WI: 2003 invasion of Iran instead of Iraq

A hypothetical invasion of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 2003 would probably be just the United States of America, with some limited Iraqi and British support.

Previous users are correct in stating that a war with Iran would be a much tougher political sell than Iraq, as Iran is a much more powerful and developed country in terms of military forces and infrastructure and much larger in terms of population and area. Not to mention that in 2003, Iran, although considered a black sheep in the international community, wasn't the big bad devil that most countries make it out to be in 2011. A war with Iran would probably be Afghanistan x10.



Basically four countries and a handful of rebel groups were in the coalition.

* United States of America
* United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
* Commonwealth of Australia
* Republic of Poland

No mention of a bloke named Zeke and his dog, though. :p

After the invasion, more countries sent military forces into Iraq, although they widthdrew fairly quickly afterwards, due to terrorist attacks (Spain) or domestic political pressure (United Kingdom).

You forgot Iceland who sent a total of 1 soldier to Iraq, and it was a female soldier. I think she returned to iceland in 2008, right around the time their government collapsed.:rolleyes:
 
If the US undergoes a similar "They have WMD!!! OMFG!!!" campaign it did with Iraq pre-2003, I think it's likely they could get international support for the initial invasion. Probably the same few states that assisted in the opening act of Gulf War Round 2 of OTL, and maybe a few Sunni Arab states like Saudi Arabia.

Oil prices will skyrocket in the first week thanks to inevitable unpleasantness in the Strait of Hormuz, which will generate a much greater outcry to the invasion of Iran than what happened with the invasion of Iraq. Depending on how the rest of the world economy develops from that, the invasion force might need to pull out before reaching Tehran because of political pressure.

and Russia might start getting antsy (seeing as Iran is actually on their border after all)

Sorry to nitpick, but the two don't share a border.

IranRussia.png
 
For this scenario to work someone will have to explain where the US managed to put together a much larger regular army and on very short notice, and this would have to be done before the confrontation with Iran.
 

celt

Banned
I see the invasion of Iran in place of Iraq as being quite likely the most stupid thing the US could have done (or if some people have their way, might do). We'd probably lose most if not all of our European allies, and Russia might start getting antsy (seeing as Iran is actually on their border after all). Not to mention that we'd be fighting a unified country who had no intentions of falling to us. Where Iraq qas factionalized between the Shiite East, the Suuni West, and the Kurdish North, we would be facing the unity of the Persian people in the face of an imperialistic invasion (i'm pretty sure that's how it'd end up regardless of how we tried to spin it).

Now, how Israel and the rest of the Muslim world will react is...questionable. I think Israel only has a problem with Radicals in Iran, and not Iran itself. I'm sure Iraq would join us, but only for the prospect of territorial gain. Still not sure about the rest of the region...

Al Queda would have a field day. They'd be able to start spouting "No muslim is safe, no matter what creed"

There isn't only Persians in Iran.

: Persians (51%), Azerbaijanis (24%), Gilaki and Mazandarani (8%), Kurds (7%), Arabs (3%), Baluchi (2%), Lurs (2%), Turkmens (2%), Laks, Qashqai, Armenians, Persian Jews, Georgians, Assyrians, Circassians, Tats, Mandaeans, Gypsies, Brahuis, Hazara, Kazakhs and others (1%).[37]
 
Hmmm...was Armenia in the Gulf coalition? If so, they might have been helpful in aiding in attacks on Iran from the North...
 
Why would Britain sign onto this mad venture?

I'm thinking coalition of one.

Maybe two and a half, assuming that Zeke and his dog sign on.
 
Saddam has reasons to want to renew the Iran-Iraq war, but would Bush be willing to let Saddam join the Coalition? On the one hand, Saddam's relations with the US were rather cordial in the 1980s, until Iran-Contra, and then the Kuwait fiasco/Gulf War. And getting Saddam on board helps project the image of a War on Terror rather than a Crusade against Islam. OTOH, Bush's daddy went to war against Saddam.
 
What does Saddam have to offer, except maybe basing rights?

Iraq by this time is a barely functioning shell of a country.
 
How would the former Iranian royal family fit in and would they also demand to return home? Would they still have any international support-credibility (some in the US still like them to this day, for instance)?
 
How would the former Iranian royal family fit in and would they also demand to return home? Would they still have any international support-credibility (some in the US still like them to this day, for instance)?

the case of the late Shah of Afghanistan should be looked at, he was welcomed back and died in his home land in '07 was named Father of the Nation in '02, but they never made him King again, also he was a generally nicer guy than the late Shah, plus he'd been King and Crown Prince Reza Cyrus Pahlavi never was King of Iran, I think the Pahlavi family would be able to come home but not as rulers.
 
Insanity!

Any invasion against Iran would be a catastrophe. First Iran's population is much larger then Iraq,heavily mountainous second only to Afghanistan. So if we launched an invasion force from Iraq or Kuwait our rear would vulnerable. Let us suppose that there is major shia uprising in Iraq in which Saddam cannot control.Second to invade Iran you would need massive manpower. So you would need about 300,000-450,000 for the invasion alone. Iran's military is a bit stronger then Iraq's. Plus any military buildup in the Gulf would come under continuous missile fire. Also there is multiple cities with large populations. The occupation of Iran would worse then Vietnam,Afghanistan,and Iraq put together. Iran has a paramilitary force of 11,390,000! This enough men and women to fight a guerrilla war fro 50 years or more. Add this with the terrible geography it would be a tough time for an occupier. The US would sustain heavy casualties and a never ending guerrilla war.
 
You forgot Iceland who sent a total of 1 soldier to Iraq, and it was a female soldier. I think she returned to iceland in 2008, right around the time their government collapsed.:rolleyes:

Actually they send people from Coast Guard and some other agency whose name escapes me. Iceland has no military as such.
 
With Hamas and Hizbollah loosing their main source of income from the regime in Tehran. I see both groups falling apart and the extreme right in Israel loosing their power as well.
By 2010 the Palestianes will have their own State and American Oil Companies will have old roll in Iran. Keeping out China....

We will have a much stronger US...Internal problems in China do to that Chinese can't buy all the oil they need. Because US/UK have sole access to the markeds in Kuwait/Iran/Saudi Arabia.
 
With Hamas and Hizbollah loosing their main source of income from the regime in Tehran. I see both groups falling apart

How much of Hezbollah's income is derived from Iran? How much of it is indigenously generated within Lebanon? How much of Hezbollah's income relates to ongoing operations - and how much relates to capital or infrastructure acquisition - ie all those rockets. Hezbollah has quite an arsenal of rockets, even if they stopped buying new ones they'd still be potent for quite a while.

I dunno, it's not at all clear to me that Hezbollah would fall apart. It seems to be a strongly organized indigenous movement. Those don't really go away.

Same thing with Hamas.

and the extreme right in Israel loosing their power as well.
I don't see how that follows at all. You'd have to make that case.

By 2010 the Palestianes will have their own State

Uh?

and American Oil Companies will have old roll in Iran. Keeping out China....

We will have a much stronger US...
How so?

Internal problems in China do to that Chinese can't buy all the oil they need. Because US/UK have sole access to the markeds in Kuwait/Iran/Saudi Arabia.
Hmmm. Well, that will certainly end well.
 
Any invasion against Iran in circa 2003 would be bloody. The conventional war would at least last about four months. Since the terrain is mountainous it would be tough for any invading force. The problem that would arise would be the occupation. Iran has a never ending supply of young men who would be willing to die and kill any occupying force. It would also be much,much more expensive then the Iraq war in OTL. They only way the US could maintain an occupying force is to return the draft or the closure of half of our military bases,and put those troops in Iran. It would be a Vietnam type war allover again but much worse. When your dealing with a massive paramilitary force of 11.4 million it would be almost impossible for the US to maintain control of all of Iran. 11.4 million men insurgency plus heavily mountainous plus a large nation equals an American defeat.
 
Any invasion against Iran in circa 2003 would be bloody. The conventional war would at least last about four months. Since the terrain is mountainous it would be tough for any invading force. The problem that would arise would be the occupation. Iran has a never ending supply of young men who would be willing to die and kill any occupying force. It would also be much,much more expensive then the Iraq war in OTL. They only way the US could maintain an occupying force is to return the draft or the closure of half of our military bases,and put those troops in Iran. It would be a Vietnam type war allover again but much worse. When your dealing with a massive paramilitary force of 11.4 million it would be almost impossible for the US to maintain control of all of Iran. 11.4 million men insurgency plus heavily mountainous plus a large nation equals an American defeat.

A useful rule of thumb based on recent occupations is twenty security personnel (troops and police combined) per thousand inhabitants. It's not a perfect figure, but it's useful. One variable factor is the hostility of the population. If I recall correctly the occupation forces in Germany at the end of WWII approached, or even exceded, 50:1000. (In this case I'd actually suggest a higher ratio would be necessary...)

Some figures:
Iran's population in 2003 was roughly 70 million.
In 2003, there were 500 thousand active duty Army troops and 700 thousand National Guard and Army reservists.
Some 70 thousand were deployed in Europe and another 30 thousand in Asia, for a rough total of 100 thousand, and 360 thousand were in needed positions in the US.

Some math:
(70 million/1000) x 20 = 1.4 million
500 thousand + 700 thousand = 1.2 million
1.2 million - 100 thousand - 360 thousand = 740 thousand

Even if the US had been able to call up all the Gaurd and reserve forces, the rule of thumb threshold would not have been reached, even if all it's deployed forces were stripped out of Asia and Europe.
 
An invasion of Iran would be much more devastating to the US. Iran is much bigger and it's military is stronger. Plus, whether you like the Iranian regime or not, it has supporters.

As for support, it would probably be US alone, since other countries may fear Iranian attack.

BTW, this story could become real if Sarah Palin is elected President. :p
 
There isn't only Persians in Iran.

: Persians (51%), Azerbaijanis (24%), Gilaki and Mazandarani (8%), Kurds (7%), Arabs (3%), Baluchi (2%), Lurs (2%), Turkmens (2%), Laks, Qashqai, Armenians, Persian Jews, Georgians, Assyrians, Circassians, Tats, Mandaeans, Gypsies, Brahuis, Hazara, Kazakhs and others (1%).[37]

No, those groups generally don't consider themselves to be non-Persian. The whole "Persian/Non-Persian Iranians" classification is pretty much a result of inconsistent Western applications of the term "Persian."

Iranians themselves call their country "Iran" and the people of the country "Iranian." However, they call the main language "Farsi," as it emerged from the dialect spoken in Fars province. Other languages are spoken too in various regions, but all the people are still considered Iranian.

Now, here's the confusing part: "Persia" and its cognates are the old Western name for Persia. (Similar to how Westerners call India "India" rather than "Bharat" or "Hindustan".) So Iranians in the West often use the word "Persian" as a synonym for "Iranian." The inconsistency arises because Westerners also refer to the Farsi language as "Persian," which has led Western ethnographers, wedded to a linguistic model of ethnology, to classify Iranians whose mother tongue isn't Farsi as non-Persians.

That distinction is not one that Iranians themselves usually recognize. Sure, there are internal divisions among the various Iranian groups. But the country as a whole is very unified culturally. Most of the groups in Iran have been under Iranian rule for centuries, virtually all use the Persian/Farsi language day-to-day, and all consider themselves Iranian. Secessionist sentiment is close-to-nonexistent.
 
Last edited:
IIRC, the Coalition in Iraq consisted of the USA, the UK, the Federated States of Micronesia and some guy called Zeke. And his dog of course. It really couldn't get much smaller than that.
An invasion of Iran would possibly lead to Blair getting the Black Spot. :cool:

Poland and Australia both sent small numbers (company or battalion sized units) of special forces type troops. I believe some others did as well but don't remember off the top of my head numbers and what years
 
Top