Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi spoke from Tehran in an exclusive interview with "NBC Nightly News" anchor Tom Llamas.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Thursday that his country is ready for a ground invasion by American troops as the war launched by the United States and Israel has quickly spread across the region. He also refused any negotiations with the U.S. and said that Iran had not asked for a ceasefire.

His comments came after the U.S. and Israeli militaries began a sweeping attack on Iran on Saturday, which decimated its military defenses and killed its top authority, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

all 55 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 42 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (11 children)

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.

Geography

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.

Population

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.

Overall

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.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago* (9 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    No, because orangeboi is just a useful idiot. The people driving this are much more committed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    You think Vance isn't on board with what's happening? The entire Republican leadership is keen on war.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 30 points 8 months ago

    Release the Epstein files and remove Israel’s leverage

  • source
  • [–] 27 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    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

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 16 points 8 months ago (14 children)
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago* (13 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 8 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    i don't disagree. the question was about invading though, not holding land.

    And from a military perspective they can hold land for as long as they want.

    They didn't leave Afghanistan because they ran out of bullets/money/warm bodies to throw at it.

    They left Afghanistan because they ran out of political capital to continue

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 8 points 8 months ago* (4 children)
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    Iraq - had a lot of help from allies

    The total coalition ground forces was 200,000. of those 150,000 were American and the rest (by and large) were british relying on American logistics and intelligence.

    if 75% of the invading force is American, you can just say you were invaded by Americans

    The Americans turned the tide of the Korean war single handedly. the only other ones fighting on their side were the south koreans who had just been pushed all the way down to the south east. Before china turned the tide back again of course.

    The Americans comprised about half of the D-Day troops, fighting alongside the British (and a smaller canadian force) whos expeditionary force had been pushed back to Dunkirk before evacuating the continent entirely. The Americans also turned the tide here as much as i, a brit, hates to admit it

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago* (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (2 children)

    Toppling Saddams government is the war OP is talking about which went by very fast. The insurgency that came after (what you are talking about) because Bush’s admin mismanaged the whole thing by disbanding all government employees and the Iraqi army. Which was a bad idea because occupying a country with an incredibly high gun ownership rate and a bunch of unemployed soldiers with nothing else to lose was always going to be recipe for disaster. All of would not have happened if they had kept the Ba’athist government intact. It was all very dumb and stupid just like this new Iran war is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    It's all the same war, I see no reason to separate those parts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    You could say it was that initial operation/invasion. No need to get into semantics. The original goal of the war was to topple Saddam and it succeeded at that, but failed at everything after and became a prolonged nation building war.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • [+] 14 points 8 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Without holding it, it’s pretty hard to even define what “succeeding in invading” even means.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago*

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago
    [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    "Try that shit on my M. Bison!!"

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    America is designed to fight, though not necessarily win, a third generation war. What Iran will counter with is fourth generation war.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't air dominance the US military's strong suit?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    It's not like he'd say anything else?

  • source
  • Zero sympathy from me for the invaders that die

  • source
  • [+] -15 points 8 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 36 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Seriously though. Even if the US military gets a foothold in Iran, they're still never going to be able to supply enough forces to overrun a mountainous desert twice the size of Texas with 90 million inhabitants. Afghanistan is a piece of cake by comparison, and the combined forces of NATO failed to effect regime change there. Iran is a fucking fortress. America will lose, again, if they try to march on it. And that's possibly what Netenyahu wants to see.
    Or so I've heard.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 17 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    Only America could lose back to back wars in both of Iran's neighbors and think they are invincible.

    A land war against Iran would likely go like worse than Afghanistan, Iran has a trained paramilitary that is at a minimum 3 or 4 times the size the Taliban was at the peak of the war in Afghanistan, plus they have likely been trained based on the success of the Afghanistan.

    Not only that, but only the most corrupt officials are going to be willing to run the puppet state, given it's just a matter of time until the regime collapses and is replacing by something worse (and all it's public figures are forced to flee or die).

    Like sure the US could technically win a war, but by any reasonable definition the war won't end until they leave in defeat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment