It is not the question of learning... the only result of learning would be to NOT attack Iran. I hope USA learned that. Anything else is of minor importance and will not change whole outcome.Why is Iraq a picnic over Iran, do you not think that the evil American invaders have not learned anything from their nation building quest so far.
Iran's new strategy to counter U.S. military strike.
- Thread starter gulfsecurity
- Start date
Dare I say - the US doesn't have to invade Iran to achieve it's foreign policy objectives?
A 3000+ mission air strike against Iran will defeat their air defences, paralyse their C4I, cripple the national infrastructure, destroy their WMD capacity to an acceptable level and place intolerable pressure on an already unpopular regime in Tehran.
Why not try what NATO did in Serbia?
Last edited:
No offense, but it does seem like The Crusade III or something happening. And most will agree that more new terrorist recruits are made everyday than killed, by these invasions.Why is Iraq a picnic over Iran, do you not think that the evil American invaders have not learned anything from their nation building quest so far.
I've never felt Americans are evil, you just have very misguided foreign policies. But if Bush is voted into office a THIRD time, then I may feel differently.
As to the picnic, well... Iran may have learnt something about how Americans fight by observing the GWs and making adjustments. Conventional war against the US will definitely mean the end for them. They have to find another way.
That would be really bad and irresponsible. If the regime collapses Iran would go into anarchy and a HUGE humanitarian crisis would ensue. All of which would be blamed on the US. And even if the regime doesn't collapse I'm still guessing "crippling national infrastructure" would bring about a humanitarian crisis.
Invading Iran is hard if not impossible (that's generally agreed) but air-strikes hitting civilian infrastructure and/or using them to strike the Iranian regime can bring about a humanitarian crisis and/or anarchy. If the US is going to carry out a surgical strike it should be restricted to Iran's nuclear facilities, the defenses surrounding them and the disablement of Iran's missile forces (Iran's only viable option for retaliation).
He can't be voted in for a third time.
That will be the most likely scenario.
Can we please establish a point here-on-in. I think everyone here agrees that invading Iran is a non-starter.
Striking Iran however is a different story.
Lets keep it real.
What if Iran retaliates against the strikes? Somehow Iran doesn't strike me as being very docile.
And she will. Probably through a combination of direct action disrupting the oil flow in the Persian Gulf, using tried-and-tested asymetric warfare tactics for example and also proxy moves in Iraq, the Lebanon, Afghanistan and maybe further afield - Saudi's oilfields for instance, 25% of the world's crude supply lies within 40 minutes flight time from Iran.
This, is the response that both Tel Aviv and Washington now have to consider.
What is the actual ground situation in the so called middle east, how much local support can Iran gather to fuel asymmetric warfare in the region except of course Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, & Iraq.
That will have some very unpleasant consequences:
1. Much increased support for insurgency in Afganistan and Iraq - now with REAL weapon and REAL instructors from Iran. Same against Israel.
2. Even more hurting international image of USA.
3. Possible blockade of Gulf oil & transport infrastructure.
4. Possible terrorsts attacks on USA - now sponsored by such capable state as Iran.
5. Attack on USA ground bases near Iran borders - USA will be certainly forced to move them back 200-300 km from Iran borders.
6. Iran will develop nuclear weapon - now as fast as it can and without international control. And no, USA will not be able to sanction them - USA dont have enouth support in UN for that.
That is putting aside millions civilian deaths due to destroyed infrastructure as it apparently does not bother USA.
I have only 1 queston for all supporting invasions against other countries becouse "it is for good of my country":
- It is widely accepted between peoples what robing neighborhoods for own profit is BAD, what killing bussiness opponent is BAD, etc. WHY the same peoples think what robing and killing peoples in neighborhood country is acceptable???? For some profit for own country?
Does the killing for profit of state rather than own profit make such murders more acceptable?
Last edited:
Now, the question - why Iran will rather go Iraq way than Serbia way? Remember, Iraq didnt collapsed after 1991.
The answer is simply: in Serbia peoples were promised what as soon as they overthrow "evil dictator" Miloschevich Serbia will join EU paradise and recive all EU / USA economical support. We will not discuss here if they expectations came true.
The main difference what Iranian peoples are not promised anything and understand what surrender will do nothing good for them (after such airstrike). They understand what they have no choice but remain to live in Iran, and they have no choice but improve living standards by themselfes.
As such, the situation will be much like in Iraq now - i.e. NO sane man will declare what he somehow support USA. Else own neighborhood will beat him dead...
The answer is simply: in Serbia peoples were promised what as soon as they overthrow "evil dictator" Miloschevich Serbia will join EU paradise and recive all EU / USA economical support. We will not discuss here if they expectations came true.
The main difference what Iranian peoples are not promised anything and understand what surrender will do nothing good for them (after such airstrike). They understand what they have no choice but remain to live in Iran, and they have no choice but improve living standards by themselfes.
As such, the situation will be much like in Iraq now - i.e. NO sane man will declare what he somehow support USA. Else own neighborhood will beat him dead...
Last edited:
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Huh? Was Serbia promised EU membership? Not as far as I remember. One thing was certain though - as long as Milosevic and affiliates were in power, EU membership was totally and utterly out of the question.
There is a difference. The Serbian people was never promised anything like that. Perhaps they knew that Milosevic and assoc. were a mafia, running the country into ruin and exclusion. And they wanted to be part of the rest of the world, with wealth, freedom, respect. All things that were impossible with Milosevic in power, even with no controversy with the West, so they ousted him.
There is a difference. The Serbian people was never promised anything like that. Perhaps they knew that Milosevic and assoc. were a mafia, running the country into ruin and exclusion. And they wanted to be part of the rest of the world, with wealth, freedom, respect. All things that were impossible with Milosevic in power, even with no controversy with the West, so they ousted him.
JokerJason
New Member
The US would be wise to build many missile defence bases to shoot down some of the missiles that manage to launch even after a massive air-raid by the US.
I think that a lot of people underestimate the might of the US. People expect the war in Iraq to have absolutely no losses on the American side, and when there are some, people Bitch & Moan and call failure on the whole war.
Nevermind any success, the coalition lost some soldiers so it must be auto-failure.
Iran is starting something they cannot finish, the US will likely not start a ground war or move any ground troops in. They have learnt from Iraq, they will have more success using primarily the USAF.
That's my $.02.
I think that a lot of people underestimate the might of the US. People expect the war in Iraq to have absolutely no losses on the American side, and when there are some, people Bitch & Moan and call failure on the whole war.
Nevermind any success, the coalition lost some soldiers so it must be auto-failure.
Iran is starting something they cannot finish, the US will likely not start a ground war or move any ground troops in. They have learnt from Iraq, they will have more success using primarily the USAF.
That's my $.02.
It's not like if you surround yourself with PAC-3 batteries you would be immune from missiles. I think in general it relatively hard to shoot down ballistics missiles especially longer range ones like Iran's. And also I think Iran's missiles have enough range on them now to be fired from within deeper inside Iran so it would a little harder to get to them. And it's not like US air defense systems have great track record against ballistics missiles. They couldn't even shoot down Hussein missiles Iraq had during the Gulf War let alone the Shahab-3's Iran has.
Yes, and I think you're over estimating it.
No, most people (the educated ones at least) are actually surprised at the low level of US casualties in Iraq.
The reason Iraq is a failure is because the US failed to quell sectarian violence and establish a democratic, stable and safe Iraq which is the reason you say you invaded them to begin with.
That's widely accepted.
As I said before if this is not restricted to Iran's nuclear facilities, the defenses surrounding them and Iran's Missile Forces this will be extremely irresponsible and politically damaging to the US. Air-strikes into civilian areas usually bring about alot of civilian deaths (go figure). If anarchy, chaos or significant loss of civilian life is brought about in Iran by ANY of the US's actions it will be blamed solely on the US not the Iranian regime.
There is another important detail that makes the prospect of striking Iran unappealing: use of land bases and airfields.
I don't think any Arab country in the region would be stupid enough to allow air strikes to be carried out from their territory. They would make themselves legitimate targets for Iranian missiles.
Of course, the US could rely on carriers alone but would that really be enough?
Iran's greatest deterrent is not on the conventional battlefield where it would inevitably loose both on ground and in air. It's in the fact that it would make the life miserable for the rest of the world with her capacity to disrupt oil supply.
I don't think any Arab country in the region would be stupid enough to allow air strikes to be carried out from their territory. They would make themselves legitimate targets for Iranian missiles.
Of course, the US could rely on carriers alone but would that really be enough?
Iran's greatest deterrent is not on the conventional battlefield where it would inevitably loose both on ground and in air. It's in the fact that it would make the life miserable for the rest of the world with her capacity to disrupt oil supply.
They were promised. Of course, EU officials didnt said they will accept Serbia overnight, but as always they gave vague promises like "may be", "get rid of the dictator and we'll talk", "the door will be open", etc. But what is more important, the opposition inside Serbia executed much more subjective propaganda and gave much more definitive promises - up to indeed "in EU overnight". The very same happened later in Ukraina and Georgia - while EU officials was very cautions about any definitive promises, pro-West party claimed what they will lead country in EU within few years. Of course, it didnt happened - but they already won election.
- of course, and for them "to part of the world" is to be part of EU. Moreover, Miloschevich was no more evil than other goverments in the East Europe by that time. We cant even call him dictator - after all, he was elected by true election. The only difference was ongoing war against separatists... NOTHING was preventing economical growth in Serbia EXCEPT West controversy.
Miloschevisch is quilty - becouse he didnt realised what he cant successfully oppose West and thus ruined Serbia.
But West is also quilty - becouse it is NATO what bombed serbian bridges, serbian power plants, serbian medicne plants, employed DU ammo. WITHOUT any right to do so. Most accusations about "genocide" later was proven untrue, and few what happened was equally commited by both (serbian and albanian) sides anyway.
P.S. I'm very interested what will be EU/NATO decision about current situation in Macedonia. The VERY similar situation with Serbia. Same albanian sepatatists, same goverments forces suprpessing them, first blood already happened...
Grand Danois
Entertainer
What you are constructing here is a strawman. The EU would not dismiss any nation that seeks membership outright or wish to set conditions for same. So in principle the door is open. However, a Milosevich regime meant that the door was shut.
What you are constructing here is a democracy vs despotism argument, or which regime is more morally right than the other. I never discussed that. I argued functional vs dysfunctional.
The Serbian people would never prosper with the Milosevich regime. They realised that and got rid of him. The most definitive way of doing that, was to deliver him to the Hague, never to return.
The Milosevich regime corrupted the economy, the legislature, the administration, making his nation dysfunctional, for the benefit of a few warlords and cronies. So the if the Serbs were to move forward, they had to get rid of him.
The functional vs dysfuctional argument applies equally to Iran - it is similar.
The difference is the proximity of so much oil, and the nuclear programme.
Can't you guys PM each other or something? I don't see how this relates to the subject.
The Miloschevich regime corrupted the economy, etc not becouse that regime did ANYTHING wrong economically or INTERNAL political decision - NO! The economy was corrupted EXACTLY becouse Miloschevich regime allienated West and suffered under sanctions.
By that argument you can blame any goverment what didnt want to surrender to its enemy and lost the war as consecuence - be it WW2 France, WW2 Poland, 1990 Kuweit or Serbia.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
It relates to similarities/dissimilarities of Serbia '99 and Iran '07.
Chrom argues that the Iranian "will fight because the are not seduced by false promises of the West, like Serbia was". I agree that the Iranians will fight, but out of patriotism.
Similarities are that both encumbent govts could/cannot solve the problems at hand. Not that a new govt did/wouldmake the situation better.
They use the same methods to stay in power.
Dissimilarities: Proximity of oil, presence of nuclear program. Both gives the Iranian more options, politically. The Iranian leadership needs an enemy. They need to keep the situation hot, in order to have legitimacy, so they do not get toppled. It is just like Saddam who probably did not have any WMDs. But he did need to pretend.
So the nuke programme makes sure the situation is hot. Regardless of success.
Anyhow, Patriots are fine for downing Iranian BMs. The combined effect of these BMs are neglible. For comparison, the U.S. factories churns out more than six times the number of JDAMs each month than Iran have BMs in its entire inventory!
And each JDAM has more accuracy and effect on target than an Iranian BM.