posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 03:35 PM
The missiles really aren't what worry me for the most part. Seersuckers couldn't hit the broad side of a barn last time they were fired at us, and
the ballistics can be shot down.
The SS-22s are a bigger problem for naval access, we'd have to find and destroy those quickly.
The determination of the Iranian people bothers me not a bit, because the will to fight isn't what kills- it's ability.
The insurgents bother me a little, but only because I don't think the US is going to play it smart. Personally, if this has to happen, and I repeat
just for the sake of humanity that it might not have to happen at all, my advice would be to cut off water, power, and road access to force
evacuations of the cities and relocate civilians away from front and major routes of suppy and communication, thereby taking the insurgents out of the
fight, if granted in a very heavy-handed way.
The terrain in Iran simplifies defense and enhances the effectiveness of artillery- that's what bothers me most. I'd be very worried about simply
throwing a few mechanized divisions at the Zagros range and planning to be in Tehran in 4 days- We'd make it, but we'd bleed for it.
I'd plan this war to be fought for a month or two, not 4 days.
I'd stand off and hammer them with airpower and artillery for a good little while, push armor down their southern coast, and rely on Special
Operations Forces to help target my artillery and play hell with their logistics.
Once I'd made a good dent in their artillery, I'd air assault in combination with a mechanized attack to clear the passes. Even still I'd expect a
few hundred casualties on the way in- maybe over a thousand if we did a bad job on their artillery.
The other option, which lends itself to serious problems for Pakistan and Afghanistan, would be to hit them from two sides- move a large force into
Afghanistan via Pakistan cross a desert instead of a mountain range- but then you're looking at a possible coup in Pakistan and if it's badly timed,
having to either rush an invasion of Southern Iran and Western Pakistan, or else handle all of yoru logistics through the air- neither of those is
Behind door number three, and probably the most humane option, if not the most advantageous, bomb Iran's nuclear program to dust and try to
orchestrate a revolution there- but unlike the bay of pigs fiasco, be prepared to give them the full backing of the US by air and special
When the dust settles though, you can expect anarchy, so you'll have to hammer out a compromise for a non-hostile UN relief mission, and the
compromise would have to involve giving up a lot of money and influence, and maybe even letting the oil bourse stand.
As for the Kurds:
The Kurds, like any nationalist group, will do what they're told for a very short period of time if you promise them enough. All we've got to do is
leave Northern Iraq to them for a while and let them think they're being taken off the leash, and then with enough money and support they probably
could be taken in as pawns against Iran.
It's a pretty messed up idea- I'm not saying we should; I'm just saying that if I were one of the architects of Iraq, this is how I'd be thinking
in terms of Iran. It's gives us a mild legitimacy boost at home and in friendly nations such as the UK and Australia. It won't last long either, but
all you've got to do is get the shooting started so that American and British blood shows up on Iranian hands, then there'll be enough leverage to
start one more wildly unpopular war- although the perps would pay dearly in the next election.
And you've probably noticed that I'm riding 2 or 3 different horses at the same time here. That's because I'm not advocating any one course of
action. I'm just kicking around what I think this administration might do (repeat Iraq for the most part) what this administration should do on a
tactical level, what a better administration should do on a geopolitical and moral level, and a few other odd possibilities.
Hope I'm not coming across as too disorganized.