The talky bit around 19 minutes, you should consider having a map of the region with a moving arrow or spreading/retreating colours, just words keeps it much more abstract. ☝️👍
I don't think the US has enough stupid soldiers to attack Iran. The US couldn't defeat the Taliban let alone Iran lol. What nonsense. This man is stup*d lol.
and doing it sets off chain reaction everywhere until younot only have the entire middle east at war and imean entire it will spill into africa and then youmight even get places on russias side entering into conflicts and then then its nukes and YOUR DEAD
Hopefully, USA would learn from its experience in Afghanistan and just let the country break itself from inside before committing any troops to it. Military interventions have a tendency to unite the people against the "invader", even if said invader was there to try to help them in the first place.
My father is Persian he went to Colombia after the fall of the Shah. He was part of his body guard detail in Panama. But I remember in the 80s Iraq invaded Iran. This unified the Iranian people behind the government. Any attacks would have the opposite effect, uniting the people against an external enemy. A war is not the solution.
@William Young our kings are in the Bible, brother. Look up Cyrus the Great or Xerxes. We also created the first monotheistic religion claiming one God exists, which has direct roots to Christianity. Look up Zoroastrianism. Celebrate Christmas ? Guess who started the first one ? Three Kings from the East are Persian Mahi priests.
I believe the bullying of third world countries without an Airforce or Navy by our Military / Pentagon is about over. The Proxy war in Ukraine initiated by the U.S. CIA is about over. Ukraine had the choice of remaining a neutral country without membership in NATO. Even after hostilities began, Putin wanted negotiations, however Washington remained silent and arrogant. Now, Russia will annex at least half of Ukraine when the fighting stops. It may put a damper on Blackrock’s , Monsanto’s and MIC weapon agencies to build their mega companies on Ukrainian turf. And the regime change planned for in Russia will not be the final outcome.
@@johannlatimer so you are out. The result long term like in Vietnam, like in the balcanes, like in the corean war, like in the afganistan war, like in the Iraqi war is quitting and loosing the controll on the long term, which it means loosing!
The likelihood of the US engaging in a land war with Iran is minuscule. Imagine the Straits of Hormuz shutting down for months. The effects on the world economy would be utterly devastating. I'm guessing the Pentagon is aware of everything you've brought up. There are all kinds of ways to handle the "Oh no, they have the bomb" scenario short of an all out invasion. I think the Iranians have a pretty good idea about what would happen if they actually did make a nuclear strike. Their leaders are maybe crazy; but, not that crazy.
As an iranian, i had always jokingly told my friends if the gov ever want to use an nuclear bomb, it will be on us and for our suppression. I do fantasize about US invading tho😂
@@nimaj53 we don’t suppress your people man, please tell me you understand that. Your government controls you, the US does not. Sanctions are the most civil way of creating problems. By simply not trading with them we can cut them off from a major portion of global commerce. They’ll then blame us for doing that to them, even though it’s in response to decisions they’ve made….
@@Jdjdbxdj Iran is a weird place right now.everyone is confused and you cant never be sure who is behind the online profiles.don't trust everyone who says something and goes by iranian,goverment funded cyber terrorists and such.we sure can't😂.Peace♥️
@@nimaj53 At least, using it on Iranians probably wouldn't draw retaliatory strikes. 😅🤣😂 Seriously though, invading would be the stupidest possible outcome for the US and, frankly, the whole world.
People in my area of the US basically saw Afghanistan as the last straw. No one wants to join and rightfully so. The authority lost many generations to fight wars for the years to come.
One thing Simon didn't mention is that the first target after securing the beaches won't be an immediate thrust North but instead, will be a large attack towards the nearest port city. Any amphibious invasion MUST capture a deep water port fairly quickly.
But Iran is not a Hollywood studio, never underestimate your opponent. Not when you have to deal with the IRGC from Iran who fighting for their country and not for the US bankers and war machine.
@ferry602 Seriously! These Americans have watched too many movies and it shows😭🤣It would take a total mobilisation of the US army ( the likes of which we haven't seen since WW2 ) to defeat Iran with HEAVY casualties leaving the door open for Russia/China to finish them and overtake the US as the world's daddy. THEN good luck dealing with the aftermath of the war which will be 100X worse than Afghanistan, the people of Iran are EXTREMELY proud and their special operation unit ( the Quds ) are VERY good at CIA type operations, I'm talking worldwide "terrorist" attacks against US interests including within the US itself ( Imagine what a simple rocket launcher could do in Timesquare )...The US economy would collapse, once again leaving the door open for Russia and China...This isn't a movie or a board game Americans.
@@j4genius961 Yes. The divide et impera tactics most countries tend to use when attacking a country won't work either, as Iran has a fairly strong national identity. Iran is a hornet's nest and a nightmare to invade, and will no doubt get massive support from Syria and Russia at the least.
@@j4genius961 hilarious. how quickly you forget that when america wants to make a statement with violence, they literally make examples out of you. whether its hiroshima or iraq, fuck around and find out. and land attacks? yeah you're delusional. the CITIZENS own more total guns then there are total people lol... literally not counting cops or military.. good luck with that
I think the US would rather go for targeted strikes on specific locations rather than all out invasion for exactly how this scenario plays out. Given the issues in the government the only way I see a quick passing of a war declaration and invasion would be if Iran did a first strike on the US similar to Pearl Harbor. Otherwise there likely is deadlock between political parties because somehow it will become a partisan issue even if its not and shouldn't be. Ultimately I think the US's main policy would be invasion at this stage as a last resort, but if time is indeed a factor here then large scale airstrikes would be their main goal of stopping a nuke being obtained. After that I think they'd attempt to destabilize the government of Iran further in the hopes their people would rebel while mainly staying well clear of the country outside of ferrying oil through the straight of Hormuz past Iranian boat attacks. If time is a factor they'd have to more or less paratroop in in some capacity because I would think the southern invasion build up and then slow grind up the country would take way too long to be viable. Really depends on time and honestly I think it would be drastically low before the US government would finally agree on a way forward.
Invasion is not, and should not, be the first priority of the American government, in a time of war with Iran. Where the US holds the advantage is on the high seas, and in areas outside of Iran's borders. Also, any notion that Russia, or China, will be involved on Iran's side is laughable. In another year or two, Russia is going to fall to pieces, and China doesn't care about anybody but themselves. China will hang Iran out to dry, the same way that they hung Russia out to dry, when Russia invaded Ukraine.
We’d decimate their boats before we even got close with our ships. Iran would be toast if if we get into a conflict with them. Only hard part would be the counter insurgency operations after. That’s been an issue throughout world history
There are too many factors that were not included in this analysis. The very fact that Iran's allies (Axis of Resistance) or other allies such as Russia or China were not included makes this analysis - in my opinion - somewhat dubious. Because you can actually be absolutely sure that they will not keep their feet still. And there it is not only Kataib Hezbollah but even more factions, which also in turn ensure that U.S. allies or even the U.S. forces are attacked directly from other sides. In short, it would set the entire Middle East on fire.
That was the theory behind the invasion of the small an weak Afganistan, unorganised, unprepared and divided in advance through 20 years of war and civil war... we saw the result... Iran is not Afganistan, culturaly, territorialy and militarely.... You are a dreamer... After a such fals step and a new vietnam for US, you will see the dynamic in the pacific get warmer with US full ingaged for years in a slummy situation. China will winn then the race in few years... Strategical would be a suicide! You are no longer the only untuchable bully arogant supepower. Among the west in the last 30 Years you lost the reputation dear Yankees!!! Look first at your national internal challenges befor telling other how to deal their own! You are no longer the only rooler of the global game. Due to with your voracity and cultural arrogance, you failled to bring peace and stabilty. Game is changing, but your historical and cultural lack of humble and respect to others doesnt allow you ton understand it and accept it. For your egoism and blindness, You are burning and pauperising the entire rest of West society as well the rest of the world. Will God may bless the rest of the world (once)! So we get rid of your violence and world tirany sold us with the missleading fallacious mask of democracy and freedom!!!
0:50 - Chapter 1 - Back into the fray 2:45 - Chapter 2 - Ideal geography 7:50 - Mid roll ads 8:45 - Back to the video 10:05 - Chapter 3 - Weighing the odds 13:30 - Chapter 4 - The US invasion of Iran
The change in the conditions wasn’t because the leadership was “unhappy with losing”. The entire purpose of these sorts of war games is to test different scenarios. The point of changing some of the conditions is to figure out what the US would need to be able to do to defeat such an adversary. In this case, it would need SEAD (to stop the planes from getting shot down) and better intelligence (to know where the enemy troops were) and to neutralize certain weapons systems (to prevent them from being used) in order to fend off such an attack. If blue wins every exercise, you haven’t learned anything and holding it was completely pointless.
Considering the MC2002 was 20 years ago, there's been an entire generation change and the lessons would have been taught coming up. Recent Wargame scenarios including defending Taiwan tried out over 20 scenarios with varying degrees of advantage to the US and to China. Basically in most situations the US lost at least 2 carriers and several hundred aircraft on the ground as air bases suffered overwhelming missile barrages. When western aircraft could get in the air they were effective, but planes tend to actually spend most time on the ground where they are vulnerable. No matter who won though the cost to both sides would be enormous and Taiwan would be pretty battered. Further Taiwan has planned to destroy the chip foundries should China invade so China would not even be able to claim industrial capacity. Its also important that the MC2002 was also meant to test joint operations and coordinating amphibious assault across the breadth of resources. It would be ridiculous to spend billions moving ships around without actually testing the assault itself.
So not pointless at all. You get to point to such successes in the war games as to why Congress should approve more money for the "victorious programs" and that generals who supported those programs will get promotions and cushy post retirement jobs. it reinforces internal politics and paradigms within the organization in order to push the system in desired directions. Those changes were not part of the plan when the game was laid out but created only afterward, otherwise I'd think you had a point. And they thought they had SEAD, they thought they had all the intelligence they needed from electronic interception, (cell phone, ground control radio, and microwave repeater esp) and satellite means etc. I would say you fail to grasp the point of the exercise is not to learn how well these ideas work but to prove and promote the ideas that politics (internal to the pentagon, congress, etc) want, in spite of what is on the tin. And those ideas can involve showing the blue team loosing if they want to apply pressure to buy/invest in more of XXX etc so losses are useful too.
Wonderful work as always. As an American all I can say is the prospect of trying to invade Iran has always given me serious Afghanistan and Iraq vibes and I am not eager to go through another one. After watching this video, I am thinking an invasion of Iran would likely be even more of a nightmare than the other two combined. While I do not like the idea of Iran having a nuclear weapon I am not sure there is much we can really do about that would be worth the cost. We might have to settle for making it clear if they launch at us or our allies (particularly Israel) we have our own missiles with "Tehran" written on them in sharpie.
A more limited ground action seems more plausible to me than an armored mechanized drive to Tehran. Maybe something like an airborne assault to seize and destroy a nuclear weapons installation or to capture high-value personnel. Would that make the Battle of Mogadishu look like child’s play?
this is like an episode about the possibilities of terraforming Mars. It's funny to think about it but it's simply impossible. Just as the sun will remove every released oxygen atom from Mars' atmosphere because it lacks a magnetic field, Islam will destroy any attempt at democratization in Iran.
I mean, it's only been a couple of years since the Americans murdered an Iranian general in broad daylight just for kicks. The military and political leadership in both countries has an established track record in recklessly escalating the situation mainly for domestic political reasons. Is it probable right now, with the war in Ukraine and the threat to Taiwan preoccupying everyone? No. Will the Iranian-American tension eventually resurface? Undoubtedly.
@@phettywappharmaceuticalsll8842 irrelevant + I did say both countries have hawks like this. It's still a major escalation to openly murder a top official of another country openly, in broad daylight. Just imagine how you woulf feel if a country you already regard with suspicion murdered one of your country's generals and bragged about it.
Yeah I definitely agree with the ending. The United States could win, yes, but it would cost so many lives and so many billions that it wouldn't be worth it at all
And as long as the US can largely mitigate any threat from Iran through other means, I don’t see a justifiable reason for choosing occupation. The sanctions seem to be slowing Iran down significantly. Might as well exhaust non-combatant approaches first before turning to all out war.
And you think Russia and China would just stand idly by and let it happen? They've already lost a few good allies to this bullshit. Russia has already stepped in and stood up for Assad after what happened to Gaddafi.
When they make a movie about TYRE Yall think JUSSIE SMOLLETT Should audition for the role 🤔 After he's served his full jail sentence of course. Perhaps he could be placed on the same WING as R KELLY....
Also even if USA is successful it may need 100s of billion to support new government and don't forget unending insurgency against new government as soon as USA leaves . Iraq war took 1.2 trillion i think .
@@ssnaut1871 there wont be much insurgency since the current regime is not popular at all! an inclusive secular democracy will be supported by entirety of the country.
@@mayer14474 bruh all inclusive government of iraq got pummled by Isis until USA came back , Afghanistan one literally got dissolved and Libyan one basically collapsed in 3 factions. If you don't want another 2 decades long conflicts rather not invade more nation for godsake.
@@ssnaut1871 Iran is nothing like Afganistan or Iraq. It's an entirely different country with different people. Iran has been a mltui-ethnic country for thousands of years, unlike Iraq or Afganistan or Lybia, Iran has strong roots and charactor. A secular democratic Iran is very very likely to succeed which in turn stablizes the region
Could the United States invade Iran? Yes, however, I can see it playing it out very similar to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, with a bloody stalemate. While the U.S military is the best in the world, the Iranian terrain is tough and the fighting spirit of the Iranian people will be intense. Not to mention Iran has a formidable military and the U.S would have to have a massive ground invasion force to even make it feasible. We wouldn't have many allies in the fight other than a few Arab states and Israel, but the fight will largely be unilateral. The U.S hasn't fought a conventional force head-to-head in decades, just as Russia hasn't until now. The bloodshed would be too much for both sides and the American people would not stand for a prolonged conflict.
No they can't. They have a overstretched military and the logistical capability is beyond limit. It would require the US at least 2-3 million troops to invade Iran properly. But the main problem is, how is the US going to mobilize it's logistic when Iran basically target them from distance? Iran is nowhere near Afghanistan nor Iraq, literally something US has never faced before, make no mistake about it.
@@outlawfly664They would crush Iran if they invaded, this wouldn’t be like Russia and Ukraine. The US is the king of logistics. I would agree with you but the gulf war proved otherwise, both of them. Iraq was a very formidable force then and was completely obliterated both times. This invasion would got the same way as every other American invasion in the middles east. A highly successful blitzkrieg toppling the government within a year. Followed by a long and bloody occupation.
@@jex4585 Delusional assessment. Based on what track record? US at this point can't even mobilize 500k troops into one area. Never mind the fact that most of their airbases in the region are very vulnerable to Iranian missile attack, even their fifth fleet is sitting ducks, go figure. Iraq was no way near a formidable force at the time, neither was it any close to Irans current size and firepower/capability. They had decades of failures which disintegrated their military, which wasn't the case when they fought Iran with international support, a country under post-revolution crisis at the time mind you, yet even still failed miserably, never mind it's society which is just as disintegrated. Back to the drawing board.
The blue team vs red team thing was also a result of red team taking advantage of the simulator. The red team general basically meta games the simulation and there were alot of gamisms that resulted in red team doing so well.
And then there was the Imperial Japanese Navy wargame for the Midway attack where opfor also won. And using the same excuses, the big ups declared that scenario of failure was invalid.
@@STSWB5SG1FAN if I remember correctly some of the “gamisms” that red team used were bike messengers that traveled at light speed as the “messengers” were just instant messages that were rebranded as “bike messengers”, the swarm of small boats were packed with so much explosives that in reality they would have just sunk under the weight of said explosives, and the amount of cruise missiles fire would have required the liquidation of the Red country’s entire economy to pay for them. The only lesson one can learn from that is; if the enemy develops the ability to alter reality and make physics it’s bitch we’re boned.
@@STSWB5SG1FAN the wargame software bugged out and spawned the red team boats on top of the blue boats so there was zero chance to intercept them. There is literally nothing to learn from that. Paul Riper cheated by gaming the system
This all assumes that Russia will not back Iran completely, which they are very likely to do. This would especially complicate taking Tehran as it’s in the north, closer to Russia
The russian army is preoccupied, they are busy bleeding out in Ukraine. Look at their contingent in Syria and consider whether that’ll make a significant impact at all in this hypothetical
@@olegbobrovskiy3244 Russia’s calculation when it comes to deciding whether to be involved in a conflict is simply ‘will it hurt my enemies?’. The answer is clearly yes here, so I believe that it would be a Stalingrad sort of situation - no matter how many bodies you need to throw at the problem, it will be done, for the glory of mother Russia (Iran be damned).
@@a2xd94 that's not my point. What I am saying is 'what can Russia spare right now that it will be able to produce that isn't critically needed in Ukraine?'. All I can think of is some aviation, air D, some ATGM stocks and maybe some helos. Not something that can stop the USA imho
@@olegbobrovskiy3244 the same goes to US but on a smaller scale.. due to supporting Ukraine US almost depleted their stock of 155mm (that’s why US ordered the increase of production to half million) Javelin ATGM and many other components including small arms!
It would never happen. The age of long range weapons and nuclear weapons have made large scale total invasion wars obsolete. Russia tried invading a country that had a military that was barely holding together and look what happened. Internal sabotage and low level warfare are much more efficient.
of course US should invade Iran. it's even late by now in the past Islamic Republic could merely reach Israel now it has reached Ukraine and is involved in its war where it will be tomorrow? Venezuela seems like the next stop dictators around the world will be united to destroy free world. you want that future?
Not even could, US military too downsized to invade country of 85 million the size of Western Europe in geography. Don't delude yourself, laws of war don't respect delusion.
Thanks for articulating meticulously all the many reasons Iran would be impossible to invade successfully. The title of this video should thus have been "Why the US will never invade Iran"
Iran is not impossible to invade the US would squash it easily. The US has no interest in invading Iran and would take an extremely stupid act from the government of Iran to get the US to invade.
@BB-xx3dv lol... Alexander's empire collapsed shortly after invading it, rome couldn't do it, and persia converted to Islam as opposed to invaded outright because the sassanid empire was bankrupt and a civil war would have broken out. Ottoman's miserably failed war after war to dream of getting past the Zagros Mountains. Granted! The Mongols did.. but Genghis Khan was a force of nature haha. Won't rule out it can be invaded completely, but in today's day and age.. it would be zero sum. Iranians will make damn sure that every inch of Persia will come at a blood price. And I'm sure as well iranians around the world will not stand idly by. Persia A.K.A. The Den of Lions... The Graveyard of Empires. Persian Poet Rumi: "This too shall pass" Honestly the best way to invade iran from a semi-iranian perspective (born in the U.S.) is not with guns, soldiers, tanks, and planes, but invade it with money. Persians are merchants by nature, and a good trade is irresistible for them.
@@midragga And the Seleucids (Alexander's successors) ruled it for 3 centuries after. And the Arabs very much conquered it, the conversion occurred after conquest. Not to mention the myriad of Nomadic conquerors (Parthians, Seljuks, Mongols, Timur etc.).
I think the more likely scenario would not involve troops on the ground, it would be more air battle precision bombing, a key, infrastructural defence and governmental facilities, pretty much like what they did in Libya 1986 only now precision, bombing and intelligence is much more advanced
There were 2,456 United States military deaths in the War in Afghanistan. 1,932 of these deaths were the result of hostile action. 20,752 American servicemembers were also wounded in action during the war. That was against enemies without aircraft, a navy, armored vehicles, or advanced firearms so just imagine what would happen if the United States invaded Iran which has those things.
Those enemies could not fight US Military head on, they fought nonconventionally(mountains). They also fought asymmetrically because they cannot fight the US conventionally
@@pathat8869 They hid among women and children. Any community that spoke out about that hiding war targeted. Village elders were targeted and had body parts cut off, women were kidnapped, children were violently targeted. The US fought that war with gloves on and if it was up against Iran it would take the gloves off.
@Wind Windy yeah because the north Vietnamese hid in the jungles. US airpower and US army artillery can only do limited damage against opponents hiding in jungles. The north Vietnamese could not fight the US head on so they fought nonconventionally/asymmetrically.
@@pathat8869 Iran Missiles would cause and wreck havoc on the US military mate 😂, Iran are experts at guerrilla warfare they would smoke the US if they ever tried invading them. It’s a reason why nothing have been tried in all of these years innit
I agree with the fact that invading would be really, really rough and this is a bit nit picky of me but using Millennium Challenge 2002 as a reference is just really, really bad. Riper did a great job and its possible that his strategies could have worked to some degree or another in a real war but the challenge was so poorly set up to begin with that nearly no useful information could be gotten from the challenge (prominent exception being Riper's ways of securely communicating). The small boat swarm in particular is hard to judge for certain but probably wouldn't have worked to nearly the degree it did if at all. This is because the US didn't want to interrupt shipping and thus was closer to shore than they would realistically have been. There simply wasn't the standoff distance one would expect if that had been a real war. Plus all the issues with congestion in the area from the traffic (sea and air) still going on around them in relatively close proximity due to it being a peace time exercise near shore. This severely hampered several defense systems in the exercise (particularly automated ones) and caused the exercise to have extremely cautious rules of engagement for blue team. Red team took advantage of that and did well but taking advantage of a completely unrealistic scenario simply can't provide any useful info. Anyway, a lot of people complained that rule changes after red team did well ruined the exercise but it was a giant waste of money before it even started. That said they wouldn't have even had a chance to get anything out of it if they hadn't done that. Riper may have done well in a realistic scenario but there is virtually zero chance he would have done that well. Basically, he complained about the game being rigged for blue to win but red only did well cause it was rigged against blue at the start. I know that is basically the 3rd different way I've said the same thing but it REALLY needs emphasized that blue was not able to perform as well as it would have in a realistic scenario. Saying his superiors were simply upset with losing makes for a more entertaining sound bite for articles and videos but is more than a little disingenuous. I get that its more entertaining to say the US military leadership here simply had a tantrum and pretended to win but its really annoying to see people who should be better informed talk about this and not emphasize (or often even acknowledge) the horrible initial conditions being the main (and likely only) reason for red teams initial, wild success. At best, people seem to usually just casually gloss over the initial conditions like it wasn't a big deal overall. Again, its possible red's strategies would have worked and a naval invasion would certainly be rough but Millennium Challenge 2002 didn't tell us anything really due to being a quarter billion dollar boondoggle from the start.
Interesting thought experiment, and I appreciate that the question asked is 'could', not 'should', but I hope to God that it never comes to this. If we've learned anything from the Ukraine war, it's that invasions are ALWAYS harder than you think. Also, I'd like to point out that it's not entirely fair to count all of the US military materiel against Iran, since they need to keep reserves for the other areas they have interests in, which is like half the globe. I can't imagine a hypothetical invasion of Iran would get to use many ships from the pacific fleet, for example, with the tensions around Taiwan. Again, the Ukraine war taught us about the dangers of comparing on-paper forces.
The US invaded Iraq in the 90's(the 4th most powerful military on the planet at the time), and conquered the country is less than a month. Same for Afghanistan in the 2000's, and Iraq again in 2003. Invasions are quite literally nothing for the US to achieve.
great point. The world is very different then 2003. I think now the US would be very worried about taking too much attention away from china, and also to a lesser degree Eastern Europe.
Exactly. Other than airstrikes and more and more intelligence operations actual naval and air force hardware for the US needs to be ready to defend Taiwan at a moment's notice. Likely, if a war were ever to break out, the US would use its long range missiles, airforce, and cyber warfare capabilities to send Iran back to the medieval ages without ever having boots on the ground. Then wait for its own people to kick the regime out.
@@Steadyaim101 Taiwan is such a tough situation, there are only three possible paths 1. Somehow war is avoided and china acknowledges Taiwans independence. 2. All out war between US and China. 3. US lets Taiwan fall. I dont see how the first happens outside of revolution in china. The third would only happen if the US decided it was okay no longer being the worlds super power. Most likely the US would try to help Tibet rise up against china while china was attacking Taiwan in an attempt to destabilize the gov. North Korea would take advantage of the distraction and attack south, Russia might even try to take advantage too and invade more ex-warsaw pac countries.
@@1DrBar Taiwan being a province of china is like saying there is only one Korea its just dumb because it ignores the practical reality. China has not controlled taiwan since the communists won the civil war. As far as meddling so far away from our logistics....you realize our military supply line is dependent on Taiwan right? If we lost Taiwans production capabilities it would set us back for years. Until we eliminate our reliance on Taiwan for chip production we have no choice to defend them. (which is why their gov subsidies the production to keep the price low enough to undercut US production)
The real question would be why invade? Why not just use air strikes and cruise missiles to hit their military capabilities and infrastructure (dams, bridges, power grid, water supplies, oil refineries, airports, etc.), government buildings, and so forth. Let them mire in a total hellscape without having to invest a trillion dollars and countless American lives. Might actually give us more leverage when dealing with other countries thereafter, given that they'll realize we won't give two cents about nation building.
You forgot to mention that Millenium Challenge 2002 gave an unfair advantage to the red team as they cheated by using the existence of regular civilian ships to their advantage. With so many civilian ships around (because this was a wargame and so not an actual warzone), the blue team couldn't use standard automatic defence systems, in case it was a civilian ship. Red team was aware of this and used it to their advantage, but this would not work in an actual warzone where the rules of engagement are different
That war game did teach some useful lessons but it was also a bit flawed too. There's a reason why even in WW2 when planes had much shorter ranges and slower speeds that the US didnt just park it's carriers right outside Tokyo and start bombing from close range. Even during Desert Storm the US kept it's carriers at range to avoid the sorts of attacks that happened in the Millennium Challenge, and to avoid things like hidden anti ship missiles and sea mines. I always felt like they made the war game that way on purpose though to figure out how to counter a surprise attack more than anything though, sort of a "worst case scenario" kind of a thing since no admiral worth their salt just sends so carriers straight at the enemies coastline without carrying out recon and bombing runs first, the type of attack in that scenario was already a common tactic for centuries with the old torpedo boats, which were often either built nearly identical to high end civilian speed boats or were converted civilian craft.
yeah. they would destabilize that part of the world even more, while needlessly killing potentially millions, while flooding the neighboring countries with war refugees. not only that, but the US army would commit a bunch of war crimes again, that would not be punished, because they are the protector of "democracy"
No it is not, but imagine if there was an air raid when people were demonstrating and the air raid would only hit a revolutionary guard command which is controlling the security forces, what do you think will happen?
Here in Canada we do something similar each year it’s a huge readiness exercise that is conducted out west in Alberta. It is to verify the readiness of brigades to take over “ high readiness deployment” one year literally the day the exercise kicked off our red team infiltrated communications and shut it all down and effectively won the war game right then and there shortly after capturing the head quarters . Oh they promptly informed us we would be restarting the exercise ..
I think if the U.S. truly wanted to "defeat" Iran, it would not duplicate the issues it faced in Afghanistan. I'd expect a much higher focus on missle strikes and bombings to both military and infrastructure targets. Key roadways, bridges, dams, railways, airfields, harbors, power plants, industrial sectors, and so on would be raised. It'd primarily be an economic and industrial siege against the country, crippling it to the point of total failure. Ships can't move without fuel, tanks over rough terrain would be paralyzed without roads, bridges, supply lines, etc. When trying to defeat a pack of wolves, sometimes it's best not to fight them directly but simply trap them and wait for them to starve.
I think we also need to consider China's role in supporting Iran, specifically by selling arms to them. Not only would such a war draw the Navy's attention and resources away from the South China sea, it would also give them the opportunity to see how their weapons perform against American systems. As increasing numbers of Chinese get hit with western sanctions over their sales to Russia, they have less and less to lose by also supplying Iran.
millennium challenge 2002 was reset cause a lot of the actions red team did were physically impossible (e.g. strapping antiship missiles to dingies, having motorcycle messengers travel at the speed of light) It was a horribly flawed test that only worked cause Ritter found oversites in the program and exploited them
News to you, the IRGC-N's already managed to strap AShCMs to 6-8m long vessels and they're operational. Your general ritter was onto something after all.
Wrong, the boats used were modeled off of the one that struck the USS cole I suggest you go read the criticism written by Gen Van Riper. All abilities used by the Opfor were with in Irans capabilities. The restrictions later placed on the red team were so limiting that it was no different then the Russian exercises prior to the Ukrainian invasion.
@@outlawfly664 The US completely flattened Iraq during desert storm, who were at the time the 8th largest military in the world. It was a coalition but it was comprised of majority US and it was US lead. They destroyed Iraqs military so insanely bad that they never truly recovered. Or we can go back to the one day war with Iran in the 80s, when the US sunk over half of Irans Navy in a single day (Operation Praying Mantis). The "You're underestimating them!" argument always comes with a massive underestimation of the US military.
@linnylinhorst5102 nah ww3 means nukes. A war with iran means blockade of strait of hormuz that would get china involved as they get almost all their oil through it. It would fuck the entire world economy and the US hasnt already done it for this reason and because they can now just bomb their nuclear facilities using isreal as a scapegoat.
The important point is that the US may not even reach Iran to start a war, Iran has Syria and Lebanon to the west, Yemen to the south, and Russia to the north. There are two enemies close to Iran, which are Saudi Arabia and Israel, which Iran was able to force Saudi Arabia to agree and neutralize, and Israel, which has been heavily attacked by Hezbollah forces. Even from the east, the work is very difficult, maybe the Taliban is an enemy of Iran, but the common enemy of both of them is America.
Go in, hit your target, and be gone. Later gets hit by SAMA along with Rooster and then sneaks into the enemy base and steals an F-14 in order to escape.
Invasions are easy. Occupations are hard and take centuries and almost never work. That being said, we need to make sure local support is valid and install a strong puppet government that hands over power to friendly citizens in a measured, and visible timeline.
Okay, real quick about what General Riper did: He gave his assets impossibly fast speeds and loading capacities Like a fishing boat with a Harpoon missile, motorcycles with anti-air armaments, and everyone was communicating with "couriers" at the speed of light. Usually this is done with radio waves and Internet, but he knew that would have been intercepted with EW. So couriers with hand written notes, going at the speed of light, across water, to have a small fishing vessel, fire a 2 ton missle
The Paul Riper controversy was a bunch of nonsense that was caused because Riper tried to break the rules and was told off for it. The entire wargame was plagued with unrealistic and insane things that would have never happened in any war scenario. There are more but one example comes to mind; The Cruise Missiles strapped to Patrol Boats It should take anyone with a reasonable mind seconds to deduce that tiny patrol boats could not lift the cruise missiles, let alone carry the infrastructure to fire them at a Carrier Task Force. There are more examples of just straight up insanity happening at the Millennium Challenge 2002 but they don't come to mind at the time of writing. I do suggest people reading this to look up the Paul Riper story and verify or disprove this, as I am just a commenter on the internet and your opinion shouldn't be 180'd by a purple F.
Read about the Bahman speedboat. It looks like a catamaran that can travel at 110 knots per hour and can fire cruise missiles. It was unveiled in 2015 according to Pakistan Defense Forum. Also, the Seraj speedboat can carry up to 2 cruise missiles of Kowsar series.
Surprised Iranian Kamikaze Drones didn't come into your calculus. I refuse to believe these wouldn't rain down into US bases in the ally territory to disrupt training and the US supply chain to stall the invasion and buy time. They're easy-ish to develop at scale, or adapt commercial drones as Ukraine has. Wouldn't need to kill the US troops at meaningful levels, but demoralise and delay troops housed in that region ahead of the offensive assault.
It would be interesting for the USA to intervene militarily in Iran, as they would then discover the nearly infinite number of enemies they've made in the region (Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) who would come to their aid. It would be an opportunity for the USA to learn humility.
Interesting analysis, but entirely inconceivable given the current state of world affairs. It's far from a secret at this point that the USA is sending what it doesn't need (and plenty that it may need soon) to support the Ukraine and bleed Russia dry, while building up what it will need (that isn't being sent to Ukraine) when China invades Taiwan. We don't have the time or resources to spare in messing with Iran. Even if Iran DID reach the point of imminently finalizing a nuclear weapons program, we would just pull a Stuxnet 2.0 and cyberwarfare our way through it. If that failed, Israel would step in and rocket any relevant facilities into oblivion before the US even has time to pursue an alternative course of action.
That is not even close to being true. The US military because of its scale, armaments' and industrial economy can fight wars on multiple fronts. The weapons that the US is providing such as missiles were to be decommissioned at are not used as a primary weapon in the US military. US is going to supply Ukraine with hundreds of thousands of non service based warheads that are now being assembled into new missile systems. Even older JDAMs are being converted at no real cost to the US. It is more expensive to decommission ordinance than to just reassemble it into a new system.
1)Yes it can invade,but can't take the control or obey Iran ,because of terrain,especially the high mountains which intercepts land forces 2) Iran has strategically 2 close ally:China and Russia 3)Iran has many own and Russian defence systems which can intercept air objects.
China wouldn’t do shit, they don’t care half as much about Iran as they do about global trade. Russia has enough supply issues on their own. Don’t bank on those two unstable “allies”. And I’m sorry, but many of Iran’s “own defense systems”, like the Qaher-313 are absolute jokes. Like, nothing but cheap propaganda mockups, I also wouldn’t bank on those. What I would bank on is that the U.S. very likely doesn’t want another war, nor does the rest of us in NATO. We want a modern Iran, free of Theocracy, with free men and women, and with equal rights for all. But those changes have to come from within your populous.
My conclusion to any miltary US question is: Yes if the USA really, really, really, wanted to: they can do anything. The question is "is it worth the expended blood and treasure"
Interesting analysis, like others I would agree that the USA would not undertake a ground invasion. I could see however intensive airstrikes over a long period of time. If facilities to refine uranium had been developed to the point of Iran being able to build fission bombs then there could also be limited special forces airborne operations. These would be far more extensive than say, the operation to kill Bin Laden and would involve a substantial airborne force to destroy a facility inside Iran and associated extraction operations. A necessary requirement for any such operation of course would be complete command of the air, probably obtainable within a few weeks.
What a dumb question. Of course the US could invade Iran. The US can invade anywhere they want. We have the manpower and military tech plus NATO backing us. That doesn't mean that it would be a good idea or that the US would prevail like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nice to see the channel of in the analytical side. May I recommend the channel also cover famed military unit, both current and past? Lots of fascinating history there.
I was born in the city of Shiraz. As a native of Iran and the United States I have to give you a valuable advice; Iran invasion is impossible as they proved it during Iran Iraq war. 25 countries were supporting Iraq with military intelligence and ammunition including German and French poison gad, but Iran did not loose One inch of their territory. Fighting with Iran make Vietnam war would look like a walk in the park!!!
Totally agree. Most people underestimate the sheer size of Iran, the strategic position, the power they have over Strait of Hormuz and the size of the population. The Afghanistan debacle has shown that for the US it is impossible to win any kind of war against Iran!
As a former PACOM and CENTCOM intelligence collector and analyst I can tell you this - "unimaginatively costly" casualties is a common deterrent strategy across the globe. Sometimes it works, other times not so much...
Someone has to do the math instead of waving their hands around frantically shouting, "unimaginably costly!"'. There's a number and a range on the figure somewhere for the day someone has to ask seriously, "What does 'unimaginably' mean in real terms?"
Battle for Tehran? Nah, they wouldn't be able to move past the beaches. Russia can easily supply Iran with a million land mines... and that's a low estimate.
Sorry but it would not even be comparable. Taiwan has a fully functioning modern military and Iran does not. Even taiwan with that defensive capabilities could not hold out against the US once they take the gloves off. The US is not going to invade Iran as long as they do not do anything stupid or get near to developing warheads.
13:25 Precisely. As an Iranian, I can confirm that eventhough we the Iranian people absolutely hate the theocratic dictatorship of mullahs and their lap dogs, and many of us are sympathetic towards the west, particularly the USA and Israel, but we will unite against any and all foreign invading force. If we want Iran free, we have to free it ourselves.
@@mayer14474 ofcourse, but the existence of foreign personnel in Iran will only give mullahs a new chance of survival. We need supplies and weapons, but no foreign man power.
@@mayer14474 that's one idea, but note that the free Iran will need its defensive forces and infrastructure in order to be able to defend itself from potential foreign invaders(turkey/baku republic/afghanistan), and/or potential separatist forces(kurds/baluchs)
Every air accessable hard target, and command target gets precision guided munitions on day 1. Before a foot steps over their border they'd be well and truly softened from the air.
I beleive the USA has peaked in power and now either its going down or the other powers are making a concerted effort to close the gap. china, russia, india. usa just cant afford full on invasions like iraq, afghanistan, vietnam.
Re: "In the invasion of Iraq, the coalition forces totaled nearly 600,000" This is an incorrect stat. The coalition forces sent in 160,000 for the initial invasion of Iraq with 130, 000 being US forces. I remember at the time of the invasion (I was about 21 at the time) learning that General Tommy Franks wanted to send in 400,000 US forces, but was shot down by DoD Secretary Rumsfeld. The original gulf war was about 600,000 coalition forces to push Saddam out of Kuwait. The 2003 Iraq War was 160,000 coalition forces. You’re confusing Operation Desert Storm (1990) with Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003).
@@Pavlee021 Wikipedia is incorrect. You DO know that wikipedia is NOT a perfect source of information, right? The original gulf war was about 600,000 coalition forces to push Saddam out of Kuwait. The 2003 Iraq War was 160,000 coalition forces. You’re confusing Operation Desert Storm (1990) with Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003).
One aspect of us power that's often overlooked is its airborne capability. Though dangerous it is still a viable option and I doubt the us would just start to slog northward without created a pinsor move or distraction to pull forces away from the coast.
@@MichaelBoelton you right my friend. The massacre starts with land invasion, which could go both ways and in this situation, the US would be the loser.
I dont think the solution for Iran is a military one. I think funding dissidents would be a better solution. I think the citizens of Iran would prefer the us government giving them dollars over the us air force dropping bombs on their cities
Give it enough time, when there’s another lull between wars and Lockheed Martin and others need more business they’ll find those “weapons of mass destruction.”
Seeing how we did in Libya, Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan I wouldn’t even trust our army to pass a military exercise let alone go to another country n fight
Yup. Also some unrealistic scenarios with recent wargames about Chinese attack on Taiwan, the US Navy would never pin two entire carrier groups into the Taiwan straight as a show of force thus in range of land based anti ship weaponry. I remember when I was doing basic tactics when a guy tried sending AFVs down a main city street and the teacher literally threw a marker at the white board and said "don't do that". Same principle
As concerning as an Iranian nuclear weapon is, I’m not sure what we (the U.S.) can actually do about it beyond the sanctions that are already in place. I’m guessing that the government would start off with cyber warfare and perhaps the odd “surgical strike.” Iran’s geography would cause us huge problems and a tremendous loss of life on both sides. I think it would have to be something huge to even lean towards an invasion of any kind. Let’s hope we won’t ever have to get to this point in the future!! Excellent video and analysis, as always Simon and team!
@@Object_730 doubt we'd do a ground invasion though. More likely a lot of air operations and very well placed ground operations.. leaning on our technological advantage to avoid a all out ground war. The last two decades have kinda highlighted what a bloody mess occupation can be. Longer if you count Vietnam. We can win almost any war.. But ground wars and occupations are a fools errand in modern day.
I was in army 83 to 86 heavy field artillery. We would train in July at the Mojave desert in southern California. They told us back then we were training to go to Iran.
@@K3nn9n The US sent the message to iran that they would invade them if they even tried to attack the US. I never said they have completely controlled them.
@@CODYoungGunna SO you service men are willing to allow one of the most violent governments on earth acquire nuclear warheads? The Ayatollah are unique in the world and are not like other tyrants out there. When they came to power they were attacking countries left right and centre and targeting civilians with no interest in what was going on. They only stopped because the US sent a few messages. Once they get those weapons it does not take a genius to figure out what they will do. So are you willing to back an invasion once they get the weapons.
Simon, can you do a video on the Quasi-war fought between the United States and France? I always though the two countries had never fought each other until I learned about it.
😂😂😂 most defended place in the world couldn't stop Iran missiles And if you think Iran will have no retaliation against countries which give land to USA for supplies and attack's u are a real fool On first day of war oil prices will go sky high and u have to pay 10 times more for gas in there Iran had a war with 4th military power in world which had help from everyone under heaviest sanctions and didn't lost
Thanks for the analysis. But why not considering a situation in which US doesn’t rage a full scale war against Iran; and instead just make enough air raid and other operations to bring the regime to its knees? That makes it far easier for the US to win the war with limited casualties. One other thing is about the comparison between Iran and Iraq. The Iraq war was very easy in the occupation phase up until toppling the regime. But things start going south when it came to building a new government there. So, maybe this time round, the US just does the easy part and topples the regime, and let the Iranian opposition do the hard and nearly impossible task of establishing a democracy there?
USA government bombing list: the democracy world tour: nuked Japan Korean and China 1950- 1953 Guatemala 1957 Indonesia 1958 Cuba 1959 - 1961 Guatemala 1960 Congo 1964 Laos 1964- 1973 Vietnam 1961- 1973 Cambodia 1969-1970 Guatemala 1967- -1969 Grenada 1983 Lebanon 1983-1984 (Both Lebanese and Syrians targets) Libya 1986 Elsavador 1980 Nicaragua 1980 Iran 1987 Panama 1989 Iraq 1981( Persian gulf war) Kuwait 1991 Somalia 1993 Bosnia 1994-1995 Sudan 1998 Afghanistan 1998 Yugoslavia 1999 Yemen 2002 Iraq 1991-2003 ( US/ UK on regular basis) Iraq 2003-2015 Afghanistan 2001-2015 Pakistan 2007-2015 Somalia 2007-8 and 2011 Yemen 2009 and 2011 Libya 2011 and 2015 Syria 2014- 2015 Never forget who's the real threat to the world!! Stay away from western propaganda or watch the non biased one! educate your self with history and knowledge.
it really depends on when it is done and if China was going to send Iran supplies. If China sends weapons and supplies to Iran, then the US is going to have a much harder time. All Iran has to do is wait out the president that oversees this operation. As casualties rise, just like in Vietnam, the president could get voted out and the operation stops. The only way I see the US claiming victory or at least having the operation last long until victory is waiting until Iran makes the first move and does something warranting a strike...Also, I feel the US can't occupy Iran...they would need to disarm their program and blow up or retrieve the Nuclear material and destabilize the Gov...once the material has been dealt with, they leave Iran a mess and let the different organizations fight it out by funding insurgent groups
If the US closes its market place to China that will cause the collapse of China economically. China is not going to get involved. China right now has not even given Russia open aid even though they are suppose to be allies.
China would not do that. Their economy is too fragile, they would lose all US and European export opportunities. They are not going to implode for Iran, they are not stupid.
No they are not gonna. Because to costly and after 20 years Americans will be kicked out by Iranian guerrilla warfare tactics just like Vietnam and Afghanistan
China might possibly get involved too. They, along with Russia hold quite a lot of military exercises and have a defensive alliance of sorts with Iran.
As an American with Persian ancestry, it would be greatly unwise for the United States to intervene with Iranian politics using military firepower. Iran is a nation that should be left to its own devices, slowly but gradually depleting itself from within. Only when the US get involved will be when Iranians themselves have liberated their nation and are looking for nation building guidance as most Iranians in the business and economic hubs are deeply capitalist.
What you mean Iranian liberating themselves. You don't know! Actually we have liberated ourselves from American hegemony, all the excuses of neuk, human rights are to bring back İran onder US control. Why you guys so stupid and brainwashed by us media. Disgusting
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Get the exclusive deal by going to NordVPN.com/warographics Thank you NordVPN for sponsoring this video.
The talky bit around 19 minutes, you should consider having a map of the region with a moving arrow or spreading/retreating colours, just words keeps it much more abstract. ☝️👍
I don't think the US has enough stupid soldiers to attack Iran. The US couldn't defeat the Taliban let alone Iran lol. What nonsense. This man is stup*d lol.
no
cause what you dont know is they have NUKE nuclear missles but dirty bombs and that will be literally end of forces going there
and doing it sets off chain reaction everywhere until younot only have the entire middle east at war and imean entire it will spill into africa and then youmight even get places on russias side entering into conflicts and then
then its nukes and YOUR DEAD
not to mention that long before this russia and or china would send nukes your way
Hopefully, USA would learn from its experience in Afghanistan and just let the country break itself from inside before committing any troops to it. Military interventions have a tendency to unite the people against the "invader", even if said invader was there to try to help them in the first place.
Thankfully, that seems to be our plan.
Believe me they've tried since 1979
Arm us to overthrow the Islamic regime for you!
@@Klopp2543 a few strikes on military bases would be nice. it reduces the current regimes power to suppress the anti government protesters.
How would amerikkka help them?
“Convince your enemy that he will gain very little by attacking you; this will diminish his enthusiasm.”
- Sun Tzu
there is reason and then there is Washington politics
@@sparkyfromel that’s because our politicians work for the little hat tribe bankers!
Your right
Or just stop provoking much bigger nations and threatening too use your civilians as shields - common sense
You think Iran has reason the US wouldn't invade without Iran provoking them what reason would Iran have too provoke the US into a war?
My father is Persian he went to Colombia after the fall of the Shah. He was part of his body guard detail in Panama. But I remember in the 80s Iraq invaded Iran. This unified the Iranian people behind the government. Any attacks would have the opposite effect, uniting the people against an external enemy. A war is not the solution.
If it gets us cheap oil, of course a war is the solution! We'll convert Iran to Christianity while we're at it, lol. =P
@William Young our kings are in the Bible, brother. Look up Cyrus the Great or Xerxes. We also created the first monotheistic religion claiming one God exists, which has direct roots to Christianity. Look up Zoroastrianism. Celebrate Christmas ? Guess who started the first one ? Three Kings from the East are Persian Mahi priests.
Are you sure they would not unite with American troops?
This is why there's NATO and they've already said "all means are on the table to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon"!
@@dvvaughn564 به عنوان یک ایرانی ،حتی فکرش را هم نمیکردم امریکایی ها به این اندازه احمق باشند
The US days of winning a war on the ground ended with WWII. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan proved this.
True
We defeated Iraq and Afghanistan’s military, it was the occupation that failed
I believe the bullying of third world countries without an Airforce or Navy by our Military / Pentagon is about over. The Proxy war in Ukraine initiated by the U.S. CIA is about over. Ukraine had the choice of remaining a neutral country without membership in NATO. Even after hostilities began, Putin wanted negotiations, however Washington remained silent and arrogant. Now, Russia will annex at least half of Ukraine when the fighting stops. It may put a damper on Blackrock’s , Monsanto’s and MIC weapon agencies to build their mega companies on Ukrainian turf. And the regime change planned for in Russia will not be the final outcome.
@@johannlatimer so you are out. The result long term like in Vietnam, like in the balcanes, like in the corean war, like in the afganistan war, like in the Iraqi war is quitting and loosing the controll on the long term, which it means loosing!
@@andreadefanti203It's sickening how bad your spelling and grammar is.
Just because it could doesn't means it should.
It would be a very dumb thing to do indeed.
Absolutely. This would just be a terrible idea for the US.
Or even wants to. Who gives a f**k about Iran?
We should fund a Revolution there tbh
@@scottfree6479 Why? Just leave them alone allow the people self determination.
The likelihood of the US engaging in a land war with Iran is minuscule. Imagine the Straits of Hormuz shutting down for months. The effects on the world economy would be utterly devastating. I'm guessing the Pentagon is aware of everything you've brought up. There are all kinds of ways to handle the "Oh no, they have the bomb" scenario short of an all out invasion.
I think the Iranians have a pretty good idea about what would happen if they actually did make a nuclear strike. Their leaders are maybe crazy; but, not that crazy.
As an iranian, i had always jokingly told my friends if the gov ever want to use an nuclear bomb, it will be on us and for our suppression.
I do fantasize about US invading tho😂
@@nimaj53 we don’t suppress your people man, please tell me you understand that. Your government controls you, the US does not. Sanctions are the most civil way of creating problems. By simply not trading with them we can cut them off from a major portion of global commerce. They’ll then blame us for doing that to them, even though it’s in response to decisions they’ve made….
@@Jdjdbxdj yeah.i meant iranian goverment.sorry for miscommunication.
you are fren😊♥️
@@Jdjdbxdj Iran is a weird place right now.everyone is confused and you cant never be sure who is behind the online profiles.don't trust everyone who says something and goes by iranian,goverment funded cyber terrorists and such.we sure can't😂.Peace♥️
@@nimaj53 At least, using it on Iranians probably wouldn't draw retaliatory strikes. 😅🤣😂
Seriously though, invading would be the stupidest possible outcome for the US and, frankly, the whole world.
People in my area of the US basically saw Afghanistan as the last straw. No one wants to join and rightfully so. The authority lost many generations to fight wars for the years to come.
omg that is funny.
I call big bullshit you're from the U.S.
What, Afghanistan was almost universally supported in the US / within the West. It was Iraq that causes controversy globally and at home.
@@Poo_Brain_Horse I think they are one of those people who are critiquing not the occupation, but the withdrawal, in order to, "own the libs".
@@Poo_Brain_Horse I assume he means the pull out which was a disaster, because as you said Iraq was the controversial war not Afghanistan.
One thing Simon didn't mention is that the first target after securing the beaches won't be an immediate thrust North but instead, will be a large attack towards the nearest port city. Any amphibious invasion MUST capture a deep water port fairly quickly.
But Iran is not a Hollywood studio, never underestimate your opponent. Not when you have to deal with the IRGC from Iran who fighting for their country and not for the US bankers and war machine.
@@ferry602 Imagine how Eager Russia would be to support Iran every way they can.
@ferry602 Seriously! These Americans have watched too many movies and it shows😭🤣It would take a total mobilisation of the US army ( the likes of which we haven't seen since WW2 ) to defeat Iran with HEAVY casualties leaving the door open for Russia/China to finish them and overtake the US as the world's daddy.
THEN good luck dealing with the aftermath of the war which will be 100X worse than Afghanistan, the people of Iran are EXTREMELY proud and their special operation unit ( the Quds ) are VERY good at CIA type operations, I'm talking worldwide "terrorist" attacks against US interests including within the US itself ( Imagine what a simple rocket launcher could do in Timesquare )...The US economy would collapse, once again leaving the door open for Russia and China...This isn't a movie or a board game Americans.
@@j4genius961 Yes. The divide et impera tactics most countries tend to use when attacking a country won't work either, as Iran has a fairly strong national identity. Iran is a hornet's nest and a nightmare to invade, and will no doubt get massive support from Syria and Russia at the least.
@@j4genius961 hilarious. how quickly you forget that when america wants to make a statement with violence, they literally make examples out of you. whether its hiroshima or iraq, fuck around and find out.
and land attacks? yeah you're delusional. the CITIZENS own more total guns then there are total people lol... literally not counting cops or military.. good luck with that
he didn't consider proxy armies outside Iran, and the most important thing, that Iran is a part of the Shanghai defense pact.
It's not a defense pact though. There a no defense guarantees in the treaty.
cap bro cap
What a dumba$$, lol
China would never fight a war against the US especially for a fanatically religious state like Iran
I think the US would rather go for targeted strikes on specific locations rather than all out invasion for exactly how this scenario plays out. Given the issues in the government the only way I see a quick passing of a war declaration and invasion would be if Iran did a first strike on the US similar to Pearl Harbor. Otherwise there likely is deadlock between political parties because somehow it will become a partisan issue even if its not and shouldn't be. Ultimately I think the US's main policy would be invasion at this stage as a last resort, but if time is indeed a factor here then large scale airstrikes would be their main goal of stopping a nuke being obtained. After that I think they'd attempt to destabilize the government of Iran further in the hopes their people would rebel while mainly staying well clear of the country outside of ferrying oil through the straight of Hormuz past Iranian boat attacks. If time is a factor they'd have to more or less paratroop in in some capacity because I would think the southern invasion build up and then slow grind up the country would take way too long to be viable. Really depends on time and honestly I think it would be drastically low before the US government would finally agree on a way forward.
Libya 2.0
Invasion is not, and should not, be the first priority of the American government, in a time of war with Iran. Where the US holds the advantage is on the high seas, and in areas outside of Iran's borders. Also, any notion that Russia, or China, will be involved on Iran's side is laughable. In another year or two, Russia is going to fall to pieces, and China doesn't care about anybody but themselves. China will hang Iran out to dry, the same way that they hung Russia out to dry, when Russia invaded Ukraine.
We’d decimate their boats before we even got close with our ships. Iran would be toast if if we get into a conflict with them.
Only hard part would be the counter insurgency operations after. That’s been an issue throughout world history
And then Iran just starts hitting every ship with silkworms
@@philipanderson1105 Good luck with that when Iran starts raining thousands of ballistic and cruise missiles.
There are too many factors that were not included in this analysis. The very fact that Iran's allies (Axis of Resistance) or other allies such as Russia or China were not included makes this analysis - in my opinion - somewhat dubious. Because you can actually be absolutely sure that they will not keep their feet still. And there it is not only Kataib Hezbollah but even more factions, which also in turn ensure that U.S. allies or even the U.S. forces are attacked directly from other sides.
In short, it would set the entire Middle East on fire.
And that
I would rather it not happen
Since I am living on iraq
And siting the entire middle east on fire
Is kind of........
were tired ofthis super combat potential of the Us defence or millitary personally i dont think theyt could stand the Al shabaab millitia
Let me guess then Us will begin an endless struggle with terrorist attacks
@@KINGGEORGE-nl5ye I mean they always
Call who ever does not work or do what they want
A terrorist
China will never get involved
Weeks of air strikes and Iran just sits there watching 600k+ troops in UAE/Saudi until they invade 😮
That was the theory behind the invasion of the small an weak Afganistan, unorganised, unprepared and divided in advance through 20 years of war and civil war... we saw the result...
Iran is not Afganistan, culturaly, territorialy and militarely....
You are a dreamer...
After a such fals step and a new vietnam for US, you will see the dynamic in the pacific get warmer with US full ingaged for years in a slummy situation. China will winn then the race in few years...
Strategical would be a suicide!
You are no longer the only untuchable bully arogant supepower. Among the west in the last 30 Years you lost the reputation dear Yankees!!! Look first at your national internal challenges befor telling other how to deal their own!
You are no longer the only rooler of the global game. Due to with your voracity and cultural arrogance, you failled to bring peace and stabilty. Game is changing, but your historical and cultural lack of humble and respect to others doesnt allow you ton understand it and accept it. For your egoism and blindness, You are burning and pauperising the entire rest of West society as well the rest of the world. Will God may bless the rest of the world (once)! So we get rid of your violence and world tirany sold us with the missleading fallacious mask of democracy and freedom!!!
Iran watching Russia and china go silent and completely cut ties despite being the best allies: 😭😭😭😭
0:50 - Chapter 1 - Back into the fray
2:45 - Chapter 2 - Ideal geography
7:50 - Mid roll ads
8:45 - Back to the video
10:05 - Chapter 3 - Weighing the odds
13:30 - Chapter 4 - The US invasion of Iran
thanks
Thank you!
hmm, so video begins after 13:30 . Thank you for your effort.
Thanks! Always handy to know where ad is so it can be skipped.
The change in the conditions wasn’t because the leadership was “unhappy with losing”. The entire purpose of these sorts of war games is to test different scenarios. The point of changing some of the conditions is to figure out what the US would need to be able to do to defeat such an adversary. In this case, it would need SEAD (to stop the planes from getting shot down) and better intelligence (to know where the enemy troops were) and to neutralize certain weapons systems (to prevent them from being used) in order to fend off such an attack. If blue wins every exercise, you haven’t learned anything and holding it was completely pointless.
Considering the MC2002 was 20 years ago, there's been an entire generation change and the lessons would have been taught coming up.
Recent Wargame scenarios including defending Taiwan tried out over 20 scenarios with varying degrees of advantage to the US and to China. Basically in most situations the US lost at least 2 carriers and several hundred aircraft on the ground as air bases suffered overwhelming missile barrages. When western aircraft could get in the air they were effective, but planes tend to actually spend most time on the ground where they are vulnerable. No matter who won though the cost to both sides would be enormous and Taiwan would be pretty battered. Further Taiwan has planned to destroy the chip foundries should China invade so China would not even be able to claim industrial capacity.
Its also important that the MC2002 was also meant to test joint operations and coordinating amphibious assault across the breadth of resources. It would be ridiculous to spend billions moving ships around without actually testing the assault itself.
Who the hell trusts a Anglo white man to be impartial on a topic like this?
I promise you that many neighboring countries will be allies of Iran in this war, the Persian Gulf will become America's graveyard
When it comes to American advisories,iran has no difference with China
So not pointless at all. You get to point to such successes in the war games as to why Congress should approve more money for the "victorious programs" and that generals who supported those programs will get promotions and cushy post retirement jobs. it reinforces internal politics and paradigms within the organization in order to push the system in desired directions. Those changes were not part of the plan when the game was laid out but created only afterward, otherwise I'd think you had a point. And they thought they had SEAD, they thought they had all the intelligence they needed from electronic interception, (cell phone, ground control radio, and microwave repeater esp) and satellite means etc. I would say you fail to grasp the point of the exercise is not to learn how well these ideas work but to prove and promote the ideas that politics (internal to the pentagon, congress, etc) want, in spite of what is on the tin. And those ideas can involve showing the blue team loosing if they want to apply pressure to buy/invest in more of XXX etc so losses are useful too.
Wonderful work as always. As an American all I can say is the prospect of trying to invade Iran has always given me serious Afghanistan and Iraq vibes and I am not eager to go through another one. After watching this video, I am thinking an invasion of Iran would likely be even more of a nightmare than the other two combined.
While I do not like the idea of Iran having a nuclear weapon I am not sure there is much we can really do about that would be worth the cost. We might have to settle for making it clear if they launch at us or our allies (particularly Israel) we have our own missiles with "Tehran" written on them in sharpie.
A more limited ground action seems more plausible to me than an armored mechanized drive to Tehran. Maybe something like an airborne assault to seize and destroy a nuclear weapons installation or to capture high-value personnel. Would that make the Battle of Mogadishu look like child’s play?
They're always pledging to nuke us as soon as they can.... the cost of that would be higher than an invasion, I think..
@@anthonyc8499 Or just throw in a low yield 💣
Yes I pretty sure the plans for invasion smartly doesn't have a ground element
A spod a few million and some well places bombs could topple the government but what then
this is like an episode about the possibilities of terraforming Mars. It's funny to think about it but it's simply impossible. Just as the sun will remove every released oxygen atom from Mars' atmosphere because it lacks a magnetic field, Islam will destroy any attempt at democratization in Iran.
1 minute silence for those who even imagine the American invasion of Iran. Dude, it's 2023💀
I mean, it's only been a couple of years since the Americans murdered an Iranian general in broad daylight just for kicks. The military and political leadership in both countries has an established track record in recklessly escalating the situation mainly for domestic political reasons. Is it probable right now, with the war in Ukraine and the threat to Taiwan preoccupying everyone? No. Will the Iranian-American tension eventually resurface? Undoubtedly.
@@Oxtocoatl13yeah bro he was totally innocent and not behind previous attacks
@@phettywappharmaceuticalsll8842 irrelevant + I did say both countries have hawks like this. It's still a major escalation to openly murder a top official of another country openly, in broad daylight. Just imagine how you woulf feel if a country you already regard with suspicion murdered one of your country's generals and bragged about it.
@@Oxtocoatl13what does that have to do with conflict with Iran that supports the point further genius
@@phettywappharmaceuticalsll8842he was no angel but us and Israeli much more evil
Yeah I definitely agree with the ending. The United States could win, yes, but it would cost so many lives and so many billions that it wouldn't be worth it at all
And as long as the US can largely mitigate any threat from Iran through other means, I don’t see a justifiable reason for choosing occupation. The sanctions seem to be slowing Iran down significantly. Might as well exhaust non-combatant approaches first before turning to all out war.
can't let 'em get nukes period!
Lives we lost 900 in Iraq… You underestimate us power like everyone has the last 60 years
And you think Russia and China would just stand idly by and let it happen? They've already lost a few good allies to this bullshit. Russia has already stepped in and stood up for Assad after what happened to Gaddafi.
@@cooldudecs Iraq is an impoverished desert, Iran is 80% mountains. Invading Iran would be far harder than invading Afghanistan AND Vietnam.
A video I didn't know I wanted. Thank you for this amazing gift.
Found the Israeli
When they make a movie about TYRE
Yall think JUSSIE SMOLLETT Should audition for the role 🤔
After he's served his full jail sentence of course.
Perhaps he could be placed on the same WING as R KELLY....
We'll probably let China invade Taiwan so we'll have a "justification" for invading Iran.
Love the hacker stock footage. Hoodies: absolutely required when doing anything shady even if you actually have no need to hide your face.
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: probably not.
It would be like you invading a bee's nest, and thinking you won't be stung.
Also even if USA is successful it may need 100s of billion to support new government and don't forget unending insurgency against new government as soon as USA leaves . Iraq war took 1.2 trillion i think .
@@ssnaut1871 there wont be much insurgency since the current regime is not popular at all! an inclusive secular democracy will be supported by entirety of the country.
@@mayer14474 bruh all inclusive government of iraq got pummled by Isis until USA came back , Afghanistan one literally got dissolved and Libyan one basically collapsed in 3 factions. If you don't want another 2 decades long conflicts rather not invade more nation for godsake.
@@ssnaut1871 Iran is nothing like Afganistan or Iraq. It's an entirely different country with different people. Iran has been a mltui-ethnic country for thousands of years, unlike Iraq or Afganistan or Lybia, Iran has strong roots and charactor. A secular democratic Iran is very very likely to succeed which in turn stablizes the region
Could the United States invade Iran? Yes, however, I can see it playing it out very similar to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, with a bloody stalemate. While the U.S military is the best in the world, the Iranian terrain is tough and the fighting spirit of the Iranian people will be intense. Not to mention Iran has a formidable military and the U.S would have to have a massive ground invasion force to even make it feasible. We wouldn't have many allies in the fight other than a few Arab states and Israel, but the fight will largely be unilateral. The U.S hasn't fought a conventional force head-to-head in decades, just as Russia hasn't until now. The bloodshed would be too much for both sides and the American people would not stand for a prolonged conflict.
No they can't. They have a overstretched military and the logistical capability is beyond limit. It would require the US at least 2-3 million troops to invade Iran properly. But the main problem is, how is the US going to mobilize it's logistic when Iran basically target them from distance? Iran is nowhere near Afghanistan nor Iraq, literally something US has never faced before, make no mistake about it.
@@outlawfly664 True 100%
@@outlawfly664They would crush Iran if they invaded, this wouldn’t be like Russia and Ukraine. The US is the king of logistics. I would agree with you but the gulf war proved otherwise, both of them. Iraq was a very formidable force then and was completely obliterated both times. This invasion would got the same way as every other American invasion in the middles east. A highly successful blitzkrieg toppling the government within a year. Followed by a long and bloody occupation.
@@jex4585 Delusional assessment. Based on what track record? US at this point can't even mobilize 500k troops into one area. Never mind the fact that most of their airbases in the region are very vulnerable to Iranian missile attack, even their fifth fleet is sitting ducks, go figure. Iraq was no way near a formidable force at the time, neither was it any close to Irans current size and firepower/capability. They had decades of failures which disintegrated their military, which wasn't the case when they fought Iran with international support, a country under post-revolution crisis at the time mind you, yet even still failed miserably, never mind it's society which is just as disintegrated. Back to the drawing board.
You are living in a fantasy world if you think Iran would hold the US to a stalemate in a war. It would not even be a contest.
The blue team vs red team thing was also a result of red team taking advantage of the simulator. The red team general basically meta games the simulation and there were alot of gamisms that resulted in red team doing so well.
And then there was the Imperial Japanese Navy wargame for the Midway attack where opfor also won. And using the same excuses, the big ups declared that scenario of failure was invalid.
Rather than change the rules, take the losses as a learning experience. Study the results and make improvements.
“US war simulator is a totally balanced and fair game without any exploits” -red team general
@@STSWB5SG1FAN if I remember correctly some of the “gamisms” that red team used were bike messengers that traveled at light speed as the “messengers” were just instant messages that were rebranded as “bike messengers”, the swarm of small boats were packed with so much explosives that in reality they would have just sunk under the weight of said explosives, and the amount of cruise missiles fire would have required the liquidation of the Red country’s entire economy to pay for them. The only lesson one can learn from that is; if the enemy develops the ability to alter reality and make physics it’s bitch we’re boned.
@@STSWB5SG1FAN the wargame software bugged out and spawned the red team boats on top of the blue boats so there was zero chance to intercept them. There is literally nothing to learn from that. Paul Riper cheated by gaming the system
Don't try it. Iran has advanced hypersonics plus they they pretty good at cyberwarfare. One nation fully prepped for this global war economy age.
This all assumes that Russia will not back Iran completely, which they are very likely to do. This would especially complicate taking Tehran as it’s in the north, closer to Russia
The russian army is preoccupied, they are busy bleeding out in Ukraine. Look at their contingent in Syria and consider whether that’ll make a significant impact at all in this hypothetical
@@olegbobrovskiy3244 Russia’s calculation when it comes to deciding whether to be involved in a conflict is simply ‘will it hurt my enemies?’. The answer is clearly yes here, so I believe that it would be a Stalingrad sort of situation - no matter how many bodies you need to throw at the problem, it will be done, for the glory of mother Russia (Iran be damned).
russia will help get back at usa. blood for blood.
@@a2xd94 that's not my point. What I am saying is 'what can Russia spare right now that it will be able to produce that isn't critically needed in Ukraine?'. All I can think of is some aviation, air D, some ATGM stocks and maybe some helos. Not something that can stop the USA imho
@@olegbobrovskiy3244 the same goes to US but on a smaller scale.. due to supporting Ukraine US almost depleted their stock of 155mm (that’s why US ordered the increase of production to half million) Javelin ATGM and many other components including small arms!
Could.... PFFT.. hold our beer.
Should is a whole different question.
Why should they?
@@grapefruitsimmons
That’s the question he’s asking
It would never happen. The age of long range weapons and nuclear weapons have made large scale total invasion wars obsolete. Russia tried invading a country that had a military that was barely holding together and look what happened. Internal sabotage and low level warfare are much more efficient.
of course US should invade Iran. it's even late by now
in the past Islamic Republic could merely reach Israel
now it has reached Ukraine and is involved in its war
where it will be tomorrow? Venezuela seems like the next stop
dictators around the world will be united to destroy free world. you want that future?
Not even could, US military too downsized to invade country of 85 million the size of Western Europe in geography. Don't delude yourself, laws of war don't respect delusion.
Thanks for articulating meticulously all the many reasons Iran would be impossible to invade successfully. The title of this video should thus have been "Why the US will never invade Iran"
Iran is not impossible to invade the US would squash it easily. The US has no interest in invading Iran and would take an extremely stupid act from the government of Iran to get the US to invade.
@BB-xx3dv lol... Alexander's empire collapsed shortly after invading it, rome couldn't do it, and persia converted to Islam as opposed to invaded outright because the sassanid empire was bankrupt and a civil war would have broken out. Ottoman's miserably failed war after war to dream of getting past the Zagros Mountains.
Granted! The Mongols did.. but Genghis Khan was a force of nature haha.
Won't rule out it can be invaded completely, but in today's day and age.. it would be zero sum. Iranians will make damn sure that every inch of Persia will come at a blood price. And I'm sure as well iranians around the world will not stand idly by.
Persia A.K.A. The Den of Lions... The Graveyard of Empires.
Persian Poet Rumi: "This too shall pass"
Honestly the best way to invade iran from a semi-iranian perspective (born in the U.S.) is not with guns, soldiers, tanks, and planes, but invade it with money. Persians are merchants by nature, and a good trade is irresistible for them.
@BB-xx3dv still collapsed soon after though^
@@midragga And the Seleucids (Alexander's successors) ruled it for 3 centuries after. And the Arabs very much conquered it, the conversion occurred after conquest. Not to mention the myriad of Nomadic conquerors (Parthians, Seljuks, Mongols, Timur etc.).
Just so you know, Iran has a space program and launches its own satellites. Read, ICBMs.
I think the more likely scenario would not involve troops on the ground, it would be more air battle precision bombing, a key, infrastructural defence and governmental facilities, pretty much like what they did in Libya 1986 only now precision, bombing and intelligence is much more advanced
There is one problem there, Iranian air defense is 1000x time better than Libya..
Exactly... Weaken the infrastrcutre. And people will def help any invador as they are mad from mullahs and their islamic rules.
How about bombing Israel?
@The Original NPC Yes but they also have ballistic missiles they probably would not just defend and watch..
Tehran is way up in the north.
There were 2,456 United States military deaths in the War in Afghanistan. 1,932 of these deaths were the result of hostile action. 20,752 American servicemembers were also wounded in action during the war. That was against enemies without aircraft, a navy, armored vehicles, or advanced firearms so just imagine what would happen if the United States invaded Iran which has those things.
Those enemies could not fight US Military head on, they fought nonconventionally(mountains). They also fought asymmetrically because they cannot fight the US conventionally
@@pathat8869
They hid among women and children. Any community that spoke out about that hiding war targeted. Village elders were targeted and had body parts cut off, women were kidnapped, children were violently targeted.
The US fought that war with gloves on and if it was up against Iran it would take the gloves off.
You don’t have to imagine. Look at Vietnam war, It lasted the same amount of time as Afghan but the casualty is roughly 25 times higher
@Wind Windy yeah because the north Vietnamese hid in the jungles. US airpower and US army artillery can only do limited damage against opponents hiding in jungles. The north Vietnamese could not fight the US head on so they fought nonconventionally/asymmetrically.
@@pathat8869 Iran Missiles would cause and wreck havoc on the US military mate 😂, Iran are experts at guerrilla warfare they would smoke the US if they ever tried invading them. It’s a reason why nothing have been tried in all of these years innit
I agree with the fact that invading would be really, really rough and this is a bit nit picky of me but using Millennium Challenge 2002 as a reference is just really, really bad. Riper did a great job and its possible that his strategies could have worked to some degree or another in a real war but the challenge was so poorly set up to begin with that nearly no useful information could be gotten from the challenge (prominent exception being Riper's ways of securely communicating). The small boat swarm in particular is hard to judge for certain but probably wouldn't have worked to nearly the degree it did if at all. This is because the US didn't want to interrupt shipping and thus was closer to shore than they would realistically have been. There simply wasn't the standoff distance one would expect if that had been a real war. Plus all the issues with congestion in the area from the traffic (sea and air) still going on around them in relatively close proximity due to it being a peace time exercise near shore. This severely hampered several defense systems in the exercise (particularly automated ones) and caused the exercise to have extremely cautious rules of engagement for blue team. Red team took advantage of that and did well but taking advantage of a completely unrealistic scenario simply can't provide any useful info.
Anyway, a lot of people complained that rule changes after red team did well ruined the exercise but it was a giant waste of money before it even started. That said they wouldn't have even had a chance to get anything out of it if they hadn't done that. Riper may have done well in a realistic scenario but there is virtually zero chance he would have done that well. Basically, he complained about the game being rigged for blue to win but red only did well cause it was rigged against blue at the start. I know that is basically the 3rd different way I've said the same thing but it REALLY needs emphasized that blue was not able to perform as well as it would have in a realistic scenario. Saying his superiors were simply upset with losing makes for a more entertaining sound bite for articles and videos but is more than a little disingenuous. I get that its more entertaining to say the US military leadership here simply had a tantrum and pretended to win but its really annoying to see people who should be better informed talk about this and not emphasize (or often even acknowledge) the horrible initial conditions being the main (and likely only) reason for red teams initial, wild success. At best, people seem to usually just casually gloss over the initial conditions like it wasn't a big deal overall.
Again, its possible red's strategies would have worked and a naval invasion would certainly be rough but Millennium Challenge 2002 didn't tell us anything really due to being a quarter billion dollar boondoggle from the start.
US always over play wargames such as an invasion of Iraq that was far easier than originally thought.
They could, but it would be easier to beat Iran into submission with air power, if need be.
It always brings a smile to my face seeing Iran flying old f-4’s and f-14’s 😂
It always brings a smile to my face that the US always under estimates the will of the people that they are invading.
I love F-14s, really miss them here in the States.
@@mols89 for sure, super iconic
Why smile ? They have no choice they are under deep sanctions
It's not the plane it's the pilot
Interesting thought experiment, and I appreciate that the question asked is 'could', not 'should', but I hope to God that it never comes to this. If we've learned anything from the Ukraine war, it's that invasions are ALWAYS harder than you think.
Also, I'd like to point out that it's not entirely fair to count all of the US military materiel against Iran, since they need to keep reserves for the other areas they have interests in, which is like half the globe. I can't imagine a hypothetical invasion of Iran would get to use many ships from the pacific fleet, for example, with the tensions around Taiwan. Again, the Ukraine war taught us about the dangers of comparing on-paper forces.
The US invaded Iraq in the 90's(the 4th most powerful military on the planet at the time), and conquered the country is less than a month. Same for Afghanistan in the 2000's, and Iraq again in 2003. Invasions are quite literally nothing for the US to achieve.
great point. The world is very different then 2003. I think now the US would be very worried about taking too much attention away from china, and also to a lesser degree Eastern Europe.
Exactly. Other than airstrikes and more and more intelligence operations actual naval and air force hardware for the US needs to be ready to defend Taiwan at a moment's notice. Likely, if a war were ever to break out, the US would use its long range missiles, airforce, and cyber warfare capabilities to send Iran back to the medieval ages without ever having boots on the ground. Then wait for its own people to kick the regime out.
@@Steadyaim101 Taiwan is such a tough situation, there are only three possible paths 1. Somehow war is avoided and china acknowledges Taiwans independence. 2. All out war between US and China. 3. US lets Taiwan fall.
I dont see how the first happens outside of revolution in china. The third would only happen if the US decided it was okay no longer being the worlds super power.
Most likely the US would try to help Tibet rise up against china while china was attacking Taiwan in an attempt to destabilize the gov. North Korea would take advantage of the distraction and attack south, Russia might even try to take advantage too and invade more ex-warsaw pac countries.
@@1DrBar Taiwan being a province of china is like saying there is only one Korea its just dumb because it ignores the practical reality. China has not controlled taiwan since the communists won the civil war.
As far as meddling so far away from our logistics....you realize our military supply line is dependent on Taiwan right? If we lost Taiwans production capabilities it would set us back for years.
Until we eliminate our reliance on Taiwan for chip production we have no choice to defend them. (which is why their gov subsidies the production to keep the price low enough to undercut US production)
The real question would be why invade? Why not just use air strikes and cruise missiles to hit their military capabilities and infrastructure (dams, bridges, power grid, water supplies, oil refineries, airports, etc.), government buildings, and so forth. Let them mire in a total hellscape without having to invest a trillion dollars and countless American lives. Might actually give us more leverage when dealing with other countries thereafter, given that they'll realize we won't give two cents about nation building.
None of the examples listed justify sending American men to die.
If Iran had a coordinated terror attack here in the USA, then yes
Before I even watch this, I ask "should we?". Now I'll watch...
"Invading is easy. Get off the horse to govern that's the hardest part." - A Rider of Steppe.
You forgot to mention that Millenium Challenge 2002 gave an unfair advantage to the red team as they cheated by using the existence of regular civilian ships to their advantage. With so many civilian ships around (because this was a wargame and so not an actual warzone), the blue team couldn't use standard automatic defence systems, in case it was a civilian ship. Red team was aware of this and used it to their advantage, but this would not work in an actual warzone where the rules of engagement are different
cry more! in an actual war you wouldn't stand a chance coming anywhere close to 2000km range. truth hearts
I promise you that many neighbour countries will be allies of Iran in this war, the Persian Gulf will become America's graveyard
That war game did teach some useful lessons but it was also a bit flawed too. There's a reason why even in WW2 when planes had much shorter ranges and slower speeds that the US didnt just park it's carriers right outside Tokyo and start bombing from close range. Even during Desert Storm the US kept it's carriers at range to avoid the sorts of attacks that happened in the Millennium Challenge, and to avoid things like hidden anti ship missiles and sea mines. I always felt like they made the war game that way on purpose though to figure out how to counter a surprise attack more than anything though, sort of a "worst case scenario" kind of a thing since no admiral worth their salt just sends so carriers straight at the enemies coastline without carrying out recon and bombing runs first, the type of attack in that scenario was already a common tactic for centuries with the old torpedo boats, which were often either built nearly identical to high end civilian speed boats or were converted civilian craft.
@@patriotir Imagine not understanding how training works. Not much of a surprise to me, considering your shithole military doesnt get much
“The only unfair fight is the one you lose” it’s a law of war ofc they’d use anything they could just like the Iranians would too
Seriously? How can you even think about invading Iran when they struggled against Afghan militants armed with AK-47s!
All conflicts are difficult, but the question to always ask is: Is it worth it?
and why
yeah. they would destabilize that part of the world even more, while needlessly killing potentially millions, while flooding the neighboring countries with war refugees.
not only that, but the US army would commit a bunch of war crimes again, that would not be punished, because they are the protector of "democracy"
Only idiot's would say it worth it.
No it is not, but imagine if there was an air raid when people were demonstrating and the air raid would only hit a revolutionary guard command which is controlling the security forces, what do you think will happen?
which will never happen.@@mmodavi771
Here in Canada we do something similar each year it’s a huge readiness exercise that is conducted out west in Alberta. It is to verify the readiness of brigades to take over “ high readiness deployment” one year literally the day the exercise kicked off our red team infiltrated communications and shut it all down and effectively won the war game right then and there shortly after capturing the head quarters . Oh they promptly informed us we would be restarting the exercise ..
Yeah because you lost and there’s still time left to keep training. You don’t get to go home early jsut cause you lost.
Endurance
Communist Canada lol 😂
I think if the U.S. truly wanted to "defeat" Iran, it would not duplicate the issues it faced in Afghanistan. I'd expect a much higher focus on missle strikes and bombings to both military and infrastructure targets. Key roadways, bridges, dams, railways, airfields, harbors, power plants, industrial sectors, and so on would be raised. It'd primarily be an economic and industrial siege against the country, crippling it to the point of total failure. Ships can't move without fuel, tanks over rough terrain would be paralyzed without roads, bridges, supply lines, etc. When trying to defeat a pack of wolves, sometimes it's best not to fight them directly but simply trap them and wait for them to starve.
Attacking and destroying their infrastructure is a bad idea considering all the billions it would cost us to rebuild it.
Iran also simply blocks the strait of Hormouz resulting the world to be crippled.
I think we also need to consider China's role in supporting Iran, specifically by selling arms to them. Not only would such a war draw the Navy's attention and resources away from the South China sea, it would also give them the opportunity to see how their weapons perform against American systems. As increasing numbers of Chinese get hit with western sanctions over their sales to Russia, they have less and less to lose by also supplying Iran.
millennium challenge 2002 was reset cause a lot of the actions red team did were physically impossible (e.g. strapping antiship missiles to dingies, having motorcycle messengers travel at the speed of light)
It was a horribly flawed test that only worked cause Ritter found oversites in the program and exploited them
News to you, the IRGC-N's already managed to strap AShCMs to 6-8m long vessels and they're operational. Your general ritter was onto something after all.
Sounds like Kirk in Star Trek II, The Wrath of Khan. =P
Yeah excuses starting to roll in. This underestimation is exactly what will lead the US into a very major disaster 😂🤣
Wrong, the boats used were modeled off of the one that struck the USS cole I suggest you go read the criticism written by Gen Van Riper. All abilities used by the Opfor were with in Irans capabilities. The restrictions later placed on the red team were so limiting that it was no different then the Russian exercises prior to the Ukrainian invasion.
@@outlawfly664 The US completely flattened Iraq during desert storm, who were at the time the 8th largest military in the world. It was a coalition but it was comprised of majority US and it was US lead. They destroyed Iraqs military so insanely bad that they never truly recovered.
Or we can go back to the one day war with Iran in the 80s, when the US sunk over half of Irans Navy in a single day (Operation Praying Mantis). The "You're underestimating them!" argument always comes with a massive underestimation of the US military.
Yes we can invade but at what at cost.
Ww3 is The cost
@linnylinhorst5102 nah ww3 means nukes. A war with iran means blockade of strait of hormuz that would get china involved as they get almost all their oil through it. It would fuck the entire world economy and the US hasnt already done it for this reason and because they can now just bomb their nuclear facilities using isreal as a scapegoat.
@@cnh642 Lol, not likely. Iran is not that important.
@@cnh642thats not ww3 the us and iran are only 2 countries
It amazes me that millions die in wars that other people start or declare. Yet they usually survive.
How funny this chap has not considered Irans drones in his monologue.
US invading Iran may will be worse than Vietnam war.
The important point is that the US may not even reach Iran to start a war, Iran has Syria and Lebanon to the west, Yemen to the south, and Russia to the north. There are two enemies close to Iran, which are Saudi Arabia and Israel, which Iran was able to force Saudi Arabia to agree and neutralize, and Israel, which has been heavily attacked by Hezbollah forces. Even from the east, the work is very difficult, maybe the Taliban is an enemy of Iran, but the common enemy of both of them is America.
The US can get to Iran, stop being naive.
Iran: exist
America: Tom Cruise has entered the chat .........
Go in, hit your target, and be gone. Later gets hit by SAMA along with Rooster and then sneaks into the enemy base and steals an F-14 in order to escape.
Invasions are easy. Occupations are hard and take centuries and almost never work.
That being said, we need to make sure local support is valid and install a strong puppet government that hands over power to friendly citizens in a measured, and visible timeline.
Okay, real quick about what General Riper did:
He gave his assets impossibly fast speeds and loading capacities
Like a fishing boat with a Harpoon missile, motorcycles with anti-air armaments, and everyone was communicating with "couriers" at the speed of light.
Usually this is done with radio waves and Internet, but he knew that would have been intercepted with EW. So couriers with hand written notes, going at the speed of light, across water, to have a small fishing vessel, fire a 2 ton missle
The Paul Riper controversy was a bunch of nonsense that was caused because Riper tried to break the rules and was told off for it. The entire wargame was plagued with unrealistic and insane things that would have never happened in any war scenario. There are more but one example comes to mind; The Cruise Missiles strapped to Patrol Boats
It should take anyone with a reasonable mind seconds to deduce that tiny patrol boats could not lift the cruise missiles, let alone carry the infrastructure to fire them at a Carrier Task Force. There are more examples of just straight up insanity happening at the Millennium Challenge 2002 but they don't come to mind at the time of writing. I do suggest people reading this to look up the Paul Riper story and verify or disprove this, as I am just a commenter on the internet and your opinion shouldn't be 180'd by a purple F.
My favourite example was motorcycle couriers that were somehow able to relay information just as fast as email lol.
Read about the Bahman speedboat. It looks like a catamaran that can travel at 110 knots per hour and can fire cruise missiles. It was unveiled in 2015 according to Pakistan Defense Forum. Also, the Seraj speedboat can carry up to 2 cruise missiles of Kowsar series.
Surprised Iranian Kamikaze Drones didn't come into your calculus. I refuse to believe these wouldn't rain down into US bases in the ally territory to disrupt training and the US supply chain to stall the invasion and buy time.
They're easy-ish to develop at scale, or adapt commercial drones as Ukraine has.
Wouldn't need to kill the US troops at meaningful levels, but demoralise and delay troops housed in that region ahead of the offensive assault.
There are plenty of systems that can protect against small drones
Assuming their factories arent bombed and the Americans dont use things like CIWS to counter it
We can shoot down small fast missiles, we can counter drones easily.
The title should "could United States get out of Iran alive"
😂
Not funny and just dumb.
Interesting video considering things are starting to heat up in the Middle East now
Im suprised this video is not from 2020. I kinda miss those days
The ballistic middle attack on our airbase after the assassination was not even mentioned
The one Iran warned us about because they didn’t want any casualties?
The American public has a short memory and a relatively strong appetite for war. Our Afghanistan/Iraq hangover won’t last long.
The Yankee demons think they can beat anyone effortlessly.
It would be interesting for the USA to intervene militarily in Iran, as they would then discover the nearly infinite number of enemies they've made in the region (Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) who would come to their aid. It would be an opportunity for the USA to learn humility.
Interesting analysis, but entirely inconceivable given the current state of world affairs. It's far from a secret at this point that the USA is sending what it doesn't need (and plenty that it may need soon) to support the Ukraine and bleed Russia dry, while building up what it will need (that isn't being sent to Ukraine) when China invades Taiwan. We don't have the time or resources to spare in messing with Iran. Even if Iran DID reach the point of imminently finalizing a nuclear weapons program, we would just pull a Stuxnet 2.0 and cyberwarfare our way through it. If that failed, Israel would step in and rocket any relevant facilities into oblivion before the US even has time to pursue an alternative course of action.
That is not even close to being true. The US military because of its scale, armaments' and industrial economy can fight wars on multiple fronts.
The weapons that the US is providing such as missiles were to be decommissioned at are not used as a primary weapon in the US military.
US is going to supply Ukraine with hundreds of thousands of non service based warheads that are now being assembled into new missile systems. Even older JDAMs are being converted at no real cost to the US.
It is more expensive to decommission ordinance than to just reassemble it into a new system.
1)Yes it can invade,but can't take the control or obey Iran ,because of terrain,especially the high mountains which intercepts land forces 2) Iran has strategically 2 close ally:China and Russia 3)Iran has many own and Russian defence systems which can intercept air objects.
China wouldn’t do shit, they don’t care half as much about Iran as they do about global trade. Russia has enough supply issues on their own. Don’t bank on those two unstable “allies”.
And I’m sorry, but many of Iran’s “own defense systems”, like the Qaher-313 are absolute jokes. Like, nothing but cheap propaganda mockups, I also wouldn’t bank on those.
What I would bank on is that the U.S. very likely doesn’t want another war, nor does the rest of us in NATO. We want a modern Iran, free of Theocracy, with free men and women, and with equal rights for all. But those changes have to come from within your populous.
@@BoarhideGaming are you Iranian?
Russia nor China would intervene in a large way. Please stop thinking that is possible.
The reason they make rules to limit enemy actions in wargames is to see if they're at minimum prepared for conventional attacks.
My conclusion to any miltary US question is: Yes if the USA really, really, really, wanted to: they can do anything. The question is "is it worth the expended blood and treasure"
Probably air strikes/bombings like in Libya, No reason for ground invasion here.
Someone will always profit from the blood, but not the soldiers' families.
John Bolton has entered the chat.
He is the only one that seems to understand where this all ends up.
Interesting analysis, like others I would agree that the USA would not undertake a ground invasion. I could see however intensive airstrikes over a long period of time. If facilities to refine uranium had been developed to the point of Iran being able to build fission bombs then there could also be limited special forces airborne operations. These would be far more extensive than say, the operation to kill Bin Laden and would involve a substantial airborne force to destroy a facility inside Iran and associated extraction operations. A necessary requirement for any such operation of course would be complete command of the air, probably obtainable within a few weeks.
Yeah only thing that aint happening 😂
What a dumb question. Of course the US could invade Iran. The US can invade anywhere they want. We have the manpower and military tech plus NATO backing us. That doesn't mean that it would be a good idea or that the US would prevail like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nice to see the channel of in the analytical side. May I recommend the channel also cover famed military unit, both current and past? Lots of fascinating history there.
I was born in the city of Shiraz. As a native of Iran and the United States I have to give you a valuable advice; Iran invasion is impossible as they proved it during Iran Iraq war. 25 countries were supporting Iraq with military intelligence and ammunition including German and French poison gad, but Iran did not loose One inch of their territory. Fighting with Iran make Vietnam war would look like a walk in the park!!!
Totally agree. Most people underestimate the sheer size of Iran, the strategic position, the power they have over Strait of Hormuz and the size of the population. The Afghanistan debacle has shown that for the US it is impossible to win any kind of war against Iran!
Trueee
The city of Shiraz will cease to exist Persian
afghanistan was a political quagmire, not one inch gained was lost by the us military. @@pedroantoniodacruzferreira1487
the war machine does not care about anything but producing more war.
it's why the reich is being stopped, finally.
As a former PACOM and CENTCOM intelligence collector and analyst I can tell you this - "unimaginatively costly" casualties is a common deterrent strategy across the globe. Sometimes it works, other times not so much...
Someone has to do the math instead of waving their hands around frantically shouting, "unimaginably costly!"'. There's a number and a range on the figure somewhere for the day someone has to ask seriously, "What does 'unimaginably' mean in real terms?"
Battle for Tehran? Nah, they wouldn't be able to move past the beaches. Russia can easily supply Iran with a million land mines... and that's a low estimate.
US invading Iran will be like China invading Taiwan where both the parties would eventually win but with a very huge cost.
😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁
Sorry but it would not even be comparable. Taiwan has a fully functioning modern military and Iran does not.
Even taiwan with that defensive capabilities could not hold out against the US once they take the gloves off.
The US is not going to invade Iran as long as they do not do anything stupid or get near to developing warheads.
No, not even close.
13:25
Precisely.
As an Iranian, I can confirm that eventhough we the Iranian people absolutely hate the theocratic dictatorship of mullahs and their lap dogs, and many of us are sympathetic towards the west, particularly the USA and Israel, but we will unite against any and all foreign invading force.
If we want Iran free, we have to free it ourselves.
bro, how can we defeat a huge group of armed pro-government thugs empty-handedly?
some foreign military support is necessary!
@@mayer14474 ofcourse, but the existence of foreign personnel in Iran will only give mullahs a new chance of survival.
We need supplies and weapons, but no foreign man power.
@@monarchistheadcrab8819 exactly! a few air strikes on military bases would be nice though.
@@mayer14474 that's one idea, but note that the free Iran will need its defensive forces and infrastructure in order to be able to defend itself from potential foreign invaders(turkey/baku republic/afghanistan), and/or potential separatist forces(kurds/baluchs)
@@monarchistheadcrab8819 Javid Shah, btw
Every air accessable hard target, and command target gets precision guided munitions on day 1. Before a foot steps over their border they'd be well and truly softened from the air.
Not effective against Irans bases which are mostly underground
I beleive the USA has peaked in power and now either its going down or the other powers are making a concerted effort to close the gap. china, russia, india.
usa just cant afford full on invasions like iraq, afghanistan, vietnam.
این بدبختا واقعا فکر می کنند ایران و ایرانی و ارتش ایران رو می شناسند، خنده داره نظراتشون تو کامنت ها 😂😂👌🏻
Could they? Yes.
Will they? Probably not
Re: "In the invasion of Iraq, the coalition forces totaled nearly 600,000"
This is an incorrect stat. The coalition forces sent in 160,000 for the initial invasion of Iraq with 130, 000 being US forces. I remember at the time of the invasion (I was about 21 at the time) learning that General Tommy Franks wanted to send in 400,000 US forces, but was shot down by DoD Secretary Rumsfeld.
The original gulf war was about 600,000 coalition forces to push Saddam out of Kuwait. The 2003 Iraq War was 160,000 coalition forces. You’re confusing Operation Desert Storm (1990) with Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003).
On wikipedia is 564000..Cmon man Iraq is not Kuwait..what is 130k for Iraq? Too small
@@Pavlee021 Wikipedia is incorrect. You DO know that wikipedia is NOT a perfect source of information, right? The original gulf war was about 600,000 coalition forces to push Saddam out of Kuwait. The 2003 Iraq War was 160,000 coalition forces. You’re confusing Operation Desert Storm (1990) with Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003).
350.000 US Armed Forces was invade Iraq in 2003
@@emonsuparman9248 False. 160,000 armed forces were used to invade Iraq. 130,000 of that 160,000 were US forces.
@@Pavlee021600000 forces re you dumb😂
9,500 marines would probably die. And more paratroopers would probably die.
Warographics is always interesting and a bit controversial. Allegedly. Cheers
One aspect of us power that's often overlooked is its airborne capability. Though dangerous it is still a viable option and I doubt the us would just start to slog northward without created a pinsor move or distraction to pull forces away from the coast.
no war has ever been won by air alone.
@@MichaelBoelton you right my friend. The massacre starts with land invasion, which could go both ways and in this situation, the US would be the loser.
@@bubamaranovichok4901 So many stupid people like this...
@@bubamaranovichok4901 There's not a chance in hell Iran would be able to stop a US land invasion.
I dont think the solution for Iran is a military one. I think funding dissidents would be a better solution. I think the citizens of Iran would prefer the us government giving them dollars over the us air force dropping bombs on their cities
Iran situation is most likely France under Nazis occupation. if you could find better solutions, i would be really happy to know that.
Give it enough time, when there’s another lull between wars and Lockheed Martin and others need more business they’ll find those “weapons of mass destruction.”
Seeing how we did in Libya, Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan I wouldn’t even trust our army to pass a military exercise let alone go to another country n fight
What do you mean? Us "losing" in the middle east is just the Taliban hiding until we eventually leave. Iran can't do that.
Didn't the red team of the challenge do things that were LITERALLY impossible, like physics-defining stuff?
Defying*, not defining.
@@Saman_English oh god, thank you. I would've never gotten the context of the sentence without your help.
Yup. Also some unrealistic scenarios with recent wargames about Chinese attack on Taiwan, the US Navy would never pin two entire carrier groups into the Taiwan straight as a show of force thus in range of land based anti ship weaponry. I remember when I was doing basic tactics when a guy tried sending AFVs down a main city street and the teacher literally threw a marker at the white board and said "don't do that". Same principle
As concerning as an Iranian nuclear weapon is, I’m not sure what we (the U.S.) can actually do about it beyond the sanctions that are already in place. I’m guessing that the government would start off with cyber warfare and perhaps the odd “surgical strike.” Iran’s geography would cause us huge problems and a tremendous loss of life on both sides. I think it would have to be something huge to even lean towards an invasion of any kind. Let’s hope we won’t ever have to get to this point in the future!!
Excellent video and analysis, as always Simon and team!
Just get israel to destroy the nuclear threat from the air, as they have done before
go liberate palestine then and get rid of that nazi settlers propped up by the west that has nukes if you care so much.
Its war its the one thing the US is actually good at. Especially against an actual nation and not insurgents the US has an excellent track record
@@Object_730 doubt we'd do a ground invasion though. More likely a lot of air operations and very well placed ground operations.. leaning on our technological advantage to avoid a all out ground war. The last two decades have kinda highlighted what a bloody mess occupation can be. Longer if you count Vietnam. We can win almost any war.. But ground wars and occupations are a fools errand in modern day.
Isreal is kinda doing everything that's need
With no oil, walking dead leaders and soldiers confused about which bathroom to use, probably not.
I was in army 83 to 86 heavy field artillery. We would train in July at the Mojave desert in southern California. They told us back then we were training to go to Iran.
Iran was crazy back then but has cooled it a bit since that era because the US sent a few messages.
@@bighands69 actually the opposite. We didn’t do sh*t when they held US troops 10 years ago
@@K3nn9n
The US sent the message to iran that they would invade them if they even tried to attack the US.
I never said they have completely controlled them.
Bruh, you leaked military information?
As a soldier in the United States Army….HELL NAW!!!!
This entire video could have been avoided if Simon would have just reached out to any of the US servicemen that watch his videos!
Why not?
@@felixdatche9278 why would the US military need to do ANYTHING in Iran at the moment?
@@CODYoungGunna
SO you service men are willing to allow one of the most violent governments on earth acquire nuclear warheads?
The Ayatollah are unique in the world and are not like other tyrants out there. When they came to power they were attacking countries left right and centre and targeting civilians with no interest in what was going on. They only stopped because the US sent a few messages.
Once they get those weapons it does not take a genius to figure out what they will do. So are you willing to back an invasion once they get the weapons.
@bighand69 let Israel handle it and move on. I personally do not care if that entire region decides to fight each other.
Simon, can you do a video on the Quasi-war fought between the United States and France? I always though the two countries had never fought each other until I learned about it.
😂😂😂 most defended place in the world couldn't stop Iran missiles
And if you think Iran will have no retaliation against countries which give land to USA for supplies and attack's u are a real fool
On first day of war oil prices will go sky high and u have to pay 10 times more for gas in there
Iran had a war with 4th military power in world which had help from everyone under heaviest sanctions and didn't lost
Thanks for the analysis. But why not considering a situation in which US doesn’t rage a full scale war against Iran; and instead just make enough air raid and other operations to bring the regime to its knees? That makes it far easier for the US to win the war with limited casualties.
One other thing is about the comparison between Iran and Iraq. The Iraq war was very easy in the occupation phase up until toppling the regime. But things start going south when it came to building a new government there. So, maybe this time round, the US just does the easy part and topples the regime, and let the Iranian opposition do the hard and nearly impossible task of establishing a democracy there?
And what will Iran be doing with all that 3000 ballistic missiles? Just starring?😂
Iran is not iraq and is big hell of a country
I like that Simon seriously floats invading a regional military power for... women's rights...
USA government bombing list: the democracy world tour:
nuked Japan
Korean and China 1950- 1953
Guatemala 1957
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959 - 1961
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Laos 1964- 1973
Vietnam 1961- 1973
Cambodia 1969-1970
Guatemala 1967- -1969
Grenada 1983
Lebanon 1983-1984
(Both Lebanese and Syrians targets)
Libya 1986
Elsavador 1980
Nicaragua 1980
Iran 1987
Panama 1989
Iraq 1981( Persian gulf war)
Kuwait 1991
Somalia 1993
Bosnia 1994-1995
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Yemen 2002
Iraq 1991-2003
( US/ UK on regular basis)
Iraq 2003-2015
Afghanistan 2001-2015
Pakistan 2007-2015
Somalia 2007-8 and 2011
Yemen 2009 and 2011
Libya 2011 and 2015
Syria 2014- 2015
Never forget who's the real threat to the world!!
Stay away from western propaganda or watch the non biased one! educate your self with history and knowledge.
@@hatty101 the US didn't do any of that for democracy
@@Atreid3s that was the point of his comment
it really depends on when it is done and if China was going to send Iran supplies. If China sends weapons and supplies to Iran, then the US is going to have a much harder time. All Iran has to do is wait out the president that oversees this operation. As casualties rise, just like in Vietnam, the president could get voted out and the operation stops. The only way I see the US claiming victory or at least having the operation last long until victory is waiting until Iran makes the first move and does something warranting a strike...Also, I feel the US can't occupy Iran...they would need to disarm their program and blow up or retrieve the Nuclear material and destabilize the Gov...once the material has been dealt with, they leave Iran a mess and let the different organizations fight it out by funding insurgent groups
If the US closes its market place to China that will cause the collapse of China economically. China is not going to get involved.
China right now has not even given Russia open aid even though they are suppose to be allies.
China would not do that. Their economy is too fragile, they would lose all US and European export opportunities. They are not going to implode for Iran, they are not stupid.
That's funny, Iran has a standing army of 10 million soldiers ...
Could they? Yes. Will they? No, probably not.
hopefully they don’t
No they are not gonna. Because to costly and after 20 years Americans will be kicked out by Iranian guerrilla warfare tactics just like Vietnam and Afghanistan
China might possibly get involved too. They, along with Russia hold quite a lot of military exercises and have a defensive alliance of sorts with Iran.
China will not even help Russia right now. Not in public anyway.
What an uninformed comment.
As an American with Persian ancestry, it would be greatly unwise for the United States to intervene with Iranian politics using military firepower. Iran is a nation that should be left to its own devices, slowly but gradually depleting itself from within. Only when the US get involved will be when Iranians themselves have liberated their nation and are looking for nation building guidance as most Iranians in the business and economic hubs are deeply capitalist.
What you mean Iranian liberating themselves. You don't know! Actually we have liberated ourselves from American hegemony, all the excuses of neuk, human rights are to bring back İran onder US control. Why you guys so stupid and brainwashed by us media. Disgusting
Iran 🇮🇷 is not Iraq or Afghanistan, it will be chaotic and hell for united states to take on iran...Iet pray it never happens.