I don't agree with them but....

I think a basic question causes a little confusion here.
In the first post I responded to you referred to Iranian tanks and hence to conventional warfare. In doing so you suggested that the Iran would kick American ass in terms of conventional warfare if invaded.
Now you refer to asymmetric warfare, which is a whole other story.

The confusion I am now talking about is if the successful restructuring of a nation to ones liking induced by an occupational force is equaled with winning a war with a nation.
IMO it is not. So I say the US had no real trouble to win a war against the Iran (of which an invasion is naturally a part of).
After the war is won, the second step of restructuring would follow and here I can see tremendous difficulties myself and am not confident that this could be achieved (without genocidal-like actions by the US that is - which I would rule out for obvious reasons).
And I can give you that - if the term "winning" includes that, winning would be very hard to be accomplished in Iran.

But when referring to conventional warfare as you did - what are all ground troops of the world worth if they get shattered from the sky? Nothing.
What can insurgents - as patriotic and determined as they may be - do against a modern well equipped ground force approaching a city? Nothing.
To win the US would not have to really control the country. Winning is defined by the inability of the opponent to strike back. In this case meaning: Destruction of the military, military facilities and of industry capable of supplying the military, annihilation of any profound structures of state organization - in short turning the Iran in a morass of chaos and destruction. America can do that easily if wanted. Without nukes.

Now one could argue: Wait a minute! If we don't control the country, cells of terrorism may establish with the result of strikes against America. IMO this argumentation has no validity, because anyone of any nationality can strike with terrorism against you. When engaging in this point of view, it is impossible to defeat any nation in the world except by killing every last one in it.

As to the Anti-Americanism-thing: We just have different interpretations of the term it seems. I believe what you said to be an accurate reflection of your position.
 
Back
Top Bottom