What a war with Iran would be ...

Mr. President, I believe that the Iranians will fight us with everything they have if we go to war with them.

• You have several thousand soldiers in Iraq and Syria.  These countries have large proxy forces of Iran's allies in the form of Shia militias in Iraq and actual Iranian Quds Force troops in Syria.  These forces will be used to attack and kill our soldiers.
• The Iranians have significant numbers of ballistic missiles which they have already said will be used against our forces
• The US Navy has many ships in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea.  The Iranian Navy and the IRGC Navy will attack our naval vessels until the Iranian forces are utterly destroyed.  In that process the US Navy will loose men and ships.
• In direct air attacks on Iran we are bound to lose aircraft and air crew.
• The IRGC and its Quds Force will carry out terrorist attacks across the world.

Do you really want to be a one term president?

Pompeo can talk big now and then go back to Kansas to run for senator. 

Where will you be able to take refuge? 

Don't let the neocons like Pompeo sell you on war.

Make the intelligence people show you the evidence in detail.  Make your own judgments.  pl

Comments

[CK]

Forts are stationary.
Nothing I have read implies that Iran has a lot of investment in stationary forts.
Millennium Challenge 2002, only the game cannot be restarted once the enemy does not behave as one hopes. Unlike in scripted war simulations, Opfor can win.
I remember the amount of devastation that was unleashed on another "backwards nation" Linebackers 1 - 20, battleship salvos chemical defoliants, the Phoenix program, napalm for dessert.
And not to put to fine a point on it, but that benighted nation was oriental; Iran is a Caucasian nation full of Caucasian type peoples.
Nothing about this situation is of any benefit to the USA.
We do not need Saudi oil, we do not need Israel to come to the defense of the USA here in North America, we do not need to stick our dick into the hornet's nest and then wonder why they sting and it hurts. How many times does Dumb have to win?

[turcopolier]

CK

The point was about shore based firepower, not forts. don't be so literal.

[turcopolier]

lars

We would crush Iran at some cost to ourselves but the political cost to the anti-globalist coalition would catastrophic. BTW Trump's "base" isn't big enough to elect him so he cannot afford to alienate independents.

[prawnik]

Even if Rouhani and the Iranian Parliament personally designed, assembled, targeted and launched the missiles (scarier sounding version of "drones"), then they should be congratulated, for the Saudi tyrant deserves every bad thing that he gets.

[CK]

The Perfumed Fops in the DOD restarted Millennium Challenge 2002,because Gen Van Riper had used 19th and early 20th century tactics and shore based firepower to sink the Blue Teams carrier forces. There was a script, Van Riper did some adlibbing. Does the US DOD think that Iran will follow the US script? In a unipolar world maybe the USA could enforce a script, that world was severely wounded in 1975, took a sucking chest wound during operation Cakewalk in 2003 and died in Syria in 2015. Too many poles too many powers not enough diplomacy. It will not end well.

[prawnik]

If it were proven beyond any doubt that Iran were responsible, then we should send Iran a message of thanks and gratitude, and maybe also a nice card and some flowers and chocolates.

[PRC90]

These kinds of munition will leave hundreds of bits scattered all over their targets. I'm waiting for the press conference with the best bits laid out on the tables.
I doubt that there will be any stencils saying 'Product of Iran', unless the paint smells fresh.

[prawnik]

Need I trot out Goering's statement regarding selling a war once more?

Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

[turcopolier]

prawnik (Sid) in this particular situation goering's glittering generalization does not apply. Trump needs a lot of doubting suburbanites to win and a war will not incline them to vote for him.

[Bill Wade]

Looks like President Trump is walking it back, tweet: I have just instructed the Secretary of the Treasury to substantially increase Sanctions on the country of Iran!

[scott s.]

AFAIK the only "US naval power" currently is the Abraham Lincoln CSG and I haven't seen any public info that it was in the Persian Gulf. Aside from the actual straits, I'm not sure of your "sitting ducks" assertion. First they wouldn't be sitting, and second you have the problem of a large volume of grey shipping that would complicate the targeting problem. Of course with a reduced time-of-flight, that also reduces target position uncertainty.

[PRC90]

I doubt there will be armed conflict of any kind.
Everything Trump does from now (including sacking the Bolton millstone) will be directed at winning 2020, and that will not be aided by entering into some inconclusive low intensity attrition war.
Iran, on the other hand, will be doing everything it can to increase the chance of a Democrat administration, bearing in mind the great deal they got from the last one and the lack of anything they can expect from Trump Term Two.
This may be a useful tool for determining their next move, but the limit of their actions would be when some Democrats begin making the electorally damaging mistake of critising Trump for not retaliating against Iranian provocations.

[Terence Gore]

Pros and cons of many options considered against Iran

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06_iran_strategy.pdf

[Eric Newhill]

PRC90,

Here are some alleged bits from the attack; said to be an Iranian cruise missile.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-retaliation-us-saudi-arabia-tensions-sanctions

[d74]

I don't want war with anyone, neither Iran nor USA, God is my witness.
However, to implore the President, head of the army, by saying that in the event of war with a country determined to defend itself, the armed forces will be badly hurt seems to me weak...

If combat actions are necessary - and in Iran, they are not - then losses are to be expected and will be justified by the goal to be achieved, victory.
During my military service, I learned that my Platoon's mission justified the losses. And these losses would be good and close mates. At the country level, things are no different.

Here, the questions are political. Diplomatic action is the only way. The range is wide without resorting to war.

As the Colonel says above, a new war in this region, which has been so severely affected for 30 years, would have negative and lasting consequences. Iran is not worth it.

[BABAK MAKKINEJAD]

This is a dated document by authors who do not know Iran; excepting Bruce Riedel and Suzanne Maloney.

The fundamental flaw in this document is the absence of the most important option: "Strategic Settlement with Iran".

[Jack]

Senator Hawley on the Iran/Saudi tensions: "We shouldn't attack anyone on behalf of Saudi Arabia for Saudi Arabia's interests"

youtube.com/watch?v=yMuVyK…

https://twitter.com/esaagar/status/1173990139699355654?s=21

Why would the US government even consider attacking Iran even if there’s definitive proof that the attack on Saudi oil facilities originated in Iran? Isn’t that a problem for the Saudis, Chinese and Europeans who import Saudi oil?

[BABAK MAKKINEJAD]

No one in Iran wants Afghanistan or her people; just like US & Mexico.

Nor anyone in Iran is keen on sharing the oil-income with the people of Afghanistan.

[jonst]

pure ignorance squared.

[jonst]

ships can't fight forts? You ever heard of the Mississippi River? And the American Civil War?

[jonst]

I do not believe they can destroy Israel...and survive themselves. This should not be read to imply I support Israel. Or don't support them, for that matter. I have repeatedly noted I would get us out of the ME and what happens there happens. We can live with it.

[jonst]

It looks to me like he is 'strenthing'....by staring down Graham. will it last? His present position I mean. Who knows? We are in a very fluid time...as well as a slippery slope. And so is Iran.

[jonst]

Indyk, Pollack, O'Hanlon...I would not give you spit for their opinions except as a guide to do the opposite. Ridel is different.

[David Solomon]

They should do so. We will then owe them a debt of gratitude.

[HK Leo Strauss]

It doesn’t matter how fast Don/MBS can run, Iran and the Houthi can ramp up faster.