Iran Invasion soon ?
- Thread starter GG20DELTA
- Start date
Full-scale invasion and occupation may not occur. US economy is recovering but its current internal environment may not be favorable for the said action.
However, a Libya style military operation can be expected. Iranian strategic and military assets might be nuetralized, and Iranian regime may be immensely weakened.
However, a Libya style military operation can be expected. Iranian strategic and military assets might be nuetralized, and Iranian regime may be immensely weakened.
Iran is a totally different ballgame compared to Libya, not only will it require more resources but there is much more at stake here, with much wider implications. Also, unlike the Libyans, the Iranians can match their rhetoric with actions and make it unpleasant for those initiating hostilities against it. The key difference however is that with Iran, there will be more of a ''coalition of the willing'', not only Israel but most of the Sunni Arab gulf states would likely play a part.
Same was said prior to invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Several Arab nations actually favor this confrontation. A strong Iran gives them nightmares.
So does USA. Islamic nations, alone, are not a problem for USA.
A united front would be a different ballgame in real sense. But unity is lacking among the Islamic nations in current times.
True, and look at what a disaster that was! Getting in was relatively easy but getting out was somewhat more ''difficult'' wasn't it? My statement was in reference to Iran being a much harder nut to crack than Libya, due to a number of factors. For instance, you would agree that the Iranian military is not in the same state as dis-neglect the Libyan military was, wouldn't you?
The question is not whether Uncle Sam, with allies in tow, can triumph militarily but whether there are right reasons for military action against Iran and the wider global effects that will result. Have we not learnt anything from Iraq and Afghanistan?
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...s-will-only-stir-up-hornets-nest-6292656.html
Assuming there will be military action against Iran, would it be because of genuine fears that Iran might in the future use it's newly acquired nuke capability [not sure why it would if not attacked first] or largely to ensure that Israel and the U.S. continue to maintain hegemony in the Middle East and that the Sunni allies of the U.S. don't feel threatened?
In modern times has there been such a thing as ''Islamic unity'' or ''Arab unity'' - it's a myth, it doesn't exist! The Arabs in the past were more interested in ''competing'' with one another or scheming for influence, than dealing with other problems.
Last edited:
Polls show most Americans were in favor of military intervention in Libya and I would not go so far as to call it a mini war since the US involvement was only weeks long.
Libya Poll | 70% of Americans back no-fly operation in Libya, CNN poll finds - Los Angeles Times
In regards to Obama I was referring to US government foreign policy style not how most people think war should be conducted.
As others have commented I'd take issue with the question. The US is not going to invade Iran. A US air campaign is possible but when or if is an open question. However, one should be careful reading too much into US carrier deployments in or near the Gulf. Normally there's 1.5 to 1.7 carriers on station. So sometimes there's one but more than half the time there are two operating there.
It's also entirely accurate that Romney or Gingrich, if elected, seem far more likely to strike Iran, than President Obama. At some point the IAEA is going to indicate Iran is actually very close and some in the West are going to have to decide if Iran going nuclear is a better outcome than an air campaign to retard that program. There are many excellent arguments to made on either side of this issue. Iran will go nuclear one day. The real question is whether the current regime is actually a rational actor. Deterrence doesn't work if the other side is not rational.
It's also entirely accurate that Romney or Gingrich, if elected, seem far more likely to strike Iran, than President Obama. At some point the IAEA is going to indicate Iran is actually very close and some in the West are going to have to decide if Iran going nuclear is a better outcome than an air campaign to retard that program. There are many excellent arguments to made on either side of this issue. Iran will go nuclear one day. The real question is whether the current regime is actually a rational actor. Deterrence doesn't work if the other side is not rational.
As an American I can say, Yeah, we are pretty tired of war. However, the thought of another nuclear armed Islamic state scares us to death.
Just how did the topic, “Iran Invasion soon?” becomes so hinged completely up on internal USA presidential politics? The possible events under discussion have always been driven by ether Iranian actions and or their public statements.
As to who wants to invade Iran so to then bring down its government? There are several Gulf States that are far more desirous of that outcome than is the US. Iran does not pose a threat to the USA's vary existence as it does to several of the micro states in the region and it does not care which version of Islamic religious thought become dominate within the Islamic world. Though we do wish that eventually the creed of “live and let live” becomes triumphant. If anybody is pushing for offensive military action it is the other Muslims within the Gulf who feel threatened by Iran if they say so publicly or not.
As to the issue current internal American politics, political Candidates often say things that they cannot and will not do when they are elected and this will not drive events. Whoever is president ( next year) at the time of future events will have to respond in a way that is appropriate to the conditions that exist at that future time. Campaigning is about hypotheticals.
Back on topic, it seems that the Iranian government thinks that it can live with the current situation, at least for now, but it will continue to make trouble wherever it can by other means than direct military action that would demand a direct military response.
I dont really trust fox or CNN polls. Most people i've talked to said yes it was a good thing but most didnt want it. We've begun to find supporting anything in the ME somehow bites us in the but anyways so why care?
The US contributed vastly in the libya campaign. EW, Tomahawks, Logistics, etc. We just weren't "seen" doing much. If we had gone in fast hard and total we could have taken out kadafi far sooner. Instead just like before Iraq we allowed them ample time to prepare.
And im not holding my breath for libyan moderation in politics.....the islamic parties are all wining...yes even the ones who were AQ and taliban.
Part of it has been timing, Obama just got lucky. Bush had 9/11 in his first year in office.
For most of the rest, Bush started too hard, Obama started too soft. The Reset Button, Hand of Friendship, closing Guantanamo, getting out of Iraq by 2009, and Afghanistan by 2010 all failed and have been heavily modified or discarded. Go back and look at the Bush policies in 2008, compare them to the Obama policies in 2012, and there is not as much difference as you think.
One big difference between Obama and those before him is that he does not understand international diplomacy. As a consequence the US has fewer friends, is less trusted by its allies, and is less respected by its enemies than when Obama came into office. Obama does not understand that diplomacy is different from politics where everything you say and do is forgotten as soon as the next news cycle begins, not remembered and tabulated.
There will be no invasion by the US, maybe NATO, but I highly doubt it. Plus don't forget that Obama has put forth a draw down of the Army by 10 brigades. And the Marines are going to take a hit also.
But to be serious the Iranians without a nuke are not a serious military threat. They are quite weak with no modern combat tactics. and their general staff is hilarous. They would be done in 10 days of ground war against the US . 6 if its NATO.
One final point Iran is losing nuclear scientists at a huge rate, by whatever means. Even with **** help the brain drain is on.
But to be serious the Iranians without a nuke are not a serious military threat. They are quite weak with no modern combat tactics. and their general staff is hilarous. They would be done in 10 days of ground war against the US . 6 if its NATO.
One final point Iran is losing nuclear scientists at a huge rate, by whatever means. Even with **** help the brain drain is on.
Dismissing internal US politics and believing events are entirely driven by Iran does not indicate a proper understanding of armed conflict. War is entirely political. The calculus that Western leaders will make over whether to strike Iran or not will be a political calculation.
Indeed much of the discussion of whether the West can live with Iran going nuclear is based upon whether they are rational actors in the Western sense and can thus be deterred. Part of the downside in striking Iran is how that will strengthen the regime internally. All of this is politics.
Who the person(s) are who have to make these decisions is not just important but rather central to the issue. Even how these are actors are perceived politically by their counterparts is critical. If the perception is that President Obama is less likely to strike Iran but his possible successor is more likely will in fact impact the overall dynamic significantly.
Indeed much of the discussion of whether the West can live with Iran going nuclear is based upon whether they are rational actors in the Western sense and can thus be deterred. Part of the downside in striking Iran is how that will strengthen the regime internally. All of this is politics.
Who the person(s) are who have to make these decisions is not just important but rather central to the issue. Even how these are actors are perceived politically by their counterparts is critical. If the perception is that President Obama is less likely to strike Iran but his possible successor is more likely will in fact impact the overall dynamic significantly.
Can someone please explain to me what the US problem with Iran is. The nuke story doesn't wash because Israel's got what 100 - 200 nukes at a guess and they are far more aggresive than Iran. This beef is more long standing than the the nuke issue.
I suppose the issue is no one believes Israel will launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the Vatican, Jerusalem, Mecca and every oil field they can reach. They have had the capability for decades and have not used it, a radical religious state on the otherhand.......
Yes well how many times has Iran invaded a foreign nation in the last 50 years? How many times has Israel? It could be argued that Isreal could be called a radical religous state too. They certainly practise apartheid. Like I said the nuke issue is relatively new. I have my own opinions but I'm interested in what others think.
We have a world economy that is not good and the Europeans are having big problems. The US economy is in no better shape than the European one and if the Straits of Hormuz are blocked then thats 20 - 25% of the worlds oil in the poo. What say the Iranians sink block ships across the straits? Very old tactic but just as pertinent today as it was 200 - 300 years ago. Those tankers would have trouble sailing around them or over them if straits are shallow. Mines?
My country sells lamb to Iran and has done for 30 or 40 years. We have sharia killing protocols in our freezing works and it's a very good earner for us. This US & EU action has potential to stuff up a very good commercial relationship. Will the US reimburse us and our companies the losses we would incur? I think not. No use asking the EU because they are close to broke.
The primary concern is that once Iran has Nuclear weapons that they will either use them, supply them to someone who will use them or, perhaps more realistically use them as a shield to protect themselves from retaliation as they ramp up their efforts to gain over riding influence, if not control of the region. The Sunni states perhaps have more to fear than Israel or the West.
What I personally find interesting is at the same time as Iran is flexing their muscles and reminding people how powerful and important Persia once was, Turkey is doing the same.
Perhaps the west should step back and let them sort things out for themselves, after all a war where Sunni fights Shiite, Iran fights the Sunni Gulf States, Iran fights Turkey, but excludes wester involvement, would be horrific but would actually leave the west better off.
Personally I believe the sooner renewables are able to lessen our reliance on oil the better.
The main issue with Iran is they are the biggest state supporter of terror and terror organizations and when they go nuclear they will then have less constraints and a larger deterrent against those trying to constrain them. From Hezbollah, Syria, Hamas, Iraq, etc., they're the most significant destabilizing political actor the US faces.
On top of that is the significant question of whether they are in fact rational actors or not. The USSR might have been an inherently evil expansionist totalitarian state but they were a rational actor and deterrence worked throughout the Cold War. Israel is a Jewish state but it's not a religious state though religious parties hold power. Iran is a theocratic fundamentalist police state with some unique views on how history will unfold. It's not unreasonable to discuss if deterrence will in fact work with them.
In any case dealing with Iran becomes orders of magnitude more difficult once they gain nuclear weapons. Beyond Iran itself there's also perhaps the larger matter of the consequences of Iran going nuclear on the region. There's not really a question over other nations going nuclear in response. Certainly Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt will follow suit. A nuclear arms race in the Middle East is extremely dangerous.
So providing a shield to a destabilizing supporter of state terror, questions over whether they can in fact be deterred, and the resulting regional nuclear arms race are all the reasons why some nations, including the US, are concerned over Iran going nuclear. The real question is why more nations are not as concerned?
On top of that is the significant question of whether they are in fact rational actors or not. The USSR might have been an inherently evil expansionist totalitarian state but they were a rational actor and deterrence worked throughout the Cold War. Israel is a Jewish state but it's not a religious state though religious parties hold power. Iran is a theocratic fundamentalist police state with some unique views on how history will unfold. It's not unreasonable to discuss if deterrence will in fact work with them.
In any case dealing with Iran becomes orders of magnitude more difficult once they gain nuclear weapons. Beyond Iran itself there's also perhaps the larger matter of the consequences of Iran going nuclear on the region. There's not really a question over other nations going nuclear in response. Certainly Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt will follow suit. A nuclear arms race in the Middle East is extremely dangerous.
So providing a shield to a destabilizing supporter of state terror, questions over whether they can in fact be deterred, and the resulting regional nuclear arms race are all the reasons why some nations, including the US, are concerned over Iran going nuclear. The real question is why more nations are not as concerned?
Depends on your actual definitions of ‘invade’ and ‘foreign nation’. I did a little web search and I have 8 ‘invasions’ by Iran that may qualify so far.
:hul
. . . And lets not forget that it is not Iran's nuclear power program that is at odds here. They already have a nuclear power reactor, whats another 2 or 3? No, what the west is pitching fits about is Iran's nuclear enrichment program.
HEU (Highly Enriched Uranium) has few civilian uses and a medical reactor doesn't use much of it. However, Iran has stated they are enriching uranium to levels above 20%. Civil nuclear plants require only 3%-5% enrichment. Once you start going above 20%, the only uses are military, and Iran has no nuclear powered ships. That leaves an atomic bomb, which is a violation of the NPT and throws regional security into a tizzy. A country capable of spawning a whole generation of potential suicide bombers is not one that the west trusts to not use a nuclear weapon. Even a non-nuclear "Dirty" bomb can be devastating in a city. If Someone were to set a nuke off in Saudi Arabia at Ras Tanura, the largest refinery in the world, or the refining centre of Abqaiq in Saudi Arabia; the worlds oil supply would take a severe drop and lose one of the busiest oil shipping terminals for Arabian oil.
Russia, U.K., The United States, and France have all begun reductions in their nuclear arsenals. How can they justify their reductions if potential enemies begin making more nuclear weapons? Also, so long as only a few nations have the bomb, it is easier to negotiate their eventual elimination. The more nations that build them, the harder this gets, and the more likely that someone is going to use one. Should Israel allow inspections? Sure. However, looking at it from their perspective, only Israel is surrounded by enemies that have dedicated themselves to the destruction of the Jewish state.
HEU (Highly Enriched Uranium) has few civilian uses and a medical reactor doesn't use much of it. However, Iran has stated they are enriching uranium to levels above 20%. Civil nuclear plants require only 3%-5% enrichment. Once you start going above 20%, the only uses are military, and Iran has no nuclear powered ships. That leaves an atomic bomb, which is a violation of the NPT and throws regional security into a tizzy. A country capable of spawning a whole generation of potential suicide bombers is not one that the west trusts to not use a nuclear weapon. Even a non-nuclear "Dirty" bomb can be devastating in a city. If Someone were to set a nuke off in Saudi Arabia at Ras Tanura, the largest refinery in the world, or the refining centre of Abqaiq in Saudi Arabia; the worlds oil supply would take a severe drop and lose one of the busiest oil shipping terminals for Arabian oil.
Russia, U.K., The United States, and France have all begun reductions in their nuclear arsenals. How can they justify their reductions if potential enemies begin making more nuclear weapons? Also, so long as only a few nations have the bomb, it is easier to negotiate their eventual elimination. The more nations that build them, the harder this gets, and the more likely that someone is going to use one. Should Israel allow inspections? Sure. However, looking at it from their perspective, only Israel is surrounded by enemies that have dedicated themselves to the destruction of the Jewish state.
Considering the strait is some 56 kilometers wide at its narrowest point and some 90 meters deep, You'd have to sink a whole bunch of ships to block it. At full load, an ultra crude carrier (the largest tankers made) have a full loaded draft of about 85' feet. It would be easier to block the English Channel. Mines are the main concern, and Iranian mini subs.