I have been studying this lately. If I was a general tasked with invading Iran, how would I do it?
Well first off, all the generals have learned the lesson of Iraq, which is you can't hold population centers. So the first order of business would be to get Iran to do something REALLLLY STUPID,, like cutting off oil to the west. This would be a political action, but would be required to carry out any successful invasion of Iran. The reason being, is that if we invade Iran, with the ultimate goal of disarming Iran, and implanting an Iraqi style government, it would be doomed to failure, and Bush and all the gererals know this. BUT, if the ultimate goal is to "restore the free flow of oil to world", then you have an achievable goal.
So right off the bat, the invasion of Iran will be an invasion to restore Iranian oil output, not an invasion to free it's people.
So after a lot of study of Iranian oil field locations, Oil pipeline and NG gas pipeline location, and looking at population densities and locations, I come to the very easy conclusion, that the areas surrounding the bulk of the Iranian oil infrastucture is relatively free of people and major cities.
You realize that Iran is SURROUNDED ON ALL SIDES, by areas controlled by the U.S. Iraq and Kuwait on one side. On the Other side you have Pakistan and Afghanistan, and on the other, Turkey. The only open sides faces Turkmenistan, which to be honest, I'm not sure which way they would turn in the event of an invasion. But my guess, is that in the next few months you'll start to hear more about them.
And most importantly The United Arab Emirates are directly across the straights of hormuz from Iran. And Dubai(remember that), is home to most of the US Gulf regions naval forces.
So here is a look at the way I would cut off the rest of Iran, from it's oil fields. I would bring armor across from Iraq, and then bring light armor across the Straights of Hormuz. There would be a feignt of some sort towards the capital of Tehran, forcing much of Iran's heavy infantry and armor to form up around Tehran. But they would swing into Iran, and then head down towards the oil fields. Coming up from the Straights of Hormuz, would be the light armor, which would quickly cut the major roads leading into the Iranian Oil patch. With air cover from carriers, and the bombers from Abu Dabai, and Diego Garcia. You would be looking at a complete wipeout of Iranian defenses in that area quite quickly. With land based fighters coming in from Afghanistan, and Iraq, you could quickly plunge Iran into a "dark age". And any attempt to move armor from The south down to the oil patch would be met with pounding air power, just like the road of death in Iraq from the first gulf war. A-10 warthogs prowling the sky, looking for anything on the road to blow up.. Most of the oil pipelines leading to the North and to Tehran would be immediately cut. Most of the major oil pipelines start in the Persian Gulf or in the areas directly across the border from Iraq, and then flow up to the north. If these were diverted to the south and accross the straights of Hormuz into Dubai or Oman. They could easily be transported to any of the offloading areas in Saudi Arabia.
I would think the initial invasion portion would require less than 50 thousand troops, and pretty much all available naval airpower and Air Force bomber protection in the area. Things like the converted C130 Gunship would have to be in the area. It would take less than 2 weeks to militarily pacify the area, and then you could move into defensive mode. Which as any good tactician will tell you, is much easier. If you have a clearly defined area to protect, it's much harder on the invader than it is you. And in this case Iran would become the invading force not us. Once we have that foothold with no plans to expand outward to conquer the whole country, there will be no need for us to pacify an entire country. If you look at the resource maps of the middle east, with this move we would be in contol of all mid-east oil. From the Kirkuk fields of Iraq all the way through Southern Iran and the straights of Hormuz, accross and down through Dubai, the UAE and into Saudi Arabia.
looks like we'll be headin' to Canada for more than strong beer and cheap drugs.
To be honest/serious, though::
I can't imagine the US public getting behind another war, let alone one requiring a DRAFT.
This isn't 1941. Maybe I'm underestimating the Rummy/Fox News Right. Could they be so patriotic?
Heaven help us.
What is your idea of making Iran intentionally cut oil exports without the world understanding that we are the cause?
If you have a clearly defined area to protect, it's much harder on the invader than it is you.
This is probably valid in conventional warfare, but will hardly work with the guerilla resistance I would pick if I were on the Iranian side.
Clearly the chances that we will "restore oil supplies" are even lower than we had them with Iraq. Everybody knows it and the international resistance will be fierce.
> Most of the major oil pipelines start in the Persian Gulf
> or in the areas directly across the border from Iraq, and
> then flow up to the north. If these were diverted to the
> south and accross the straights of Hormuz into Dubai or
> Oman. They could easily be transported to any of the
> offloading areas in Saudi Arabia.
Vous rigolez, m'sieu - n'est-ce pas?
You seem pretty knowledgeable about US weapon systems (though so do a lot of people with access to the Internet). But what is your background in the oil industry? You don't just "divert" multiple million barrel per day pipelines, especially with an entire hemisphere of angry Muslims gunning for anything that looks vaguely American. You'd have to invade, occupy and lock down everything from Algiers to Surabaya to get anything like "control" of Iran's oil.
Easier to occupy a limited area? Most of the big fields in southern Iraq (open desert) lie within an hour's drive of each other, 15 minutes by helicopter, 3 minutes by F16 (take your pick, it makes no difference). You can see all the flare plumes from any of the Gathering Centers. Yeah, the Americans - sorry, the Coalition - are doing a bang-up job of maximizing output from the area. NOT.
I should put on record my considered opinion that Shrub isn't stupid enough to try something like this. Old Deadeye's advice has to be good for SOMETHING. And if that wasn't enough, America - sorry, the Coalition - has already had a pretty good demonstration rammed down its throat that it just doesn't work.
Another good reason you can't hijack a country's oil industry is that it's pretty easy under IMO regs to get an international maritime arrest warrant. This lets your bailiffs arrest a ship in any port in the world and tie it up for months (at $40k per day demurrage for a VLCC on current Worldscale dayrates) while the courts puzzle it out. Most shipowners won't touch legally encumbered cargoes (they don't like losing control of their vessels), and last time I looked all the big shipbuilders from San Diego to Singapore were fully booked years ahead (it's those high oil prices, don'cha know?).
Or does your Tom Clancy fantasyland include abolishing maritime law and setting the USMC loose on the high seas looking for tankers to seize?
You don't just "divert" multiple million barrel per day pipelines,
The pipelines are already there, check a map with oil infrastructure on it. All of the pipeline run right down towards the straights of Hormuz. So all you have to do, is protect what you have.. Tall order..
In response to the fact that Iraqi oil is not up to pre-war levels. You have to remember that Iraq's oil infrastructure was completely decimated before the war even started. 10 years of neglect and mismanagement guaranteed that we wouldn't see significant oil from Iraq for 5 plus years.
Prior to the invasion Iraq was pumping over 2.5 mbpd. In the three years since, in spite of the termination of sanctions, vast amounts of money being thrown at remediation and infrastructure improvements, the daily output is on a one-way descent towards oblivion. Currently Iraq is pumping about 1.5 mbpd - the principal reason for the steady collapse in output is the fact that there have been over 300 attacks on oil infrastructure, per IAGS figures; that's roughly 2 per week, every week. On top of that there are attacks on the electrical infrastructure which the oil infrastructure depends on. There will be significant improvement in Iraq's ability to produce oil until the insurgency ends - which will not happen, de minimis, until the US occupation ends.
Invading Iraq has been a disaster for oil output; invadind Iran would lead to the same outcome.
How much of China's oil gets shipped through the Straights of Hormuz? India's?
Yes, the Iranians could shut down the Straights with one missile. A couple more would shut down the Saudi's. At that point, every country in the world is directly effected. Even net oil producers would be screwed: the following depression would hit them just as much.
The US wouldn't need to invade; the rest of the world would do it for them. The most likely way is assassination, bombing, and a coup. The mullahs hold the power in Iran but there are an awful lot of Iranians who hate them. Military officers freaked at such an action could rebel.
I don't think the Mullahs would last long and I think they know it. They're pretty wealthy and fat these days. It's one thing to convince a boy to seek his reward and quite another to do so yourself.
My only fear is that the cult that the President belongs to tries to bring the Mahdi back; that requires that the world be in chaos, apparently.
As far as limiting world supply goes I think they are much more likely to use al-Sadr in southern Iraq to keep the Iraqi oil off the market (and keep the Americans tied down).
"My only fear is that the cult that the President belongs to tries to bring the Mahdi back;"
My only realistic fear too. I don't admire Baby Doc Bush but I think he is backed into a corner by history and circumstance. A corner he knowingly walked into... no way he was blind to peak energy/fossil fuels. No need to kid ourselves.
Hopefully the Iranians don't really believe they "hear the voice of God" ... and hopefully Baby Doc doesn't really believe that either ("my dad (godz) kin beat up your dad (godz) anyday!).
I should clarify: I'm referring to the Iranian President.
The religious group he belongs to has a decidedly apocalyptic bent. The election that put him in power was carefully controlled: only approved candidates allowed. The mullahs like him. Whether they like him because he scares the bejeezus out of westerners or because they agree with him isn't clear (at least to me).
Dave I think you See Clearly Now the Fog is Gone...
Honestly - the God-HEARing are the most hideous and scary of all homo sapians... they turn their religions form helpful hammers that build communities into Terrible Hammers that smash skulls in their community.
Same with Mad Scientists practicing With Out the required Mother Nature's Licensing...
Beware of Global FruiCakes Claiming their Snake Oil Will Cure the Climate Blues... just as dangerous as the Distraction we call Religion for the poor sap we call Hom (IMHO)
In 1980 Saddam attacked Iran because he thought he could take advantage of the internal chaos in the country after the Iranian Revolution. The part he wanted to have is exactly the one you point out: the oil fields.
It took them 8 years and I don't know how many hundred thousand lives to figure out this wouldn't work.
Why is it you think we have any right to do anything with Iran's oil? It is not ours - does that not mean anything? Are we so immoral that we believe we can just take whatever we want? Sure the Iranians hate us - they've every right to, given our apalling behavior in the past. How does that justify us attacking them? And until we deal with those who have made no attempt to comply with the NPT, then there is no nuclear issue to use as an excuse.
If I was a general tasked with invading Iran, I would have an obligation not to commit such a war crime. I would be required to refuse such an illegal order.
Tactically, we cannot hold the oil fields against the Iranians. They do not need electricity to mount human wave attacks, as they did against Iraq. About all we can hope to accomplish is to destroy the oil infrastructure that is there, so that nobody can get any oil out of it.
I've considered this over the last six months and more, though not in the military detail you have probably done.
My conclusion was, and is: military invasion of Iran is almost completely non-viable given present situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be an open invitation to escalate insurgency in those countries. It also has almost no benefits - Iranian oil doesn't supply US at all. It would have political repercussions: Chavez might cut oil supply to US. It might lead to impeachment of president. It might encourage a revolution in Saudi Arabia. It would increase instability and violence in Israel / Palestine. It would further isolate the USA.
What might be the benefits? I hope they don't include access to several million bpd oil production, that assumption would be very silly.
It would be insane from just about all perspectives to invade Iran.
But then sanctions may be all it takes for Iran to shut off the spigots - they've already said as much (I'm sure you guys heard the "hurt and pain" comment that one Iranian ambassdor made - that gave me chills). As such, sanctions may be a complete non-starter at the UN as well.
I think the first thing that you need to note is that the Iranians are not stupid, and any scenario premissed on the Iranians doing something stupid is unlikely to happen, let alone pan out in the way that you think it might; obviously, starting a scenario with the US doing something stupid makes a little bit more sense. The Iranians don't need to take their production of the world market to use it as a weapon - they can selectively lose a couple of hundred thousand barrels of production to a few customers for the pain to start, or send their oil traders on 2-week breaks to Dubai without their mobile phones if they want to make a point and add a couple of dollars to the oil price. They can stop and start this as they please, and there is nothing that anyone can do about it.
The US forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan are already fully committed to tasks at hand - ie combatting a raging insurgency. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that the Pentagon has yet to master the art of quantum deployment whereby marines that are doing combat patrols in Kandahar or Anbar cannot simultaneously spearhead an offensive into Iran. It's also worth noting that US forces are disposed in the wrong areas for either of these locations to be useful as a launching pad - apart from in Diyala province, there are no substantial concentrations of US firepower adjacent to the Iranian border. It's worth bearing in mind that at least 5000 Iranians go to Iraq every day, and that there are tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Iranian military/intelligence/diplomatic assets in Iraq, Afghanistan and the other countries on their border - they know exactly what is happening on the ground there and any attempt to put forces into a hostile posture will be noted and countered long before anything
leaks into the public domain.
The second thing is that the Iranians have formal, normalised and peaceful diplomatic relations with every country on their border - that includes Turkey, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Kuwait, the UAE, Iraq and Afghanistan. None of these countries have any particular motive for getting involved in a hare-brained scheme that is actually going to severely damage their interests. Pakistan complains every time the US military fires at a target in Waziristan - there is no chance of the US using its territory for military operations against Iran. Turkey, which was unwilling to allow the use of a land-corridor into Northern Iraq in 2003, in spite of a 60 billion bribe has no credible motivation for allowing the US to use its territory for this either ( domestic public opinion will not permit it, and their government is, er, democratically accountable ). Similar considerations apply to the gulf states and Kuwait - they can allow the US to use facilities for this at the price of domestic rebellion and some serious Iranian retaliation. For what?
Of course, the Iranians do have a pretty good idea of the threats ranged against them. This is why their regional military and domestic security system is set up to operate autonomously. Now, the oil areas may be away from the centre, but there are hundreds of thousands of Iranian forces stationed there who would have to be dealt with. The idea that the US military could just take the Khuzestan area and the Straits of Hormuz and the 500-mile Persian gulf littoral between the 2 areas with 50,000 troops, that the US doesn't have available anyway, is utterly fanciful. And of course, what happens when the Iranians start to fire back - there will be missile attacks against US ships, US bases in the region are all within easy range of Iran's large, varied and mobile missile inventory, and the Iranians will activate their mates in Iraq to cut the US logistics chain from Kuwait. This conflict scenario is pointless because you don't consider the range of Iranian options and what would be necessary to forestall them - once you do that the military assets required for invading and holding bits of Iranian territory and countering the various plays available to Iran are simply never going to materialise.
In short, it's a damn good thing that you aren't a US military planner, as you would be facing severe retribution when you screw up your military in a way that makes Iraq look like a Buckingham Palace Garden Party.
No, it wouldn't. Air power isn't enough. It wasn't enough in Iraq, and it won't be enough in Iran.
Basically, the problem is intelligence. We don't really know where to bomb. The intelligence turned out to be bad on Iraq, and is probably worse on Iran.
Iraq also had bunkers too deep for bunker busters. That's why Bush asked for nuclear bunker busters.
Leann,
The Iraq and Iran problems, from a military stanpoint, are quite different. In Iraq we needed control of territory to look for WMD and to accomplish regime change and [though we did not have enough troops for this] establish the civil order and rule of law that would be needed to give the Iraqi people a shot at democracy.
In Iran, with bombs alone we can take out all their electrical power, plus the infrastructure needed to repair it. While people are freezing and starving and dying of disease in the dark, there will be no rebuilding of nuclear reactors. Eventually, we may be able to scrape together enough ground troops to secure the oil fields in Iran. So far as occupying the whole or even much of the country of Iran, why bother? What would be the point of doing so?
[opening paragraph]
It's official: the era of resource wars is upon us. In a major London address, British Defense Secretary John Reid warned that global climate change and dwindling natural resources are combining to increase the likelihood of violent conflict over land, water and energy. Climate change, he indicated, "will make scarce resources, clean water, viable agricultural land even scarcer"--and this will "make the emergence of violent conflict more rather than less likely."
9. The Lord shall'th provide more booze just as surely as He provided Mana for 40 years to the wanderers in the desert. If you don't get your share of the booze, the reason is that you don't believe hard enough.
All booze is "produced" by mankind and not "extracted" from Nature. If we really, really wanted to make our own booze, we easily could. We just choose not to. When the time is right we will easily make our own copy of the stuff.
Well first off, all the generals have learned the lesson of Iraq, which is you can't hold population centers. So the first order of business would be to get Iran to do something REALLLLY STUPID,, like cutting off oil to the west. This would be a political action, but would be required to carry out any successful invasion of Iran. The reason being, is that if we invade Iran, with the ultimate goal of disarming Iran, and implanting an Iraqi style government, it would be doomed to failure, and Bush and all the gererals know this. BUT, if the ultimate goal is to "restore the free flow of oil to world", then you have an achievable goal.
So right off the bat, the invasion of Iran will be an invasion to restore Iranian oil output, not an invasion to free it's people.
So after a lot of study of Iranian oil field locations, Oil pipeline and NG gas pipeline location, and looking at population densities and locations, I come to the very easy conclusion, that the areas surrounding the bulk of the Iranian oil infrastucture is relatively free of people and major cities.
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iran_major_oilfields78.jpg
Looking at the Mid-East map
You realize that Iran is SURROUNDED ON ALL SIDES, by areas controlled by the U.S. Iraq and Kuwait on one side. On the Other side you have Pakistan and Afghanistan, and on the other, Turkey. The only open sides faces Turkmenistan, which to be honest, I'm not sure which way they would turn in the event of an invasion. But my guess, is that in the next few months you'll start to hear more about them.
And most importantly The United Arab Emirates are directly across the straights of hormuz from Iran. And Dubai(remember that), is home to most of the US Gulf regions naval forces.
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iran_pol01.jpg
So here is a look at the way I would cut off the rest of Iran, from it's oil fields. I would bring armor across from Iraq, and then bring light armor across the Straights of Hormuz. There would be a feignt of some sort towards the capital of Tehran, forcing much of Iran's heavy infantry and armor to form up around Tehran. But they would swing into Iran, and then head down towards the oil fields. Coming up from the Straights of Hormuz, would be the light armor, which would quickly cut the major roads leading into the Iranian Oil patch. With air cover from carriers, and the bombers from Abu Dabai, and Diego Garcia. You would be looking at a complete wipeout of Iranian defenses in that area quite quickly. With land based fighters coming in from Afghanistan, and Iraq, you could quickly plunge Iran into a "dark age". And any attempt to move armor from The south down to the oil patch would be met with pounding air power, just like the road of death in Iraq from the first gulf war. A-10 warthogs prowling the sky, looking for anything on the road to blow up.. Most of the oil pipelines leading to the North and to Tehran would be immediately cut. Most of the major oil pipelines start in the Persian Gulf or in the areas directly across the border from Iraq, and then flow up to the north. If these were diverted to the south and accross the straights of Hormuz into Dubai or Oman. They could easily be transported to any of the offloading areas in Saudi Arabia.
I would think the initial invasion portion would require less than 50 thousand troops, and pretty much all available naval airpower and Air Force bomber protection in the area. Things like the converted C130 Gunship would have to be in the area. It would take less than 2 weeks to militarily pacify the area, and then you could move into defensive mode. Which as any good tactician will tell you, is much easier. If you have a clearly defined area to protect, it's much harder on the invader than it is you. And in this case Iran would become the invading force not us. Once we have that foothold with no plans to expand outward to conquer the whole country, there will be no need for us to pacify an entire country. If you look at the resource maps of the middle east, with this move we would be in contol of all mid-east oil. From the Kirkuk fields of Iraq all the way through Southern Iran and the straights of Hormuz, accross and down through Dubai, the UAE and into Saudi Arabia.
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iran_population_density_2004.jpg
Check and Mate
Robert NW Ohio
We'd have to strip our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq . . . and there still would be insufficient troops. Not a workable plan.
What we do have an abundance of is strategic air power. After their electricity is gone, so is any potential to make nuclear weapons.
Gimme an R
gimme an A = F = T
what's that spell? oh sh*t
looks like we'll be headin' to Canada for more than strong beer and cheap drugs.
To be honest/serious, though::
I can't imagine the US public getting behind another war, let alone one requiring a DRAFT.
This isn't 1941. Maybe I'm underestimating the Rummy/Fox News Right. Could they be so patriotic?
Heaven help us.
If you have a clearly defined area to protect, it's much harder on the invader than it is you.
This is probably valid in conventional warfare, but will hardly work with the guerilla resistance I would pick if I were on the Iranian side.
Clearly the chances that we will "restore oil supplies" are even lower than we had them with Iraq. Everybody knows it and the international resistance will be fierce.
You wrote:
> Most of the major oil pipelines start in the Persian Gulf
> or in the areas directly across the border from Iraq, and
> then flow up to the north. If these were diverted to the
> south and accross the straights of Hormuz into Dubai or
> Oman. They could easily be transported to any of the
> offloading areas in Saudi Arabia.
Vous rigolez, m'sieu - n'est-ce pas?
You seem pretty knowledgeable about US weapon systems (though so do a lot of people with access to the Internet). But what is your background in the oil industry? You don't just "divert" multiple million barrel per day pipelines, especially with an entire hemisphere of angry Muslims gunning for anything that looks vaguely American. You'd have to invade, occupy and lock down everything from Algiers to Surabaya to get anything like "control" of Iran's oil.
Easier to occupy a limited area? Most of the big fields in southern Iraq (open desert) lie within an hour's drive of each other, 15 minutes by helicopter, 3 minutes by F16 (take your pick, it makes no difference). You can see all the flare plumes from any of the Gathering Centers. Yeah, the Americans - sorry, the Coalition - are doing a bang-up job of maximizing output from the area. NOT.
I should put on record my considered opinion that Shrub isn't stupid enough to try something like this. Old Deadeye's advice has to be good for SOMETHING. And if that wasn't enough, America - sorry, the Coalition - has already had a pretty good demonstration rammed down its throat that it just doesn't work.
Another good reason you can't hijack a country's oil industry is that it's pretty easy under IMO regs to get an international maritime arrest warrant. This lets your bailiffs arrest a ship in any port in the world and tie it up for months (at $40k per day demurrage for a VLCC on current Worldscale dayrates) while the courts puzzle it out. Most shipowners won't touch legally encumbered cargoes (they don't like losing control of their vessels), and last time I looked all the big shipbuilders from San Diego to Singapore were fully booked years ahead (it's those high oil prices, don'cha know?).
Or does your Tom Clancy fantasyland include abolishing maritime law and setting the USMC loose on the high seas looking for tankers to seize?
The pipelines are already there, check a map with oil infrastructure on it. All of the pipeline run right down towards the straights of Hormuz. So all you have to do, is protect what you have.. Tall order..
In response to the fact that Iraqi oil is not up to pre-war levels. You have to remember that Iraq's oil infrastructure was completely decimated before the war even started. 10 years of neglect and mismanagement guaranteed that we wouldn't see significant oil from Iraq for 5 plus years.
Robert NW Ohio
Invading Iraq has been a disaster for oil output; invadind Iran would lead to the same outcome.
Yes, the Iranians could shut down the Straights with one missile. A couple more would shut down the Saudi's. At that point, every country in the world is directly effected. Even net oil producers would be screwed: the following depression would hit them just as much.
The US wouldn't need to invade; the rest of the world would do it for them. The most likely way is assassination, bombing, and a coup. The mullahs hold the power in Iran but there are an awful lot of Iranians who hate them. Military officers freaked at such an action could rebel.
I don't think the Mullahs would last long and I think they know it. They're pretty wealthy and fat these days. It's one thing to convince a boy to seek his reward and quite another to do so yourself.
My only fear is that the cult that the President belongs to tries to bring the Mahdi back; that requires that the world be in chaos, apparently.
As far as limiting world supply goes I think they are much more likely to use al-Sadr in southern Iraq to keep the Iraqi oil off the market (and keep the Americans tied down).
My only realistic fear too. I don't admire Baby Doc Bush but I think he is backed into a corner by history and circumstance. A corner he knowingly walked into... no way he was blind to peak energy/fossil fuels. No need to kid ourselves.
Hopefully the Iranians don't really believe they "hear the voice of God" ... and hopefully Baby Doc doesn't really believe that either ("my dad (godz) kin beat up your dad (godz) anyday!).
Homo Da Saps.
The religious group he belongs to has a decidedly apocalyptic bent. The election that put him in power was carefully controlled: only approved candidates allowed. The mullahs like him. Whether they like him because he scares the bejeezus out of westerners or because they agree with him isn't clear (at least to me).
Iran holds some hefty cards and they know it.
Honestly - the God-HEARing are the most hideous and scary of all homo sapians... they turn their religions form helpful hammers that build communities into Terrible Hammers that smash skulls in their community.
Same with Mad Scientists practicing With Out the required Mother Nature's Licensing...
Beware of Global FruiCakes Claiming their Snake Oil Will Cure the Climate Blues... just as dangerous as the Distraction we call Religion for the poor sap we call Hom (IMHO)
In 1980 Saddam attacked Iran because he thought he could take advantage of the internal chaos in the country after the Iranian Revolution. The part he wanted to have is exactly the one you point out: the oil fields.
It took them 8 years and I don't know how many hundred thousand lives to figure out this wouldn't work.
If I was a general tasked with invading Iran, I would have an obligation not to commit such a war crime. I would be required to refuse such an illegal order.
Tactically, we cannot hold the oil fields against the Iranians. They do not need electricity to mount human wave attacks, as they did against Iraq. About all we can hope to accomplish is to destroy the oil infrastructure that is there, so that nobody can get any oil out of it.
My conclusion was, and is: military invasion of Iran is almost completely non-viable given present situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be an open invitation to escalate insurgency in those countries. It also has almost no benefits - Iranian oil doesn't supply US at all. It would have political repercussions: Chavez might cut oil supply to US. It might lead to impeachment of president. It might encourage a revolution in Saudi Arabia. It would increase instability and violence in Israel / Palestine. It would further isolate the USA.
What might be the benefits? I hope they don't include access to several million bpd oil production, that assumption would be very silly.
It would be insane from just about all perspectives to invade Iran.
Iran will be delt with using international sanctions, probably for the next 50 years.
How long does it take to turn an oil well into not-an-oilwell but just a patch of desert with some cement-plugged pipes?
The US forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan are already fully committed to tasks at hand - ie combatting a raging insurgency. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that the Pentagon has yet to master the art of quantum deployment whereby marines that are doing combat patrols in Kandahar or Anbar cannot simultaneously spearhead an offensive into Iran. It's also worth noting that US forces are disposed in the wrong areas for either of these locations to be useful as a launching pad - apart from in Diyala province, there are no substantial concentrations of US firepower adjacent to the Iranian border. It's worth bearing in mind that at least 5000 Iranians go to Iraq every day, and that there are tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Iranian military/intelligence/diplomatic assets in Iraq, Afghanistan and the other countries on their border - they know exactly what is happening on the ground there and any attempt to put forces into a hostile posture will be noted and countered long before anything
leaks into the public domain.
The second thing is that the Iranians have formal, normalised and peaceful diplomatic relations with every country on their border - that includes Turkey, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Kuwait, the UAE, Iraq and Afghanistan. None of these countries have any particular motive for getting involved in a hare-brained scheme that is actually going to severely damage their interests. Pakistan complains every time the US military fires at a target in Waziristan - there is no chance of the US using its territory for military operations against Iran. Turkey, which was unwilling to allow the use of a land-corridor into Northern Iraq in 2003, in spite of a 60 billion bribe has no credible motivation for allowing the US to use its territory for this either ( domestic public opinion will not permit it, and their government is, er, democratically accountable ). Similar considerations apply to the gulf states and Kuwait - they can allow the US to use facilities for this at the price of domestic rebellion and some serious Iranian retaliation. For what?
Of course, the Iranians do have a pretty good idea of the threats ranged against them. This is why their regional military and domestic security system is set up to operate autonomously. Now, the oil areas may be away from the centre, but there are hundreds of thousands of Iranian forces stationed there who would have to be dealt with. The idea that the US military could just take the Khuzestan area and the Straits of Hormuz and the 500-mile Persian gulf littoral between the 2 areas with 50,000 troops, that the US doesn't have available anyway, is utterly fanciful. And of course, what happens when the Iranians start to fire back - there will be missile attacks against US ships, US bases in the region are all within easy range of Iran's large, varied and mobile missile inventory, and the Iranians will activate their mates in Iraq to cut the US logistics chain from Kuwait. This conflict scenario is pointless because you don't consider the range of Iranian options and what would be necessary to forestall them - once you do that the military assets required for invading and holding bits of Iranian territory and countering the various plays available to Iran are simply never going to materialise.
In short, it's a damn good thing that you aren't a US military planner, as you would be facing severe retribution when you screw up your military in a way that makes Iraq look like a Buckingham Palace Garden Party.
Robert NW Ohio
Basically, the problem is intelligence. We don't really know where to bomb. The intelligence turned out to be bad on Iraq, and is probably worse on Iran.
Iraq also had bunkers too deep for bunker busters. That's why Bush asked for nuclear bunker busters.
The Iraq and Iran problems, from a military stanpoint, are quite different. In Iraq we needed control of territory to look for WMD and to accomplish regime change and [though we did not have enough troops for this] establish the civil order and rule of law that would be needed to give the Iraqi people a shot at democracy.
In Iran, with bombs alone we can take out all their electrical power, plus the infrastructure needed to repair it. While people are freezing and starving and dying of disease in the dark, there will be no rebuilding of nuclear reactors. Eventually, we may be able to scrape together enough ground troops to secure the oil fields in Iran. So far as occupying the whole or even much of the country of Iran, why bother? What would be the point of doing so?
http://energybulletin.net/13605.html
[opening paragraph]
It's official: the era of resource wars is upon us. In a major London address, British Defense Secretary John Reid warned that global climate change and dwindling natural resources are combining to increase the likelihood of violent conflict over land, water and energy. Climate change, he indicated, "will make scarce resources, clean water, viable agricultural land even scarcer"--and this will "make the emergence of violent conflict more rather than less likely."
- The booze is running out, but we'll come up with even better booze
- The booze won't be enough, but we'll drink coke instead
- The booze will be over, but we'll drink less
- The booze is almost over, we'll have to kill each other so there is enough for all
- The booze is over, the world is over, best thing to do is just shoot ourselves
Any more?I appreciate it guys you made me fall down the chair :)
(no booze envolved here :)
We will apply advanced booze recovery methods to extract booze more completely.
We don't need real booze, because we can now make synbooze from anything organic.
Every time we've ever needed booze, somebody has come through with a bottle, so why worry?
We protect the distiller, so he owes us.
We will also make trees.
- Learn to make your own booze?
I'm rather surprised that wasn't the first thought that sprung to mind.