Fortress Iran is Virtually Impregnable to a Successful Invasion

Fortress Iran is Virtually Impregnable to a Successful Invasion

www.marketoracle.co.uk

The Broad Outline:

Iran is a fortress. Surrounded on three sides by mountains and on the fourth by the ocean, with a wasteland at its center, Iran is extremely difficult to conquer. This was achieved once by the Mongols, who entered the country from the northeast. The Ottomans penetrated the Zagros Mountains and went northeast as far as the Caspian but made no attempt to move into the Persian heartland.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Whether or not you agree with the title of this article, if you are interested in the Iran topic you should definitely give it a read. It contains a substantial amount of information about Iran, it's geography, population, policies and some of it's history.

Note: The first four paragraphs are an indroduction, the article begins as below.

To understand Iran, you must begin by understanding how large it is. Iran is the 17th largest country in world. It measures 1,684,000 square kilometers. That means that its territory is larger than the combined territories of France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Portugal - Western Europe. Iran is the 16th most populous country in the world, with about 70 million people. Its population is larger than the populations of either France or the United Kingdom.

Under the current circumstances, it might be useful to benchmark Iran against Iraq or Afghanistan. Iraq is 433,000 square kilometers, with about 25 million people, so Iran is roughly four times as large and three times as populous. Afghanistan is about 652,000 square kilometers, with a population of about 30 million. One way to look at it is that Iran is 68 percent larger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined, with 40 percent more population.

More important are its topographical barriers. Iran is defined, above all, by its mountains, which form its frontiers, enfold its cities and describe its historical heartland. To understand Iran, you must understand not only how large it is but also how mountainous it is.

www.marketoracle.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

The issue with invading Iran is the same as Iraq IMHO. In a conventional combined arms battle, there really is no one that can stand up to the US Forces. Iran is NO different. The US would roll over whatever forces Iran puts in the field if any.

But, thats it........

Once that is done the insurgency we would face there would make Iraq look like a cakewalk. At least in Iraq we had some local support from the Shiites who also wanted to get rid of Saddam and his Bath cronies. In Iran we would not have that luck. In addition, the #es in Iraq would hardly sit on thier hands either.

More to the point Iran has both the georgaphy of Iraq and Afganistan. We have had little luck in Afganistan in the mountain ranges etc. Its also 3 times the size of Iraq and has 3 times the population.

If we cannot controll Bahgdad with its population of 3 million, what is it going to be like to garrison Tehran?

Geez, for hopefully the last time anyone needs to explain this to the iranophiles around here ....

Nobody is going to invade iran!

That doesn't mean iran won't be attacked by bombs and missiles if they continue to act belligerant and thumb their noses at everyone else in the world. But no one - except maybe the russians who still desire a warm water, blue ocean port - wants to invade or otherwise occupy iran.

Whatever General comes up with this bright idea to do a land based attack is a fool.We cant even help the bros that are out in Iraq and Gani now.Yeah we need another trillion dollar debt.

OK I read it and still not worried about Iran

OOGA BOOGA

Whats with all this Iran is a awesome fighting force stuff anyway.
Conventionaly we would knock the snott out of them and then we would be right back where we are like in Iraq and Afgahnistan.

We would not even need to invade them to get our point across! We would just fight the war on our terms not theirs!

Come on people study Sun Tzu or read up on Patton or Von Rhunstedt gimmie a break!

sheeesh

reply to post by centurion1211


I didn't SAY anyone was going to invade Iran.

Why do you feel the need to be a $#@& about it?

As I tried to make clear in the OP there is interesting information in the article that I felt may be interesting to some here. It's really that simple.

well I guess someone missed reading about them when they went into iraq

Originally posted by SystemiK
reply to post by centurion1211

 

I didn't SAY anyone was going to invade Iran.

Uh, the title of your thread says "Fortress iran is virtually impregnable to a successful invasion".

What else could the meaning of that statement be? My point was to the fact that this is like the 5,237th thread on this subject. Wasn't 5,236 previous threads on this subject enough?

[edit on 7/25/2008 by centurion1211]

The heart of Iranian strategy is as it has always been, to use the mountains as a fortress. So long as it is anchored in those mountains, it cannot be invaded.

I can't remember the exact date the last time we used horses. But something tells me we wont be using them in any future conflict to get into a mountain scrap!

Choppers!

Also Something tells me that not all Iranians are happy campers with their Government

Reply to centurion1211

In case you were not aware, I had no choice about what title I used, in breaking news, I have to use the title from the link.

So you get bent everytime you see a post with Iran in the title? It's been talked about before so we should just cease any discussion of Iran alltogether?

The article has not been posted here (it was only written yesterday). It's got some interesting information that a lot of people might not be aware of. But I'm supposed to not post it because yourself and a few other people are sick of the topic? Get over yourself. If you can't stand the topic then don't open the thread. How about that for a concept?

Why must all threads on the topic of Iran devolve into an argument over who has the largest penis?

Can't someone post a link to some info about Iran without being called an iranophile?

Edit: road rage


[edit on 25-7-2008 by SystemiK]

A Reminder For All Particapants:

Please Stay on Topic, Which is, "Fortress Iran is Virtually Impregnable to a Successful Invasion."

Thank you.

Originally posted by SystemiK
If you can't stand the topic then don't open the thread. How about that for a concept?

Heres a better topic dont post if you don't want to hear or read other opinions that run contrary to yours

As far as the topic I dont see too much in the way of a fortress, anything can be overcome


[edit on 25-7-2008 by SLAYER69]

This is exactly the same propaganda we heard before Iraq. It is a differant country and differant paramiters. Military planners aren't stupid. If it ever happens, It won't be us thats worried. It will be the ijut generals in Iran. A whole lot of they're men will give up, just like Saddams did.

Zindo

reply to post by SystemiK


I'm not referring to ALL threads about iran. Just the 5,237 about invading iran. That is the subject of your thread, no matter how you try to pretend otherwise. I think the invading iran topic is now about number 3 on the list of repeated topics. Right behind Bush is bad (#1) and the U.S. is bad (#2).

William Scott Ritter [...] is noted for his role as a chief United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, and later for his criticism of United States foreign policy in the Middle East. Prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Ritter publicly argued that Iraq possessed no significant weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).

Source - Wikipedia

Scott Ritter has outlined his position and summarized what he believes the war would look like.

Here is an interview by Amy Goodman:
www.democracynow.org...

And here is what he thinks an attack on Iran would look like:
www.commondreams.org...

The chances of preventing an Iranian-Israeli clash in the event of a U.S. strike against Iran are slim to none. Even if Iran initially showed restraint, Hezbollah would undoubtedly join the fray, prompting an Israeli counterstrike in Lebanon and Iran which would in turn bring long-range Iranian missiles raining down on Israeli cities.

It seems to me that we are being duped into another pointless/needless/hopeless war in the same way we were lead into Iraq. If we haven't learned our lesson yet, shame on us, every one.

reply to post by EtSolveMundi


I feel no shame in discussing the topic of if Iran's geography makes for a natural fortress that can't be overcome militarily!

[edit on 25-7-2008 by SLAYER69]

I was going to post some awesome info i found about Iran's terrain and the the Iranian military that occupies it but i don't think i can.

Some basic mathematics to all the self-appointed military analysts who think Iran would be a cakewalk to take on.

US Army Size: 519,472 soldiers www.pdfdownload.org...

Number of boots on the Ground in Iraq: 152,000 (Remember more on the way)www.globalsecurity.org...

Number of boots on the Ground in Afghanistan: 25,945
english.peopledaily.com.cn...

Let's see now: 519,472 - (152,000+ 25,945) = 341, 527 hapless men to be thrown into another quagmire

Iranian Army Size? 355,000 professional soldiers + huge reserves of militia from the Basji and Al-Quds Forces
www.pdfdownload.org...

Looks like the Iranians have about 13,473 "substitutes" for that match.
lol, the US is actually outnumbered for once. When's the last time America won a war where it didn't have numerical superiority?

Number of troops actively deployed near Iranian borders: ~130,000
www.pdfdownload.org...

I don't think any General, even if he were of the United States would feel comfortable with those odds before going into battle.

The Insurgency in Iraq numbers in the tens of thousand and still a vastly superior and vastly larger force cannot contain them in a country smaller than Texas!

Iran would be like Iraq on it's sh*ttiest day, permanently.
Iran would be utterly devastating for the US.

If Iraq cost almost 1 trillion dollars, Iran would be at least 3 times that figure.
Imagine the American economy coping with that?
Lol, cars would be a fantasy for the average consumer, you could forget about owning homes anymore, oil would be rarer than gold.

The economy would fall so fast on it's ass that stockbrokers could jump out of windows and still hit the ground AFTER it collapsed.

As for death tolls? Hard to calculate but 4,000 Servicemen would probably reached within the first few months of the campaign, not in a few years.

Get off your high horse some people, Iran is truly force to be reckoned with.

America needs a war with Iran like it needs a friggin' meteor shower.

[edit on 25/7/08 by The Godfather of Conspira]

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Get off your horse some people, Iran is a force to be reckoned with.

Yeah I agree they did an awesome job in a 8 year war with Iraq I think the word was stalemate yeah that's the word



SLAY