
Iran attack: US airbases in Iraq hit by ballistic missiles - Dim25
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51028954
======
elihu
I wonder how Iraq is going to respond to this? It seems like they've been
pretty friendly with Iran lately, but now Iran is lobbing missiles at their
country. For that matter, the U.S. lobbed missiles at their country too the
other day. I can't imagine they're happy about two major powers lobbing
missiles at each other in their territory, but I don't know what they can do
to get them to stop in the short term. (Kicking them all out may be the long-
term solution.)

------
sdinsn
If Iraq stated that US strikes violated their sovereignty, surely they would
say the same about Iran's strikes?

~~~
SaxonRobber
Iran probably received permission from Iraq. They have a strong influence on
the country al all levels.

------
dforrestwilson
Things are about to get real.

If launched from Iranian territory there is a pretty clear case for the US to
go to war.

I know the “WW3” meme is popular right now but Iran is only a regional power
and would likely lose a conventional war quickly against the US (matter of
days or weeks).

~~~
elihu
> Iran is only a regional power and would likely lose a conventional war
> quickly against the US (matter of days or weeks).

Iran would lose control of their airspace pretty quickly and we'd be able to
drop bombs on whoever we want, but there's no quick way the United States
could occupy and control the country in that time (at least, not without
resorting to weapons and tactics that would cause massive loss of civilian
life, and which most soldiers would I hope refuse to carry out).

Some of the logistical issues are explained here: [https://www.electoral-
vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Jan06.html](https://www.electoral-
vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Jan06.html)

~~~
fnord77
there's no way at all we (the US) could win a boots-on-the-ground war with
Iran.

~~~
SaxonRobber
Winning is bad for business anyway.

------
hanniabu
I've seen estimates on the amount of US soldiers dead ranging from 0 to 180
while this article doesn't mention any deaths. It's crazy how large of a
fluctuation there is, it's so hard to know what news sources are valid.

~~~
larnmar
If casualties are zero, we can laugh it off as an impotent hissy fit by an
incompetent adversary.

If casualties are non-zero, the President will be obliged to carry out his “52
targets” threat. This is probably the right move — don’t play tit-for-tat
against a less powerful adversary, instead immediately escalate to a level
they can’t possibly match.

Unfortunately Iran’s air defences are more potent than anyone the US has
bombed recently, so we might be about to find out just how good US technology
really is.

What happens next? I’m not sure. I can’t imagine the US committing to a ground
invasion of Iran, but it should be possible with an air campaign to reduce
Iran to the level of a 2000-era Iraq.

Edit: President Trump’s latest “all is well” tweet, and his intention to hold
off on doing a briefing until tomorrow, seems to imply that US casualties were
zero after all and that he’s chosen the “laugh it off” response, which is a
great relief to me.

~~~
dogma1138
Iranian air defenses are on about the same level as Syria and Israel has been
running circles around those.

The US might actually get to use it’s SEAD capabilities for a change....

~~~
larnmar
You could well be right, maybe Iran’s air defences are on a par with Syria’s.

I’ve suddenly realised something important — I’m commenting on important
issues based on nothing but information gleaned from probably equally ignorant
comments posted somewhere else. Why the heck am I doing this? I’m no expert on
Iranian military capabilities.

Why do we all feel compelled to pollute the Internet with our ill-informed
speculation on important issues?

I feel like I should just quit commenting on anything outside the narrow areas
in which I’m a proper expert, and so should everyone else.

------
andrei_says_
Is this how it ends?

~~~
sdinsn
How Iran ends? Maybe

