In another thread, somebody was doing some interesting mashups of almost random countries fighting. And I decided to try one that is at least remotely possible. And that is the US and Iran. Now I am not going to include a cassias belli, and not even go into any specific details. But I think I can predict how things might play out. On the US side, I think you would have immediate pressure on both Iraq and Afghanistan to allow those countries to be used as platforms from which to stage an invasion. Probably bribed with large grants of money and equipment, as well as increased technical assistance. And both would probably go along, since a lot of their insurgents have been supported from Iran. So having that country taken out politically would be seen as an improvement in their own internal conflicts. Iran would probably try to fight it's last war, the Iran-Iraq War again. Massing troops along the border regions, and recruiting large numbers of National Guard and militias. However, they have a large country to defend, and that has some unique challenges. So you would have a large force along the border, staged to say defend an attack from Basrah. Meanwhile the US would be fighting in it's own way, conducting air strikes against critical command locations and logistical depots. Then launching it's first strike say at Bandar-e-Abbas via a Marine Expeditionary Force (Bandar-e-Abbas is on the coast, across the Straight of Hormuz from UAE). And since Iran would almost have to strike against US bases in the region (Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, etc), this would bring in almost every other nation in the region against them. I think that the US would win, simply because they would be able to tie the Iranian forces up into knots. They could stage land and air strikes almost anywhere at will, from amphibious landings at important ports and sights along the Persian Gulf, to deep inland like Tehran and Mashhad. Meanwhile Iran almost totally lacks the capability to do the same in return (other then missile attacks). A lot of people forget how effective amphibious landings can be, since they have not really been used in over 60 years. And most of those people think of are different then how they were often conducted in the past. I actually see somewhat of a return to older tactics, much like those used in the 18th and early 19th centuries. For example, the first such attack for the US was in 1776, when the US Navy and Marines attacked New Providence, in the Bahamas. They stormed ashore, stole munitions and supplies, spiked the cannons, and departed. This was a fairly typical raid for the era, storm ashore, do as much damage as you can, then depart. And in 1814, the British returned the favor. Most people do not associate the "Star Spangled Banner" and the Burning of Washington DC with an amphibious assault, but that is exactly what happened. In this month long campaign, the British stormed ashore, drove on the capitol, destroyed it after routing most of the US defending forces, then departed. They tried to do so again a month later at Baltimore, but it did not go as well the second time. But this was typical for the era. Land, kill and frighten people and destroy things, do some looting, then depart. I see much the same thing for a US-Iranian War. Marine forces landing at important port cities, breaking up a lot of things then departing. This would have the effect of making the Iranian forces operate in a reactive manner, causing them to now have to explain to a frightened population that they really are in control and rush forces all over in response to US actions. And this would only cause more instability within Iran. One thing that is a danger in most totalitarian countries is the legend of invulnerability. "Spin" becomes critical, because you have spent so long telling your own people that you can't loose that when you do take losses, it causes them to question everything. Even 50 years later North Korea is spinning to their own people how they lost the Korean War. Conduct a handful of raids such as this at towns along the Gulf, and while they would probably put it to their people as "successfully repelling Imperialist forces", they will start to question reality when it happens over and over and over again.
I think Afghanistan would have no choice they would have to let the US put troops there. Iraq I very much doubt would allow the US to put troops in it's country for the invasion of Iran, the Iraqi people don't want more wars and no amount I bribing would change their mind. If Iraq did allow US forces in it would increase attacks by Iranian proxy groups. I think they would end up only defending the Afghanistan border and the Persian Gulf. Still that is a huge area to protect from enemy raids and invasion. I think you are right on how the war would go with the US and allies hitting targets in Iran with cruiser missiles and doing hit and run raids against lightly defended Iranian ports. Before the main invasion happens. Yes the glorious victory and burning of Washington, maybe if the US hadn't burned the parliament of upper Canada at York it wouldn't have happened. When the UK PM David Cameron was in Washington on a state visit last year him and Obama joked about it.
Yeah, the Iran War is bound to happen considering Iran's nuclear program and their refusal to stop said program, which serves as excellent pretext for the Clean Break policy that has been implemented. That refusal will inevitably lead to a military strike on their nuclear facilities, though, I'm not sure if all-out War is what Washington or Jerusalem wants. Seeing as Syria is being rolled back quite severely, the need or want to topple Iran may or may not be there. It is going to be an interesting year.
My father thinks this is going to get bad fast bombing will lead to boots on the ground and being former Military Intel said on the ground in an insurgency they have all the advantages. Three major reasons. They have a large population that historically supported the government even if the parts have some who disagree with them they are nationalists in the end. Two they are Shiites they will take any attack as a proper excuse to fight. Three anyone we capture will be likely a papered soldier or partisan and must be fully treated under the Geneva Conventions they and we signed onto are we ready to take hundreds of thousands of POWs which is possible and care for them? Add to that they will surely toss everything they have in the outset of war to do all the damage they can while they have it what if they take out an aircraft carrier? What is they activate their terrorist ties hard? What if Al Queda and others side with them and get papers as partisan fighters? And we must also occupy the country that means a full proper army of say 400k troops or more.
In a war with Iran, the US holds all the cards. First the US has the largest repository of combat experience on the planet. US forces know what works and how to do it. The Iranians do not. The US has allies on the south side of the Persian Gulf who despise Iran (for good historical reasons). These allies are militarily worthless but they wil host US bases just a few miles from Iran. Iran has huge geograhical vulnerabilities. The people mostly live in central and western Iran. The oil is in southwestern Iran. The only international entrepot is Bandar e-Abbas in southeastern Iran on the Strait of Hormuz. The transport net from central Iran to southwest Iran is sparse and has to pass over six mountain passes. This was a major problem for Iran when they fought Saddam Hussein. They could not support a large enough force to oust him from the oil-rich territory he took. That's why the major battles occurred further north. The US does not have to occupy all of Iran. Just the important parts. The southwestern oil fields. Bandar e-Abbas and the desert around the Strait of Hormuz. For a short time the isolated nuclear facilities in central Iran. The US Navy/Marine Corps are simply the all-time best at large-scale amphibious operations. They would have the sparsely populated oil fields and the bottleneck mountain passes in Southwest Iran under control in a matter of days. Bandar e-Abbas wouldn't last much longer. Iran is instantly broke and could not import anything if they had the money. They'd be essentially isolated. The Iranian Navy and Air Force would not last a day and the Russian air defense systems have been seriously discredited by the Israelis. The varsity (US) force would have no trouble evading then destroying them. Taxcutter would have drones orbitting overhead bombing satellite uplinks in Iran. Those and all conventional TV, radio, and land-line communication nodes. This would essentially rob them of timely informational warfare action. Iran, now broke and short of energy would be forced to attack the US lodgments ion southwesternand southeastern Iran while they still had some fuel and ammunition stockpiles. This would mean fighting the US on ground of US choice, with an army that is mostly poorly-trained partially mechanized infantry. Saddam Hussein inflicted Somme-like casualties. It is unlikely the Iranians will get more than a few troops close enough to find out how tough the veteran US infantry really is. US artillery and cluster bombs will inflict casualties reminscent of Passchendaele on the Iranians. After a few hyper-bloody repulses the Iranian forces will be weakened to the point that keep non-Persian monorities (notably Kurds in northwest Iran and Arabs in the oil field region in line. Civil war (such as it is in that part of the world) breaks out. The US simply goes on the defensive and eats popcorn while watching Iranians kill each other. At this point the US makes an airborne assault and grabs the Iranian nuke facilities. The US grabs what fissile material they can, wrecks the super-expensive equipment, then gets back in their helos and leave the mess to the Iranians. All this time the US seizes operations of the oil fields and pumps oil to mitigate the cost of the war. Sell the oil on the world market. The Chinese are oil-hungry and would buy every drop for a price a little below the world price. Without heating oil, winter in central Persia can get pretty cold. Without fuel, the Iranian transportation system cannot get food in the rural areas to the cities. A long, cold winter in urban Iran. Can riots be far behind? Can the mullahs withstand another round of unrest? Taxcutter is totally Jacksonian. With Taxcutter as Commander-in-Chief, Iranian casualties are a feature, not a bug. Eventually either Iran surrenders or the oil fields dry up. Either way the US forces get back on thr gator-freighters and leave a burnt-out husk to the Iranians.
Your plan strikes me as a smash and grab of Iranian resources, this will have costs that you can't underrate. It would destroy Iran leaving Saudi Arabia as the most powerful country in the region, is that really something we want. Your plan goes against what the British wanted when they set the borders of the region. The US really took on the system the British Empire left behind and you have destroyed 2 countries in the region killing millions of people, I can see long lasting problems for the US, mainly from Europe, the French and Germans I don't see joining you, of course you lap dog the UK would join you, which would then effect the UK within Europe like the Iraq war did. There is nodoubt the US would win the war in a matter of weeks, the aftermath is the problem from the US and always has been.
What my plan does is avoid trying to occupy populous areas. It only really grabs two sparsely populated areas far from the Persian heartland. By holding their only worthwhile resource area and their only viable entrepot, the US puts tremendous pressure on the Iranian regime to come to the peace table. Further, once the peace table brings realization of the war aims, the US simply gets on their ships and sails away. I'm not particularly worried about Saudi as being the top dog in the area. By now the lesson has to sink in: Don't mess with the US. Right now I don't think France and Germany could handle Serbia. They have zero force projection capability. No loss. Unless the Iranians make suicide attacks against the two lodgments, I don't even see a lot of Iranian casualties.
One other thing. US LNG sales to Europe at prices below that of the Russians attenuates Russian resources for support of Iran. Further. Look at a transportation map of southern Kazakhstan and northern Iran. Not many roads or railroads. Whatever the Russians send will have to be airlifted in - - on to runways in Iran cratered by Durandels.
One thing I forgot to mention that would probably be mandatory of any peace agreement in the aftermath of such a war. And that would be the complete demilitarization of Jazireh-ye Qeshm and all other areas immediately around the Strait of Hormuz. Iraq has used that far to long as a dagger against every other nation in the region. And I bet that Oman< Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, and every other Gulf state would back that 100%. Because almost every time tensions in the area rise, Iran tries to claim that they own the Strait, will close it, and attack every ship that tries to pass through it. That is one of the major reasons we have kept a Naval presence in the area for over 30 years now. A lot of US ships transit that waterway.
So the Iranian regime makes peace on all US terms, then the civil war breaks out the peace agreement doesn't many thing when that regime is gone. So your are going to have to support your peace agreement with troops, you can't just sail away. Saudi Arabia would do the same as Iran if it become the major power in the region, it only goes along with the US and before that the British Empire because it fears Iran. If there is no threat anymore they no longer need the US and would remove you from their land. It is the political problems that France and Germany can make for the US in the future, not the loss of their weak military in the operation.
Your assuming a war in the conventional sense lets toss out some tactics my father did when asked to do a war study - 1. Toss everything he had in the air at ONE aircraft carrier while you have it the analysis is a 80% chance they would sink it at the loss of much of their air power but they were going to lose it in three days so why not use it in a vicious first strike as the carrier was moving into position? Major high profile victory on paper. 2. Move all command and control assets and armaments stockpiles into holy sites, hospitals, historical places of high international respect and other targets we will unlikely or cannot bomb or invade without grave risk of inciting the population. 3. Move government leadership to another nation hostile to the US he suggested North Korea who would love to stick it to the US especially if the US attacked first. 4. Paper all insurgents to be partisans this invokes the Geneva Conventions this in addition to existing partisans and armed forces, make the US deal with that mess. 5. Make it a war on Shiite Islam invoking distrusted of Sunni's and the state of Israel boosting again the will of the people to fight and support the government. 6. Force this into a prolonged guerilla fight with the majority of the population in support as you wear down the US forcing them into Iran cities and in situations that aid their cause say the US goes into a high holy place to attack a command center, declare a proper holy war after given no choice and then its a religious backed insurgency willing to fight to the death. Under this scenario no place would be safe and in fact would give them all the cards long term. His plan is not military based its what they can do to grow unrest to the point we cannot hope to hold unless we counter with an army so large we would need to draft and we will not go there and we will be forced to leave. Estimates are in two years the odds of a win would be 0% we will be in to put in a new government and rebuild, the opposition will invoke nationalism and their long history as a pawn of others and faith and one that considers defensive war on the faith holy. Wars are won on the mind and the will to my father not firepower its can we break them - not likely.
Well, that is pretty much out the window. Because most of our "air power" in the region is not carrier based but land based. We now have several serious air bases in several nations in the region. And most of the other things that you named would be gigantic mistakes. So doing the suggestion of "throwing everything at the carrier" would probably seriously damage it (I am not sure if they have the capacity to destroy one of our carriers), but at the cost of the destruction of a significant portion of their air and water assets. That kind of Phyrric Victory would do them no real good at all. We would not turn it into some kind of "religious civil war", not gonna happen. Moving assets to holy sites lost Saddam a lot of his international support in 1990, the same thing would happen again. One thing about a "macho" culture like the flavor of Islam that Iran has advanced... that is that cowering under Internationally Accepted Safe-Zones is seen as cowardice. And doing so would loose them a lot of support. Same with trying to do a "Government In Absentia". That could be done, but to their citizens and other nations it would be seen as "running away". After all, how important was the "Free French" involvement in WWII. Now do not think I am saying that they were worthless, but they were certainly not needed. I think the independent Partisans did more then the Free French forces. And nobody ever really paid attention to them.
The mission objective is to curtail Iran's ability to process weapons grade Plutonium. There is already historical precedence for this sort of preventive airstrike. Iran conducted an airstrike which lightly damaged an almost complete nuclear reactor southeast of Baghdad in what is referred to as Operation Scorch Sword. This took place in September, 1980. Operation Opera was an Israeli airstrike carried out in June, 1981 against the same Osirak nuclear reactor. I don't see any reason to place boots on the ground when considering the same mission objective holds true some 30 years later, only the potential targets are now in Iran. B-2 bombers have already been modified to be able to carry a 30,000 lb. "bunker-buster" bomb to the tune of some $80 million dollars. This isn't a coincidence. Placing boots on the ground will only stir up the hornet's nest even more...and there is historical precedence for this also. Somalia wherein U.S. Marines first landed on beach in September, 1992 as part of Operation Restore Hope. A little over a year later in October, 1993 U.S. Army Task Force Ranger engaged in a 17 hour battle in which 18 U.S. soldiers were KIA and 84 were WIA in what was later named Battle of Mogadishu. U.S. troops were withdrawn in March, 1994. Sustained boots on the ground don't work...airstrikes have met with moderate success in these preventive attacks against nuclear reactors, I see no reason to change tactics...in lieu of historical precedence of the failure of a sustained ground presence. In terms of the potential of retaliatory action by Iran after airstrikes against their nuclear reactors...the U.S. Navy is fully capable of protecting and keeping the Strait of Hormuz open. The last thing the U.S. needs is a body of a Marine being dragged through the streets of Tehran to stir up the hornet's nest further. Strike with low observable aircraft and play dumb...any retaliation can be dealt with by air and sea elements...no ground troops. That's the hypothetical scenario, as I see it. 2 cents thrown in.
“Toss everything he had in the air at ONE aircraft carrier…” Taxcutter says: May as well. Like you said they’re all dead within three days anyway. Not overly likely to sink a carrier, though. The Iranians first problem is locating the carrier. Even if the Russians give them a satellite feed they are not accurate enough for good targeting. US carriers work really hard at being hard to find when they don’t want to be seen. Carriers have a large fighter contingent in their air wing. With land air bases on the south side of the gulf, the Iranian strike will have to fight its way through a thicket of F-15E and F-16 fighters. The SAM capability of a carrier battle group is not to be sneezed at. With a minimum escort of two Ticonderoga missile cruisers and two Arleigh Burke destroyers plus the carrier’s own SAMs, the strike is going to be mauled by the carrier battle group’s air defenses. It is not a given that an inexperienced Iranian pilot will be able to accurately hit a carrier after getting through swarms of fighters and SAMs. The Iranian air force hardly covered itself with glory when fighting the tyros that Saddam put up against them. the fish in the Gulf were in more danger than Saddam's forces. Is there any reason to think the Iranians are any better today? The air strike better be nuclear armed. A Nimitz-class carrier is not a dinky little British frigate that can be sunk with a single Exocet. These are big ships with big crews – half of which are there only for damage control. The US Navy is the best in the world when it comes to damage control. The last time a US carrier was lost to enemy action was 1942. To sink a Nimitz without a nuke or torpedoes would probably require two dozen hits from shipping-attack missile with the punch of a Harpoon missile. If Iran went nuclear a whole new dynamic is set in motion. I could see a massive strike launched at an American carrier. I doubt they would scratch its paint.
Move all command and control assets and armaments stockpiles into holy sites, hospitals, historical places of high international respect Taxcutter says: Saddam did the same thing. It didnt even slow down his defeat. Move government leadership to another nation hostile to the US he suggested North Korea Taxcutter says: Is this not de facto abdication? How would the ayatollahs control Iran from NorK? I agree with Mushroom. This would be widely seen (if the US hadnt already wrecked their communications) as bugging out and leaving iran to its fate. you wear down the US forcing them into Iran cities Taxcutter says: With the exceptions of Bandar e-Abbas (not a big city) and the little towns in southwest Iran this offensive gets nowhere near the Persian heartland. No need to. Holding the oil fields and Irans only port (and only source of gasoline, diesel, and kerosene) puts the pressure on the Iranian government without a US boot on the ground for hundreds of miles. But the ayatollahs (if they havent run away to NorK) have to face cold, hungry Persians. - - - Updated - - - Actually I don't think Hussein Obama has the guts it takes to confront Iran.
And this is exactly what I have been pointing out to people for years now with little success. Iran, just like Iraq uses a variant of the old Warsaw Pact Doctrine. And that has been proven to be a failure in 2 engagements against Iraq by US forces. Where each side could at most achieve a stalemate, the US tore through such tactics with ease on 2 separate occasions.
There is no need to sink it in the first place. One proper hit into the fuel storage or steam catapults subsistems or even in the hull near the waterline wich result into heeling=airwing cannot into air anymore. Airwing is the main and almost only real sword of the Carrier group. And as if you only have some fancy subs or first class ships....it is going to be like beating baby seals.
And you are missing something as well. In any modern engagement in the Persian Gulf, it will not be just the Air Wing of the carrier at play. As others have said, this is the most heavily defended mobile spot on the planet. With literally several hundred air defense missiles that will bring down targets at over 100 miles away. And then add to that the aircraft of the air wing, and all of the ground based fighters in the region, both of the US and other nations. And I would expect the carriers would move close to the Western side of the gulf, where they also fall under other US air defense assets, like PATRIOT.
True that is why I mentioned submarines. In fact they are so quiet nowadays they sometimes event can't detect each other before they collide. During WW2 destriyers and naval aviation were mostly predators and submarines were their victims. Now submarine is a predator and any ship on surface is a potencial victim. Torpedoes tend to vasly outrange everything ships have to figh a submarine. Iran poses mini submarines. How silent they are? That is the question.
Silence is not much of a matter when we are talking about a small and confined waterway like the Persian Gulf. Where the average depth is only 50 meters, and the maximum depth is only 90 meters. And it has a nice, almost white sandy bottom from all of the limestone that makes up the sand. You can not ask for a much better place for ASW aircraft to operate in. Submarines in that area almost shout their presence to those in the air, that nice long round black object, contrasted against the white background. The Persian Gulf is one of the absolute worst places for submarine warfare in the world. The only reason we keep any in the area ourselves is that with the demise of the Battleships, those are our major cruise missile platforms. And generally the only ones that go into that region other then escort for our carriers are going in to launch their Tomahawks, then get out again as quickly as possible.
Must be the reason they have small disel-electric mini-subs and not 100-meter nong nuclear monsters. There are plenty of questions to be asked. How many aircraft you will need to control the area, say, 100-km circle. Can I have a pic of a persian gulf waters from the plane, just to be sure it is so easy? Who told you, that submarine must be black? But it is small=quiet,hard to detect both visually and with sonar.
Re: Air attack Back around 2002, the US Navy ran a exercise with Israel in the eastern Med. The entire Israeli Air Force made a simulated attack on an isolated Arleigh Burke destroyer. At the end of the exercise the israelis were adjudge to have lost 70% of their entire air force had not even gotten into position to make an attack on the destroyer. Now the Israeli Air force is orders of magnitude better than the collection of losers the Iranians will send up flying thirty year old flying junk. A carrier battle group travels with no less than four ships similar to the Arleigh Burke class (Ticonderoga-class cruisers are more optimized for AAW and ASuW and are not so good at ASW as the Burkes) The Nimitz carrier itself has AAW capability close to that of its escorts and has one capability they don't - a Nimitz-class carrier can put the entire power of the "catapult" reactor into very high powered jamming. This will at minimum blind all the enemy sensors within 75 miles, and burn up such equipment within 40 miles. the iranian cruise missile will be reduced to being ballistic devices. A carrier battle group would probably never enter the Persian Gulf. Carriers need a lot of sea room for air ops. Batting along at 40 knots requires a lot of space. So that toy submarine would have to come out to get a carrier. The Iranians do not get much sea time. How good can they be? Their old Kilo-class subs wouldn't go to sea at all without foreign mercenaries (mostly Russians). Russians aren't dumb. They know their life expectancy when the light goes green is measured in minutes. They'd probably mutiny and try to defect. Why are people so scared of a bunch of complete amateurs?
Maybe I misunderstood the scenario, but I thought it related to all out war breaking out with Iran after an attempt to destroy Iran's ability to process plutonium to a weapons-grade level. The reason I brought up Operation Restore Hope is that it was the first time I'd heard the term "Mission Creep." Basically what that entails is what started as a mission to feed starving civilians ended in a failed attack on a Somalia warlord. Initially the U.S. intervention had established objectives which were clearly defined and limited. Feed the people and get out. Everyone understood the mission and it's objectives...initially. We can see the same thing with the war in Iraq, there was mission creep throughout the campaign...objectives changed. At some point the troops on the ground weren't even sure why they were there...because the objectives were no longer doable. What started as regime change to rid Iraq from any attempt at using WMDs turned into nation building and a protracted asymmetrical war with seemingly, no end in sight. The mission objectives were no longer "doable." What is the objective with a war in Iran? I believe the U.S./Israel needs to keep it "doable"...destroy the means in which Iran could potentially process a weapons-grade plutonium...keep collateral damage to minimum..on both sides. This is best done by not placing boots on the ground. It's not a question of could we defeat Iran militarily...it's a question of should we...and what is the objective in doing so. Israel's airstrikes on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor did indeed accomplish it's objective. Saddam's nuclear program experienced a serious setback. The airstrike was "doable." Stick to the game plan in other words, don't over-extend one's objectives. A protracted ground war in Iran is not "doable"...and I'll say again, it isn't because they couldn't be defeated, it's because of the myriad of problems this entails. It's estimated the cost of the conflicts in Afghanistan/Iraq will plateau at around $3 trillion dollars when it's all said and done. 50% of veterans who were part of these operations are now making claims to the VA, from everything from traumatic brain injury to psychological issues related to PTSD. These "personnel" costs are rising, even after the conflict itself is falling. Therefore I ask the basic question..who is going to pay for this war with Iran? Do you want to bankrupt the nation's treasury? or do you want to keep future conflicts as limited as possible and more importantly..."doable." We can sit here and talk about the technical aspects of war fighting all day...comparing the U.S. fleet with Iran's..but war fighting is not always purely a technical endeavor...there are financial and moral aspects to it as well that should be considered..and is it even feasible. I believe a targeted airstrike against Iran's nuclear processing plants is feasible...as is handling any retaliation...there's historical precedence on our side...the U.S. and Israel attacked Syria's nuclear facility in '07 (Operation Orchard) and as mentioned earlier...Israel's attack on Iraq's facility. There is no need for all out war...even hypothetically, the U.S. would be making a serious mistake if that is indeed the objective.
