What is the United States up against in Iran?

I am not sure how accurate this video is, but from all accounts I've read in the recent past, it doesn't seem to be too far off from what I've read:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8884648292925739980&q=iran

and resort to insurgent tactics.

and resort to insurgent tactics.

Guerrilla Warfare. or at least Partisan Resistance

its terrorist, or thug that is the incorrect term

resistance on the other hand implies resistance. Iran has an elected Govt.They would all be deputized.

but actually occupying a place with so many mountains would be a strategic and tactical nightmare...

this is a dud.

Where the Sunburn Missile.

has a real army and air force. They have missle and I would be they are pointed toward Israel and our troops in Iraq.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm

Tens of thousands of US dead, at the very least. And there is no way on earth the US could occupy Iran.

Iraq was one of the weakest 3rd world nations on the planet...Iran is not. Funny how rightwingnuts think Iran is as weak as Iraq. Iran also has defense pacts with some powerful nations. That and of course the world may finally decide enough is bloody well enough; time to put an end to the rogue nation of bushica.

And then there's Pakistan. Pakistan hates our guts. One man stands between Pakistan's nukes and us...and he was almost assassinated 3 times last year. Pakistan likes Iran.

Actually no one likes us anymore; we're seen as the #1 threat to the world.

Tens of thousands of American troops trapped in the bullseye.

Clout with Muslims, Huge Oil Supply, Access to the Red sea, etc

It's not good... and Iran faces getting nuked if we do attack Iran... for the simple reason that they do have a reasonably strong military.

Read what I posted and let me know what you think (it's already been archived):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=45084

said any disruption of Iranian oil will bring everyone against us because things are bad enough with oil demand and to take 30-40% offline over - whatever they're doing in Washingon - with not go over well with the entire rest of the world. And what are we going to do with most of the military dead and no oil.

And that has stopped the administration when?

Also, if Iran blocks the oil, guess what happens? Oil skyrockets in price... who benefits? Not you or I, but just about everyone involved in the administration. Look at the graph in my sig line. Any action that raises the price of oil is one the current administration would like to execute.

everyone else. End of oil flow. Forget prices. The country would grind to a halt.

they block the straits of Hormuz, with mines, or their own sunken ships,
if necessary.
Presto, Oil is blocked to western world -
and see what happens.

Their actions have been consistent: a foreign policy that causes the price of oil to rise and the oil-industry to prosper.

Think of the financial implications to North American based oil industry...

and possibly Russia...

that there is any significant chance that either China or Russia would become involved as a nation. In fact, both have concerns about growing Muslim populations, either within their territories or at the edges, that are being drawn to a pan-Islamic movement.

China has an agreement with Iran for oil; Russia had just signed one with Iraq. In both cases, their concern is commerce and an energy supply, not supporting a Saddam or an Islamic government. China enjoys a pretty favorable trade status with the US.

What is, in my opinion, of far more concern would be the reaction of those Islamic peoples in the Middle East and throughout Asia. That is where a "world war" is a greater potential. Again, when we think in terms of commerce, it is known that when the USSR broke up, that about 20 "suitcase" nuclear weapons went missing. Someone bought them. A series of air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities will result in a response from forces that are in the shadows, so to speak.

Most of us probably remember being taught in grade school about the American Revolutionary War. The British were vulnerable for a couple reasons: first, as an empire, they were too far away from home; second, they were trapped in a "formal" state of mind, and the colonists had learned from the tribal people of the northeast how to fight "informally" .... from the shadows of the forest, so to speak. We've traded places with the British crown, and are too often trapped in viewing the Middle East in terms of the "boundries" that the western world imposed in the first half of the last century.