US - Iran Flare Up

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
8,901
6,502
India
He's not interested in recapturing PoK ( period) .

That requires overestimating ourselves. We are not at the level we need to be where we can go to war and come out unscathed.

We may easily take a decade or more if we are to reach Americans standards of going to war with our defence budget alone. And this is not even counting the nuclear angle. Do you know the US does not have the capability to beat even Iran in a conventional setting without making significant economic concessions at home?

An easier process is to deliver significant economic and morale punishment and hope the country implodes from within.
 

_Anonymous_

Senior Member
Dec 4, 2017
12,099
8,663
Mumbai
That requires overestimating ourselves. We are not at the level we need to be where we can go to war and come out unscathed.

We may easily take a decade or more if we are to reach Americans standards of going to war with our defence budget alone. And this is not even counting the nuclear angle. Do you know the US does not have the capability to beat even Iran in a conventional setting without making significant economic concessions at home?

An easier process is to deliver significant economic and morale punishment and hope the country implodes from within.
I agree. The question to be posed therefore is will we be in a position to take advantage of the implosion in Pakistan and execute our plans of re conquering PoK assuming it happens within a decade? I'm of the view, we will not be prepared.Not in the next decade not even in the decade after that.

As far as Iran goes, the US isn't interested in an engagement with Iran which involves a war to effect regime change. Though if they are, the support they'd garner would be more than what they've received when they initiated the Gulf War - 2 against Iraq - both domestically and internationally.

As far as your point on whether they have the financial wherewithal to withstand such a war, let me draw your attention to circa 2003 when apart from initiating Gulf War -2, they were already fighting the Taliban / Al Qaeda nexus in Afghanistan apart from half a dozen other places in Asia Africa. If push comes to shove, I don't think you can question US resolve. Except that the current incumbent in the White House is another bully who's more than willing to use his motor mouth than flex his muscles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlackOpsIndia

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
8,901
6,502
India
I agree. The question to be posed therefore is will we be in a position to take advantage of the implosion in Pakistan and execute our plans of re conquering PoK assuming it happens within a decade? I'm of the view, we will not be prepared.Not in the next decade not even in the decade after that.

It depends on what happens to Pakistan itself in just the next 5 years. But after 10 years or so, our Comprehensive National Power will be far greater than Pakistan's, to the point that we can execute any type of mission against Pakistan and succeed quite comfortably.

As far as Iran goes, the US isn't interested in an engagement with Iran which involves a war to effect regime change. Though if they are, the support they'd garner would be more than what they've received when they initiated the Gulf War - 2 against Iraq - both domestically and internationally.

As far as your point on whether they have the financial wherewithal to withstand such a war, let me draw your attention to circa 2003 when apart from initiating Gulf War -2, they were already fighting the Taliban / Al Qaeda nexus in Afghanistan apart from half a dozen other places in Asia Africa. If push comes to shove, I don't think you can question US resolve. Except that the current incumbent in the White House is another bully who's more than willing to use his motor mouth than flex his muscles.

I was purely talking about a conventional war setting and not the politics behind it.

Iran is a very large country with a lot of people. The only way the US can win comfortably is if they decide to obliterate Iran in its entirety using nukes. Just hit every single settlement with a population over 10000 with a nuke and you're done. There are just 200 or so cities. Even then, this will not destroy the country itself.

But in a conventional setting, the US does not have the manpower necessary without invoking compulsory drafting. They will need millions of soldiers.
 

_Anonymous_

Senior Member
Dec 4, 2017
12,099
8,663
Mumbai
I was purely talking about a conventional war setting and not the politics behind it.

Iran is a very large country with a lot of people. The only way the US can win comfortably is if they decide to obliterate Iran in its entirety using nukes. Just hit every single settlement with a population over 10000 with a nuke and you're done. There are just 200 or so cities. Even then, this will not destroy the country itself.

But in a conventional setting, the US does not have the manpower necessary without invoking compulsory drafting. They will need millions of soldiers.

When Germany invaded France in WW-2 how many millions of soldiers were deployed? Ditto for Iraq in Gulf War -2. Granted it's not going to be easy invading and holding on to Iran, but you're being too optimistic in favour of the current regime surviving such an invasion and mounting an effective counter attack were it to happen.
 

STEPHEN COHEN

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
5,312
3,307
It depends on what happens to Pakistan itself in just the next 5 years. But after 10 years or so, our Comprehensive National Power will be far greater than Pakistan's, to the point that we can execute any type of mission against Pakistan and succeed quite comfortably.



I was purely talking about a conventional war setting and not the politics behind it.

Iran is a very large country with a lot of people. The only way the US can win comfortably is if they decide to obliterate Iran in its entirety using nukes. Just hit every single settlement with a population over 10000 with a nuke and you're done. There are just 200 or so cities. Even then, this will not destroy the country itself.

But in a conventional setting, the US does not have the manpower necessary without invoking compulsory drafting. They will need millions of soldiers.

War with Iran means Global oil prices cross
200 Dollar a barrel

Global economy will be Fooked up
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
8,901
6,502
India
When Germany invaded France in WW-2 how many millions of soldiers were deployed? Ditto for Iraq in Gulf War -2. Granted it's not going to be easy invading and holding on to Iran, but you're being too optimistic in favour of the current regime surviving such an invasion and mounting an effective counter attack were it to happen.

The US will win, no doubt about that. But this war will also push the US back by a decade in terms of population, while also screwing up oil prices for everyone else.

Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan. There's no comparison at all. And if the US is going to struggle a lot against a country like Iran, then what do you think will be your expectation from India if Pakistan is considerably stronger than Iran today, and a nuclear power no less?

When Germany invaded France in WW-2 how many millions of soldiers were deployed?

I dunno why you brought that up, but WW2 was a very different time. Anyway, if your question wasn't rhetorical, then the Germans had 4.2 million and the French had 5 million.

In comparison, against Iraq, both sides had a little over half a million combined during the major war, with NATO being in greater strength. And NATO also had support from 300,000 armed Kurds. After the war, NATO had deployed 180,000 soldiers and used more than 500,000 Iraqis themselves as an occupation force, alongside the Kurds. So well over a million to occupy Iraq.

Otoh, Iran can raise more than a million troops for the major war alone, and an unknown number after NATO has occupied Iran. So you can expect NATO to be fighting with lesser numbers, which is a very bad thing considering how badly they have fared even with a numerical advantage. And you can bet the Iranians will have far more motivation to fight than the Iraqis did. They also have this militia called Basij under the IRGC and claim to have a ridiculous 11 million men and women in it that are trained to fight, and they claim 600,000 are immediately available for mobilisation.

And to make matters worse, unlike Iraq, Iran is modernising. With a lot of Russian help, they have reverse engineered a lot of stuff, including battle tanks, ATGMs, long range SAMs etc. They even plan to license produce the Su-30SM after 2020, when sanctions are lifted.
 

Sulla84

Well-Known member
May 31, 2019
1,082
687
India
When Germany invaded France in WW-2 how many millions of soldiers were deployed? Ditto for Iraq in Gulf War -2. Granted it's not going to be easy invading and holding on to Iran, but you're being too optimistic in favour of the current regime surviving such an invasion and mounting an effective counter attack were it to happen.
In the German invasion of France literally millions of German soldiers were deployed, although the power deferential between France and Germany was much smaller than that between us and Iran. But, then France's terrain is so much easier than Iran's. Most of Iran's cities are in the mountainous North. Saddam invaded but got stuck a hundred kilometres or so into Iran. And that was the easiest approach. Guaranteed Iranian army is not as well trained as Us forces. But, Iran would only engage in guerilla warfare.. And to capture and hold land that huge US would need hundreds of thousands of troops, not the 1500 Trump sent for a picnic..
 
Last edited:

_Anonymous_

Senior Member
Dec 4, 2017
12,099
8,663
Mumbai
The entire exercise is one grounded in hypothesis. I'm of the opinion that as & when the US decides to invade Iran, it will do it's homework thoroughly and have Iran reeling thru economic and other sanctions before actually launching a war. They would also ensure that the regime is thoroughly isolated both within and outside before they do so. Today such a situation doesn't exist. Besides I for one don't think Trump is planning even a cursory engagement with them as of now. It's all shadow boxing.


The US will win, no doubt about that. But this war will also push the US back by a decade in terms of population, while also screwing up oil prices for everyone else.

Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan. There's no comparison at all. And if the US is going to struggle a lot against a country like Iran, then what do you think will be your expectation from India if Pakistan is considerably stronger than Iran today, and a nuclear power no less?



I dunno why you brought that up, but WW2 was a very different time. Anyway, if your question wasn't rhetorical, then the Germans had 4.2 million and the French had 5 million.

In comparison, against Iraq, both sides had a little over half a million combined during the major war, with NATO being in greater strength. And NATO also had support from 300,000 armed Kurds. After the war, NATO had deployed 180,000 soldiers and used more than 500,000 Iraqis themselves as an occupation force, alongside the Kurds. So well over a million to occupy Iraq.

Otoh, Iran can raise more than a million troops for the major war alone, and an unknown number after NATO has occupied Iran. So you can expect NATO to be fighting with lesser numbers, which is a very bad thing considering how badly they have fared even with a numerical advantage. And you can bet the Iranians will have far more motivation to fight than the Iraqis did. They also have this militia called Basij under the IRGC and claim to have a ridiculous 11 million men and women in it that are trained to fight, and they claim 600,000 are immediately available for mobilisation.

And to make matters worse, unlike Iraq, Iran is modernising. With a lot of Russian help, they have reverse engineered a lot of stuff, including battle tanks, ATGMs, long range SAMs etc. They even plan to license produce the Su-30SM after 2020, when sanctions are lifted.
 

STEPHEN COHEN

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
5,312
3,307
The Americans especially Republicans and Neo Cons
Never really Forgot about
Siege and Capture of US embassy during
Iranian Revolution

It is an Old Enmity , Scores have to be settled
 

_Anonymous_

Senior Member
Dec 4, 2017
12,099
8,663
Mumbai
In the German invasion of France literally millions of German soldiers were deployed, although the power deferential between France and Germany was much smaller than that between us and Iran. But, then France's terrain is so much easier than Iran's. Most of Iran's cities are in the mountainous North. Saddam invaded but got stuck a hundred kilometres or so into Iran. And that was the easiest approach. Guaranteed Iranian army is not as well trained as Us forces. But, Iran would only engage in guerilla warfare.. And to capture and hold land that huge US would need hundreds of thousands of troops, not the 1500 Trump sent for a picnic..
The German invasion bypassed the country side and made a dash for the major centres. The French Army collapsed inspire of the famous / infamous Maginot line. Since then that has been a text book case of how you go about invading a country. Strangely, the famed German Army came a cropper in the SU and suffered a Stalingrad. That of course as another war fought in completely different circumstances and weather.

Iran has a history of capitulation in the front of a resolute opposition beginning with Alexander followed by the Arabs and then the Mongols. Granted this happened ages ago & history has little bearing in the way this hypothetical war will turn out.

As far as SH goes, he made the first on his series of miscalculations when Iraq invaded Iran. The idea being that with the Iranian regime isolated and in the midst of a civil war like situation, the Iraqis would seize what they had been laying claims on and dictate terms to the Iranians. On paper it was a splendid idea. It ended up uniting the Iranians, legitimizing the Islamic revolutionary regime and thus began a tit for tat war that lasted 9 years without any of the antagonists gaining anything of significance.
Incidentally, SH realising his blunder offered a cease fire with Iraqi troops returning to their pre war position way back in 1982-83 but was rebuffed by Khomeini. The same cease fire under UN auspices was accepted in 1988-89.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
8,901
6,502
India
The entire exercise is one grounded in hypothesis. I'm of the opinion that as & when the US decides to invade Iran, it will do it's homework thoroughly and have Iran reeling thru economic and other sanctions before actually launching a war. They would also ensure that the regime is thoroughly isolated both within and outside before they do so. Today such a situation doesn't exist. Besides I for one don't think Trump is planning even a cursory engagement with them as of now. It's all shadow boxing.

Iran is a largely self-sufficient country though. They still import some of their food, but I don't think that's such a big problem considering their easy access to Central Asia. But they are most definitely self-sufficient when it comes to fuel, which is more so than India. During the Iran-Iraq War, they were alone, both NATO and the Soviets supported Iraq. That's why their primary motivation was to become self-sufficient as much as possible. So even if sanctions will weaken them, it's not enough to conquer them without accepting heavy losses.

Honestly, I don't think the US can do much even if Iran goes nuclear. They failed to do anything to N Korea even though the North suffers from severe food and fuel shortages. So even the lack of a strong backer for Iran will likely not get the Americans anywhere.
 

STEPHEN COHEN

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
5,312
3,307
Iran is a largely self-sufficient country though. They still import some of their food, but I don't think that's such a big problem considering their easy access to Central Asia. But they are most definitely self-sufficient when it comes to fuel, which is more so than India. During the Iran-Iraq War, they were alone, both NATO and the Soviets supported Iraq. That's why their primary motivation was to become self-sufficient as much as possible. So even if sanctions will weaken them, it's not enough to conquer them without accepting heavy losses.

Honestly, I don't think the US can do much even if Iran goes nuclear. They failed to do anything to N Korea even though the North suffers from severe food and fuel shortages. So even the lack of a strong backer for Iran will likely not get the Americans anywhere.

Iran will never be allowed to get Nukes

One Pakistan is enough for US

Anyway Iran does not want nukes

It only wants to Save Shia Crescent

If Syria falls to Sunnis , Shias will be hugely weakened
 

_Anonymous_

Senior Member
Dec 4, 2017
12,099
8,663
Mumbai
Iran is a largely self-sufficient country though. They still import some of their food, but I don't think that's such a big problem considering their easy access to Central Asia. But they are most definitely self-sufficient when it comes to fuel, which is more so than India. During the Iran-Iraq War, they were alone, both NATO and the Soviets supported Iraq. That's why their primary motivation was to become self-sufficient as much as possible. So even if sanctions will weaken them, it's not enough to conquer them without accepting heavy losses.
The very first target for any invasion would be the fuel depots, refining and production centres apart from their granaries and industrial centres. I don't know what benefit will access to the CAR bring the Iranians. There's Turkmenistan and Afghanistan to one end and Azerbaijan and Turkey to another end with Iraq on the southern flank.


Honestly, I don't think the US can do much even if Iran goes nuclear. They failed to do anything to N Korea even though the North suffers from severe food and fuel shortages. So even the lack of a strong backer for Iran will likely not get the Americans anywhere.


I categorically state that no Nation in this world is comfortable with another Islamic Nation with a N bomb. And I include the Russians, Chinese and the other unusual suspects apart from Europe and the usual suspects. The US will take whatever action it must to prevent such an occurrence.The world may protest but it will follow the US line. Of that, there should be no doubt.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
8,901
6,502
India
The very first target for any invasion would be the fuel depots, refining and production centres apart from their granaries and industrial centres. I don't know what benefit will access to the CAR bring the Iranians. There's Turkmenistan and Afghanistan to one end and Azerbaijan and Turkey to another end with Iraq on the southern flank.

All that can be destroyed and rebuilt, all paid for by NATO. The Iranians do not need everything working in order to initiate a guerrilla war. All the main casualties will come after the major war is over, when the occupation begins. As for CAR, the region will supply the support needed to fight NATO. It's not like Russia and China will be happy with NATO at their doorstep and do nothing. Point being, sanctions will not impact Iran as much as you think.

And when it comes to Pakistan, we will be in the same boat as NATO in occupied Iran. Any attempt to take PoJK will mean war. And not a short border war, but a long war of annihilation, where we could lose a few cities in the process. And even if we completely defeat Pakistan, we will end up with an insurgency that we cannot handle, while at the same time get stuck with the reconstruction bill, our cities and theirs.

My point is only developed countries can fight wars. And even that comes with a lot of caveats.

I categorically state that no Nation in this world is comfortable with another Islamic Nation with a N bomb. And I include the Russians, Chinese and the other unusual suspects apart from Europe and the usual suspects. The US will take whatever action it must to prevent such an occurrence.The world may protest but it will follow the US line. Of that, there should be no doubt.

Iran understands that. That's why they do not want to actively chase after nukes, unless they are pushed into a corner. Which is why Europe and Russia want to respect the Iran nuke deal.
 

_Anonymous_

Senior Member
Dec 4, 2017
12,099
8,663
Mumbai
All that can be destroyed and rebuilt, all paid for by NATO. The Iranians do not need everything working in order to initiate a guerrilla war. All the main casualties will come after the major war is over, when the occupation begins. As for CAR, the region will supply the support needed to fight NATO. It's not like Russia and China will be happy with NATO at their doorstep and do nothing. Point being, sanctions will not impact Iran as much as you think.deal.

As I stated earlier, the US won't get into a conflict with Iran before completely eroding her worth and isolating it completely. If sanctions aren't working, why are the Iranians rushing to seek support from across the globe. If the Russians & Chinese are on the same page, how come the Chinese haven't made a categorical announcement stating it wouldn't respect the US sanctions on buying Iranian oil.That too when both the US & China are in the midst of their worst relations. Btw - pls do check on what set off the brouhaha between the Canadians & the Chinese on the arrest of the Huawei CFO.


And when it comes to Pakistan, we will be in the same boat as NATO in occupied Iran. Any attempt to take PoJK will mean war. And not a short border war, but a long war of annihilation, where we could lose a few cities in the process. And even if we completely defeat Pakistan, we will end up with an insurgency that we cannot handle, while at the same time get stuck with the reconstruction bill, our cities and theirs.deal.

I don't see why do you have to conflate US's hypothetical invasion of Iran with India's reconquest of PoK. If we could've done it, we would've.

My point is only developed countries can fight wars. And even that comes with a lot of caveats.
deal.
That's what I've been maintaining too. Except you're stating its impossible and I'm not too keen on the word impossible if Iran is on the verge of getting N weapons which it will. Eventually. I doubt whether our little disagreement here is a matter of semantics.


Iran understands that. That's why they do not want to actively chase after nukes, unless they are pushed into a corner. Which is why Europe and Russia want to respect the Iran nuke deal.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
8,901
6,502
India
As I stated earlier, the US won't get into a conflict with Iran before completely eroding her worth and isolating it completely. If sanctions aren't working, why are the Iranians rushing to seek support from across the globe. If the Russians & Chinese are on the same page, how come the Chinese haven't made a categorical announcement stating it wouldn't respect the US sanctions on buying Iranian oil.That too when both the US & China are in the midst of their worst relations. Btw - pls do check on what set off the brouhaha between the Canadians & the Chinese on the arrest of the Huawei CFO.

The issue with sanctions is the loss of other kinds of technological advancements that will get denied to Iran. Right now, they are not threatened by annihilation, so extracting whatever concessions they can get at this time is the best route forward.

As for China, they are following a transactional relationship with the US. The Chinese have their own problems with Taiwan and SCS after all, not to mention the ongoing trade war, the problem with Venezuela etc. With Russian support for Iran, the Chinese do not have to do much there. But even during Iran-Iraq War, the Chinese dealt with both sides. For them, it's all business.

I don't see why do you have to conflate US's hypothetical invasion of Iran with India's reconquest of PoK. If we could've done it, we would've.

It's simple. Even fighting a conventional war is extremely difficult. That's why the example of US and Iran. At the same time, in the India-Pak scenario, we have to deal with a much more capable enemy that is also equipped with nukes. My point is any talk of war for the annexation of PoJK is very premature.

That's what I've been maintaining too. Except you're stating its impossible and I'm not too keen on the word impossible if Iran is on the verge of getting N weapons which it will. Eventually. I doubt whether our little disagreement here is a matter of semantics.

Never said it's impossible (taking back PoJK). Just that we can't pay the cost at this time. No point obtaining PoJK via a Pyrrhic victory.
 

_Anonymous_

Senior Member
Dec 4, 2017
12,099
8,663
Mumbai
The issue with sanctions is the loss of other kinds of technological advancements that will get denied to Iran. Right now, they are not threatened by annihilation, so extracting whatever concessions they can get at this time is the best route forward.

The sanctions are definitely biting and as far as technological enhancements go, it's not as if Iran seeks technology for designing and fabricating chips. All the technology they've ever required for what they deem as necessary for their existence namely in manufacturing missiles, enriching uranium and designing the N bomb was achieved under the overhang of sanctions. It's not as if their patrons viz China or Russia are willing to transfer technology in advanced munitions and it's delivery platforms once sanctions are lifted. You're conflating two very different issues in order to show that sanctions in its current form or enhanced sanctions in the future will prove ineffectual in case of Iran which is clearly not the case.
As for China, they are following a transactional relationship with the US. The Chinese have their own problems with Taiwan and SCS after all, not to mention the ongoing trade war, the problem with Venezuela etc. With Russian support for Iran, the Chinese do not have to do much there. But even during Iran-Iraq War, the Chinese dealt with both sides. For them, it's all business.
Agreed. But even if the EU is against the unilateral withdrawal of the US from the N pact with Iran, it's companies are all going to comply with US sanctions. Not a single one is even contemplating insulating itself from US sanctions by continuation of trade with Iran. The same is true of the Chinese or Russians inspite of their deterioration of ties with the US.

You seem to be underestimating US power and overestimating the power of the Chinese and the Russians to combat such sanctions as well as the power of such sanctions in debilitating Iran and it's economy.


It's simple. Even fighting a conventional war is extremely difficult. That's why the example of US and Iran. At the same time, in the India-Pak scenario, we have to deal with a much more capable enemy that is also equipped with nukes. My point is any talk of war for the annexation of PoJK is very premature.



Never said it's impossible (taking back PoJK). Just that we can't pay the cost at this time. No point obtaining PoJK via a Pyrrhic victory.

Please refer to my statement once more. I clearly mentioned the US invasion of Iran whereas you seem determined to conflate my statement with India's reconquest of PoK.