What Would The Consequences Of War With Iran Be?

[lligrd]

Would it be a quick air strike or another prolonged quagmire? Would the rest of the world sit idly by, join the "coalition", condemn us but do nothing or actually join the war against us?

[Bobbieo]

1. I hope we don't have to learn the answers!

[lligrd]

2. Sadly, I Think We Will nt

[Skidmore]

3. Quagmire cubed.

This is a nation hardened by years of a war conducted at the same time embargoes and sanctions were in place. Because of this, they were forced to develop their own industries and trade alliances separate from those they used to have with the U.S. They will fight until the last man standing. A proud people with a long history and a strong sense of sovereignty. This will not be a cakewalk.

[lligrd]

5. For Some Reason, The Prospect Of A War With Iran Scares Me

Iraq saddened and enraged me but Iran really scares me and I am wondering why.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. Alex, I'll take Prolonged Quagmire for $3 trillion!

Iran has the seventh largest army in the world. They have connections with Hamas and Hezbollah, which could raise all sorts of hell in all sorts of places. They have missiles capable of hitting American installations in Iraq. They may not have nukes, but they have chemical and biological stuff, like Iraq didn't. In other words, they are much more capable of fucking with us if we fuck with them. The likely blowback from any attack by us would be highly unpleasant.

Attacking Iraq would be even more colossaly stupid than attacking Iraq was -- and that was pretty damn stupid.

[seemslikeadream]

6. Iran invasion would bring fatal consequences

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2006/060428-iran.htm

Opinion & Editorial: Iran invasion would bring fatal consequences
In-Depth Coverage By Monty Rohde

In the debate surrounding the use of military action against Iran, one important question is constantly overlooked: how will Iran respond to an attack?

When the media considers how the Iranians could respond, it generally only speculates on the Iranians responding passively and ceasing oil production. According to CNN, the result would be an immediate 5 percent drop in the global supply, which could cause prices to rise in excess of $60 a barrel, creating a minor pain for Americans at the gas pump. This scenario is dangerously optimistic. The hardliners controlling the Iranian government will not react timidly. While the Iranian military lacks the sheer power of the American armed forces, it does not need to match strength for strength.

After American or Israeli forces attack, the Iranians will likely retaliate using ballistic missiles, attacking Israeli cities and American bases around the Persian Gulf. Attacks against Israel should prove ineffective. Iran has a small inventory of missiles that have the necessary 1,300 km range to strike targets within Israel, according to Globalsecurity.org, and since the First Gulf War, Israel has developed an effective anti-ballistic-missile program. The Iranians do have a sizeable arsenal of shorter-range missiles that could be used to strike American targets in Iraq.

Although Patriot Missile batteries proved effective against Iraqi missiles in the second Gulf War, it may be possible to overwhelm individual batteries. Only 54 such batteries were deployed during the second Gulf War, defending staging areas in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. There are likely fewer systems in theater at the moment, and American bases are dispersed throughout Iraq, making them harder to protect. By firing enough missiles into the Green Zone in Baghdad, the Iranians could decapitate the Iraqi government and kill a large number of American military leaders.

They could also attempt to attack the American 5th Fleet in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The Iranians possess a significant stockpile of anti-ship missiles, consisting of hundreds of older French Exocets, Chinese C-802s, locally developed variants of the C-802 and a small number of highly lethal Russian missiles, according to Globalsecurity.org.

The Russian weapons are of particular concern because the SS-N-22 Moskit and SS-NX-26 Yakhont are designed to defeat the defenses of a carrier battle group. Traveling at more than two times the speed of sound, any vessel targeted by this warhead would optimally have 25 to 30 seconds between detection and impact, giving American warships no time to react defensively. The danger these missiles present becomes clear when the dimensions of the Persian Gulf are considered; at its widest, it is 338 km and narrows to a scant 48 km at the Strait of Hormuz, the only exit from the Persian Gulf. These missiles have a range of 120 km and 300 km respectively, making the Persian Gulf a shooting gallery. At best, the Iranians may manage to sink a few destroyers and frigates. At worst, they could destroy an aircraft carrier, killing thousands of Americans. Those who would dismiss this scenario should recall what the Argentineans managed to do in the Falklands War with only six Exocets.

The Iranians could also use their anti-ship missiles to cut off tanker traffic passing through the Strait of Hormuz. This would deny the world oil production from Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar and part of Saudi Arabia, driving prices far higher than normally postulated and causing severe harm to the global economy.

Their final and most dramatic option would be to launch a ground war against American forces in Iraq. American forces are not prepared for a ground war. They are scattered across the country, conducting peacekeeping operations in what could become hostile territory.

The reason Iraq has not yet turned into Vietnam is because the Shiite clerics who hold sway over the majority of the population have largely refrained from hostility against American forces. Aside from Muqtada Al-Sadr’s aborted insurgency, American forces have spent most of their time fighting Sunni insurgents.

Most of the more powerful clerics have strong connections to Iran. Iran has taken care to support these clerics by providing funds, training and weapons for their militias. In the event of an attack on Iran, various militias could rise against American garrisons. One cleric, Al-Sadr, has already pledged to do so. Alone, they would not be able to defeat American forces in Iraq, but they could lock American forces in place.

The Army and the Marine Corps are both better trained and equipped than their Iranian counterparts, but once American troops run out of supplies, the battle is over. The most sophisticated weapon is useless once it runs out of ammunition. There is little question the Iranians would suffer an extreme number of casualties, but as long as they are willing to pay the price, they could succeed.

As for the U.S. Air Force, vaunted American air power would be incapable of saving the day. With an initial barrage of ballistic missiles, the Iranians will be able to destroy, or at least damage, a few vital airfields. On top of this, the USAF has only five wings of fighter and attack aircraft and two wings of heavy bombers currently in Iraq and Qatar, according to Globalsecurity.org. While the USAF is likely to move in more assets before an attack, air power can only accomplish so much. It is a powerful tool, but there are limits to its effectiveness. Weather, urban combat, poor intelligence and ineffective coordination can hamper its deployment. It should be noted during the first Gulf War that more of the Iraqi military was destroyed in three days by our ground forces than in nearly a month of aerial bombardment.

Most of what I have written in this article sounds far fetched, and for all intents and purposes, I hope that I am wrong. I do not enjoy being an alarmist, but the fact of the matter is, very few people are giving this potential conflict a proper examination. In the realm of diplomacy, a military can be an invaluable tool, and sometimes the use of force can succeed where other methods have failed. However, military force is something that should never be used lightly. Military action can have grave and irreversible consequences. As Machiavelli observed five centuries ago, once a nation chooses to start a conflict, it cannot choose how and when it will end.

[lligrd]

7. Thanks, Good Article - Just What I Was Looking For

although, it still doesn't answer what other nations would do.

[seemslikeadream]

11. 12 Consequences of Attacking Iran by Jon Basil Utley

http://oxan.blogspot.com/2007/02/12-consequences-of-attacking-iran-by.html

Iran would blockade the Straits of Hormuz. Iran has new, "state of the art" Russian anti-aircraft defenses as well as powerful Sunburn anti-ship missiles purchased from the Ukraine, Chinese mines, and also itself manufactures other missiles. Anti-ship mines may already be in place, able to be activated from shore.

U.S. strategy calls for destroying all the anti-ship missile emplacements and small missile and mine-laying boats long deployed along Iran's coastline. Obviously, a surprise U.S. attack may miss some Iranian weaponry, or U.S. Navy anti-missile systems may not work to defend all ships in the Gulf. Probably Iran would try to sink tankers (see a projected scenario) to set off a worldwide panic for oil rather than just aim at U.S. Navy ships. Even the threat of this would cause insurance rates to skyrocket and possibly shut down the straits. Just the risk of all this happening should be cause of great concern for America and the whole world.


War quickly gets out of hand. U.S. plans to destroy Iran's anti-aircraft and military infrastructure could easily escalate to destroying Iran's oil-loading and shipment facilities. This would take even more millions of barrels off the market for a prolonged period. If Bush/Cheney hadn't shown themselves to be so incompetent, one might imagine it was a plan of their Texas oil friends to raise oil prices to the stratosphere. Jim Cramer warned on MSNBC's Scarborough Country on Jan. 30 that war would quickly drive U.S. gas prices to $5 per gallon.

The far greater risk is that Iran would then retaliate against the hopelessly exposed Kuwaiti, Saudi, and Gulf states oil facilities. Iran has already warned Qatar, where the U.S. has CENTCOM, that its vast gas compression facilities would be targeted if it allows a U.S. attack. Washington announced that it was sending Patriot missiles to defend our "allies," but there is no assurance that these would all work. After all, only one Iranian missile (or ground attack from sympathetic Shias) would need to get through. Also, the Bush administration has made secret the publication of test results for the U.S. anti-missile program. This could easily cover up corruption and incompetence. We already now are finding out that some of our largest defense contractors have designed ships for the Coast Guard that aren't even seaworthy.


The whole world's prosperity would be at risk if oil didn't flow again quickly. Any such severe shock to the world economy would cause foreigners to cut back on financing U.S. deficits, with a consequent sharp rise in U.S. interest rates. This would cause very severe repercussions to the whole U.S. economy and government spending. Any real constriction of the Chinese economy would cause a collapse in worldwide commodity prices, with consequent effects on Third World buying power.


American citizens and businesses in many nations would be under threat of attack by militant Iranians and other Muslims. War would multiply our terrorist enemies tremendously. Administration officials keep arguing that by fighting in the Middle East we are avoiding terrorist attacks in America. This is the usual American "body count" way of fighting wars. The reasoning assumes that the number of terrorists is somehow finite. But if we keep creating more enemies, we then increase the risk of reprisals inside the U.S.


The attack would make America even more suspect and hated in the whole Islamic world. Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former U.S. national security adviser, told Congress the war in Iraq was a calamity and was likely to lead to "a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large."


War would greatly increase Russian power vis-à-vis Europe as the latter would become even more dependent upon Russian energy supplies. Already a majority of Europeans think that Washington is the greatest threat to world peace. War would severely strain the American alliance. In Latin America, new, higher oil prices would further strengthen President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, giving him more money to subsidize further damage against American interests all over the continent.


We don't know the effectiveness of the Russian and Chinese weapons that have been sold to Iran. There is a risk that they might be very effective.


We might even lose an aircraft carrier. Bush's plan may be to provoke Iran to attack first by putting ships in harm's way in the narrow Gulf. He may be thinking that after such an attack he would have all Americans behind him in retaliating against Iran. It is hard to know what is in his (and Cheney's) mind, but we do know that they are ignorant and full of wishful thinking

[lligrd]

12. Another Good One, Thanks Again nt

[L. Coyote]

8. Classic BAIT and SWITCH. Can we discuss the IRAQ war already?

Here we go again. Classic Republican BAIT and SWITCH. Iraq vs. Iran
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1946957

[Skidmore]

9. It's both, I'm afraid.

The neocons want both, and Syria also, if they can swing it.

[lligrd]

14. Aren't You Leaving Out Afghanistan?

What makes you think they can't or wouldn't add Iran to the mess?

[L. Coyote]

15. Sorry, why should I fall for this trap. Iraq is the issue, and Afganistan.

not some glass ball prognistication.

[daninthemoon]

10. There wouldn't be an invasion. There may well be massive bombing.

Aftermath may be all out war inside Iraq. Rest of the world would condemn us, but what can they do? No sane person would do this, but what sane person would have invaded Iraq?

[undeterred]

13. Can we be sure that we wouldn't be attacked on American soil?

Isn't our military going to be totally depleted after so many years of war without time to recoup?

[madrchsod]

16. a world wide disruption of natural gas and oil supplies

i think you know what that would mean