Iran appoints New Military Chief

[Joe Shearer]

forget your theory, the whole Iranian and it's armed forces are religious. in fact it's one required condition to get into any of them, army or IRGC.



IRGC is military force, yet it utilizes paramilitary forces (known as Basij) as their asymmetric warfare theory.
this warfare is the key difference between army and IRGC. and partially what has prevented their merge.

the military IRGC and everything about it was shaped gradually, starting with Iran-Iraq war, where we couldn't get the optimal results from our army in that war, IRGC utilized the ordinary people in the battlefield and as time passed it's military aspect was shaped.

today both of them have different roles, so they don't collide. for example IRGC navy protects the Persian Gulf against our main enemy U.S with it's asymmetric tactics and tools (so they utilize speed armed boats and anti ship missiles) while army protects the Oman sea and our interests in the high seas with it's conventional warships which is the requirement in the high seas. the responsibility of protecting our airspace is mainly with army airforce, so while IRGC has it's airforce too, their birds are mostly (if not all) for the combat support. operation in the foreign countries is the responsibility of the IRGC ground forces, that's why you wont hear about our army in Iraq or Syria. and some new names in Iraq and Syria like "Popular Committees" or "Popular army" are in fact a copy of the Iranian Basij forces as part of asymmetric warfare which is being practiced by IRGC in these two countries.

today both forces are functioning just fine, merging them will require plenty of resources which I doubt any government would afford it, specially in our special conditions in the region. afterall having two different armies has its own advantages and disadvantages.


both our leaders and type of system has been chosen by people in free elections, directly or indirectly. so either you don't know the meaning of dictatorship or you don't know our system.
Iran has the highest grade of democracy in the world, and I'm willing to challenge anyone on this.

I appreciate your informative reply, and will leave it at that.

As far as the notion of democracy and the notion of dictatorship are concerned, let us each of us enjoy our own illusions. You to yours, and I to mine.

And leave challenges at home. They are for serious discussions, not for this.

 

[AmirPatriot]

Another IRGC general. Here's another reason why the Artesh is stagnated so much. Most of Iran's defence ministers and general staff have been IRGC. Understandably, they would prioritise development of the forces they served in.

 

[Arminkh]

Could you explain further? What does each force do, and not do?

You can compare them with Marine corps and regular army in US. Marine corps is an elite military division that also has its own special thoughts, culture and beliefs. If you talk to one of them, they believe they are the guardian of democracy in US that fight for the highest goals of all which is preserving the democracy in US and around the world.

Same goes for IRGC. They are not only an elite unit. Their strengths is reinforced withe the belief that they are safe guarding Iran's Revolution and its interest around the world.

They are not really separate. They are controlled by the commander of the joint chief of staff. Same as Navy, Airforce and etc.

 

[Joe Shearer]

You can compare them with Marine corps and regular army in US. Marine corps is an elite military division that also has its own special thoughts, culture and beliefs. If you talk to one of them, they believe they are the guardian of democracy in US that fight for the highest goals of all which is preserving the democracy in US and around the world.

Same goes for IRGC. They are not only an elite unit. Their strengths is reinforced withe the belief that they are safe guarding Iran's Revolution and its interest around the world.

They are not really separate. They are controlled by the commander of the joint chief of staff. Same as Navy, Airforce and etc.

Interesting.

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate the pains taken to put things in perspective. As it happens, I believe that this is not a correct reflection.

The Marine Corps are shock troops, intended to prepare the grounds for the regular Army to move in. The regular Army itself has paratroops and airborne divisions, but the Marines are trained for this purpose of creating bridgeheads, and of, permitting the Army to land troops onto beaches, or any other point of initial penetration. It is for that reason that it is self-contained, and has its own infantry, armour and air components, as well as naval support in depth, due to their origin within the Navy. What we may have perceived as their special thoughts, culture and beliefs are, as far as I know, morale-building tools intended to foster and maintain an esprit de corps; these have nothing to do with over-arching goals.

Coming to operations, the Marines are rarely harnessed to a cross-services campaign. There have been close collaborations between Army and Air Force, between Navy and Air Force, but it is difficult to think of an Air Force-Marine joint campaign.

Your answer does give me confirmation of my viewing the IRGC as guardians of the revolution.

@jhungary

Could you please clean up my narration?

 

[Arminkh]

Interesting.

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate the pains taken to put things in perspective. As it happens, I believe that this is not a correct reflection.

The Marine Corps are shock troops, intended to prepare the grounds for the regular Army to move in. The regular Army itself has paratroops and airborne divisions, but the Marines are trained for this purpose of creating bridgeheads, and of, permitting the Army to land troops onto beaches, or any other point of initial penetration. It is for that reason that it is self-contained, and has its own infantry, armour and air components, as well as naval support in depth, due to their origin within the Navy. What we may have perceived as their special thoughts, culture and beliefs are, as far as I know, morale-building tools intended to foster and maintain an esprit de corps; these have nothing to do with over-arching goals.

Coming to operations, the Marines are rarely harnessed to a cross-services campaign. There have been close collaborations between Army and Air Force, between Navy and Air Force, but it is difficult to think of an Air Force-Marine joint campaign.

Your answer does give me confirmation of my viewing the IRGC as guardians of the revolution.

@jhungary

Could you please clean up my narration?

Not exactly. In Many cases they have served a more permanent role than just a pioneering force. Vietnam war is a good example. Overall, they are one of the four branches in US military responsible for providing power projection (same as IRGC does in the middle east or rest of the world).

Regarding their thoughts and culture, you need to read some of the books that has been written by their officials to understand what I mean. Their school of thought is very close to that of IRGC with the exception that democracy and US replaces Islam and Revolution.

 

[Serpentine]

If he is just half the genius that his brother was, I'll be very happy for his appointment.

 

[Desertfalcon]

The Marine Corps are shock troops, intended to prepare the grounds for the regular Army to move in. The regular Army itself has paratroops and airborne divisions, but the Marines are trained for this purpose of creating bridgeheads, and of, permitting the Army to land troops onto beaches, or any other point of initial penetration.

Not really. The army conducts it's own assaults and has conducted it's own amphibious landings such as in WW2; North Africa, Italy, Normandy, Philippines, etc., with no Marines even present. At times in the Pacific Theater they conducted joint operations but the Marines didn't spearhead army assaults. They each had their own sectors. The Marines don't just have a navy origin, they are still part of the navy. They are the US Navy's infantry.

 

[raptor22]

What I feel is that the revolutionary govt don't trust the army there might be some folks with coup tendency better to check them with a religious force but still why they can't merge em after all the shahs era generals have largely been purged out-----

Do you see any mistrust?

 

[SOHEIL]

Do you see any mistrust?

View attachment 314651​

 

[Mentee]

Do you see any mistrust?

View attachment 314651​

On the face of it no I dont-----my post was based on the post revolution events vis a vis the army------otherwise I don't find any reason to maintain two land armed wings under the same joint command

Cheers doc

@Joe Shearer sir ghalti ho GI aik masoomana svaal pocch baitha yeh to SB k SB qadardan nikly

 

[Joe Shearer]

Not really. The army conducts it's own assaults and has conducted it's own amphibious landings such as in WW2; North Africa, Italy, Normandy, Philippines, etc., with no Marines even present. At times in the Pacific Theater they conducted joint operations but the Marines didn't spearhead army assaults. They each had their own sectors. The Marines don't just have a navy origin, they are still part of the navy. They are the US Navy's infantry.

Uncle Wiki is not the most reliable guide, and I defer to your personal experience; however, without contradicting you (entirely)

The United States Army maintains light infantry units capable of rapid worldwide deployment, but those units do not match the combined-arms integration of an MAGTF and lack the logistics that the Navy provides. Therefore, the Marine Corps is often assigned to non-combat missions such as the evacuation of Americans from unstable countries and providing humanitarian relief during natural disasters. In larger conflicts, Marines act as a stopgap, to get into and hold an area until larger units can be mobilized. The Corps performed this role in World War I and the Korean War, where Marines were the first significant combat units deployed from the United States and held the line until the country could mobilize for war.

On the face of it no I dont-----my post was based on the post revolution events vis a vis the army------otherwise I don't find any reason to maintain two land armed wings under the same joint command


Cheers doc

@Joe Shearer sir ghalti ho GI aik masoomana svaal pocch baitha yeh to SB k SB qadardan nikly

Nothing wrong with your surmise. As long as it is no more than what it claims to be - surmise.

 

[Desertfalcon]

Uncle Wiki is not the most reliable guide

Assuming that such is true, then it's a good thing I didn't consult it. I just went on my knowledge of history and US military affairs.

The United States Army maintains light infantry units capable of rapid worldwide deployment, but those units do not match the combined-arms integration of an MAGTF and lack the logistics that the Navy provides.

While that may be true, that was not the point I was disagreeing with. I was pointing out that I am unaware of any battle in which the USMC "spearheaded" a battlefield as shock troops for the US Army to then follow up on. The US Army has conducted it's own amphibious landings and provided it's own forces on the battlefield without needing the very fine Marine Corps to do it for them.

 

[Kiarash]

 

[That Guy]

T

Thanks GOD!!!


they are neither parallel forces, nor competing. They have different roles in different fields or regions. where IRGC serves, army doesn't and vice versa.

hat doesn't really answer my question. What is the actual difference? As in, can you provide examples?

 

[Arminkh]

T
hat doesn't really answer my question. What is the actual difference? As in, can you provide examples?

Please read my posts #18 and #20 above.