Posted by Rough Rider on February 3, 2007, 9:40 am, in reply to "US – Iran Situation Analysis" The US government can not invade Iran because we have reduced the size of the US military. To occupy Iran the US would need at least one million troops. Currently, US army numbers just over 500,000 ground troops. These of course are spread over various continents and countries. And of course, the obvious, is that we are engaged in two wars. The US can not invade and occupy another country (of Iran's size) without putting the US on a war footing. The US population will not will not make that kind of sacrifice unless the country is under immediate threat. Second, Iran is not really self-sufficient as you would claim. Products are sub-standard. What items Iran does produce are designs from the US and Russia and others. The old Paykan was really the 1967 Hillman Hunter produced by the British. The Shahab missle is based upon a North Korean design, etc. The point here is that Iran is not self-sufficient in its abilities to create something from scratch. Also, when you factor in the raw materials that Iran must buy from other countries to produce those and other items, Iran would be seriously under threat if ever a real embargo was to be implemented. Unfortunately, there are countries that are unscrupulous in this regard and are willing to make money at others expense. Related to that are countries that want to challenge America anyway possible. In fact, America is being challenged on many fronts by countries that hate our way of life and our status in the world. The military goods of Iran are not a challenge to American training and technology. What is a challenge to America is Iran's battle of wills. Politics to be exact. America's political will power is over-stretched and much diminished. It's not about Bush's "staying the course" strategy but actually implimenting the correct strategy for what needs to be done. Strategies are not written in stone but need to be constantly updated, something that Bush has failed to recognize. Iraq has been coddled beyond limit and Iraqis do not the kindness that a so-called occupation army has treated them. Islamic ideology and cultural traditions are too deeply ingrained for a "hearts and minds" strategy to work in the short term. I don't think that I am going to go into whether Iran is a backwards country or not, (though I think you'd agree that its main religion does prevent it from becoming greater than it is). Now if war did come between Iran and America, I see a slightly different scenario. The ability of the groups you mentioned that Iran supports are limited in training, geography, and the current struggles they are currently engaged in. Sure they can hit targets in their locals but their each is limited. A hit on the US mainland is of course always a possiblity (with many attempts you are bound to get a hit), but that also entails raising the ante in US retaliation. An attack on the US means a public outcry that galvanizes the leaders into a very serious reply that brings the reality of American power onto the scene. Now in terms of the war, as I said before, the US can not really invade Iran do to manpower shortage and the lack of politcal will. The war will likely be fought largely with cruise missles and airpower. I see limited commando operations. Obviously the US will go after military targets to degrade Iran's ability to strike at US targets. This will also be the chance to take out, or at least set back Iran's nuclear industry. Iran's general population will largely remain outside the scope of the war, unless they are dragged to targets by the Basij to ensure a high casulty rate and thus turn world attention against the war (not that this would be necessary for them to do). The US will not win militarily if Iran does not capitulate, since there will not be a significant ground invasion. But the US will not be defeated militarily either. The US will just go after target after target and Iran will come out for the worse in the exchange since we can hit her directly while she has to employ indirect means of hitting America. But if things escalate to the point where Iran hits American soil, then there will be a much increased chance of Iranian quality of life decreasing. Iranian hits on US forces in Iraq are left open to interpretation and I won't bother since the US political scene is a bit self-destructive in this regard. I agree with you on other points such as the US sponsoring the wrong groups and the 5th column stuff with Hezbollah. True enough we are heavily engaged in both Iraq and Afghanistan but you seem to forget that there are twelve aircraft carriers with all the cruisers and destroyers that come with them. These can by themselves inflict the needed level of destruction that is reguired. Whether it be that the targets range from Iran's military forces and nuclear sites to completely destroying the country, these units are capable for the job. Just for a view of the potency of these forces, China is not forcasted, at it current rate of development, to inflict a defeat on the US 7th Fleet until the year 2050. But anyway, just because I don't completely agree with your analysis (it is very good and lengthy), I also care for Iran and hope that none of this comes to pass. But like Iranians in Iran would come to their countries defence, I come to my countries defense too. Thanks for taking up the subject!
68.107.62.23
That was quite a response. Very good with a lot of effort. I can see why you would view some things like you do but I have to disagree with some things.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread