Iran V USA

magick

not using weapons of mass destruction , but what chance do u think iran would have against a US invasion , say if USA launched an invasion using Iraq and Afganistan

cyrus the virus

He is a dead man. It will not be a military invasion but the intelligence agency. They have been interfering in Iran since the 1950s. One of there tatics is to cause uprest in the streets, riots in the streets followed by the killing of Ahmadinejad. The intelligence agency has done these dirty tatics before in Iran and orther countrys. The American Goverment want him out and they will get him out.


If anyone was watch the truth of the cia, they will know what I'm talking about.

In a conventional war, they wouldnt have a hope in hell. Even though they are more professional force then that of Sadaam's army or the Talibans they would be crushed in a matter of weeks.

Their airforce is outdated, their Navy is carrierless and destroyerless and only has old frigates.Their Army is still heavily reliant on older models of tanks ie: t-54,t-72 and the Zulfiqar. No match for the Abrams or Coalition tanks like the Challanger or leopard.

Their best option would be asymmetric warfare. Use your enemies strengths against them. If Iran was occupied like Iraq the death toll would be much higher.

Their military is a great deal more advanced and with their AA sytems ie. Tor M1 and Hawk systems.

So in all.....Iran would cause a hell of alot of problems for the U.S to occupy, but in a conventional sense their military would be crushed

TerrorFirmer

America would step all over Iran. The Iranian army is outdated and very much ill-equiped in comparison to their American counterparts in every aspect of the armed forces (armour, naval, airforce, equipment), so much so that any direct confrontation between combat forces would be practically farcical.

An occupation though would be a different story.

Húrin

I don't think that this military forum is intended to discuss international politics.

Anyway, the US military would beat the Iranian military, but they would then find occupation impossible. It would be like Iraq x10.

Hagar

Wouldn't they be spreading themselves very thinly? I mean how many theatres of war are they in right now? How many can they sustain particularly as their allies are seem to be getting cold feet? How many men have they in the field? They have been deploying National Guard units in Iraq for some time now. Who is defending the homeland while they are away?
Didn't someone else make the mistake of taking on too many opponents at the same time there about 67 years ago?

godfather69er

dont the iranians operate f-16 fighters or is it f-14s???? i dont think the us would bother invading theyd prob just blow the bajaysus outa them with cruise missiles and b-52, war over without even entering the place but in all honesty they should nuke them the middle east is full of lunatics that are better dead than alive and with nuclear weapons

The Iranians have no F-16's but they do have some Tomcats. The F-14's would be no match for the modern F-18's, F-15's or F-22's. I think they also have some F4 Phantoms and obsolete Su 17 and 24 attack aircraft.

babybundy

all the arab countries will join together against the US

babybundy

babybundy wrote:

all the arab countries will join together against the US

You're having a larf mate! OK say hypothetically (which all this is) all the Arab countries unite and some over throw their heavily pro U.S governments, what then? Combined their military is nothing compared to that of the U.S or the Coalition.

The only major effect the would have is lack of oil/gas to the U.S. The U.S would have to prioritize that the military/emergency services come first and civies later.

Im accounting that this is a war and not an occupation. If it was an occupation then a unified Arab insurgency would be terrifying to the US gov to say the least.

Victor

The Iranians have the advantage of the mountains, putting American tanks as a disadvantage.

Also, unlike Iraq, Iran hasn't been at war for the last 24 years, with and arms embargo for half of it.

Iran would lose a conventional military fight, but at what cost? The Straits of Hormuz closed and oil at $200 a barrel.

babybundy wrote:

all the arab countries will join together against the US

Iran isn't an Arabic country, they speak Farsi.

Victor

Victor wrote:

Iran isn't an Arabic country, they speak Farsi.

Persian descent I believe isnt it?

theCzar

If America were to move against Iran, I don't it would be a tanks 'n' infantry occupation force. I think it more liklely, they'll settle for air superiority at first, destroying the Iranian Air Force, which I imagine the American Air Force could do easily with the forces they already have in the region (not being well briefed on Iran's Air force). This would be followed by bombing and task force raids on nuclear installations.

The consequence for the world would be extreme, the price of oil would skyrocket as Irans supply would be effectively severed. Personally I don't think force is a realistic option to the US, not because of the threat of the Iranian military but becuase of the economic results. But then you have the Bush-Factor (a.k.a. the yippee-kay-yay perogative) so who knows eh?

On a tangent, do you see Iran signing a Nuclear non-prolification treaty? Personally I'd see them selling their expertise to all and sundry, and I know a N. Korean who'd just be thrilled. Also I expect Chavez to start asking around soon as well. He's waiting to see how Iran fares of the coming year.

Hagar

godfather69er wrote:

dont the iranians operate f-16 fighters or is it f-14s???? i dont think the us would bother invading theyd prob just blow the bajaysus outa them with cruise missiles and b-52, war over without even entering the place but in all honesty they should nuke them the middle east is full of lunatics that are better dead than alive and with nuclear weapons

This "bomb them back to the stone age" rhetoric may be acceptable to US extremists but to me it smacks of racism. You cannot advocate genocide as a solution to a political problem.

If you continue to make wild statements like this we are going to have to struggle on without your insights.

babybundy

i dont think a war against iran will or can be justified ,iraq and afgainistan i agree with

godfather69er

Hagar wrote:

This "bomb them back to the stone age" rhetoric may be acceptable to US extremists but to me it smacks of racism. You cannot advocate genocide as a solution to a political problem.

If you continue to make wild statements like this we are going to have to struggle on without your insights.

shut your mouth ye thick...shouting racism at anything un frieindly said to anybody from a minority your a muppet maybe you should **** off to the middle east and join the jihad?? your a muppet now **** off

Hagar

godfather69er wrote:

shut your mouth ye thick...shouting racism at anything un frieindly said to anybody from a minority your a muppet maybe you should **** off to the middle east and join the jihad?? your a muppet now **** off

Banned. Permanently.

DeVore

Completely. I see another outburst like that from that user and he'll be banned from the site.

DeV.

the_syco

If they do invade Iran, i hope they do Shock and Awe. The porper way. Not the flimsy half-handed Iraq approach. Not asking the Reupublican Guard to surrender. Not the softly-softly approach. Not the civilian-pleasing tatctics.

I'm talking EMP bombs for the infastructure, B2's for their runways, cruise missile's for their goverment buildings, and drop a few CBU-72 into their barracks, border points, etc.

Oh, and do it surprise.

Do Naval exercise's near SA to explain the subs (for the cruise missile's), and the B2's can just fly in.

Once they get a foothold, bring in a few A-10's for their tanks and fight the war the proper way: defeat the enemy, and setup a police force. Setup the base in North Iran. They should get a nicer reception up there.

theCzar

hey syco, you forgot your [irony][/irony] tags

the_syco

theCzar wrote:

hey syco, you forgot your [irony][/irony] tags

I don't get you... Please explain.

theCzar

the_syco wrote:

I don't get you... Please explain.

hmmmmm, either you forgot them again, or I misinterpreted your post advocating the American army policing (for want of a better word) the countries they disagree with without any consideration for wider issues (such as the Iranian people and the cluster bombs when they miss their targets, and when the barracks turn out occasionally to be schools).

In fact, now I know you're being Ironic, EMP bombs? :eek:

Stop confusing me syco! It's very late.

the_syco

theCzar wrote:

In fact, now I know you're being Ironic, EMP bombs? :eek:

Stop confusing me syco! It's very late.

What I meant was, if they do attack Iran, that they do it properly, and not like how they attacked Iraq. It was said that Iraq was going to be a quick job, EMP bombs used (hell, me and a few mates were awaiting some test video's of what the EMP bombs did to stff), stuff totally blown up, but instead I later found out that the Republican Guard was phoned and asked to give up, on their mobile phones, hence they weren't bombed @ the begining, and the EMP bombs weren't used, as it would knock out communications for the enemy.

theCzar

the_syco wrote:

What I meant was, if they do attack Iran, that they do it properly, and not like how they attacked Iraq. It was said that Iraq was going to be a quick job, EMP bombs used (hell, me and a few mates were awaiting some test video's of what the EMP bombs did to stff), stuff totally blown up, but instead I later found out that the Republican Guard was phoned and asked to give up, on their mobile phones, hence they weren't bombed @ the begining, and the EMP bombs weren't used, as it would knock out communications for the enemy.

........so you're objecting to the calling of the enemy to surrender? Because you and your mates wanted a video of what an EMP weapon does? You want them to go in quickly, because the ooh, days, it took to conquer a country several times the size of france was a slow, draw out affair?

In fact an EMP strike (Even were it not a pie in the sky technology to best of my information) would only exacerbate the problems now facing America in Iraq. Disolving the chain of a command would turn the Iranian standing army into a thousand groups of autonomous guerilla bands. Something I'd say the Americans are keen to avoid as they're currently batting zero on guerrilla wars.

the_syco

theCzar wrote:

........so you're objecting to the calling of the enemy to surrender?

Yes and no. Asking prior to the invasion is good. Asking as the invasion heppens, and thus limiting the weapons used, is bad. I don't see why an invasion should take long just because the country is big. The quicker it is, the better.

Why the US should attack Iran is unclear, tho. Aside from being annoying, I can't see any clear reason. The US knew that Saddam had weapons, as they gave most of them to him. Iran has nuclear power, but so does everyone else. Further more, the Americans were somewhat welcomed into Iraq, as they were supporting the Shi'ite overthrow of Sunni control. In Iran, I'm not aware of any such percentage imbalance, I don't think they would get such a "nice" welcome (aside from the Iranians liking anything that opposes the current regeime).

Maybe regieme change would be better, but how, and to who, would have to be looked at.

tallus

Regime change is somethign that should occur from within not because a foreign power wants it to satisfy their own gains, but because the general populace of that country want it.. The US didn't sell weapons to Iraq, but they did however support them in the 8 year war against Iran, if you look you'll see that the majority of Iraqui weapons were of russian origin. The chinese layed a lot of fiber optic cables in Iraq too. I'm not 100% but I think they had french weaponry too.
The US had no legal right to invade Iraq and they certainly have no legal right to invade Iran. If they have a problem with so called "axis of evil" states having nuclear weapons why aren't they invading North Korea?
They haven't picked a fight with an enemy they thought they couldn't beat since WWII, IE: always with an enemy that is percieved to be weaker than they are why should that change now ....

Victor

tallus wrote:

The US didn't sell weapons to Iraq

Indeed they are conspicuous in not selling weapons to Iraq until 2003-2004. They simply paid other people to sell them weapons.

billy the squid

An invasion of Iran by the US would turn very ugly very fast, even with conventional weaponry.

For starters, In order to win a war, your oponent has to admit defeat. I doubt very much the Iranians would let the US "conquer" them. The americans might defeat any military hardware but they would be getting hit with snipers and suiside bombers for years afterwards. Look at afghanistan and Iraq, US soldiers and anyone supporting them are being picked off. The electorate in the US are beginning to grow weary of the Iraq war.

Also Saddam was considered an infidel by many middle eastern nations as he was a secularist, where as Iran is an islamic state. I would be of the opinion that the Iranians would have more friends than Sadam did.

theCzar

billy the squid wrote:

Also Saddam was considered an infidel by many middle eastern nations as he was a secularist, where as Iran is an islamic state. I would be of the opinion that the Iranians would have more friends than Sadam did.

I think Iran is the only Shi'a Muslim state, the other middle eastern states are Sunni Muslim, many of whom hate and persecute the Shi'as, and wouldn't be at all sorry to see Iran toppled.

I don't think Iran could rely on an alliance of Islam in the face of invasion

Victor

theCzar wrote:

I think Iran is the only Shi'a Muslim state, the other middle eastern states are Sunni Muslim, many of whom hate and persecute the Shi'as, and wouldn't be at all sorry to see Iran toppled.

I don't think Iran could rely on an alliance of Islam in the face of invasion

The Sunni will side with Shia against 'infidel'.

Iraq is a shia majority state.

stevenmu

Layne Scary Nectarine wrote:

Persian descent I believe isnt it?

Iran actually is Persia. Iran is just a name given to it by the west for some reason I can't remember right now. The people are of Aryan ethnicity, I was quite surprised when I was told this (by an Iranian) as I thought that meant blonde hair, blue eyes etc.


On topic, I think it would be quite easy for the US to defeat the Iranian military. With such a strong presence already in Iraq, there's a well established logistics train in place to support any ground assault and for shorter range aircraft to be based out of air fields in Iraq. In fact, someone more paranoid than me may suggest that the current occupation of Iraq was completely aimed at a future invasion of Iran from the start. It could, if done properly lead to a very similar situation to the original Gulf War, with the use of stealth aircraft, cruise missiles, apache helicopters etc to sneak in to destroy Irans air defence capabilities, allowing more conventional bombers and ground assault aircraft in to pick off ground units with relative impunity.

The political aftermath would be hard to predict, there is supposedly a large portion of the Iranian people, particularly the younger generations who are strongly opposed to the current form of government. Any attack by the US could have the effect of either galvanising them into action against the current regime, or could unite them against the infidels. It'd all come down to how effect any psychological warfare attempts by the US air. The initial gulf war saw lots of leaflet drops, radio stations broadcasting into iraq etc, mainly claiming how Saddam's actions in invading Kuwait and organising rape and death squads were hatefull to God. A similar tactic could prove effective in Iran, especially if the government persists in creating nuclear weapons, something most muslims could easily be pursuaded is hatefull to God.