War Nerd Doesn't Like Our Chances In Iran | Chapo Trap House | Episode 331
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 жов 2019
- Clip from episode 331 - The Wide World of Warcraft feat. John Dolan (7/10/19)
John Dolan a.k.a. The War Nerd returns to discuss the realities of potential armed conflict in Venezuela and Iran.
buy our book: www.chapotraphouse.com/book
/ chapo-trap-house
/ chapotraphouse
GFX by Wagner Koop
#chapotraphouse #chapo
I can beat Iran in my chosen theatre of war, the walmart parking lot.
Walmart is a Graveyard... You go there do what? Pick fights ... Now now.
Lol. Meth and screaming at minimum wage workers is a timeless hobby.
@@caimacd Inside a hapless rotten late-stage empire...
HEY IRAN IM IM LIKE 3 4 LOKOS DEEP COME START SOME SHIT
@@caimacd More like the old "put a magnet in an empty drink cup and stick it to the top of your car and drive it around" - timeless.
dam it’s almost like the Saudi refinery attack was extremely predictable
One of my best friends fought against the Iraqis in the Iraq/Iran war. His body and soul got crushed because of it, he had to undergo surgery after surgery and all kind of treatments and therapys. He became an opioid addict because of the pain and used heroin. That's the reason, i met this man. I'm a recovered addict myself and was lucky enough to call him a friend. He was one of the nicest, most humbe and friendly person i ever met. But he was broken, that war broke him. Badly. He died of an overdose in 2020.
Hope you're okay.
Whose here after yesterday’s news?
Yo. We're all fucked.
You read me like a book
Yo.
I'm Spartacus.
Oh yes.
The really wacky part of the CIA guy getting killed by Hezbollah is that the CIA knew that Hezbollah and Iran knew who he was but they couldn’t find anyone else to send to Beirut so they sent him anyway.
Wonder if he pissed somebody important off at the Xmas party to get that detail
"If you get me drunk and really pissed, I can take Iran" - US
I'am sure you can!
If I'm crying, bro, I'm unstoppable. I could probably be ufc champion
@@TheMikeyEyesore I just don't do it cause all that hugs are gay
dude you are so fucking lucky that you blew up our marines in Beirut! if you didn't force us to get out of Lebanon, oh my fucking god!
drunk and pissed? what's the difference?
iran violated the drone's NAP
Iran has a modern army, which is trained to fight as an insurgency, and it has a mountainous terrain which would be very hard to fight in.
War with Iran would be really, REALLY bad, mmkay?
The people dont like the government though.
@@hugozaanen7587 A portion of the population doesn't like the government. I imagine if the U.S would invade that portion would be sidelined in the ensuing patriotic and religious fervor that comes with a country being invaded. America's best chance with Iran (in my opinion) is to foster support of the moderates inside Iran to gain some friends. Invasion or the current antagonistic(pro-Saudi) attitude is destroying the moderates.
@@hugozaanen7587
I don't like my government. Care to invade the U.S.?
@@anthonyward4302 An Iranian here, i hate Islamic government like most Iranians. But there is reason that we as Iran exist today after 1000s of years while all others vanished. invading Iran unites us more than any other case. This is the redline for every Iranian even though we hate the government
@@hugozaanen7587 but they like their country.
Radio War Nerd is an incredible podcast btw
Half the people screaming for this war would vomit on a light jog in Colorado let alone the Himalayan foothills
True
Unfortunately, this actually has aged well
Better than a war.
“We could have had, f-ing universal healthcare and college debt forgiveness for, like, the F35 program “
Said Dwight David Eisenhower.
But it's stealthy
Have u seen an f35. There fucking cool
@@nr-dx4zz They can't even fly in the rain
Yup. I say F-22 all the way
The US only fights after bleeding countries for years. This is fascinating, because Chomsky said, ‘The US wouldn’t win a war with Iran 🇮🇷, years ago ( in response to some four questions) and I said this to someone who got really angry.
y'all better be listening to this to understand the current events regarding the death of Qassim Suleimani
Consider it mandatory reading for the chapo party program
The only reason the US drone program wasn't more effective is because the military didn't have the most epic Fortnite gamers. Iran won't know what to do when it's getting yeeted on by zoomer drone pilots in their dxracer gaming chairs cracked out on energy drinks.
Explodes a mountainside to get that Iranian platoon and that chicken dinner.
" Tastes like berry-flavored win-sauce."
Sadly, they have been trained on Battle Royales, so they'd just end up shooting each other.
"Saudi Arabia is as fragile as a moon colony."
Dude, best left take on the subject.
Weird how only 3 months ago this was a big deal
Man do I have some news for you
@@onlinestonedogii Yup
OH WELL LOL
This just became way more current.
Smedley Butler had it right.
Yep if the world made sense, they'd teach kids about him in school
Saudi Arabia cannot even defeat Yemen. The idea of them defeating Persia is ludicrous.
I miss the old War Nerd articles on a long-gone site called pando....
12:00 there's also this theory regarding taking out the US navy, where the navy would be unable to deal with swarms of very small boats laden with explosives, perhaps remotely controlled, or just driven by suicide bombers.
I forget where I saw it but it's a genuine concern for the US navy. That their enourmous multi billion dollar ships can be taken out by a swarm of cheap dinghies.
Millennium Challenge
I'm old, and I remember reading about "wargames" done by the US military or one of the think tanks, where they used AIs and simulated space battles (maybe because you can take out factors like coastal contours etc and besides space battles are cool) and the AI came up with the idea of lots of little ships
28:06 hahaha we really goofed it with this one huh
Iran would be like Afghanistan on steroids. Big army and population, strong and united national identity, perfect terrain for defence. US would win the traditional war in a few months, but would be fighting a guerilla war for probably decades.
It would be more like Iraq and Syria. Afghanistan was under control for years but then slowly decomposed till it reached the state it is at now.
Leigh Foulkes
I meant in terms of terrain, but yes it’s closer to those in that you’ve a big army and a prolonged conflict.
Honestly I think even if they could end wars quicker, they wouldn’t. The US fights 2 types of wars. Deposing commies: which we do as quickly and efficiently as possible and destabilizing oil nations: which we do in any fashion we please and military industrial lobbyists would prefer to be slowly. Venezuela was both and some how we got humiliated and it was actually funny and good. And Cuba is just Cuba, it will never not be humiliating the US. Everything they do owns us and often actually seriously helps people. It’s very impressive and cool.
Iran’s military is a joke and a large chunk of the population hates the regime. You’re unfortunately correct that the US would probably end up in a quagmire, but this is because it’s leaders lack the will to fight for a decisive victory. It’s a limitation of “Just-War Theory” and not America’s military capability. It could break the regime within a week, mostly from the air. But don’t worry - it won’t.
@@sybo59 Well okay, but what about the fact that the U.S. military is the world's biggest, most expensive joke and at least a plurality of its population hates their own current regime and has no stomach for war with anyone? And a key problem, maybe the decisive issue, with fighting Iran is that the Iranians and their allies have demonstrated that they can lay waste to America's regional clients like Saudi Arabia. They don't have to do anything to the Americans, they just have to blow up a bunch of strategic targets in Israel and Saudi with swarms of rockets and such. The U.S. government doesn't give a shit about American or Iranian casualties, but they wouldn't dare do something that might result in the Houthis keying MBS's limo or something.
You're also ignoring the possibility that pretty much every other country in the world besides those sniveling cucks in Britain might just go ahead and chuck a few hundred million bucks at the Iranians to support them against the Americans purely out of spite. This notion that America always loses because it gives its enemies some kind of kid's glove treatment is horseshit. We fight the way we do because the cost of doing otherwise outweighs whatever strategic benefit we might get.
Kudos to the war nerd for dialing Trump's number. Trump is not inherently political, but the method to his madness is simple. To paraphrase Erwin Rommel at the battle of the Kasserine Pass, Trump "has a well developed sense of their own self-preservation". Rommel also noted the superb equipment left behind at that battle.
In other words, Trump is a profound coward. He could not bear the consequences for himself of a real war with Iran.
NO one calls it Arabian Gulf, It's always been Persian gulf.
Arabs LOVE calling it that, I worked at al arabiya English and the saudi editor in chief would lose his fucking shit if someone called it the Persian gulf LMFAO
Iran's use of human wave tactics kind of gets exaggerated. They just used basic stormtrooper tactics, supported by what little artillery they had. It worked because Iraqi officers lacked initiative- all movements had to go through central command, so they would just sit there and let themselves be surrounded once Iran broke through the lines at one point.
Most light infantry tactics get described as "human waves" by the other side. Happened in WW2 and Korea too.
@@Tishlin12345 Exactly. On the Eastern front in WWII as soon as the Soviets started taking back territory the Germans complained they were just sending human waves at them. It's a cop out for sore losers.
@@Tishlin12345 it’s always a human wave if you don’t have the armored support to back it up. What an unhelpful descriptor.
I don't get why we don't throw the saudis in favor of iran like we did the kurds for turkey. ugh.
There's nothing profitable about the Kurds or I'd back them in a milisecond
I have listened to this interview several times and am worried his words will fall on deaf ears
iran has focused its efforts on military development and intelligence for a long time. many americans have begun to feel untouchable, it needs to be emphasized that we (especially those of us in highly populated areas of the country) are not safe in the event of war with iran.
R. H.F. You’re out of your mind if you think the Iranian military is anything more than bumbling and weak (did you notice that airline incident?). They only pose a threat to the US because the US selflessly lets them.
@@sybo59 In the case of US 'intervention' we, the world, will see for the first time in history, the live sinking of a US carrier.
Americans (and the rest of us westerners) are stupid & biased towards high tech solutions. We lack the imagination of asymetrical warfare.
10.000 missiles are lined up pointing at anything coming from the Persian Gulf or Straight of Hormuz, next to scores of batteries with intermediate range ballistic missiles.
You don't have to win a war, only make war too costly. You people can hardly hold on to a country that is a large desert.
@@sybo59 if you think we live under anything other than a fabricated sense of security, you're deluded. I'm certain the British thought their empire was invincible too.
@@sybo59 The US has shot down airliners too. I suppose they are also bumbling and weak.
R. H.F. You misread me. The US is absolutely on the decline and hasn’t won a war in many decades. My point is that this is because the US doesn’t have the will or correct philosophy needed to fight to win (and to choose valid wars, versus perusing inessential threats like Iraq), and not because the US military is at all lacking. The US has a highly sophisticated, funded and motivated volunteer military that could quite literally have a chance of fighting the entire world if necessary. Seriously, look at the numbers. Iran is utterly feeble in comparison, which is beyond debate. But again, the US would still probably lose a war with them, because it would likely take on another altruistic Neo-con operation there.
Those carriers seam awfully vulnerable
First time I listened to a youtube video till the end.
What’s the comparison in body bags of Trump vs Obama? The perception is that Trump isn’t continuing the drone war but I’ve seen articles that says he is if anything accelerating the drone war.
kamijk Obama had a full eight years, so he got bodies for miles
@@Slop_Dogg trump is doing his best to catch up theintercept.com/2019/10/02/trump-impeachment-civilian-casualties-war/
Yeah unless trump gets the full 8 it obviously won’t be comparable unless he reaaaally wanted to ramp it up now
Nathan Gonzalez well, I mean, we could compare on a per year basis.
Seeing how 2020 started, I guess Trump is more erratic than Obama.
Obama was more constant in terrorizing the Afghanis, the Iraqis, the Syrians, the Yemenites, the Libyans, ...
Iran is a state that coordinates regular warfare and partisan warfare in a way Carl Schmitt could only dream about. as far as reactionary bourgeois states, theyre pretty cool and one of the few regimes I'll go soft tankie for
A force that imposed such a brutal defeat on the CIA can't be all bad.
Any of the people in the military I've talked to are VERY confident about their chances of pwning newb Iran, China, you name it..
WWIII, here we come.
Little did you all know, ww3 started a while back. You are literally at war with china. Have been for the good part of a year now. .
Covid, sealed borders, tech wars (5g) corporate/state espionage re: internet 2.0 ("disappearing" planes anyone)
But yeah, Iran is gonna start ww3.. keep following the little bouncy ball and read along.
@@finished6267 Socialism will win
Ohhh, so that's why this one was in my recommendations. Tough break, I guess.
very relevant
Greetings from WW3
All is well!
Get this trending UA-cam
Well. Here we are.
3:26
*Curb your Enthusiasm theme starts playing*
The Iranians are not amused.
Coming back to this after Biden’s recent statements
Welp this aged well. See you there boys.
I could easily imagine an unimaginable situation
Lions Led By Donkeys podcast; juicy 5-episode series on the Iran-Iraq war
Man, who's pumped for WW3 in 2020?
Reparations. 2024.
How I will beat Iran: Unreal Tournament 1999 - Deck 16, 2 player Deathmatch.
28:06 damn
Fujairah does not appear to be an enclave. There is an enclave of Oman within the UAE not far to the north, and funnily enough an enclave of UAE within that same enclave, but Fujairah is contiguous with the main bulk of UAE. Guess there's a reason he's not called The Geography Nerd.
28:05 We just droned this guy into martyrdom. I'm sure it'll turn out fine.
The US took out a vile killer and took no casualties in response. Iran lobbed a few missiles, deliberately missing personnel and even giving notice to the US that the attack was coming so they could prepare. Iran is only scary in that American leaders are weak enough to let an exceptionally weak enemy win. (Oh, and the advanced Iranian military took out a commercial plane filled with ... Iranians. That airliner accounts for all the casualties they caused in the skirmish).
@@sybo59 11 wounded american service members in the missile strikes counts as casualties my friend
haji dangerfield That didn’t happen though.
@@sybo59 so taking out people in foreign countries we deem as killers is cool. Hope the rest of the world doesn't start coming after our killers in power.
@@sybo59very normal, very sane comment...
Listened to this like 2 weeks ago for the first time. Thought we had dodged a bullet...
Well this clip aged well
The US already did a regime change in Iran: the CIA overthrew it's democratically-elected secular government in 1953, installed the brutal regime of the Shah, which the people overthrew, putting in the theocratic government we see now.
"War Nerd" needed to unpack Hizbollah; he omitted the fact that it grew as a reaction to Isr.'s protraced occupation of Southern Lebanon.
Also, even in a Progressive setting, talk of the military reeks of toxic masculinity.
Shhhh... Don't tell them. They think it's Israel vs bad non Jewish Arabs
@@polemius01 A grownup state run by grownups needs to think about war, get over yourself
@@JulianPerez-zv6os War is a FAILURE, a crime against human logic. Failed negotiations need to be continued until there is an agreement.
Yet, war is almost inevitable when a government (like W's) insist that they want it. It's almost exclusively boy wanting to play with their toys.
W, Cheney and Rumsfeld were Rambo wannabes who caused hundreds of thousands of people to be killed, and wasted billion of dollars in a country (The US) where people are hungry, homeless and sick.
Your sad attempt to infantilize me merely resulted in your own childish war-mongering to be exposed.
@@polemius01 meh, get over yourself you unrealistic hippie
"Expected ethnic minority uprisings did not occur"
Between Iraq in '91 and '03, Iran in '80, Vietnam in '68, etc. There are *so fucking many* examples of one country invading another and the civilian populace of those countries to (essentially) do their job for them, but are there any examples of that strategy actually paying off?
iran can meet me in the wafflehouse parking lot
This foreign policy distinction makes it ethically difficult to vote for Biden.
Considering Trump was definitely involved in killing an Iranian nuclear scientist and Biden was apart of the administration that had a nuclear deal?
at 11:40, the war nerd refers to Saddam's Rail Gun, which is presumably project Babylon. This was NOT a rail gun, but a supergun more similar to a piece of artillery. Disappointing comment from the war nerd
Maybe he means like the rail gun in reference to the German one mounted on rails. Hence rail-gun, rather than a rail gun with magnets.
It’s a gun on rails, dullard.
O N O
This guy sounds like Donald Sutherland in JFK.
Inching closer
Damn
It's so distasteful that America aligns itself with Saudi Arabia instead of Iran. Iran has such a long and rich history of innovation and a large degree of cosmopolitaism, while Saudi Arabia is a backwards af authoritarian theocracy that happens to have oil. Such short term thinking.
*Ron Paul it's happening gif*
I mean I certainly agree that a war in Iran would be a disaster and cost more than the US would be willing to give, which is basically the mainstream opinion, but Dolan seems to speak from some sort of position of authority? He seems to have no particular insight aside from that of someone with a significant personal interest in military history/geopolitics, from what I can tell, despite speaking in near certainties about enormous hypotheticals. He reminds me of a sports beat writer but for war. Maybe I'm missing something but not a huge fan, we over analyze most political shit based on the limited information we are given but this is leagues above even that.
I like to hear his thoughts because he has a fairly decent track record in the past. Guessing the future is basically impossible because as a species we can be such unpredictable little monsters, but he has done better than most people that dare to predict future conflicts
@@jonnyozark4594 he's certainly willing to phrase things in such a way the main stream media wont which is refreshing. The whole exercise just seems a bit foolhardy to me and him taking it to the extremes he does with the certainty he does just rubs me the wrong way I suppose.
no mention of Israel ....
I think many people actually voted for Trump because he was outspoken against War, while Hillary was stoking the fire in Syria. Now Trump has retreated "Her" and McCain's efforts.
Now, Trump is forced to have those warhawks around because of Washington political reality.
Give both Trump and people who voted for him some credit here.
I don't give Trump "credit" per se but so far his tendencies have resulted in a hesitancy toward new war (though he's bombed Syria, continued the previous wars and now attacked the Iranian military) and this tendency was not present in the Bush administration. The reason I don't give him credit is because most of that tendency comes from a lack focus, intellect, determination or follow through. If Trump thought he could topple the Iranian regime in a few months and that he wouldn't have to attend complicated briefings and that the American people would love him for it then he wouldn't hesitate to start a ground war. The net effect is that he doesn't start a ground war (so far) and I appreciate that. But to give him credit implies some level of accomplishment or action based on conviction.
Let's put it this way. If there was a group of people beating up an innocent man and there was a cowardly drunk guy standing off to the side and only spitting on the victim, I wouldn't give the drunk guy "credit" for not participating in the violence. I would just be glad that his cowardly nature and drunken state have prevented him from participating.
Yeah, that's a yikes my guy
War with Iran would be horrible and wrong and all that, I mean, I’m a leftist myself too. But tbh, they’re off the mark on this one, they might not be able to accomplish any political goals beyond destroying the country but the US military could do it. Ppl get the wrong impression from the bungled occupation, but in the actual invasion the Iraqis fought hard, and it wasn’t easy to defeat them so quick and with so little losses. That was the result of the decades of prepping for WW3, the US military excels at fighting regular forces(as in standing armies not guerrillas or terrorists).
They hit their communications, power, supply chains, command centers, everything they needed to turn a bunch of guys with guns into an organized war. They moved fast and strategically, bypassing and encircling cities instead of getting bogged down and overtaking Iraqi units who were too confused to fight, having no comms thus no orders, nor any idea the Americans were even so close. Conventional war comes down to logistics and Iran suffers the same major disadvantage as Iraq here, they can’t reach anything US military needs to function, only their forward forces, some of which can maneuver and be hard to hit. Meanwhile their gov and military leadership depends upon static targets, targets the US has been spying and mapping probably since the hostage crisis and today even the most hardened bunkers can be defeated. It’d be bloodier and longer than Iraq but Iran could be defeated and occupied. War is just an extension politics tho, so any US “victory” there would differently defined than simply destroying the state and standing army, the ppl would definitely resist and possibly achieve a political victory in the long run.
I feel like some ppl had this idea that the situation would be alright, because they thought Iran could just resist and it wouldn’t end up as another case of us absolutely ruining a country and it’s ppls lives, the right getting stronger off it and the rich richer, all without consequence or any of us being able to do anything to stop it, maybe we’d even get a bloody nose and learn a lesson. But frankly, that’s not realistic.
I was thinking the same thing. Iran is a tougher nut than Iraq, but it's not China. Supposing the US could base itself in Iraq, or Kuwait, they could most certainly reach Tehran, kill the leadership and then find itself mired in another endless war over an ultimately meaningless regime change.
Not really a win, but I don't accept his assertion that Iran could militarily defeat the US or hold them and fight them to a stand still. Not to be too technologically deterministic about it, but they made their point about the cost of an F-35 without taking into account what having the F-22 and F-35 mean in a war.
Absurd, Iran is utterly non-invadeable
@@MC-pt8kv I agree in principle, but once you throw terrain in the mix things get a LOT harder in Iran. Not impossible, but a lot more bloody for the US, especially if we don't have the rest of the Western world backing us.
@@freakyzed8467 One of the other things that Dolan brings up a LOT on his show is that the idea of "acceptable losses" is entirely contextual. An Iran, which has a large population with a relatively strong national identity and pride, and has been under siege for decades has a population which is much, MUCH more psychologically prepared for a dirty war than the exhausted US population engaging in another war on the other side of the globe. While the US military is the most dangerous tornado of death in the world, it could cost the US its empire to take Iran. Cracking open public support for the government due to the combination of another aggresive war, mass death of US soldiers, and potential knockon effects if Iran made the choice to preserve its sovereignty by hitting the world economy in its black, oily heart by decimating Saudi Arabia's ability to produce oil or hell, exist, makes this war an INSANELY dangerous idea.
You’re wholly brain dead if you think Iran is geographically or demographically anywhere comparable to Iraq. Look at a topographical map, donkey. How about you spend n hour reading a book on Iran’s history rather than watching some illiterate groomer streamer like Vaush. You’re not a ‘leftist’ because you form a parasocial relationship with neckbeards. Learn something.
I feel that we have failed to utilize our modern technology (drones, missiles and etc.) but I feel that Iran has mastered them (they spend pennies building them too). It is just like WWI and the fact that many countries failed to utilize their machine guns, even though they were used in many small wars before hand (Japanese vs Russia for one).
Trump dun did it
wwwwwwwwwweeeeeeeeeeeeeeelp...
Man I'm sorry but does the self professed "War Nerd" not actually know what a wargame is? He seems to think it's a simulation...
He does though
@@JulianPerez-zv6os he obviously didn't. He also had no idea why the US kept "changing" the results. He factors it to corruption when in reality it was because 1. ALL wargames are meant to be reset and run, reset and run under different circumstances to get an idea of ideal conditions vs worst case scenerios and 2. Van Riper's scenerio was terrible. The war game was run by a computer simulation, the red team's success hinged on abusing faults in the computer simulation's system such as breaking the laws of physics by mounting missile launchers on boats that are of the same size as the launcher, using instantaneous untraceable, un disruptive, 100% reliable communication, having access to more exocet missiles than available, in the entire world (at the time).
Red team also abused limitations that goes against human nature they used civilian ships to "attack" the blue team, but even after several blue ships were sank by such a tactic, the blue ships would not fire at "civilian" vessels of the same type suspiciously racing at them.
Moreover, as often happens in such simulations and war games, the blue team was forced into a unrealistically bad position from the onset, into a small grid, packed tightly, while in reality the US would not have carriers inside the Persian Gulf in the case of an escalation.
@@iannordin5250 Yawn. All of that is just quibbling by people who can't accept the rigged game gave results they don't like. But yeah, he's right, the simulation assumed several things that have nothing to do with actual war: that there's a timeline, and there's a distinction between civilian and military, which doesn't exist in conflicts like this. As for computer flaws - nope, any similar attack would group ships together in the Persian Gulf. You can literally WALK over it from end to end in some places, it's that shallow and narrow. The solution is obviously not to go to war there, as the US will lose.
@@iannordin5250 Yeah, van Riper was despised because he let the cat out of the bag about a hubristic empire teetering on failure
@@iannordin5250 like, the "He used lightspeed comminications" is a meaningless quibble that doesn't change the facts of the situation, that there is zero difference between at war and not at war and between civilian and military, and that the fleet is uniquely vulnerable to cheap surface weapons. No little quibble changes that or would have changed the outcome. I mean, all you guys have done is lose for decades. I don't trust your opinions because you just fuck up and don't know what you are talking about
The problem the US has is nation building. I don’t think the US would have any trouble laying waste to Iran or any other country regardless of how many drones they might have.
True, but that is really the least important part of fighting war in the 21st Century
@@JulianPerez-zv6os that’s why we’re not doing it any more. We are doing “quiet wars”, like did you know about the wars were fighting right now in Syria, Yemen, Iran, and China? Of course not because they’re quiet. The Powell doctrine is dead. No more going to the UN and making a big show of force… now in China just a bunch of dams mysteriously open all their floodgates at the same time and destroy billions of dollars worth of infrastructure and kill thousands… then a bunch of aeronautics research facilities mysteriously explode … and so on.
Great conversation, very prescient, but annoying af how the guest keeps mixing up Iran and Iraq when he speaks about them
This clip didn't age well
Yes it did. Their predictions were bang on.
Sure it did
.......shit
I'm really feeling that the whole "spacefleet" thing that the Trump admin is going through with is to literally eliminate the advantages that these mountains offer.
YAY! Violating another international agreement!
Sure.
Space based weapons didn't exactly turn things around in Afghanistan. You overvalue their utility
Good episode but War Nerd’s characterization of the Iraq-Iran war being so one sided is inaccurate. If it was, then explain this?:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawakalna_ala_Allah_Operations
“Result: Decisive Iraqi victories; Iranian forces expelled from Iraqi territory; Iran's submission to UN's resolutions regarding the cease of fire with Iraq.”
It took Iraq 8 years with one of if not the strongest armies in the middle east, the financial backing of pretty much every country in the region, and the US attacking the Iranian navy and downing that airliner to take a few thousand square miles in a war they started with the intent of taking over the whole country. Yeah, Iran kicked their ass.
You must be joking, do you? Iraqi military got owned by the Iranian forces.
aged like milk.
Like cheeses.
the assessment of quantity vs quality of dumb weapons certainly hasnt aged particularly well. and basing an argument on US and Iranian capabilities almost entirely on bombings in the 80s seems odd.
What a gay title for this clip
Still not as bad as your try hard name.
12:00 aged poorly
How? Because epic HIMARs against the decrepit Russians? Iran doesn’t fight like that lmao.