What if: Syria and Iran launch a pre-emptive strike against the US

MOBIUS · March 31, 2003, 17:40

Just playing Devil's Advocate...

If I were Syria and Iran, I'd be seriously tempted to jump into the fray and attack the US right now...

Think about it - they've already been tarred as Axis of Evil nations, if the US has its way with its pet 'domino theory' their days are numbered anyway.

So why not fight by American rules and launch a pre-emptive strike against a dangerous potential aggressor (the US). They could potentially cut off the head of the US armed forces relatively easily by launching a full scale pincer strike against the coalition forces through sheer weight of numbers...

The US supply line is already shakey - concerted airstrikes from Syria and Iran against the supply lines would cripple the coalition. The US could have all the fancy technology in the world, but if they have no ammunition or fuel they'd be dead in the water!

Sure, the Iranians and Syrians might suffer huge losses but imagine if they forced the US front line troops to surrender through lack of supplies?

I doubt the US has enough ammo for all three countries - they're already using far more ammo than they expected against Iraq...

I expect Israel would jump in against Syria, but that would probably suck Egypt and Jordan into the fray and Turkey would be able to 'secure' northern Iraq.

Why the hell not? America has as good as said their days are numbered if Iraq is anything to go by - why not go out in a blaze of glory and pre-empt a US attack now when the US is dangerously overstretched dealing with Iraq...

Against the realms of possibility?

BeBro · March 31, 2003, 17:42

Suicide.

Ming · March 31, 2003, 17:43

Originally posted by MOBIUS
concerted airstrikes from Syria and Iran against the supply lines would cripple the coalition.

Only if they want to lose their expensive toys... You will notice that none of the Iraq Air Force is flying... And for good reason.

Both have spent good money on their toys, and have no desire to lose them while not getting anything in return...

GePap · March 31, 2003, 17:45

Why give the Us an excuse to atatck back, and eventually win? Both of them would eb smarte by sitting around, undermining the Us in Iraq by proxy,a dn then just wait till the day the US inveriably pulls out. George Bush and his cronies will not be in power indefinitelly.

Shi Huangdi · March 31, 2003, 17:48

"What if: Syria and Iran launch a pre-emptive strike against the US"

Leftists around the world would be overjoyed.

Other then that, it would mean the eventual downfall of both of those countries. A full deployment of the US would probably eventually beat them, and US Air Superiorit would be enough to crush their forces as they tried to attack us. Plus, we have the ability to reduce both of those countries to rubble via air. And of course in a big conflict such as that use of NBC weapons becomes a possibility.

Edan · March 31, 2003, 17:54

Iran has too much to lose by going to war (especially with their nuke program

). It won't go to war. (And hasn't it already helped the US somewhat by stopping an Iraqi speedboat that was going to attack a US ship like the Cole was attacked?

I'm less sure about Syria, but think it's more likely they will stay out than get involved directly.

Chemical Ollie · March 31, 2003, 17:55

I don't think they will do it. But there will surely be many volonteers to join the "Jihad", and the Syria/Iran governments will not do more to stop them than US would do to stop American volonteers to help Canada if France (for some reason) would ever try to reclaim Quebec. 5000 Jihad fighters are already in Iraq, most of them willing to do suicide attacks.

Thank you mr Bush. As if the Arabs weren't pissed at us Westerners before, they will surely be now.

MichaeltheGreat · March 31, 2003, 17:58

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"What if: Syria and Iran launch a pre-emptive strike against the US"

Leftists around the world would be overjoyed.

Hell, I'd be overjoyed, but then you probably classify me as a leftist.

{Patton mode}Let those yellow sonsa*****es attack us if they want. We'll bomb the holy hell out of them, we'll grab em by the nose, and kick them in the ass, and we'll keep on doing it until they've got no fight left in them, then we'll drive on Damascus and Tehran and teach those sonsa*****es what real war's all about.{/Patton mode}

Seriously, it'd give us an unquestionable reason to go after Syria and take care of those *******s. Iran wouldn't get in that fight, because it would be next to impossible to coordinate effectively with Iraq and Syria.

Flubber · March 31, 2003, 17:59

There's nothing that says that the Iraqi population and the irregulars will welcom Iranian or Syrian troops either. They could find themselves with the same problem the US has with a phanthom force snipping at them-- Reasons it won't happen

1) If Saddam is gone, many of his neighbors will be happier
2) If the US gets bloodied while degrading Iraqi power, the neighbors are happy

They could see it as win-win in which they grow in power regardless of the outcome

3. These armies would have to amass and prepare. The US MUST BE watching the whole region quite closely. The second a number of Iranian jets even seemed to be working up, they would be sent a warning. Tank movements ditto . Suprise is not possible.

4. With inferior air forces, their troops would be forced to move under hostile skies with only whatever mobile SAM coverage they bring with them. That is a recipe to lose a LOT of their forces.

5) The actual benefits are pretty nebulous. You may bloody the US. .. you may even force them backward for a bit . . . but you will likely stengthen US resolve, see a lot of your military decimated, and be seen as assisting Iraq ( and even the most ardent anti-war countries are not exactly clamoring to be their friend. YOUR REWARD . . . Saddam still strong .

Zero · March 31, 2003, 18:00

Originally posted by Ming

Only if they want to lose their expensive toys... You will notice that none of the Iraq Air Force is flying... And for good reason.

Both have spent good money on their toys, and have no desire to lose them while not getting anything in return...

then why even invest them in the first place? That sounds like an extreme inefficiency. Does Iraq have any other potential target that wouldnt have US involvement in a scenario? If not, then as Saddam I'd just say.. "yeah **** airpower. Let me order some more hand grenades"

Lord Merciless · March 31, 2003, 18:01

I would be over-enjoyed if those sneaky SOBs decide to pull a Pearl Harbor. America would mobilize itself and Euros would no longer whine like mad. We'll finally have a chance to crush those fundies once and for all.

Sandman · March 31, 2003, 18:01

Both countries would be better advised to play it defensively. They don't have the necessary offensive punch to make victory likely, and America's 'domino' theory is looking very shaky at the moment. Afghanistan is just a mess, and Iraq will end up as an enormous Gaza strip, both totally unsatisfactory to lauch further offensive operations.

If America is stupid enough to attack, they can defend themselves well enough.

Lancer · March 31, 2003, 18:04

It depends. Does the US have ground forces in Kuwait able to defend the Airforce bases there against a determined rush? Could mass attacks of suicide migs knock the carriers out in the surprise opening phase?

Under the circumstances, Turkey would most certainly undergo a popular moslem fundy revolution, and the US would be deprived of its airbases there, if not getting its forces, and planes, overrun.

Of course, that's worst case.

GePap · March 31, 2003, 18:05

These two countries can't win militarily, but they sure can put a giant cog in the Us's political plans for the region, and that is what matters.

In general though, Iran (he look, these people can actually overthrow their own dictators!) is goign through significant political change. lets just hope the Us doesn't do something to screw with Iran and give the hardliners any excuses.

Zero · March 31, 2003, 18:06

Originally posted by MOBIUS

So why not fight by American rules and launch a pre-emptive strike against a dangerous potential aggressor (the US). They could potentially cut off the head of the US armed forces relatively easily by launching a full scale pincer strike against the coalition forces through sheer weight of numbers...

They ARE playing by american rule. According to the american rule, when we do it, its pre-emptive. When they do it. Its a wretched sneak attack.

Therefore they are doing whats best for them according to the rules.

MichaeltheGreat · March 31, 2003, 18:07

Originally posted by MOBIUS
So why not fight by American rules and launch a pre-emptive strike against a dangerous potential aggressor (the US). They could potentially cut off the head of the US armed forces relatively easily by launching a full scale pincer strike against the coalition forces through sheer weight of numbers...

The US supply line is already shakey - concerted airstrikes from Syria and Iran against the supply lines would cripple the coalition. The US could have all the fancy technology in the world, but if they have no ammunition or fuel they'd be dead in the water!

Ask the Israelis about the competence of the Syrian Air Force.

We have AWACS and mid-air refueling capability, they're scared of flying in the dark. 'Nuf said.

On the ground, they'd have lengthening supply lines, so we'd let 'em come on enough to stretch those out, then interdict their supply lines from the air, and immobilise their forces where we can pound them without mercy. Give 'em a choice - die in place, or surrender in place, and wait in a holding area in the western Iraqi desert while the Israelies occupy Damascus.

Sure, the Iranians and Syrians might suffer huge losses but imagine if they forced the US front line troops to surrender through lack of supplies?

They'd have to reach our forces, first.

I doubt the US has enough ammo for all three countries - they're already using far more ammo than they expected against Iraq...

More than enough to spare - we'd just have to go for less pretty alternatives in a few cases.

I expect Israel would jump in against Syria, but that would probably suck Egypt and Jordan into the fray and Turkey would be able to 'secure' northern Iraq.

Would you prefer the '67 or the '73 vintage, sir?

Why the hell not? America has as good as said their days are numbered if Iraq is anything to go by - why not go out in a blaze of glory and pre-empt a US attack now when the US is dangerously overstretched dealing with Iraq...

We're not near "dangerously overstretched." It's much more along the lines of "moderately inconvenienced" as in "Oh, well, I guess we're actually going to have to fly more supplies in."

Against the realms of possibility?

Yep.

MOBIUS · March 31, 2003, 18:08

Originally posted by BeBro
Suicide.

Like a muslim fundamentalist really cares...

Only if they want to lose their expensive toys... You will notice that none of the Iraq Air Force is flying... And for good reason.

Both have spent good money on their toys, and have no desire to lose them while not getting anything in return...

Because the Iraqis are hopelessly outnumbered as well as being outclassed - add the Syrians and Iranians into the Jihad mix and things even up a bit. Especially if the US begins to run out of ammo because it now has three times as many targets...

Add to the fact that I'm guess much of those supplies have to come through the extreme bottleneck of the straits of hormuz - the Iranians could launch a huge surprise attack on supply ships and the aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf with all those Silkworms they've got.

Seriously, what good is an Abrams Tank or F-16 without any fuel or ammo?

Other then that, it would mean the eventual downfall of both of those countries. A full deployment of the US would probably eventually beat them, and US Air Superiorit would be enough to crush their forces as they tried to attack us. Plus, we have the ability to reduce both of those countries to rubble via air. And of course in a big conflict such as that use of NBC weapons becomes a possibility.

If the current administration has any choice, it wants to bring about their eventual downfall anyway - so why not choose your time?

I am saying can the US fight all three at the same time and more importantly, does it have the supplies?

Sure you kill thousands - until your supplies run out. Just like Stalingrad...

And would the US fight if tens of thousands of its best troops were taken as POWs - or would it cut its losses like Somalia?

Zero · March 31, 2003, 18:08

I would love to see them do something crazy. I'm not a sadistic Leftist, but I am sadistic. I like my opponent unpredictable and challenging. It'd be a shame if things go everything according to plan during any competition.

I just love militray commanders or other people in their respective field, doing something totally opposite when others are saying "well he shoul dbe doing this. Its recommmended". And then BAM! he does something so unexpected he catches everyon in their pants down. But thats just me.

Flubber · March 31, 2003, 18:11

Originally posted by Lancer
It depends. Does the US have ground forces in Kuwait able to defend the Airforce bases there against a determined rush? Could mass attacks of suicide migs knock the carriers out in the surprise opening phase?
.

I doubt the US will allow itself to be suprised by masses of planes. I'm guessing satellite coverage of the entire area is constant and they have AWACs airborne at all times.

If someone sent a MASS of planes at them, those planes would have to get through a vigilent combat air patrol. I am not saying it cannot be done but I don't think anyone can count on suprise in any real way. I'm betting that those carriers in the gulf know every time there is ANY unusual air activity

Andrew1999 · March 31, 2003, 18:14

I think the best move for Syria is exactly what they're doing now--provide as much material support for Iraq as they can possibly get away with, and make sure they can claim to be the victim if things get ugly. Their air force and air defence may not be all that great but they do have one and it has gotten supplies since 1991, unlike Iraq.

Zero · March 31, 2003, 18:17

Surprise is always an element in war or any competition with another human being. Whether it be thru speed of troop movement, decision to do/not do something or pretending to do something.

Thats what we need in this war. Lots of surprises. This war is going too "according to plan" IMO.

MOBIUS · March 31, 2003, 18:19

Originally posted by GePap
These two countries can't win militarily, but they sure can put a giant cog in the Us's political plans for the region, and that is what matters.

In general though, Iran (he look, these people can actually overthrow their own dictators!) is goign through significant political change. lets just hope the Us doesn't do something to screw with Iran and give the hardliners any excuses.

Actually there were elections just held in Iran and the fundamentalists made huge inroads because Katami's 'reforming' government isn't reforming - they keep getting stopped by the conservatives...

I also think once the dust settles, Iraq will become fundy too - it's only secular mainly because of Saddam and the Ba'ath party. Most Iraqis are Shia, which would be a huge power shift from the Sunnis, which would bring it into line with Iran...

What will the US do down the line when it holds democratic elections and the fundies do a clean sweep? Do an Algeria and embark on a huge bloodbath?

Zero · March 31, 2003, 18:21

Iran and Iraq on the same side? now that should be interesting....

Shi Huangdi · March 31, 2003, 18:21

"In general though, Iran (he look, these people can actually overthrow their own dictators!) is goign through significant political change. "

No it's not. Khatami is a puppet with no power to affect issues of substance. The fundamentalist still hold power and we can't count on them giving it up bloodlessly.

BeBro · March 31, 2003, 18:22

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Like a muslim fundamentalist really cares...

Yeah, but if their armies think entirely that way, who secures the conquests then....

MOBIUS · March 31, 2003, 18:23

Originally posted by Calc II
Thats what we need in this war. Lots of surprises. This war is going too "according to plan" IMO.

Like the fact that the whole of Southern Iraq was supposed to forget the US betrayal in '91 and rebel, with bare breasted nympho women (wearing their headscarves of course!) cheering the liberating US soldiers whilst the Iraqi regulars crumbled before them and the republican guard turned on Saddam and killed him all within four days - you mean that plan?

Zero · March 31, 2003, 18:24

oh, and iraq possibly CANT be democratic after all this. I mean we spent too much effort ousting saddam.. and it would be ridiculous to give up our influence on the region.

GePap · March 31, 2003, 18:26

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
No it's not. Khatami is a puppet with no power to affect issues of substance. The fundamentalist still hold power and we can't count on them giving it up bloodlessly.

Iran has elections, Iran has a press trying to be free..even if Khatami has been shown to be ineffectual, the fact is that Iran is a freer place than Saudi Arabia and the trend should continue to be possitive unless the hard liners are gievn a reason for a real crackdown.

It a sad fact that one of the "axis of evil" has more freedom than many of our dear allies in the region.

MichaeltheGreat · March 31, 2003, 18:27

Originally posted by MOBIUS

Like a muslim fundamentalist really cares...

We'll help get closer to Allah as many of them as come in range.

Add to the fact that I'm guess much of those supplies have to come through the extreme bottleneck of the straits of hormuz - the Iranians could launch a huge surprise attack on supply ships and the aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf with all those Silkworms they've got.

We airlifted in a mechanized brigade a few days ago - the first time anyone in the world has ever done so. We kept Berlin supplied by air over half a century ago.
IF the Iranians got squirrely, the first thing we'd do is take out their silkworms. If they persisted, we might teach them a lesson by removing all that oil infrastructure from places like Bandar Abbas, Bandar e Lengeh, Kharg Island, Bushehr, etc. Hard to sustain a war effort when you're a semi-pariah nation without an economy.

We'd also make an accomodation with the House of Saud, or it's successor

and open up more transport corridors.

Sure you kill thousands - until your supplies run out. Just like Stalingrad...

Unlike Die Grosse Hermann, we can supply our armies by air.

And would the US fight if tens of thousands of its best troops were taken as POWs - or would it cut its losses like Somalia?

If it even looked close to that, which it never would, we have other options and methods that could be brought to the table. And do you think anyone, anywhere would have the balls to stop us?

MOBIUS · March 31, 2003, 18:28

Originally posted by Calc II
Iran and Iraq on the same side? now that should be interesting....

The Iranians have been grooming the 10,000 strong Iraqi Badr Corps since GWI...

Most Iraqis are Shia, just like the Iranians...

Yeah, but if their armies think entirely that way, who secures the conquests then....

Well the combined population of Iraq, Iran and Syria is about 100m - so it should take a while for the US and Israel to get through that lot, even with WoMD...