While a removing the regime would have its benefits. The Iranians wont be just terrorists hiding in mountains. They have soviet armor 3rd generation fighters cruise missiles and submarines. The losses we'll take in an invasion would be much higher.
Initially, perhaps. But when we're there to dismantle a regime and destroy them as a nation, we're far less likely to be stuck there for another 20 years.
Going in depth though, Soviet armor was barely good for it's time, and we smashed identical weapons and doctrine decades ago.
One of our modern fighters could likely spank an entire squadron of 3rd gen birds, and we have them outnumbered.
As for cruise missiles, half the ships in our fleets have dedicated countermeasures, our missiles are a lot meaner, and I have no doubt that Airborne, Air Assault, and SOF would destroy many and mark most of the rest for destruction.
Regular Infantry and Armor may take some heat, but 24,000 casualties in maybe 2 years is very much preferable to 54,000 and counting over decades.
Whatever the cost, it'd be worth it to be rid of the global terror sponsor and destabilizing force in the world.
Who knows, might be a repeat of the First Gulf War.
24000 is still nearly 4x the number of US military deaths in both Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Im not doubting our capability hell no. Iran in THEORY is more capable of damage than Al qaeda or ISIS. The first thing they'll try is to close off all traffic in the gulf and start hitting strategic targets in Israel and SA. Oil prices will take a hit. We may not feel it but europe and asia will. And they will in turn either help iran win (china and russia) or join us (UK maybe france) or pressue an end to hostility (Germany). If we underestimate any foe we will get more than we bargain for and the public opinion will suffer for it. Public opinion was high after 911 and pearl harbor. America does well if its attacked. We tend to argue and fight ourselves if we're the aggressor.
Now if we were to carry out a campaign against Iran. It would have to be a modern Blitzkrieg. EMP and Jamming to clear airspace. Airborn and SPEC OPS to sieze government buildings radar sites and missile implacements to prevent counter attack. Air and naval strikes on other strategic targets and for the love of god dont let them breath in the gulf. The oil has to flow. On the assumtion the saudis let of deploy troops amphibious landing would be the tough part. If iraq helped that would make it easier. Double front. Im not saying its impossible. It cant be anything other than another desert storm. Else public opinion will drop by the day.
Going in depth though, Soviet armor was barely good for it's time, and we smashed identical weapons and doctrine decades ago.
One of our modern fighters could likely spank an entire squadron of 3rd gen birds, and we have them outnumbered.
As for cruise missiles, half the ships in our fleets have dedicated countermeasures, our missiles are a lot meaner, and I have no doubt that Airborne, Air Assault, and SOF would destroy many and mark most of the rest for destruction.
Regular Infantry and Armor may take some heat, but 24,000 casualties in maybe 2 years is very much preferable to 54,000 and counting over decades.
Whatever the cost, it'd be worth it to be rid of the global terror sponsor and destabilizing force in the world.
Who knows, might be a repeat of the First Gulf War.