Sam Lowry said:Redbrickbear said:Sam Lowry said:
The fact remains that the Arab nations and Israel are far more vulnerable to attacks on desalination. Iran's army is also larger, more capable, and more technologically advanced than Saddam's ever was...and that's not even accounting for the million-man Basij militia. It would not be Iraq all over again.
That is in fact not completely accurate
1. In 1990 Iraq had the 4th-5th largest standing army in the world. And it did have expertise in combat (just finished a major war) and had a professional officer corps from its long conflict against iran
It did have advanced weapons and military capabilities for the time. It has deep military capabilities from trade with both the West and the Soviet Union.
2. Iran in 2026 does NOT have the 4th or 5th largest army in the world and has not fought a ground war against a major regional rival in decades
Its military experience is in mostly terrorism type operations and supporting local allies like Syria in civil war type operations
3. No one said the Gulf War in the 1990s would be exactly the same as an Iran war in 2026.
The point was that if the American military could cut off and annihilate a large and powerful enemy army then….it could do so again
4. We should not even bring up the Basij
They are untrained thugs with baseball bats on motorcycles that drive around beating up protestors. Street fighters for the clerics and the regime
Not a legitimate fighting force of any kind. And why do you claim only 1 million? They themselves say they have 20 million ready to fight!
Laughable but it's what they actually claim
[Today, the force consists of young Iranians, a significant portion drawn from the traditionally Shia cleric religious and politically loyalist parts of Iran's society, who volunteer, often in exchange for official benefits. With branches in "virtually every" city and town in Iran, the Basij serve as an auxiliary force engaged in enforcing state control over society, acting as a morality police at checkpoints and parks, and suppressing dissident gathering, as well as serving as law enforcement auxiliary, providing social services, and organizing public religious ceremonies. The force was often present and reacting to the widespread 2009 Iranian election protests, 201718 Iranian protests, and the 20222023 Mahsa Amini protests.]
There may have been a few intense battles in the Iraq war, but overall they didn't put up much of a fight. They lacked communication and coordination, a failure from which the Iranians have diligently learned. Iraqi troops were poorly motivated and poorly equipped. And perhaps most important, the US quickly achieved air supremacy in Iraq, which we have not done in Iran despite what you may be hearing.
Despite what you may be thinking, Sam, the US victory over the Iraqi forces is now textbook for any serious military strategist. The three key qualities that made the difference were the development of new tools for the US, the AirLand battle doctrine, and the choice of objectives. You seem to imagine the Iraqis were unprepared or ill-equipped; the truth is very much the opposite, which is why the outcome stunned the Politburo in Moscow - they had provided massive supplies and training, hoping that the US would suffer painful losses in trying to free Kuwait. The actual results were literally unprecedented in modern military history.
None of these facts guarantees a US victory now, of course. Leaders have been known to ignore their generals, and conditions change from conflict to conflict. But actions in the conflict with Iran have up to now been largely successful, if you cut out the emotional noise. The US has effective air dominance, if not complete supremacy because of drone activity. The Iranians have demonstrated no ability to conduct a coordinated campaign against US forces; the best they have managed is isolated attacks on a few select targets with limited success, or wild missile attacks against general targets, hoping to disrupt American voter and ally support by harming civilians or threatening surrounding nations. That is the behavior of a losing power with no other functional options.
The problem, of course, is the goal of regime change or eliminating possible development of a nuclear weapon. Iran has been a pariah state in the region for decades, with various efforts made to remove targeted officials and encourage the people of Iran to rise up against their tyrants (remember the Arab Spring during the Obama Administration, for example). The regime knows how to continue at a subsistence level if necessary, and so even the loss of ninety percent of its military and ideological leadership does not drive the Iranians to sue for peace.
The estimated 460 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium remain a highly-prized trophy for the remaining Iranian leaders. While essentially useless now for any purpose beyond morale, if Iran can deny the US that stockpile, they believe they can rebuild.
This indicates that a conventional ground invasion is not planned, especially as the necessary logistical moves are not being made. It is more likely that any ground action will be in the form of a raid, especially if the uranium is the target. The question of what to do about Kharg Island will be debated until whatever plan is executed; it's significant that no substantive information has leaked from military leaders.