What makes Iran so secure against a successful invasion?

[Geronimo]

More than a few people who endorsed Bush's invasion of the WMD-less Iraq have insisted that Iraq was a higher priority than Iran simply because they insist that a successful occupation of Iran is particularly difficult if not impossible to pull off. Now I admit I'm no expert on modern warfare in Iran but I recently came across this BBC article on the 1941 august invasion of Iran and doing some shallow research of my own appears to bear out the fact that the ww2 invasion of Iran was relatively painless. Is this assumption wrong? If not whence comes the modern perception that Iran is practically second to an invasion of mainland China in difficulty?

[Dis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Persia

here's more info on the subject.

In any case, from the wiki article. It looks like they were up against mostly infantry divisions. Tanks could destroy all back then. But tanks don't win wars anymore. As Iraq has shown.

[Berzerker]

Iran is not secure, why do you think they're trying to get the bomb

bomb = respect

But I wouldn't draw to many conclusions from 1941, it was still part of the crumbled Ottoman empire with no real sense of loyalty to any ruling national government. Now fundies are in charge and with a population 3-4 times as big as Iraq without a comparable religious/tribal schism, i.e., more fanatics willing to die for Allah and Iran. Look at what happened when Iraq invaded Iran, it was like WWI warfare with rockets.

But I'm sure we'll see a media build up about all the Iranians who would welcome us a few months before we invade.

[GePap]

Re: What makes Iran so secure against a successful invasion?

Originally posted by Geronimo
More than a few people who endorsed Bush's invasion of the WMD-less Iraq have insisted that Iraq was a higher priority than Iran simply because they insist that a successful occupation of Iran is particularly difficult if not impossible to pull off. Now I admit I'm no expert on modern warefare in Iran but I recently came across this BBC article on the 1941 august invasion of Iran and doing some shallow research of my own appears to bear out the fact that the ww2 invasion of Iran was relatively painless. Is this assumption wrong? If not whence comes the modern perception that Iran is practically second to an invasion of mainland China in difficulty?

Because things have changed dramatically since 1941? After all, by your line of thinking, Iraq should have been a piece of cake- just examine how the Brits ovethrew the pro-fascist government and took over in 1941 as well.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Dis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Persia

here's more info on the subject.

In any case, from the wiki article. It looks like they were up against mostly infantry divisions. Tanks could destroy all back then. But tanks don't win wars anymore. As Iraq has shown.

Dis, no offense, but you are flat wrong. The war in Iraq was won when Bush said it was. We are now facing an insurgency. Two different things.

[Geronimo]

Re: Re: What makes Iran so secure against a successful invasion?

Originally posted by GePap


Because things have changed dramatically since 1941? After all, by your line of thinking, Iraq should have been a piece of cake- just examine how the Brits ovethrew the pro-fascist government and took over in 1941 as well.

Iraq was a piece of cake. It was the more important nation building portion of the Iraq campaign that has been nearly impossible.

Anyway, to say things have changed doesn't really answer the question. I'm interested in what has changed.

[SlowwHand]

All depends on your objectives, too.

[Capt Dizle]

I don't see any reason that US conventional forces could not defeat Iranian conventional forces just as Iraq was defeated. It would just be a matter of scale. The problem would remain however, in what the heck to do next.

But we are not going to invade Iran. Any time soon. I hope.

[Dis]

re: the last 2 posts. (edit: before 2 more were inserted after that )

Yes we could take over Iran just as easily as Iraq. But then we still face the same problem. And is the war truelly won if we can't hold what we conquer? I have no doubts we could bring down the goverment of Iran, but for what purpose?

[Capt Dizle]

Well, our people won't stand for the necessary measures.

Kill the men, rape the women, pillage, loot, and burn whole cities to the ground.

In other words, think Yankees>Sherman>march to the sea.

Now, if and when a major American city is nuked by some of these fanatics all bets are off.

The real dicey part is what happens if Iran gets a nuke and whacks Israel. Then how far will the American public be prepared to go.

Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.

We have yet to see the real crap hit the fan, but, its coming.

[Dis]

That's why we should bomb their nuke reactors now. .

Okay I don't really want to do that. But I don't have much problem if Israel does. It's their funeral.

[Mao]

Originally posted by Capt Dizle


Dis, no offense, but you are flat wrong. The war in Iraq was won when Bush said it was. We are now facing an insurgency. Two different things.

I thought he meant that tanks don't win wars anymore because in the 1991 war Iraq had like the fourth or fifth largest number of tanks or somesuch in the world. They had a massive number of tanks at any rate, yet Coalition forces sliced through their large armored formations, that's why tanks don't "win wars" anymore. At least that's how I interpreted what he said.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Mao


I thought he meant that tanks don't win wars anymore because in the 1991 war Iraq had like the fourth or fifth largest number of tanks or somesuch in the world. They had a massive number of tanks at any rate, yet Coalition forces sliced through their large armored formations, that's why tanks don't "win wars" anymore. At least that's how I interpreted what he said.

that's not what I meant, but it is true. In that case I would have said aircraft won wars. But that's not the case either. As we have plenty of aircraft available in the Iraq region.

I still just can't see the Iraq war as being won. Even when the mission accomlished sign was on, there were some things happening in the background the U.S. had no clue about.

[RGBVideo]

of my own appears to bear out the fact that the ww2 invasion of Iran was relatively painless. Is this assumption wrong?

No, it isn't.

If not whence comes the modern perception that Iran is practically second to an invasion of mainland China in difficulty?

The short answer is that there are now more nationalist Iranians in Iran than in 1941.

[Dis]

Our aircraft could annhilate the entire Iranian military. They stand no chance. Toppling the goverment is easy. But there is no way in hell we could hold on to the country once we got it.