You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Iran's Military No Match For U.S.
2005-02-25
Despite numerous exercises and an arms buildup, Iran's conventional military forces remain weak and unable to fight the United States. A leading U.S. analyst said Iran's military has not recovered from the 1980-88 war with Iraq and remains saddled with aging equipment and a poor command structure. The analyst said many of Iran's weapons were based on 1970s technology and that Teheran could not sustain an invasion of a foreign country.

"Whatever plans have been announced and whatever grandiose reports have sometimes surfaced, Iran has not been able to acquire significant numbers of modern aircraft," Anthony Cordesman, a senior researcher at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said. "It has not been able to reconfigure and rebuild its major surface ships. It has imported surface-to-air missiles, but some of those missiles are more than a quarter of a century old in terms of design and technology." Addressing a seminar on Iran's military power, Cordesman, a former senior Defense Department official, said Iran has been unable to develop sensors and command and control systems required to fight a war against the United States. Iran spends about $3 billion a year for defense, less than one-sixth of the expenditure of Saudi Arabia.
Iran and Iraq fought to a draw over eight years. We took 100 hours to throw Iraq out of Kuwait, two weeks to take the whole country. Iran is going to be harder?
Posted by:Fred

#17  Do not underestimate Iran. They may not be able to beat the US but they may be able to keep from losing - which is essentially the same thing.

An invasion at this point would be foolhardy. Massive airstrikes and a series of raids to ensure completion of the tasks at hand would be the wise course to take.

The Iranian Badr Brigades are composed of professional troops - closer to the Serb model than the Iraqi. We are not prepared to multi task Iraq and Iran and be prepared for other contingencies within the world.
Posted by: JP   2005-02-25 10:29:52 PM  

#16  But, watch out for the NAKED PROTEST weapon.
http://www.nakedprotesters.com/
Posted by: ITolYouSoLucy   2005-02-25 3:55:40 PM  

#15  How do you fit a helmet over a large turban?
Posted by: BigEd   2005-02-25 3:20:46 PM  

#14  a certain portion of the iranian public will react nationalistically as in any country...but we have more friends there than the msm will admit..

also in regards to russia and WW2..remember the germans were first greeted as liberators..
Posted by: Dan   2005-02-25 1:31:30 PM  

#13  JFM: Also Stalin and Beria at that point were smart enough to restore some of the Orthodox Church's old prestige and to use the NKVD's network of seksoti to start spreading rumors of "liberalization" after a successful conclusion of the war.
Posted by: 11A5S   2005-02-25 12:29:10 PM  

#12  In 1941 the Russians didn't rush to fight for Stalin. Some fought for Russia, some fought because the NKVD shot the guys who tried to flee and many welcomed the Germans. But they discovered what Germans had prepared for Russians: a combination of genocide (in order to gain space for the herrensvolk) and reduction to animal condition: as an example the Germans planned to forbid teaching how to read and write to Russians.

At this point Russians realized their mere survival was at stake. Thay also had plenty of people to avenge.
Posted by: JFM   2005-02-25 11:38:02 AM  

#11  Whats with this invasion nonsense? Iran will be Serbia revisited not Iraq. Rachet up the pain until they cry enough and do whatever is necessary.
Posted by: phil_b   2005-02-25 9:52:50 AM  

#10  The cry, "The Yankees are coming" is probably the only card the mad mullahs have left.

I'm learning something from ed and Jackal this morning. Thank you, gentlemen.
Posted by: mom   2005-02-25 9:31:12 AM  

#9  Many Russians, Ukrainians, Belorussians, etc welcomed the Germans until they experienced German brutality and realized the Germans came not to liberate them, but to occupy, colonize, and replace them.
Posted by: ed   2005-02-25 9:14:09 AM  

#8  Ditto with Jackal, I agree with Pappy. "Tactical manuever warfare" makes things easier, but there's no substitute for unconditional surrender and total victory, is there?

*grumble-grumbles about the good old days when the media didn't stir about "atrocities" done for TRUE military necessity -- World War II*
Posted by: Edward Yee   2005-02-25 9:09:14 AM  

#7  I agree with Pappy. Remember in 1941, the Russians rushed to defend Stalin, for Pete's sake, and that was before they knew what Nazi rule meant.

Now, if we can be seen as aiding patriots in a civil war against the mullahs, that would be good. But a straight up invasion would be an effort. Not as much as oh, liberating Europe in 1944-45, but more than Iraq.
Posted by: Jackal   2005-02-25 8:36:14 AM  

#6  In other news .. water is wet.
Posted by: JerseyMike   2005-02-25 8:08:10 AM  

#5  Iran would be harder to occupy unless we fought a real war and not a quickie "disperse the formations" war. If we go in there, we need to make the Atlantans feel happy they got Sherman instead of the guys we send to Tehran. Yeah, I'm talking about you, Gen. Mattis.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2005-02-25 7:21:56 AM  

#4  Unless you let them dictate the form of fighting
Posted by: gromgoru   2005-02-25 6:34:48 AM  

#3  but they do have 25,000 splodeydope volunteers who will fight until the reappearance of the 12th imam--so imho they're number one in assymetrical warfare
Posted by: SON OF TOLUI   2005-02-25 2:36:17 AM  

#2  yeah..right.
Posted by: 2b   2005-02-25 1:53:33 AM  

#1  As with many revolution-formed governments, quite a few of the Iranian senior officers (like Iranian Navy Commander Abbas Mohtaj) were chosen more for their political/religious standing than military prowness. So it's likely there's a materiel/ leadership disadvantage.

However, a war with Iran may be more difficult in that the populace would likely react from a nationalistic sense, even if they despise the mullahs.
Posted by: Pappy   2005-02-25 1:20:33 AM  

00:00