It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Iran Invasion Plans

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 05:29 AM
Interesting topic guys was a good read.
Also I love Seekerof's posts makes it pointless for me to type my thoughts on the subject as he says what i want to say just words it better lol
keep up the good work mate

Thanks Red Rose

posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 08:26 AM
Any fight we bring to a fundamentalist Islamic state will be met with fierce resistance. Nevermind the military, its the insurgents, or so called terrorists that will fight for years and years to keep the American occupation out. They will surely see any invasion as a conquering force, not a liberating one. Our firepower will grossly outweigh anything they have at their disposal (short of maybe some chemical/biological weapons) but I think fights like this are won by heart, and this is where we will be lacking. It will turn to a huge body count, with the loser running out of bodies first. These people will fight us to their last breath...leave them alone unless we are seriously provoked. Iraq is enough...

posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 11:59 AM
Considering the Humvee that are used alot by the US military is about 8 miles to the gallon, and the amount of oil that would be required for a tank, APC, aircraft and other vehicles don't you think that there isn't much point going to war for oil? It's like going paintballing, and you're fighting for more as you don't have much but you just shoot anywhere and then completely run out.
It's quite obvious that there are more reasons then meets the eye with the want of war in the middle east. Perhaps it is an Israeli-American conspiracy, NWO conspiracy or something else. We must remember that in the Cold War, America went to war in Korea, Vietnam and nearly Cuba. They lost in Vietnam, and nearly entered a full scale war with the Chinese. The missiles in Cuba were being considered to be used against America, and had a range capable of 2,500 miles which could pretty much wipe out every State (as in range, not quantity of missiles).

You're probably thinking "Well they managed to negotiate out of it didn't they?" Yes, but Khrushev wasn't a psychopathic dictator and China got really cheesed off. Perhaps Iran is innocent, but I suppose the American government still remember the Cold War and govern by the Truman Doctrine. As a member of the UN
their mission is to ensure world peace. Do you really think that the US government will go to war without the PROPER INTELLIGENCE this time? Bush and his cronies have admitted that there were flaws with the Iraq dossier, and imagine the amount of s**t that would be unleashed if they were found out! That would be the last thing to cripple the republicans, and they're (maybe) trying to get the NWO into power, no one would trust them.

Think about it.

Interesting topic.

[edit on 20-12-2005 by mashup]

posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 04:14 AM

Originally posted by Seekerof
Current energy estimates by energy experts stipulate that Iran's oil extractions are already at or near peak levels, and within the coming next couple of decades will need alternative fuel sources. Thats alot of oil?

Well, I guess what you are saying is that iran is moving in the right direction by investing a lot of money into clean cheap energies like nuclear. may be they are right, they need nuclear energy for PEACEFUL purposes.

BUT I shall disagree with you, Iran's unexplored oil reserves stands at about 80% of oil reserves according to the official.

80% of Oil Reserves Unexplored
TEHRAN, Oct. 17--A senior parliamentarian said here on Sunday that Iran must speed up efforts to exploit joint hydrocarbon reserves, stressing that some 80 percent of the country's oilfields remains unexplored.
Kamal Daneshyar, head of the Majlis Energy Commission, told ISNA that downstream oil industries in Iran have not progressed adequately in recent years, adding that the country does not need foreign expertise in the upstream industries as much as it does in the downstream sector.

Iran's recoverable oil reserves stand at 130 bn bbl, so with some calculation, the unexplored oil reserves stands at 130 * 4 = 520 bn bbl, bringing the total amount of oil iran to unbeleivable but true 650 bn bbl. (please correct me, I am no math intelligent).
not to mention, Iran's recoverable gas reserves stand at 26 tcm, just less than Russia's.

also, Iran is still discovering oil fields.

TEHRAN, Aug. 24--An oil industry official said here on Wednesday that the country has a huge potential to undertake new oil exploration projects, stressing that Azadegan and Yadavaran oilfields were discovered at a time when no one believed there would be such huge hydrocarbon reserves in the country.

17-11-05 Iran has discovered new oil reserves at an onshore oil field in the south-western province of Khuzestan, the Oil Ministry reported.
The discovery of an estimated 767 mm barrels of light, sweet crude lies in the Mansouri oil field, said Iran's acting oil minister, Kazem Vaziri Hamaneh.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Here is something else to consider: How much oil does the US import or buy from Iran?

none, but bear in mind, us will run out of oil by the end of 2010-11, and its oil supplys has to come from ME, passing through the iranian hormuz strait.
tbh, I really think the upcoming war with iran is all about strategic control over oil and gas supplies and trade routes, iran shares border with both caspian sea, persian gulf, oman sea and indian ocean. (correct me if I am wrong).

An invasion of Iran is not possible for one reason. Where us is going to invade iran from? from afghanistan, not a possibility, us hardly controls 10% of afghanistan. Iraq? As iraqi election preliminary results are announced, it has become clear, that iraqis have picked the major shiite party with close ties with iran.

Trust me, Iraqis will not allow us to use their country for another invasion of iran,as once saddam did.

There is not going to be a war with iran .......... Full Stop

posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 05:33 AM

Originally posted by proprog
none, but bear in mind, us will run out of oil by the end of 2010-11, and its oil supplys has to come from ME, passing through the iranian hormuz strait.

How do you figure that, proprog?
You have failed to bear in the mind that the US has not tapped ANWAR or the enormous amounts of shale oil it has, nor has it maximized its offshore drilling. 2010-2011? Hardly, considering the above mentions.

I, too, will agree that I do not forsee any future US invasion of Iran.


[edit on 21-12-2005 by Seekerof]

posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 07:34 AM

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by proprog
none, but bear in mind, us will run out of oil by the end of 2010-11, and its oil supplys has to come from ME, passing through the iranian hormuz strait.

How do you figure that, proprog?
You have failed to bear in the mind that the US has not tapped ANWAR or the enormous amounts of shale oil it has, nor has it maximized its offshore drilling. 2010-2011? Hardly, considering the above mentions.

Oil reserves have declined to the point that annual US oil consumption is now equivalent to about 1/4 of total proven reserves. This means that, if the USA had to supply its own oil, and no new discoveries occurred, its oil would be gone in four years! By importing over 60% of its oil, the inevitable is being postponed. But for how long can this continue?

with 60% of its oil imported, it will postpone the dry up by 6 years.
US WILL run out of oil very soon sometime during 2015
only 4 years off the mark


[edit on 21-12-2005 by proprog]

posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 07:59 AM
proprog, despite the link and what it mentions, you still fail to understand or recognize that the US has natural oil reserves of its own: ANWAR [a 1-3 trillion barrels], oil shale [1 trillion barrels plus from Colorado's oil shale deposits alone], and the mentioned non-maximizing of offshore oil drilling by the US.

As such, your mention of the US running out of oil is relative.


[edit on 21-12-2005 by Seekerof]

posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 08:30 AM
Considering times have changed, perhaps the reason of war has as well?
I think it's wrong to go to war purely for oil (which I'm sure is not the case) but pretty soon don't you think that they'll have other methods for fuels?

Didn't some people predict that the next world war will be for water? Sounds like they weren't too far off if it will be for oil.

posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 09:03 AM
"...50 000 barefoot missles..."


Seriously though they have a huge amount of Sunburn Missles. A highly advanced Cruise missle to which the US ships (Aegis included) have no defence against and even if there is a nuclear strike the US and Isreal can't possibly destroy every single bunker complex.

With only a small escape route the American Navy in the Gulf is fish in a barrel.

I'm sure Bush would love to invade Iran however I think someone forgot to mention to the Neo-Cons that they need millions apon millions of troops to complete their goals. It's not just Iran and Syria.

The US is so overstretched that their ultimate defeat is assured.

The US is positioning itself for a major showdown with many big players in that part of the world. Russia/China/Iran among many others.

No doubt the best the Neo-Cons can come up with is a full out nuclear assault on Iran and to be honest I think they should go for it. Nobody will stop them from starting the Big War. Much of the world has been looking for an excuse to team up against America and thankgod for that.

Nuking Iran will quickly solve one problem however the US defeat as a world superpower would be swiftly assured within the next few years because all of America's bought friends would quickly turn on them.

Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan will side with Iran if they are attacked. Politicians in those countries have been very vocal in that issue.

US Imperialism is a sinking ship and thankgod for it. The world won't sit and watch as the Pentagon goes fourth with it's plans to pre-emptively invade roughly two dozen or more countries.

Bush doesn't realize it but alot of countries are rapidly preparing for the coming global war and the US has a much smaller Pen Is then they even realize.

Bush and his bubble reality still think they have a Cold War military with all the dollars to throw around.

The Chinese have been expanding and arming so much in the last 10 years it's really unbelievable. The Chinese military is nothing to laugh about anymore. They have alot of the same Technology the US has. And Isreal doesn't mind lining their pockets by selling to both sides.

Even at this point the Chinese don't need an army to bring down the American Economy. All they have to do is dump their ownership of the US foreign debt.

If Russia follows suit the US will be hit with an economic disaster 100 times worse then 1929.

The most sad part is the US is merely doing Isreal's bidding.

posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 10:58 AM
I doubt whether Russia is overly concerned about Iranian oil, Russia has a ton of the stuff itself. Iran is a competitor if anything.

China on the other hand has a big appetite for Iranian oil and has been strengthening it's ties with them lately. They could get rather annoyed if someone invaded and took away their oil supply.

posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 08:08 PM
Amen, Huabamambo!
I think you cover a great field of 'problems' regarding an attack on Iran.

Not only political, but purely geographically, it is hard to attack Iran. Only bombs will not do it.
If the US launch a nuclear strike, it will not be a clever chess draw. Europe will not accept it. Africa and Asia will not accept it. If it isn't already, future military 'projects' will hang in a quagmire. Europe is/has been very dependent on US economy. It isn't any more. The Euro and Yen is strong enough to survive on it's own. Inflation, of course it will happen. Only the rich people will really suffer. Poor people already know how to survive. They are prepared without knowing it. Go ahead, have the US invade Iran! I am prepared. If I survive, it would be a bonus. In the meantime, I will sit on my nuclear bed, laughing at all this foolishness politics and religion bring us!

[edit on 21-12-2005 by Ulvetann]

posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 02:45 PM
........the AEGIS can not defeat the sunburn missle.......

Well Actually yes it can the AEGIS is an integrated system of detection and deflection or destruction of incoming air and surface targets. The sunburn moves at approx. Mach 3 which is well within the envelope of the radar system and within the envelope of the SAM systems carried on the AEGIS Crusiers and Destroyers. NOW if you send wave after wave of missles at the same target it will eventually run out of SAMS and take hits. Also bear in mind the Navy just completed and upgrade for the SAM carried by the Crusiers and DD's. So yes the AEGIS can be defeated but its not the cake walk you make it out to be.
The Navy does not need to operate in the Persian Gulf it can and would conduct operations from the Indian ocean. I for one am not happy about the Navys lack of Littoral combat capabilities but they are addressing it with a new vessel.

All of that aside the US does not need to invade Iran we can bomb the crap out of them and get what we want. All of you chumps claiming the US is some global imperialist warmongers can close your ears now and not pay attention to the history I am about to lay down.

After the cease fire agreement that brought the Gulf war to a halt in '91 the US continued to respond to Sadams violations of the agreement by systamatically destroying his air defense network. Thus when the war began again in '02 we had no fear for our airforce of any substantial resestance from the air. We had very few targets to bomb. Our airforce spent time supporting our ground operations. And we moved in with the intent on removing the controling power because he had demonstrated that any opposition to his rule was ruthlessly suppressed. In hindsight given the lack of support we were able to give the uprisings after the first gulf war it was not surprising that the Iraqis did not rise up against Sadam in mass.
HOWEVER Iran is a different animal and thus requires different methods.
Iran is ripe for revolution from its younger generation we see a rise in support for the US and they are wondering why the US is demonized by the old wierdbeards in charge. From Iraq we can support an insurgency of our own in Iran. When it becomes clear that the US is not going to stay and occupy Iraq the Iranian youth will again begin to think about all of the lies they are told by their leaders and see the gains their fellow Shia are making in Iraq and come to want the same reforms in Iran. This however is a long term goal in the short term we can launch precision strikes against their Nuclear instilations once the Isralis have figured out the exact locations. We can contain the Iranians unlike Sadam who believed in the pan-arab state.

posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 05:08 PM
Humb, gave you a vote

Didn't know Iran had the Sunburns, but the Neocons will probably go for bunker buster nukes, clusterbombs, and other mass killing devices.

[edit on 27-12-2005 by Nakash]

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 07:26 AM

I guess its my job to bring this line back to where it belongs.

Can and will the USA attack Iran?

Well, my answer is plain and simple: No matter how much they would like too, even Bush and his cronies know that such is impossible.

Now before all kinds of US diehards jump on me, allow me to explain.

- I doubt not in the least that then US Armed Forces could beat the Iranian Armed Forces.
- With Tomahawks and Stealth aircraft they could most likely wipe out an organized resisrtance within a few days/week.

But then would come the UNORGANIZED resistance
- Tens of thousands of suicide bombers,
- A complete end of oil shipments throught the strait,
- A goverment that shifts from hated to loved,
- Millions of fanatical warriors,
- Miles upon miles of mountainous terain and fortified vilages which makes Iraq look like a cake-walk,
- a Nation five times the size of Iraq, where to get the troops?

THAT is why the USA has not attacked Iran.
Not even Rumsfeld would burn his hands at that country.

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 08:04 AM

Originally posted by Ulvetann
It is being said, and the technology to suck it out of the rocks is awaited. Question is when. Cheaper? I don't know. Propably. But then the prices of oil and gas will increase, because the oil being imported today is sold with a artificial low price anyway. There might actually be a good point in this, that makes a war cheaper for the interested parts of procuring more wealth on oil.

How is oil being sold at an artificially low price. The price per barrel far exceeds the price to produce it ? How is this ' artificially ' low ?

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 08:59 AM

How is oil being sold at an artificially low price. The price per barrel far exceeds the price to produce it ? How is this ' artificially ' low ?

If US cars would have to run on gass extracted from this so called 'tar sand' or 'oil rock' then prices would be around $4.7 a gallon.

I agree that in the next 10 year the USA might become fuel independant, but that will take far higher investments then opening up the Alaska preserve.

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 11:37 AM
I, too, agree with most, if not all, of what Huabamambo said earlier.

When I use words like “we”, “us”, ‘our”, etc. I’m referring to the United States. That’s because I’m from the U.S.

I’m no military strategist. Nor am I a political strategist. Everything I say in this post is simply IMHO. I really don’t know what “true” reasons might be behind doing something so foolish as invading Iran, but if it comes to be I have a feeling that it may be the domino that begins the U.S.’s spiral downward to 2nd class nation status. IMHO the downfall of the U.S. has already begun and will continue to take place, regardless of Iran, but invading Iran would definitely get the ball rolling a lot faster. Not only would an invasion destroy us economically/financially, but it’s a “war” that would never be won by the U.S. Only someone as foolish and misguided as George Dubya would even consider such a thing IMO.

IMO the U.S. is stacking the deck against itself and will likely have few allies to back it in a foolhardy march to global domination via military force. We’ve alienated a lot of our former allies over the past 5 years, and I’m afraid not many countries trust our intentions any longer. We’ve always had a lot of economic leverage in the past, but that’s beginning to dwindle, I think, as our debt skyrockets and we edge closer and closer to bankruptcy. In the next 10 years if things don’t turn around, our economy may very well implode and a disaster could ensue. We might be in a situation a lot like Russia was when the Soviet Union collapsed. What will we do then? Sell our precious nukes on the black market?

It seems to me that the main thing responsible for our superpower status at this time is our huge nuclear arsenal/military machine. But, having an enormous stockpile of nukes does us little good if we can’t use them. If we ever tried, I believe the rest of the world would turn on us instantly and, ironically, we would be the ones under the gun.

IMO if the U.S. has any sense at all, it will not invade Iran. However, considering the current administration, it wouldn’t surprise me. I’ve come to expect stupid, foolish things from the top. Should it happen, though, IMHO it will simply serve to accelerate a process already in progress; that being, our fall from most honored status in the world to something less than superpower status.

[edit on 1/2/2006 by netbound]

posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 09:49 AM
ditto Netbound. I hope the current administration can admit when they have bit off more than they can chew. I dont think they will, and I fully expect us to make the first strike, but at the same time I hope it doesnt happen. Nice post...

posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 04:55 PM
This could happen march 2007?

posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 07:01 PM
It wouldnt be a matter of what direction you come from, because if the Americans attack Iran, rest assured it would be from above first.

The first step would be to eliminate any chance of air resistance. Chances are this would be done using long range attacks on iranian airstrips. Once they are neutralised, any and all sam sites and AAA systems would be sought out and neutralised by small demolition squads. The gunships would then move in to wipe out any mobile artillery, tanks, and personell carriers. With that done, then and only then would an invasion force move inward from the borders. At which point they wouldnt face much of a resistance.

during the period where the air infiltration is going on, the detrement is that anyone shot down would have to fend for themselves, as no rescue attempt can be made until after the ground forces have moved in.

As for a nuclear arsenal... the iranians dont have one. They only have the means to produce nuclear power. And that is what is going to justify their government in the end... only, I'm sure the US admiminstration allready has some bullsh** excuse created for killing off the Iranian administration.

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in