Iran v US confrontation

[Carolina Red]

It depends on the goal. It would be possible to defeat the conventional military and bring down the current regime. You can't do guerrilla warfare with ships, aircraft and tanks, and most of their equipment is outdated and/or out of service. Their current military has almost zero experience of modern conventional conflict and hasn't the means to train for it.

The problem is what happens after that phase and without accepting total war it would be pretty much impossible to make any headway. You would assume given the last 20 years the US goal would be to install their own puppet regime. They could do it, but it would be extremely unlikely to last in a place like Iran.

I question whether we could defeat the conventional ground forces in Iran.

The country is something like 75% mountains and the rest desert, but you have to go through the mountains to get to the desert. That means the cream of our Army, the armored divisions, are largely irrelevant.

We would be fighting in a hot Switzerland with the population of Germany. That’s not a recipe for success.

 

[VorZakone]

Good luck fighting Iran's military. It'll be worse for the US than Vietnam/Afghanistan/Iraq.

 

[2cents]

I question whether we could defeat the conventional ground forces in Iran.

The country is something like 75% mountains and the rest desert, but you have to go through the mountains to get to the desert. That means the cream of our Army, the armored divisions, are largely irrelevant.

We would be fighting in a hot Switzerland with the population of Germany. That’s not a recipe for success.

I think there’s more desert than mountains. The areas along the Iraqi border are very mountainous as you go north from the Gulf, although there’s nothing blocking an invasion from Basra in the extreme southwest. There are more mountainous regions in the north-west, north of Tehran, and to a lesser extent the north-east. The rest of the country (i.e. the entire centre and east) is on a plateau, with the major cities in the centre and large deserts to the east and southeast. An invasion from the Gulf wouldn’t find too many major physical obstacles on a march north to Tehran. There are excellent highways connecting the entire country.

 

[11101]

I question whether we could defeat the conventional ground forces in Iran.

The country is something like 75% mountains and the rest desert, but you have to go through the mountains to get to the desert. That means the cream of our Army, the armored divisions, are largely irrelevant.

We would be fighting in a hot Switzerland with the population of Germany. That’s not a recipe for success.

Tehran's head of power is in a fairly accessible location and it's Navy is a sitting duck in Bandar Abbas. It wouldn't be too troubling to get significant forces in the South and move up through the desert to Tehran without encountering any real obstacles. Plus you have US overseas airbases coming in from 3 sides of the country.

I remember when the Iraq invasion happened there were lots of stories about how hardened the Iraqi Republican Guard were. In reality they couldn't surrender fast enough. American military power is quite a thing when it's all pointing in one direction. The problems come when the Army is gone and the soldiers have blended back into the population.

 

[MarylandMUFan]

Even if we could win, what would happen next? It's too horrible to even consider.

 

[nimic]

Tehran's head of power is in a fairly accessible location and it's Navy is a sitting duck in Bandar Abbas. It wouldn't be too troubling to get significant forces in the South and move up through the desert to Tehran without encountering any real obstacles. Plus you have US overseas airbases coming in from 3 sides of the country.

I remember when the Iraq invasion happened there were lots of stories about how hardened the Iraqi Republican Guard were. In reality they couldn't surrender fast enough. American military power is quite a thing when it's all pointing in one direction. The problems come when the Army is gone and the soldiers have blended back into the population.

Iran has more than twice the population of Iraq, and is nearly four times as large. It is also much more of a nation than Iraq ever was. It's not going to be the same thing. Like others have said, they can surely thoroughly bomb Iran, and sink its fleet, but an actual invasion would be difficult.

 

[Carolina Red]

I think there’s more desert than mountains. The areas along the Iraqi border are very mountainous as you go north from the Gulf, although there’s nothing blocking an invasion from Basra in the extreme southwest. There are more mountainous regions in the north-west, north of Tehran, and to a lesser extent the north-east. The rest of the country (i.e. the entire centre and east) is on a plateau, with the major cities in the centre and large deserts to the east and southeast. An invasion from the Gulf wouldn’t find too many major physical obstacles on a march north to Tehran. There are excellent highways connecting the entire country.

I’m going off of this...
https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/geopolitics-iran-holding-center-mountain-fortress

 

[Carolina Red]

Tehran's head of power is in a fairly accessible location and it's Navy is a sitting duck in Bandar Abbas. It wouldn't be too troubling to get significant forces in the South and move up through the desert to Tehran without encountering any real obstacles. Plus you have US overseas airbases coming in from 3 sides of the country.

I remember when the Iraq invasion happened there were lots of stories about how hardened the Iraqi Republican Guard were. In reality they couldn't surrender fast enough. American military power is quite a thing when it's all pointing in one direction. The problems come when the Army is gone and the soldiers have blended back into the population.

That kinda thinking is the exact thinking I hope nobody in Washington is having.

 

[2cents]

I’m going off of this...
https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/geopolitics-iran-holding-center-mountain-fortress

That matches up pretty much with what I wrote, but I think it overrates the fortress. It suggests the Mongols are the only invaders to conquer Iran successfully, from the north-east, when Alexander and the Arabs did it way before from the west, the British did it from the south a couple of times, the Soviets once from the north, and about a dozen other various Mongol and Turkish tribes have done it in medieval times from Afghanistan and beyond. It also seems to regard the Persian Gulf and the interior flatlands as a buffer, when to me they seem a vulnerability. I’ve travelled easily from Tehran to Bandar Abbas, via places like Isfahan and Shiraz, where the bulk of the population live, and while the plateau is high, it’s not overwhelmingly rugged or impassable by any means. Some pics:

This is the outskirts of Isfahan:

These are taken from the Tehran - Bandar Abbas train:

Moving north out of Bandar Abbas there is a line of mountains to face, but they’re nowhere near as formidable as in the West. The other thing, which the article mentions, is that the highest density mountainous regions are Kurdish, which the US could conceivably manipulate to its advantage.

Still the costs of an invasion would be astronomical, it would be far worse than anything the Americans have engaged in outside their civil war and the world wars. So not gonna happen. It’s inconceivable that any outside power could successfully occupy cities like Tehran, Tabriz, Isfahan and Mashhad.

 

[fishfingers15]

Lately, nature of posts are indicative of an imminent assault than how to prevent them

 

[Red Defence]

"The attacks have severely affected the prime minister's reputation as he was trying to be a mediator between the United States and Iran," said the source close to the premier. "It is a serious concern, and making mistakes when determining facts is impermissible."

https://japantoday.com/category/national/japan-demands-more-u.s.-proof-that-iran-attacked-tankers

Japan not convinced about Iran being the cause of these attacks. Was a strange co-incidence that Japanese tankers were hit during Japanese talks with Iran.

Btw did we see any oil slicks from these incidents?

 

[Sky1981]

How do you define fall?

Irag like

Times have changed. You really cant make a country fall like ancient time, being demolished from air is as good as fallen.

 

[Carolina Red]

That matches up pretty much with what I wrote, but I think it overrates the fortress. It suggests the Mongols are the only invaders to conquer Iran successfully, from the north-east, when Alexander and the Arabs did it way before from the west, the British did it from the south a couple of times, the Soviets once from the north, and about a dozen other various Mongol and Turkish tribes have done it in medieval times from Afghanistan and beyond. It also seems to regard the Persian Gulf and the interior flatlands as a buffer, when to me they seem a vulnerability. I’ve travelled easily from Tehran to Bandar Abbas, via places like Isfahan and Shiraz, where the bulk of the population live, and while the plateau is high, it’s not overwhelmingly rugged or impassable by any means. Some pics:

This is the outskirts of Isfahan:

These are taken from the Tehran - Bandar Abbas train:

Moving north out of Bandar Abbas there is a line of mountains to face, but they’re nowhere near as formidable as in the West. The other thing, which the article mentions, is that the highest density mountainous regions are Kurdish, which the US could conceivably manipulate to its advantage.

Still the costs of an invasion would be astronomical, it would be far worse than anything the Americans have engaged in outside their civil war and the world wars. So not gonna happen. It’s inconceivable that any outside power could successfully occupy cities like Tehran, Tabriz, Isfahan and Mashhad.

How would we land at Bandar Abbās? It is in the middle of the Strait of Hormuz, which would be mined and a shooting gallery for anti-ship missiles in the event of war.

If we did somehow manage to land there, then the passes to go through the center of Iran towards Tehran would create a funnel effect on our armor. The IED threat would be enormous.

It’s too mountainous for anything other than light infantry or air assault infantry in the West, and again, the same issue of IED’s arises if you try to push armor though passes there.

 

[sun_tzu]

How would we land at Bandar Abbās? It is in the middle of the Strait of Hormuz, which would be mined and a shooting gallery for anti-ship missiles in the event of war.

If we did somehow manage to land there, then the passes to go through the center of Iran towards Tehran would create a funnel effect on our armor. The IED threat would be enormous.

It’s too mountainous for anything other than light infantry or air assault infantry in the West, and again, the same issue of IED’s arises if you try to push armor though passes there.

Logical approach is sanctions and bombing hoping the civilian population rise up...

Just not sure a civilian uprising brought about by bombings and starvation necessarily results in a regime any better from a USA perspective

 

[Carolina Red]

Logical approach is sanctions and bombing hoping the civilian population rise up...

Just not sure a civilian uprising brought about by bombings and starvation necessarily results in a regime any better from a USA perspective

I don’t see how that would turn them any direction other than against us.

 

[BobbyManc]

Logical approach is sanctions and bombing hoping the civilian population rise up...

Just not sure a civilian uprising brought about by bombings and starvation necessarily results in a regime any better from a USA perspective

That doesn't sound logical at all. If the USA wants to achieve a more malleable leadership in Iran then I can't think of many worse approaches than imposing sanctions and bombing its citizens.

 

[2cents]

How would we land at Bandar Abbās? It is in the middle of the Strait of Hormuz, which would be mined and a shooting gallery for anti-ship missiles in the event of war.

If we did somehow manage to land there, then the passes to go through the center of Iran towards Tehran would create a funnel effect on our armor. The IED threat would be enormous.

It’s too mountainous for anything other than light infantry or air assault infantry in the West, and again, the same issue of IED’s arises if you try to push armor though passes there.

I just don’t see the route north from Bandar Abbas as an impassable obstacle the way the western mountains are. Tricky terrain initially sure, but doable (at great cost of course). As for seizing the coast and its ports, I’d imagine that would be one of the easier parts of such a campaign, given the military infrastructure the US has built up in the Gulf over the decades. And the south wouldn’t be the only invasion route - there is a flat, direct highway from Herat to Mashhad, and from there on to central Iran is flat desert mostly, the same way all those Turkish and Mongol tribes came over the centuries.

 

[Carolina Red]

Tricky terrain initially sure, but doable (at great cost of course). As for seizing the coast and its ports, I’d imagine that would be one of the easier parts of such a campaign, given the military infrastructure the US has built up in the Gulf over the decades.

1) “at great cost” - We aren’t that country anymore. We want short, fast wars. 4500 men died in Iraq in a decade and that was seen as too many and the war was massively protested. How many could we lose on that push to Tehran?

2) “as for seizing the coast” - Military infrastructure and Naval power doesn’t count for much against a barrage of anti-ship missiles and assymetrical threats sinking our carrier. “In 2002, during the exercise “Millennium Challenge,” U.S. Marine lieutenant general Paul Van Riper, playing the red team, pummeled a U.S. Navy carrier task force by deploying the resources at Tehran’s disposal imaginatively.”
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/iran-vs-america-how-naval-war-would-go-down-who-wins-60547

 

[sun_tzu]

I don’t see how that would turn them any direction other than against us.

In theory you can target strikes on military targets... And you can target sanctions against the leadership... Though I'm not sure how successful they could be in insulating the population...

That said I don't recall people welcoming the tanks and troops as liberators in Afghanistan and Iraq so I struggle to imagine it being any different in iran

 

[Red Defence]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ed-a-us-cyber-espionage-network-idUSKCN1TI1IY

The secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Ali Shamkhani, said on Monday: “One of the most complicated CIA cyber espionage networks that had an important role in the CIA’s operations in different countries was exposed by the Iranian intelligence agencies a while ago and was dismantled.”

“We shared the information about the exposed network with our allies that led to the identification and arrest of CIA intelligence agents,” Shamkhani was quoted as saying by the state broadcaster IRIB.

Must have missed this.

 

[Carolina Red]

In theory you can target strikes on military targets... And you can target sanctions against the leadership... Though I'm not sure how successful they could be in insulating the population...

That said I don't recall people welcoming the tanks and troops as liberators in Afghanistan and Iraq so I struggle to imagine it being any different in iran

Indeed.

We’re playing Clauswitz game on Sun Tzu’s continent. I don’t of know a time that it’s ever worked.

 

[2cents]

1) “at great cost” - We aren’t that country anymore. We want short, fast wars. 4500 men died in Iraq in a decade and that was seen as too many and the war was massively protested. How many could we lose on that push to Tehran?

2) “as for seizing the coast” - Military infrastructure and Naval power doesn’t count for much against a barrage of anti-ship missiles sinking our carrier. “In 2002, during the exercise “Millennium Challenge,” U.S. Marine lieutenant general Paul Van Riper, playing the red team, pummeled a U.S. Navy carrier task force by deploying the resources at Tehran’s disposal imaginatively.”
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/iran-vs-america-how-naval-war-would-go-down-who-wins-60547

1) I absolutely accept that, which is why an invasion won’t happen and hence this entire discussion is a bit redundant anyway.

2) I’m no military expert by any means, but I’m not sure why air strikes couldn’t obliterate much of the Iranian coastal defense.

 

[Red Dreams]

1) “at great cost” - We aren’t that country anymore. We want short, fast wars. 4500 men died in Iraq in a decade and that was seen as too many and the war was massively protested. How many could we lose on that push to Tehran?

2) “as for seizing the coast” - Military infrastructure and Naval power doesn’t count for much against a barrage of anti-ship missiles and assymetrical threats sinking our carrier. “In 2002, during the exercise “Millennium Challenge,” U.S. Marine lieutenant general Paul Van Riper, playing the red team, pummeled a U.S. Navy carrier task force by deploying the resources at Tehran’s disposal imaginatively.”
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/iran-vs-america-how-naval-war-would-go-down-who-wins-60547

The key consideration Has to be how many innocent people including women and children are Americans willing to see killed in their name.

I would say 'not even one.'

 

[sun_tzu]

Indeed.

We’re playing Clauswitz game on Sun Tzu’s continent. I don’t of know a time that it’s ever worked.

Who knows how it will end...
When a country is dumb enough to elect an idiot all bets are off

 

[Red Defence]

Great!

 

[Carolina Red]

1) I absolutely accept that, which is why an invasion won’t happen and hence this entire discussion is a bit redundant anyway.

2) I’m no military expert by any means, but I’m not sure why air strikes couldn’t obliterate much of the Iranian coastal defense.

1) I think it is worth hashing out just so people understand the magnitude of what would be required. Go back to the original post I was responding to, and it seemed that the poster felt it would be a cakewalk.

2) We would be able to gain air superiority, but you can’t win from the air only. Also, our effectiveness from air would require us to know the locations of their anti-ship missile batteries.

 

[VidaRed]

Tehran's head of power is in a fairly accessible location and it's Navy is a sitting duck in Bandar Abbas. It wouldn't be too troubling to get significant forces in the South and move up through the desert to Tehran without encountering any real obstacles. Plus you have US overseas airbases coming in from 3 sides of the country.

I remember when the Iraq invasion happened there were lots of stories about how hardened the Iraqi Republican Guard were. In reality they couldn't surrender fast enough. American military power is quite a thing when it's all pointing in one direction. The problems come when the Army is gone and the soldiers have blended back into the population.

The iranians are nothing like that, different culture and psychology. They are dedicated enough to charge at the enemy without weapons, a good portion of them would be willing to fight to the death against all odds.

 

[Carolina Red]

They are dedicated enough to charge at the enemy without weapons

I remember reading about that when studying the Iran-Iraq War. Unreal.

I mean... just read this article.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34353349

 

[2cents]

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

PFDs sighted. Give the order to attack.

 

[4bars]

Genuine question. Someone is a high rank US military here with fact knowledge on war tactics against Iran (possessing that information also)?

 

[Spark]

Tehran's head of power is in a fairly accessible location and it's Navy is a sitting duck in Bandar Abbas. It wouldn't be too troubling to get significant forces in the South and move up through the desert to Tehran without encountering any real obstacles. Plus you have US overseas airbases coming in from 3 sides of the country.

I remember when the Iraq invasion happened there were lots of stories about how hardened the Iraqi Republican Guard were. In reality they couldn't surrender fast enough. American military power is quite a thing when it's all pointing in one direction. The problems come when the Army is gone and the soldiers have blended back into the population.

What are you on about? Iraq invaded Iran less than a year after the revolution and after Khomeini had purged the entire military. Of course Iraq made gains at first. However, even with the entire world backing Iraq and only Syria (Assad’s dad, hence Iran’s backing of them now) supporting Iran, they pushed Iraq out of Iran with Saddam ending up suing for peace by 1982.

If anything, Iranian hard-headedness will be their downfall, because it was their decision not to accept peace talks with a battered Saddam in 1982 and go for all out “liberation of Iraq” as their war aim that dragged the entire conflict out till 1988.

America won’t invade Iran, it would require hundreds of thousands of troops and would be idiotic. But if they did, they’d find an enemy as determined as the Vietnamese in a country as in inhospitable as Switzerland.

 

[11101]

What are you on about? Iraq invaded Iran less than a year after the revolution and after Khomeini had purged the entire military. Of course Iraq made gains at first. However, even with the entire world backing Iraq and only Syria (Assad’s dad, hence Iran’s backing of them now) supporting Iran, they pushed Iraq out of Iran with Saddam ending up suing for peace by 1982.

If anything, Iranian hard-headedness will be their downfall, because it was their decision not to accept peace talks with a battered Saddam in 1982 and go for all out “liberation of Iraq” as their war aim that dragged the entire conflict out till 1988.

America won’t invade Iran, it would require hundreds of thousands of troops and would be idiotic. But if they did, they’d find an enemy as determined as the Vietnamese in a country as in inhospitable as Switzerland.

That was almost 40 years ago and no longer relevant to modern warfare. Besides, Iran spent 8 years trying to beat Iraq before they called a stalemate. In the Gulf War it took the US 4 days.

The Iranian Air Force hasn't had a significant new aircraft type join in 30 years. They are still flying 3rd and 4th generation aircraft at a time the US have hundreds of 5th generation aircraft and are looking at 6th gen. It's a similar story with the Army and the Navy. Plus, the big advancements now are no longer the equipment itself but the networking around it, and Iran has practically nothing there. The conventional armed forces would not last long.

I do agree however that the US would/should not invade. Destroying their standing armed forces would only be the beginning and it would be near impossible to do anything beyond that.

 

[Carolina Red]

That was almost 40 years ago and no longer relevant to modern warfare. Besides, Iran spent 8 years trying to beat Iraq before they called a stalemate. In the Gulf War it took the US 4 days.

I don’t know if you should call a war that ended in 1988 irrelevant, then cite a war that ended in 1991 in your defense.

 

[11101]

I don’t know if you should call a war that ended in 1988 irrelevant, then cite a war that ended in 1991 in your defense.

Neither are especially relevant in the context of a modern conflict, especially as the Iran-Iraq war was fought using very old tactics. Just pointing out that you can't really use Iran's achievements there to support their capabilities when you consider the US took 4 days to do what they couldn't do in 8 years.

 

[Sky1981]

Genuine question. Someone is a high rank US military here with fact knowledge on war tactics against Iran (possessing that information also)?

Seriously? Spilling top secret material on football forum?

 

[Carolina Red]

Neither are especially relevant in the context of a modern conflict, especially as the Iran-Iraq war was fought using very old tactics. Just pointing out that you can't really use Iran's achievements there to support their capabilities when you consider the US took 4 days to do what they couldn't do in 8 years.

On the flip side, Iran fought an 8 year war against a technologically superior foe, suffered as many casualties as we suffered in WWII, and celebrate it as a glorious victory.

Look at the American viewpoints on Vietnam, Iraq 2.0, and Afghanistan. They would do the same to us with a mixture of conventional and non-conventional forces.

 

[diarm]

There are so many things ridiculous about that statement I'm not sure it's even worth to respond to. Your conveniently glancing over the bulk of world history there.

While I don't agree with his comment and agree that the USA has done good things for the planet as well as bad, glancing over a country that is less than 250 years old is hardly ignoring the bulk of world history.

We have pubs over here, four times older than the US.

 

[Carolina Red]

The world would be a better place if Columbus never found usa.

I missed this...

You’re in luck, because in fact Columbus never did find the USA.

 

[11101]

On the flip side, Iran fought an 8 year war against a technologically superior foe, suffered as many casualties as we suffered in WWII, and celebrate it as a glorious victory.

Look at the American viewpoints on Vietnam, Iraq 2.0, and Afghanistan. They would do the same to us with a mixture of conventional and non-conventional forces.

That just illustrates the power of spin. The outcomes of the Iraq-Iran war and Vietnam were pretty much the same, neither side 'won' and both were happy to call it quits after years of fighting and getting nowhere. Iraq 2.0 was over almost as quickly as the first one and the Taliban fled Kabul less than a month after the war in Afghanistan started. The US has never had a problem destroying conventional forces.


It's also worth pointing out that US forces overseas have been (rightly) severely constrained by rules of engagement ever since WW2. The only time they've really loosened them was during Operation Linebacker in Vietnam and had that continued the NVA would very likely have surrendered.