by broken robot » Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:27 pm
I'd tend to agree with Com given the fact that in the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, Iran couldn't shut down the Strait of Hormuz. Well, I haven't read much analysis on the matter but that's my understanding at least. The alternative example is to look at the threshold for success in Hizbullah's war with Israel in 2006.
Also the Revolutionary Guards are probably a paper tiger insofar as "political and military networks" is unquantifiable and, given the overall lack of expertise, doubtful in terms of the guards' capabilities.
There are few countries that are global research centers, US, France, UK, Germany among them, with the US university system receiving massive contracts from DoD. Not even China comes close. So while a country such as Iran, Libya, Syria, etc. may have plenty of weapons, manpower, and the like on paper it's hard to say that these things would mean much in practice without the appropriate human resources, training, logistics, etc. Think of it like the Olympics: the US always gets the gold because they have not only the money but the training facilities and everything else that comes along with being a global power. You could be pretty damn good if you play soccer on a beach near your village but it won't be anything compared to the massive investment and training US athletes receive from Gatorade, sports companies, etc.
Just to be clear, I'm not arguing for intervention, just questioning what kind of a threat Iran or any other country for that matter would actually pose to a sustained US military assault. The only real constraints on the US are a) the economy, though the deficit is part of a much larger military-keynesian economy and b) public opinion, though the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars have endured in spite of being unpopular given the lack of a draft.
The Subversives
- These users thanked the author broken robot for the post:
- The Comrade