What makes Iran so secure against a successful invasion?

[GePap]

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

Originally posted by Geronimo


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.

Iran is a country of 70 Million people, with rough terrain, very large cities, vast in size. Off the bat, it is basically 3 times Iraq (in size, population, Tehran is 3 yimes the size of Baghdad) and the terrain in Iran favors the defender in wasy the terrain in Iraq does not. The mountanous nature of the terrain undermines a variety of US advantages, particularly airpower. Irregular terrain still makes air power less effective.

Iraq was simple for two main reasons:

1. The Iraqi army gave up on the spot essentially.
2. The Iraqis were weak from 12 years of sanctions
3. The US had complete control of the air over 50% of the country of more before the war even began
4. A significant section of Iraq was already out of Saddam's hands.

None of these things are true of Iran. Iran is better armed than Iraq was, thought obviously not nearly well enough compared to the US BUT the Iranian army is certainly a more dedicated force than the Iraqi army was. Once you accept that we would face at least 300,000 men willing toa ctually fight and die and have to fight them in mountains and in large urban areas, you should realize why Iran is a far tougher proposition than Iraq.

[GePap]

Originally posted by 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.

no they couldn't. OUr aircraft could not take out the Talibanm by themselves- how would they take out a far better armed and larger force?

People grossly overestimate the effecitveness of airpower.

And toppling the Iranian regime would not be easy. It has far more legitimacy than Saddam's regime.

[Dis]

Originally posted by GePap



People grossly overestimate the effecitveness of airpower.

not if you include B-52's with nuclear warheads.

Assuming we could get full clearance to attack Iran from Iraq. We could send all the aircraft we got. We were severely limited in Afghanistan. Most of those were carrier aircraft. I hate to admit it, but navy aircraft are inferior to airforce aircraft in nearly every way. True the airforce did conduct bombing missions from Diego Garcia with B-2's, B-1's and B-52's. But the long flight time surely limited the amount of sorties they could run.

[Ted Striker]

*sigh*

Alot has changed since World War 2

I really wish Americans would stop equating every damn conflict to World War 2.

We would whoop Iran's army without any problem. Nobody can beat us 1 on 1, that is pretty much without question.

On the other hand, we are some of the worst occupiers around.

What's the hardon for Iran anyway, that's just silly.

[Dis]

they are gettin' nukes. Havnen't ya heard?

[Ted Striker]

I heard the same thing about Iraq but hey that one was pretty accurate.

[Ted Striker]

In any case, I think we're letting the Israelis do the dirty work on this one.

[Dinner]

Iran is a very mountainous country where as other then Iraqi Kurdistan that country is flat as a pancake. Combine with a larger population and a larger total area and you see why Iran would be much harder to hold on to then Iraq. I doubt their armed forces are worth much more then Iraqs however beating them in the field and holding on to the country are two different things.

[snoopy369]

I think we'd win militarily, eventually.

The problem would be the people.

The Persians are a very proud race, and have a very long and valued heritage. Many Iranian-Americans I know can trace their lineage pretty darned far back, and can tell me things about Persian history that I could never have imagined knowing (and I consider myself somewhat knowledgeable about ancient/premedieval history). Iraq hasn't been a cakewalk, but mostly because of warlord-type insurgents; the 'regular' people themselves mostly have been appreciative of our involvement, or at least not mind so much; they tend to recognize that Saddam was an ass. Most of the objections have come from the minority Sunnis, who lost power when Saddam lost power, and don't appreciate being in a democracy where they're the minority.

Iran will be a different story, where if we were ever to invade, we'd be opposed by the people wholeheartedly, excepting the small groups who would gain from our involvement (minority political groups and oppresed peoples), which is basically the opposite of Iraq, where the majority was helped by our involvement (or at least was given more power than it had before) ...

[Kuciwalker]

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

[Dinner]

"I wet my armor!"

[Barinthus]

That's ok we got holy grenades

[Tattila the Hun]

Problem is, muslims don't consider them holy, they will not work.

[Seeker]

errr...someone in this thread said that the Persia was '....part of the Ottoman Empire....'

Is that true? I always figured Persia was first an independent rival of the Turks and then came to rely more and more on British and other foreign 'advisors'.

In fact by 1the 20th century you could say the country was largely run by foreigners, nearly a de facto British protectorate.

I'm sure Persia fought many wars with the Ottomans but I doubt that Ottoman power reached from Teheran to Afghanistan.

[Patroklos]

On the other hand, we are some of the worst occupiers around.

Occupy, is that what we are doing? In all seriousness, we have pretty much decided that the loss of 2000 odd American soldiers is preferable than being accused cruel by the rest the world by restoring order.

And in all honesty, I don't like to think what a "successful" occupation of Iraq would require, using history as a guide.

As far as Iran, I see an invasion to be very unlikely. Just like China, we would probobly use a siege technique were we simply destroy everything of value over time until the regime realizes that they can't hurt us, further conflict just brings them closer to the stoneage.