Tensions with Iran

[trailrunner]

What I can't figure out is what does Iran have to gain by poking the bear and finally being destroyed in a huge ground conflict?

1) It distracts from their internal problems, and it unifies their population against an external enemy (America, Israel, the west, satan).

2) It makes them a major player on the world scene. Iran (like North Korea) craves legitimacy.

3) A destabilized ME would open the door to their expansion. Iraq is weak (or nonexistent), and Iran could easily waltz in unlike the 1980s. That would give them oil fields, and they'd be inching closer to Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, and Saudi Arabia.

4) I'm not sure it would come to a ground war, and I'm not sure they would lose it. First of all, who would the ground war be against? Saudi Arabia? That could go either way. Against the US? I don't see us putting boots on the ground in Iran.

5) Behind Iran is Russia. Russia would love to extend their influence or even direct control, south to the gulf and then west to the Mediterranean. The risk for Russia is that Iran is an unreliable partner, but they're willing to take that risk because Iran is not the US.

6) What do they have to lose by poking the bear? 7 cruise missiles did a lot of damage to the Saudi's capability, and sent oil prices sharply upwards. What can we do to Iran with the same cost-to-benefit ratio?

7) What's the worse case that can happen to Iran? The world will hate them more? They don't care. There will be more economic sanctions? The'll wait until the US elects another democrat for president to rescind the sanctions. They will lose a war and be a defeated nation? That won't happen. Really, their greatest risk in an internal revolution, but those haven't been going well for the west lately, and so far they have a pretty tight grip on their citizens.

[FredWyn]

Thanks, Runner, very helpful!

[BehindBlueI's]

What I can't figure out is what does Iran have to gain by poking the bear and finally being destroyed in a huge ground conflict?

Because Russia is backing them and our recent history in Syria says if you have Russian backing in the ME you can do what you want. We aren't going to fight a ground war over it and neither is Europe or Israel. They can expand their influence, likely gain additional natural resources, continue their pursuit of nuclear weapons, and what are we going to do once they have the bomb? Nothing. Risk losing troops, ships, bases, etc. to a nuclear blast?

Why WOULDN'T they act to expand their empire and influence?

[blues]

It's all about the Russkies and the sooner some folks in D.C. wake up and smell the coffee, the better. They are constantly testing us and probing. (Meanwhile, the Chinese will sit back, bide their time and assess how we handle the matter.)

If Trump (and any of his cohort) think they have (or can have) a friend in Putin, they've been charmed by that snake-eyed POS.

[ranger]

Will be interesting to see if the Army "builds" some more Heavy Brigades (Armor and Mech Infantry) plus add more Combat Engineers and Field Artillery. Seems like we moved some capabilities "lighter" after 2003 so we could support the needs of the moment (OIF/OEF).

[Zincwarrior]

What I can't figure out is what does Iran have to gain by poking the bear and finally being destroyed in a huge ground conflict?

They won't be. They know that.

[Borderland]

Fuck it I'd buy a Prius or an electric car if it meant spending less on Middle East energy sources.

They can sort this mess out their own damn selves.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

Lots of people doing just that. I have 3 neighbors. One owns a Tesla and one owns a Prius. I was recently shopping Toyota and the hybrids are yuge sellers. I didn't buy one because I wanted body on frame 4WD. I do some off road as I live near the two Nat'l forests. If not for that probably would have a hybrid.

[Wondering Beard]

[TGS]

Will be interesting to see if the Army "builds" some more Heavy Brigades (Armor and Mech Infantry) plus add more Combat Engineers and Field Artillery. Seems like we moved some capabilities "lighter" after 2003 so we could support the needs of the moment (OIF/OEF).

There's lots of reads right now about the .mil moving back towards preparing for near-peer conflicts.

One of the more interesting things is the creation of the Security Forces Assistance Brigade. They're each made up of ~800 NCOs (no junior enlisted) specifically created for training foreign partners as SF simply can't keep up with the demand. The other side of that coin is that they can scale into being an actual brigade using conscripts in the case of near peer war, with seasoned NCOs already on the roster. That number of NCOs would otherwise have been pushed out of the Army.

Interesting concept that addresses both low-intensity conflict as well as near-peer. The execution has so far been a little Rocky....an army buddy of mine described the SFABs as "weaponized autism" when I asked him about them.

[ranger]

There's lots of reads right now about the .mil moving back towards preparing for near-peer conflicts.

One of the more interesting things is the creation of the Security Forces Assistance Brigade. They're each made up of ~800 NCOs (no junior enlisted) specifically created for training foreign partners as SF simply can't keep up with the demand. The other side of that coin is that they can scale into being an actual brigade using conscripts in the case of near peer war, with seasoned NCOs already on the roster. That number of NCOs would otherwise have been pushed out of the Army.

Interesting concept that addresses both low-intensity conflict as well as near-peer. The execution has so far been a little Rocky....an army buddy of mine described the SFABs as "weaponized autism" when I asked him about them.

The Army National Guard Brigades have been doing the "security forces assistance" type mission for security forces in Iraq and AFG for years also. With the demand for training of "partner" nations - there is a real need for a permanent force structure vs taking existing units and repurposing.

A similar topic is the number of Combat Arms leaders who have focused on some form of low intensity conflict (whatever the current phrase) versus "peer-near peer" war. Yes, Army is moving back toward "maneuver" training but there are Armor, Field Artillery, Cav, Infantry, Combat Engineers who missed about 10+ years of traditional CTC rotations, etc. Think of Divisions and Brigades where the LTs through MAJs have been focused on LIC - same with the NCO Corps.