Fortress Iran is Virtually Impregnable to a Successful Invasion

reply to post by WhatTheory


I don't suppose a downfall of the government. That is not in anyone's interests. It's possible but pretty dramatic and unnecessary. What I see is the destruction of the forces that are trying to push Iran and the West to a military confrontation and using Iran's nuclear programme as a sticking point for reconciliation and possible detour to war. Some of these forces are seen, but most act behind the scenes; in America and Europe as well as Iran.

It is obvious by this thread there are people in this world who are sexually attracted to the idea of Iran against the US and Israel. When I say that the country has been invaded, I mean specifically that the people who want war are losing ground and what will ultimately unfold is a situation where there exists a Iranian embassy in Israel and vice versa.

The very fact that such a story was reported two weeks ago suggests that what is happening in the world is quite opposed to what is posted in this thread. And what some would have many believe. The formally influential and powerful forces that have been trying to start a fight are losing. and losing everywhere.

I stated that the Iranian clerical regime will collapse because they talk too much and should tone down their rhetoric. In other words they look like lambs but speak like dragons at a time its not helpful. But perhaps what they've been doing is all posturing in an aggresive world. I'll have to wait and see who is what. But the notion that things as they are will end in war or stay the same are unlikely. What is likely is that the aggressive, fanatical and insane Iran that wants Israel wiped from the pages of time is definitely going bye bye in the next three months.

reply to post by bruxfain


Thanks for clarifying. I see what you are saying now. I really hope that war does not happen and things can be peacefully settled by unfortunately my gut feeling is the opposite.

Everything always looks much better on paper and maps, but first Afghanistan was half done and we are having to send more troops back, and Iraq is a complete mess and it has almost bankrupted the U.S. it would induce World War without a doubt if attacked and the draft would certainly have to be instituted to win decisively and demolish the regime, as much as I have heard and read things saying it is likely, it would be foolish and many do not understand the sacrifices even if the shock and awe happened like in Iraq.

Reuters

I think you should all take a look at that article and some more articles in Reuters.

Reuters has been covering G8 summit and Iranian nuclear program pretty well over the past few weeks.

If anyone goes to war with Iran, I highly doubt it'll be the US.

Shattered OUT...

reply to post by SystemiK


Every single time that non-Westerners have gone up against Westerners, they have gotten slaughtered. Yes, non-westerners have won a few battles. But for every Wake Island, there was an Okinawa, for every Isandlawhana there was a Rourke's Drift, for every Thermopylae there was a Platea, for every Dien Bien Phu, there is a Khe Sanh, for every Pearly Harbor there is a Midway, and for every Manila there is a Hiroshima. Persians, (modern-day Islamic nations centered in Iran) have ever been slaughtered each time they met Westerners. Even Zenophone and the 10,000 fought their way home. No one fights like Westerners, and the most bloody battles in history are Westerners against Westerners. Millions of casualties in single battles - Kursk 900,000 casualties, Stalingrad 2,100,000 casualties, Verdun 984,000 casuaties.

You never, ever try to hold territory. You keep moving and while polite, you depopulate swaths of territory. Never, ever try to hold or control territory, especially cities. You take what they give you. A Western army of 20,000 with air support could slice and dice Iran like a cheese sandwich with a chainsaw. It comes down to Western values versus Eastern limitations. Free men versus compelled men - first compelled by a god-king and now a restrictive religion. Notice they even have to buy, use, or copy Western weapons and weapons systems? A more miserable, backward group of people have never existed

America Wouldn't dare attack Iran on the ground,American Generals know their limitations .
Especially in light of what has happened in Iraq.
where a third world country unarmed by the UN and battered from gulf war 1
manages still to this day 5 years after the fact to keep victory away from
America.

So American Generals know it would need the draft to take out Iran
in a ground war . and they also know that the casualty rate would be worse than in Vietnam .

We will not see a large scale invasion on the ground this is certain.

the Air force may attack them but I don't even think this is likely

I don't see any grounds to justify it.

Iran has broken no international laws, and Russia is protecting it.
the best America can muster against Iran are sanctions and I rather doubt they will effect Iran much.

1 ) The dunder heads in Washington have managed to bumble the Caspian oil basin project for an oil pipeline the Russians made a laughing stock of them
2 ) alienated Venezuela into Russian arms.

3 ) broken the Geneva conventions

4 ) broken the treaty with Russia on moving Nato eastward

5 ) failed to go after Bin laden and instead made a bee line to the oil
6 ) Protected the oil infrastructure of Iraq and have not built or repaired anything substantial in Iraq except permanent bases. of which AMericans have said they dont want to stay in Iraq.
7 ) just about shredded the Constitution
8 ) murdered the American Economy
9 ) preemptively attacked a third world nation,that did not have anything to do with 911 ,did not attack America, that was unarmed . Using ww3 tactics and ww3 munitions like depleted uranium and phosphorous bombs.
10) Lied constantly to the American people and held them in contempt



since 911 this is the legacy of America
a pitiful sight

reply to post by kindred


Modern day Iranians dream of a return to the days of the great Persian Empire, but forget some of the most important lessons. As long as the great Persian Empire was beating other losers, they won. Their greatest mistake was going against the West. Never aggravate the West! History can be a great teacher, if one is willing to acknowledge the principles therein.

When Darius I set out against the West the first time, he lost 300 ships and 20,000 men at Cape Athos. At Marathon, some 44,000 Persians lined up against 10,000 Greeks, where 6,400 Persians were killed against 192 Greeks. A 33:1 kill ratio. At Thermopylae, 250,000 Persians against 7,000 Greeks. At least 25,000 Persian elite were killed versus 1,000 Greeks. A 25:1 kill ratio. At Salamis, the Greek to Persian kill ratio ws 40:1. At Platea, 300,000 Persians met 60,000 Greeks, and this resulted in a 220:1 kill ratio. Granicus led to a Greek 26:1 kill ratio. Issus, a 4:1 kill ratio, and would have been greater, but the battle was fought early evening, and the Persians ran faster than the Macedonians could follow. Even though outnumbered five to one at Guagamela, the Macedonian kill ratio was 100:1. Then Greek harlots torched the Persian capital at Persepolis. Women! But Greek women! Western women!

It was Western money and technology that found Iranian oil, financed it, and built the infrastructure to extract it. Iranians use copies or derivitives of Western weapons and western technologies. Ever see the Iranian equivalent of the JSF fighter, the Iranian carrier battle groups, or the cutting edge main battle tanks? Of course not. If not for the West selling weapons and technology, they's still be using wicker shields and composite bows, living in tents, scratching their arses left-handed while chewing mutton and washing it down with a sheep skin canteen while betting on goat races, between honor killings of their daughters. Iranians cannot conduct warfare on the same plane as Westerners. Too emotional. Thus too easy to thus steer toward Westerner's carefully prepared destruction. Numbers? Just as in times past, greater numbers only means more to kill, something that seems to come easy to Westerners. You never, ever pick a fight with Westerners.

WHAT, I did not say Iran was innocent as a baby, my statement was correct they have not been engaged in wars of offence for a very long time. Yes they support terrorist groups, so dose the US. UK and many others. Thats hardly a reason to attack the country, many Americans supported the IRA should the UK have attacked the US no it should not.

To use your words America is not innocent and its the fact that it is meddling in the ME that makes it a target for terrorists actions. You cannot try and gain the moral high ground with America's proven history on war, supporting terrorist, despots and overthrowing elected Goverments.

Originally posted by magicmushroom
WHAT, I did not say Iran was innocent as a baby, my statement was correct they have not been engaged in wars of offence for a very long time. Yes they support terrorist groups, so dose the US. UK and many others. Thats hardly a reason to attack the country, many Americans supported the IRA should the UK have attacked the US no it should not.

To use your words America is not innocent and its the fact that it is meddling in the ME that makes it a target for terrorists actions. You cannot try and gain the moral high ground with America's proven history on war, supporting terrorist, despots and overthrowing elected Goverments.

What terrorist groups do they support? Oh Hezbollah im guessing?...a democratically elected government from all religious etc groups in palestian...the jews,the christians the muslims...? Oh or are you talking about them supporting Al Qaeda in iraq? that rumour in which no one has any evidence for...well they thought they did,but turned out to be wrong...not surprisingly

[edit on 26-7-2008 by Lethil]

I came to a similar conclusion some time ago when i started to look at an Iranian-US War Game...

Here is my obersvertations from a while back.

Yes, the Straight of Hormuz is most crucial...

Heres a great map of it.

Here

And notice the it is Iran who owns all the islands in the region... the Islands that are Disputed Between the UAE and Iran, will likly be very active in fighting, at the onset of War... The UAE and the US have very good relations...


Also, realise, while Iraq has more Ground Forces then Iran, it was for a reason, Iraq had 1 port, and minimal to no Navy... And Iran has, idk, about 1000Kms of coastline!

While the main battles in the Iraqi wars have been on land and in the Dessert, its not hard to imagine an Iranian War that happens at Sea, in the Gulf, centered around the Striaght... WHoever controls the Striaght, wins the war...

And...

On June 29, 2008, the commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, Ali Mohammed Jafari, stated that if Iran were attacked by Israel or the United States, it would seal off the Strait of Hormuz, thereby wreaking havoc in oil markets. This statement followed other more ambiguous threats from Iran's oil minister and other government officials that a Western attack on Iran would result in oil supply turmoil.

In response, Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, commander of the U.S. 5th Fleet stationed in Bahrain across the Persian Gulf from Iran, warned that such an action by Iran would be considered an act of war, and that the U.S. would not allow Iran to effectively hold hostage nearly a third of the world's oil supply



So heres how it could go down...

Isreali Airstrikes take out Irans Nuclear Plants
Iran Responds by sealing off the striaght of Hormuz
The US take this as an Act of War

And then we have a big war, that has the potential to get REAL nasty... this is a WWII secnerio... If Oil can't get thru the straight because there is a war there. That will ahve a trickle down effect. Over 20% of the worlds oil goes thru that straight. Contries that DEPEND on that oil will have to make some Decisions... (I cant find who Irans main oil trade partneres are, but i belive it is China).

So, a war with Iran will have many Fronts, in the straight, on the west with Iraq, and on the East with Afganistan to a lesser extent...

To get to the Capital, there is no easy route. Comeing from the North isnt possilbe, as far as i know, i dont think the US army can project power into the Caspin Sea... Getting to Tehran from the West, south, or East isnt going to be easy, and which ever route is chosen, it will not be fast...

LET, that was not the point I was making, the point I was making that Iran is made out to be the bad guys whilst the US is painted as a saint.

reply to post by bruxfain


I had taken the diplomatic overtures of recent weeks to be nothing more than window dressing; the USA's attempt to be able to say 'see, we tried'. But you bring up some interesting points. Knowing that scripture prophecies that Iran will be part of the end time attack on Jerusalem, I've always thought that they would retain some military ability. Good food for thought.

reply to post by TKainZero


You're right of course that the considerable shoreline would provide a different type of war than happened in Iraq. But that very shoreline also provides many opportunities for American forces. A canny ground forces American general with only 20,000 men could go through Iran like a chainsaw could go through a cheese sandwich. Numbers mean absolutely nothing. Nothing. Besides, a canny general if he wants to kill in greater numbers keeps moving, taking what is offered, provides no line of expectation, never designs to hold any territory, and avoids cities. Scipio. Hannibal. Zenophone.

However if one wishes to bring the enemy to your carefully prepared kill box, then you take something the enemy absolutely cannot allow you to hold. And then you taunt. No man can meet the eyes of his countrymen or his woman to such a taunting. Westerners traditionally make killing an efficient, numbers based business. Persians are overly emotional, with cultural and religious weaknesses that can be exploited to no end. Just think of how many tens of thousands of Iranians the Iraqi's killed!

Now, multiply that a thousand-fold. Fanatics? Just a group of folks anxious to die, and their end goal is the dying part. Any religious-driven group is dead, dead, dead as all standard norms of military provision have been pushed aside to facilitate the religious purposes.

A larger coast? Just more points of ingress. And egress. And islands? I recall our Marines taking Okinawa, Tarawa, and other Japanese-held beaches in the face of fanatical resistance too.

Iran needs to back off and join the human race. If they really want nukes, then possibly we should accommodate them. Forty or so should just about do it.

reply to post by manson_322


Hey manson_322 where did you get that quote "Comptroller General David Walker has warned that USA is going the way of Rome " from. I would actually like to read that if you can find it...thanks.

Originally posted by resistor
reply topost by bruxfain

 

I had taken the diplomatic overtures of recent weeks to be nothing more than window dressing; the USA's attempt to be able to say 'see, we tried'. But you bring up some interesting points. Knowing that scripture prophecies that Iran will be part of the end time attack on Jerusalem, I've always thought that they would retain some military ability. Good food for thought.

I am glad you brought up Iran's role in end time prophecy. I will say this but I know that noone on this site will believe or understand. The major attack against Jerusalem at the end time already happened. Yes, it already happened. When? On November 6, 2005. Are you surprised? Why, because it wasn't talked about on the News.

When God intervenes in human affairs I assure you that you won't see it on the news. The bible deals with spiritual issues, not physical and the end time attack was not on a city but against a person, specifically the person who is the rightful owner of the city of Jerusalem. Anyway. The attack was repelled. Surprised. What do you think gave Ariel Sharon a stroke? Little sh1t was playing a dangerous game.

I assure you it happened despite what you may have heard and furthermore to that this war is nearly over. It ends with the defeat of Iran next month. You people sure have a lot of faith in men. Fortunately for you, I do not.

A land invasion of Iran will cause all hell to break loose at home, regardless of how successful it might or might not be militarily.

Nobody in the US outside the loony rightwing fringe wants it.

We've already been tricked into one ill-conceived Persian Gulf war.

Another one, at least twice as bad, probably quite a bit worse?

People will go nuts.

Even George Bush, I think, has finally figured this one out.

I am sure the Cheney wing would love a war with Iran, it was part of the original PNAC plan, after all, but barring some epic skulduggery or false-flag action (something people are watching out for nowadays), I don't think they're going to get it.

I don't think the Israelis are capable of pulling off an Osirak, either.
(By the way, the Israelis weren't the first to bomb Osirak - the Iranians were, but they didn't manage to knock it out completely.)

The Iranian nuclear program (peaceful or not) is spread around the country in underground facilities, it would take a larger operation than the Israelis are capable at that range of to do more than slightly delay the Iranian program.

Iraq = They might have Weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION

Nope they don't.

SO Why are we still occupying endless miles of sand after sand. ever since the year 2001

currently we are in the year 2008

It beats me


Iran - Already has a nuke or is going to develop it


And no - Iran cannot have a nuke because no one trusts them and israel and the usa say no. And other nations agree

OK so anyway

Would you trust a nuclear iran? This is the gazillion dollar question

No one does

but still - They are entitled to whatever they want

Iran is a different country - They do whatever the hell they want there - and no one tells them #

But now they want to develop a weapon of mass destruction and their foreign neighbors say no

But you are ENTITLED to arm and protect yourself

Especially when you are not even part of the damn USA

If i had a country - I sure as hell would love to develop some nukes to protect my ass and my country just incase # hits the fan or i am threatened


From a neutral point of view


I don't trust anyone with nukes - not the usa, Not israel, Not the uk, NO ONE.

I especially don't trust iran with them

But there's nothing we can do

They have a RIGHT to develop it - it's their own country and who are outsiders to tell them not to?

I can walk outside and get shot by someone carrying a portable weapon of MASS DESTRUCTION

someones shoots me and i will basically die

That's mass destruction to the human body. a bullet

You see - You cannot trust anyone

But you sure as hell can't stop someone from buying/developing guns

This goes the same for iran

If they have nukes or are developing them....So what.


I'm sure they have one under the damn roof

Look at all the big talking from iran

They are not to be taken lightly

If they already have a nuke and we invade with wrong intelligence

They will launch one and cause a world wide damn war

And basically the world would be one huge chernobyl

Only much much worse - worse than anyone could even imagine

This is why i say - Lets all be peaceful and not stop our little psycho neighbor from developing a nuke - Sure he seems sane and says its for a peaceful purpose

Everything begins with trust

Many nations have nukes - ok whats wrong if one little guy joins the club

I just hope all this bs can be resolved

if israel strikes and the united states decides to help them - Because we support israel

Our economy will basically..................................................

reply to post by SystemiK


I'm no expert, but to my knowledge, the Mongols and Ottomans didn't have planes.

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by TKainZero

 

You're right of course that the considerable shoreline would provide a different type of war than happened in Iraq. But that very shoreline also provides many opportunities for American forces. A canny ground forces American general with only 20,000 men could go through Iran like a chainsaw could go through a cheese sandwich. Numbers mean absolutely nothing. Nothing. Besides, a canny general if he wants to kill in greater numbers keeps moving, taking what is offered, provides no line of expectation, never designs to hold any territory, and avoids cities. Scipio. Hannibal. Zenophone.

However if one wishes to bring the enemy to your carefully prepared kill box, then you take something the enemy absolutely cannot allow you to hold. And then you taunt. No man can meet the eyes of his countrymen or his woman to such a taunting. Westerners traditionally make killing an efficient, numbers based business. Persians are overly emotional, with cultural and religious weaknesses that can be exploited to no end. Just think of how many tens of thousands of Iranians the Iraqi's killed!

Now, multiply that a thousand-fold. Fanatics? Just a group of folks anxious to die, and their end goal is the dying part. Any religious-driven group is dead, dead, dead as all standard norms of military provision have been pushed aside to facilitate the religious purposes.

A larger coast? Just more points of ingress. And egress. And islands? I recall our Marines taking Okinawa, Tarawa, and other Japanese-held beaches in the face of fanatical resistance too.

Iran needs to back off and join the human race. If they really want nukes, then possibly we should accommodate them. Forty or so should just about do it.

the way into Iran is through Moscow . Prepare for ww3 if you venture into Iran
With the legacy of American Failure at warfare ,You make no sense at all.
Some Americans are so wanting of a single victory at war they can call their own they lose all insight of war and end up willing to commit mass genocide,torture, and crimes against humanity , to achieve a victory for the fatherland er homeland. and even after all of this they fail to understand that the reason Iraq was not a cake walk was because the dumb grunts on the ground wanted a blood bath ,a looting spree, a sacking of the museum,they hated the people they came to liberate .What should of been a cake walk, turned into the blood bath. that they wanted.
And is this not the reason why America fails so often to live up to it's own ideals in warfare.
That the Civilians who run the Armed forces do not want to win wars.
They want long protracted wars So that the Industrial War Complex gets well greased with the blood of the soldiers and the civilians.

"we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex... Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

America faces war unto its last days, where your kid's and and grand kid's
blood is poured out to pay for a few more bank rolls in the pockets of those that hold you in contempt.

while the wise words of your true war heroes collect dust in your museums

WhatTheory
Good Lord, what's wrong with you? Are you deranged or something?
Plus, you are confusing arrogance with confidence. Don't worry, this is common with people who have self esteem issues.

You've got some nerve accusing me of being deranged. You're the one whose trying to justify attacking Iran, without any evidence whatsoever. Anyway thanks Lizard, you're right, I'm sick of certain individuals who obviously have no respect or tolerance for other cultures and their people. Hopefully some day, they'll grow up or they will unfortunately have to learn the hard way. You reap what you sow!!!!