Since the Iran-Iraq War and Chinas modern economic resurgence, the PRC has deepened its relations with Iranthrough continued arms sales and diplomatic engagementand expanded its presence in the Middle East at large. In 1998, Chinas trade with the Middle East was valued at $7.4 billion; by 2007, it had increased more than twelvefold to $93.7 billion.15 Much of the increase has been driven by Chinas ever-growing hunger for oil imports. As of 2009, China imported more than 50 percent of the oil it consumes.16 Chinas greater need for resources and desire for unhindered growth have solidified its presence in the Middle East and complicated US attempts to break its ties to Iran.
So far, however, statements from Russian government and industry communicate a message of business as usual, including the reaffirmation of the most controversial of the weapons deals to date: a sale, agreed upon in late 2005, of Tor-1 short-range air defense systems to Iran. One industry representative stressed: We send our systems to Iran with a totally clear conscience, because they are exclusively defensive weapons. A similar line is invariably offered by the spokespeople of Rosoboronexport, who insist that it operates exclusively within the framework of international law. Fully aware of the international concerns regarding Irans nuclear program, as well as the U.S. position on military cooperation with Iran, Russia endorses preserving contacts in this sensitive sphere even though it faces unfavorable consequences for doing so. What factors lie behind this preference?
The IRI purchased $400 million worth of weapons from the PRC between 1993 and 1996, and $600 million during the 1997-2000 period.42 In addition to small arms, Beijing supplied Tehran with artillery pieces, anti-ship cruise missiles, surface-to-air missiles, fighter jets, tanks, armored personnel carriers, and fast-attack patrol vessels. Contemporary Chinese supplies to Iran have included: large-caliber sniper rifles, armor-piercing rounds, C-802 ―Silkworm‖ anti-ship cruise missiles, shoulder-fired HN-5 anti-aircraft missiles, 107mm rockets, 60mm and 82mm mortars, rocket-propelled grenades, anti-aircraft guns, landmines, and components for roadside bombs....
WASHINGTON (AP) Strained by the demands of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a significant risk that the U.S. military won't be able to quickly and fully respond to yet another crisis, according to a new report to Congress.
The assessment, done by the nation's top military officer, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, represents a worsening from a year ago, when that risk was rated as moderate.
I think that about covers it for those who are more interested in spouting off without thinking rather than considering the facts involved.
Its true that the United States Army (active) and Marine Corp (active) have been put under enormous strain the past 11 years given their combined size. A mistake in the restructuring that occured after the Cold War was the heavy reduction in combat units in both the Army active and Army National Guard. While the reduced force was capable of handling standard conventional actions and wars, it had serious vulnerability when carrying out open ended occupation, nation building and counter insurgency duties for years on end. Had the reductions not taken place and the active army had remained at about 60 combat brigades and the US Army National Guard at nearly 60 combat brigades, none of the standard combat brigades would of had to deploy more than once over the past 8 years.
So I strongly believe that the United States Army and United State Army National Guard need to be expanded back to the old levels from the 1980s. While this is more than necessary to combat normal conventional foes, it provides that extra reserve that would be needed to relieve the pressure in an open ended occupation.
Currently, the active army is at 45 combat brigades, up from the 33 combat brigades it was at in 2003. But Obama's new defense plan cuts the number of active army combat brigades from 45 to 32. The National Guard is at 34 combat brigades. Obviously a smaller force like this presents problems if one is contemplating an invasion and occupation of Iran. But right now over 99% of the discussion is about air-strikes. Virtually no one is talking about a ground war which is where these problems would become issues. But then again if one is contemplating the use of military force to deal with Iran, Air-Strikes may only delay the day Iran gets the nuclear weapon, while a ground war attempting regime change would be the only way to insure Iran does not get a nuclear weapon. So it is an important discussion to be having, especially since regardless of what course of action one picks, one does not want to have a reduced set of options to pick from.
No doubt if the United States went to war with China over Tawain, or Russia over an attempt to retake the Baltic States, it would be a very different war from the ones the United States has fought in southwest asia over the past 25 years. The United States would be facing better weapons, tactics and troops than it has face in the recent past. This would likely mean higher casualties and more difficulties, but is certainly not a reason for the United States not to respond to protect its vital national interest.
Iran has received many new weapon systems over the past 20 years. Despite that its inventory of major weapon systems even today is rather small compared to Saddam's pre-1991 Gulf War and post-1991 Gulf War. Its also relatively small compared to Syria. In addition, much of the major weapon systems, for instance half of their tanks and half of their combat aircraft are 1950s/1960s/1970s weapon systems. Iran has put a lot of their budget into nuclear development and ballistic missiles, but their standard conventional weapons like tanks, artillery, helicopters, and combat aircraft has lagged behind.
I'd say Iran's biggest deterent to a foreign invasion is not its military or any new weapons that it has purchased but the size of the country itself. Its over 3 times the size of Iraq and has a population of 80 million which is nearly 3 times that of Iraq. Large areas of the country are very mountainous. This is probably why I've yet to see anyone seriously contemplate an invasion of the country as a means to removing the nuclear threat.
The good news for the US military at the moment is that troop levels in Afghanistan will soon be down to about 65,000, which should represent the lowest number of US troops deployed in combat zones since 2002. But Obama's cut backs to the Army going from 45 combat brigades to just 32 is obviously going to increase the burden on a smaller number of people if the United States enters a new war requiring their deployment. While Obama claims he is leaving no options off the table when dealing with Iranian nuclear power, it appears he is definitely leaving a ground invasion off the table given the huge cut he is making to US ground combat brigades. In that case, if the United States does enter into hostilities with Iran in the next few years, it would likely be something involving airstrikes and not a ground war. The strain to the US military in terms of deployment in that type of a conflict (air war) would be much less.
Go read some more British websites to come up with your tin foil hat theory.
