A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
If America tries to do a ground invasion, any of my anxieties about the possible outcome of the war will be put to rest. America will lose handily if they try to go in.
It's not like he'd say anything else?
The Iranian military will lose to the US forces, but the ensuing partisan war will kick the Amerikans square in the nutsack. WTF, what about the Israelis, they should lead the charge and be first ones storming the beaches.
US about to spend another $6 trillion on foreign wars, but no you can't have heath care. Israel can though because we subsidize their defense.
I think this war is as dumb and pointless as the next person but obviously Iran would say this. It’s not like they’re going to publicly broadcast to the world how weak they are and that they absolutely could not hold off an American ground invasion
Way to say nothing at all.
So I actually do think this guy is completely correct.
What everyone needs to understand is that a (for now hypothetical) ground invasion of Iran would go very, very differently from both Iraq and Afghanistan, because of two specific factors: geography and population.
I’m oversimplifying for brevity, but the terrain is rather akin to Afghanistan. Most of the major population centers are in mountainous terrain.
This would not be like watching armored cavalry blitz through the Iraqi desert. This would be watching armored columns getting snarled up in choke points and taking focused fire and heavy losses. Seriously: it would be way more akin to the showing Russia made in the opening days of the active phase of the Ukraine war (2022) than the opening phases of the Iraq war.
We all saw how difficult it is to fight a dedicated and hardy insurgent force in Afghanistan (twice, really - once before with the Soviets, too).
Now multiply that by ten - or maybe even a hundred. No, I’m not exaggerating. Iran’s raw population (~80m) is larger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Their military, by size, is just under a million men, the 9th largest in the world. This number does not include the Basij, which, though “only” composed of militia volunteers, adds between 600,000 and twenty five million (yes, really; no, not a typo) potential combatants/partisans/insurgents/resistance fighters.
And then there’s the discipline and training and fanaticism, which for the first two are likely markedly better than Iraq’s in both the gulf war and the Iraq war (and, you know, they were watching, and so probably adapted their doctrine over the years too), and much closer to Afghan insurgents in terms of fanaticism. So, you’ve got a rather big population, with an absolute shitload of pissed off and motivated militants. And the US and Israel seem to be not caring that much about civilian collateral damage and casualties - definitely not the way to “win hearts and minds”, regardless of how brutal the current/for-now-ongoing Iranian regime is.
A concerted ground campaign in Iran would be like trying to invade a very large version of Switzerland, in many respects. And I am fairly certain it would rapidly deplete weapon stocks of both the US and Israel, in addition to being extraordinarily bloody - not to mention, the very real prospect of the conflict spiraling out of control into WW3.
And don’t forget: despite their lack of action thus far, Iran is technically still a client state of Russia. And Russia surely wouldn’t appreciate a massive and open-ended “Institute for Peace” (emphasis on an absolutely brutal amount of sarcasm here) that not only takes a primary client state off the board, but also is being done right across their border. And China gets (or got…? Implications are still actively shaking out at this point) a ton of their oil from Iran - remember, Imperial Japan executed Pearl Harbor largely in response to US intransigence around the oil embargo they had put in force in 1940 (technically, an expansion of earlier embargoes, but this was a major geopolitical tipping point that led to war). If this ends up throttling the Chinese economy (or looking like it will) I do not expect the PRC to take that lying down.
This entire shitshow is massively geopolitically destabilizing in the broadest sense of the term.
And that is why I am rather concerned this will, in time, spiral into WW3.
would ***rapidly*** deplete weapon stocks of both the US and Israel,
I’m thinking this is largely viewed as a benefit. The American Industrial War Complex is chomping at the bit to spend another trillion or three.
So, what you’re saying is… if Trump croaks, there’s a very real chance WWIII is entirely avoided in this circumstance? I mean… just going off the premise that this war with Iran is a convenient way to keep attention off the Epstein files, and otherwise we’d have likely taken a much different path forward
No, because orangeboi is just a useful idiot. The people driving this are much more committed.
They still need a figurehead. While it's still a mystery to me why Pedolf has so much support, with him gone domestic support for this war will drop to near zero.
Israel still seems to want this war though, and Vance and Co will still have 2.75 years to fight it.
You think Vance isn't on board with what's happening? The entire Republican leadership is keen on war.
I mean, yes… but that’s been the case for a long while now, and we’re just now attacking Iran. Part of me wonders, was the Epstein situation just enough of an incentive for them to throw the ol’ war bone to their party? They needed a distraction, and per your own description, this was a perfect distraction. To me, it seems like the Epstein situation simplified the decision making process for them. Perhaps without Trump, that situation becomes, again, too complex for any one of them to follow through on?
I don’t think Epstein is that big a factor in this. Maybe, for Trump personally but there’s bigger ideological motivations. The autocratic/fascist people behind Trump get a lot out of this, at least they think they will. They will attempt to suspend elections and put more power into the presidency. They don’t care who is president because that person will be beholden to oligarchs.
Then, you have the right evangelical end of the world loonies who are also influential in this.
Distraction or not I believe they were going to pick a fight with Iran anyways. Maybe if Trump never got his 2nd term war could have been avoided but his first term showed he was very willing to fuck with Iran regardless of his Epstein connection. I think now that war has begun the USA is locked in regardless of who ends up as president after trump. Even if it's a democrat.
Not only is Vance on board but they've been positioning him as the champion of it. Or potential scapegoat.
Is there a country they invaded that wasn't able to counter their ground assault? All Americans have is their planes and bombs, they can't win a ground invasion.
Operation Iraqi freedom ended in a route so successful that the tanks had to stop to allow logistics to catch up. They went from initial invasion to Baghdad falling within like 20 days.
Also the Americans were pretty pivotal in the D-Day landings that ended up with the liberation of Europe.
They also pushed the North Koreans from the Pusan Perimeter in the south east pretty much all the way back to the Chinese border during the Korean war after the North Koreans invaded the south. Before the Chinese got involved of course and pushed the Americans back down to the 38th parallel at obscene expense.
There's probably more
Arguably, WW2 is the last war the USA won, and they only won that one by swooping in at a time when the Nazis were already battered and at the edge of strategic defeat. The Korean war was a stalemate, and the second gulf war ended in a quagmire and a withdrawal. The USA is great at taking territory, terrible at holding it and doing counterinsurgency. They'll win the invasion, but lose the war.
They won because the highly motivated Russians were quickly moving toward them from the East, forcing the Germans to split their army into two different meat-grinder fronts.
America did not win the war, it was very much a product of the Alliance, assisted by strong rebel resistance.
Iraq - had a lot of help from allies
D-day - had a lot of help from allies
Korea - had a lot of help from allies
Now do all the wars where the USA got their ass kicked. Especially the ones they fought by themselves. Americans are extremely bad at wars - historical fact.
Also Korea not exactly a victory.
It's because our wars are really about Military Profiteering, not winning. We actually want to keep it going as long as possible. War is good for the economy.
The wars where we have only been very successful at are the ones that take place in the Americas itself or fighting each other lol.
Operation Iraqi freedom ended in a route so successful
The war lasted nearly a decade. Come on bro.
Before the Chinese got involved of course
Oh so they were doing great up until a real military joined? Not exactly high praise.
Release the Epstein files and remove Israel’s leverage
Pretty sure the US can succeed in invading. It's the holding on the territory that the real impossibility happens.
Pretty sure the US can succeed in invading.
And that is based on what, guesswork? Or familiarity. Iran is not Iraq. The latter was a religiously divided country. This isn't what we have here.
The US's issue in wars has consistently been "what next?" They are good at getting troops to battlegrounds and securing battlegrounds. They are logistically superior to everyone. The problem becomes the hanging around afterward. And it's obvious we're headed there again, considering the administration has all but stated they don't know what the endgame is.
Without holding it, it’s pretty hard to even define what “succeeding in invading” even means.
By that definition Napoleon and Hitler both successfully invaded Russia.
They got in there!
To be honest, I'm not even sure they could invade. Iran is a lot larger, more populated and more defensible than Iraq or Afghanistan. Saddam (with US support) found it the hard way in the 80s.
Not to mention they can easily receive materiel support from Russia. It would be a major clusterfuck for the US. I don't think even Trump is that stupid.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't air dominance the US military's strong suit?
Yes. Also it is in the best interest of the military industrial machine to burn through as much munitions as possible
America is designed to fight, though not necessarily win, a third generation war. What Iran will counter with is fourth generation war.
