WI: The US invades Iran in 2003 instead of Iraq

missouribob

Banned
Let's butterfly events and say you get your invasion. For a year before the invasion the Bush Administration pushes for war and tries to use diplomacy to build a coalition. Unlike OTL and Iraq they are unable to find more than token offers of support from the international community. As the situation breaks down in January Bush goes to Congress and gets a bare bones authorization for the use of force that almost doesn't pass. It was only the two year long campaign by the Bush Administration along with nugging the CIA to find an Iran connection to 9/11 (that post the fact it turns out didn't exist) that sways the Republican leaders to go along with it. Unlike OTL where a large supermajority of Americans supported the invasion the Democrats and Left are opposed and the country is divided down partisan lines. Liberals and College Students fear a draft will be needed and demonstrate against the campaign before it begins in earnest.

After two more months of Iran not halting its progress on its program, in fact Israeli intelligence suggest they are beelining for weapons capability quicker now, on 20 March 2003 the United States begins its campaign of regime change, with the Bush Administration claiming that America would be greeted as liberators by the Iranian people. The United States was unable to use Afghanistan as a staging ground due to Russian threats to close American supply lines to that country if they used Afghanistan in the Iranian campaign. As a result the United States used every diplomatic tool in its handbox and gets states like Kuwait, Qatar, U.A.E to allow a U.S. build-up of forces. The United States still completed its OTL withdrawal of Saudi Arabia by April.

The opening salvo of the campaign sees the United States clear the Persian Gulf of the Iranian navy which attempts to block the Straits but fail. An oil tanker is destroyed though and Iranian missiles along the coast of Iran launch at naval targets, the Gulf States, and even a few towards oil fields in Saudi Arabia. Shia revolts rock the Arab world and terrorist attacks by sleeper cells follow. President Bush's resolve is tested after an assassination attempt while he was touring a war plant in Lima, Ohio. The pair of would be assassins are later discovered to have been Iranian sleeper cell agents. The Bush Administration uses the incident as proof of the link between Iran and 9/11. Americans don't like seeing their President almost killed regardless of political party and rally around the flag much like after 9/11. The Iran War gains same level of public support that Iraq did in OTL although leading Democratic figures still don't endorse the war as much as they condemn the actions of Iran.

By May the Persian Gulf is cleared of most Iranian navy. While that portion of the campaign as occurring Israel with U.S. support began conducting a bombing campaign against Iranian nuclear facilities while the United States focused on destroying Iran's Air Force and destroying their anti-aircraft network. The U.S. and Israel soon gain air superiority but not air supremacy. The coastal missiles that Iran holds are harder to spot and destroy and it is decided that only securing the coast and 200 km in land will fully secure the Persian Gulf.

The task then turns to establishing a beachhead. With the Persian Gulf more or less secure and minesweeping operations underway the military decides that both Chabahar and the island of Qeseh are critical to securing the coast.

I'm not going to go blow by blow on casualties and each town or anything like that, let's zoom back out now. Saddam offers to help garrison the Iranian towns the United States has taken in exchange for the removal of the no-fly zone over his country and easing of economic sanctions. Bush and Cheney and Co. still hate Saddam and rebuff him strongly. Still Iraq non-interference is good since the U.S. can more or less move alongside Iraq's border without worry about attacks from its left flank. The U.S. decides to make a 930 km push from Bandar Mahshahr to Tehran.

The drive to Tehran starts in April 2004 nearly a year after the beginning of the campaign. The United States has spent that time building up forces in its staging area along the coast of Iran, securing the Persian Gulf and giving itself a buffer zone along the coast against continued insurgent attacks. Now in OTL the United States had about 20K troops in Afghanistan which has been increased to 40K due to increased Taliban attacks, Iranian support of groups etc. [2] This is the only area that Democrats and Republicans really agree on, although only moderate Democrats sign on. Assuming that the figure 188K U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan at the height is the absolute most Bush can put in country, along with the one to one ratio of contractors, the United States has 80K troops/PMC in Afghanistan and 296K troops/PMC in Iran. The United States can not produce more troops without a draft. [3][4]

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are all pushing to take Tehran by the November election. Some in the Pentagon don't believe such a timetable is feasible given how urban Iran is but they are overruled and the military pushes onward. The fighting is brutal and in the urban environments most of the United States' force multipliers are neutralized. The United States basically goes through Fallujah after Fallujah while suffering IED attacks, suicide bombings, snipings etc. The reserves of the Iranian Army proper contest the United States every town along the way.

The 2004 race is tight with the glow from the events of 2003 long gone. The Democratic challenger, Howard Dean's campaign does much better in this timeline due to his outspoken criticism of the Bush Administration's foreign policy and he takes John Edwards as his running mate. This time around Dean's statements speak to the relatively more radicalised base of the Democrats.

Weeks before the election the United States military enters the outskirts of Tehran. The Iranian Regime is pushed out of the capital and relocates to Mashhad, Iran. President Bush heads to the Persian Gulf and gives this ATL's mission accomplished speech. Even with relatively higher gas prices and larger number of dead/wounded in OTL's Iraq War the President wins reelection..but barely. He loses the popular vote again and the electoral college was a tie. [5] The election goes to the House which was barely kept by the House Republicans but the Republicans lost the Senate which means Cheney is out and America gets Vice-President Edwards. [6]

Ok now things get interesting and I'm going to speed up a bit. Iran is going to hell more or less. Iran had a population of 68 million people in 2003. The U.S. Army wants a 50 to 1 ratio for counter-insurgency operations. [6] The 296K troops/PMC in Iran aren't going to cut it. That ratio is 229 to 1 if the United States wanted to take the whole country. Nearly 5 times under the amount of troops needed; 1.4 million.

Here are the populations of the places the U.S. holds at this point. This isn't trying to be exact but give a rough estimate of how much the United States could hold given that ratio of 50 to 1. These are the numbers for today but instead of doing some math to reduce the populations to their 2003 numbers we will pretend that these numbers include all the towns/villages/rural populations I didn't include because I'm lazy: Chabahar: 120,000, Qeshm Island: 117,774, Bandar Abbas: 435,751, Kish Island: 20,667, Bandar Bushehr: 195,222, Bandar Mahsahr: 153,778, Abadan: 212,744, Ahvaz: 1,112,021, Shooshtar: 92,361, Andimeshk: 126,811, Khorramabad: 348,216, Arak: 484,212, Qom: 1 million, Greater Tehran: 12 million.

OK that's a total population to keep down of: 16 million. Applying our ratio that would mean a troop requirement of 320,000 just a little over the amount in country at 296,000. This of course doesn't mean that holding those areas are pieces of cake. Every urban center the United States occupies is basically Fallujah. I'm sorry war analysis is not my strong suit but I'm going to try to make some very large and broad conclusions from a small data set. Looking at OTL's Fallujah campaign below:

Second Battle of Fallujah took place in November/December of 2004, the city's population was over 100k. The coalition had 13,350 troops of which 10,500 were American. [7] The city had 4,000 insurgents in opposition. In the end 95 Americans were killed and 560 were wounded. 1,500 insurgents died, another 1,500 were captured. 800 civilians died. According to this source the United States did pretty well in the urban combat, so let's set these as our figures for the Iranian Campaign's casualties for all sides.

Some more numbers before we go further. In 2003 I've already noted Iran's population was 68 million. Iran already has conscription. Assuming they fully mobilize against this existential threat during the build up in 2002 (they will) they could have at least a million men under arms. Like I said I'm not going to pretend to know much about military strategy or tactics, we just need a broad outline so let's assume the Iranians devote a third of their forces to oppose the American drive to Tehran. That's 333,333 troops to deal with both in direct urban combat and as insurgents. To better break down the standard Iranian Army Defenders vs. Revolutionary Guard let's assume during the ramp up Iran gives both equal amount of men in portion to their current size. That would leave the regular army with roughly 700,000 men under arms and the RG with about 240,000 to act as insurgents.

Now let's plug in those Fallujah numbers. We have 296,000 U.S. troops/PMC going against 233,333 direct rivals in the regular Iranian Army. For a start urban combat is already hard enough and there is something called the defender ratio. Basically you want 3 to 1 against a defending force. It's just a rule of thumb and yes you can find many examples of it going either way from the ratio. Anyway I'm bringing up to say that it's easier to defend a city than take one. Also the U.S. numbers are a bit misleading in that the vast majority of those troops are primarily in support roles. Needless to say many an U.S. Airman is going to find himself doing convoy duty much like OTL.

Anyway applying the ratios from Fallujuh and even giving a buff to the United States by only counting U.S. deaths/wounded and not the rest of the coalition we get the following: 140 to 1 KIA, 23 to 1 WIA. For Iranian forces you get 2.6 to 1 for both. 125 to 1 for dead civilians. That means zooming out to the whole campaign by November 2004 with the United States holding Tehran the figures look like: 2,114 American's KIA (OTL in Iraq was 1,263 by this point [9][10]), 12,869 WIA. Iran has 89 thousand dead soldiers, 89 thousand WIA, and 128,000 dead civilians.

But wait there's more because we haven't factored in the Revolutionary Guard's insurgency! So let's just assume they can produce Afghanistan level conditions of insurgency. Let's also assume that instead of remaining on the defense like much of the Iranian Army has had to do in the unoccupied portions of Iran they take an offensive posture. So the U.S. would face a 120,000 man insurgency. Plugging in the Afghanistan figures:

Let's say 20,000 Taliban. [11] They've KIA 2,216 and WIA 20,049. [12] That was over 15 years. So every 20K RG members equals 147 KIA and 1336 WIA per year. Times that by 6 and we have 882 KIA every 12 months and 8016 WIA every 12 months. The drive to Tehran started in April 2004 proper so by election day we have 514.5 KIA and 4,676 WIA. So by election day 2004 the total U.S. KIA is 2,629 and WIA is 17,545.

Bush in this ATL has more or less run out of political capital. With a Democratic Senate and Vice President the anti-war opposition there is no support to bring about a draft to finish the Iranian Regime. In fact given polarization of the country Bush is lucky to keep the troops in country for the remainder of his term and that is arguably his biggest accomplishment. Edwards is side lined in the administration, the post-Tehran government the United States sets up goes about as well as you'd imagine, the Iranian government remains in control of most of the country and for the next 4 years U.S. troops bleed out in a crippling insurgency that never ends.

Let's say Katrina still happens. It's even worse due to the National Guard being even more depleted in this ATL. Democrats landslide in 2006. I'm not sure what happens with the housing bubble but let's just assume it still burst in 2008 during the elections. Past this point I'm assuming a Democratic Administration, a complete withdrawal from Iran by 2009 (and maybe Afghanistan depending on the President) and the toppling of that American sponsored regime by 2010.

Interestingly enough I don't know think that Iran would be able to develop nuclear weapons in this timeline. Israel would probably retain the right to bomb any nuclear facilities if they rebuilt them. The United States would still probably lead an embargo on the regime and help such Israeli operations even with a Democratic President. There would probably be a lot of conservatives saying that if it weren't for those damn liberals not letting the military win Iran would still be pro-American. Without a draft being instated that sense of liberals and anti-war demonstrators being the reason the campaign failed will be a strong one and technically wouldn't be completely incorrect. The United States COULD win, occupy and nation-build in Iran but it doesn't have the political will to do so.

TLDR: Iran is stopped from the getting the bomb at a very high price.

References:
[1]http://nationalinterest.org/feature/exposed-irans-super-strategy-crush-america-war-13152
[2]http://www.npr.org/2016/07/06/48497...evels-in-afghanistan-have-changed-under-obama
[3]https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40682.pdf
[4]https://mic.com/articles/46621/108-...we-have-no-idea-what-they-re-doing#.dCnRcV8cX
[5]http://presidentelect.org/art_sheppard_2004tie.html
[6]http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/20/opinion/mills-truth-teller-iraq/
[7]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Fallujah#Aftermath
[9]http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,NI_0105_Fallujah-P2,00.html
[10]http://icasualties.org/iraq/ByMonth.aspx
[11]https://afghanhindsight.wordpress.com/2012/11/08/how-many-taliban-are-there/
[12]http://www.defense.gov/casualty.pdf
 
Thr smartest thing to do is that the US gives independence to all the minorities in Iran. The Persians are like 50 percent of the population. Im sure the kurds, the Baluchis and the Azaries would love a country of their own.
 
They would. Putin has always backed Baluchias along with India to keep Pakistan quiet. Joint US Russian support, a real resent here
 

missouribob

Banned
Thr smartest thing to do is that the US gives independence to all the minorities in Iran. The Persians are like 50 percent of the population. Im sure the kurds, the Baluchis and the Azaries would love a country of their own.
Given how the U.S. doesn't like to carve up countries (see Iraq), how in the last two nation-building missions in OTL the U.S. built strong central authorities, and the fear of upsetting Turkey by creating say Independent Kurdistan, I don't think that is likely. Not that it wouldn't make sense but it's not likely. Now the U.S. created regime is probably going to contain a disproportionate amount of minorities. That's not going to help the occupation or nation-building effort any...
 
This just straight up wasn't going to happen.

In hindsight invading Iraq was a terrible idea but there are actual reasons why we did it. Saddam was a brutal, aggressive and unstable tyrant who invaded his neighbors regularly, supported terrorism against Israel, and ignored U.N. resolutions with his WMD program. He tried to assassinate an ex-U.S. President and lobbed potshots at planes enforcing no-fly zones. His regime committed genocide with chemical weapons and countless other human rights violations, which is significant because that meant it had no legitimacy; a government that depends on crimes against humanity to keep itself in power by definition doesn't have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within its borders. On top of that he just generally went out of his way to be a jerk at every opportunity like by being the only person on Earth to praise 9/11, trying to subvert the dollar by paying in Euros, dodging sanctions and providing banned assistance to North Korea, etc. By itself it wouldn't have been enough to justify war but it definitely didn't help with public opinion towards him in the U.S. or elsewhere.

All of this forced the U.S. to take no less than SIX large-scale military actions against him in between the Gulf War and the eve of the 2003 invasion. Honestly, the real reason the U.S. invaded had nothing to do with oil or neoconservative theory or WMD's or an al-Qaeda link; we were just plain tired of dealing with his stupid antics.

Beyond that, Iraq was selected as a good state for neocon experimentation due to various conditions that weren't present in Iran. The idea was that we would take a hostile Arab country, invade it, and rebuild it in the manner of Germany and Japan after WWII. This would create a secular, democratic, prosperous state in the midst of Middle Eastern dictatorships and monarchies that would serve as an example to which others in the region could aspire. Iraq fit the bill for numerous reasons. It was very weak militarily, ensuring that actually knocking over the regime wouldn't be very difficult. It was an international pariah on level with North Korea, which ensured that even if other countries didn't support the U.S. invasion no one would actually side with Saddam. It was an Arab country, which meant it would be relatable as an example to the rest of the Arab world in a way Persian Iran, who the Arab states share a major ethno-religious rivalry with and suspicion of, was not. It also would have had powerful symbolic value as the cradle of civilization and a formerly very anti-American country turned beacon of freedom had the invasion been a success.

There was no counterpart to any of these conditions in Iran. They just never did anything to make themselves that much of an enemy or to tick the U.S. off that much, and neocon theory didn't apply as well to it.

Bush made a lot of mistakes but he was neither an idiot nor flat-out insane. When you look at the prevailing thinking at the time Iran being the target of an OIF style invasion is a non sequitur. You would need a POD going way back to make me buy this.
 

missouribob

Banned
There was no counterpart to any of these conditions in Iran. They just never did anything to make themselves that much of an enemy or to tick the U.S. off that much, and neocon theory didn't apply as well to it.

Bush made a lot of mistakes but he was neither an idiot nor flat-out insane. When you look at the prevailing thinking at the time Iran being the target of an OIF style invasion is a non sequitur. You would need a POD going way back to make me buy this.
And this about sums it up doesn't it? The hardest thing to figure out in this timeline would be why the hell the United States would focus on Iran instead of Iraq? If you look at my write up I pretty much just hand waved that part but it really is an important part.
 
The Iranians were holding candle light vigils on 911 while Saddam was ordering massive celebrations. You need a reason why the US targets Iran when Iraq which is being much more openly belligerent and who we have a caese fire with that Saddam was violating.

You need a reason beyond because Cheney decides X or some tiny POD.
 
Last edited:
And this about sums it up doesn't it? The hardest thing to figure out in this timeline would be why the hell the United States would focus on Iran instead of Iraq? If you look at my write up I pretty much just hand waved that part but it really is an important part.

The Iranians were holding candle light vigils on 911 while Saddam was ordering massive celebrations. You need a reason why the US targets Iran when Iraq which is being much more openly belligerent and who we have a caese fire with that Saddam was violating.

You need a reason beyond because Cheney decides or some tiny POD.

Not to mention providing targeting intelligence on Taliban and al-Qaeda positions in Afghanistan.
 
If the French sell them centrifuges or plutonium, they aren't going to tell the Saudis, are they? Just like they didn't tell them they sold nuclear weapons technology to the Israelis.

Sorry,but the French helping a Nation that is at war with the United States of America developing a nuclear weapon is completly and utterly insane in any sense of the word.
 
Sorry,but the French helping a Nation that is at war with the United States of America developing a nuclear weapon is completly and utterly insane in any sense of the word.

Attacking Iran after 9/11 is completely and utterly insane. America will be a pariah, in this scenario of an absolutely unjustified war with Iran, that causes disastrous oil shortages to France and the rest of the world.

Look how Europe responded during the Yom Kippur War, and that was when our actions were reasonably justified...
 
Second Battle of Fallujah took place in November/December of 2004, the city's population was over 100k. The coalition had 13,350 troops of which 10,500 were American. [7] The city had 4,000 insurgents in opposition. In the end 95 Americans were killed and 560 were wounded. 1,500 insurgents died, another 1,500 were captured. 800 civilians died. According to this source the United States did pretty well in the urban combat, so let's set these as our figures for the Iranian Campaign's casualties for all sides.

Snip of well-researched stuff with which I would have only trivial quibbles that don't affect the main thrust.

Comparison with Fallujah has to remember that the defenders in Fallujah were largely relatively inexperienced, while much of the Iran army in 2003 has had significant combat experience, be it on the Afghan border, the Iraq border, or the Turkish border. Fallujah is relatively compact, while Tehran isn't. Being compact simplifies tying down non-involved defenders and preventing movement. In Tehran, the defence would have significantly greater opportunities for exploiting into non-contact zones. My guess would be that scaling up isn't quite that simple, and my judgement would be that the proportions might be slightly different.

It's a bit of a nit-pick, to be honest.
 

missouribob

Banned
Comparison with Fallujah has to remember that the defenders in Fallujah were largely relatively inexperienced, while much of the Iran army in 2003 has had significant combat experience, be it on the Afghan border, the Iraq border, or the Turkish border.
When I was drafting this I considered that as well. Honestly my only answer is that what I wrote is the best case scenario for such a drive to Tehran. I don't think Fallujah level performance would actually be the norm. The Iranian Army and Paramilitary forces are an order of magnitude ahead of the Fallujah insurgents. They are better armed, trained, experienced and would have been waiting for this moment and campaign for decades of planning and logistics already set up. Every city the United States entered would be a meat grinder.

Fallujah is relatively compact, while Tehran isn't. Being compact simplifies tying down non-involved defenders and preventing movement. In Tehran, the defence would have significantly greater opportunities for exploiting into non-contact zones. My guess would be that scaling up isn't quite that simple, and my judgement would be that the proportions might be slightly different.
See my above post. Even as I was writing the portion about Tehran I realised that if I was the Iranian's I would make every effort to make Tehran look like Stalingrad while having the regime heads relocate to Mashhad beforehand. To be honest though trying to make an actual analysis of what the Battle of Tehran would look like is outside of my abilities.
 
Would the 2006 Lebanon War not give some insights of what the Iranians would try to do?

Rather limited. The difference being that one is proxy fighting in an area not vital to core interests, and the other is direct defence of home soil. The Lebanon situation is complicated by the Sunni/Shia/Christian differences in that country.

My understanding is that Iran provided equipment, advice, and training to Hezbollah forces, but didn't get directly involved.
 
My thought was just that even limited Iranian support made it far worse that the start of the US-Iraq invasion and would that transfer over to a larger scale in Iran with even a limited time to prepare?
 

missouribob

Banned
@jsb - I'm not sure it's even the same scale. I mean the population of the Tehran metro at the time was three times the whole population of Lebanon! For that matter I have a feeling the Iranians would be willing to use borderline human wave tactics in Tehran itself...Once again I'm not sure our species has seen urban warfare on this scale since WW2.
 
@jsb - I'm not sure it's even the same scale. I mean the population of the Tehran metro at the time was three times the whole population of Lebanon! For that matter I have a feeling the Iranians would be willing to use borderline human wave tactics in Tehran itself...Once again I'm not sure our species has seen urban warfare on this scale since WW2.

I doubt human wave tactics; we're talking about combat veterans with rather more savvy than that. It would be a lot easier for the USA in 2003 than now (Iran has gained considerable experience in urban warfare thanks to the Shia militia fighting against ISIS, which would make the situation even worse for any assault on Tehran). Nonetheless, I have my doubts about the wisdom of a 2003 attack.
 

missouribob

Banned
I doubt human wave tactics; we're talking about combat veterans with rather more savvy than that.
Ehhh I'm not sure about that. Most of Iran's arms production facilities would be destroyed by the April 2004 push for Tehran due to the American Strategic Air Campaign. The regime would be broke from an Iran-Iraq War ramp up along with the full mobilization of their population for war. I have my doubts that Russia would try to supply Iran arms even if they are pissed about the U.S. intervention. None of the Middle Eastern states except Syria would be willing to send arms or munitions and with Iraq in the way I don't even know how Syria would pull that off on a mass scale.

To make matters worse for the regime the American Air Superiority/Supremacy by April 2004 would mean massive movements of troops to reinforce a city like Tehran would be practically impossible. With that said if Iran was willing to suffer half a million military deaths in the 80s along with half a million civilian deaths I don't see any reason they wouldn't be willing to do a repeat performance. In other words if/when Tehran get's cut off from reinforcement or resupply and the reserve/paramilitary forces of the city are running low on both men and supply you might as well start press ganging teens like it's the 80s.

It should be noted that with the American forces over 900km from the Iranian coast and the Bush Administration likely pushing the military to go faster to Tehran than the top brass would like the American supply lines aren't going to be in the best of shape either. A. The U.S. is already occupying a MASSIVE area. B. The Iranian paramilitary forces would still be making these areas hell for logistics and troop movements. And god-forbid the Iranian government remnants continue to enlist persons in those areas to resist the Americans. C. The United States would more than likely just have air superiority but not supremacy due to Iran's anti-aircraft weaponry. It's likely that every once in awhile a C-130 would be shot out of the sky...

You basically have a situation in which the U.S. military is tired, not quite overextended but logistically strained and now expected to go into the biggest meat grinder on the planet in at least the last few decades if not since WW2. If I was the Iranian Regime officials I would just about throw every body I could at Tehran and see if it wasn't enough to at least produce a stalemate. Given the strategic realities here it probably would be.
 
Ehhh I'm not sure about that. Most of Iran's arms production facilities would be destroyed by the April 2004 push for Tehran due to the American Strategic Air Campaign. The regime would be broke from an Iran-Iraq War ramp up along with the full mobilization of their population for war. I have my doubts that Russia would try to supply Iran arms even if they are pissed about the U.S. intervention. None of the Middle Eastern states except Syria would be willing to send arms or munitions and with Iraq in the way I don't even know how Syria would pull that off on a mass scale.

To make matters worse for the regime the American Air Superiority/Supremacy by April 2004 would mean massive movements of troops to reinforce a city like Tehran would be practically impossible. With that said if Iran was willing to suffer half a million military deaths in the 80s along with half a million civilian deaths I don't see any reason they wouldn't be willing to do a repeat performance. In other words if/when Tehran get's cut off from reinforcement or resupply and the reserve/paramilitary forces of the city are running low on both men and supply you might as well start press ganging teens like it's the 80s.

(And snip of stuff).

You make a good case. I'm convinced (until such time as someone is able to present a better case for an alternative).
 

missouribob

Banned
(And snip of stuff).

You make a good case. I'm convinced (until such time as someone is able to present a better case for an alternative).
I actually hope other people come into this thread. I find conversations about a potential U.S.-Iranian War to be very interesting.
 
Top