US vs Iran.

Iran looks like it wants to tussle.  The US is more than game.  Iraq was more of a threat, and we rolled them in a matter of hours.  Iran will take less time.  Unless we station troops and move in and try to set up housekeeping. 
I’d suggest a blitzkrieg, sink their ships, demolish their military assets, and all of their suspected nuke sites… Then get the Hell out of dodge before the dust settles.
George Bush’s big folly was the Mission Accomplished sign while we still had boots on the ground.  Let’s not relive that mistake.
Take all US Forces in the Stan, get them ready to roll… Then wait for Iran to blink first.  The moment they twitch, nail them.  Follow Sun Tsu’s advice. Hit them first, and hit them so hard that they can’t hit back.  Don’t look at the explosions, just walk away. Done.  Then when China talks Shit, we can just crack our knuckles and grin.

40 thoughts on “US vs Iran.”

  1. I’ve been a regular reader of your site since the halcyon days of Guns of (Insert epic movie) but have rarely found agreement with your foreign policy until. I’m reminded of a quote that my chemistry teacher in high school was fond of saying, “New em til they glow and then shoot them in the dark.”

  2. Is it wrong that I am secretly hoping that those idiots try to close the Straights of Hormuz to a US Carrier Battlegroup? *giggle*

  3. Not a big fan of Iran, but can’t we just NOT spend our treasure bombing the mideast for a while? We’re already up to our eyeballs in debt.

  4. Wars seldom turn out as quick and simple as people hope.

    I think it is bizarre that Iran would try so hard to get attacked. They can move to becoming “Greater Persia” by staying low and quietly absorbing the Shia districts of Iraq. But instead they go on this obnoxious program of provocation. I don’t see how they benefit if they’re running this game solo.

    Pakistan and Iran are both very chummy with China. I suspect they are all working together on something. It would be a mistake to assume Iran exists and acts in a geopolitical vacuum. Few countries do. In any case it is mentally lame to do what your enemy wants or expects. Iran needs to be crippled, severely, but it may be a titanic blunder to again tunnel-vision on conventional force.
    Not all problems are nails, and we have better tools than hammers.
    I would like to see the US stick with the three “Bs”. Butchery, Blackmail, and Bribery. They have effects out of all proportion to their cost and time; much more economical and deniable than a repeat of “shock and awe” followed by a thrust by worn-down armored divisions. Less dead civilians and less dead US grunts.
    A lot of Iranians need to die, but conventional warfare tends to kill the wrong ones.
    It would also be healthier for the economy if the problem was handled in a quieter manner. We don’t need to see 24/7 footage of burning buildings in Tehran followed by clips of flaming ships in the Persian Gulf. That will do extreme things to the price of oil. That won’t do us any good.

    Iran wants to draw us into a conventional conflict. It would be stupid to do what they want, and stupid to let them be. Iran needs to be peppered with truck bombs, tragic falls in stairwells, and unfortunate suicides. They also need some massive power failures and industrial accidents. That they DON’T want.

    Right now Iran is being the loud jerk at the end of the bar who is trying to start a fight with you so his buddy you don’t see can jump you from behind. Bar fights can be complex and jousting between nations always is.

    1. @Raub:

      Right on man. Well reasoned and well said. Just because America is “carrying” doesn’t mean we should shoot every little pissant who tries to rile us up. There are much more subtle ways to make them suffer.

      @DR1579 & Kristopher:

      Disregarding all the other nuke-armed countries that would get mighty jumpy if we launched a nuke (because you don’t know where an ICBM is going to land until it does, and by then you’ve lost your chance to strike back), there’s that little issue of fallout. You see, this thing called wind exists and it eventually mixes together the air from all over the world. Now I don’t know about you, but I really REALLY don’t want to die from cancer because I inhaled a chunk of radioactive Ahmadinejad. Do you?

      1. While I don’t support the nuclear option, for a variety of reasons, fallout would not be an issue from a small tactical nuke. Many hundreds of nuclear devices were detonated during the cold war. Some quite large. A few-kiloton tactical nuke would just be a drop in the ocean.

        However, a thermobaric device can produce the same damage that a small tactical nuke can, and at much lower cost (economic and social). Russia has been the biggest developer of thermobarics, so maybe someone should obtain a black-market Russian device, for deniability’s sake…0

  5. @ Raub,

    I disagree, we should rather hit their biggest military base with a nuke offer to take care of their pest ridden cities should the bother us again and ignore all the plaintive wailing from the left.

    And of course if they still make problems we pick off one of their bigger cities, the problem should sort its self out with no American loss of life.

    1. I don’t think it wouldn’t be hard to imagine a few severe consequences of popping off nukes. Other than making you feel proud and empowered few a few hours, it would usher in a season of social and economic chaos that would not be forgotten for a century. Actions have multiple effects. The more extreme the action, the greater the number of effects. Most people would classify the deployment of nuclear weapons as extreme.
      I think the use of clandestine assets would work much better than murdering thousands of civilians with a nuclear device. Such actions are why we don’t want THEM to have such items in the first place.
      I don’t think dropping nukes on Iran would begin a splendid Golden Age festooned with posters of angry eagle heads and prosperity for all right-thinking people. It would be a travesty for so many reasons that it shouldn’t need to be explained.
      That doesn’t imply that Iran needs to be untouched. But it needs to be dealt with in a way that isn’t mush-brain stupid or ethically inexcusable.
      We need to kill some people. But not civilians. Even if they don’t dress like you or pray like you, it is wrong to kill them all.

      1. Agreed. We should only obliterate those Shiite areas that fully support Madman Dinnerjacket. They need to be turned into radioactive sheets of glass.

        The ethnic Persian regions that tried to overthrow Dinnerjacket should only get tac-nuke strikes on military bases.

        Here is a clue, hippie retard … civilians were killed when we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Too fucking bad for them.

        Over a million allied casualties were prevented.

        1. I admire the gentle way you handle retarded people and also your mastery of military history.

          Now, given that I am a hippie and also retarded, it is strange that I can think about the literal and figurative fallout of nuclear festivities and you can not. The desire for preemptive nuclear strikes is as juvenile as it is unethical. It would be awful policy, probably leading to the demise of the entire Western World. It would make a great and dramatic novel but a really terrible chapter of world history.

          Unconventional forces can handle the Iranian problem with less mess. Perhaps their actions would make for a good novel too. But then again there’s less angry chest thumping involved and advocating their use isn’t as fun for angry vent sessions.

          1. How many US service men do you want to kill policing this mess?

            How many tens of thousands?

            Compare that to the projected number of cancer deaths … real projections, not alarmist crap. So we’ll have to distrubute potassium Iodine tablets? I’m OK with that.

            Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit with nukes far dirtier than the H-Bombs we have now. And repeated open air testing in the Nevada desert did not result in US cities being over-run with radioactive zombies.

            As for your being butt-hurt over being called a retarded hippie and my politically incorrect use of the word, retarded … Harden the fuck up, hippie. Go wash the sand out of your vagina. Water wont kill you.

          2. Kristopher, you speak with a deep wisdom that no one can deny, and you have illustrated your positions beautifully.

            Now, you have focused on the LITERAL fallout. I mentioned figurative fallout as well. They’re both bad. I’d rather avoid them. You wouldn’t. I already got that.

            I didn’t mention policing anything. I mentioned butchery, blackmail and bribery. Things that have been proven to have big pay-offs. Few US servicemen are lost using those methods. More would be lost if we started an era of nuke popping. For me it would also be ethically questionable. I don’t hold “we did it in WW2″ to be an ethical gold standard or conceptual proof.
            I understand that makes me VERY BAD, but I can live with that.

            And again, you put forth hard facts that I will agree with. Water, in measured amounts, will not kill me. Excellent point. You have argued me into a corner.

          3. I’m glad that you agree that not wanting to fight fascism with all of the tools in the box makes you look bad.

            I ‘spose, in your little universe, it would have been better to just eat over a half million casualties during Operation Downfall in Japan, or let the Nazis continue to pump out Panthers, ME-262s, and Waffen-SS recruits from undamaged cities after Normandy.

            Fortunately, pacifists don’t get to make defense decisions.

          4. I think it’s nice that something I said has made you happy.

            And I see you’re very passionate about nuclear weapons and are quite upset that many people are reluctant to use them. There are probably more sensible and certainly more positive things for you to be concerned with.

            I am also reluctant to admit that despite your balanced presentation and pleasant banter, I would still choose to deploy unconventional forces to take down Iran instead of nuclear weapons. Thank you for your time though. I will keep secure the shining nuggets of wisdom you have given out so generously.

            I recommend that in your continuing study of military history you look more into some of the amazing things that unconventional forces have accomplished. Also you may be confusing “clandestine warfare” with “peace keeping” and “black operations” with “pacifism”. I could be wrong. You might just be too angry and frustrated to articulate your concerns in a clear fashion. Or perhaps you’re simply too clever to be understood.

            Have a good day in any case, Kristopher.

        2. Wow, do you not understand the problems that nuking Iran would cause? China has Nukes. Pakistan has Nukes. What if the literal fallout goes to India? What if China declares war? How many US service men and women would we loose in WWIII? The “Nuke em till they glow” argument is the most ignorant and detached from reality argument that I’ve ever heard. And before you call me a brain washed lefty or whatever, I’m a veteran. Your arguments are childish at best.

          1. Nuking Iran would turn the entire world against us. Conventional strikes taking out their nuke capability is the way to go. Then Spec Ops teams going all viking marauder on other key targets. Then our boys disappear… leaving them impotent to strike back. They can rattle sabers if they want… because that should be all they have left.

  6. The difference between Iraq and Iran is that Iraq was pretty much alone in the Arab world and Iran has a bit ore friends who would love the chance to poke at the United States through a possible war…and IMO it would get very ugly. I really don’t think our country would accept a new conflict so soon after pulling out of Iraq. We also have a very hard time of hitting an objective and then just leaving…we tend to hang around for years. I’m no supporter of Iran but realistically it could be potential suicide from the fallout throughout the region.

  7. George … you might want to turn off wordpress’s worthless like/dislike feature.

    Some hippie cunt took exception to Matt F.s post and used repeated cookie deletions + democrat-style voting to push it below the censorship line.

  8. Iran doesn’t want to “tussle”. Its government just wants our government to back off of the sanctions and vitriol.

    If they actually try to close the Strait of Hormuz, I say we send their little navy to the bottom, remind them that this is what will happen any time they try to match us with military force, and call it a day.

    How much more war do you think we can AFFORD? And if the concern is that we need to get a handle on these problems NOW, before we CAN’T afford it anymore, then, hell, why not just nuke EVERY country that MIGHT pose a threat to us? (Not advocating that, just illustrating the absurdity)

  9. To attack should require a declaration of war from congress. Seeing as that will never happen, subversion is probably the best route. In Asscrackistan, we are still there because goat herders know how to set off crude explosives. A conventional war is not the best way to attack this. A true sanction which even stops the russians and chinese from buying oil from there would cause the locals to start the uprising, as Iran has no refining capacity and other necessities.

    We would also need to repeal the Carter era executive order banning political assassinations at the same time. The messaging is what is important.

    These guys want a protracted stand off with us. They don’t want some sneaky subversive guy doctoring their insulin or other meds to cause acute kidney failure.

    Ultimately, none of this is ever going to happen. It is up to the people in that country which direction they go in the long run. A while ago we nuked Japan. Now they kick our butts in the little league world series each year and sell us hondas. Until the people can overthrow their government and set up a freedom loving system which does business with us rather than war, it will always be an issue.

    1. We tried that approach in Afghanistan and Iraq.

      Winning in Iraq required a reversion to overwhelming force ( the surge ).

      Bush was far too kind to the Afghans, Saudis, and Pakis after 9-11. I also personally advocated special forces as the way to go at the time. It turned out to be a bad idea.

      If we had responded to 9-11 by nuking the two countries the hijacker’s hailed from, as well as the Afghanis who harbored Bin Laden, we would not be dealing with the current Patriot Act crap we are fighting with now.

      1. Um, when, precisely, was that approach tried in Afghanistan and Iraq?

        I don’t recall anyone trying to assassinate So-Damn-Insane, as an alternative to invasion…

      2. So you call ‘Shock and Awe’ clandestine? Kristopher, you have already proven you can’t argue without juvenile name-calling and cursing, so you can stop proving that point. The bombing campaigns of WWII were a horrible idea that just killed millions of innocents and hardened the survivors resolve. You want to throw nukes around like party favors and only hit shia neighborhoods…ok, so what happens when other countries start doing that to us, seeing us as a threat that likes to throw nukes around. Nuking Iran would be like trying hit a fly with a howitzer. A conventional war would be disastrous as well. Yes we will win the war, but at what cost and for what benifits? The Iranian military is MUCH stronger and larger than the Iraqis ever where. The insurgency would put the Iraqi insurgency to shame. So More US soldiers would get killed and we’d have at least another decade of policing a middle eastern country. Your idea of Nuking everything is simplistic, irresponsible, short-sighted and possibly evil. You calling everybody who doesn’t want to Nuke EVERYBODY else ‘hippies’ is ignorant. So before you respond, wash your mouth out with soap, study some history and mature into a grown-up that can have an intelligent debate without resorting to insults, curse words and bad history.

  10. Hmmm…
    Some well reasoned thinking here. I’m encouraged. Closing the Straits of Hormuz IS an act of war AND a reason to take Iran down a notch.

    The Spice must flow.

    Iran has the capability to make weapons grade plutonium. Not there yet. But once there, then they need a delivery system. Not working out so well for NK is it? Oh yes, the Chinks and Russians will help you get that weapons grade plutonium for the right price, but they are not going to let you have equal standing and help you point those missiles anywhere you want. That’s your problem. Not a reason to nuke Iran. Bomb them? If they close the Straits, sure, take the bunker buster freebie.

    Don’t think ground troops are needed. Subtrafuge has been working so far there. Stuxnet did a good job of setting them back as well as blowing up their scientists with magnetic car bombs.

    Another Iraq? No. Get in, then get out. Shock and awe works for me.

    The emporer of Iraq once made the claim that the Iraqie people would hunker down and eat dates if they had to if attackes by the U.S.

    Send “Dinnerjacket” a crate of dates, Love Saddam Hussein.

    But I like the idea of Congress actually declaring war before the fact.

    Peace might break out overnight once Iran knows that the American People and the body politic stands as one if they close the Straits.

  11. From publically available information it appears that Iran is run by fanatics who are persueing the following goals: 1. Destroy Israel, 2. Destroy the Western World (particularly the USA), 3. Establish a World Wide Caliphate. I believe Iran takes those goals seriously, however I don’t believe most of our leaders believe Dinnerjacket and the Mullahs. Western leaders, particulary our President and our Congress Critters, are politicians and populists and seem to have a hard time believing that another nation could seriously have such outlandish goals. Given the Iranian regimes capabillities and assuming they are serious about their goals, I believe our strategy should be the strategy of a medieval siege. Starve them, undermine the regime, isolate them from their friends (physically and diplomatically), and work through third parties to wreak as much havoc within their borders as humanly possible. We don’t want to get drawn into a full scale conflict (it could lead a break in the siege), however any millitary action on their part should be met in kind with crushing overwhelming force. If they close the straight, we sink their navy. If they venture outside their borders, we send cruise missles into their country. Our proactive measures should be a vigorous campaign of assisination, saboutage, and supporting indinginous proxies to pull triggers. It’s not pretty, but it’s cheaper, less destabilizing to the region, and at the end of the day we have plausible deniability. Ideally, if we follow this strategy, the regime would be overthrown from within. But even if the regime did not topple they should have so few resources and be so preoccupied with fighting internal insurections that scientific work towards a bomb and millitary action beyond their borders would be impossible.

    1. A siege. That’s a good way to put it. A siege with assassins, sabateurs, and blackmail. More Byzantine than Red Coat. Put fear into the hearts of the scum running things and designing things. Improve on what Mossad has already been doing. Dead scientists can’t finalize designs very well. A humble little garrotte made minutes before use out of a boot lace can sometimes get more done than a scattering of LGBs.

  12. I just hope that if we go to war, that we go to win. Screw the new rules of engagement after each big news story. Casualties happen to the civillians. No nukes, but MOABs look entertaining. Drop flyers over populated areas to let IRANs public know that we are going to level the place until they are not a threat. Have their populus overthrow the gov. Go old school, we used to win wars back then…..

    1. It ain’t a populace being lazy issue.

      The southern Shiites in Iran dominate the government. The current leader still leads because a very large fraction of the population likes having him there.

      If we do go to war with Iran, the targets need to be the cities that actually support this asshat.

  13. This is relatively simple. Sink anything that looks or smells Iranian in the Persian gulf. Launch a tactical strike against their only petroleum refinery complex that produces gasoline. Massive over flight of Iranian airspace and smack down anything that looks capable of launching so much as a bottle rocket. This continues until destruction of said refining facility at which point we withdraw. Having neutralized the threat to the free movement of a vital commodity and severely degraded the ability of the Iranians to continue fighting a war we sit back and politely say to them, “Your move.”.

    Let the Europeans organize the sanctions necessary to squeeze them long term without getting their panties in a bunch about military action. Whatever the truth is about the Iranian nuclear program the fact of the matter is that their economy runs on oil just like ours does and the sooner they and everyone else in the world realizes that whoever screws around with that system is going to get b*tch slapped the better.

    1. Destroying their refineries is exactly the kind of thing that needs to be done, possibly as an over-all campaign of sabotage and killing. I would probably prefer the refineries go up via placed charges rather than Strike Eagle dropped ordinance. But an important point nonetheless. We can demolish their economy in five easy steps.

  14. IF the decision is made to go big, then one course of action should be pretty simple:

    Blast them back to the stoneage, AND LEAVE THEM THERE.

    The other course: Let the Israelis do their thing, then use black ops to complete the destabilization of the regime.

    If it’s simply a matter of keeping the Straits open, that’ll be fairly easy, and a good operational test for the LCS candidates.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>