Rhetorical questions: can Iran really be this much of a paper tiger? Or do they have something up their sleeve? I remember reading, about a year ago, a quote from a U.S. military expert saying that if we go to war against Iran we would LOSE. Has our military assessment of Iran’s capabilities been this far off? Also, has the assessment of Iran’s capabilities by their own populace been completely off, and will they now see the situation as one where they could overthrow the regime?
Iran’s poor results could completely upend the Middle East equation. Peter, thank you for your analysis on this, and please, keep it coming!
The US assessment of outcomes in a war with Iran are based primarily on Iran's geography, not Iran's military.
Iran's internal geography would make a land invasion of the country extremely difficult. Unlike Afghanistan, there are no tribal divisions to exploit to cultivate allies in-country, and the Iranian people have a well-established national and cultural identity (a major reason the Shah was ousted in 1979 is he was trying for force change to that culture, producing considerable backlash).
If the US were to invade Iran, it would not go well. The US would not be able to utilize any of the neighboring countries to establish forward bases for the invasion, and the Arab states would be quite vocal about objecting to the invasion, creating additional geopolitical problems for the US. The logistics would be horrendous, the terrain would be formidable, and the people would be unilaterally hostile. Those are not elements that make up a victory in any war.
"Lose" might be a bit of an exaggeration, but the US military would likely not "win" a war with Iran either.
However, neither the US nor Israel are preparing for a land war within Iran. The war is being fought entirely in the air, and Iran is losing that air war badly.
Operations and logistics are not uniquely military disciplines. Between my cost accounting background and a quarter century as a voice and data network engineer, I've been doing operations and logistics for close to 30 years.
"While it is highly questionable whether Israel can realistically “win” this war..."
If the war ends with minimal Israeli casualties and Iran's nuclear program is pushed back 20 years then Israel won. That's probably the best they can hope for.
The great unknown is how much of a setback this will be to Iran's nuclear weapons program.
20 years would be a clear win.
20 months would be far more problematic.
However, there is an interesting wrinkle which may or may not become meaningful: there is a bit of internet chatter that Ayatollah Khamenei has been killed.
No one actually wins in any war.
Rhetorical questions: can Iran really be this much of a paper tiger? Or do they have something up their sleeve? I remember reading, about a year ago, a quote from a U.S. military expert saying that if we go to war against Iran we would LOSE. Has our military assessment of Iran’s capabilities been this far off? Also, has the assessment of Iran’s capabilities by their own populace been completely off, and will they now see the situation as one where they could overthrow the regime?
Iran’s poor results could completely upend the Middle East equation. Peter, thank you for your analysis on this, and please, keep it coming!
The US assessment of outcomes in a war with Iran are based primarily on Iran's geography, not Iran's military.
Iran's internal geography would make a land invasion of the country extremely difficult. Unlike Afghanistan, there are no tribal divisions to exploit to cultivate allies in-country, and the Iranian people have a well-established national and cultural identity (a major reason the Shah was ousted in 1979 is he was trying for force change to that culture, producing considerable backlash).
If the US were to invade Iran, it would not go well. The US would not be able to utilize any of the neighboring countries to establish forward bases for the invasion, and the Arab states would be quite vocal about objecting to the invasion, creating additional geopolitical problems for the US. The logistics would be horrendous, the terrain would be formidable, and the people would be unilaterally hostile. Those are not elements that make up a victory in any war.
"Lose" might be a bit of an exaggeration, but the US military would likely not "win" a war with Iran either.
However, neither the US nor Israel are preparing for a land war within Iran. The war is being fought entirely in the air, and Iran is losing that air war badly.
You would make a great General, Peter, planning strategy at the Pentagon. Magnificent Man!
Operations and logistics are not uniquely military disciplines. Between my cost accounting background and a quarter century as a voice and data network engineer, I've been doing operations and logistics for close to 30 years.
It comes in handy!😉
They are psychopaths who want to plunge their populations into misery...
A society that systematically refuses to recognize that its physical survival is
physical survival is immediately in question and which does not take any steps
to save itself cannot be described as mentally healthy.
"While it is highly questionable whether Israel can realistically “win” this war..."
If the war ends with minimal Israeli casualties and Iran's nuclear program is pushed back 20 years then Israel won. That's probably the best they can hope for.
The great unknown is how much of a setback this will be to Iran's nuclear weapons program.
20 years would be a clear win.
20 months would be far more problematic.
However, there is an interesting wrinkle which may or may not become meaningful: there is a bit of internet chatter that Ayatollah Khamenei has been killed.
If he has, this war has remade the Middle East.