Could Iran pull off a military upset against the US?, page 4

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I'd say China lacks the capability for an operation like you're suggesting. How could they possibly aid Iran in it? Russia isn't in shape to aid Iran, either. Doing this without America having any knowledge would also be very difficult. As this starts happening, I'm going to bet America starts to take actions to protect its forces in the region.

It wouldn't be very difficult to do this without America knowing- it would be impossible. It doesn't matter if America sees it coming though, because neither the Iraqi citizens or Americans will allow America to deploy significant additional forces to Iraq "just in case" Iran goes crazy. Most people agree with you- that Iran can't handle this, so why worry- why even prepare? America could increase supplies on hand and order the preparation of defensive positions. America could increase surviellance of Iran and deploy additional naval assetts. America MIGHT be able to get away with moving airpower to Turkey, and could probably get Israel to go on alert.
America can not deploy enough troops to form strong battle lines at the Tigris river and keep Iran from invading. At the moment American forces in Iraq are forced to operate from "green zone" strongholds because they dont have the forces to nail down the Sunni insurgents, who would likely be supportive of an Iranian intervention against the US backed Shi'ite minority. America simply will not get the domestic or Iraqi support for major deployments to Iraq which woudl be sufficient to turn back an Iranian invasion.
Defending against an invasion of Afghanistan I will admit is more likely because of terrain which allows for economy of force. A couple of light infantry brigades could hold the mountains long enough to secure a foothold for the deployment of our airborne divisions as well as any other airmobile forces and these would be sufficient to keep Afghanistan free as long as Iran still needed most of their forces in the west against the main effort of American operations. The problem here is that unless Pakistan at the very least promises not to defend against violations of their airspace, we can't get to Afghanistan once the war starts, and without Pakistan allowing us to use their ports roads and rails we can not move heavier forces such as tanks and SP artillery into Afghanistan to support offensive operations into Iran's more vulnerable eastern border. Just remember that America hasn't got that many troops to spare- if we really intend to deploy defensive forces for 1 or 2 years while we wait and see if Iranian military improvements are offensive in nature, then we will have to initiate a draft BEFORE the war starts, and this would create tremendous civil disorder. I love America, but god help the law enforcement officer who comes to my house to arrest my little brother over dodging a peace-time draft. Its just not politically or socially viable to defend against Iranian military excercises when we dont even know if they have hostile intentions or strictly defensive/deterrent intentions.

China does have the industrial and economic capacity to turn out massive amounts of modern air defenses, and although Russia is not rolling in cash they do have the technology and are an industrialized nation, which means that if they went back to a command economy (which it looks like they may in the future) they can also turn out all the weapons they like.
Aside from technology, anyone can do it with a little drilling. All you have to do is set high standards for your military and train to them repetitively. Chinese, Russian, or Iranian troops can advance every bit as fast as American ones, they can follow an effective combined arms doctrine just as well as Americans can, and they can fight a compitent manuever war as well as America- all they need is a rigorous training cycle or two before initiating hostilities.

Even so, it would be too much to risk for both China and Russia. While they both want Iran, openly going against America would simply be too costly. They both are now tied in with America's economy, unlike during the Cold War which you used as an example early on to show their lack of fear.

It's interesting that you'll point out how Iran's natural mountain ranges would hinder an American attack, but seem to neglect this fact when it comes to an Iranian attack. They'd have to cross the same mountain range.

Crossing those mountains is a relatively simple challenge when you control them. They do not even entirely affect Irans ability to launch a surprise strike because Iranian forces on the South Western coast, for example at Abadan are already head of the mountains.
Crossing a mountain range which is defended is more difficult because it both limits tactical options and reduces the advantage of long range visual ability and firing range. Iranian infantry will at times be given the unhappy duty of standing in the way of M1A1 tanks with limited support from tanks or artillery, because although America can not destroy ALL Iranian hardware they can surely prioritize their sortees and take out Iranian defenses in key positions.
The constricted terrain will allow Iranians to know the route American forces must take and to pick suitable locations for surprise attacks at close range. Hidden infantry and tank positions in such terrain allows an inferior enemy to engage at close range where less advanced weapons can defeat modern armor and also allows for well hidden artillery observers to deliver accurate fire, including laser desigated rounds which can be aquired from their allies, in those cases where artillery support is available.

If you are interested in learning where such ideas have come from, i suggest picking Lt.Col John Antal's first Tactical Decision Game book, entitled Infantry Combat: the rilfe platoon. A book like that can give you a newfound respect for the potential of an outgunned but cunning military force- both on the enemy side and the American side.

Do you think America is going to wait for the next satellite to pass over when we see Iran mobilizing its forces? No. We're going to have our own spy planes monitering their every movement (which we probably already do, just like with North Korea).

While spyplanes are a useful tool they are limited in number, can be detected, can be hidden from, and in some cases can be shot down, especially in the age of lasers which can blind pilots. My call, if I were in the enemies shoes, would be to emplace large smoke generating devices around my bases- on the approach of a spyplane (most likely detected by modern radar purchased from allies) an alarm would be sounded, all personel would have a couple of minutes to drop what they are doing and either get to cover or freeze, and the smoke generators would obscure the spyplanes target. Once the plane had passed, you kick on a set of wind generators to help the smoke scream dissipate more quickly. Sure it takes an hour or so out of your operation when a spyplane comes over but it keeps the Americans in the dark, which makes it acceptable until the shooting starts.

I still fail to see what would stop planes like B-2's in the early going operation from taking out critical sites. You mentioned very early on that the Iranians could concentrate their defenses to try and repel an attack, but Iraq was unable to do this the second time around. While Iraq's military strength was generally weaker then during the Gulf War, air defenses actually improved from the first Gulf War. I believe they even had aid from the Chinese in constructing their air defense network. They were no threat to the B-2's at all. During Kosovo we were seeing pretty good air defenses.

You know, I saw that war on TV and you're right- Iraqi air defenses did improve. They must have had 3 times as many machine guns blazing away blindly at the night sky when the Americans weren't even overhead. Did it strike you funny on the 3rd night when those guns were still going and you realized that America was barely even attacking their air defenses, because they were no threat?
AAA is a joke. Let's talk about an extremely redundant system of radar and communications and a large quantity of top of the line surface to air missiles, backed up by Su-30s and well trained pilots, with China offering plenty of replacements when the war gets messy. All of that, against an airforce that will lose every airbase and carrier within 800 miles of Tehran in the first two war unless they can pull off an absolute MIRACLE of defense in Iraq. I am not saying that Iran can beat American in the air under normal circumstances. I'm saying that the situation on the ground is gonna stack the deck against Iran SO BADLY in the air that America may very well have to strike by land before they can make an airwar a viable option.

The B-2's weren't used during the first Gulf War. These things can do the job of a number of conventional bombers to make up for the time it would take, and the lack of numbers. Give it a few weeks, and I'd say it would have completely proven its huge price tag was well worth it.

The B-2 can't dogfight worth a dang. This isn't Kosovo- you need conventional fighter aircraft in significant numbers to open the door for the B-2.

I guess I once again don't see Russia and China being able to give Iran all that much more help then they did Iraq.

1. Iraq was a lone gunman in 1991. If the Soviet Union hadn't played ball we never could have pulled our troops out of Germany and put up that sort of an invasion force. If the Soviet Union had actually HELPED Iraq so that we couldn't sit around and prepare for 6 months, that war could have gone horribly different.
2. Iraq wasn't worth helping the second time around. There was almost no way for Iraq to win on such short notice with America firmly holding the advantage. Saddam's best option was to attack Kuwait and Saudi before we started preparing and burn their oil fields, then burn his own too and run away from Iraq before we invaded yelling "got ya last". That's what i would have done.

The time you have for an American response is too slow. The only real backing you've given for this is how long it took America to plan operations for Iraq and Afghanistan, but both were far different then this scenario. With Afghanistan, we took so long simply because we were trying to negotiate with them. With Iraq, we simply had no reason to hurry. We could take our sweet time, and Iraq could do nothing but sit back and watch. If Iran started attacking, we could respond far quicker.

In 1991 we were doing everything in our power to make sure that some lunatic didn't end up controlling about 1/3 of the oil on Earth- he was already hurting our economy. But yeah no rush there. In Afghanistan was pulled off in bare minimum time- the negotiations did not slow us down. My Drill Instructor liked to tell us about what 9/11 was like for a DI. He was brand new at MRCD San Diego when it happened- his first platoon of recruits graduated, spent half the usual time at school of infantry, and were up to their necks in Afghanistan the split second they arrived. We couldn't rush any faster, even if the enemy had virtually no defenses the way Afghanistan did.
I would be more receptive to your doubts if you could produce some sort of official statement or data from the pentagon which hints as to their timetable for proliferation of a complete invasion force for a strong opponent.

You point out past American wars as evidence of our capabilities, but in reality those wars were not conducted under any real immediate threat such as the scenario you're proposing. You can try to use them to undermine us, but its simply not reality. If pushed, it would be naive to think that America couldn't respond quickly.

I want to stress that I mean for my answers to be interpereted in a respectful tone- I am considering your points and do not want you to be offended by my disagreement (i say this because I get in a lot of bitter threads). That being said, I believe your logic on this particular statement is backwards. The fact that previous threats were not pressing allowed us to respond faster because they required less force to deal with. To confront an enemy VASTLY more potent than iraq would require more time. The limited response which we could deploy immediately would be little more than practice for the Iranians. It would force Iranian forces to withdraw back to their own borders where it would be halted and bled considerably, as well as having Sunni insurgents in Iraq interfering with their supply lines and providing information to the Iranians, not to mention that Iran could prepare a program to arm those insurgents and help them set up additional booby traps. This is where CounterMeasures can add to this discussion very much I believe because this is more like the scenario he pictured. I believe that the smaller force America could field immediately would be halted at the Zagros Range, harrassed by insurgents, and vulnerable to counter attack. If Iran succeeded in upsetting a second American force the war would be over- America would no longer have the military capability to field a sufficient force, except to perhaps defend Turkey and persue a costly bombing campaign which would never win the war, but perhaps bring a peace settlement in which iran would make small concessions. For this reason, I think America would be smart enough to build an overwhelming force in memory of Powell Doctrine, and if we did not we would likely be HUMILIATED even worse than my scenario has previous imagined.

Hell, just go take a look at the American FCS program. That has the potential to be the one of the greatest revolutions in infantry in history. We could deploy huge quantities in a month's time. Mobility and response are what America is best at. These timetables you give for America's response are unreal.

If only it were called the PCS, or PRESENT Combat System. Unfortunately it's FUTURE combat system. Concepts such as "rockets in a box", air-mobile tanks, and advanced infantry equipment will make the US military precisely the sort light and lean sort of systems which we need for holding down what Marine officers refer to as "the edge of the empire". (if you haven't heard that term before its because they try not to say it around civilians). Until these systems replace the current hardware which was designed for slugging it out with the Russians in Germany in the 1970s/80s, we will not be quick or adaptable enough to wrest the initiative from a bold and compitent foe half way around the world.

The major problem with your whole plan still remains that it would require huge ammounts of aid from China and Russia, which neither is really capable of giving at this time. Even if they could, it would be almost impossible to hide from America. It would take a long while to truly build up and for the Iranians to actually learn how to operate the equipment. It's simply not realistic to assume that Russia and China could simply send advisors to get the job done.
Look how long it takes to train the Iraqi security forces, or how training the South during Vietnam went. It's not done overnight. It takes years to build a truly professional army (which would certainly be required for the type of major offensive action you're talking about).

China is the fastest growing economy in the world and needs oil. A move like this would be extremely worthwhile to them because it cuts out American competition for resources, removes American economic support for their rivals in India, and greatly enhances Chinas diplomatic strength in the world. All they need is something to motivate them- for example the US upsetting them too much over Taiwan or North Korea- think of it as a second front in the East-Asian coldwar. Additionally, if that new cold war goes hot, China could outright invade Afghanistan and send troops to help Iran in the west without even cutting into their ability to fight in Korea.
Given 2 years, China could arm Iran to the teeth and train them to excellence. Unlike the Iraqi forces, Iranians dont have to volunteer, they need not fear being murdered by insurgents, and China can give them as much money as they want without their people voting the leader out of office. All that, plus Chinese equipment simply isnt as expensive as American equipment because they arent a capitalists (among other reasons). As I have stated, America can not react meaningfully to this growing threat until they have concrete evidence that Iran plans to attack. A lot of Americans are going to say that Iran is no threat, but they are just scared that we might invade. Even the war-like part of American culture will just say- boy Iran is sure gonna feel stupid when we invade them and blow all that stuff up. We would never worry about it!

Then of course there is the factor no one has mentioned. The Iraqis and Afghanis themselves. How will they react once Iranians start flooding across their borders? You could possibly see insurgents fighting with Americans if that were to happen.

�
This is a good point. Afghanistan would be the biggest beneficiary here. For every Afghan citizen who took the side of an Iranian backed neo-taliban, there would be even more who fought them. It wouldnt stop Iran from destroying the American troops in the country, but it would cost them lives and keep them from occupying, which means as long as Pakistan doesnt keep us out (which China could make them do perhaps) would eliminate America from the Eastern front. That would go in Americas favor a little bit, and a lot if Pakistan stabs China in the back (although that could lead to a larger regional war if China decided to play for keeps, and it would almost certainly lead to a 3 way nuclear war between Pakistan, India, and China).
In Iraq, I think that the insurgents work against us. The Shiites have pretty much made it clear that for the most part they are willing to bend over and take it which means we wouldnt get much help against Iran. The Sunni on the other hand are usually game for a good fight, and who do you think has been stirring them up all this time, but Iran.

On another note- Iraq is a mistake. Churchill said it himself. Iraq never should have been created. There are 3 reasons that Iraq still exits. 1. We dont trust Iran with that oil, otherwise we would turn a blind eye for Iran to take over most of the fertile crescent and maybe southern Iraq. 2. We cant give the Northern Kurds independence without creating problems for our Turkish friends, but we cant give the Northern Kurds over to Turkish control without looking like backstabbing jerks. 3. If we admit that the allied handling of middle eastern territories after WWII was wrong it wont stop with Iraq. We will be up to our ears in questions about Syrian control of Lebanon, and the right of Israel to exist.
If America or the EU were in the mood to be imperialist and start reorganizing the map in a way that pleases them best, the ideal move would be to somehow conjure up a defensive war that ends with Iraq, Syria and Lebanon as NATO protectorates overseen primarily by a muslim member of NATO (Turkey). Iran could and Afghanistan would are not particularly valuable so those missions could be left to Russian or Chinese administration as tokens of good will (or trojan horses, since non-islamic powers would be considerably less welcome as occupiers). In this sense, a major regional war could be exactly what the powers that be want- it would allow for the policing of Islamic terrorists, the modernization of most of the arab world under the oversight of the EU (courtesy of Turkey), and would prevent a humanitarian disaster which will most likely befall that region when Peak Oil inevitably kills the local economies (barring the intervention of outside powers to create new economies.).
If America had this idea, it would not be bad for us. If France, Russia and China sat down and had this idea, it would be very bad for us, not because they would all gang up and kick our butt, just because they would all sneak around and create a nasty situation that would blow up in our face unless we stepped back and let it happen.

GOD am I long winded. Im sorry.

I'll have to start spending more time in this forum. I've never had so many intelligent responses to a thread before. Kudos to Countermeasures and Disturbed- I hope somebody has given you guys applause for your contributions.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
The only thing I could agree with here is that America might not get away with massing troops on the border to prevent an invasion, but I disagree as to why. You'd hear an uproar from many in the "international community" about America simply looking for a reason to attack.

I strongly disagree that America couldn't persuade its own citizens to allow us to shift more forces to the region. Americans aren't stupid, and don't like to take chances with our soldiers lives. There's a reason they get upset when they hear our soldiers don't have the proper equipment in Iraq. Most Americans are already suspicious of a nation like Iran, anyway. If they showed Americans evidence that Iran was building up its forces, and getting aid from China and Russia, Americans would probably be on board with pre-emptive action.

You are forgetting that we don't have the troops. We already need stop losses to sustain the current deployment. If we deployed enough troops to repel an invasion without taking away from the current mission in Iraq, we would be sending too many of our troops to the region, extending too many troop's enlistments, and activating too many reservists, and not getting nearly enough new enlistments for these reasons. By 2008 a draft would seem inevitable to voters (and that would probably be true) and we would elect the candidate who promised to get us out of Iraq (after 2 years of extreme deployments against a boogie man that still hasn't attacked people WILL get sick of it). There is also a tremendous expense of the deployment. This isn't the same as the war on terror- they haven't hit us yet. For this reason, when Bush is weighing military spending against his domestic agenda (during his last term no less) he may not choose to spend that money on the military.
If America actually invades Iran first that carries both advantages and disadvantages. Above all, America will win in a walk. Depending on how far Iran comes before America strikes they may bloody our nose a bit, but the issue will never be in doubt. It stops the draft from coming before the invasion so that the draft issue can not stop the invasion, however that leaves the occupation in doubt, which makes it a double edged sword.
On the down side, it WILL take a draft to occupy Iran and Iraq at the same time it will also be a diplomatic and domestic crisis on many levels. 1. We will have launched an invasion from an occupied territory- an act which we would share in recent memory only with Hitler and Tojo. 2. We will need a draft to keep up our occupations of these nations. 3. We will have to increase military spending at the expense of domestic agendas. 4. North Korea may see the invasion of Iran as a new affirmation that America is coming after everyone on our hit list, and they will know that this is the one time at which they can take any action they please without America being free to respond. This could lead to an arms race on the peninsula, new nuclear provokations, or even war. 5. We will probably be holding Russian and Chinese prisoners, and they may very well respond by reading the riot act and beginning with another puppet (perhaps Syria). This is the end of the war on terror because after throwing down the gauntlet China would be honor bound to resist us directly if we went after Syria.

I have little doubt Pakistan would give us access to their airspace in this situation, pressure from China or not. A strong American military presence in the region is just as much of a threat as any Chinese one would be (really more). They want our support as much as the Chinese support if war with India were ever to break out. We've improved our ties with Pakistan greatly over the past few years, as well.

Pakistan is definately friendly to us at this time and we have improved our relationship greatly.

Pakistan had better remember that a friendship is only good while it is mutually beneficial though.

Friendship with China is mutually beneficial for 100 years. They are in range of eachother's nukes, they have common concerns over India, China is a growing economy with needs for fuel and ready access to Europe. Pakistan has Indian Ocean ports and that pipeline from Afghanistan. Pakistan has intelligence services which are active in Southern Asia and China has a military nobody in the region will cross. These two nations can help one another without coming into conflict for a very long time.

America only needs Pakistan in the short term. Pakistan lends us credibility and transportation to aid our mission in Afghanistan, and being friends with Pakistan gives us a little extra influence over the India-Pakistan tensions. In the long run it is India that America will care about though because we hope (ridiculously, I might add) that India will be an alternative trading partner over China.

As for a draft, I don't see this as necessary. America still has many troop reserves in the world. We keep 70,000 still in Germany. Permanent troop stations in Iraq are most likely inevitable, as well. If there was a serious threat from Iran, I see no reason we couldn't decrease forces from around the world and put them into Iraq for defense.

I must strongly disagree. Iraq is not Germany. Many of our guys like Germany and they are not deployed in anticipation of an invasion, and the ones in germany with the airforce aren't going to do us a lick of good defending against a ground invasion from Iran- if we had a bunch of spare infantry laying around we wouldn't have stop losses, activated reserve units, and troops sent to Afghanistan in 2001 with only half of their infantry training complete.
If we deploy 100 or 200 thousand troops with armor and artillery along the Tigris River as a defense against Iranian aggression our men will be living in the field for a great deal of time, subjected to insurgent attacks, removed from their families or even from regular communication with their families, and will not know when they are going home. This leads to a drop in enlistment/retainment in addition to the current shortage. Disobedience to stop-loss and reserve callups could increase greatly as well.
If we hesitate very long before invading the draft problem will prevent us from ever attacking. If we attack right away the draft problem will later cause the failure of the occupation, perhaps of both occupations (Iraq and Iran) and the future of both the war on terror and our mid-east foreign policy in general will be greatly damaged.

I would be foolish to stand here and argue that Iran could militarize and we couldn't do anything about it, so here is what I would suggest as America's course of action to be prepared for such a scenario.
1. Remove troops from South Korea and Germany. Move them to Turkey as well as Pakistan if possible. This could be made possible by offering a separating force on the Indian border and perhaps trades of military technology.
2. Openly state a plan to withdraw from Iraq in the next 2 years. We took the well-armed minority out of power and armed the majority- if they can't prepare and take responsibility for themselves within the next 2 years then they'll never be able to, no matter what we do for them. This move will relieve some pressure from Iran, help our enlistment/retainment, and give us the political capital to garrison Turkey/Pakistan against Iranian aggression in a kinder gentler war on terror that allows us to be prepared without actively starting wars and allowing us to persue domestic agendas.
3. Engage in secret arms sales with Israel and set in place a secret plan for Israel to act as America's enforcer against Iran, with America's promise of support if other neighbors should turn on them.
4. Begin developing the airborne divisions into a light combined arms corps designed for full deployment within 14-21 days.
Stage 1: Upgrade anti-tank abilities with new weapons and increased training and equipment of the basic rifleman to engage tanks.
Stage 2: Introduce new more compact artillery systems including the "rockets in a box concept".
Stage 3: Equip these divisions with the airmobile tanks envisioned by FCS.
Stage 4: Upgrade transport of these units by use of high altitude stealth transports comparable to the B-2.

I believe the key to American defense of interests abroad lies in the stationing of forces near the expected area of conflict but outside of the enemies immediate reach, the development of rapidly deployable forces which can sustain operations indefinately on their own, and the development of stable nations in the region as allies.

During the time this all takes place, the situation in Iraq could very well calm down some, as well. The more time Iran takes, the more troops America could have available.

Speaking of America's ability to calm down the enemy, did you hear that we are planning a winter offensive in Afghanistan? Forgive my prod, but seriously, do you think that Sunni terrorists are going to stand down when Iranian agents are ensuring them that help is on the way?

If it were this simple any nation in the world would have a good professional army. You may be able to turn out grunts, but competent officers are a different story, and more important. If this could be done, I thiink the Chinese would have an army as well trained as ours. I doubt so many Chinese in superior Russian planes would have been shot down during the Korean war.

One of the greatest obstacles to the formation of a professional military is the prohibitive cost of excercises and the lack of access to good advice. When the funding and interest exists for excercises to be held a small cadre of officers can institute change very quickly. Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden- the general most idolized by Bonaparte and Clausewitz- invented and instituted the weapons and tactics of modern warfare virtually all by himself 400 years ago.
A military with the funds and time to drill can accomplish both discipline and skill in the rank and file as well as compitence in officers by the experience of training. What is an American officer but a college kid who has read the right books and partcipated in first-rate training excercises?
The use of Chinese pilots in Korea as examples of China's ability to contribute military expertise today is ridiculous. Piloting an aircraft is a very specific technical skill and China at that time was behind the curve on technology and flying against a US Airforce that had been trained by the aces of WWII.

While China has a lot of industrial capability, this isn't WW2. Could they really use it to make mass quantities of weapons, especially when they themselves don't have them? China's artillery isn't very impressive.

We're not talking about big ticket items being constantly produced for 4 years like WWII. We're talking about one major purchase of aircraft, then a bunch of guidance programs for cruise missiles, a bunch of radar equipment, and some SA-10 knockoffs all made by guys who will work for rice because they have a command economy. China could spare some fo the things that Iran needs right off the top of their arsenal and just replace it later with more advanced systems. With 2 years of preparation for an economy and military as strong as China's I think they have it in them. Unless somebody wants to break out the CIA world factbook and do some really monotonous number crunching though I think we may have to agree to disagree, because its getting a little late and i'm getting a little tired.

With Russia, I don't think Putin is dumb enough to make any switch to an old Soviet style economy, or even military. The time simply isn't right for him to try and become America's equal again. Russia doesn't have nearly the interests in Iran as I'd say China does, either.

Yukos. Ukraine. Pre-emptive saber rattling. Nuff Said.
I'm not always right (come to think of it I'm generally afraid to keep track of just how often i'm wrong), but me and a lot of other paranoid freaks are somewhat inclined to believe that the wealth of writing about a possible soviet rebirth that came out of the pentagon in the early 90s may have been written by people who know what they are talking about.

The main problem still lies in the fact that both of these nations rely economically on America. That Chinese industrial power comes from American companies. Russia needs American investment to get their economy on track. They don't need America opposing them when they try things like joining the WTO.

In general I agree with you. War between China and America is not economically viable and I have leaned on that heavily in threads past. I should probably take the time to hedge by bet by reminding everyone that this is a theoretical thread that was started by a wargame on my computer-not really by my belief that its going to happen.
Just for the sake of arguement though, have you considered the destabilizing effects of Peak Oil? Lets just suppose that the world powers expected oil prices to go on a severe meltdown before we had converted away from oil economies. The only way to survive would be to monopolize the oil and be the first one to finish making the switch- it would make you the wealthiest nation in the world and the hegemon of your region.

Crossing those mountains is a relatively simple challenge when you control them. They do not even entirely affect Irans ability to launch a surprise strike because Iranian forces on the South Western coast, for example at Abadan are already head of the mountains.
Crossing a mountain range which is defended is more difficult because it both limits tactical options and reduces the advantage of long range visual ability and firing range. Iranian infantry will at times be given the unhappy duty of standing in the way of M1A1 tanks with limited support from tanks or artillery, because although America can not destroy ALL Iranian hardware they can surely prioritize their sortees and take out Iranian defenses in key positions.

I believe you're overestimating Iran's ability to get their equipment and men over the mountains fast enough to launch a real surprise attack. American forces are spread out, but they still have much of America's best equipment with them.

Except of course when it comes to humvees- they are using scrap armor and damaged ballistic glass on those. Sorry I couldn't resist- partly because one of my old highschool teachers was complaining to me about exactly that just today- he's fresh back from Iraq with the army reserve.
It wont take weeks to move their forces through the mountains, we're talking about days. I'm not even sure that America would see the movement for the first 24 hours unless something before the advance clued them in that Iran was about to strike. There aren't all just narrow winding mountain roads either- Iran does have several highways leadning into northern and southern iraq which means that forces already stationed in the west can be moved somewhat faster than those in the eastern part of the country. Also I would not be entirely surprised to see tactics taken out of the Russian playbook as represented in Red Dawn and Red Storm Rising: iran could make parachute insertions from civilian charter flights and launch marines by helocopter or hovercraft from civilian commericial ships to invade Kuwait and rapidly pus North into Iraq.
They would never crush Iraq instantly- not say in the first 48 hours before America can start fighting back. American forces in Iraq simply aren't numerous enough or equipped with sufficient armor and artillery to take the initiative against a large invasion force. My guess is that they would consolidate their hold in central Iraq behind the Tigris and beg Turkey to move troops into Iraq and tie in their Northern flank. Iran's challenge would be to make improvised crossings of the Tigris in lightly defended areas and find a way to overrun American forces before the end of the first 2-4 weeks, before significant American forces can be landed. Make no mistake, if Iran can't cross the Tigris and finish American troops off before armored divisions arrive in either Turkey or Kuwait the war will end fast and ugly for Iran.

UAV's are relatively cheap, and hard to detect, especially for an army on the move.

UAVs are something I must admit I have failed to consider. They could pose a significant problem for secrecy in Iran if their range is sufficient and if there is really no way to jam them. The question that comes to mind for me (and I dont know the answer to it at all) is whether or not UAVs will be able to give the kind of detailed intelligence we would need to identify missile sites. it seems to me that spyplanes get a much broader picture. If the UAV proved good for more than just looking for enemy troops over the next hill then I'd have to say that it will shed even further light on the Iranian preparations which will already be precariously out in the open.

I think you're underestimating Iraq's air defenses some. They had some of Russia's best SAM's, and the Chinese set the things up for them. I doubt Russia would be able to provide Iran with too many SA-20's.

Iraq's sophisticated air defenses were patchy at best and not backed up by fighter aircraft. There is no denying that a large part of the country was defended by "zeus" AAA (Russian ZSU designs). We all saw the machine guns blazing away at the empty sky over baghdad didnt we? We've already discussed China's industrial power to not only produce weapons but to make producing weapons a financially lucrative option for Russia as well.

The B-2 can't dogfight worth a dang. This isn't Kosovo- you need conventional fighter aircraft in significant numbers to open the door for the B-2.

How are they going to intercept a B-2 which they can't find?
1. Stealth is not entirely invisible to modern equipment as I understand- it's just difficult to see.
2. Certain radar configurations can give rough fixes on stealth aircraft. For example, the original radar systems of WWII would detect stealth because they measured interference between two broadcasting stations instead of recieving signal reflections- deflecting radar didn't wouldn't confuse such a system, although it could not give as accurate information.

The Russians and Chinese were helping Saddam throughout these two wars. They were selling weapons. The Chinese set up the Iraqi air defense system.

Apples and Oranges. That was minor sales of parts and arms and minor technical assistance to some nutjob who wasn't doing much for them. This scenario is talking about full backing of a virtual puppet.

What you're suggesting is going well beyond just giving aid to Iran, as well. You're talking about using open force, and not just agianst American's, but Europeans. Neither the Chinese or the Russians would be in a better position to help Iran then they would be Iraq during the first Gulf War.

Well once again I remind you that this whole thing started with a game on my computer. I'm really more concerned with the whatif than I am with how likely it is to happen. Then again, in 1988 when George H. Bush still wanted to be friends with Saddam, who would have believed that we'd be at war with them in 3 years? Geo-strategy is like a box of chocolates- you never know what you're gonna get.

Rushing new recruits is a sign that we can't deploy faster? I don't see the connection.

During the first Gulf War, Saddam couldn't have launched an attack on Saudi Arabia at the time. America also wasn't alone. We had to wait for a large coahilition of forces who don't have our capability. We were overly-cautious with Saddam, and built an army of 500,000 to attack him.

The first part is simple- we were so pressed for forces that we had to cut our training time just to deploy forces. If we had a larger conflict and hard to deploy even more forces we simply wouldn't have the troops on hand for it and we would have additional lag time as we mobilized reserves and waited for new recruits to be prepared for deployment. I continue my strong belief that if America is to continue to engage in wars and occupations it will take a draft by the end of the decade.

As for gulf war one- America was not overly cautious so much as we looked overly cautious because of how stupidly Saddam fought that war. Saddam brought a knife to a gunfight- it was 1991 in Iraq and he was acting like he controlled 1943's Russia. If Saddam had taken the initiative with the forces he had available to him and attacked the Americans at a favorable time and place those troops were precisely the amount necessary to ensure a strong victory. I grant that it wouldn't have even been close, but thats the whole idea. You aren't supposed to field and army that could lose if things dont go well. The idea that America might field a weaker army faster is exactly what I was talking about when i suggested that things could be even more humiliating for America than I had originally imagined, because only by taking longer and fielding a stronger army can American put themselves beyond fear of defeat- that is why in my scenario I believed that only possession of a nuclear deterrent and an alliance with China could ultimately save Iran once they got themselves into this kind of situation.

America does not need overwhelming force to repel an Iranian attack. I believe the new military doctrine used in Iraq today of a small, mobile force could hold off Iran long enough. The army assembled for the first Gulf War served little purpose. We dominated Iraq's forces far easier than anyone expected. Iran today is not much different, and whatever difference there is is easily offset with the advancements America has made.

The new doctrine as represented by this war is rather foolish. I am a huge proponent of manuever warfare and the ability of a smaller leaner and craftier force to upset a greater one, however the "new doctrine" does not fully commit to the principles of manuever warfare and has been falsely justified without trial by its use against a frail enemy which we fully expected to throw up its hands and surrender after firing the so-called "honorable shot".
The use of infantry based forces in urban-centered strategy has little if any application to the defense of a nation against a mechanized invasion, except to revert back to the era of siege warfare. If it is our intent to have our forces besieged for weeks if not months while we hasten to send reinforcements, then I must say that our plan is likely to work brilliantly- because our forces will most certainly come under siege and we will most certainly find ourselves in a haste to reinforce. Beyond that I can not speak for the potential success of the idea.

Iraq was basically the first test ground for the tactics we'll use once we have the FCS. We can still apply this if Iran were to attack. We wouldn't need large numbers against Iran because we'd still have superior, more mobile forces. Iran's only real advantage would rely on overwhelming us with numbers, not having a force equal to our own.

It sounds good, but it is really a mischaracterization of the war in Iraq designed to make our reliance on a large infantry force during the occupation sound like a good thing. The FCS revolves around smaller, lighter, faster weaponry which we have not yet acquired. To test the tactics without the equipment is a codeword for not deploying enough tanks. In the face of an Iranian invasion and lacking sufficient numbers of tanks we would be forced to skirmish our way back to the Tigris and fortify, hoping that we could weather the seige by virtue of airpower until reinforcements arrive. Until the FCS is fully in place this represents a reversion to the strategy of the 18th century.

The political landscape alone prevents anything like this from ever happening. The days of powers openly opposing one another is over for the time being. It would take something drastic to take us back there. China would still stand to lose far too much to oppose the West yet.

I agree that it takes a catalyst for something like this to happen. Peak oil is a potential catalyst. Taiwan and South Korea are additional possibilities. I think it would be a little arrogant for America to assume the China will just bend over if we tried to help Taiwan declare independence.
I am reminded of what the Russian president said in Sum of All Fears "it is like sleeping with another man's wife. What you are proposing is that we can all live under the same roof. But what really happens, is the husband goes and gets a gun".
In the end though, this is just a whatif i pulled out of a cheap videogame I bought at walmart. Fun to discuss, interesting and valuable in terms of strategic and tactical implications, but probably never going to happen.

Thanks for your input. You're keeping the thread interesting for me and even making me play devils advocate on certain issues.