• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

How Iraq affects Iran

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
More at the link; emphasis mine; link below.

"'Grave threat'' is how U.S. President George W. Bush described Iraq three years ago. Today he uses that same phrase -- to characterize Iran. The resemblance between these two standoffs ends with the rhetoric, analysts say. Iran and its nuclear program today are far more dangerous than Iraq's was, and U.S. options are far more limited. As a result, the Bush administration is pursuing a markedly different approach than it did in 2003, when its diplomacy was aimed at lining up allies for a war. This time, U.S. diplomats are seeking an international consensus on how to proceed.
``This administration is forced to follow this route because of the failures of Iraq,'' says Joseph Cirincione, director for nonproliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington-based policy-study group.
Cirincione says there ``was a lot of talk'' among supporters of the Iraq war in the spring of 2003 about ``moving on to Tehran'' after the U.S. overthrew Saddam Hussein. Now, because of the ``bloody quagmire'' in Iraq, ``we have no really tough option with Iran, certainly none that could be implemented unilaterally,'' he says.

Military Obstacles

With 140,000 troops tied down in Iraq, the U.S. military can't support another invasion and occupation, analysts say. Moreover, Iran's nuclear sites are dispersed throughout the country and deeply buried, and pinpoint military strikes would inflame anti-Americanism in the Middle East while only delaying, not eradicating, the program.
Because of Iran's size, a ground invasion may require twice as many troops as in Iraq, says Richard Russell, a Middle East specialist at the National Defense University in Washington. While an air campaign could take out Iran's air defenses, it could also trigger retaliatory Iranian missile strikes on Israel or U.S. troops in the region, terrorism and oil disruptions, experts say.
And that retaliation, said retired Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni, ``would require us to counterattack and escalate.''
``When do we get to the point when we put boots on the ground? That would make Iraq look like a cakewalk for sure,'' Zinni, the former commander-in-chief of the U.S. Central Command, which is responsible for U.S. security interests in the Persian Gulf, said in a telephone interview today.
Zinni estimated that a ground invasion of Iran would require ``500,000 troops or more.''

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000102&sid=a1WMotI6vS88
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Red Robin said:
We could effectivly dismantle their nuclear capabilities in about an hour.

Iran and its nuclear program today are far more dangerous than Iraq's was, and U.S. options are far more limited.
--------------

I definitely agree that something will need to be done with Iran and its nuclear capabilities- and soon...If we, with or without our so-called "allies", don't - Israel will- which in the long run would probably cause even greater problems.....
 

theHiredMansWife

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 6, 2005
Messages
1,191
Reaction score
0
Location
southwest corner of the Sandhills
U.S. options are far more limited

Friend of mine is a lifetime Army man. He's actually in the process of retiring (or so he's been telling his wife) and is working on a consulting basis these days.

But he made the smart remark about a year ago when someone was swaggering about the US military being able to maintain in Iraq, Afghanistan (not to mention peace keeping in the former Yugoslav countries, N. Africa, Kuwait, etc. ) that we would have no problems handling Iran and N. Korea too.

Steve said, "Who are you going to send in?! The only ones left are the boy scouts!"

That concerns me that he thinks the military is over-stretched...
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 23, 2005
Messages
4,377
Reaction score
1
Location
8 mi S.E. of Harrison, Ar.
theHiredMansWife said:
U.S. options are far more limited

Friend of mine is a lifetime Army man. He's actually in the process of retiring (or so he's been telling his wife) and is working on a consulting basis these days.

But he made the smart remark about a year ago when someone was swaggering about the US military being able to maintain in Iraq, Afghanistan (not to mention peace keeping in the former Yugoslav countries, N. Africa, Kuwait, etc. ) that we would have no problems handling Iran and N. Korea too.

Steve said, "Who are you going to send in?! The only ones left are the boy scouts!" That concerns me that he thinks the military is over-stretched...
Why on earth would we want to invade and occupy iran?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Steve said, "Who are you going to send in?! The only ones left are the boy scouts!"

Iam sure it was another Steve but......for clearification I never said that....

I might have said nuke the Radicals.....or try a neutron bomb...

By 2004 the Iranian Army had some 350,000 men (200,000 conscripts).,....
obtaining arms from a number of suppliers. Among them were the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), China, Brazil, and Israel. The diversity of the weapons purchased from these countries greatly complicated training and supply procedures, but, faced with a war of attrition and a continuous shortage of armaments, Iran was willing to purchase from all available sources.

Iran's army includes 350,000 active-duty soldiers and 220,000 conscripts. Its elite Revolutionary Guards number 120,000, many of them draftees. Its navy and air force total 70,000 men.,..."Most of Iran's military equipment is aging or second-rate, and much of it is worn out,"

On second thought the girl scouts might be able to take them.....
 

Latest posts

Top