War Against ISIS

[swerve]

Look, you've mixed up two completely different cases: a very strongly pro-US non-Arab (indeed, anti-Arab) country which was, though generally discreetly, supportive of Israel (they had the same enemies), & a bunch of Arab countries which have been Israel's enemies since it came into existence. Iran formally recognised Israel, supplied it with oil, they had permanent diplomatic missions, Israeli businesses operated openly in Iran, there were direct flights between Israel & Iran, & even military co-operation, though that was not open.

All that changed with the revolution in 1979, but so did US behaviour towards Iran. No more weapons sales, an embargo, etc. Everything that applied to Iran-US relations before 1979 was turned upside down - & Iran changed. You can't see what Iran was like before 1979 by looking at it now.

Given your total failure to understand the relevant history, why should we take any of your opinions of the matters under discussion seriously?

 

[Tsavo Lion]

I know all that, but even though Iran changed in 1979, it's geostrategic location didn't; sometimes it has the same interests with those who are against it.
As I was saying: The next step - the Middle East Vietnam?

A US expedition which after being shot at by Korean forts decided to show the Koreans that was unwise, & captured the forts at the cost of three US dead - & well over 200 Koreans - wasn't exactly a military failure, was it?

I've read that the top brass realized then that any invasion deeper into Korea wasn't sustainable due to terrain, roads, supply lines, climate, etc. & that's why it was abruptly stopped. The Japanese were also armed with muskets & victorious in 1592–98 in capturing their lands but most of their casualties were due to starvation, cold, diseases, desertions, guerrilla attacks, & battles with Korean navy, Buddhist monks & Chinese troops.

 

[swerve]

Hang on - a few hundred Americans on an expedition with very limited objectives, & you think they didn't try to turn their small victory into an all-out invasion because they realised that it was impractical? I think that they knew that from the start - & it was never their intention.

What relevance does the all-out Japanese invasion of the 1590s, in which both sides had rough parity in weapons (apart from Korean protected coastal gunboats), e.g. matchlock muskets on both sides, & similar economic & technological levels, have to the minor 19th century US incursion, with vastly superior weapons backed by a vastly richer, more industrial, & more technologically advanced country?

If you knew about the differences between the situation of Iran before 1979 & Saudi Arabia since, in relation to Israel, why cite them as if they're equivalent?

 

[STURM]

And also Iran was a strategically located bulwark against the USSR in defending the Persian Gulf & helping to fight it in Afghanistan. Even after 1979, Iran assisted US against the Taliban.

Way before September 11th; Iran, India and Russia kept the Northern Alliance supplied, at a time when the U.S. could not provide lethal arms to the Northern Alliance. Iran also later reportedly agreed to turned a blind eye to coalition aircraft accidentally strayed into Iranian airspace for brief periods during the Iraq invasion. What's so ironic but hardly surprising is that despite not being best chums; the U.S. and Iran share common enemies : AQ, IS and the Talibs [all of whom hate the Iranians whom they view as heretics.

Getting back to Iran and arms sales; yes the U.S. sold a lot of stuff to Iran; stuff that wasn't approved for sale to many other countries but there is nothing to indicate that Israel would have been denied anything that was made available to Iran. As for the Arabs, I doubt there's ever been a time -at least not since 1967 - when they could get access to anything that would give them an edge over Israel as it has long been U.S. policy ensure Israel has an edge over all its neighbours.

Now the Saidi is the only US & Israel friendly dominant regional power on the same Gulf, replacing Iran.

Despite having no official ties with Iran; most Arab countries do have unofficial or back channel relations with Israel. Going to war with Israel was not on their agenda; at least not since 1973 and even then it was to reclaim land Israel took in 1967 and in the case of Egypt, to jump start peace talks in addition to getting back the Sinai. In 1971 we had a situation where the Syrian military crossed into Jordan with Assad Senior being warned that should Syrian troops attempt to do away with the Hashemite; Israel would get involved. Today the only country not U.S. ''friendly'' is Syria but even then; Syria - even under Assad Senior - had no wish damage ties with the U.S. or go to war with Israel; irrespective of the fact that Syria has also been vocal about the plight of the Palestinians and about U.S. double standards.

We also have a situation today where the Gulf States share a common goal with Israel; to limit Iran's influence. Not too long ago there were reports that the Saudis had agreed Israeli aircraft to enter Saudi airspace to hit Iran's nuke facilities. An irony is that soon after coming to power, the mullahs wanted to do away with Iran's nuclear facilities which they saw as un Islamic and a financial drain. It was only after Saddam attacked and the Ayatollah was told that Saddam had an active nuke programme [which the West conveniently overlooked at that time], that Iran restarted work on their nukes.

 

[Feanor]

And then there was this: https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article165905618/We-got-a-fuckin-problem.html

I'm wondering if any of the more knowledgeable members could comment on its authenticity.

 

[2007yellow430]

And then there was this: https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article165905618/We-got-a-fuckin-problem.html

I'm wondering if any of the more knowledgeable members could comment on its authenticity.

If that is correct we are in for major problems. Hopefully it is not reliable.

Art

 

[STURM]

Whether the info is reliable or not the fact remains that the U.S. has no clear strategy over Syria; unlike the Russians. The Russians at least know what they want and have a clear strategy - they haven't deviated much from their original script. The U.S. is just doing what it has long been doing in other places : supporting proxies [some of whom later turn out to be ''unfriendly'' and not as effective as portrayed] on the ground and meddling in affairs for which it has little or no understanding of.

I've said this before and will do it again : what will the U.S. do if it's found that U.S. backed rebels [the ''moderates''] are found to have used chemicals? Will there be talk of a ''red line that has been crossed'' by the White House and State Department or will elements in the Trump administration try to shift the blame on Assad's forces? On the Tomahawk strikes on Syria, one is reminded of the Tomahawk strike on the factory in Sudan which accomplished nothing except killing civilians who had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. BTW there were car bombs in Damascus but off course the killing of civilians will only be condemned if those civilians happen to be anti Assad.

In addition to the danger of a U.S./Russian clash, the war dragging on with no end in sight, the possibility that Americas's allies such as Saudi and UAE might bait Iran, etc, there is also the danger that outsiders - for their own benefits - might impose their will on the Syrians; leading to the breakup of the country.

 

[John Fedup]

If that is correct we are in for major problems. Hopefully it is not reliable.

Art

There is has been a continuous cluster regarding this region for years and the problems are already here and could very well get much worse. Like Afghanistan and Iraq, Syria is a sink hole.

 

[STURM]

Like Afghanistan and Iraq, Syria is a sink hole.

A situation largely caused by outside meddling by players who didn't understand what they were getting into and who had little concern of the consequences for the locals. If sound policies had been implemented from the start; non of of these countries would have been 'sinkholes'. Almost none of the lessons learnt from Afghanistan were applied in Iraq and now we see the same thing repeating itself in Syria.

 

[Feanor]

It looks like the Desert Hawks just got beefed up. They got new Tigr armored cars, some T-90A tanks (literally a few), some T-72B3 tanks, and even a BMPT, with upgraded ERA, and armor to protect the ATGM launchers. Note this is the older, cheaper, variant, that doesn't have thermals. Desert Hawks and Tiger Force are mentioned as the operators. However so far I only see one vehicle.

Gur Khan attacks!: СириÑ: БМПТ Ñ "мÑгкой" броней предÑтал во вÑей убийÑтвенной краÑе
Gur Khan attacks!: Ð’ Сирии "Соколы ПуÑтыни" получили 8 Т-72Б3 и 15 "Тигров"

And rare footage of a T-72B3 firing its ATGM.

Gur Khan attacks!: Ð’ Сирии Т-72Б3 впервые применили управлÑемые ракеты AT-11 "Sniper"

 

[STURM]

What are the objects on the side of the BMPT?

 

[Tsavo Lion]

Hang on - a few hundred Americans on an expedition with very limited objectives, & you think they didn't try to turn their small victory into an all-out invasion because they realised that it was impractical? I think that they knew that from the start - & it was never their intention.
What relevance does the all-out Japanese invasion of the 1590s, in which both sides had rough parity in weapons (apart from Korean protected coastal gunboats), e.g. matchlock muskets on both sides, & similar economic & technological levels, have to the minor 19th century US incursion, with vastly superior weapons backed by a vastly richer, more industrial, & more technologically advanced country? If you knew about the differences between the situation of Iran before 1979 & Saudi Arabia since, in relation to Israel, why cite them as if they're equivalent?

The Imjin War: Japan's Sixteenth-Century Invasion of Korea and Attempt to Conquer China
According to the above book, the Koreans acquired muskets in large numbers towards the 2nd phase of that war, but that wasn't a decisive factor in ending it. The Japanese bit more than they could chew & were besieged in a line of Southern fortresses until the stalemate ended shortly after Hideyoshi's death. I didn't imply that US wanted to seize all of Korea in 1871, nor "that Israel would have been denied anything that was made available to Iran". Even a limited objective was too risky.

In all of the Nineteenth Century, this was the largest U.S. military force to land on foreign soil outside of Mexico and Canada until the "Spanish American" War in 1898. [But,]..the landing force was too small to win any kind of large-scale victories over Korean forces on the mainland, and the ships of the expedition too few to forcefully open up any Korean ports. Thus it appears that the intimidation that the United States used in attempting to force Korea to open up in 1871 was unsuccessful.

While Iran before 1979 & Saudi Arabia before 1979 & since aren't the same, but they were, & in Saudi's case, post 1979 & till now, being cultivated & allied with the US just like Iran was under the Shah. IMO, the US is betting on the wrong horse. Yemen has less modern weaponry (if any) than the Saudis who can't win there; it's becoming what Afghanistan was to the USSR in the 1980s.

 

[STURM]

While Iran before 1979 & Saudi Arabia before 1979 & since aren't the same, but they were, & in Saudi's case, post 1979 & till now, being cultivated & allied with the US just like Iran was under the Shah.

Not exactly. Iran pre 1979 was on even better terms with the U.S. than Saudi is at present. Whilst the Shah was considered the regional ''policeman'' by the U.S. the U.S. does not view Saudi in the same light. In short, one can't make direct comparisons - despite there being similarities -
with pre revolution Iran and Saudi as there are differences in the bilateral relationships and the geo-political environment.

Yemen has less modern weaponry (if any) than the Saudis who can't win there; it's becoming what Afghanistan was to the USSR in the 1980s.

Yes but the key difference is that unlike the Soviet Union the Saudis have deep pockets and has the backing of the world's sole superpower. Yemen also has no ''friendly'' land borders; unlike Afghanistan. With regards to ''modern weaponry'' or the lack of it on the part of the Houthis the main factor preventing Saudi and its allies from achieving their goals is the fact that their forces are not organised or have the doctrine to operate beyond their borders for long periods. For the past few decades they have been trained and organised to operate within their borders.

 

[Feanor]

Yes but the key difference is that unlike the Soviet Union the Saudis have deep pockets and has the backing of the world's sole superpower. Yemen also has no ''friendly'' land borders; unlike Afghanistan. With regards to ''modern weaponry'' or the lack of it on the part of the Houthis the main factor preventing Saudi and its allies from achieving their goals is the fact that their forces are not organised or have the doctrine to operate beyond their borders for long periods. For the past few decades they have been trained and organised to operate within their borders.

The entire comparison is fundamentally wrong. The USSR was a superpower, also had deep pockets, and actually occupied the entire country. And as far as operating within their own borders, the Saudis are fundamentally incompetent. Houthis have raided into Saudi territory with shocking success. They're compensating with giant resources, but it's nothing like the situation the Soviets faced. Hell, there is still a front line with solid quantities of territory in the hands of the Houthis, who continue to operate anti-ship missiles, armor, artillery, and even IRBMs.

 

[Tsavo Lion]

Pre-1979 Iran also had deep pockets. Saudi may not be as close an ally as Iran was, but to some in the US it's better than nothing. Also, sitting on so much oil, they are indispensable in controlling its output & thus price, & can get away with a lot. Most of the 9/11/01 hijackers were Saudis & yet Iraq & Afghanistan were invaded instead, while Saudi Arabia, UAE (also with deep pockets), & Egypt were never embargoed in retaliation. Yemen can be supplied by sea & via Oman which is friendly to Iran.

 

[STURM]

The USSR was indeed a superpower but the point I was trying to make is that the circumstances faced by the Soviets are very different from those currently faced by Saudi and its allies. For one, the Soviets were alone; the Saudis and its allies are not alone. They receive intel and logistical support from outside. No doubt the Saudis are incompetent and I wasn't suggesting otherwise but the fact also remains that neither the Saudis or its allies have armies trained to do what they're trying to do in Yemen.

Also, the Saudis and its allies are in a better position economically to sustain their ops in Yemen; for the Soviets ongoing ops in Afghanistan was a major drain on their economy and in addition to political reasons [the failure to achieve their goals, the desire to improve relations with the West, etc]; economics also played a part in their decision to withdraw from Afghanistan.

 

[STURM]

Pre-1979 Iran also had deep pockets.

Yes and nobody said otherwise. If they didn't have deep pockets they wouldn't have able to spend billions on arms from the U.S.

Yemen can be supplied by sea & via Oman which is friendly to Iran.

True but if you want to make a comparison with Afghanistan the mujahideen had a border with friendly Pakistan.The Houthis have to rely largely on arms supplied by the sea, arms that are easier to interdict then if they were coming across a long and porous land border.

 

[Feanor]

for the Soviets ongoing ops in Afghanistan was a major drain on their economy a

What? 40000 troops supplied by truck across a land border was a major drain for a country with a military in the millions? They probably spent more supplying remote bases in the Far East and Far North then they did on supplying their forces in Afghanistan. Certainly their nuclear arsenal cost them a lot more then the war.

 

[Tsavo Lion]

Yes, it's not exactly the same, my point is that like the USSR, the Saudis are in a quagmire in their own backyard. On top of that, it's a fratricidal war. How can they hope to win against Iran &/ Turkey backed by RF, if a wider war erupts? I doubt the US, Egypt & UAE will be of much help.
Yemen’s Houthi Missiles Keep Saudi Arabia Mired in Conflict
Iran: Striking Back at Islamic State

 

[colay1]

In ''Iran-Iraq War in the Air 1980-1988'' [Tom Cooper and Farzad Bishop] the authors mentioned that the whole F-14 programme was in danger due to congressional budget cuts. With the help of the Shah, Grumman managed to secure a loan from a 3rd party to complete development of the F-14. After ousting the Shah the mullahs made plans to sell the F-14s; then Saddam attacked.

IIRC Canada was very keen to buy the F-14s and the Iranians were equally keen to sell. Then Operation Argo happened, the Canadians' role in helping the US embassy staffers escape Iran was revealed and the deal was dead.