Smasharoo wrote:
Light infintry, I'd be inclined to call it for Israel based on numbers, weapon and vehical superiority.
Just say "I'm randomly guessing" it would save time. I'd say it would save you embarrassment, but I don't think anyone else is particularity engaged in comparison of raw firepower between the two nations. Were they, they'd probably look to any one of the dozen or so consultancies that do that for a living (you know, instead of guessing between Warhammer matches) which would demonstrate them to be about equivalent in pretty much every case. Sometimes with Israel at 20-22 globally and Iran at 25, sometimes reversed with Iran as slightly more powerful. Again, that's raw firepower. In a vacuum, if both nations went to war, who would have the advantage. If we teleported the armed forces of each country to Mars and they fought each other it would be a coin flip.
So, given that it's a roughly equal starting point....I'd imagine you can probably deduce why it wouldn't go well for Israel to proactively invade Iran. That aside, even engaging in a proactive enough strike against Iran, bombing enrichment sites, say, could result in a reaction from Iran that occupies enough of Israel's military strength to allow catastrophic consequences. They don't operate in a vacuum, you see. They operate in a region where many of their neighbors would like to do them considerable harm and currently cannot because of fear of reprisal. That fear becomes lessened substantially if Israel is entangled in a major conflict. So they won't be, don't worry. They'll talk tough and bomb apartment buildings in Lebanon or whatever other soft target they choose to harm to demonstrate their capabilities. There is zero chance they engage Iran in any serious way. Zero. The idea is laughable to any serious military analyst, and really, anyone outside of the US media or it's consumers. They'll whine because they want to remain the only nuclear power in the area, but obviously you can only continue to repress other nations ability to manufacture 60 year old technology for so long, it's a fight you can't win.
Ok, so iran has 125,000 active duty armed forces members in all branches, armed with Soviet era small arms, and a reserve of roughly 90,000. Israel has 176,500 Active duty armed forces members and 445,000 reserves, all armed with arguably at least slightly better equipment, especially on the uzi side. Thats 215,000 guys with weapons vs. 621,500, Israel. Israel has better vehicles. Israel has spare parts. I don't think that a statement claiming correctly that Israel has greater numbers, better and greater number of weapons, and superior vehicals is out of line in that regard. Add to that air superiority (there is no way in hell a Mig 29b or an F--14a can take an export F-15E or an F-16D equivelent. the air combat piece would be laughably one sided) Naval superiority (israel has one, Iran has PT boats), and the fact that an Israel - Iran conflict would start out at least as just two countries fighting since a coalition against Israel would result in Nato intervention. So ignoring that whole aspect since it would be a moot point unless someone took the U.S. off the table, Israel Vs Iran can be looked at as a simple numerical comparison. Sure there is always the chance that one or the other side will come up with a brilliant force multiplying general or new secret weapon, but looking at the publically available force and equipment numbers, Israel wins on paper even in an offense role. The question wasn't "Would they invade" or "Could they invade". It was "if they did invade, would they "lose badly"". And the answer to that question for anyone who can do basic math and strategic assessments is "no, Israel would not lose badly, if at all". They have numbers, better equipment, more equipment, intact supply lines, intact infrastructure not warn down by years of sanctions, food reserves
There are of couse wildly differeng numbers for the amount of available troops in Iran. CSIS calls it closer to 700,000. Al Jazera has it closer to 1.2 million. If those numbers are accurate, then maybe. But Iran still would lose air superiority almost immidiatly based on relitive capabilities and number of targets. Israel also has to protect a much smaller area so 80% of their forces will be available for offense. You lose air superiority, you lose most of your heavy ground weapons and artilliary. Lose those, you lose your manufacturing centers, then the rest of your infrastructure.
A "serious military analyst" would probably acknowledge that with an air superiority disparity as big as the one that existsthe question is by no means settled.