It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: US military options in Iran not good: analysts

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Military analysts are saying the the United States has no real military options for attacking Iran. With a sizable chunk of its military deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, even an air war, could cause problems if Iran struck at Iraq. Most analysts also believe that Iran would strike back hard if attacked.
 



story.news.yahoo.com
WASHINGTON (AFP) - With the bulk of its ground forces tied down in Iraq, the United States has compelling reasons to avoid military action against neighboring Iran even while stepping up pressure to halt Tehran's nuclear program, analysts say.

"There are no good military options," James Carafano, a military expert with the conservative Heritage Foundation, said Friday.

The United States could launch pinpoint strikes on targets in Iran from US warships or from the air. But short of an imminent threat from nuclear armed Iranian missiles, any gain would likely be outweighed by the trouble Iran could cause US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The Neo-cons are sorely mistaken if they think that Iran will be a cakewalk that the initial war in Iraq was. Bigger population, more land mass, and better armed are all reasons to take a diplomatic route with the Iranians. If you think they are having problems in Baghdad, wait till you try to "pacify" Tehran with its massive population. The other factor is this, while people are not exactly happy with the ruling council in Iran, they will defend thier land with a fanaticism that would make the Viet-Cong look like a cub pack on maneuvers.




posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Since when do the Iranians have a history of fighting to the death for their homeland? The Iran-Iraq war is brought up a lot, but in reality, the people were forced to go fight. If you take a look at the history of the region, the people aren't known for really giving a damn about the government.

People who overestimate Iranian military capability are the only ones fooling themselves. In a conventional war, Iran would be no harder then Iraq was during the first Gulf War. Iraq had a million man army, with thousands of tanks and artillery. All of it top of the line from Russia. Iran has nothing that can stand up to an Abram.

America does have more ground assets available. We have a half a million men in the army right now serving all around the world. We could take our 70,000 in Germany, or 35,000 in Japan, or the 30,000 in South Korea or a number of other nations if it was necessary.

I highly doubt Iran could launch any sort of massive attack on Iraq. Iraq could only afford economically to send a fraction of its army into Kuwait years ago. It managed to deploy a few hundred thousand. They were militarily and economically way more powerful than Iran is today. Iran would also be working under time restraints. They really don't have months to sit around and plan and organize an attack. They could only mobilze a very small force to catch America off guard at this time.

I don't know who these military analysts are, but they're probably the same ones who talked about Iraq causing massive casualties to America during the Gulf War.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
In a conventional war, Iran would be no harder then Iraq was during the first Gulf War. Iraq had a million man army, with thousands of tanks and artillery. All of it top of the line from Russia.



Iraq had just survived an almost decade long war that had a severe financial toll and a big death toll.
Iraq lost about 300,000 people during that war.
If they had had a few more years to recuperate the Gulf War may not have been as easy.

Another big factor in the first Gulf War may have been the huge number of forces from the US and other nations.
The US had 500,000 troops in that war and allied nations contributed another 160,000.

I think you would have great difficulty amassing that number of troops again, especially International troops as relations between the US and other nations have deteriorated.

You also had other nations contributing financially to the war.
Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States contributed $36 billion and Germany and Japan contributed $16 billion.
The strain in relations means that it will be almost impossible to get those nations to contribute financially again.

I think another thing that contributed to the great success in the first Gulf War was a great morale amongst the troops who were fighting.
They were defending a nation against an invading army.
I don't think morale would be that high in a war against Iran because Iran has not attacked anyone yet and US troops are probably war weary from the war against iraq.


[edit on 22-1-2005 by AceOfBase]



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Iran is doing nothing wrong. Are we to believe that they are "trying to develop nuclear weapons" as suggested by the same adminstration that said Saddam had WMD's?
Iran is more democratic than most Arabic countries, if we wage war with Iran then it will prove nothing. It will only prove that we used 9/11 to purge the world of nations that we don't agree with and that will just cause more trouble. By the way, why do we continue to misdirect our forces? Osama was the culprit. I urge to read the links below for the real facts about Iran:
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...






[edit on 22-1-2005 by Prince_Machiavelli]



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Iraq had just survived an almost decade long war that had a severe financial toll and a big death toll. Iraq lost about 300,000 people during that war.
If they had had a few more years to recuperate the war may not have been as easy.


It ended years before the Gulf War. Iraq's military wasn't any weaker after it. They still had all of their great Russian toys.


Another big factor in the first Gulf War may have been the huge number of forces from the US and other nations.
The US had 500,000 troops in that war and allied nations contributed another 160,000.


Most of these were never used. American troops completely outmatched the Iraqis. There were many times when the "elite" Republican Guard met on equal terms with American forces, and were completely destroyed without more then a handful, or any American losses.


I think you would have great difficulty amassing that number of troops again, especially International troops as relations between the US and other nations have deteriorated.


We didn't need that many troops then. We didn't even use most of our troops. America was over-cautious. The Powell doctrine is out of date. Current American military doctrine is far different. That's why we brought 150,000 American troops into Iraq. That's what American FCS is all about.

The foreign troops were barely used, as well. Most of those were from Muslim nations, and the troops were more symbolic than anything.


You also had other nations contributing financially to the war.
Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States contributed $36 billion and Germany and Japan contributed $16 billion.


That was hardly necessary. America is the most economically powerful nation on the planet. In spite of all the doomsday talk, our deficit isn't that bad. Europe is far worse off. We've already funded two wars completely on our own in the past three years, and our economy has still recovered fine after 9/11.

America had a far larger military budget during the Cold War. We planned on fighting the Soviets. We had plans to be able to fight on multiple continents. Funding is never a problem for America.


I think another thing that contributed to the great success in the first Gulf War was a great morale amongst the troops who were fighting.
They were defending a nation against an invading army.
I don't think morale would be that high in a war against Iran because Iran has not attacked anyone yet and US troops are probably war weary from the war against iraq.


Studies have found troop morale to be as high as before the Iraq war started. Morale hasn't been an issue for America's army.


Iran is more democratic than most Arabic countries, if we wage war with Iran then it will prove nothing. It will only prove that we used 9/11 to purge the world of nations that we don't agree with and that will just cause more trouble. By the way, why do we continue to misdirect our forces? Osama was the culprit. I urge to read the links below for the real facts about Iran:


Iran isn't democratic. Their president is a puppet with no real power. The Guardian Council controls everything.

[edit on 22-1-2005 by Disturbed Deliverer]



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Since when do the Iranians have a history of fighting to the death for their homeland?


All righty then, turn off the Rambo dvd and take a look at the situation:

Iran has almost 3 times the population of Iraq
Iran has almost 4 times the land mass of Iraq
Iran has several mountain ranges similar to Afganistan (Elburz etc.)

They have a bigger army than that of iraq, and you are missing the whole point. it is doubtfull that wholesale units will desert or abandon thier vehicles as the iraqi army did in DSII.

Also, if you think that the insurgency in Iraq is bad, wait till you try to controll Iran.

Where do you get your stuff about not fighting to the death? Do you forget the suicide wave attacks in the Iran Iraq war? Are you also forgetting like millenia of historical evidence???



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Disturbed Deliverer,
Wow, that was a quick reply. Not even enough time to read the facts. How can you say Iran is not democratic when you pay no attention to facts. You make an arguement without substance.
My post time says, 5:46
and yours said, 5:48
So, it took two minutes to read all that literature?

[edit on 22-1-2005 by Prince_Machiavelli]



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Disturbed Deliverer,

No army on the face of the earth could defeat the American Military in a standup war. However, as we have seen in Iraq, winning the war and winning the peace are dramaticaly different items unto themselves.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 11:58 PM
link   
For those that embrace ignorance I will post some clips of the literature I suggested earlier.

Source:
en.wikipedia.org...

Clips:
Khatami was elected president on May 23, 1997 and was re-elected on June 8, 2001 for a second term. Khatami won largely due to the female and youth vote, who voted for him because he promised to improve the status of women and respond to the demands of the young generation in Iran.

Khatami is regarded as Iran's first reformist president, since the focus of his campaign was on the rule of law, democracy and the inclusion of all Iranians in the political decision-making process. However his policies of reform have led to repeated clashes with the hardline and conservative Islamists in the Iranian government, who control powerful governmental organizations like the Guardian Council whose members are appointed by the Supreme Leader.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Source:
en.wikipedia.org...

Clips:
However, in more recent years, the democratic political structure has led to the election of many reformist politicians, including the president, Mohammad Khatami. During the first decade of the 21st century, the struggle for power between reformists and conservatives over the future of the country continues through a mix of electoral politics and restrictions on civil liberties.

The head of state is the president, elected by universal suffrage to a 4-year term by an absolute majority of votes and supervises the affairs of the executive branch. All presidential candidates must be approved by the Council prior to running. After his election, the president appoints and supervises the Council of Ministers (the cabinet), coordinates government decisions, and selects government policies to be placed before the parliament. The Council of Guardians certifies the competence of candidates for the presidency and the parliament.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 12:21 AM
link   

They have a bigger army than that of iraq, and you are missing the whole point. it is doubtfull that wholesale units will desert or abandon thier vehicles as the iraqi army did in DSII.


How about like the Iraqi army in Gulf War 1? Bombing can be devestating to troop morale. I see no reason why the Iranians would hold up any better.


Also, if you think that the insurgency in Iraq is bad, wait till you try to controll Iran.


I don't think Iraq is bad. I just think American politicians are weak and stupid.


Where do you get your stuff about not fighting to the death? Do you forget the suicide wave attacks in the Iran Iraq war? Are you also forgetting like millenia of historical evidence???


I believe I already mentioned how during the Iran-Iraq war the people were forced. People didn't willing volunteer to go run through mine fields for the good of the motherland.

You can go take a look at the past. Iran has been conquered by many different forces, and the Iranians (or "Persians") have welcomed them with open arms. Alexander the Great is a pretty good example.


No army on the face of the earth could defeat the American Military in a standup war. However, as we have seen in Iraq, winning the war and winning the peace are dramaticaly different items unto themselves.


America will eventually win the peace in Iraq. Our strategy is a proven one. We aren't suffering very large military losses in Iraq in reality. 1000 is nothing to a military for a years fighting.

Prince_Machiavelli

I don't need to read your sources because they won't say anything I don't already know.

Iran's president is pushed as a reformer, but he's done very little actual reforming. You'll find many of his supporters are turning against him.

The president doesn't hold real power in the nation, either. The Guardian Council does.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 12:28 AM
link   


Iran isn't democratic.


No, Iran's government isn't democratic. The Iranian people try to make their society as democratic and capitalistic as much as their theocratic government will allow. There is a major difference of opinion between the Iranian people and their government, which is why Iran should be overthrown by the CIA. They want democracy and an eventual Iranian revolution is inevitable if we let it happen or covertly help it along. There's no need for physical war. Also I believe any invasion of Iran threatens to unify this difference of opinion as soon as they witness the death and destruction that comes along with an American invasion.

BTW Disturbed Deliverer I consider you proof of the American propaganda machine at work, haha. Any current invasion of Iran by America would be devastating in the long term to say the least.

-raven



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 12:40 AM
link   

No, Iran's government isn't democratic. The Iranian people try to make their society as democratic and capitalistic as much as their theocratic government will allow. There is a major difference of opinion between the Iranian people and their government, which is why Iran should be overthrown by the CIA. They want democracy and an eventual Iranian revolution is inevitable if we let it happen or covertly help it along. There's no need for physical war. Also I believe any invasion of Iran threatens to unify this difference of opinion as soon as they witness the death and destruction that comes along with an American invasion.


How long has the Western world been wainting for the overthrow of the government? Pretty much since the overthrow of the Shah took place.


BTW Disturbed Deliverer I consider you proof of the American propaganda machine at work, haha. Any current invasion of Iran by America would be devastating in the long term to say the least.


If it were propaganda, then you should have no problem proving it wrong. The lack of argument on your part shows that it has credibility, or at least that you don't.

Every military operation America ever takes part in is supposed to be devestating. Iraq was supposed to be tough. The Serbs were supposed to be tough.

I'm sick of people underestimating America's military. It is the most powerful military in the world by a longshot. To think that a third world nation like Iran would be able to cause "devestation" to our military is absurd. It would take one of the worst generals in history to screw up, or one of the very best in history to be on the other side.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

I'm sick of people underestimating America's military. It is the most powerful military in the world by a longshot. To think that a third world nation like Iran would be able to cause "devestation" to our military is absurd. It would take one of the worst generals in history to screw up, or one of the very best in history to be on the other side.


The British were thought to be the the best military when our leaders signed the declaration of independance. Never assume anything. History only shows the repetition of history.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 12:53 AM
link   

The British were thought to be the the best military when our leaders signed the declaration of independance. Never assume anything. History only shows the repetition of history.


The British didn't have any overwhelming advantage. Other powers in the world were on par with them in economic and military means. They were also fighting wars on multiple fronts at the time and couldn't use all of their military strength.

America's military dominance is on par with Rome's, or even the Mongols.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Disturbed Deliverer
If America is the most powerful nation in the world than why they couldn't defeat the viet-kong in the vietnam war



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Disturbed Deliverer
If America is the most powerful nation in the world than why they couldn't defeat the viet-kong in the vietnam war


Like with many, or even all great military powers, the weakness hasn't been on the battlefield. The Mongols were kept in check by poor leadership. Rome's military was never surpassed, but they collapsed because of poor leadership. You can look at all of their defeats and find poor leadership was really the cause. The German's in WW2 could have won had Hitler let his generals run things.

America in Vietnam never lost a battle. We didn't even come close. The reason we "lost" was because politicians caved to political pressure. We weren't allowed to go invade the North, which would have put an end to everything. We could have flooded the entire North, destroying their capability to fight a war. We didn't do it. Our troops were basically just given a certain area to patrol. The enemy could slip in, attack, and run.

The Vietcong were combat experienced troops. They were actually well trained, in spite of what many believe. They even had some better equipment when it came to the guerilla combat. The AK-47 was a nice asset.

The casualties were still lopsided, and in favor of America.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I believe I already mentioned how during the Iran-Iraq war the people were forced. People didn't willing volunteer to go run through mine fields for the good of the motherland.You can go take a look at the past. Iran has been conquered by many different forces, and the Iranians (or "Persians") have welcomed them with open arms. Alexander the Great is a pretty good example.


They hardly capitulated to Alexander the great nor did the Persian Empire fold on numerous occasion, they as the mighty empires of Rome etc, fell victem to complacancy as well surperior forces/tactics. In fact, very few were able to hold thier own against Alexander at anyrate. I will acknoledge that you seem to have a unique view of history. Even when they were defeted there still were levels of resistance to thier occupiers. Even when overrun by Islam, they resisted and formed thier own version of it hence the #e / Sunni split.

Hmmm, Im interested to see where you get your information on Iran or nation building for that matter.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 01:29 AM
link   
But Disturbed, we still lost in Vietnam no matter who you want to blame the defeat on. That is truly the bottom line.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 01:46 AM
link   

They hardly capitulated to Alexander the great nor did the Persian Empire fold on numerous occasion, they as the mighty empires of Rome etc, fell victem to complacancy as well surperior forces/tactics. In fact, very few were able to hold thier own against Alexander at anyrate. I will acknoledge that you seem to have a unique view of history. Even when they were defeted there still were levels of resistance to thier occupiers. Even when overrun by Islam, they resisted and formed thier own version of it hence the / Sunni split.


The Persians completely accepted Alexander. They had no loyalty to Darius. Persians killed him to begin with. The Persians usually relied on mercenaries for a reason. The great Islamic empires that came after ended up drawing their best soldiers from around Greece and the rest of the Balkans.

As long as the government didn't ruin their businesses, they never seemed to really give a damn. Just look at Iran, and the entire region today. They rarely stand up to their current dictatorships.


Hmmm, Im interested to see where you get your information on Iran or nation building for that matter.


I get it from a number of sources.


But Disturbed, we still lost in Vietnam no matter who you want to blame the defeat on. That is truly the bottom line.


The Romans suffered defeats many times. How about against the Parthians? Does that mean still didn't have supreme military dominance? No, it was simply god awful leadership.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 02:06 AM
link   
Disturbed Deliverier,
Are you God? Do you know everything?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join