Was the Iran-Iraq war essentially the middle east's version of WW1?

So far ISIS has only fought other Arabs on the ground though.

>ISIS has been pretty successful at winning battles

Against who though? Other equally kebab-tier militias (and pretend armies) but mostly just against unarmed civilians.

The brother of my uncle, by marriage, served in the Iraqi forces. Was on AA during the Gulf War. He served during the Iran-Iraq war and had three uniforms, as he was deployed to different units as and when. If that was a widespread thing, it's no wonder they didn't have the number of troops available when needed.

You could put "peace" in quotations given border conflicts and paramilitary terrorist groups that Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Baathist-Iraq have sponsored before, during, and after the Iran-Iraq War.

But ISIS is firmly:

- anti-Shia
- anti-Iranian
- anti-Israeli
- anti-Kurd
- anti-Christian
- anti-Western

They've actually been blown out when they attacked Iran's borders the last few years.

>- anti-Israeli
funny how they aren't attacking israel

Yet. They are basically fighting everyone else though:

>Turks
>Persians
>Kurds
>Shia Arabs
>Christian Arabs and Assyrians

ISIS is retarded.

>Arabs are shit at war
Saying that doesn't even make sense. If you're gonna make such a blanket statement you have to back it up by saying what is it about Arabs that makes them so "bad" at war.

Funny how they do but you are not aware of this because you are just repeating shia memes.
ISIS has only 2 contact points with Israel. The larger one is in the south in the Sinai peninsula. There were several rocket fired and border crossing attempts by ISIS against Israeli potions and civilian traffic there and the Israeli air force bombs them regularly to support Egyptian ground troops there.
The second small contact point is in the southern Golan area, where a local militia pledged allegiance to ISIS recently. They are surrounded by opposing forces and seem to aligned with ISIS for some tribal politics reasons. They are in a very vulnerable position there and have only opened fire on an Israeli position once few months ago and were hit repeatedly in response, which lead the local tribal leader to submit assurances that this was a local initiative and will not repeat itself.

Someone post the pic explaining Arabs sucking at war. They basically hate sharing knowledge and helping others advance and are too tribal.

meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars

>Just look at how our Ally Saudi Arabia fumbles around in Yemen
That conflict is always good for a laugh

the middle east's world war i would be.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................world war i

The Iran-Iraq War is pretty baffling how incompetent both sides where.
>That one time Iran build a highway through the desert into Iraq territory without the Iraqis even noticing it.

Nah they suck too. Terrorism is not warfare. Jihadis simply try to be so annoying people eventually fuck off.

To be fair, Iran's excuse is that they were going through purges in the military and government, dealing with embargo and trade sanctions, and barely into the transition from the Revolution and Iraq still fucked this up to the point that if a peace hadn't been brokered by the UN Iran would've smashed Iraq.

Because Iran are true inheritors of the persian empire

That's cute.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mosque_seizure

>tiny under equipped Israel.

top fucking kek

>le arabs suck at war meme
>literally ignoring the fact that it's a tribal nation

You contradict yourself in your own post dumbfuck. Do you think the Yemenese are some sort of Mongolians?

what makes them bad at war is that they fail to ever win won in the modern era

for example they've collectively surrounded and have been trying to defeat israel for 50 years and get wrecked every time.

ISrael hasn't even needed to use their nukes

ISIS is losing my dude. To other Arabs at that.

When it was winning, it was winning against other Arabs while getting shit on by kurds, and now it's losing to other Arabs. Arabs are shit at war.

WW1 was the middle east's version of WW1

Putting the word relative in front of a word means something

Iran
>Coming out of a revolution and had just experienced a coup attempt (albeit minor) months before
>Purges took a lot out of the military
>Competing paramilitary organizations that didn't start really working together until like 4 years into the war
>Trade sanctions, US maintenance crews sabotaged equipment before pulling out

Iraq
>Functioning Arab state with full international support

I'd say Iran's poor performance was somewhat justified. Iraq is a disgrace though.

>If the UN hadnt brokered peace
Not really by the end of the war Iraq was on the offensive and Iranian were utterly demoralised and devastated. Both countries were decent in defence but absolutely terrible in offence

Considering they were dealing with constant terrorist shit and separatist extremist groups like with Kurds, Arabs, and Balouchis and bombings from Taliban-Afghanistan means something.

Iraq was the one worse for war by the end of the war.

This. The whole region was engulfed in the war and 1/4 of the population died, with fronts from the Caucasus to Yemen, from Iran to GallipolIi. WW1 also effectively didn't end up until 1923 in the Middle East.

Iraq had been pushing Iran back for the last like year of the war and had begun to push into Iran for the first time since like 81 by the end of the war. Iran was losing its air superiority because Iraq kept getting the new shit while Iran got shit on.

Neither country was in a "good spot" offensively but Iran certainly wasn't in the position to win in any meaningful way

Same reason why France won the revolutionary wars and the Bolsheviks and Maoists won their civil wars.

If you're actually physically helping people and defending from foreign invaders, your people will fight very very hard.

They've fought Kurds and have been BTFO in each encounter

Also Iranians in both Syria and in Iran as well as Hezbollah.

Hezbollah are Arabs...

Hezbollah is backed, funded, and trained by Iran.

Jordan is basically a NATO colony but that doesn't make them any less Arab

Israel and the arab states were easily on equal footing during the 50's and the 60's. The problem with Arab militaries is that they're literally allergic to working together. The discipline doesn't exist to work towards a common goal, and this applies to both low-level and high-level international cooperation.

All thanks to the US rather military capability, the US is actually running on a shortage of missiles and bombs helping out the shit middle eastern armies.

Yeah but what does that have to do with Hezbollah? They are armed, trained, supported, financed, and what not by Iranians. They are a paramilitary organization designed and created by Iranians.

In the 50s no, the hundreds of thousands of European Jews that had recently arrived to Israel were all battle hardened from WW2.

Same reason why rome fell 8 times

Arabs cant into fighting. Persians would have sacked Baghdad if the literal rest of the world wasn't backing the Arabs.

They were trained by Iran when the organisation was founded but they are now relatively independent, take Syria for example Hezbollah didn't want to get involved but the supreme leader of Iran personally asked Hezbollah. Back in the 80s when Iran was training them it would have been guerilla tactics not the conventional warfare they are currently employing.

You can also compare Iranian forces in Syria to Hezbollah, the latter outperforms them to the point where Iranian officials use Hezbollah as bodyguards.
Iranians were decimated on Iraqi soil, multiple times they tried taking Iraqi cities while massively outnumbering the Iraqis and they failed terribly

>multiple times they tried taking Iraqi cities while massively outnumbering the Iraqis

Proof? Iraqis outnumbered Iranians by almost 2:1 when they were trying to take Basra.

>Iranians were decimated on Iraqi soil.
Primarily though when they were using human wave tactics. The Iranian Air Force absolutely dominate the Iraqi Air Force despite the latter's numerical superiority, and usually gained back grounds they lost by the war's end.

The IRG detachments in Syria are trying to fight an asymmetrical war with ISIS which is something they do not have experience with despite most of them having experience from the Iran-Iraq war because they were never trained for that. They are an expedition military, not a elite unit participating in Syria, hell they aren't even regular army.

Iraq and Iran were both economically and resource wise exhausted from the war. But even with the advantage in scud missile attacks and Iran's limited capacity to retaliate, there was no hope for Iraq to win the war, only delay and bloody it. Remember, traditionally in conventional wars usually the country with a larger population can absorb heavier losses and still win and Iran's population was more then double's Iraq's. On top of that increasing effectiveness of various Kurdish separatists military groups in Iraq were also causing the Iraqi Arabs huge issues.

Reminder this guy is literally the Mobius One of the real world.

I agree that if the war continued Iraq wouldn't have won but to quote the original post of this argument

>Iran would've smashed Iraq.

This isn't true at all. Iran was facing internal dissent in the government over how long the war was drawing out and international presence in the gulf was only increasing. And while noone can tell the future, Khomeini died a year after the war ended, who knows how that would've played out if the war was still ongoing. Neither side had the upper hand and Iran certainly wasn't losing, but they definitely weren't winning either.

meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars

Check these battles, apart from Karbala 5 the Iranians seem to outnumber the Iraqis in each battle.
>Primarily though when they were using human wave tactics.
It's not as if the Iranians employed any other tactic except human wave tactics, they used it everywhere except in tank battle, Khomarshar, Abadan, Faw, Basra etc.
>The IRG detachments in Syria are trying to fight an asymmetrical war with ISIS
If what you say is true that makes absolutely no sense since ISIS are fighting using conventional tactics so obviously you would expect the IRGC to fight back the same way. Asymmetrical warfare really only works when under an occupation, that's not the case with Iranians in Syria.
>despite most of them having experience from the Iran-Iraq war
As I said in my previous point, pretty much all factions in the Syrian war fighting like conventional military, the IRGC there should have enough experience especially given that they helped create Hezbollah yet are outperformed by them.

Thats fucking awesome, didnt know this guy existed. Thanks user.

Iraq attacked on too many fronts without any clear objectives.
The Iranian air force was better trained and was using the superior F14 tomcat. Although spares to keep them flying were limited, Israel assisted with both components and engineers