Arjay

You've caught me on one of my pet topics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_size_of_armed_forces is a rough indicator that the US exceeds Iran in numbers of personnel and weapons in every department. But technology, command, control and communications appear to be the key ingredients these days - and in those areas the US is also way ahead.

If the US is aiming to take out Iran's nuclear facilities the most likely way to do this is by surprise. I think this mainly means air and missile strikes - areas where the US is strongest.

The US would have problems if it attemped a broad followup advance into Iranian territory and an occupation. The problem would not be conventional Iranian forces, who could be destroyed out in the open (just as the US destroyed Iraqi forces in 1991 and 2003) - the problem would come from insurgents in massive numbers fighting the US.

I think the Iranian military would don insurgents clothing fairly quickly to save their own lives and fight another day. As well Iran fielding many more insurgents than Iraq there would be broader civilian support for insurgents in Iran ie. (unlike in Iraq) fewer insurgents would be fighting each other for sectarian reasons.

So I reckon the US would go for an air approach and restrict any land attacks to special forces raids on several key nuclear installations. For more see http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/2006/01/bombing-iran-where-how-and-when.html

Regards

Pete