True, to a point. But we also know that the U.S. is building some permanent bases in Iraq, and no doubt Iran thinks that once the U.S. has established a reasonable degree of stability and autonomy in Iraq, Iraq makes a very handy staging point for potential attcks on Iran. And on the other front, if the U.S. gets lucky and nabs Osama, a lot of the manpower that’s currently on the eastern side of Afghanistan can be moved west.
There’s no reason to think that Iran is not mindful of being part of the U.S.-declared “Axis of Evil,” and even if the immediate chance of an attck seems remote, the long-term possiblities are still worth their while to worry about.
Zagadka:
What makes us think that? I don’t recall Iran invading anyone recently, and their defensive war against Iraq ended sixteen years ago. Are we merely comparing based on the fact that the Iraqi army was decimated in the first Gulf War?
As for the enthusiasm of the population, I dare say there have been ample signs that the populace would prefer a more liberal government. The mullahs have had to ban democratization movements.
And who would they aim them at? They certainly don’t have any missiles that could reach the U.S… Israel’s a possiblity, but they’re probably too afraid of Israeli nuclear retaliation to try that tactic. I suppose they could threaten to hold Iraq as a nuclear hostage to America’s good behavior, but I don’t know that the Iranians would bet that much on America’s caring about the Iraqis.
I don’t think the Iranians are counting on these things to keep them secure from American attack. I think they’d feel more secure getting off the A(xis)-List of potential American targets than staying targets and trying to defend themselves.
My understanding (maybe I’m wrong) is that relatively few troops are looking for Bin Laden; most are just trying to keep things in Afghanistan secure.
Like he said, Iran has had time to recover from that war, as opposed to Iraq which found itself on the wrong end of the Gulf War, followed by 12 years of bombing and sanctions.
Oh I agree , if the main intention is to invade and downsize the Iranian Govt, but my opinion was that an invasion of Iran requires a logistical build up in Iraq ,that we are not seeing.
Not that an Invasion of Iran could not be staged out of Conus, as historical invasions of the pacific theater have been done, but as someone had pointed out upstream , the money is probably not there at the moment for another invasion at this point.
Hemming the Iranians in via a ring of steel on all borders , followed up with a naval blockade would do the same thing effectively , with out the need for an actual invasion. Add to that the Iranian people actually like Americans , its the Govt thats gotta go , apparently its been a worry to the mullahs for a while now.
I would have to see what the situation is vis a vis , the Saudi Arabians , and who is more likely to be recieving american attention in the next several years.
Funny thing though , if you noticed Zagadka mentioned that Pres Putin , of Russia was blabbing about sending 40 k troops somewhere, now guess who is a neighbor of Russia
What difference would that make? The Iraqi army we faced in the first Gulf War was at its peak and we obliterated it…and our military is an order of magnitude more capable than it was in the early 90’s, while the Iranian army is what its always been…a force that basically is using outdated Soviet equipment (with some rusting US stuff still left over from the Shah and perhaps some stuff they bought from the French), with outdated doctorine (again, Soviet model) and poor training except for some ‘elite’ formations. It wouldn’t have a hope in hell of even stalling a US major attack, let alone stopping one.
The fact its bigger just means there would be more targets frankly. They would have zero chance of gaining air superiority, on the ground our army would roll over them, and once air superiority was lost (in say the first couple of hours of the attack, if they even tried to contest for it at all, which I doubt) they would be better off going to a guerrilla war footing and disbanding all their formations, a la Iraq, because if they tried to fight it out we’d destroy them.
And, once we totally obliterated the Iranian military (it would be another ‘cake walk’), then the nightmare would begin in earnest as we’d have not one Iraq but two…maybe two and a half. THATS when our military and logistics would be strapped to the breaking point and we’d be well and truely fucked unless the rest of The World™ was on board and pony-ing up dollars and ‘peacekeepers’ left and right to hold down the firestorm that would be Iran…something I rate at just slightly over a snowballs chance in hell.
Any how would they do that? As I said, they could MAYBE attempt to deliver it by truck, but it would be vulnerable…and also probably do as much or more damage to themselves and their civilian population as it did to the US…while turning the world firmly against Iran. Hell, even Europe might be a bit dismayed if Iran set off a nuke in one of their own major cities just to wack a division or so of US troops. How else would the deliver it? Remember, unless they bought their nuke from someone like Russia who has refined their design to allow it to fit (and work) from a missile, they won’t be even close to that stage yet…even assuming the thing would work at all, which is by no means a sure thing if they haven’t even tested one yet. Finally the only one I can think of thats crazy enough to actually attempt to use a nuke in their own country to hurt an invasion is North Korea…I doubt Iran is that insane.
Agree. However I don’t think the sacrifices necessary to do this are politically feasible at the moment, nor should they be. I think it would be difficult to mobilize even for a real threat like North Korea, and certainly not for a country who did the fairly normal thing of letting those fighting an enemy through. Not stamping passports is not that unusual - I believe Israel does not for people planning to go to Arab states who refuse to recognize passports with an Israeli visa.
My comment on Syria was a joke - but with these guys, you never know for sure.
Oops, we invaded the wrong country! Our mistake. And people scoffed at the idea that we needed a President who could tell one foriegn country from another.
Let us dispense with the notion that the U.S. couldn’t crush the regular Iranian military like an aluminum can - it could. That said…
Iran has no major French systems, otherwise that is more or less correct ( though I wouldn’t characterize it as one of those Soviet-era clones like Iraq or Syria, see below… ). Pre-Ayatollah it was equipped largely with U.S. and British equipment, some of which remains ( much of their armor consists, still, of American M-60’s and British Chieftains ), but it is indeed aging. To this they have added some captured Soviet equipment ( gained from Iraq ) and purchased obsolescent equipment from China and North Korea ( plus a sizeable number of Brazilian built APC’s ). None of this stuff is top-notch, but it is roughly functional.
No Soviet doctrine - again the Iranian army was never aligned with or trained by the Soviets. It’s doctrine, insomuch as it had one, was 1970’s era United States. This was subsequently ( and unfortunately for them ) modified by some misguided notions by the mullahs about the reason for the success in stopping the first Iraqi invasion, basically adopting a pre-WW I French notion of victory through superior elan. Hence the later reliance in the Iran-Iraq War on near-suicidal infantry assaults.
However while they are certainly incapable of stopping a U.S. attack, they are much more capable of stalling one than Iraq ever was ( doesn’t mean they will, but they have a better chance ):
B.) Despite the unpopularity of the current theocracy, it still has its supporters among the populace - far more and far more dedicated and committed than Saddam Hussein ever had. Further much of the citizenry is likely to respond to hostilities by rallying to the government - how many is uncertain, but certainly more than just a few. Iranians are a proud people and are far more interested in liberating themselves than in being ‘liberated’ ( MHO, I certainly could be wrong ). The level of resistance would almost surely be orders of magnitude higher.
C.) In concert with the above, while the Iraqi army mostly did not make a stand especially in the cities like Baghdad, the Iranian army is far more likely to actually fight.
D.) Much of the hassle in Iraq was with Saddam’s dedicated paramilitary forces, in particular the 20-40,000 Fedayeen Saddam. In Iran the dedicated paramilitary forces ( Pasdaran ) are not only fanatically loyal to the government, they outnumber the regular army ( ~350,000 ).
E.) While the Iranian army is incapable of defeating up to the U.S. army, the one area in which they regularly outfought Iraq was in small-unit infantry engagements - on the defensive and in conditions of urban or mountain warfare this will come in much more handy than it did rushing Iraqi prepared defenses.
Again, none of the above means that Iran is capable of defeating the U.S. military or even holding them off for very long. It does suggest it would be a much bloodier affair and, of course, much harder to hold long-term.
Of course the Iranian army could end up lying down like Iraq’s and the Iranian people as a whole may greet us with open arms. But if I were a betting man, I still wouldn’t take that gamble hoping for the best.
I stand corrected. I actually only ASSUMED Iran used soviet doctorine, though I knew that under the Shah they had some US training, as well as US/British weapons systems. I also thought I remembered reading about a purchase by the Iranian government of some kind of French weapons systems, but I’m probably mis-remembering or it was another country.
I haven’t really followed Iranian military development after the fall of the Shah, so just assumed they would have picked up doctorine, along with some weapons systems, from their neighbors, many of which use (poorly) old 60’s style soviet combined arms doctorine. Thanks for the correction Tamerlane.
I didn’t say (nor do I believe) that the ‘standard options’ would work…only that we could always just fall back on them. Maybe I should have put in a few :rolleyes: …
Okay, let’s can the invasion talk. It isn’t going to happen. Let’s also
remember that this story is not coming from Bush, if anything it just
reenforces the notion that his invasion of Iraq was misguided.
Let’s also remember that allowing AQ operatives to move about the country
in a clandestine fashion, while serious, is not the same as being in on the
planning or execution of the 9/11 attacks. Iran proudly lends support to
groups like Hezbollah and this is likely not that different. The
Ayatollah Khameni is quite concerned with self preservation and while I
have no doubt he delighted in the attacks on the U.S. I seriously doubt he
would risk his own ass to carry them out.
So what will be done? Not terribly much. The U.S. already has sanctions
on most Iranian products. Only a few goods such as carpets are allowed into the U.S. Those imports could be in jeopardy. Other nations will not
respond in any direct way to this news, but since in comes in conjunction
with Iran’s blatant nuclear ambitions and the pathetic display of
“justice” in the case of the Canadian reporter who was beaten to death in
an Iranian prison, well let’s just say Iran is weaving a rich tapestry of
ill-will.
If Bush is reelected, the U.S. will have a weaker voice in dealing with
Iran. He lacks credibility and people abroad hate him to the point that I
think some countries would refuse to cooperate with him simply out of
spite.
A Kerry administration would stand a much better chance of building an
international consensus around Iran, but there would still be zero chance
of an invasion unless some other kind of DRAMATIC development occurs.
Widening of sanctions against Iran to parts of Europe may be in the cards.
It is also worth noting that Iran too will have a new president next year.
I think Rohani will be elected with a small turnout at the polls. This
will have no impact on Iranian policy as that is firmly controlled by the
hardliners anyway. The impact will be in the face Iran shows to the
world. Khatami has been the best asset the hardliners ever had. Without
him, there will be no semi-likable figurehead for Iran to display.
I think willingness to accept a greater of mobilization for war would come with a greater threat. It seems to me that people sensed that Iraq wasn’t really an imminent threat to anybody least of all the US.
As to Iran, pundits like Novak, Rush et al might do a lot of huffing and puffing from the safety of an office desk, but I think that, careless and slapdash as they are, GW and his cabal won’t be that foolish.
Isn’t the popular story that the hijackers (except the four group leaders) didn’t know what exactly they were going to do until the day of? I think Bin Laden says that on the infamous videotape, but maybe I’m wrong. If they didn’t know, I doubt someone would have told the Iranian government.
I think the only french systems that the Iranians have bought is Croatale air defense systems , and some naval subsystems. Other than the captured warstocks from the Iran / Iraq war , the countrys airforce was bolstered by the defection of Iraqi airforce fighters at the beginning of GW 1 , which included both French and Russian airframes.
I’m not going to comment on much else at this time, because I think we’re still dealing with a fair amount of unknowns here. But as for ‘invading the wrong country’, I’d have to point out that IF you planned to invade Iran, taking Iraq first makes a huge amount of sense. If you look at a map of the region, you’ll see that Iran is bordered by Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkmeinistan, and a few smaller states. The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan gives the U.S. the capability of opening a two-front war against Iran. And if Russia gets involved on the U.S. side through the 'stans, Iran is in deep doo-doo militarily.
If I were a general and someone came to me and said, “we need you to invade Iran”, probably my first question would be, “Uh, can we take out Iraq first?”
Hey, what a great idea! I suggest that we get those fuddy-duddies in the U.N. to agree that a valid reason for invading Country A is to provide the geographic staging point to invade Country B!