"How the War Between America and Iran Will Start" Topic

"Iran is laying trip-wires for a violent, costly escalation. America's response will be determined by a besieged president, an administration led by anti-Iran hawks and a pre-occupied Congress

There are growing signs that there could be escalation at the edge – provocative attacks by pro-Iranian Shia forces operating in the Wild West of Iraq. How will America handle this form of escalation with Iran? …"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Given empirical evidence from previous conflicts, and the huge disparity in military power between the two nations, America will do just fine.

Yep, America will pound the crap out of Iran, but is that the point? A full scale conflict with Iran will of course lay the groundwork for more instability which in turns increases the rise of terror groups such as ISIS. Economic sanctions are the way to go in that part of the world. (in my opinion of course)

Economic sanctions work unless the sanctioned party feels they can can do better with a little high explosives. IIRC, that's how Japan reacted in WW2. And the Japanese were more rational than the mullahs in Tehran.

America will do a very good job of blowing up Iranian stuff then they well be flummoxed when the Shia half of Iraq revolts and starts winning.

What USA should do is if the shooting starts try to just hit Revolutionary guard targets and leave the general populace alone then you might bring on some political change in Iran.
Instead they will probably just enrage the whole population and large parts of the middle east against the US. Most of the people have no say in their government and want to westernise but the clerics will use this to stay in power for another generation (which is basically what they want).
If you really want to attack Iran you would be better to subtly push for women's rights and encourage more immigration internet access and freedom of movement and so attack it from within but that doesn't make good television.

So in summary a war against Iran helps both the current US administration and the Iranian Government keep their people in line.

A war with Iran also helps Russia, since it gets the US (possibly) mired in yet another conflict in the Middle East, & drives oil prices up. Which will be good for Russia's T-14 & carrier ambitions…

Damon.

war against Iran helps both the current US administration…

Give it a rest. War doesn't help the US administration.

Fair point USAFpilot but why are they going down the conflict path if it doesn't help them? Surly it's not just about poll ratings.

Somebody in the US wants this to blow up otherwise they would have kept to the treaty unless there was an obvious and blatant Iranian default.

Moving Carriers just encourages a hothead to try and scratch its paint work wither they try by speedboat, drone or mines. They will fail but it would disrupt a lot of shipping and any response would just help the Revolutionary Guards prestige.
There are plenty US airbases nearby that give total conventional superiority if required.

I don't know how "rational" Japan really was since it was controlled by a near-fascist Military Government indoctrinating the people in a twisted version of Bushido..!?!

Iran wants the US to leave Iraq. The US wants to keep a sizeable presence there indefinitely. The only military response would be to protect the troops there if Iran tries anything rash. Sorry to disappoint all you regime change hawks.

The US routinely moves its carriers throughout the world, including the Persian Gulf. That's what carriers do; nothing new here. The press just likes to hype the routine to fit their narrative; that's what they do, it sells.

+1 USAFpilot

There was no treaty. The US Congress would not approve it (on either side). It was a deal made by the previous President, which is why the new one was able to vacate it.

Thanks.

Our military has no problems thrashing the daylights out of the enemy. It's what comes afterwards that seems to baffle the U.S.

It's what comes afterwards that seems to baffle the U.S.

And that's all on the politicians and diplomats, not the military.

Want to pound any nation into a glass parking lot? Sure, that can be done. Even with Russia, that's a relatively trivial task. Backlash (and return fire!) would be ugly, of course, but it's not hard to do.

Want to build a US ally for later? That's a little trickier, since the CIA managed to choose the local people's least favorite person as the US ally back in the 20thC. We'd need to find someone liked by the people and who likes the US. That may be difficult in some places.

Want to replace the national leadership? OK, now you're getting into major work that no-one in the US seems to know how to do.

Nation-building and "winning the hearts and minds" of the populace have not been America's strong suit since the end of WWII after Germany and Japan.

Might have worked in Iraq, but we turned over the government to the people too quickly there, unlike how we did it after WWII.

That's the difference.

If Iran starts it, there won't be much left of the Iranian Navy or AF after a few days…

Might have worked in Iraq, but we turned over the government to the people too quickly there, unlike how we did it after WWII.

A sucker bet considering the track record in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Also, the American public have shown little tolerance for long open-ended occupations.

WWII was very different, it was total war; we didn't worry about collateral damage. In the end, Germany and Japan were devastated. There was no fight left in them. Ever since then we have fought limited wars, exercising extreme restraint, to our detriment in post conflict stability operations. Fighting wars with kitt gloves on; the enemy is never truly defeated and the general population never accepts their defeat.

True enough USAFpilot,

I would also add that merely defeating a nation by removing the government and installing a compliant one, which worked in West Germany and Japan, did not work in Iraq and Afghanistan. The populace never admitted defeat, and viewed their conquerors as oppressors rather than liberators. Even if their rulers were ruthless dictators like Saddam Hussein.

Another reason why regime change through military force will never work.

In Japan, it also helped that immediately after the war, the US kept Emperor Hirohito in power, instead of demanding he abdicate in favor of his son.

Plus, the US ended up feeding Japan for about a year when they had a massive harvest failure. Using the rations we'd stockpiled for the invasion.

That kinda re-set their attitude towards us.