The next day, the Iranian authorities responded.

However, Iran is not proposing a withdrawal from Iraq, but a ceasefire, that is, urging the warring parties in the Iraqi civil war to achieve a ceasefire as soon as possible.

Is there a difference between a ceasefire and a withdrawal?

Of course.

It can be said that the withdrawal of troops is a prerequisite for a ceasefire, and a ceasefire between the warring parties in the Iraqi civil war is possible only after the withdrawal of the Arab League and Iran from Iraq.

Iran does not mention the withdrawal of troops, but emphasizes a ceasefire, which is clearly avoiding the important and trivial.

To put it bluntly, if the Arab League and Iran refuse to withdraw their troops, where will there be a ceasefire?

Why, then, is Iran proposing a ceasefire?

Obviously, this is buying time for the Karim regime.

In any case, both the Arab League and Iran are foreign forces, so it is relatively easy to withdraw troops.

According to the general procedure, after reaching an agreement on the withdrawal of troops, the Arab League and Iran must first hand over the defense of the relevant areas to the Iraqi government forces and the Baghdad side, stop military operations in Iraq, and then withdraw to designated places, and finally withdraw from Iraq in its entirety.

In terms of time, it is only a matter of a few days, at most half a month.

Of course, during the withdrawal period, both government forces and rebels need to concentrate their forces to take over the defense area, and they will not be able to launch a new offensive.

More importantly, as long as a withdrawal agreement is reached, no additional military forces will be sent to Iraq, or even weapons and ammunition will be sent to Iraq.

In other words, at best, only the weapons and ammunition that have already been sent to Iraq can be left.

Obviously, the withdrawal is extremely detrimental to Iran and the Karim regime.

By this time, the Arab League army had entered Iraq with more than 10 brigades, and all of them were elite troops of the Arab League countries, and Saudi Arabia's combat troops alone had four elite armored brigades and mechanized infantry brigades, with hundreds of main battle tanks and thousands of infantry fighting vehicles.

According to conservative estimates, the main combat equipment that the Arab League has put into Iraq can arm at least 20 infantry brigades of the Iraqi government army.

Is this equipment advanced?

Advanced indeed.

Take Saudi Arabia as an example, the main battle equipment used is M1A2, M2A3, M109A6, PLZ-45G and other world-class armored weapons.

Other Arab League countries are similar.

The UAE has invested almost 200 Leclercs in Iraq, hundreds of artillery pieces in Kuwait, and hundreds of armored fighting vehicles in Oman.

Just, is the gear valuable?

Not necessarily.

In fact, when they were in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Kuwait and other Arab League countries found that the advanced equipment purchased from Europe and the United States was all prototypes.

Over the past few years, the M1A2 and Leclerc, which were once blown into the sky, have been destroyed more than once by the Yemeni Houthis with outdated RPG-7 rocket launchers.

One "Leclerc" was even hit by a rocket through the frontal armor.

Although there is an element of luck, that is, the rocket happened to hit the gun commander's scope, which is also the weakest point of the tank's frontal defense, but as a main battle tank weighing more than 50 tons, it is blown into the best main battle tank in Europe, and the frontal armor was pierced by rockets, which is unreasonable.

As for the reasons for this, in fact, these Arab League countries know it in their hearts.

The advanced equipment bought from Europe and the United States at a high price, or even a sky-high price, is actually not advanced at all, and almost all of them are shrunken monkey versions.

A few years ago, Saudi Arabia dragged back an M1A2 destroyed by rockets, and it turned out that the sandwich of the frontal armor of the tank hull turned out to be fiberglass, which is a kind of fiberglass for engineering to be precise, not to mention that it is not as good as the depleted uranium sandwich of the US military, and even the Chobham armor is not counted.

In the subsequent tests, Saudi Arabia found that the equivalent protection thickness of the M1A2 hull against the armor-piercing projectile on the front was only 700 mm, and the front of the turret was only 800 mm, which was far from the 1100 mm and 1200 mm claimed by the United States, and could not block large-caliber armor-piercing rockets at all.

It is important to know that most armor-piercing bullets with a diameter of more than 120 mm have a penetration depth of more than 1,000 mm.

In addition, the equivalent thickness of protection against armor-piercing shells is even lower, only 450 and 500 mm, which is on the same level as the Russian T-90S.

Obviously, this is the wrong version.

These M1A2 are sold for up to $12 million, while the Russian T-90S are only $4 million.

If it weren't for the fact that they had not been replaced, Saudi Arabia would have decommissioned these M1A2s a long time ago.

Relatively speaking, the "Leclerc" of the UAE is more problematic.

Although the "Leclerc" sold to the UAE is not much different from the French for its own use, the after-sales service is very bad and the price is ridiculously high.

The price of repairing a battle-damaged "Leclerc" is almost enough to buy a new one.

What's even funnier is that the tanks also have to be shipped back to France, where they will be repaired and then shipped back to the UAE, and the UAE will have to bear all the freight.

In addition, France does not guarantee when it will be repaired.

In a word, love to repair but not to repair, not to repair and pull down.

As a result, after several years of fighting in Yemen, the UAE lost a third of the "Leclerc", and the remaining ones also seriously lacked spare parts.

In order to cope with the combat operations in Iraq, the UAE had to dismantle the "Leclerc" that had not yet been repaired and used as spare parts.

You must know that the UAE bought these tanks back at a price of 8 million US dollars each, setting a record for the unit price of tanks at that time.

Are Russian tanks good?

Not necessarily.

Although Kuwait did not invest many troops on the battlefield in Yemen, the T-90S, which was bought at the price of $15 million a unit, still failed.

These T-90S have not shrunk, otherwise they would not have been sold so expensive.

In addition, the T-90S maintains the usual excellent quality of Russian tanks, that is, the leather is durable, the requirements for logistics maintenance and support are not high, and the quality of the tanker is not too high, which is very suitable for use in harsh environments, and it is more than enough to deal with low-intensity conflicts.

It's just that the after-sales service of Russian tanks is even worse than that of French ones.

Not to mention that there is no problem, as long as there is a problem, even if it is a small problem, it will take ten days and half a month, and it may not be completely repaired.

In addition, the technology of Russian tanks is notoriously poor, especially fire control technology.

In all the joint exercises of the Arab League countries, Kuwait's T-90S was at the bottom of the rankings, and not once did it get a higher ranking in the shooting competition.

Dealing with the Houthis in Yemen is no problem, but in regular warfare it is.

It's not accurate, what else is there to fight?

Also, Russian armor-piercing shells are even more problematic.

Although Russia sold the best armor-piercing shells to Kuwait, in comparative tests, it was not even comparable to the M829A2.

It can be seen that these tanks are also like goods.

Without the Iraqi civil war, the problem of these main battle equipment would not have been a problem, after all, many Arab League countries did not have the idea of fighting a regular war.

Now, these problems are all exposed.