Could the U.S occupy Iran ?

[Hannibal]

Given current force levels could the U.S occupy Iran?I know the US can conquer Iran but is Iran to big andpopulus to Conquer.I also do not think there is anyway we would attempt this ?

[Cpl Steiner]

In a word, no.

[JasonC]

Yes, easily.

There isn't the political will for it, certainly. But militarily it would be readily do-able. The Iranian army would not last significant longer than the Iraqi army did. There would be plenty of internal elements willing to support the resulting regime change, as well as a large exile community eager to help run a democratic Iran.

The US probably would not try to police the whole country as thoroughly as we have in Iraq. There would be more reliance on internal Iranian elements, sooner. The revolutionary guard would fight, and continue an insurgency after losing the high intensity period of the war. But absent serious great power support from outside, they have no realistic prospect of defeating the US in country.

The determining element, however, is US political will, which isn't there to start with and would be the target of Iranian resistence.

[vincere]

That 'will' can change radically if the Iranians mess up big time. Think weapon of mass destruction in a US or better yet a European city.

[dpabrams]

Occupation is so 1900's. I agree the Iranian Army would last 90 days tops as an effective fighting force. But in this day and age I would expect them to vanish into the civilain population and start blowing up innocent civilains, what they call a freedom fighter now.

[DavidFields]

The key words in the question, IMHO, are "could" and "occupy". The US has the firepower to exterminate every Iranian-that would certainly simplify occupation. (And I recall calls during the Hostage Crisis to "Turn the Deserts into Glass"--eventhough Iran is not mostly desert, but that point was lost on the people advocating this course.)

But if the question was: Could the US occupy Iran without enormous international condemnation, and without caualties that would break the will of the US electorate to continute? Then I think the answer is a high probability "no", baring an exceedingly unlikely series of events. (ie--I would put the West getting hit by a rogue, stolen Russian nuclear device well above the probability of it getting his by an Iranian device in the next 5 years.)

Indeed, there is probably more than a 30% chance the US electorate will elect someone who will pull the US out of the Iraq/Iran area almost immediately--not that I am commenting on the advisability or not of that (which would be a political statement)--but just trying to estimate probabilities which are germane to the initial question.

No?

[Hev]

For all that is holy i realy hope that a war with Iran is just a fantasy, cos i cant see this War on Terror (and anyone else we think is bad) can end well.

Sometimes i realy fear for the survival of the human race as we know it

[YankeeDog]

I think it is pretty naive to assume that the U.S., by itself, could successfully "occupy" Iran for any length of time.

Could the U.S. military defeat the Iranian military in a "Hot War" a la Gulf War I or II? Sure. I don't think such a victory would come easily. The Iranian military is now much much better prepared both in terms of equipment and doctrine to fight a first world nation like the United States, than the Iraqi military was in Operation Iraqi Freedom. But they'd still eventually lose. It would just take a bit longer, and they'd probably take quite a few more American lives with them.

But find it very unlikely than any ensuing American "occupation" could rely on internal Iranian systems, or even pro-Western expatriates, to police and rebuild the country. While this is certainly theoretically possible, to put it simply, the United States' track record in this area really sucks; we're bound to F*ck it up somehow.

The Persians are an intensely proud people, and have a long memory of the history of U.S. foreign policy in the area. Many Iranians may not like the current regime, but this does not mean they will welcome a U.S. "Liberators" with open arms. Quite the contrary; one of the reasons the current regime in Iran has been able to hold on to power for so long is they they've been able to exploit the deep suspicion may Persians feel towards the US. The Islamic Fundamentalist movement in Iran didn't create anti-U.S. sentiment, it simply exploited it.

In summary, theoretically the US could defeat an occupy Iran. But doing so would require good military tactics, and a nearly perfect post-war rebuilding and diplomatic strategy. The former I think is quite possible. The latter I find highly unlikely.

Cheers,

YD

[dima]

Hi Mom!

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Vanir Ausf B]

If by "occupy" you mean keep the armed forces in country as long as politcal will remains to do so, yes, of course. But there would likely be an insurgency several times larger than the one in Iraq. It's a terrible idea.

[RuhrRiver]

I hope this thread gets shut down quickly. But while we're talking about it, I wonder how quickly we could invade and control Canada and Mexico? It would eliminate the border "problems" with Mexico, and nip all that socialized medicine in Canada in the bud.

[Omenowl]

If Iran proved to be as big of a threat as say Japan or Germany (both with roughly equivalent size populations) were during WW2 I am sure we can occupy Iran. Despite what everyone thinks of Iraq the very same questions about continuously occupying Europe were brought up repeatedly during the first few years post WW2.

[YankeeDog]

If "if" were a donkey, we'd all have a ride. . .

The situation with Iran is nothing at all like the situation with Germany and Japan at the end of WW2. We are not at the end of a world-encompassing conflict, and the infrastructures and societies or the two nation(s) to be "occupied" have not been ground down by an all-encompassing world war. And we would almost certainly not have the assistance of a broad allied coalition in occupying Iran.

And we're also very unlikely to reinstate the draft, to allow the kind of sustained troop levels required for a Marshall-plan type reconstruction.

I could go on. . . suffice it to say that Iran in 2008 =/= Japan and Germany in 1945.

[The Warrior]

How about we just not find out.

[Omenowl]

The situation with Iran is nothing at all like the situation with Germany and Japan at the end of WW2. We are not at the end of a world-encompassing conflict, and the infrastructures and societies or the two nation(s) to be "occupied" have not been ground down by an all-encompassing world war. And we would almost certainly not have the assistance of a broad allied coalition in occupying Iran.

The Germans had roughly 10 times the number of troops per capita then either Iraq or Afghanistan and maintained a higher number of troops in their lands than Iraq has currently. In fact Kosovo and Bosnia both had higher troops counts than Iraq per capita at the same point during occupation.

The question is would it be possible and the answer is yes if the threat proved as great. No one has viewed the threat to be sufficient for such action. However, if Iran should fire a nuclear missle at a Europe, Israel or the US I think both the political and military reality is we could occupy Iran.

[Paper Tiger]

Wouldn't the General Discussion Forum be a more appropriate place for a discussion like this? It's not a Shock Force related issue.

[JP76er]

Originally posted by The Warrior:

How about we just not find out.

Agreed!!! We can handle any nasty they want to try, but occupation, NO. We could do it, but we really have nothing to gain & a lot to lose. Most important, losing our men & women in the armed forces unnecessarily. More global bad will. How about we kick ourselves, Congress & the new President in the butt & reduce our reliance on oil. The technology & the sources are there. Big Oil likes it that we don't hammer them enough.

Just my humble opinion.

[FAI]

Sure, if you're willing to go Roman. Not just on Iran, but on the dozen or so new enemies that will eventually crop up.

Come to think of it, you WILL have new enemies by occupying Iran. Bye-bye a stable Middle East, hello Taliban in Pakistan. And say bye-bye to your SUVs...

[Other Means]

What percentage of fighting age men had survived in Germany after WWII? I'd guess that would make occupation easier.

[Bigduke6]

One thing is for sure: The Iranians would fight. That's a population of 70 million, a tech level roughly on par with India or Brazil, and easily 15 million military-age men.

Were the US to mobilize totally, of course it could overwhelm a the military of a country of that size. I personally doubt it would be bloodless; the Iranians are patriotic, not stupid, and among other things they make their own guided munitions.

But without mobilization, using only the regulars and the reserves, I doubt the US has the force to dominate a country that size. Destroy the more targetable portions of the Iranian military, sure.

But conquer and occupy? Again, barring a full-scale war mobilizatoin of the US economy, no way. Barring a willingness to kill like Mongols or Russians, the US cannot field enough infantry to keep a country that size under military control. US infantry costs too much, and the recruiting base is too small. Geographically Iran is basically the size of continental West Europe.

There is such a thing as biting off more than you can chew.

[luderbamsen]

Oh what the hey. Let's get an Iranian module for CMSF and find out for ourselves...

[Panzer76]

Doing so would spell the end of the US world dominance for sure and as a bonus, would not accomplish the the probable mission goals.

[MikeyD]

Imagine the reaction of exhausted troops who had been looking forward to being rotated out of their 3rd tour of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan instead being sent into a 3rd - and much larger - Iranian conflict. Not a good idea at all. Beside, my taxes are still paying for the first month of the Iraq invasion. Give me some time to catch up on my finances first!

[DavidFields]

And then, of course, if the Russians intervened to support the Iranians.....at least covertly.

Ya think the Russians would tolerate us putting 200...300...500 thousand soldiers in Iran to keep it supressed? Betcha that would push Russia more toward a military dictatorship and build-up.

Then China takes a little swipe at Taiwan--because it then could.

And as I look at the original question, "Given current force levels" would seem to decidedly push the answer to "no". [with caveats from my original post regarding definitions]