How Would a U.S.-Iran War Play Out?
A series of confrontations between American Armed Forces and the Iranian Army and their proxies, has culminated in the U.S. killing Qassem Soleimani, a distinguished Major General who led the Al Quds Force. It is Iran’s elite military wing that pushes its goals abroad. It has obtained combat experience against ISIS in Iraq, rebels in Syria and Israeli Forces in Lebanon, scoring crushing victories in all of those conflicts. This move is definitely a blow to a widely feared faction and Iran is not going take kindly to it. Thus, the fears of an all out war being echoed in the media are very reasonable.
Would it develop into a Third World War as many on the internet have been proclaiming? Probably not. Ever since the end of the Second World War and the invention of the Nuclear Bomb, the Proxy War has been the supreme way of settling disputes between World Powers. If conflict does begin, a coalition of Arab Sunni States would be heavily backed by the United States, whereas Iran would recieve extensive support from Russia. The U.S. may potentially commit troops, but not to the point where it would be of an equivalent level of assistance as their funding and equipment supplying would be.
There has been a signficant trope of “no more useless wars” in U.S. politics since the diabolical screw up that was the Iraq War. Virtually every figure in the Democratic Party has condemened the strike and others similar to it, and Trump himself had promised to reduce interference in the Middle East during his first presidential campaign (that did not age well). So we can conclude that not an awful lot of American troops would be sent to fight Iran. Another reason for this happening would be that when American troops get bogged down and start suffering losses in a conflict they are projected to win in easily, domestic support for the war effort wanes, and politcians pressure the incumbent President to end the conflict. As a result, the President’s support dwindles and they are not thought of fondly by the time they leave office. This occured in the Vietnam War, when the poorly equipped North Vietnamese troops and the Viet Cong scored numerous victories over their American foes. Not wanting to risk a blow to his already fragile poll numbers, President Trump would not overcommit.
A Greater Challenge than Iraq
It seems as though many Americans are expecting a compelete destruction of Iranian forces in a relatively short period of time, as they did against Iraqi forces in 2003. Yet a myriad of factors make a potential invasion of Iran a lot more difficult to achieve than America’s last Middle Eastern adventure. For one, the Iraqi forces of Saddam Hussein and Iran’s present day forces are at different levels of effectiveness. Saddam Hussein’s army was plagued by lacklustre equipment due to sanctions. A Council of Foreign Relations report explains that in 2003 “Iraq was thought to have between 1,800 and 2,000 tanks in working order, compared with at least 5,500 before the 1991 Gulf War. About 700 tanks were thought to be relatively capable Soviet T-72’s, but they were outmatched by U.S. equipment. The T-72’s, for example, lack adequate night-vision equipment and have half the range of an American M1A1 Abrams tank, which in 1991 hit Iraqi tanks from as far as 1.9 miles away.” Its air force was also below standard; “The country was believed to have about 300 combat aircraft, although many planes were thought to have little, if any, effective combat capability. In fact, no Iraqi combat aircraft flew in the conflict.” Iran on the other hand, has the fourteenth most effective military of the 137 considered in the 2019 Global Firepower Rankings. It has the fourth largest amount of rocket projectors and eighth highest amount of towed artilliery in the world. Through that, we can confirm that sanctions have not hit Iran as hard as they did against Iraq. That’s because Iran has a decent domestic weapons industry, and receives funds and arms from Russia and China. It reportedly has a nuclear program, and its ballistic missles cover the entire area in between Tunisia and Myanmar. Furthermore, Iran’s most elite troops have had loads of combat experience in the last few years, chiefly in Iraq and Syria, making them prepared for a potential war. Also, although greater numbers do not always ensure victory, Iran can deploy more troops since they will be closer to home, and their population of over 80 million could serve them well in a potential War of Attrition. It certainly did during the Iran-Iraq war. All of this and a better knowledge of the terrain could grealty assist Iran.
Regarding terrain, Iran has a vastly different topography than Iraq, and its geography would make it difficult for foreign troops to gain a foothold in the country.
As you can see on the map, most of Iraq is very flat, which probably made it easier for U.S. troops and tanks to move across territory. Iran, on the other hand, has rough and mountainous terrain. This would make it troublesome for any army invading Iran to establish a strong presence there. Asides from the geography of the area provding cover for the Iranian Armed Forces, guerilla warfare would be successful in such a setting. In late 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. That country, as you can see on the map above, also consists of rugged terrain. Guerillas opposing the Soviet Army used said terrain to their advantage. Therefore, what was supposed to be an operation that took six months to a year ended up making the Soviets stay in Afghanistan for almost ten years before being forced to withdraw. At no point did the Soviet-backed Afghan goverment control a majority of the country. We may see a similar situation if anyone tries to invade Iran. Even though the Iranians would be underdogs, they can use the mountains to their benefit, as did Afghan tribesmen and villagers against a 115,000 strong Soviet contingent.
What Strategy Will Iran Pursue?
The world’s largest Shia state’s best bet of defending itself well is to commit a “pre-emptive strike”. In simpler terms, this could be described as “attacking first in self-defence”. Basically, when a country has reason to believe it is under imminent threat, it attacks first to gain an advantage in the impending conflict to come. The most famous example of this was before the Six Day War of 1967. Israel had not been attacked by Egypt yet, but Egypt demonstrated that it was preparing to attack Israel through various actions, so Israel successfully attacked Egyptian positions on June 5th to prevent this and gain the upper hand. Similarly, the killing of Soleimani by an American missle can easily be percieved as an act of agression by the Iranians, and Iran is almost entirely surrounded by American bases. This is one of the United State’s biggest Trump Cards. Because of this, it is very likely Iran may attempt to strike American positions around their country, possibly through their strong missle program. This would make it more difficult for the Americans to launch their attack, giving Iran more time to prepare for an all-out war. What makes this even more likely is that the Iranian Supreme Leader himself has declared his country will seek “harsh revenge”, so much so that the red flag of Imam Hussein has been put up in the Shia holy city of Qom. It stays up at a time of seeking venegance and only goes down when it has been achieved. The flag rarely comes out, indicating Iran is indeed serious about dealing a blow to America.
Iranian backed militias have a chokehold on Iraq. They number in the hundreds of thousands and Iran can have them attack the U.S. soldiers there rather than have their own forces directly attack. Or their political influence in Iraq can influence an upcoming vote to expel American troops from the country, meaning an entire potential front would no longer have to be on Iran’s radar.
Will Israel Have a Role?
Mohsen Rezaei, a former leader of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard has stated that Israeli cities may be targets of the anticipated revenge strikes. However, if this does occur, it is unlikley tht Israel would join the war effort against Iran. During the First Gulf War, Saddam Hussein ordered Scud Missle strikes on Israel. He did this with the aim of delegitimizing the Arab armies fighting them. If he put them on the same side as Israel, they would be seen by the Arab public in their own countries as traitours to Palestine and the Arab cause. Knowing this, the United States convinced Israel to not get involved and give Saddam hero status in the region. The same situation would occur in this case; even though most of the Middle Eastern public has a negative opinion of Iran, they would undeniably support any effort against Israel. Measures would be taken by an American-led coaliton to prevent Israel pursuing action against Iran.
Conclusion
While America does possess the most powerful miltary in the world and maintains bases on every corner of the globe, factors relating to morale, knowledge of the terrain, geography and logistics mean that a potential war between Iran on one hand and America and its allies on the other would actually be an evenly matched confrontation. Iran’s far-reaching rockets, its proxies across the Middle East, combat experience and ability to employ guerilla tactics serve as an obstacle to the U.S. Yet Iran also has major difficulties in that U.S. bases and hostile countries encircle it, and sanctions have resutled in them being outgunned. Regardless, the point should be made that this will not be a “see and conquer” scenario for America, and Iran’s military is a force to be reckoned with.
