Who would Win a US-Iran War
video description
The unifying factor of a war under the conditions described cannot be ignored in the equation, since, for example, even many of the same Englishmen who spent the entire 1920s and 1930s criticizing the previous war and declaring for their refusal to participate in another one, fought bravely during the 40s anyway, and even the disunited Argentines, already tired of their dictators, quickly stood behind their leaders when they invaded the Falklands, even if only to just as quickly topple them off when they lost.
I feel that this time will be another false flag. But true or false, this method of waging war and uniting the population behind it has been tried many times with success throughout the ages. This is something you should keep in mind.
Date: 2024-01-20
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 19
Roadiedave
You seem to forget/are ignorant of the current state of things as they already are. Depending on your conditions of victory the US could defeat Iran without setting foot in country. Last time Iran messed with us they lost most of their Navy. And that was carried out by a fraction of one aircraft carrier's fighters. Iran's air power is laughable in comparison, and would be quickly dealt with. Capturing and holding the Strait of Hormuz would be easy if the US was unrestricted. We hold that, and Saudi will fall in line. All the other powers in the region are so low key despite their related levels of atrocity. Yemen is a case study in what happens when the people can't fight back.
Where the US loses will be in trying to US the region and make them all like us, and not simply protecting our own assets. If the US could drop the "Hearts and Minds" strategies and adopt a more "This is mine now" position, the US could simply annex the Middle East, and geopolitical fallout would resolve with trade deals.
reply
You seem to forget/are ignorant of the current state of things as they already are. Depending on your conditions of victory the US could defeat Iran without setting foot in country. Last time Iran messed with us they lost most of their Navy. And that was carried out by a fraction of one aircraft carrier's fighters. Iran's air power is laughable in comparison, and would be quickly dealt with. Capturing and holding the Strait of Hormuz would be easy if the US was unrestricted. We hold that, and Saudi will fall in line. All the other powers in the region are so low key despite their related levels of atrocity. Yemen is a case study in what happens when the people can't fight back.
Where the US loses will be in trying to US the region and make them all like us, and not simply protecting our own assets. If the US could drop the "Hearts and Minds" strategies and adopt a more "This is mine now" position, the US could simply annex the Middle East, and geopolitical fallout would resolve with trade deals.
reply
matthewburrow3089
That depends on a lot. Even if most Iranians are non-religious and dislike the regime, the number of loyalists and potential insurgents is really huge if one considers that some 25 to 30 percent of Iranians are motivated to some degree by the state ideology. One must also factor in secular nationalists and others who could be alienated by how America decides fight the war, turning from allies to enemies. Iran has a population of almost 90 million people, many of whom are more literate and have access to more resources than the insurgents of Afghanistan and Iraq because even though Iran is heavily sanctioned, it managed to create lots of smaller local industries to try import substitution when possible.
I feel that this would be a war when we--Americans--may win every conventional encounter, but not achieve the greater goal of Iranian cooperation.
reply
That depends on a lot. Even if most Iranians are non-religious and dislike the regime, the number of loyalists and potential insurgents is really huge if one considers that some 25 to 30 percent of Iranians are motivated to some degree by the state ideology. One must also factor in secular nationalists and others who could be alienated by how America decides fight the war, turning from allies to enemies. Iran has a population of almost 90 million people, many of whom are more literate and have access to more resources than the insurgents of Afghanistan and Iraq because even though Iran is heavily sanctioned, it managed to create lots of smaller local industries to try import substitution when possible.
I feel that this would be a war when we--Americans--may win every conventional encounter, but not achieve the greater goal of Iranian cooperation.
reply
user-xi7en2ct6f
Peter Zeihan points out an Azeri uprising in northern Iran screws them royally. Also, the Kurds have a big chunk of Iranian territory west of that, so actually Biden courting the Kurds might be useful, so long as he placates Erdogan in Turkey that there will be no US support for a Kurdish state within Turkey's borders. Thus, a US invasion via northern Iraq where we are already imbedded with the Kurds (and also Israel is tight with Azerbaijan and has some forward air bases there) with the promise of a free Kurdistan and an expanded Azerbaijan (also makes Turkey happy) could overwhelm the Iranians and get to Tehran pretty quickly. Also, the Taliban being in a water spat with Iran in their east would offer more chances of distraction.
reply
Peter Zeihan points out an Azeri uprising in northern Iran screws them royally. Also, the Kurds have a big chunk of Iranian territory west of that, so actually Biden courting the Kurds might be useful, so long as he placates Erdogan in Turkey that there will be no US support for a Kurdish state within Turkey's borders. Thus, a US invasion via northern Iraq where we are already imbedded with the Kurds (and also Israel is tight with Azerbaijan and has some forward air bases there) with the promise of a free Kurdistan and an expanded Azerbaijan (also makes Turkey happy) could overwhelm the Iranians and get to Tehran pretty quickly. Also, the Taliban being in a water spat with Iran in their east would offer more chances of distraction.
reply
DrDemented9885
Yeah, since we’re saying you know, screw all the human rights. Why don’t we just forgive Iran for their human right and differences just like we are Saudi Arabia and we can all be friends since you know human rights don’t matter at all according to you.
And there’s no way that the United States could invade. I ran at this current moment. Number one we don’t have the manpower number two we don’t have the weapons built as in their currently in production. So at this point in time absolutely not and I get this feeling this administration isn’t going to be around it next January fingers crossed so hopefully we can write some of the wrong. It’s happened in the last couple years.
reply
Yeah, since we’re saying you know, screw all the human rights. Why don’t we just forgive Iran for their human right and differences just like we are Saudi Arabia and we can all be friends since you know human rights don’t matter at all according to you.
And there’s no way that the United States could invade. I ran at this current moment. Number one we don’t have the manpower number two we don’t have the weapons built as in their currently in production. So at this point in time absolutely not and I get this feeling this administration isn’t going to be around it next January fingers crossed so hopefully we can write some of the wrong. It’s happened in the last couple years.
reply
MrCuttysark1982
I do have one point of contention with your video. The US did not fail to invade Afghanistan. They invaded Afghanistan and displaced the entire government pretty quickly. It failed to westernize Afghanistan. It was unsuccessful in creating a government that could maintain western values and stave off a reconquista. The Taliban never defeated the US. They only won when the US decided it was time to go.
A war with Iran would likely not involve an attempt to culturally shift Iran through a hearts and minds campaign. It would be about obliterating their military capabilities. And that is significantly more doable.
reply
I do have one point of contention with your video. The US did not fail to invade Afghanistan. They invaded Afghanistan and displaced the entire government pretty quickly. It failed to westernize Afghanistan. It was unsuccessful in creating a government that could maintain western values and stave off a reconquista. The Taliban never defeated the US. They only won when the US decided it was time to go.
A war with Iran would likely not involve an attempt to culturally shift Iran through a hearts and minds campaign. It would be about obliterating their military capabilities. And that is significantly more doable.
reply
bennettbullock9690
One thing that often causes Americans to think that people would welcome an invasion is that we listen to anglophone professionals and intellectuals from that culture, often living in the West. They would like such an invasion because it would Americanize the legal system and economy of their home country and thereby open up more business opportunities. Normal people would resent it, because even if they hated their own government, they would have to deal with years of collapsed infrastructure, power outages, possibly civil war, and poverty before things got better.
reply
One thing that often causes Americans to think that people would welcome an invasion is that we listen to anglophone professionals and intellectuals from that culture, often living in the West. They would like such an invasion because it would Americanize the legal system and economy of their home country and thereby open up more business opportunities. Normal people would resent it, because even if they hated their own government, they would have to deal with years of collapsed infrastructure, power outages, possibly civil war, and poverty before things got better.
reply
mekolayn
What invasions of Iraq and Afghan showed is that an invasion of Iran is not possible to succeed. Like, American soldiers have landed and captured the coast, now what Or imagine that somehow Iran is now occupied and pro-US leadership is installed, now what The only thing that is possible is yes fully occupy Iran to the point the installed leader is simply a formality while everything is governed by US government, as the other choice is just going back and IRGC simply coups the new leader and installs theirs, basically going back to square one
reply
What invasions of Iraq and Afghan showed is that an invasion of Iran is not possible to succeed. Like, American soldiers have landed and captured the coast, now what Or imagine that somehow Iran is now occupied and pro-US leadership is installed, now what The only thing that is possible is yes fully occupy Iran to the point the installed leader is simply a formality while everything is governed by US government, as the other choice is just going back and IRGC simply coups the new leader and installs theirs, basically going back to square one
reply
cptsolo24
For those war games you mentioned, the US routinely gives the enemy side all the advantages and handicaps its own for training value so i dont take much stake in the 10 victories before we finally won one. Im also not sure where you get your information for the US military technology since we have equipment that can deal with those rockets. The aircraft carrier is never alone in these battle groups as well. Im way more open on your how our society will react to it, but the military take on this invasion. I'm not convinced.
reply
For those war games you mentioned, the US routinely gives the enemy side all the advantages and handicaps its own for training value so i dont take much stake in the 10 victories before we finally won one. Im also not sure where you get your information for the US military technology since we have equipment that can deal with those rockets. The aircraft carrier is never alone in these battle groups as well. Im way more open on your how our society will react to it, but the military take on this invasion. I'm not convinced.
reply
Cowslippoetry
I remember when the phrase "(insert nation here) doesn't have the stomach for another war" was a backhanded remark. Now it's more of a compliment, and thankfully it's one we can apply to both nations. The biggest deterrence to a war between the U. S. and Iran is mass resistance from its populace, and both sides have that in spades, thankfully.
Of course. there is one possible scenario where this is negated, but I dare not imagine it for very long, for fear that it may become reality.
reply
I remember when the phrase "(insert nation here) doesn't have the stomach for another war" was a backhanded remark. Now it's more of a compliment, and thankfully it's one we can apply to both nations. The biggest deterrence to a war between the U. S. and Iran is mass resistance from its populace, and both sides have that in spades, thankfully.
Of course. there is one possible scenario where this is negated, but I dare not imagine it for very long, for fear that it may become reality.
reply
ackbar3125
The biggest problem with the "missiles make carriers obsolete" argument is that the planes are now armed with missiles. Air-to-air missiles can be targeted against anti-ship missiles, and air-to-surface missiles give the planes extra reach.
With that being said, the missiles shouldn't be underestimated. The USN also doesn't have any strike aircraft with the range of the A-6 anymore, meaning the mid-air refueling burden is greatly increased for deep strikes.
reply
The biggest problem with the "missiles make carriers obsolete" argument is that the planes are now armed with missiles. Air-to-air missiles can be targeted against anti-ship missiles, and air-to-surface missiles give the planes extra reach.
With that being said, the missiles shouldn't be underestimated. The USN also doesn't have any strike aircraft with the range of the A-6 anymore, meaning the mid-air refueling burden is greatly increased for deep strikes.
reply
ezramartin630
My main issue with Afghanistan or Vietnam being able to beat back foreign invasion is that both nations had to suffer occupation to do so and even still suffered insanely one sided k/d ratios with the Americans. The fact that most Iranians live in cities means they have a large portion of the population unaccustomed to a guerrilla lifestyle and therefore the U. S. could leverage its control over population centers to kill Iranian resistance in this scenario
reply
My main issue with Afghanistan or Vietnam being able to beat back foreign invasion is that both nations had to suffer occupation to do so and even still suffered insanely one sided k/d ratios with the Americans. The fact that most Iranians live in cities means they have a large portion of the population unaccustomed to a guerrilla lifestyle and therefore the U. S. could leverage its control over population centers to kill Iranian resistance in this scenario
reply
neocortex8198
honestly in any war i think the chances of a revolution are high im kind of banking on it
if theres a draft of any kind. the revolution must be turned towards the nursing homes and the elites. Anyone whom is either retired or part of the establishment and voted for the war should be forced to fight instead of us. Our quality of life is so much lower than prior generations while boomers live in luxury. You want to draft us you got another thing coming
reply
honestly in any war i think the chances of a revolution are high im kind of banking on it
if theres a draft of any kind. the revolution must be turned towards the nursing homes and the elites. Anyone whom is either retired or part of the establishment and voted for the war should be forced to fight instead of us. Our quality of life is so much lower than prior generations while boomers live in luxury. You want to draft us you got another thing coming
reply
captainfury497
Iran isn't the impossible place to conquer as you think it is. Even as late as WW2 an Anglo-Soviet force easily overran Iran within a matter of weeks (And there are numerous examples of conquest of the Iranian plateau from Alexander to the Mongols. America could win this war (if they don't have internal troubles. But occupation would be very hard and fruitless. There will also be massive geopolitical repercussions.
reply
Iran isn't the impossible place to conquer as you think it is. Even as late as WW2 an Anglo-Soviet force easily overran Iran within a matter of weeks (And there are numerous examples of conquest of the Iranian plateau from Alexander to the Mongols. America could win this war (if they don't have internal troubles. But occupation would be very hard and fruitless. There will also be massive geopolitical repercussions.
reply
UncleJoeLITE
Often, I agree with a lot of what you say. But your absolutist US exceptionalism, especially your right wing US-only politics, more or less sums up why the US is so unpopular with its allies' publics. Israel is utterly toxic to our coalition & has to be stopped before we all get screwed by the CCP. This genocide/ethnic cleansing is typically not good geopolitically. Imho. Cheers from [progressive] Australia.
reply
Often, I agree with a lot of what you say. But your absolutist US exceptionalism, especially your right wing US-only politics, more or less sums up why the US is so unpopular with its allies' publics. Israel is utterly toxic to our coalition & has to be stopped before we all get screwed by the CCP. This genocide/ethnic cleansing is typically not good geopolitically. Imho. Cheers from [progressive] Australia.
reply
thomasjohnson2862
You spoke before about countries entering wars only because of self-interest, but I’m pretty sure this is the case in every single war. In fact I would go as far as to say that in life in general, there is no such thing as behaviour that isn’t motivated by self-interest. Even the most altruistic acts are determined by self-interest - albeit that your interest might be the other person’s wellbeing.
reply
You spoke before about countries entering wars only because of self-interest, but I’m pretty sure this is the case in every single war. In fact I would go as far as to say that in life in general, there is no such thing as behaviour that isn’t motivated by self-interest. Even the most altruistic acts are determined by self-interest - albeit that your interest might be the other person’s wellbeing.
reply
NightstalkerGW
One thing you missed, while discussing the draft. All military retirees, under age 65, are subject to recall. Everyone calls it "retirement" pay, but its actually retention pay. But I do think the same statements you said about recruiting, and the draft, generally apply to the military retirees. Since, as a whole, we are more right leaning then the general population.
reply
One thing you missed, while discussing the draft. All military retirees, under age 65, are subject to recall. Everyone calls it "retirement" pay, but its actually retention pay. But I do think the same statements you said about recruiting, and the draft, generally apply to the military retirees. Since, as a whole, we are more right leaning then the general population.
reply
historyadmiral9461
The Neo-Conservatives mustn't be given any further power. The entire ideology is decadent and vain. The result of neoconservativism in the pass few decades has been America's failure to reap the true benefits of our post WW2 potential. Imagine how different the Pax-Americana could have been without our post WW2 politics ranging from Neoconservativism to Neomarxism.
reply
The Neo-Conservatives mustn't be given any further power. The entire ideology is decadent and vain. The result of neoconservativism in the pass few decades has been America's failure to reap the true benefits of our post WW2 potential. Imagine how different the Pax-Americana could have been without our post WW2 politics ranging from Neoconservativism to Neomarxism.
reply
robertzendejas8349
The NVA did not defeat the US military. The US military won every battle. It was the politicians who gave it away.
The US defeated the Afghan Taliban soundly. The governing of Afghanistan was an international coached effort so to lay the blame entirely on the US isn't honest.
The US military has no equal.
The US government, leaves much to be desired.
reply
The NVA did not defeat the US military. The US military won every battle. It was the politicians who gave it away.
The US defeated the Afghan Taliban soundly. The governing of Afghanistan was an international coached effort so to lay the blame entirely on the US isn't honest.
The US military has no equal.
The US government, leaves much to be desired.
reply
carlaustin2324
Winning for Iran would be governmental capitulation, there is no state or collectipn of states in the middle east that can stand up to the juggernaut that is the U. S. military industrial complex. The same thing that happened to Sadaam would happen to the Iranians, and if Pakistan wants to get involved and give India an excuse then it goes even more sideways.
reply
Winning for Iran would be governmental capitulation, there is no state or collectipn of states in the middle east that can stand up to the juggernaut that is the U. S. military industrial complex. The same thing that happened to Sadaam would happen to the Iranians, and if Pakistan wants to get involved and give India an excuse then it goes even more sideways.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
