Why hasn't USA/NATO directly invaded the Islamic Republic of Iran since 1979, even though Wall Street/London lost its oil and mineral interests there, they've constantly made threats of "we will stop the (non-existent) Iranian nuclear threat" and continually built up an ever-increasingly huge super-navy and military base power projection in North Africa, Israel, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and GCC countries in the Persian Gulf etc, almost completely surrounding Iran from all sides?
Do they fear the Iranian warrior?
Do they fear the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps?
Because NATO is a defensive alliance and the US isn't interested in raping Iran to death militarily and listening to the international community bitch worse and "imperialism"
Jonathan Wilson
This is actually wrong. We've done all kinds of shit to fuck with them for what they did in 79. It's because Iran is a much tougher nut to crack than Iraq politically and geographically, and the public support isn't there to get into what would be Vietnam 2: Mountain Redux. We couldn't give a fuck about international opinion.
David Wright
Soon
Adrian Allen
You need to see it within the context of history. 79 Shah is overthrown Reagans in and his main focus is USSR Gets close to Iraq to hedge Iran but nothing substantial Lebanon Barrack bombings we pull out of civil war USSR collapses HR Bush is in Ally Iraq invades ally Kuwait, we back up Kuwait, turning Iraq hostile Clinton is in, decides to use containment on both because, well Idk, this probably would've been the most apt time to invade, but I'm guessing Iran wasn't on the shit list yet. Bush Jr. comes in with the Neocons and (ZOG), Axis of Evil etc. and Iran's now on the shit list. Neocons prepare to institute regime change in the Middle East, invade Iraq and Afghanistan which border Iran hope to instate friendly democratic regimes to spread democracy through the region. (Doesn't work that way obviously) Turns into a quagmire, and trillions of dollars later Great recession hits as well. Obama instated, focus is retrenchment and focusing on helping America recover from the biggest financial crisis since the Great depression instead of getting entagled in costly overseas ventures, tries detente with Nuclear Deal and wants to focus on containing China. Current day, Trump is elected about to rip up Nuclear Deal. So it's not so much that America fears the persian war it's more so we had bigger fish to fry. When they did become big on the shit list (2003) we picked another country to take out first. But things didn't go as planned, a recession, happened, and by then it's 2016. So we might soon, very soon, try to start something with Iran, but historically speaking the stars never alligned just right for the go ahead to happen.
>NATO is a defensive alliance >Department of Defense is a defensive Department
Kayden Cook
>Gets close to Iraq to hedge Iran but nothing substantial
Decade long Iran-Iraq war is nothing substantial?
Kevin Hughes
Not really. US support to Iraq was relatively minor, and they destroyed Iraq's army almost completely soon after. The reasons for this are obvious- Iraq was a Soviet satellite and had been for decades.
Colton Johnson
>US support to Iraq was relatively minor >relatively minor
The US support to Iraq consisted of, but was not entirely limited to, the following: >Supporting separatist groups in Iran (Azerbaijani provinces, Kurds, Khuzestan which is minority Arab) >Plotting a number of coups >Inciting and supporting Saddam Hussein to attack Iran >Removing Iraq from its list of "State Sponsors of Terrorism" (1982) >Supplying Iraq with $200 million worth of weapons (1983-1990) >Offering a $5 billion loan to equip Iraq's army >Protecting Iraq's oil in the Persian Gulf >Directly attacking Iranian oil rigs >Shooting down an Iranian airliner in the Persian Gulf >Several US and European companies helping Saddam achieve and produce mass chemical weapons
Jonathan Reyes
Don't forget supplying Saddams ground units with operational intelligence about Iranian troop dispositions and air movements. That shit was invaluable.
Julian Gutierrez
Considering we never gave em enough to knock em out or intervened on their side I'd say yes
Carson Price
Destroying the Iranian army would be the easy part. Stabilizing such a vast country would be impossible however. If the USA ever enters, it would be wise to limit themselves to areas with seperatist tendencies such as Kurdistan, Ahwaz, Balochistan and South Azerbaijan.
Bottom of the page for some reading of "How CIA fucks up", straight from the US government, ~25 years late, just to be sure people don't see the connection with the problems in the Middle East.
Robert Reyes
Only Afghanistan was an invocation of article 5
Camden Butler
They fear the 12 year old warrior, or rather the PR results of it
Kayden Walker
>this is what americans actually believe
Chase Perez
>US is stuck in its modern Vietnam with Afghanistan to the east of Iran and a similar situation for almost as long with Iraq to the west of it >"Why don't we just attack a country with 3x the population of Iraq's, that isn't divided by sectarian conflcits whose allies are Russia and China and see what happens?" We would get bogged down in Iran in both symmetrical or asymmetrical warfare, and this is at best without factoring in the sapping of our economy and GDP due to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Aiden Miller
Because Jimmy Carter was against it. It probably was for the better. It would have resulted in either Vietnam 2.0 Desert and Mountain edition or he could have nuked them, but he refused.
Ryder Allen
>implying Vietnam 2.0 isn't Afghanistan. 16 MORE YEARS!
Oliver Butler
In terms of conventional warfare, we could decimate their aging air force, carpet bomb their armored divisions, and with complete air superiority, annihilate their infantry formations. It is beyond question that we can destroy their conventional capabilities. You can't hide a hangar or a capital ship or a refueling depot.
But they do have: A. An elected government with high legitimacy in the eyes of the populace B. Fanatics who are willing to martyr themselves (a la USS Cole) and thereby act as cheap guidance systems C. Horrible terrain to move through, open to ambush, isolation, and masking movements D. Local powers that buy cheap oil and gas off them and wouldn't want that to be disrupted i.e. the Chinese
Jordan Phillips
>Point A Not really but most Iranians will lash out against the US out of a sense of nationalism and support the Mullahs simply do to being attacked rather than actual ideological loyalty to the Guardian Council or Supreme Leader and Islamic conservatism. >Point B The only real fantics who are even close to what we traditionally define as "Islamic fundamentalists" are the IRGC who are traditionally vetted and filled from the loyalists of the people who were the only real ardent supporters of the theocracy. Otherwise they'll engage in standard guerrilla warfare tactics and asymmetrical fighting. >Point C Yes because Iran is a fuck ton more mountainous, hilly, and rocky then Iraq and urban areas would be fucking hell since most of the country isn't divided into political-military zones like Northern Alliance holding Northern Afghanistan and working with the US against the Taliban or Kurdistan in Iraq. >Point D Besides the Chinese, the Russians would likely actually intervene and get in the way of any attempt to attack Iran. China already has enough clout to fuck up our demands over North Korea, and Russia has the military muscle to challenge us too. Its never going to happen ultimately. And too add, the Iranians have been in constant conflicts since the late 70s and are pretty decent commanded so they aren't going to break like disillusioned Iraqis or being insane as terrorist operatives.
We do not want a war with Iran.
Landon Sanchez
Because attacking Iran would be complete clusterfuck. Think of how poorly the most recent Iraq war went. Now imagine that Iraq was four times larger, three times as populated, and actually had a worthwhile tank army. That's why nobody really wants to invade Iran.
