Re: U.S. Is Holding Iranian senior military officials http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/13/iraq/main2358842.shtml While Iran is complaining about a few "hostages," they're busy winning the war.
iran better keep hoping that the US public continues to not want another war. Because if that changes, iran will make iraq look like Hawaii.
What do you base this statement on? For one thing, I cannot imagine Iran succumbing to sectarian violence during an occupation.
My own guess is that Iran would defeat America in a war due to our faulty leadership and strategy. However, it is possible that Iran would lose, in which case Iran could be split into numerous pieces. There is a growing consensus in the region that Iran should be partitioned, with Azeri, Kurdish, Baluchi, Turkmen, and Arab sections being separated from Persian rule.
Consensus by who? That sounds like a nightmare of ethnic cleansing. Unless you somehow have managed to miss every post I've ever written about Bosnia you know that I'm not a fan of sectarian divisions of existing nation states in general; but in Iran the demographic complexities of such a move would be catastrophic.
Ending Persian occupation would be practical because the occupied nations border their motherlands (which we also occupy or influence). My only point is that if Iran loses a war with America (maybe a 30% chance), Iran will probably cease to exist as an empire. Unlike in Iraq, the post-war strategy would involve partition.
There is not now an independent Baluchistan. There is not now plans for an independent Kurdistan. Who would the Arabs joins? Do Iranian Turkmen want to be part of autocratic Turkmenistan? Partitioning is never neat or non-violent. Areas may be mostly this-or-that ethnic group, but never exclusively one ethnic group or another. This is the 21st Century. We need to defend civic nationalism against triabalism, not set out to destroy it in the name of ethnic purity.
BenReilly, when you refer to Iran losing a war to the US what is it specifically you mean? There are probably two broad strategies the US could implement: (1)aerial and naval bombardment that eliminate or dramatically set back the Iranian nuclear program or (2) the first option combined with an invasion of ground troops to force regime change. I don't see how the US could go with (2) any time in the next two years. The resources just won't be available. So if the US goes with (1) then the Iranian regime could very likely stay in power and the country would not break up along ethnic lines. But I guess you see it differently. Please explain.
No, but they would fit better in the province of Baluchistan in Pakistan. There already is a de facto Kurdistan, whose borders should be enlarged. Iraq! Iran is hardly a bastion of freedom, but they should obviously be allowed to decide.
I believe Iran would defeat America in a war (they would be 2 or 3 to 1 favorites, in my opinion). In the unilkely event America won, it would involve a ground invasion and ultimately partition.
What I base it on is that iran's infrastructure would suffer greatly in the event of an armed conflict with the US. I don't see the US trying to occupy iran because there would be no real need to in order to win a war with them. First off the main goal of the US would be to damage or destroy the iranian nuclear program. It may take some time, but we can certainly cause irreparable damage to their program and set them back quite a bit. Second we would target their refineries, which as I understand it, iran has a problem with anyway. We destroy their gas refineries and that will cause serious problems for iran, not just their military, but also for the populace. Third, lets be honest. In any straight up conventional battle, the US is far superior and will win. Naval battles will be over in a matter of days if not hours. The iranian air force will be destroyed within hours as well. And in any ground engagements, the US forces will prevail easily there as well. This isn't just my biased POV, but look at how the US forces have performed in battle since 91. In the current war, our losses have come from the occupation, not from battlefield engagements. There is a difference. Also iran will lose their communications, their infrastructure will be severely damaged and overall the ability for everyday people to goto work, perform normal, routine daily activities will be greatly affected. I know IM will show up soon with all his old links saying how iran will prevail and what not, but the fact is the US has a far superior military and we also have combat exp. troops who would much prefer going into a battle then worry about ied's.
I actually agree with IM's conclusion. Iran would likely prevail because they'll be able to weather the storm while we'll eventually back off. They'll fight to the last man while we'll have Congressional hearings and protests. And probably no viable strategy or even clear-cut goals.
Of course that is if the dumbass in the oval office tries to take over iran. I get the feeling that the military will just wipe out iranian defenses and call it a day. Something we can do in days.
This is the airforce thinking. Then you will hear "oops!" that will make all Army and Marine heart attack.
The best solution would be for the USAF to bombard Iranian defenses as well as Nuclear installations like scarecrow said. The navy should maintain presence near the Hormuz strait to keep it open and to engage the Iranian naval forces. Most important however, Iranian pipelines and refineries should not be destroyed because Iran will react by sending their shahab missiles towards Saudi, Kuwaiti, Qatari and Emirati oil installations. If the war is limited to aerial bombardments, the creation of Iranian version of 'no fly zones' and full and paralyzing sanctions similar to Saddam's in the 90s...the partition of Iran might be possible within a decade or so, after increasing domestic discontent. Ahwaz region (aka Khuzestan, Arab populated and the most oil rich can be quite volatile, and should be supported financially to mete out rebellion against central Iranian government). Baluchistan is too remote and weak a region to matter in the big picture. The Caspian region is another arena the US can look into. Remember, Iran's society is not as stable as they posture themselves to be. It only took Roosevelt and the CIA to overthrow a popular elected Mossadiq, and replace him with a figurehead monarch. Where are the days when American intervention relied on esponiage, and intelligence, rather than military hardware and muscle? Kurdistan should be limited to Iraqi area, and even then partitioning Iraq and giving Kurds any soveriegn land should be considered a big gamble. I'd rather partition Iraq along Kurdish+Sunni+minority Shia in one hand...and a Primarily Shia (Sumer or whatever they can call themselves) on the other. This will put Turkey and the Sunni states at more ease, and the sovereign Sumer would actually seek a natural ally with their neighbours along the east side of the Gulf in 'Ahwaz/Khuzestan', and can be used against the Iranian regime.) Syria is the wild card. Trust me, Assad regime is disliked by most Syrians (who are majority Sunni, while Assad's family is from the heretical Alaawi sect of Shia, or they are not even Shia if I recall, I for one dont consider them Muslims even). Effect regime change in Syria, and you have cut a major limb of both Iran and Hezbollah.
i know i'm going to sound like a pacifist, but if there's a war, i clearly do not see a winner either way.
If the US does engage iran it won't be with ground forces. It will be fought strictly through the air, Aerial bombardment followed by thousands of sorties by stealth bombers, missiles, jets and attack helicopters. It will be fought through the Air to reduce American deaths, mark my words. I would prefer iran gave up its nuclear weapons program and fighting was avoided but it doesn't look like that's going to happen.
No, I clearly mentioned the Naval aspects as well, also is there any reason to think that the US would need to try and take over Iran in order to reach our military and political goals? Any invasion or occupation would be extremely counter productive and would lead to exactly what Ben is saying. The only parcel of land the US would have to take and hold would be the straits. Something that the Marines and Army can accomplish. If iran wants to engage in any land encounters, they will have to come into iraq or Afghanistan where they would meet into entrenched and ready US emplacements. Sorry but we would see them coming and they would not last long in that type of fight against US forces.
A very good question and one that must have an answer before the US should ever consider any military action against iran. It should be very obvious that iran and her people will not accept any govt. that the US creates, therefore one option would be to contact groups within iran and prepare them to take over once US operations are concluded. As an incentive, the US should offer immediate recognition and normalization of relations with the new Govt. Not likely to happen I know, but that is one viable option.
It's interesting to observe the contrast between reality and day dreaming. While Iran continues to expand its soft power in the region, some are day dreaming of "splitting" Iran. I just want to add that there are plans to soft-include other states as Iran's sattelite states. Welcome to the Very New World Order.
The US does not have the luxury to decide the kind of war that will be fought, if war erupts between Iran and the US. In other words, it is not up to the US to decide if a ground war will be necessary or not? Nor will the US be able to confine the theater of battle to any particular territory. I have already analyzed the likely scenariors in case of a war with Iran. Instead of rehashing those old arguments, let me just say that IMO there will be no clear winners in case of such a war. In some arenas, Iran will come out on top. In other arenas, the US will come out on top. The cost suffered by both sides would be significant and in reality both will end up losing. Indeed, I don't think there will be any real winners, certainly not the Arabs, nor likely the Israelis, except ironically the Russians. As long as Iran is able to withstand the US and fight to at least a standstill, the latter will not suffer directly, but will benefit both geostrategically by the weakening of two potential rivals in the region, while cashing in on the greater demand for their energy supplies and the much higher price being paid for it. As for our Saudi friend here openly rooting for a war, I have no doubt that if Iran acted wisely and adopted the right policy, the first and foremost casualty of any such war would be the Arab oil stations, sheikdoms and barbarisms in the Persian Gulf, foremost among them Saudi Arabia. Indeed, one of Iran's cards, and ultimately its trump card, would be to destroy the Saudi oil facilities, while cutting off all exports of oil from the Persian Gulf and through the Straits of Hormuz. Taking this action in conjuction with appropirate measures to cut off the supply lines of US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, before ridding the region of those troops. The US will suffer catastrophically in a war with Iran, and so will the Arab states. Iran will lose much of its infrastracture and will be weakened as well. These are the things I am nearly certain about. The rest is largely conjecture.
I was waiting for you to say something about it would be the mother of all battles too. You are so silly, iran couldn't hope to rid the region of any US troops. In 8 years of war you couldn't even get 50 miles into iraq. And part of your excuse for that is because the US was helping iraq. Well if that is the case, you can only imagine how terrible the results for iran will be if they have to fight the US directly. This post was good humor. You should go into stand up im.
I have yet to see an explanation about why the US is sending a second carrier group to the Persian Gulf that does not center on Iran. Anyone got anything? I can't see how carrier-based tactics can be used in relation to the approach we've announced in Iraq.
The only purpose of sending a second carrier group is to gear up for a confrontation with iran. One carrier group will easily remove the iranian air force and navy, the second group will allow for round the clock strikes against iranian targets. It will also allow the US to position one carrier group near the straits to ensure they remain open. However I would pay attention to see what Marine Amphibian forces get sent to the region. That will really be telling as to whether combat is going to occur or not.