plain criminals, as the dealers in Afghan heroin could tell you.)
To prevent a failed state somebody would have to occupy the place and help the people set up a new goverment. The US hasn’t got the manpower, and the rest of the world is not going to rush to clean up a “Made in the USA” mess.
Anarchy doesn’t have criminals, by definition. Calling the Afghani heroin traders criminals is applying someone else’s laws to them. Just because we believe in the fiction called “International Law” doesn’t mean everyone does.
It seems to me, that the best military option, should Iran refuse to give up its nuclear program, is to launch large, conventional airstrikes against their nuclear facilities (basically, Osirak times ten), and then enganging any military force Iran sends over the border into Iraq. This would minimize disruptions in the oil flow, and hopefully not piss of the Iranian populance too much.
Or heck, figure out a way to let the Israel’s do the actual blowing up of the nuclear plants - Iran’s President has already called for “Israel to be wiped off the map” - its not like they can get any more pissed off. 
Define ‘win’. We could do to Iran basically what we did in Iraq…i.e. destroy their military in the field and occupy their key cities. There would be an insurgency…probably as bad or worse than in Iraq. IF we had more political will than we have in Iraq, and IF we were willing to take the economic hit (which would be substantial), and IF we were willing to soak up the casualties the occupation would incur (the invasion would be cake…probably about the same number of casualties suffered by US/Coalition forces invading Iraq and Afganistan combined), and IF we were willing to stick it out in the face of all the bad things that WOULD happen (i.e. mistakes made, civilians killed reguardless of how careful we are, our soldiers killed no matter what we do by suicide bombers, road side bombs, car bombs, etc etc)…then yeah, we COULD conceivably ‘win’.
To do so we’d probably need to strip Iraq to the bone, and we’d probably need to commit a rather large percentage of our available military…which would make us vulnerable in case ANOTHER major crisis happened somewhere in the world. And our economy would probably take a major hit as well…we’d need to raise taxes substantially and probably put some other things on hold, and this would cause the economy to dip.
Yes, we have all those things. What we don’t have is the political will to actually commit them to such a struggle. We are far from unified on the subject and Iraq has made things worse. IF the American people WERE unified (something I wouldn’t hold my breath on) with the goal of invading Iran and staying there until ‘insert goal’ was achieved, then of course we have the resources, troop strength and money. We found all those things when WWII was thrust upon us after all…what would make you think we are so close to the wall now that we couldn’t take on Iran?
Of course the reality is that we DON’T have that political will, so its a moot point. The people would balk at supplying the resources and money for a war in Iran…especially the kind of war it would turn out to be (long, drawn out and bloody affair taking years and costing hundreds of billions…and thousands of American and 10’s or even 100’s of thousands of Iranian lives).
-XT
The trouble is, even without a nuclear program the Iranians would still be able to retaliate easily by stirring up trouble in Afghanistan, Iraq etc. just by letting Taliban/Insurgency types walk over the border. And Israel can’t do squat to Iran without assistance from the US (even if it is just access across US-controlled Iraqi airspace) so anything they do would be seen as having ‘Born in the USA’ all over it and cause even more trouble.
China I don’t know about, but Russia certainly doesn’t. According to the CIA Factbook Russia exports nearly twice as much oil as Iran does - it’s generally reckoned to be the second biggest exporter (after Saudi Arabia and before Norway) - why the CIA has the EU listed as no 2 is anyone’s guess…
“We don’t want to go to war,
But, by Jingo!, if we do,
We’ve got the ships, we’ve got the men,
We’ve got the money too!”
Does the US have the means to achieve military victory in Iran? Yes.
Would it be a Pyrrhic victory? Very probably.
So what do you mean by “win a war” anyway?
For these purposes I would define it as results similar to what were achieved in Iraq. Not a total success, of course, but Coalition forces did crush organized military resistance, destroy the pre-war government, and gain enough control on the ground that there were some spoils to be shared – not in the form of outright looting, but sweetheart reconstruction contracts let to American corporations, and American hands on the oil taps. My point being, if Russia participated in invading Iran, we would have to let them share in that afterwards. Of course, they would also have to participate in holding down the insurgency afterwards.
As a Brit, I feel so naive. :o
To think we joined the Coalition to confiscate those Iraqi WMD’s, when all along it was just a ploy to give American companies money and oil…
Some Brit companies got a share, didn’t they?
Whereas French and German companies were pointedly frozen out.