2 questions here:

1. I assume the Iranian military is similar in strength to the pre-Gulf War Iraqi military since they fought to a stalemate for a like a decade. Is that a reasonable assumption?

2. Is the Iranian population anywhere near as divided/tribal as the Iraqi population?

I think it's a pretty horrible idea for the U.S. to go into Iran at all (I don't think they pose any legitimate threat to the U.S., and I think the current regime is living on borrowed time regardless of what we do). But if we did go over there, I think there's an excellent chance that our jets/drones would just annihilate the military and government in ~6 months. Then we could more or less just leave without the country degenerating into civil war. Given the recent protests there, there seems to be a large enough liberal/secular group that they could assume control if the powers that be all suddenly met their demise. Of course there's always the chance that things could go sideways and it's not worth the risk of creating another failed state over there, but I think >80% of the time, the military campaign would look a lot like Libya. Their military may be much stronger than Libya's, but the U.S. probably only used like 2% of it's capabilities in the Libya campaign.

The biggest risk with Iran isn't in the actual bombing campaign or with their military IMO. It's the risk that once the government falls, Taliban/Iraqi/Al Qaeda agitators come pouring in over the borders and wreak havoc. Better to let the regime die a natural death and avoid creating any more zones of disorder in the Middle East.

1. No. Fighting a stalemate doesn't mean that one side is not as strong. The Afghans fought the Soviets to a stalemate. They have twice as many people, the land is much harder to fight on.

2. Pretty sure no.

The land doesn't have much to with it. If we EVER sent ground troops in there, we'd be ****ed. That would virtually guarantee that all of the insurgents that we're now leaving behind in Iraq and Afghanistan would swarm in like a plague of locusts.

Even if they are 5x as strong as Iraq was, they'd have virtually no chance of doing significant damage to our military if we engaged in a bombardment campaign. We won't be trying to take and hold land and fight the population like the Soviets did in Afghanistan. We'd just be trying to eliminate the government and military.

Also, I think a stalemate between two conventional armies is a LOT more indicative of an equal match up than a stalemate between a conventional army and guerrilla fighters.

Iran is by far the strongest military force the US would have faced in the past several decades. Far more of an economic and military danger than gulf War Iraq

The second Iran feels even remotely in danger of losing control/power due to a military campaign against them. The strait is flooded with mines and the US economy comes to a screeching halt as gas prices soar. It would be shooting themselves in their own foot, but they would have nothing to lose at that point.

Yeah reimbursing them for mandatory health insurance is such a shafting compared to free emergency rooms and destroyed credit. And cutting payroll taxes, or extending unemployment benefits... Just ramming it right up there.

I don't think this matters much. A game between the top high school football team in Texas and the Green Bay Packers wouldn't look all that different than a game between a mediocre high school team from Rhode Island and the Green Bay Packers.

I think it's a horrible idea to do anything over there, but not because their military might put a hurt on us.

Mining the strait is definitely a concern. I'm sure we have a reasonable shot at preventing it, but I'd definitely add that to the list of reasons why doing anything over there is too risky for too little reward.

Except the Packers fan base do not have the stomach to risk playing this game right now, even if they think they win the majority of the time.

Its not so much the fact we would ever lose...its the economic and military/civilian hits we, along with Israel and possibly our allies, would take from Iran and its surrogates.

It is interesting to think though that if it did happen near election time...I imagine it secures Obama a 2nd term automatically.

obama has had trillion dollar+ deficits every year. Let's forget his campaign babble about how he was gonna cut the deficit LOLOLOL.... even if he attempted to move the deficit from the current ZOMG WTF insane level down to a more reasonable ZOMG WTF 500 BILLION deficit.... there is still a gap of about 700 BILLION. Even if you confiscate all of the wealth of Bill Gates, buffet, zuckerburg, and the rest, the money is just not there to bridge that gap.... and once you confiscate that wealth, it's gone... you can only do it once.

Spending needs to be cut across the board. Military/entitlements/and every other rat **** dept. of govt. needs to be stripped down and trimmed by a minimum of 20%, with some being cut in half and others being done away with altogether.

Unfortunately, telling americans that the free ponies are getting to damn expensive to feed is not as easy as promising newer shinier ponies.

Didn't 2008 Obama tell us that we could cut spending not by cutting programs but by "eliminating waste"?

tax reform/deficit reduction will cause some taxes to go up for people...maybe everyone. it will also cause massive spending cuts. By going with a massive cuts, no tax increases of any kind position the opposition is basically saying that "hey we are just going to throw this out there knowing that there is 0 chance it would ever pass in part because we would all be thrown out of office if it did."

u are never going to pass serious deficit reduction without some tax revenues increases on everyone or certain segments of the current population.

The Dems want rich people to pay more and and they don't want to touch all the social safety net programs. The Reps want rich people to pay less and poor people to pay more and they don't want to touch defense spending. The should just lock everyone in a room with the BowlesSimpson plan as a starting point and not allow any food until they pass a version of it.

I think pretty much every single thing the Dems pass that adds to spending is always said to be paid for by closing tax loopholes and subsidies by big oil etc., which is pretty lol since there is 0 chance that would ever happen to begin with.

Only way to shrink the debt is to have massive cuts in government spending. You can have an income tax of 100% for like the next 20 years and we won't be out of debt yet if we don't cut spending.

Of course you can't tax people at 100 percent but total personal income in 2010 was 12.3T.

It's hilarious to watch the lefties ITT call Obama moderate.

Nice OP, I'm wondering the same myself