I am not advocating a war with Iran - in fact I think such a war would be a bad idea to say the least. This is a hypothetical situation - were the situation suddenly changed in such a way that the U.S. would feel the need to invade.

Consider this scenario, for example. The hardline conservatives won the election in Iran by a landslide. Confident that the tide has turned against reformers and eager to spread fundamentalist Shia Islam, Iran would in this scenario begin funnelling money to Shias in Iraq to cause trouble for the U.S. by attacking the U.S. forces, bribing Shia clerics to make them refuse to participate in the U.S. led political process, etc so as to destabilize Iraq. U.S. attempts to stop this diplomatically would be ignored. Parallel with the above desire to spread Shia Islam, Iran would also renew its support for Islamic terrorist groups, particularly those fighting Israel - especially Hizbollah, but also Hamas. At some point while tensions are rising, IAEA inspectors would find out very strong evidence that Iran is working on nuclear weapons and long range missiles to deliver them. Iran would promtly react by expelling all IAEA inspectors and withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty with the intention to pursue a 'Shia bomb'. With this in mind, the U.S. decides to invade Iran. It has to do so alone, because Western European governments refuse to participate. This applies to Britain too, where Blair is already under incredible pressure over the Iraq War. It is clear that the world opinion will be enraged and Islamic world in particular will be furious. No nearby country is willing to host the troops for the invasion and later occupation of Iran. Even Turkey refuses and the only exceptions Afghanistan and Iraq, which acqueisce to host the invasion troops only very reluctantly and only because they are so dependent on the U.S., but the popular opposition to the U.S. will rise in both as a result, especially in the Shia areas of Iraq. Still the U.S. feels it has no other choice. Take it from there.

There are several possible ways to deal with the Iranian problem. One way I see as most effective would be a variant of the Afghan model. Have Special Ops trools infiltrate the country and help set up a resistance movement. After several months, during major demonstrations, have resistance push for a revolution. Using Special Ops to target key troops and installations, knock out the ability of the Mullahs to defend themselves. Bomb and isolate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Bribe and/or convince the army to back way, remain neutral, or even help, it at all possible. The goal is to avoid sending large numbers of American troops, and to avoid an occupation by leaving much of the military and government in place. Only the mullahs will be subject to removal. Combine this with elections a few months later, and the country should be on the way to recovery. Of course that is the optimistic and likely naive approach. P.S. Iran's nuclear program is really only worrisome with the Mullahs in charge. Once they are removed, more responsible people will look over the program, and likely dismantle it.

Hmm, I am not sure that kind of approach would be sufficient. I do not think so, though it could perhaps be used to augument US invasion forces. BTW: Nuclear Weapons program is actually very popular in Iran, so it would continue even in the absence of the Mullahs unless the US embedded a "no nukes clause" into the Iranian constitution after the invasion, while US was still occupying the country and helping to form a new government.

This may be helpful information - comparisons with Iraq for added usefulness: Population: Iran - about 70 million; Iraq - about 24 million Land Area: Iran - 1.636 million square kilometers Iraq - 432 thousand square kilometers Total PPP GDP: Iran - $530 billion, Iraq - $60 billion Manpower fit for military service: Iran - 12 million; Iraq - 4 million Military budget (nominal in year 2000): Iran - $9.7 billion; Iraq - $1.3 billion The above shows that the invasion and occupation of Iran would be substantially more difficult than that of Iraq. It would also be useful to add that the terrain in Iran is more rugged and mountainous on average than in Iraq. Iran has also not been subject to the same international isolation (and hence could continue to build them up) and has not had its military forces destroyed in a previous conflict with the USA like Iraq had in 1991 nor has there been an opportunity to use no fly zones to map Iran for 10 years.

Yes, but the people of Iran, or Persia, are most decidely agains their current leaders. If the US waged an intense psy ops effort to convince them that we wanted a free Iran(which we do, as it would almost certainly be pro-US, or at least friendly neutral), then there should be little outright resistance. In fact, I really think that a supported revolution could do it. But should that fail or bog down, US troops might be needed in large numbers. It would be tougher logistically than Iraq, but I do think that the sheer amount of popular support would make it easier. The important thing is to have a short lived occupation, if one at all.

Rather than a “Could the US invade Iran” discussion, perhaps it would be more meaningful to debate at what point the US would determine military action against Iran was necessary. Based upon Iran’s pursuit of NBC-WMD, Iran’s fundamental islamic theocracy, and Iran’s funding, training, directing and political support of terrorist organizations, at what point does the US acknowledge the situation to be militarily critical. Will the US allow Iran to continue to support terrorists in spite of the “War on Terror”? Will the US allow Iran to acquire nuclear technology to the point Iran is able to dictate fundamental islamic ultimatums to other islamic nations? Will the US allow Iran to use nuclear weapon capacity to disrupt world energy supplies or cost? Will the US allow Iran to threaten Israel’s existence, to the degree that Israel is obligated to take military action before the US? Would the US, believing that imminent unilateral Israeli military action would precipitate a regional or international conflict, take the same military action itself, believing the US could contain such a conflict. Will the US standby when the next generation of university students are tossed out dormitory windows? Would the US believe that a reformist Iranian government could be trusted with a nuclear program acquired by the previous islamic regime? Would a successor government be tempted to use nuclear weapon technology to its political benefit? Plotting these, and other events, on a time line, might assist a discussion on what action the US will take, when it will take action, and how it will take action. I believe that the US will be forced to take action. I believe that an invasion of Iran by the US would be militarily impossible. If I am correct, how will the US deal with these not-so-hypothetical issues?

I still do not think that it would be possible. Remember that the Mullahs just won an election by a landslide. Sure, the election was not entirely fair and large number of reformists were disqualified, but it still does show that support for the Mullahs does exist and is significant. Also bear in mind that only a small minority of the population supported Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party in Iraq, yet an invasion was necessary to topple him. Kurds (about 20% of the population) were totally against Saddam and the Iraqi Shias certainly were not enamoured with him either. The Sunnis, most of whom supported Saddam, made up only 20% of the population. Despite this fact, as I have already mentioned, a direct invasion was needed to get rid of the dictator. In Iran, it is likely more than 20% of the population that supports the current regime - in fact it may even be a majority of the population (we won't know for certain, as we do not have access to any polls of Mullah popularity). Moreover, the situation is fundamentally different from that in Afghanistan, where there already was an experienced, battle hardened and comparatively numerous armed resistance to the Taliban in the form of the Northern Alliance, which even controlled some of Afghan territory. In such a set-up, the Special Forces and USAF assisted indigenous resistance was possible, but in Iran none of those prerequisits exist, so there would likely have to be a full scale invasion and a period of occupation (and we have not agreed yet whether US even has the capacity to do either of them on its own). (Luckily, Iran has not been anywhere as devastated as Iraq.)

Roman, those elections were a joke. Hardly anyone voted, all of the candidates they wanted were off the ballot, and the votes are meaningless anyways. So don't count on that having any influence. And I have seen numbers of support for Mullahs no higher than 25%, they are a minority, and are not popular at all with the largely young population.

Appleciderus - I did describe the scenario under which I think the US would judge military action essential in my "Scenario" post. Any of the possible occurances you describe could persuade the US that an invasion of Iran was necessary - especially the support for terrorists, acquiring nuclear weapons and disrupting energy supplies, the prospect of destruction of Israel and a threat of action by Israel. I am not sure that any kind of scenario where US would be forced to take military action will necessarily occur. If it does, though, I am not convinced either way whether an invasion and occupation (for perhaps a 6 months to a year - until a new government is set up) is possible or not.