How would a War with Iran Turn Out

[SLD]

Well, it doesn't take MUCH to shut down the Straits of Hormuz. If the US bombs the shit out of Iran, but a guys with trucks keep popping up and shooting at tankers with rocket launchers (which isn't really a thing that can be shut down), how many tankers are going to be going through the Straits? I'm also sure that the Iranian army has a fail safe plan in place to use their remaining military forces to decimate oil production facilities throughout the region in the event that the US military goes all out in destroying it, so there wouldn't be much to ship down there anyways.

There is no way to start this war without crippling the oil trade and sending prices sky rocketing. That means any actual invasion would need to wait until the end of the summer driving season.

Which is probably why His Flatulence didn't order the strike to go in.

Personally, I think invasion is not a good idea. If we are going to do anything it should be to break enough military and perhaps economic stuff to make Iran think twice about engaging in such tactics again. Perhaps Tomahawks aimed at the leadership, also--make them personally afraid of doing it again.

You really think that by just breaking stuff, they’ll roll over and say uncle? I’m sorry but that’s bolton speak.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Well, it doesn't take MUCH to shut down the Straits of Hormuz. If the US bombs the shit out of Iran, but a guys with trucks keep popping up and shooting at tankers with rocket launchers (which isn't really a thing that can be shut down), how many tankers are going to be going through the Straits? I'm also sure that the Iranian army has a fail safe plan in place to use their remaining military forces to decimate oil production facilities throughout the region in the event that the US military goes all out in destroying it, so there wouldn't be much to ship down there anyways.

There is no way to start this war without crippling the oil trade and sending prices sky rocketing. That means any actual invasion would need to wait until the end of the summer driving season.

Which is probably why His Flatulence didn't order the strike to go in.

Personally, I think invasion is not a good idea. If we are going to do anything it should be to break enough military and perhaps economic stuff to make Iran think twice about engaging in such tactics again. Perhaps Tomahawks aimed at the leadership, also--make them personally afraid of doing it again.

You really think that by just breaking stuff, they’ll roll over and say uncle? I’m sorry but that’s bolton speak.

Kinda reminds me of how the military brass planned to handle the NVA if it came to the aid of the VC. In their exact bravado, "We'll Cav 'em," meaning they'll send in their Air Cavalry Regiments, the NVA will get all scared and run away, and it will all happen just like it should in the movies. Of course we know how that all turned out.

Here is the best article I could find to answer the OP:

Here's what a war with Iran could look like

It doesn't happen like Loren's fantasy. Well worth the read.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Attacking Iran is a horrible idea, but how it turns out depends on just how much the US is willing to escalate. There aren't any large home-grown opposition groups the US can call upon, no rebels to fund, to make the war easier. This isn't Syria.

They know that the US plays a game of "I'm not touching you" trying to provoke the other party into firing the first shot, so that the US leadership can rally the country behind "they fired the first shot". Also, the US leadership is counting on the public not knowing that the first shot was in the 1950s.

So, a fairly unified country whose borders were NOT drawn by outsiders. This isn't Iraq.

On the low end of the scale, with drone bombings, Iran has demonstrated they have anti-air capabilities. Still, if we send in bombing drones instead of spy drones, they can and will activate their proxies in the Mid-East and on a limited scale all hell will break loose. The Sunni governments in the Middle-East that have Shia populations will find themselves embroiled in conflict. Syria will be spared because their dictator - who survived an attempt by the US to oust him - is allied to Iran. Plus the world oil markets will go haywire.

Now if the US wants a full regime change, that will require boots on the ground and a physical invasion of Iran. And that will be, well, the only thing worse than a bombing run.

Iran has powerful friends. Iran is on good terms with Russia AND China. Not only will the Middle East get inflamed, this will actively spread all over the world. It will draw many other countries into the conflict.

 

[bilby]

The only way to replace a hostile regime with a friendly one is to drop large numbers of bombs on them.

It's obviously the best approach; And the only reason it has never ever worked on the past is that the bombs weren't large enough, or weren't precise enough, or we gave up too soon when we should have been dropping more bombs.

If dropping bombs on people's families, friends, workplaces, cities, factories and heads of government doesn't make them realise what great guys you are, and start to like you after all, then what will?

If you can't persuade someone that you want to be friends by targeting them with explosive ordnance, then nothing is going to persuade them.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The only way to replace a hostile regime with a friendly one is to drop large numbers of bombs on them.

It's obviously the best approach; And the only reason it has never ever worked on the past is that the bombs weren't large enough, or weren't precise enough, or we gave up too soon when we should have been dropping more bombs.

If dropping bombs on people's families, friends, workplaces, cities, factories and heads of government doesn't make them realise what great guys you are, and start to like you after all, then what will?

If you can't persuade someone that you want to be friends by targeting them with explosive ordnance, then nothing is going to persuade them.

Careful, Neocons actually believe that.

 

[Jarhyn]

Does it matter how a war plays out? People would be dead after that did not need to be dead before. There is no need for a war, other than to shore up some fucking LOSER's political aspirations. What else needs to be said beyond that? It is literally mass murder for political purposes

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Does it matter how a war plays out? People would be dead after that did not need to be dead before. There is no need for a war, other than to shore up some fucking LOSER's political aspirations. What else needs to be said beyond that? It is literally mass murder for political purposes

As much as I want to agree with you, I can't. How it plays out does matter, because it either means people needlessly dead or many many many many people needlessly dead. Would you be interested in my worst case scenario?

 

[Jarhyn]

Does it matter how a war plays out? People would be dead after that did not need to be dead before. There is no need for a war, other than to shore up some fucking LOSER's political aspirations. What else needs to be said beyond that? It is literally mass murder for political purposes

As much as I want to agree with you, I can't. How it plays out does matter, because it either means people needlessly dead or many many many many people needlessly dead. Would you be interested in my worst case scenario?

People dead now who weren't dead yesterday. Iran isn't attacking I've enough years of experience to know that this is just more wagging the dog and US antagonism.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Yes, but that doesn't address why we do need to consider how it plays out. There is an issue of "how many people dead". The goal is zero. If we don't get to zero, then the question is how many, be it less or more.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, but that doesn't address why we do need to consider how it plays out. There is an issue of "how many people dead". The goal is zero. If we don't get to zero, then the question is how many, be it less or more.

The problem is that Iran won't allow that to be an answer. They shot down that drone because it was watching them attack tankers. They want to close the Gulf but not be blamed for it. I can't see that happening without people getting killed.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Yes, but that doesn't address why we do need to consider how it plays out. There is an issue of "how many people dead". The goal is zero. If we don't get to zero, then the question is how many, be it less or more.

The problem is that Iran won't allow that to be an answer. They shot down that drone because it was watching them attack tankers. They want to close the Gulf but not be blamed for it. I can't see that happening without people getting killed.

1. How many lives were lost when a drone was shot down?
2. The guilty party in the tanker attack was not determined. There is reasonable doubt on the question of if Iran did it.
3. Everyone asks "was the drone inside or outside the 5 mile limit". Nobody asks "why the drone was thousands of miles from the US".
4. Iran's threat to close the Gulf is, has been, and continues to be a retaliatory threat. "If you attack us, this is what we will do." I see you don't believe in self defense.

The correct response is "people in the US government won't allow that to be an answer." We know Iran wants war, look how close their country is to all our advance military bases.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, but that doesn't address why we do need to consider how it plays out. There is an issue of "how many people dead". The goal is zero. If we don't get to zero, then the question is how many, be it less or more.

The problem is that Iran won't allow that to be an answer. They shot down that drone because it was watching them attack tankers. They want to close the Gulf but not be blamed for it. I can't see that happening without people getting killed.

1. How many lives were lost when a drone was shot down?
2. The guilty party in the tanker attack was not determined. There is reasonable doubt on the question of if Iran did it.
3. Everyone asks "was the drone inside or outside the 5 mile limit". Nobody asks "why the drone was thousands of miles from the US".
4. Iran's threat to close the Gulf is, has been, and continues to be a retaliatory threat. "If you attack us, this is what we will do." I see you don't believe in self defense.

The correct response is "people in the US government won't allow that to be an answer." We know Iran wants war, look how close their country is to all our advance military bases.

It's irrelevant how far from the US it is. The only issue was whether it was over Iran.

And with #4 you seem to be condoning taking hostages.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The latest, an Iranian leader has stated that if the U.S. attacks Iran, Iran will attack Israel. Israel has at least 200 nuclear weapons and would retaliate by taking out the Iranian air force's bases, at the least. Then their military bases. Everybody is talking stupid.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

1. How many lives were lost when a drone was shot down?
2. The guilty party in the tanker attack was not determined. There is reasonable doubt on the question of if Iran did it.
3. Everyone asks "was the drone inside or outside the 5 mile limit". Nobody asks "why the drone was thousands of miles from the US".
4. Iran's threat to close the Gulf is, has been, and continues to be a retaliatory threat. "If you attack us, this is what we will do." I see you don't believe in self defense.

The correct response is "people in the US government won't allow that to be an answer." We know Iran wants war, look how close their country is to all our advance military bases.

It's irrelevant how far from the US it is. The only issue was whether it was over Iran.

Five miles plus one inch, or five miles minus one inch. It was far outside the 5 miles of territorial waters of the US, but since the US owns and runs the world, the question of what the heck the US was doing so far away is irrelevant.

And with #4 you seem to be condoning taking hostages.

With a little imagination you could come to that conclusion. Of course you seem to be saying that the hostage situation had no lead-up, and that nothing of any importance happened in Iran in the 30 or so years prior. Nope, a group of Iranians came to the US, grabbed a bunch of people, took them back to Iran, and held them hostage.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Five miles plus one inch, or five miles minus one inch. It was far outside the 5 miles of territorial waters of the US, but since the US owns and runs the world, the question of what the heck the US was doing so far away is irrelevant.

And with #4 you seem to be condoning taking hostages.

With a little imagination you could come to that conclusion. Of course you seem to be saying that the hostage situation had no lead-up, and that nothing of any importance happened in Iran in the 30 or so years prior. Nope, a group of Iranians came to the US, grabbed a bunch of people, took them back to Iran, and held them hostage.

Weaseling. In other words, you condone taking hostages.

 

[RVonse]

Does it matter how a war plays out? People would be dead after that did not need to be dead before. There is no need for a war, other than to shore up some fucking LOSER's political aspirations. What else needs to be said beyond that? It is literally mass murder for political purposes

I agree with Jarhyn. Whats wrong with just letting the Sunni's and the Iran Shites settle their own problems without our involvment? It is remarkable that racially they are eactly the same people. With only different religious beliefs that they are willing to die over. So when you really stop to think of it, their conflict is even stupider then the whites and blacks fighting with each other in the US! How can the US possibly solve their religious confict while it is none of our business to begin with?

We should pull the plug on big oil and just send our military budget to Tesla motors! We should get off petroleum once and for all, leave the middle east in peace, and stop sending the fricking drones over there so they wont get shot down in the first place!

 

[Ford]

Whats wrong with just letting the Sunni's and the Iran Shites settle their own problems without our involvment?

The same could be said about the former Yugoslavia. A collection of countries that were held together only by Tito's heavy-handed regime. Once they split up, conflicts that had been going on for centuries came right back and warring factions started killing each other. It seemed hopeless. I remember thinking "these people have hated each other for 500 years. We can't fix that." When the US led bombing campaign was underway, a friend who was a pilot in Vietnam agreed and said "nobody ever surrendered to an airplane."

Yet here we are a couple decades later and the Balkans are - while not perfect - relatively stable and peaceful. I'm not saying we should go in there and enforce peace in the region, but simply saying "fuck it, let 'em kill each other until they get tired of killing" isn't necessarily the answer either.

I thought we were on a somewhat good track with Iran. The big world powers - UN Security Council plus Germany - said "okay, we're going to try the carrot instead of the stick. If you can behave for the next 10 years, we'll give you a chance to do some more." It was a long term plan. Sanctions relief and economic stability in exchange for not being so crazy. By 2025, a huge portion of the population has grown up with the "west is our eternal enemy" rhetoric from the regime losing a lot of it's power. Another decade of stability and development and you've got a generation of Iranians for whom the "death to America" chants elicit reactions of "really, grandpa?" By then, even the youngest members of the Islamic Revolution are long dead, and maybe the Ayatollahs are more of an advisory council to the government.

The Iran nuclear deal was our first move in the long game. Then Fragilego Mussolini and his Neocon leftovers stumbled into the process and said "if we don't have regime change now, we're taking our ball and going home!"

Idiots.