[One Degree]

Iraq's air defenses were nearly non existent and by 2003 probably couldn't shoot down a WW2 era squadron.

The US "massive air superiority" effectively became a myth during the late 2000s.
The only reason you, Americans, still believe you can achieve full air superiority and not be shot down is because all your enemies for the past several decades didn't have airforces to begin with.

Using a jet fighter to attack a lightly trained civilian in sandals and holding an AK 47 doesn't exactly qualify to compare with attacking a fully standing army with a modern airforce and air defences.

https://www.globalfirepower.com/countri ... it=COMPARE

So, you dispute these figures from globalfirepower.com? They say Iran has 150 fighter/interceptors to the US 1,962. Iran has 158 attack aircraft to the US 2,830. I don’t see much of a battle.

[anasawad]

@One Degree
So you're saying that the US will be bringing everything is has from all around the world (literally, clean up all 600 or so bases around the world) and bring everything to a single invading strike force at once ?

Thats impossible, not because you wont do it, but because you cant do it. The US has those troops and basis all around because they need to be there to insure hegemony not because it just feels like it.

A US strike would mainly consist of troops already near by the region, then followed a wave from away.
On the other hand. Iran can produce aircrafts, when at war, not only all the reserves will be deployed, but production will be on full power. And you're ofcourse forgetting about land based air defenses. Iran has both Russian and Chinese air defenses along with native ones all deployed and in large numbers.
Then you have the even better fact which is that the US airbases, the ones those aircrafts are going to take off from, are all in range of not only Iranian missiles but also Iranian troops and proxies.
Namely the basis in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey and the UAE. All within range to be destroyed within the first few days if not first few hours since once a war begins, those will make it to the high priority targets.
You also have aircraft carriers which would have to get near the Persian gulf to be in range, there they'll have to deal with a whole set of attacks to destroy them all while fighting in close range to land based anti ship defenses.

So no, you "not seeing much of a battle" is just you not knowing what you're talking about.

[One Degree]

@anasawad
Obviously, the US wouldn’t need all their forces. They know exactly what is needed for overwhelming superiority and those forces would be consolidated before any attack just like they were with Iraq. All of your installations are known from satellite surveillance. What are you going to use to attack our bases with after the first attack on you? Your only hope is a first strike which would bring the whole world down on you. The US can get by with first strikes. The world is unfair and it is not in your favor in a war scenario. You have to survive a first strike before you can even think of retaliation.

[anasawad]

@One Degree
LoL.
Boy, no one in the past 70 years have been destroyed by your first strikes.
And no you don't know where all our weapons are. If you are as strong as you think you are and we're as weak as you think we are, then your government would have attacked long long ago.

But well, what can you expect from American exceptionalists.

Either way, words wont make a difference, a war is already on its way and we'll see which nation outlives the other.

[One Degree]

@One Degree
LoL.
Boy, no one in the past 70 years have been destroyed by your first strikes.
And no you don't know where all our weapons are. If you are as strong as you think you are and we're as weak as you think we are, then your government would have attacked long long ago.

But well, what can you expect from American exceptionalists.

Either way, words wont make a difference, a war is already on its way and we'll see which nation outlives the other.

I don’t expect to see any war under Trump’s watch unless someone is dumb enough to force him into a choice of war or backing down. His nature is to negotiate. He loves that kind of battle with words. He would not be a limited war type of US President the world is used to though. He would send everything we have.

[anasawad]

@One Degree
Trump is an idiot. Any war he leads will be lost I can assure you.

[One Degree]

@One Degree
Trump is an idiot. Any war he leads will be lost I can assure you.

I think he would just make the decision, not lead the troops.

[anasawad]

@One Degree
He wont lead the troops, sure, but he'll determine the policy the generals follow, and thats where you win or lose wars.

Much smarter and better presidents than hem lost wars because of the wrong policies and in time with much less divide.

[One Degree]

@One Degree
He wont lead the troops, sure, but he'll determine the policy the generals follow, and thats where you win or lose wars.

Much smarter and better presidents than hem lost wars because of the wrong policies and in time with much less divide.

Supposedly we learned that lesson in Vietnam, but granted we are quite capable of making it again. It’s a bitch having your internal politics dictating foreign policy.

[anasawad]

Learned it in Vietnam and then again in Afghanistan and Iraq and almost did it in Syria and Yemen.

Are you sure you learned it in Vietnam ?

[One Degree]

Learned it in Vietnam and then again in Afghanistan and Iraq and almost did it in Syria and Yemen.

Are you sure you learned it in Vietnam ?

Iraq was done right militarily, but yes we screwed up the aftermath. Idealists always think people change quickly. We should have left immediately or took permanent possession. Wars for regime change are really stupid imo unless you just leave and don’t care who becomes the new regime.

[Rich]

If there is a war with Iran, then no F15s, F16s, F22s or F18s should be used. Lets see what the F35 is actually capable of.

[skinster]

[Ter]

War is inevitable. And Iran has been, for many years, preparing to counter an attack and pretty much set the region on fire.
And the war wont be just with the clerics but with the Iranian eastern tribes as well.

In a war scenario, An Azari betrayal is expected which is why anyone following local news in Iran would notice that massive increase in military presence in the north west and west of the country by the Iranian defense forces, revolutionary guards and tribal armies; The intent ofcourse is to insure that once a war starts and those little guys turn against us, they'll be liquidated fairly quickly and the mountain line will be strongly defended.

Air defense deployment are also increasing massively through the years of 2017 and 2018.

Any NATO invasion would most likely utilize the Turkish-Iranian borders and potentially Azerbaijani borders, the Hashmiri tribes (kurdish but has allegiance with the Hazzars and the government) will use asymmetric warfare to spread chaos, distrub supply lines and potentially neuter any invading force within Azzari and Turkish territories.

Another potential front is the south west Arab areas through Iraq, which 'm sure I don't need to explain what forces does Iran have in Iraq and how they'll be used.

For the south west through Pakistan, any invading army will have to cross Balochi territories, whom have been negotiating more and more autonomy and self governance in the recent years, which under a war scenario will most likely mean they'll be attacking any invading army in order to secure their autonomy not only in Iran but also in Pakistan, a US ally and a major enemy of the Balochis.

On the naval front, there will be heavy use of submarine, mine, and land based missile warfare against any approaching naval forces.

On a regional front, the US and allies will have to fight against Hezbollah (obviously) and the Baalbak tribes in Lebanon, Syria and all its allied militias, most of Iraq, the large Shommari Shia tribes spread across Saudi Arabia and Oman, Yemeni Houthis, various Kurdish tribes with Allegiance with the Hashmiris in Turkey and Iraq, And if anyone bothers to follow Lebanese news; they'll know that there is a growing alliance between the Shias and Christians of the middle east, so potentially also include Lebanese and Egyptian Christians.


My personal expectations for the results are;
The clerics in Iran wont survive the war and an imperial dynasty will take over and continue the war in their place.
Unstable governments like that of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will be too weak to stand and fall either during or shortly after the war.
Pakistan and Turkey will go into pretty much an all out civil war as Turkey will have to deal with Kurds and Pakistan will have to deal with the Balochis along with all the south western ethnic and national groups already either seeking independence or the replacement of the government.


Jordan is highly unlikely to remain stable as the Palestinians representing a majority of its population see the last source of support (Iran) being attacked, add to that the massive corruption and rage due to it currently present with routine protests, there is a significant probability to see Jordan falling into chaos and potentially civil war as Bani Sakher and Bani Hasan tribes (each account for 1-1.5 million members) will most pursue autonomy and potentially independence, this time with more success than the previous times in the early 2000s and 1990s as the government is and will be alot weaker.

Bahrain will mostly see its government gone due to multiple already existing reasons and causes that a Iran-Saudi war will massively escalate and essentially set the country on fire and have the minority Sunni rule decapitated.


Generally speaking, although it would be an extremely bloody and highly destructive war, I do see the results as fairly good in the long term.
Iran will be able to restore internal balance with a legitimate dynasty back on the throne.
Saudi Arabia and the gulf states will go bye bye.
The US will be significantly weakened if not forced to withdraw from the region due to the heavy losses and attrition it'll suffer.
The US will also most likely see an economic crash as the war would set off many existing economic bubbles that even without a war expected to cause a meltdown, so that'll be accelerated and its position on the world stage will be damaged beyond repair, so bye bye American world order. I'm sure China would be more than happy to kick you to the dust and spread its influence all around.

A regional war will also most likely accelerate Egypt's descent towards a civil war as Christians and Secularists face off with Islamists.

@anasawad Thank you for posting this excellent analysis of what could happen if Iran is attacked. I am impressed !
I noticed that you didn't mention Israel at all although it is a player in that part of the world.

[Sivad]

The only thing that makes war inevitable is mass stupidity.

[anasawad]

@Ter
Israel will probably have a face off with Hezbollah and the Palestinians.
I doubt however Israel will engage withthe Baalbek tribes as both sides have limited their engagement with each other in all previous conflicts, and considering the large deficits Hezbollah is suffering due to loss of funding from the tribes caused by its engagement in Syria ( its an entire topic on it self), the battle front between Lebanon and Israel will be limited. We'll most likely see Hezbollahs main fighting force in Iraq, northern Syria and northern Saudi Arabia as its already working to integrate with the shommaris in north east Saudi Arabia.
Israel role in a war, I suspect will be very limited and shadowed over by the grander war in the gulf, which due to Israel's limited long range deployment capabilities along with political factors wont be seeing much Israeli presence. ( It's of its best interest to let Iran and the Arabs fight it off on their own.)

Where we could see Israel's fight will be mainly with the Palestinians, in eastern Sinai, and potentially southern Syria and Jordan.

So in general, Israel role in the war wont be significant or much notable. As the bigger and main war will be between Iran and Saudi Arabia, Iran and the US, and Pakistan and Turkey internally as the tensions are already very high between various factions, political and ethnic, within them which a war with Iran will draw them both into conflict and cause the tensions to boil over.

The real crises caused by a war would be 1- oil supplies and 2- Pakistan nuclear arsenal as its been preparing for a civil war for a good period and a war would trigger it as the Balochis, Islamists, the military along iwth other smaller factions face off.

You might say it can avoid the war or allowing anyone to pass through its territories; it cant, the conflict with the Balochis is already present and going hot every now and then, with Iranian support its guarenteed to go hot very quickly, and to spread over to other frozen conflict zones within pakistan.

[Suntzu]

There is really no need for a war with Iran. Take out the Iranian air force in a couple of hours then go in and take out the power grid. Sit back and watch.

[Zionist Nationalist]

Pakistan nuclear arsenal as its been preparing for a civil war for a good period and a war would trigger it as the Balochis, Islamists, the military along iwth other smaller factions face off.

its time that Pakistan be erased from the map

everyone hate Pakistan. I meet some Pakistanis that said they hate their own country and wish they were born somewhere else (fortunate for the they no longer live there)

[Oxymandias]

@Zionist Nationalist

Your stupid war-mongering is so ridiculous I physically die inside and flinch every single time I see your posts.

[Zagadka]

There is really no need for a war with Iran. Take out the Iranian air force in a couple of hours then go in and take out the power grid. Sit back and watch.

And watch what? The war switch to terrorism? Did you learn nothing from Afghanistan?