Before we begin, I would like to ask anyone with biased nationalism or relevant bias to choose to try and reply in an intelligent unbiased manner, because it generally makes for a much better discussion. Also, we will mostly discuss facts backed by sources, but you're welcome to provide educated opinions.
Ok, for starters lets
discuss what I mean by the US being the "boy who cried wolf":
As everyone knows, the United States decided to invade Iraq a couple years back because they claimed that a most "vile and evil" regime, led by Saddam, had in it's possession Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) and were well on their way to making nukes (if not already possessed some). What made it worse, they added, was that they were extremely anti-american (queue videos of random iraq's burning american flags) and that the world would be in terrible danger if Saddam and his regime were not stopped (by means of war). Later on, as we know, none of this was true and now we are stuck in a war that no one knows how to get out of. This is the first part of the story of the boy who cried wolf.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20030322.html
Now fast forward to present day, most of of you should know where I'm getting to by now, but I'll explain anyways. Iran comes along. They tell the world they started their nuclear reactors for some time now and are using them to make civilian "Nuclear Energy" to supply the growing electrical needs of their people. Which was confirmed by many nations including the US, but is widely understood to be a front to make nuclear weapons or Weapons of Mass Destruction. Not only that, the favorite pass time of the average iranian official is to chant "death to america" with all his colleagues. Sound familiar yet? Now the US government is in pickle. They are facing a situation where the exact same premise behind the invasion of iraq, which was found out to be fabricated, is actually happening with Iran. Which means the "boy who cried wolf" is the US and at first it was a lie, but now that the "wolf" has really shown up, what is the boy supposed to do except to get eaten? This is the second and last part of the boy who cried wolf.
http://english.people.com.cn/200606/...11_272937.html
Now lets move on, shall we, and discuss
the feasibility of an actual invasion of Iran by none other then the US:
First off, I don't believe that the US is limited with it's military in iraq and afghanistan to be incapable of fighting a winnable war against Iran, and none of you should either. They have enough air power to wipe out the current iranian airforce and target what ever strategic points that is necessary to take out.
But it's interesting to note that rumors have been going about that both Russia and China have contracted billion dollar deals with Iran to provide them with up to a total of 300 or so top of the line military aircraft, including the
Sukhoi Su-30 and the
J-10. However, they won't get all the aircrafts until about 2009 or 2010.
It's also interesting to note that Russia has publicly announced another billion dollar arms deal with Iran which includes many anti-air missile defense weapons and the like. Iran also has it's own missiles that can be launched up to 2100km (which is roughly 1,300 miles).
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177566,00.html
As far as ground troops go, because we all should know that having a good air offensive is not going to win the war alone, Iran has far greater numbers that include active personnel of about 500k and a further 11 million inactive that can be mobilized. However, only the revolutionary guards, a section of the iranian military with about 125k personnel, have above average military training. In the end though, what matters most is the weaponry available to the ground troops and in the case of iran, it fails in comparison to the US. Still, though, they are not as bad off as you would think.
The Iranians have considerably well equipped soldiers that have modern uniforms and weaponry which include the m-16, the G-3, the "Khaibar", and the ever reliable ak-47. Their tanks include modern main battle tanks and a few artillery tanks, with personnel carrying tanks also available. They plan on making an upgraded version of their current tanks, called the Zulfiqar 3 MBT. (photos are shown below).
If anyone else wants to elaborate or contribute to the capabilities of the Iranian military, then please do so.
In general, attacking Iran is feasible to the US, but it would be a much more conventional war then the current one with iraq, which means much more costly. Especially when Iran chooses to base it's military more on quantity than on quality, which can become a problem in the long run for the US. However, it still carries disadvantage for the Iranians by making them an easier target. Also, the fact that China and Russia are vehemently against such a war hinting some sort of retaliation, adds another monkey wrench to the equation.
Based on the evidence, Iran is no Iraq. That's why the Bush admin. hasn't jumped the gun... yet, and the chances of them doing so are very low if you also consider the economical blow back. However, the option is always on the table.
Your thoughts and contributions are much welcomed.
