Then present some facts. All I see here are our opinions. Right. That's your opinion. Present some facts. More opinion. But since we're engaging in them, here's mine: The "most powerful" military in the ME is obviously Israel's, based on their equipment and past performance. Maybe. But why deal in hypotheticals? Israel has American equipment and American training. Iran and Syria do not. Then you're a fool. Iran basically lost against Iraq, remember? And Iran hasn't done much to upgrade its military since then. A large, well-trained army in the middle of the desert is useless without armor and air support. In both arenas Israel outpaces Iran. For example, you keep talking about the Iranian air force. That air force is a joke compared to the aircraft in Israel's arsenal...
no. but it renders any anti-air systems useless. This is what I think Iran would do: bombard US bases in the neighbourhood with missiles increase their support for the insurgency in Iraq (some say they're already doing all they can in that department) mine the gulf (especially the straits of Hormuz) and bombard any ships there from the coast have Hizballah and Syria increase their assault on Israel (what likely happened in Syria with the IAF overflight was that Iran was making preparations for a US attack by placing its weapons in Syria to make it easier to target Israel from there, and Israel took that shiz out) sending Iranian suicide bombers into the US, or activate sleeper cells which are already in the US try to sabotage US assets on US soil and abroad including embassies have guerilla style forces in Iran to harass any incoming US land forces as for Dogfights, i agree. that most likely won't be happening. in fact, the US and IAF (if it comes to their participation) will enjoy full freedom in the air, except helicopters, which would be targeted by RPGs from the ground. these are pretty much all the assymetrical options available to Iran. but they won't do all of them. because that would mean total war. and if total war is what happens, then like you said, the US will unleash hell. we already know what human beings are capable of, and if the situation gets really desparate you know that even civilized and enlightened America will repeat these things -- and worse Given that that scenario (disruption of oil supplies) is so critical, and the high likelihood of it happening, i think US planners have the most plans to secure oil shipments further, Iran disrupting oil supplies will affect the entire world and will increase the US coalition against Iran - both PR wise and military aid wise. other than lives, machinery and $, the economy and US prestige will be wounded. but that happens in every war. and after every war it recovers. man, it scares me that i sound like such a war monger... but i believe that everything and anything should be done to prevent Iran from gaining a nuke. Iran is run by the most disgusting regime in the world, IMO. at least from my perspective. while NK is run by a nut, he does not pose [much] threat to the rest of the world. Hugo Chavez is a trash talking clown who's got a big mouth on him, but that's only for domestic consumption. he won't attack the US. Iran is making so much trouble for the entire world, and the potential is even bigger. so stopping the mullahs is the #1 priority. no matter the cost. i just hope that there is a velvet revolution in Iran soon because so all that horrible war stuff is not necessary
Do you really think they could achieve either? I tend to think the US and British would have their fleets in position to prevent this from happening. The Iranian Navy couldn't stand up to either of them...
Stuff like that happens quite regularly during exercises, actually. I'll see if I can find some after action reviews from the last couple of RIMPACs for you to read if they aren't still classified. Consistently, the Blue team is always the lavishly equipped NATO force whose job it is to implement existing doctrine by operating to the letter of the current warfighting manuals, while Orange (or Red as in MC02) gets the usually way more fun job of using every less-elaborate resource at their disposal to find the chinks in Blue's armor. (Personally I think playing OPFOR is a riot because you are basically ordered to be as much of an asshole as possible.) In other words, Blue is supposed to take a beating. Then afterward, we all go back to our conference rooms and spend hours watching uberboring Powerpoint presentations that show us what our possible weaknesses are and how we can fill them in. If Blue is decisively victorious then we don't learn what our weaknesses are, and as the saying goes, it is better to sweat in training than bleed in combat. This is why I caution people about interpreting the results of military exercises in the absence of professional training and direct experience with AAR boards. While MC02 did reveal a lot of weaknesses, that was its purpose (it also managed to piss off some of our civilian leadership, which was entertaining). The lessons learned thereafter were immediately applied to the rest of the fleet. Either way, it has very little bearing on what might happen in the real world because an exercise cannot possibly simulate the zillions of variables in the calculus of armed conflict, so they are usually scripted to peg on a few at a time. Go read up on Operations Earnest Will, Prime Chance, and Nimble Archer. The Iranians tried your very cunning plan already and suffered catastrophic repercussions. Notice they've not tried a lot since. If Iran were to take action against the local waters or the SoH, including firing C-802s from Qeshm island, the Gulf Corporation States (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, Qatar, Oman, and Bahrain) stand to lose a lot more than Iran is probably worth (pronounced: Jebel Ali) - a lot more than they did in the 1980s with Operation Earnest Will. If shipping were interdicted like that, the repercussions for Iran might not be swift the way we think of it, but it would be nonetheless decisive, and not only from the Western powers. By any measure, maritime interdiction is a losing strategy for Iran. Even if they did get that stupid, it would be an unpredictable act of desperation before a rout. With as many oil platforms and the volume of shipping in and out of Iranian ports, Iran is as hostage to a navigable Gulf as everyone else. They have to have already lost everything before they can try a blockade. Any plan for Iran to aggresively distrupt shipping, either in the Gulf as a whole or the SoH in particular, will fail to do the one thing it desperately needs to: allow Iran to survive. And Iran is all about survival for the Islamic government. Interdiction would be the same failing as the Von Schlieffen Plan, minus the operational successes. Iran knows this better than we do. Your analysis is very poor. While it is true that a bigass volley of TBMs would be the absolute extent of a conventional attack by Iran, it would be an abject failure of a counterforce strike. All critical US installations in Iraq are under a Patriot and C-RAM umbrella, and any TBM or cruise missile that comes its way won't make it to earth in one piece. Anything that lands outside of the ADA hemispheres (read: on civilians) is going to harm Iran's agenda more than it helps it by further nationalizing Iraqis away from Iranian interests. TBM and cruise missile proliferation has been identified as one of the larger threats facing the US military since 1993 and it continues to be addressed accordingly. And Sunburn can target shipping only. Also, the Iranian Shiite alliances with SCIRI, the Mahdi Army, etc. are mostly ones of convenience (for the Iraqis). Many Iraqi Shiites remember Iran shelling the shit out of Basra during the Iran-Iraq war. After the first Gulf War, Saddam was afraid that Iran would support the Shiite uprisings south of Basra (after we abandoned them) but it didn't happen. The Iraqis were too nationalist for that. Iran could certainly step up their support of various sectarian elements in Iraq (indeed, that is their best way to exert pressure on the US) but the Shiites won't simply take marching orders. Iraqi Shiites have their own agenda. You're getting way above what I was talking about. I was discussing a hypothetical naval engagement between IRGC/IN and USN elements at the tactical level. While I agree with a lot of what you say in this paragraph, it isn't really relevant to what I am discussing, nor does it address any of it.
Whose to say that we even knew what Japan was on the verge of at the time. And no I don't feel guilty for something I had no hand in. History also shows that the Bomb ended the war that would have led to more deaths in the long run than what the two Bombs created. No it wouldn't be similar to denying the holocaust. Hitler/Germany wanted to "purify" the world of all people who didn't fit into there idea of what the superior race was. And I'm not denying that it was horrible to have that many people die, just as it is horrible to have people die in any war; your putting words into my mouth. But what I am saying is someone was going to use them. If we didn't, Germany might have. Germany wouldn't have stopped "purifying" the earth of what they thought as not worthy (from what Hitler led them to believe) until they in fact "purified" the earth.
Be a little more specific than "nations on trumped up reasons" and I might tell you what I think. Why would I worry where you’re from? Brain washed point of view on the world?… I could say the same for you.
No, the most "powerful" military in the ME is Iran, since Israel has no Military, it's basically the US military. That still means Israel deserves no glory for any of its actions, like some people suggest. Nope, not in the Armor division. Iran has the huge advantage.
And the Shafaq Besides, I've already stated two important things: 1) Iran has the superior land force easily 2) We have a weapon that guarantees victory. Can you guess what it is?
No, that honor goes to the Israelis under Yaveh. As well as lies, of course Will, It's as simple as that. We have the will to win, Israel does not. We have the will to die if necessary. We will fight and fight and fight, until we win or die. Surrender is not an option. That will alone guarantees us the long-term victory. As well as simple history. Empires, superpowers, do not last forever. The ME used to be the mightiest region, and one day she will be again. Just look at George Washington. He fought the at that time mightiest nation of the World, Britain, and won. Why? Because of the will for freedom. The will to fight.
"We"? I thought you were Syrian. I do agree, though. Attacking Iraq would be a huge mistake. Iranians would be fighting on their own soil, for their own lives, and would win in the end. Their army and weaponry is powerful, and the damage they could inflict on our allies is tremendous.
I am, but I'm talking about Arabs in general, except the suck-ups *ahem* SaudiPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Now, imagine a combined Israeli-Arab-Persian Coalition. That would be unstoppable.
Actually, we call it Iran because they asked the western countries to do so, but a few years later they said that both Persia and Iran are acceptable names.
This is all counting angels on the head of a pin. US military success is irrelevent against Iran. the Iranian people will unite behind their leader and the Muslim man on the street across the globe will unite behind the Iranians. Islamic whackos will gain control of the governments from Pakistan to Iraq...within a decade the American-backed thugs in Saudi Arabia may be gone and possiby those in Egypt. Even the most western of muslim states, Morocco and Algeria will have ramped up militancy. An American will not be able to safely leave the United States without waiting for a knife in the back. One wonders if even George the moron Bush is so stupid as to not understand the consequences of an attack on Iran. And 'no' the British will not participate. No way. Any attack will make the USA even more despised than it already is. Our Canadian government would be tossed out of power in a nano-second if it supported an American attack. Brits would vomit first before praising any cowboy action by Bush. An attack plays into the hands of Islamic extremists. The more destruction the Amercans do, the better for the extremists.
