War with Iran?

Let's face it boys and girls, America started crapping in the Iranian post-toasties under Eisenhower when he okayed the overthrow of the elected government (because they leaned left), and with the help of Dulles' CIA the elected government was ousted, and the Shah reinstated.

From that moment on our (American) motives have been looked at with a jaundiced eye by the Iranians. No matter how much we may wish we were always the "good guys", sometimes that is simply not the case.

 

Here's my take on the situation:

An all-out war between Iran and the US is unlikely. A more limited, regional conflict that the US may be drawn into is more probable.

Deterrents for a full-out Iranian/US war:

1. Iran has no way of striking at the US except through terrorism. Since September 11th, there has not been a successful terrorist attack from a foreign power on US soil. The possibility that Iran could strike the US is very low because of the anti-terrorism measures already in place. In a state of war, these measures would likely be expanded, making it even more difficult. Even Iran they can manage to stage an attack, it would still be "limited" compared to what the US could do in return.
2. The nuclear deterrent. Unless the US has specific intelligence regarding the location and number of warheads in Iran's nuclear arsenal, and feels that the warheads can be easily neutralized, I feel that it is unlikely that the US would take military action. While Iran has no way of delivering these warheads to American soil, it could theoretically send one at Israel.
3. The Iranian military is no match for the US, especially if a ground conflict in the region does not develop. I'm sure this is apparent to the Iranian leadership, and thus serves as a deterrent.

• The Iranian Air Force, although above-average in the region, is no match for the USAF. Iran has a limited number of F-14 Tomcats, about half of which are crippled due to lack of spares. In a war, Iran would have difficulty repairing these due to a lack of spare parts. Since these would be a high priority target for the US, the F-14 fleet would be completed mobilized in the opening phases of the conflict. Iran also operates Mirage F1s and MiG-29s, but these can no longer compete with more advanced US and NATO fighters. All told, Iran possesses only about 150 air superiority fighters.
• The Iranian Navy poses a very limited threat. The Iranian Navy is weak. Iran has five operation frigates, including 3 built by the UK from the 1970s and two of a new class that is essentially a reverse-engineered copy of their other UK-built vessels. The only viable threat is from Iranian missile boats, but with the recent focus on small-vessel warfare from western navies, I feel this threat is mitigated. Iran also has a small submarine force, all of which are based on Soviet technology. Iran could not effectively oppose a US fleet anchored off its shore, which would essentially allow the US air and sea superiority around the Gulf.
• Despite the rhetoric, Iranian missile systems are overrated. Their long-range missiles are questionable, as there have been few tests made public. Iranian attempts to develop their own missiles have proven difficult, and Iran has relied on North Korean support in the past (and the DPRK has a very poor domestic missile program). Medium and short-range missiles pose more of a threat, but I suspect the launchers would quickly be destroyed as we have seen in Iraq and Libya.

Facts supporting a local Iranian conflict:

1. Israel is opposed to Iranian military expansion. I feel it is likely that Israel will take some sort of action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. These do not necessarily have to be military; the Stuxnet worm is suspected by some to have been developed by Israeli intelligence agencies to cripple the centrifuge plant. I think at some point Iran will have had enough.
2. Iran has allies in the region. I think the alliance would seek to keep any conflict localized, because it likely knows that their armed forces will be crippled should the US be drawn into it.
3. Iran has a powerful position in the region. If the US or other western powers are drawn into a war, I'm sure they realized their forces would be badly crippled. Their sphere of influence would shrink, which would be painful for them. Iran is "blacklisted" by most 1st world countries -- their only hope to expand influence is by dominating the Middle Eastern region. They cannot do this should their military and economy be crippled by the US military.

Should this local conflict develop, it is remotely possible that the US may be drawn in. Israel is a close ally, and the US would likely strive to support it in some way (be it logistically or militarily). However, I still believe that the US would seek to avoid a conflict in Iran; if it occurred, it would provide proof of their claims the US is "meddling" where it does not belong, which has the potential to infuriate people across the region. Unlike Libya and Iraq, Iran is not run by a two-bit dictator and has strong allies.

 

Good points here by all.

Usmcprice thanks for posting and getting people to think about this issue we would probably rather not think about. The swarm attack technique is very troubling and should not be discounted lightly. I have been reading a little about it all. It is very troubling - especially the timing of us getting out of Iraq and losing our logistic ground capability and the apparent brokering of a deal with PRC to back us on the sanctions (if they in fact will even do so). Any way, appreciate the research you have done and will with hold opinion until I do some of my own. It is too bad the Persians were unable to dislodge Ahmad-wtf during the last "trouble".

Alan, Thanks for mentioning "stuxnet", a job well done by all involved to be sure. Good point. Anxiously awaiting "modern warfare, stuxnet 2 in hyperdrive". Coming to a nuclear enrichment facility in the M.E. soon. And so it goes.

I do hope our Navy is prepared adequately for a swarm attack by PT-like Swift Boats. God Bless them All!!

 

The only one I can think of right now is Syria and they have their own concerns at the moment. Wouldn't be of much use in any case.

Here's the latest form the strategy page:
Iran: The Illusion

 

I would judge that for the most part Americans do not want another conflict for any reason (see Libya Intervention dissent). Perhaps though it would be possible to limit operations around holding places such as Kharg and Sirri Islands, as well as some additional sites while maintaining a no fly zone over the mainland. The idea would be to take out Iraninan Naval and Air assets in these area's. Both of these sites dominate a number of offshore oilfields. The loss of enough trade to Asian markets may give enough leverage for Iran to give up it's nuclear ambitions.

 

Good link Lwd, it contained some good information, much of it telling you many of the same things I've already mentioned. I do think some of the author's analysis is off the mark, but that will really be dictated by events in the next several weeks.
His statement of sanctions and their probable effect are right on the mark. One factor he didn't mention that adds a twist to the issue is the upcoming elections, they are coming in March. If as the writer noted, "Iranian economists and financial experts have convinced Iran's leaders that the new sanctions are worse than any previous ones and a real threat to the Iranian economy, and the survival of the religious dictatorship." We must also assume they are aware of another factor mentioned in the article, "That is not likely to happen anytime soon, as it will take months before the sanctions actually translate into significant lost Iranian oil sales." Add two and two, if Iran's leadership is aware of the probable seriousness of the sanctions, and they are aware that the populace will begin feeling the effects several months down the road and their economy is seriously hurting right now. They have to take some action prior to the point of no return, the point when things inside Iran become so bad economically, that the sizeable dissident movement in the country grows to a size outside the regimes ability to control. If the populace knows the sanctions are in place, (they do), and if the economy shows signs of getting even worse (it will), then expect the dissident candidates to make gains in the elections. If the regime overturns the elections or it appears the elections are rigged, expect a strong response from the opposition. Iran's, will not be the first regime to start a conflict to draw attention away from domestic problems and to make the opposition appear treasonous for not rallying around the flag and supporting the nation.

"Iran has long issued dire threats, and never followed through."
This too is not entirely true, and often times what is percieved as a bluff is actually probing to determine your opponents reactions and identifying weaknesses. That is what I think Iran was doing when they had the confrontation with the three navy ships. It also serves another purpose, repeated threats such as the small boat/US ship confrontation will cause us to let our guard down. If and when the confrontation is real, will the US naval vessels being threatened not be more apt to think it is just another bluff? If Iran does decide initiate conflict, look for these type incidents to increase.

I posted:

Does anyone remember this incident from March 2007?
"Iranian military personnel seized 15 Royal Navy personnel during 2007 and held them for 13 days. On 23 March 2007, 15 British Royal Navy personnel, from HMS Cornwall, searching a merchant vessel were surrounded by the Navy of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and subsequently detained off the Iran-Iraq coast..." That wasn't a bluff.

Then we have the 1988 incident where the USS Vincennes shot down the Iranian jetliner back in 1988.
"A U.S. warship fighting gunboats in the Persian Gulf yesterday mistook an Iranian civilian jetliner for an attacking Iranian F14 fighter plane and blew it out of the hazy sky with a heat-seeking missile, the Pentagon announced. Iran said 290 persons were aboard the European-made A300 Airbus and that all had perished."
Because of this incident US vessels are hesitant to fire on percieved threats, if Iran strikes first, this hesitation will be costly, but in a democratic country, warriors place themselves at risk to avoid civilian casualties. The captains of our vessels also realize that another such mistake WILL end their careers.

Fact: The Straights of Hormuz are only 34 miles across and 40 percent of the worlds oil transits the passage.

If Iran manages to block them temporarily, with the prospects of further disruptions and most developed countries still having very anemic economies, Iran might just be able to blackmail the west into a favorable (to Iran) agreement. The US cannot initiate a ground campaign without months of preparation and a country with a common border with Iran from which to base. Right now there are no such countries. The US, economically, cannot afford to stage such a campaign even if basing were available. That leaves us with only a naval/air or air campaign as options to force Iran to bow to our demands and be nice. The former, because of the restricted geography and a demonstrated (by us) probability that a first strike, using swarm tactics, with cheap, easily replaced assets, will result in a large loss of western naval vessels and personnel could easily convince Iran that a short term conflict, with a favorable negotiated settlement is possible.

 

Didn't think it was that far back.

 

Luke, in answer to your question, Iran has a very weak blue water navy and could not hope to face us in a conventional naval clash. Our carriers routinely transit the Straights of Hormuz going to and from the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman in the Arabian Sea. They are there to protect shipping lanes and provide an aerial deterrent to those threatening friendly countries in the region. The geography is so restricted that our vessels cannot use their full array of sensors effectively, too much to track. They also are restricted to the navigable channel through the straights. The close proximity of land on either side also restricts the reaction time US vessels would have if an attack occurred. What General Ripper did during the wargame was to flood the area with targets; aircraft military and civilian, all kinds of small craft from missile patrol boats, to fishing and speed boats, and inflatable boats. Some mounted missles, some were loaded with explosives for suicide attacks but what they were was lots of small, cheap, lethal targets. They were sailing/flying around in Iranian sea/air space but making no overt hostile acts. The US could but is unlikely to, launch a pre-emptive strike or engage the targets over soveriegn territory, again unlikely. The navy has to track them all and be prepared to react if one or more does attack. Iran also has mines, submersibles, surface to surface anti-ship missles, air launched anti-ship missles, drones/UAV's both missle armed and explosive laden. If at a given time or on predetermined signal, all threats become active and target US naval assets in the Straights, there is very little reaction time and insufficient weapons systems on the ships, to engage all threats simultaneously. The sheer number of attacks, coming from multiple directions would overwhelm the task forces ability to engage and defeat them all. Once they sink a few ships, and they likely would, US military commanders would not recommit large, valuable assets to the confined waters. The United States also has a very anemic mine sweeping capability, it manifested itself in both the 1st Gulf War and the 2003 Iraq Invasion. As long as mines remain in the straights few ships will attempt to transit them. Iran, due to it's proximity, can also easily and continually, redeploy mines to maintain some level of denial to passage of the straights.




Straights of Hormuz

An excerpt from a recent US Navy report...

"There is also the additional and relatively new threat posed by terrorists employing sea-based IEDs. Even a single such device in a major shipping channel could play havoc with U.S. maritime and global commerce or the deployment of U.S. forces overseas.Countering the growing sea mine threat will require both the quantitative expansion and qualitative improvement of U.S. mine countermeasure capabilities​

​

​

​

​

 

The key advantage Iran gains from a Syrian alliance is a border with Israel. While a missile launched from Iran itself may or may not reach the country, a missile launched from a position close to the Israeli border certainly has a much better chance of hitting its designated target. I don't feel that Syria would assist Iran in a preemptive strike (given its poor internal state) but if war breaks out between Iran and Israel or Iran and the US, I'm and confident the Syrians would assist in this manner. In a broader sense, Syria would likely oppose any NATO aircraft entering its airspace from the airbase at Incirlik, Turkey. This would likely be the key NATO airbase should a conflict break out in the region. At the very least, Syria would at least notify Iran of an incoming preemtive air strikes, which would effectively provide Iran with a long range early warning network.

It has strong ties with Lebanon, which also borders Israel. In nearby Africa, Iran is allies with Zimbabwe and Sudan, and is feverishly trying to expand its sphere of influence.

Looking at things from a global stance, Iran also has good ties with Russia and China. While I wouldn't call either "strong allies", Iran has certainly relied on Russian and Chinese equipment to build up its military. Both would oppose US military intervention; although the degree to which they would do so is questionable.

 

personally I just see the IDF just a phone call away of putting that Knumskull out of his misery.

 

When I first started following the site several years ago I thought that the prognostications were probably a bit too influenced by the ideology of the authors. However since then they have had a very remarkable record as far predicting events. They seem to have some good sources not readily available to other and to listen to them. Of course Dunnigan has enough experiance in gaming both military and financial for half a dozen people.

 

I've been a regular reader for a number of years also. They do publish a number of articles with good, not widely circulated information. I like their raw intell but quite often think they mis-interpret it. I do however find it a very valuable source. I don't know why but most of the time I find UK published sources better than most American publications, my personal opinion is their stories report more facts and less their interpretation of the facts. US stories report those facts that butress their pre-conceived notion of what the story is or should be.

They are much better at predicting than the mainstream media but I'd put their accuaracy rate at around 35-40%. They are quite specific in a number of their predictions but very vauge and liberal when assigning a correct/incorrect label to one. That being said, I do like the site and the information it provides.

 

I think an attack would be an air campaign, with border incursions and S/F insertions. No need to get bogged down in a ground war...id wipe out their infrstructure, leave them without power, gas and water, destroy their bridges and make their run ways unusable. Bring the poeple to their knees. Interestingly the US would employ the "US Blitzkreig" technique, a few S/F would then need to be on the ground to accept the surrender. *It would be called "The Yanky 6 day war". The Yanky six day war, afterward Iran was no more...

 

EMP pulse first. If that doesn't do 'er...

 

It is harder to justify bombing Electrical Power and gas facilities as they did in the Gulf war, they had a severely negative impact on the water supply and sewage treatment causing many civilian deaths. The US may have accepted it but once it became known there was a lack of support for a continuation of the practice especially as it had a very limited impact on the actual government itself.
Targeting water supplies is a strict no no under the terms of the Geneva convention, the US is a signatory and so is bound by the rules. Tear up one rule and suddenly you give up all rights to them all.
The best you could hope for really without ground troops would be to try and support a new revolution like the Arab Spring ones. Air power on its own even with some S/F (based where) being used will not be effective at toppling a government.

 

The number of nations represented with craft in Bahrain may be a pointer. But as for the British threat...I'd take that with a massive pinch of salt...We would not do a thing on our own...the threat was hollow...only later explained by Hammond that we would work in relation with our US allies to stop any threat to the straights...The thought that Hammond could threaten Iran is preposterous.

 

This Just In...

Iran Says Bomb Killed Nuclear Expert - YouTube

 

You dont target the water supply as such...you'd have to poisen it anyway...no, you destroy the pipes that feed the water...usually difficult not to when you are also cutting underground power and gas. The Arab uprising you talk of is exactly what bringing them to their knees would arouse...keep the "in" information being that Iran started it and that Iran can surrender at any time. Disagree with your last statement...indeed its shaping up as the technique of the future. Would you care to explain why it wouldnt be enough on its own? (Always need ground forces of some description). Anyway, im not saying on its own...just mainly an air campaign...of course the navy will take part and their would be a "limited" ground force component. Many ways to topple a government...but this would be a "war"...different from what we've seen in the past...one doesnt topple the government, one destroys it.