Pros and Cons of Invading Iran

! This post hasn't been updated in over a year. A lot can change in a year including my opinion and the amount of naughty words I use. There's a good chance that there's something in what's written below that someone will find objectionable. That's fine, if I tried to please everybody all of the time then I'd be a Lib Dem (remember them?) and I'm certainly not one of those. The point is, I'm not the kind of person to try and alter history in case I said something in the past that someone can use against me in the future but just remember that the person I was then isn't the person I am now nor the person I'll be in a year's time.

The Americans have declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard – the religious army of Iran – a foreign terrorist organisation.  This is, of course, a prelude to American freedom fighters going in to save the world and liberate the Iranians from their oppresive government.

According to the BBC, the Revolutionary Guard is estimated to have 125,000 troops consisting of ground troops, air force, navy, intelligence and special forces.  They also control another group called the Basij Militia which consists of 90,000 regular soldiers, 300,000 reservists and potentially 11 million more that could be called up in time of need.

The Revolutionary Guard is seperate to the regular Iranian Military which consists of 350,000 ground troops, 18,000 naval troops and 52,000 air force troops.

The Revolutionary Guard are responsible for law and order, border controls and some naval security.  They are a branch of the Iranian government controlled by the ruling clerics.  They are, in effect, the religious army of Iran.

So, that’s 810,125 troops in the Iranian military with 11 million potential conscripts.  The Americans have 1.4 million active troops with 1.259 million reservists.  That’s a shade under 2.66 million troops.  There are 160,000 troops in Iraq and 15,000 in Afghanistan.  There are 1,065,600 troops currently on board ships or manning military bases in their own territory.  There are more troops manning military bases overseas with the top five countries accounting for 147,600 troops.  I haven’t been able to find out how many troops they have deployed elsewhere in the world but just these commitments come to 1,388,200 which leaves a potential fighting force – if all reservists were called up – of 1,271,800 troops.

Whilst these figures might suggest that the US, with it’s “superior” technology, has the upper hand a few things have to be taken into account.  Firstly, it would be an invasion of a country halfway round the world.  Logistically, this is difficult enough but Iran is one of the largest countries in the world in terms of both surface area and population.  An “advantage” of 400,000 troops in an invasion of this size is worth jack shit – Iranian troops will be fighting on their own territory and with the help of hundreds of thousands of religious nut-jobs who will be more than happy to become a martyr to stop the zionist invaders.

Invading Iran would be the ultimate act of folly for the lunatic warmonger, George Bush.  Not only would an invasion make the Soviet balls-up of Afghanistan in the 80’s look like a playground squabble, but the American military would be devastated, putting their own national security at risk.

So, pros and cons of invading Iran.  Pros – the Americans wouldn’t be in a position to spread “peace” and “democracy” around the world for a very, very long time.  Cons – global economic meltdown when the Americans spend 75% of the GDP on defence trying to get themselves out of the shit they got themselves into by invading in the first place and the power vacuum leaves the door wide open for another insane warmonger to establish themselves as the worlds policeman.

Which is the lesser of two evils?  Tough call.

(The above figures are all available through Wikipedia with references to offical sources)

One comment

  1. Calum (183 comments) says:

    War is the most expensive and most ineffective form of diplomacy, and should therefore allways be a last resort.

    The USA currentley spend around $40bn every 5 months in Iraq. If the US gave $40bn a year to help meet the UN development goals (the ammount it should gove as a portion of GNP etc…) they would make a positive difference to literally billions of people, instead of spending $500bn odd on the 24m people of Iraq, of which millions have become refugees, thus costing billions more.

    The US and the world would get much more done if the US invested in frendship and partnership as opposed to hawkish war mongering. However, that said i think that it is a good thing that Sadam is gone, yet had the US lead a greater diplomatic effort Sadam would have fallen and the costs, both in terms of human life and economic costs would have been far smaller.

    You get much more done in the world through alliances and friendships. You get far more done in a far more effective way for a much smaller cost. $40bn a year could save billions of lives by the reaching and exceeding the UN development goals, while hundreds of billions will eventually help 24m Iraqis.

    The US is a force for good in the world, even the ill fated war in Iraq under that fool Bush. The US would be a real tru force for good in the world if it devoted its time, energys and resources into making friends and partners than if it looked to go for an expensive ‘quivk fix’ i.e war.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.