I have this bad feeling.....

[Marvin Dao]

Thing is, Iran has had a couple years of monitoring our counterinsurgency doctrine.  It'd be rather unlikely that they haven't been keeping notes and making preperations?  If Iran had half a degree of intelligence, they'd tell their soldiers to instantly disperse if the US invaded.  Take your AK, go home, use insurgent tactics after the initial invasion.

I'm not sure that they do have half a degree of intelligence. They're spending an awful lot on a bunch of technically neat but strategically worthless weapons. It'd be much better just to buy every Tom, Dick, and Jerry their own RPG and a stash of rockets. Their conduct during the last war they waged also leaves a bit to be desired. Their lack of coordination was bad enough, but repeated massed infantry against an entrenched modern army without any fire support? Not quite sure that sanity would win out.

But true, a centrally planned, cell operated insurgency would be a fearsome thing to deal with. I would hope that our leadership would realize that occupying such a territory would be one hell of a mistake.

That's only if we decided to pull more surgical crap like we have been doing.  If we waged war WWII style, even their insurgency would have no chance.

If we waged war WWII style with modern weapons, there wouldn't be much of a civilian population left for the insurgency to hide in or draw from. Which is why it's never going to happen. The modern world doesn't have the stomach for death tolls in the millions.

[RevDisk]

Thing is, Iran has had a couple years of monitoring our counterinsurgency doctrine.  It'd be rather unlikely that they haven't been keeping notes and making preperations?  If Iran had half a degree of intelligence, they'd tell their soldiers to instantly disperse if the US invaded.  Take your AK, go home, use insurgent tactics after the initial invasion.

I'm not sure that they do have half a degree of intelligence. They're spending an awful lot on a bunch of technically neat but strategically worthless weapons. It'd be much better just to buy every Tom, Dick, and Jerry their own RPG and a stash of rockets. Their conduct during the last war they waged also leaves a bit to be desired. Their lack of coordination was bad enough, but repeated massed infantry against an entrenched modern army without any fire support? Not quite sure that sanity would win out.

But true, a centrally planned, cell operated insurgency would be a fearsome thing to deal with. I would hope that our leadership would realize that occupying such a territory would be one hell of a mistake.

Ah...  I'm gathering that you are not aware that Iran licensed the RPG-7 and RPG-29 from Russia, they produce them locally.  Some folks believe a large percentage of the RPG-29's used by Iraqi insurgents were produced in Iran. 

Actually, you'd want to go with a decentralized, independent planning, and ideally independently supplied insurgency.  Produce tons of RPG's, IED making material, et al, and put them in moderately sized depots everywhere in the country.  Upon invasion, military is disbanded, pre-assigned teams grab stuff from their assigned depot and then bury it in the desert.  If possible, you'd want to rotate training cadre through the *expletive deleted*it militias in Iraq to gain real world experience. 

That's only if we decided to pull more surgical crap like we have been doing.  If we waged war WWII style, even their insurgency would have no chance.

If we waged war WWII style with modern weapons, there wouldn't be much of a civilian population left for the insurgency to hide in or draw from. Which is why it's never going to happen. The modern world doesn't have the stomach for death tolls in the millions.

Yes, genocide should be off the table for someone that is not a significant threat against us.  Which Iran is not.  The worst case realistic scenerio, Iran starts another tanker war.  That's about it.  While definitely a Bad Thing, it ain't WWII.

[grampster]

If Iran stops up the Straits of Hormuz, the world comes to a grinding halt.  God forbid they try and do that.

[Antibubba]

I don't think an occupation would go any easier than the one in Iraq has gone, if we opted to do that. Unless, of course, we were willing to take the gloves off with the Iranian populace.

Going back to what others were saying about "Persians": Most of the Persians I've met (Very few call themselves "Iranians) were sensual in their outlook of life.  They lived it up.  While none of them would welcome us as "liberators" (because of the shame of being freed by others), a great many would welcome greater assistance and funding of the goverment(s) in exile to start the next Revolution.

I don't fear America working for the defeat of the Ayatollahs, I fear that we'll try it with the same blunt, direct lack of style in which we do every foreign endeavor.

[De Selby]

Actually, you'd want to go with a decentralized, independent planning, and ideally independently supplied insurgency.  Produce tons of RPG's, IED making material, et al, and put them in moderately sized depots everywhere in the country.  Upon invasion, military is disbanded, pre-assigned teams grab stuff from their assigned depot and then bury it in the desert.

This is interesting, because it appears to be exactly what the Iranian trained Hizbullah organization did in the 2006 war.  From the reports I read, they relied on buried stashes all over the place, operating independently in small teams.

The thing about war with Iran....I think anyone with eyes can see that the Iranian military is no match for the US.  It will be destroyed in terms of its being a force capable of occupying territory or doing anything the US military could do.  They can probably hide and launch rockets, but that's about it.

But what will the outcome be?

On the extreme nice-for-us end, bombing Iran produces no real effective response, some Iranians die, and maybe Iran's nuclear program is set back a while.  Iran goes commando in Iraq and we deal with increased insurgency.

On the extreme bad end of the scale, WWIII breaks out after the region, including oil producers, from Pakistan to Israel bursts into flames of anger in the aftermath.

I haven't seen any convincing evidence to show that the most probable outcome of such a war would be good.

Why on earth would we get into a war when we have no real idea what the full consequences would entail?

[RevDisk]

Actually, you'd want to go with a decentralized, independent planning, and ideally independently supplied insurgency.  Produce tons of RPG's, IED making material, et al, and put them in moderately sized depots everywhere in the country.  Upon invasion, military is disbanded, pre-assigned teams grab stuff from their assigned depot and then bury it in the desert.

This is interesting, because it appears to be exactly what the Iranian trained Hizbullah organization did in the 2006 war.  From the reports I read, they relied on buried stashes all over the place, operating independently in small teams.

You don't say.  Mere coincidence, I assure you. 

The thing about war with Iran....I think anyone with eyes can see that the Iranian military is no match for the US.  It will be destroyed in terms of its being a force capable of occupying territory or doing anything the US military could do.  They can probably hide and launch rockets, but that's about it.

But what will the outcome be?

On the extreme nice-for-us end, bombing Iran produces no real effective response, some Iranians die, and maybe Iran's nuclear program is set back a while.  Iran goes commando in Iraq and we deal with increased insurgency.

On the extreme bad end of the scale, WWIII breaks out after the region, including oil producers, from Pakistan to Israel bursts into flames of anger in the aftermath.

I haven't seen any convincing evidence to show that the most probable outcome of such a war would be good.

Why on earth would we get into a war when we have no real idea what the full consequences would entail?

Well, with any war (or anything in life), you never know the full extent of consequences.  Reasonable guessing is as good as you get.  Some are better at it than others.  The 'best' option from bombing Iran would be open support for *expletive deleted*it militias in Iraq.  Which just means they're more open about what they're currently doing.

WWIII option isn't plausible in the least.  We really can't invade Iran and maintain troop levels in Afghanistan/Iraq.  Even implimenting a draft would take roughly 2 years to get up and running.  Even if we magically yanked troops and material out of the sky, Arabs don't like the Persians that much that the Sunni and Shiites would embrace in brotherly love to smite the infidels.  Sure, they'll make noises, but unity?  Ain't gonna happen. 

[De Selby]

In terms of WWIII, I was thinking of more than just conflict in Iran.  I was thinking more in terms of conflict with Russia via the destruction of the oil producing facilities in Saudi Arabia.  It may be tough for Iran to rocket Israel, but the Saudi oil works are right next door for them to pelt with those junky missiles they're showing off.

Another possibility is a violent anti-American coup in Pakistan post-attack.  From there, who knows. 

The biggest risks are not in terms of what will happen in Iran, but in how all of the relatively unstable places within the region will react, as I see it.  It's just too hard to predict what everyone else will do in response to an Iranian attack to be relatively sure that no larger conflict will occur.

[LAK]

we were willing to take the gloves off with the Iranian populace

.. And Russia.