A war involving Iran??

Mankyspuds

I have been keeping an eye on this iranian mess that is currently going on. I would assume that the Iranians would have a much beefier military that the iraqis did pre Gulf War(s). If the israelis/yank/brits did take some sort of military action I would be in no doubt of the result. But I have a feeling that Iran's military would put up a much stouter defence and heavier losses would be taken. Any opinions??

willmunny1990

Yes Irans military would be stronger than that of Iraqs. I wouldn't rule out a strike on Iran, if just to quash there nuclear ambitions but an invasion is a big ask. You'd be looking at a serious loss of life. You'd also have the voices of Russia,China to contend with, I also don't think the U.S. are up for another war in the middle east even though they would love to topple Iran.

All and All, if they did attack or go in, it'd be a huge mess.

Manic Moran

Yes Irans military would be stronger than that of Iraqs.

Which is like saying that a big cardboard box is stronger than a paper bag. True, as far as it goes, but in practical terms doesn't mean much to the weightlifter looking to get out of it.

NTM

Jcarroll07

Mankyspuds wrote: »

I have been keeping an eye on this iranian mess that is currently going on. I would assume that the Iranians would have a much beefier military that the iraqis did pre Gulf War(s). If the israelis/yank/brits did take some sort of military action I would be in no doubt of the result. But I have a feeling that Iran's military would put up a much stouter defence and heavier losses would be taken. Any opinions??

Yes it would be hard and their military is better then what iraq had. But i would be more concerned with who it could drag in from the outside and what will happen after the conventional war is finnish.

As to who would win that conventional war there would be no doubt america and allies. be a hell of a mess though.

Also love to know where they would find the money!

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

Tenger

Manic Moran wrote: »

Which is like saying that a big cardboard box is stronger than a paper bag. True, as far as it goes, but in practical terms doesn't mean much to the weightlifter looking to get out of it.

Manic, I have great respect for your posts and opinions on this forum.....

....however I have to disagree with your nonchalant attitude to the difference between Iran and Iraq. Look at the difference between the Iraqi military in 1991 and 2003. And even then the Iraqi performance in 1991 was a lot less than expected (Which unfortunately led to Rumsfeld disregarding Gen, Shininseki in the run up to 2003) A massive capability decrease.


Iran has not suffered this, in the meantime however the US had reduced its capability for expeditionary warfare. I would not bet money on the Iranians winning but I do feel their forces would be more than capable of inflicting more casual. Iran has been able to sit back and watch the impact of modern warfare(Bosnia, Iraq 2003, Lebanon, Georgia, Chechnya, Libya, Afghanistan) while being able to prepare for it. (obviously with very little outside help)

I do not want to overstate the ability of Iran, however I feel it represents a far greater challenge than Iraq.

This doesn't even take into account any intervention from Russia/China in such a conflict.

xflyer

The Iranians are not Arab either. Different mentality, tougher opponents. I would say. Better soldiers.

However a ground war is unlikely.

Even Madbinbag knows an attack on Israel would not work out in Iran's favour. Much of the posturing from that direction is intended to keep internal opposition in check. Having external enemies to blame for everything is a good way of keeping dissent in check. Lobbing a nuclear weapon at Israel would bring a terrible retribution for Iran. Israel has nuclear too.

It's a pity because Iran would be a powerful and advanced country if it didn't have the usual problem of false democracy and extreme religion.

goldie fish

xflyer wrote: »

The Iranians are not Arab either. Different mentality, tougher opponents. I would say. Better soldiers.

However a ground war is unlikely.

Even Madbinbag knows an attack on Israel would not work out in Iran's favour. Much of the posturing from that direction is intended to keep internal opposition in check. Having external enemies to blame for everything is a good way of keeping dissent in check. Lobbing a nuclear weapon at Israel would bring a terrible retribution for Iran. Israel has nuclear too.

It's a pity because Iran would be a powerful and advanced country if it didn't have the usual problem of false democracy and extreme religion.

Most Iraqis aren't arab.

willmunny1990

To be honest i think there's a lot of huffing and puffing from all sides here, but the fact is a strike of some sort shouldn't be ruled out.

After all Iran and Islamic extremism are the two main threats to the world.

Leonidas BL

I think Syria should be on there agenda. They have killed over 3500 people now. There using tanks just like Gaddagi did. Where the 'no fly zone' now???

Evade

Leonidas BL wrote: »

I think Syria should be on there agenda. They have killed over 3500 people now. There using tanks just like Gaddagi did. Where the 'no fly zone' now???

As far as I know tanks don't fly.

Leonidas BL

Evade wrote: »

As far as I know tanks don't fly.

haha someone from Wexico pulled a funny :P

xflyer

goldie fish wrote: »

Most Iraqis aren't arab.

Clarify? Are they Persian or what?

Manic Moran

Tenger wrote: »

....however I have to disagree with your nonchalant attitude to the difference between Iran and Iraq. Look at the difference between the Iraqi military in 1991 and 2003. And even then the Iraqi performance in 1991 was a lot less than expected (Which unfortunately led to Rumsfeld disregarding Gen, Shininseki in the run up to 2003) A massive capability decrease.

To the extent that the conventional war was concerned, Rumsfeld was not wrong. The issue was the occupation, which I don't think anyone is seriously talking about in the case of Iran.

Iran has not suffered this, in the meantime however the US had reduced its capability for expeditionary warfare.

Yes and no. There is little doubt that the US military is not as proficient in certain conventional tasks as it used to be. That said, neither has it been neglected to the point of the Red Army in 1995 nor have the capabilities required for an Iran jaunt (i.e. raid) been particularly neglected. US Army tankers may be spending more time today practicing house-clearing with a rifle than mine-clearing with a plough, but the Navy and Marines, for example, haven't stopped practicing bombing things, finding submarines, or landing ashore.

If the US fancies a drive to Tehran, I'll fully agree with you that they need to be prepared to take some (by current standards, at least) significant casualties. But since nobody's talking about doing that, I don't see significant casualties occurring.

NTM

Border-Rat

Iran will shut down the Hormuz Strait. Only an invasion can re-open it. America is bankrupt morally and financially, even if they could afford to invade Iran, their people wouldn't have it. I'd also question Americas self-heralded conventional prowess, there are severe discrepancies re: The Battle of Baghdad Airport, 2003.

Corsendonk

goldie fish wrote: »

Most Iraqis aren't arab.

75-80% of Iraqis are Arab.

alanmcqueen

The Shia appear to be demonstrably more capable in military affairs than the Sunni e.g. Hizbollah.

I think Iran could put up a robust defence, but it will be next to impossible to prevent an Israeli strike. Once the attack is completed - plant destroyed, job done - what will Iran do next? Close the Straits? punish itself and the world for Israeli action? After the attack - I don't think anyone will invade Iran - it will be a retaliatory Iranian action we're looking at.

I don't see invasion here, just a precision strike, with China and Russia trying to talk Iran out of doing anything too rash afterwards.

This is related to considering military action in the area, Exercise Millennium Challenge 2002.

http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,95496,00.html

Corsendonk

alanmcqueen wrote: »

The Shia appear to be demonstrably more capable in military affairs than the Sunni e.g. Hizbollah. I think they could put up a robust defence, but it will be next to impossible to prevent an Israeli strike.

Are you refering to Iranian backed forces in Lebanon?

alanmcqueen

Corsendonk wrote: »

Are you refering to Iranian backed forces in Lebanon?

I modified that post slightly; hope it's clearer now:)

HavingCrack

In any US-Iranian conflict the US would have overwhelming air superiority, the mainstay of any modern conflict. Unless Iran had some way of neutralising US airpower they would lose any conventional war. Now that being said, the US would sustain significant casualities in any ground offensive, more than in Iraq. Furthermore, if the Americans were forced to occupy the country, I suspect Iranian guerilla warfare would be quite effective.

charlemont

willmunny1990 wrote: »

To be honest i think there's a lot of huffing and puffing from all sides here, but the fact is a strike of some sort shouldn't be ruled out.

After all Iran and Islamic extremism are the two main threats to the world.

How can you say that when its been Western interference in the wider Middle East that has created a lot of the conditions for these problems, I do agree that there is a threat there but if the West continues to interfere in that region those problems will just get bigger, Iran is best left alone as any new conflict there will only create even more serious problems for the people in the region, Iran likes to act tough but I don't think they will act militarily against any of her neighbouring countries. They should be left alone to sort out their own political future, Bombing them back decades and installing a proxy leader won't end well.

I don't think the US would put troops on the ground so the Iranian army won't be able to do much but I reckon if war starts it will be from the air.

Manic Moran

Border-Rat wrote: »

I'd also question Americas self-heralded conventional prowess, there are severe discrepancies re: The Battle of Baghdad Airport, 2003.

My memory is a bit hazy, but wasn't that the battle where the US took control of the airport by killing several hundred enemy for the loss of about two, in such a thorough defeat that the use of a neutron bomb is a favored theory amongst conspiracy circles?

And as that was supposedly one of the best defenses that the Iraqis carried out, still having that result, I'm not sure it can be considered much of an embarrassment for the Americans.

NTM

Border-Rat

Manic Moran wrote: »

My memory is a bit hazy, but wasn't that the battle where the US took control of the airport by killing several hundred enemy for the loss of about two, in such a thorough defeat that the use of a neutron bomb is a favored theory amongst conspiracy circles?

And as that was supposedly one of the best defenses that the Iraqis carried out, still having that result, I'm not sure it can be considered much of an embarrassment for the Americans.

NTM

Russian intelligence reports read entirely different. That goes for the UK in Basra, too. They reported that the Anglo-Americans were having a difficult time in dealing with the malnourished Iraqi army, contrary to the comic-book blow-harding of Western media. Only The Guardian agreed;

There is really on one source of reliable information on this war - and it's coming from Russian spies.

There are other sources of high-grade intelligence available to the trader wanting to be two days' head-up on the opposition. You can buy bootlegged Chinese intelligence reports in Hong Kong (apparently the Chinese have bought that downed Apache helicopter the Iraqis were dancing on) and Israeli analysis in Tel Aviv.
But why waste money when the Russians are giving away the best stuff free? Invest intelligently and get rich.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/apr/07/citynews.Iraqandthemedia/print

Given the lies told about WMD, only an idiot would believe anglo-american kleptocratic reports. Despite their numerical superiority, aerial superiority, intelligence superiority, it was only with difficulty that they defeated a starving army. And the circumstances of that defeat are still not universally agreed upon.


Anyway, Iran will shut down the Hormuz Strait. They'll shut down Iraq. They'll launch an unprecedented barrage of missiles out of the Lebanon. Only an invasion will stop their MRBM's hitting oil wells, and an invasion isn't feasible.

Leonidas BL

There has been at least one huge explosion inside a military base near Iran's capital, Tehran, officials say.
Windows in nearby buildings have been shattered but there are no details yet on casualties.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15705948

Border-Rat

Iran must respond soon to a report by the U.N. atomic agency alleging that it is working secretly on developing a nuclear weapon, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Friday while attending a Pacific Rim summit.

http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-says-iran-must-answer-nuke-report-charges-023017598.html

Incredible! This coming from a Country that refuses to answer why traces of enriched u235 are being found all over Iraq.

Evade

Border-Rat wrote: »

Incredible! This coming from a Country that refuses to answer why traces of enriched u235 are being found all over Iraq.

Isn't it obvious? The US nuked the crap out of Iraq without anyone noticing.:rolleyes:

Manic Moran

Border-Rat wrote: »

Russian intelligence reports read entirely different. That goes for the UK in Basra, too. They reported that the Anglo-Americans were having a difficult time in dealing with the malnourished Iraqi army, contrary to the comic-book blow-harding of Western media. Only The Guardian agreed;

Do they read entirely differently?

Were there, in fact, scores of Americans killed at Baghdad airport that somehow we didn't notice? Did the battle of the airport take more than a day and cause much delay to the overall invasion? (Well, news reports say a few hours, but we'll count mop-up operations). Is there anything about the outcome of that battle that indicates that it was anything but a one-sided defeat of an inferior force?

The only difference at places like the airport compared to other locations was that instead of the Iraqis melting away almost immediately, they actually tried to make a decent fight of it. And died shortly thereafter.

Border-Rat

Manic Moran wrote: »

Do they read entirely differently?

Yes, they do.

Were there, in fact, scores of Americans killed at Baghdad airport that somehow we didn't notice?

Yes, there were in fact hundreds killed at the airport and scores unreported outside the airport in other battles. I noticed, as did many others such as the Russians, Chinese, Iraqis, Jordanians etc. I'm sure you didn't.

Did the battle of the airport take more than a day and cause much delay to the overall invasion? (Well, news reports say a few hours, but we'll count mop-up operations). Is there anything about the outcome of that battle that indicates that it was anything but a one-sided defeat of an inferior force?

The only difference at places like the airport compared to other locations was that instead of the Iraqis melting away almost immediately, they actually tried to make a decent fight of it. And died shortly thereafter.

The Iraqis made a decent fight of it throughout most of the Country, particularly considering the odds they faced. This has been confirmed by external sources. For instance, several times Coalition troops would attempt to enter an area held by the Iraqi forces, get repelled, then level the town with artillery and air power. The UK and USA deny this, but then their word is null and void since they were proven liars.

I think you're quite a naive person, you believe proven liars unquestionably. To highlight how incredible the claims of the (Proven liars) Americans are, lets compare the situation in Mogadishu with that of Iraq. 18 Elite US troops killed against a force of 2,000 druglords. The Battle of Baghdad, the US Claims to have lost less than 15 troops. This, in a city of 6,000,000 held by a force of over 60,000 combat veterans with over 1,100 tanks, whose moral was high after the Battle of Nasariyah and according to the Russians and Chinese were at a combat efficiency of 80% and had surived aerial bombardment.

We're suppose to believe that they lost less troops in Baghdad than Mogadishu, and despite being frustrated at Nasiriyah - a test run for Baghdad, were so damned scary that Iraqi troops just left and went home. That is, according to two Countries with a proven record of lying. Outside sources say the opposite. Now compare it to the Battle of Fallujah. A city of 400,000 held by 3,000 insurgents, not 60,000+ trained soldiers. The US claims to have not only lost that battle but lost more soldiers there than in Baghdad. If we are to believe the kleptocrats, the taking of Baghdad is one of the most spectacular victories in history. Against this force, the US claims to have come off better than in Mogadishu. What is the explanation for this? They say that the Iraqi army were so petrified and demoralised, that they went home. But again, this does not correlate with external sources.

I suggest you do some reading. Even American sources confirm that the Apache was exposed as a red-herring when a fleet of 24 were repulsed by the Iraqi military using WW2 equipment.

Border-Rat

Evade wrote: »

Isn't it obvious? The US nuked the crap out of Iraq without anyone noticing.:rolleyes:

A case is pending in the high Court in London over traces of u235 being found in Iraq. What do you have to say about that?

Manic Moran

Border-Rat wrote: »

Yes, they do.

Yes, there were in fact hundreds killed at the airport and scores unreported outside the airport in other battles. I noticed, as did many others such as the Russians, Chinese, Iraqis, Jordanians etc. I'm sure you didn't.

The US releases, by name date and approximate location, every single fatal casualty which its military has suffered in operations since 2001.

Are you seriously claiming that there are hundreds of missing soldiers who have vanished from the records and their friends and families, and nobody in the US has picked up on this?

For instance, several times Coalition troops would attempt to enter an area held by the Iraqi forces, get repelled, then level the town with artillery and air power.

I'm not sure that helps your case. Americans meet resistance, Americans hammer resistance and move on.

Against this force, the US claims to have come off better than in Mogadishu. What is the explanation for this?

For starters, one was a war, in which the US, as you correctly point out above, was quite willing to use all its war-fighing functions to include artillery and air power. The other was a declared humanitarian mission where they weren't permitted to use tanks or any other particularly aggressive-looking equipment.

Even American sources confirm that the Apache was exposed as a red-herring when a fleet of 24 were repulsed by the Iraqi military using WW2 equipment.

A well-executed anti-air ambush, to be sure. Nobody ever claimed the Iraqis were utterly incompetent. But what was the end result of what is being termed 'US Army Aviation's Darkest Day?' One Apache destroyed, nobody killed. The war didn't stop, and the affected unit was conducting battalion-sized operations again the next week. That'll be a deal-breaker...

A case is pending in the high Court in London over traces of u235 being found in Iraq. What do you have to say about that?

Not much. Iraq has had U-235 dating as far back as the 1980s. Perhaps wherever it was stored got hit.

NTM

Evade

Border-Rat wrote: »

A case is pending in the high Court in London over traces of u235 being found in Iraq. What do you have to say about that?

I can think of three more plausible explanations than not noticing a nuclear weapon going off.

In order of plausibility:

1. Depleted uranium munitions contain traces of U235.

2. Iraq may have had it at some stage and there are still traces. It does have a half life of around 700 million years.

3. It was brought in post invasion by either the CIA or similar agency to legitimise the invasion.

Tenger

Border-Rat wrote: »

....If we are to believe the kleptocrats, the taking of Baghdad is one of the most spectacular victories in history....

The pre-invasion estimates were that the US would have to fight their way through the Iraqi army to get to Baghdad. In reality they charged headlong north (bypassing areas of resistance) and made it into the city before many Iraqi commander even knew they were nearby.

So yes it was spectacular.

As regards the U235 found in Iraq, Depleted uranium shells.

I had previously read that as the UK were phasing out that type the tankers had been old not to worry about using up all the stockpile.

Tenger

Oh look, the Saudi spy apparatus have been reading our thread:


(Reuters) - A military attack on Iran aimed at halting its nuclear program could have catastrophic consequences and only strengthen Tehran's determination to make an atomic weapon, the former head of Saudi Arabia's intelligence services said on Tuesday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/15/us-iran-saudi-idUSTRE7AE2NE20111115

jw93

For anyone interested here's the Russian perspective:

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20111115/168714032.html

maquiladora

US Navy has issued a Special Maritime Warning for the Strait of Hormuz for December 2011 to March 2012.
- http://envoy360.posterous.com/us-navy-issues-maritime-warning-for-the-strai

Iran announces 10 days of naval exercies starting Saturday.

When asked Thursday if the strait will be closed as part of the impending naval drill, [navy commander Admiral Habibollah] Sayari said, according to the ISNA news agency: "The ability to do so exists... whether to go ahead lays with the regime's top officials."

- http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hb6c4o3KNKCvire4Spj6wW_VEtgw?docId=CNG.e2eaa3a1d5b6df35ac9841bb3a6ef85b.a81

Back on Dec 13th, this was reported before Iran announced the exercises today:

"Soon we will hold a military maneuver on how to close the Strait of Hormuz," said Sorouri, a member of the national security and foreign policy committee, according to Fars. "If the world wants to make the region insecure, we will make the world insecure."

- http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/12/13/bloomberg_articlesLW4YHF1A1I4J.DTL

There may be trouble ahead...

maquiladora

Uh oh...

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9007270216

goldie fish

So which foreign naval vessel will be first to break the blockade?
Or rather, which vessel of the carrier group...

cyrusdvirus

goldie fish wrote: »

So which foreign naval vessel will be first to break the blockade?
Or rather, which vessel of the carrier group...

At times like this I'd be considering breaking out one of the Iowa's......

Imagine going up to one of them in a gun boat telling the skipper that he can't sail through..... Next thing there are nine 16 inch guns are trained on you.....:eek::eek:

Fratton Fred

gatecrash wrote: »

At times like this I'd be considering breaking out one of the Iowa's......

Imagine going up to one of them in a gun boat telling the skipper that he can't sail through..... Next thing there are nine 16 inch guns are trained on you.....:eek::eek:

I knew a few guys that were doing the Armilla Patrols during the 80s when this all kicked off before and from what I gather, this is pretty much what happened on a daily basis.

A tanker would sail through the straits, two or three Iranian patrol boats would start to track it and a RN destroyer would place itself between the two. Therefore, if an Iranian ship opened fire, the destroyer could presume it was under attack and respond. The beauty being the Iranians used fly by wire missiles that were half the speed of a Sea Dart.