Opinion: U.S.-Iran war wouldn't be a cakewalk

[queentonic]

Market Watch
Opinion: U.S.-Iran war wouldn’t be a cakewalk — it would be hell
By Amin Saikal
Published: May 10, 2019 11:07 a.m. ET
...

In the event of a war, Iran would not have the military capacity to stand up to American firepower. The U.S. could quickly take out Iranian military installations, nuclear sites, and major infrastructure facilities. In addition, it could prevent Iran from blocking the Strait of Hormuz, through which some 30% of the world’s oil is shipped.

Yet Iran is capable of making any U.S. military assault — with or without Israeli and Saudi Arabian support — very costly for America and the region.

The Iranian regime may be able to sink a few ships at the Strait of Hormuz’s narrowest point — where the shipping lanes in either direction are only two miles (3.2 kilometers) wide — in an effort to choke it off.

More important, Iran has nurtured an asymmetric-warfare strategy based on both hard and soft power. Although Iran lacks a modern frontline air force, for example, it has made significant progress in developing and producing short-, medium- and long-range missiles, which have the capacity to hit targets as far away as Israel.
...

Moreover, the Iranian regime has forged a network of proxy forces across the region. Syria and Iraq have become crucial links in an Iran-led Shia strategic arc stretching from Afghanistan to Lebanon. The regime’s proxy forces include segments of Afghanistan’s Shia population, Iraqi Shia militias, and Hezbollah, which controls southern Lebanon and has thousands of rockets ready to target Israel. Indeed, Hezbollah emerged from its 2006 war with Israel stronger than before.

In addition, Iran can mobilize thousands of extremely dedicated suicide bombers to sacrifice themselves for the cause of Shia Islam and nationalism that the regime has successfully promoted. These bombers are embedded within the Iranian security forces, and across the region.

<more>

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-iran-war-wouldnt-be-a-cakewalk-it-would-be-hell-2019-05-10

[albacore]

1. NOT a weapons expert... don't even play one on TV... but....

... I disagree about "...sinking a few ships in the Straits..." I think that the Iranians can plug that bottleneck with mines and maybe even get lucky and destroy or damage US ships.

"Mines, to take one striking example, are a potent naval weapon and ubiquitous among our potential enemies. Fear of mines caused the United States to cancel a major amphibious landing during the Korean War, and concerns over possible Iraqi mines prevented a planned seaborne assault on Kuwait during the 1991 Gulf War. A single mine (and Iran has thousands of them) in the Strait of Hormuz, through which a third of the world’s oil transported by sea passes every day, would throw markets into total chaos. Yet the Navy currently possesses a mere eleven minesweepers, dilapidated vessels long past retirement age, with just four available for the entirety of the Middle East. Fifteen of the new and failure-­ridden class of Littoral combat ships, known to crews as “little crappy ships,” will supposedly be dedicated to mine-­hunting and minesweeping, but none of their specialized equipment—­designed to detect and disable mines, including underwater drones—has been found to work."

"Thus the lion’s share of our defenses against mines must be borne by a small, decaying fleet of huge ­MH-53E helicopters that search and destroy mines by towing large sensor-­laden sleds through the ocean. The MH-53E, and its variant for the Marines, the CH-53E, are lethal machines—­lethal, that is, to those who operate them. According to the journalists behind the documentary Who Killed Lt. Van Dorn, the helicopters have crashed 58 times and killed 132 crew and contractors since their introduction in the 1980s, making them the most dangerous aircraft in the U.S. military."

Only part of an excellent article...
https://harpers.org/archive/2019/06/the-pentagon-syndrome/

[DFW]

2. I have been saying this for 15 years

If we were to attack and invade Iran, the only stock that would go up would be the manufacturer of body bags. The only thing that could unite the stiff domestic opposition to the mullahs among the younger generation would be an attack from the outside (that's us), especially since much of the younger generation in Iran is hoping to normalize relations with the USA some day. Indeed, hopes got up when Kerry signed the treaty.

If we invade, on the other hand, with all the resulting civilian casualties, THAT would unite the whole of the people of Iran against us, and they would attack us both at home and via their proxies around the world.

Republicans are essentially cowards. They do not like attacking countries they KNOW will shoot back. After the Iraq invasion, the ONLY argument I ever won with Wes Clark, who is not only a genius, but also a military expert (DUH), was when he thought Cheney would try invading Iran after invading Iraq. I said (and I do not contradict someone like Wes Clark lightly!) I though he was wrong about that, and gave him my reason. So far, I was right, and Cheney never attacked Iran. Obama never had the slightest intention to do any such thing, so there wasn't even an argument while he was president. Trump knows nothing about such matters anyway, so it's only a matter of letting Bolton (for) and our military brass (against) argue it out in front of him, and see who is the most convincing. Bolton will lie, and the generals will not, so they may not have the upper hand, even if their argument is based on facts and logic and Bolton's is based on video games.