all_i_want said:
Iraq's population is 25 million. Iran's is 80 million. US can not stabilize Iraq with 147.000 troops (its not enough, clearly), there is NO WAY it can hold Iran with a similar number. It is pretty simple, Iran is a couple of times larger than Iraq, and 3 times larger in terms of population. Also, the Iranian population at large is not hostile towards its rulers the way Iraqis were against saddam. US can bomb Iran to stone age, but they cant invade it, certainly not by themselves.
Most of Iraq is stable. The only true measure of instability is in the 4 majority Sunni province and this has never stopped the United States forces from moving through the area or conducting major elections. Yes, the Sunni insurgents can bomb any place, but so could the IRA anywhere in the United Kingdom during the 1970s.
The United States has 88 combat Brigades. Only 17 of them are deployed in Iraq at any one time. Another 10 are deployed to other important regions. This leaves 61 combat brigades available for different missions. If the United States needed to, it could cancel the annual rotations of combat brigades into and out of Iraq keeping the 17 Brigades currently in Iraq indefinitely. The same could be done with the other 10 Brigades deployed in other vital regions.
A total of 61 Brigades, nearly 4 times the combat strength of the Iraq force could be deployed to Iran. Of course, this would only be considered under extreme circumstances because there would be no combat reserves left anywhere to replace units. Then again, during World War II, units that were deployed overseas, stayed overseas until the end of the war.
Iran's military forces are weaker in many ways than Saddam's forces were prior to the 2003 invasion. Iran only has 1,400 tanks compared to 2,700 tanks that Saddam had. It has half the armored Personal Carries, half the number of artillery pieces, and only a similar number of combat aircraft. In addition, much of its equipment is from the 1950s and 1960s and is inoperable because of the lack of spare parts. This was American and British equipment supplied to the Shah of Iran back in the 1960s. Iran has received some limited quantities of newer Russian military equipment, but it is to small a number to be significant factor.
Another thing that Saddam's Iraq had was vast stores of artillery shells and other ammo used for various weapons. In fact the total tonnage of all this ammo is only surpassed by quantities in the United States and Russia. Most IED's, the weapon that kills most coalition troops in Iraq as well as being apart of the mix in the bombs used to kill civilians comes from this vast stockpile that Saddam had scattered around the country.
Iran has no similar stockpile of such quantity nor does it have as many guns per person as Iraq has, just as far as civilians go. While Iran's population is much larger, once its military forces are destroyed, its means of conducting an insurgency are smaller in many respects because of the smaller availability of materials used to make IED's as well guns, mortors, and RPG's.
Look at Afghanistan! Afghanistan is a country of 25 million people. The Soviets lost 12,900 troops in combat from their 9 year occupation of Afghanistan. In the United States nearly 5 year occupation of Afghanistan, it has lost only 137 troops in combat. The level of the insurgency in Afghanistan is tiny compared to Iraq. The number of US and coalition forces in Afganistan is only 34,000! Once again, Afghanistan has a population of 25 million!
There is actually a "middle option" between airstrikes and a full scale military invasion to overthrow the regime. But its unlikely the United States would ever do it because of the length of time it would take bring about concessions from the powers that be in Iran.
Much of Iran's wealth comes from the oil reserves in the Southeastern Province of Khuzistan. By simply taking the southern half of the province, the United States would be in possession of much of the vital energy and wealth generating power for the country. It would take a fraction of the troops that would be needed for a full scale invasion of Iran, and the Iranian economy would ground to a halt. The United States forces could insure that the oil from Khuzistan was still available on the world market, or if need be repair damage done to facilities sabotoged before an invasion.
I doubt this option would be consider though, because its difficult to determine how long the Iranian leadership would attempt to hold out under such circumstance. There is actually a strong opposition movement to Iran's conservative leadership although it has been silenced to a large degree in recent years. Still, the Iranian leadership is more vulnerable to an overthrow than Saddam ever was. The Iranian leadership has never had the vast number of security organizations and tightly held grip on the country that Saddam had on Iraq. The culture of fear that existed in Saddam's Iraq is no where near the same in Iran. Its often difficult to know who is in control of Iran which is the opposite of Iraq. The only way Saddam could have been removed was through foreign invasion. It is still possible that the Iranian leaders could be removed by the population, just as they removed the Shah given the weaker level of control that they have.
To sum up, only 20% of the United States total combat forces are currently deployed in Iraq. Afghanistan is a country of 25 million people like Iraq, and has only a fraction of the insurgency that Iraq has. Up to 70% of the United States ground forces are currently available, if needed, to deploy anywhere in the world, including Iran. There is a middle option short of full scale invasion or simply full scale airstrikes that could be attempted. Iran's total mechanized military ground force strength is only half of what Saddam had back in 2003. Iran does not have the vast stocks of war materials that Iraq had, which has provided the insurgency in Iraq with most of its weapons and materials for IEDs. The Iranian's leaderships hold on the people is weaker than the control Saddam was able to exert over the Iraqi population.
This does not mean a war would not be costly in lives and money, it would be. But that does not change the fact that the United States does have the capability to invade and overthrow the Iranian regime.
Still, it is questionable whether such an invasion is necessary. Iran is not Iraq in so many different ways. Unlike Saddam, Iran has not launched an unprovoked invasion of another country since 1856, something Saddam did multiple times over the past couple of decades. The Iranians currently do not have vast stocks of WMD nor have they used WMD to any significant extent, like Saddam did. Iran is not currently in violation of any UN Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations although this could change soon.
But there is still a potentially serious threat down the road from this. It is first dependent on the Iranian leadership, their goals and their behavior and second their capabilities. On the first issue, Iran has generally remained the same, despite the fiery outburst by the current president. On the second issue, their capabilities are currently not a problem, but could become one 5 years down the road.
