Ok so let me explain something to you as I think you might be a little new to the military or military theory, combat, &c.
Militaries need to train in order to test systems, test weapons, gain experience, and be able to generally perform better and accomplish any given objective. In the modern era, militaries need to engage in what is called Combined Arms exercises. These exercises, as the name alludes to, coordinate activities across different branches of the military. So it might be the army coordinating with the navy to attack a target or capture some piece of land or objective. Maybe the army is on the ground directing fire from naval ships off the coast, or it could be the Air Force providing drone coverage as special forces achieve some mission.
Coordinating these activities during peace time is a key function of successful militaries. It is incredibly important to align these activities to be effective. Because of this, not only do you have militaries that work on combined arms and other trainings internally, but in the case of NATO, or perhaps the US with alliances in the Pacific we also engage in combined arms exercises with other militaries to further enhance and integrate those capabilities so that when it comes time to fight, forces have been trained how to respond and can do so more effectively. A great example of this is KATUSA - Korean Augmentation to the United States Army where Korean soldiers are actually assigned to and reporting to American military command and train alongside the United States.
The reason Venezuela is important, for example, is because it was an exercise demonstrating combined arms coordination and execution. It shows what the US military is actually capable when air, sea, and land forces engage to accomplish some objective.
So why is this important re: Iran (and Ukraine certainly). Because it's combined arms activities except that it's the real thing. Real equipment failures might happen, real lessons are learned, you are actually getting shot at. Lives are at stake. The military is actually battle tested, even if the opponent is hopelessly outmatched.
So when you write something like this:
> All evidence from NATO exercises and investigations is that Ukr/Rus conflict has virtually no relevance to OEF, OIF, or The Caracas Criminal Apprehension.
Those exercises, the lessons learned from the wars such as OEF, OIF, and even how Ukraine is today using and testing American military equipment in battle, matter a whole lot. And that's one of Xi Jingping's primary concerns with his military. They have done 0 of this. They've never really been shot at. They haven't tested their equipment in any sort of real battle. For the software-minded, it's like they've always been in development and haven't even touched a preview environment, let alone production. And worrying enough the US has demonstrated the capability to bypass and/or destroy Chinese and Russian military equipment including air defense and radar arrays - this is worrisome for those countries. If it comes time for a real war, well the only evidence you have so far is your state of the art equipment or close enough to it was absolutely fucking useless when it came to operations involving the US. Whooops.
They may start a war and find out they made a lot of bad assumptions and didn't train well enough and then what?
I'd encourage you to think about this a little more than you are here.
Your ego and confidence would do wonders in the Russian military! After all, they had tons and tons of combined arms, counterinsurgency, and standoff experience. Way more combat experience than Ukraine did.
Unfortunately it turns out different wars are very different.
You’re acting like I’ve argued that I would prefer China over the US. That’s absolutely not true, and partially for the reasons you mention. However, we should absolutely not rest on our more expansive direct experience in very different combat to presume anything.
We especially shouldn’t presume that when Iran, as a China-lite adversary, is teaching us lessons that we apparently have been unwilling to learn indirectly in Ukraine.
By the way, Mr Military Strategy Buff, “combined arms” is not (necessarily) multiple branches working together. It’s multiple functions working together. Aviation, armor, artillery, infantry, etc. Nothing to do with different branches.
> After all, they had tons and tons of combined arms, counterinsurgency, and standoff experience. Way more combat experience than Ukraine did.
They didn't have more combat experience than Ukraine though, never mind the additional problems that the Russian military faced at the time of the invasion which are too numerous to list here but include corruption, lack of equipment, a lack of understanding of the will of the Ukrainian people, and more.
Fast forward to 2026 and I'd argue there are probably only 4-5 militaries in the world who have any meaningful combat experience: the United States, Israel, Ukraine, Russia, and Iran to a lesser extent and perhaps the United Kingdom though they're falling more and more behind in that respect.
> We especially shouldn’t presume that when Iran, as a China-lite adversary, is teaching us lessons that we apparently have been unwilling to learn indirectly in Ukraine.
You're just wrong. We're learning lessons in Ukraine, actively testing western and US-specific equipment, and more. We had real-time experience in deploying our capabilities in logistics and intelligence too. Today we're actively seeing how American combat systems perform in real combat operations against an enemy deploying combat systems developed by our adversaries in Iran and throughout the Middle East. You might not be learning anything, but don't presume your ignorance extends to the Pentagon.
> By the way, Mr Military Strategy Buff, “combined arms” is not (necessarily) multiple branches working together. It’s multiple functions working together. Aviation, armor, artillery, infantry, etc. Nothing to do with different branches.
The branches are just where those capabilities generally rest. For example the Air Force does not employ artillery or infantry, those are functions of the army. My point was demonstrated.
> They didn't have more combat experience than Ukraine though
Uh yes they did
> never mind the additional problems that the Russian military faced at the time of the invasion which are too numerous to list here but include corruption, lack of equipment, a lack of understanding of the will of the Ukrainian people, and more.
In other words, there are other relevant variables than just combat experience...?
> You're just wrong...
"We're actively learning lessons in Ukraine" → Yet somehow our Patriot batteries were taken offline by Shaheds lmao. Sure, obviously we're learning some lessons. But so are our enemies. And what cost to each party? Iran learns lessons "for free" while it defends itself. China learns lessons for free because it's uninvolved. The US learns lessons because it's risking lives and equipment for a war with, so far, deeply negative strategic value.
The degree of single-dimensional thinking you're exhibiting is frankly bizarre.
> The branches are just where those capabilities generally rest... My point was demonstrated.
No lol. It's extremely discrediting actually.
> Uh yes they did
Not really
> In other words, there are other relevant variables than just combat experience...?
Yes? Nobody argued otherwise.
> "We're actively learning lessons in Ukraine" → Yet somehow our Patriot batteries were taken offline by Shaheds lmao.
Learning a lesson second-hand is different than learning a lesson first-hand. The fact that Iran was able to perhaps attack some equipment or position shows us where we are weak and gives us, albeit unfortunate, an opportunity to learn a lesson and improve.
> But so are our enemies. And what cost to each party? Iran learns lessons "for free" while it defends itself.
No Iran doesn't learn lessons for free unless everyone else is too. Of course enemies are going to learn and adapt too, but we're smarter, stronger, our civilization is a lot better at war, have more money, and better equipment and so when we learn lessons they're more effective and important.
> China learns lessons for free because it's uninvolved. The US learns lessons because it's risking lives and equipment for a war with, so far, deeply negative strategic value.
Again you're just confusing your mistaken view of the Iran war here as I mentioned in my OP.
Happy to answer any questions you have though
Why would I, or anyone else, ask questions of someone who authoritatively makes claims like "combined arms is when multiple branches work together" lol
It's clear you're quite emotionally wrapped up in this topic for some reason.
Well you still don't seem to understand this general topic haha so ask away!
In the US at least and western militaries as far as I'm aware, combined arms operations are coordinated between branches. The Air Force doesn't have infantry, they call the Army to coordinate and so on. That coordination and ability to execute is extremely important. Trying to suggest that what I wrote wasn't correct is being needlessly argumentative and is a poor reflection on your ability to discuss this issue.