The Belgians would be particulary ecstatic about it :rolleyes:
Seriously, Sam, that was a joke, right?
Maybe Jon Lovitz is now the new White House Press Secretary?
“Yeah, invading Iraq wasn’t a mistake! It was…a clever plan! Yeah, yeah, that’s the ticket! We knew the real enemy was Iran, we just invaded Iraq so the Iranians won’t get suspicious! Yeah! And all that talk about WMDs and freeing the Iraqis was… was a joke! Yeah! I tested that joke with Morgan Fairchild… whom I’ve slept with! Yeah!”
There really is a powerful democracy movement in Iran, which is frustrated because the mullahs won’t give up power and won’t allow the elections to go on freely and fairly. (But they do go on, and they’re not purely fake like Iraqi elections under Hussein – it’s just that most reformist candidates are barred from running.) It is possible to imagine a scenario where the U.S. tries to foment a domestic revolt in Iran, then sends in U.S. troops to support the rebels, which, arguably, wouldn’t be exactly the same thing as an “invasion.” (We never “invaded” Afghanistan, we merely provided support to the Northern Alliance.) The question is, would Iranian malcontents accept U.S. help? Or would they regard that as unpatriotic? I incline to assume the latter. Also, I’ve seen no indication that the malcontents are quite malcontented enough to revolt.
Very interesting comments here.
First, I’d say that unless Osama launches another massive attack between now and November, nobody is going to do ANYTHING about this until after the presidential elections. Bush is certainly not going to advocate for another war, and I’m sure he already ordered the military to draw up invasion plans some time back. Kerry certainly has no incentive, and the Iranians would just be issuing denials whether true or not.
I would have very little trouble believing there was some degree of cooperation between Iranian government agencies and AQ. That might extend to as little as letting AQ members pass through borders unhindered, which is something quite a lot of countries seem to so. Or something more sinister like allowing them to set up some facilities within their borders. Neither would necessarily mean the Iranian government had any clue what AQ was planning. Or maybe they all sat down and planned it out together.
Even if the latter is true, I can’t conceive of evidence strong enough to get political support for an invasion – unless there is a videotape of the Iranian parliament voting to fund a “Crash Planes into the WTC” program.
It’s not so much a function of how much standing the office of the presidency has suffered in the virtually unilateral approach to Iraq, as that of Western intelligence services. The lesson we have learned, I hope domestically and it’s certainly been learned about us internationally, is that our intelligence services see evidence for whatever it is that our civilian leadership wants them to see. There is no way we would get any support whatsoever internationally for military intervention, though some kind of embargo wouldn’t be out of the question.
In addition, neither Bush nor Kerry could get domestic support for an Iranian invasion. We are a long, long way from launching another attack on ambiguous evidence.
We will do nothing more than keep them in our sights. However, our sights have been shown to be none too good.
Why don’t US attacks saudis,who were far more connected to all the" terrorists"
After elections I’m 100% sure US invades Iran.Why?-Iran is close to having nukes(and they have every right to have them)this scenario is not permissible to Israel,so the connections bettwen al-qaida -iran is big BS.US simply needs some excuse for war.
No, it wasn’t. I made a simple point: That if you want to invade Iran, from a strategic standpoint it makes sense to take Iraq first. Otherwise, you’re forced to go through Pakistan (not bloody likely), or Afghanistan (very difficult terrain), or convince the ‘stans’ to let you invade through them. Again, not likely. Plus, having both Afghanistan and Iraq as staging points allows you to open up a two front war.
That’s ALL I said. I didn’t say it was a good idea, or moral, or the world would like it, or anything else. You guys seriously need to stop jerking your knees every time I make a comment. The fact is, from a purely military/strategic standpoint, the U.S is in a much better position to invade Iran now than it would be if Saddam were still in power. I don’t think this is disputable, really.
Of course, the Iraq war had some negative effects as well. It probably hurt the U.S.'s ability to get other allies on board, and it also put a strain on the military which would make it harder to go after Iran. And invading Iran probably isn’t even in the cards. As others have said, invading Iran is a whole lot more diffucult than invading Iraq. And besides, the Iranian people have great potential to be U.S. allies, and invading them might just wreck that.
But being on Iran’s border has many other benefits - everything from increased surveillance to physical intimidation to launching covert missions is easier. I don’t believe that the U.S. government is contemplating an invasion of Iraq, but focused ground and air ops against al-Qaida or even regime elements is a possibility. All of that becomes easier when the U.S. has modern bases next door.
[nitpick]
Western Afghanistan has a lot of nice flat desert, which would not be a problem. It’s when you get into Iran, and start hitting those 18,000 foot peaks that the trouble starts.
[/nitpick]
But the U.S. Navy can easily control the waters off Iran’s southern coast and launch an invasion from the ships. Is control of contiguous territory really essential?
I presume you mean Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, and/or Armenia… in which case, excuse me while I laugh my fing ass off. If you want to do that, you have a LOT of invading to do, so you might want to get started early. And g’luck getting “permission” to launch an attack from Russia on Armenia or Azerbaijan. I don’t know how the hell you plan on getting a few armored divisions and the staff it takes to make 'em tick through Turkmentistan (massive airdrop? shrugs As far as Afghanistan, you might want to read a few newspapers from the past 2 years. We don’t exactly “control” most of the country, we don’t have a major military base or stronghold, and . Pakistan, no fing way. And I seriously doubt Turkey is going to let you move an army through their Kurdish territory to invade Iran, since they didn’t for Iraq.
So I discard THAT theory.
What?
-
Do you really want to invade a regional power using a country that you don’t control with a powerful insurgency and a “soveriegn” government?
-
Last time I checked, Iran isn’t landlocked, and has a good amount of coast line. Just hit them south of the Zagros in Sistan Va Baluchestan. We managed to invade Iraq without a massive regional buildup. I don’t see why semi-holding onto Iraq makes our job of invading Iran much easier, especially since coming in through Iraq means going over a rather mountainous region.
-
Saddam being in power or not being in power is irrelevant. He wouldn’t (and couldn’t) have lifted a finger to help Iran.
-
Now that we have kicked the hornets’ nest, not only does Iran exert pretty strong control over the Shia’a in Iraq, but a network of resistence has started in the region. People who weren’t convinced of the US’s imperialist intentions pre-Iraq are now very well aware, and will be very willing to fight, especially seeing the relative success of the Iraqi insurgency.
-
Now that we have 140,000 troops desperately trying to hold onto the Iraq situation, you’re going to need a helluva lot more troops pulled from Allah knows where - not only would the resistence in Iraq gain a lot of strength as attention is diverted to Iran, but Iran is (as has been covered) a much larger country with a much more loyal military. You’re going to need a HELLUVA lot more than 140,000 troops, the march to Tehran is much longer than that to Baghdad, the terrain is less friendly…
-
If we so much as manuever our forces into position, Iran is just going to give Sistani et al a nudge and kick off a full scale revolution in Iraq.
-
I don’t think the Middle Eastern/Central Asian countries/people are going to sit back and twiddle their thumbs as America invades the THIRD country in the region.
-
Iraq didn’t have WMDs. Iran very well might (having not suffered under a decade of sanctions and international scrutiny, being fairly well along in their nuclear program, getting a lot of military aid from other countries, etc). Whether they deploy them or not is up in the air (if they do, they may suffer significant backlash) - but what we really have to worry about is them saying, “Oh, yea? You’re invading us for ties to Al Qaeda? OK, fine. But watch your ass, because guess what? They “broke into” a facility and “stole” a few goodies.”
In conclusion… We aren’t in a better position with Iraq. we could have invaded Iran more easily from the Gulf, we would now be fighting a 2-front war (possibly 3-front if the Afghanis warlords saw their chance and made a move), the invasion would be MUCH more complex and manpower intensive, MUCH harder fighting, MUCH higher casualties, MUCH higher effect on the regional stability, and in general is MUCH riskier. Iraq was a walk in the park until the insurgents and assorted terrorists rose up. Iran isn’t stupid. They know that we can be beat if they fight right, and you can bet your ass that they’d go underground and prepared in advance.
[quote]
But being on Iran’s border has many other benefits
O_o I don’t think spying on Iran was ever a challenge for the US intellig- Er, wait, they’ve proven that they are inept bunglers who couldn’t spy the side of a bar. Point taken.
Yea, good idea. Get the Iranians to get their clerics to get the Iraqis to fight harder. :rolleyes:
But Sam, I thought Iraq was a sovereign government that wasn’t going to be turned into a giant US military base! Man, you guys get confusing when you start changing positions so often.
It would also help if we actually controlled that part of Afghanistan, if we had more than 20,000 troops or any military base of note in Afghanistan, and if there were any major roads through there (OK, there is one, but it isn’t anything like the highway leading directly to Baghdad)
BrainGlutton beat me to the punch with his post, it would be much easier to invade through the SE corner around the Gulf of Oman… unless I missed something and we stopped doing amphibious assaults some time in the past few years. The march to Tehran is longer, but it is much flatter and easier than coming in through Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Turkey, Iraq, or (since Sam insists) Azerbaijan or Armenia.
For a reference, I’ve dug up this map
Oh, my other reference
(that is actually a pretty nifty map site)
Zagadka said:
Did you even bother to read my message? Or did you just scan it looking for keywords to attack or something? Because your points are exactly mine, save that you think the U.S. couldn’t go through Afghanistan. I said that Iraq was an important staging point BECAUSE the other countries you mentioned would not be acceptable. It was pretty plain, I think. I can only assume that you didn’t even bother to read what I said.
On to your other points:
If the U.S. military decided to amass on the Iranian border, there isn’t a damned thing the insurgents could do about it. Once again, note that I’m limiting my comments to the strategic military use of Iraq as a staging point. Would it inflame the Iraq situation? Certainly. I did NOT say that overall this was a good idea. I said, “If your ultimate goal is attacking Iran, going through Iraq first makes sense.”
However, I agree that the U.S. would have to have the approval of the current Iraqi government. If it doesn’t get it and goes ahead anyway, that could indeed kick off major rebellion. If it does get it, it’s not clear what would happen regardless of what Sistani does - currently, the new Iraqi government enjoys fairly high approval ratings. And needless to say, the Kurds would be heartily on the U.S.'s side.
Brainglutton made a similar point - why go through a country when you can invade from the sea? The answer is that you grossly underestimate how hard it is to launch a full scale invasion from the water. You can launch a few thousand Marines that way. You aren’t going to put 300,000 soldiers and heavy equipment into Iran from the water.
And what do you mean you managed to invade Iraq without a massive regional buildup? Where do you think the troops came from? They weren’t landed by boat; Of COURSE there was a huge regional buildup. In fact, one of the things that set off the timetable for the invasion was the fact that there were huge encampments of forces sitting in Kuwait. Where do you think the 3rd infantry went into Iraq? Hell, 47,000 Brits, Australians, and Poles alone went into Iraq through Kuwait staging areas.
That was not my point. My point was that if Saddam were still in place, the U.S. wouldn’t have Iraq to stage from. I already addressed the notion of launching a massive invasion of another country from the water. Unless we’re talking about a country the size of Grenada or maybe Cuba, forget it. And Iran has advanced anti-ship missiles.
It isn’t clear how strong Iran’s influence is among the Shia. Sistani in particular doesn’t seem to be an Iranian puppet, and HE is the most powerful Shia in the area. Although the Iranian influence can’t be discounted. But once again, as long as we are limiting our discussion to the strategic use of Iraq to attack Iran, it’s irrelevant what the Shia in Iraq think, because they can’t do diddly to the U.S. military machine.
A point I noted in my first message. If you’d bother to read them.
A point I also noted.
You have no evidence of this, and are speculating.
And just what would they do? None of them have force projection capabilities of any reasonable strength, aside from Turkey. And Turkey is not about to attack the United States. In fact, none of them are. The U.S. would destroy any attacking force with ease. And since the U.S. doesn’t need to invade and occupy them, it could do it without breaking a sweat.
A fair point, but somewhat moot if it can be proven that Iran is ALREADY doing this. Which would be the reason for an invasion in the first place, no?
Nope, I’m an advanced AI engine.
However, I believe my comment at the top of the thread was merely an introduction to my poitns below, so whatever.
And I maintain my disagreement. Staging in Iraq means that you are leaving your back-line troops, your supply depots, your supply chain, your entire rear echelon, etc almost completely open to attack. I agree that the Iraqi insurgents couldn’t do much if we moved in the 300-500,000 troops I think you’d need to invade Iran, but once those troops move in, you’re in a very sticky situation, having to guard the rear of your forces as carefully as you do the front and flanks. They don’t need to do much - they can simply do hit and runs on convoys, throw the urban centers into chaos, and it would make life very difficult for us, unless we took Iran very quickly, which we wouldn’t.
Sure you can. Just not in one move. It would be the largest amphibious invasion in the history of anything, and it would probably need its own Operation code and command & control heirarchy. I’m confident that the US could establish a beach head in the Gulf of Oman. If you’re Iran, you let America land, because you want to concentrate your resistance to the mountain regions and around Tehran.
Quite. They still came on boats, and they still landed those troops and brigades. There are a number of ports in SE Iran to capture and use. I don’t think it is entirely unfeasible to invade from there if you don’t have Iraq.
Granted. But hey, the Navy hasn’t had any excitement in a while.
They can if it is sitting in Iraq O_o
Call it an educated speculation.
I dunno, maybe something crazy and wild like hijack airplanes and crash them into buildings?
They know very well that they can’t really do shit to the US military machine. This lack of power does not mean they are harmless. When the bully is pushing you around, you don’t punch him in the face. You piss in his milk when he isn’t looking.
The era of conventional warfare where countries know that other countries won’t retaliate is over - because you don’t know which countries will turn a blind eye to international groups after ya.
So unless you plan on invading the entire Middle East, yes, they can project power. Not directly, not instantly, but they can project it nonetheless.
No.
Unless you want to up and invade North Korea, Pakistan, India, South America, Brazil, and Israel…
This whole idea of Sam Stone is hardly worth the time and I’m disappointed. He usually does a hell of a lot better than this.
You point is entirely valid from a factual point of view. However, you overlook the simple truth that GW, et all seem to have convinced themselves that the Iraqis would be so happy to be rid of Saddam that they would be our cooperative friends for ever and ever. Under that assumption administration nabobs could have convinced themselves, and they seem ridiculously easy to convince of something that they want to do, that Iraq really could be an ideal staging area for Iran. And we would get it for free because, remember, Iraqi oil revenue was going to pick of the tab.
It all sound whacky, I know, but I wouldn’t put any silliness past them any more.
What idea is that? I have not given any suggestions as to what the U.S. should actually do. All I’m saying is that if you want to invade Iran, it’s a hell of a lot easier to do it overland through Iraq than from the sea, and those are really the only options. You think this is a silly notion?
I call the idea of landing an invasion force on Iranian shores to be the silly idea.
I have intentionally limited this discussion to military tactics, and not issues like world geopolitics or the effect on other countries, including Iraq. I’m assuming that for the U.S. to invade Iran, the reason has to be so compelling that all other issues become secondary. Once the decision has been made, would you rather launch your invasion from fowards staging points in Iraq and Afghanistan, or by attempting to launch an amphibious invasion from the water.
If you want to quibble over whether suggesting the way to invade Iran is starting from Iraq is or is not an idea, go ahead.
And I call any invasion of Iran from any place a silly idea.
I don’t find the thought that Al Qaeda members traveled freely in Iran all that shocking. After all, they also traveled pretty freely in the US and learned here how to crash airplanes into tall buildings.
Zag
Thats part of the risks that military planners take into account, even with mainly feyadin stay behinds, the Iraqis were not able to do much against US forces. It was only when the surrender took place and the situation in Iraq became static , did the casualties start to mount.
But bear in mind that when American and allied forces rolled into Iraq at the start,they may have had a cadre size force , that had taken part in combat , in Operation Desert Storm and maybe Panama, any near term future combat will have an american force thats almost purely combat veterans.
I don’t think you will be able to compare any future combat against OIF, at least in the near term.
For two hundred thousand troops , it took 4 years to build up the logistics to be able to support the normandy landings. For military planners , its probably not even on the table , just to have that many eggs in one basket, just incase Iran does have nukes
Declan
Four years is a little exaggerated. The buildup for Normandy didn’t start in earnest until after the end of the North African campaign late in January of 1943. So the major part of the buildup for Normandy was from February of 1943 to June of 1944, about 17 months.
No, any sort of war I’d judge as being extremely unlikely ( my opinion of the Bush administration is not very high, but I truly don’t think even they would overreach themselves to that extent).
But I will say that at the very basic level that Sam is framing the issue, I agree with him. On paper Iraq is very useful as a staging ground, certainly more useful than anywhere else. The problem in attacking from the east or the coast is that much of the population and government centers are in the west and northwest ( or at best in the center, like Isfahan ). The Iranian coast with its dearth of decent ports and the huge deserts of the Daht-i-Kavir and Dasht-i-Lut make penetration from Central Asia or the southeast corner on the Gulf of Oman problematic - there ain’t much there, certainly nothing to halt the government from functioning or compel it to surrender - and it’ws a long slog to the areas that matter ( even Bandar Abbas isn’t terribly important ). A multi-pronged threat is usually a better idea and major thrusts from the west to pin the Iranian army, while mobile forces attacked from the east, would make sense.
Of course that’s on paper. In practical terms not only do I also agree it would profoundly stupid to launch such an assault in the first place, it would have also be profoundly dumb to invade Iraq with the primary notion of using it to launch attacks on its neighbors. Which is where I and the neo-cons part ways ( actually we part ways in a number of areas 
) - their most ambitious ideas of creating “Central Fortress Iraq” is a fool’s errand IMHO. Yeah, it’s easier to invade Iran if you have Iraq as a staging ground. But it is NOT smarter to invade Iraq so as to secure that staging ground. Iraq isn’t vital for the U.S. to take on Iran if it came to that - just useful.
- Tamerlane
Umm, ya my bad
Four years would have put it around 1939-40 , when the states was not even officially in the war.
Declan