What makes Iran so secure against a successful invasion?

[Patroklos]

Now IF the Iranians welcomed us with flowers and candy that would be another thing. But given the nationalism of the Iranians, i think an invasion would reduce the numbers who would welcome us with flower and candy to 10% of the population or less.

I would hope we would not be stupid enough to disband the Iranian Army, and I am sure that would mean nationalism could work in our favor once the regime is changed.

Disbanding the Iraqi army was the biggest mistake made in Iraq, hands down.

And for Gepap, I agree that airpower is reduced in irregular terrain against irregular forces, but we ****ed up the Taliban with it, and still do. Simple fact is that despite what the screaming heads on the TV say, there are LA gangs with more fighting potential than the Taliban remnants, mostly due to air power.

Air power is a hightech weapon to destroy high tech targets. Iran has a professional military, and I think their pride will make them fight conventionally as long as possible, probobly to whatever point a regime change or other end of the conflict occurs.

[The diplomat]

If you think the insurgency in Iraq is bad, it would 1000x worse in Iran.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by 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.

I don't see many people advocating an invasion of Iran and in fact I see it as almost impossible now that the military is trapped in the quagmire of Iraq.

However, it should be obvious that even if more difficult an invasion was far less futile than an invasion of Iraq before the military had been commited to either. After all there are important considerations that made an invasion of Iraq particularly stupid:

1. Iraq couldn't have had much of a credible nuclear weapon program active and lacked the freedom to really pursue one.

2. Invading Iraq risked destabilizing the country making a successful nation building campaign essential if the regime change was to be in the interests of the US. We sure wouldn't want Iraq falling into the hands of some crazed fundies that would rally the country around hatred of the US in a glorious revolution and then demonstrate robust terrorist connections while rushing to develop nukes.

On the other hand for Iran prior to the Iraqi invasion:

1. Iran was already knee deep in a credible nuclear weapons program and was entirely unfettered in it's efforts to continue with it.

2. The risk that as a result of an invasion of Iran, Iran would be destabilized and fall into the hands of crazed fundies that might rally their country around hatred of the US in a glorious islamic revolution and then demonstrate robust terrorist connections while rushing to develop nukes just somehow fails to seem as scary as the odds of the same thing happening in Iraq

Apart from the important consideration of undue hardship on the Iranian population through a botched occupation, worries about destabilizing the country were sorta moot.


Instead of asking why people would have considered an invasion of Iran, maybe you should ask yourself why our brain dead president chose to instead commit to an iraq invasion and occupation that was not only pointless but also removed even the threat of a US invasion as a prod to keep Iran well behaved.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos


I would hope we would not be stupid enough to disband the Iranian Army, and I am sure that would mean nationalism could work in our favor once the regime is changed.

Disbanding the Iraqi army was the biggest mistake made in Iraq, hands down.

And for Gepap, I agree that airpower is reduced in irregular terrain against irregular forces, but we ****ed up the Taliban with it, and still do. Simple fact is that despite what the screaming heads on the TV say, there are LA gangs with more fighting potential than the Taliban remnants, mostly due to air power.

Against an enemy with little if any sophistication, and 0 air defences. A real army is a much tougher enemy.

Air power is a hightech weapon to destroy high tech targets. Iran has a professional military, and I think their pride will make them fight conventionally as long as possible, probobly to whatever point a regime change or other end of the conflict occurs.

And this makes them tougher enemies. After all, air power in Kosovo failed to destroy a significant portion of the Serbian forces there, and while US technology has improved since 1999, lets not think everyone has studies the ways in which the Serbs fooled and overcame US air power during that bombing campaign.

Air power is a critical adjunct to land power, but even today, air power by itself has yet to become the key. And air power is even further reduced in effectiveness in urban combat, and Tehran is a city of 14 million people. Any determined defender could make trying to take that city a mess, and then you have the problem of logistics and defending the supply lines over mountanous terrian.

[Provost Harrison]

Bah, ignore...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by 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.

Iran was not a part of the Ottoman Empire.

Iran (as the Safavids) fought the Ottoman Empire.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
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.

Iran was never part of the Ottoman Empire. Iran and the Ottoman Turks were enemies for the entire existence of the Ottoman Empire.

edit: Grrr, beat me by just a few minutes.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

edit: Grrr, beat me by just a few minutes.

Them's the Missouri Breaks, kiddo...

As we both know, though, parts of modern day Iran were occupied in successful Ottoman campaigns-Tabriz, for instance- which was the reason for the creation of the great Safavid capital, Isfahan, a garden city which so impressed French and British visitors in the 17th Century.

It meant that non-Arab Ottoman Turks could also appeal as guardians of the shrines of Mecca and Medina and orthodox Sunnis to their Sunni Arab subjects and launch a 'crusade' against the Safavids as being both non-Arab and heretic Shiites.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dis
we could get over 500,000 troops.

Time to reinstate the draft.

Be aware of the unhappiness. Soon you will only have people eating all the food and nobody does any work.

[Dr Strangelove]

Actually wasn't Iraq part of the Persian empire until the Ottomans conquered it? I know that it was during Genghis Khan's lifetime.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Actually wasn't Iraq part of the Persian empire until the Ottomans conquered it? I know that it was during Genghis Khan's lifetime.

Actually Baghdad was under the Abbasids when Ghengis was alive. After the Muslim conquest of the area, the only time that Persia and Meospotami were all under the same rule I think was under spells of Mongol rule.

http://i-cias.com/e.o/abbasids.htm

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Iran was never part of the Ottoman Empire. Iran and the Ottoman Turks were enemies for the entire existence of the Ottoman Empire.

edit: Grrr, beat me by just a few minutes.

Hmmm, rivals who fought several wars but not really bitter enemies. They did sign several friendship treaties in the 19th century and promised to form a united Muslim front against the western powers though little ever came of it. Certainly the Persians didn't join in WW1 when the Ottomans did; in no small part to the very large and modern army the UK had next door in India/Pakistan as well as the border with Tsarist Russia.

[Barnabas]

I think the only turks who ruled iran were the seljuk turks, never the ottomans, I may be wrong.

But that was 1000 years ago.

[Dinner]

LotM already went over the various Turkish groups (who were not Ottoman Turks) who set up petty Kingdoms in what is now Northwestern Iran. The Ottomans did occupy various parts of Iran but they always gave them back once the wars ended. They were never officially part of the Ottoman Empire.

[techumseh]

It has always been much easier to defeat the conventional armed forces of a state than to succesfully occupy the country. The failure of the US to win the peace in Iraq has been a huge respite for it's other targets for aggression in the world. I trust they are using the time to good effect.