Russia will get to sell large quantities of arms to Iran so Putin will be happy.
Before the Iraq war started, everyone in the world knew US was faking evidence, except American public. Where are the WMDs? Oh that’s right, Saddam probably gave them to his arch-enemy, the Ayatollah. Let’s go get them in Iran!
I don’t think Trump is going to invade any country… He appointed Exxon guy to avoid this. Tilson became CEO of Exxon because he negotiated some extremely lucrative foreign drilling deals in Russia. He is a better diplomat and has better foreign relations credentials than most politicians. I had no idea until I actually read about him in depth. And unlike a government, he did not have jets or tanks to use as deal sweeteners (at least not directly).
Also to reiterate what we already know - policy is a function of political climate, and not just the President. Even if Trump turns out to be predisposed to military action, US sentiment is so against wars after Iraq that this will balance out whatever he wants to do.
I’m positive Trump will have no interest in attacking Iran. Don’t let that campaign blowhard stuff fool you. Even Trump has admitted that Iran is fighting ISIS. Plus there are his pro-Russia views…
I think Trump and Iran will troll each other, but there won’t be any real military conflict.
Mails, the Vietnam war was started in an extremely volatile geopolitical climate. At that time, people were afraid that Soviet incursion would doom the United States as they knew it. There was a legitimate fear that they would all die in a nuclear attack. Even today, older buildings in NY have nuclear fallout shelters in the basement. The political situation in Cuba was important because the USSR was putting missiles there, within range of the US. It was magnitudes worse than even Iraq war. Young US men resorted to unthinkable measures like shooting off their toes, attending graduate school, or escaping to Canada to escape the draft. It is not comparable at all to today.
Iran is more advanced technologically and their military far better organized than Iraq. Rumor has it when the Americans were in Iraq the Iranians were there observing American tactics and the tech. they were using. If it really came to that American military brass surely know that the price of victory won’t be worth the pounding they’ll have to endure.
Ohai, please don’t lecture me on Vietnam and the causes of it. Your reasoning for Trump not invading was because US sentiment after Iraq is “so against wars”. I countered with the Vietnam example on how sentiment during and after the war was “so against wars” but yet we still have countless examples of US getting involved in “wars” even though the sentiment was “so against wars”.
You’re right it isn’t comparable today because at least Vietnam was fought over an ideology whereas the reasoning for the invasion of Iraq was fabricated.
I disagree here…the Iraqi army pre GW1 was pretty technologically advanced, which amounted to nothing. Iran’s military is well behind some of its neighboring states, much less the US. In a conventional war, Iran would be obliterated quickly. The unconventional war that will follow is a different story.
I am not really sure why America does the things it does in the Middle East.
Iraq got us no oil, no rebuilding contracts, no puppet government, no goodwill, nothing. A straight up black hole for trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives.
It propped up the price of oil, destabilized the Middle East so that the kingdoms/emirates will buy our arms, and kept the people from complaining too loudly about being forced into the long security / short liberty pair trade. That doesn’t sound much for the cost, even for the parties who profited from these side-effects.
For any of you “Mission Accomplished” believers, what was/is our mission in Iraq again?
Bottom line, America may invade Iran even knowing all of the above stuff Monkey mentions.
It was a stand-still, there was no “smashing” by either side. Iraq attacked Iran, a country three times their size, with a whole bunch of help from Cheney and Rumsfeld to their dear pal Saddam and his lovely crew like Chemical Ali. Near the end Iran was sending 14-year old kids on bicycles to be slaughtered by the Iraqi army. But Ayatollah Khomenei’s sheer bloody-mindedness ensured that Iran did not surrender. Both sides managed to kill off a lot of civilians, par for the course for the Middle East.
The Iraqis attacked and despite having the surprise element on their side in addition to American / Arab backing with funding, weaponry and satellite imagery were quickly stopped and pushed back losing all gained territory and were unable to make ground despite resorting to chemical weapons. Seems like the Iranians would’ve kicked their ass 1 v 1 no?
1Recho is right that Iran would not be a much better opponent (although wrong about the US having any desire to fight there). The Iraq land invasion lasted a total of 100 hours from initiation to cease fire. Now a guerilla war is always a different story, it mitigates technological asymmetry.
This isn’t WWII. In modern conventional warfare you have lopsided results due to binary outcomes. In a high tech environment, 50 next gen units of equipment facing 100 prior gen units of equipment equals 100 dead units of prior gen equipment. Like running two CPU’s in a clocking test, the faster one wins every time. Take the Textron senor fused bomb for example. A strategic bomber can eliminate as many as 1,200 armored vehicles in a single pass with a full payload. The US has massive advantages against defined congregated targets like what is encountered in large scale conflicts. We can simply bring insane amounts of firepower to bare Iran doesn’t have a real response to the US air threat. Once the air is conceded, ground tactics are pretty moot.
But even if you ignore the air point, the Battle of Medina Ridge paints a pretty clear comparison. Over 40 minutes, outnumbered US tanks engaged Iraqi tanks that were waiting in advantageous position in a fight that ended with 186 destroyed Iraqi tanks to 4 US tanks.
The biggest difference again comes down to technology. I used to work for BAE systems in the R&D and production unit for land systems with access to low level classified work at the time (we had tanks driving laps around a test track by the parking lot). In addition to superior C4ISR that gives us a better view of the battlefield, our systems communicate and no other countries really have that capability. In terms of C4ISR, it’s not like the movies where you know who is where on the battlefield, most armies are operating in the dark with a lot of guess work while we tend to have a much better image of who is positioned where, and this is absolutely huge. Beyond that, with the integrated systems, a lot of current gen equipment communicates and streams targeting data so we’re networked against opponents who are essentially offline. Case in point, the US just ran tests where the Aegis and THAAD systems were able to fire at and hit incoming missiles using targeting data streamed from F35’s in the air. If that isn’t mind boggling, then you don’t understand war tech.
Textron sensor fused - very interesting for those who are curious (keep in mind this was designed in the 60’s):
@bs - that’s interesting but what is the tipping point that makes it infeasible for the USA to directly engage? We know Russia and China are beyond that threshold maybe even India and Pakistan but I am wondering that if Iran has the capability to build an indigenous nuclear bomb then is it really out of reach for them to build a missile or resort to sea mines that can take down aircraft carriers?
They already have missiles that have all American bases in surrounding countries within range so theoretically they could destroy air superiority making it a very dirty affair? Yes, No??
Yes, those assets would be part of the “tipping point” where the US wouldn’t want to engage, but Iran is a long way away from that. Their capability to build an indigenous device is conjecture. Their missiles don’t reach anywhere near the US, and can only threaten US bases. What do you think the US response would be to that? There’s also the question of military readiness in a country with significant fiscal problems, little indigenous defense industry, and trouble in getting replacement equipment. Russia and China are the only countries the US wouldn’t ever want to engage directly, and it doesn’t.
It’s a shame the US/Persian relations are so poor. I have great respect for the Persians i know here in the states. The blame dates back to the 53’ coup, and like most of the messes in today’s society, has linkage to the Bristish empire.
Things like the Aegis systems do a good job of nullifying long range missile threats. Plus aircraft carriers would take a nuke to sink and each one carries an air wing equivalent to that of most major countries. Plus we have midair refueling so neighboring bases are convenient but not necessary. Destroying US air superiority really isn’t a likely event for any country. I don’t even know if China and Russia would meet that threshold honestly. The stats around the Russian air fleet are terrible, with less than half estimated to be actually in a usable state and most of those being more than 30 years old. Their diesel powered carrier is always accompanied by a tug boat because it frequently breaks down while production capabilities in Russia have fallen so far they actually lack the infrastructure to even build a new carrier. Air superiority remains the primary issue and at the moment the only region that can potentially have a shot at holding it’s own is probably a united Europe.
I mean, to add perspective, the US has 19 commissioned super carriers and one in reserve (20 combined) that typically run about 40-50% larger than any comparable ship from another country and are all less than 20 years old, several are new and construction continues. Most analysts think it would take a nuke to actually sink a US carrier. The entire rest of the world has 20 carriers with Russia and China each have one, with both of those being 40 year old ships and Japan and the UK being the only two with newish boats.