2026 Israel - Iranian conflict [TEMP LOCKED]

[BasilicaLew]

No, the majority of drone assembly facilities would likely never be wiped out. Especially if concealed, dispersed and protected adequately by being placed underground and in other well-protected structures, such as mountains or reinforced bunkers. Drones are also far more than simply "guided munitions". They allow a defending nation to accurately destroy invading forces from great distances by spamming the battlefield, chasing down soldiers and equipment on the move, and maneuvering around obstacles, barriers and shelters used by the invaders to protect their assets. Their cheapness and simplicity to construct is also another major benefit compared to other forms of guided munitions. There is simply no comparison.

That's not to say that other forms of munitions will be of no use. Iran has plenty of artillery, ATGMs and mines to make sure that America suffers casualties at every turn, and from every kind of munition possible.

Both Japan and Germany were fighting two large, countries at once. Both had enemies on both sides that were far more populated, and in Germany's case, far more industrial. In regards to industry, Iran's current steel production, which is a good metric of industrial capacity, is only half that of America's. The US' steel production was many multiples that of Japan's during WW2. And as I said, the differences in topography and land size will make this nearly impossible.

The U.S. could mobilize ten times over if they would like to. It would still make little difference.

Good example is Ukraine, Russia can never hope to stop FPV or scrappy cruise missile/drone production. Decentralized production is very hard to stop unless you plan to destory the energy grid.

 

[sheogorath]

Smartest and best trained pilot. I wonder if you can do some triangulations between the flight tracker and the logs of any radar pointed to the area

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2029906881892819325

 

[enroger]

Good example is Ukraine, Russia can never hope to stop FPV or scrappy cruise missile/drone production. Decentralized production is very hard to stop unless you plan to destory the energy grid.

I think it may depends on the drones. Iran may well be almost 90% self reliant on Shaheds supply chain, but if FPV is used in Russo-Ukraine scale then they'll also heavily depends on imports. Which begs the question whether US can completely cut off their trade routes, this maybe the most important aspect of the war if it does drag on for months, even if there is no ground war.

 

[EmoBirb]

No, the majority of drone assembly facilities would likely never be wiped out. Especially if concealed, dispersed and protected adequately by being placed underground and in other well-protected structures, such as mountains or reinforced bunkers. Drones are also far more than simply "guided munitions". They allow a defending nation to accurately destroy invading forces from great distances by spamming the battlefield, chasing down soldiers and equipment on the move, and maneuvering around obstacles, barriers and shelters used by the invaders to protect their assets. Their cheapness and simplicity to construct is also another major benefit compared to other forms of guided munitions. There is simply no comparison.

That's not to say that other forms of munitions will be of no use. Iran has plenty of artillery, ATGMs and mines to make sure that America suffers casualties at every turn, and from every kind of munition possible.

Both Japan and Germany were fighting two large, countries at once. Both had enemies on both sides that were far more populated, and in Germany's case, far more industrial. In regards to industry, Iran's current steel production, which is a good metric of industrial capacity, is only half that of America's. The US' steel production was many multiples that of Japan's during WW2. And as I said, the differences in topography and land size will make this nearly impossible.

The U.S. could mobilize ten times over if they would like to. It would still make little difference.

You just described drones as cheap but maneuverable guided munitions, which is what I already stated. Issue on that front is however that the US posesses better real-time intelligence gathering and the means to dismember workshops that provide on an industrial scale (and thus have the associated dimensional and logistical footprint). In an all out war scenario the cost of bombing these targets several times over would be seen as worthwhile.

Steel production isn't a particularly good metric of industrial output when the produced steel cannot be sufficiently converted into critical warfighting equipment. Especially nowadays, as the resources necessary for warfighting have tremendously diversified. Again, you're comparing a heavily constrained regional power with two large powers of their era. Iran is, in regional context one of the larger players, but in a historical or even contemporary global context, they're barely a middle power and that's worth keeping in mind.

The only reason Americans are struggling to sufficiently crush Iranian forces is because they're risk averse (already talked about at length). Relying on low volume, tactically low impact, long range munitions and missiles. 3-6 F-15s lost is already making them shudder and even more cautious. For Russia the 20th lost Su-34 is nothing of value because they produced 25 in the meantime. If the Americans were not so sensitive to losses and concerned with projecting a certain image of their forces. I.e if they were willing to lose dozens of fixed wing aircraft in order to achiev tactically useful results quickly, they would have an easier time depleting Iranian offensive capabilities.

Two sides who play a game of "don't touch me, I don't touch you". One too scared to commit in the appropriate intensity due to fears of domestic reactions, the other too occupied with striking Gulf state pleasure resorts rather than hammering Israeli assets into the earth indiscriminately. While Israel is Israel and only concerned about killing as many civilians as possible anywhere they go.

The current trajectory is the culmination of American cuckoldry and zero pain tolerance, Iranian dispersed organization but lacking coherent goals beyond survival and the Israeli desire to wipe out all people in the region that don't roll over and let them walk all over them.

If any of these circumstances were different, if the Americans were willing to take losses and risks, if Iranian forces would pursue tactical goals or if Israel wasn't genocidal, then the situation would be very different.

 

[tokenanalyst]

In theory, of course.

The US could achieve a successful ground invasion in Iran. They did far more difficult things during WW2.

They can't and that is an understatement. If they go and the Iranians cut the supply lines it will be a massacre and that an understatement, it like what the Soviets did to the Nazis. It will required a million soldiers entering from all fronts and that is the Iranians let the US to do a build up.

 

[EmoBirb]

Of all the challenges you have stated, this is actually the hardest one with the slowest ramp up, highest capital requirements, and highest talent requirements. Especially in the current environment of the key adversary's rare earth magnet monopolies. I recommend you do not speak so confidently of things you know little to nothing about (advanced manufacturing, engineering talent, rare earth refining/processing/magnet manufacturing, and supply chains).

I study engineering, not economics, true. But you're implying one of the two largest economies on earth couldn't manufacture bombs for a war against a middle power on the scale necessary for such an undertaking, although they have barely touched their existing stockpile yet to begin with.

Industrial challenges are challenges of time, money and bi or multilateral agreements. These are hard factors, external circumstances which can be brought into the right position to achieve desired results. The manpower aspect, which I highlighted as the truly important thing, as unlike industry it's much more difficult to adapt, is the true key to warfighting. To establish a proper standing military of the proportions necessary you need to have the support of the population, which you'd have to engineer with soft factors, you'd have to train these additional people through highly qualified and thus limited personelle, you'd have to arm them, feed them, provide them with clothing, communication equipment, a bed, you'd have to move them, you'd have to pay them and when they die you'd have to replace them and many of the things mentioned above.

All of this is far more challenging, especially for a country like the United States, than increasing industrial output of bombs, rifles, bullets, mortars and the likes.

And if you believe that the two biggest economies, which are in many ways co-dependent, would sabotage each other to the final straw over Iran, then I have not one but a couple more bridges to sell you.

 

[Urabrother]

The main threat to American soldiers on the ground would IEDs, prepared ambushes, "kill zones" in moutnainous terrain.

Ultimately, and this has been explained several times now, the Iranians couldn't win militarily, they just have to inflict the necessary amount of casualties and damage that it causes the US to reconsider. If the US were to be past that stage, then this isn't an option.

But as we already established, we have also already talked about this ad nauseam, the Americans, as a people, have become incredibly sensitive to casualties. So in reality that wouldn't happen.

But in the theoretical of the US public being willing to accept massive casualties, a war economy and draft, then they would wipe out the Iranian people in a couple years and there's little doubt about it.

Also, and this is just a little heads up, Germany and Japan at their height made Iran look like how Iran nowadays makes the UAE or Bahrain look like. You're comparing the second biggest European power of the 20th Century and the biggest power in Asia of the early 20th Century with a regional power that engaged mostly in (fairly successful) proxy warfare.

Wanting to see the Yankees falter shouldn't come at the expense of reason or critical thinking.

This but what if Trump decide to use Bush blitskrieg style strategy in 2001 against Iran. Deploy 400000 troops both ground and air assault simultaneously and reach total victory in mere a month with only 1000 casualties?

 

[delfer]

You just described drones as cheap but maneuverable guided munitions, which is what I already stated. Issue on that front is however that the US posesses better real-time intelligence gathering and the means to dismember workshops that provide on an industrial scale (and thus have the associated dimensional and logistical footprint). In an all out war scenario the cost of bombing these targets several times over would be seen as worthwhile.

Steel production isn't a particularly good metric of industrial output when the produced steel cannot be sufficiently converted into critical warfighting equipment. Especially nowadays, as the resources necessary for warfighting have tremendously diversified. Again, you're comparing a heavily constrained regional power with two large powers of their era. Iran is, in regional context one of the larger players, but in a historical or even contemporary global context, they're barely a middle power and that's worth keeping in mind.

The only reason Americans are struggling to sufficiently crush Iranian forces is because they're risk averse (already talked about at length). Relying on low volume, tactically low impact, long range munitions and missiles. 3-6 F-15s lost is already making them shudder and even more cautious. For Russia the 20th lost Su-34 is nothing of value because they produced 25 in the meantime. If the Americans were not so sensitive to losses and concerned with projecting a certain image of their forces. I.e if they were willing to lose dozens of fixed wing aircraft in order to achiev tactically useful results quickly, they would have an easier time depleting Iranian offensive capabilities.

Two sides who play a game of "don't touch me, I don't touch you". One too scared to commit in the appropriate intensity due to fears of domestic reactions, the other too occupied with striking Gulf state pleasure resorts rather than hammering Israeli assets into the earth indiscriminately. While Israel is Israel and only concerned about killing as many civilians as possible anywhere they go.

The current trajectory is the culmination of American cuckoldry and zero pain tolerance, Iranian dispersed organization but lacking coherent goals beyond survival and the Israeli desire to wipe out all people in the region that don't roll over and let them walk all over them.

If any of these circumstances were different, if the Americans were willing to take losses and risks, if Iranian forces would pursue tactical goals or if Israel wasn't genocidal, then the situation would be very different.

I don’t recall claiming that they weren’t “guided munitions”. Rather, that they are far more than simply that.

U.S. intelligence is meaningless and irrelevant here. Iran could even give them a map of all the drone and military facilities if they would like. Won’t change anything.

Steel production is still a vastly important metric in general industrial power and military potential, regardless of the diversification of military equipment components. Little has changed in that area. Regardless, Iran needs only to concern itself with basic, large-scale military production. It’s not fielding stealth fighter jets and aircraft carriers. It’s producing simple, effective weapons to repel an invading army. Nothing more.

 

[EmoBirb]

They can't and that is an understatement. If they go and the Iranians cut the supply lines it will be a massacre and that an understatement, it like what the Soviets did to the Nazis. It will required a million soldiers entering from all fronts and that is the Iranians let the US to do a build up.

Only in HOI4 could Iran "cut the supply lines" of a full scale US Invasion involving the entirety of the US military + several hundred thousand drafted troops + US vassals from the region and abroad + Israeli troops.

This but what if Trump decide to use Bush blitskrieg style strategy in 2001 against Iran. Deploy 400000 troops both ground and air assault simultaneously and reach total victory in mere a month with only 1000 casualties?

I do not think that's a viable strategy against Iran, which is ultimately very different from Iraq. The terrain already prevents Desert Storm II. A total US ground invasion would ultimately be successful, there's little doubt about it when one thinks about it for more than two seconds. But the casualties would be well into the tens of thousands if not hundred thousands and it would take years not months to root out the Iranians in what's basically Afghanistan on steroids.

 

[MMelon]

So much noise and so little signal. I guess that's what the ignore list is for.