If anyone wants, here's an extremely optimistic 2009 Brookings Institute white paper on how various hostile actions against Iran would play out based off numbers and history.

Chapter 3 analyses a "boots on the ground" invasion (the occupation would require a draft), Chapters 4-6 analyze American and Israeli airstrikes. Neither of them expect Iran to employ masses of drones or close the strait, and they consider ballistic missiles against US assets unlikely.

While they have an extreme western bias, there's no way you can twist the numbers to look good.

[–] TheLepidopterists@hexbear.net 11 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Chapter 3 analyses a "boots on the ground" invasion (the occupation would require a draft)

Good luck, I'm defecting as soon as they don't have eyes on me.

[–] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 10 points 6 days ago

It makes it pretty clear how insanely unfeasible a ground invasion of Iran would be even with the most optimistic assumptions.

1.3 million just for the occupation of an 88 million pop country, and that number just comes from other occupations, without taking into consideration the terrain or people or last 50 years of preparation for asymmetrical warfare.

[–] plinky@hexbear.net 23 points 1 week ago

This is one psychotic document, jesus