What are the potential consequences of occupying Iran?

  • News
  • Thread starter WarrenPlatts
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the differences between Iran and Iraq, particularly in terms of military power and potential for occupation. The article referenced proposes a plan for attacking Iran without occupying it, but this plan has been rejected due to concerns about potential counterattacks and lack of planning. Senator McCain has stated that war with Iran is preferable to a nuclear Iran, and the conversation then considers the possibility of occupying Iran. The author argues that an occupation of Iran would likely be easier than the one in Iraq due to factors such as a functioning civil society and democratic tradition, potential use of Iranian army personnel for a new regime's security forces, and less availability of loose explosives. The conversation also addresses concerns about the popular support for the current Iranian regime and the potential
  • #106
In Iran, one does not stand up for their rights, because the government puts them in jail and gives them lashes. With the way the government is over there right now, that was REALLY stupid of him.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #107
WarrenPlatts said:
It's not stupid to stand up for your rights.

Speaking of rights, it is kind of ironic that clicking on this Iranian's Blog may make you a target of the NSA.
 
  • #108
You've got to assume that since foreigners post on PF, everything here is monitored by Echelon. Yet despite that, no one has been arrested yet for their blatantly treasonous posts.

BTW, where are the PF servers located? If Canada or anywhere else, they are fair game for the NSA. And if they're in the U.S., they're fair game for MI6 who will just share anything they learn with the Americans.

cyrusabdullahi said:
In Iran, one does not stand up for their rights, because the government puts them in jail and gives them lashes. With the way the government is over there right now, that was REALLY stupid of him.
All the more reason to invade, don't you think?
 
Last edited:
  • #109
All the more reason to invade, don't you think?

No. If that were the case we would have to invade nearly half of the world. Revolution is an internal process. Thats why Iraq is going so horribly wrong (not the only reason). You can't force change on people, they must want it.
 
  • #110
Bush State of the Union said:
Different threats require different strategies. In Iran, we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction, and supports terror. We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government and determine their own destiny -- and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom. (Applause.)

That’s all bush had to say about Iran this time? "Different threats require different strategies." I think he has wised up on how to talk to Iran and was smart not to make statements like 'axis of evil.' He did not mention invading Iran, I wonder why... :wink:
 
  • #111
He has to break the news gradually.
 
  • #112
He sure wasn't gradual when he was so gung ho before we went to Iraq. Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Syria, well free them all! Then we got in way over our heads on Iraq, and he had to realize having a strong military won't ensure victory. He knows he can't talk to Iran like that anymore.

Edit: I realize now that the first SOTU quote is an old one (2003) not the new one. Sorry about that.
 
Last edited:
  • #113
State of Union 2006 said:
The same is true of Iran, a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people. The regime in that country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon -- and that must come to an end. (Applause.) The Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions, and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons. (Applause.) America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats.

Based on how he went about Ignoring the UN on Iraq, I don't think you can call it a rally to the world. Whats world support to him, another coalition of 30 small nations that give us a few hundred or a few thousand troops at most, and giving all the contracting jobs in Iraq to foreign companies.

Tonight, let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran: America respects you, and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran.

No, you don't Mr. President. You show little if any respect for Iran if you call them a country that is part of an 'axis of evil.'

"We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom."

Awww, but we don't want to win our own freedom, we want to be bombed into freedom! Pleaseee!? Are we no longer worthy of invasion for freedom now?
 
Last edited:
  • #114
WarrenPlatts said:
You've got to assume that since foreigners post on PF, everything here is monitored by Echelon. Yet despite that, no one has been arrested yet for their blatantly treasonous posts

I am not worried about arrests of ordiinary people being made. There are far to many highly opinionated people posting to have space for them all.

If Bush's statements about NSA protectecting Americans are true, then it would be necessary for intel to gather everything vacuum style. Every possible form of communication including snail mail must be accounted for and scrutinized.
To limit it to e-mail and telephone calls would be a grave mistake.

On the other hand as I have stated in other threads, NSA and all of the other intel agencies are going to have so much data to sift through that they may well trip over their own feet. Which is exactly what happened before 9/11 when an FBI agent handed them a smoking gun, and it fell through the cracks.
 
Last edited:
  • #115
Revolution is an internal process.
Is it? I've heard this before, but do we really have reason to believe so? AFAIK, it's something that has only recently been tried.

You can't force change on people, they must want it.
Of course, wanting revolution is not synonymous with being able to carry out a revolution...
 
  • #116
Is it? I've heard this before, but do we really have reason to believe so? AFAIK, it's something that has only recently been tried.

Yes. When its external, they call that an invation or a coup.

Of course, wanting revolution is not synonymous with being able to carry out a revolution...

When the majority of the people in a country want a change, nothing you can do will stop it. At some point, they will take up in arms. (Unless they are controlled by an opressive dictator)
 
  • #117
Yes. When its external, they call that an invation or a coup.
Fair enough -- but your post really doesn't make any sense given the literal interpretation. Looking back, I would still presume that you are saying that one cannot achieve effects similar to a revolution through external means, in which case, the spirit of my response still applies.

When the majority of the people in a country want a change, nothing you can do will stop it. At some point, they will take up in arms. (Unless they are controlled by an opressive dictator)
Yes, that is the crux of the matter.
 
  • #118
Well, Iran is a democratic nation, so you can't use the same argument in Iran as in Iraq.

one cannot achieve effects similar to a revolution through external means, in which case, the spirit of my response still applies.

You can, but the people are not going to feel that it was their revolution. They will always have the fact that the US came in and invaded in the back of their minds. There are many countries that need freedom, but we don’t try to free all of them. So there is a very real reason why we are seen as having a hidden agenda. Iraq is in my mind a very turbulent example of this. The people want freedom, but they are not working together, and the country is in chaos, because they were not ready for freedom. You can't just make countries democratic overnight. This is why bush has to learn to watch his words when talking about Iran and invading for freedom and democracy. He should know better, Iran is already a democracy as I stated. Secondly, there have been for years demonstrations by students and citizens in Iran against the government. I think they are able enough to cause a revolution if they wanted to. Our invasion of Iran will blow up in our faces, in orders of magnitude worse than Iraq.
 
  • #119
WarrenPlatts said:
It's not stupid to stand up for your rights.
Aha! That's exactly what Iran government is doing right now. Iran has the right to use nuclear energy just like any other nation in the world!:-p

BTW, man don't you think 'giving their freedom' and things like that aren't fation any more. Try to think up of other pretext. You can't fool people in the world by these stuff anymore.(nobody is going to believ you other than a few fool). What Iraqies people get? not only they didn't get freedom as their rights but also lots of them lost the right of living on this planet!
 
  • #120
Cyrusabdullahi said:
Iran is a democratic nation.
HAHA! And the U.S. would still be a democracy if George Bush disqualified anyone he didn't like from running against him.
cyrusabdullahi said:
Secondly, there have been for years demonstrations by students and citizens in Iran against the government. I think they are able enough to cause a revolution if they wanted to.
Not while bloggers are being arrested for complaining about starving during Ramadan.

Lisa said:
Aha! That's exactly what Iran government is doing right now. Iran has the right to use nuclear energy just like any other nation in the world!
And they also have to right to build nuclear bombs just like any other nation in the world!
Lisa said:
BTW, man don't you think 'giving their freedom' and things like that aren't fa[sh]ion [sic] any more. Try to think up of other pretext. You can't fool people in the world by these stuff anymore.(nobody is going to believ you other than a few fool). What Iraqies people get?
That's not what the GI's returning from Iraq say. Talk to a few.
 
Last edited:
  • #121
Its not a perfect democracy ganted, none the less, the people still vote in an election. There are choices.

Its not a dictatorship, its a theology, more exact, an Islamic Republic. But this is not the main issue. Back on focus, my point is that you don't force democracy on people, and expect it to work out like a magic wand.
 
  • #122
Democracy can't be forced just like a tree can't be forced to grow. What I suggest is moving the democratic seeds that already exist in Iran out of their little flower pots, to the real soil of society, where they will freely grow on their own.
 
  • #123
Uhhhhh...groan...that was just awful. Think of your own clever quotes.
 
  • #124
:-p :-p :-p :!) :!) :!) :-p :-p :-p
 
  • #125
WarrenPlatts said:
:-p :-p :-p :!) :!) :!) :-p :-p :-p

Is this the result of this discusion?! :bugeye:
:smile:
 
  • #126
Mass mobilization in Iraq against US-British forces will be at most a nuisance - easily suppressed by the ruthless employment of massive firepower. And Israel will use the opportunity to deal with Syria and South Lebanon, and possibly with its Palestinian problem.

The character of this war will be completely different from the Iraq war. No show-casing of democracy, no "nation-building", no journalists, no Red Cross - but the kind of war the United States would have fought in North Vietnam if it had not had to reckon with the Soviet Union and China.

Paul Levian is a former German intelligence officer.
Paul Levian
I could post more, but we've reached the point of the dull thud of conflicting intuitions. The ball is Bush's court.
 
  • #127
It's also important to consider the effect that a nuclear Iran would have on the potential for a democratic Iran. Its nuclear project is often portrayed as a matter of national prestige, the implication being that any strike against it would rally the regime's domestic opponents to its side. What Iranian dissidents tell us is closer to the opposite. A nuclear Iran would enhance the mullahs' sense of invulnerability and facilitate domestic repression.

From the Wall Street Journal.
 
  • #128
WarrenPlatts said:
HAHA! And the U.S. would still be a democracy if George Bush disqualified anyone he didn't like from running against him.
Doesn't he do it now?:-p



Not while bloggers are being arrested for complaining about starving during Ramadan.
Oh dear, how can you be sure that these bloggers are telling the truth? Perhpa the reason they're arrested is their lies!:bugeye:

And they also have to right to build nuclear bombs just like any other nation in the world!
As I mentioned before it's the threat of countries like US which leads other countries to build nukes!

That's not what the GI's returning from Iraq say. Talk to a few.
:smile: How about asking Bush?

Regards
 
  • #129
WarrenPlatts said:
BTW, where are the PF servers located? If Canada or anywhere else, they are fair game for the NSA. And if they're in the U.S., they're fair game for MI6 who will just share anything they learn with the Americans.
Do you really think that the servers being located in the U.S. would stop the NSF spying, through some interpretation of a legalistic device that may be construed as a loophole?
 
  • #130
" Mass mobilization in Iraq against US-British forces will be at most a nuisance - easily suppressed by the ruthless employment of massive firepower. "

This statement is unfortunately erroneous. It is indeed true that mass mobilization in Iraq would be easily put down by superior US firepower. In fact, the US would welcome that scenario because it'd finally give a chance for US firepower to have a medium-sized target that our attack helicopters, jets, and artillery were designed to annihilate.

However, the statement is incorrect and misleading on several points.

First of all, the US would be fighting a two (or three, depending on if you separate Sunni nationalists from jihadis) front war, with the additional front being the Shia, who have up to now been on our side (or at least complacent). This would be a very difficult situation for several reasons, the most pertinent being that Shia compliance is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL to OIF success. Not only do they comprise 60 % of the population, but they also control the only seaport (Basrah-area) from which Iraqi oil flows - which itself is, or is going to, allow for the Iraqi's to take over sovereignty. If this is lost, Iraq becomes unwinnable, no matter what your definition of victory is. There are around a dozen US Navy warships and Coast Guard vessels right now protecting this port, in additional to a couple British tank divisions. No, our superior firepower cannot protect the entirety of the al Basrah pipeline from a simple sabotage, each one taking around a week to fix. This all is overlooking the government effects, insurgent threats, and small to large scale sectarian conflicts that would ensue and would most likely cause a true civil war in Iraq. On that point alone, the author has it gravely wrong.

Secondly - and perhaps more disturbingly - the author overlooks the main threat to US troops from Iranians: medium range ballistic missiles fired into our literally city-sized base camps. Casualties here could range from 5,000 to 20,000 easily - and that is assuming the Iranians fight fair: no chem/bio attacks. Forget Iranian tanks regiments, air force, etc - these are all preventative forces (opposing, in all honestly, a Saddam led ground invasion), yet still able to kill US kids.

So, without even going further, the author's error has miscalculated or underestimates about 30,000 US deaths - almost a fifth of our force. He is not wrong in that a mass buildup of any force, be it Iraqi or Iranian, would be destroyed quickly. Yet it is a critical error.

His points about the region at large are also, theoretically, true, yet they overlook enough points to probably account for about another 10,000 to 15,000 casualties and a few more decades of conflict.

Here's my frustration. The author's presentation, which is indeed based on prevaling wisdom, is not at all an accurate picture of how difficult this war would be. Unfortunately, thus far, most editorials paint this war as a combination of JDAM strikes, cruise missile attacks, and bunker busting bombing with some anti-aircraft facility destruction in between. This is very, very simplified.

My point being not to criticize the author, but to hopefully disprove his (and indeed general) beliefs that this would be, if not an easy, then a one-sided war.

The thread title is inaccurate, yes, we would not occupy Iran like we do Iraq, but if the war is not over in two weeks it will not be over in four or five years. If the victory is not decisive and swift, the war will most likely be larger than Vietnam - and very different.

It is my sincere belief that, if it comes to it, we will use multiple tactical nuclear strikes against Iran. If you find this option incredulous (however immoral or counterintuitive), I sincerely believe you are unfamiliar with military realities. But all of this said, war and rumors of war should be feared, regardless of the side - it is a very serious situation. There will be little armchair quarterbacking in this one. If the war is not over very quickly, a lot of people kid's on both sides will die and a lot more will see combat. Keep in mind, I'm saying this having active duty friends and being of combat age myself. The situation is very serious.

Let's hope (and pray, those of us who pray) that diplomatic pressure is successful. It is exponentially better.

-- my apologies if this seems too melodramatic (nevertheless, I think the logic stands)

Cheers,

James

PS - I think there are one or two other viable military options that are also available and have a good chance of success, but I don't feel inclined to mention them. Not to say I have any special insight, much less a job. Hehe.
 
Last edited:
  • #131
Do you really think that the servers being located in the U.S. would stop the NSF spying, through some interpretation of a legalistic device that may be construed as a loophole?
The way I think it works is that the Brits spy on us, and we spy on them, so no one is spying on themselves, and everybody just shares anything interesting that comes up.
 
  • #132
"The way I think it works is that the Brits spy on us, and we spy on them, so no one is spying on themselves, and everybody just shares anything interesting that comes up."

Agreed, and things get even fuzzier I imagine as servers are mirrored in other countries, etc. Then again, things are probably a lot more bureaucratic than we give them credit for :wink:
 
  • #134
jhe1984 said:
The thread title is inaccurate, yes, we would not occupy Iran like we do Iraq, but if the war is not over in two weeks it will not be over in four or five years. If the victory is not decisive and swift, the war will most likely be larger than Vietnam - and very different.

It is my sincere belief that, if it comes to it, we will use multiple tactical nuclear strikes against Iran. If you find this option incredulous (however immoral or counterintuitive), I sincerely believe you are unfamiliar with military realities.
I think you're spot-on, James. I do not, of course, agree that this should happen, but I fear your analysis is correct. The military reality is that Iran will be dealt with ruthlessly in the fashion you suggest. But will this bring 'victory' or will it result in a chain of events that no amount of military power on the part of the US and its allies will be able to contain? It's a gamble, and the stakes are high.
 
  • #135
jhe1984 said:
Agreed, and things get even fuzzier I imagine as servers are mirrored in other countries, etc. Then again, things are probably a lot more bureaucratic than we give them credit for :wink:
If I was part of that bureaucracy and my job was to come up with a rationale to spy on the PF, I'd ask the question "does a given post constitute communication that is entirely within the domestic jurisdiction of the U.S., or entirely from one U.S. resident to another?"

Then I'd argue "the answer is clearly no."
 
  • #136
"But will this bring 'victory' or will it result in a chain of events that no amount of military power on the part of the US and its allies will be able to contain?"

Aye, that's the predicament for sure. Besides a nuclear incapable Iran, what does victory mean?

The way I see it, war at best is like shaking up a muddy glass of water. Yeah things may settle down differently (and perhaps more favorably) but for a while, it gets real messy and real cloudy.

Looking into it, however, I was a little suprised to find that there is a larger amount of unrest (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4410506.stm) in Iran's southern provinces, which are mostly Sunni Arab's. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47956

If the clerical regime does indeed prove unsatisfiable and a more aggressive approach is necessary, perhaps there exists enough of a political underground to make the transition not easy, but at least smoother.

Wow, nation building really creeps up on ya, doesn't it?

"Abandon all hope ye who enter."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #137
Well, I just heard on the radio that Iran has cut off all trade with Denmark. There goes my idea about Iran becoming the wind power center of the ME. Too bad.
 
  • #138
Lisa said:
Oh dear, how can you be sure that these bloggers are telling the truth? Perhaps the reason they're arrested is their lies!
There aren't enough beds in the U.S. prison system to house every American blogger that lies online. No, the reason they get arrested in Iran is because they tell the truth. Why would someone lie about sneaking food to work during Ramadan? I'd do the same. I thank God I'm not Islamic. I don't have to worry about entering doors right-side first because the left side is unclean, like one friend told me she used to do.

Re: James' point about how an invasion of Iran would lead to a two or three front war: Look at a map, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan form one continuous land mass. It wouldn't be like WWII where there were two major wars on opposite sides of the world.

Regarding Iraqian oil pipelines, they're already being sabotaged, and oil is not flowing from Iraq at prewar levels. So much for the theory that the war was about oil. And Basrah's not the only outlet. There's a big pipeline that flows to Turkey in the north.

James said:
Secondly - and perhaps more disturbingly - the author overlooks the main threat to US troops from Iranians: medium range ballistic missiles fired into our literally city-sized base camps. Casualties here could range from 5,000 to 20,000 easily - and that is assuming the Iranians fight fair: no chem/bio attacks.
This is not realistic. The worst missile attack in GWI was a lucky hit on an Air Force barracks in Saudi Arabia. It was horrible and killed 28 people, but there's a big difference between 28 and 28,000. The worst threat for inflicting mass casualties are Iran's Sunburn missiles that could potentially take out an aircraft carrier. They only have a range of 100 miles, however, so there would still be plenty of room to navigate in the Gulf--except for the Strait of Hormuz. I wouldn't want to be an Iranian missileman based there.

That said, a war with Iran will not be easy--but it is doable. Don't get me wrong. I am not for war. The thought makes me sick to my stomach. But we of the Western democracies must not be afraid. Most likely, the U.S. will shoulder the white man's burden the way we always do. That's OK. All we ask is that you stay out of the way. American blood and taxpayer's money will make the world safe for you the way it always has.

BTW I just heard on the radio that they're setting fire to trees in a Danish embassy somewhere over there. That is in complete violation of the rules of warfare as set out in the Koran (and the Bible). That is who we are dealing with: insane people who can't even get their own religion straight. I can read the Koran and understand it, but apparently they cannot.
 
  • #139
WarrenPlatts said:
There aren't enough beds in the U.S. prison system to house every American blogger that lies online. No, the reason they get arrested in Iran is because they tell the truth. Why would someone lie about sneaking food to work during Ramadan? I'd do the same. I thank God I'm not Islamic. I don't have to worry about entering doors right-side first because the left side is unclean, like one friend told me she used to do.

Re: James' point about how an invasion of Iran would lead to a two or three front war: Look at a map, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan form one continuous land mass. It wouldn't be like WWII where there were two major wars on opposite sides of the world.

Regarding Iraqian oil pipelines, they're already being sabotaged, and oil is not flowing from Iraq at prewar levels. So much for the theory that the war was about oil. And Basrah's not the only outlet. There's a big pipeline that flows to Turkey in the north.


This is not realistic. The worst missile attack in GWI was a lucky hit on an Air Force barracks in Saudi Arabia. It was horrible and killed 28 people, but there's a big difference between 28 and 28,000. The worst threat for inflicting mass casualties are Iran's Sunburn missiles that could potentially take out an aircraft carrier. They only have a range of 100 miles, however, so there would still be plenty of room to navigate in the Gulf--except for the Strait of Hormuz. I wouldn't want to be an Iranian missileman based there.

That said, a war with Iran will not be easy--but it is doable. Don't get me wrong. I am not for war. The thought makes me sick to my stomach. But we of the Western democracies must not be afraid. Most likely, the U.S. will shoulder the white man's burden the way we always do. That's OK. All we ask is that you stay out of the way. American blood and taxpayer's money will make the world safe for you the way it always has.

BTW I just heard on the radio that they're setting fire to trees in a Danish embassy somewhere over there. That is in complete violation of the rules of warfare as set out in the Koran (and the Bible). That is who we are dealing with: insane people who can't even get their own religion straight. I can read the Koran and understand it, but apparently they cannot.
:smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: This is funniest post I've seen in ages. :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile:
 
  • #140
:!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) Thanks for the complement.:!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!)
 

Similar threads

News Is the US Prepared to Militarily Engage Iran?
4
Replies
127
Views
16K
News Yemen's Unraveling: US Surprised by Collapse of Govt
Replies
3
Views
1K
News Did Iran Manipulate the US into Invading Iraq?
Replies
2
Views
5K
News Iran declares victory over the USA
2
Replies
45
Views
8K
News McCain confused about the Iraq war.
Replies
2
Views
2K
News Green Solution to a Political Problem?
Replies
8
Views
3K
News Is the US Preparing for War with Iran?
2
Replies
58
Views
9K
  • Poll
News Speculation mounting of an attack on Iran
4
Replies
124
Views
15K
News Is Iran : Islam China : Communism?
Replies
3
Views
3K
News Is Iran Developing Nuclear Weapons and What Actions Will the US Take?
Replies
10
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top