Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Ranking of Hardest nations to invade in Middle East
Angry    8/11/2009 7:51:56 AM
I've been reading the "Ranking of the Strongest Militaries in the ME thread" and its clear that many people know a great deal about the various ORBATS of nations and how they can use them. It got me thinking though that Iran might be under rated purely because of its size and numbers. In the Napoleonic Wars and WW2 the inferior (at first) Russian / Soviet army retreated far enough and let the weather and the land do the fighting. A nation like Israel does not have that luxury. A second point is the fanaticism of the Soviet ideology that would lose 50 million people and keep on fighting. Iraq fell to the US led alliances in both early 90's and a few years back in 2 highly successful military actions which would have been a great deal harder if the army and the population both believed they were in the right. Hezbollah might not have won the battles with the Israeli Army. It could be argued that they won the war though. This would be because the population and the fighters all believed in their cause. I have a couple of questions based on this. 1. Top ten ranking of ME nations in terms of "fight" in their country. This "fight" could be religious fanaticism, patriotism, loyalty to their leader or just plain stubborn pig headedness. the list might go: 1. Israel (based on fear that everyone else wants to destroy them). 2. Turkey (based on national pride and NATO training and confidence) 3. Iran (based on religious fanaticism) 4. - 9 Iraq, Saudi, Kuwait, Oman, Yemen, Syria+ all others except Qatar (based on not knowing enough to distinguish anything between them. 10. Qatar (based on my experience with Qatari officer cadets at Dartmouth). Virtually all Arab cadets were (as has been said by FS) utterly un motivated, unfit and lazy. It was almost enough to turn me into a bigot ;-) but I've grown up to understand that it was only because they didn't want to be there and their British trainers had no powers of discipline over them. They couldn't be withdrawn from training because a) 1 Arab paid for 3 of us. and b) their embassies wouldn't allow it. All Arabs were useless but the Qatari's were unreal. My next question would be. 2. Top Ten ranking ME nations in order of difficulty for a US led group of nations to carry out military regime change. 1. Turkey (based on training, equipment, population, geographic factors and national "fight" 2. Iran, 3. Syria, 4. Egypt 5. Iraq 6. Israel 7. Saudi 8. All others except Qatar 10. Qatar (that year with the Qatari really stuck in my mind didn't it :-) ) Israel is quite low down. They have a fine military, but based on Iraq and Afghanistan, the open warfare is the easy bit. I'd be interested to know what people think. AJ
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2
french stratege       8/18/2009 11:36:46 PM

But what about everything else FS?  The geography, the population, the resisitance to Regime Change?  I personally think Iran would be far harder than Iraq and we've been Iraq for years already.  The War would be the easy bit, no arguements there.  But what about winning the peace?
Iran and Turkey are two huge countries with numerous population of the same order.
However Turkey population and biggest towns are concentrated on coast.Moreover it is a US equiped army and its equipement, at least its air power, can be neutralized easily by USA since they have provided it.And without aviation their army is dead as a classical army.
Iran of course, has its own equipment now for 90%.And their army is already taylored for an asymetric fight with USA with huge numbers and a huge missile inventory.They have already assumed they will not have air superiority, and they have a denial air power strategy.
Iran is difficult to invade from the Gulf due to mountains and south is desert
Its main population and centers are closer to Caspian sea and in some wooden and moutaineous areas.
To bomb it is not so obvious without a local country, since it implies to use aircraft carriers, and they have to be likely in arabian sea since they can trap you in the Gulf by closing Ormuz (mines etc.).So far aways from main populated areas and centers.Almost 1000 miles from Teheran to south coast.
If you use bombers without a local country they have to come from Diego garcia and it is a long path.
Contrary to Turkey which has numerous islands in front of its coast what you can invide and where you can deploy depots, air bases etc..
And Iran strategy was to impeach USA to get allies ready to support USA for a preemptive invasion like for Irak, by deploying thousands of ballistic missiles, short and longer range, and threatening to attack their oil installations and close the gulf (plus using local shiite in other countries to destabilize those countries).
Without some local ally, Iran is much more difficult to invade.
Iran defense strategy is close to North Korea even Iran has better equipement and much more ressources.
I think that Iran is by far the most difficult country to invade in the area and first for geographical reasons then preparation and commitment (suicide combattants like Japan in WW2).Then Israel due to its quality army but without strategic depth.

PS:Considering Egypt their military while better than in state Gulf, is not very commited and professional.
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3       5/18/2010 9:27:44 PM
US doesn't have to remain in Iran and do a messy pacification campaign. I would say that Iran would be fairly easy to conquer temporarily and then leave them to fight over the mess when we leave. Iran hasn't fought sense the '80s and it's army is likely degraded; it doesn't have the money for constant training and police states tend to choose for political dependability rather then skill-at-arms unless there is an actual war on. Pacifying it would be difficult however and while one can see situations where it might be advisable to invade it it is hard to see where it would be worth the trouble of staying.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy