Iran's new strategy to counter U.S. military strike.

[gulfsecurity]

Iran well seek better cards ,and what is better than something strong and nearby ?
with 40% of the world oil and just across the gulf ,the GCC states well be Iran’s new cards.
How ?
expand the conflict zone and push the GCC states to the American camp byphysically assaulting Kuwaiti diplomas ,claiming Bahrain ……and so on.. , then to take them hostages and "states shields "
this is the best card in Iran's hand.
http://gulfsecurity.blogspot.com/

 

[Viktor]

Iran has several thousand balistic missiles that can wipe out entire US force in Irak and Afganistan.

Mod edit: What's the point of this post?

You've been around for a while now. Try and add a bit of substance to your posts. The USA apparently has a few missiles too...

AD

 

[contedicavour]

Iran can turn the middle east into a mess, yes, but to gain what ?
It has a young population with high unemployment that is getting restless. Without sanctions its economy would be booming.
The govt knows that in a messy middle east it wouldn't be the only one calling the shots (especially because of sectarian shi'ite-sunni differences).
So Iran's govt must be playing tough while hoping the whole thing doesn't turn into a real war, because it would lose just as much as us in the West.
So I'd expect some tough negotiations N.Korea style but eventually some compromise will be found.
Even France is sounding nasty to Iran nowadays, so the US govt is a lot less isolated than it was at the time of the Iraqi invasion. This will strengthen the US govt's cards.

cheers

 

[DarthAmerica]

Iran well seek better cards ,and what is better than something strong and nearby ?
with 40% of the world oil and just across the gulf ,the GCC states well be Iran’s new cards.
How ?
expand the conflict zone and push the GCC states to the American camp byphysically assaulting Kuwaiti diplomas ,claiming Bahrain ……and so on.. , then to take them hostages and "states shields "
this is the best card in Iran's hand.
http://gulfsecurity.blogspot.com/http://gulfsecurity.blogspot.com/http://gulfsecurity.blogspot.com/

Iran has decisions to make. They counted on enough political pressure to force the USA out of Iraq so they backed the Shia Insurgents with arms and intel. They also applied political pressure on the government to keep the Sunnis out of power. They did all this in the comfort of the knowledge that the U.S. Army was "stretched thin" and political will was low. With an election coming and President Bush being a "lame duck" with a Democratic congress. It was a forgone conclussion that the USA would be withdrawing and they could fill the Vaccuum. They were wrong.

Instead what they got was a troop surge and a U.S. President who has demonstrated that he still has a lot of political clout. Worse than that, the President signaled to the Iranians that the U.S. plans to be in Iraq long into the next administration. He has also made it clear that he still has enough power in reserve to strike hard at Iran if they don't back down off of Iraq and the nuclear issue.

Iran has to decide if they want to reach a compromise on Iraq with the USA, they have to give in on the nukes or they will have to move into Russia's sphere of influence if they want to continue the hard line and risk being struck. They are in quite a bind and they have about a month to decide.

-DA

 

[Viktor]

Mod edit: What's the point of this post?

You've been around for a while now. Try and add a bit of substance to your posts. The USA apparently has a few missiles too...

AD

Fuling things up ....

Yes I will try to explain myself.

It is obivious that Iran has no means to confront US force conventionaly in land, sea or air ... it would be back in stone age before it would blinked. So asysmetric warfare is its only chance.

Few thing that comes to my mind.

1. Lay down mines along the Persian gulf (Specialy Hormuz strait) to stop oil shiping. Block it aditionaly with antiship missiles. This would not last long but would for some time sky rocketed oil price.

2. It can give few Bin in arms to Shia population in Iraq. iran is suporting Shia but it would be another thing if US had to face those rebels with their hands laid on Metis-M/Kornet/ igla-S. Same thing goes for Afganistan.

3. Iran is 4 times bigger country than Iraq and three times more populated witch means no ground invasion is possible while Iraq stability is in question ... that leaves only airforce option open (From neirby countries and carriers).

4. Iran has about 2000 balistic missiles of all kinds and posible more of witch some are MIRV-ed and most of them have mutched increased accuracy (as shown during latest Iran rocket fireing) CEP aprox 200m.
On the other side US has 170 000 solders in Iraq within 30-50 major bases and no country has means to defend itseld from such massive missile atack. it would be wrong to assume that US can with pre-emtive stikes destroy Irans balistic missile capability (maybe those static but vast majority are mobile) as in 1991 about 50% of USAF + special forces searched and found none of Iraq mobile SCUD lounchers during the first Gulf war.
Same thing for Afganistan as it is also irans neighbour.
Patriot missile did not show itself during the first Gulf war and US has about 700-800 Patriot PAC-3 missiles mostly of witch are not in Iraq but are intended to protect US coast from cruise missile atack besides no country in the world can repel such massive missile atack.
Arrow-2 block 3 TBMD with ability to shoot down Sahab-3 is only this year rushed in the production. So I think Irans missile potential is something not to be underestimated.


5. Iran can also further destabilize Pakistan as it is already in saky position (CIA report said that by 2015 Pakistan will be failed country so that proces might be little on fast track in event of US-Iran war).

6. Iran can also lounch massive missile atacks on oil rafinery along the Pesrsian gulf with logic in mind: If US is about to blow us in stone age we just might along the proces blow up some rafineries and make war mutch more expensive besides most of the midle east countries host US bases so by helping Americans those countries might be subjected to atacks.

7. Most of the population in Midle east countries do not suport theirs pro-western govrements and by atacking Iran some kind of "color" revolution just might happen (that is if Iran decides not to lounch missiles on midle east countries)

8. Imagine Al Qaida happines in the event of war and their potential to grow in cercumstances of total war.

9. Unlike regular troops Revolutionary guard is not to be underestimated since inflitration in Iraq and Afgan is possible and they could cause quite a mess there.

....

 

[SABRE]

5. Iran can also further destabilize Pakistan as it is already in saky position (CIA report said that by 2015 Pakistan will be failed country so that proces might be little on fast track in event of US-Iran war).
....

How the hell did you or even the CIA came up with that one? As far as I know Pakistan "WAS" only shaky on internal political level as Presidents kept on sacking the governments before the end of their term & before 911 CIA reported that "If" this continues Pakistan "would be" a failed state. The Scenario of politics has changed greatly. The ones CIA considered trouble makers & anti-Pakistanis in fact have turned out to be pro-Pakistanis, pro-democracy calling for stablization of political method. Anyways, thats a different stroy.

Iran wont do anything to Pakistan nor it is much capable of doing so - in fact Iran now seeks better relations with Pakistan. Perhaps same as they had with Pakistan in 1950s & 1960s (especially in terms of economics). The only area of interest for Iran in Pakistan "WAS" Balochistan province which is thought it can annex. But the refusal of the Baloch Sardars, who were considered to be against Pakistan, to aid Soviet Union in any way in Afghanistan & reporting the Soviet contact to ISI put the Iran in check as well as Iran was counting on the same Sardars as well.

2nd major check on Iran came when former Balochi militaryman (dn't remember the rank & name) signaled Iran that any attempt to ignite Balochistan will only result in Greater Balochistan. Meaning that Iran would risk loosing its own Sistan/Balochistan since the nationalism is no less there than that in the Pakistan's Balochistan province.

But that is all left behind now. Strategically & emotionally Iran knows that it cannot get any better friend on its borders than Pakistan. Hence yesterday Iranians gave a statement that it will continue the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipe-line with Pakistan alone if India pulls out (IPI turing into IP only). Iran also has silently abondoned extention of its Bandr Abas port in favor of Pakistan's Gwadr port & in fact has informaly as Pakistan to give it an access to Gwadr.

Hence, Strategically & emotionally (Since Iran & Pakistan are both very emotional countries) I don't think Iran would do anything to Pakistan. If it does it risks facing the same things, perhaps on greater level - since the conflict would invite west to side with Pakistan.

 

[Viktor]

Well take a look at this.

Pakistan will be failed state by 2015: CIA

February 14, 2005
Rediff.com
Pakistan, affected by civil war, Talibanisation and a struggle for control of its nuclear weapons, will be a 'failed' state by 2015, premier US intelligence agencies have said in an assessment report.

Forecasting a 'Yugoslavia-like fate', the US National Intelligence Council and Central Intelligence Agency, in a jointly prepared Global Futures Assessment Report, have said Pakistan would be ripe with civil war, bloodshed, and inter-provincial rivalries.

"Pakistan will not recover easily from decades of political and economic mismanagement, divisive policies, lawlessness, corruption and ethnic friction," the report said.

The former Pakistan high commissioner to United Kingdom, Wajid Shamsul Hasan, quoted the report in an article titled Will the Pakistan army invade Balochistan as per the NIC-CIA Plan? in the South Asia Tribune.

Hasan said, "The military operation that has been put in motion in Balochistan would further distance the Baloch people from rest of the country."

"Nascent democratic reforms will produce little change in the face of opposition from an entrenched political elite and radical Islamic parties. In a climate of continuing domestic turmoil, the Central government's control will be reduced to the Punjabi heartland and the economic hub of Karachi," the former diplomat of Pakistan quoted the report as saying.

Hasan wondered, "Are our military rulers working on a similar agenda or on something that has been laid out for them in the various assessment reports over the years by the National Intelligence Council in joint collaboration with CIA?"

His article comes in the backdrop of growing violence between the Balochis and the Pakistani security forces stationed in the gas-rich province.

The recent moves by the security forces to evict all residents within a 15-km radius of Pakistan's biggest gas plant, Sui, and the decision to create a cantonment near it has given a fillip to the anti-Islamabad insurgent activities of Balochi groups like the Balochistan Liberation Army, media reports said.

They said Pakistan was taking the 'most drastic step yet' in its bid to crush a deadly tribal rebellion by forcibly evicting all residents from around 500 dwellings.

or this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4964934.stm

1. Sudan (3)*
2. DR Congo (2)*
3. Ivory Coast (1)*
4. Iraq (4)*
5. Zimbabwe (15)*
6. Chad (7)*
(Tie) Somalia(5)*
8. Haiti (10)*
9. Pakistan (34)*
10 Afghanistan (11)*

You have unimaginable resources over the internet about captured pakistan solders being trade for Al Qaida members or found with their throats cut etc etc ... things are escalating back there .

 

[WAR]

I agree with SABRE.

No saner person in Iran even think of attacking, or for that matter destabilising Pakistan for obvious reasons.

In any eventuality, in which (theoretically speaking) USA attack Iran, they would surely be looking towards Pakistan for some help, as both the countries enjoy and share the border. The other thing is that Pakistan I suppose would possibly remain neutral in any such situation, as we have openly declared the policy of "Pakistan First".

I think such discussions -- full of conspiracy theories -- is useless, where everyone spill the beans -- as an outcome of his/her fiction of imagination.

 

[USNavySEAL3310]

6. Iran can also lounch massive missile atacks on oil rafinery along the Pesrsian gulf with logic in mind: If US is about to blow us in stone age we just might along the proces blow up some rafineries and make war mutch more expensive besides most of the midle east countries host US bases so by helping Americans those countries might be subjected to atacks.

My $.02

I disagree with your sixth point. While the Iranian president may or may not be in his right mind (depending on your point of view), it would be far worse for him were he to do what you are suggesting. I can see no reason why he would choose to attack other nations that in one way or another support U.S. efforts (i.e. letting U.S. set up bases in their country, publicly supporting U.S.). It would be political and military suicide. Politically, he would be turning any and all possibly sympathetic Arab nations against him. Though certain nations may not be crazy about Iran or the U.S., he is forever closing an opportunity to get any form of assistance from such nations. Militarily, he would waste valuable manpower and resources attacking a U.S. base or an oil refinery here or there in another country. An attack on a nation just for a U.S. base is a huge political statement that would terminate all relations between that country and Iran. And let's not forget, everyone loves oil. Destroying refineries won't only agitate the U.S., it would tick off other countries - even countries outside of the Middle-East that depend on that oil.

Just my thoughts. Ciao.

 

[funtz]

In my opinion a war as of now is not possible, however if it happens there is no strategy that will help Iran in a regular war against the combined might of USAF+USN in a conventional war.

If Iran actually decides to distribute its army to widen the battlefield in case a military action seems certain it will just end up weakening its land army.

It will be better to distribute all of the defense resources, SAM's and supporting infrastructure(radars and all), tanks, and other major infrastructure all along the nation so that us actually loose more money blowing up the equipment than the equipment is worth.

In case a military intervention by western forces seems eminent, it will be better to have a solid political leadership in place which can hide between the population and rise up to lead another political leadership once the attack is over, this will be especially effective in Iran as the political leadership as of now enjoys tremendous support amongst the population.

It will be very important to make sure a separate organization exists that will hide enough military personnel and equipment like small arms, anti tank missiles, man portable sams, anti tank land mines, military grade explosives inside Iran amongst the local population, these weapons and trained personnel will make sure that no occupation force will be able to sustain the losses if it actually comes to it, had the leaders of Baath Party been actively involved in hiding trained military men with modern Russian man portable sams - modern anti tank missiles - military grade explosives - land mines etc. the damage that is being done on the coalition forces in Iraq would have been much more severe than what the Mig 25-19 are capable of .

The way to succed a western occupation is through the media not through jets and tanks.

The forces Iran will have to face in case of a military action have been involved many conflicts since world war 2 and they have all but perfected themselves in conventional warfare, there command and control structure cannot be sabotaged by Iran, they have unmatched coordination between the land - sea - air elements of each other, thorough knowledge about the weapon systems Iran operates, 24X7 intelligence coverage over Iran to see any major military movements and respond instantly, exceptional logistics platform and if they have to invade Iran they will have the airfields of Iraq, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait at there disposal.

A better strategy would be to support IAEA and involve them in a civilian nuclear program with the help of Russia and China. That will open up Iran’s oil and gas market to this world, earn lots of dollars, invest that money into the future of Iran open up free schools, Universities, build better infrastructure inside the country. Russia and china can ensure that no one denies Iran a civilian nuclear program if Iran cooperates with IAEA, there will be no need of bowing the western pressure (something that Iran seems hell bent not to).

 

[eckherl]

Iran has decisions to make. They counted on enough political pressure to force the USA out of Iraq so they backed the Shia Insurgents with arms and intel. They also applied political pressure on the government to keep the Sunnis out of power. They did all this in the comfort of the knowledge that the U.S. Army was "stretched thin" and political will was low. With an election coming and President Bush being a "lame duck" with a Democratic congress. It was a forgone conclussion that the USA would be withdrawing and they could fill the Vaccuum. They were wrong.

Instead what they got was a troop surge and a U.S. President who has demonstrated that he still has a lot of political clout. Worse than that, the President signaled to the Iranians that the U.S. plans to be in Iraq long into the next administration. He has also made it clear that he still has enough power in reserve to strike hard at Iran if they don't back down off of Iraq and the nuclear issue.

Iran has to decide if they want to reach a compromise on Iraq with the USA, they have to give in on the nukes or they will have to move into Russia's sphere of influence if they want to continue the hard line and risk being struck. They are in quite a bind and they have about a month to decide.

-DA

You are so correct - I am giving them 6 to 8 weeks to get their act together and after that they will be dealt a major reality check. Also it is good to see that France is on board with the U.S on this one.

 

[DarthAmerica]

You are so correct - I am giving them 6 to 8 weeks to get their act together and after that they will be dealt a major reality check. Also it is good to see that France is on board with the U.S on this one.

It will start about mid October. Not necessarily a war but what path we are on will be more obvious IMHO. Pres. Putin will visit with the Iranians on Oct 16th. We will see what happens.

-DA

 

[kato]

Also it is good to see that France is on board with the U.S on this one.

That's just Sarkozy's inexperience. He's already managed enough small diplomatic blunders to cool down relations with half of Europe - and half of them over his sudden hardline approach turn towards Iran. If he's trying to get other people in Europe onboard that track, his attitude is not helping things for sure.

 

[DarthAmerica]

That's just Sarkozy's inexperience. He's already managed enough small diplomatic blunders to cool down relations with half of Europe - and half of them over his sudden hardline approach turn towards Iran. If he's trying to get other people in Europe onboard that track, his attitude is not helping things for sure.

I'm curious to know why this is inexperience? It seems to me that the new French leadership see's an advantage to better relations with Washington D.C. which to me is just a different political calculous rather than inexperience. From a military point of view a Middle East dominated by Iran is not in the interest of France. That would seem to make US and French interest mutual. I'm not speaking from a moral point of view but rather economic.

-DA

 

[eckherl]

It will start about mid October. Not necessarily a war but what path we are on will be more obvious IMHO. Pres. Putin will visit with the Iranians on Oct 16th. We will see what happens.

-DA

I am hoping for the sake of the Iranian people that the reality check will come into tougher finance type sanctions placed on them by each individual European country talking and acting in a unified voice versus what the U.N will place on them, this will frustrate China and Russia due to not being able to flex their influence powers within the U.N.

 

[kato]

I'm curious to know why this is inexperience? It seems to me that the new French leadership see's an advantage to better relations with Washington D.C. which to me is just a different political calculous rather than inexperience.

His diplomatic discourse with German officials is disastrous. Especially the fact that he doesn't want comments from anyone lower than Merkel. Plus the unwanted offer of French nukes for Germany last week ("Sorry, we're part of NPT, and besides we're happy with our US-provided nukes", was pretty much the answer).

He's also trying to push total economic sanctions for Iran within a EU-wide solution (instead of national solutions). The answer from Germany was that first France itself should try sanctioning their trade with Iran down to the same levels as other EU nations including Germany, especially in regard to dual-use technology.

France's foreign minister Bernard Kouchner was the one who issued the "warning" to Iran last week actually. Which didn't just bring protests from Russia, but also from Italy's foreign minister (Germany's comment was that "such solutions are not up for discussion"). France is actually starting to isolate itself somewhat in foreign relations within the EU, under Sarkozy, and that's not a good thing.

 

[DarthAmerica]

I am hoping for the sake of the Iranian people that the reality check will come into tougher finance type sanctions placed on them by each individual European country talking and acting in a unified voice versus what the U.N will place on them, this will frustrate China and Russia due to not being able to flex their influence powers within the U.N.

The EU imposing it's own sanctions would have devastating effects on Iran. That combined with the USA declaring the IRCG terrorist would put a lot of pressure on Iran and the Russians.

-DA

 

[radiosilence]

You have unimaginable resources over the internet about captured pakistan solders being trade for Al Qaida members or found with their throats cut etc etc ... things are escalating back there .

And this is related to this topic, how? Anyways, Russia is helping the Iranians build a nuclear reactor, blocking tough sanctions and selling them weapons. IMO, the best option Iran have to retaliate would be through Asymmetric warfare.

 

[gulfsecurity]

Gentlemen,

The issue was 1. The GCC states and the 40% of the world's oil.
2. The new Iranian strategy
3. The article.Gulfsecurity.blogspot.com

What's the point of this post? Thank you Corporal Viktor for asking

 

[ejaz007]

Gentlemen,

Different topics are being discussed on this thread. I shall try answering them all.

First of all Iran Pakistan relations have started improving and there are signs of realization on both sides to improve them. The theory of unstable Pakistan, Balochistan being annexed by Iran are old and situation has now changed a lot. Pakistan is strong and has the means at its disposal to retaliate very strongly. Iranians too I believe understand that in present situation they need to have friendly relations with Pakistan.

Now coming to Iran US war. I think USA shall try its level best to isolate Iran, apply sanctions on it either through UN or with the help of EU. In the present global market oriented economy no country can survive for long in isolation. The same is the case with Iran. After all its main export is oil and what shall it do if it is unable to sell oil. If even this does not work then US shall consider military option. I think US shall only use air force since its options is not to capture Iran but to destroy its nuclear facilities. Capturing and holding Iran militarily shall be very difficult especially considering the US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I also doubt Russian or China shall be able to stand in the way of any UN resolution for too long. What they can do is make the resolution as soft as possible but scrapping it altogether shall be very difficult.

As far as Iran’s military strength is considered I doubt they have the means and ways to defend them for too long. The only threat they have is ballistic missiles. Even ballistic missiles are no threat for US forces since my theory is based on the use of air force only. The only threat these missile pose is to other neighboring countries.

The only serious threat Iran poses is to international shipping. With bulk of oil supplies going through this route oil prices might increase substantially in case of hostilities and mining of the sea route.