As others have said, while it might be possible in a practical sense there would be considerable difficulties in getting the idea past the personalities in charge.
One example of this is on the Iranian side. After the initial human-wave attacks on Basra, they changed tack and began a strategy of attrition, mounting deep raids all along the 730-mile border. This put the Iraqi defenders under a great deal of pressure. All their prepared defensive positions were in the south, and the Iranian numerical advantage was being used to attack at a wide variety of points. This meant that Iraqi troops had to be stationed along the entire border, stretching their numbers and logistics train to - or perhaps beyond - their limit. It's possible that this might have broken the Iraqi ability to continue the war, if it had been continued.
Unfortunately, this raid/attrition strategy required competent, disciplined soldiers and good planning, which could only be supplied by the Iranian regular army and its officers. The Pasdaran and Basij were almost completely useless in the mountains where many of these raids occurred, but were unwilling to accept direction by the army (or the result of seeing the army become more useful and important). They convinced the clerics in Tehran to drop the attrition strategy and return to the human-wave attacks - not difficult, given the distrust of the clerics for the regular army. This effectively turned the main repository of skill and professional military knowledge into bystanders, and employed the Iranian numbers to their greatest disadvantage.
So, if there was some way of continuing this strategy, it's possible for Iran to gain an advantage in the conflict which could potentially be decisive. I'm not sure we'd see Chieftains rolling to Baghdad, but we could certainly get quite a different result.