Iranian general confirms the 'Persian strategy' is a long war of attrition
Iran confirms its long-war strategy: 90 million people, half a million soldiers and mountainous terrain. Could Israel actually invade it?
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
The 'Persian strategy': Iran bets on a long, grinding war against Israel and the U.S.
An Iranian general has confirmed it: Iran's strategy is not to win quickly, but to hold out. While Israel and the United States planned a short war, Tehran is preparing for decades of conflict. The figure is no trivial detail: with 90 million people versus Israel's 10 million, and an army of more than half a million soldiers, Iran's capacity for attrition is enormous. Geography also works in its favour: a country three times the size of Spain, mountainous and hard to invade.
Could Israel invade Iran?
The idea of an Israeli ground assault on Iran is, to put it mildly, fanciful. Israel has between 15,000 and 20,000 paratroopers, a tenth of what some dreamers imagine. Facing them, the Iranian army has 500,000 to 550,000 troops on home soil. Recent history proves the point: wars of attrition like Vietnam (20 years) or the Soviet experience in Afghanistan show that technological superiority is not enough when the defender is willing to hold on.
The myth of the lightning war
The initial strikes on Iranian military installations have been presented as a swift success, but analysts remind us that Stalingrad was not decided in a week. Wars are not defined by air power, but by the will to fight on the ground. The Vietcong, with sandals and rifles, forced the American withdrawal. Iran, with a military industry able to produce drones and missiles continuously, can afford to lose battles without losing the war.
The Strait of Hormuz, the key to everything
Some analyses suggest the United States will attempt an amphibious landing at Bandar Abbas to secure the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world's oil passes. An extremely dangerous operation, but perhaps unavoidable if they want to avoid a strategic humiliation. Without control of Hormuz, the global economy suffers, and that is the West's true Achilles' heel.
The question nobody answers
Can a technological power like Israel, backed by the U.S., prevail over a country determined to resist to the last man? The numbers don't lie: demographics, geography and history all favour Iran. But wars are not won on figures alone; political will matters too. For now, the 'Persian strategy' is a long-term bet. Who will blink first is the open question.
Related forum discussions
An Iranian general has confirmed it: Iran's strategy is not to win quickly, but to hold out. While Israel and the United States planned a short war, Tehran is preparing for decades of conflict. The figure is no trivial detail: with 90 million people versus Israel's 10 million, and an army of more than half a million soldiers, Iran's capacity for attrition is enormous. Geography also works in its favour: a country three times the size of Spain, mountainous and hard to invade.
Could Israel invade Iran?
The idea of an Israeli ground assault on Iran is, to put it mildly, fanciful. Israel has between 15,000 and 20,000 paratroopers, a tenth of what some dreamers imagine. Facing them, the Iranian army has 500,000 to 550,000 troops on home soil. Recent history proves the point: wars of attrition like Vietnam (20 years) or the Soviet experience in Afghanistan show that technological superiority is not enough when the defender is willing to hold on.
The myth of the lightning war
The initial strikes on Iranian military installations have been presented as a swift success, but analysts remind us that Stalingrad was not decided in a week. Wars are not defined by air power, but by the will to fight on the ground. The Vietcong, with sandals and rifles, forced the American withdrawal. Iran, with a military industry able to produce drones and missiles continuously, can afford to lose battles without losing the war.
The Strait of Hormuz, the key to everything
Some analyses suggest the United States will attempt an amphibious landing at Bandar Abbas to secure the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world's oil passes. An extremely dangerous operation, but perhaps unavoidable if they want to avoid a strategic humiliation. Without control of Hormuz, the global economy suffers, and that is the West's true Achilles' heel.
The question nobody answers
Can a technological power like Israel, backed by the U.S., prevail over a country determined to resist to the last man? The numbers don't lie: demographics, geography and history all favour Iran. But wars are not won on figures alone; political will matters too. For now, the 'Persian strategy' is a long-term bet. Who will blink first is the open question.
Related forum discussions
- Guerra en siria xlviii · 27509 replies
- Guerra en ucrania xxvi · 74926 replies
- Pilingui y Lukashenko preparan ya las fuerzas NUCLEARES · 11 replies
- Guerra en oriente medio. · 47151 replies
Also available in: Deutsch
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (41 replies).
More summaries
-
F-35 Loses Its Halo: 16 Aircraft Down in 20 Days
Iran reportedly shot down at least one F-35 and 15 other aircraft in 20 days. Air defense and the S-400 question Western stealth and military spending.
-
Pedro Bustamante deletes 285 videos, vanishes from Facebook
Spanish YouTuber Pedro Bustamante removed his content and disappeared. Rumors place him in Munich, reading German press.
-
José Chaparro, the Venezuelan leading the Bolívar Battalion in Ukraine
José Chaparro leads the Bolívar Battalion, a unit of Latin American mercenaries in Ukraine. Amid accusations of marketing and evidence of combat, his figure…
-
Zelensky raises military pay and seeks foreign mercenaries
Ukraine raises military pay to as much as 8,000 euros and eases enlistment for foreign mercenaries to cover combat losses. Mercenary or suicide mission?
-
Will Putin finally bother to attack Europe's hapless leaders?
Forum users debate whether Putin has real motives to attack Europe or whether the continent is already being destroyed from within by its own politicians.
-
Solovyov issues nuclear threats against the UK
Solovyov threatens to nuke the UK, destroy Paris and occupy Berlin after the Poland-UK defence pact. An analysis of the Kremlin's bluster.