US fears defeat in Iran war, page 16

I'm not even going to predict what "would" happen. It would simply be an exercise in rhetoric.

Instead, I just want to point out that the US difficulties in Iraq have come from wanting a particular outcome for that state, i.e., a specifically western style of democracy. The actual threat posed by Iraq toward any possible neighbors was eradicated within two weeks.

What has continued for 5 years is assymetric warfare. Waging such warfare in conditions of Iraq is pretty much doomed to do nothing other than stiffen american resolve and waste money, which america has had plenty of (and still does, since the war isn't funded by private banks, but from the tax rolls.).

I am convinced that Iran would actually be more vulnerable to american military attack/invasion that Iraq was. Here's why:

1. Iran has much more infrastructure. That means more vulnerabilities, in the form of a target-rich environment.

2. Iran is totally dependent upon crude oil exports to pay its bills from one week to the next. Seriously, Iran is even more reliant on foreign oil than the US, since Iran lacks any refining capacity. Cut off the flow of finished petro-products, and commerce and industry would grind to a halt. Major cities like Tehran would be incapable of feeding their inhabitants without supplies of foreign-refined gasoline.

3. Iran has invested heavily in conventional forces. These are the sorts of arms that American technology has focused on defeating. Large mechanized military infrastructure is vulnerable to the sorts of attacks that america specializes in right now.

4. US satelite technology and ever increasing power of drones means that a really crushing defeat could be handed out with a minimum of US casualties. Instead of attacking Iranian Nuke facilities, the US could destroy Iranian petro-export terminals, and remove Iran's ability to feed itself or even buy more nuclear materiel and know-how. And without American permission after such an attack, it might be decades before Iran could export any oil at all. Meanwhile, the US has become the number 3 oil producer on the planet, and so would be less affected than most other developed nations.

5. The OP mentioned Pakistan as an Iranian ally in the event of war. If this came to pass, how do you expect India would respond to the chance to attack Pakistan, with the west's approval?

6. Like most world powers, Russia's friendship with Iran is purely for the sake of brinksmanship. Up till now, that relationship has served to belittle the US for little real cost and a lot of payoff in terms of prestige. But if it required Russia to fight a war on foreign soil (if that's even possible yet), against the US Navy, when Russia still lacks a single warm water port with access to the open ocean, Russian support would turn out to be mostly verbal. Russia hopes to become a world arms supplier, and wouldn't risk defeat at the hands of the US, at a vulnerable juncture in post-soviet history.

The risks for Russia would be an all-or-nothing gamble. And what is the best that Russia could gain? It already has more oil than it can exploit. Money? Iran can hardly pay for the equipment it has already purchased. And dropping all pretense of being a benign state, Russia would quickly by isolated by eastern Europe, which is the LAST thing Russia wants. I think in the event of an Iran-US war, Russia would probably try to broker the cease-fire. that's about it.

Now, no one of these points may be completely true. But all of them are at least partly true. And against that, what?

America has shown that it is willing to "go it alone" in the face of world-wide criticism. How would Iran fare, if it were seen as the genuine aggressor by the world community? Many of America's critics might overlook American beligerance, if it meant a real end to Iranian brinksmanship.

all the best.