Yes interesting topic indeed.

Now how would they invade by ground after the air attacks though?

Afganistan? I don't think so as their isn't much control over that country by the US.

Iraq? I would have tohught this would be difficult becuase well the Iranians could easily start guerilla warfare there (not that there isn't any) making it difficult to invade from there. And even then what will the Iraqi government/people think of this.

Azerbaijan? I wouldn't think so lol. I don't think the Russians would like that either.

That leaves Turkmenistan which I don't know anything about so I can't make a point. Pakistan? hmm.

Now this is just my opinion so don't flame my post. I am only 17 and not as experienced as the rest of you on specific points. I just talk to my grandad a lot who is highly experienced in this. I am still learning and don't make many post but just read for hours upon end.

the chinese government has many different envoys of commercial exchange through all of its country. assault invasion would be for nought.

Originally posted by FLYIN HIGH
I've noticed here in the past two months that it seems as if Iran is going ahead with it's nuclear program and is still on the dangerous path of making weapons grade material. What I would like is your input and any new and fresh ideas or ponderings. The following questions should give up quite a few good ideas. Here goes:

A. Should the U.S. approach from the West from Iraq and East from Afganistan to carry out an invasion keeping Iran in the middle, basically flanking both sides? Would this be a viable option considering that we already have a presence in the area.?
B. Does anyone really think the E.U. is realistically going to make Iran cave in to the desires of most of the worlds "normal" countries by taking the matter to the Security Counsel and at the same time putting harsh economic sacntions in place?
C. How much aid in weapons systems and money would Russia be willing to give to Iran considering up to now, it is it's favorite trading partner? Also would the U.S. still have some faith in Russia doing the right thing?
D. Considering the fact that Putin is a wolf in sheeps clothing (being old KGB), how and at what point would the U.S. and it's allies draw the dreaded "red line in the sand.?"
I'll be back in a few...

[edit on 18-12-2005 by FLYIN HIGH]

Honestly, when I read this post I was overcome by a feeling of deep sadness.....

The way you phrased your questions sickened me the second I read the first sentence of question a.

The real question is: Should the U.S. invade Iran?

NO

War ain't the answer buddy....

A. No neighboring country will allow the US to launch an invasion from their territory. They will have to live next to Iran in the future and don't want problems with them. That includes Iraq. The US would have to have an amphibious landing from the Persian Gulf and establish a foothold. But I don't think that this is what will happen.

An airstrike will not solve the long-term problem. Iran could simply pull out of the NPT, legally reconstitute their nuclear weapons program, and continue to support Hizbollah, Hamas, Syria, & Al Sadr. Israel's existential threat would be put off for 5-10 years but that's all.

Only regime change solves the long-term problem. But this has significant problems. Another pre-emptive attack, occupying a country with plenty of fanatical Shias, inevitably getting bogged down, loosing more of our troops, some sort of Abu Ghraib/Haditha/etc incidents, and a continuous supply of negative stories in the liberal mainstream media will completely erode support for the war if there ever would be support to begin with.

HOWEVER, the thing we need to remember is that, whereas we cannot make the uncontroverted argument that Iran is an imminent threat to us, we and the world would be more understanding if Israel felt that Iran was an imminent threat to them. So an Israeli airstrike against Iran would be supported by the Israelis and understood by the West.

Iran would feel honor bound to strike back at Israel and maybe (Ahmadinejad has threatened) strike American interests as well. Any resulting harm could be used as a justification to eliminate the Iranian military -- something that I tend to believe is well within America's capacity.

Regime change becomes the policy of the US but we don't invade and get stuck in a quagmire. Instead we encourage, finance, and maybe equip and train an Iranian (e.g. Azeri, Arab, Kurd?) insurgency. We could even let the insurgency call in our close air support and make them unbeatable.

Another alternative would be to wring our hands, let them continue doing whatever secret work they are doing and hope for the best.

We seem to forget this:

Sun Tze said: if you know yourself and the enemy, then you will win.
If you know your weaknesses but not the enemy's, then it's 1 win for 1 loss.
If you don't know your weaknesses nor do you know the enemy's, then it's a loss for sure.
If you know your weaknesses and you know about the enemy's weakness, then you will win.

What do you think is the situation today?

Above top secret? it just makes me laugh.
Everybody knows that the only reasons for the US to invade Iran are their natural resources of gas and oil.
The US government will find whatever excuse to control this area...and all for you bloody bastards.

You will kill (like you always do) thousands of innocents to keep your life style, to drive your badly made big cars, to go home and feel safe.
You can wake up tomorrow and fill the tank, knowing that you are pumping blood to your car. That's the price the world pays for your happiness.

I don't remember any war in the US land but you are always scared of something...you will talk then about "war against terrorism"... It's hard to believe that in such a big country as the US there is almost nobody able to think by himself. I honestly think that China will be a much better country to rule the world.

The entire oil on earth is not worth a human life.

Originally posted by FLYIN HIGH
I've noticed here in the past two months that it seems as if Iran is going ahead with it's nuclear program and is still on the dangerous path of making weapons grade material. What I would like is your input and any new and fresh ideas or ponderings. The following questions should give up quite a few good ideas. Here goes:

A. Should the U.S. approach from the West from Iraq and East from Afganistan to carry out an invasion keeping Iran in the middle, basically flanking both sides? Would this be a viable option considering that we already have a presence in the area.?
B. Does anyone really think the E.U. is realistically going to make Iran cave in to the desires of most of the worlds "normal" countries by taking the matter to the Security Counsel and at the same time putting harsh economic sacntions in place?
C. How much aid in weapons systems and money would Russia be willing to give to Iran considering up to now, it is it's favorite trading partner? Also would the U.S. still have some faith in Russia doing the right thing?
D. Considering the fact that Putin is a wolf in sheeps clothing (being old KGB), how and at what point would the U.S. and it's allies draw the dreaded "red line in the sand.?"
I'll be back in a few...

[edit on 18-12-2005 by FLYIN HIGH]

A. the US should not invade Iran. We have nukes, we have used them, and we have a wackjob in office. I fail to see the difference. And the guy in Iran isnt that stupid. He knows what M.A.D. is. I will not support my country in this invasion that is clearly in the making. signs of escalations are obvious. i will not be drafted. sorry.

B. Sanctions are always bad. Sanctions in Iraq killed a million innocent people. Monstrous. I don't think Iran is listening to the EU...thank God.

C. Russia would back Iran in conflict. To what extent I dunno? WW3 is possible but i tend to think it will be much like the backing in Vietnam where they stay out of the fighting. Again, I would support Russia if we go to war with them especially over Iran. I supported their invasion of Georgia. Doing the right thing???

D. Bush is at least as much of a wolf in sheep clothing. He hijacked the election...even my professors agree on that! So please dont make it look like they are the bad guys....thats propaganda speaking. We did it really badly in the Cold War...and we are still a bit edgy with them.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
I am speaking of defeating the Iranian military.

Save your political bable for PTS, as this thread is about the hypothetical military invasion of Iran - not if the US is "right" or "just" to do it.

BTW, Iran a "relatively quiet nation"???????

That's a good one.

[edit on 18-12-2005 by American Mad Man]

In what defenition in country term's do you mean quiet? point Number 1 point

And what the FACK are you talking about, as point number 2

Finally where DO you get your information as point number 3

As point Number 4 your one of the sheeple.................

Ok what your getting at is wrong you need to have a small infantry team to enter during the night and storm out any information you can find.

You need

medic
sniper
armoured soldier
two spec ops
and me

I"m highly trained and i kow how to use a firearm. you give me orders and plans and i can exicute them perfectly. just contact my e-mail redrum_369@hotmail.com

Your thread has been on my mind for awhile. I do not believe an invasion is planned. I do believe that the US and Israel will strike selectively with aircraft and cruise missles. Maybe some Spec forces to help with the revolution against the Khomeni's theocracy and maybe overthrow the government as there is a strong pro-west segment in Iran.
Then, we may see a response by Iran and its allies as described in Ezekiel 38-39, known as the Gog-Magog attack on Israel, oddly enough, all the Biblical players in that scripture exist today and are allied as described almost 2700 years ago. Look it up, ...

Originally posted by FLYIN HIGH
A. Should the U.S. approach from the West from Iraq and East from Afganistan to carry out an invasion keeping Iran in the middle, basically flanking both sides? Would this be a viable option considering that we already have a presence in the area.?
B. Does anyone really think the E.U. is realistically going to make Iran cave in to the desires of most of the worlds "normal" countries by taking the matter to the Security Counsel and at the same time putting harsh economic sacntions in place?
C. How much aid in weapons systems and money would Russia be willing to give to Iran considering up to now, it is it's favorite trading partner? Also would the U.S. still have some faith in Russia doing the right thing?
D. Considering the fact that Putin is a wolf in sheeps clothing (being old KGB), how and at what point would the U.S. and it's allies draw the dreaded "red line in the sand.?"
I'll be back in a few...

[edit on 18-12-2005 by FLYIN HIGH]

A) If we were going into Iran, we would need to not only have Iraq, but also Afganastan/Pakastan on our side, peaceful and able to contribute as need be. With neither Iraq or Afganastan finished it would be like trying to open up another military front and going at it from three sides.
B) If they have not done such yet, the only means that the EU can bring on Iran is just economic pressure.
C) It would all depends on if, Russia can get a better deal from the rest of the world when it comes to economics and energy. Iran supplies alot of oil to Russia and China. Any interruption of that would draw them in, and if they decided it was not in their favor, they could probably supply Iran with alot of weapons and technology.
D) Only point would be if and only if Iran was to detonate a nuclear weapon that could be verified.
For the US to go into Iran with out provocation, would be pure diseaster, because if you look at the past history and involvement, it would play into the hands of the Iranian rhetoric and profeganda, giving the current system of government justification, and the fall out would not be something we would be willing to deal with or willing to pay for at this time.

The USA will Not invade IRAN. It would kick its rear yes but why bother?

Iran has more to offer as a partner than as an enermy, granted the muller is a tosspot, but the people are not... A lot of people here miss one key part of WAR and that is the people.

The best way to invade a country without firing a shot is by letting the people do it for you

A second iran revolution is all ready coming as you seen by the world on Twitter and on TV. The reason for this is that a county like iran is very weston even tho they are a very into god n all that.. they want more or less what the people of the USA want.. same what most of the the world want..

So my plan "if i was the USA" would be to sit and wait and invade with people..

They did it once remember?

I have studied Iranian Geography, and assesed the political situation in Iran as of end 2009. It is therefore realistic to conclude that the following will take place as in December 2010:
1. The Grand Ayatollah and President will issue a joint statement, closing all borders and business with the outside world. It will become a conclave, like N.Korea. The reason? Increasing protest against a recent IRanian Political Decision of domestic unrest.
2. This will also mean no more oil for the world, and as IRan controls 10 percent of the world oil. That IS a problem.
3. President of the US will condemn the decision, and demand IRan reopens its borders within 48 hours or face war.
(Of course, most of you do not believe that is possible without worldwide support, but wait.)
4. A terrorist attack on a rally blamed on Iran in a prominent European Country (e.g France, Germany, Britain) 30 hours into the ultimatum will see Europe raise its fists in anger and join the war.
5. Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Arab League, will send contingents to the war zone.
6. Iraq will not send any,as all of its troops will be keeping the peace at home.
7. The invasion will begin as scheduled, taking control of about 1/5 of Iran, and 5 of Iran's 10 oil refineries and wells.
8. Eventually, large casualties will be sustained by the coalition. estimated 250,000 with the US itself sustaining 15,000. Iran will have lost around 4,000,000 regulars and insurgents.
9. 2 months into the war, Tehran will be taken. With heavy casualties. (10,000 US est.) All oil wells will have been taken, and the Coalition Advance halts.
10. June 2011. Most forces have been withdrawn, leaving around 100,000 U.S, 150,000 French and British, 100,000 others.
11. October 2011. With elections closing in, the U.S will begin pulling troops out, and sustaining an Iranian Security Force.
12.November 2011, 2 days before election day. Iran launches large scale counterattack against 300,000 coalition troops and 100,00 Security Forces. They route the coalition with 50,000 casualties, and retake the country. Obama is voted out. And the new president pulls troops out of various bases around the globe, citing peaceful solutions to its conflicts.
13. 2012-2020. The U.S maintains peace with no large scale troops deployments due to Iran. (Similar to the Mogadishu line). Airstrikes on Iran are maintained, though small-scale.

So that is probably how things will go down. With about 5,000,000 Iranians and about 500,000 coalition dead. And Iran will not reopen its doors.

I doubt we will invade them, if we do, then it will be hugely expensive, also all that is needed is a few missile strikes on their nuclear facilities and all is good, that is assuming we know where they ALL are. Anyhoww, if we invaded another country in the middle east I have a feeling the general population woulld hate it, so it is unlikely to happen.
However, if we did, we would probably come from both sides yes, because we do have a presence in the area, and then after the invasion another 'Peacekeeping Operation', which is short for our soldiers getting killed on a regular basis at an alarming rate.
It is not a good idea, so I do not think they have any invasion plans.