Skip to comments.What Would War with Iran Look Like?
Posted on 06/18/2011 9:44:53 AM PDT by neverdem
The debate over what to do about an Iranian Islamist regime apparently bent on acquiring nuclear weapons has been on or near our front burner for at least six years, and is now almost a settled feature of the policy landscape. There is general agreement in the United States on two points. First, an Iranian nuclear weapons capability is unacceptable, as both the Bush and Obama Administrations have put it; and second, we prefer getting to an acceptable outcome without using force. The debate gets testy when we consider that means short of force, such as sanctions and covert technical sabotage, might not work.
It may be too simple to reduce the argument to just two sidesthose who fear the regimes acquisition of nuclear weapons more than the consequences of a war to prevent it, and those who fear the consequences of a war above all elsebut in this case simplicity has the virtue of capturing the essence as observers ponder which set of unpalatable risks they would rather run. What is remarkable, though hardly surprising, is that the two sides usually put forth very different assessments of what using force would entail. Those who fear Iranian nukes above all else tend to minimize the risks of using force, while those who fear war tend to exaggerate them. Neither side, however, has persuasively spelled out the reasons for their assessment, leading one to suspect that much of the argument rests on less than rigorous analysis.
What would an honest assessment of the risks of military conflict with Iran look like? How should we think about it? These are difficult questions even for those who are not partisans of one side or the other. Wars are notorious for yielding unintended and unexpected consequences; for reasons explained below, a war against Iran...
(Excerpt) Read more at the-american-interest.com ...
It would look good...
If Iran attacks us or Israel, that war is probably on.
If some jackass in the white house simply decides that it sounds like a good idea to start dropping bombs on a nation that did not attack us or our allies directly, first, then I am probably joining the anti-war hippies in the streets.
No, I don’t really give a damn WHAT party the President of the time happens to belong to, wrong is wrong and I do not base my sense of right and wrong on who happens to be sitting his or her happy ass in the oval office.
I wouldn’t go to war with this Commander in Chief under any circumstances in the Middle East. He’s not trust worthy and has no idea what he’s doing and will not listen to the right military officers. I honestly believe that he has a personal agenda that does not match those of the United States.
Q: What Would War with Iran Look Like?
A: Ezekiel 39
This is easy. :-)
Actually GW blew it, he had to know that nothing would be done by his replacement. My guess is when this guy leaves office the Bush family will have a new son, just like they gained with Clinton.
Royalty, they must stick together, and keep the bloodline pure.
A contrail over Kansas and no TV coverage.
“Actually GW blew it”
Carter should have taken care of this when they seized our embassy. That’s an act of war, ain’t it? Not to even mention the hostage taking. If that jerk had acted, none of this would be happening. At least I don’t think it would be happening.
If The Usurper is still CIC, it would look like defeat amid tens of thousands of dead Americans.
If I were CIC, it would be over in thirty minutes and the worst American casualty would be a sore finger on the guy who pushed all the “launch” buttons.
Congress would never go for it and the war powers act would prevent any POTUS from taking us an inch further than Libya. /s
There would be a lot of new glass made out in the desert.
Certainly as good as your comment.
True, George had the 9id with nothing to do. They should have drove to Afghanistan, end of problem.
***I’ve been saying the same thing for several years. It was even my tagline at one time.
Here’s what I wrote on the subject of Iran, Iraq & Afghanistan a while back.
We SHOULD withdraw from Iraq via Tehran.
Heres how I think we should pull out of Iraq. Add one more front to the scenario below, which would be a classic amphibious beach landing from the south in Iran, and it becomes a strategic withdrawal from Iraq. And I think the guy who would pull it off is Duncan Hunter.
How to Stand Up to Iran
Posted by Kevmo to TomasUSMC
On News/Activism 03/28/2007 7:11:08 PM PDT 36 of 36
Split Iraq up and get out
***The bold military move would be to mobilize FROM Iraq into Iran through Kurdistan and then sweep downward, meeting up with the forces that we pull FROM Afghanistan in a 2-pronged offensive. We would be destroying nuke facilities and building concrete fences along geo-political lines, separating warring tribes physically. At the end, we take our boys into Kurdistan, set up a couple of big military bases and stay awhile. We could invite the French, Swiss, Italians, Mozambiqans, Argentinians, Koreans, whoever is willing to be the police forces for the regions that we move through, and if the area gets too hot for these peacekeeper weenies we send in military units. Basically, it would be learning the lesson of Iraq and applying it.
15 rules for understanding the Middle East
Rule 8: Civil wars in the Arab world are rarely about ideas like liberalism vs. communism. They are about which tribe gets to rule. So, yes, Iraq is having a civil war as we once did. But there is no Abe Lincoln in this war. Its the South vs. the South.
Rule 10: Mideast civil wars end in one of three ways: a) like the U.S. civil war, with one side vanquishing the other; like the Cyprus civil war, with a hard partition and a wall dividing the parties; or c) like the Lebanon civil war, with a soft partition under an iron fist (Syria) that keeps everyone in line. Saddam used to be the iron fist in Iraq. Now it is us. If we dont want to play that role, Iraqs civil war will end with A or B.
Lets say my scenario above is what happens. Would that military mobilization qualify as a withdrawal from Iraq as well as Afghanistan? Then, when were all done and we set up bases in Kurdistan, it wouldnt really be Iraq, would it? It would be Kurdistan.
I have posted in the past that I think the key to the strategy in the middle east is to start with an independent Kurdistan. If we engaged Iran in such a manner we might earn back the support of these windvane politicians and wussie voters who dont mind seeing a quick & victorious fight but hate seeing endless police action battles that dont secure a country.
I thought it would be cool for us to set up security for the Kurds on their southern border with Iraq, rewarding them for their bravery in defying Saddam Hussein. We put in some military bases there for, say, 20 years as part of the occupation of Iraq in their transition to democracy. We guarantee the autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan as long as they dont engage with Turkey. But that doesnt say anything about engaging with Iranian Kurdistan. Within those 20 years the Kurds could have a secure and independent nation with expanding borders into Iran. After we close down the US bases, Kurdistan is on her own. But at least Kurdistan would be an independent nation with about half its territory carved out of Persia. If Turkey doesnt relinquish her claim on Turkish Kurdistan after that, it isnt our problem, its 2 of our allies fighting each other, one for independence and the other for regional primacy. I support democratic independence over a bullying arrogant minority.
The kurds are the closest thing we have to friends in that area. They fought against Saddam (got nerve-gassed), theyre fighting against Iran, they squabble with our so-called ally Turkey (who didnt allow Americans to operate in the north of Iraq this time around).
Its time for them to have their own country. They deserve it. They carve Kurdistan out of northern Iraq, northern Iran, and try to achieve some kind of autonomy in eastern Turkey. If Turkey gets angry, we let them know that there are consequences to turning your back on your friend when they need you. If the Turks want trouble, they can invade the Iraqi or Persian state of Kurdistan and kill americans to make their point. It wouldnt be a wise move for them, theyd get their backsides handed to them and have eastern Turkey carved out of their country as a result.
If such an act of betrayal to an ally means they get a thorn in their side, I would be happy with it. Its time for people who call themselves our allies to put up or shut up. The Kurds have been putting up and deserve to be rewarded with an autonomous and sovereign Kurdistan, borne out of the blood of their own patriots.
Should Turkey decide to make trouble with their Kurdish population, we would stay out of it, other than to guarantee sovereignty in the formerly Iranian and Iraqi portions of Kurdistan. When one of our allies wants to fight another of our allies, its a messy situation. If Turkey goes into the war on Irans side then they aint really our allies and thats the end of that.
I agree that its hard on troops and their families. We won the war 4 years ago. This aftermath is the nation builders and peacekeeper weenies realizing that they need to understand things like the 15 rules for understanding the Middle East
This was the strategic error that GWB committed. It was another brilliant military campaign but the followup should have been 4X as big. All those countries that dont agree with sending troups to fight a war should have been willing to send in policemen and nurses to set up infrastructure and repair the country.
What do you think we should do with Iraq?
Posted by Kevmo to Blue Scourge
On News/Activism 12/12/2006 9:17:33 AM PST 23 of 105
My original contention was that we should have approached the reluctant allies like the French to send in Police forces for the occupation after battle, since they were so unwilling to engage in the fighting. It was easy to see that wed need as many folks in police and nurses uniforms as we would in US Army unitorms in order to establish a democracy in the middle east. But, since we didnt follow that line of approach, we now have a civil war on our hands. If we were to set our sights again on the police/nurse approach, we might still be able to pull this one off. I think we won the war in Iraq; we just havent won the peace.
I also think we should simply divide the country. The Kurds deserve their own country, theyve proven to be good allies. We could work with them to carve out a section of Iraq, set their sights on carving some territory out of Iran, and then when theyre done with that, we can help negotiate with our other allies, the Turks, to secure Kurdish autonomy in what presently eastern Turkey.
That leaves the Sunnis and Shiites to divide up whats left. We would occupy the areas between the two warring factions. Also, the UN/US should occupy the oil-producing regions and parcel out the revenue according to whatever plan they come up with. That gives all the sides something to argue about rather than shooting at us.
38 posted on Thursday, July 12, 2007 3:55:19 PM by Kevmo (We need to get away from the Kennedy Wing of the Republican Party ~Duncan Hunter)
It would have to be fought like World War 2. No holds barred. No ROE! Just kill kill kill. Arm the opposition and use air power to wither away at the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. But the Liberals and Obama would be wee weeing themselves at the prospect of fighting a real world where fellow Mooslims would die in the thousands. We don’t have the guts or will to fight a real war any more. Even if Iran nuked New York the libs would be saying it was all our fault. Oh Mr Lincoln I wish you were here. Better Yet George S Patton.
Like sunlight reflecting off of glass where sand used to be?
Assuming he had acted effectively -- a rather large assumption, considering the actor -- it would NOT be happening.
Once again, America and the West paid the price for appeasement and timidity.
That is the question that George W. Bush should have been asking himself long before:
1.) Barack Hussein Obama became Commander-in-Chief
2.) Iran successfully orbited a satellite (Translation: an Iranian payload can now reach America)
3.) Iran was eight weeks away from acquiring nukes.
Iran's Nukes: Apocalypse Soon? ..... 06/08/2011 ..... the Rand Corp. determined that the Islamofascist government is less than two months from being able to build a nuclear explosive, and that only an occupation force not just airstrikes can stop it.
It would look like a sun bright flashes of light in a few major cities followed by abject surrender.
Under Obama the cities and surrender would both be American...
Offensives against Iran out of landlocked Afghanistan and Kurdistan would be logistical nightmares.
What would war with Iran look like? It would look like anything we wanted it too. WE have the power to wipe out anyone we wanted to. Our problem is the will to engage in total war.
Offensives against Iran out of landlocked Afghanistan and Kurdistan would be logistical nightmares.
***That’s one reason why I proposed a third prong, an amphibious landing.
Heck Iran couldn’t even whip Iraq.
I say it would sound like Bang... Bang .... BOOM, bang....bang.... and the voices of thousands of camel jockeys begging to surrender to Apache helos as one of the AC-130’s circled overhead picking off the streakers.
It would depend on what China would do. They are our main rival, not Iran.
You make a mistake by thinking carter wanted mullahcracy gone. He helped establish it, he wasn’t about to jeopardize what he’d accomplished — and I do believe what he, in his leftwinger ideological illogicality believed over time would be his most “righteous” accomplishment, the little ignoramus monster. If a few American were going to suffer, so be it; all means to an audacious grandiose leftist end!
I never was a fan of Carter, but it looks like you’re assuming that because mullahs took over Iran Carter must have wanted it that way. That implies a lot more competence and foresight in the man than he actually had.
We would have no interest in “taking” Iran; only in destroying it.
Iran could be decimated from the air and from the sea with little effort.
Iran delenda est.
“You make a mistake by thinking carter wanted mullahcracy gone.”
No, I don’t make that mistake! Carter is despicable. But it’s what he should have done!
Carter was an ideological animal. I don't assume that he was the brains. He was only animated from his twisted illogical liberal mindset, but his men and specifically Brzezinski knew damn well what he was doing. This was a leftist conspiracy to make up for their supposed "wrong" of the CIA by "installing" the Shah as well as protect ME from communist expansion. Look what they have done to the world now? If you read between the leftists' lines specially their elite journalists, they pretty much concede it ....begrudgingly.
If Carter hadn’t blown it—a lot more Irans would be alive today.
Mark my words—someday we will have to go to war with them—like it or not. My bet, they will strike us first and force the war. Our only choices are how far we should go to beat them into submission. We need to put the Shahs son on the thrown and bring back a secular unconstitutional monarchy.
“someday we will have to go to war with them”
Yes, we will! I have no doubts about it.
I’d be inclined to signal USS Alaska to come back empty. Maybe a missile might go off course. Sorry Mecca...
There's two things there. One was guilt about the CIA's actions in the fifties. The other was a desire to head off the Soviets.
I don't doubt that Carter's people felt that kind of guilt and didn't back up the Shah to the degree that they could have. Whether they really wanted the mullahs to rule is another matter.
If you saw all the protests of "Iranian students" in the West, it didn't look like most of them expected the kind of Islamicist regime they got. If they were that blind, I doubt Carter and Vance had much more insight.
According to Wikipedia (a doubtful source to be sure, but convenient) Brzezinski supported the Shah to an end and even favored US military action to keep the Shah in power. If Carter overrode him I suspect it was more because of mushy-headed idealism or guilt than any plan to bring the Ayatollah to power.
The other motivation -- keeping the Soviets and Communists out -- was shared by people across a broad spectrum of political opinion. Republicans and Democrats, for example, both supported the Afghanistan resistance, which became a breeding ground for radical Islam.
It seemed like a good idea at the time, I guess. Whether it really was for the best depends on what happens in the future. In any case, however screwed up Carter's views have been over the years, if it was a wrong headed policy, the guilt goes far beyond Carter and his team.
You can certainly attribute blame for what happened to Carter as well as to the Iranians involved, but I suspect the results were more a result of his not having a clue as to what would happen than of his having a conscious plan to achieve what actually resulted.
It's not that I'm defending Carter's incompetence, I just don't see any master plan to mess things up.