THE KNOWLEDGE! · posted by Neeraj TiwariMar 10
In history, Iran has often been considered culturally connected with India. Both share a similar ancient past, and both regions experienced attempts of religious conversion during the spread of Islam. Iran eventually became fully Islamic, while India remained religiously diverse. The word “Iran” itself is believed to be derived from “Aryan.” Iran’s territory is about half the size of India’s. People living in hot, desert, and mountainous regions are often considered resilient, and Iran has a long history of wars.
For comparison, take another country like Vietnam. It is a small country with swampy terrain, and its people were not considered especially warlike. But in the 1960s, when the United States went to Vietnam thinking it could defeat the country quickly with its advanced machines and aircraft, the Vietnamese gave American forces a very tough time. Through guerrilla warfare and by using their difficult terrain, thousands of American soldiers died, some from diseases like dengue and malaria. Eventually, the United States had to withdraw, and the Vietnam War is still remembered as a major embarrassment for a superpower.
After that, the United States became involved in Afghanistan against similarly resilient fighters. After spending around $1.5 trillion over twenty years and losing thousands of soldiers, the U.S. eventually withdrew, leaving the Taliban in power. Ironically, these same Taliban had earlier received support and training from the U.S. during the Soviet–Afghan conflict.
Capturing and controlling a country is never easy, especially if the local population is hostile and willing to fight for its leadership. Iran, Vietnam, and Afghanistan are often cited as examples of countries where resistance from the population makes occupation extremely difficult.
On the other hand, countries such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Oman have large expatriate populations and rely heavily on security support from allies like the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and others. The argument often made is that these states depend significantly on external security arrangements rather than large domestic fighting forces.
The United States generally tries to minimize direct combat where large numbers of its soldiers might die, instead relying on advanced weapons, technology, and coalition partners. Fighting to defend one’s homeland or ideology can feel very different from fighting overseas under political leadership.
There was even a report once suggesting that a U.S. commander tried to motivate troops by framing political leadership in religious terms, but the attempt reportedly backfired and drew complaints.
Therefore, the argument made here is that a highly ideological and motivated country like Iran might be damaged by long-distance military strikes, but occupying it would be extremely difficult. It also suggests that allies such as Pakistan might not easily participate in such a conflict.
According to this viewpoint, political leaders like Donald Trump understand these realities. The claim is that tensions may escalate temporarily, with weapons tested and demonstrations of strength, but eventually conflicts may de-escalate. Another argument often made is that wars can also lead to large arms sales to countries such as those in the Middle East, as well as nations like India, Pakistan, or Turkey.
Overall, the text reflects the opinion that major wars are sometimes linked with geopolitical strategy and the global arms trade.
251 views
View 2 upvotes
CVD 