WI: US - Iran War?

how would the logistics for an all-out invasion work? As in, where would US troops deploy from? Are any of Iran's neighbors so accommodating to the US that they would allow it?
 
how would the logistics for an all-out invasion work? As in, where would US troops deploy from? Are any of Iran's neighbors so accommodating to the US that they would allow it?

This is the billion dollar question, tbh. Without a local ally willing to acept 10s of thousands of US troops in it's territory, along with their thousands of vehicles, plus part of the USAF, all deploying, air strikesand assault would have to come from Diego Garcia. It would be impossible, imho...

And a thought came to mind: how would Iraq react? Would Saddam see this as an excelet opportunity to smash Iran and grab parts of it? Things were getting progressively worse, after Khomeni turned his back on Saddam...
 
how would the logistics for an all-out invasion work? As in, where would US troops deploy from? Are any of Iran's neighbors so accommodating to the US that they would allow it?
The best bets would be to deploy the main strike force from the Gulf States (Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman), and use Turkey and Pakistan as support HQs, air bases, etc... Iraq is an ally against Iran, but somehow I doubt Iraq would open its bases to US troops. I can see the use of Jordan as a tertiary base of operations, but most of it will be an amphibious landing from the Gulf, with a beachhead near Abadan launched from Kuwait. It would probably be a race against the Iraqis to take control of the oil-rich territory, as the latter will have a direct contiguous land border, but will have problems making headway, while the USA has better equipment and training, but needs to make a successful landing first.

After that, though, it's an uphill struggle, literally. Iran plateaus pretty quickly once you get past the coastline.
 
Is this not in poor taste?
Given the more recent events? Probably. But then again, this is alternate history, and we take alternate scenarios and explore them. We'll just have to have a gentlemen's agreement not to make it about politics.
 
Is this not in poor taste?
Maybe, depending on how much of a mood you're in regards to dealing with a topic like this; some would say timely, I say whatever. The whole concern about "poor taste" in non-chat threads about certain topics didn't stop people from slipping in references to clown world current yearpolitics, regardless of what part of the political spectrum they're on.
 
Personally, I think it depends how the USA handles the propaganda war. Prior to the Iran-Iraq War, the regime of the Ayatollah was rather unstable and still fraught with internal fighting. The Iran-Iraq War was, in a way, a godsend as it provided a "rally around the flag" effect. Depending how the USA plays it's cards, it's probably more possible the USA helps an internal faction assert control. If people rally around the Ayatollah, Iran is a death trap. If people don't rally and want to fight for freedom - what they see as coming from the USA - it might not be THAT hard to establish a peaceful country.

The United States subtly and effectively manipulating dissension by helping an internal faction assert control is rather.... improbable. Sort of like hypothetically you could train a hippotamus to be a ballerina, but in real life....

Then again, the Iraqi people all hated Saddam very much and Iraq still fell into a multi-year civil war. Plus, memories from past USA intervention might not be a good thing.

You might be right.

In the event that the USA captures Tehran, it's most possible that the Shah's son gets installed in power while probably initiating democratic reforms in Iran.

So, a ceremonial dictator?

I doubt the USA would do all the heavy lifting by itself - either they get help and assistance from Iraq - which would be super bad for the USA considering, well, his own ambitions and it's not certain Iraq plays ball - or USA could maybe ask a favor from Pakistan. Devoid of all that, they'd probably be forced to naval-invade Iran, which will be even a bigger pain in the ass. It's a toss up. Although I'll surely be following this, because my own TL might end up with war with Iran. Hope no one minds me getting ideas from this, haha.

Well, if your Coalition of the Spilling includes Iraq and Pakistan... Nope. Sorry. I give up.
 
The United States subtly and effectively manipulating dissension by helping an internal faction assert control is rather.... improbable. Sort of like hypothetically you could train a hippotamus to be a ballerina, but in real life....

You're right. Most likely improbable.


So, a ceremonial dictator?

No, a constitutional monarch with a transition period. Who knows. It depends how the Reza Pahlavi II would act. I'd assume he would institute democratic reform eventually considering his father for an example of what happens if he won't, but you never know.

Well, if your Coalition of the Spilling includes Iraq and Pakistan... Nope. Sorry. I give up.

I'd see the problem with Iraq - they want to annex Khuzestan - but what's the problem of invading from Pakistan and the Gulf? As far as I know, Pakistan was an US ally at the time.

EDIT:
By the way, what do you guys think the Soviet Union would do? Would they stand by idly, would they back the Ayatollah or would they invade northern Iran?
 
How about winning in Iran the same way we won in Syria? Air power and arming the Kurds. In the case of Iran, there are multiple ethnic groups on both east and west ends of the country who would be more than willing to fight for autonomy. There is no need for the United State to rule Iran. We just do not want the mullahs to rule it and we want their nuclear program to end. We do not want to fight a conventional war in Iran, but an unconventional war might win.
 
You're right. Most likely improbable.

In the sense of Mantis Shrimp building their own space program and establishing a lunar colony of their own? Yes. That kind of improbable.

No, a constitutional monarch with a transition period. Who knows. It depends how the Reza Pahlavi II would act. I'd assume he would institute democratic reform eventually considering his father for an example of what happens if he won't, but you never know.

Reza Pahlavi II's credentials being: (1) His father was violently imposed on the country by outsiders; (2) His father was a tyrannical dictator who murdered and tortured lots of people; (3) His father wanted to fire on crowds of demonstrators but his own army refused; (4) His father was expelled from the country by popular demonstrations and widespread dislike and loathing; and (5) Reza Pahlavi II has accomplished....? (6) Reza Pahlavi II will be violently imposed on an unwilling country by outsiders?

I'd see the problem with Iraq - they want to annex Khuzestan - but what's the problem of invading from Pakistan and the Gulf? As far as I know, Pakistan was an US ally at the time.

Pakistan's major security interests and concerns are in the opposite direction, with India, and with regard to Kashmir. The bulk of military forces of Pakistan are permanently deployed facing India. They're not going to draw down strategically. They have no conflicts with Iran. Their border with Iran encompasses the Baloch region on both sides, which is thinly populated, barren and inhospitable. There is no public sentiment in Pakistan to support a war with Iran. And they are financially unable to do so. They are politically unstable, and the stress or cost of the war may well destabililze the country, triggering regime change.

Tell you what. Why don't you start with Wikipedia, and then spend a little time Googling the history, economy and politics of Pakistan in the 70's and 80's.


By the way, what do you guys think the Soviet Union would do? Would they stand by idly, would they back the Ayatollah or would they invade northern Iran?

The Soviet Union had just invaded Afghanistan in 1979. They wouldn't be thrilled with American troops right on the Asian border.
 
Reza Pahlavi II's credentials being: (1) His father was violently imposed on the country by outsiders; (2) His father was a tyrannical dictator who murdered and tortured lots of people; (3) His father wanted to fire on crowds of demonstrators but his own army refused; (4) His father was expelled from the country by popular demonstrations and widespread dislike and loathing; and (5) Reza Pahlavi II has accomplished....? (6) Reza Pahlavi II will be violently imposed on an unwilling country by outsiders?

I don't think Reza Pahlavi II could have accomplished much when he was still Crown Prince when the Iranian Revolution happened.

I don't believe there'd be a constitutional system immediately. I'm thinking of some years of transition until elections are held. Do you think it's completely impossible? Iran wouldn't be very functional - it would probably be somewhat dysfunctional - but is this completely impossible?

Pakistan's major security interests and concerns are in the opposite direction, with India, and with regard to Kashmir. The bulk of military forces of Pakistan are permanently deployed facing India. They're not going to draw down strategically. They have no conflicts with Iran. Their border with Iran encompasses the Baloch region on both sides, which is thinly populated, barren and inhospitable. There is no public sentiment in Pakistan to support a war with Iran. And they are financially unable to do so. They are politically unstable, and the stress or cost of the war may well destabililze the country, triggering regime change.

So the only option would be an invasion from the Persian Gulf?

Tell you what. Why don't you start with Wikipedia, and then spend a little time Googling the history, economy and politics of Pakistan in the 70's and 80's.

Thanks for the advice.

The Soviet Union had just invaded Afghanistan in 1979. They wouldn't be thrilled with American troops right on the Asian border.

They wouldn't be thrilled. Do you think they'll arm the Ayatollahs - or that they'll establish a "buffer zone" in Iran?
 
I don't think Reza Pahlavi II could have accomplished much when he was still Crown Prince when the Iranian Revolution happened.

Then what credibility does he have? Politically, he's the scion of a discredited dynasty. He'd be a major liability.

I don't believe there'd be a constitutional system immediately. I'm thinking of some years of transition until elections are held. Do you think it's completely impossible? Iran wouldn't be very functional and would be similar to Afghanistan, but isn't it possible? When the US strolled into Afghanistan, they still eventually had elections and - sure - they're dysfunctional, but still.

It wouldn't be similar to Afghanistan, which had a perpetual civil war and an extremely weak state.

Honestly, you'd be better off installing some random dictator.

So the only option would be an invasion from the Persian Gulf?

There's not really a lot of good invasion options. And keep in mind that the US military was probably at its lowest ebb around this time. Remember the shit show that was the rescue mission.

Thanks for the advice.

Timelines live or die on their research. We all have to do the homework.

They wouldn't be thrilled. Do you think they'll arm the Ayatollahs - or that they'll establish a "buffer zone" in Iran?

Both at different points? There's all kinds of options, ranging from committing ground forces and air defense and directly engaging American troops.... relatively unlikely. To supplying arms and materials. Assuming collapse of the Iranian state, they'd likely occupy a northern Buffer zone as the Socialist Republic of Iran.

Keep in mind that in the late 70's, early 80's, the Iranian state still had state of the art soldiery and equipment. Not easy. Saddam thought it would be easy. He failed utterly, and then spent the next seven years fighting for his life.
 
The more I think of this the worse it gets...

I really don't see anyone in the gulf (or Iraq) allowing the US to deploy, say, 150000 troops plus armour and aircraft. So all would have to come by sea. Let's say 3-4 carriers. The F-18 is still not in service (only entered in 1983) so the USN is flying F-14s and F-4... which is what Iran is also flying, plus F-5s. So, barring minor tech diferences, both sides would go to war with combat veretans flkying the same planes, with the only major US advantage being AEW which, afaik, Iran did not have. Iran also had a lot of SAMs...

No, I don't see a ground invasion happening without major local support. And it would pit iranian combat veterans riding Chieftain and M60 tanks vs M1 Abraham's whose crews had zero combat experience...
 
Top