Iran Super Thread- Merged

[FormerEnlisted]

If you touch their water, what's stopping them from touching all the desalination plants in the gulf?

In theory nothing. I am against an invasion for reasons I have already posted. But as a hypothetical...

Supplying allies with fresh water would be one of the easier logistical challenges a war would face. We would need proper stockpiling of domestic reserves (one 1000L container per person, filled locally and stored locally), pre-positioning of desalination components for repairs, massive hardening/dispersal of critical infrastructure, and evacuation of all non-essential demographics from water restricted areas.

This would be a population movement of millions of people and impossible to conceal.

If the decapitation of Tehran was successful, and a new national army could be formed, and these measures were observed rigorously in target areas, then the subsequent war would be more of a brushfire fighting exercise and less of the Somme.

If there is no choice but to invade, then it should be as fast and as brutal as possible. Emptying the entire region of population shifts the infrastructure burden into areas without the same vulnerabilities and frees up logistic channels for fighting. It also eliminates the possibility of rear area violence because only people who have been screened and declared essential would be present. For soldiers this would give them the mental reprieve they need when away from the front lines, and provide instantly accessible housing facilities etc. for billeting.

Iran is using the entire region as its own human shield. The solution is simple: move them somewhere else and then deal with it.

As a hypothetical.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Your argument for immediate action is heavily weighted toward factors which affect Israel. What do they have to do with us as Canadians? Or as North Americans? Or as members of NATO?

See after next.

If Israel can't be trusted to behave rationally, and they are confident in their own ability to defend themselves (which is demonstrable), the inevitable outcome is that they nuke Iran themselves.

We should be focused on preparing for the consequences of that decision. Adding our own men to the mix just means we bleed resources before the inevitable fallout hits the fan.

I expect the consequences of that decision to explode into a multi-national, multi-continental war roughly along religious majority lines, if the conflict hasn't already done so before anyone even starts threatening nukes.

The Islamic demands of Israel aren't that it sit quietly behind its borders and suffer through rocket and terrorist attacks, or even that it merely cease settling in areas supposedly set aside for non-Israelis. The core Islamic demand is that Israel cease to exist.

It took several rounds of war for most of Israel's immediate neighbours to make peace. Iran hasn't even tried one round; I doubt they're going to go straight to some kind of accord without trying their hand at war at least once, when they feel ready. If Israel is occupied, the kinds of people who will occupy it will not be moderates; I expect them to conduct themselves approximately as Hamas did recently. I expect remaining non-Islamic cultural artifacts to be destroyed, and the region to be ethnically cleansed of non-Muslims. The resulting flood of refugees will not be trying to enter other Islamic nations or make transoceanic journeys to the Americas, southern Africa, or Asia.

So there's going to be a war to decide the issue, if this one isn't somehow obviously and definitively the last one, and Israel knows a loss means approximately the great ethnic cleansings of the 1990s, multiplied. So Israel isn't going to be particularly restrained, and irrespective of that its attackers are going to easily frame it as a religious war anyways. The resulting economic disruption will make everything so far look like a modest hiccup, which may tempt others to pile on. Iran will have backers (eg. Russia, China) whose contributions might tip a balance, and I doubt public sentiment in western countries will allow governments to stay out and let Israel go down. (Again, no-one is going to be able to reasonably claim "It'll be OK; it won't be like when Hamas attacked".) Stir all those together and I expect a number of countries not in the region to be drawn in. Then they're going to resent anyone they consider part of their "in-group" who is still sitting on the sidelines.

All that is apart from any other troublemakers who decide to kick off another crisis while they figure everyone is distracted/committed.

I'd rather avoid all that. Sure, it might never happen - but Iran's government wants Israel gone, and Iran's government is going to continue pursuing a working nuclear arsenal unless it is forcibly stopped. They already have delivery systems. I don't expect the horse to learn to sing.

 

[Altair]

In theory nothing. I am against an invasion for reasons I have already posted. But as a hypothetical...

Ah, as a thought exercise.

Gotcha.

Supplying allies with fresh water would be one of the easier logistical challenges a war would face. We would need proper stockpiling of domestic reserves (one 1000L container per person, filled locally and stored locally), pre-positioning of desalination components for repairs, massive hardening/dispersal of critical infrastructure, and evacuation of all non-essential demographics from water restricted areas.

Yeah, not to mention the economic hit on the effected region. The USA would need to bankroll it, seeing as the cheaper option for nations in the gulf would be to deny America the ability to use their bases to support such an operation, trying to get themselves off Irans retaliation list.

This would be a population movement of millions of people and impossible to conceal.

If the decapitation of Tehran was successful, and a new national army could be formed, and these measures were observed rigorously in target areas, then the subsequent war would be more of a brushfire fighting exercise and less of the Somme.

As long as the US learned from Iraq on how to build an army. If they dismantle the entire Iranian military to start from scratch the remaining army wont have time to constitute itself. Especially if they are going up against remenants of the IRGC, which I imagine wouldn't be spared or allowed to play any part in a future Iran.

If there is no choice but to invade, then it should be as fast and as brutal as possible. Emptying the entire region of population shifts the infrastructure burden into areas without the same vulnerabilities and frees up logistic channels for fighting. It also eliminates the possibility of rear area violence because only people who have been screened and declared essential would be present. For soldiers this would give them the mental reprieve they need when away from the front lines, and provide instantly accessible housing facilities etc. for billeting.

With the cultural makeup of Iran, I doubt this is possible. Persians make up 40-50 percent of the entire population, with the other 50-60 percent making up other groups, including the kurds. You would be moving a different culture grouping into lands of other culture groupings. That's going to explode.

Iran is using the entire region as its own human shield. The solution is simple: move them somewhere else and then deal with it.

Read above

As a hypothetical.

A fun excercise.

We all know the Americans don't have the stomach for it though.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Their primary weakness is reliance on 5 individual dams for drinking water. Tehran is their centre of power and cannot sustain itself without water. No offense to your broad front proposal, but I think the easiest way to invade would be to blow those dams and then attack directly from the west to capture Tehran. A naval blockade would do the rest. At this point a new national army could be formed etc. in a classic state building exercise.

Any strategy which doesn't involve seizing control of their fresh water day 1 leaves a lot of leverage on the table. Thirst is more powerful than propaganda. People will surrender for a glass of water.

Those dams are almost empty and it was seriously suggested they evacuate the capital due to the lack of water, prior to the protests and war. So the impact might be less than hoped for.

 

[Altair]

Trump says Mideast allies have reached outlines of deal to end Iran war, says US to stop new strikes

President Donald Trump is claiming that Mideast allies have reached the parameters of a deal to end the Iran war and says that he would hold off on ordering new strikes in the five-month old conflict for now.

apnews.com

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump in a Saturday evening social media post claimed that Mideast allies have reached the parameters of a deal to end the Iran war and said that he would hold off on ordering new strikes in the five-month old conflict for now.

Trump added that the emerging deal “would include the Immediate, Complete, and Total OPENING OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT, and an end to Iran’s nuclear threat.”

“Based on this request, I have agreed, for the future benefit of the WORLD and, likewise, the survival of a successful and prosperous Iran, to cancel the attack, subject to being able to rapidly make a DEAL,” Trump said.

He said that Israel has agreed to join the U.S. in the commitment to try to complete the agreement with Iran that would bring about an end to the war.

Iran did not offer any immediate public reaction to Trump’s announcement.

Ok, this time with feeling.

For the record, I think bombs will be falling and drones will be hitting ships within 3 weeks.

 

[brihard]

Trump says Mideast allies have reached outlines of deal to end Iran war, says US to stop new strikes

President Donald Trump is claiming that Mideast allies have reached the parameters of a deal to end the Iran war and says that he would hold off on ordering new strikes in the five-month old conflict for now.

apnews.com

Ok, this time with feeling.

For the record, I think bombs will be falling and drones will be hitting ships within 3 weeks.

How is this different from a few weeks ago? And what happens when Iran continues to assert control over the strait?

Dude's running low on interceptors and he's flailing.

 

[FormerEnlisted]

Iran's government is going to continue pursuing a working nuclear arsenal unless it is forcibly stopped.

This has been objectively incorrect since 2003. Here are the DNI reports for you. Any conclusion or argument made based on this assertion should be dismissed without further comment.

 

[Brad Sallows]

This has been objectively incorrect since 2003. Here are the DNI reports for you. Any conclusion or argument made based on this assertion should be dismissed without further comment.

DNI threat assessments are not dispositive, especially in view of the track record of the IC. Any conclusion or argument based on them is much more liable to dismissal.

 

[daftandbarmy]

As a reminder... it's complicated

UN nuclear watchdog says it's unable to verify whether Iran has suspended all uranium enrichment​

Iran is legally obliged to cooperate with the IAEA under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, but suspended all cooperation after the war with Israel. According to the IAEA, Iran maintains a stockpile of 440.9 kilograms (972 pounds) of uranium enriched up to 60% purity — a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90%. That stockpile could allow Iran to build as many as 10 nuclear bombs, should it decide to weaponize its program, IAEA director general Rafael Grossi warned in a recent interview with the AP. He added that it doesn't mean that Iran has such a weapon.

UN nuclear watchdog says it's unable to verify whether Iran has suspended all uranium enrichment

The agency says Iran has four declared enrichment facilities, but it has lost "continuity of knowledge" about stockpiles.

www.pbs.org

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

DNI threat assessments are not dispositive, especially in view of the track record of the IC. Any conclusion or argument based on them is much more liable to dismissal.

So obviously the gut feeling of the president, who has f... all knowledge of the situation is a much better source of information.

 

[FormerEnlisted]

As a reminder... it's complicated

Fortunately those were "obliterated" by Midnight Hammer. The argument that they have some hidden reserve goes against the DNI assessment, POTUS, and Caine.

"In announcing the strikes on June 21, President Trump asserted that “Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated” and that Iran “must make peace,” saying, “If peace does not come quickly, we will go after … other targets.” In a June 22 media briefing, General Caine said the “initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction.”

 

[Brad Sallows]

So obviously the gut feeling of the president, who has f... all knowledge of the situation is a much better source of information.

My assertion is "Iran's government is going to continue pursuing a working nuclear arsenal unless it is forcibly stopped." I don't care if it proceeds in fits and starts. What is the concensus for Iran's time-to-breakout now? A year or less?

I am skeptical of negotiated delays like the JCPOA. I think they're worth about as much as the Munich Agreement, which also in its time had people willing to believe it was meaningful. Thus, "forcibly".

 

[brihard]

Fortunately those were "obliterated" by Midnight Hammer. The argument that they have some hidden reserve goes against the DNI assessment, POTUS, and Caine.

"In announcing the strikes on June 21, President Trump asserted that “Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated” and that Iran “must make peace,” saying, “If peace does not come quickly, we will go after … other targets.” In a June 22 media briefing, General Caine said the “initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction.”

With that said, it leaked very quickly that the IC only assessed partial success. I don’t put much weight to the words of Trump or those who must sing the company song to keep him happy.

A few things can be true at once: Iran can be working over time on a nuclear weapons program; that program has been set back but not ended through various clandestine and covert operations; the current military efforts against Iran are unlikely to conclusively deal with this, and; the U.S. likely lacks the stomach for the sort of intense and probably high casualty military escalation that would be needed to oust and replace Iran’s government with one more amenable to U.S. and Israeli strategic interests.

 

[FormerEnlisted]

Those dams are almost empty and it was seriously suggested they evacuate the capital due to the lack of water, prior to the protests and war. So the impact might be less than hoped for.

A primary goal should be to shift fighting from built up areas to the countryside. Every possible advantage is gained by avoiding cities.

Tehran is 700km2 including Tehran-Karaj. Fed by the dams listed above.

Mashhad 300km2. Fed by Doosti, Kardeh, Ardak dams. 900 kms east and isolated from power.

Isfahan 200km2. Zayandeh Rud dam and groundwater.

Shiraz 200km2. Doroudzan dam and groundwater.

Tabriz 200km2. Alavian dam and Aras River infrastructure.

Tehran is at 35.72°. Mashhad 36.31°. Tabriz 38.07°. The natural refugee flow would be to regions with groundwater in the south. Control of an emptied Tehran also interdicts any regime coordination with the other two. It would be the easiest way to collapse the heartland of the country. But Turkey would need to provide full support not to mention the demographic issues brought up. My rough guess is that 30m people would need to be moved elsewhere before hostilities commence or they would die of thirst when the desalination plants are hit.

 

[FormerEnlisted]

My assertion is "Iran's government is going to continue pursuing a working nuclear arsenal unless it is forcibly stopped." I don't care if it proceeds in fits and starts. What is the concensus for Iran's time-to-breakout now? A year or less?

I am skeptical of negotiated delays like the JCPOA. I think they're worth about as much as the Munich Agreement, which also in its time had people willing to believe it was meaningful. Thus, "forcibly".

Your assertion directly contradicts the assessments of the entire US intelligence community. Its an argument which is based on a factually incorrect worldview. I attached the DNI reports for you in my last post. From 2003 onwards there has been no effort or work made toward building a nuclear weapon. In June of 2025 Operation Midnight Hammer destroyed any existing infrastructure and stockpiles. That information is straight from the DNI and a Congressional report. If those reports aren't accurate then please share why you think they should be disregarded.