The Iranian Mexican Assassination Farce

You're right, there is no chance of Iranian ground troops on Israeli soil.

They have a huge armament of missiles, which they will have no qualms to shoot over Iraq into Israel. Plus, depending on Turkey's reaction to the pre-emptive attack and compounded with the current relations with Israel, Iran may be able to get the Turks to open their airspace for them to enter Syria and then into Israel.

Iraq's armed forces are pitiful at best. If anything, you'd see a response from the few US military forces still in Iraq. Maybe even from the US military in Afghanistan, but very unlikely.

While Syria has their domestic issues and may not be able to play an active role in attacking Israel, they sure as hell will help passively via logistical support.

It's unknown whether Hezbollah can really help the Iranians logistically, but I'd doubt it. They do have rockets, many of them supplied to them by Iran/Syria after the conflict in 2006.

Hamas is always there with a hundred-or-so rockets to shoot into the heart of Israel.

Egyptians are not against Iran. While I don't think they'd let Iranian warships through, they'd very likely aid Hamas in their effort through supplies. The Egyptian population is more anti-Israel because of the Palestine story than you may think.

 

there's not going to be a ground invasion of iran. that's the sort of thing that neo-cons might masturbate themselves to sleep thinking about, but in the real world there's no way.

 

US ground troops would get massacred in Iran. While they may qualitatively be better, Iran has a huge army and they'd quickly get overwhelmed by the sheer number of Iranian soldiers. The US simply does not have the numbers on the ground to even be included into the equation.

They do have aircraft carriers and a whole bunch of warships/submarines equipped with Tomahawks in the Persian Gulf, though. However, the US Navy has been there in numbers for more than a decade and Iranian anti-air and anti-sea defenses are highly concentrated on their southern border because of it. I imagine that because of the US presence in Iraq, you would also find many AA emplacements along the Iran/Iraq border.

 

Well, there's still 50,000 troops in Iraq stationed at well-armed military bases. And it wouldn't surprise me one bit if those figures, reported by the Obama administration, aren't actually much higher. So that, plus the 100,000 troops we have in Afghanistan, make a pretty formidable force to back up the Israeli missile and air assault. There's also been reports that the U.S. is building up troops in Kuwait.

 

Iran has its fingers deep within Iraq and Afghanistan. If the US gets involved in a military conflict with Iran, not only would the US have to deal with Iran's substantial forces (much stronger than ~150,000 US troops), Afghanistan will see many more local attacks on US forces, and Sadr in Iraq would start actively attacking the US military again.

EDIT: Don't forget that the Russians and the Chinese would definitely exploit this as a proxy war against the West and really pump up their supplies to Iran.

Consider yourself outplayed by Iran.

 

I completely disagree with everything you just wrote. Iran is not well liked by the arabs, plain and simple.

 

Where did I outline the Arabs? They wouldn't attack Iran. There's Iraq with a craphole military, and Syria being best buddies with Iran.

Sadr is directly funded by Iran and has a substantial force to fuck with the Americans.

 

That's still a ground war that the US doesn't want and can't win. An Iranian invasion simply isn't a realistic option from a military standpoint. It would be an absolute logistical nightmare simply to move material into position - think that IED's are a problem when the Iranians are just toying around with US troops, Charlie Wilson-style? When they get all pissed off, hell would break lose. Local troops would have enough trouble keeping a lid on their current situations, let alone moving into place against Iranian regulars.

An Iranian invasion would be foolhardy at best under the current circumstances and I think anyone with even a modicum of understanding of military strategy and tactics would realize that once they thought about the challenges and likely mission goals.

 

I don't think that the U.S. troops will invade Iran, not until we and the Israelis have completely devastated their military with missile and air assaults.

 

Except for the Arabs in Hezbollah. And in Syria. And the ones in Iraq. Oh, and the other Shi'ite fundamentalists.

You're confusing the political players with the tribal ones, and there are some very big differences in how each operate.

Whether or not YOU agree, the US and Iraqis officials agree that Sadr is funded by Iran. Hell, Sadr alludes to it from time to time.
--- merged: Nov 9, 2011 5:38 PM ---

Leaving us occupying the swath of Asia from the Syrian border to the Pakistani one? Highly unlikely and, if the commanders have learned anything from Iraq, not exactly a cakewalk once you're there.

 

Hezbollah and Syria? Come on. Hezbollah has no real military power. And Syria is mired in internal strife right now, with intense international pressure bearing down on them. And the Shiites in Iraq have their hands full with the Sunnis in Iraq. And the Sunnis have the real power.

 

Right. How long did it take for the US/NATO to destroy one-third of Gaddafi's comparably small (compared to Iran) armed forces?

That, and the air assaults are no good against hundreds of thousands of scattered and hidden soldiers all over the scenery.

Then consider that Iran has invested a lot into AA (with much help from Russia) since the USAF's might is known globally. Don't think Iran can be compared in the slightest with Saddam's Iraq.
--- merged: Nov 9, 2011 5:43 PM ---

You realize Sadr's forces have, to a very large extent, stopped their militant actions?

Syria can always shoot a bunch of of missiles into Iraq to hit the US forces there.

Hezbollah and Hamas aren't really able to do anything to the US forces, but they can lay siege on Israel.

 

The U.S. and Nato did not wage on all out military assault on Gadhafi's troops. They provided back up for the opposition's ground forces. Besides, the Libya situation was completely different that the Iran one...apple and oranges.
--- merged: Nov 9, 2011 5:45 PM ---

Uh, they already have...for about the past 60 years.

 

I wasn't responding about anything to do with military power. I've already addressed the Syrian domestic issues above. I was simply refuting your claim that Iran is universally disliked by Arabs. It's pretty obvious that isn't true. Then there are the folks that dislike Israel more than they dislike Iran and would simply facilitate Iranian action against Israel - and maybe the US.

You're trying to paint this as black-and-white, Eddie. It's not.

 

simple-minded conservative fantasies apart, the dangerous player on the board right now is israel, and that as a function of the monumental incompetence of netanyahu & his rightwing government--building on previous idiocy (gaza massacre anyone?) much of which was aided and abetted by the american right naturally while the manly men of the right were off waving their dicks in at iran...a us action would be the greatest thing the current regime could hope for---rally round, folks, here comes the evil assholes who brought us the shah. remember savak? that and a ideology rooted in waiting for such an event since 1980 or so...i dont think it's imaginable, particularly not for the manly man types who populate conservative ranks, that the political conditions in iran are about as bad as possible if a us ground action enters your mind as a sane option--which it isnt.

this is not to even start talking about other pesky things like geography.

but netanyahu and his coalition of racist incompetents have got israel in such a corner that launching air strikes on iran might seem almost plausible. especially with syria weakened by revolt. of course it's also possible that actions for such political purposes by netanyahu gang of racist incompetents would also be the best thing imaginable for the asad regime. but i can see a political calculation that would make that a worthwhile risk for a regional military superpower that really is run by people who really really want it understood that the greatest threat to israel is not what it is, the racist right, the settlerments, the apartheid system and the whole political configuration that supports it.

alot of the sunni/shi'a business is the legacy of british colonialism coming home to roost. prior to british domination of iraq, say, this division was not such a big deal.

 

Ideally, and this is just me fantasizing here, but the U.S. government should pull 100% of our troops out of the middle east and we should stay out of any military conflict between Iran and Israel...just as Ron Paul suggested. Of course, as I said, that's a fantasy.

 

That's as equally likely as your suggestion that US troops will invade Iran in the foreseeable future. Neither is going to happen in the real world.

 

We've also left out Turkey in the calculations for the most part.

It is the worst case scenario for Israel, if - in a military conflict between Israel/US vs Iran/Allies - Turkey sides with Iran and enters the fray. The Turkish people would support it as they're on very good terms with the Persians and hate Israel. An Islamic party leader, such as Erdogan, could see a great domestic power booster for his political career by acting against Israel with serious hard power.

 

while turkey has a good relationship with iran, i can't imagine a scenario in which that would happen, remixer.
the neo-con wing in the us has been making arguments to do something about iran based on illusions parallel to those that animated the project for a new american century to agitate for an invasion of iraq later. what makes them dangerous is that, despite the disasters they have engineered, because the us isn't really a self-correcting system they still have some influence and connections. but militarily, there's no way the us could do anything about iran, particularly not now. iraq and afghanistan have put a point to that. the wild card, then, is israel, particularly with this government in power. ideally, they'd fuck up and fall before that. but there's no counting on it. there have been cables leaked about the relation between the us and iaea that make the warning of the past day or two about iran's nuclear program suspect. you can see it as a laying of groundwork for an israeli air action. but the consequences of that seem to me to outweigh any possible advantage to be gained from it. so i don't see any obvious scenario. what i do see is a desire from a lot of quarters, including (as i understand--but i am not an expert) elements of the ruling cadre in iran--to get rid of ahmadinejad--who props himself up in power in part because of this stuff.

personally, it worries me more that pakistan has nuclear weapons.