We Were "This Close" Says Iran

My error. It was being touted as the fourth largest army in the world.

https://www.ourmidland.com/news/amp/Iraq-s-Army-Was-Once-World-s-4th-Largest-7151366.php

 

And this is what we constantly heard in the leftist media.

"US. troops would suffer lower casualties than Iraqi forces but even by conservative projections, around 160 U.S. soldiers a day would come home in body bags once war broke out."

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-09-05-mn-776-story.html?_amp=true

 

and as stated previously - after the Gulf a ton of their equipment was destroyed - and there was sanctions and an arms embargo on him for a decade. By the time the Iraq war hit - he had squat to fight back with. Nothing by comparison to Iran.

Then there is the fact that technology has advanced - in particular - missile technology.

When the Soviet Union collapsed - Russia knew it could not match the US - plane for plane - ship for ship - so they didn't even try. They have a total of one (1) aircraft carrier. What they did was focus their efforts on niche technologies -such as missiles. You can build a whole lot of missiles - at 1 million a pop - for the price of a 15 Billion dollar aircraft carrier - never mind the battle group and operating costs.

Russia came out with the worlds first supersonic anti ship cruise missile in the 90's - called the Sunburn. At the time they were at least a decade ahead of anything we had - and we had no defense. Shortly after Russia started working together with India - their version is the Brahmos .. then China after that.

3 big nations - all working on the same technology. Later versions of the Sunburn were faster - stealthy - and capable of maneuvering - especially prior to impact. That was 20 years ago. Not sure if you have noticed but the computer technology revolution has happened - and this tech has further improved these missiles.

Now Russia is fielding hypersonic missiles - India has tested their hypersonic missile. China has similar. Some of this technology gets transferred. Iran does not have stuff that is as good as the aforementioned but - they followed the same program - and have stuff that is surprisingly accurate - and long range.

Saddam never had any of that - the Scuds were laughable by comparison - really old technology that didn't work that well to begin with.

Iran has thousands of cruise missiles - thousands of ballistic missiles - and who knows how many drones.

We can sit hundreds of miles offshore in our Carriers - striking from a distance. Israel does not have that luxury - neither does Saudi Arabia for that matter. The Straights would immediately close - It would be chaos.

There is also the possibility that Iran would hit the homeland - and I am sure one they have considered. It does not take much to get a ship - hundreds of miles from our shore. They could pile a whole lot of missiles into a container ship - hundreds.

 

No doubt we would see soldier coming home in body bags - it is the nature of war - not sure how one would calculate such a thing - especially not knowing how the war would be conducted. ? Obviously if we go in on the ground - there will be casualties. I don't see that happening.

Not sure why you are so focused on "the leftist media" - It is not like Tucker Carlson and Rand Paul out there touting war - and some on the left are just as neocon - more in some cases - than those on the Right. They hate Tulsi Gabbard because of her anti regime change war stance.

Clearly we know where you sit on this issue - but many on the right - including myself - do not share your bloodlust. I don't mind the blood so much - it is the massive cost that bothers me the most.

 

You seem under the impression that Russian military advancements have progressed while America has stood still and in the gulf war Iraq was touted as the fourth largest military in the world as I previously stated and sourced.

 

The liberal media focused on the body bags and high casualty rate Americans would suffer that never materialized.
Not sure why you think I have blood lust because I have confidence in our military being able to thrash Iran if necessary.

 

At the time of Desert Storm, Iraq did boast the 4th largest army in the world. But it was a largely useless force, designed and armed to the teeth from all over the world to fight Iran, not a superior military like the ones arrayed against it in Desert Storm. Its tactics, equipment, training, and everything else about it was geared for a fight in which Iraq would enjoy better equipment and supplies not the reverse. In fact, Iraq's strength was one of its main weaknesses against the US. It led Saddam to foolishly try to fight the US in open desert tank warfare in one of the few actual combat engagements in that war, whereas anyone with a clue would have known that the way to fight the US would have been to bleed it in urban warfare in places like Kuwait city and using guerrilla tactics. The idea of lining up armored divisions to stand up to US forces was ridiculously stupid. While those were some of the finest armored divisions for a fight against anyone with weaker armored units or using mostly infantry forces, it doesn't matter if you are "4th" or "100th" best: if you aren't as good as the foe you are facing, you get smashed in that dynamic.

Besides that, much of what you imagine from Desert Storm is the product of misinformation and propaganda. The air phase of the campaign, if anything, showed how ineffective air power is to actually accomplish much beyond vandalism. The US air force was unable to take out any of the main targets it was tasked to take out. It failed to take out Saddam. It failed to take out his command and control. It failed to take out even Saddam limited, liquid fueled, Scud missile arsenal which required up to a whole day to fuel (making detection easy) and had limited range (which meant you even knew from what areas Saddam could be firing his missiles towards Israel). Even then, the US couldn't take out Saddam's Scud missiles. Most surprisingly, despite an air armada the likes of which the world has never seen, running more sorties than any previous war (including WWII), the US wasn't even able to take out Saddam's air fields, planes, and pilots in that war. 3 days into the war, after numerous sorties targeting Iraq's air force, the Iraqi air force was still able to fly, en masse, to Iran with over 150 planes -- planes which would have been presumably destroyed, from airfields which would have been presumably damaged, with pilots and crew which should not have been able to coordinate such a large flight.

Once the air campaign had actually accomplished very little, Saddam was persuaded by the Russians to declare victory and, on the eve of the ground offensive, pull out his forces from Kuwait. As Iraqi forces were withdrawing, they were basically gunned down in a turkey shoot in the so-called highway of death. A few open desert tank engagements took out a couple of Republican guards armored divisions too. And Saddam sued for peace.

To understand the dynamics of a war against Iran, you need to look at totally different wars. You can look at aspects of the Iran-Iraq war to see how Iran (using mostly infantry) was often able to stand up to and (but for chemical weapons) come close to defeating a better equipped force like Saddam using superior tanks and enjoying (by the mid 1980s, air superiority as by then Iran's air force was largely grounded due to lack of spare parts). You could look at the Israel-Hezbollah war in 2006 as that would give some valuable lessons if you really paid attention to what happened in that war. You could even look at the Saudi war against the Houthis. While none of these engagement will bring to bear all of the issues, or even the most important ones, which the US would face in a war against Iran, since one of Iran's main strengths is its ability to lash out beyond its own borders, they would be a lot more instructive than looking at open desert tank warfare between Iraq's Republican guards armored divisions and US forces.

 

Blah blah blah....

While there are people in Iran who do want America utterly destroyed, I know that most Iranians do not. It's the same way here - most Americans don't want to destroy or get in a war with Iran and we harbor no hostility towards its people. We all understand these things...

That is true.

Ah, yes, the "American" attitude that human beings have a right to enjoy the freedom to think and speak and worship as they see fit.

And now it's Propaganda Time...

What you describe are the the realities which infect and affect Iranian politics.......and what's worse is that it feeds into the powers of a retrogressive, wannabe superpower regime that has already has proven it that it has the means and willingness to do evil.

No argumentt here...

I can relate. Other than the roof over my head my most prized possession is my personal library...

Don't preach to me.

Yes, I do love America and I do not preach hatred of others who don't hate America, and I don't have any designs on the culture of and the non-existent liberty of the people in Iran who are ruled and oppressed by a regime that Grand Ayatollah Montazeri declared "condemned and illegitimate"...

Ironies abound...

Go back home and do something about your condemned and illegitimate "standards"...

 

Russian military advancements have nothing to do with Iranian weapons. Or tactics. You have no clue.

As for Iranian military advancements, regardless of what you might imagine, no country in the world (not even the US) has invested in and developed ballistic missiles with the precision of Iran's ballistic missiles. None. People imagine that if Iran's ballistic missile arsenal can show such precision, so must those of say China or Russia. That is not true. Unlike nuclear powers which rely, not on precision, but mass destruction, arming their ballistic missiles with nukes, Iran's ballistic missiles are developed to serve as its 'air force' given that Iran's air force wouldn't have a chance against superior air forces Iran faces. To make this force capable of not just hitting large civilian targets, but deliver precision munitions, Iran has done what no other country in the world has shown. It has been able to turn its missiles into precision guided ones which can hit targets with a CEP between 5-10 meters.

There are many other Iranian weapons that are rather unique. For instance, Iran (like North Korea, which initially supplied the kits for some of Iran's mini subs), has a large mini-submarine force. But unlike any other country in the world, our mini-submarines are capable of firing missiles. And to do so using a very unique system which protects the subs from detection -- the latter the main strength of mini subs. The system is one where the missile is actually fired from a capsule that travels away from the submarine, with the actual firing occurring from that capsule.

Iran was also ahead of Russia in drone, UAV, technology although the Russians have recently acquired systems from Israel and now have a good UAV force.

Another strength of Iran is its cruise missiles. Iran claimed its cruise missiles were better than not just any missiles from Russia or China, but even the US Tomahawk. There were many analysts who questioned that claim. Iran proved it in the attack against Aramco's facility. Even the Tomahawk doesn't boast the precision of Iran's cruise missiles.

Iran has a lot of weaknesses compared to the US, but if you don't understand its strengths, you will remain as clueless as you are.

 

I am confident in our ability to thrash Iran as well - that was never in question.

 

You are talking gibberish. The US has progressed as well. The problem is that our adversaries have caught up in some respects - in particular with respect to missile technology.

 

Actually, both of you are showing misplaced confidence. The US can do severe damage to Iran, mostly in the form of what I would term "aerial vandalism". It could cripple Iran's power grid, main infrastructure, and destroy its major industries. It could also take out all of Iran's military, political and commercial centers which aren't protected or hidden. That is America's strength -- and it is substantial.

The US could also take out Iran's large naval assets in quick fashion. All of Iran's major warships are basically sitting ducks. They are Iran's Achilles heal in a war with the US.

The US might, if it had the inclination and was willing to enlist the requisite forces for that purpose, conquer swaths of Iranian territory and use that as a base for further operations against Iran. That is a not a given, but it is within the realm of possibilities. My own view is that it could capture such territory and, while Iran likes to claim it would then bleed the US forces using guerrilla tactics, there is a good chance that its regime would in fact collapse under these dynamics. It won't be quick and would be rather ugly for Iran and the Iranian people. But it could happen.

But the US could not, under any scenario that is reasonably likely, prevent Iran from lashing out and do substantial damage to the world economy, do substantial damage to US bases in the region, do substantial damage to US allies in the region, and prevent Iran from basically unleashing dynamics which are hard to predict in terms of their ultimate geopolitical outcome. The Americans would not be able to take out Iran's missile force. The Americans cannot adequately protect neither their naval vessels nor their military bases. The Americans cannot prevent Iran from leveling Dubai, destroying the Saudi ports and oil facilities, closing off the Straits of Hormuz, attacking traffic going towards the Suez Canal through the Bab Al Mandeb, from attacking the Suez Canal itself, from laying mines and threatening shipping in all sorts of places. In some scenarios, if Iran is made desperate enough, even European capitals could find themselves under attack by Iranian missiles. The current limitation on the range of those missiles (2,000) is entirely self-imposed to prevent the Europeans from panicking and joining the US completely in pressuring Iran in giving up its missile arsenal. But in case of war, it wouldn't take Iran long to have those missiles hit much farther deep into Europe.

Iran also has substantial cyber warfare capabilities. Although until it reveals those capabilities, what it can accomplish in this regard (unlike Iran's missile capabilities) is mostly speculative, many analysts assume Iran has substantial capabilities to disrupt a lot of commercial and industrial systems in the US itself as well as those of its allies. On this point, I won't argue either way as I am in no position to know.

But what I know is this: war with Iran would involve a lot of "unknowables". Things people really don't know because no war of its type has ever been waged. As such, when all is said and done, even those who want to fight Iran, will prefer something less than 'all out war'.

 

If this was 1985 then the modern Iranian

Honestly what is the Iranian military going to do with their outdated aircraft and navy? Not a whole hell of a lot long term. Their F4s, F5s, F14s and Mig 29s will not be in the air long vs modern U.S. birds. And the USN is a world class force vs patrol crafts, hand me down subs and a force of mini subs. USN CVN battle groups has their equal in military power in the air and on sea. Not to mention he USAF and USMC air assets we would muster. They might be able to shut down commercial shipping for a time, which would do nothing more than turn even more of the world against them. Their antics messing with commercial shipping have already resulted in the Japanese sending a warship to protect their interest in the area, when was the last time a Japanese warship deployed? What decade? Shows the magnitude of what could befall Iran in a conflict.

I've no doubt the Iranians would fight boldly and with conviction but they are just simply outclassed in a conventional fight.

 

The strength of Iran is in its asymmetric capabilities, the weapons it produces at home (top notch, precision guided ballistic missiles, top notch, precision guided cruise missiles, top notch, precision guided anti-ship missiles, excellent home developed anti-aircraft missiles, very useful small submarines with unique firing systems, small fast attack vessels used for swarming tactics, etc), as well as it proxy forces which are spread across the region. Iran's so-called "conventional" forces (aircraft, tanks, large naval vessels) aren't designed or even a factor (other than being targets) in a war with the US. The same way, actually, that large US naval vessels are more a target than a threat to Iran. (The US is well aware that in any war with Iran, the first thing it will need to do is move as much of its naval and other assets out of the Persian Gulf area as far away from Iran's range as possible. Until the US does that, Iran knows the US isn't ready to fight Iran as all those forces are sitting ducks).

 

As for Iran's conventional forces, although outmatched by the ones in the US (and, hence, not what Iran will be relying on in a fight with the Americans), the idea they are "old and outdated" is itself "old and outdated" It simply shows how clueless are those who like to opine about Iran's military.

Iran has a fully developed arms industry that, besides developing missile systems (ballistic, cruise, anti-aircraft, air-to-air, anti-tank, anti-ship) that in many cases no other country (not the US, not China, not Russia) can match in precision and capability, also develops (admittedly what are comparatively less capable) conventional military equipment. Leaving aside Iran's UAV forces, which are among the best in the world, Iran's military industrial complex also produces large naval vessels, submarines, main battle tanks, and fighter aircraft. They may not be a match for what the US boasts, but they aren't old nor are they outdated.

Lets focus, for instance, on just the Iranian navy.

Fateh-Class_Submarine

IRIN Sahand (F-74) Frigate Warship - Iran - Military Factory

While some of the ships in this graphic by the office of US naval intelligence are older vessels (especially the auxiliary and supply vessels), most of the combat ships are vessels built by Iran the past decade.


More important than platforms, however, are the armaments these vessels are able to carry. These vessels carry Iranian anti-ship cruise missiles (top class), Iranian torpedoes (among the fastest and most lethal in the world), and some have very unique capabilities. This one from one of Iran's midget submarines is particularly noteworthy in that it allows (a) even mini-subs to fire cruise missiles, and (b) it allows these missiles to be fired in a way that can't be tracked to the submarine itself, allowing the submarine to better remain undetected.

 

If its a dirty deed (and I agree it is) than yes, a CIA agent or Mossad or whatever - all make super legit targets to the enemy, I bet both my nuts that everyone involved know that and take it into account, now this General was on an official job unlike secret agents so he was protected by norms and the fact he was sooo highly regarded in Iran....up to a point, if war was about to break before he's demise than he would be a great risk, taking him out - IMO - was a genius move.
I also think much was gained and I dare say even strategically.

 

You attack dozens of US bases and they attack dozens of Iranian cities.......you have absolutely no way to win this.

 

That regime has more than earned the contempt and opprobrium of the world.

Let's not forget who and what that clown Zarif represents.

This was written by the cleric who had been picked as Ruhollah Khomeini's successor until he had a falling-out with the Islamofascists for having a conscience. It was written during the 2009 pro-democracy protests, and if I recall correctly he was under house arrest for the umpteenth time when he wrote it. I'm going to post the money quote from this interview but the whole thing is worth reading:

Montazeri died 5 months after he wrote that.

 

I agree with your assessment. It was a bold and brilliant move and much was gained strategically. I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank your country for its assistance in taking that piece of trash out. Obama should have given Israel the green light to kill him years ago and it's unfortunate that your leaders didn't ignore him.

It's this simple: Soleimani had American blood on his hands and for that he deserved to die. It's amusing that some people prattle about "rules of civilized behavior among nations" in regards to an illegitimate regime that has no regard for the rules of civilized behavior itself, whether we're talking about behavior among nations or its deprivation of the fundamental human, civil and political rights of the Iranian people.

We've been at war with the "Islamic" regime for forty years, whether some people care to acknowledge it or not. Soleimani was a soldier in that war and he was KIA. Let's hope his killing served as a Road to Damascus Moment for his colleagues.

 

While I can't stop the annoying pretenses of caring for justice and human rights, coming from people whose support for policies which are clearly in opposite of any such notion, and even though the first couple of decades of the Iranian revolution (like many revolutions) witnessed a period marked by clear excesses, before anyone gets too far in condemning the reports about Iran's summary execution of several hundred (as always, the propaganda exaggerates the actual numbers by a factor of ten!) MEK supporters, lets be clear that we are talking about a group that:

1- Is hatred across Iran by all people of all stripes, except those who belong to this terrorist cult, for its treachery setting up base in Iraq and fighting along side the Iraqi forces against Iranian troops.
2- Was and has been involved in numerous acts of terrorism, including against civilian targets in Iran, besides having a hand in almost every terrorist deed its foreign patrons de jure (once Saddam, now the Israelis and the neocons) have perpetuated inside Iran, including assassination of Iranian scientists and officials.
3- Waged a campaign of terrorism and violence that killed many of the regime's highest ranking officials, including in one attack killing 70+ of the top members of the regime by planting bombs in the headquarters of the Islamic Republican Party.
4- Is a group that was even on the US terrorism list before it shifted foreign patrons and began making friends with the neocons and the Israelis, while in its previous incarnations, it had even been involved in terrorist attacks against Americans in Iran during the time of the Shah.

I didn't exactly see the US pulling its punches against groups that commit such heinous acts of terrorism, mayhem or afford those accused of being such crimes much due process either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran
People's Mujahedin of Iran

 

Yes and no. Yes, a war would be terribly costly to Iran, but if it is unavoidable, then we don't have a choice. No, because unlike Iran (which would be fighting a war for its survival), the US would be waging a 'war of choice' with far less appetite for suffering much in terms of costs or casualties.

 

The above is similar to what I have said in previous posts. The US homeland could also be attacked - It would not be difficult for Iran to load hundreds of cruise missiles onto a container ship - and put that ship hundreds of miles off the US coast.

 

Good points on the way Iran fought and lost the war . Where I would disagree is on air superiority and what you label vandalism. Air power with precision bombing can devastate the infrastructure of the enemy leading to economic collapse and internal political tumult and turmoil. With a country like Iraq a prolonged campaign of infrastructure d destruction would ultimately prevail and achieve the desired effect with limited American casualties.

 

I fully understand Irans missile capabilities and as I stated earlier they would go down fighting with numerous retaliatory strikes but they would go down. You can't seriously believe they could defeat the US in a shootout can you?

 

In some respects being the operative words here. We ultimately have overwhelming military superiority and wo be the nation that feels its full might.