First of all Siberian I do owe you an apology and a correction. The idiocy regarding the horrible toll that would be taken by subway shootings and
such came from Wierdo.
Also, don't take this as a criticism, but it would be a tremendous help to everyone if you could summarize the content of links you post.
As for the most recent link you've posted about how Iran controls the exit from Iraq- I believe that the author has made a mistake by completely
ignoring the capabilities of US forces. Anything can be made to sound possible if you focus on only one force. Look at thermopylae. If you focus on
the immense power of the several hundred thousand persians, you'd probably think that even 100 modern troops could not hold them off. Yet a mere
handful of Spartans numbering only in the hundreds made a 3 day stand against that huge force.
Iranian weapons are potent, however their number and ability to be delivered must be weighed, as must the limits of their effects. The exocets for
example can sink our forces in the gulf and deny us a naval exit for a while (although the ability to deliver these missiles will be greatly hindered
because the Iranian airforce can not endure beyond the initial 2-4 weeks of this war, to be EXTREMELY generous, and nor can their submarine
Iran lacks the ability to shut down reinforcement and resupply by air however. This makes it extremely likely that US forces can hold the Tigris River
and await reinforcement via Turkey (unless Turkey would like to get kicked out of NATO and lose any hope at EU membership), alternately reinforcements
could be landed via Israel and come through Jordan.
Since this scenario is posed as a war on Zionism an Israeli incursion must be assumed. Israel is capable of routing Jordan in mere days and thus
opening a corridor between Iraq and Israel through which American reinfrocements could advance, or through which US forces could retreat and
thereafter start with Syria and fight their way back to Iran gradually. In so many words, America is only isolated for offensive purposes. In the face
of Iranian aggression the necessity of cooperation from our allies will create alternative routes to Iraq.
If Iran performs brilliantly they can cause American casualties in the thousands or tens of thousands as I have said, however the issue will never be
in doubt. After a few dark weeks in the beginning American forces will almost certainly overwhelm Iran, barring monumental stupidity on the part of
American commanders combined with incredble genius on the part of Iranian officers.
So only one contention of the anti-semetic propaganda website you presented remains: will Russia resort to the use of nuclear weapons in defense of
this failed action? I sincerely doubt that Russia is prepared to go nuclear with America just to support a failed gambit with their Iranian pawn. What
could they stand to gain from it?
Originally posted by TPL
Whats the terrain like in Iran? I heard it's more mountainous than Iraq. How would that effect the war on the ground?
The Iraq-Iran border is defined by the Zagros Mountains. They span the entire border and present a series of mountain passes running East-West into
Iran. There are three of these routes across the border which are supported by major highways, one in the North between Mosul and Maragheh, one in the
North-Central area which takes a somewhat indirect line between Baghdad and Bakhtaran, and one that runs between Basra and Adaban/Ahvaz. In the North
the highways let out into a North-South Highway which then offers 5 routes East towards the central Iranian Platea and Tehran, the Iranian Capital. In
the South the mountains are set back from the border and there is open ground which houses the cities of Adaban and Ahvaz, and some Iranian military
forces. A narrow strip of open ground runs the southern coast as far as Bushehr where Iran is building a nuclear reactor, then the coastal plain
narrows very significantly between Bushehr and Bandar-e-Abbas, which is as the straight of Hormuz controlling the Persian Gulf.
A war over this terrain being fought out of Turkish territory would be reminiscent of Afghanistan and would rely on special forces and infantry with
artillery support. Weather would be a factor in the effectiveness of airpower and armor would be less effective than it was in the open desert of
Armored forces would likely be dedicated to the South in an effort to push down the coast and secure the Straight of Hormuz so that naval access to
the Gulf is restored.
The less defended, less populated, and more direct route to Tehran runs out of Western Afghanistan, through a desert which lies behind the Zagros
Mountains, but there are no major highways nor noteworthy settlements in this area which would complicate logistics somewhat.
Thanks to Iran's geography the war would move slower and indirect fire would be extremely important. American troops would likely take increased
casualities in the hundreds, maybe low thousands unless they were extremely careful in their recon and recieved adequate air support for taking out
Iranian artillery before advancing through constricted terrain. The inability to quickly mass forces would also make America more vulnerable to
counter-attacks, although it is likely that America's advantage in battlefield awareness and indirect fire would make these counter attacks very
costly and minimally effective.
The biggest implication of this terrain is that America would be less likely to "just get lucky" if we followed what I call "Rumsfeld Doctrine" by
sending too few troops with two little support. It is absolutely imperative that the pentagon impress the challenges of the terrain upon Rumsfeld
before such a war. If it is fought properly it will not be a problem for America. If it is fought the Rumsfeld way it could in fact be the disaster
that America bashers love to suggest.