Saudi-Iran Conflict

[ThunderHorse]

View attachment 27861

Shinseki, for all his faults said that force plan was fucking stupid and that we needed a full mobilization plus coalition forces. Iran, a much different animal.

 

[AWP]

I moved the China/ Taiwan discussion to this thread:

China and Taiwan

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

I love how everyone acts like Iran is some big deal. They literally had a stalemate with Iraq, and we walked over Iraq twice. Iran isn't shit in a straight up conventional war... Hints their proxy terrorism bullshit.

We could bring them to their knees with just airwar alone, much less a full on land war. Iran is the kid that acts tough in school until the true tough kid knocks him on his ass.

Why we didn't kick the fuck out of them during G.W's days is fucking beyond me. As many of my buddies who are dead and disfigured because of those sons of bitches...

FUCK IRAN!

 

[Marauder06]

I think our main concern isn't so much that Iran can hurt us directly (although we shouldn't kid ourselves about their ability to do that), it's that they can hurt people and things we care about.

A war between the US and Iran would cause the price of oil to go through the roof and would cause economic drama throughout the world. Our economy can probably take it, it will be a lot harder for a lot of our allies.

Iran and its proxies have the ability to make life very hard for the regimes we care about in Iraq, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, among others. Their terrorist wing is adept and deeply experienced, and has the ability to carry out attacks worldwide.

And finally, there's nothing like a big war with a major enemy to shore up a despotic regime's hold on power. Any chance of a "Persian Spring" or genuine reformers seizing power in Iran goes out the window once Tomahawks start coming in.

I don't like Iran and I'm not saying they don't deserve a good helping of Freedom. I just think there are a couple of actors who deserve it more, and are more of a threat to us in the long term.

 

[Brill]

In my opinion.

@Marauder06 , the Mullahs understand asymmetric warfare and will accept the martyrs inside Iran proper but hit us at our weakest points.

Attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities - Wikipedia

 

[Gordus]

.... it will be a lot harder for a lot of our allies.

Indeed. It would for instance be very bad news for the South Caucasus and some nations around the Caspian Sea, which are partialy severely dependent on energy supply from Iran and latter is generaly an important trade partner to other countries in the region. Could be very dramatic.

lindy is right. The cost of occupying Iran would in all likelyhood dramaticaly outweigh the benefits moreso than past operations. The invasion may not be a great issue but a consequent decade of grueling guerilla war with far more experienced, sophisticated and fanatical insurgency groups.

 

[ThunderHorse]

How exactly would you propose an Invasion of Iran?

Invading would be dumber than shit. They'd fight us conventionally, it wouldn't be some shit like Iraq was over in three weeks either. We'd probably win a tactical fight, but the insurgency there would make Iraq and Afghanistan look like pre-school.

 

[Marauder06]

I don't think we would invade. God I hope we wouldn't. There is nothing at all that we need in that country, and I don't want to get into another civil war in someone else's country.

If someone were to ask me (no one has, and no one will) I'd suggest we bomb the crap out their Air Force, Navy, intelligence infrastructure, party HQ, missile force, atomic program, and every bit of the IRGC-QF (and anything similar) that we could find. I'd try to leave the economy, police, army, and major institutions intact so the country doesn't complete disintegrate. I'd also go hard after proxies in places like Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Venezuela, and Yemen (and anything we know about in the US) in order to mitigate their response. I'd try to set conditions for a regime change but I think that's going to be a lot less likely after things get kinetic.

 

[R.Caerbannog]

I don't think we would invade. God I hope we wouldn't. There is nothing at all that we need in that country, and I don't want to get into another civil war in someone else's country.

If someone were to ask me (no one has, and no one will) I'd suggest we bomb the crap out their Air Force, Navy, intelligence infrastructure, party HQ, missile force, atomic program, and every bit of the IRGC-QF (and anything similar) that we could find. I'd try to leave the economy, police, army, and major institutions intact so the country doesn't complete disintegrate. I'd also go hard after proxies in places like Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Venezuela, and Yemen (and anything we know about in the US) in order to mitigate their response. I'd try to set conditions for a regime change but I think that's going to be a lot less likely after things get kinetic.

On top of what you said, what about killing off Iran's political/religious elite and their families? It's kinda hard to derkha derkha and lead an islamic revolution when your holy figureheads and their families are atomized in their palaces.

 

[Marauder06]

Martyrdom is very powerful, especially in that culture. I'd rather leave them in place and have to lead their country out of this mess. If we start whacking their leaders, even more-radical peeps will probably take their place, and the populace could be motivated to fight longer, and harder, out of vengeance.

Also, we saw in Iraq what happens when you remove everyone who knows how to run a country, from the country. Third-tier and under, with maybe some top-tier military targets.

 

[Gordus]

If someone were to ask me (no one has, and no one will) I'd suggest we bomb the crap out their Air Force, Navy, intelligence infrastructure, party HQ, missile force, atomic program, and every bit of the IRGC-QF (and anything similar) that we could find. I'd try to leave the economy, police, army, and major institutions intact so the country doesn't complete disintegrate. I'd also go hard after proxies in places like Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Venezuela, and Yemen (and anything we know about in the US) in order to mitigate their response. I'd try to set conditions for a regime change but I think that's going to be a lot less likely after things get kinetic.

In similar discussions in 2008 when things were heating up in Georgia and not even a day into the war, when I lost color on my face knowing perfectly well the Russians are about to stomp us, I kept asking why such retaliatory action were not considered and done in place of letting things escalate into a full blown war and the idiocy of decision making really plaguing me for years.
It's never just about that. There is always some profit and benefit of whatever shape or form to gain from a conflict for at least one if not a multitude of entities.

 

[R.Caerbannog]

Martyrdom is very powerful, especially in that culture. I'd rather leave them in place and have to lead their country out of this mess. If we start whacking their leaders, even more-radical peeps will probably take their place, and the populace could be motivated to fight longer, and harder, out of vengeance.

Also, we saw in Iraq what happens when you remove everyone who knows how to run a country, from the country. Third-tier and under, with maybe some top-tier military targets.

I mean we don't have to kill everyone. As much as the Mullahs like to play up the martyrdom card, not sure they want that for themselves and their immediate families. We don't have to kill everyone, just the guys with the biggest mouths and the key personnel that excel at spreading terrorism abroad.

Or is that what you meant by the 'third tier and under with some top tier... targets' part?

 

[Brill]

Indeed. It would for instance be very bad news for the South Caucasus and some nations around the Caspian Sea, which are partialy severely dependent on energy supply from Iran and latter is generaly an important trade partner to other countries in the region. Could be very dramatic.

Uh, no. The West would not allow Iranian participation in developing the oil & gas fields led by BP.

Azerbaijani oil production is still increasing and both Georgia and Turkey are enjoying transit fees from the BTC pipeline. Kazakhstan will most likely ship their oil via the pipeline too.

The oil production in Azerbaijan in 2019 will remain at the same level as last year and will average 800,000 barrels per day, the OPEC January report says.

The cartel’s report says that according to the Ministry of Energy, in 2018, Azerbaijan produced an average of 792,000 barrels of oil and condensate per day, which is 2 percent more than in 2017.

OPEC announces forecasts on oil production in Azerbaijan in 2019


Regarding passive income via pipeline:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.525.1518&rep=rep1&type=pdf

On the economic and social benefits account, once the pipeline becomes fully operational, Azerbaijan will be the main beneficiary of the sale of its oil in international markets, collecting (at prices of 2005) about $29 billion per year in oil revenues, while Georgia and Turkey, in the long run, will respectively collect transit fees of $600 million and $300 million per year on average during the lifetime of the project. Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey, the countries the pipeline will traverse, as well as part owners in the fields, could collect more than $150 billion in revenue from oil, gas and transit fees from 2005 to 2024, according to estimates by BP.

http://sam.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Tuncay-Babal%A6-.pdf

But, the Iranians may yet stir up trouble in the area. From 2012:

The arrests come two months after two men were arrested in Azerbaijan, Iran’s northern neighbour, on suspicion of plotting to attack foreigners, including the Israeli ambassador and a rabbi, and after bomb plots in India, Thailand and Georgia that Israel blamed on Tehran.

Azerbaijan arrests 22 suspected of spying for Iran

 

[Brill]

In similar discussions in 2008 when things were heating up in Georgia and not even a day into the war, when I lost color on my face knowing perfectly well the Russians are about to stomp us,..

საქართველი ხარ?

 

[Gordus]

Uh, no. The West would not allow Iranian participation in developing the oil & gas fields led by BP.

Fact is, the entire South Caucasus is on very good terms with Iran in regards to ongoing and planned bilateral and trilateral trade agreements, energy supply, transit development. Georgia due to it's strategic location has also been aiming to become a transmission hub for electricity to the entire region. That sphere has been a focal point for economic cooperation, with talks and deals extended to Iran for years now.

Iran and Armenia propose gas transit to Georgia
Power Experts from Armenia, Russia, Iran and Georgia to Consider Electricity Corridor - The Armenian Mirror-Spectator

My point is.
If you insist on making a move, than it would be 'probably' better to do so before much greater and more wide spread damage is dealt.
Or don't do anything of the sort, at all.
Just my 2 cents.

საქართველი ხარ?

It's *ქართველი

and yes. Why, you too ?

 

[Brill]

My point is.
If you insist on making a move, than it would be 'probably' better to do so before much greater and more wide spread damage is dealt.
Or don't do anything of the sort, at all.
Just my 2 cents.

Georgia due to it's strategic location has also been aiming to become a transmission hub for electricity to the entire region.

Chechens in Pankisi aren’t too keen on that! Or new hydroelectric plants anyway.

I know the recent rescinding of the visa requirement for Iranians there definitely raised some eyebrows.

მე ქართულ ენას ვსწავლობ. პატარა ვლაფარაკობ, მაგრამ ცუდად.

Does that ^^^ make sense?

 

[Gordus]

Chechens in Pankisi aren’t too keen on that! Or new hydroelectric plants anyway.

Oh yeah, I've seen that, and Georgian law enforcement has certainly felt it.

Those people are lucky they are not dealing with an MIA under the the former administration. Throwing massive rocks at the police, people who are just doing their job, burning their equipment ? they wouldn't have taken that lightly 10 years ago.

I know the recent rescinding of the visa requirement for Iranians there definitely raised some eyebrows.

Georgia has been way too lax with it's border policies anyway since .... forever.

I think some serious assistance in that area and state security service would be very appreciated and beneficial also for the US. Particularily when it comes to fighting terrorism.

მე ქართულ ენას ვსწავლობ. პატარა ვლაფარაკობ, მაგრამ ცუდად.

Yes. Not bad at all actualy. Are you deployed / planning to deploy there ? heard exercise Agile Spirit is around the corner.

 

[AWP]

On top of what you said, what about killing off Iran's political/religious elite and their families? It's kinda hard to derkha derkha and lead an islamic revolution when your holy figureheads and their families are atomized in their palaces.

Martyrdom is very powerful, especially in that culture. I'd rather leave them in place and have to lead their country out of this mess. If we start whacking their leaders, even more-radical peeps will probably take their place, and the populace could be motivated to fight longer, and harder, out of vengeance.

If the change is internal, the people will take care of the elite and their families. No hand wringing, just body stackin'. We can help create those conditions doing just what Mara said: kill off the government's ability to project power and that allows the common man a chance at success.

Our SEAD/DEAD campaign with -22's and -35's would obilterate their air defenses and that's before we talk about standoff capabilities in the B-52's, B-2's, and our Navy in the Arabian Gulf. The UAE has arguably the best F-16's flying and the Saudi F-15's aren't shabby. Qatar is trash and I wouldn't consider them as part of any strategy. 72 hours and Iran's air defenses are sooty craters and smears in the desert. Local AAA/ SAM's would get eaten alive by SDB's and our Air Force has a LOT of experience deploying those against ISIS.

If we stay off the ground, our exposure is minimal.

 

[amlove21]

@AWP hit on this but I’d like to highlight- Iran isn’t a new and special threat. We have done this before, learned from AAR and gotten better. These last 17 years, we have learned and gotten more lethal, at least as far as DEAD/SEAD is concerned. Styles make fights- their style matches up poorly against our strengths.

I have no desire to get into this fight; but it’s Iran’s first fight with our tactics. It’s not our first fight against an enemy like Iran’s tactics will most likely be.

 

[Brill]

If the change is internal, the people will take care of the elite and their families. No hand wringing, just body stackin'. We can help create those conditions doing just what Mara said: kill off the government's ability to project power and that allows the common man a chance at success.

Our SEAD/DEAD campaign with -22's and -35's would obilterate their air defenses and that's before we talk about standoff capabilities in the B-52's, B-2's, and our Navy in the Arabian Gulf. The UAE has arguably the best F-16's flying and the Saudi F-15's aren't shabby. Qatar is trash and I wouldn't consider them as part of any strategy. 72 hours and Iran's air defenses are sooty craters and smears in the desert. Local AAA/ SAM's would get eaten alive by SDB's and our Air Force has a LOT of experience deploying those against ISIS.

If we stay off the ground, our exposure is minimal.

You’re in a much better position than I, hence the question.

What about their S-300s? TOMBSTONE ain’t no joke although the IAF appears to be able to defeat it...better than the that IL-20 crew.