Can Iran hurt us militarily?

This is not something the MSM has been talking about, but after doing some research I think the resounding answer is YES.

Yes, we kicked Saddam's butt easily. Twice. Saddam may have been the worst military tactician the world has ever known. Both times he let us build up a huge force on his borders, and he let us attack first with our overwhelming airpower, and he tried to fight with us on our own terms.

Airplane against airplane, ship against ship, infantry man against infranty man, we can crush anything in the Middle East. But if the people running Iran's military have any sense, they will not let us attack first with overwhelming airpower, and they will fight asymmetrically against us.

Iran's biggest military buildup has been in the acquisition of missiles. Missiles are asymmetric weapons. They don't have to be as good as our missiles. They just have to be better than our defenses. Two Exocet missiles knocked out the USS Stark in the 1980s, and one Exocet missile (out of two fired) sunk the HMS Sheffield in the Falkland Islands war. Iran has hundreds of Exocet and Chinese anti-ship missiles.

If the U.S. has a naval fleet in the Perian Gulf, it could be a sitting duck for Iranian missiles. For our defense we have one or more Aegis cruisers that are supposed to be able to shoot down incoming missiles and protect the aircraft carrier. But who knows if this will really work in combat? If Iran launches a big attack with dozens of missiles simultaneously coming at our fleet, can the defense systems really shoot all of them down?

Iran has a lot of the latest Chinese missiles, and sure it's easy to say "ha, Chinese missiles must be crap," but Chinese engineers are pretty smart (visit the engineering department at any American college and count how many white American engineering students you see there) and if they can make DVD players and computer chips, they can also make effective missiles capable of shooting down our ships and planes. Once again, the Chinese missiles don't have to be as good as the best American missiles (but who says they aren't?), they just have to be better than our anti-missile defenses.

If Iran attacks first, there is the serious possiblity that the U.S. could suffer the worst naval defeat since Pearl Harbor.

Comments

[mikeca]

I’m not sure how serious a thread Iran is to the US navy, but Iran can cut off all their oil exports. Iran currently contributes about 4.2 million barrels a day to the world’s total production of 84 million barrels a day. Even worse, they could sink a few ships in the Strait of Hormuz, even their own ships, and cut off all oil exports from the Persian Gulf. Who knows how high that would send oil prices.

[Half Sigma]

Iran poses a very serious threat to our navy so long as our navy is parked in the Pesian Gulf. And Iran can completely block off all oil from the Gulf. Iran can cripple the oil export capabilities of all neighboring Gulf nations with some missile attacks. Don't be surprised if, in the attack against our fleet, a few missiles "accidentally" hit Saudi Arabian or Kuwaiti oil export facilities.

[probligo]

As I have said elsewhere, the really truly biggest question is -

Has the Bush administration learnt anything from the mistakes made in Iraq?

[Half Sigma]

probligo, from a military perspective I don't think we really made any serious mistakes in Iraq.

[nobody]

There is some consensus that it was a big mistake to not send more troops to quash the rebelion before it got started. The professional soldiers certainly understood what it takes to win from the start, but their views are not in favor with the current administration.

The former Army chief of staff estimated that it would take 250,000 boots on the ground to secure Iraq. We ended up with half that number because the politians refused to do what is needed to win the war. Don't have enough troops? Mobilized and reinstated the draft. This sends the signal that we are in the long haul. But this war does not have a support of the public. If middle class family were forced to send their sons into harms way, this war would have ended two years ago.

[probligo]

"probligo, from a military perspective I don't think we really made any serious mistakes in Iraq."

Well, I am not a military man by any means so I will leave the debate on that for now at least.

What your comment does not tackle, and which was at least 50% of my statement on making mistakes, is that the Iraq war is almost entirely political rather than military.

The distinction? How about the objectives.

What was the military reason for invading Iraq? There was oil, imposing democracy, getting Saddam out, WMD; none of those are really military objectives. With the exception of "US security" and perhaps WMD they are all political objectives. That they are "in the interests of the US" does not make the invasion justified from a military perspective.

"Interests" are political. Nothing more.

There was the first of at least three major mistakes.

[nigel]

well there is no doubt the us would crush the iranian military even whith the current war in iraq.
i dont think they could effectivly hold the country like they do iraq and certenly not well trying to hold iraq the south of iraq is only quiet because the iranian govt whisses it to be
they are happy to let fellow sheites hold power in the new gov
if iran is attacked they will undoutably rise to fight the us in iraq mabby even in iran this would tie down the us men and ground equipment we have there now completly

the missle systomes and navy of iran could keep the strait of hamiz closes to oil exports and it is doubtfull the us navy will be willing to send multi billion $ ships into that tight of a strait even whith there defencive abilitys and airpower to back them up it would be way to costly

irans air power is not much of a threat to the us it will be shot down as fast as it gets up if it gets up at all
but irans air defence well poruse is still quite formidable esp the tor-1 missle systom
so unless the us is willing to pay massive oil prices for at least 3 or 4 months (prices over 100$ a barrel aswell as reinstate the draft and losse a whole heap of military hardware aswell as lives i dont realy think this is a war that will take place

there are sevrale other probloms the us would face aswell that in order to keep this post short i wont get into but brefly list
1 geting bases from other arab countrys (iraq and affganastan wont be enuff)
2 handling the 70 million ppl in iran affter the war is "over" iraq only has 25 fyi
3 mataining superpower status if navy and air force take heavy losses
4 mantaning economy (its alredy hevaly in debt and another war well its competetors dont have that expence is just to much)
5 public reaction of not just another war but the draft will most likly be negitive unless iran attacks first
6 the chance that some other county will attack u.sor u.sintrests well they conciter it week and overstreached (small chance but one not to be dissmesed)

[Ryan]

I dont think anyone has considerd the fact that Iran, a nation of Persians, has existed for a much much longer time than the US has. These are a proud people who do not like being told what to do even if some of them disagree witht heir own government. When you have that much fierce determination not to mention better knowledge of the landscape, techno-crazy weapons and drafted soldiers wouldnt hold a candle to well trained and highly determined Iranian fighters. Be they military or average citizen armed with AK-47s (which is much less failure prone than the M-16) they will fight tooth and nail. Not since WW2 has the US military had soliders who would fight so hard. All you hear about is whining when they dont have this or that kind of gear. Most of the enemy doesnt either yet theyre kicking our ass in Iraq.

Iran has high end Mig fighters, AK's, Exocet missiles, tanks ....anything they need to tkae on a ground force.

If it was me facing a people who have existed for over a millenia, who would unleash a rage if a no name country in terms of years tried to direct its people on how to live....Id be shitting my pants.

We assume technologicaly advanced weapons are the key to any battle these days. We did so with the Vietnam war. We found out what a determined people with basic weaponry and little to no gear coul do to us. I think Iran would prove this once again.

The only way you could beat them is with nuclear wepaons....and if we attacked them, Russia and perhaps China would hit us back. I dont care how many weapons we have...if we piss off enough people....were fried!

[nobody]

Pride of a nation is not match for advanced weaponary. As HS as repeated pointed out, the real problem is that this country is not willing to commit itself to total war that will lead to complete destruction of a nation state and its population. Wars like Vietnam and Iraq are examples of what happens when the military might is limited by political considerations at home and abroad.