|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 03 2026 16:18 PoulsenB wrote:
The thing about the Russia-Ukraine war is that neither side has total air supremacy, nor an airforce comparable to the US. As the US already shown in this conflict, they can freely bomb targets in Iran, and I doubt that Iran can withstand a prolonged air campaign by the US. Of course, on the flipside Iran would instead retaliate against gulf states allied with the US, creating a whole new quagmire in the region.
Russia had the air supremacy but it ended. And US can bomb only the targets it sees whereas Iran has moved a lot of its stockpiles and infrastructure underground. Bombing mountains is not very effective and bombing population centers doesn't get you a lot of goodwill around the world.
|
United States44211 Posts
On August 03 2026 16:46 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2026 16:18 PoulsenB wrote:
The thing about the Russia-Ukraine war is that neither side has total air supremacy, nor an airforce comparable to the US. As the US already shown in this conflict, they can freely bomb targets in Iran, and I doubt that Iran can withstand a prolonged air campaign by the US. Of course, on the flipside Iran would instead retaliate against gulf states allied with the US, creating a whole new quagmire in the region. Russia had the air supremacy but it ended. And US can bomb only the targets it sees whereas Iran has moved a lot of its stockpiles and infrastructure underground. Bombing mountains is not very effective and bombing population centers doesn't get you a lot of goodwill around the world.
Russia never had air supremacy, it was always mutual air denial.
In terms of strategic air power the US has shown plenty of ability to collapse the entrances to missile bases and prevent them from firing for weeks. Couple that with seizing the administrative centres and you end up paying the salary of the guy driving the excavator.
In terms of tactical air power the US ground operations to recover the pilot showed that if the US decides to kill anything that moves in a given area there isn't a whole lot Iran can do about it.
|
On August 02 2026 22:11 KwarK wrote:I think the odds of a negotiated settlement with Iran are low at this point. There’s an unsolvable trust issue, Iran can compel the US to make promises regarding the strait or reparations but it can’t compel the US to keep them. We saw this with the $300b fund that changed from cash for reconstruction to a voucher for US farm products. Trump’s negotiating team are happy to make concessions, and happier still if the timeline is vague and the specifics are missing, but they can’t control Trump. They can’t make any commitment that’ll bind him to future action. Nobody can, not even Trump who is actively waging war against his own signature trade agreement with Canada. This is the permanent damage being done that Trump and his supporters refuse to acknowledge. Every human interaction short of murder etc. requires a degree of cooperation. Even forcing someone to do something at gun point, they still need to believe you’re not going to kill them immediately afterwards. With things like the JCPOA you could maybe argue that there’s limited reliability between changing administrations. It’s a terrible argument, a gentleman’s agreement to honour previous agreements helps you too because you want your agreements honoured by the next guy (as Biden did with Trump’s surrender to the Taliban) but whatever. But Trump not only shits all over his own prior agreements, he demonstrates no understanding that they were even his. It’s truly Orwellian, he seems to really believe that they were agreed to by some other idiot. His relationship with the truth is that of a schizophrenic, we see him angrily tweeting at the justice department for their inability to find evidence for what he knows to be true. The truth is whatever he decides it to be on a given day and the world is required to reshape itself around that. Let’s say Iran really did want to surrender. Let’s say they wanted to offer concessions, they’d recognize Israel and stop funding proxies and he’d remove sanctions. A pretty clear US victory in that hypothetical. They can’t actually do that. They can’t get an agreement on those terms to stick. There’s nobody they can negotiate with that can control Trump and get him to honour the sanctions removal, not even Trump himself. Without an agreement this can only be resolved through time and the exchange of missiles. A game of what is more combustible, an oil refinery or a mountain. A game of who sinks first between a floating metal box filled with oil and a Toyota hilux parked in a copse of trees. One side will eventually just stop and cede the maximalist demands of the other. Maximalist demands because that’s what happens if you just stop fighting, maximalist demands because you can’t compromise if you can’t be trusted. When that happens there’s not really any cap on the geopolitical loss for the US. The withdrawal from strategic bases in the Gulf, the loss of free navigation of waterways, the loss of the petrodollar, the loss of US led global security frameworks, and so forth. A ground invasion would actually be the less bad thing at this point, despite the ruinous cost and American dead. But it’s politically impossible and has lost a lot of its leverage value. Some months ago I argued that there was a good way of doing this. Start building up ground forces in the region, stockpiling interceptors, filling the SPR, working on coalition building, increasing the supply of oil elsewhere, telling China/Japan to prepare for disruption etc. In that world where you’re clearly telegraphing an upcoming regime change invasion you have a lot of leverage over Iran. You can anchor negotiations at “we’re coming in and we’re going to hang you all” and work backwards from there. And while talks are ongoing they can’t close the strait until you actually cross the border. Reports on the February negotiations from the Qatari mediators are pretty clear that Iran was, at that time, willing to make a lot of significant concessions including the surrender of enriched uranium. Maximalist US demands at that point in the context of US army groups deployed on the border would have had a lot more weight and if negotiations broke down then occupation could have begun. With a credible threat and credible negotiators an occupation could still have been averted. + Show Spoiler +On April 09 2026 01:13 KwarK wrote:
The fundamental issue here is one of Trump’s leadership. He has completely failed to make the case for war, both internationally and at home. The entirely worthwhile goal of the end of IRGC rule in Iran was only going to be achieved by a land invasion, something which the US is absolutely capable of doing. The superiority of US forces is not a question here, we saw that in the air war and the rescue operation. If the US puts a million men in Iraq then the writing is on the wall.
And at that point the IRGC feels real pressure. They know they’re going to end up hanged in the town square for the January massacres. There’s no strategy that can save them there, in a pure test of arms they lose, and they lose absolutely. In that scenario they can’t leverage the strait or missiles or play for time, they’re deeply unpopular and without a local monopoly of force they cease to exist. They can impose costs on the world but America has already gone all in, imposing costs and saying you’ll remove them under certain conditions is a negotiating position that doesn’t work against an all in adversary.
But that’s not what happened. Not only has a substantial US force not crossed into Iran, mobilization of one hasn’t started. The IRGC know that there’s no military threat, that they just need to focus on internal security and play for time with imposing costs on the world. The US has outlined their win condition for them, survive and wait.
And at this point, after all that has happened, after all the threats and declarations of victory, I think it is too late for Trump to pivot to a real plan. It’s too late to mobilize and commit to a full ground war. Too many countries have been alienated, too much economic pain has been inflicted, the message is lost.
And that’s why this is solely a crisis of US leadership. In January after the massacres the case was right there, waiting to be made. You fill the strategic oil reserves, both domestically and abroad in China/Japan etc. You keep the public message laser focused on those massacres, you know the strait will be closed, you don’t care, your mission is just, you’re prepared to pay the cost. The closure isn’t something Iran is doing in response to Israeli strikes, Israel isn’t even involved, this is something the IRGC is doing in an attempt to escape accountability for their crimes against the people of Iran. You flood the region with interceptors, you redeploy naval assets, both yours and those of your coalition partners (because you built a coalition this time). And then, after months of prep, you start moving troops to Iraq.
Nothing to do with nuclear enrichment (dealt with in 2025) or Hezbollah (being an Israeli proxy wins you no friends). The message is clear and has been repeated daily for months, you’re not at war with the people of Iran, you’re prosecuting the IRGC for crimes against humanity. And you will succeed, it’s not in doubt, the US military is deployed for full occupation. There’s only 20 million barrels coming out the gulf daily, the world could easily stomach 6 months of interdiction with filled up storage. The US leads that, releasing oil and gas from storage at previous prices, but Japan etc. have substantial storage capability as well. IRGC loyalists know that it’s over and flee to Russia because it’s not like they’re going to defeat the US Army.
But none of that happened. Trump spent the months after the January massacres threatening to invade NATO and then announced war with Iran at random one evening. Since then he has insulted every US ally, declared this to be a religious campaign of genocide that nobody can get behind, spiked costs for people all around the world, and has yet to make any kind of credible threat against the IRGC regime itself. The US people don’t even know why they’re at war, they don’t believe in it, and given this is a war against an objectively evil regime that’s an absurd failure. This is the worst of all timelines, Trump is the one US President who could start a war with Iran with the full resources of the US military, economy, and alliance system behind him and then lose the fucking thing. But the threats have no leverage anymore and the offers have no confidence. There’s no way out. This’ll continue until Trump loses his hold on power and then it’ll just stop in line with Iran’s maximalist demands because what else is there.
While there is no doubt you can beat Iran, far as occupation goes... you are just really bad at it, simply cant do it. US proved it already twice just this century.
My guess is entire party started because of Trump being like " WTF do you mean Truman could and I cant?"
|
On July 29 2026 10:59 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I can't even tell what they are arguing about. I don't think they even have fundamentally different political stances.
I don't think GH understands 'vote blue no matter who' is a temporary, practical stance, and everyone's version of leftism is a more long standing philosophical stance. Vote blue no matter who doesn't mean you are happy with the candidates the Democrats are putting up. It just means they are at the time, less bad than the opposition. Does it suck that this encourages/allows the Democrats to constantly run candidates who are... subpar to say the least? Absolutely. But what are you going to do specifically in that election? Your options are limited vote blue, vote red, vote independent or don't vote. You can do OTHER stuff in the meantime, but you still need to make this decision on the actual election. + Show Spoiler +You can still be advocating for 'non reformist reforms' or still be organising on the side, but none of that is going to stop the ongoing election from happening. What are you going to do? Vote for the Republican/conservative on the other side who are openly advocating for things you don't want? That would be, at best, some form of accelerationism.
As Jankiska has mentioned repeatedly now, he would not support Klobuchar/Buttigieg because they are against, say.. universal healthcare (though I question how much how much they, like any liberals are against it so much as pre-compromising with the opposition before staking their positions as liberals tend to do). I'm sure HE believes they should stop infighting with the left on that issue and just be for universal healthcare.
But if they did, hypothetically win the next Dem primary, and are running against... Rubio or Trump3 or Vance, what are you going to do? Not vote for Klobuchar/Buttigieg?
Noone is saying you shouldn't vote/canvass/organise against them in primaries or just outside of that specific election in general. And I understand voting for them surrenders leverage to the 'center', where they have no reason to listen to the left if the left votes for them anyway. But would you really advocate for not voting blue in an actual election where the alternative is actively worse?
Is your stance? 'Fuck it, let the right invade Cuba, or tarriff everyone,' or whatever else those ghouls stand for?
Because that's why people talk about harm reduction. To do otherwise is accelerationism, 'we'll let the Republicans win, and if they make things bad enough the Dems will have to compromise with the left'
There aren't people here (that I can tell), certainly that would describe themselves as leftists, who are philosophically 'vote blue no matter who', there are a bunch of leftists who aren't accelerationists, so the practical short term options for them are to vote blue or let their country burn(more so than it already is).
None of you said you were politically organized when I asked before. So what is this "other stuff" you all are doing?
|
United States44211 Posts
On August 03 2026 22:23 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2026 22:11 KwarK wrote:I think the odds of a negotiated settlement with Iran are low at this point. There’s an unsolvable trust issue, Iran can compel the US to make promises regarding the strait or reparations but it can’t compel the US to keep them. We saw this with the $300b fund that changed from cash for reconstruction to a voucher for US farm products. Trump’s negotiating team are happy to make concessions, and happier still if the timeline is vague and the specifics are missing, but they can’t control Trump. They can’t make any commitment that’ll bind him to future action. Nobody can, not even Trump who is actively waging war against his own signature trade agreement with Canada. This is the permanent damage being done that Trump and his supporters refuse to acknowledge. Every human interaction short of murder etc. requires a degree of cooperation. Even forcing someone to do something at gun point, they still need to believe you’re not going to kill them immediately afterwards. With things like the JCPOA you could maybe argue that there’s limited reliability between changing administrations. It’s a terrible argument, a gentleman’s agreement to honour previous agreements helps you too because you want your agreements honoured by the next guy (as Biden did with Trump’s surrender to the Taliban) but whatever. But Trump not only shits all over his own prior agreements, he demonstrates no understanding that they were even his. It’s truly Orwellian, he seems to really believe that they were agreed to by some other idiot. His relationship with the truth is that of a schizophrenic, we see him angrily tweeting at the justice department for their inability to find evidence for what he knows to be true. The truth is whatever he decides it to be on a given day and the world is required to reshape itself around that. Let’s say Iran really did want to surrender. Let’s say they wanted to offer concessions, they’d recognize Israel and stop funding proxies and he’d remove sanctions. A pretty clear US victory in that hypothetical. They can’t actually do that. They can’t get an agreement on those terms to stick. There’s nobody they can negotiate with that can control Trump and get him to honour the sanctions removal, not even Trump himself. Without an agreement this can only be resolved through time and the exchange of missiles. A game of what is more combustible, an oil refinery or a mountain. A game of who sinks first between a floating metal box filled with oil and a Toyota hilux parked in a copse of trees. One side will eventually just stop and cede the maximalist demands of the other. Maximalist demands because that’s what happens if you just stop fighting, maximalist demands because you can’t compromise if you can’t be trusted. When that happens there’s not really any cap on the geopolitical loss for the US. The withdrawal from strategic bases in the Gulf, the loss of free navigation of waterways, the loss of the petrodollar, the loss of US led global security frameworks, and so forth. A ground invasion would actually be the less bad thing at this point, despite the ruinous cost and American dead. But it’s politically impossible and has lost a lot of its leverage value. Some months ago I argued that there was a good way of doing this. Start building up ground forces in the region, stockpiling interceptors, filling the SPR, working on coalition building, increasing the supply of oil elsewhere, telling China/Japan to prepare for disruption etc. In that world where you’re clearly telegraphing an upcoming regime change invasion you have a lot of leverage over Iran. You can anchor negotiations at “we’re coming in and we’re going to hang you all” and work backwards from there. And while talks are ongoing they can’t close the strait until you actually cross the border. Reports on the February negotiations from the Qatari mediators are pretty clear that Iran was, at that time, willing to make a lot of significant concessions including the surrender of enriched uranium. Maximalist US demands at that point in the context of US army groups deployed on the border would have had a lot more weight and if negotiations broke down then occupation could have begun. With a credible threat and credible negotiators an occupation could still have been averted. + Show Spoiler +On April 09 2026 01:13 KwarK wrote:
The fundamental issue here is one of Trump’s leadership. He has completely failed to make the case for war, both internationally and at home. The entirely worthwhile goal of the end of IRGC rule in Iran was only going to be achieved by a land invasion, something which the US is absolutely capable of doing. The superiority of US forces is not a question here, we saw that in the air war and the rescue operation. If the US puts a million men in Iraq then the writing is on the wall.
And at that point the IRGC feels real pressure. They know they’re going to end up hanged in the town square for the January massacres. There’s no strategy that can save them there, in a pure test of arms they lose, and they lose absolutely. In that scenario they can’t leverage the strait or missiles or play for time, they’re deeply unpopular and without a local monopoly of force they cease to exist. They can impose costs on the world but America has already gone all in, imposing costs and saying you’ll remove them under certain conditions is a negotiating position that doesn’t work against an all in adversary.
But that’s not what happened. Not only has a substantial US force not crossed into Iran, mobilization of one hasn’t started. The IRGC know that there’s no military threat, that they just need to focus on internal security and play for time with imposing costs on the world. The US has outlined their win condition for them, survive and wait.
And at this point, after all that has happened, after all the threats and declarations of victory, I think it is too late for Trump to pivot to a real plan. It’s too late to mobilize and commit to a full ground war. Too many countries have been alienated, too much economic pain has been inflicted, the message is lost.
And that’s why this is solely a crisis of US leadership. In January after the massacres the case was right there, waiting to be made. You fill the strategic oil reserves, both domestically and abroad in China/Japan etc. You keep the public message laser focused on those massacres, you know the strait will be closed, you don’t care, your mission is just, you’re prepared to pay the cost. The closure isn’t something Iran is doing in response to Israeli strikes, Israel isn’t even involved, this is something the IRGC is doing in an attempt to escape accountability for their crimes against the people of Iran. You flood the region with interceptors, you redeploy naval assets, both yours and those of your coalition partners (because you built a coalition this time). And then, after months of prep, you start moving troops to Iraq.
Nothing to do with nuclear enrichment (dealt with in 2025) or Hezbollah (being an Israeli proxy wins you no friends). The message is clear and has been repeated daily for months, you’re not at war with the people of Iran, you’re prosecuting the IRGC for crimes against humanity. And you will succeed, it’s not in doubt, the US military is deployed for full occupation. There’s only 20 million barrels coming out the gulf daily, the world could easily stomach 6 months of interdiction with filled up storage. The US leads that, releasing oil and gas from storage at previous prices, but Japan etc. have substantial storage capability as well. IRGC loyalists know that it’s over and flee to Russia because it’s not like they’re going to defeat the US Army.
But none of that happened. Trump spent the months after the January massacres threatening to invade NATO and then announced war with Iran at random one evening. Since then he has insulted every US ally, declared this to be a religious campaign of genocide that nobody can get behind, spiked costs for people all around the world, and has yet to make any kind of credible threat against the IRGC regime itself. The US people don’t even know why they’re at war, they don’t believe in it, and given this is a war against an objectively evil regime that’s an absurd failure. This is the worst of all timelines, Trump is the one US President who could start a war with Iran with the full resources of the US military, economy, and alliance system behind him and then lose the fucking thing. But the threats have no leverage anymore and the offers have no confidence. There’s no way out. This’ll continue until Trump loses his hold on power and then it’ll just stop in line with Iran’s maximalist demands because what else is there. While there is no doubt you can beat Iran, far as occupation goes... you are just really bad at it, simply cant do it. US proved it already twice just this century. My guess is entire party started because of Trump being like " WTF do you mean Truman could and I cant?"
Iraq is still governed by the US created constitution and state. Iran is extremely different from Afghanistan. Iran has had a highly literate highly centralized government for nearly three thousand years.
|
On August 03 2026 21:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2026 16:46 Manit0u wrote:On August 03 2026 16:18 PoulsenB wrote:
The thing about the Russia-Ukraine war is that neither side has total air supremacy, nor an airforce comparable to the US. As the US already shown in this conflict, they can freely bomb targets in Iran, and I doubt that Iran can withstand a prolonged air campaign by the US. Of course, on the flipside Iran would instead retaliate against gulf states allied with the US, creating a whole new quagmire in the region. Russia had the air supremacy but it ended. And US can bomb only the targets it sees whereas Iran has moved a lot of its stockpiles and infrastructure underground. Bombing mountains is not very effective and bombing population centers doesn't get you a lot of goodwill around the world. Russia never had air supremacy, it was always mutual air denial. In terms of strategic air power the US has shown plenty of ability to collapse the entrances to missile bases and prevent them from firing for weeks. Couple that with seizing the administrative centres and you end up paying the salary of the guy driving the excavator. In terms of tactical air power the US ground operations to recover the pilot showed that if the US decides to kill anything that moves in a given area there isn't a whole lot Iran can do about it.
How do you envision this invasion working, how many troops do you think US would need to actually take Teheran?
Teheran is a city of around 9 million, Iran has around a million troops that they can field and arm, and approach to Teheran is extremely difficult for any invasion force.
The closest US base to it is 600 KM away in Iraq, it's 150 KM from the shore of Caspian sea, but that's kind of naval landing is not an option anyway, given it's the Caspian sea.
So what do you have in mind, a million or so paratroopers? How do they get re-supplied? How do you make sure that they aren't barraged by artillery and drones. Do you just get them to do a line like Russians did at Kyiv from Iraq and cross your fingers that Iran learned 0 lessons from that?
It seems to me that you haven't really thought about this from an actual, practical perspective and it's mostly just vibe based.
The only way I see it happening is a huge build up that includes the Saudis (famously a great army), Kuwait and everyone else they can rope into it + a very, very big US force, like half a million at least to be able to reach Teheran, and no matter how outgunned and outaired Iranians are, they are not stupid and they have been preparing for a ground invasion for 50 years, there would be extremely heavy attrition, it's just not doable and I've seen 0 military experts who suggested anything else.
If you have a source on one who thinks that this would be doable, please do tell.
|
On August 03 2026 23:58 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2026 21:12 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2026 16:46 Manit0u wrote:On August 03 2026 16:18 PoulsenB wrote:
The thing about the Russia-Ukraine war is that neither side has total air supremacy, nor an airforce comparable to the US. As the US already shown in this conflict, they can freely bomb targets in Iran, and I doubt that Iran can withstand a prolonged air campaign by the US. Of course, on the flipside Iran would instead retaliate against gulf states allied with the US, creating a whole new quagmire in the region. Russia had the air supremacy but it ended. And US can bomb only the targets it sees whereas Iran has moved a lot of its stockpiles and infrastructure underground. Bombing mountains is not very effective and bombing population centers doesn't get you a lot of goodwill around the world. Russia never had air supremacy, it was always mutual air denial. In terms of strategic air power the US has shown plenty of ability to collapse the entrances to missile bases and prevent them from firing for weeks. Couple that with seizing the administrative centres and you end up paying the salary of the guy driving the excavator. In terms of tactical air power the US ground operations to recover the pilot showed that if the US decides to kill anything that moves in a given area there isn't a whole lot Iran can do about it. How do you envision this invasion working, how many troops do you think US would need to actually take Teheran? Teheran is a city of around 9 million, Iran has around a million troops that they can field and arm, and approach to Teheran is extremely difficult for any invasion force. The closest US base to it is 600 KM away in Iraq, it's 150 KM from the shore of Caspian sea, but that's kind of naval landing is not an option anyway, given it's the Caspian sea. So what do you have in mind, a million or so paratroopers? How do they get re-supplied? How do you make sure that they aren't barraged by artillery and drones. Do you just get them to do a line like Russians did at Kyiv from Iraq and cross your fingers that Iran learned 0 lessons from that? It seems to me that you haven't really thought about this from an actual, practical perspective and it's mostly just vibe based. The only way I see it happening is a huge build up that includes the Saudis (famously a great army), Kuwait and everyone else they can rope into it + a very, very big US force, like half a million at least to be able to reach Teheran, and no matter how outgunned and outaired Iranians are, they are not stupid and they have been preparing for a ground invasion for 50 years, there would be extremely heavy attrition, it's just not doable and I've seen 0 military experts who suggested anything else. If you have a source on one who thinks that this would be doable, please do tell.
Most people I see talk about it seem to say it is possible from a military point of view if you re-activate reserves and the national guard to have enough manpower. Then you lose 50k+ people to win the war. The problem is that the US is not willing to take the losses, nor is any of their allies.
|
Every analysis I read is basically, US would win, but the political cost is not worth it because of the casualties and economic cost (Irans strategy is not right the US head on but inflict economic damage on their allies). Some even think it would fall as quick as Syria did because the people of Iran are so against the government.
Also, every analysis says winning is the easy part, it’s the holding it and having it come out as an actual productive state, is the hard or impossible part.
|
On August 04 2026 03:44 Billyboy wrote:
Every analysis I read is basically, US would win, but the political cost is not worth it because of the casualties and economic cost (Irans strategy is not right the US head on but inflict economic damage on their allies). Some even think it would fall as quick as Syria did because the people of Iran are so against the government.
Also, every analysis says winning is the easy part, it’s the holding it and having it come out as an actual productive state, is the hard or impossible part.
The people of Iran are against the government, but they probably also remember what happened last time the US installed a government in their country.
|
United States44211 Posts
On August 03 2026 23:58 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2026 21:12 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2026 16:46 Manit0u wrote:On August 03 2026 16:18 PoulsenB wrote:
The thing about the Russia-Ukraine war is that neither side has total air supremacy, nor an airforce comparable to the US. As the US already shown in this conflict, they can freely bomb targets in Iran, and I doubt that Iran can withstand a prolonged air campaign by the US. Of course, on the flipside Iran would instead retaliate against gulf states allied with the US, creating a whole new quagmire in the region. Russia had the air supremacy but it ended. And US can bomb only the targets it sees whereas Iran has moved a lot of its stockpiles and infrastructure underground. Bombing mountains is not very effective and bombing population centers doesn't get you a lot of goodwill around the world. Russia never had air supremacy, it was always mutual air denial. In terms of strategic air power the US has shown plenty of ability to collapse the entrances to missile bases and prevent them from firing for weeks. Couple that with seizing the administrative centres and you end up paying the salary of the guy driving the excavator. In terms of tactical air power the US ground operations to recover the pilot showed that if the US decides to kill anything that moves in a given area there isn't a whole lot Iran can do about it. How do you envision this invasion working, how many troops do you think US would need to actually take Teheran? Teheran is a city of around 9 million, Iran has around a million troops that they can field and arm, and approach to Teheran is extremely difficult for any invasion force. The closest US base to it is 600 KM away in Iraq, it's 150 KM from the shore of Caspian sea, but that's kind of naval landing is not an option anyway, given it's the Caspian sea. So what do you have in mind, a million or so paratroopers? How do they get re-supplied? How do you make sure that they aren't barraged by artillery and drones. Do you just get them to do a line like Russians did at Kyiv from Iraq and cross your fingers that Iran learned 0 lessons from that? It seems to me that you haven't really thought about this from an actual, practical perspective and it's mostly just vibe based. The only way I see it happening is a huge build up that includes the Saudis (famously a great army), Kuwait and everyone else they can rope into it + a very, very big US force, like half a million at least to be able to reach Teheran, and no matter how outgunned and outaired Iranians are, they are not stupid and they have been preparing for a ground invasion for 50 years, there would be extremely heavy attrition, it's just not doable and I've seen 0 military experts who suggested anything else. If you have a source on one who thinks that this would be doable, please do tell.
1. You're saying "it would take half a million soldiers" as if the US doesn't have that and the ability to deploy and supply them globally.
2. The Iranian Army is famously not a reliable part of the Islamic regime, that's why the regime systemically defunded and defanged it and retained the IRGC as an internal deterrent against the regime.
3. As for conventional threats (tanks/artillery/trenches/opposing regiments etc.), we saw exactly how they fared in Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom. In a conventional war, and this would be a conventional war, the US simply does not have a peer. And certainly not Iran which is using equipment that hasn't been updated since the 80s due to sanctions/collapse of the USSR. Again, we saw this in this very conflict. The Iranian surface fleet was all destroyed by US ships hundreds of kilometers away without ever getting a chance to launch a volley of their own. The Iranian Air Force was destroyed on day 1. Iranian missile forces got buried by stealth bombers cruising around Iran with impunity.
4. In a declared war we'd also expect to see the Iranian power grid and communications networks simply fail due to physical attacks (graphite bombs and the like) and cyberwarfare. The US capabilities in this area are also unmatched. We saw the US simply moonwalk into Venezuela, grab the president, and leave.
5. You're assuming that the army fights to the death. That's simply not what we've seen in any massively disproportionate conflict. Take Saddam's elite loyalist Republican Guard. Once it was clear that their side was definitely going to lose they simply went home and waited it out. Even loyal disciplined soldiers have very little interest in a dying to an enemy that they never got close enough to see.
6. You're ignoring that Iran is already essentially a nation under hostile occupation that had a widespread revolt earlier this year. The regime continues because it has a convincing monopoly on force. It's not actually that powerful within Iran, but the Iranian people are disarmed and unarmed protesters aren't especially eager to fight armed thugs. You don't need to pacify every city, you need to shoot any thug showing their faces.
The US military is very, very good at conventional warfare. The Iranian military was a peer to Iraq in the 80s but has stagnated then. People look at the failures of the US military to build nations and
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
