Iranian Forces

[wesside]

A couple of days ago I met an Iranian fellow. He was quiet patriotic, so he was talking about how his country is able to stand up to the United States. Since I don’t know much or at all about the Iranian forces, I couldn’t say anything. Anyways can anyone of you guys provide an analysis of the Iranian forces capability?

Will be grateful

Thanks.

[dabrownguy]

Conventially they'll get owned! No joke. It'll be the Gulf War all over again. If the US forces dicide to stay than Gueriallia warfare may get the best of them. Basically US forces won't be able to take Cities well but could take a lot of other terriotry with a lot of success. Iran would be screwed. Although I think they might have one or more nukes hidden, but if that happnes then consider 30 million Iranians cockroach food.

[Pathfinder-X]

Iran's military is alot stronger than Iraqis. With over 2000 T-72, Chieftain, and Type-69 MBTs. Airforce consist of about 78 F-14(1/3 are operational), over 100 F-5s, and few newly developed fighters. They also have Mig-29s from Iraqis. I do expect they would put up a tougher fight than Iraq.

[srirangan]

Three days US gains total air superiority;
2 weeks US Armoured divisions marching towards Tehran;
3rd week, city seige and Iranian surrender.

[beleg]

There is no nation that can resist the military might of USA in conventional warfare for too long anyway.. Smartest move by Iranians would be to use asymetric warfare against the invading forces. I think due to their point of view of USA they will give a much more bloddy welcome. It wont be as easy for Americans due to geographical conditions of Iran as well.

America can surely win a war against anyone.. But can they sustain their invasion and victory after the enemy surrenders and goes underground?

I think we all see that the answer is a big NO.

[Sep]

Irans main military, that is the regular forces which are around 700,000 and include the navy, the air orce and a few groundforces will be defeated in 1 month at most. The we have the Pasdaran. There is not many of them but these same people not only stopped the advance of the 4th largest army in the world which had the backing of both communists and capitalsts, but also gained ground and even tried to take over the country which was their enemy and were only stopped when they were constantly attacked by chemical weapons. Now these same people have the weapons and technology that they didnt have before. They will go down in around 6 months. Then there is the Basijis. These guys are probebly one of the (if not the) largest armed groups in the world. They number from 6-10 million and are specifically trained for gurila warfare. Now these guys are the only people that can threaten the US forces and will probely not havea backbone after around 5 years. So clearly the US can beat Iran militarily if they are willing to pay the price ( they didnt in Vietnam and the will not in Iran). Now politically it will be suicide for thhe US to start a war with Iran because Iran is allied with the two other majour powers in the world (russia and china) and is the majour provider of oil to china and japan who recently signed new multle-billion dolour deal with Iran. Economically these is suicide for the whole world. If the US does not enter Iran and control every thing within 3-4 months the oil could rise to over $80 as it did after the Iranian revolution. And also before I forget Iran probebly has the largest ballsitic missile and they actually do have chemical and biological weapons and if they have nukes then they can simply bomb the Starit of Hormuz and pretty much make the whole world's economy colaps. And dont forget the 300 balistic missiles in the arab countries which point to Israel and are ready to be launched if Iran is attcked, and also dont forget the terrorists that are supported by Iran that have been quite for some time but will be reactivated at Iran's will, and also dont forget the youth movment which is backed by many all around the world, if the US attacks those sypthysers will not be happy either. Other than that good luck to all the people of the world and I sicerely hope that no war will ever take place.

[P.A.F]

i think iran would put up a good fight against the americans.

there order of battle : First Army Headquarters Tehran
Second Army Headquarters Esfahan
Third Army Headquarters Shiraz
28th Mechanized Division Kerman
84th Mechanized Division Khorramabad
18th Armored Division Tehran
81st Armored Division Qazin
88th Armored Division Ahvaz
30th Infantry Division Tehran
40th Infantry Division Hamadan
58th Infantry Division Ahvaz
64th Infantry Division Bandar 'E Mah Shahr
77th Infantry Division Tabriz
23rd Special Forces Division Tehran
55th Parachute Division Tehran
351st SSM Brigade Tehran
75th Logistics Brigade


there airforce:
F-4 Phantom
F-5 Tiger
Shenyang F-6
F-7 Airguard
F-14 Tomcat
MiG-29 Fulcrum
Su-17/20/22 Fitter
Su-24 Fencer
Su-25 Frogfoot


Navy:
IIN Insignia. IIN Fleet Insignia.

IIS Kooseh. IIS Korosh.

HavaDarya (Hovercrafts & Helicopters) IIS Palang
IIS Babr IIS Saam Class
IIS Bayandor Class IIS Kaman class
IIS Artemiz IIS Simorgh Class
IIS Tonb IIS Char Bahar
Special Forces IIS Sohrab
IIS Hormoz IIS Keyvan Class
IIN Fleet Insignia.
IIS Korosh.
IIS Palang
IIS Saam Class
IIS Kaman class
IIS Simorgh Class
IIS Char Bahar
IIS Sohrab
IIS Keyvan Class

if america somehow does try anything then it would suffer heafty losses. ;)

[highsea]

P.A.F., how could any of that hurt the US? None of it can hit us, it's a military designed for the ME. Assuming the US was going to attack Iran, why would we care about any of the machinery? We wouldn't be trying to occupy the country, just wreck the hardware. That wouldn't be hard to do...

[P.A.F]

obviously no body can get in the UsA's way but what i'm saying is that the US will face alot of destruction if they where to attack. the thing is that the iraqi army fleed this war because they were not under saddams control anymore. however the iranian army is loyal to the katami ragime and they would fight to the death. as for the airforce navy. well god knows what the iranians are up to in those 2 fields. obviously the USA would win this but the thing i'm saying is that they would have to pay a heavy price for it. Don't take iran for granted ;)

[turin]

I widely agree with highsea. If the pure intend of the US would be to wreck Iran, this can be accomplished without any major casualties. The US have such a wide array of standoff- and long range attack weapons that Iran couldnt even use its equipment even if it is granted that everything in its arsenal is combat ready (and I seriously doubt that).

the thing is that the iraqi army fleed this war because they were not under saddams control anymore.

If you're speaking of the last war then this is a rather weak example since there was basically no iraqi army in existence. The last war in the ME comparable to such a scenario would be the one of 1991, where Saddam was in full control of his army. See what use it was? They fled nevertheless.

however the iranian army is loyal to the katami ragime and they would fight to the death.

Yeah the very same was said about the iraqi forces prior to 1991. They fought hard against Iran, veterans everywhere, yet still they fled the Coalition Forces when they realized what they where up against. I dont value the iranian loyalty to the Katami regime more than that of the iraqi army to Hussein in 1991 and even if it would be better...what is it worth when you cant see the enemy attacking you?

as for the airforce navy. well god knows what the iranians are up to in those 2 fields.

We mostly know and its not that impressive. Within the navy perhaps the most dangerous vessels would be the three Kilos, however I am rather sure the CBG can deal with them.
As for the air force, most of the F-14 are mothballed for good reasons, as well as most of the F-4 and F-5. A combination of about 25 F-14 and around thirty or so MiG 29, all quite old versions, arent that impressive when fielded against what the US can offer in an all-out strike.

I agree that occupation of Iran is not desirable since we would see about the same result as in Iraq now, perhaps with some more casualties for the US. However this would be achieved due to assymetric warfare, not with a working iranian army.

[yasin_khan]

Total Military Force
Active: 540,000
Reserves: 350,000

Army (350,000)
5 Corps HQ
4 Armored Divisions with 3 Armored 1 Mechinized Brigade, 4-5 Artillery Battalions
6 Infantry Divisions with 4 Infantry Brigades, 4-5 Artillery Battalions
2 Commando Divisions
1 Airborne Division

Navy (18,000)
Bases: Bandar-e Abbas (HQ), Bushehr, Kharg Island, Bandar-e Anzelli, Bandar-e Khomeini, Bandar-e Mahshahr, Chah Bahar

Air Force (52,000)
including 15,000 Air DefenseParamilitary (40,000 active)
Basij: 300,000
Law Enforcement Forces: 40,000

Strategic Force
There are ongoing investigations by the International Atomic Energy Agency concerning Iran's compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. At the end of August 2003, the IAEA stated in a confidential report leaked to the media that trace elements of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) were found in an Iranian nuclear facility. In June of 2003, a IAEA Director General report stated that Iran had not met the obligations required of it by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. A November 2003 report identified further violations. In February 2004 it was discovered that Iran had blueprints for an advanced centrifuge design usable for uranium enrichment that it had withheld from nuclear inspectors. In December 2003, Iran signed an additional protocol authorizing IAEA inspectors to make intrusive, snap inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities. The protocol was signed as an addition to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Continued uncertainties surrounding Iran's uranium enrichment activities were addressed in the IAEA's June 2004 report.

[yasin_khan]

Tosan
In December 1997 it was reported that Iran has manufactured a light battle tank that it intends to mass produce in the near future for unconventional warfare. Named Tosan [Towan] [Wild Horse or Fury], the tank is said to be capable of rapid response and built for strategic missions. Tosan is equipped with a 90 mm gun, an imrproved firing and targeting system and does not require special trucks to carry it. Iran claims it is nearly self-sufficient in arms.

Zulfiqar
The Iranian Zulfiqar [Zolfaqar] main battle tank is believed to be pieced together or developed from major components of the Russian T-72 and American M48 and M60 tanks. This tank, which is claimed to be in production in Irana, is said to be similiar in configuration to the M-48 and M-60. In April 1997 Acting Commander of the Ground Forces of the Iranian Army, Lieutenant General Mohammad Reza Ashtiani announced that the mass production of Zulfiqar tanks, which began in 1996, was still in progress. He stated that the manufacture of 520 different kinds of tank parts, 600 artillery parts, repair of 500 tanks and armored vehicles have been carried out. In late July 1997 Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani of Iran formally inaugurated a production line for the domestically manufactured Zulfiqar main battle tanks and Boragh tracked armoured personnel carriers. The facility will also produce the BMT-2 personnel carrier identified. Iran has reportedly developed a new explosive reactive armour (ERA) package that can be fitted to existing or new build MBTs to provide protection against kinetic and high-explosive anti-tank projectiles. If fitted to existing Iranian MBTs it would considerably increase their battlefield survivability.

Cobra BMT-2
The Iranian Cobra or BMT-2 armored personnel carrier appearss to be an indigenous design armed with a 30 mm gun or the ZU-23-2 anti-aircraft gun—a light automatic weapons system that Iran has been manufacturing for some years. Like the Zulfiqar main battle tank, the Cobra has been undergoing field trials in Iranian military exercises since May 1996. In late July 1997 Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani of Iran formally inaugurated a production line for the domestically manufactured Zulfiqar main battle tanks and Boragh tracked armoured personnel carriers. The facility will also produce the BMT-2 personnel carrier identified.

Saghegh
Iran now makes a number of anti-tank weapons. These include the Saghegh , an improved version of the manportable RPG-7 anti-tank rocket with an 80 mm tandem HEAT warhead instead of the standard 30 mm design, the NAFEZ anti-tank rocket, and a copy of the Soviet SPG-9 73 mm recoilless anti-tank gun. The Nader in an Iranian 44mm anti-tank rocket with a range of 400 meters able to penetrate 30 cm of armor.

Thunder 1
In May 1996, Iran claimed to have successfully tested its first locally made self-propelled gun, the 122 mm Thunder 1. This vehicle is apparently a modification of a Russian 122 mm gun, with a firing range of 15,200 meters and a road speed of 65 kilometers per hour. It may use the Iranian-made Boragh chassis, a modification of the Chinese Type WZ 501/503 armored infantry fighting vehicle.

Thunder 2
In early September 1997 it was reported that Iran had successfully tested a locally built rapid fire mobile field gun known as "Thunder 2." The Defense Industries Organization claimed that the 155 mm self-propelled gun had a high firing rate, accuracy and mobility. It was described as being able to fire five rounds per minute and move with a speed of 70 km (43 miles) per hour in the battlefield. The gun's range was reported as 30 km (19 miles), and it also includes features such as a laser range-finder and a semi-automatic loading system.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/index.html

[P.A.F]

if america starts anything then it will suffer in my point of view. if they start a war then they would want the katami regime out and to do that they have to invade. and the cilivians of iran are against an invasion therfore they would attack . therefore america would be in a worse situation then iraq.

[yasin_khan]

After opening rounds in Afghanistan and then in Iraq USA is not that fool to invade directly Iran.USA will first finish the game in the both countries then he will do something with Iran with out directly invading it.

[P.A.F]

well put it this way. iran is prepared for Iseal and the US. no matter what they do ;). they may lose but they would cause hefty damage.

[wesside]

Thanks a lot guys.

That helped a lot in providing me with some sense of what Iran is capable of.

Thanks again.

Cheers :)

[syeduzair]

P.A.F., how could any of that hurt the US? None of it can hit us,

I think Us should worry about her child born without wedlock (Israel), the possiable iranian nukes can end up its existance.

[turin]

I think Us should worry about her child born without wedlock (Israel), the possiable iranian nukes can end up its existance.


Could we please leave out wishful thinking?! In case you forgot, while you're talking about some "possible" iranian nukes, Israel got some of these little thingies in their arsenal for real and the day Iran starts to mess around with something nuclear, it will very likely be their last! :mrgreen

regards, turin

[Gremlin29]

Nuking Israel would be suicide for Iran as I would expect the US to retaliate rather swiftly and the US as we know, has more than just a few nukes.

Iran's armed forces are no better than Iraq's and would likewise fall quickly and completely.

[wesside]

Ye but it can work both ways if Iran nukes Israel, that is disastrous for sure but it can yield the same results if Israel nukes Iran. But I think the one who launched first would be penalized. Whether it be Iran or Israel.

What would the outcome if Iran and Israel have a nuclear exchange?
:cop

[srirangan]

Why would Israel nuke Iran when Israel already has much greater conventional strength? Also, Iran doesn't have any nukes as yet, Israel has nearly 150-200 warheads that can be fitted in missiles, bombers and sub's. Israel is waaaay ahead in conventional and WMD strength/

[wesside]

"Why would Israel nuke Iran when Israel already has much greater conventional strength? Also, Iran doesn't have any nukes as yet, Israel has nearly 150-200 warheads that can be fitted in missiles, bombers and sub's. Israel is waaaay ahead in conventional and WMD strength"


Ye sri I’m not arguing with that but lets just say that thing some to a point where Israel actually wanted to "bomb" Iran.
Now considering that Iran also has some nukes and decide to retaliate against Israel
What would be the outcome?

[srirangan]

Sorry, Iran doesn't have nukes, nor has Iran perfected the delivery methods. Iran is on its way on acquiring both these, but US won't let it.

[wesside]

sorry didnt mean that it had nukes, what i ment to say was that considering that if got his hands on nukes and both iran and israel had nukes. thats what i ment. i am aware that iran has no nukes.

But for argument sakes if it had nukes and a nuclear conflict occured between Iran and Israel, how much damage would be done and the aftermath of these actions?

[syeduzair]

Could we please leave out wishful thinking?! In case you forgot, while you're talking about some "possible" iranian nukes, Israel got some of these little thingies in their arsenal for real and the day Iran starts to mess around with something nuclear, it will very likely be their last! :mrgreen

regards, turin

The Joy you expressed shows how evil is supported by the intellectual world, regarding Iranian Nukes, no body know's what kind of animal is inside the bag, as far as you dont know there can be any possiablity, just think about Israel, what would be left after a pre-emptive nuclear strike by Iran, more worst then what Nazi's did, simply no more jewish state.

It is not like I am in dreams, it is history if you will push some one hard, he will reatliate, with the strength and courage given to him by fear of possiable loss.

[srirangan]

sorry didnt mean that it had nukes, what i ment to say was that considering that if got his hands on nukes and both iran and israel had nukes. thats what i ment. i am aware that iran has no nukes.

But for argument sakes if it had nukes and a nuclear conflict occured between Iran and Israel, how much damage would be done and the aftermath of these actions?

Hypothetical question. Answers could vary very vastly. But if there is a nuclear exchange betw Iran and Israel we could expect Israel making the first strike because Israel tiny as it is cannot risk being nuked.

[P.A.F]

all iran has to do is get it's shahab 3 with non nuclear material and target isreals major bases and then that would be bye bye to israels f-16 and f-15 and what ever. then to top that up 1 or 2 more nukes would do the job. isreal would obviously attack as well but if you think about it, it would take 3-4 nukes to wipe isreal of the map and it would that about 10-20 nukes to mash up iran.

[P.A.F]

http://www.dawn.com/2004/09/24/top18.htm

Iran warns Israel of most severe reaction

UNITED NATIONS, Sept 23: Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi warned on Wednesday his country would react "most severely" to any Israeli strike against its nuclear facilities.

"Israel is always a threat not only against Iran, but all countries in the Middle East," Mr Kharazi said after talks here with his British counterpart, Jack Straw. "Be sure that any action by Israel certainly will be reacted by us most severely."

Mr Kharazi said he had "a very good discussion" with Mr Straw on the nuclear issue as well as relations between the two countries. "I believe there are concerns on all sides," the Iranian minister said. "There are concerns on the European side, and we have to arrive to some conclusions that will be acceptable to both sides to overcome this impasse."

He said he believed there were "ways and means how to make both sides happy," but added: "Nobody can deny our right, which is using nuclear technology for peaceful purposes."

Mr Straw did not make a statement at the end of the talks. The International Atomic Energy Agency has given Iran until Nov 25 to provide assurances that its nuclear programme has no secret military aspects.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell said earlier Wednesday that the US had no plans to attack Iran to thwart what it claims is the Islamic republic's pursuit of nuclear weapons, but has not formally ruled out any options to deal with the matter. Iran says talks only way to resolve nuke stand off. -AFP/Reuters

[andrei]

Hmm... the issue is how to define victory. Destruction of hardware ? Control of territory ? Imposing a political will ? By these standards, the US have destroyed the Iraqi army but are unable to control the Iraqi territory or to impose a political solution. The same goes with Afghanistan. So, of course, the US could launch thousands of cruise missiles against Iran and obtain rapid air superiority or wreck iranian command system. But as Irak example shows, it was easier to defeat a conventional army than handdle insurgents acting in small groups. I think that Iran could really be a nightmare for the US. Not to mention that if the US can encircle Iran and attack it from both Irak and Afghanistan, Iran could also easily let some thousands of fighters well into Irak or use the shiite connection they have to lead Irak into a further nigthmare for the US. If I were the Iranian commander, i would disseminate my forces around the country and restrain from any offensive action other than subsersive attacks against US troops in Iraqi cities

[Bordo-Bereli]

Maybe Iran's soldiers aren't as well as a ranger,delta force or a whichever powerful unit but they know how guerilla warfare is made I think.So they have technological weapons and they have their own missiles like Sahap.Three or four months before I had watched their applications on T.V.and saw that how powerful they are.However,if Iran fights with a whichever country a lot of Moslem people come for figting from Turkey,Azerbaijan,Saudi Arabia and the other Moslem countries.Iran couldn't conquered since they founded.Even Ottoman armies checked control hardly.I think they are so powerful.

[UnarmedSoldier]

I think u're understating the options available to the iranians. Yes, it's true, the americans can very well bomb the country into the ground, but remember the Karbala gap. If stupid Saddam was not so convinced that the main attack would come from the north, they could have just used chemical wepons in the open desert and decimated the invading forces. By their own admission the us forces were not ready to deal with that. Also u don't seem to remember how scared they were at the thought of advanced russian antitank weapons comping from Syria.

How about that apache being shot down by rocket fire the other day ? How well would they be able to fight without air support fearing shoulder launched AA missiles ?(like the soviets in afganistan).

The iranians are now making tanks like crazy, do u think they forgot to make or import anti tank and anti aircraft missiles ? All they'd have to do to scare off the americans would be to give each iranian 2 of those.

[gf0012-aust]

I think u're understating the options available to the iranians. Yes, it's true, the americans can very well bomb the country into the ground, but remember the Karbala gap. If stupid Saddam was not so convinced that the main attack would come from the north, they could have just used chemical wepons in the open desert and decimated the invading forces. By their own admission the us forces were not ready to deal with that. Also u don't seem to remember how scared they were at the thought of advanced russian antitank weapons comping from Syria.

How about that apache being shot down by rocket fire the other day ? How well would they be able to fight without air support fearing shoulder launched AA missiles ?(like the soviets in afganistan).

The iranians are now making tanks like crazy, do u think they forgot to make or import anti tank and anti aircraft missiles ? All they'd have to do to scare off the americans would be to give each iranian 2 of those.

The Iranians have also seen what happens to massed armour. Anyone who thinks that a war with Iran would be an early ground war is ignoring the fact that all nations undergoing their own version of the RMA are heading rapidly to precision rather than mass. Armoured warfare changed after 1999.

[HOJAAT]

Hello all,

I try not to get involved in discussion here but i am an ocean of knowledge regarding irgc and army.If you need help or want personal experiance from war with iraq please start your line with fao hojaat.

thankyou

hojaat

[gf0012-aust]

Hello all,

I try not to get involved in discussion here but i am an ocean of knowledge regarding irgc and army.If you need help or want personal experiance from war with iraq please start your line with fao hojaat.

thankyou

hojaat

hojaat, you can post your experiences on here without an invitation from the forum. anything relevant to the thread topic is welcome.

alternatively, you might have experiences that can be put in the "military tactics" section.

:p:

[Patzek]

Well, i had to say something.

I think you're seeing Israel as a country who can only attack and cannot defend it self.
Well, you have a big mistake down there.
So, lets say, Iran nukes israel, the missle will be shut down by an arrow before he get to Jordan, won't success? another one.
since 1994 all Arrow's tests was 100% success, he can take a nuclear warhead.
Iran wont hit israel with a nuke, she can only try, and after the first try, there is no more Iran to launch those warheads.

Evreything that Highsea mentiouned is completley right.
Comon, Iran might have some troops, but we are tlaking about freaking USA here.

Iran HAS NO Migs 29, or any kind of SU's in her AF.
Iran had Migs, but after the war with Iraq they all gone down.
You can look here
www.iiaf.net (http://www.iiaf.net/)
about evreything Iran has.


and last thing.
If iran gets to Israel she wont be able to shut down all her sources in 1 bomb, no in 2, and not in 3.
Israel air bases are dispersed in all over the country, in each base there's few models of aircraft, especially in the bases who close to the bounds.
In time of war, like in 2003 when USA attacked Iraq, israeli attack aircrafts and helicopters was up in the air for 24\7 and all missles and the crows was in alert.
At 2003, we knew that Iraq doesn't have with what to attack us, but we were in " code red " so if the war with Iran start, i don't want to think what will be going on over here.

[gf0012-aust]

and i'm not authorize to tell you why or what so ever.

These kinds of comments aren't helpful. There are people in here who still have security ratings and at various levels. They don't use their security status as part of an argument - as it's a hollow argument in itself.


If you want to debate and contest information, you need to do it without implying that you have any info which makes you appear to be in a position of "protected information". It's meaningless here.

[Patzek]

How do you want me to clear my opinion about something I can't tell?
And don't mistake, i'm not in the army yet, and the things I know are almost worthless, but still, this is forum that have people from enemy countries.


But, edited.

[Supe]

Iran does not possess any nukes, so talk of Iran launching such weapons are fantasy.

That the U.S could win on conventional terms is beyond dispute; but what then? Any thoughts that the U.S could hold Iran for any length of time as an occupier, need only to look at the lessons being learned in Iraq.

The Iranian military would account for itself much better than Iraq did in GW2. Iraqi capability had been worn down by years of U.N sanctions (and of course the previous GW), so much of the defence infrastructure (communications, Air Defence etc) were non functional, and materiel and weapons largely degraded thus making an effective defence improbable. Iraq is not Iran.

Iran is not ruled by a largely unpopular, despotic dictator as Iraq was. So there's going to be more cohesian within the Iranian government and its military in terms of dealing with an invasion. I am sure that the Iranians watched with great interest on how quickly Iraqi forces were dismantled and presumably would have incorporated those lessons into a refined doctrine on how to best defend themselves; and if that fails, how to wage war under occupation ala Asymmetric warfare. I envisage the Iranians pre-positioning weapons, setting up alternative communications networks (redundancy), organising potential resistance cells and identifying urban areas which could become 'turkey shoots'.

Despite the rhetoric on both sides, I highly doubt there would be an invasion of Iran though I don't exclude a possible air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. If that happens, one would expect some form of retaliation, possibly escalating into a conflict that could ultimately engulf the whole region in war. A daunting prospect.

[Patzek]

As someone already said.

USA nor Israel will let Iran to have Nuclear warheads.
If Iran wont stop from what she's doing, there's 2 ways she will end.
With only nuclear sites destroyed, or total revolution and she will end like Iraq did.

Iran got the choise, the only thing she need to do is to choose wisely.

[gf0012-aust]

this is forum that have people from enemy countries.

No one with priveliged information reveals it on a public forum. ;)

[HOJAAT]

Hi,

I just like to say that most posters here are correct in everything rgarding types of weapons or even what should iran do if this or that happens.

One thing is clear that most posters are tuned in the western properganda aimed at both

selling weapons and scare their next victim.What is forgotten by posters is that the current

war stared 15 or so years go and the next one will either be in 15 years or soon after another 15 year is up for the next victim.

When a war begins they know that its a sure win,so the properganda starts.. so weapons can be sold(ie. the types being used here at this war) and scare the bystanders off.

A war as i know it is about 99% before hand work,and then such an easy victory on t.v

that all citizens of the attacking nation realy think they are always winners.

Since all the other 99% work for other victims(OR WOULD BE VICTIMS)has come to

nothing and the public havent heared anyhing about it,then that is not counted as a lose

since we only hear the last 1% just before the attack and the pumping up of a nations military(victim) to make it a real fight so everyone says dont attack they have this and that

it will be a tough war.......but the attacker knows that the war is already won,but we need to sell f16s or any plane that hasent yet sold good,so they bring in f16 or what ever and film it

killing a few deserted tanks or old planes on the runway or even use a 15000lb bomb to

hit a building that only needs 2000,since it makes good fire work at night while filming.

Iraqs army was in sanctions for 15 years,and the army heads all bought by the u.s.

Have you ever seen or heared of attacking army going into a country behind the supplies

already gone in? or at speed on the motor way?

This happens when you know for fact that no one will fire back.It also looks good for the

weapons you want to sell.

So an army like saudi or kuwait buys these and thinks when a war happens, can then

knock out tanks like the u.s!!!!!!

When it come to war they fight it 100%.. not 99% pre war then 1% show ,and find out these

weapons dont work like on the t.v.

I had been in the army for 30 years we were sent to the u.k for training at sandhurst.

Speradic war like instant invasions of an army needs 100% war and has maney

casualty but west likes an easy fight not even one soldier dead.

Iraqi army was very capable, even under sanctions and could have given 100 of thousands

of dead for the west,just like a handful of terrorists are doing now.

My pre statement was to say dont look at wars from one view that is expected of

you,, get up and look at it from the view they dont want you to see.

A million tanks for iran a trillion su 30 and tera billion ships will have the same result of

iraq if a nation allowes the 99% work to get completed, it also helps more to sell weapons

since there will be a lot of planes to knock out on the run way.

But a nation who wants to fight for a belife,like religion or other... will never be bought,hence

a hard fight just like vietnam for u.s or afghanistan for russia,these had nothing to fight with

just masses of dedicated men women and children to fight.

If the u.s picks on viettnam again it wont be like the past,it will be an easy victory after the pre 99% work,,just like afghanistan 23 years on from the russians.

I worked hard during the war with iraq and we had nothing,but plenty of the other.

So iran will be attacked today... tommorrow,the president is this..is that...

is all the 99% work,so look at it like 26 years of win for iran.

Why talk to iran if you can bomb it?

You are tough?we are weak? then do it! they wont, since they have not yet bought

the forces and it will be a real fight, not a movie on c.n.n.

Thankyou.Hojaat:coffee

[HOJAAT]

sorry twice posted.

[Patzek]

I tried and tried to unserstand what you was trying to say, without success.

You mean, like, that it wont be easy to defeat Iran as it was to defeat Iraq?
And the US need to be prepared to hard fight?

cause really, i didn't understand a thing.

[HOJAAT]

Sorry can not help you.

Hojaat.

[Patzek]

:confused: :confused: AHHH?????????????????????? :confused: :confused:

[WebMaster]

Folks, lets discuss Iranian Forces here and not Iranian Politics or strategic challenges. If you like to discuss that, go here:

http://www.globaltalknetworks.com/forums

[mysterious]

Very interesting post Hojaat! [Admin edit: Stop patronizing the other members please.]totally agree with you that today there is too much media posing by the war machine which churns out all kinds of propaganda. It is true, most of Iraqi generals and heads were already bought off before the invasion even started. It was a walk over by the US. I dont see that happening in Iran, atleast not anywhere in the imminent future.

Edit: My bad Webz, I already posted my comments before your post came on.

[HOJAAT]

I am afraid almost everything to do with military forces is polotics very much like a poker game.Ignore that side of it and for ever you play in the hands of specs on this tank and that plane.
As far as i am concerned iran has a very low tech armed forces nothing worth talking about,but u.s and russia have the most hi-tech forces in the world,talking about them is a subject with no relations to iranianforces,unless a t72 or f-4 is what the world is talking about.
Iran has this game polotics tuned for its self,and so far it is that polotics which has kept the west off it, rather than of a few f5 and f4s.

Hojaat.

[gf0012-aust]

i think iran would put up a good fight against the americans.
.......................

there airforce:
F-4 Phantom
F-5 Tiger
Shenyang F-6
F-7 Airguard
F-14 Tomcat
MiG-29 Fulcrum
Su-17/20/22 Fitter
Su-24 Fencer
Su-25 Frogfoot


Navy:
IIN Insignia. IIN Fleet Insignia.

IIS Kooseh. IIS Korosh.

HavaDarya (Hovercrafts & Helicopters) IIS Palang
IIS Babr IIS Saam Class
IIS Bayandor Class IIS Kaman class
IIS Artemiz IIS Simorgh Class
IIS Tonb IIS Char Bahar
Special Forces IIS Sohrab
IIS Hormoz IIS Keyvan Class
IIN Fleet Insignia.
IIS Korosh.
IIS Palang
IIS Saam Class
IIS Kaman class
IIS Simorgh Class
IIS Char Bahar
IIS Sohrab
IIS Keyvan Class

if america somehow does try anything then it would suffer heafty losses. ;)

PAF The only elements that have relevance here are the above.

You're ignoring the reality that the US wouldn't commit to a ground war of "force majeur" until all organised and controlled land forces were subdued.

Why do you think every major military after 1991 (including China in 1999) went through their own RMA?

1 million man armies are useful for continental war against a like minded military - but they're next to useless for intercontinental warfare - and close to useless if the other side does not have a policy of "sieze and hold".

An intercontinental warfighting machine will not wage continental war on any power that it cannot subdue and immobilise from a distance.

You need to look at how and why "force majeur" warfare changed after 1991 and why there has been a mad scramble by over 20 countries to change the way that they conduct warfare in future.

[ajay_ijn]

obviously no body can get in the UsA's way but what i'm saying is that the US will face alot of destruction if they where to attack. the thing is that the iraqi army fleed this war because they were not under saddams control anymore. however the iranian army is loyal to the katami ragime and they would fight to the death. as for the airforce navy. well god knows what the iranians are up to in those 2 fields. obviously the USA would win this but the thing i'm saying is that they would have to pay a heavy price for it. Don't take iran for granted
US Army might take losses only if they will have a ground war with Iran.
But in air USAF is sure to dominate and USN would overwhelm with minimal losses.


however the iranian army is loyal to the katami ragime and they would fight to the death
Fighting to death doesn't mean that their enemy(US) will take heavy losses.

obviously the USA would win this but the thing i'm saying is that they would have to pay a heavy price for it
Heavy price,u mean in dollars??

[Brit]

Just an update on the Zulfiqar MBT:
http://tinypic.com/6z0ava.jpg
Has a Russian 25mm smoothbore but is otherwise based on M60, particularly the chassis/tracks etc.

[lamdacore]

Mod edit: highsea: Sorry Lamdacore, but your post is not appropriate to this forum, as this thread is not for discussing a war scenario between the US and Iran.

Your comments were well written, so I will send them back to you in a PM so you don't lose your effort. You are welcome to open a thread in the other forum if you want to dicuss the political/strategic aspects wrt the US and Iran.

Please read the comments by Webs in Post #47 of this thread.

[lamdacore]

OK!! got the message, so where should i exaclty post it?

[highsea]

There's a thread on the topic here:

http://www.globaltalknetworks.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14266

[driftder]

Just an update on the Zulfiqar MBT:
http://tinypic.com/6z0ava.jpg
Has a Russian 25mm smoothbore but is otherwise based on M60, particularly the chassis/tracks etc.

ahem...no way does yon beastie look like a mite 25mm to me. Big and the turret looks like a attempted copy of a squared-face leopard 2 or olifant. and the height to ground makes it difficult to hull down.

no offence but we infanteers keep a healthy look out for hazardous stuff like such.

[Pendekar]

mind the diesel roaring, and the ground trembling

[driftder]

mind the diesel roaring, and the ground trembling

Really, I find such replies like yours the same as this thread - leading nowhere. The only point of reference to the Iranian armed forces was a hardware list of current(?) Iranian equipment and a possible TOE (not likely as its too outdated) by PAF. Other then that, it's just a dogfight over how the Iranian armed forces will give a good showing of itself if the USA ever attack and how Iran will drag Israel into the fight if it ever happens blah blah.

Really, what does it show of the Iranian armed forces which is the thread title and topic? The amount of training, years served by conscript? Force breakdown - regional defence, corps structure etc?

To get back to your reply, Pendekar - what is the point you are trying to make by saying "mind the diesel roaring, and the ground trembling"?

Gentlemen, I have yet to see any reference to the Iranian armed forces at all except for some chest thumping and wild claims. Can we get back to topic?:rolleyes:

[gf0012-aust]

Really, I find such replies like yours the same as this thread - leading nowhere. The only point of reference to the Iranian armed forces was a hardware list of current(?) Iranian equipment and a possible TOE (not likely as its too outdated) by PAF. Other then that, it's just a dogfight over how the Iranian armed forces will give a good showing of itself if the USA ever attack and how Iran will drag Israel into the fight if it ever happens blah blah.



I concur completely. Either the thread gets back on topic with a meaningful discussion or it risks getting locked.

[WebMaster]

I concur completely. Either the thread gets back on topic with a meaningful discussion or it risks getting locked.
Building on Gary's comment: If you wish to discuss meaningful discussion on political /strategic side of iranian forces, then go here and bang heads all you want:

http://www.globaltalknetworks.com/forums

In fact there is a topic on it as well.

[driftder]

Now that we had that all cleared up, here's something I ripped from AllRefer.com (http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/iran/iran157.html) -
************
Army

In 1979, the year of the shah's departure, the army experienced a 60-percent desertion from its ranks. By 1986 the regular army was estimated to have a strength of 305,000 troops (see table 8 (http://reference.allrefer.com/frd/cs/iran/ir_appen.html#table8), Appendix). In the fervor of the Revolution and in the light of numerous changes affecting conscripts and reservists, the army underwent a structural reorganization. Under the shah, the army had been deployed in 6 divisions and 4 specialized combat regiments supported by more than 500 helicopters and 14 Hovercraft. An 85-percent readiness rate was usually credited to the force, although some outside observers doubted this claim. Following the Revolution the army was renamed the Islamic Iranian Ground Forces (IIGF) and in 1987 was organized as follows: three mechanized divisions, each with three brigades, each of which in turn was composed of three armored and six mechanized battalions; seven infantry divisions; one airborne brigade; one Special Forces division composed of four brigades; one Air Support Command; and some independent armored brigades including infantry and a "coastal force." There was also in reserve the Qods battalion, composed of ex-servicemen.

After the mid-1970s, military manpower was unevenly deployed. Nearly 80 percent of Iran's ground forces were deployed along the Iraqi border, although official sources maintained that the military was capable of rapid redeployment. Although air force transports were used extensively, redeployment was slow after the start of the war. The Mashhad division headquarters, in the eastern part of the country, has remained important because of Soviet military operations in Afghanistan and resulting Afghan migration into Iran (see Refugees (http://reference.allrefer.com/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field%28DOCID+ir0043%29) , ch. 2).

In the past, Iran purchased army equipment from many countries, including the United States, Britain, France, the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany), Italy, and the Soviet Union. By late 1987, Iran had diversified its acquisitions, obtaining arms from a number of suppliers. Among them were the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), China, Brazil, and Israel. The diversity of the weapons purchased from these countries greatly complicated training and supply procedures, but, faced with a war of attrition and a continuous shortage of armaments, Iran was willing to purchase from all available sources (see Foreign Influences in Weapons, Training, and Support Systems , this ch.).

The IIGF operated almost 1,000 medium tanks in 1986 (see table 9, Appendix). Although a large number were British-made Chieftains and American-made M-60s, an undetermined number of Soviet-made T-54 and T-55s, T-59s, T-62s, and T-72s were also part of the inventory, all captured from the Iraqis or acquired from North Korea and China. There was also a complement of fifty British-made Scorpion light tanks. Several hundred Urutu and Cascavel armored fighting vehicles from Brazil joined American-made M-113s and Soviet-made BTR-50-60s. An undetermined number of Soviet-made Scud surface-to-surface missiles were acquired from a third country, believed to be Libya. And in November 1986, the United States revealed that it had supplied the Iranian military with Hawk surface-to-air missiles and TOW antitank missiles via Israel.

The army's aviation unit, whose main operational facilities were located at Esfahan, was largely equipped with United States aircraft, although some helicopters were of Italian manufacture. In 1986 army aviation operated some 65 light fixed-wing aircraft, but its strength lay in its estimated 320 combat helicopters, down from 720 in 1980.

Data as of December 1987
************
Based on the above, it seems there is a pre-revolution TOE of: -
- 6 divisions
- 4 SF combat regiments


After the revolution till present day(assumed and highly suspect) its changed into the following:-
6 divisions
4 SF combat regiments

3 mech divisions
Each mech division consist of
- 3 brigades
Each brigade consist of
- 3 armoured battalions
- 6 mech battalions

7 infantry divisions
1 airborne brigade

1 SF division
- 4 brigades

1 Air Support Command(any comparable equivalent?)

1 Coastal force (maritime border guards?)

Qods battalion (reserve force of ex-servicemen)


Based on the info, each mech division has a total of 9 armoured and 18 mech battalions. So total for the entire 3 mech divisions being 27 armoured and 54 mech battalions - whoa!! And that's excluding the infantry, SF etc.

Gads...I haven't even started on their air force and navy yet....:o

[artistoli]

I will support the US 100% if it goes into Iran. But I have to say that I think many Americans are getting way too cocky with regards to their 'superiority'. If the Iranians use their heads they have the required hardware to put up some serious resistance.

'It's not how poweful it is, but how you use it that counts.' :D

A few well positioned, dug-in Chieftains (still fielding hugely powerful rifled 120mm guns, and heavily armoured) could severely interupt an advance. Those Tomcats that are still in service (and fitted with Iranian produced AAMs) are often used to help direct other interceptors with their powerful radars, and if they could get enough fighters in the air in the initial hours of any attack they could cause a severe headache. If you also consider the fact that Iran does not suffer from the same level of infighting and skills drain as Iraq did, and also the fact that the air force would have no where to run to (unlike the Iraqi air force; half of which fled to Iran in the 1991 Gulf War) then it could be a serious fight, with their backs to the wall so to speak.

[Rich]

Cocky? Whos cocky? I never said we wouldnt take casualties, the Iranians wouldnt fight, or we wouldnt lose war planes. But the outcome is still academic. True the Iranians are probably in a bit better shape then the Iraqis were pre-Gulf..........maybe.

But the force attacking them would be far more lethal then the one that attacked the Iraqis in '91 as well. The attack package would consist almost entirely of precision munitions, and if we have local staging rights, would include hundreds of F-15s,F-16s,F-18s,F-117s, and heavy bombers. The opening salvo of 3rd and 4th generation cruise missiles would be in the 300+ range.

Its all academic. First to go would be their air defense, centers of power and leadership, their navy, power and communications, WMD installations. Over the course of weeks we would set them back 20 years.

But there would be a price to be paid. For us, the world, for Israel, and if Iran used any of its chem/bios?....a much heavier price for Iran. Much better to settle it diplomatically instead of good men dieing. But I dont thinks thats going to happen. Whats Iran telling you when they pull their money out of European banks?

The eventual outcome of air strikes however is academic. And they know it!

[gf0012-aust]

I think what is being forgotten here is that for the last few weeks it's been the Europeans who have been adjusting their forces. This may be seasonal - but for 5 of them to start adjusting force placement at once is somewhat unusual.

the other wild card is France. France has been the only country to come out and obliquely refer to its willingness to respond with nukes to any country initiating or supporting a terrorist strike from their territory.

Finally, as Rich has alluded to. Those who conisder an engagement to be a traditional "meeting engagement" of force majeur are ignoring the start to GW1 and GW2. Both were led by infrastructure and node decapitation.

Landing troops is a prerequisite if you want to "sieze and hold" The US or France for that matter, has no need to conduct "sieze and hold".

[ThunderBolt]

Here is something interesting

Iraq, Afghan duty stretching Army's 'thin green line' to breaking point, study warns

By ROBERT BURNS
Associated Press
Posted January 25 2006, 12:58 PM EST
WASHINGTON -- Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a "thin green line" that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon.

Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who wrote the report under a Pentagon contract, concluded that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency. He also suggested that the Pentagon's decision, announced in December, to begin reducing the force in Iraq this year was driven in part by a realization that the Army was overextended.
As evidence, Krepinevich points to the Army's 2005 recruiting slump -- missing its recruiting goal for the first time since 1999 -- and its decision to offer much bigger enlistment bonuses and other incentives.

"You really begin to wonder just how much stress and strain there is on the Army, how much longer it can continue," he said in an interview. He added that the Army is still a highly effective fighting force and is implementing a plan that will expand the number of combat brigades available for rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 136-page report represents a more sobering picture of the Army's condition than military officials offer in public. While not released publicly, a copy of the report was provided in response to an Associated Press inquiry.

Illustrating his level of concern about strain on the Army, Krepinevich titled one of his report's chapters, "The Thin Green Line."

He wrote that the Army is "in a race against time" to adjust to the demands of war "or risk `breaking' the force in the form of a catastrophic decline" in recruitment and re-enlistment.

Col. Lewis Boone, spokesman for Army Forces Command, which is responsible for providing troops to war commanders, said it would be "a very extreme characterization" to call the Army broken. He said his organization has been able to fulfill every request for troops that it has received from field commanders.

The Krepinevich assessment is the latest in the debate over whether the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have worn out the Army, how the strains can be eased and whether the U.S. military is too burdened to defeat other threats.

Rep. John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat and Vietnam veteran, created a political storm last fall when he called for an early exit from Iraq, arguing that the Army was "broken, worn out" and fueling the insurgency by its mere presence. Administration officials have hotly contested that view.

George Joulwan, a retired four-star Army general and former NATO commander, agrees the Army is stretched thin.

"Whether they're broken or not, I think I would say if we don't change the way we're doing business, they're in danger of being fractured and broken, and I would agree with that," Joulwan told CNN last month.

Krepinevich did not conclude that U.S. forces should quit Iraq now, but said it may be possible to reduce troop levels below 100,000 by the end of the year. There now are about 136,000, Pentagon officials said Tuesday.

For an Army of about 500,000 soldiers -- not counting the thousands of National Guard and Reserve soldiers now on active duty -- the commitment of 100,000 or so to Iraq might not seem an excessive burden. But because the war has lasted longer than expected, the Army has had to regularly rotate fresh units in while maintaining its normal training efforts and reorganizing the force from top to bottom.

Krepinevich's analysis, while consistent with the conclusions of some outside the Bush administration, is in stark contrast with the public statements of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and senior Army officials.

Army Secretary Francis Harvey, for example, opened a Pentagon news conference last week by denying the Army was in trouble. "Today's Army is the most capable, best-trained, best-equipped and most experienced force our nation has fielded in well over a decade," he said, adding that recruiting has picked up.

Rumsfeld has argued that the experience of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan has made the Army stronger, not weaker.

"The Army is probably as strong and capable as it ever has been in the history of this country," he said in an appearance at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in Washington on Dec. 5. "They are more experienced, more capable, better equipped than ever before."

Krepinevich said in the interview that he understands why Pentagon officials do not state publicly that they are being forced to reduce troop levels in Iraq because of stress on the Army. "That gives too much encouragement to the enemy," he said, even if a number of signs, such as a recruiting slump, point in that direction.

Krepinevich is executive director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a nonprofit policy research institute.

He said he concluded that even Army leaders are not sure how much longer they can keep up the unusually high pace of combat tours in Iraq before they trigger an institutional crisis. Some major Army divisions are serving their second yearlong tours in Iraq, and some smaller units have served three times.

Michael O'Hanlon, a military expert at the private Brookings Institution, said in a recent interview that "it's a judgment call" whether the risk of breaking the Army is great enough to warrant expanding its size.

"I say yes. But it's a judgment call, because so far the Army isn't broken," O'Hanlon said.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-125army,0,1208731.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-125army,0,1208731.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines)



So, i really don't think US would be attacking Iran in the near future.

[ThunderBolt]

Also, i read this news on Yahoo, which i think to be of trusty site.

[gf0012-aust]

So, i really don't think US would be attacking Iran in the near future.

Refer to my prev.

There is a substantial difference between attacking and invading.

Dislocation and decapitation of critical infrstructures is vastly different from "sieze and hold".

The US does not need to sieze and hold. France does not need to "sieze and hold"

[wittmanace]

one of the major factors in any engagement with iran is that there are too many unknowns in the equation.

is it uncertain what kind of external support theyll get (other arab states, other asymmetrical warfare groups, not to mention china and russia). it seems the intel on iran isnt as good as it is on many other states......we dont even know how they would react (civilian targeting in the west, attacks on israel, etc...) to an attack. this "unkown" must be one of their strengths in terms of defence against western or israeli strikes/attacks/invasion.

whilst the leadership of iran has been labelled as insane fanatics, it should be remembered that though they might say alot, they have, as yet, done nothing insane in terms of attacks or anything similar outside their own country. the fact that iran has not been aggressor also lends itself to irans inevitable response as being a victim in the middle east. any attack would cause iran to be seen as a victim of western aggression in the region, and the pan arab response might be much greater than anticipated. the fact that iran has the worlds second largest reserves of oil is also key here....the financial implications are huge....

an attack or invasion of iran would most likely cause greater solidarity in the middle east than the west anticipates.......dont forget that saudi arabia's house of saud is holding on by a thread, against the will of huge portions of the popultion which favours an anti american approach. an attack on iran that causes a pan arab solidarity against the west and america in particular could see resistance in iraq and afghanistan escalate, could see musharaf's anti jihadi stance in pakistan become untenable, and could cause an arab solidarity to remove the west from the middle east. imagine if, in an admittedly absolute worst case scenario, you end up with a situation where the russians, chinese, pakistanis and other arab states (egypt, for example has a pro wstern gov. but an anti western poulation) supply arms to or support fighters in afghanistan, iraq and iran........the us army is currently said to be overstretched, nato countries are ressisting sending troops to afghanistan and several nations are pulling out of iraq.......

china and russia also clearly are of the view that america is flexing its muscle in the region too liberally and too close to their domain.......remember peace mission 2005?

the key points are that there are too many unknowns as well as the fact that we have no idea what this could escalate into........

one thing is certain...if israel attacks or is involved, no country in the middle east will have a population that isnt mainly against this action, to say the least......

do remember also that "the result of air strikes is academic" may be true on paper, it is certain that the west and america have lower public tolerance for casualties....so iran could lose men at a huge rate compared to their opponents, but the effect of the casualties in the west would be great and might turn opinion against the war/attacks, whereas high casualties in iran would most likely increase the number of "martyrs" (is soldiers and paramilitaries involved in suicidal attacks as well as targeting of civilians in the west).

furthermore, opinion in the west is more sceptical as result of george"trust me" bush's claims of wmd's and links to terrorism in iraq. in europe the opinion is decidedly against america and its foreign policy (lets not even talk about israel here...), meaning that politican swill have to, if they wish to be elected, adopt a more neutral view of americas wars and involvements/ foreing policy. lets not forget blair.....aka bliar...and how he has ruined his legacy, as well as his now changed perception among most/many brits....
its a huge gamble, staking one's credibilty in europe....

the point is that we dont know what forces would be involved, or in what capacity...so gauging the military struggle is pretty much impossible.....unless one imposes theoretical parameters to the debate....such as iran alone, assuming they have so and so, against an american strike with so and so in place x...




my take on the situation,
wittmanace

[mysterious]

Refer to my prev.

There is a substantial difference between attacking and invading.

Dislocation and decapitation of critical infrstructures is vastly different from "sieze and hold".

The US does not need to sieze and hold. France does not need to "sieze and hold"

But Gary, the Bush administration was all about invading Iraq and not getting involved in 'seize and hold' but look at where they are now. Neck-deep in the quicksand of insurgency after they decided they can't let go of their much prized oil installations! They could well be tempted to do the same in Iran.

One thing the Bush administration is known for is NOT learning from its past mistakes if I may add.

If the US invades Iran, it'll be the same! No WMDs would be found, only its president in some other hole (well staged). The administration in Washington would deny outright having said things that are on record (but they'll deny them any way), about Iran. The topic would be shifted from WMDs to regime change and so on and so forth.

[gf0012-aust]

But Gary, the Bush administration was all about invading Iraq and not getting involved in 'seize and hold' but look at where they are now. Neck-deep in the quicksand of insurgency after they decided they can't let go of their much prized oil installations! They could well be tempted to do the same in Iran.

One thing the Bush administration is known for is NOT learning from its past mistakes if I may add.

If the US invades Iran, it'll be the same! No WMDs would be found, only its president in some other hole (well staged). The administration in Washington would deny outright having said things that are on record (but they'll deny them any way), about Iran. The topic would be shifted from WMDs to regime change and so on and so forth.

Myst, I'm talking about a purely tactical solution without the injection of the frailties of political machinations.

At a tactical level, Iran can be militarily decapitated to a level of tolerance without resorting to "boots on ground"

In fact, I would be really surprised if any military planning re Iran (be it any of the likely players, incl some in Europe) would involve troops on ground. Troops on ground are actually totally unnecessary if the goal is to neutralise Iranian strategic warfighting capability.

[mysterious]

Got that jotted down. Thanks for the clarification.

[Kiwi Echo]

AS the bloke b4 said the iranies will b stuck against a corner

they will b into the whole death to america, wantin to win or everyone die tryin. Being fueled by religous propaganda dosnt help either

The airstrike capability of dose F-16s18s15s whatever would mash dose iranies up bigtime they know it so

iran knows this so they're going 2 b as arrogant bigheaded agressive as they like and wont care who they piss off they think they hav nothing to lose because of the whole religious thing again usa rottin in hell yadayadayada , however u want to look at them

Because they know usa eu will be a bit touchy and cautious how they react towards them and the iranians will use this to there advantage

Even though im into the guns blazing flash tec stuff like everyone else

I SAY this is all bullshite

MAKE LOVE NOT WAR

Peace out :nutkick

(PS dat hojaat , patekak whoever out there please take no offence )

[Schumacher]

Yes, from a purely military standpoint, there's little doubt the US can get most of the job done. These are huge nuke facilities & their locations are known, so cruise missiles & stealth bombers will be the weapons of choice, plus small groups of special ops forces may see some actons. But some reports say the facilities are spread out to over 70+ sites with many underground so the air campaign may take weeks if not months.
The US will not need to put large forces on the ground, not sure if it could even if it wanted to.
What's more interesting is how Iran can make life tougher for US in Iraq & Afghanistan ? How will Syria & rest of Mid East or the world react ? What does the world fear more, probability of an Iran with nukes few yrs down the road or a US$100+ per barrel of oil ? :) Even if the USAF can take out some nuke facilities, how far back that will put Iran's nuke ambitions ? Will we have to deal with the issue again 5 yrs later ?
So don't hold your breath, there's only at most a 1 to 10 chance of US military action against Iran this yr. However I'm not so sure abt the Israelis, they may act alone against the wishes of the US. But without stealth & cruise missiles, they will be much less effective.