Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran: An Iran war TL

Jonathan Edelstein

Jonathan Edelstein

kung Zog said:
While there was and is significant dissent against the regime, these dissenters are not pro-western just because they are pro democracy. If I'm not mistaken there is quite a leftist bias of the Iranian opposition.
Click to expand...

And even those who are pro-Western won't necessarily support a Western army invading and occupying their country.

I believe even Reza Pahlavi said that he would return to fly a fighter jet for Iran if it were invaded.
 

kung Zog

Jonathan Edelstein said:
And even those who are pro-Western won't necessarily support a Western army invading and occupying their country.

I believe even Reza Pahlavi said that he would return to fly a fighter jet for Iran if it were invaded.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Initially there will be a surge of patriotism throughout Iran. However, behind it the differences between different cultural and political groups will increase - the strains of war etc.
 
Jonathan Edelstein

Jonathan Edelstein

kung Zog said:
Exactly. Initially there will be a surge of patriotism throughout Iran. However, behind it the differences between different cultural and political groups will increase - the strains of war etc.
Click to expand...

True - there will certainly be wars within the war, and the reformists will want a price for their support. But I don't think even the reformists would collaborate with an occupation regime. Whatever its faults, the Islamic Republic isn't Stalinist Russia, so I doubt there would be an equivalent to the Ukrainians who initially saw Hitler as a liberator during WW2.

Maybe if the Iraqi Kurds enter the war on the American side, the Iranian Kurds might see their chance to join a united Kurdistan, but that's a big "if" and a great deal depends on what Turkey does.
 

kung Zog

Jonathan Edelstein said:
True - there will certainly be wars within the war, and the reformists will want a price for their support. But I don't think even the reformists would collaborate with an occupation regime. Whatever its faults, the Islamic Republic isn't Stalinist Russia, so I doubt there would be an equivalent to the Ukrainians who initially saw Hitler as a liberator during WW2.

Maybe if the Iraqi Kurds enter the war on the American side, the Iranian Kurds might see their chance to join a united Kurdistan, but that's a big "if" and a great deal depends on what Turkey does.
Click to expand...
Oh, I highly doubt that USA will get any significant local support. Just that as the war progress patriotism will change to conflict between the groups.
 

abc123

Banned
A minor nitpick: you said that USS John Stennis is hit by Iranian Shahab ballistic missile. That's unplausible. Ballistic missiles ( with possible exception of Chinese DF-21D ) are not made for hitting moving targets like aircraft carriers.;)
 

ObssesedNuker

takerma said:
2. Shore based anti ship missiles. You need targeting data supplied by? These are not scuds. When they light radar US bombers will be right on top of them.
Click to expand...

Depends on the missile. Some kinds of anti-ship missiles only need the shore-based radar for initial target acquisition, in which case what the Iranian batteries radars can do (on hearing there are vessels from observers) is illuminate, fire, and then de-illuminate before attempting to relocate. Other types can fly on inertial navigation to the general area where the target is and then switch to a search pattern with on board active guidance to find it, no shore-based radar needed. And so-on and so-forth.
 

Trevayne

Electricfox said:
It's not likely that a carrier would be escorting a super-tanker like that, and any anti-ship missiles fired against a carrier would be picked up and attacked by the carriers defending vessels, usually a Ticoderoga, but Perry frigates can also launch SAMs and use CIWS to spray lead in front of any approaching missile.
You'd be better off having a smaller single vessel like a Oliver Hazard Perry frigate be hit, and Iran would have to fire multiple missiles to overwhelm the single frigates defences, or get very lucky.
But a carrier, it's rare they'd travel in a warzone without a ring of anti-air, anti-ship, and anti-submarine defences.

That being said, no defence is unpenetrable, and a carriers missile defence can be overwhelmed if enough missiles are fired at it, that was the whole point of the Soviet SSGNs, fire 24 nuclear missiles at the enemy and hope one of them gets through. Of course, these missiles wouldn't be nuclear because Iran hasn't got the material yet to make a warhead small enough to put on a missile, so whatever does get through will probably hit and damage one of the support vessels rather than the carrier, but it would be enough to do a Stark on a Perry frigate, or temporarily put a Tico out of comission.
Iran would take a helluva beating doing this though, since the attackers would lose the element of surprise as soon as they fired, or indeed as soon as they came within missile range of the carrier task force, if they were in civilian craft then they would be warned away and then sunk if they did not turn back. I'd estimate 78% casualties on the Iranian side for 10-20% on the US side.
Now, the Iranian Kilo submarines, if they actually leave port and don't sink, they could prove to be a real nuisance if they're in the hands of someone who knows how to use them. If Iran is going to hit oil supplies, then using the Kilos to mine shipping routes is a good way to go, although since the Kilos will have to snorkel from time to time they are at risk of being picked up by a P3 Orion and torpedoed...but if they had a good CO, they could make some serious mischief in the meantime.
Of course, resupplying them after they'd spent their munitions and fuel would be a logistical nightmare. Maybe a false flagged merchant could supply them covertly, like how uboats were supplyed by merchantmen in the war in strategic places...but doing this whilst trying to dodge patrolling ASW aircraft would be difficult, but not impossible.
Click to expand...


Agreed that a carrier might be hit, but any US Admiral who put a carrier in a confined space like the Persian Gulf when hostilities are expected would be courtmartialed for negligence. Carriers would be outside the gulf providing air cover to the convoy escorts in the gulf, as well as attacking missile sites, and speed boat and submarine bases.
 

DValdron

Jonathan Edelstein said:
True - there will certainly be wars within the war, and the reformists will want a price for their support. But I don't think even the reformists would collaborate with an occupation regime. Whatever its faults, the Islamic Republic isn't Stalinist Russia, so I doubt there would be an equivalent to the Ukrainians who initially saw Hitler as a liberator during WW2.
Click to expand...

There isn't really the equivalent of a Ukraine within Iran - ie, a largely autonomous region socio-politically at odds with the mainstream.

That said, there are disparate ethnic groups - Arabs in Khuzestan and around the Shat Al Arab, Turkics, Baluchs, Lur, Azeri, Armenians, Kurds. But none of these groups have any substantive tradition of autonomy.

My guess is that we'd see a similar phenomenon as we saw with the Iran/Iraq War - consolidation of state apparatus and state power, the quashing or marginalisation of dissent, and the formation of an overpowering state/Iranian consensus.
if the Iraqi Kurds enter the war on the American side, the Iranian Kurds might see their chance to join a united Kurdistan, but that's a big "if" and a great deal depends on what Turkey does.
Click to expand...
That's the best bet, but it's unlikely to make a significant difference. The Iranian Kurds are occupying relatively remote hill country with little strategic value. Easy for the Persians to control and defend.

The Iranian Kurds don't have the same experience of having their own private armies and a couple of decades of virtual independence. At best, they'd be a receptive population. But they wouldn't be all that useful in any meaningful way.

And as you've hinted - Turkey would probably go ballistic at the prospect of a Kurdish state.
 

hzn5pk

Good timeline

I agree that a US Carrier would not be escorting a tanker. A destroyer, frigate, or cruiser could be hit. Could they possibly be sunk?

Iran could have an ingenious way of hitting a carrier, I just do not think that the carrier would be escorting the tanker.

Also wonder how long it would take for USA amphibious landing across from the strait of Hormuz?

Iran is going to take a pounding from US bombers. US will lose some as well.

Does Israel get back into the mix?

What is the Arab Gulf states say in all of this?
 

Octosteel

Octosteel said:
What does the Cheney Cabinet look like?
Click to expand...

Alright, I made a list. Everything with a (?) after it is someone that hasn't been specified. I expect Cheney wouldn't have the exact same Cabinet as Bush so there would probably be more changes. I don't know what they would be though.

The Cheney Administration

President: Richard Cheney
Vice President: John McCain

Cabinet
Secretary of State: John Bolton
Secretary of Treasury: Henry Paulson(?)
Secretary of Defense: Donald Rumsfeld
Attorney General: Michael Mukasey(?)
Secretary of the Interior: Dirk Kempthorne(?)
Secretary of Agriculture: Ed Schafer(?)
Secretary of Commerce: Carlos Gutierrez(?)
Secretary of Labor: Elaine Chao(?)
Secretary of Health and Human Services: Mike Leavitt(?)
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development: Steve Preston(?)
Secretary of Transportation: Mary Peters(?)
Secretary of Energy: Samuel Bodman(?)
Secretary of Education: Margaret Spellings(?)
Secretary of Veteran Affairs: James Peake(?)
Secretary of Homeland Security: Michael Chertoff(?)

Others
Chief of Staff: David Addington(?)
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency: Michael Hayden(?)
Director of National Intelligence: John McConnell(?)
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation: Robert Mueller(?)
Chairman of the Federal Reserve: Martin Feldstein

Also, one thing worth mentioning is that Bush would have died before Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement and Rehnquist's death so that means two Justice appointments for Cheney as well. Would Cheney appoint Roberts and Alito like Bush did?
 
Jonathan Edelstein

Jonathan Edelstein

DValdron said:
That said, there are disparate ethnic groups - Arabs in Khuzestan and around the Shat Al Arab, Turkics, Baluchs, Lur, Azeri, Armenians, Kurds. But none of these groups have any substantive tradition of autonomy.
Click to expand...

Also, the Azeris and Lur are heavily integrated into the Iranian state - among other things, Ayatollah Khamenei is Azeri - and the Armenians have historically been loyal. The others may be discontented to varying degrees, but that won't translate into supporting an invasion. Saddam was hoping that the Iranian Arabs would support him, and that didn't turn out well; they'd be even less inclined to support the United States, especially after the hash we made of Iraq.

DValdron said:
My guess is that we'd see a similar phenomenon as we saw with the Iran/Iraq War - consolidation of state apparatus and state power, the quashing or marginalisation of dissent, and the formation of an overpowering state/Iranian consensus.
Click to expand...

Iran will be in a situation much more desperate than it faced in the imposed war. If the United States can take the major cities and force the Iranian army into the mountains - and my guess is that, after a hard fight, they'd be able to do this - then it will be very hard for the Iranian government to consolidate the state apparatus. They might need to make real deals with the reformists, such as creating a national government that includes them. The Pasdaran won't be happy, but with the conflict becoming an asymmetric patriotic war, Iran will need every man.
 

Octosteel

Was Cheney tight with Wolfy? Because he might get a job in the administration. I'm not sure who all of the people in Bush's Cabinet were Cheney allies and would keep jobs in his administration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top