Impact of a United States invasion of Iran in the late 2000s

To get this out of the way, there are those who argue that there is a realistic chance that the United States and Iran will into some sort of direct conflict within the next few years, but that discussion is probably best had in the Political Chat subforum. I want to know how such a war would have unfolded in the context of the last decade.

During George W. Bush’s second term in office, I distinctly remember a real fear, especially in certain leftist, libertarian, and paleoconservative circles, that a war with Iran was imminent. Now, this obviously did not happen, but what if it had?

Firstly, what would have been the most likely specific casus belli for such a war in that timeframe? What would the conflict have looked like? Roughly how long would the initial invasion of Iran have taken, and how many casualties would both sides have suffered in both the invasion and subsequent occupation?

What would the reaction to this war have looked like in the United States (assuming that just enough public support was able to be mustered to support the initial invasion, but afterward, things would obviously depend on how the war was going) and elsewhere? How might the conflict have impacted the situation Afghanistan and Iraq, aside from likely diverting American forces from those countries, as well as the War in Terror broadly? How would the wider region have been impacted by this war, especially considering that the Arab Spring was only a few years away? (Yes, I know that Iran is not an Arab country - I am just asking what another significant war in the region might meant for that situation.)

What about the global impact, especially on the economy? Gas prices really started to climb right around that time, and the Great Recession was just around the corner. Might another significant war, which likely would have caused gas prices to further spike, have hastened or worsened the economic meltdown, or worse? If so, what would have been the political impact in the United States and elsewhere? Would the Democrats and Republicans have nominated different candidates for president in 2008?
 

Khanzeer

Banned
We take Tehran in a week
Iranian army will not fight at all
IRGC will surrender like the Italians did to O Conner
Ayatollahs will probably sign the surrender document on USS Nimitz in 2 wks
We start a Marshall plan for Iran
The pro western govt in installed, liberal society is encouraged and pretty soon we will be having lady gaga and justin bieber concerts from Qum to mashed
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Casus Belli could be a deadly attack on a US warship in the gulf ...on a serious note

A too aggressive IRGC naval unit rams a US warship maybe by mistake but the results in death of a few sailors
 
We take Tehran in a week
Iranian army will not fight at all
IRGC will surrender like the Italians did to O Conner
Ayatollahs will probably sign the surrender document on USS Nimitz in 2 wks
We start a Marshall plan for Iran
The pro western govt in installed, liberal society is encouraged and pretty soon we will be having lady gaga and justin bieber concerts from Qum to mashed
Yeah no whats this based on?

*looks at iraq* really what is this based on?
 
^ chill my friend
Just my pathetic attempt at satire
Oh sorry didn't realise, the problem is due to john bolton talking about iran it makes satire so hard to tell. Your plan is like something he really would say, so to start and justify the war and i thought you were just parroting him. At this point to be satirical about iran you need to be within a one week window.
 
The US actually would lose a war, and unlike in Vietnam where they can make the blame be a recurring hot potato to be tossed around in elections the political class/elites as a whole get blamed. At minimum you get the 2008-19 shift in public cynicism/attitudes towards credentialled elites happening in the span of two years instead of 11.
 
The US actually would lose a war, and unlike in Vietnam where they can make the blame be a recurring hot potato to be tossed around in elections the political class/elites as a whole get blamed. At minimum you get the 2008-19 shift in public cynicism/attitudes towards credentialled elites happening in the span of two years instead of 11.

Who benefits in the 2008 election cycle, though?

I could see Ron Paul performing much better during the Republican primary season, but it is still very doubtful that he would win. What about the Democratic primary season, though?
 
I hope the US, in this timeline, is ready for a bloodbath. Iran is pretty much the same terrain as Afghanistan. The Iranian Army may surrender, but I think the IRGC has the potential to be the Iranian Taliban. They would hide themselves in the Iranian mountains, launching hit and run attacks against US and allied forces. Imagine the casualty figures for Afghanistan, but in a country twice Afghanistan's size and with a population substantially larger than Afghanistan.

Anyone who thinks invading Iran will be a walk in the park is either deluded (looking at you, Evil Ned Flanders) or has never studied Iran in great detail. Iran would just become yet another endless war to add onto the endless war in Afghanistan.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Iranians Are extremely nationalistic people this will not be a minority Islamic army fighting against the the occupation.This will have massive national support even the most moderate Iranian will turn into a guerilla
Maybe This will be an Iranian version of "red dawn"
Plus will UK or KSA support such an invasion
Imagine a sunni Arab army simultaneously attacking Iran ?
 
Plus will UK or KSA support such an invasion

This is the late 2000s, after the invasion of Iraq, which the British people voraciously opposed and which blackened Tony Blair's name. I don't see Gordon Brown being stupid enough to go to war with Iran. This wouldn't be a aerial campaign like some people have proposed for dealing with Iran's nuclear program, this would be a full scale invasion. British soldiers are going to die on Iranian soil for America's interests, just like in Iraq.

I don't see why Saudi Arabia wouldn't go to war with Iran if given the opportunity. Their biggest rival in both regional influence and oil exports being invaded and crushed in a war would be the best thing that could've happened for Saudi Arabia.

Though, I do predict that the presence of Saudi forces on Iranian soil would invigorate the inevitable Iranian insurgency. Get ready for a microcosm of the Sunni/Shia divide in Islam. it's going to get bloody.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Let's say UAE attacks and takes the Abu Musa and tumb islands
Saudi marines participate with US marines in landings across iranian coast
 
In the long run, Bolton and his neocon sidekicks would probably never again work in government. Thoughts?
 
There's been reports and discussions that any US-Iranian confrontation would basically be done using drones and air strikes, to minimize the casualties incurred by a massive land invasion. People have taken the Iraq War lessons to heart, and would be very wary of going all-out against a nation not only bigger than Iraq, but more populous.

However, the OP stated a full invasion, meaning the USA will be going in with the Marines and the Army. It would be a safe bet that the USA will try and soften up the defenses with sustained air strikes before going in to minimize combat casualties, but one thing Iran's learned from recent conflicts in the region (2003 Iraq War, 2006 Lebanon War) would be to hold back, rely on guerrilla warfare. The Iraqi insurgency was a relatively spontaneous mess that snowballed into something much bigger. Iran's insurgencies are going to take pages out of Hezbollah's playbook; innocuous-looking caves leading to what is actually a heavy armored bunker with hydraulic doors, loaded with enough troops to make mincemeat out of US troops. Not to mention IEDs, ambushes, hidden SAM sites to take out unsuspecting aircraft, basically turn the whole country into a meat grinder even worse than Iraq ever was. Iran is bigger, more populous, and by 2007, had recovered from the Iran-Iraq war to be better off than Iraq in terms of preparation. Sure, you'll have people willing to work with the occupier, but they'll definitely not be enough to keep control of the country.

I believe, had the US invaded Iran, it would have broken the USA as a superpower. Iraq cost the USA 2.4 trillion dollars by 2017, mostly on account of loans, interest, etc... but the direct costs were 1.1 trillion. Iran is going to be at least double or triple that, on account of having to fight an organized army, better defenses, and a longer, better prepared insurgency across more intractable terrain (Iraq was mostly flat, while Iran is mountainous).

It would have enraged India and China, and allowed Russia to mess with the USA discretely. Iran provides oil to India and China, and by taking out their biggest supplier, it would endanger the economies of both states due to the incredible spiking price of oil and reducing oil supply. Saudi Arabia will undoubtedly try to fill in the gap, but it will be spending too much money on supporting the invasion and then trying to cut oil prices to affordable levels that it will also collapse its own economy much sooner. Syria, still undamaged by the Arab Spring (which didn't happen ITTL) would be smuggling weapons and other materiel through Iraq to help its regional ally, as well as smugglers across the Caspian Sea from Russia. Those would undoubtedly be paid by Iranian agents, but it would allow the Kremlin to have a good laugh at America's expense.

At the time, the US government believed organized resistance was created by foreign agents (remember the whole Iran-blaming at the time?), so they'd have no real plan beyond "invade the next troublesome nation", which really wouldn't solve the problem here. With American troops still in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US forces would be spread to the breaking point, fighting off insurgencies in three countries while trying to maintain a strong military presence across the globe. They could send the Iranian government into exile, but their puppet government wouldn't be worth anything in the eyes of the Iranians. While Iran has its ethnic groups, they can't be exploited like in Iraq; the Farsis (who are the biggest group by far) and Azerbaijanis (second biggest at 16-20%) are friends and both Shi'ite, and if the Iranian Arabs (2-3%) didn't rise up for Saddam in 1980, what makes the Americans think they'll get any help? The Kurds might be the best shot, but at 10%, they won't be enough to help control the country.

Between the steep casualty numbers, insane spending, continuous insurgency attacks and increased destabilization in the Middle East due to expenses and Iranian agitators, the Iran War would have been the worst war in modern American history. And without the British, French, or Germans being dumb enough to stick their head in the guillotine with the Americans, it'll be the USA and Saudi Arabia shouldering all the costs.

Israel won't be safe either. If Iran's in trouble, Hezbollah will make sure to keep the pressure on Israel, with missile attacks, raids, and other problems. And with the IDF still in sorry shape after 2006, it will only get worse from there.
 
Yeah, it would be a costly, lengthy, bloody disaster, a war that the US can only lose in the mid-long term.
The US can probably win a conventional campaign (though I don't think it would be a walkover) but what then?
They are not going to have the manpower to occupy everything from Fallujah to Kabul (the were serious manpower issues with Iraq alone), the oil and gas prices would make merry hell with the world's economy. Guerrilla resistance would be almost a given. Whatever Iranian government the occupiers cobble together would have zero legitimacy, even less than Afghanistan's Karzai. Iran would be devastated.
Very few Iranians would feel like cooperating with the invaders, even among those who oppose the current system.
The international standing of the US, which Iraq already severely damaged, would really sink below the ground. People would start wondering if neo-conservative US can be trusted as a sane international actor, and the European allies are likely to reconsider their NATO commitments.
Assuming that the aftereffects do not strike a blow to American democracy (which is unlikely to happen, despite the very questionable human rights record of the Bush administration) the Neo-conservative wing of the GOP is going to be extremely discredited. An Obama presidency remains likely, but the Democrats will have to distance themselves more clearly from the preceding legacy, while having to handle to unrewarding task of finding some sort of way out of the mess. Which I do not see.
It would be truly, truly horrible for everyone involved.
 
The US would have made some spectacular early successes, but ultimately would get their asses kicked. Iran is no Iraq. Much larger, much worse terrain, much bigger population (which despite claims to the contrary would fight in united and fanatic fashion).
 
Not to mention that Iran's game plan has always included the local militia turning every urban area in to a Fallujah on steroids. Given that they train for it, locals have plans/weapon caches etc in place, Iran quickly turns into a meat grinder and/or a PR nightmare as the US bombs "civilian" areas. No way the US public will stand for the body count/draft/TV footage for long.

The US will "win" every fight, the units involved however will be combat ineffective afterwards meaning its a long fight even before the guerilla phase starts. The number of men/supplies needed is probably more than the US can sustain without a proper draft and repurposing factories etc.
 
First the op requires a full scale invasion and we learned the lesson by 2007 that going light footprint and restrictive with the ROEs at the start didn’t work out too well.

This was at a time quite a few democrats on the Hill had put all their political coins behind opposing Bush’s foreign policy in the Middle East as in Harry Reid the Senate Majority leader declaring the war in Iraq lost.

Going from that to Congress authorizing a war, a draft or at least a massive professional conventional forces build up would require a terrorist attack on the US at least somewhat traceable to Iran linked Shia groups that rivals 911.
 
Last edited:
Top