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

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.
Let's not forget the whole "Iraq has WMDs" excuse Bush had - which was quickly debunked, and added to the weakened credibility of the US Administration. The only way the US could whole-heartedly support an invasion of Iran is, yes, a massive, ill-advised terrorist attack on the USA that is traced back to Iran. Which Iran isn't going to be dumb enough to give.

Remember the whole mess with Filipino Monkey?
 
And If Iran really did have a nuclear program, an invasion would give them every legal right to press ahead with it and use a bomb if they could build one.
 
The short answer is that the US finds itself embroiled in a Persian Vietnam War.

Iran is no Iraq, it's not made up of a divided people living along two long rivers surrounded by lots of nice, open, flat, tank friendly desert. Iran is a hugely mountainous country with about double Iraq's population, who would make Fallujah look like a mouthy teenager shouting off outside of school.
 
If an invasion happens Iran won’t be in a position to get a bomb for a very long time. I think we have a problem here in separating the responses.

The first tier being cyber to mess up the Iranian program. I will leave it up to your opinion via google search if that happened.
Yeah, it happened alright: https://www.csoonline.com/article/3218104/what-is-stuxnet-who-created-it-and-how-does-it-work.html
The second tier is a bombing campaign. The final politically possible tier would be a limited search and destroy mission with ground troops like SF to get in and destroy and get out without toppling the regime.

An actual Operation Iranian Freedom requires vastly more built up animosity or a 911 sized event.
A search and destroy campaign set in a territory the size of Alaska (Iran is just slightly smaller than Alaska) with a population twice that of California in 2008 (72.85 million vs 36.54 million). And did I mention that due to typical Middle Eastern/Third World demographics, almost half the population is in the 14-35 age zone?

While the Americans will definitely find some people willing to work with them, the failures of Karzai and the new Iraqi government to fulfill postwar promises doesn't look too promising for Iran. Plus, the last time the USA got involved in Iranian politics, they ousted a popular PM by the name of Mossadegh so they can restore power to a very unpopular Shah seen as the foreigner's collaborator and puppet. Yes, the Iranian people want the Revolutionary Council and the old-timer mullahs to stop telling people what to do, but I doubt a government of exiles brought in by the power of foreign guns will be very well liked.
 
I agree, it will be a bloody mess that will cause a staggering loss of life for US troops and a horrendous loss of life for Iranians. It's also likely to leave the US with an amount of debt that will eventually leave the budget sucked dry. OTOH... such a fiasco might finally be the jolt needed for the US population and political establishment to realize that monkeying around in the Middle East is a losing game, and finally prompt our government to start putting some distance between us...
 
I agree, it will be a bloody mess that will cause a staggering loss of life for US troops and a horrendous loss of life for Iranians. It's also likely to leave the US with an amount of debt that will eventually leave the budget sucked dry. OTOH... such a fiasco might finally be the jolt needed for the US population and political establishment to realize that monkeying around in the Middle East is a losing game, and finally prompt our government to start putting some distance between us...
But there's a Catch-22 here. The Middle East is not only a major linking spot between the three old world continents, it's also where more than half the world's oil reserves are found, and the USA has an interest in the survival of Israel and in keeping its influence ongoing in the region. Fully abandoning the MidEast is a foolhardy idea; someone else will fill the power vacuum if the USA leaves.

But yes, the USA will have to fully reassess its foreign policy after repeated debacles, as such debacles would have been incredibly humiliating and costly.
 
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
How did this post get so many likes? Iran is 4 times the size of Iraq. Their military was also about 20 percent larger. So, while the US would cut through Iran like a hut knife through butter, but the distances involved mean that Tehran takes much longer to fall. It took 21 days for Baghdad to fall OTL. Tehran is definitely not falling sooner.

Furthermore, Iran's military as had more success than Iraq's as well as avoiding crippling loses like Iraq had experienced throughout the 90s.

Lastly, the US military was already stretched thin with its commitments. If the Iran war for some reason started in late 2007, a premature onset of the 2008 economic collapse and a loss of political will (i.e. Obama campaigning against the war, a stronger though unsuccessful Ron Paul showing in 08 primary) it is not impossible for the US to actually give up before getting a formal surrender. Hence, Tehran is probably occupied, but a good 40% of the country or so may have zero US presence. Come the election of Obama, the US might actually withdrawn from Iran entirely in order to avoid uprisings in Iraq and a premature comeback of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Though the US could "win" it is also possible they could lose conventionally, the result being the first war we actually lost without being outlasted by guerilla war or insurgencies.
 
Fully abandoning the MidEast is a foolhardy idea;
agreed, but the US could stand to have a lot lower footprint there... maintain general ambassadorial links, cease arming and aid to Israel (and the rest), pull the troops out, etc. We're trying way to hard to control the place, and it's generally uncontrollable...
 
How did this post get so many likes? Iran is 4 times the size of Iraq. Their military was also about 20 percent larger. So, while the US would cut through Iran like a hut knife through butter, but the distances involved mean that Tehran takes much longer to fall. It took 21 days for Baghdad to fall OTL. Tehran is definitely not falling sooner.

Furthermore, Iran's military as had more success than Iraq's as well as avoiding crippling loses like Iraq had experienced throughout the 90s.

Lastly, the US military was already stretched thin with its commitments. If the Iran war for some reason started in late 2007, a premature onset of the 2008 economic collapse and a loss of political will (i.e. Obama campaigning against the war, a stronger though unsuccessful Ron Paul showing in 08 primary) it is not impossible for the US to actually give up before getting a formal surrender. Hence, Tehran is probably occupied, but a good 40% of the country or so may have zero US presence. Come the election of Obama, the US might actually withdrawn from Iran entirely in order to avoid uprisings in Iraq and a premature comeback of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Though the US could "win" it is also possible they could lose conventionally, the result being the first war we actually lost without being outlasted by guerilla war or insurgencies.

They stated a few posts down that this comment was satire.
 
Straits Closed: Oil Futures Soar Past $200/Barrel

UPI: In the wake of Iranian rocket attacks, Lloyd's of London announced it will not insure shipping in the Persian Gulf until further notice. A spokesman was ... [Read More]

Iranian-oil-tanker-still-burning-off-China-coast-with-31-missing.jpg
 
True story.

When I was in basic at fort Knox in 2007, one of our drill sergeants assembled my platoon and another to have a discussion. He sat and informed us the Iranians had attacked a British ship, taken hostages and had attacked one of our ships. Then he said our training schedule was gonna be cut in half and we be sent to our units and possibly combat in less than 6 weeks.

And then he said, "Privates, does anyone know what today's date is?"
Though we all had watches, it took a few seconds for most of to realize before a scary smile crept up on his face.

April #@$!ing fool's day.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Ground war is out of question.But if US concentrate on just airstrikes with Israeli and saudi help
And a total unrelenting air & naval blockade

1 what chances it will totally eliminate the war making capacity of Iran
2 how long will it take ?
3 potential losses ?
4 fallout politically
5 long term prospects of keeping iran down
In conventional military terms and also destroying all aspects of WMD developmemt
6 will Iran be able to close the straits if that happens
 
Unlike Iraq in 2003, Iran actually has a large stockpile of chemical weapons. It would be trivially easy for them to disperse them along the IRGC and wait until the US is fully settled into its counter-insurgency role before bombarding US FOBs with nerve agents causing mass casualties.
 
Unlike Iraq in 2003, Iran actually has a large stockpile of chemical weapons. It would be trivially easy for them to disperse them along the IRGC and wait until the US is fully settled into its counter-insurgency role before bombarding US FOBs with nerve agents causing mass casualties.

That has the makings of a very nasty and probably more successful Tet Offensive analogue. Trying to take Iran would be like swallowing a white hot nickel ball.
 
Ground war is out of question.But if US concentrate on just airstrikes with Israeli and saudi help
And a total unrelenting air & naval blockade
1 what chances it will totally eliminate the war making capacity of Iran
It will wreck the Iranian economy, and you can bet the primary industrial sites (including oil refineries) will be totaled in an attempt to grind down Iran's capacity to wage war. However, one lesson learned in 2006 (and similarly in Yugoslavia) was that airstrikes don't 100% destroy enemy weapon sites. Dan Halutz announced the IDF destroyed 66% of Hezbollah's missile-launching capabilities - the very next night Hezbollah hit Northern Israel with the most intensive rocket barrage up to that point. Similarly, Yugoslav soldiers would camoflage old cars and pipes as tanks and let NATO bomb them, while the actual armored units would be mostly hidden in safe bunkers.

Basically, no matter how hard the Coalition tries, the Iranian forces will have a way to strike back.

2 how long will it take ?
There would be no real limit for the blockade to be effective. Iran is already under sanctions from the West, and blockading it means no oil gets out, worsening the global economy because oil prices skyrocket. While Iran isn't a breadbasket like the USA, it's still much more self-sufficient and has better agriculture than Iraq did, and can feed its people to a better degree.

And should the Iranian production of oil cease altogether, Saudi Arabia will work overtime to try to keep prices down, trying to keep global stability over any attempt to make money. Between the war costs, the blockade, and the ludicrously low oil profits, Saudi Arabia will be pushing its economy over a cliff the longer the war goes on.

3 potential losses ?
Moderate, but those rely on how well Iran maintains its AAA network and SAM systems. If there's a naval blockade, the Iranian navy might just decide to sink a few US ships with kamikaze boats and anti-shipping missiles, causing a potentially much higher casualty rate for US sailors.

4 fallout politically
Not good. While it would weaken Iran, I don't see them as going down quietly. Not to mention the blockade would be very costly in order to be effective, at a time when the US Economy is already hurting from the real estate bubble and decaying infrastructure. Similarly, Hezbollah would be applying pressure on Israel, meaning that even taking out its biggest regional foe is no consolation for Israel. Plus, as we saw, removing the mullahs could potentially mean someone worse in charge, dragging the region further into chaos.

5 long term prospects of keeping iran down

Done right, it could wreck the Iranian economy, force an economic downturn of 10-15 years, possibly increasing unrest and internal turmoil. Though it's equally likely to inflame Iranian feelings against the US even more.

In conventional military terms and also destroying all aspects of WMD development
Definitely weaken the regular military, the Revolutionary Guard will just switch to a combination of regular and irregular warfare styles. It will also slow down WMD production, but Iran still has a fair share of chemical weapons already within its arsenal.

6 will Iran be able to close the straits if that happens
I'm leaning towards "Yes". Anti-shipping missiles (Iran bought a lot of them during its war with Iraq, and has made sure to keep its arsenal in this area up-to-date) and fast boat raids would play havoc with trade through Hormuz, and if Iran's going to be strangled, it might as well pay back the favor. Considering the large amount of oil passing through the strait, Iran can truly fuck with global economy if the US decides to enforce a blockade.
 
An air only campaign would be less costly, but also less effective. And it would give the Iranians a slowly growing group of captured airmen to use as bargaining chips.
 
Is there any way for an invasion to be done right?
Just reading all of this feels like jumping into a pool filled with piranhas.
 
Is there any way for an invasion to be done right?
Just reading all of this feels like jumping into a pool filled with piranhas.
Realistically?

Have a full international coalition combined with full sympathy for the US and zero for Iran, combined with an embargo, air strikes, massive intelligence operation beforehand and a massive logistical and military preparation for invading a country twice the size of Texas with about as much population as the Eastern Seaboard (sans Florida). You should also engage in massive covert ops actions to weaken and disable the worst of Iran's non-conventional weaponry. And you're STILL going to hurt.

IOW, not possible with the 2008 limitations.
 
Bad idea. We have good WMD gear and it’s United States policy since the wars in Iraq to respond to a major tactical chemical attack with tactical nukes.

Cheney even had the Pentagon analyze how many tactical nukes were needed to wipe out an Iraqi Republican Guard division in response to an attack.

Tactical nukes on who? On the very territory that our troops are occupying? We have good WMD gear *when its issued and troops have it on hand*. When soldiers have gone into COIN mode, they aren't going to be having their MOPP or JSLIST at arms reach at all times and just carrying a mask won't matter when Sarin or VX gets used and can infect just by skin contact.
 
Top