Conquer Club

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:46 am**

It seems very likely that the US will attack Iran.

What are the benefits? What are the costs?

I'm thinking US may get Israel involved while the US keeps Syria in check.

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 11:00 am**

Is this prognosticated beatdown supposed to happen soon?

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 11:17 am**

BigBallinStalin wrote:
What are the benefits?

A whole lot of Iranian people killed, some of them even bad guys.

BigBallinStalin wrote: What are the costs?

American lives, American money, American economy, American stature, America's soul and maybe even WWIII.

BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm thinking US may get Israel involved

You got it backwards there. Israel wants the US to take care of Iran. Israel could give Iran a good beating but it would only solidify hatred of Israel among all the Muslim nations and lead to backlash directed at her.
If the US does the wetwork much of that focus is diverted to us instead. Certainly Israel will be seen behind it all anyway, but the Jew haters will be busy shooting at American troops.

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 11:36 am**

It depends on how it's done. If something domestic gets wild in Iran (e.g. successful active measures), then the US can play Iran like they did with Libya. If not, then Israel and/or the US would only be left with the option to invade or not invade (which seems unlikely ATM).

Benefits?

1) Control of the oil supply
-especially resulting in restricted access to China, thus stifling their growth
-lower oil prices for NATO members

2) Control of Iran
-removed another anti-US government (in the short-run)
-a possible new market
-a possible new democracy (thus justifying the intervention to begin with)

3) Prevent the perceived outcome where Iran gives a nuclear weapon to Hezbollah (or some other group), which then uses that on most likely Israel. Allegedly, there's reliable intelligence which supports this fear.

Costs?

1) roughly over $1 trillion (judging from the last two wars)
--not problematic because the costs of the decision-makers are dispersed (onto Americans)

2) opportunity cost (i.e. the money could've have been spent on more "productive" courses of action)

3) As was mentioned before, most likely increased anti-Americanism, thus fueling the demand for terrorist/insurgent activities, which could really decrease the chances of success and increase unexpected costs and create new unintended consequences (e.g. blowback. See Iran from 1979 to today. 9-11 is another good example).

4) Of course, thousands of Americans/Israelis/Iranians and possibly 100,000+ civilians dead--maybe more since the centrifuges are stored underneath large cities. The destruction of wealth is always a zero-sum exchange.

_________________________________________

Most of this hangs on that #3 benefits-justification. It's problematic because we don't have access to that information, so everyone has to take the policymakers' knowledge at face value...

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 11:55 am**

I'm not sure "control of oil supply" is a realistic benefit. Presumably the "real" reason for invading Iraq was to gain control of oil supply and the result of gaining such control was reduced gasoline prices. I have not seen reduced gasoline prices, have you? I also haven't seen a significant uptick in the relative value of U.S. oil companies. So, even if that was a valid reason to waste humans, money, and other resources (I don't believe it is given the ability to obtain oil here or from Canada), I do not think that benefit will be realized given past actions and results.

On the "prevent nuclear weapon detonation in Israel," benefit - I'm not sure that's a benefit for the U.S. per se. Seems more like a benefit for Israel. And I believe Israeli leaders have said on multiple occasions that Israel can take care of itself. If that is the case, Israel can achieve this benefit without U.S. intervention.

So I've just potentially knocked out two of your three benefits.

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 11:58 am**

BigBallinStalin wrote: It depends on how it's done. If something domestic gets wild in Iran (e.g. successful active measures), then the US can play Iran like they did with Libya. If not, then Israel and/or the US would only be left with the option to invade or not invade (which seems unlikely ATM).

You are aware that the Iranian opposition almost won the elections last time round, right? Attacking Iran would solidify the internal position of the current leadership as in times of war people band together against the aggressor.

Benefits?

1) Control of the oil supply
-especially resulting in restricted access to China, thus stifling their growth
-lower oil prices for NATO members

That didn't work in Iraq either. In fact, because of the disruption in the supply chain, oil will actually go up in price. How would the US restrict acces to China, and why wouldn't China buy oil elsewhere?

2) Control of Iran
-removed another anti-US government (in the short-run)
-a possible new market
-a possible new democracy (thus justifying the intervention to begin with)

News Flash. Iran is already democratic. OK, the current rules interfered with the outcome but that is no reason to attack. We're not attacking certain other foreign countries for meddling with election results either. New market for which products? I don't think the Iranians will buy anything American if they are invaded.

3) Prevent the perceived outcome where Iran gives a nuclear weapon to Hezbollah (or some other group), which then uses that on most likely Israel. Allegedly, there's reliable intelligence which supports this fear.

This would be the one and only real benefit, assuming they are actually working on WMD's. But last time we had that wrong too.

Costs?

1) roughly over $1 trillion (judging from the last two wars)
--not problematic because the costs of the decision-makers are dispersed (onto Americans)

More than $1 trillion immeditaley out of pocket, Iran will not be as easy to overrun as Iraq or Afghanistan. Plus billions per year thereafter providing care for tens of thousands of severely wounded veterans.

2) opportunity cost (i.e. the money could've have been spent on more "productive" courses of action)

3) As was mentioned before, most likely increased anti-Americanism, thus fueling the demand for terrorist/insurgent activities, which could really decrease the chances of success and increase unexpected costs and create new unintended consequences (e.g. blowback. See Iran from 1979 to today. 9-11 is another good example).

BINGO!, allthough Iran's Sunni enemies might secretly welcome the destruction of Iran

4) Of course, thousands of Americans/Israelis/Iranians and possibly 100,000+ civilians dead--maybe more since the centrifuges are stored underneath large cities. The destruction of wealth is always a zero-sum exchange.

_________________________________________

Most of this hangs on that #3 benefits-justification. It's problematic because we don't have access to that information, so everyone has to take the policymakers' knowledge at face value...

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:43 pm**

Another con. Good possibility of large scale protests/opposition in the USA. After Iraq and Afghanistan you think they will sell another bigger war without serious domestic opposition?

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:58 pm**

Baron Von PWN wrote:Another con. Good possibility of large scale protests/opposition in the USA. After Iraq and Afghanistan you think they will sell another bigger war without serious domestic opposition?

Absolutely! Did you watch any of the Republican debates and associated conservative talking heads after said debates? There are probably a large minority of people in this country who WANT to invade Iran (and the majority don't care enough to have large scale protests or opposition).

I mean, for f*ck's sake, nearly every member of Congress applauded during the State of the Union address when President Obama hinted at invading Iran.

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:00 pm**

thegreekdog wrote:
Baron Von PWN wrote:Another con. Good possibility of large scale protests/opposition in the USA. After Iraq and Afghanistan you think they will sell another bigger war without serious domestic opposition?

Absolutely! Did you watch any of the Republican debates and associated conservative talking heads after said debates? There are probably a large minority of people in this country who WANT to invade Iran (and the majority don't care enough to have large scale protests or opposition).

I mean, for f*ck's sake, nearly every member of Congress applauded during the State of the Union address when President Obama hinted at invading Iran.

Maybe I have more faith in the american citizenry but I have a hard time seeing an Iran war without a serious protest movement.

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:07 pm**

Baron Von PWN wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
Baron Von PWN wrote:Another con. Good possibility of large scale protests/opposition in the USA. After Iraq and Afghanistan you think they will sell another bigger war without serious domestic opposition?

Absolutely! Did you watch any of the Republican debates and associated conservative talking heads after said debates? There are probably a large minority of people in this country who WANT to invade Iran (and the majority don't care enough to have large scale protests or opposition).

I mean, for f*ck's sake, nearly every member of Congress applauded during the State of the Union address when President Obama hinted at invading Iran.

Maybe I have more faith in the american citizenry but I have a hard time seeing an Iran war without a serious protest movement.

Let's make a friendly bet. I bet there will not be anything more substantial than an OWS protest (Zuccotti Park style) if the U.S. goes to war with Iran.

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 2:01 pm**

thegreekdog wrote:I'm not sure "control of oil supply" is a realistic benefit. Presumably the "real" reason for invading Iraq was to gain control of oil supply and the result of gaining such control was reduced gasoline prices. I have not seen reduced gasoline prices, have you? I also haven't seen a significant uptick in the relative value of U.S. oil companies. So, even if that was a valid reason to waste humans, money, and other resources (I don't believe it is given the ability to obtain oil here or from Canada), I do not think that benefit will be realized given past actions and results.

I don't think it's a realistic benefit either. I'm just explaining how certain policymakers might perceive the benefits of a certain action. (should've clarified that).

I should've been more specific. I should've mentioned the expectation of the gains from controlling the supply of oil. There's the perceived long-term benefit of having a US-friendly government which happily sells to the US and not to the "bad guys." Roughly since the Economic interests of the US have been defined as vital interests in foreign policymaker circles.

Still, controlling the supply of oil diverts it from China. Invasion is more effective than the sanctions, which China and India ignore.

thegreekdog wrote:On the "prevent nuclear weapon detonation in Israel," benefit - I'm not sure that's a benefit for the U.S. per se. Seems more like a benefit for Israel. And I believe Israeli leaders have said on multiple occasions that Israel can take care of itself. If that is the case, Israel can achieve this benefit without U.S. intervention.

This gets tricky... I don't know enough on how the US and Israeli policymakers interact. Does Israel expect the US to help? Sure. What if a nuclear bomb destroyed Haifa, Israel? And what if the Israelis discovered later that the Americans had good intelligence which indicated that Hezbollah was going to arrange a deal with the Iranians to get a nuclear bomb?

It's plenty of "what if's," but the problem is that relations would sour if the US simply refused to coordinate and "allowed" this nuclear attack to happen. I'm thinking that the US government doesn't want that to happen, and doesn't want to be in this imagined future scenario.

Of course, it's a perceived threat, based on information that I don't have access to. But from their standpoint, it seems "reasonable" enough for the Americans to heavily assist the Israelis. (Perhaps, they have previously arranged some backdoor alliances for these kinds of situations, which would explain why the US and Israel would work together).

thegreekdog wrote:So I've just potentially knocked out two of your three benefits.

I stacked 'em back up there, my hairy Greek cousin!

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 2:04 pm**

If we're looking at "perceived by policymaker" benefits, then I agree on all of the above.

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 2:07 pm**

Baron Von PWN wrote:Another con. Good possibility of large scale protests/opposition in the USA. After Iraq and Afghanistan you think they will sell another bigger war without serious domestic opposition?

I'd expect more domestic opposition, but it depends on (1) how the executive branch frames the potential crisis, (2) how well the mainstream media shape opinions, and (3) how easily the US public is duped convinced.

Can the US public be duped by another US-Iraq War 2 chirade? It mostly hinges on the strength of that #3 benefit (i.e. the intelligence).

Also, (more of tangent) if public outcry is simply not enough to resist, the US government has already taken measures to imprison people without trial (NDAA 2011) for potentially engaging in seemingly more effective alternatives other than passive resistance.

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 2:16 pm**

thegreekdog wrote:If we're looking at "perceived by policymaker" benefits, then I agree on all of the above.

My basic stance is that it's Israel's problem. I'd even release all sanctions on Iran and let whoever wanted to take that risk to invest in there. If the government nationalizes your stuff, not my problem, dude.

I don't think Iran would supply any terrorist with a nuclear weapon because the world has a long history of states having nuclear weapons (North Korea, Pakistan, India, US, France, UK, Russia) who have had strong ties with insurgent groups yet have simply refused to give them a nuclear bomb. (Why? Because it's stupid to do so.)

Iran has nothing to gain from this, and the argument of "they hate us, they're crazy" doesn't explain the huge disincentive of losing one's country and all future flows of income after giving a nuclear bomb to a terrorist group which levels some city.

Self-defense is pretty much the only justifiable war---unless you have highly certain intelligence of an imminent attack from another country (see: The 7 Day War). I'm willing to change my opinion if the US presents strong intelligence which shows Iranian secret service agents "signing a contract" with the Hezbollah for a nuclear weapon.

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 2:20 pm**

BigBallinStalin wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:If we're looking at "perceived by policymaker" benefits, then I agree on all of the above.

My basic stance is that it's Israel's problem. I'd even release all sanctions on Iran and let whoever wanted to take that risk to invest in there. If the government nationalizes your stuff, not my problem, dude.

I don't think Iran would supply any terrorist with a nuclear weapon because the world has a long history of states having nuclear weapons (North Korea, Pakistan, India, US, France, UK, Russia) who have had strong ties with insurgent groups yet have simply refused to give them a nuclear bomb. (Why? Because it's stupid to do so.)

Iran has nothing to gain from this, and the argument of "they hate us, they're crazy" doesn't explain the huge disincentive of losing one's country and all future flows of income after giving a nuclear bomb to a terrorist group which levels some city.

Self-defense is pretty much the only justifiable war---unless you have highly certain intelligence of an imminent attack from another country (see: The 7 Day War). I'm willing to change my opinion if the US presents strong intelligence which shows Iranian secret service agents "signing a contract" with the Hezbollah for a nuclear weapon.

I agree with all of the above.

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 2:22 pm**

Well, aren't you an agreeable chap.

I WANT SOMEONE TO ARGUE WITH. BRING ME THE NEOCONS!!!

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 2:25 pm**

BigBallinStalin wrote:Well, aren't you an agreeable chap.

I WANT SOMEONE TO ARGUE WITH. BRING ME THE NEOCONS!!!

I think you mean... BRING ME THE NEOCONS AND OBAMA SUPPORTERS!!!

I had to bring politics in this thread somehow. I mean, the president and Democrats are as much in favor of an Iran war as the neocons.

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 2:32 pm**

thegreekdog wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Well, aren't you an agreeable chap.

I WANT SOMEONE TO ARGUE WITH. BRING ME THE NEOCONS!!!

I think you mean... BRING ME THE NEOCONS AND OBAMA SUPPORTERS!!!

I had to bring politics in this thread somehow. I mean, the president and Democrats are as much in favor of an Iran war as the neocons.

That's because neo-cons have infiltrated both parties. Dem or Rep we get neo-cons and by God we'll bring Democracy to the world even if we have to kill someone to do it!

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:19 pm**

well when i compare Iran with Afganistan and Iraq i get these results

-----------------area
iran-------------1648195 square KM
iraq-------------438000
afganistan-------647000

---------------population
iran------------74 milion
iraq------------30 milion
afganistan------29 milion

-----geography
iran-------over 2/3 country are covered with mountains
iraq--------almost one half of country are desert, only small part in north are mountains
afganistan--over 80% high mountain country

military
iran-----active personel 545000--police forces 300000
iraq----------375000(2003 year)
afganistan----36000(taliban 2001)

religion
iran-----------98% islam
iraq-----------95% islam
afganistan-----99% islam

Us supporters

iran-------???
iraq-------Kurds
afganistan--northern alliance

Us army casualty
Iran---???
Iraq------2003 invasion-139 KIA-551 WIA--ocupation 2003-2011-4427KIA-28649 WIA(US contractor-242 KIA -13000 WIA
Afganistan--1889 KIA-14793 WIA-ongoing
------------------------------
no1-US will attack very hostile country
No2-Terrain are very dificulty for armor units
no3-coffin production will be 3-4 time bigger then in previos expedition
no4-more US citizen money will be waste on war 15000 km away from US
no5-no win for US

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:23 pm**

Coffin production? f*ck dude.

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:29 pm**

thegreekdog wrote:Coffin production? f*ck dude.

yes,its these something wrong?
I read somwhere that in WWII ,US Military for any Invasion had all plans,even prediction how many soldier will KIA,and acording with that they prepare everything for collect bodies after battle, dont tell me that you dont know that?
US are very organised army,and prepare everything before any action.

Here you have army agency for these
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortuary_Affairs

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:44 pm**

qwert wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:Coffin production? f*ck dude.

yes,its these something wrong?
I read somwhere that in WWII ,US Military for any Invasion had all plans,even prediction how many soldier will KIA,and acording with that they prepare everything for collect bodies after battle, dont tell me that you dont know that?
US are very organised army,and prepare everything before any action.

Here you have army agency for these
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortuary_Affairs

"Coffin production" is a crass and inhumane way to refer to the death of U.S. soldiers.

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 4:15 pm**

well i dont know how to say that? If US invade Iran,coffin will need to be produced. More inhuman will be if you send body of soldier in bag .
If you want to ignore that casualty will be expected,then fine by me.

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 4:20 pm**

qwert wrote:well i dont know how to say that? If US invade Iran,coffin will need to be produced. More inhuman will be if you send body of soldier in bag .
If you want to ignore that casualty will be expected,then fine by me.

You should have said "US casualties will be higher" rather than "hey guys - you're going to need to pay for more coffins, am I right?" I know you don't like the United States and its foreign policies. I don't like them either, but you won't see me making crass comments about military deaths.

Posted: **Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:20 pm**

qwert, if you include Iran's Reserves, it brings their total armed forces to a little over a million.

What's missing from your analysis is a comparison of the roles of technology for both armed forces. With the US, they could knock out the command and control system of Iran, thus decreasing their ability to coordinate a more effective resistance. As far as symmetrical conflict is concerned, the US could knock out Iran very easily with minimal casualties.

Then comes the asymmetrical aspect (e.g. insurgency), which the US + NATO have had roughly 6 years of experience in Iraq and Afghanistan... It's hard to estimate the future costs, etc. of that scenario.

To me, a war with Iran seems cost-prohibitive (in terms of money, causalties, justifying/duping public opinion, etc.). I'd be amazed if US/Israel invaded Iran (non-Libyan intervention style).

Conquer Club

The US-Iran Beatdown

The US-Iran Beatdown

Re: The US-Iran Beatdown

Re: The US-Iran Beatdown

Re: The US-Iran Beatdown

Re: The US-Iran Beatdown

Re: The US-Iran Beatdown

Re: The US-Iran Beatdown

Re: The US-Iran Beatdown

Re: The US-Iran Beatdown

Re: The US-Iran Beatdown

Re: The US-Iran Beatdown

Re: The US-Iran Beatdown

Re: The US-Iran Beatdown

Re: The US-Iran Beatdown

Re: The US-Iran Beatdown

Re: The US-Iran Beatdown

Re: The US-Iran Beatdown

Re: The US-Iran Beatdown

Re: The US-Iran Beatdown

Re: The US-Iran Beatdown

Re: The US-Iran Beatdown

Re: The US-Iran Beatdown

Re: The US-Iran Beatdown

Re: The US-Iran Beatdown

Re: The US-Iran Beatdown