(01-16-2024, 11:06 PM)snarkyguy_he_him_his Wrote:

(01-16-2024, 10:49 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: Iran has a more professional military. However, I don't know how motivated their soldiers would be considering the rank and file come mostly from the younger populace who aren't entirely thrilled living under the thumb of a theocracy, but their sense of patriotism may override that. Persians are very proud people, arrogantly so. In addition, they engaged our troops regularly in Afghanistan with semi-covert units. They killed quite a few Americans there and are familiar with our tactics and weapons. A retired Army Ranger told me of Iranian and U.S. Army squads regularly watching each other. They were always looking for an opportunity for longer range engagements and setting up IEDs, and it wasn't uncommon to find weapons and ammunition with Persian labeling. 

Iran would definitely be a tougher nut to crack.

Iran was in a stalemate with Iraq for ten years.

Arabs don't know how to fight these kinds of wars.

They don't understand the idea of the blitzkrieg which is exactly what the US would do.

All their tactics are based on defensive fighting. Digging their tanks in. Ours are all about quick deployments and flanking.

They wouldn't stand a chance.

That was a far different time for both countries. The Shah, who was obscenely corrupt and an American ally, had just been overthrown by the religious right and a theocracy installed. Iran had no friends and little resources while Iraq had Saudi Arabia, the U.S. to an extent, and other backers with deep pockets. The U.S. and Russia were using the Middle East as a chess board in those days, so the money and arms flowed to all sorts of shady characters and causes. And wouldn't you know it, Saddam Hussein was not our sworn enemy then. 

We don't want to get tied down in Iran. It would be another protracted conflict with no resolution. 

Btw, Persians take umbrage at being called Arab.

---