Help support TMP

"Iran Invasion" Topic

28 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Modern What-If Message Board

Back to the Modern Scenarios Message Board

Areas of Interest


1,524 hits since 5 Feb 2017
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Lookingglassman Supporting Member of TMP05 Feb 2017 8:12 a.m. PST

I'm working on a scenario where the US invades Iran after Iran gives a dirty bomb to a terrorist organization and they explode it at a port in Mobile, Alabama.

Turkey is sympathetic to the US and still part of NATO so they allow US force to mass along their border with Iran. This route also seems the shortest route to Tehran.

That is as far as I have gotten. I would appreciate any ideas to help me with my scenario. Thanks!

Dogged05 Feb 2017 9:13 a.m. PST

Certainly Iraqi government could join in to try both getting coastal territory and crushing Iraqi chi'a, who would undoubtedly revolt with Iranian support; but then Iraq would face a full civil war. Syria (official) would support the invasion as it is fighting chi'a in their own land. It is possible that Pakistan sees the conflict as a chance and intervenes to grab Persian gulf coastlands, and even Russia may be tempted to (again) grab northern Iran. The chance to definitively crush the islamic republic is too good to pass out, Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Israel won't object at all… Because Iranian demise could precipitate an end to the Yemenite perennial crisis for example.

It may well be that the US manages an international coalition with muslim states, but certainly it wouldn't be as long as an American president insists on vetoing muslim immigration. An American intervention without muslim states' support could be catastrophic…

McKinstry Fezian05 Feb 2017 9:48 a.m. PST

Syria (official) would support the invasion as it is fighting chi'a in their own land.

The Syrian government/Assad is run by the Alawite Sect which is a Shia off shoot. Hezbollah and Iran are consistent and firm supporters of the Assad regime and Assad would have lost the civil war by now without Iranian aid.

The central Iraqi government is also Shia controlled and while not a full Iranian puppet, certainly much closer to Iran than the US.

Pan Marek Supporting Member of TMP05 Feb 2017 10:10 a.m. PST

Dogged- If your scenario occurs, the US would have started WWIII. Russia would support Iran. China may very well support Pakistan. Will Israel take advantage and formally annex the West Bank?
None of these scenarios bode well for the world.

I would suggest that history supplies us with sufficient horror stories for us to game without thinking up new ones.

Besides, the only way I see anyone gaming this is on a strategic level in a board game.

mwindsorfw05 Feb 2017 10:20 a.m. PST

Hezbollah might start a series of terror attacks against Israel. If Israel responds, the Islamic allies of the U.S. would be under tremendous internal pressure to stop supporting the U.S. Iraq tried this (pretty smart) tactic during the Persian Gulf War by firing Scud misses at Israel. The U.S. supplied Patriot batteries to Israel, and Israel agreed not to take independent action that might disrupt the Coalition. I think there is a question as to whether the current Israeli government would be willing to take a passive role in the face of Hezbollah attacks.

I doubt a U.S. partner in your hypothetical would actively switch sides in the field, but some U.S. partners might immediately withdraw from the field if Israel took an active role against Islamic forces.

jekinder605 Feb 2017 10:25 a.m. PST

As Turkey wouldn't allow US transit rights in 2003, I really doubt that they would allow us now. I recommend two board games for your planning purposes.

"Gulf Strike" was used by officers at CENTCOM to plan the 1991 war with Iraq. You would have to change the OB somewhat for now but it would be fine as a strategic guide. link

"Light Division" is an operational level game of a US invasion at the port of Bandar Abbas. High quality US units versus a mass of Iranians.

kallman05 Feb 2017 12:46 p.m. PST

Agree with jekinder6 that Turkey would not allow US to mobilize forces in Turkey to invade. They did not allow it during the Iraq War and given the current turn towards Russia and moving from a secular government to a more religious one, the US would have to launch the attack from the Gulf. The only way Turkey allows the US deployment is a full commitment by the US to no longer support the Kurds.

Also agree this would be a prelude to WW III given the current dynamics.

Winston Smith05 Feb 2017 12:56 p.m. PST

Considering the size of the current US military and the size of Iran's…
Shouldn't this be crossposted to Fantasy Discussion?

Lookingglassman Supporting Member of TMP05 Feb 2017 1:16 p.m. PST

Thanks for everything. This scenario is set in the future when the US has built up its military and I do plan to have Russia get involved. As a matter of fact the Russians have to Fronts (Army Groups) located in Turkmenistan ready to intervene. It most likely will turn into a World War III scenario once the US invades and Russia responds.

Turkey allows the US to base its forces along the Turkish/Iran border because NATO still exists and after that dirty bomb detonated in Mobile, the Turkish government fears Iran developing nuclear weapons and does not want a nuclear armed Iran right next to them. The fear of Iran leads Turkey to allow the US to invade Iran from their territory.

28mm Fanatik05 Feb 2017 1:29 p.m. PST

The Saudis and the sunni Gulf States would support an invasion. For Turkey to get on board the US will have to smooth things over with Erdogan by backing off supporting the Kurds and hand over Gulen's head on a silver platter for his alleged masterminding of the 2016 coup attempt. Turkey may also demand other concessions before allowing the US to stage an invasion from its territory. In other words it ain't gonna happen.

Sunni Pakistan doesn't care about Iran, but it won't be providing troops or support in a coalition of the willing either.

Russia and China will both oppose an invasion, but if the US is set on the course there's little they can do about it. If the US lifts all sanctions, lets Exxon do deals in Russia and look the other way in regards to Ukraine and the Baltics, Putin might withdraw its opposition.

Israel can't do anything at all as it would be a sure way to unite all muslims, sunni and shia, in a common cause.

An invasion with ground troops would be messy and costly. After Tehran is taken then what? We'll only be facing another insurgency. If we leave before installing a stable government, there's no guarantee that whatever replaces it eventually will be any better.

It's more likely the US will launch a massive punitive strike to decapitate the Iranian leadership without commiting ground troops.

Mako1105 Feb 2017 3:48 p.m. PST

Yea, the Saudis and Egyptians will be on board to help.

Perhaps the Turks, but not sure about them, given their lack of support during the Iraq Wars.

Iraq, as it is now, would be more likely an ally of Iran, and not a foe.

Russia and China may be opposed, but I doubt they'd get involved militarily, directly. Both would certainly provide arms to Iran, unless threatened severely not to.

Jihadis near Israel will be uppity, but can be put down strongly, especially with strong US backing.

Iran's military will fold, just like Iraq's did, and the guerrilla war will be on.

If it happens, Iran's leadership should be decapitated with prejudice, and I agree, we would prefer not to get in a ground war with them.

Pounding by air, and encouraging younger people and students to take back control from the radical religious theocrats would be the best option.

It goes without saying that their nuke and ballistic missile programs need to be destroyed, along with their air force, navy, and Republican Guard units.

Nick Bowler05 Feb 2017 5:06 p.m. PST

Given the current political turmoil, I would suggest a random die roll for countries behavior. Allies may be non-committal. Enemies may seek rapprochement. Or may be even more fanatical.

As an aside, everyone assumes when looking back at WWII that Italy was always going to be an ally of Germany. But for the people at the time, in the years before WWII started, there was a chance that Italy would not become an Axis country. I think you need that sort of chaos / uncertainty / diplomacy.

Lookingglassman Supporting Member of TMP05 Feb 2017 6:11 p.m. PST

This scenario is in the future, not 2017 so I am assuming for this game that governments change and that is why Turkey is allowing the US to use their country as a springboard. In this scenario Iran is trying to make a nuclear weapon and Turkey ain't having it, neither is the US. Europe isn't really involved because they are fearful of Russia on their doorstep and know this invasion might trigger the Russians to act against them.

I'm loosely basing this off of "Sword Point" by Harold Coyle, but unlike the book the Russians and Iranians will be on the same side.

Great ideas from everyone they are a great help. I wanted to actually do an invasion of Iran where US forces would land at Bandar Abbas and move inland from there, but I don't see the US being able to conduct a large amphib operation nowadays like they could do in WWII.

The goal of the US is to do regime change in Tehranand destroy their nuclear capability. I am factoring in an insurgency and also military actions by the Russians so this will be a long war.

Dn Jackson05 Feb 2017 7:36 p.m. PST

I think a lot of people are mistaking today for 1990.

After the 9/11 attacks the US was united, and furious. Filled with a terrible resolve, if you will. Everyone, even Iran stayed out of our way as we entered Afghanistan. The Iranians even provided intel for us. Give the scenario of a dirty bomb in Mobile, I have no doubt that Turkey would not only allow the invasion, they'd assist.

All of NATO would send forces to one extent or another as such an attack would trigger the alliance.

Additionally, the bogey man of united muslims against Israel has been destroyed over the last few years. The support for the Palestinians has always been a top down thing ginned up by governments hostile to Israel to help control their people and divert their attention away from their corruption and incompentance. Jordan is a firm ally against terrorists as is Egypt. Israel has been making strikes and cross border attacks in Syria for years with virtually no consequences.

I think a more likely scenario would include an invasion from the Gulf of Marines, possibly supported by airborne while the attack from Turkey happened.

Mako1105 Feb 2017 8:51 p.m. PST

Yea, but the degree of cooperation is the key.

German's supposedly got ONE "trainer" in Afghanistan, last time I saw a posting on that. Not one unit. A single man.

Yep, why go in through Turkey, when you can go in more directly from beaches you can control and dominate?

Some attacks might occur through Turkey, to keep them off-balance, but the majority would be through landings in Iran.

piper90905 Feb 2017 10:28 p.m. PST

The terrorists could cause much greater havoc and disruption by setting off their explosion in the Houston ship channel -- that would destroy a huge percentage of US gasoline refining and distribution. Not to give anyone ideas or anything. (But it's a danger already discussed by mainstream publications, Texas Monthly magazine, I think, some ten years ago or so.)

After that, yeah, a million laughs.

Martin Rapier06 Feb 2017 12:03 a.m. PST

I suspect there would be monumental logistics problems invading Iran from Eastern Turkey, especially with a hostile Russia on the flank.

Safest route is the invasion route used in WW2, from the south.

The invasion route used in Threads is also from the south, although as that resulted in all out global thermonuclear war, it didn't turn out so well.

Bangorstu06 Feb 2017 2:51 a.m. PST

Given Iran has never attacked the USA, this is of course fantasy…

In the event of provable nuclear terrorism, I think you'd get co-operation form just about everyone and the forces deployed would be so overwhelming as to be unplayable.

Using a more realistic causus belli, which will probably involved the USA being perceived to pick a fight, then you'll have no use of any nATO bases at all, but would get the enthusiastic support of the Gulf States.

Mako – Germany deployed 5,350 people to Afghanistan and suffered 46 fatalities.

Your demeaning of their contribution does you no credit at all.

Given the Americans never seem to notice when we do help, gives us zero credit even when they do one does wonder why the hell we even bother.

A little gratitude might occasionally be in order. We're not peons, nor subject races even if we often get treated as such.

Mako1106 Feb 2017 4:00 a.m. PST

That was the high, but apparently, NATO, which presumably includes Germany, ceased "military ops" in 2014, which I took to mean that they (Germany that we are speaking of) withdrew most of their troops from the country.


Though, if you all have "definitions" like we do of "combat ops", that leaves a lot of leeway for various actions by any personnel remaining in country.

The persecution and inferiority complex is rather unbecoming as well.

Bangorstu06 Feb 2017 6:00 a.m. PST

Everyone pulled out the same time the Americans allegedly did…

ROUWetPatchBehindTheSofa07 Feb 2017 2:21 p.m. PST

Dirty bomb wouldn't make for much of causus belli – likely too few casualities and depending on what gets used nuclear forensics might not be conclusive. For a good dirty bomb you want plenty of dosey fission products something which AFAIK Iran doesn't have. I'd go for Revolutionary Guard naval unit playing chicken with a US naval vessel and it all going horribly wrong with mass casualties, with some follow up tit for tat in the Persian Gulf escalating into a full blown shooting match – though I'd wager it would be a limited objective invasion basically seeking to re-open the Persian Gulf to maritime traffic.

ScoutJock07 Feb 2017 9:48 p.m. PST

One of my previous units had a war plan for this very scenario and I'd like to share it but there are two issues:

- it's probably still classified
- I don't remember much about it

It was over 35 years ago…

Dn Jackson07 Feb 2017 10:43 p.m. PST

"Given Iran has never attacked the USA, this is of course fantasy"

Yes, hence the reason this is on the 'What if' board.

Legion 408 Feb 2017 9:48 a.m. PST

Some very interesting posts. And yes based on the scenario it is very much a What-fi what if, IMO.

I'm working on a scenario where the US invades Iran after Iran gives a dirty bomb to a terrorist organization and they explode it at a port in Mobile, Alabama.

Turkey is sympathetic to the US and still part of NATO so they allow US force to mass along their border with Iran. This route also seems the shortest route to Tehran.

My 2cents … A more likely still improbable scenario. If in fact your goal is to have US and Iran's ground forces go toe2toe ?

IMO, would be the 95% Shia Iranian theocracy decides to assist the 60% Iraqi Shia. And "liberate" them from the US troops in their homeland. The Iranians lead by the IRGC would cross the border and attack the US forces in Iraq.
Note: Iran had and is supporting the Shia militias and even the Shia dominated Iraqi gov't and military. Even during GWII costing the US lead Coalition an number of losses.

Certainly Iraqi government could join in to try both getting coastal territory and crushing Iraqi chi'a, who would undoubtedly revolt with Iranian support;
This would probably not happen with Iraqi being 60% Shia. And supported by the Shia Iranians. They would not be crushing fellow Shia, IMO.

It may well be that the US manages an international coalition with muslim states, but certainly it wouldn't be as long as American Bleeped text insists on vetoing muslim immigration. An American intervention without muslim states' support could be catastrophic…
No … the N. Africa and Mid East "states" in consideration. In most cases have minimally effective gov't control. At best little to none mostly. The are failing or failed states. And in some cases have had border etc. disputes along with tribal, ethnic, cultural, etc. differences, plus in some cases baseline non-secular divisions. I see very little chance of many states in that region presenting a unified front. Against the US or West.

As for Iran, it has an adversarial relationship with the US. And has been for a long time. Regardless of the reasons. And many previous and current intel & military personnel had made clear. Iran is a US adversary. Some saying in a de facto state of war since with the US since '83. And I agree.

Regardless, the differences between those states in the region makes it almost impossible for them to unify against the US/West.

The US's strongest Allies next to the Israelis is the Egyptian and Jordanian Gov'ts. The Turks, a member of NATO, is becoming less secular all the time.

The Saudis play both sides of the coin. And IMO. Unless there are MAJOR geopolitical changes across the world especially in that region. The scenario is very much hypothetical. But it is your game, you can play it any way you want. It is only a game.

And IMO, in any event. The US [& it's allies ?] would have no reason to invade Iran for any reason. Besides being larger than say Iraq territorially. There is nothing there for the US ground forces to take and hold. The only thing the US has to do is destroy Iran's military and some C3/governmental locations. To remove them from being a threat. To anyone …

Everything could be done by US air and naval assets. Including Cruise missiles, drones and airstrikes. Rendering the Iranian naval and air forces useless. And this could be done by only using conventional ordinance.

Taking out coastal anti-air and anti-ship batteries. Then clear any Iranian anti-air assets inland[SEADS] along or near US[allies ?] flight routes of ingress and egress. To eliminated any missiles, nuclear, etc., targets that could threaten any US allies in the range and in the region. Or even the US coast if the Iranian missile tech is advanced enough.

I'm pretty sure even with all the Iranian continuous ongoing rhetoric. Much of which is for local consumption. They know they would lose any conflict with the US.
And that conflict would resemble a 7-10 day raid. Not a long war.

Legion 410 Feb 2017 8:06 a.m. PST

Mako … got your PM … but I'm not a supporting member anymore. So cannot reply. Contact Me on TMP Talk on this thread : L4 to Wolfhag … TMP link I'm with ya Bro !!!! Got your 6 ! thumbs up

Murvihill16 Feb 2017 12:52 p.m. PST

If you upgrade the dirty bomb to a true nuke you'd probably get a more interesting reaction worldwide. Some countries would be so shocked at the use of nukes they'd help the US, some would deny the evidence, claim the US is railroading and help Iran, but several nations would be afraid of it happening to them and join in for self-preservation. I could see Turkey doing it, especially if the Iranians started talking about creating a semi-autonomous Kurdish state (obvious effort to curry favor), Pakistan may but they have their own nukes, maybe some of the smaller Arab states. I'd feel awful bad about Mobile though, nice place.

Gulik2329 Mar 2017 10:10 a.m. PST

When I was in Afghanistan in '04 and we thought victory was at hand in both Afghanistan and Iraq, US forces were "feeling out" creating a larger US military presence in the western part of the country, closer to the Iranian border. (We sent expeditionary missions to Kandahar to test the feasibility of creating a larger base of operations there for the IAF.) I was told that our pilots (A-10s) at the time were also practicing ground support and other mission scenarios that sounded an awful lot like preparation for invading Iran. So maybe of you set your scenario in the mid aughts you could have the US and NATO come in from the east as well.

darthfozzywig Supporting Member of TMP03 Apr 2017 10:08 a.m. PST

it is fighting chi'a in their own land



Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.