Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian senior military officer in the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution
Originally appeared at TheAntiMedia
As the Russian Envoy to the U.N. declares the military operation in Aleppo over, the leaders of Iran have made similar boastful remarks about their own military victory in the ravaged Syrian city.
“Aleppo was liberated thanks to a coalition between Iran, Syria, Russia and Lebanon’s Hizbollah,” said Seyed Yahya Rahim-Safavi, Ayatollah Khamenei’s chief military aide. “Iran is on one side of this coalition which is approaching victory and this has shown our strength.”
What the military aide stated next may have stumped Washington and may even be construed as a provoking a direct challenge.
“The new American president should take heed of the powers of Iran.”
Iran has been assisting Syria on the ground quite heavily and has even recruited Afghan refugees to fight in Syria in return for promises to grant their families haven in Iran. However, anyone following the conflict closely knows Russia’s contribution to the war has probably been more decisive than Iran’s. Any president looking to confront Iran is most likely more mindful of its alliance with Russia than of Iran’s military might on its own.
Yahya Rahim Safavi
That being said, the efficacy of Iran’s ground forces should not be understated. According to Michel Chussodovsky’s book, Towards a World War III Scenario, taking into account all manner of personnel, including reserve armies, Iran has a fighting force of close to 800,000 troops. These Iranian troops waltzed across the Iraqi border to occupy an oil-rich part of the country in 2009 and were met with no resistance from the U.S. troops already deployed there.
During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, Iranian volunteer militias were able to repel Saddam Hussein’s forces to the extent that Iran eventually went on the offensive.
Despite America’s unmatched air and naval power, any U.S. president should bear in mind that a war with Iran will be a long and painful battle against a ground force that will continue to bolster itself in numbers, much like the aptly named Persian “Immortals” that preceded Iran’s modern day military force.
“During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, Iranian volunteer militias were able to repel Saddam Hussein’s forces to the extent that Iran eventually went on the offensive.” You forgot to add the next sentence. “Then got their asses kicked so badly that they had to sue for peace.” Iranian military prowess is less than awe inspiring.
I remember that time well. Dutch experts created a natural border between Iraq/Iran by building a damn that flooded a huge strip of land. If Iran wanted to attack Iraq they had to do that in a very small corridor against the fire power of western tanks and defensive systems. It was a slaughter indeed and became a stalemate in the Middle East. If you can claim they got their arses kicked by Iraq&its western allies I can’t say but Iraq wasn’t able to overthrow Iran either. I call it a draw which later turned out a very pricey endavour for the West when their lapdog jumped at Kuwait.
That is what happens when you use modern weaponry using WW1 tactics.
“…Then got their asses kicked so badly…” in part by the chemical weapons the U.S., U.K., Dutch, French and West Germans helped them develop. And that final ‘ass kicking’ for the Faw Penninsula took 100k Iraqi troops (and their Sarin and mustard agents) and a year’s worth of U.S. intelligence and planning against 15k or so Basij farmer-soldiers. The CIA said half of the Iranian casualties were from chemical weapons. Wow – what an ‘ass kicking’ !
There is exactly NO difference from Reagan’s backing of Saddam Hussein’s thugs against Iran in the mid-80’s to Obama’s backing of FSA/al Qaeda against Assad’s Syrian Arab Army today.
I won’t debate the relative merits of one army against the other when they’re in a proxy war between western/gulf powers and someone else they (and Israel) don’t like. Iraqi and Iranian armies both sucked in the 80’s, but it was never about a one-on-one fight between them. It was a western-backed meat-grinder where Iraqi and Iranian casualties meant nothing to the U.S. In fact, if you crack open a history book and read about Iran-Contra, you might recall that the U.S. sold overpriced arms to Iran in 86-87 while we were helping Iraq plan their chemical attacks against them.
When the U.S. goes to war with Iran next year (at Israel’s behest), there will likely be another ‘ass kicking’, but only if nobody else steps in. Hey, maybe we’ll get lucky and it won’t start raining DF-41s and Topol M’s in the U.S. – because It’s hard being a bully when your skin is melting off.
It will come as a complete surprise for the soft-ice eating American people that the foreign wars after decades one day is knocking at their own door.
Iran fully expects to lose such a war, but they assure us that it will be very, very costly. It would probably be the end of US hegemony, not to mention a good portion of our military…then, of course there will be the radiation throughout the entire gulf area…that should be great for oil prices and by extension the world economy.
And you forget that Iran almost completely took over the entire gulf region in1975-78…and they started by kicking Iraqs’ ass. That’s why the CIA instigated the ‘revolution’ that saw the eventual return of Khomeini. We didn’t even dare to attack Iran then and neither did Russia, Iraqs’ sponsor at the time. The Shah told us he had bought nukes from France and we blinked. Don’t believe it? Look it up.
When Iran brought down the RQ 170 drone , and reproduced it , they achieved protection . That is , if they mass produce it in large numbers . Regardless of US , Saudi , and Israeli air offensives , those drones could keep Iran from being bombed back into the stone-age .
I wish Iran , felt confident enough , that it had no to need to be verbally threatening , militarily or via atomic developments . Often we are our own worst enemy .