Iran attack would last 48 hours

[SHAHED]

It isn't hard you see,on paper Iran appears to be trailing by the same technological gap that Iraq was at that time,although it may have been better since it was supplied by erstwhile USSR.

Iran may have an edge in Missiles, but that is useless as they can't reach American mainland. They may try to hit israel but Saddamdid that too, didn't go too well for him.

Again the question, what difference does current Iran have from then Iraq?

Since you claim I am ignorant I suppose you may know something vital that Iran has over Iraq, please do share.

Do you know what is the problem ?

you are living in USA (propaganda Land) , compairng Iran and Iraq is realy *** !

 

[bandit]

Do you know what is the problem ?

you are living in USA (propaganda Land) , compairng Iran and Iraq is realy *** !

See, you maybe right about the propaganda, therefore I am open to amending my views on Iran's strength.

Just what I read doesn't exactly convince me too change them. It is a fact that US is miles ahead of Iran in technology, and Iran really doesn't have any big enough deterrent on its side.

I may even agree that the 48 hour thing is exaggeration, but really doesn't matter as Iran would still have a tough time trying to save itself from a repeat of desert storm.

Regards Iran vs. Iraq, didn't they fight a eight year war with more than a million casualties, and no clear winner. That seems to me as rough military parity.

 

[Harry_Thomason]

It isn't hard you see,on paper Iran appears to be trailing by the same technological gap that Iraq was at that time,although it may have been better since it was supplied by erstwhile USSR.

Iran may have an edge in Missiles, but that is useless as they can't reach American mainland. They may try to hit israel but Saddamdid that too, didn't go too well for him.

Again the question, what difference does current Iran have from then Iraq?

Since you claim I am ignorant I suppose you may know something vital that Iran has over Iraq, please do share.

Support:
Hussein didnt had Iraqis support, even army was serving as long as it was payed, and a lot defected when country was attacked.

Iran has support by the majority of population, and even those in opposition said they would fight against attackers. Case and point - when Iran was attacked by Iraq, Iran didnt even had functioning army (Shah's was disbanded), so pretty much civilians repelled the attack, despite heavy loses and under WMD attack. Iranians arent afraid to sacrifice themselves for the country, so its nothing like Iraq.

Also Iran would be supported by Russia and China, because those countries need a buffer between them and West, plus China wouldnt want another major oil supplier to end up in US hands. Because next target after Iran - China. Imagine sanctions with oil cut? So obviously China will help Iran, the only question in what way.

Army status:

Iraq's army was exhausted after long war with Iran, it was in a pretty bad shape, underfunded and lacked equipment. Iraq had over $80 billion of debt. Even air defense they got from France was turned off by the french sabotage.

Iran is preparing defense for several decades now, army is very well funded and trained, prepared for war and have a huge stockpile of indigenous weapons. Iran has a surplus of over $120 billion of reserves in gold and foreign currencies.

Strategy:

Iraq had centralized army, focused for head-on battles.

The problem is, no army in ME can beat US straight-up, thats why Iran chose different strategy - asymmetric warfare. How well it works can testify Millennium Challenge 2002 and Lebanon 2006. Its also mobile and dispersed, so US cant destroy radars and SAM's at the very start, what they always like to do.

Armies:

Iraq had an army of 1 million, and yet as mentioned above it was hardly functioning.

Iran has active army of 545,000 + 650,000 (reserves) + 12.6 million of trained Basij paramilitary volunteer force + others who would help.

In Iraq US only had to face tyrant with a crappy army, vs Iran US will have to face a nation of 70+ mln. and a strong loyal army, specifically prepared to fight US.

Some assume if US breaks through initial defenses and occupies part of the country - they won, but they dont realize its just the beginning, since Iran would start 2nd stage - guerrilla warfare. If whole NATO cant beat 30.000 cavemans in Afghanistan, whole Israel cant beat 2000 members of Hezbollah's, its obvious there is no way US can beat Iran with millions of trained soldiers with advanced weaponry. All Iran has to do is to outlast attackers, through attrition constantly weaken them, and US simply cant afford a long war.

 

[somebozo]

Saddam was also gonna be taken out in 48 hours and Talibans would be running in their caves when the first american soldier sets foot on ground. OR all we know as, the never ending WOT.

Comeon, the world is not ready for these 48 Hours fairy tales.

US may be able to invade Iran but occupying it would be a tough deal. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq all has to do with preparing two fronts for invading Iran however the tactic miserably failed when Iran mobilized its sectarian proxies to co-operate with the invaders and successfully turned the guns towards its rivals. A shrewd move but in pure military tactical terms, this move altered the objective balance of war as well ran it against a dead end.