Iran v US confrontation

[Pexbo]

Yep, the US can easily destroy Iran (as in destroying its military, infrastructure, factories, etc), but cannot hold Iran. So in that sense, both sides are right.

Which is a moot point in itself. Destroying Iranian government and infrastructure and failing to hold Iran itself would create a vacuum that would make Afghanistan and Iraq look like child's play (and would also destabilise both those countries again anyway).

It just goes to show how much better a deal for the entire region and entire world Obama's Iran deal was in comparison to hostility and conflict like this. Trump being such a fecking baby when it comes to Obama meant the Iran deal was "real bad" and did his absolute best to destroy it and now here we are.

 

[LilyWhiteSpur]

Yep, the US can easily destroy Iran (as in destroying its military, infrastructure, factories, etc), but cannot hold Iran. So in that sense, both sides are right.

I don't think America in any war have ever thought about what happens after, they never had any plans to control any of the countries other than get in set up a "democratic" government they can manipulate and then get out. Most of the newest Air force and Navy units haven't even seen proper warfare while the Iranians are rocking with mostly a dated mishmash of military vehicles and air craft some 40-50 years old.

 

[Irrational.]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

The leader of the 'free world' is a fecking manchild. This is all a playground game to him. How do such idiots get into power? There is no hope at all.

 

[Revan]

You probably end up with a massive humanitarian disaster with no function government... fertile breading ground for terrorist organisations with a lot of trained fighters, conventional weapons and potentially even chemical and nuclear material that people could procure

Its very hard to see an end game that in a geopolitical sense improves Americas position - china and russia must be rubbing their hands though

I never said it is a good idea or that it would make things better.

Which is a moot point in itself. Destroying Iranian government and infrastructure and failing to hold Iran itself would create a vacuum that would make Afghanistan and Iraq look like child's play (and would also destabilise both those countries again anyway).

It just goes to show how much better a deal for the entire region and entire world Obama's Iran deal was in comparison to hostility and conflict like this. Trump being such a fecking baby when it comes to Obama meant the Iran deal was "real bad" and did his absolute best to destroy it and now here we are.

Yep, agree. The Iran deal should have continued, even if eventually it would have resulted in them getting nukes* (on whom they were going to use them without getting destroyed in the process, anyway?). I think that if the deal would have continued and Iran would have become more open (as a consequence), within a decade or two, the system would have changed and become more democratic rather than how it is now. Trump, on his unprecedented wisdom did the opposite though, which essentially guarantees that Iran will become an even more authoritarian regime and essentially he gave a gift to the Supreme Leader and the ruling class. They will continue ruling for a longer time now.

* Not that I think them getting nukes is a good idea, but I don't think it would have been the end of the world. Nukes are primarily a defensive system, cause using them (unless you use in some poor country who has no means of return), essentially guarantees your extinction.

 

[Revan]

I don't think America in any war have ever thought about what happens after, they never had any plans to control any of the countries other than get in set up a "democratic" government they can manipulate and then get out. Most of the newest Air force and Navy units haven't even seen proper warfare while the Iranians are rocking with mostly a dated mishmash of military vehicles and air craft some 40-50 years old.

At least not in the Middle East (well, since the Gulf War). In Bosna and Kosovo, it was okay, though in both cases it could have been much better.

Under Bush, Obama, and now Trump's regime, it has been a nightmare. No plan at all on fixing things after destroying the (very bad and evil) regimes. Replacing Sadam and Gaddafi (evil dictators who deserved everything they got) with ISIS in process half a million of people dying was a pretty bad result.

 

[shamans]

Which is a moot point in itself. Destroying Iranian government and infrastructure and failing to hold Iran itself would create a vacuum that would make Afghanistan and Iraq look like child's play (and would also destabilise both those countries again anyway).

It just goes to show how much better a deal for the entire region and entire world Obama's Iran deal was in comparison to hostility and conflict like this. Trump being such a fecking baby when it comes to Obama meant the Iran deal was "real bad" and did his absolute best to destroy it and now here we are.

It will be difficult to propose such deals as well now. We have once again lost the trust of a country in the middle east. From their perspective 4 years ago we are entering an agreement and now were being targeted.

 

[shamans]

At least not in the Middle East (well, since the Gulf War). In Bosna and Kosovo, it was okay, though in both cases it could have been much better.

Under Bush, Obama, and now Trump's regime, it has been a nightmare. No plan at all on fixing things after destroying the (very bad and evil) regimes. Replacing Sadam and Gaddafi (evil dictators who deserved everything they got) with ISIS in process half a million of people dying was a pretty bad result.

The issue is Saddam and Gaddafi getting what they deserved was at the expense of many, many lives. Sure they got what they deserved but what was the point.

 

[Revan]

It will be difficult to propose such deals as well now. We have once again lost the trust of a country in the middle east. From their perspective 4 years ago we are entering an agreement and now were being targeted.

Yep. One thing that the US had is that they were relatively trustworthy and that when the president changed, while the foreign policy had some slight adjustments, the main principles hold.

This is not the case anymore (after Iran and the Kurds in Syria). Countries that make deals with the US essentially are at the mercy of the US electorate not choosing a lunatic as the president.

 

[LilyWhiteSpur]

At least not in the Middle East (well, since the Gulf War). In Bosna and Kosovo, it was okay, though in both cases it could have been much better.

Under Bush, Obama, and now Trump's regime, it has been a nightmare. No plan at all on fixing things after destroying the (very bad and evil) regimes. Replacing Sadam and Gaddafi (evil dictators who deserved everything they got) with ISIS in process half a million of people dying was a pretty bad result.

I'm sure there attitude is "as long as the turmoil is going on way over there, who cares".

 

[MDFC Manager]

Iran have said they won't hand over the black box to Boeing.

Not suspicious at all.

It's most likely because Boeing is an American company and the black boxes would most probably have to be flown into USA and tested by a government agency.

 

[Revan]

The issue is Saddam and Gaddafi getting what they deserved was at the expense of many, many lives. Sure they got what they deserved but what was the point.

That is what I am saying. They replaced evil with more evil, at the cost of half a million of people killed.

I think that the war in Afghanistan was justified, but on Iraq, Syria, and Libya it was a total mistake. And it is gonna be an even bigger mistake if US invades Iran.

 

[LilyWhiteSpur]

The issue is Saddam and Gaddafi getting what they deserved was at the expense of many, many lives. Sure they got what they deserved but what was the point.

We're again coming back to Military contracts and oil.

 

[Kentonio]

If the US were to launch a full scale attack on Iran it would be flattened, would they win the "total war" probably not due to the reasons already stated about the size and landscape of the country but the bits that mattered, big cities and military bases and factories would be in ruins. Tech has moved on massively since the Gulf war and yet Iran's biggest threat are inaccurate ballistic missiles based on old Soviet scuds. I'm not American so have no need to be arrogant. America simply has too much accurate and devastating air and sea fire power.

Iran's biggest threat has never been missiles, Iran's biggest threat is a simply insane ability to commit to asymettrical warfare which they've built up over decades of preparation for exactly this potential conflict. No land invasion stands a chance at all, the Iranian military & militia capabilities to carry out street fighting and insurgency are immense, and they would certainly go hand in hand with a vast program of terrorism and attacks across the region and indeed the world.

America can raze Iran from a distance, but firstly they'll have to try and justify to the world why they're killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people along with the military targets, and secondly Iran will certainly unleash their proxies and foreign assets en masse in response. Oh and you can forget about the Strait of Hormuz functioning in any kind of normal manner for a very long time while this is all going on.

Attacking Iran in any way other than a few limited airstrikes is utter stupidity and leads to massive chaos and destruction. Iran have understood their situation perfectly well for a very long time, and have been preparing to ensure any invader pays an unnacceptable price.

 

[LilyWhiteSpur]

Iran's biggest threat has never been missiles, Iran's biggest threat is a simply insane ability to commit to asymettrical warfare which they've built up over decades of preparation for exactly this potential conflict. No land invasion stands a chance at all, the Iranian military & militia capabilities to carry out street fighting and insurgency are immense, and they would certainly go hand in hand with a vast program of terrorism and attacks across the region and indeed the world.

America can raze Iran from a distance, but firstly they'll have to try and justify to the world why they're killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people along with the military targets, and secondly Iran will certainly unleash their proxies and foreign assets en masse in response. Oh and you can forget about the Strait of Hormuz functioning in any kind of normal manner for a very long time while this is all going on.

Attacking Iran in any way other than a few limited airstrikes is utter stupidity and leads to massive chaos and destruction. Iran have understood their situation perfectly well for a very long time, and have been preparing to ensure any invader pays an unnacceptable price.

Iran's main "military" threat is its missile program that it has been injecting most of its investment into, with Russia providing hardware, of course its use of militia and gorilla warfare is a talent we seen the difficulty American and Britain had in Iraq and Afghanastan but there wont be a land invasion, well not at least at first. The reconnaissance and technology has advanced massively in the last 5-10years the use of drones will see targets accurate attacked more and more, I mean they got a drone into Iraqi airspace over an airport without any response.

I am not saying this war isn't stupid, I don't want it I am simply debating how it could happen, it certainly wont be like the airstrikes on Bangdad.

 

[Revan]

Iran's main "military" threat is its missile program that it has been injecting most of its investment into, with Russia providing hard ware. There wont be a land invasion, well not at least at first. The reconnaissance and technology has advanced massively in the last 5-10years the use of drones will see targets accurate attacks more and more, I mean they got a drone into Iraqi airspace over an airport without any response.

I am not saying this war isn't stupid, I don't want it I am simply debating how it could happen, it certainly wont be like the airstrikes on Bangdad.

Iran also destroyed a drone (which costs more than a F-35) in Iranian airspace. Drones are effective against terrorists who don't have ability to return powers, but if US decides to bomb Iran it is gonna be with their F-35/F-22 and other aircraft, not with drones. And as things stand, there is not much Iran can do about it, their anti-aircraft missiles are quite ancient, as are their aircrafts (unless there was some truth that they purchased aircrafts from Russia and China, but I doubt it). A bombing of Iran is gonna be very one-sided, and I wouldn't be surprised if US reaches total air supremacy without losing any aircraft. After that, drones can be sent freely.

 

[sun_tzu]

2 and a bit hours left for trump to stick to his self imposed deadline of this morning ... which will coincidentally be about sunset time in tehran... 52 missiles about to be launched?

 

[The Firestarter]

Iran also destroyed a drone (which costs more than a F-35) in Iranian airspace. Drones are effective against terrorists who don't have ability to return powers, but if US decides to bomb Iran it is gonna be with their F-35/F-22 and other aircraft, not with drones. And as things stand, there is not much Iran can do about it, their anti-aircraft missiles are quite ancient, as are their aircrafts (unless there was some truth that they purchased aircrafts from Russia and China, but I doubt it). A bombing of Iran is gonna be very one-sided, and I wouldn't be surprised if US reaches total air supremacy without losing any aircraft. After that, drones can be sent freely.

The biggest unknown would be if they actually have S-400. Unlikely, but would be ideal for Putin to test it against latest gen aircraft.

 

[Arruda]

why ? An engine fire is major problem, nobody has a clue what happened yet, Concorde , Manchester Disaster both engine fires.

Not really, most engine fires can be solved by flaming out the engine.

On the Concorde it was a ruptured fuel tank that ignited, not the engine. On Munich, the engines had a surge (loss of power), failed to take-off, and then the crash and fire happened.

 

[Revan]

The biggest unknown would be if they actually have S-400. Unlikely, but would be ideal for Putin to test it against latest gen aircraft.

Yeah, if they have S-400, the equation might change, though there isn't much to suggest that they are effective against 5th generation fighters. But who know, Serbians dropped a F-117 using ancient technology (and from what we know, Iran doesn't have better anti-aircraft than that).

 

[LilyWhiteSpur]

Iran also destroyed a drone (which costs more than a F-35) in Iranian airspace. Drones are effective against terrorists who don't have ability to return powers, but if US decides to bomb Iran it is gonna be with their F-35/F-22 and other aircraft, not with drones. And as things stand, there is not much Iran can do about it, their anti-aircraft missiles are quite ancient, as are their aircrafts (unless there was some truth that they purchased aircrafts from Russia and China, but I doubt it). A bombing of Iran is gonna be very one-sided, and I wouldn't be surprised if US reaches total air supremacy without losing any aircraft. After that, drones can be sent freely.

Scary pieces of kit, yeah they shot one down but out of how many? Whats the range of on their cruise missiles, I would say it wouldn't be long till they controlled the Strait of Hormuz either.

 

[MDFC Manager]

The biggest unknown would be if they actually have S-400. Unlikely, but would be ideal for Putin to test it against latest gen aircraft.

That could make things tasty indeed.

 

[The Firestarter]

Yeah, if they have S-400, the equation might change, though there isn't much to suggest that they are effective against 5th generation fighters. But who know, Serbians dropped a F-117 using ancient technology (and from what we know, Iran doesn't have better anti-aircraft than that).

AFAIR it was flying low-ish and they hit it with old school AA flak. It was a reality check for the Americans.

 

[shamans]

That could make things tasty indeed.

tasty???

 

[DVG7]

Ignorance is bliss with all of this stuff. The lack of coverage/information on the crashed plane is suspicious as feck.

 

[Kentonio]

Iran's main "military" threat is its missile program that it has been injecting most of its investment into, with Russia providing hardware, of course its use of militia and gorilla warfare is a talent we seen the difficulty American and Britain had in Iraq and Afghanastan but there wont be a land invasion, well not at least at first. The reconnaissance and technology has advanced massively in the last 5-10years the use of drones will see targets accurate attacked more and more, I mean they got a drone into Iraqi airspace over an airport without any response.

I am not saying this war isn't stupid, I don't want it I am simply debating how it could happen, it certainly wont be like the airstrikes on Bangdad.

Iraq and Afrghanistan would look like nothing compared to any invasion of Iran. It won't happen at all, never mind not at first.

As for technology, people always fall into the trap of thinking US military technology is unstoppable and unbeatable. Do you know that in the early 2000's the US ran a military wargame with one of their own generals Paul K. Van Riper taking on the role of Iran? Early in the game when the US were trying to pressure them to surrender, he surprised everyone by locating the US carrier strike group with a small boat swarm and then launched a massive cruise missile attack which destroyed 16 warships including an aircraft carrier. This would have added up to 20,000 American servicemen dead in real life. He then sank a number of extra US ships using small boats and suicide attacks.

You know what the response of the people running the wargame was? They stopped the game, restarted with all their assets back in place, and then..

"After the war game was restarted, its participants were forced to follow a script drafted to ensure a Blue Force victory. Among other rules imposed by this script, Red Force was ordered to turn on their anti-aircraft radar in order for them to be destroyed, and was not allowed to shoot down any of the aircraft bringing Blue Force troops ashore.[3] Van Riper also claimed that exercise officials denied him the opportunity to use his own tactics and ideas against Blue Force, and that they also ordered Red Force not to use certain weapons systems against Blue Force and even ordered the location of Red Force units to be revealed.[4]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

Now yes in the 18 years since the US have lots more shiny new toys than they had back then, but it's worth remembering that back then the technological advantage was already immense. The point being that technology doesn't hand you certain victory, and a smart, innovative commander can achieve remarkable success even against a much stronger foe. Imagine if that wargame had actually been reality. How do you think the US public would have responded if they'd woken up one morning to hear that they'd just lost more troops in a single day than 9/11 and Pearl Harbour combined? Oh and that one of their symbols of US power, the supercarrier was sitting in peices on the bottom of the sea?

 

[Handré1990]

This is just a bluff response. The real response will happen and they will deny any involvement in those events, blaming ISIS.

Like they probably have done loads of times. This isn’t just a «bluff response» it’s important for the powers that be to show their citizen they’re strong and are seen to respond to the US attack officially. Unlike their «real» response, which won’t be in any official capasity.

 

[Red Panda]

The chances the passenger plane came down over Tehran at present by non military means seems miniscule to me. I wonder if some trigger happy nutcase has let a missile go...

 

[Revan]

Iraq and Afrghanistan would look like nothing compared to any invasion of Iran. It won't happen at all, never mind not at first.

As for technology, people always fall into the trap of thinking US military technology is unstoppable and unbeatable. Do you know that in the early 2000's the US ran a military wargame with one of their own generals Paul K. Van Riper taking on the role of Iran? Early in the game when the US were trying to pressure them to surrender, he surprised everyone by locating the US carrier strike group with a small boat swarm and then launched a massive cruise missile attack which destroyed 16 warships including an aircraft carrier. This would have added up to 20,000 American servicemen dead in real life. He then sank a number of extra US ships using small boats and suicide attacks.

You know what the response of the people running the wargame was? They stopped the game, restarted with all their assets back in place, and then..

"After the war game was restarted, its participants were forced to follow a script drafted to ensure a Blue Force victory. Among other rules imposed by this script, Red Force was ordered to turn on their anti-aircraft radar in order for them to be destroyed, and was not allowed to shoot down any of the aircraft bringing Blue Force troops ashore.[3] Van Riper also claimed that exercise officials denied him the opportunity to use his own tactics and ideas against Blue Force, and that they also ordered Red Force not to use certain weapons systems against Blue Force and even ordered the location of Red Force units to be revealed.[4]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

Now yes in the 18 years since the US have lots more shiny new toys than they had back then, but it's worth remembering that back then the technological advantage was already immense. The point being that technology doesn't hand you certain victory, and a smart, innovative commander can achieve remarkable success even against a much stronger foe. Imagine if that wargame had actually been reality. How do you think the US public would have responded if they'd woken up one morning to hear that they'd just lost more troops in a single day than 9/11 and Pearl Harbour combined? Oh and that one of their symbols of US power, the supercarrier was sitting in peices on the bottom of the sea?

Really interesting to read this.

Of course, I think that US military force is much stronger than back then, and a war game is not a real war.

I fully believe that the US under Trump (and probably under some other presidents) would say feck it, and just nuke the shit out of Iran if they would lose 20k soldiers and a supercarrier in the first few days of the campaign.

 

[Kentonio]

Really interesting to read this.

Of course, I think that US military force is much stronger than back then, and a war game is not a real war.

I fully believe that the US under Trump (and probably under some other presidents) would say feck it, and just nuke the shit out of Iran if they would lose 20k soldiers and a supercarrier in the first few days of the campaign.

Under Trump I'd tend to agree. And then we really do have WW3 on our hands.

 

[Revan]

Under Trump I'd tend to agree. And then we really do have WW3 on our hands.

Not necessarily. MAD and a WW3 come if superpowers with nukes fight each other, not if a superpower fights some country with ancient technology.

 

[LilyWhiteSpur]

Iraq and Afrghanistan would look like nothing compared to any invasion of Iran. It won't happen at all, never mind not at first.

As for technology, people always fall into the trap of thinking US military technology is unstoppable and unbeatable. Do you know that in the early 2000's the US ran a military wargame with one of their own generals Paul K. Van Riper taking on the role of Iran? Early in the game when the US were trying to pressure them to surrender, he surprised everyone by locating the US carrier strike group with a small boat swarm and then launched a massive cruise missile attack which destroyed 16 warships including an aircraft carrier. This would have added up to 20,000 American servicemen dead in real life. He then sank a number of extra US ships using small boats and suicide attacks.

You know what the response of the people running the wargame was? They stopped the game, restarted with all their assets back in place, and then..

"After the war game was restarted, its participants were forced to follow a script drafted to ensure a Blue Force victory. Among other rules imposed by this script, Red Force was ordered to turn on their anti-aircraft radar in order for them to be destroyed, and was not allowed to shoot down any of the aircraft bringing Blue Force troops ashore.[3] Van Riper also claimed that exercise officials denied him the opportunity to use his own tactics and ideas against Blue Force, and that they also ordered Red Force not to use certain weapons systems against Blue Force and even ordered the location of Red Force units to be revealed.[4]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

Now yes in the 18 years since the US have lots more shiny new toys than they had back then, but it's worth remembering that back then the technological advantage was already immense. The point being that technology doesn't hand you certain victory, and a smart, innovative commander can achieve remarkable success even against a much stronger foe. Imagine if that wargame had actually been reality. How do you think the US public would have responded if they'd woken up one morning to hear that they'd just lost more troops in a single day than 9/11 and Pearl Harbour combined? Oh and that one of their symbols of US power, the supercarrier was sitting in peices on the bottom of the sea?

Yeah I knew about the simulation, but as you say it was a game, but I agree technology is nothing without leadership and a strategic mind. Your example actually seems relevant to what has happened, America has taken out who was Iran's top general, a guy who clearly had a mass of experience.

Iran again is nothing like Iraq or Afghanistan size wise or the militia they could call in, so I was agreeing with you saying by saying allied forces struggled there so it would be worse in Iran. If America wanted to they could flatten the country of that there is no doubt, I don't think there would ever be a reason for that. As has been said before I very much doubt America care much for winning the "total war" as they haven't anywhere else in the ME. Again were all just debating as any full scale attack seems a bit down the road, I am sure we will know more today when Trump can be assed to make a statement, if there have been casualties at the military bases he will want to make a stamen before the media get hold of it.

 

[sun_tzu]

The chances the passenger plane came down over Tehran at present by non military means seems miniscule to me. I wonder if some trigger happy nutcase has let a missile go...

One rumour is Iran mistook it for a USA warplane / drone ... Which is why they won't give the black box back
Equally some will say Iran wants the black box to prove its an accident before the USA can fabricate evidence against them.
Or it could just be a total coincidence
Or who knows perhaps hillaries server was in the luggage so trump droned it... Chances are given all that's going on there won't be any concrete answer (or at least not for a long time) and in the meantime people will push the narrative that suits them (if there was anybody from barisma on the plane get ready for some to chalk it up to killary looking after hunter and Joe Biden)
I always apply Occam's razor and like you I think the most likley solution is human error caused by being in a high state of alert but that's not to say that's why happened but simply that it seems the simplest logical answer

 

[The Firestarter]

Really interesting to read this.

Of course, I think that US military force is much stronger than back then, and a war game is not a real war.

I fully believe that the US under Trump (and probably under some other presidents) would say feck it, and just nuke the shit out of Iran if they would lose 20k soldiers and a supercarrier in the first few days of the campaign.

I used to think that even if he did make such an order, some general at STRATCOM will refuse to carry it out. But nowadays , I am not at all sure .We simply do not know what people are in charge of these critical institutions. He may well have filled them with a bunch of Curtis LeMays .

 

[André Dominguez]

Like they probably have done loads of times. This isn’t just a «bluff response» it’s important for the powers that be to show their citizen they’re strong and are seen to respond to the US attack officially. Unlike their «real» response, which won’t be in any official capasity.

We are basically agreeing They are just showing off to their citizens and they can manipulate the casualties data that people will take them as granted, even though the Iranian intelligence warned the Iraqi PM on advance.

 

[LilyWhiteSpur]

One rumour is Iran mistook it for a USA warplane / drone ... Which is why they won't give the black box back
Equally some will say Iran wants the black box to prove its an accident before the USA can fabricate evidence against them.
Or it could just be a total coincidence
Or who knows perhaps hillaries server was in the luggage so trump droned it... Chances are given all that's going on there won't be any concrete answer (or at least not for a long time) and in the meantime people will push the narrative that suits them (if there was anybody from barisma on the plane get ready for some to chalk it up to killary looking after hunter and Joe Biden)
I always apply Occam's razor and like you I think the most likley solution is human error caused by being in a high state of alert but that's not to say that's why happened but simply that it seems the simplest logical answer

What a lot of shite, were not talking about a guy with a telescope and RPG here, the plane had literally just taken off, I don't think its any link in the crash and the military action. Seems there was a British BP engineer on the plane with with 2 other Brits.

 

[Handré1990]

We are basically agreeing They are just showing off to their citizens and they can manipulate the casualties data that people will take them as granted, even though the Iranian intelligence warned the Iraqi PM on advance.

Yeah, hah, you’re right. Different target groups is all, this one was for their citizen, next will be to hurt US.

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Kentonio]

Not necessarily. MAD and a WW3 come if superpowers with nukes fight each other, not if a superpower fights some country with ancient technology.

If anyone uses a nuke, including the US against Iran, then there's a strong chance of an extremely rapid spiralling of events into a WW3. Almost all the MAD scenarios start with attacks on smaller nations escalating into global conflict.

 

[LilyWhiteSpur]

3 British nationals on the plane, one BP engineer.

 

[TheReligion]

Anyone who believes Iran would be a match for the US and/or any coalition needs a reality check. Using Iraq and Afghanistan to prove this point is mute as Western Forces have developed and learnt significantly since these conflicts for the reasons already outlined. The technology and tactics are much improved. Tried and tested so to speak. Western Forces are far better designed to cope with another war in the region than they were in Iraq and Afghanistan.