• alcoholicorn
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    If anyone wants, here’s an extremely optimistic 2009 Brookings Institute white paper on how various hostile actions against Iran would play out based off numbers and history.

    Chapter 3 analyses a “boots on the ground” invasion (the occupation would require a draft), Chapters 4-6 analyze American and Israeli airstrikes. Neither of them expect Iran to employ masses of drones or close the strait, and they consider ballistic missiles against US assets unlikely.

    While they have an extreme western bias, there’s no way you can twist the numbers to look good.

    • TheLepidopterists [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 month ago

      Chapter 3 analyses a “boots on the ground” invasion (the occupation would require a draft)

      Good luck, I’m defecting as soon as they don’t have eyes on me.

      • alcoholicorn
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 month ago

        It makes it pretty clear how insanely unfeasible a ground invasion of Iran would be even with the most optimistic assumptions.

        1.3 million just for the occupation of an 88 million pop country, and that number just comes from other occupations, without taking into consideration the terrain or people or last 50 years of preparation for asymmetrical warfare.