That was almost 40 years ago and no longer relevant to modern warfare. Besides, Iran spent 8 years trying to beat Iraq before they called a stalemate. In the Gulf War it took the US 4 days.
The Iranian Air Force hasn't had a significant new aircraft type join in 30 years. They are still flying 3rd and 4th generation aircraft at a time the US have hundreds of 5th generation aircraft and are looking at 6th gen. It's a similar story with the Army and the Navy. Plus, the big advancements now are no longer the equipment itself but the networking around it, and Iran has practically nothing there. The conventional armed forces would not last long.
I do agree however that the US would/should not invade. Destroying their standing armed forces would only be the beginning and it would be near impossible to do anything beyond that.
Occupation is not invasion. Nobody is denying an occupation would be a disaster.
It depends on what you mean by won. Did the US fail to achieve their aim of toppling the NVA? Yes? Were they actually beaten on the battlefield? No. Did the NVA achieve their aim of toppling the South? Not whilst the US was still involved. It was a stalemate that the Americans ran out of patience with. Linebacker was launched to bring the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table but it had the secondary effect of seriously disrupting their war effort, far more than anything that had been done to that date.
Vietnam won and that is universally acknowledged. They forced the Americans out, who literally had to flee Saigon on chinooks. They didn’t just decide to leave because they “ran out of patience”. In fact, LBJ acknowledged they were losing in 68 but didn’t want to be seen to have lost so continued it until Nixon was forced to withdraw.
Occupation wouldn’t be a disaster? Assume you reckon that Iraq and Afghanistan occupations have been a success? In the first one, American and allied actions have only served to embolden their supposed arch-enemy, Iran, who now have the upper hand in Iraq. In the latter, the Taliban control the majority of the country.
On your initial point, they repelled the Iraqi invaders with their purged and decimated military and then got bogged down in their counter invasion of Iraq. Had they accepted peace talks in 1982 - offered by a battered Saddam - they would have been considered victors. Not bad considering the superior Iraqi army, funded and supplied by literally every western country and the Soviet Union for good measure.
Obviously America has a vastly more powerful military. However, the Iranian army and especially the ideological RG are trained for asymmetrical warfare, something that America and Britain have found tough to contain in Iraq and Afghanistan. On top of this, Iran has so many well armed proxies in the region to call on the potential body count (if troops on the ground) will not be worth the risk, especially with an election coming up.
The vast majority in both America and the UK do not want a war with Iran, no matter what Pompeo, Bolton and any other hawks may preach. So it would be a disaster not only from a military point of view, but political also.
A great book on Iran is one by Michael Axworthy called “Revolutionary Iran”. A cracking read and really interesting. Helps understand the country.
Mattingly, I thought I told you to shave those sideburns!