How Do You Rate the Chances of a Military Confrontation Between the US and Iran?

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Iranian Monitor, Jul 1, 2005.

  1. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    (1) Almost Certain.
    Pick this option if you believe a decision to go to war against Iran has already been made.
    (2) Likely.
    Pick this option if you believe that events are leading to that direction and that chances of an armed conflict are greater than 50%.
    (3) Possible.
    Pick this option if you believe that it is not likely that an armed conflict will take place, but the chances are still high enough (more than 25%).
    (4) Doubtful.
    Pick this option if you think the chances are low (below 25%), but cannot be ruled out if Iran totally resists pressures regarding its nuclear program.
    (5) Virtually Impossible.
    Pick this option if you don't think the US is in any situation to start a war with Iran in the near future, regardless of what happens in the Iran-EU nuclear talks.
     
  2. Matt Clark

    Matt Clark Member

    Dec 19, 1999
    Liverpool
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    I dunno, but I rate the chances of this thread being the final step from flirting to petting in the courtship rituals between you and Ben as borderline likely/almost certain.
     
  3. Colm

    Colm Member

    Aug 17, 2004
    UK
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    --other--
    IMO the chances are 0, The US are spending loads on Iraq and that looks like that won't be finished for a while, if they started military action on Iran they would lose all there allies as Britain, Austrailia, Poland would not stand along with them on this.
     
  4. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    For a host of reasons, a few of which you touched upon, I do not believe that the chances of a military conflict are all that great.

    On the other hand, if Ahamdinejad's follows the path suggested by his remarks, and has Khamenie's endorcement on that path, Iran will soon resume uranium enrichment -- with or without the EU's blessing.

    This is when the US has to face tough choices. Initially, at a minimum, there will be a high stakes bluf and puf campaign. Echoes from the Iraqi adventure will become siren calls. Every effort will be made to frigthen Iran to back down. The threats, to be more credible, will require a propaganda campaign that might find a life of its own. There are, after all, a small but very influential group who don't care too bit about anything else, but to make sure Iran is somehow stopped.

    If Iran stands firm, I don't think there is much the US will ultimately be able to do. Indeed, the whole campaign will then have inadvertently made Iran even more powerful, even more aggressive, even more hostile. In the process, I regret that internal reforms in Iran will suffer a bigger setback than anything Ahmadinejad might have in mind.

    I don't not want Iran to back down, despite the costs to a lot of things I care about. Backing down means starting on a road whose ultimate destination is quite unattractive. My only hope is that the US will be wise enough to add 2 plus 2 and come up with a more enlightened approach. One that had a great chance of success only a few months ago and which still has an outside chance of settling the long and unnecessary, even if undeclared, war between Iran and the US.
     
  5. Riceman

    Riceman New Member

    Jul 26, 2003
    Wylie
    It really depends on Iran whether Iran goes ahead with Nuclear weapons development or not. If not then the chances of war go down to zero and the chances of war go up if Iran pushes ahead with Nuclear weapons.
    If Iran goes ahead with Nuclear weapons then the only resolution to the conflict is for either the US to change it's policy or a war.
    Personally I don't think the US should change it's policy towards Iran becuase Iran is already at war with us. Imagine if George Bush had a military prarade with DEATH TO IRAN banners flying.
    If you think current Iranian regime will be able to go ahead and go Nuclear and America is going to run and hide because we're over committed or whatever then you're as delusional as Saddam Hussien.

    How many M1A1 tanks do we have in Iraq now anyway?
     
  6. Revolt

    Revolt Member+

    Jun 16, 1999
    Davis, CA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Speaking as a US leftie, I think if we to have invaded/overthrown the governments any countries in 2001/2002/2003, it would have in the following order:

    1. Afghanistan (the right thing)
    2. Saudi Arabia
    3. Pakistan
    4. Iran
    5. Syria

    IMO, these are the five worst offending nations in terms of haboring and supporting and creating terrorists. Iraq was a mind-bogglingly stupid choice.
     
  7. Smiley321

    Smiley321 Member

    Apr 21, 2002
    Concord, Ca
    Even if Iran gets nukes, there's not much reason for war. I hate Iran and I think that we still owe them for the hostage business 25 years ago, but realistically there's no reason for war.

    However, we should be spying the hell out of those bozos and destabilizing them and reminding them what happens when you diss the great satan.
     
  8. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    Only temporarily, will the chances of war go to zero if Iran does what you suggest. The list of "demands" from the US are extensive, and include Iran agreeing to give up its long range ballistic missile program, change its policies on various issues that oppose US policy, and more. If Iran complied with those demands, the regime would lose its legtimacy and that would throw Iran into either depoticism or civil war. If the regime resisted, that would still cause divisions that would make it hard for Iran to have a tolerant government.

    Listen, Saddam complied with all the demands on him. WMDs, ballistic missiles, everything. He had inspectors sniffing around every inch of that country. Did that stop the US from going for the kill?

    Both countries are at war with another. Besides a US policy of sanctions and arm twisting to make sure no one has normal relations with Iran, the US has also done things that have caused numerous deaths in the region as a result of its war against Iran.

    The entire US policy in the region, before deciding to get rid of Saddam, was premised on building him up as a counterweight against Iran. Iran had an 8 bloddy war with Iraq, with the rest of the world doiing nothing but pouring money and arms into Saddam's coffers. Even after the first Gulf war, the US allowed Saddam to butcher and quash the shia uprising, ultimately only because of its fixation with Iran.

    In Lebanon, the first act of "hostage taking" was when the philangists abducted 3 Iranian diplomats and killed them. The latter group were supported by the US and Israel. And we had, ever since the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, a behind the scene struggle between Iran and the US/Israel over Lebanon. In that struggle, like many others, the US was siding with the minority in power against the majority out of power.

    In Afghanistan, after the Soviets were ousted, the US did nothing to discourage Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE from giving money and arms to the Taleban, to counter the group Iran supported (Northern Alliance). Even after the Taleban were already known to be extreme reactionary cavemen, when they massacred Iranian diplomats, the US was still using its influence ot make sure Iran doesn't do anything to the Taleban. Otherwise, why the hell do you think the US would have even tolerated two of its allies, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, supporting a bunch of religious reactionaries that no other government in the world recognized as legitimate?

    Iran is not Iraq. You will see for yourself, if ever it comes to what you suggest.
     
  9. Scarecrow

    Scarecrow Red Card

    Feb 13, 2004
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    Have to agree, however I would put Syria up above to #2 considering their complicity in the war in Iraq and their murdering of Anti-Syrian Lebanese Politicians.

    As for Iran, I do not see any reason for a war with them at this time. If they try to get nukes, then we should impose every kind of sanction on them we can. Hell cut off the gulf from them so if they do want to ship anything into or out of the country by means of water ways it will be denied to them. Let them fly what they want in and out. It would be inconvient for them. We also could step up support for reformers in Iran so that a true democracy may take place there. We give them support and make life harder for those who hate democracy and let the Iranians do the fighting. A novel idea for them since they love to pay others to do it for them, Hezbollah.
     
  10. Scarecrow

    Scarecrow Red Card

    Feb 13, 2004
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    IM we have covered this ground before, if a war between Iran and the US did take place, there is NOTHING that Iran has that can counter our military. We are better trained, have better equipment, superior everything compared to Iran. To think otherwise is ignorant at best, highly foolish at worst.

    Besides for a war to occur, it will be highly unlikely that the US would start a war in Iran given the situation in Iraq and with the NK situation. So for a war to occur it would most likely be attributed to an aggresive act by Iran. In that case, it would make matters worse for Iran as it would give just cause for a war from the US perspective. Something to think about. Besides, the US now has quite a few battle hardened troops, experiance in war, especially among senior enlisted and officers is a big advantage cause they know better what will and won't work.

    But again, I am not saying that a war will happen, I voted it is possible, cause well anything is possible.
     
  11. Ray Luca

    Ray Luca BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Feb 2, 2005
    What are the chances of Britian, Australia Poland the US and others blockading iran? With the okay of the UN.
     
  12. Ray Luca

    Ray Luca BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Feb 2, 2005
    Iran ran when they fought Iraq,
     
  13. Scarecrow

    Scarecrow Red Card

    Feb 13, 2004
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    An I ran, I ran so far away, I couldn't get away.....
     
  14. Ray Luca

    Ray Luca BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Feb 2, 2005
    What's the chances of israel striking Iran? If they see no one is going to stop this crap with iran.
     
  15. JBigjake

    JBigjake Member+

    Nov 16, 2003
    I chose doubtful because I think that the current US administration will have to look at a war with Iran in light of the situations in Iraq & Afghanistan. In a conventional war, Iran & Iraq fought to a standstill over several years with huge casualties & atrocities reported on both sides. We defeated Iraq's military quickly & handily twice, toppled the Taliban regime with the equivalent of a brigade of special forces on the ground. However, in both countries, we are in the midst of a subsequent insurgency with the ultimate outcome still uncertain. We have Iran outflanked east & west, with allies in Pakistan & Kurdistan. Iran has substantial non-Persian ethnic minorities that could be courted. So the likely scenario in a conventional war would be a quick military victory followed by internal chaos. stretching a thin military presence even further. Can't see that we would want to go that route, or that Iran would act in a manner that would lead to this.

    http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html#People
     
  16. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    I hope it never comes to a war, because Iran will lose at the end. Even if it "wins", it loses. It is not as if I want Iran to become Vietnam.

    But in case of a war, the US has strategic and tactical vulnerabilities that offset many of its advantages. Strategically, the US is a superpower that has a wide range of responsibilities, commitments, and interests. It cannot wage a war without taking into account its wider ramifications for its allies, the region, or the world economy. Nor can it do so without taking a look at the impact on its own economy. Tactically, the US is over-stretched, and its forces are vulnerable; American naval warships, American bases, and American personnel in the region are going to be exposed in ways that can cause a lot of casualties to US forces. Since the US is not fighting for its own survival, the magitude of losses it suffers are not going to be acceptable politically given the alternatives.

    Yes, if Iran does do something stupid to outrage all Americans, and makes the US go all out to with only one aim in mind, then of course Iran will lose. But that is not something that is likely to happen.
     
  17. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    Your analysis is like saying Iran beat the Maldives 17:0 in 1997, so S.Korea should beat them by a similar margin in 2004. Well guess what: they drew the Maldives 0:0 and barely beat them 2:0 in S.Korea.

    Iraq invaded Iran when Iran was in revolutoinary turmoil, after its armed forces (the pilar of support for the Shah's regime) had basically disbanded. Iran's generals were executed; its pilots and other officers were sitting in jail. Most units were at 10% strength or below, with massive desertions after the change over in government. The entire military force was reliant on US weapons and supplies and they had been cut off, while Iran was isolated due to the Hostage Crisis. We didn't even have a permanent government yet in place.

    Despite all this, until the entire world rallied massively behind Iraq (both NATO and Warsaw Pact, as well as all oil rich Arab states), within 2 years, the Iraqis were put on the ropes. Their airforce ran into hdiing, its planes dispersed in foreign countries like Jordan and in the Gulf. On numerous occasions, betwen 1982-1987, Iraq looked like it would fall, only to resort to massive chemical attacks to push back Iranian forces. Each time very close to securing the Basra area and the highway that headed straight to Baghdad. Despite massive resupplies, in the magntitude of a 1,000 combat aircraft, many thousands of tanks and APCs, "volunteer" soldiers from Egypt, Jordan, and hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars in financial assistance from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the like, the tide of that war changed only when two things happened. First, morale began sapping in Iran after the chemical attacks began taking their toll, and after it seemed the US was willing to enter the war directly with its naval armada brought into the fray, the tanker war, and active coordination with Iraq. Second, when Iran had virtually very little left to fight with, as it was under an international arms embargo during this period.

    The Iraq that Iran fought in the Iran-Iraq war had many of the advantages the US would have against Iran. The Iraq the US fought had nothing like Iran's advantages but had most of its disadvantages viz a viz the US.

    The US will not be able to easily defeat Iran even in a conventional, head to head, confrontation. The US navy is very vulnerable, US troops in Iraq can easily be routed, and US bases can be put of order. To defeat Iran, as opposed to just bomb and set back its economy, the US would need a build up that would require a draft and a lot more willingness to sacrifice than you realize.

    As for Iran's "ethnic minorities", the most important among them (the Azeris) are not really a minority per se. They are entirely assimilated in Iranian society, economy, culture, and include some of the most nationalistic Iranian figures in history. Moreover, all these groups have been a part of Iran for 2,500 years, and have shown their loyalty against foreign foes throughout. Even Iranian Arabs, who do often live in abject poverty and are often neglected, have shown their loyalty to Iran both during the Iran-Iraq war and just recently when some tried to stir them to make trouble for Iran.
     
  18. taosjohn

    taosjohn Member+

    Dec 23, 2004
    taos,nm
    With the Chinese stomping real loud around Taiwan as it is, I don't see how the troops are to be found, let alone the money...
     
  19. JBigjake

    JBigjake Member+

    Nov 16, 2003
    Dreamstreet. US forces are well-trained & well-commanded. Any branch of the service alone could flatten the infrastructure of Iran. The only problem in Iraq would be involvement by the Shiite community diverting attention. Did this happen during the Iran-Iraq war?
    I'm speaking from a pragmatic perspective. If Iran's military leaders have an ounce of independence, they will advise against war. I'm sure that the Soviet Union's military commanders watched the first Gulf War & realized what would have happened to them in Central Europe.
     
  20. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    Well, in Iran, political and clerical leaders have so far been quite more "dovish" than the military ones. The consensus among the Iranian military is that the country has the means to defend itself. And that it should not be overly scared of any US threats. Indeed, the military linked groups have been very vocal in condemning many of the concessions already made by the regime in the talks with the EU. They are considered "hardliners" in the context of Iranian politics. More so than Khamenie, and certainly all the other political figures who were seen as doves in Iran by the revolutionary guard commanders.

    You are a novice on this subject, hiding behind general impressions, not knowing the details that will decide the issues at each level. While no doubt at the end, Iran will be the much bigger loser, this would not be a war the US would want. Even US military leaders recognize that much.

    The only way the US could have an easy war against Iran is for Iran to decide to absord the punch, knowing that if it struck back, it would ultimately lose. Otherwise, if Iran decides to put up a fight, the US losses will be great. That itself is one things that makes Iran act with caution, because at the same time, Iran knows that the US might go crazy suffering any huge losses. After all, to make sure Iran realizes this point, the US has on several occasions hinted that the US nuclear arsenal should be taken into account by Iran's military analysts as well.

    Otherwise, lets be clear: Iran can sink much of the US navy in the Persian Gulf. It can seriously damage the US bases in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar. American forces in Iraq are within easy range of Iran's long range artillery, missiles, and rockets. Within Iraq, Iran has a lot of influence and already has plans on who to route the US army there.

    In the meantime, no oil will flow out of the Persian Gulf either. The world economy would face serious prospects of collapsing. And even on the stragetic level, Iran is not entirely without its own cards.

    I will give you one example.

    Iran has long range cruise missiles with the range of over 3,000 kilometers. These cruise missles can be fitted to be launched from ships in the Atlantic ocean and are precise weapons. In other words, the US is not the only country that can launch attacks on Iran's economic infrastructure and the like. A war with Iran could, if it looked like the US was going for a kill, be the first war with US cities coming under direct conventional attack.

    At the end, no one can predict how exactly such a war would unfold. What I can predict is that it would be a terrible thing for the world, for the US, and above all -- without doubt -- for Iran. By the same token, letting the US pursue the policies it has is also very dangerous to Iran.

    There is a win-win deal possible. The impediment to it is the US having become accustomed to being a bully that wants to dictate all the terms.
     
  21. Kamran

    Kamran Member

    Nov 19, 2004
    Melbourne - AUS
    Club:
    Perspolis
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    if those countries gonna end up with a government like Pakistan's then it's better to let them be... that is the problem with America never learns from the mistakes.... idea of a puppet government in 21st century doesn't work!!
    I don't see how sanction will work on the Iran... the thing you fail to see is the number of ppl actually involved with all the bad things that Iran is accused of (yeah the ones that we did and the ones that we didn't but we are accused of anyways) is less than 2 millions at most... no matter what economical blockade you apply to Iran this minority will live as well off as they are living now.... if anything they would just transfer the pressure on the normal citizens... that is what happened this year... ppl were fed up with their financial problems and wanted a better economical status so they completely gave up on the idea of freedom or democracy and voted for a person who promised (and has shown he is capable of) better economy... Ahmadinejad as the mayor of Tehran successfully brought down cost of living (or at least kept them fixed and not increasing) so ppl voted for him.... or even if you say there was cheating involved all the ppl who cheated were rewarded money... do you really think if Iran's economy was better than it is now and there was enough work opportunities with foreign investment, these ppl would have sold their dignity this easily?.... how can you expect ppl to fight for their freedom or rights when they are under killing financial pressure?.... Iran has the capacity to become self-sustained economically (Iran makes arms, cars, planes, etc... and can find very good markets in the region with all the emerging small countries) but it's impossible to make something out of this potential with sanction and only ppl who are suffering from it are those very ppl that America is boasting about saving them!!? ironic isn't it?
     
  22. Kamran

    Kamran Member

    Nov 19, 2004
    Melbourne - AUS
    Club:
    Perspolis
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    it sounds like a Saddam speech before attacking Iran.... but I'm really impressed with the way that your technical/tactical supremacy won you the war against Vietnam and Iraq!
    speaking like a true American.... so fighting against Iraq gives Americans the experience of fighting against Iran... I mean it's not like Iran is 3 times bigger than Iraq or we have actual seas or a lot of mountains.... only thing that matters is that Iran and Iraq have 3 letters in common so they are basically the same! :rolleyes:
     
  23. VFish

    VFish Member+

    Jan 7, 2001
    Atlanta, GA
    Club:
    Atlanta
    Zero.

    Now that we have footprint in two neighboring countries we'll use our horizontal drilling technology to drain your oil reserves. No worries though, the French are sure to help you get those nuclear reactors on line.

    :p
     
  24. Scarecrow

    Scarecrow Red Card

    Feb 13, 2004
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You missed the part of my post where I stated support of the reformers to help them gain the power they need. Since there is such a small part of the country that is the problem 2 Million you said, then the other 68 mil. should have no problem asserting themselves and taking control then.
     
  25. Scarecrow

    Scarecrow Red Card

    Feb 13, 2004
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Spoken like a true ex-patriot Iranian, you realize we lost in Nam because of the politics of the country, had we let the Military fight the war the way they should have, then most if not all of North Vietnam would not have been left standing.
    As for Iraq, go check again pal, the US won easily in the major conflicts. The Iraqi armed forces were once again virtually non-existent when they faced US forces. What is going on now is terror attacks where they are causing losses, but we have lost what, less then 2,000 in over 2 years of fighting? We lost that in a week in Nam. So while there are problems there, it is not in combat so much as policing up that we are losing troops.

    Had you actually ever been in the Military you may understand what combat expeirence means as opposed to green troops who have never been under fire of any kind. Your ignorance of the importance of that is understandable since you bailed out of your country before you had to serve.
    Yes Iran has moutains, so does Afghanistan, so does the US, where the US trains. Yes there are lakes, but we have none in the US though right? The terrain in Iran is not so special that it would present a major factor in any US Military campaign. The size of the country is irrelavant as well. You seem to forget that the US Military Equipment was designed for fighting in Europe. Europe is much larger, has more rivers, lakes and even mountains then Iran has.

    US Military Equipment is proven in combat and defects are now better known and can be improved upon. You also fail to realize that if the US were put into a war in Iran, we have resources that we can call upon that far outweigh what Iran can call upon. We can reach out and touch you and really there is nothing that Iran could do about that.

    But again, I stated before I do not see the US with any pressing need to get into a shooting war with Iran. There are far more important issues to take care of first. Besides, we could always just let Israel take care of our light work. :D
     

Share This Page