It's also not just a case of no troups, there is also no justification to do it nor would the US get any backing from anyone else, let alone troops for what would be a very unpopular invasion.
CIA report: we are not attacking Iran for WMD only
- Thread starter gulfsecurity
- Start date
Schumacher
New Member
It'll most likely consist of aerial bombardments & small special ops teams targeting specific sites so lack of troops is not too big an issue.
In the end, Iran is not Iraq. It is better armed that Iraq.
However, based on what they have seen in both Gulf Wars, they should be smart enough to know that the initial phase of US assault is designed to destroy as much of Iran's men and materiel as possible.
And they should be smart enough not to meet US forces head, and be very creative with tactics, use of terrain etc.
However, based on what they have seen in both Gulf Wars, they should be smart enough to know that the initial phase of US assault is designed to destroy as much of Iran's men and materiel as possible.
And they should be smart enough not to meet US forces head, and be very creative with tactics, use of terrain etc.
Iran being better armed than Iraq maybe a bit strong.
One area for instance, Iran's air defence network today is nowhere near as sophisticated or co-ordinated as the Iraqi KARI system of pre-90/91 Gulf War. And we all know what happened to that. Apart from a scattering of modern Russian SAMs like Tor; the vast majority of Irans AD assets are old model HAWK, SA-2/HQ-2 and a handful of SA-5s. Their radar net has had little improvement since the 1970s and the core of IRIAF's fighter strength are airframes that are between 30 to 40 years old.
But you are correct in regards to their tactics, they will almost certainly realise that their best defence is by having an asymmetric response.
All else aside, lack of troops is the decisive factor. Even if Iran goes nuclear, the most will be some U.S. involvement in an international strike force, or pin-point strikes. No major ground invasions by the U.S.
In addition to their much inferior air and air defense forces, I also don't see any other modern systems available to Iran. They produce their own MBT's which are hybrid's of M-60's and early version T-72's. Their main IFV is a reverse engineered BMP-1. What's so spectacular about their armaments? Nothing that Iraq didn't have.
Iran's position has a couple strategic advantages over Iraq's position.
On the pure military side:
On the ground alone, Iran is relatively easily defendable, as long as a number of tentative Allies (Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan) don't "defect" and are used as staging grounds. Iran also has the manpower to actually build the necessary envelope for such a ground defence.
In the air - well, that's been well over-discussed by now. To make it simple: Iran's favoured slightly by terrain if it can exploit it; and it's hindered by technological/supply problems (both flying and ground material). Iraq pretty much didn't have a credible airforce anymore by '91 btw, since they simply handed its remains over to Iran.
On the sea, shaky at the moment, considering Iran's experience with both symmetric and asymmetric naval warfare, and wide use of shore defence systems of various kinds. At least the former Iraq was seriously lacking in '91.
On the counter-strategy side:
Iran definitely has advantages there compared to Iraq '90. Namely of course the destabilized war zones on both sides (Iran, Afghanistan), with two other tentative ones (Pakistan, Kurdistan). Playing it right, they could create definitive problems there.
Unlike Iraq, there are possibilities for Iran to exploit to avoid some supply problems, in case of a more drawn out sitation; in particular via Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. In addition, Kazakhstan and Russia itself would still have possibilities via the Casbian Sea. Unlike that situation, Iraq was pretty much cut off from all sides in '91, except for Jordan's neutrality.
On the pure military side:
On the ground alone, Iran is relatively easily defendable, as long as a number of tentative Allies (Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan) don't "defect" and are used as staging grounds. Iran also has the manpower to actually build the necessary envelope for such a ground defence.
In the air - well, that's been well over-discussed by now. To make it simple: Iran's favoured slightly by terrain if it can exploit it; and it's hindered by technological/supply problems (both flying and ground material). Iraq pretty much didn't have a credible airforce anymore by '91 btw, since they simply handed its remains over to Iran.
On the sea, shaky at the moment, considering Iran's experience with both symmetric and asymmetric naval warfare, and wide use of shore defence systems of various kinds. At least the former Iraq was seriously lacking in '91.
On the counter-strategy side:
Iran definitely has advantages there compared to Iraq '90. Namely of course the destabilized war zones on both sides (Iran, Afghanistan), with two other tentative ones (Pakistan, Kurdistan). Playing it right, they could create definitive problems there.
Unlike Iraq, there are possibilities for Iran to exploit to avoid some supply problems, in case of a more drawn out sitation; in particular via Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. In addition, Kazakhstan and Russia itself would still have possibilities via the Casbian Sea. Unlike that situation, Iraq was pretty much cut off from all sides in '91, except for Jordan's neutrality.
Cruelio.com
Banned Member
If it doesn't entail actually OCCUPYING iraq then the U.S. would swiftly and quickly destroy that country. I think it's a horrid idea though, just another problem.
Capt. Picard
New Member
Besides being militarily incapable of invading Iran, nothing will happen because the oil price would probably hit $200 a barrel. This would punge the US and the rest of the world into a severe recession and would probably be the last nail in the coffin of the USA's reputation.
It will never happen, no matter how likely the neocons/republicans are going to loose the election.
It will never happen, no matter how likely the neocons/republicans are going to loose the election.
That's a new one...
After GW1, much of Iraq's war materiel were destroyed, and no replacements were made available during the many years of arms embargo between GW1 and GW2.
Also, sale of its oil - Iraq's main income - was curtailed for many years, weakening the economy.
So when US invaded they faced a depleted, demoralised army of a almost defeated country.
Both these countries happily allowed USA to use them in the attack against Afganistan and Iraq. I wouldnt be so sure what USA couldnt persuade them to help against Iran. Thats said, Iran is much lager, so will naturally require much large forces for ground invasion & occupation. Iran is much more open society than Iraq, peoples have Iraq example before they eyes - so iranians will be much less susceptible to propaganda.
Iran cant offer much against US aviation - not because it is worse than Iraq. It is not. Just because it is still same 30-years, only partially developed air defense - and US will use full-range modern forces against it. Even 30 years ago such defense wouldnt have much chances against USA - it always lacked some vital components to face 1st-rate airforce.
I really cant see that much difference here - if US manage to persuade all big players to embargo Iran just as Iraq - Iran would have very same supply difficulties. Without such persuading Iraq also wouldnt have problems with supply - Caspian Sea or not.
Umm... no?
Sure, there's a single Azerbaijani Company in Iraq, but that's more of a token force.
In connection with Iran, Azerbaijan would never agree to anything - for the simple reason that around 25% of the Iranian population is Azeri (and those 25% are twice as many people as there are in Azerbaijan).
Turkmenistan has granted the coalition overflight rights to get to Afghanistan with a official policy of "positive neutrality", but that's it. There were attempts by the USAF to relocate their former base from Uzbekistan to Turkmenistan in 2005 when they were forced out of there, but Turkmenistan didn't jive with it.
They didnt send they troops in Iraq ofc (what good they would be for anyway?), but they granted US overflight and refueling right. Uzbekistan also allowed US base there. Azerbaijan might not agree, true - but will it change anything really? US could just as well embargo Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan - after all, they are even indisputable dictatorship states...
Evicted in 2005 with the US military kicked out by Uzbekistan - they got fed up with being pressured into this.
The US was seriously considering asking Syria for overflight rights in 1991. Does that make them allies?
Increasing the number of "partners" in the socalled CoW? Most of those "partners" (all but 4 or 5) provide between ... well, 20 and 200 soldiers. What good are those for?
Feanor:
Most of the Azeri population in Iran is well mixed into the population. There are clusters in the northwest of course, but most live in Teheran and a number of provinces that are far more remote from the Azerbaijan border.
Not "most". They make up most of the population of 4 provinces in the NW, with a combined population of about 9 million, and are a significant minority in neighbouring provinces. As with Kurds in Turkey, large numbers have moved from the relatively poor NW to the biggest cities (& Tehran is the biggest, of course) & most economically dynamic regions (e.g.the oil-producing south), but those emigrants aren't "most" Azeris - yet.
Plus those in neighbouring provinces, where they're a large proportion, though not a majority. In the absence of detailed census figures (& unfortunately the Iranian national statistics office doesn't have any ethnic data on the English version of its website - http://www.sci.org.ir/portal/faces/public/sci_en/ - though it does have GDP by province, or ostans as they call them), we can't settle this definitely, but if we accept the CIA estimate of 24% Azeri (i.e. about 17 million according to the 1385 census), & compare it with the %age of the populations of generally accepted Azeri-majority ostans (12.8%) & those neighbouring ostans generally accepted to have substantial Azeri populations, & Azeri-majority districts (6.9), it would seem likely that maybe half of all Iranian Azeris live in the contiguous Azeri north-west.
Tehran has 17.6%, mostly not Azeri.
Ethically questionable when is looking the area handled, especially
divergent borderline there neigbourhood is close holding merits of its own.
Remote district of bitter abbas, a watchful eye, meritorious maybe
quarrelsome past is indicator for dissidence.
It is beyond my ken conflicts are above respecting none. If it wasn't islamic
background area, I'd said little emotional balm next.
divergent borderline there neigbourhood is close holding merits of its own.
Remote district of bitter abbas, a watchful eye, meritorious maybe
quarrelsome past is indicator for dissidence.
It is beyond my ken conflicts are above respecting none. If it wasn't islamic
background area, I'd said little emotional balm next.