Hypothetically, could the US mount a (successful) full-scale invasion of Iran if given, let's say, a year to prepare?

Hypothetically, could the US mount a (successful) full-scale invasion of Iran if given, let's say, a year to prepare? I would be inclined to say no, since the US military has downsized significantly since 2003, and Iran is a substantially bigger and more populous country than Iraq. Agree or disagree?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The US would occupy Iran within a week. The occupation insurgency would be a bloody mess that went on for years.
    Iran knows this and insurgency is exactly the war they plan to fight.
    You are a moronic thirdie and shouldn't be allowed to use the internet.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This. Iran would already be defeated by the time the first boot went over the border from the three months long bombing campaign

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >doesn't read it
        >this

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >can't see the difference between invasion vs occupation
          The Iraq invasion in 2003 went amazing. The occupation not so much.
          OP was asking about the invasion.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The occupation insurgency would be a bloody mess that went on for years
      Definitely, but it wouldn't be analogous to the insurgency in Iraq, given how generally antagonistic Sunni-Shi'ite relations are. Far fewer international fighters would go to Iran, and they wouldn't have the funding from the Saudis.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The occupation insurgency would be a bloody mess that went on for years.
      No.

      We made major mistakes at the time.
      1. Rumsfeld was OBSESSED with doing the invasion with as few people as possible. Here is an awesome vid on the the largely untold story:

      This caused massive problems during the occupation because once the spearheads pushed through, there was basically no one behind them to full the power void. First problem is that an ungodly amount of weaponry vanished from Iraqi arsenals via looting. Second is that without immediately fulling the power vacuum, militia arose.

      2. The US Gov disbanded the entire Iraq security apparatus. INSANE decision. Even when we occupied Germany and Japan we made extensive use of their state security apparatus directly after occupation. We wont make that mistake again.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The basic rule of occupation is it should be with double the amount of troops you invaded with. Invade a country using 100,000 troops? You'll need 200,000 to stay behind to stabalize it. Rumsfeld flipped that on its head with predictable results.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Actually, the minimum that was suggested to invade iraq was 500k. Rumsfeld managed to convince bush to reduce that to 100k.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Maybe. I wonder how many Iranian, well funded terror cells are currently sitting in the US as a sort of insurance for this exact sort of event? How many thousands have come across the border, lost in the sea of 10M foreigners thanks to Joepedo and his cronies?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The US would occupy Iran within a week.
      /thread

      >The occupation insurgency would be a bloody mess that went on for years.
      most young Iranians are sick of the mullahs it is not afghanitan

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    US vastly overmatches iran in infantry, artillery, armor, airpower, and naval assets
    none of irans neighbors particularly like them either and will either ignore or actively hinder irans defense of the region
    irans only advantages is its terrain, but would lack the actual firepower to take advantage of it

    > I would be inclined to say no, since the US military has downsized significantly since 2003
    US has been actively increasing its conventional war capabilities since the late 2010s
    and even then, the US Army at its smallest dwarfes iran at its largest

    >Agree or disagree?
    if iran could only barely manage a stalemate against iraq in the iran-iraq war
    then theres basically nothing it can do to stop the US

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Probably, yes. It wouldn't be bloodless, but the gulf between us technologically is too vast. The Iranians struggle to strike conventional blows to Israel, they have no hope of beating the worlds and best funded strongest military. We have all the boons that Israel has, and more.
    >Iran is a substantially bigger and more populous country than Iraq
    That's true, but the regime isn't that popular. Decapitating strikes would likely have the same effects it did in Iraq. And then we would be dealing with insurgent Quds force for a few years in the same way we dealt with Fedayeen and it would probably descend into lawless sectarian violence, but Iran as a country would be defeated.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >That's true, but the regime isn't that popular. Decapitating strikes would likely have the same effects it did in Iraq
      Yes, the average Iranian would love to see their government toppled, but not at any cost. American imperialism is generally viewed very negatively and nobody likes to get bombed.
      The current status quo in Iran is quite comfortable for most people. They don't want war and they're convinced they'll eventually have democracy if they're just left alone and the sanctions are lifted. In their minds, their fascist government is aided by the aggressive American rhetoric. Iranians have a very negative view of American foreign policies.
      Note that if you talk to Iranian expats you can get a very different picture. Social media is full of very loud second generation iranians (who never have set foot in Iran) who'd love an invasion.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >That's true, but the regime isn't that popular.
      I don’t like my government but if China bombed us and set up a puppet government in DC I’d still join the insurgency against them. People don’t tend to like foreign occupations.
      >Decapitating strikes would likely have the same effects it did in Iraq
      Yes, it would create a power vacuum and unify the local population against a common foreign enemy.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    An invasion with what goal? I'm 100% sure the US could steamroll the Iranian military, destroy their infrastructure, and topple their government—but then what?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >An invasion with what goal?
      for the sake of the argument, lets only consider the actual military engagement and not any thing that comes after

      >'m 100% sure the US could steamroll the Iranian military, destroy their infrastructure, and topple their government
      thats your answer
      iran loses

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >the population is larger than Iraq and the US military is smaller!!
    Cool, Iraq folded in 6 months. The modern US military is VASTLY more technologically advanced than the military of 2003, and has just riven that it can OBLITERATE the Iranian missile and drone forces using just our CENTCOM naval aviation forces (50 year old F-15s lmao).
    The modern US could mount a successful invasion of North Korea, Russia, and Iran SIMULTANEOUSLY. And you’re giving them a year of prep time for JUST Iran… insane thought process. Total thirdie death

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      god I fricking hate this board for being full of people like you. I bet you think we actually won Iraq and Afghanistan dont you you flaming patriot

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The US did win in Iraq. The government they set up is still in power. Ba'athism is dead and buried.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Tbh it was a pyrrhic victory. There’s an ostensibly Western-friendly government in power but it cost trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. We’d be better off if we just left Saddam alone to talk shit about America but not actually do anything.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives
            A million+, which is pretty well done tbh

            Blood for the blood god and all that

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You don't get it; we are an econo-cultural empire. We occupy with wants and needs. Iraqis already wanted to buy our stuff before we kicked out Saddam; in a couple of generations you'll se a McDonald's on every street corner. A trillion is a drop in the bucket.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >A trillion is a drop in the bucket
              Not when we have a multi-trillion dollar budget deficit that we can’t climb out of in the foreseeable future. George W inherited a budget surplus and then helped create our current national debt crises to pay for an ultimately unnecessary war. An invasion of Iran would shake out very similarly.
              >swift and decisive military victory
              >expensive and prolonged insurgency
              >diplomatic tension with allies
              >several trillion dollars added to our national debt

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >I bet you think we actually won Iraq
        We did. We only almost lost due to ISIS, who's surge actually gave us the excuse to remain in-country *almost* in the numbers we should've had present in the first place under a Status Of Forces Agreement with the government we set up, but Obama decided to frick that up for the sake of optics/domestic politics, the consequence of which was ISIS. So it worked itself out in the end, basically.

        The media stopped doing anything approaching a good job reporting on Iraq way back in like 2004, so I don't blame people like you for not having a great idea of the chain of events re: Iraq after Bush. It was a shitshow, but it wasn't and isn't Afghanistan.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Holy fricking shit you’re moronic or a fed shill

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Iraq folded in 6 months.

      Less than two actually

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The modern US military is VASTLY more technologically advanced than the military of 2003

      Yes but it's more moronic and morale is in the gutter. You'd face actual fricking mutiny from Zoomer troopers who've already had their brains rotted by pro-Iranian propaganda peddled by Ziggers on social media. That's not even getting into the issues with civilian morale, which would be borderline catastrophic.

      Iran also has more friends than Iraq did. Most notably China and Russia. Russia may be borderline fricking useless militarily but they still have a lot of natural resources that could Iranian industry running, including nuclear material.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The US will raise levies (kurds and baluchistan rebels) which will be used for occupation duties. This will release US forces for conventional armored thrusts. USAF and USN air will wreck Iran before there is any movement on the ground. However, from the first minute there will be a massive missile bombardment from Iran towards US bases, US forces and the oil infrastructure of US allies. The more missiles they fire, the more are likely to get trough, and this means that there has to be multiple AEGIS cruisers in the gulf before the war starts.

    Irans military, nuclear and oil infrastructure will be bombed to bits. That oil goes to the chinks anyway.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think there would really be no point in actually trying to take and hold any ground or mount an occupation since that would just lead to another endless desert war.
    The only thing that the US would possibly want to invade for is the nuke production facilities and such.

    I think that a conventional air/missile campaign to destroy it's navy coupled with limited ground troops taking out important facilites should be enough.

    Just bomb every military base and airstrip to smithereens.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The US could do it in a month. It would be the iraq playbook again; massive air campaign to destroy everything larger than a machine gun nest, followed up by armored assaults. The question is should they and the answer is no.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They would likely never take the Alborz or Zagros Mountains but would destroy the standing military within a couple of months.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The only decent take ITT between NAFO and shitskin shills.
      Goddamn nu-/k/ is something else, I swear to God...

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >let's say, a year to prepare?
    Yes.

    >I would be inclined to say no, since the US military has downsized significantly since 2003
    Just the US Army has a million uniformed personnel. I think they could handle it.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Lmao, the US could easily overrun practically any country other than China in a matter of weeks. What would really suck about Iran is an even worse insurgency than Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
    That being said I would much rather be walking the streets of Shiraz as a guest and not an occupier

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This thread is delusional. Iran is difficult to invade. Geography is on their side.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >. Geography is on their side.
      terrain alone would not be enough to make up the massive deficit in firepower, numbers, or technology

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Tell that to the planners of Operation Eagle Claw.
        Don’t take it from me, Westpoint has pointed out that invading Iran is not an easy prospect and military planners have a lot more considerations to make.
        >INB4 can’t read and just acts ignorant
        >https://mwi.westpoint.edu/irans-human-geography-wicked-problem-people-places-things-complicates-us-strategy/
        >https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/geopolitics-iran-holding-center-mountain-fortress

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >iran is not an easy invasion target
          The only correct plan is the B O L T O N plan. Stack all iranians, colonize empty land.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    An invasion would be successful in a matter of weeks even if it were launched at the end of this month. The resulting mountain insurgency would be completely impossible to suppress and would make Afghanistan and Iraq combined look like a joke.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah they could do it but it would be very expensive and difficult considering that Iran is much bigger than Iraq and it’s mountainous too.
    Iran can’t really do anything to the American air force. The ground invasion is only possible thanks to the air strikes. If Iran were able to keep its leaders and officers alive, I think they could hold on for years until the American population turns against the war but there isn’t really anywhere for them to hide.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Half of the invasion force would defect to the Iranians because Zoomer recruits are literal fricking morons.

    t. literally have to work with them every day

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    At risk of sounding like a moronic general, wouldn’t Iranians be a little bit more accepting of a government overthrow than Iraq or Afghanistan?
    I certainly don’t recall any major protests in Iraq prior to 2002, in comparison to Iran in the last decade or so

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The US can pretty much invade any country it wants.The only question comes at how much it will cost them and how willing they are to pay it.

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Stupid idea because invasion cedes intiative to the local population. War does not require invasion and OP is a moron.

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It will be just like the gulf war. and it will be kino.

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Iran would fold faster than Iraq since the people actually hate the government.

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Depends on your definition of "success".
    If it's "blow some shit and call it a day" then sure, it's entirely possible.
    If it's "spend 20 years to replace taliban with taliban and leave" then it'll be a bit tricky. USA alone won't be able to do it.

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    An invasion would end in a hilarious disaster for the US, probably a US failure at huge cost to Iranians
    Imagine the international and internal response to such an obvious ZOG decision tho

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Invasion
    Yes
    >Occupation
    No

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They can't stage on Iran's border, and the action, aftermath and occupation are each an impossibility. The US would undergo political turmoil beyond comprehension, and active cells recently crossed over the southern border would go operational. It'd be quite festive.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The US would undergo political turmoil beyond comprehension

      I'm pretty sure the US would just collapse into civil war if it invaded Iran. The public uproar would be that bad.

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It would be iraq 3.0, we would absolutely annihilate the military and government but there would be a prolonged insurgency afterwards because nothing unites a population like a foreign occupier.

    >b-but the population is young and progressive!
    That shit goes out the window if your home happens to get leveled in an airstrike with your parents or sibling still inside

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No wmds but no rules 24 hours no building over a story is standing in Iran.
    Then we burn the rubble.
    Then we melt the ground
    Then we send in drones for a month hunting any person
    Then we bomb it again and again and again
    Then more drones
    Then snipers then we take over
    Boomers aren't the top of the food chain in the military anymore. It's all Afghanistan Iraq war vets..moon scape it. Kill everyone. Moon scape it. Kill everyone. Take it over. The world forgets in 3 months.
    That's how we millinials think. Frick nation building and hearts and minds. Frick opinion. Do the mission fast.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Shabbat Shalom rabbi!

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *