US take out Suleimani - mod warning in OP

Billy Mays

notobtuse wrote: »

US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo. I watched an interview of his this morning. He understandably couldn't go into details about it.

Must be true so

Wonder who told Mike about this imminent attack

Manic Moran

J Mysterio wrote: »

Not quite as simple as all that.

For one, Iran has it's own missile defence system (Bavar-373) which are fully developed and manufactured internally and by all accounts are quite modern and effective.

The US hasn't exactly been stagnant since 2003 either. F-22s and F-35s are a bit harder to shoot down than the F-15s and F-16s used nearly two decades ago. The Iranian military is very well equipped to achieve its goal of protection from regional threats in the area. Nobody, not even the Iranians, believes that they can stop the US from dominating militarily, and so their defense strategy for that eventuality is asymmetric. (In US military parlance, "Complex Web Defense"). The Iranian strength lies not with shiny new toys (most of which are generally mocked, see their recent fighter designs for example) but with a determined force of personnel combined with terrain which favours the defense far better than Iraq did. The US could batter the hell out of Iran, but would have to think very long and hard before attempting anything more than a limited ground incursion. I personally see no beneficial endstate to the US in trying to conquer Iran.

Bottom line, Iran need not worry about the concept of the US trying to conquer the place like it did Iraq. It's not going to happen, the Iranian regime is fine and will remain in charge indefinitely no matter what happens. The question is whether or not Iranian goals by activities outside Iran are worth the risk of having the country's military infrastructure pasted should things escalate.

threeball

notobtuse wrote: »

US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo. I watched an interview of his this morning. He understandably couldn't go into details about it.

Every member of the trump administration are as frugal with the truth as trump himself is. Nothing they say can be taken at face value.

Snow Garden

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Comparing Iraq to Iran is funny. Iran possesses the largest ballistic missile defence in the middle east that comprises hundreds if not thousands of cruise missiles with GPS and aerial navigation systems. Every base in the middle east that house US troops and aircraft is a target now. US will receive a heavy blow if Iran goes all in.

Now I remember who you were. You were the guy that kept saying the standoff between Trump and North Korea would almost certainly lead to nuclear war etc etc Most sensible people could see it was Trump grandstanding.

Now you are suggesting Iran may go 'all in'.
Seriously I think you should change your name to Chicken Licken. You are scared of everything.

KWAG2019

Manic Moran wrote: »

The US hasn't exactly been stagnant since 2003 either. F-22s and F-35s are a bit harder to shoot down than the F-15s and F-16s used nearly two decades ago. The Iranian military is very well equipped to achieve its goal of protection from regional threats in the area. Nobody, not even the Iranians, believes that they can stop the US from dominating militarily, and so their defense strategy for that eventuality is asymmetric. (In US military parlance, "Complex Web Defense"). The Iranian strength lies not with shiny new toys (most of which are generally mocked, see their recent fighter designs for example) but with a determined force of personnel combined with terrain which favours the defense far better than Iraq did. The US could batter the hell out of Iran, but would have to think very long and hard before attempting anything more than a limited ground incursion. I personally see no beneficial endstate to the US in trying to conquer Iran.

Bottom line, Iran need not worry about the concept of the US trying to conquer the place like it did Iraq. It's not going to happen, the Iranian regime is fine and will remain in charge indefinitely no matter what happens. The question is whether or not Iranian goals by activities outside Iran are worth the risk of having the country's military infrastructure pasted should things escalate.

Trump isn’t going to invade. He needs a PR war not a real one. I agree with most of what you say but what interests me now is how the Iranian military have thought this through. The US method is well known and is remarkably reliant on missiles be they air sea manned launch or unmanned. The stealth capabilities are well known. They have known this was coming. What have they got ready?

suicide_circus

it always comes back to this;

who do you want to be the hegemonic power in the world if not the US?

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo. I watched an interview of his this morning. He understandably couldn't go into details about it.

Likely lying. This guy was involved in lots warranting his killing, (like Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton etc.) but people held off not wanting to escalate things, so unless Sulemani himself was about to go on a killing spree, Pompeo is talking sh*t.

James Brown

suicide_circus wrote: »

it always comes back to this;

who do you want to be the hegemonic power in the world if not the US?

It's tyrannical states, (western and eastern) created the need for such a thing.

suicide_circus

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's tyrannical states, (western and eastern) created the need for such a thing.

such is life

Fonny122

suicide_circus wrote: »

it always comes back to this;

who do you want to be the hegemonic power in the world if not the US?

Definitely not China or Russia, that's for sure. Yet, intentionally or otherwise, they have arguably been the biggest beneficiaries of the Trump presidency.

The 2020s

This is huge.

There will almost certainly be an outbreak of armed conflict in the coming weeks and months.

KWAG2019

suicide_circus wrote: »

it always comes back to this;

who do you want to be the hegemonic power in the world if not the US?

That is a real question again. It is a real question because of the new direction the US is taking.

threeball

suicide_circus wrote: »

it always comes back to this;

who do you want to be the hegemonic power in the world if not the US?

So the best of a bad lot should get a free pass every time they decide to throw a wobbler?

The 2020s

Manic Moran wrote: »

The US hasn't exactly been stagnant since 2003 either. F-22s and F-35s are a bit harder to shoot down than the F-15s and F-16s used nearly two decades ago. The Iranian military is very well equipped to achieve its goal of protection from regional threats in the area. Nobody, not even the Iranians, believes that they can stop the US from dominating militarily, and so their defense strategy for that eventuality is asymmetric. (In US military parlance, "Complex Web Defense"). The Iranian strength lies not with shiny new toys (most of which are generally mocked, see their recent fighter designs for example) but with a determined force of personnel combined with terrain which favours the defense far better than Iraq did. The US could batter the hell out of Iran, but would have to think very long and hard before attempting anything more than a limited ground incursion. I personally see no beneficial endstate to the US in trying to conquer Iran.

Bottom line, Iran need not worry about the concept of the US trying to conquer the place like it did Iraq. It's not going to happen, the Iranian regime is fine and will remain in charge indefinitely no matter what happens. The question is whether or not Iranian goals by activities outside Iran are worth the risk of having the country's military infrastructure pasted should things escalate.

The Iranian Air Force have F-14s. Hardly the most modern military fighter.

ArchXStanton

suicide_circus wrote: »

it always comes back to this;

who do you want to be the hegemonic power in the world if not the US?

Preferably a country that doesn't go around assassinating other countries Top military brass, what normal civilised country would do something like that..

James Brown

If they thought ISIS was a thing wait until an entire country with supporters all over the globe and a legitimate reason, start fighting against the west with gusto.
Any Iranian attack cannot be considered terrorism and dismissed as such.

Cheerful Spring2

Snow Garden wrote: »

Now I remember who you were. You were the guy that kept saying the standoff between Trump and North Korea would almost certainly lead to nuclear war etc etc Most sensible people could see it was Trump grandstanding.

Now you are suggesting Iran may go 'all in'.
Seriously I think you should change your name to Chicken Licken. You are scared of everything.

It broke recently i think the New York Times- Trump was seeking to evacuate Seoul during the crisis and US generals said no because NK may think an attack was about to happen! You naïve if you think the US was not prepared to go to war during NK testing of ICBMs. Trump and Kim talked to stop a war ( nothing i claimed was false a track to escalation was on the cards, Trump decided to do talks.
 I said at the time if US cannot hand out NK concessions then negotiations are a waste of time and NK will go back to its old ways.  Once NK demonstrates it capacity to strike the United States with a nuclear weapon, we going to see a raise in tensions again. Lot of people fear NK will test a nuclear missile over the Pacific someday to demonstrate their new capabilities. 

You allowed your have your own view to what developing around the world!
You don't like my viewpoint that's fine!

Limpy

The 2020s wrote: »

The Iranian Air Force have F-14s. Hardly the most modern military fighter.

One person with a Kalashnikov at a trump rally could damage. Loads of ways to retaliate. If they are going to retaliate then it should be substantial. If couple of men from Saudi arabia could cause 9/11 what could a power like Iran do.

Cheerful Spring2

Manic Moran wrote: »

The US hasn't exactly been stagnant since 2003 either. F-22s and F-35s are a bit harder to shoot down than the F-15s and F-16s used nearly two decades ago. The Iranian military is very well equipped to achieve its goal of protection from regional threats in the area. Nobody, not even the Iranians, believes that they can stop the US from dominating militarily, and so their defense strategy for that eventuality is asymmetric. (In US military parlance, "Complex Web Defense"). The Iranian strength lies not with shiny new toys (most of which are generally mocked, see their recent fighter designs for example) but with a determined force of personnel combined with terrain which favours the defense far better than Iraq did. The US could batter the hell out of Iran, but would have to think very long and hard before attempting anything more than a limited ground incursion. I personally see no beneficial endstate to the US in trying to conquer Iran.

Bottom line, Iran need not worry about the concept of the US trying to conquer the place like it did Iraq. It's not going to happen, the Iranian regime is fine and will remain in charge indefinitely no matter what happens. The question is whether or not Iranian goals by activities outside Iran are worth the risk of having the country's military infrastructure pasted should things escalate.

Not if their operating sorties out of bases in the middle east. US aerial threat conditional on being able to leave the base and land. If Iran starts a massive strike against US bases in the region, you impact the US ability to strike forcefully. Unless of course they go nuclear and Iran has no defence. 

jackboy

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If they thought ISIS was a thing wait until an entire country with supporters all over the globe and a legitimate reason, start fighting against the west with gusto.
Any Iranian attack cannot be considered terrorism and dismissed as such.

I’d say a lot of Iranians have more hate for their own regime than the ‘west’.

Limpy

jackboy wrote: »

I’d say a lot of Iranians have more hate for their own regime than the ‘west’.[/:mad:QUOTE]

Lot's of people hate trump in the US, should there be a civil war?

rapul

Very aggressive move, but then again it's America is anyone really surprised? As others have stated imagine the other way around if Iran took out an American general in one of the very countries America has screwed beyond belief there would be war so yeah I would expect retaliation for sure, hezbollah and Israel? ( not that Israel don't deserve some hardship for all the bad they have done to the Palestinians).Who knows but the outlook is bad imo

Fonny122

Also, were Iran to attack the US over this, let's just say later on today for arguments sake, what would NATO's position be?

An attack on one NATO member is an attack on all, but given the US have launched the first act of war here (which this undeniably is) those protocs might not apply. If this causes huge fallout within NATO, which nation on earth benefits the most?

Gatling

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Not if their operating sorties out of bases in the middle east. US aerial threat conditional on being able to leave the base and land. If Iran starts a massive strike against US bases in the region,

you do realise American bases are highly defended

You seem to believe iran can take on the world based off the handful of low level strikes on saudi ,
Iran won't risk the majority of its military infrastructure on the hopes they might get a strike on an American building let alone any military aircraft

TeaBagMania

Why was an Iranian General in Iraq? He certainly wasn't there for a vacation!

Cheerful Spring2

KWAG2019 wrote: »

Trump isn’t going to invade. He needs a PR war not a real one. I agree with most of what you say but what interests me now is how the Iranian military have thought this through. The US method is well known and is remarkably reliant on missiles be they air sea manned launch or unmanned. The stealth capabilities are well known. They have known this was coming. What have they got ready?

It out of Trump hands now. Iran will determine the next move. By all I Am seeing online the Iranians are moving to hit back. When and where is the only information we waiting on! 

Fonny122

Gatling wrote: »

you do realise American bases are highly defended

You seem to believe iran can take on the world based off the handful of low level strikes on saudi ,

USA = the entire world now?

Not to say Iran could match the US militarily, just that off your exchange that is what I picked up more than the other poster saying iran could take on the entire world in military conflict.

greenpilot

This is not well thought out by Trump and I would suspect went against military advice. I have bff een following the gradual and steady development of Irans aerospace and defense industries over the last 10 or so years and I can guarantee you that a war with Iran will be unlike anything the Middle East has seen before. Iran has planned for incidences like this for years and mark my words, their response will be measured as and precise. You do not need high tech weaponry in order to sustain a defence against a so called superior enemy. A cursory search on the internet will fill you in on the unique military strategies Iran has trained for pertaining to any expected escalation.
If I was serving on any bases within 200-300 km of the Iranian border, I would be bolstering my security.
Iran plays the long game and have a surprisingly simple and extensive reach.
There is much talk about how unsophisticated their military is. As the song goes "China in my hand...."
Ps, the same strategy was assumed in Vietnam as anyone who remembers it will attest to.

kildare lad

TeaBagMania wrote: »

Why was an Iranian General in Iraq? He certainly wasn't there for a vacation!

It was the Iranians who were fighting Isis on the ground in Iraq.

4068ac1elhodqr

Limpy wrote: »

Lot's of people hate trump in the US, should there be a civil war?

Big difference is in the US they enjoy the freedom and rights of protest, i.e. vent steam: wear pussy hats and express their strong opposing views (as they do daily across MSM).



Doing so in IRN (challenging power) would likely lead to the getting the chop (literally).


Factor in they're down about $200bn from int'l sanctions, so internal combustion to their oppressive regime isn't outside the realms of possibility.