Who remembers the War Nerd article on the same topic?

Super War Preview: The Iranian Suicide Bombers vs. The American Crusaders

"Everybody's asking me what'll happen if we attack Iran. To get a quick preview, just do what this guy in my eighth-grade class did: put a firecracker in your mouth, hold it between your front teeth, and light the fuse."

My money remains on a purely air campaign against atomic research, C&C and expensive-to-replace mil targets, no boots on the ground.

Iran didn't win the Gulf War. A series of successful Iraqi offensive operations in late 1987 - mid 1988 forced Tehran into a ceasefire they didn't want. In the south in particular Iran took a nasty beating and their defences in that sector were virtually stripped. See The Lessons of Modern War, vol. II: The Iran-Iraq War by Anthony H. Cordesman and Abraham R. Wagner.

In addition Khomeini at all tinkered quite a bit with the Iranian military, drawing some piss-poor conclusions from early Iranian defensive successes. Basically they decided the 19th century French concept of superior elan trumped western professionalism.

Other than that, though, your points are well taken. Fighting defensively Iran is by an order of magnitude a more dangerous opponent, for most of the reasons you cite.

However I don't take the paranoid blogsphere TOO seriously. I agree with Antiquated Tory. I could believe those idiots in the White House might try some air/missle strikes - that would be disastrous blunder enough. But even they have to realize that the U.S. is currently incapable of major ground operations in Iran. There simply aren't enough combat-ready troops to go around.

Never mind that it would be political suicide domestically.

Well, the error might lie in ascribing some political leaders too much common sense, as Bush's policies post 9'11 show...

Yeah, but I believe even the parts of the security establishment that were in favor of invading Iraq and are in favor of stopping Iran from developing atomic weapons by any means possible oppose any actual invasion.
This is based entirely on conversations with my one and only friend from that part of the establishment, so is purely anecdotal, I have to say.
I'd add that he doesn't seem to think that some sort of use of tac nukes by the US would be out of line, though I hasten to add that he is not a decision maker or anywhere near one. He also wanted to restore the Hashemites in Iraq and KSA though I thought at the time he was joking, and he probably was.

The Iranian state commands the loyalty of a great many or most.
This claim is open to question. That having been said, attacking Iran will push people towards the government, not an invading army.

Iran is more homogeneous than Iraq.
Iran is, what, half Persian? It's full of ethnic minorities (compare to Iraq, which is about 60% Shia Arab), hence the reports about covert American support for Balochis, Azeris, etc.

A series of 'limited' strikes on nuclear targets will accomplish little. Iran can just rebuild facilities deeper underground in secret locations, and use any attacks as an excuse to pull out of the NPT. Tehran has any number of ways to retaliate- against Gulf countries (housing American bases), by disrupting Strait of Hormuz shipping, against Israel (through Hamas/Hezbollah), and against American troops in Iraq, to name but four.

US options wrt Iran, in decreasing order of likelihood:

1. talk agressively, do nothing

2. bomb a few buildings

3. tac-nuke a few sites

4. invade, occupy, withdraw in a few years

5. as above, then declare a state of emergency, impose conscription and cancel elections, occupy Iran indefinitely

6. nuke a few cities

7. the right thing

"as above, then declare a state of emergency, impose conscription and cancel elections"

I hope this doesn't apply also to the US in that eventuality/situation.

DW -- Didn't realize the Azeris were so fertile. I do suspect that at the key chokepoints of power, geography etc. the Persians are pretty locked in.

And perhaps I should have said -- in terms of regime loyalty -- that there is no substantial underground authority (or outside authority, ie Shah, Jr. etc.) that commands any widespread alternative respect, like say Sistani and crowd against Saddam. Something analogous to Stalin in the 1930s and 1940s; accepted with fear or grudging respect, not embraced, and able to command authority and rally a decisive mass of the population against an invader. Which Saddam wasn't able to do.

Anyway, still to see if this alleged report of a brewing program to sell bombardment or invasion is talk/rumor or real.

Iran is, what, half Persian? It's full of ethnic minorities (compare to Iraq, which is about 60% Shia Arab), hence the reports about covert American support for Balochis, Azeris, etc.

Iran is certainly diverse, but I think the effect of that sometimes gets exaggerated. Unlike hodgepodge Iraq, Iran seems rather better integrated. The Azeris for example are used to being a co-dominant minority with a lot of Persian intermarriage ( at least in the upper classes ) and representation among the country's highest elites. Despite some legitimate beefs and disputes ( especially when Shariatmadari was still alive ) with the central government, it doesn't seem like irredentism is all that powerful of a force with them.

The Baluchis and certainly the Kurds have been restless and the same has been said of the Arabs in the southwest. But the Khuzestan Arabs seemed to have responded less than enthusiastically to SH's invasion.

And religiously at least Iran IS a lot more uniform than Iraq.

All in all I'd regard the Iranians as quite a bit more unified than the Iraqis and I'd expect less prone to ethnic/sectarian divisiveness except on the fringes.

'course I've been wrong before and I'd hate to have to see that hypothesis tested.

I've been reading Ali (not Ayad) Allawi's Occupation of Iraq on and off the past couple of months, he believes the fractitious nature Iraq can be traced back to the Ottoman-Safavid wars, essentially being the patch of ground they fought over. Iran being the heir to the Safavids, no such religious/imperial faultline there.

No, the war on Iran will be an air campaign, in the vein of last year's Summer War, and just about as effective. What USA will probably do is destroy all Iranian economic infrastructure while Iran's proxies will try to disrupt the easily disruptable supply lines from Kuwait to US soldiers in Iraq. Can't see any winners, except for arms suppliers.

Interestingly, a Pentagon war game had the USA subsidize domestic petrol prizes to alleviate the inevitable skyrocketing of energy prices. Now there's a recipe for a skewed economy.

Dubaiwallah,

"The Iranian state commands the loyalty of a great many or most.
This claim is open to question. That having been said, attacking Iran will push people towards the government, not an invading army."

The OP mentioned the Iranian STATE as distinct from the Iranian government. Certainly, the latter is none too loved by many Iranians (just how many is hard to tell) but almost all Iranians, whatever their personal politics, feel a strong alliegance to the nation of Iran. Which brings me on to my next point:

"Iran is, what, half Persian? It's full of ethnic minorities (compare to Iraq, which is about 60% Shia Arab), hence the reports about covert American support for Balochis, Azeris, etc."

This is true, but, with the possible exception of some of the Kurds, most Iranians see themselves as just that - Iranian. The fact that they are Azeri or Baluchi comes very much second. By far the largest ethnic minority, the Azeris (about 25% of the population) are very well integrated at all levels of society: supreme leader Ali Khamenei is an Azeri. The fact that this is not very widely known or commented on shows that ethnic identity is not of great interest to most Iranians. This is why the US notions of divide and try to conquer are almost certainly pipedreams. The Iranian state has been strong and has commanded the loyalty of the vast majority of its inhabitants for many centuries now. It is not at all like the colonial jigsaw puzzle that is/was Iraq.

It took me two days to figure out that pun

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

I was unaware of that pun until you, you stupid bastid made that comment.

I hurt.

I forgot I was going to write "attacking Iran, that old dinosaur" coming back, but in haste forgot to signal the pun.