[vkou]

It wouldn't even get to that point, because in order to be fighting an insurgency, you have to actually win on the ground and occupy the country.

Without a coalition of fools, the US has zero odds of success in that first step. It wouldn't be a long war of insurgency, it would just be a long war.

Iran is far bigger, far more capable, and far more difficult to wage war in than Iraq ever was.

[burnerRhodov3]

not saying this should be a tactic we should employ, but the us has never invaded a country with the intent to conquor(except mexico). like, as in, iran is now part of the us.

the world would be aghast... but they already are?

[vkou]

It couldn't do it without switching to a war economy and full mobilization. And that would spell the end of the current US regime long before it would end the Iranian one.

Trump's approval rating has a floor of 40%, but that would likely send it to the 30s, and turn MAGA into a 30-seat party.

[burnerRhodov3]

I completely agree. I guess i should say it vice a versa. It will be impossible to win Iran and has been proven by everything from vietnam to the middle east escapades...

If you go to war with a country, you cannot allow the country to exist in any form if you truely wish the 'win a war'.

It's a modern, wierd, primarily US based 'design of war', we learned from the cold war. Go in, destabalize it enough, ensure a coup every couple of years, so that region cannot ever be a material threat to you (like the ottoman empire)

[MengerSponge]

(except mexico)

and Canada

and Hawaii

The fact that we've invaded every bordering country with the intent to conquer kind of invalidates your argument...

[burnerRhodov3]

well.. those are the ones we won?

[yareally]

The United States did not win the invasion of Canada during the revolutionary war.

[MengerSponge]

The US also did not win the invasion of Canada during the war of 1812. I'm sensing a theme.