Is it even in the realm of possibility to invade Iran?

[Kingshakabobo]

How can they even consider it with our troops stretched beyond their means in Iraq? Yesterday's inaugural speech made me believe that Chimp has the idea running around his alcohol damaged brain.

Anyone want to put on the Dumbesfeld hat and play devil's advocate? Another lightweight caravan to Tehran?


On edit: Assume no draft. I think we will have a draft in the next couple of years but I have the feeling Chimp wants to move sooner rather than later.

[K-W]

1. On top of everything these people are dellusional and incompetent.

So yes, it is possible that they will try.

[underpants]

2. Iraq=tactical pivot,, Saudi Arabia=strategic pivot, Egypt=the prize

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest

For example, the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board--chaired by JINSA/CSP adviser and former Reagan Administration Defense Department official Richard Perle, and stacked with advisers from both groups--recently made news by listening to a briefing that cast Saudi Arabia as an enemy to be brought to heel through a number of potential mechanisms, many of which mirror JINSA's recommendations, and which reflect the JINSA/CSP crowd's preoccupation with Egypt. (The final slide of the Defense Policy Board presentation proposed that "Grand Strategy for the Middle East" should concentrate on "Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot Egypt as the prize.") Ledeen has been leading the charge for regime change in Iran, while old comrades like Andrew Marshall and Harold Rhode in the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment actively tinker with ways to re-engineer both the Iranian and Saudi governments. JINSA is also cheering the US military on as it tries to secure basing rights in the strategic Red Sea country of Eritrea, happily failing to mention that the once-promising secular regime of President Isaiais Afewerki continues to slide into the kind of repressive authoritarianism practiced by the "axis of evil" and its adjuncts.

[skylarmae]

3. They already have invaded. Its been going on for

a while now. This is nothing new, just coming out into the mass media now. How could you have missed all the signs. His (georgie porgie) M.O. is the same for all the invasions. You must have missed the signs about a year or year and 1/4 ago. Personall, I was screaming.....

[Kingshakabobo]

9. I'm familiar with the master plan and the PNAC stuff.

I know that Iran has been next on the list. I guess I was hoping that they would get the hint that we are not invincible and that we are bogged down in Iraq.

Yesterday's speech changed my mind.

[WritersBlock]

4. I think it'll be done under the guise of a convenient Israeli attack.

That's just my gut feeling.

[Wisc Badger]

7. Would not surprise me

:shrug:

[Wisc Badger]

5. As of right now it does

not appear we have the force structure (number of deployable troops) to engage in a serious conflict with Iran (or any other nation for that matter).

It would take a serious increased in trained manpower (note the word trained, no cannon fodder please) and that would IMHO entail the enacting of a draft of military aged people.

Any way that is how it looks tome.

The wild card is what if anything Israel might do if they feel sufficiently threatened (or conversely at our covert urging).

It seems self evident to me that Iran if attacked aims to fight back in a big way, this would not be a positive development for any one.

Also just how belligerent will Iran become once (note not if) they perfect their nuclear weapons?

This is not good.:nuke:

[Minstrel Boy]

6. They may mean to confine it to a withering air war, but

Iran's response - and that of its strategic partners, Russia and China - will decide whether it is.

It's natural to say "this can't be happening!" But, well, yeah. I think it is.

[katinmn]

8. Yes, Iraq is the toe-hold.

The neo-cons believe they can take over the Middle East.

[xchrom]

10. it's about the air force.

refining and sharpening the tactics that we started in the balkans.
there is a whole new strategy being developed -- and they need to work out new technology and new tactics.
they need a war.

[paulk]

11. no ground invasion

but the US could do a lot of damage from the air - certainly take out Iran's nuclear facilities and military installations.

Of course, what would be Iran's response? Would they send hundreds of thousands of troops pouring into Iraq? How would the rest of the world react? Would the Arab world come to the defense of Persia? Probably not. Does Russia sit by and let the US military impose it's will on their side of the world? China? What will they do?

It seems an incredibly bad idea, but the Bush junta is full of bad ideas...

[Stirk]

13. Exactly what I've been thinking.

It doesn't make sense to think that the US could limit the conflict to a few devastating airstrikes. Surely Iran realizes that there's a reason the US would be hesitant to invade on the ground. Why not just take the fight where the US does not want it? They could turn it into a ground war any time they like. We're right next door, after all.

So as I said, it doesn't make sense. But then again, the Bush Administration's imperialistic urges are only matched by their incompetence. So anything's possible.

[Kingshakabobo]

14. That is what scares me.

We could get overrun. I suppose Syria would get in to the act.

[paulk]

27. I don't think Syria would get involved

unless Israel got involved, or we attacked them first.

On the other hand, if the US is engaged in a major war with Iran, and with the Iraqi army destroyed, those Iraqi oil fields would sure look inviting to everyone in the region, including Turkey....

What a mess this could end up in. Well, actually, it already is a mess.

[DrWeird]

31. If we attack Iran, Israel's certainly to get involved.

Iran has said as much that they'll attack Israel in an invasion.

[paulk]

40. but, would they really?

I don't see any advantage for Iran in drawing Israel into it. It would seem they would have their hands full with the US.

The only reason I can think of is the same reason Saddam used in 1991 when he shot scuds into Tel Aviv - he was attempting to drag the Arab world into a full scale regional war.

I'm just not convinced the Arab world would rise to the defense of Iran, which, while it may share the same religion, isn't an Arab nation. Also, Iran is Shia, while most of the rest of the Muslim world is Sunni. Just throwing that out there...

[jayfish]

19. Iran Also Has The...

ability to hit just about anyone in the region (see Israel and Iraq) with a massive surface to surface missile strike. Iran makes their own missiles and you can be assured they are much more reliable and more accurate than the Scud's that Saddam used. Without another massive buildup of ground forces (see draft) and a return of much of our air assets to the region, Iraq could very-well fall to Iran in the very early stages of a conflict. Once we beefed back up though it would be a different story. The way I see it is the US would have to fall back to Saudi Arabia, regroup, then attempt to retake the Iraq. At that point though there would be no telling who would be involved in the conflict. That's just one scenario. The funny thing about war though, things never go quite as planned.

Jay

[atreides1]

21. Air Attacks Would Work Initially

But the Iranians have been purchasing Russian AAA, and the Russians have been training the Iranians in the proper use of the equipment.

And even the US doesn't have an endless supply of aircraft.

Iran wouldn't have to launch a ground attack on Iraq, they have enough SSM's that can hit US troop concentrations in Iraq, and they are also supplied with the latest Chinese anti-ship missiles as well.

Russia and China propbably won't take an active role, but they will provide the money and equipment that Iran will need to fight, and may even provide advisors, just like the US did in Vietnam and
Central America.

I'm willling to bet that the Iranians already have every major US base in the region targeted, to include the US embassy in Baghdad and
the Baghdad airport. One indication of an attack, and the missiles launch, and afterwards there won't be 150,000 ground troops to fight the insurgents.

I'm also willing to bet that the US troops will be forced back to positions in and around Baghdad, because they won't have enough boots on the ground to keep the insurgents in check.

[paulk]

29. I always wonder if Russian ordnance will live up to it's billing

I was really quite surprised at how poorly it performed in the first Gulf War. But you never really know... I'm sure that the US would take losses of the sort that the American people have grown accustomed to NOT taking. War with Iran would be the real thing. We would lose ships, planes, many thousands of troops on the ground.

As you say, Russia would supply arms and money - not so sure about China - with the US being such a big trading partner they might be willing to sit on their hands, content to let the US bleed itself out.

Rummy and the rest of the braintrust (I use this term loosely), seem to think that the Iranian people, given the opportunity by the liberating American forces, will rise up and throw off the mullahs. After all, it worked so well in Iraq.

[atreides1]

42. It worked pretty well in the Balkans

The thing to remember about China, is how much of the US debt is owned by them, if they want some of their money back, it would definitely cramp any kind of major military effort on the part of the US.

Also, China just signed a deal with Iran for oil, now do you think they want the US to have almost total control of the oil in the region.

Besides do you really think Bush is going to piss off his coporate buddies by actually shutting off their access to China?

[forgethell]

34. The rest of the world

will do nothing. Not only are they cowardly shits, but they are afraid a madman has his finger on the button. No, They whine and moan, and discuss, like always.

[AG78]

12. They've done everything else

they set out to do so far. No reason to think a little matter like the reality they created would stop them from creating another, new reality.

They'll find a way.

[AndyTiedye]

15. The Draft Starts THIS SPRING!

Remember, the SSS is under orders to be ready to send out induction
notices in MARCH, and have conscripts in uniform by summer.

Of course they intend to invade Iran. It has oil.
It also has Muslims, so they can easily get the Fundies to go along
as part of the Crusade.

[hang a left]

17. Do you have a link to that. I'd be very interested and thankful.

"Remember, the SSS is under orders to be ready to send out induction
notices in MARCH, and have conscripts in uniform by summer."

[AndyTiedye]

39. Lots of LInks

http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html

Looks routine enough, except that they really are filling those draft
board positions, for the first time since VIETNAM!

http://www.lewrockwell.com%2Forig3%2Ftuccille5.html
http://www.metafilter.com%2Fmefi%2F31773
http://www.icehouse.net%2Fpjals%2Fhandful%2F0304%2Far11.html

and one of many threads here on DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com%2Fdiscuss%2Fduboard.php%253Faz%253Dshow_topic%2526forum%253D104%2526topic_id%253D716016

[forgethell]

36. There will be no draft. n/t

[patcox2]

16. Highly unlikely. But invasion is not what they are planning.

Iran's army is much, much larger than Iraqs, and better equipped. In order for us to "invade" in the sense that we invaded Iraq, with columns of troops and armor intent on gaining and holding territory, we would probably need 3 to 5 times as many troops and armor. It would be a huge buildup, would take months, would not go unnoticed. It would make a huge dent, possibly cripple, our military capability worldwide, i.e., we would have little left anywhere else in case of trouble (like North Korea). No way on the face of the earth that it will happen anytime soon. In fact, Iranian troops on the border of Iraq over the last two years have probably presented a bigger threat to the US troops in Iraq than vice versa; they could put a hurtin on us if they suddenly invaded Iraq in the right weather conditions such that our forces lose air ground support.

However, it does not seem that invasion is what they have planned. Sy Hersh's article states that the only reason we have covert operations in Iran now is to identify targets for air raids. Cheney referred to Israel doing a pre-emptive air attack to destroy nuclear targets. This is what we seem to be planning, a big, multiple target attack on the "hidden" nuclear arms facilities, probably a chance for the generals to roll out whatever secret "bunker buster" technology they have developed (hopefully non-nuclear)(I sometimes think the only reason we develop such huge nonnuclear weapons is to develop plausible deniability for when we use small nukes; we can say, "oh, no, we didn't use a little nuke, we used a big conventional bomb."

The neocons seem to think, with their usual stunning overconfidence, that the Iranian populace will, upon this attack taking place, rise up and overthrow their government.

[LaReservaPr]

18. So ummm...

According to Wikipedia

Iran
Military branches: Islamic Republic of Iran regular forces (includes Ground Forces, Navy, Air and Air Defense Forces), Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (includes Ground, Air, Navy, Qods, and Basij-mobilization-forces), Law Enforcement Forces

Military manpower - military age: 17 years of age

Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 17,762,030 (2000 est.)

Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 10,545,869 (2000 est.)

Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 801,260 (2000 est.)

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $5.787 billion (FY98/99)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 2.9% (FY98/99)

[Kingshakabobo]

22. I'm sorry. I missed your point. n/t

[LaReservaPr]

25. Here

According to Wikipedia

United States armed forces
Military manpower
Military age 18 years of age

Availability males age 15-49: 73,597,731 (2004 est.)
Reaching military age annually males: 2,124,164 (2004 est.)

Military expenditures
Dollar figure $400 billion (FY2005 est.)
Percent of GDP 2.7% (FY2005 est.)

According to usmilitary.about.com

Army
76,000 Officers
401,000 Enlisted

Air Force
69,000 Officers
288,000 Enlisted

Navy
54,000 Officers
324,000 Enlisted

Marine Corps.
18,000 Officers
153,000 Enlisted

Total of = 1,383,000

Now
150,000 Troops in Iraq.
18,000 Troops in Afghanistan.
16,500 Troops are serving Tsunami Relieve

So either the US government does not think that we need more troops in Iraq or they are holding back troops preparing for one hell of a war with Iran.

[TWiley]

20. Who's oil would we be stealing in Iran?

That would be my question.

Evidently we are currently stealing the oil that was once headed to our European allies from Iraq. We control the oil in Afganistan now as well.

Which countries buy the bulk of Iran's oil today? It would seem that those customers would likely be concerned as well.

[blindpig]

26. China and India

New agreement has recently been signed. We'll really stick our foot in it this time. Are they nuts? Piss off China and all sorts of economic havoc could ensue.

[TWiley]

41. That would heavily factor into

the decision to go to war. Maybe they want to use this as a bargaining chip. Give us A, B, and C annnd PRESTO! Iran is safe. Do not deliver these things ---- WHAM, we will give it to ya right in the nuts.

They are playing Hard-Ball-Politics with the big guys in the area. What they don't realize is that they are also teaching others at the table how the game is to be played. Expect hard-ball tactics in return.

[Jim__]

23. I don't think they're planning an invasion ...

... I think they plan on bombing selected sites.

In their utter stupidity, they believe they can do that and Iran can't retaliate. I wonder if they know that Iran borders on Iraq. I wonder if they've considered the possibility that if they bomb Iran, Iranian troops might pour over the border into Iraq.

I doubt it. According to Seymour Hersh's New Yorker article, they believe if they bomb Iran, the Iranians will rise up and overthrow the mullahs.

The people running our country are fucking idiots.

[Sparkly]

24. Yes it is

General Clark was asked this recently and he said, basically, don't think they can't do it, and don't think they won't do it.

They can: Depending on what happens in Iraq, they could move forces from there, and meanwhile the Air Force is not stretched the way the army is.

They might: He said since he's not seeing the "engaged diplomacy" required to avert military force, they may be planning this "wrong course."

One other thing he mentioned is that the debate on Iran and Syria and military options has been hidden, so there's no public discussion or scrutiny. It sounded like he's hearing things he can't confirm or broadcast, and that something's going on the public isn't being told about.

[MissMarple]

28. There is a lot of saber rattling going on.

There is an interesting article in December's Atlantic Monthly by James Fallows. It reports the results of a mini "war game" or simulated decision making exercise from directed by a retired Air Force colonel who previously conducted war games at the National War College. It's a good read if you can access it on line or locate a print copy.

Essentially the recommendation at the end is don't invade or attack, we have to make diplomacy work. An invasion or direct attack on nuclear installations will at best only buy a small amount of time and will result in a big mess, a very big mess that we may not have available resources to get ouselves out of.

And, yes, Iran is a threat.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200412/fallows

[BillZBubb]

30. Invading Iran is not that big a problem.

The big problem is what happens when you've "won". Just like Iraq only worse by an order of magnitude. We'd need at least 1 million troops on the ground just to keep the lid on.

Iran's military is a joke. Anyone who thinks they could stand up to a US invasion force is just dreaming. These are the same guys who sent human waves of unarmed men into the Iraqi positions in the Iran/Iraq war. They could barely hold their own in static warfare against an third rate military power.

We have the resouces to invade and defeat the Iranian military. We don't have the resources to hold and stabilize the country. Not even close. Hopefully, the idiots in the Bush Criminal Enterprise realize this simple fact.

[newportdadde]

32. Question on troops in Iraq and pulling out.

If the 'elected' Iraqi government 'asked' us to leave could we then use that as an excuse to leave Iraq and since the troops are already there go into Iran? I'm not sure if that even a tactical option given the size of Iran but I'm curious.

[forgethell]

33. I think that

they will encourage Israel to knock out any nucleur facilities in Iran. American troops will take on Syria first.

[DrWeird]

35. Uh huh.

American troops might take out Syria after Syria takes out Tel Aviv.

[hunter]

37. If erection lasts longer than four hours seek medical attention...

The bozos in the White House are eating handfuls of Ecstacy along with their Viagra. Gangrene of the penis is setting in, but they are too stoned to notice.

[txaslftist]

38. Depends on what you mean by invade.

If you mean "could we put troops into Tehran despite Iranian resistance and topple the government?" The answer is yes. We could get an armored column there and Iran is certainly not capable of stopping us, although they would certainly inflict serious casualties.

If you mean, "could we maintain anything remotely approaching stability and/or acceptable troop safety levels for longer than about a month?"

I'd have to say no to that one. Invasion: strategically possible.
Victory: tactically impossible.