Spares for MiG-29 & Su-25 could probably have been got on the sly from stocks in former Soviet republics & other users, or ex-users, of the types.
Iran and Related Geopolitical Defense Issues
- Thread starter LogisticsGuy
- Start date
Actually I doubt that they care if the nuclear talks re-open. What Iran wants the sanctions lifted, particularly the ones against any banks that allow themselves to be used by Iran to transfer funds. That is what is really starting to hurt.
The US firmly believes that Iran is just using the prospect of meaningful nuclear talks to kill time until they have a nuclear device to demonstrate, so they will not lift any sanctions. Now if Iran were to open ALL their nuclear facilities and books to IAEA inspection without restriction, on completion and a clean bill of health, the US would have no options but to remove the sanctions or lose the EU and NATO nations. As it stands those nations have gotten worried enough to support the tougher sanctions.
gazzzwp
Member
Iran clearly feels itself under economic and military and pressure; the military exercises have frightened no-one since the weaponry they possess is well known to the Western powers who have had years now to work out counter measures and a winning strategy bearing in mind their superior forces.
Stalling for time must be a huge concern as you suggest; it appears that Iran are trying to regain the initiative by calling for talks. If I were Obama I would reject the call for talks since there is highly unlikely to be anything new on the table. The west needs to be careful that it is not being 'played' ;it may regret this later.
Beatmaster
New Member
No.
If the US denies the talks it would cut into the credibility of the US itself.
It was the US that demanded open talks and it was the US who forced Iran to come to the table.
Regardless if Iran is going to play another fake show it can backfire on the US by saying: We wanted to talk and come clean but you mister Obama do not want this...end of discussion.
Or something similar to it.
This would be bad for the US and even worse for the international support to have another round of sanctions.
The thing is that both Iran and the West are seeking each others errors to exploit them into their favor.
As we say it in the Netherlands: If you want to beat a dog you need a stick.....
So the main task for both Iran and the West is to find that stick.
And by denying these talks you give Iran a stick which they can use to poke around.
Simple said the more the West gives away and slips the better for Iran.
So there is no room for errors as every error will carry a payload.
On the other hand talks are needed to avoid a crisis that can only be solved by hard actions.
The main lesson the US and the West has learned the hard way is that a lack of communications is more dangerous then the issue itself.
So regardless if the whole talk session is based upon lies, time stalling and usual BS its better to talk then to redraw from talks and find urself in a situation that cannot be solved anymore.
Beatmaster
New Member
The atomic agency has reported that there are serious concerns about the program, however final proof has been never shown, which means that even if Iran open ups their facilities that it would do not much good to them.
We are way past that moment to recall all suspicion imo lets say hypothetical that Iran does speak the truth i do not see the US accept this specially after the mess-up on Iraq (we all knew this was a farc) because if the UN council would see final proof that they where wrong and most of all that the US was wrong then imagine what this would do to the already bad credibility.
Because if this proof does exist then the US must have known this all this time.....
Like the knew that Saddam did not have nukes.
Anyway long story short this would be the momentum that Iran needs and this would the Obama administration into a really serious and troubling situation.
Personally i believe that Iran is playing dirty so i do not question if the US is right or not however i must say that IF Iran wants to play dirty and kick the US in their nuts then coming clean and proof that this whole issue is based upon: We did have substantial indirect proof and "grave" concerns .........Nuff said lol
Another thing is IF Iran does build a bomb then the US and the West better hurry in what ever they plan next as time is not a luxury they have.:flame
I'm not sure it was really a "mess up" by the US in Iraq, all they had to do was open up for the inspectors required by the UN. I can see this going the same way in Iran to a point. The US will go to the table and the same demand for inspectors will be made, if inspections are not allowed by Iran then we will be right back where we are now. The only difference would be the extra time obtained by Iran to finish their work on a weapon, there is no way anyone could attack Iran while talks were on going.
Beatmaster
New Member
True however you have to understand that Iraq back then knew that US was wrong in their assumptions.
However the US pushed trough and years after the invasion the whole world could see that the US and its mountain of paper work and evidence was worth nothing.
Also wikileaks revealed enough info to hurt the US credibility for a long time to come.
Thinking, believing and saying that a person is a murderer does not directly mean that a person actually is.....
Iraq was a clear case of this.
Iran is in a similar situation, again i am not saying i believe Iran as i do not however lets face it.
Besides some indications and indirect evidence there is nothing serious that proves beyond a doubt that Iran does build a bomb.
Because IF this proof is available then why is the US and the west not coming forward with it?
And you have to understand this that N-Korea could not hide that they build a bomb and they happen to be the most closest off and inaccessible nation on the world.
And the thing is NK could not hide it despite their best efforts......
If Iran is building a bomb or is close to it then it will come out as every agency and satellite have their eyes fixed on them.
And still no direct proof.
This is exactly the reason why the world has such a hard time supporting more and heavier sanctions and why the world has serious troubles in direct action.
Because after Iraq the world has become wary of the term: "Grave concerns"
Ok lets say this i do not trust Iran and personally speaking i do not have any reason to think that they are telling the truth, however how is the US going to explain to the world after a invasion (Assuming it has come to the point for hard and direct actions) IF this whole nuke program was peace full after all?
It will lose its credibility and its foot print in the middle east.
This loss has such a huge impact on the future for the west that both Israel, US and the EU does not want to go there.
Iran knows this regardless if they build a bomb or not.
If Iran allowes inspectors it would not change much the US will not accept final proof that the program is actually peacefull, because as international analysts have said ot would put the US into a bad bad situation...
So either the West does proof Iran has a bomb......or Iran shows them the proof.
Still either way Iran will play it to the last moment so that the blow to the diplomatic relations and international community will hit like a psychological nuke.
But then again thats only IF they tell the truth.
And i am pretty sure that IF the US knows that Iran does not have a bomb it will do whatever it can to take Iran out because the US does hopefully see what is going to happen if Iran happens to speak the truth afterall....
And thats what i call a "Grave Concern"
Anyway i might explain it wrong here but i am sure that the people here on the forum could explain it better.
Here a wiki link (I know its not always accurate but its a good read
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction"]Iran and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]The whole thing that gives the US the power to accuse Iran is that Iran refuses to work with the Atomic agency but that still does not mean Iran is wrong.
- Similar shape (approx 63 miles x 20 miles, though Okinawa is a bit more convoluted) and area (approx 1200 sq.mi.), dominated by a central ridge and numerous folds and erosion gullies.
- Soft stone for easy tunneling (limestone on Okinawa, sandstone on Qushm). Iranians will probably base their defenses on tactics similar to Hezbollah in 2006 against Israel.
- Fanatical. -- Both the Japanese and the Iranians used human wave tactics against fortified positions. However, the Iranians may no longer have the religious fervor they did in the 1980’s. However, the Iranians can be expected to set up much of their defenses, possibly with the assistance of the local civilians, in close proximity to restricted civilian facilities (schools, mosques, hospitals, etc.).
- Defenders – The Japanese had approximately 100,000 troops (67,000 Army regulars + up to 40,000 auxiliaries). The Iranians, who knows? Probably could bring in a division on short notice, so say 5,000 to 10,000, if the prepared defensive infrastructure could support them. Again, expect the tactics used successfully against Israel in 2006.
- Attackers – At Okinawa the Allies had 102,000 Army and 81,000 Marines. For Qushm the US can probably field no more than 4 MEU, say 6,000 to 9000 men.
- ROE – On Okinawa the US forces could just about shoot anything that they thought might be threatening, and then shoot the bodies. Modern ROEs are much tighter and civilized. Supporting fires heavily in attackers favor in both battles, but the increased accuracy and ability to coordinate with ground forces will be offset by the ROE.
The US has gone to the table and has made the demanded for inspectors repeatedly. And Iran has played the ongoing talks card repeatedly, so no one seriously believes that they will produce any new results.
The US does not want to invade if at all possible, but has made it is very clear now that the sanctions will not be suspended while talks are ongoing, and Iran has been equally clear that they will not talk while sanctions are in place. Things are coming down to the wire, and the Europeans are worried enough that they are falling in line with the US, which is a sure indication of how serious the situation has gotten.
Just took a quick look at Qushm on Google Earth, sure looks like a lot of dirt to me.
I don't see any evidence that Iran is all that busy preparing the island for assault, at least on images from 2010. Not sure why you would want to occupy it, maybe send a few SEALs if you have to. Once you destroy thru air attacks the small bays or ports for support/refuel for all those small boats, you really have taken away Iran's means of using them. Further north is the port (Bandar e Abbas) where the KILOs operate, that's more interesting but with just 2 SAM sites there, I am pretty sure you could bomb it quite easily, don't see the need to send in more than some SF or SEALs if need be. I think the US will avoid at all cost sending in troops, maybe some SFs to do some covert sh*t but that's it, no regular troops or Marines, it ain't going to happen.All the recent noise is just Iran trying to delay as much as possible sanctions and rattle the markets, I don't think all this has done much harm or good to the situation. So Iran rattled the cage a little and now they want to negotiate, just almost as the same time last year, when the negotiations failed...Who knows, maybe the sanctions are biting and with these new sanctions might really put the hurt, they might offer something good....I wouldn't bet on it.
Spares for both types should be plentiful on the black market... huge numbers of MiG-29s are sitting around in Belarus, Ukraine, etc. and a good number were exported outside WarPac, so there should be no problem with getting spares. Then again, there's no way to really tell.
Check Qeshm Wikipedia (Spelled with a ‘e’. Google Earth has it both ways) for the island.Just took a quick look at Qushm on Google Earth, sure looks like a lot of dirt to me.
- Permanent population 114,000 in 2010, with 59 towns and villages. Biggest is Qeshm (yep, same name), population 27,000 on the northeast end.
- Google Earth shows a pretty good road grid over the island
- Popular with the eco-tourist set. Considered the location of the original Garden of Eden in some (probably local) religious text.
Any obvious defenses can be easily targeted, concealment is vital. Israel discovered that they only knew the location of less than ¼ of the Hezbollah defenses in 2006. Given the connection between Hezbollah and Iran any defense plan would probably be based on that experience.
gazzzwp
Member
What people here seem to be suggesting is that the outcome of a full scale conflict would be unpredictable at best and at worst the USN on probability would experience damage or loss of one or more vessels. Looking at Iran's forces; subs, light marine craft, air force, and missile systems this has to be a realistic assessment. The only way to minimise the probability of such losses would be to carry out a decisive all out air campaign lasting say 24 hours as we saw with Desert Storm in 1990.
(According to Wiki; the allies lost 75 planes during operation DS flying over 100,000 sorties).
Within 24 hours, 90% of Iraq's air assets were destroyed. That would leave the USAF much more free to pick off Iran's Navy, and the USN to engage the Kilo class subs.
A slow start to the campaign would give Iran much more of a level playing field.
Another question: people are talking about the threat of Iranian subs in shallow waters; are subs not easier to detect in shallow depths?
That is why the latest sanctions, targeting banks that do business with Iran, concern them so much. It is a lot of trouble to physically move millions of dollars in cash around to make those purchases. There are ways to get around the sanctions of course, for a substantial fee naturally.
t68
Well-Known Member
Don’t forget that the US forces have clashed with Iranian forces in the past, Iran suffered significant loses in that episode which was also because of Iranian mines placed in the Gulf which holed the USN Frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts.
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis"]Operation Praying Mantis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gob3lMwkjnw"]U.S. Operation Praying Mantis - YouTube[/nomedia]
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis"]Operation Praying Mantis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gob3lMwkjnw"]U.S. Operation Praying Mantis - YouTube[/nomedia]
Hezbollah has war-hardened veterans with (in some cases) decades of experience of war against Israel. Iran has never faced the US, and their military hasn't been in large scale combat in quite some time. Hezbollah's success in 2006 was largely due to the fact that they have one of the worlds (if not the) most capable irregular force. Iran has one of the worlds least capable regular forces.
Your comparison with Okinawa is fundamentally flawed. Modern warfare doesn't work the way WWII did. With modern comms, tactics, air support, etc. the battle will look very differently. Remember during WWII Japan was almost a peer power, certainly not far behind technologically, or doctrinally. Iran is far from that.
With regards to Okinawa and any modern comparison, those were also some of Japan's best units (specifically the 24th ID and 44th IMB). The rest of Japan's remaining elite were in Formosa (Taiwan) or on the main islands. These were units with years of experience in China. Can't remember exactly how well the 28th and 62nd ID were rated by the Japanese. But in addition to these regular Army forces, there were thousands of militia and IJN personnel as well. Iran would be hard-pressed to match the 24th and 44th in terms of experience or (relatively) modern tactics.
Also, modern weapons have evolved to counter static, underground defences like those employed on Okinawa. Bunker-buster bombs and missiles to name one. American fire superiority may not be the answer to everything but it certainly is the correct one for embedded, static defences. Especially if the enemy has no way of returning fire.
EDIT: Having re-read my sources, I'm now confused as to the Japanese divisions and their corresponding performance ratings. However, the point still stands that there were excellent troops at Okinawa and there were not so excellent troops. The best troops in the IJA were not present.
Also, modern weapons have evolved to counter static, underground defences like those employed on Okinawa. Bunker-buster bombs and missiles to name one. American fire superiority may not be the answer to everything but it certainly is the correct one for embedded, static defences. Especially if the enemy has no way of returning fire.
EDIT: Having re-read my sources, I'm now confused as to the Japanese divisions and their corresponding performance ratings. However, the point still stands that there were excellent troops at Okinawa and there were not so excellent troops. The best troops in the IJA were not present.
I just don't see why USA would want to occupy Qeshm anyways. It's dirt, some palm trees and some nice hotels. There is as far as possible to tell no depots,barracks, massive support installations for troops or missiles, tanks.... where are the underground bunkers entrances? As Feanor and CheeZe noted, that's not how we fight today anyways and not sure you could compare recent Iranian troops to combat veterans of Hezbollah or Japan in WWII.
This is desert warfare compared to urban warfare anyways, just send in some SEALs with a laser range finder and a radio to target entrances....why would the USA care if Iran has 5000,10000 or even 100000 troops on Qeshm? We would only care if some anti ship missiles were hidden there, so you only need to take those out with PGMs.
I don't think I am far off, when you look at the other small islands on the coast of Iran, most of them are NOT protected with military presence or even inhabited. I think this pretty much tells me that Iran realizes that these small islands are very vulnerable and not worth protecting. Iran is better off keeping most of it's forces on the "mainland" Iran so any attack is on their home soil not some small island, which is a lot better to sell to the Iranian public....
This is desert warfare compared to urban warfare anyways, just send in some SEALs with a laser range finder and a radio to target entrances....why would the USA care if Iran has 5000,10000 or even 100000 troops on Qeshm? We would only care if some anti ship missiles were hidden there, so you only need to take those out with PGMs.
I don't think I am far off, when you look at the other small islands on the coast of Iran, most of them are NOT protected with military presence or even inhabited. I think this pretty much tells me that Iran realizes that these small islands are very vulnerable and not worth protecting. Iran is better off keeping most of it's forces on the "mainland" Iran so any attack is on their home soil not some small island, which is a lot better to sell to the Iranian public....
Bunker-buster bombs, missiles, and other weapons cannot be used in many instances
- Until the target is identified, usually by firing on your troops. If the bunker is connected to the rest of the complex by a tunnel the enemy troops can then retreat to safety before the weapon arrives. They can even be reoccupied after supposedly neutralized if not totally destroyed. But even if they cannot, they still get that first shot.
- These weapons cannot be used under current ROE if in close proximity to civilians. Guess where most of the bunkers will be.
This is nothing new. Hezbollah used the same tactics in 2006 to neutralize much of the Israeli fire superiority. The Israeli counter appears to be a change in ROE that automatically permits heavy weapons use against any structure that they take fire from. Is the US ready to do the same, in advance?
How did Hezbollah disguise the entrances for their complexes in southern Lebenon? By starting the project inside someones basement, shed, garage, or warehouse. What good is a secret, camouflaged, facility if you advertise its presence?
They know that the US will roll over them if they fight in the open, don’t expect them to play to your strengths. Most of the fighting will be in urban areas with civilians present to restrict US firepower, same as in Lebanon in 2006. Only the US will not have the advantage in numbers and armor that the Israeli’s had.
Most of the small islands are uninhabited because there is no source of drinking water. Qeshm is not small, and has a permanent population of over 114,000. It is only 2km from the mainland and would certainly be considered part of their ‘home soil’ by the Iranian public.