US preparing war with Iran

NYT: White House reviews plan that would send up to 120,000 US troops to Middle East

The war drums are beating again and a pretext is being created. Discuss.

Oh.

Joy.

And this is surprising to anyone?

From the article...

It's called a contingency plan you idiot.

They usually use the term "war game".

Then it won't hurt you to die.
Shoot yourself.

A "war game" is usually an actual military excercise in which military units physically "go through the motions".

Drawing up a plan is not a war game.

Not always. War games can be tabletop affairs, or computer exercises too. Not always units in the field playing pretend.

Please don't contradict me when I am contradicting foreigners.

This is true and I understand the need for contingency planning, although as @Lanzman points out the boundaries do become blurred. That doesn't alter my tendency to be wary of reassuring language, of words like "securing"or "contingency" being euphemisms designed to sell the idea of military build ups being responsible, cautious, proportionate and necessary.

When I hear about plans being drawn up for "potentially" sending 120,000 troops as a precautionary measure it sounds very much like a thinly veiled invasion plan, one whose attractiveness in some manner has already been duly noted by people in power. How short sighted or well thought out that attractiveness is gives me pause for concern, especially in a region so notoriously unpredictable and turbulent with a long history of being the scene for proxy wars and disastrous occupations.

I've been told by more than one persons who should know about this that you can't invade Iran with only 120,000 troops. Seize some of their oil loading facilities along the Gulf perhaps but not an invasion and conquest.

If it became public that the Iranians had a contingency plan to attack the United States, what would your attitude be?

Actually, I'd be surprised if the Iranians didn't have a plan for hitting the US. Not as in a land invasion or air strikes or whatever, but some kind of asymmetric attack.

Any strike we do on Iran is unlikely to involve ground forces. Air and naval actions against coastal facilities and their naval vessels would be my guess. Maybe some deep penetration strikes against C4ISR targets.

I think it's a 100% certainty that Iran has a contingency plan to attack (in some form) the United States. I also think most people know this. Most countries' militaries have at least a barebones contingency plan to attack virtually every major political player.

They did attack the United States. Have you forgotten 1979.

I have no idea, but it seems a provocatively large number, especially when you consider the amount of air support, armoured vehicles, artillery, etc that would inevitably be in accompaniment. It may not be an invasion force but it would certainly look like one, especially if they started attacking oil facilities.

As someone upthread asked, how would that look in reverse? If it became known Iran had drawn up plans for placing that many troops within striking distance of the US as a "contingency"?

Seriously?

The US engineered a regime changing coup in Iran, but you call students protesting by taking hostages in the embassy "an attack"?

The "U.S. engineered regime changing coup" was a QUARTER CENTURY before the embassy attack. The students were not even alive back then.

Good lord..

Considering Iran has committed acts of war against the U.S. in the past (which the U.S. has not done to Iran) I would consider it a threat.

Yet the regime the US put in place committed numerous atrocities and had only been deposed months before, followed by the US giving sanctuary to its' leader and refusing extradition for trial for crimes against humanity.

Those students were not justified, but they did not represent an attack by Iran on the US. They were protesters who didn't know where to draw the line, a lack of restraint driven in no small part by being protesters who had grown up under the horrors of the US installed regime.

Engineering a military coup, on the other hand, was most definitely an "act of war".

I'd be surprised if they didn't seeing as how every major country prepares itself for those possibilities.

How can you be a grown man and not know this?

Just to be clear while the US supported and funded the removal of Mosaddegh the majority of planning and execution was someone else.

I’ll give you a hint, they had a long term relationship with the country (so had more on the ground assets) and were quite worried about BP’s oil fields being nationalized.

That's still an act of war, merely a covert one. I'm really not surprised about the oil fields somehow....

Whether they have a plan wasn't the question though, was it?

we are always "preparing for war" it's what we do. We are an actual by-god pack your bags & hit the road and be expected to function when you get there military force last time I checked. If your little island was a major player you'd be expected to field such a military too.

Being able to respond at short notice doesn't mean it's desirable to do so in any case. Frankly the US is frequently way too quick to "pack its' bags and hit the road", making messes all over the world for the rest of us.

the point being it's a simulation, a training/learning aid if you will.

hey, you used to have a military that was a major economic industry too back in the day - now it's our turn! You had your chance to run the show back around 1776 or so but lost interest. Go sit with the other kids at the folding table while the adults engage in serious dinner conversation.

Personally I expect them to. What kind of military just hopes for the best and then makes shit up when things take a turn for the worse?