US Attack on Iran Would Turn Into Protracted Conflict, Engulf Mid East – Scholar

[PeaceGen]

Who is this "we" you are talking about? Netherlands is going to invade Iran?

no, i was obviously computing things from the perspective of those leaders in nations that do decide to join in any future war, that is currently still described only as realistic enough to mention on this forum, by some of the people on this forum who actually feel talking about this particular scenario for the future on a forum like this.

fact is none of us speaking here are authorized to be speaking on behalf of their nation,
such people would not be allowed to post on forums like this,
nor part of such people's natural motivations that would allow them according to the calculation that i use (me, a mere civilian from such nations who is also interested to spend (part of) his weekly time for enough years to be considered educated in such matters), to even be in charge of expressing official views shared by any current government and the people they employ to make (part of) such decisions to make public announcements in major news sources about it.

 

[Persian Gulf 1906]

If the Iranians actually want to fight the US, first they need a modern air force and sufficient air defence.

If they want to fight a conventional war against the US, yes. But no one can fight such a war against the US (apart from maybe Russia), and definitely not Iran.

no, i was obviously computing things from the perspective of those leaders in nations

do you often use 'we' and 'our' to describe the actions of foreign governments?

 

[randomradio]

I don't think anyone doubts the ability of the US to essentially steam roll any country in the world militarily (barring one or two exceptions).

In a conventional military conflict, the Iranians, or anyone else in the Middle East, stand no chance against the US. The question is what such a conventional military 'victory' would accomplish. Who would step into the power vacuum in Iran created after such a 'victory'? What would the regional impact be in terms of stability and the spread of terrorist organizations such as ISIS?

Regardless of Trump and Israel's ranting and raving against Iran, there is a relative status quo in the region that makes the possibility of a conventional military conflict initiated by Iran unlikely. So why disrupt that balance for no tangible gains?

Take Syria as an analogy - what has years of war and devastation accomplished? What specific tangible threat to regional stability did a pro-Iranian Assad pose?

There may not be a direct political objective. All the US has to do is invade Iran, the aftermath will keep the place boiling for more than a decade. This will make the GCC and Israelis happy, and all of Iran's neighbours will have their hands full dealing with what's left of Iran, which includes Russia. So it will work out that way even if the US decides not to occupy Iran.

Syria was largely a failure from the American PoV. They managed to get some land for the Kurds, but the original objective of removing Assad from power and remove Russian influence in the Middle East failed. Totally backfired.

The problem is the Americans don't have solutions. And not everybody is as pragmatic as the post-war Japanese. So emotions run high in the Middle East and war never ends.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

the original objective of removing Assad from power and remove Russian influence in the Middle East failed.

What tangible impact (to Western interests) was Russian 'influence' having on the region because of Assad?

US foreign policy comes across as aimless and floundering, driven by a 'Cold War mindset' inertia. Intangible motives such as 'countering Chinese/Russian/Iranian influence are thrown around as if they still have the same meaning and threat that the 'Soviet influence' posed during the cold war.

 

[randomradio]

If they want to fight a conventional war against the US, yes. But no one can fight such a war against the US (apart from maybe Russia), and definitely not Iran.

A decent military force creates a significant deterrence value.

For example, if the Su-57 works as advertised, then a force of 200 jets will reduce the flexibility of the Americans during war by a massive margin. Iran may obviously lose in the end, but one can expect the Americans to also give up and go home midway, if they don't like the losses they may have accrued, like they did in Vietnam.

It's not like the Americans can bring in an incredible amount of forces without it affecting their own economy. The idea is to raise the cost of waging war.

What tangible impact (to Western interests) was Russian 'influence' having on the region because of Assad?

US foreign policy comes across as aimless and floundering, driven by a 'Cold War mindset' inertia. Intangible motives such as 'countering Chinese/Russian/Iranian influence are thrown around as if they still have the same meaning and threat that the 'Soviet influence' posed during the cold war.

It's about the allies, not just the West.

If the Russians offer more benefits to the Middle East, you can expect a shift in foreign policy.

One can see how Qatar has played the game, rather successfully.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It's about the allies, not just the West.

If the Russians offer more benefits to the Middle East, you can expect a shift in foreign policy.

One can see how Qatar has played the game, rather successfully.

But again, what tangible costs does the status quo pose and what tangible benefits does changing that status quo (removing Russian/Chinese/Iranian influence) provide?

Some of the biggest beneficiaries of 'Mainstreaming Iran' (economically) were US and European companies. Continued economic ties and mega business contracts would have made a change in the status quo (militarily by Iran) a lot less likely.

Like I said, US foreign policy seems stuck in a Cold War mindset - with us or against us in a uni-polar alliance structure. If not a Cold War mindset, the only other rational explanation is that US policy in the Mid East is driven by Israel's paranoia (supplanted by the Saudi & Emirati paranoia).

 

[Persian Gulf 1906]

A decent military force creates a significant deterrence value.

For example, if the Su-57 works as advertised, then a force of 200 jets will reduce the flexibility of the Americans during war by a massive margin. Iran may obviously lose in the end, but one can expect the Americans to also give up and go home midway, if they don't like the losses they may have accrued, like they did in Vietnam.

It's not like the Americans can bring in an incredible amount of forces without it affecting their own economy. The idea is to raise the cost of waging war.

Iran cannot afford 200 su-57s. Russia doesn't even have 10 of them itself.

Your idea is to make invading party incur costs to make it a war of attrition that the US will eventually retreat. Iran has same idea, just different means more suitable to its budget and limitations.

 

[Feng Leng]

those are "brave" (foolish actually, when it comes down to it, especially on near-future global scales) *lies* you hope will convince others to be as foolish as you in matters of wars that can easily drag many countries into war at the same time?

LOL who will be dragged into war against Iran? Exactly zero countries will dare touch Iran if they have ICBM. Let's say for the sake of argument ICBM technology from North Korea LOL. Keep jumping up and down in frustration. It's hilarious.

i think (and expect) the Chinese leaderships to have more brains than you,
and possibly even happy to see NATO deal with Iran and get rid of a country that thinks it can keep using it's military outside it's borders like Iran has so far and is planning to continue according to the few news paper headlines i read about Iran's government's responses to Trump's plans to stop Iran from using it's military / military means outside it's borders.

LOL when does Amerikkka ever use its military within its borders? You global imperialists can go **** yourselves. Iran is going to build ICBM and nuke you.

 

[PeaceGen]

do you often use 'we' and 'our' to describe the actions of foreign governments?

i've paid attention to those types of words in my online posts only since today.

so your answer is : no.

LOL who will be dragged into war against Iran? Exactly zero countries will dare touch Iran if they have ICBM. Let's say for the sake of argument ICBM technology from North Korea LOL. Keep jumping up and down in frustration. It's hilarious.

LOL when does Amerikkka ever use its military within its borders? You global imperialists can go **** yourselves. Iran is going to build ICBM and nuke you.

Iran is building it's own ICBMs,
as is North-Korea.

and i currently doubt they'd share such technology between each other.

 

[randomradio]

But again, what tangible costs does the status quo pose and what tangible benefits does changing that status quo (removing Russian/Chinese/Iranian influence) provide?

Draw a line from Afghanistan to Eastern Ukraine through Syria. The US has successfully managed to hand over that entire region to Russia by proxy.

Some of the biggest beneficiaries of 'Mainstreaming Iran' (economically) were US and European companies. Continued economic ties and mega business contracts would have made a change in the status quo (militarily by Iran) a lot less likely.

Like I said, US foreign policy seems stuck in a Cold War mindset - with us or against us in a uni-polar alliance structure. If not a Cold War mindset, the only other rational explanation is that US policy in the Mid East is driven by Israel's paranoia (supplanted by the Saudi & Emirati paranoia).

The American agenda isn't a stable Iran. They have zero interest in status quo. They don't want a mainstream Iran under the current regime anyway. Overall, the US wants a compliant Middle East.

Plus, they do not want Russia getting access to warm waters. So it's not as simple as just Israel's paranoia or oil. The idea behind CAATSA was to prevent the Middle East from getting closer to Russia as well.

 

[jhungary]

Goal: remove Taliban from power.

Results: In 2008, the Taliban controlled 40% of Afghanistan. Today they control 70%. Previously, US refused to negotiate with or recognise Taliban. Today, they call for unconditional negotiations.

Again, are these US/NATO force fault that Afghan government cannot control their land after US/NATO departed in 2015?

As I said, we can only give Afghanistan a better fighting chance, stay behind until the final objective, which is OBL, was killed, by thyen Taliban have no more than 20% present in Afghanistan. We cannot fight Taliban forever unless US or any of the NATO country fancy annexing Afghanistan. If they want to survive, they have to fight the Taliban themselves.

 

[Persian Gulf 1906]

Again, are these US/NATO force fault that Afghan government cannot control their land after US/NATO departed in 2015?

It doesn't matter whose "fault" it is, a failure is a failure. You can discuss fault with yourself.

2 Americans have been killed in Afghanistan in 2019 already, funny "departure".

 

[randomradio]

Iran cannot afford 200 su-57s.

It's not a choice though. Iran has to afford something like the Su-57 in enough numbers. If 200 is not possible, then 100. Apart from Su-57, Iran also needs 200+ Gripen E class fighters.

Not to mention a full tier air defence capability from Pantsir and Tor to Buk and S-400.

Of course, you will need to properly train your personnel or you will only have a glass force, like the rest of the Middle East.

Your idea is to make invading party incur costs to make it a war of attrition that the US will eventually retreat. Iran has same idea, just different means more suitable to its budget and limitations.

Nothing's gonna work without air power. This is the US we are talking about.

 

[Persian Gulf 1906]

It's not a choice though. Iran has to afford something like the Su-57 in enough numbers. If 200 is not possible, then 100. Apart from Su-57, Iran also needs 200+ Gripen E class fighters.

Russia cancelled mass production of su-57 (for at least 10 years).

Not to mention a full tier air defence capability from Pantsir and Tor to Buk and S-400.

Iran has Tor, domestic version of Buk (Raad with many generations/versions) and s-300pmu2.

And Talash/Herz 9/Ya Zahra (domestic improved Crotale)/Mersad (domestic improved Hawk - and a mobile improved version Kamin-2)/Mesbah etc.

Building domestic Pantsir system. Domestic s-300 equivalent Bavar-373 has finished testing and announced next month.

Nothing's gonna work without air power. This is the US we are talking about.

Disagree. No one can hope to match US air power. Iran's best bet is asymmetric warfare and total self-sufficiency.

 

[jhungary]

No bro ... thats not survival instinct thats rule of jungle ... while claiming to be human rights champion but living like jungle ... its hypocrisy ...

Well, you are talking about a military operation, which is a jungle sport. Unless you are expecting fighting a war is just you go walk up the enemy and shake hand, then yes, what you said is right. But in reality is, you do whatever you can to survive in a war. You can only talk about human right when you are alive, otherwise, it's just all BS.

It doesn't matter whose "fault" it is, a failure is a failure. You can discuss fault with yourself.

2 Americans have been killed in Afghanistan in 2019 already, funny "departure".

American soldier was killed everywhere, in fact, American soldier exist when there are US embassy, if you have a US embassy in Iran, then you will have US Marine in Iran. There are only around 8000 US troop in Afghanistan, mostly special force and administrative duty, compare to the number before drawn down, it's 1/8 to 1/10 (depends on which figure you use) of is ISAF strength, I would say that is a "Departure"

As I said before, the goal for the US is not to kill every last one of the Taliban, you can't do that, unless you want to kill the whole Afghan population, and as I said before, you cannot stay in Afghanistan forever either. What you can do is to pick a point where you cannot gain anything from it anymore and move out, unless US wanted to Annex Afghan into its 51 states, Taliban is not exactly US problem.