Russian intelligence sees U.S. military buildup on Iran border

But Iran is also a nation whose population has a growing number of dissidents. After decades of repression by a rather severe application of radical Islam, the people -- especially the young (the same group that would have to fight the wars)-- there is a segment that is now starting to demand personal rights and freedoms. This is something to take into account.

Furthermore, Iran has allowed it's infrastructure to deteriorate while it has purchased and developed military hardware. Of course, the country had to rebuild it's military after the Iran Iraq wars because of the tremendous attrition Iran experienced. Towards the end of that war, Iran was actually sending in waves of untrained, poorly armed children against the Iraqis! I would imagine that Iran may have changed some of it's thinking and philosophy as to how to wage war but, nevertheless, by all accounts, Iran is still a generation (or two) behind the US.

Another aspect to take into account is the possibility that the Iranian military command structure is in disarray and even suspect. In recent years, there have been a number of high level defections of their command staff to the west.

As far as attacking Iran -- or anyone -- to defend Israel well, that's a comment that i will also disagree with. Israel is quite capable of defending itself. What the US would attack Iran for is to stop the deliberate development of nuclear weapons by Iran in contravention of the nuclear non proliferation treaty.....a treaty that Iran signed! And, of course, the threats that Iran has made against Israel to wipe it off of the face of the earth.

They didn't beat Iraq. It was a stalemate. The US wiped out the Iranian navy after they attacked a tanker if I remember and thats what primarily lead to the Iran-Iraq ceasefire.

As for Iran being stronger than Saddam's 1991 Iraq. That is BS. Saddam's army was twice the size of Iran's entire current Armed Forces. Saddam had more Combat Aircraft than Iran currently has.

Proove to me they are making nuclear weapons.
And that translation is highly dubious as to what he said.

Your saying, If present day Iran, went up against 1990's Iraq, that Iran wouldnt have a hope in hell? with all the new weaponary?

Everything looks good on paper.

Little kids: My dad is cleverer than your dad, well my dad is stronger than your dad, you dumbass my dad is the coolest, no my dad is the BEST!

Russia is probably still trying show some impartiality. Notice they havnt called for Iran to release the Brits. It would be bad for business to show partiallity.

Iran will be a quick defeat at least in conventional terms. Americas conventional military is second to none. The US spends more money on its military then Irans entire GDP. I believe the US spends over 500 billion dollars on its military (CIA facts) and thats not taking into account the spending going on in Iraq. Im sure the US has some 'neat' toys they would unleash on the Iranians.

EMP bomb would be used frying all of Irans communications with their commanders on the ground. This would also kill entire take battalions along with other military hardware that is struck by EMP. The US has air power and naval power superiority over the iranians. This would make Iran suspect to bombings on a daily basis. The US also has the answer to Irans underground nuclear facilitys. Its called the MOP or massive ordinance penetrator. Its a 30,000lb super bomb that will make short work of the iranians nuclear facility.

I could go on and on. I assure you, the Americans have the weapons to make this a quick decisive victory with little loss of life. However if it is strung out like Iraq (which isnt near as bad as the leftist media would have you believe) all of the US militarys hi technology isnt as effective.

If war broke out between the US and Iran my guess would be that the gloves would come off. THe US wouldnt hold anything back.



[edit on 013131p://3103am by semperfoo]

I couldnt have said it better myself. Could you imagine what they'd do once they actualy get the bomb. They'll hold the whole middle east hostage. As far as I'm concerned they should be bombed back to the stone age. Like you said Hitler conquered most of Europe before anyone did anything. I think Iran needs to be delt with now before its too late.

In the area we have units that just arrived in Turkey last month, Combat Aircraft in both Iraq and Afghanistan, Kyrgystan, Kuwait, the Air Base at Diego Garcia, Air Power in Europe, probably the other gulf states, the Horn of Africa, and Nine other Super Carriers with another soon to brought into service.

If they manage to actually sink a Carrier though the US will probably let go of all restariant at that point. For a number of reasons, Aircarft Carriers are the single most expensive items in the US arsenal, they are manned by thousands of personnel, floating cities essentially, and have nuclear reactors. If they sink one I would not be surprised at all if the US responds with tactical nuclear weapons.

Was that a joke? It had to be because surely you wouldn't be stupid enough to fall for the same song and dance once more within a four year timeframe. Either that or maybe you should move to iran you can get a taste of what is going down here.

This has been/is a propaganda campaign which has been fuelled by false incidents designed to create the right conditions for invasion/attack. True, none of this will be made known until after the fact but it will come out.

If Iran is paranoid it is with good reason. I am paranoid and I am as American as possible having not been a "colonial invasionist".

It ends here.

If Iran today went up against 1991 Saddam's Iraq I believe it would be a stalemate. Both militaries do not implement combined arms, ie Blitzkreig tactics. They fight like they are still in World War One. Western Powers on the other hand copied the Blitz tactics of WW2 Germany and modernized it with gunships giving birth to Combined Arms tactics.

The Us military is so full of those thinking differently than the power structure that from a morale standpoint we will be defeated before this ever starts. Sure we will bomb a few cities and maybe be stupid enough to use "THE bomb" but in the end it will all contribute to our own spiralling economy, credibility, reputation and living standard in addition to that of the planet.

It won't happen the way they plan it regardless. This will be the case or it will not happen at all. There is dissension in the ranks and it could end up causing worse problems than any "Foreign" enemy we are worried about.

The core is rotten. It is time to throw away the whole before the rest are spoiled too.

People must have a short memory. I see people in this thread claiming the US will go through iran in less than a week. Reminds me of people saying the same thing before we went into iraq, years later and we are still there. Keep that in mind

Noboby's saying we have to occupie Iran just whipe out thier military capabilities. Iran is not Iraq and Iraq isnt Vietnam.

Where can one find these 'conventional terms' that you're using to define defeat? Are these the same terms used to define 'Mission Accomplished' for Iraq? I don't mean to instigate, I'm honestly asking what terms you're using to reach these definitions.

In terms of air and sea superiority - not a question, the US and Israel have Iran beat. But in terms of a ground invasion, that's another beast altogether. The US faces the exact problems it has faced in Iraq - except the country is twice the size and to compare the current military in Iran to the military present in Iraq during that invasion would be like comparing the military might of the US with the military might of Australia. (I'm Ausse btw, so I can say that )

If we're talking about an air attack on selected nuclear sites, that's one thing. That will be quick, decisive, and the US will destroy precisely what it wants to destroy (give or take a few collateral damage civilian casualties of course). But the second US troops set foot on Iranian sand, things change entirely. When you're looking at an armed forces who are already stretched thin, and a country the size of Iran to first occupy, then police - I really don't see things going so smoothly for the US.

Maybe they would win, maybe they would get caught in another quagmire. One thing is for certain - a US ground invasion of Iran would not result in a quick defeat.


Like you wiped out the Iraqi military? That worked out real well. I'm not saying Iran is Iraq - but you really think you can just destroy the Iranian military then head home and everything will be hunky dory?

[edit on 28-3-2007 by TheStev]

[edit on 28-3-2007 by TheStev]

I am forced to agree with my comrade, The Avenger. IRAN has little to no military backbone to engage in a battle of any length against the United States. Whatever you naysayers are on please forward some to me so I can fantastize that IRAN could challenge the United States and or the U.K. In fact, it is outright funny that there are people who think they have any military capability that could withstand a coalition attack that would within 24 hours cripple their supply lines, neutralize their electonics, ground their airforce and destroy their nuclear facilities. Please tell me you were joking!

[edit on 3/28/2007 by benevolent tyrant]

umm CP.. we DID go through Iraq in like a week..

Now... if we wanna stand around and pretend we did it to be nice, then yes years later we will be there...... as we are in Japan, Korea, Kosovo, Germany, England, etc etc etc..

The only reason we stick around is to selfish Americans can feel good about going to war. If Iran is a threat destroy them.. then leave... if they become a threat, destroy them again .. eventually they would get the idea...... but then again we wont be able to feel good about the war.. we need words like tyrant, liberator.. ect..

What is "win" ... win is destroy.. then you can move to the political games.

I was there in 2003 and we did go through the Iraqi Armed Forces in a little over a week. The insurgency started up about a month later.

In your opinion was it worth it? Just wondering about the views of the soldiers.

[edit on 28-3-2007 by _Phoenix_]

Then please explain why US troops and Iraqi civilians are still dying. Seems to me that if we successfully went through Iraq, hostilities would have ceased.



While its true we have bases in those countries, Soldiers and Civilians aren't being killed on a daily basis.



So whats going on now in Iraq is a political game. If thats the case i dont wanna play anymore

Just to add the only reason it took over a week was because of big #!@ sandstorm tha brought ops to a halt. If it hadn't been for the sandstorm it would of been like 48-72 hours before Baghdad fell.