Toro
Diamond Member
How does the op imply invasion and occupation? Because you made that assumption.
No, because you were analogizing Iraq to Iran.
Attacking iran is the trigger to the bigger picture and do you really believe the same wmd propaganda about iran that was sold on iraq? I mean...really truly believe it?
I didn't believe that Iraq had nuclear weapons.
Iran is trying to acquire the material to manufacture nuclear weapons.
How do you come up with "zero" chance of an invasion? I have no doubt there will be some ground forces which will be needed for
propaganda and air to ground logistics
OK, 0.0001% chance.
Iran and Iraq aren't even comparable. First, let's assume that the American military already wasn't stretched thin. Consider
- Iran has 70 million people, nearly 3x that of Iraq. If Iraq has been difficult to pacify, it is going to be much, much harder to pacify the Iranians.
- Iran is a very old civilization with a deep sense of nationalism. Iraq is a mishmash of tribes put together by the British and the French.
- Iraq was ruled by a man who was despised by his own population, and a member of a minority that brutally killed people who were not of his sectarian beliefs or his nation. Iran's government is repressive and unpopular but does not draw the same amount of fear and antipathy within the country that Saddam's did.
- Iraq is flat as a pancake, at least in the non-Kurdish parts. You can drive to Baghdad in no time flat. Iran's terrain is harder. Parts of Iran are mountainous and difficult to conquer.
So no, there will be no invasion of Iran.