Iran Invasion with US Ground Forces

Invasion of Iran

I was writing on another thread about the possible conflict on the horizon with Iran, to which someone believed that Iran would not be invaded by US forces, simply bombed, I disagreed, and upon doing a little research came across the above article, and more specifically this quote:

Senator Reed: I presume that [a bombing campaign] would not be 100 percent effective in terms of knocking them out. It would probably delay them, but that if they're persistent enough they could at some point succeed. Is that a fair judgment from your position?

If the US does in fact go to war with Iran, which seems unavoidable, how do you, realistically, think it would happen?

reply to post by DevilJonah


I do have faith in America's ability to obliterate them.

Probably tactics will be.
Long range tactical missiles will take out their air power. Bunker bombs will take out their ground military. Then allies will spend 6 years trying to stabilise the region.

If we go to war that is.

A massive aerial assualt on Irans nuclear facilities and command and control centers. No regime change therefore no boots on ground (in that manner).

reply to post by Xertious


If? Serious question, no sarcasm intended, the way things are going, do you think its avoidable at this point? I mean really its coming down to egos. If Iran doesn't step down, it will come down to the US swallowing its pride, and there is no way that would happen, not to mention, if there are in fact WMD's in Iran...Isreal won't sit back and let that happen.

reply to post by DevilJonah


cyber attack, sas info, then cruise missle attack, then precison bombing for weeks and weeks, then ground assault!!

Originally posted by princeofpeace
A massive aerial assualt on Irans nuclear facilities and command and control centers. No regime change therefore no boots on ground (in that manner).

The Iran Nuclear Facilities were built to sustain arial attacks. It would take a ground force to take them out.

Ground Invasion Unavoidable

Top military officials agree that arial attacks on the facilities would be insufficient.

reply to post by DevilJonah


I think Iran is on the back burner at the moment , the growing threat is Syria and the impending face off between the U.S and Russia .

US accuses Russia over Syria helicopters

As Ozzy would say ....Let the madness begin

Lets look at how most of these other wars in the region have gone.

Iraq - Used insurgents to destabilise Iraqi army before the "Shock and Awe" campaign.
Afghanistan - Used insurgents to destabilise the Taliban, and took over poppy production to keep them down.
Libya - Used insurgents to destabilise Gaddafii.
Syria - Using insurgents to destabilise the government.

So yes I think If war happens there it will entail troops on the ground, but it will start with insurgents destabilising the country. However much more to consider on this conflict i.e. Russia and China.

The US will never invade ground until the air drones and others have done their job.

Once their army gets into open desert it dies.If the US were to try to invade across those mountain ranges we would get stuck in a bottleneck.We don't make such tactical errors,nor do we have armor to fight there.We had most of it shipped back to the US at great expense.
No boots available to invade we are doing the drawdown and throwing out a lot of combat troops any way.
A draft would go over like a lead ballooon here now.Just look at this board and their view of war.

They werent built to withstand earth penetrating nukes.

Originally posted by DevilJonah

Originally posted by princeofpeace
A massive aerial assualt on Irans nuclear facilities and command and control centers. No regime change therefore no boots on ground (in that manner).

The Iran Nuclear Facilities were built to sustain arial attacks. It would take a ground force to take them out.

Ground Invasion Unavoidable

Top military officials agree that arial attacks on the facilities would be insufficient.

reply to post by DevilJonah


Same way it happened in Iraq.
An air campaign followed by feet on the ground.

Oh man, can you imagine the US military trying to maneuver their way cross Afghanistan to build up forces on the Iranian border?
The Taliban would IED every single road to Iran days in advance, hell, we would lose more trying to prep for ground invasion than we would during the invasion.

Originally posted by coven83
Lets look at how most of these other wars in the region have gone.

Iraq - Used insurgents to destabilise Iraqi army before the "Shock and Awe" campaign.
Afghanistan - Used insurgents to destabilise the Taliban, and took over poppy production to keep them down.
Libya - Used insurgents to destabilise Gaddafii.
Syria - Using insurgents to destabilise the government.

So yes I think If war happens there it will entail troops on the ground, but it will start with insurgents destabilising the country. However much more to consider on this conflict i.e. Russia and China.

Someone on my other thread somehow does not see the connection between the growing conflict with China and Russia and the US and how it ties into the Iran conflict....I wish you would post this there...

China will Decimate the US Fleet

Originally posted by Juggernog
Oh man, can you imagine the US military trying to maneuver their way cross Afghanistan to build up forces on the Iranian border?
The Taliban would IED every single road to Iran days in advance, hell, we would lose more trying to prep for ground invasion than we would during the invasion.

I would think they would just come through the Straight of Hormez by carrier....wait, don't we already have a fleet there???

Originally posted by DevilJonah

Originally posted by Juggernog
Oh man, can you imagine the US military trying to maneuver their way cross Afghanistan to build up forces on the Iranian border?
The Taliban would IED every single road to Iran days in advance, hell, we would lose more trying to prep for ground invasion than we would during the invasion.

I would think they would just come through the Straight of Hormez by carrier....wait, don't we already have a fleet there???

Yea so? A carrier fleet doesnt have near enough marines on board to mount a ground invasion. Which is what I though we were talking about?

reply to post by DevilJonah


I think its definitely an IF.
America was really reluctant to go into WW2, they only go into it because Hitler declared was on them. I don't think a country will, unless America interferes somewhere. I don't think anybody would be that stupid.

If the US wants to throw down the nuke card I am certain the rest of the world is more that willing to respond, say good by to Israel for starters. If the US wants to get smart about this then stop trying to piss everybody off, you only get more enemies that way. Instead, start supporting Russia and China then sit back as they duke each other out. In this crazy world there is always going to be conflict, you can either sit in the middle of it or manage it and clean up the mess afterwards.

Originally posted by Xertious
reply to post by DevilJonah

 

I think its definitely an IF.
America was really reluctant to go into WW2, they only go into it because Hitler declared was on them. I don't think a country will, unless America interferes somewhere. I don't think anybody would be that stupid.

Well if you believe "History" America got into the war bc Japan attacked pearl harbour....but you should all look into the fact that it was possibly a set up to give us a publicly viable reason to enter the war.

ill look for a link to some info.

Originally posted by Juggernog

Originally posted by DevilJonah

Originally posted by Juggernog
Oh man, can you imagine the US military trying to maneuver their way cross Afghanistan to build up forces on the Iranian border?
The Taliban would IED every single road to Iran days in advance, hell, we would lose more trying to prep for ground invasion than we would during the invasion.

I would think they would just come through the Straight of Hormez by carrier....wait, don't we already have a fleet there???

Yea so? A carrier fleet doesnt have near enough marines on board to mount a ground invasion. Which is what I though we were talking about?

I'm basing this on the fact that the US would first unstabalize the region with air strikes and drone attacks before sending in ground forces to finish the job. After the first few waves, it really wouldn't take but a few marines by ship to finish the job.