IRAN: What do we reasonably expect from a military confrontation in that country?

[Its On A Slab]

We have already seen that Shock-And-Awe looks pretty fearsome on the surface, but that alone is not nearly enough to affect regime change.

* A surgical strike to take out Khameini (either with prejudice or a Maduro-esque scoop)? Doing that would only mean a replacement that is probably equally odius.

*A true boots-on-the-ground invasion? Are we prepared for the casualties and collateral damage? Is it worth it?

The last time we had a bulid-up of this magnitude in the M.E. was pre-2003 Iraq. At the time, I never thought Bush 43 was stupid enough to actually invade Iraq. Much to my surprise.

The US/NATO air strikes on Belgrade during Clinton's administration were somewhat successful. Eventually the Serbs came to the table and sought to end the wars. Do we think that a sustained bombardment on Iran will do the same?

 

[81usaf92]

I think it’s best to let Iranians to do what is best for them.

 

[crimsonaudio]

I don’t know what to expect, but between the air-power build up and the clearing of commercial flights around Iran I suspect we’re going to see some serious firepower coming out of the sky in support of the revolution.

Only time will tell whether that’s good or bad - I think we’ve proven over and over that we do not understand the mind of the average middle-eastern person, so it’s likely best if we just stay out of it.

 

[Tidewater]

We have already seen that Shock-And-Awe looks pretty fearsome on the surface, but that alone is not nearly enough to affect regime change.

* A surgical strike to take out Khameini (either with prejudice or a Maduro-esque scoop)? Doing that would only mean a replacement that is probably equally odius.

*A true boots-on-the-ground invasion? Are we prepared for the casualties and collateral damage? Is it worth it?

The last time we had a bulid-up of this magnitude in the M.E. was pre-2003 Iraq. At the time, I never thought Bush 43 was stupid enough to actually invade Iraq. Much to my surprise.

The US/NATO air strikes on Belgrade during Clinton's administration were somewhat successful. Eventually the Serbs came to the table and sought to end the wars. Do we think that a sustained bombardment on Iran will do the same?

I do not think there is any appetite for a sustained bombing campaign against Iran, in the US or with our allies.
Iraq had 48 million people, Iran has almost double that (93 million). Iraq is about 169,000 square miles in area, while Iran is about 636,000 square miles. Almost double the population almost four times the area. Without some huge contributions from allies, I think it is just not possible to occupy Iran, even if the US wanted to invade.
Air power alone can only accomplish so much.

The bigger issue is, what are the strategic objectives? Having an Iran not led by muslim fanatics bent on spreading instability and terror around the region, but that may not be possible. It would be nice for the US, US friends in the region, and the Iranian people themselves if they were now ruled by something like a liberal development of the shah's regime (girls were wearing mini skirts in Tehran in the early 1970s). Something akin to Turkey today. Erdogan wears a suit, not a kfiyah, and while there are koran thumpers in Turkey, there are a lot of pragmatic muslims there as well. You can get a beer in Ankara. For Iran, I do not think we can put that toothpaste back in the tube.

So, could we kill or capture the leadership? Probably. Would that change things? Probably not, if the IRGC is still hanging around. Their life-expectancy depends largely on the current regime staying in power so they are behaving like the SS in Germany in 1945: fanatically loyal to the regime. If we do not eliminate the IRGC, we will most likely get more of the same. Until the IRGC is rendered ineffective, if protests start up again, you'll get a lot of dead protestors.

As 92tide said, the Iranian people will have to decide this, but Iran does not have a 2nd amendment, so the power imbalance between protestors and IRGC is stark. Protestors have the numbers, IRGC has the guns.

 

[92tide]

As 92tide said, the Iranian people will have to decide this, but Iran does not have a 2nd amendment, so the power imbalance between protestors and IRGC is stark. Protestors have the numbers, IRGC has the guns.

i agree with all of that, but it was @81usaf92 who said that upthread. he is a much more thoughtful and articulate poster than i am and i don't want to take his credit

 

[Tidewater]

i agree with all of that, but it was @81usaf92 who said that upthread. he is a much more thoughtful and articulate poster than i am and i don't want to take his credit

That and as Vizzini in The Princess Bride said, "never get involved in a land war in Asia."

 

[81usaf92]

I do not think there is any appetite for a sustained bombing campaign against Iran, in the US or with our allies.
Iraq had 48 million people, Iran has almost double that (93 million). Iraq is about 169,000 square miles in area, while Iran is about 636,000 square miles. Almost double the population almost four times the area. Without some huge contributions from allies, I think it is just not possible to occupy Iran, even if the US wanted to invade.
Air power alone can only accomplish so much.

The bigger issue is, what are the strategic objectives? Having an Iran not led by muslim fanatics bent on spreading instability and terror around the region, but that may not be possible. It would be nice for the US, US friends in the region, and the Iranian people themselves if they were now ruled by something like a liberal development of the shah's regime (girls were wearing mini skirts in Tehran in the early 1970s). Something akin to Turkey today. Erdogan wears a suit, not a kfiyah, and while there are koran thumpers in Turkey, there are a lot of pragmatic muslims there as well. You can get a beer in Ankara. For Iran, I do not think we can put that toothpaste back in the tube.

So, could we kill or capture the leadership? Probably. Would that change things? Probably not, if the IRGC is still hanging around. Their life-expectancy depends largely on the current regime staying in power so they are behaving like the SS in Germany in 1945: fanatically loyal to the regime. If we do not eliminate the IRGC, we will most likely get more of the same. Until the IRGC is rendered ineffective, if protests start up again, you'll get a lot of dead protestors.

As 92tide said, the Iranian people will have to decide this, but Iran does not have a 2nd amendment, so the power imbalance between protestors and IRGC is stark. Protestors have the numbers, IRGC has the guns.

The problem I’m looking at is with two things. 1) the current regime exists solely because us and the British overthrew a liberal republic of Iran because they got wise to global politics in terms of their oil and 2) there is no real viable alternative. I think both issues are related and add to our ongoing struggles should we get involved because whatever government we put in place would be viewed as “America’s puppet”.

Also consider Iran has a bunch of enemies within the Muslim world. A destabilized Iran that is being rebuilt by America are two good reasons for Arab conquest and insurgents to try their luck in the rich lands of Persia.

I think the death of the regime only happens with confusion up top. The current Ayatollah really doesn’t have a good successor ever since his chosen guy was killed in a helicopter crash. I think everyone sees his son as a buffoon and the regime is currently trying to say “hey we are still strong enough to fight back”. But i think things must happen naturally and we can’t just force it.

I think Iran could and in many ways is like Turkey… with the exception of the regime. Now Turkey going full Ottoman under Erdogan has its flaws but he has yet to push it too hard. But it’s best that the Big 3 (Saudi, Turkey, and Iran) to be viewed more semi modern and an active participant in the global economy. The regime in Iran has made that more difficult with their hardline anti western stance.

 

[81usaf92]

i agree with all of that, but it was @81usaf92 who said that upthread. he is a much more thoughtful and articulate poster than i am and i don't want to take his credit

No you can take it. I’m not fishing for likes… or atleast I’m past that stage in my posting career. But thanks anyways

 

[UAH]

We have already seen that Shock-And-Awe looks pretty fearsome on the surface, but that alone is not nearly enough to affect regime change.

* A surgical strike to take out Khameini (either with prejudice or a Maduro-esque scoop)? Doing that would only mean a replacement that is probably equally odius.

*A true boots-on-the-ground invasion? Are we prepared for the casualties and collateral damage? Is it worth it?

The last time we had a bulid-up of this magnitude in the M.E. was pre-2003 Iraq. At the time, I never thought Bush 43 was stupid enough to actually invade Iraq. Much to my surprise.

The US/NATO air strikes on Belgrade during Clinton's administration were somewhat successful. Eventually the Serbs came to the table and sought to end the wars. Do we think that a sustained bombardment on Iran will do the same?

It is amazing isn't it. Venezuela, Greenland, and now Iran! All could be merely the Epstein effect. A way to shift the publics attention. It could be Netanyahu lobbying Trump that Iran is the great evil! Unless someone has other information it is my understanding that none of the middle eastern oil states desire a war next door. No one really respects a power who drops some bombs then moves on for others to pick up the pieces.

Did we have a strategy on Venezuela? No. On Greenland? I don't believe so! Regardless military experts I have followed over the years have convinced me that a ground war with Iran would be disasterous for the US. A place where the American Empire goes to die!

 

[Bamaro]

I'm hoping that there are still some people left in our government who have good ideas how to support the Iranian protestors without military actions.

 

[Tidewater]

I'm hoping that there as still some people left in our government who have good ideas how to support the Iranian protestors without military actions.

One of the things the Reagan Administration did to support Solidarity in Poland was to smuggle in mimeograph machines, ink, and paper. Clever. And, if you get caught, you are not caught providing lethal aid.