Iranian Forces

[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.'

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



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.