Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

American Invasion of Iran


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1
Teal

Teal

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

I'm not creative otherwise there would be a story here



#2
Teal

Teal

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

President Trump decides to invade Iran for some dumb reason. All american ground forces enter thru shatt-al-arab and the khuzestan province. Iran is unprepared because they didnt think the president would ever be so low inhibition that he would invade their country. Almost all countries condemn the situation. Stock market falls due to uncertainty in america's new war and its president. American never gets passed region 4 of Iran in invasion but iran gives up anyways because a large portion of their resources are lost in this war. Iran gives in and completely dismantles its government and becomes westernish. America greatest ally is now iran while the rest of the world (except israel and canada) hates it.

 

Most countries now look to China for trade rather than the US. Russia expands and takes control of Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova. The baltic states unite in some type of union after the Fall of NATO due to president's trump idiotic invasion. America is vilified and many countries side more with Russia or China now. 


  • Yuli Ban likes this

#3
RoseTylerFan

RoseTylerFan

    Member

  • Validating
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts

China and Russia are allies of Iran, so America invading Iran would start a global nuclear war. This is all we need to know.

 

I backed Bush when he toppled Saddam and the Taliban because these were isolated rogue states. But for the mullahs of Iran, Putin and Xi a subtler approach is needed. Perhaps the West should support local democrats the way we supported Polish democrats back in the 1980s. To make the tyrannies collapse from within.



#4
funkervogt

funkervogt

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 631 posts

China and Russia are allies of Iran, so America invading Iran would start a global nuclear war. This is all we need to know.

China and Russia wouldn't be willing to see their cities turned into smoking craters over Iran, so there wouldn't be a nuclear war. However, China and Russia would still do an enormous amount to help Iran while undermining the American war effort. They would give Iran large numbers of weapons and would probably use their own militaries to distract U.S. attention and threaten any American allies that might be supporting the war. In particular, Russia could renew fighting in Ukraine and threaten the Baltic states.

 

The U.S. would find the Iran War to be harder than the Iraq War. Consider that Iran has three times the population and three times the land area as Iraq, and is more mountainous. 

 

The anti-war movement would be stronger in the U.S. than it was in 2002-2003. 


  • Yuli Ban likes this

#5
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,316 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

Thread moved for better discussion.
_______________
 
 
The non-accelerationist side of me greatly fears the prospect of an Iran-US War. And I can give you several reasons why.
 
I said in the status update that a war with Iran is not like one with Iraq or Afghanistan or Vietnam. It'll be worse than all three combined. I can easily see an Iran-US War leading to at least 100,000 US deaths and ten times as many non-fatal casualties if it lasts longer than a few months— which it certainly will. 
There are many reasons, as aforementioned, and here they are:
 
Reason One
Iran literally isn't Iraq. The geography of the country is wholly different, filled with the one thing that has always been the bane of invading armies: mountains. When we invaded Iraq, we moved in through the Persian Gulf and Kuwait and drove to Baghdad. Southern Iraq is basically a table, a vast plain of grassy fields and sandy stretches with virtually no change in elevation besides palm trees. It's the softest underbelly imaginable for a military considering it's the only part of the entire country connected directly to a highly strategic gulf that extends into the Indian ocean.
Iran, however, is nothing but raw mountain with very few plains and one big plateau.
800px-Iran_topo_en.jpg
 
This is why the Persian Empire was so mighty— no one could really stop them without fucking about in mountains until Alexander pulled it off. 
A war with Iran would devolve into mountain hopping. 
 
Reason Two
 
Iran has been preparing precisely for this. When the US attacked Iraq in 1991, we took Saddam's forces entirely by surprise. When we left, Iraq fell off our radar for a decade. Then we suddenly struck in 2003 when our attention was supposed to be on Afghanistan. Meanwhile, we had been antagonizing Iran for half a century by that point, with a coup in the 1950s and actively fighting them during the Iraq-Iran War. Iran has been preparing for us. 

Saddam Hussein’s army ― although one of the strongest in the Middle East in terms of size ― was no match for the U.S. military. Within three weeks, the Iraqi army had been completely defeated. In fact, the overwhelming majority (roughly 90 percent) of American deaths in Iraq did not come as a result of the initial invasion ― they came during the ensuing occupation.

Saddam’s military was so easily crushed partly because the Iraqi dictator had put all of his eggs in one basket: A conventional military. In a direct force-on-force confrontation with the U.S., no conventional military in the Middle East stands a chance.


That’s precisely why the Iranians have prepared a completely different strategy.


The Iranians know very well that the American public has little tolerance for war casualties. Thus, their defense strategy has been primarily aimed at deterring an attack by preparing attrition warfare that raises America’s risks and costs. Instead of focusing on reducing Iran’s own costs, the goal would be to cause as many U.S. casualties as early and as quickly as possible in order to strike a massive psychological blow to America’s willingness to continue the fight. The strategy is not focused on directly defeating the U.S., but rather to make the cost of victory politically non-viable for America.
 

In 2002, the Pentagon spent $250 million on a classified U.S. war game called Millennium Challenge. The game envisioned the U.S. Navy facing a coordinated Iranian assault in the Persian Gulf using swarming boats and missiles. The results were so devastating the exercise was suspended and the parameters controversially changed to ensure a U.S. victory: The Iranians sank a total of 16 American ships ― including an aircraft carrier.


Moreover, since Iranians cannot match Saudi Arabia and UAE’s vast military expenditures on high-tech Western (mainly American) weaponry, including a strong air force, they have strategically focused on missile capabilities. This partly explains why Tehren’s military expenditures are dwarfed by those of its rivals: The U.S. spends roughly 49 times as much on arms compared to Iran, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Saudi Arabia outspends Iran by a factor of five, and even tiny UAE spends roughly twice as much as Iran on defense.


Instead, Iran is estimated to have the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East. Iran’s easily camouflaged missiles are well positioned to target both ports and airfields around the region, likely frustrating any American military build-up in preparation for an assault. Ballistic missiles also enable Tehran to uphold its defense motto that the region is either safe for all or for no one.
“Iran will never start any war,” then-IRGC commander Mohsen Rezaei said in 1997, but if the U.S. attacked first “we will turn the region into a slaughterhouse for them. There is no greater place than the Persian Gulf to destroy America’s might.”

But Iran’s defense strategy is not limited to slaughter in a military sense. By temporarily closing the Strait of Hormuz ― a strategic maritime choke point through which roughly 30 percent of the world’s oil supply passes ― Tehran could inflict massive damage to the world economy, causing oil prices to skyrocket and likely compelling other great powers to intervene to put an end to the war. Indeed, even a brief closure of the strait would create enough ambiguity and uncertainty to “drive up shipping insurance and other costs to astronomical heights,” a senior European diplomat told the Christian Science Monitor in 2012.


Iran’s asymmetric strategy likely also has a cyber component. Iran is already considered to have one of the world’s most sophisticated cyber armies and it has already shown its readiness to strike the U.S. in response to American cyberattacks (the U.S. and Israel famously engaged in very sophisticated cybersabotage of Iran’s nuclear program.)

Source: https://www.huffingt...4b055e50acc2e82

 

Reason Three

Iran is competent. Iraq wasn't.

Iraq bungled the Iraq-Iran War, nearly disintegrated during the Persian Gulf War, actually disintegrated during the Iraq War, and threw down its weapons and ran during the ISIS Blitzkrieg. This despite supposedly having one of the finest militaries in the world. The only one I can truly buy is the Persian Gulf War— the coalition that erupted across Iraq for that was unstoppable, and I can imagine that the Iraqi army was not intending on facing the USA head on. But they should have won the Iraq-Iran War. There should have been more of a fight in the Iraq War, before the insurgency filled in the gaps. And the entire military gave up when the ISIS horde started moving. 

Iran's last big war was the Iraq-Iran War, but they actually seemed impressive.

 

Blindweaponsfumbler
There’s literally a comparison. Iraq and Iran thought each other to a stalemate. https://en.wikipedia...i/Iran–Iraq_War
 
They are on par.

 

 

Yuli-Ban
They are most definitely not on par. If anything, reading more about the Iraq-Iran War made me realize just how stupidly badly a war with Iran would actually go.
 
Iran was coming directly out of a tumultuous revolution and was disorganized and scattered amongst itself while also being all alone. Oh, it had the support of North Korea and Libya. Don't they know it's Christmastime. There was the Iran-Contra Affair, which proved inconsequential.
 
Meanwhile, Iraq had the support of the United States and even the USSR. I want you to think about that for a moment. Iraq was able to get support from both the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the 1980s. It's like getting fundamentalist Christians and militant atheists to unite for your cause. It had a modern military (for its time) and weapons of mass destruction (ironically). It also had dozens of billions of dollars all but given to it to accomplish its goals.
 
Despite all that, Iraq got its ass kicked until right near the very end of the war. Iran was literally on the offensive for most of the war, but it wasn't looking to take over Iraq since it was just trying to defend itself and perhaps spread its shitty fundamentalist ideology in the process.
 
So let's recap.
 
While completely internally disorganized, Iran almost singlehandedly fought off an international coalition in the '80s, even maintaining being on the winning side for most of the war despite Iraq being much better armed and funded and even with the US military getting directly involved at times. The best Iraq could ever do was reach a stalemate, and even that was difficult to do.

 

 

In other words, a war with Iran would be an actual fight. We're not ready for a fight. We've grown far too used to bombing insurgent farmers for the past 50 years. Iraq lulled us by not putting up a damn fight two times in a row, instead surrendering en masse. 

 

Reason Four

 

Iran is a close ally of Russia and China. Right now, Russia is retreating. They're slashing military funding and focusing more on just trying to function as a country. They can't fight a war themselves. But they can definitely sell their guns to someone who needs them. Iran is part of the Eurasian Alliance, and historically Iran and Russia have been close. Same deal with China. China needs some event to prove that they're ready for their superpower debut and their military desperately needs some battlefield experience. What better place and time than a great routing of America in Iran? 

 

Reason Five

 

We don't want to fight another war. We went into Iraq because Iraq invaded Kuwait. Literally the entire world condemned Iraq for this, so it was a war that many felt was justified. We went into Afghanistan as revenge for 9/11, and again, we felt this was justified. When we tried our luck with Iraq again, that's when there was an extraordinary pushback across the entire planet, the largest anti-war protests in history. There was no reason to go into Iraq. But we were too whipped up into hysterics as a result of 9/11 so our rationality was shot. The right-wing especially had a field day calling anyone and everyone against the war "un-American". But it seemed we had at least accomplished our goals right up until it became blatantly obvious we were getting ground up for no reason and it became clear we went into the country to find non-existent WMDs. So we made up some bullshit about spreading freedom and democracy that no one bought. Then began another decade of endless war, further wearing us down. We're more war-weary now than we were after Vietnam. We wasted trillions of dollars on literally nothing at all. We made the world much less safe and are roleplaying as Rome. 

And now we're thinking about going into Iran? For what reason?

Iran is an industrialized nation with a modern economy that has a conservative government and isn't committing any atrocities besides not liking America. Oh, the supreme leader doesn't like Jews! The inhumanity, while our leaders are calling Muslims "invaders" and actively bombing them while also acting surprised that said Muslims are running to wealthier countries for shelter as if they're doing it on purpose! Are we going to make up some bullshit about WMDs again? We're tired! We want to bring our men and women home. 

 

If we go to war with Iran, we're going to face the fire we've been fortunate to avoid. 

 

 

And that isn't even the worst-case scenario. Worst-case scenario is that Iran calls upon Russia and China for military assistance and they grant it. For whatever reason, we keep thinking that nations won't risk total global annihilation for someone else's sake, despite the fact that the US and the USSR nearly destroyed the world over Cuba and then again in 1983 over war games.


  • Alislaws and rennerpetey like this

And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#6
Teal

Teal

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Ok i was wrong then. 


  • Alislaws likes this

#7
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,852 posts
  • LocationLondon

Ok i was wrong then. 

 

Yeah, Wow, no arguing with that monster post from me, (​even though I love arguing!)

 

 

Thanks to your thread, I now know a lot more about the military readiness of Iran, so that's good!



#8
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,316 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

A year later and it seems we're about to see if my assessment was right 


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#9
funkervogt

funkervogt

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 631 posts

I doubt the U.S. will invade Iran. 


  • Maximus likes this

#10
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,316 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

^ You're more optimistic than I am.

 

U.S. military says it's on "high level of alert" with Iran, contradicting its own coalition

 

Undermining Trump-Bolton War Narrative, British General Says No Evidence of 'Increased Threat' From Iran. "Intelligence and military officials in Europe as well as in the United States said that over the past year, most aggressive moves have originated not in Tehran, but in Washington."

 

The U.S. State Department ordered the departure of “non-emergency government employees” from Iraq


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#11
funkervogt

funkervogt

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 631 posts

Didn't stuff like that happen before with North Korea? Was there a war?

 

https://en.wikipedia...th_Korea_crisis



#12
Outlook

Outlook

    Arab Muslim

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,025 posts
  • LocationBarbary Lands

I'd still see more of a threat with this Iran conflict though. The US is the one actively barking, unlike with North Korea where there's more of an exchange of empty threats for each other's propaganda machine.

 

From a strategic intelligent stand-point though, the US wouldn't attack Iran. I don't doubt the US army would crush Iran's military; but by this time America surely must know the cost of insurgencies and proxy wars.


Outlook's secret song of the ~week: https://youtu.be/6S20mJvr4vs


#13
SkittleBlu

SkittleBlu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 199 posts
  • LocationQuebec, Canada
The primary focus of the US in the Middle East has shifted to containing Iran. That doesn’t necessarily mean the use of military force. The US has been squeezing the Iranian economy through sanctions, and trying to form an anti-Iranian bloc. It has also threatened to invade without actually doing so.
 
This is all part of a much broader shift in American strategy. Rather than using direct military force, the US is learning to use its enormous economic might, combined with its support of native powers with similar interests, to contain its adversaries.
 
The US is deeply engaged in all corners of the globe, being the only truly global power. And although it can deploy forces in numerous regions simultaneously, doing so runs the risk of spreading its military power too thin. The US may be the most powerful country in the world, but that doesn’t mean it has no limits. So the US is learning to manage its global power more efficiently by using its military forces sparingly, and relying instead on using more indirect methods.
 
This is what all great empires learn to do. The Romans did it, the British did it, and now the Americans are too. The British didn’t establish its rule over India by going to war with it, they realized that they’d be vastly outnumbered and too far away from home so they supported different factions against each other. The US has fought in numerous wars  since World War II. None of them presented an extraordinary threat to the survival of the American regime, yet the US was defeated in most of them. Most of the wars the US has engaged in have been in Eurasia. Transporting a military force overseas limits its size, so the US has always been outnumbered by the enemy. Not to mention, the enemy has always been on the defensive, with better knowledge of the local terrain. 
 
As a relatively young empire, the US is still new to this strategy. Yet we are already starting to see it being applied to numerous areas of the world, not just with Iran. In Venezuela, the US has threatened military action without actually doing so. Instead, it has supported the Venezuelan opposition, applied sanctions, and put pressure on the Cubans that have been helping to prop up the Maduro government. In North Korea, the US has threatened to go to war but has instead used sanctions and diplomacy to try to limit its nuclear program. In China, the US has used economic warfare to bring the Chinese Communist Party to its knees. It has also forged an alliance between such powers as India, Japan, the Philippines and Australia to contain China in the western Pacific. In Russia, the US has used sanctions to target its economy and has created a buffer zone from the Baltic to the Black Seas to limit Russian expansion into Western Europe. Since none of these countries present an existential threat to the US, it can afford to experiment, to see what works and what doesn’t.
 
So this is the context in which recent US tensions with Iran should be viewed in.    


#14
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    2020's the decade of our reckoning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,888 posts
  • LocationGeorgia

I don't think Iran is stupid enough to do anything which would give the United States an ounce of room to claim legitimacy for war, and on the part of the United States I think the debacle that was the invasion of Iraq is still too fresh on the minds of many for an invasion of Iran to have any real impetus from congress or otherwise. Of course considering the executive overreach that has marred the recent history of our country it can't be discounted entirely- especially not with the current dunce in chief. 


  • Yuli Ban, Outlook and Erowind like this

The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth. 


#15
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,852 posts
  • LocationLondon

I don't think Iran is stupid enough to do anything which would give the United States an ounce of room to claim legitimacy for war, and on the part of the United States I think the debacle that was the invasion of Iraq is still too fresh on the minds of many for an invasion of Iran to have any real impetus from congress or otherwise. Of course considering the executive overreach that has marred the recent history of our country it can't be discounted entirely- especially not with the current dunce in chief. 

As far as I know the Iranian Govt were minding their own business (Just quietly oppressing their people while selling off the nations oil&Gas wealth) following the treaty they signed with the USA and its allies, when suddenly the USA ripped the treaty up, put all the sanctions back on, is trying to force other nations to also stop trading with them and is now apparently laying the groundwork to justify an attack/intervention of some kind. 

 

​And now either they have been sabotaging ships, or America is framing them for sabotaging ships.

 

It doesn't seem to me that there is much Iran can do except capitulate completely, or prepare for war.  Of course it seems likely (based on what I have learned from Yuli about how horrible a military disaster an Iran invasion would be) Trump is just preparing to play hardball in negotiations in an "I can get a better deal than Obama if I hold a gun to their head" sort of thing.

 

Would be a massive one-up if he could get a new agreement that was indisputably better for the USA than the old agreement. A perfect justification of his more confrontational foreign policy and proof that he is better than Obama. 

 

But its also possible that an Iranian Govt could not survive capitulating to the USA so it could all blow up anyway. (it could really blow up if they have carried on developing nukes, or if they get on it quick enough now)


  • Yuli Ban likes this

#16
Erowind

Erowind

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 935 posts
Iran's a weird one. Because on one hand the Iranian government is oppressive, but it also has some good social programs like universal basic income. It's also hard for me to call out the Iranian government for being undemocratic and oppressive when my own government isn't democratic and has a higher incarnation rate than Stalinist Russia. I can critique them both sure, but the Iranian and American governments are both poision in their own ways. There's no illusion here that America is free and Iran is not. America and Iran both express their oppression in different ways is all. Although America does offer some relative social freedoms like queer openness while trying to feign liberty.
  • Alislaws likes this

Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users