What would happen if the US went to war with Iran?

The big question is how would the US fight Iran and what would happen. The people is with most of the threads regarding Iran is that they often get sidetracked and off topic. lets not decuss how a war with Iran would go stirctly from a military point.... No comments about if we need to go to war with Iran or not. Lets decuss what would happen and what would be the best route to go if a full scale war came...

Here are my thoughts on this subject...

Iran is a bigger country than Iraq and Afghanistan put together. They have alot more people as well and what is more - their military is much more effective than the two above...

Their population: 71,208,000 this is more than Afghanistan and Iraq together. Iran is a very interesting country it is far from a 3rd world dump covered by a endless range of desert and/or mountains. As has been pointed out before there is also a great distance between any assaulting force from the sea. Iran has many different types of terrain and climates to it unlike most Middle Eastern countries. Iran has many different types of environments and climates based on region. This isn’t a single environment/climate conflict like most throughout our history. This will be one of few wars we have been involved in that have multiple climates and environments and we should plan according to each and everyone of them.

Iran is probably going to be a tough shell to crack. They have a fanatical para-military group called the Pasdaran (it means "Guards" in Persian) or IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps) these are the same freaks that took over that US embassy more than 2 decades ago, they number something like 125,000 of active duty troops and control the Iranian the Quds Force (which help build and fight alongside various islamic movements) not to mention the Basji. they launched human wave attacks against Saddam in the Iraq/Iran war. they there fanatical beliefs are their greatest strength and this unconditional devotion is what makes them so dangerous, expect fighting to the last man to be a common thing. They themselves are a self contained force with its own armor, artillery, aircraft, and even a few naval forces. Their regular army has over 350,000 men. We would face a number of insurgents much larger than that of Iraq. For this invasion we would need something like 400,000 troops or maybe even 500,000. We could not gain this number without a draft. Manpower is the only real shortcoming of the United States Military these days, if we get rid of that it would be perfect. The shortest route to launch a invasion into Iran in a effort to capture Tehran is the town of Abadan, or Khorramshahr near the Iraqi border both of which were the scene of heavy fighting during the Iraq/Iran War . That road is over 650 km to Tehran. You also have to pass through Ahvaz (3.7 million regional pop), Khorram abad (1.5 million regional pop), Arak (1.2 million regional pop), and Qom (850,000 regional pop) to reach Tehran. In this area alone we have a massive population to deal with we could end up facing 100,000 insurgents in this area alone. The Iranian soldiers on the other hand are better equiped and (probably) much better trained than their Iraqi counterparts they look like they could put a hurtin' on our boys and girls. They have the terrian advantage and could have some nasty ambushes among other things for any invasion force. and and last but not least Basji militia is said to have more than 11,000,000 troops under its command (!!!!!!) although they are poorly trained their numbers alone could make them a major problem... I would not be so quick to look them over because of their lack of training and modern equipment. Remember Saddam's Fedayeen? Coalition commanders did not take them seriously and they fought harder than the Iraqi Army or even the Republican guard and in most cases stood their ground when the other two gave up and surrendered. Even without weapons they could be a problem because of its shear size. We could find soldiers and marines running out of ammo because of the size of enemy force (having more men than you do bullets in other words). This is what happened to the Iraqis when they invaded Iran. Our guys could overcome this by running over the enemy with their vehicles. Iranian troops unlike the Iraqis use a German rifle - the G3 rather than the AK-47 and their MBT's look fairly modern. The G3 fires the 7.62mm NATO round and is pretty accurate, depending on the marksmanship levels of the Iranian soldiers that are using them they could be a complete joke or a worthy enemy. The Iranians probably would not be getting much artillery support due to fact it would be for the most part destroyed by air attacks. To get a good look at what fighting them will be like it is best to look at the tactics and methods deployed by Hezbollah in the 2006 Lebanon conflict. As that war showed us Hezbollah is much more effective as a military institution than any of us could thought. These are not the same clueless conscripts that were randomly thrown together to form divisions in the Iraqi Army... No these are professional soldiers who know what they are doing. They are well armed with most weapons of German or of course Soviet origin along with a few Iranian and even US made weaponry.

I would expect somewhere around 5,000 KIA and 15,000 WIA during the invasion. I sum it up with the fact that we will win but the Iranians are 100x tougher than the Iraqis in 1991. The Iranians have access to a lot of western small arms such as the G3 and MP5. This is gonna be a new one for our guys who are used to fighting enemies shooting weapons from the old USSR at them. These weapons as most are aware make a much different sound than their Soviet counterparts we could see some "friendly-fire". I am not saying the Iranians don't have a shitload of soviet gear (they without doubt do) but we can't look over the fact that these guys also have western small arms and this could be confusing. They also have the fast firing MG3 which is basically a MG42 that fires a 7.62 NATO round, this thing spits out 1200 rounds a minute. It could prove to be a nasty surprise (ask WWII vets about MG42s.... they will tell you!) for our boys and girls on the ground. The armored vehicles of Iran are another problem… The Zulfiqar (tank) is a new design that no one knows much about. But we should assume it measures up to the standards of the NATO tanks (M1A2 Abrams/Challenger 2/Merkava 4). It wouldn’t surprise me if it did seeing as how Iranians have access to German designs so I wouldn’t be shocked if it had capabilities similar to the Leopard 2. The rest of the designs are obsolete models like the Soviet T-72, T-62 and T-55/T-54 along with the Patton series… All of which have proven to not be up to the task of dealing with the third generation MBTs a NATO force will be fielding. However even these hopelessly outclassed designs could prove deadly if used correctly. If these MBTs were deployed into the cities and hidden in caves in the more mountainous regions of the country they could inflict a serious amount of KIAs and WIAs on a invading force. Provided of course they are not stupid enough to send them out into open flat country like Saddam was, in which case the A-10s and apache helicopters will have a field day. The mountains of Iran are another issue, the Iranians probably have a number of underground tunnel systems within the mountains much like in Tora Bora.

In the air they have a number of F-4s and a few F-14s and of course a couple MIGs. Now the F-14 is a still a reasonably good aircraft it would most certainly do a number on ground forces if it somehow go past the air cover the MIG-29 is also another nasty one but nothing we can’t deal with and the F-4 is hopelessly outdated and doesn’t stand a chance against the F-18s and F-22s to the USN and USAF are gonna be flying. The F-16s of the USAF and IAF (provided Israel decides to join us) should also be able to hold their own the superior training of the pilots of both Air Forces over the Iranian ones should be enough to take them out however the F-14 carries Air to Air missiles that can destroy the F-16 from well beyond the F-16s range as such we must take great care not to take the Iranian air power too lightly. The Eurofighter Typhoon of our European friends should also be able to hold its own against Iranian air craft. Regardless the Iranians unlike the Iraqis have a AF that could hurt us. Fighter escort would be need to protect the B-52s and AC-130s from incoming bandits. The Wild Weasel flyboys would be taking out a lot of SAMs. Delta Force and the SAS would also be sent in to call in air strikes and in some cases take out the SAMs with AT or C4. And if all else fails (which is about as likely as getting hit by lightning) that is when the B-2 Spirit comes into play, this stealth heavy bomber was designed to slip in and out of the most dense AA defenses and drop a heavy load of bombs onto their targets. Unlike the B-1 Lancer or B-52 the B-2 would probably require little or no fighter escort (in fact it would probably be better off without it) because of its onboard stealth devices. The Iranians also will deploy a large number of F-4s and F-5, although these aircraft are outdated by modern NATO standards they may still have a little bit of fight in them. They are armed with Air to Air missiles that are in use on current NATO aircraft. The F-4/F-5 is used in the same way in the IAF (Iranian Air Force) as F-16s are in the USAF. Aircraft for the run of the mill fighter pilot, the more skilled and experienced pilots will probably be flying the MiG-29s and F-14s with the rest piloting F-4s and F-5s. The F-4/F-5 these days largely serve as the poor mans F-16. They are obsolete in the world of first rate militaries like the US/UK/Israel etc and I don’t think they should give us much trouble. However we should as always be prepared for any nasty surprises they give us. The MiG-29 needs to be taken seriously and the F-14 even more so. However save for a few advanced fighters like the MiG-29 and F-14 I am not under the impression that there is that much to fear. They will probably try to avoid dogfights as much as possible so that their for the most part obsolete and/or badly mentained aircraft don’t end up getting mauled. Attacking ground units and naval vessels out in the gulf is probably what they will try. We could lose a number of aircraft but it probably won’t be enough to mess with our operations that much.

As has been pointed out Tehran has 11 million people living there. This is nearly two times greater than Baghdad! And the distance is also much greater from the sea than from than from Kuwait to Baghdad. However this is a far cry from what happened to the German 6th Army at Stalingrad like people keep talking about. There are is nothing that could break apart the flow of supplies across Iran completely like the Soviets did at Stalingrad. We can always use helicopters and cargo planes to bring in fresh supplies in the event it got this bad. The fanatics will go up into the mountains of western Iran and hide there and will have to be flushed out using spec ops and other specialized units. Iran's cities have tall buildings which could be used to as sniper posts for any insurgent or soldier and could do some damage to our guys below. I would count on battles for various cities to be about as bloody as Fallujah and the big one - Tehran could be quite a blood bath which could have anywhere from 500 to 1,000 killed and wounded. Again if the Iranians deployed MBTs and IFVs into the cities they could prove very dangerous weapons against our troops taking the city. Some Iranian cities have many high rise buildings unlike Iraq. These buildings could be used by snipers, machine gunners and AT (Anti Tank) crews to get the drop on our troops. It would probably be best to take these buildings out. However we should really be careful when we bomb the cities. We could end up making the same mistake the Germans made at Stalingrad and make the city more easy to defend by creating piles of rubble for the enemy to conceal and take cover at not to mention make advances forward by our guys and girls more difficult. Clearing out these buildings could prove to be long and bloody. Going into the various cities and towns of Iraq will probably be a very bloody affair indeed. We would probably be best served to move like lighting into the cities and capture or destroy arms cashes before any future insurgents can get to them. Going into the cities with MBTs and IFVs along with infantry to support them along with helicopter gunships flying overhead is probably the best way to go, as I said before artillery and air strikes should be used but NOT overused. If level who cities and create ruins we will have left the Iranians with more cover and concealment than before and make maps of the town less accurate due to the destruction, not to mention the ruble would block the paths of advancing vehicles. Bombing the cities into oblivion would create road blocks and further piles which could be turned into improvised fortifications within a matter of minutes. The Iranians could try flooding the cities with sewage and water thus creating mud and we could end up finding whole armored columns getting stuck in the mud. It has happened in Iraq and may happen again if the Iranians have learned anything from watching the actions of the US in Iraq. We made the mistake in Iraq of leaving massive amounts of weapons and ammo unattended. These weapons ended up in the hands of insurgents which led to great problems for our troops later on. I say we take the time to capture or destroy these armories so they don’t come back to haunt us. On the fastest way to Tehran we could find ourselves fighting between 100,000 to 150,000 insurgents, although they are the same type of insurgents we have been fighting in Iraq this is far more in this single area than we have been facing in ALL of Iraq put together. It is best make sure they don’t get a hold of these weapons and cause problems. That is the last thing we need is hundreds of thousands of insurgents attacking our supply convoys. We could use Airborne and Air Assault units from the 101st and 82nd Airborne divisions to provide mobile reaction force to any sudden and massive attacks launched behind the front lines. Airborne/Air Assault troops are good for this kinda warfare. The US/British/Israeli fighting man is a highly skilled and enduring war fighter, however even the best of our nations forces can be overwhelmed by sheer numbers and fire power. We must be prepared to respond quickly and decisively to any large scale assault that occurs behind our lines Airborne/Air Assault troops, attack helicopters, A-10s, artillery and cruise missiles ready and if things get really bad…. AC-130s for some heavy duty fire support. If we ain’t ready to launch a swift and decisive response to any mass attack… our boys driving the supply convoys will probably get overrun in a battle where the enemy had more men than they did bullets…we could find ourselves getting a few “broken arrow” calls before the invasion is over and doing some CSAR after the invasion.

The Iranians also have a Navy. Although it is not nearly as powerful as the USN by a long shot they could do some damage. We might very well lose a frigate or possibly a destroyer or two. But the 5th Fleet with remain largely undamaged and be able to complete support the land forces with its massive firepower. Many people keep talking about Iran being able to send one of the USNs supercarriers to the bottom of the sea, pure BS IMO. There is no way all those little missile boats they have are gonna get through the massive amount of ships and aircraft that are going be pouring munitions their way the Mark 45 5 inch guns of the Arleigh Burke class destroyers none of these fast attack boats will be able to withstand so much as a single hit from these 127mm artillery pieces. Those submarines they have are pretty old and outdated they make a lot of noise so it probably won't be long before they are spotted and dealt with, if they get lucky they may end up sinking a frigate or destroyer. The Iranians would also be able to plan there attack with UAVs (the Iranians have spied on us in the past without being detected. Although it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY a Iranian aircraft could get through the AA defense systems and kamikaze into a supercarrier, if a jet managed to crash into the ordnance storage deck…. The explosion and resulting fire would be massive, the aircraft with munitions and fuel in them would also be a another bad place to get hit but in any case USN damage control proved its skill in the second world war but I don’t think even a supercarrier could survive something like that, the supercarrier may end up like the USS Franklin and be saved by damage control but it would still be put outta action for a while plus you would have a lot of dead Navy and Marine Corps personal. But as I said this is very unlikely that Iran would be able to get through the screen of fighters and AA fire. We will probably need the fire support of our mighty Iowa-class battleships and their impressive 16 inch guns we don’t have time to build new BBs so we will have to reactivate the Iowas for one last hurrah. Those 16 inch main batteries will come in plenty useful for a shore bombardment of enemy coastal defenses I am sure the soldiers and marines will truly like having those big 16 inchers firing salvos to cover them, it would probably give the Iranians another target besides the supercarriers. The SS-N-22 Sunburn missile sights will have to be dealt with to insure the security of our naval forces. Send Navy SEALs and USMC Force Recon to take out the enemy sunburn missile sights before they do any damage. The Iranians will probably take a few crackers at the 5th Fleet in a attempt to sink a battleship or supercarrier. It may take a while to get those Iowas ready but they will prove their worth when they are. That 16 inch naval artillery will put some nice big holes into the ground and destroy any enemy they come into contact with. It would take a lot of money to bring the Iowas back into play but they will prove their worth there is nothing like a salvo from those 16 inchers, a barrage from those things will do serious damage to any shore defenses they have. Given the fact that both the supercarriers and battleships have very heavy armor they will probably try sinking smaller vessels like the frigates, destroyers and cruisers. However if they insist on going after capital ships they could try the smallest of the lot – the amphibious assault ships or the even smaller Invincible-class (20,700 ton) light aircraft carriers of the Royal Navy. But like I said before it is very unlikely that the IAF will be able to get through the massive amount of AA fire and carrier-based fighters before they could do any damage. They could however make attack runs on landing craft and troops on the beach. Won’t take much to destroy those. Which is why they will need a lot of air cover.

Iran will without doubt send the full force of Hezbollah on our troops in Iraq as well as against the Israelis. Israel has recently pulled out of the Golan Heights and Syria has a defense treaty with Iran and may attack Israel alongside Hezbollah. And as I have said before, Hezbollah is a fairly effective fighting force and could do some damage. They are not mere clowns who wrap white or red cloth around their faces and go out and do spray and prays on our troops with the marksmanship of a Somali gunmen. They have weapons and know how to use them well and have a large bag of tricks to pull on the coalition. The sea in the British sector could become a bit rough because huge Shi'ite population centers such as Barsa are located there. We would probably face some rebellions from the Shia members of the New Iraqi Army and they could screw things up should Iraqi troops be included in any type of offensive operation against Iran. I don't think we would have any kind of problems from Afghan troops or people seeing as how most of them are Sunni anyway. The Quds Force is without doubt aiding both anti-coalition insurgent groups in southern Iraq and Hezbollah, with both the Quds Force and Iranian funding out of the picture we might see some real lighting up of the anti-western activity going on from the Shi’ites it is hard to fight a war when you don’t have the funds (not to mention the support from a spec ops group).

While the convential forces are fighting away. What about the war the spec ops will be fighting? Well the Delta Force and SAS will probably be sent into deal with SAMs as well as assassination of key military and political leaders. The Israeli Sayeret Matkal would probably perform more or less the same role. The Navy SEALs, SBS along with the S13 would secure oil platforms and raid enemy naval bases and harbors. A-Teams (US Army SF or Green Berets) would probably be deployed to Khūzestān, Kurdistan, and into regions likely to have pro-shah populations to rally bigger forces and fight alongside them in battle. The Iranians would probably hit back by ordering the their Qods Force troops to get Hezbollah and Iraqi Shi’ite militias to attack NATO forces in the region and the Iranian regulars will probably launch Takavar (another Iranian SOF unit) behind our lines to conduct raids and spread chaos among our ranks. Last but not least the US Army Rangers would probably be dropped in and used in the traditional “super-infantry” role and would probably be used to provide security while Delta Force goes to work capturing or killing military and political leaders.

Taking a break from the military part of it lets go on to the political aspect. A war with Iran would not go over well with a large number of left-winged people and groups. expect large anti-war rallies in all major cities. A draft would probably create a political nightmare on a massive scale. This is the only reason I could see the US failing is if the wet anti-war pansies get the better of the loyal Americans. I seriously doubt anything in the political landscape of any NATO nation would allow for a invasion of Iran. However if Iran was to start something, there is no doubt the whole western world would be up for finishing the fight decisively and ruthlessly. If Iran should dare use one single WMD against our troops then Iran would quickly join a nuclear club who currently only has one member: Japan. And what of our allies? The UK would be more than likely to follow us, and a number of other powers would join are multi-national task force. And Israel would be more than happy to help us. All we have to do is ask. I also believe Afghan and Iraqi troops would be involved. And I highly doubt China or Russia would stand against us, any idea like this sounds to much like another Tom Clancy novel. And as I have said before if Iran starts anything we will have a massive number of nations backing the US.

I think the best course of action against Iran is for the US to bring back the draft and once we have 500,000 or maybe even 600,000 troops on stand by we invade and bomb the holy **** out of them. In a ideal scenario we would have a Field Army massed on each side of Iran one in Iraq the other in Afghanistan. plus amphibious landing (of a corps sized formation) from the Gulf. Both of these Field Armies would number between 100,000 to 200,000 personal where as the landing force from the sea would number something like 60,000 to 90,000 personal. Once the military phase is over and done with we demolish the weapons labs and capture or kill the scientists working on them. Then we withdraw from Iran and don't stay around to rebuild - let the Iranians sort it out... People keep talking about how a insurgency in Iran would be much harder on our forces than the one in Iraq. This is very true it would be many times worse. However something everyone seems to forget is….

WE DON’T NEED TO OCCUPY IRAN IN THE SAME WAY WE DID IN IRAQ.

Iran is a confirmed supporter of terrorist groups like Hezbollah and others. There is no political or moral obligation to rebuild a known supporter of terrorism. Just invade destroy their military and leadership (both military and political) and blow their nuclear testing labs and burn the designs for them and leave behind no visible backbone for them to rebuild themselves, militarily or otherwise. Use the Full-Spectrum Dominance idea to its fullest it is a real breakthrough in military thought and great military doctrine. It is a doctrine that we must bring to full use in any conflict with Iran. This would be a high-intensity war. Iran should be wrecked and not rebuilt. It would not be highly unlikely that we would be able to do anything in a long term occupation of Iran than waste USD and lives, so it is best to forget about the whole thing, it will save us a shitload of grief, once our mission accomplished there is no reason not to pull out and forget about Iran and let the Iranians fight it out in a nice bloody civil war. al-Qaida, Hezbollah and other Islamic terrorist organizations will duke it out in a Iranian Civil War that is costly for all involved. See at what I am getting at here? Islamic terrorists killing other Islamic terrorists!! It would save us the hassle of having to hunt down and kill them ourselves!!!! So you see people we are way better off going in getting in some target practice and testing out new weapons and then leaving the country in ruin than trying to rebuild it. We would probably have to get the NIA (New Iraqi Army) and ANA (Afghan National Army) to provide border security to keep nutjobs in Iran from getting out and causing problems.

I think we could pull of a invasion of Iran, However I don't think now is the time... We have spent WAY TOO MUCH money on the conflicts currently going on in the GWOT. And if for whatever reason we decide to launch the invasion of Iran.... Things could be very... Ouch...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: TeamAmerica,

Posts: 2400 | Registered: Sat 17 December 2005

Sgt_Schlappy

Posted