If American attack Iran,can the Iran resist American military ?

Sadam called the Iranians Persians during the 1980s war. It's rahther a derogatory term in modenr language but for many states in the gulf it allows to distinguish Iranians from arabs

 

The bigger problem would be the POV from all the other muslim states especially in that area and in the whole world. And this would create an much bigger terrorism war than we have now at Afghanistan. Years before the operation "Desert Storm" all the strategists were afraid to leave Iraq without an strong leader for the reason that Iran could take their chance to swallow Iraq to build up an "Great Persia" based up on the fundamentalist religious theses. And in my opinion all the fundamentalists would send their "Troops" into this war and the Battlefield will not be at Iran only, no it will be in the countries of the allies that invaded Iran. And so far that will be a more dangerous war than the most will believe now.

 

I'm VERY sure that any U.S. pilot can take on even the best of Irans pilots. Most of Irans' AA defense use Radar or any other electric means....a few EMP's and there goes air defense.
And you can be sure that the Untied States wouldn't invade Iran without intense use of Special Operations soldiers whose objective would probabley be just that - destorying and rendering Irans air defense systems USELESS.

Israel would be there too, helping publicly or secretly.There is nothing Iran can field to match Israeli commandos or weaponary.
And even IF Iran decides to use the war as an excuse to use biological and chemical weapons against Israel, we do have systems against that and even more are being made (Iron Dome for example). I really don't see how Iran can come out winning.

 

Excellent post Ulrich, you've named the great unmentioned problem.


From the Telegraph:

"UK forces have uncovered evidence that British Muslims are actively supporting the Taliban and al-Qa'eda in attacks on coalition forces in southern Afghanistan, Brig Butler said.

He said: "There are British passport holders who live in the U.K. who are being found in places like Kandahar."

Earlier this year, it was revealed that RAF Nimrod spyplanes monitoring Taliban radio signals in Afghanistan had heard militants speaking with Yorkshire and Midlands accents.
Privately, British officers in Afghanistan estimate that several thousand Taliban fighters have been killed since 2006, among them people from outside the country.
One officer said: "While my troops have not actually found British passports on enemy dead there has been a suspicion that with the high number of Taliban casualties they have needed to recruit a lot of foreign fighters and some of these are likely to be of British-Muslim descent."
Disturbingly, Brig Butler suggested the traffic between Britain and Afghanistan may flow in both directions, with some British Muslims returning from the region and posing a domestic security threat.
Brig Butler, 46, said he had seen evidence that terror groups based in southern Afghanistan were plotting with Muslim extremists in Britain to carry out terror attacks in the UK.
"There is a link between Kandahar and urban conurbations in the UK," said Brig. Butler. "This is something the military understands but the British public does not."

From the Guardian:

"British-based men of Afghan origin are spending months at a time in Afghanistan fighting Nato forces before returning to the UK, the Guardian has learned. They also send money to the Taliban.
A Taliban fighter in Dhani-Ghorri in northern Afghanistan last month told the Guardian he lived most of the time in east London, but came to Afghanistan for three months of the year for combat.
"I work as a minicab driver," said the man, who has the rank of a mid-level Taliban commander. "I make good money there [in the UK], you know. But these people are my friends and my family and it's my duty to come to fight the jihad with them."
"There are many people like me in London," he added. "We collect money for the jihad all year and come and fight if we can."
His older brother, a senior cleric or mawlawi who also fought in Dhani-Ghorri, lives in London as well."

From the Telegraph:

"In fact, in all its various spellings, Mohammed is now the favourite name for newborn boys in England and Wales.

Although Oliver has overtaken Jack after 14 years, when variations of the Islamic Prophet's name were included it came top for the first time, given to 7,515 boys, compared with 7,364 Olivers.

Even without variant spellings, Mohammed was the most common boy's name in the West Midlands and the fourth most popular in London. In the South West, however, it ranked 145th. It was 16th overall."

From the Telegraph:

"An Islamic suicide bomber who attacked Christmas shoppers in Sweden at the weekend is a British university graduate and was living in this country until two weeks ago."

Remember also the 2004 Madrid train bombings. Occurring three days before the general elections it resulted in the defeat of the incumbent José María Aznar's Partido Popular and withdrawl in Spain's forces in Iraq. France has the largest Muslim population in Europe, there has been violence there and Germany has a significant Muslim population also. If this theoretical conflict is portrayed as religious in nature and the Muslim population as a whole begins to feel seperated from the general populace, more will be forced into the radical minority camp.

 

Thanks USMCPrice! Thats what the most will forget. They compare only the numbers of soldiers, Tanks and missiles and won´t see how dangerous this can get after the war.
Good post too!

 

Even tho Irans millitary seem inferior to ares and much of europe we need to look back on the conflicts of Vietnam,Perisan gulf, and the ones were are fighting now to learn what we did wrong or will spend the next 7-8 years trying to crack down a insurgency that wont give up and keeping poping up out of know where.

 

Most of the mistakes made were political ones and not military ones. The insurgency didn't just pop up out of no where, it is a result of incorrect political decisions and to a larger extent because the leaders of the insurgency are willing to accept tactics we are not willing to.

 

Sloniksp,


"My friend Persia is no Iraq."



Given that both countries fought a draw a few years back, I would be interested to see your reasoning as to why Iran is a tougher opponent.

What does Iran have that Iraq did not in her conflict with the USA? Better planes, tanks, ships, missiles?

I repeat:-


"The USA can and will if needed do to Iran what it did to Saddam's Iraq. Cripple her in the first 48 hours, and mop up the rest in the next 14 days. I remember well the TV was full of 'experts' saying that Iraq would kill 50,000 Americans when they came up against Saddam's 'Invincible Guard or whatever they called themselves. They lasted 2 or 3 days.
In fact I will go so far as to say that few, if any, ground troops will be need. Iran will be emasculated from the air."


What can Iran do to stop my scenario?

 

And what can you do to stop their scenario of terror in your country and the ambushes against your troops? I can tell you: Nothing!

 

"And what can you do to stop their scenario of terror in your country and the ambushes against your troops? I can tell you: Nothing!"



Are you trying to tell me that Iran, with its military emasculated in 48 hours, and it's military assets destroyed, it's communications and infrastructure unusable, can mount attacks anywhere.

Yes, I am sure some peace-loving muslim brothers in Australia could carry out terrorist attacks, but that will NOT help a broken Iran.

And how can Iran ambush troops that are NOT THERE??

Iranian society can be put back 100+ years in a week!

 

So you want to destroy a country without having any value of this country? What are you playing, a sort of eraser?

No, i won´t tell you that an destroyed Iran will set up assaults. It won´t need that. There are enough extremists out there to do the job.

And please tell me what is the value of such an attack without contolling the territory and rule it after your will? Thats an worthless over reaction and it isn´t easy to justify against other nations. And are you sure that only some Arab nation would have interests at Iran? Think into an east direction. Are you sure that the Iran has not atomic weapons and isn´t able to start them? Your planning has some little mistakes in it and something is missing.

And if you´re reading or watching the News, you would see how a bunch of poor Afghan farmers cause a lot of troubles to the much better equipped troops at there. It works!

 

"So you want to destroy a country without having any value of this country? What are you playing, a sort of eraser?"


Read the OP! The question is hypothetical.


The purpose of attacking Iran at this time is to remove it as a threat, NOT to occupy it. If Iran cannot project a military threat to its neighbours then Iran can sit there and rot for all the US would care.

...and if Iran EVER lobbed a nuke on Israel, then the 'religion' of islam, including its capitol cities AND Mecca, would be sent back to the 7th century.

 

Yes with that i can agree plus the reason that Iran won´t give up its nuklear weapons if they have some.

 

Seems to me people aren't paying attention to politics in the region. Who do people think would ally with Iran? The wiki-leaks material showed that the Arab states are encouraging us to take out their nuclear capability with military means! Israel would have no reason to hit Mecca. As for ambushing that might cause some casualties after the invasion is over but it's not real effective in stopping one. See:
Iran: The Great Tragedy
and some of the other articles there to get a good idea of some of the problems Iran is facing. Such as:
Iran: Things That Are Not Talked About
or
Iran: Things That Are Not Talked About

 

lwd,


"Israel would have no reason to hit Mecca"


The scenario I presented was AFTER Iran lobbed a nuke on Israel! No other reason.

 

Im afraid you might be simplifying a bit. Aside from the obvious (much larger country, twice the population and much harsher terrain), Iran, unlike Iraq has capabilities of manufacturing her own weapons. IMO, that alone, no matter how insignificant already shows me that she is a more capable adversary.

The militaries between Iran and Iraq are quite different as well. Basing military success on the Iran of 25 years ago would be a mistake; much can change in that time.

Already involved in 2 seperate conflicts, what options might the U.S. have or take regarding military action against Iran?

How about those pesky Shias all across across the middle east?

Whats Israel's role in all this?

Its not always about tanks, planes, and missiles my friend. The Taliban has none of these and is outnumbered 12-1, yet the war goes on...

Bombs alone do not win wars.

 

States? Few if any. The Shias living within their borders however is another matter. Muqtada Al Sadr, for example (A Shia leader of the the largest militia in Iraq and an ally of Iran) while dorment for the moment may wake up...

 

What makes you so sure that Iran's pilots are that bad? Their air force doesn't sit around all day twiddling their thumbs. They've had their share of combat experience and there hasn't been any dog fights since Vietnam, all the 'training' that has been done is on war games and simulators. I'm not saying that Iran's pilots will win, but they are by no means useless.

A lot of people seem to be forgetting something quite important. Iran isn't Iraq. During the gulf war the US had a very good strategic advantage where they could launch attacks from Saudi Arabia and were up against one of the biggest, but also military backwards nations that was recently humiliated in a war against Iran.

Iran however is protected a ridge of mountains, very harsh climate, (geographically) much larger than Iraq, and is miles ahead of Iraq in its military's hardware.

I just find it quite silly how some of you claim Iran will be taken out in a heartbeat. US has a lot of tricks up it's sleeves, but Iran's capabilities are more than prepared to put up a tough fight.

As for nuclear/biological weapons, that's purely political, and again, I can't really say anything there since there's a lot of guesswork involved.

 

The second most important military rule is: 'Don't bring your army to the Asian mainland!'
The first most important military rule is: 'Don't march on Moscow!'

 

In a conventional military on military conflict Iran's would come off the worse, presuming the US could concentrate its forces. It is also dobtfull that any nation would directly aid Iran in any significant manner. However a 3rd American military operation against a muslim state would resonate thru out the Arabic/Islamic populace. A strike aimed at "declawing" Iran's nuclear program might not stir up too great a discontent within the Islamic world, but regime change would be another matter.

In some ways it might be best to hold off any military action in the hope that the regime might collapse from internal pressure, with a little help if it could be done descritely.