r/moderatepolitics • u/200-inch-cock unburdened by what has been • 24d ago

Trump Team Weighs Options, Including Airstrikes, to Stop Iran’s Nuclear Program News Article

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/trump-iran-plan-nuclear-weapons-def26f1d

166 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

142

I have to assume Israel is drawing up similar plans.

90

u/seattlenostalgia 24d ago edited 24d ago

I'll get shit on for this, but it may not be a bad idea. Air striking Iranian nuclear capabilities would be a short term geopolitical headache but future generations everywhere would thank us for it.

Imagine if we had done the same in North Korea. Now that they have nukes they're basically a thorn in everyone's side forever, and there's no way to get rid of them or even meaningfully pressure them to do anything.

25

u/Bunny_Stats 24d ago

But how does bombing a facility today solve the problem "for future generations?" Their nuclear enrichment facilities are deep underground, the Iranians have been preparing for US airstrikes on their enrichment sites for over 20 years. You can bomb the entrances and exits, which would slow production, but then what? Do you just keep bombing the same entrances and exits every month forever? Do you think bombing them indefinitely makes it more or less likely that Iran hardens its attitude and feels it needs nukes to defend itself?

This is not a problem that can be solved by bombing. You either need to negotiate with the regime so that they feel sufficiently safe that they don't need nukes, or else you need to go for a full ground invasion, which would be on a massively larger scale than either Iraq war. There is no easy middle-ground.

18

u/Airedale260 24d ago

Because Iran clearly doesn’t give a shit about deterrence; they’re a massive geopolitical headache that has already used weapons to try and murder noncombatants, simply because they exist.

And yes, you can absolutely post-hole the shit out of it, or launch some kind of short-term raid (similar to what the U.S. did with Osama) and get back out. Wrecking everything Iran’s worked for over the past, what, 10-15 years or so is one HELL of a message, and if they try anything else, then bombing the shit out of Kharg Island until Iran collapses is doable.

Negotiation won’t work; between mutual distrust and the shit Iran has pulled over the years (decades) with us and our allies means there is no way to come to a solution both sides can live with.

*-Kharg Island is a location off the coast in the Gulf which carries about 90% of Iran’s oil to the world market. Taking it out would completely wreck Iran’s economy, and if it’s done on top of hitting their nuclear sites? It won’t be overnight, but the regime will be toast.

5

u/Ind132 23d ago

(similar to what the U.S. did with Osama)

How about "similar to what the US tried in Iran during the 'hostage crisis' "?

Because Iran today is more like Iran then, as opposed to Pakistan.

13

u/Bunny_Stats 24d ago

And yes, you can absolutely post-hole the shit out of it, or launch some kind of short-term raid (similar to what the U.S. did with Osama) and get back out.

You watch too many movies my friend. Slipping in a couple of helicopters to take on a terrorist with a couple of bodyguards and no state support is in no way comparable to entering the heavily fortified military bases under which the enrichment facilities are built. No offence, but this isn't a feasible option. It's like suggesting North Korea could "raid" Fort Knox.

6

u/Airedale260 24d ago

You misunderstand a couple of key points. My argument isn’t that it would be easy, but rather that it’s not either “massive invasion and occupation” or nothing; you can do the “objective raid/invasion” bit and then get back out without an occupation.

It would still be a big challenge, since it would likely require something along the lines of multiple carrier groups, amphibious assault ships, the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions, the entire Ranger regiment, and detachments from special forces backed up by a metric fuckton of airpower, but unlike the North Koreans (or anyone else), the U.S. has the logistical capability to actually pull such an operation off, since we have a global reach.

It wouldn’t be easy, but it’s certainly possible for the U.S. to pull it off. More so if certain allies in the region (some combination of Kuwait, the UAE, the Saudis, etc) allow us to stage out of their territory and/or allow us to use them as regrouping points.

7

u/Bunny_Stats 24d ago

Keep in mind we aren't talking about a single facility here, we're talking about multiple enrichment sites across a half-dozen military bases that are spread throughout the interior of Iran. This would not be a small operation.

For comparison, it took six months to prepare the supplies necessary for the first Gulf War, which didn't step foot in Iraq and only focused on liberating Kuwait. While you could skimp and get away with fewer supplies in your limited-invasion plan, do you really want to risk having the entire 82nd and 101st divisions left in the middle of Iran without enough supplies to get them out? If not, you're going to need a pretty substantial build up above and beyond what's necessary to ensure you have the spare capacity to handle unexpected problems, like say an Iranian drone slipping through and hitting an ammo dump, and that takes time.

Meanwhile, Iran is two weeks away from building a nuke if they go all-out.

In a race as to who would be ready first, I would not be confident betting on the US.

1

u/seeyaspacetimecowboy 22d ago

I would not bet against the world's premier areal strike force that loves sitting around and wargaming every possible "how do we bring fury and fire precisely where we want it, when we want it" scenario with its titanic budget. Israel infiltrated and completely trashed Iran's capabilities from land bases in a restricted geographic origin.

The USAF can bomb Iran from Arkansas.

1

u/Bunny_Stats 22d ago

And that's precisely why Iran has spent the last 20 years making sure it's enrichment facilities are deep underground, safe from any airstrike.

3

u/seeyaspacetimecowboy 22d ago

safe from any airstrike.

Similar to ships safe from any icebergs.

→ More replies

1

u/Baderkadonk 23d ago

Negotiation won’t work; between mutual distrust and the shit Iran has pulled over the years (decades) with us and our allies means there is no way to come to a solution both sides can live with.

Are we ignoring the deal Obama negotiated for Iran to cease nuclear development? Negotiations would have worked if Trump hadn't pulled out of the deal.

Maybe these countries end up being such a problem for us because the only "solution" people like you can come up with is: more bombs. Just keep attacking countries to "avoid war." Maybe they'll learn to love the United States if we just kill enough of them.

6

u/Airedale260 23d ago

I mean they took our diplomats hostage for over a year, then bombed a synagogue in 1994 because they hate Jews, and generally want to export their system of government to other countries (their particular take on Shi’a Islam is spreading it by force).

Then there’s the decades long support for Hamas and Hezbollah, including sponsoring attacks that killed hundreds of Americans. And the deal only tried to delay them getting a bomb, not give it up (read: kicking the can down the road until Obama was no longer in office)…amid public opposition from both sides of the aisle.

4

u/Neglectful_Stranger 23d ago

Negotiations would have worked if Trump hadn't pulled out of the deal.

They really wouldn't, the deal was garbage.

1

u/Darrackodrama 21h ago

What about the shit the us has pulled in Iran, backing the Shah? Stealing their Oil? Getting rid of a democratically elected leader? Negotiation won't work because we have always been the exploiter of iran. Now they want to negotiate despite this history and really for no good reason given our history and you all refuse just because "iran bad". Good luck starting a war with Iran and getting dragged into Iraq 5.0 for little to no gain.

9

u/[deleted] 24d ago

Aren’t most of them underground now?

34

u/Positron311 24d ago

Bunker busters are a thing

20

u/Astrocoder 24d ago

Conventional bunker busters wont get their sites. The only one that MIGHT is the 30,000 pound bunker buster bomb the US created. Iranian sites are buried deep in rock.

21

u/MISSISSIPPIPPISSISSI 24d ago

You can also keep dropping them in the same spot.

5

u/Bullet_Jesus There is no center 24d ago

Has that ever been tested? All I've read is that it could work in theory.

20

u/Skeptical0ptimist Well, that depends... 24d ago

I believe that IDF strike on Hezbollah headquarters which killed Nasralah was a dozen of bunker buster bombs dropped on the same coordinate repeatedly.

5

u/WulfTheSaxon 24d ago

Yep, reportedly 2,000 lb bombs.

7

u/MISSISSIPPIPPISSISSI 24d ago

Good question. There is always this baddie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-57A/B_MOP

9

u/cathbadh 24d ago

The Americans have the ability to repeatedly hit the same location, so they would work. Israel unfortunately doesn't have the resources to hit more than one or two sites a single time.

7

u/tribblite 24d ago

And you don't have to destroy the bunker, you can also just mangle the tunnel and all the rock above it. I don't think it's that easy to build deep tunnels in gravel.

1

u/Ginger_Anarchy 23d ago

Also the psychological effects of the US showing they know exactly where the facilities are would probably cause them to panic and try to move facilities elsewhere, which takes a while.

1

u/darito0123 24d ago

nah ur right, there is no way to "bunker bust" an actual mountain, there are ways to close off entrances for a time etc but its not something that can be sealed off forever with airstrikes

1

u/DontCallMeMillenial 24d ago

EW surveillance can still find that easily.

1

u/Jugaimo 23d ago

I mean striking a nation’s nuclear missile sites is an outright act of war. I don’t think Iran will respond too kindly to such an attack.

-1

u/Big_Muffin42 24d ago

I like the idea in theory.

But I do worry about potential fallout. Or other side effects

Chernobyl had a radioactive cloud float into Germany. It nearly leaked into the water system which would have made Europe basically uninhabitable.

8

u/CaptainDaddy7 24d ago

You got a source for that? I just googled it and couldn't find anything.

-1

u/Big_Muffin42 24d ago

Source for what? The risk of fall out? Or what happened with Chernobyl?

3

u/CaptainDaddy7 24d ago

That it was close to making Europe uninhabitable

1

u/Big_Muffin42 24d ago

Sure. https://eudocs.net/stories/examining-the-chernobyl-disaster-in-depth-evaluation-and-research-studies/

Basically the efforts to reduce the damage were greatly successful. There still is contamination in the Black Sea, but not significant

The big risk was in the Dnieper river. If more (and certain) particulates had gotten into the supply larger regions around the Black Sea would have been uninhabitable or at great risk

1

u/CaptainDaddy7 23d ago

Thanks, that was an interesting read, although I didn't see anything about how Europe was at risk of being uninhabitable.

1

u/Big_Muffin42 23d ago

It’s rare to find an article that directly states it, as it is impossible to prove without a doubt. But there are articles, similar to what was linked that describe fallout being seen in water systems throughout Europe. It also is noted in many places that a large steam explosion through groundwater was avoided and that this would have caused even more significant fallout.

How much fallout in what places, it is impossible. It’s only speculation on worst possible scenario based on what we see now.

0

u/PastAffect3271 24d ago

Check out the book “midnight in Chernobyl” for specifics and sources but TLDR the immensely hot (2,000+ degrees Fahrenheit) lava-like mixture of graphite and fuel was burning through the floor of the reactor and threatening to mix with the cooling water reservoir, which would have theoretically caused a massive steam explosion and flung radiation across Eastern Europe even more that it was already doing. Separately, it was leaking into a major watershed, which would have leaked radiation into drinking water across Europe as well, essentially making all that water undrinkable and unusable for millions.

6

u/TexasPeteEnthusiast 24d ago

Destroying a nuclear weapon's site would not create the kind of radioactivity that Chernobyl produced, nor would it create the kind of fallout that successful detonation of a nuclear weapon would produce.

-1

u/Big_Muffin42 24d ago

I beg to differ.

It won’t detonate. But it could lead to a meltdown or any other kind of scenario where fallout happens

6

u/Airedale260 24d ago

…that is not how things work. And Israel destroyed Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981, yet the Middle East wasn’t rendered uninhabitable.

-1

u/Big_Muffin42 24d ago

When you hit a nuclear reactor you put great risk of things going wrong. The osirak reactor lacked the nuclear fuel as it was only partly operational at the time. We know Iran has been refining nuclear fuel. Apples to oranges situations

Did it cause a meltdown? No, but it could have if certain things were different.

35

u/Nerd_199 24d ago edited 24d ago

Their are going to, it just matter of when.

Iran is really weak right now with the assinations of the Iranian general in 2020.

Hamas and Hezbollah is getting wrecked by Israel, and Syria which would transfer weapons between the proxy, have fallen

1

u/MisterVS 23d ago

I believe the plans are already there and Bibi needs US direct involvement to succeed since America has the type of bunker buster type ordnance to cause meaningful damage to the mountain buried facilities. Wow, that was a long sentence.

1

u/Anonymmmous RINO 22d ago

Aren’t a lot of their facilities underground and well fortified?

-46

u/Flatbush_Zombie 24d ago

These are Israel's plans. Trump will do their bidding. So much for avoiding World War 3.

35

u/biglyorbigleague 24d ago

I think Israel has plans to do this themselves.

7

u/cathbadh 24d ago

Israel lacks the resources to do a whole lot of damage to Iran's nuclear sites. They could hit one pretty well, or two maybe. However, there are multiple sites, and some are buried and fortified well enough that it would take more than Israel could muster for a single series of attacks.

-28

u/Flatbush_Zombie 24d ago

Then they should go right ahead. Trump's team looking to do this sounds more like Israel First policy. I don't see how you can be America First if you're beholden to the whims of the Jewish State.

18

u/cathbadh 24d ago edited 24d ago

I don't see how you can be America First if you're beholden to the whims of the Jewish State.

You don't see how a an unstable state that uses terrorism as its preferred foreign policy tool getting nuclear weapons would be bad for the US?

Also, why "Jewish State," and not Israel? Why focus on the religion of the country you imply controls the US president?

2

u/Baderkadonk 23d ago

They probably called it The Jewish State to draw a comparison to the Islamic State.

5

u/cathbadh 23d ago

I hope so, although ISIS isn't mentioned elsewhere in the thread. It is just troubling when people combine Jewish and politicians being controlled, so I was hoping for clarification.

45

u/biglyorbigleague 24d ago

Iran getting nuclear weapons is bad for everyone, not just Israel. This is a global threat.

-21

u/PerfectZeong 24d ago

The world? No. Europe the middle east Africa and large parts of Asia? Yeah.

19

u/biglyorbigleague 24d ago

Yes, the world. Nuclear proliferation is a global balance of power problem. It is in everyone’s interest that no more countries go nuclear.

20

u/rggggb 24d ago

Or yknow maybe allies share the same geopolitical goals and would both benefit from a weakened Iran? This idea that the US is a puppet for Israel is maybe the most childish, inane, unintelligent, unhinged, and unrealistic take imaginable. If the US were beholden to Israel they would be doing a bit more to assist the absolute demolition of Israel’s enemies that they’re doing basically single-handedly. Yes the US supports a close ally. Stay mad about it.

-1

u/[deleted] 24d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 24d ago

This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:

Law 1. Civil Discourse

~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.

Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 30 day ban.

Please submit questions or comments via modmail.

30

u/GetAnESA_ROFL 24d ago

There's a big difference between targeted drone strikes, and WW3 with boots on the ground. I'm sure you already knew that, though.

4

u/EclecticEuTECHtic 24d ago

Need more than drone strikes to take out hardened underground bunkers.

11

u/MISSISSIPPIPPISSISSI 24d ago

Israel has already shown that can fly F35s over Iran with impunity.

-1

u/cathbadh 24d ago

Which is why they could hit one or two sites. They don't have enough F35s, bombs, or aerial refulers to hit them all.

4

u/MISSISSIPPIPPISSISSI 24d ago

I have a feeling they would utilize US air assets for such an important strike. Maybe not.

3

u/cathbadh 24d ago

That's a different scenario, but Israel can't just decide to use the US. Speaking strictly of Israel, the number of planes they have means very limited options. And since I'm getting down votes for some reason this isn't me shitting on Israel, it's a literal acknowledgment of the quantity of planes they possess

1

u/MISSISSIPPIPPISSISSI 24d ago

I see what you are saying. Not sure why you are getting downvoted. I think it would be the US approaching Israel and offering to help. Israel could also carry out strikes on different days.

18

u/Dinocop1234 24d ago

Can you explain the chain of events that you believe would lead to a world wide war? What is it you envision when you say that?

-21

u/Flatbush_Zombie 24d ago

Launching an attack on a sovereign nation that has close relations with China and Russia? Do you really have a hard time understanding how an unprovoked attack wouldn't have broader implications when we already have antagonistic relations with that nation and their closest allies?

11

u/cathbadh 24d ago

Launching an attack on a sovereign nation that has close relations with China and Russia?

They've attacked Iran and retaliated against Iran repeatedly without issue. Russia just fled from their other regional ally without offering any help, and lost all of the bases they'd need to project force in the region. China hasn't had a successful military engagement in more than half a century and has very little ability to project force.

With that said, your statement works both ways. Whether you believe China and Russia would be justified in attacking Israel or not, would they risk launching an attack on a sovereign nation that has close relations with the United States, the most powerful military on the planet?

Do you really have a hard time understanding how an unprovoked attack

Did history begin yesterday or something? There's been a back and forth between those two countries for decades now.

and their closest allies?

Hizballah, HAMAS, and the Houthis have all been shown to have piles of Russian manufactured weapons. China is helping prop up a nation that would gladly see every Jew on the planet eliminated. T hey already have antagonistic relations.

18

u/zimmerer 24d ago

They're not really defense pack allies. It's not like Civ 5 where attacking one would trigger declarations of war by all of them.

13

u/Dinocop1234 24d ago

So can you not describe the scenario that you appear to believe would likely lead to a world war?

Does acing affronted at the very idea you would be questioned qualify as moderate discourse of ideas in your mind?

-16

u/Magic-man333 24d ago

Seriously need it spelled out that directly?

Russia and Iran are on pretty good terms. Webe seen them coordinating during the Syrian war and Iran supported Russia's invasion of Ukraine and sold them weapons. If we hit Iran and they declare war over it, there's a good chance Russia would join in to help it's ally and get a potential propaganda win after the cf Ukraine has been.

China is Iran's largest trade partner and famously staring down an impending population bubble. They've been aggressively posturing in the Pacific and taking political shots at the US whenever it can. Iran also provides China with a ton of oil and gas at a good rate, which bolsters its attempts to be a major world power. They could join Iran since that'd be a great opportunity to go after Taiwan and the rest of SE Asia while the US is stretched out on other fronts.

16

u/Astrocoder 24d ago

...no. Russia couldnt save Assad. They arent going to start a world war for Iran.

-8

u/Magic-man333 24d ago

Iran and Russia wouldnt be crazy, I'll give you that. The big question is if they can convince China to join in. China is friendly with both of them and buys a ton of oil from them. If they were to both fall, that leaves China pretty much in its own opposing the US and other westernized nations. If we did this in a way that makes it seem like we're much more willing to go after our adversaries, there's a chance theyd band together and start lashing out like a group of cornered animals.

7

u/Amerifatt 24d ago

you seem to mistake friendliness with an actual defense treaty or pact. Armenia was in CSTO (Russian NATO) when Azerbaijan attacked, Russia didn't do anything.

0

u/Magic-man333 24d ago

More saying there's a possibility they'd all team up if it looks like the US is going after it's rivals. Also, is there a reason no one's talking about China here?

3

u/obtoby1 24d ago

Russia has just fled from one it's long term allies in the Middle East, are bogged down in a war thats draining their manpower, economy, and international reputation, and facing internal security threats including a potential civil war. They can't afford to care about Iran. Not would they be willing to risk inviting American military action in any capacity.

As for China, they care little for the middle east outside of proxy wars and international chess playing. They only about Chinese lands, Taiwan and the Russian far east specifically. China wouldn't risk upsetting one it's major contributors to its economy just for Iran.

32

u/Sabertooth767 Neoclassical Liberal 24d ago

Ah yes, WW3. US and allies versus Iran and.... Shi'ite militias?

Iran has no friends. A war against Iran would have no impact on the lives of most Americans. Park a Carrier Strike Group in the Gulf and let 'er rip, we win.

0

u/karim12100 Hank Hill Democrat 24d ago

Iran has publicly said that if they’re attacked, they will in turn launch attacks on the Saudi oil infrastructure and basically wreck the global economy.

https://www.businessinsider.com/iran-strike-saudi-oil-sites-in-revenge-for-israeli-attack-2024-10

8

u/RevolutionaryBug7588 24d ago

Of course that’s what they’re going to say because they have to say something.

On the other hand, I believe that Iran is a bit smarter than that. Similar to how they use Hamas and the people of Palestine to create empathy, they’d be going against that if they decided to destroy the Saudi fields.

This would only turn the majority of the Middle East, and other countries that rely on Saudis oil production, against them.

But…. If you consider this option playing out, it won’t necessarily matter because Trump only has this term. What could potentially happen if a dem is elected next term, is they’d find a way to drop billions in the lap of Iran, so they continue doing Iran shit.

3

u/karim12100 Hank Hill Democrat 24d ago

I think their calculus will be that the majority of the world and the Middle East is already against them and their only trump card at the moment is going nuclear which will basically make them North Korea but with an export that the world desperately needs. Losing that will basically end their ability to influence the region.

5

u/obtoby1 24d ago

The problem with attacking Saudi oil is that everyone uses it. Sure, America might get insulted, but any county with ties to Saudi oil will retaliate like how the coalition did during the Gulf war. Iran would be the New Iraq

2

u/MikeyMike01 23d ago

This is as believable as North Korean threats to nuke California.

All they’d be doing is giving the nation with the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 7th largest air forces in the world the green light to begin bombing. It’s a suicidal move.

-8

u/Right-Baseball-888 24d ago

Iran has no friends? What?

One of Iran’s closest allies is Russia. They’ve been sending Russia drones to use against Ukraine for MONTHS

And while not on the same level as Russia, China has been getting friendlier and friendlier with Iran within the past few years. Iran’s weakened but it’s not alone.

12

u/cathbadh 24d ago

One of Iran’s closest allies is Russia

The country that just abandoned an ally because they were incapable of supporting them, losing their most important naval base, and cutting themselves off from the flow of natural resources from Africa?

They’ve been sending Russia drones to use against Ukraine for MONTHS

Russia has been arming Syria and Iran for decades, and Russian manufactured weapons have been found with Hizballah, HAMAS, and the Houthis.

And while not on the same level as Russia, China has been getting friendlier and friendlier with Iran within the past few years. Iran’s weakened but it’s not alone.

China currently doesn't have the ability to project force against an island that is right next door. Please explain how they'd project force to Israel.

22

u/Sabertooth767 Neoclassical Liberal 24d ago

Oh no, not Russia! Because their war against like 5% of our military budget is going so well for them. I'm shaking, truly.

No country is going to fight the US on Iran's behalf. It's suicide.

-9

u/justpickaname 24d ago

While I agree with you that they aren't dumb enough to fight us, Americans aren't scared of their military, but their 6,000 nukes.

But you probably knew that.

11

u/No_Guidance_5054 24d ago

Yes, because Russia wants to escalate to actual suicide to defend a rogue state in a different region then them.

-5

u/justpickaname 24d ago

I don't think they do. It's just that worries about Russia are not over their army.

I think they'd be sad to lose a helpful tool, and they wouldn't care beyond that.

17

u/Sabertooth767 Neoclassical Liberal 24d ago

Of course, but would Putin effectively blow up his own country over Khomeini getting bitchslapped?

The only way a war with Iran goes hot is if we let Iran build nukes.

0

u/justpickaname 24d ago

I was unclear. This part is what I agree with.

-8

u/Flatbush_Zombie 24d ago

You've never heard of Russia? They were fighting side by side in Syria for the last decade and Iran has given them plenty of weapons for use in Ukraine.

Even parking a carrier strike group, as you say, would still risk substantial American lives and likely result in heavy losses: Iran is not Iraq circa 2003. But I shouldn't be surprised, I don't think any Trump voter actually cared about the risk of war.

15

u/Sabertooth767 Neoclassical Liberal 24d ago

>You've never heard of Russia? They were fighting side by side in Syria for the last decade and Iran has given them plenty of weapons for use in Ukraine.

Yeah, how are Syria and Ukraine going for them? I'll tell you: they just lost in one and are stalemated in the other.

>Even parking a carrier strike group, as you say, would still risk substantial American lives and likely result in heavy losses: Iran is not Iraq circa 2003. But I shouldn't be surprised, I don't think any Trump voter actually cared about the risk of war.

"Heavy losses", you say? Even if they managed to destroy a CSG (not happening) and all hands were lost, that's only ~7,500 personnel. Granted that would be more than we lost in Iraq and Afghanistan put together, but if you zoom out, that's a pretty small-scale war in the grand scheme of things.

Also, I'm not a Trump voter.

1

u/obtoby1 24d ago

Actually, comparing Iran to 2003 Iraq is apt. When the coalition attacked Iraq, they faced an army of 538,000 active soldiers, 650,000 reservists, 12,000 special Republican guards, 75,000 Republican guards, 30,000 paramilitary forces, and 6,000 Arab volunteers.

Meanwhile today Iran has around 610,000 active soldiers, and 350,000 reservists.

In terms of equipment, while the total number isn't known, all Iran has is Soviet era equipment. Against any modern western nation, especially America, their equipment, no matter what quantity would never out match our quality.

As for Russia, they just fled from Syria and are bogged down in Ukraine. They wouldn't care what happens to Iran enough to get involved outside of token economic support and maybe a few special service troops.

-3

u/Command0Dude 24d ago

In both world wars, the wars were started by America's enemies. I believe the same will be true for WW3.