A rocket attack on the Ayn al-Assad base in Iraq, where US troops are stationed resulted in a big number of US soldiers being injured, sources told Reuters.
Dead Americans likely means more offensive involvement from the U.S... The situation could get quite juicy. TLAMS, JASSMs, JDAMs, HARMs and Hellfires galore.
As long as it does not strike Iranian territory, there is no problem.Dead Americans likely means more offensive involvement from the U.S... The situation could get quite juicy. TLAMS, JASSMs, JDAMs, HARMs and Hellfires galore.
Bring on the death from above!
Let's be honest, the United States doesn't have a real problem even if they do strike Iranian territory. USA and Israel would mop up the Iranian Air Force in a matter of hours and many of their bases and much of their infrastructure (including their oil production) would be hammered from hundreds of kilometers away. Iran's economy would be cripled in the first couple weeks of a conflict and USA / Israel would have complete air supremacy over the air space bordering Iran's, as well as over their international waters.As long as it does not strike Iranian territory, there is no problem.
If you think something similar to what happened in the Iraq invasion will happen, you are dreaming. Especially since China and Russia have openly announced that they will support Iran. If you ever see the US warships sinking in the Gulf, then I will ask you again what you wrote today.Let's be honest, the United States doesn't have a real problem even if they do strike Iranian territory. USA and Israel would mop up the Iranian Air Force in a matter of hours and many of their bases and much of their infrastructure (including their oil production) would be hammered from hundreds of kilometers away. Iran's economy would be cripled in the first couple weeks of a conflict and USA / Israel would have complete air supremacy over the air space bordering Iran's, as well as over their international waters.
Iran wants no part of war with the United States. Thankfully, the United States public has no interest in another expensive war with Iran either.
You see there was this thing called Afghanistan; Iran is 3x that, 4x the population of Afghanistan when U.S. attacked them, with much harder overall physical geography for aerial engagement, and like 10 proxy groups sprinkled throughout the region just outside U.S. military bases. If you don't have the intention of a ground invasion against Iran, aerial strikes against their infrastructure without occupying the country would be the most stupid thing you can do. Hormuz will be blocked and Oil prices will skyrocket, and all your bases will become targets and Israel, who could intercept 300 missiles and uavs with the help of like 15 other countries, will not be able to do much against the raining down of much more than that. So it will be total war, and U.S. cannot afford to do total war in Iranian geography. No one can.Let's be honest, the United States doesn't have a real problem even if they do strike Iranian territory. USA and Israel would mop up the Iranian Air Force in a matter of hours and many of their bases and much of their infrastructure (including their oil production) would be hammered from hundreds of kilometers away. Iran's economy would be cripled in the first couple weeks of a conflict and USA / Israel would have complete air supremacy over the air space bordering Iran's, as well as over their international waters.
Hezbollah would be a major problem for Israel and would inflict serious damage in Israel, as their air defense systems would inevitably be overrun. Hezbollah has the capacity to fire an estimated 4000-5000 of the rockets in their inventory each day. That would quickly overwhelm Israel's air defense systems and it would be a race to see how quickly Israel / USA could destroy the launch systems to help negate the attack. Regardless, it would be bloody for both sides.
Iran wants no part of war with the United States. Thankfully, the United States public has no interest in another expensive war with Iran either.
Nobody suggested a land invasion of Iran. There is immense damage that can be done from the air, without committing to a land invasion. Nobody is calling for the destruction of Iran in any way.You see there was this thing called Afghanistan; Iran is 3x that, 4x the population of Afghanistan when U.S. attacked them, with much harder overall physical geography for aerial engagement, and like 10 proxy groups sprinkled throughout the region just outside U.S. military bases. If you don't have the intention of a ground invasion against Iran, aerial strikes against their infrastructure without occupying the country would be the most stupid thing you can do. Hormuz will be blocked and Oil prices will skyrocket, and all your bases will become targets and Israel, who could intercept 300 missiles and uavs with the help of like 15 other countries, will not be able to do much against the raining down of much more than that. So it will be total war, and U.S. cannot afford to do total war in Iranian geography. No one can.
I argued very clearly, I hoped, that you cannot do aerial strikes against Iran without expecting trouble in Hormuz and in your bases from Iranian proxies, and against Israel from Hizbullah and Iran. This would then lead to the ladder of escalation. That you will be forced into a land invasion in the case of bombardment of Iranian infrastructure was the sole point of my post.Nobody suggested a land invasion of Iran. There is immense damage that can be done from the air, without committing to a land invasion. Nobody is calling for the destruction of Iran in any way.
Nobody suggested a land invasion of Iran. There is immense damage that can be done from the air, without committing to a land invasion. Nobody is calling for the destruction of Iran in any way.
1. Nobody is suggesting anything like the Iraq war. There will be no attempted land invasion of Iran.If you think something similar to what happened in the Iraq invasion will happen, you are dreaming. Especially since China and Russia have openly announced that they will support Iran. If you ever see the US warships sinking in the Gulf, then I will ask you again what you wrote today.
I am sure that something similar to what happened in Ukraine will be waiting for the US army. Saddam was in no position to receive support from either the Russians or China. Because these countries were in a collapsed state. Now, both the technologies have developed a lot. And the US cannot control the oil prices as it wants. If they do something stupid, they will see the destruction in their own economy first.
Look, today, the fear of recession in the US caused 2.3 trillion dollars to evaporate from 2 US stock exchanges. If there is a war, you will not be able to find a single piece of the US. The 2008 crisis will be like a ride in a children's park. You will miss it
Friends have already answered the first answer, there is no need for me to repeat it.1. Nobody is suggesting anything like the Iraq war. There will be no attempted land invasion of Iran.
2. There will be no American warships burning. The Iranians have little ability to sink an American Carrier Battle Group and the Russians are scared shitless to engage the Americans. The Russian Navy is a pile of rust. It barely has any blue water capability, it's only carrier is garbage and can't leave port for the foreseeable future and it's naval aircraft (Mig-29s) are a joke and would be massacred by American carrier and land based F-35s. Neither Russia, nor Iran has a hope in hell of inflicting critical damage to the 2-3 American naval armatas that could inflict horrific damage on Iranian ports seaborne trade, etc.
3. China is not entering the war. They're solely focused on their neck of the woods and all things related to Taiwan and the Pacific.
Let's say, hypothetically, that all of USA's Air Force Base access in Iraq, Kuwait, etc, were put out of commission and that the Saudis wanted to stay out of the war and didn't want USA launching strikes from their territory. I'll even got as far as suggesting that Turkey said the same thing make Incirlik a "no go" as well.Iran has sufficient firepower to damage few regional US bases swiftly. From which any supposed air campaign can be launched.
1/2 carrier from Arabian Sea won't be enough either to damage the Iran sufficiently.
There is no half assed option for US here. Either it's a full scale war or nothing.
We've seen Russia's Navy get absolutely embarrassed by Ukraine, with little answer and Ukraine doesn't have a Navy to speak of. Russia's SSNs are undoubtedly the best part of its Navy, but they are completely outclassed by USA's Virginia Class hunter-killers. Not to mention, if we're assuming Russia jumps in on the side of Iran, you've just added the British Royal Navy to the mix as well and likely some other European navy assets that want to see Russia lose in Ukraine and would support a U.S, British, Israeli naval coalition.Friends have already answered the first answer, there is no need for me to repeat it.
You seem to be underestimating Russia's SSNs. No one has been able to measure the Russian Navy's maritime capabilities.(I'm talking about naval warfare) Because Ukraine doesn't have a Navy. So I wouldn't make assumptions if I were you.
The Strait of Hormuz is the heart of the world economy. If you try to remove this heart, China will be finished economically. China will of course not want this war to break out. However, you cannot impose on third countries how their interests will be shaped. Therefore, if a war is inevitable, China will definitely choose a side and that will be Iran.