Let's Invade Russia!

[LordKiran]

No more legitimate than their "claim" on parts of EU. And don't forget Turkey they should get large chunk of EU land too. And Spain should go to arabs.
Mongols held no land, they were nomads who were collecting "taxes" from people they "conquered" .

Not all claims are equal. The difference here though is that the EU is not our rival, Russia is and this is a thread about invading Russia.


Do try to stay on topic.

In what sense is Russia a "rival" and the EU is not?

Rivalry implies a mutual animosity in the sense I am using it.

In this way I differentiate between a "Rival" and a "Competitor"

 

[barbos]

They have legitimate claim to lands held by the Russian Fed. nothing more.

No more legitimate than their "claim" on parts of EU. And don't forget Turkey they should get large chunk of EU land too. And Spain should go to arabs.
Mongols held no land, they were nomads who were collecting "taxes" from people they "conquered" .

Not all claims are equal. The difference here though is that the EU is not our rival, Russia is and this is a thread about invading Russia.


Do try to stay on topic.

And what is the topic? Reinstating Mongol Empire?

 

[barbos]

No more legitimate than their "claim" on parts of EU. And don't forget Turkey they should get large chunk of EU land too. And Spain should go to arabs.
Mongols held no land, they were nomads who were collecting "taxes" from people they "conquered" .

Not all claims are equal. The difference here though is that the EU is not our rival, Russia is and this is a thread about invading Russia.


Do try to stay on topic.

In what sense is Russia a "rival" and the EU is not?

In the "US is a world police" sense. Russia has a bunch of nukes "World Police" does not control.

 

[DrZoidberg]

LordKiran, seriously, what's up with that mongol thing?

They have legitimate claim to lands held by the Russian Fed. nothing more.

They have a legitimate claim to all of Asia and most of Europe. So that's not much of an argument.

 

[SLD]

Crumbling from within huh? You would be surprised just how quickly fortunes can reverse. France came out of a rebellion to win its war against a European coalition.

Yeah. Comparing the US to Ancient Rome is historical claptrap. The so called crumbling from within is another standard trope you hear thrown out. Rome didn't collapse from within. It had internal problems no doubt, but it's collapse came from a foreign invasion. Several actually.

That's not to say invading Russia wouldn't be an overstretch. It would be extremely difficult no doubt. But we often mistake history for inevitability. The question posed here is not whether we should or shouldn't (that's for the political discussions forum) but if the US and its allies finds itself in such a war, how should it be conducted - given the history of foreign invasions of Russia.

SLD

Eh I kinda like my earlier Idea. Campaign during the spring and summer, mass saturation bombing of significant infrastructure civil or otherwise in the winter. This is of course assuming you care nothing for hearts and minds.

I'm not sure you can win without caring, at least somewhat, for winning their hearts and minds. For all the destruction wreaked by the allies in WW-II, our theme was we were against the leaders of Japan and Germany. We made that clear in many propaganda broadcasts. When the Japanese sent out peace feelers we actually bombed them with leaflets to let the people know what was going on.

Of course doing that in the middle of a shooting match with the Russians would be difficult. But clearly the Germans failed to do that and it cost them deeply. Dealing with saboteurs and rear area guerrillas cost them dearly, tying up the equivalent of at least another Army.

SLD

 

[SLD]

Eh I kinda like my earlier Idea. Campaign during the spring and summer, mass saturation bombing of significant infrastructure civil or otherwise in the winter. This is of course assuming you care nothing for hearts and minds.

This definitely could work. And this is why Russia keeps nukes ready.

Do you think the US might actually do that if it weren't because of nuclear weapons? (I know, it's not realistic that Russia would get rid of its nukes, but I mean, assuming that already unrealistic scenario?).
First, the cost in American lives would be massive.
Second, there is the issue of how to sell something like that politically.
Third, how would America keep the occupation of a territory of that size?
It was already very difficult in Iraq, even though the enemy had neither the weapons nor the training of Russian forces (even special forces and others that would likely keep fighting), and the climate was much better.
Fourth, how about the proliferation of all sorts of weapons (including chemical and biological) in the Russian arsenal?
And fifth, what would be the purpose of such an invasion? If they're willing to bomb like that, then why not just the bombings, with very limited ground operations?

Well with respect to your third point why didn't Germany resist the way Iraq did? They certainly had the capability. But guerrilla warfare never sprung up in late 45-46 like in Iraq. What was the difference and could we create similar conditions in occupied Russia?

SLD

 

[barbos]

Eh I kinda like my earlier Idea. Campaign during the spring and summer, mass saturation bombing of significant infrastructure civil or otherwise in the winter. This is of course assuming you care nothing for hearts and minds.

This definitely could work. And this is why Russia keeps nukes ready.

Do you think the US might actually do that if it weren't because of nuclear weapons?

Yes, I think that would have been a possibility.

(I know, it's not realistic that Russia would get rid of its nukes, but I mean, assuming that already unrealistic scenario?).
First, the cost in American lives would be massive.

Well, that did not stop Hitler.

Second, there is the issue of how to sell something like that politically.

That issue is solvable - false flag, etc.

Third, how would America keep the occupation of a territory of that size?

US has 2x population of Russia.

It was already very difficult in Iraq, even though the enemy had neither the weapons nor the training of Russian forces (even special forces and others that would likely keep fighting), and the climate was much better.

Russia is not Iraq. US generals might think that it would be different.

Fourth, how about the proliferation of all sorts of weapons (including chemical and biological) in the Russian arsenal?

Actually, Russia has no chemical weapons, they finished their disposal last summer I think.
Biological was disposed long time ago, it does not last long anyway.

And fifth, what would be the purpose of such an invasion? If they're willing to bomb like that, then why not just the bombings, with very limited ground operations?

True, If Russia had no nukes then such invasion would have no purpose. But you never really know thought process in heads of these people. You see no purpose they see an opportunity.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

This definitely could work. And this is why Russia keeps nukes ready.

Do you think the US might actually do that if it weren't because of nuclear weapons? (I know, it's not realistic that Russia would get rid of its nukes, but I mean, assuming that already unrealistic scenario?).
First, the cost in American lives would be massive.
Second, there is the issue of how to sell something like that politically.
Third, how would America keep the occupation of a territory of that size?
It was already very difficult in Iraq, even though the enemy had neither the weapons nor the training of Russian forces (even special forces and others that would likely keep fighting), and the climate was much better.
Fourth, how about the proliferation of all sorts of weapons (including chemical and biological) in the Russian arsenal?
And fifth, what would be the purpose of such an invasion? If they're willing to bomb like that, then why not just the bombings, with very limited ground operations?

Well with respect to your third point why didn't Germany resist the way Iraq did? They certainly had the capability. But guerrilla warfare never sprung up in late 45-46 like in Iraq. What was the difference and could we create similar conditions in occupied Russia?

SLD

I think a key reason is that Germany was already devastated by the war, and the remaining population was in no fighting condition. Most of their competent troops had already died or been seriously injured in battlefields outside Germany. But if Russia is attacked, their troops (including forces trained for that sort of guerrilla warfare, which Germany did not have) would have to be killed inside Russia. After the initial bombings, they would not stay together in large concentrations, so that's pretty difficult to do. Additionally, Russian territory is far larger, which is a serious complication for an attacker intended on killing or wounding most of the people capable of fighting them.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Well, that did not stop Hitler.

Sure, but the American institutional system and the American public are very different from the Nazi ones. No one concentrate anywhere near the sort of power that Hitler had, and the prevalent moral views are also very different. Not only would leftists oppose an attack and invassion of Russia - let alone targeting civilians -, but there would be serious opposition from the right as well, and of course from the military, whose members may not speak out but they speak to senators, etc. It's not realistic to think the US would do that.

That issue is solvable - false flag, etc.

I don't think that's probable.
First, you would need to have a lot of people in on the conspiracy. But the people who usually go for that kind of invassion realize the tremendous cost in this case, and would not likely go for it. Also, as I said in another post, there is a political cost to losing American soldiers. The losses in Iraq would pale in comparison. There is no way the President would get support for a campaign like that.
Second, after the Iraq fiasco, people are a lot more reluctant to buy something that would kill thousands of Americans without solid evidence, which there would not be.
Third, false flag does not sell the targeting of civilians.
Fourth, it's not the same to sell a short war as a very long war of attrition.

US has 2x population of Russia.

But the vast majority of them won't fight (not even the majority of those who would support a war, who are a small minority).

Russia is not Iraq. US generals might think that it would be different.

Yes, US generals would reckon it would be vastly worse for the occupation forces, because the evidence that it would be so is pretty clear.

Actually, Russia has no chemical weapons, they finished their disposal last summer I think.
Biological was disposed long time ago, it does not last long anyway.

Assuming that the Russian claims are true, much of their expertise remains (as well as the materials to make some more). In case of invassion, some of that expertise and materials would likely be given to enemies of the US.

True, If Russia had no nukes then such invasion would have no purpose. But you never really know thought process in heads of these people. You see no purpose they see an opportunity.

An opportunity for what?

 

[SLD]

Sure, but the American institutional system and the American public are very different from the Nazi ones. No one concentrate anywhere near the sort of power that Hitler had, and the prevalent moral views are also very different. Not only would leftists oppose an attack and invassion of Russia - let alone targeting civilians -, but there would be serious opposition from the right as well, and of course from the military, whose members may not speak out but they speak to senators, etc. It's not realistic to think the US would do that.


I don't think that's probable.
First, you would need to have a lot of people in on the conspiracy. But the people who usually go for that kind of invassion realize the tremendous cost in this case, and would not likely go for it. Also, as I said in another post, there is a political cost to losing American soldiers. The losses in Iraq would pale in comparison. There is no way the President would get support for a campaign like that.
Second, after the Iraq fiasco, people are a lot more reluctant to buy something that would kill thousands of Americans without solid evidence, which there would not be.
Third, false flag does not sell the targeting of civilians.
Fourth, it's not the same to sell a short war as a very long war of attrition.

US has 2x population of Russia.

But the vast majority of them won't fight (not even the majority of those who would support a war, who are a small minority).

Russia is not Iraq. US generals might think that it would be different.

Yes, US generals would reckon it would be vastly worse for the occupation forces, because the evidence that it would be so is pretty clear.

Actually, Russia has no chemical weapons, they finished their disposal last summer I think.
Biological was disposed long time ago, it does not last long anyway.

Assuming that the Russian claims are true, much of their expertise remains (as well as the materials to make some more). In case of invassion, some of that expertise and materials would likely be given to enemies of the US.

True, If Russia had no nukes then such invasion would have no purpose. But you never really know thought process in heads of these people. You see no purpose they see an opportunity.

An opportunity for what?

There are a lot of scenarios where a war against Russia would be supported by the vast majority of Americans. And Europeans with them. If Russia were to launch some kind of attack on us or our allies with the intent of conquering the rest of Europe. Not that I think they desire to do so. But that would solve the problem of support for the war, even amongst our NATO allies we have a total of about 800 million people. Far more than Russia can handle. We could truly occupy the country. Granted it would be difficult.

As for the difficulties in defeating them, I once heard a general officer remark, shortly after the end of the first gulf war, that the soviets were only ten times better than the Iraqis. So it would only take a thousand casualties and less than ythree years to beat them.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

There are a lot of scenarios where a war against Russia would be supported by the vast majority of Americans. And Europeans with them. If Russia were to launch some kind of attack on us or our allies with the intent of conquering the rest of Europe. Not that I think they desire to do so. But that would solve the problem of support for the war, even amongst our NATO allies we have a total of about 800 million people. Far more than Russia can handle. We could truly occupy the country. Granted it would be difficult.

As for the difficulties in defeating them, I once heard a general officer remark, shortly after the end of the first gulf war, that the soviets were only ten times better than the Iraqis. So it would only take a thousand casualties and less than ythree years to beat them.

Support for a war in defense of an ally is not the same as support for an invassion of Russia. It's possible to defend the ally, seizing at most some Russian territory close to the border, and without suffering many casualties. Also, support for a war does not entail support for targeting civilians. As for the assessment that it would only take a thousand casualties and less than ythree years to beat them, I think it's wildly off the mark, and there are sufficiently high-ranked officers who know that.

However, all of this is a side issue in the context in which I'm discussing with barbos. My reply to barbos was in the context of his assessment that one of the reasons Russia kept its nukes ready was to prevent the sort of American attack described by LordKiran. While he did not say so explicitly, it's clear in context that we're not talking about any scenario that begins with a Russian attack. Russia clearly not need nukes to prevent an American counterattack - it only needs not to attack, making any sort of counterattack impossible.
So, we're talking about whether Russia keeps their nukes in order to prevent an American (not counter) attack of the sort described by LordKiran (i.e., targeting civilians as well), and if so, whether it's reasonable of Russia to do so (which barbos did not say explicitly but context indicates it's his position).

 

[barbos]

In recent history US invaded Iraq and Libya under false assumptions. There are talks about invading Iran, And Russia is routinely put into the same group as Iran and North Korea (!!!) I think russian generals have legitimate concerns with respect to American policy makers mental state. Nukes are the best deterrent.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

In recent history US invaded Iraq and Libya under false assumptions. There are talks about invading Iran, And Russia is routinely put into the same group as Iran and North Korea (!!!) I think russian generals have legitimate concerns with respect to American policy makers mental state.

Worrying about their mental state is not the same as worrying about the sort of attack + invasion we're talking about.
Also, the US did not invade Libya. It bombed Libya, and for that matter a number of other places. Iraq was invaded of course.
They had a motivation for that, though they grossly miscalculated. However:

1. The American public would probably be much more reluctant to buy into the rationale the US government might use to start a war - let alone an invassion - after the Iraq fiasco.

2. There would be a lot more opposition due to the fact that the expected casualties would be far higher. This opposition would come not only from the left, but from the right as well, and particularly from military families, retired military officers, etc.

3. Support for a war does not imply support for an invasion.

4. Regardless, support for war and even for invasion would not result in support for targeting civilians. In fact, that would go up against the consistent public stance of the US government. In fact, when the US is compared positively with countries like Russia, Iran and others, one of the main points is that the US does not target civilians.

5. Iran actually has not been invaded or targeted for a massive bombing campaign, despite the fact that Iran does not have nuclear weapons, and the casualties on the US side, while many more than in Iraq, would likely not be nearly as many as in an attack against a Russia without nukes. Even if Iran were attacked, it would very likely not be invaded.

 

[barbos]

In recent history US invaded Iraq and Libya under false assumptions. There are talks about invading Iran, And Russia is routinely put into the same group as Iran and North Korea (!!!) I think russian generals have legitimate concerns with respect to American policy makers mental state.

Worrying about their mental state is not the same as worrying about the sort of attack + invasion we're talking about.
Also, the US did not invade Libya. It bombed Libya, and for that matter a number of other places.

This is even worse, they bombed, created chaos and forgot about it.

Iraq was invaded of course.
They had a motivation for that, though they grossly miscalculated.

Of course they had motivation, crappy one at that. And there is no doubt there will be motivation for invading Russia. And it was Saddam who miscalculated when he convinced himself that US would never invade.

However:

1. The American public would probably be much more reluctant to buy into the rationale the US government might use to start a war - let alone an invassion - after the Iraq fiasco.

I don't put too much trust in rationality of any public.

2. There would be a lot more opposition due to the fact that the expected casualties would be far higher. This opposition would come not only from the left, but from the right as well, and particularly from military families, retired military officers, etc.

It's very poor assurance.

3. Support for a war does not imply support for an invasion.

4. Regardless, support for war and even for invasion would not result in support for targeting civilians. In fact, that would go up against the consistent public stance of the US government. In fact, when the US is compared positively with countries like Russia, Iran and others, one of the main points is that the US does not target civilians.

If all that were true we would not have had 2 world wars and shitload of smaller ones.

5. Iran actually has not been invaded or targeted for a massive bombing campaign, despite the fact that Iran does not have nuclear weapons, and the casualties on the US side, while many more than in Iraq, would likely not be nearly as many as in an attack against a Russia without nukes. Even if Iran were attacked, it would very likely not be invaded.

Trump administration is trying to reverse deal with Iran.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

This is even worse, they bombed, created chaos and forgot about it.

I don't know about that. An invasion might have created more chaos. But that wasn't my point. Rather, my point was that we're discussing an invasion (of a particular kind), not a bombing without invasion. The issue is whether Russia keeps its nukes ready for the sort of attack LordKiran suggested (i.e., "Campaign during the spring and summer, mass saturation bombing of significant infrastructure civil or otherwise in the winter. This is of course assuming you care nothing for hearts and minds.").

Of course they had motivation, crappy one at that. And there is no doubt there will be motivation for invading Russia. And it was Saddam who miscalculated when he convinced himself that US would never invade.

But what would that motivation be?

I don't put too much trust in rationality of any public.

It's not about trusting the rationality of the public. It's about observing how that public is likely to behave.

It's very poor assurance.

When you put all of those together, it seems clear that there would not launch that sort of attack.

3. Support for a war does not imply support for an invasion.

4. Regardless, support for war and even for invasion would not result in support for targeting civilians. In fact, that would go up against the consistent public stance of the US government. In fact, when the US is compared positively with countries like Russia, Iran and others, one of the main points is that the US does not target civilians.

If all that were true we would not have had 2 world wars and shitload of smaller ones.

That does not follow, and does not challenge my points at all. The World Wars were before the West would be so adamant against targeting civilians. But not targeting civilians has been the official policy for decades, and indeed any such targeting results in immediate condemnation.

5. Iran actually has not been invaded or targeted for a massive bombing campaign, despite the fact that Iran does not have nuclear weapons, and the casualties on the US side, while many more than in Iraq, would likely not be nearly as many as in an attack against a Russia without nukes. Even if Iran were attacked, it would very likely not be invaded.

Trump administration is trying to reverse deal with Iran.

And my points remain. Sanctions don't entail military action. A bombing doesn't entail an invasion. And none of that entails targeting civilians.

 

[barbos]

I don't know about that. An invasion might have created more chaos. But that wasn't my point. Rather, my point was that we're discussing an invasion (of a particular kind), not a bombing without invasion. The issue is whether Russia keeps its nukes ready for the sort of attack LordKiran suggested (i.e., "Campaign during the spring and summer, mass saturation bombing of significant infrastructure civil or otherwise in the winter. This is of course assuming you care nothing for hearts and minds.").

And what seems to be the problem here?

But what would that motivation be?

The usual one - public wants it and they will want if you keep brainwashing them, which they do.

I don't put too much trust in rationality of any public.

It's not about trusting the rationality of the public. It's about observing how that public is likely to behave.

Well, as I said public will behave predictably, they supported Iraq War, have not they?

It's very poor assurance.

When you put all of those together, it seems clear that there would not launch that sort of attack.

No, not clear at all.

3. Support for a war does not imply support for an invasion.

4. Regardless, support for war and even for invasion would not result in support for targeting civilians. In fact, that would go up against the consistent public stance of the US government. In fact, when the US is compared positively with countries like Russia, Iran and others, one of the main points is that the US does not target civilians.

If all that were true we would not have had 2 world wars and shitload of smaller ones.

That does not follow, and does not challenge my points at all. The World Wars were before the West would be so adamant against targeting civilians. But not targeting civilians has been the official policy for decades, and indeed any such targeting results in immediate condemnation.

I would no use "adamant" here. West is only adamant because they can afford to be adamant. With Russia they will say "We can't afford it anymore"

5. Iran actually has not been invaded or targeted for a massive bombing campaign, despite the fact that Iran does not have nuclear weapons, and the casualties on the US side, while many more than in Iraq, would likely not be nearly as many as in an attack against a Russia without nukes. Even if Iran were attacked, it would very likely not be invaded.

Trump administration is trying to reverse deal with Iran.

And my points remain. Sanctions don't entail military action. A bombing doesn't entail an invasion. And none of that entails targeting civilians.

What sanctions? The deal Obama made stopped a war with Iran, If you reverse that deal you would have to start a war with Iran.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I don't know about that. An invasion might have created more chaos. But that wasn't my point. Rather, my point was that we're discussing an invasion (of a particular kind), not a bombing without invasion. The issue is whether Russia keeps its nukes ready for the sort of attack LordKiran suggested (i.e., "Campaign during the spring and summer, mass saturation bombing of significant infrastructure civil or otherwise in the winter. This is of course assuming you care nothing for hearts and minds.").

And what seems to be the problem here?

The problem is that if that's the reason Russia keeps its nukes ready, Russia is making an improper assessment. Russia should realize that that would not happen (whoever Russia is).

I would no use "adamant" here. West is only adamant because they can afford to be adamant. With Russia they will say "We can't afford it anymore"

That's not how it works. There simply would be no reason to attack, invade, target civilians, etc., that might persuade the public.

But I've already argued sufficiently, so I'll leave it at that.

What sanctions? The deal Obama made stopped a war with Iran, If you reverse that deal you would have to start a war with Iran.

No, not at all (purely for https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/iran-deal-trump-next/542379/ ).
There is nothing forcing the US to attack. They can impose sanctions. That does not entail military action. And if they do start military action, that does not entail an invasion. And if they do start an invasion, that does not entail targeting civilians.

 

[barbos]

The problem is that if that's the reason Russia keeps its nukes ready, Russia is making an improper assessment. Russia should realize that that would not happen (whoever Russia is).

Nope, It's US who is making improper assessment that Russia and especially with nukes is a threat.

I would no use "adamant" here. West is only adamant because they can afford to be adamant. With Russia they will say "We can't afford it anymore"

That's not how it works. There simply would be no reason to attack, invade, target civilians, etc., that might persuade the public.

But I've already argued sufficiently, so I'll leave it at that.

You have too much faith in humans.

What sanctions? The deal Obama made stopped a war with Iran, If you reverse that deal you would have to start a war with Iran.

No, not at all (purely for https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/iran-deal-trump-next/542379/ ).
There is nothing forcing the US to attack. They can impose sanctions. That does not entail military action. And if they do start military action, that does not entail an invasion. And if they do start an invasion, that does not entail targeting civilians.

Yes, breaking a deal means eventual war (with invasion) The whole reason for that deal which reversed these long standing sanctions was a fact that sanctions were not working - Iran was not complying with international laws regarding nuclear stuff, in other words they were working on nuclear bomb.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Nope, It's US who is making improper assessment that Russia and especially with nukes is a threat.

That's an entirely different matter. Of course, Russia is a serious threat to a lot of people. The government is both oppressive and murderous. But again, that's a very different matter. I was talking about your assessment about why Russia has its nukes ready.

Yes, breaking a deal means eventual war (with invasion) The whole reason for that deal which reversed these long standing sanctions was a fact that sanctions were not working - Iran was not complying with international laws regarding nuclear stuff, in other words they were working on nuclear bomb.

No, breaking the deal does not mean war. The US would not be forced to attack without the deal. And in fact, it might - for example - put pressure on Iran to improve inspections (i.e., call for a better deal), and try to back that up with sanctions. It's a bad idea because the US position is pretty weak, but there is no way it would force the US to attack, just as no deal would not force Iran to actually make nukes.

And a war, again, would not entail an invasion. They might choose to bomb (for example), even using anti-bunker weapons, and only after the defenses are very weak, maybe use ground forces to destroy targets that resist aerial attacks, but only in those limited scenarios.
And in any event, an invasion would not entail (and would not involve, as a policy) the targeting of civilians.

 

[barbos]

Nope, It's US who is making improper assessment that Russia and especially with nukes is a threat.

That's an entirely different matter. Of course, Russia is a serious threat to a lot of people. The government is both oppressive and murderous.

More corrupted than oppressive/murderous. And oppressive is a direct result of US trying to undermine it.

But again, that's a very different matter. I was talking about your assessment about why Russia has its nukes ready.

Russia has nukes because USSR had them, and USSR had them to defend from US nukes. Do I have to remind you that we now know that US had first strike plans and that USSR have never had them?

Yes, breaking a deal means eventual war (with invasion) The whole reason for that deal which reversed these long standing sanctions was a fact that sanctions were not working - Iran was not complying with international laws regarding nuclear stuff, in other words they were working on nuclear bomb.

No, breaking the deal does not mean war. The US would not be forced to attack without the deal. And in fact, it might - for example - put pressure on Iran to improve inspections (i.e., call for a better deal), and try to back that up with sanctions. It's a bad idea because the US position is pretty weak, but there is no way it would force the US to attack, just as no deal would not force Iran to actually make nukes.

And a war, again, would not entail an invasion. They might choose to bomb (for example), even using anti-bunker weapons, and only after the defenses are very weak, maybe use ground forces to destroy targets that resist aerial attacks, but only in those limited scenarios.
And in any event, an invasion would not entail (and would not involve, as a policy) the targeting of civilians.

Well, I don't see much difference, but from what I read war with Iran will necessitate invasion.
And again, no deal means war, there is no other way.