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

[Khairul Alam]

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.

I wouldnt agree with you on that. Dispersing all military resources around the country will go against the one of the basic tenets of war: concentration of forces. What possibly can Iran achieve by dispersing its tanks and make them sitting ducks for air attacks, rather than sending them to battle?? Moreover, the small number of modern SAMs that Iran possesses are for point defence..so spreading them around wouldnt make sense either as key installations will be left open for air attacks. In short, its better if Iran focuses on using its available resources to fight the war (if its actually imposed), rather than worrying about saving its war machines, which will eventually fall prey to the US air supremacy.

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.

Well there wont be any significant involvement of land forces in case of any attack on Iran now. With US forces tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, and its army overstretched, i dont think the US can stomach another large scale deployment. Any assault would mainly be in the form of aerial bombardment, with limited special force activities within Iran for providing target information and for sabotage of infrastructure. The air strikes wud aim to cripple Iran's forces while they are still on the ground, so that they can never manage a counterattack. But of the possible springboards of the air strikes that you have mentioned (airfields of Iraq, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait), UAE, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have already refused to aid the US in any sort of attack on Iran. So US has to rely on its carriers and Iraqi airfields. But i wonder if the predominantly Shiite government in Iraq will allow US to use its bases to attack Shiite Iran.

 

[Izzy1]

But of the possible springboards of the air strikes that you have mentioned (airfields of Iraq, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait), UAE, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have already refused to aid the US in any sort of attack on Iran.

In all fairness, US strike options are hardly hindered by the non-availability of airbases in Kuwait, Saudi or the UAE.

As you say, striking from the carriers is available, as is using long-range strike assets from Diego Garcia. Turkey doesn't exactly see eye-to-eye with Iran either. But in regards to the Arabs and the GCC especially, it's the smaller GCC countries that hold the key to US power projection in the region - namely Bahrain and Qatar.

Bahrain is the Headquarters of the US Navy's 5th Fleet and Sheikh Isa Airbase is well used by the USAF. Likewise, Qatar is the HQ of US Central Command (it also has comprehensive C4I facilities to co-ordinate any such US strike) and also has airbase facilities with ample US presence.

Most importantly, both these nations have strained relations with Tehran (Bahrain especially). I'm almost certain that although they would never publicly condone a US strike on Iran, they would also be in no rush to stop it or hinder access to US facilities on their soil.

A non-nuclear, stable and non-instability supporting Iran at the end of the day is in everyone's regional interest here.

 

[merocaine]

Quote: Originally Posted by eckherl
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

The problem is the Iranians think the Americans are bluffing, they are confident that there will be no attack on Iran.
This could lead to some major miscalculations on both sides.

 

[radiosilence]

Most importantly, both these nations have strained relations with Tehran (Bahrain especially). I'm almost certain that although they would never publicly condone a US strike on Iran, they would also be in no rush to stop it or hinder access to US facilities on their soil.

The majority of the population in Bahrain is shia, i believe around 70 percent. Wouldn't they cause problems for the govt.(which is sunni) If US planes were allowed to use its territory to launch raids on Iran?

 

[Khairul Alam]

In all fairness, US strike options are hardly hindered by the non-availability of airbases in Kuwait, Saudi or the UAE.

As you say, striking from the carriers is available, as is using long-range strike assets from Diego Garcia. Turkey doesn't exactly see eye-to-eye with Iran either. But in regards to the Arabs and the GCC especially, it's the smaller GCC countries that hold the key to US power projection in the region - namely Bahrain and Qatar.

Bahrain is the Headquarters of the US Navy's 5th Fleet and Sheikh Isa Airbase is well used by the USAF. Likewise, Qatar is the HQ of US Central Command (it also has comprehensive C4I facilities to co-ordinate any such US strike) and also has airbase facilities with ample US presence.

Most importantly, both these nations have strained relations with Tehran (Bahrain especially). I'm almost certain that although they would never publicly condone a US strike on Iran, they would also be in no rush to stop it or hinder access to US facilities on their soil.

A non-nuclear, stable and non-instability supporting Iran at the end of the day is in everyone's regional interest here.

Even if Qatar and Bahrain have strained relations with Iran, i doubt if they will provide bases for an attack on Iran. They are well within the reach of Iran's missiles (even the short range). They can expect quite a barrage from Iranian missiles if they comply with the US..that fear may keep these small countries out.

 

[swerve]

Diego Garcia?

Hmm. The USA has considerable freedom to use Diego Garcia as it wishes, but their permit to use the place does impose some constraints. The public information is vague - I believe deliberately so - but I am sure that the USA is not permitted to use DG to attack countries regarded by the UK as friendly, & is probably required to tell us in general terms what they intend to do in such a case, e.g. "We're going to bomb Iran", not supply a list of targets or times of raids.

 

[funtz]

I wouldnt agree with you on that. Dispersing all military resources around the country will go against the one of the basic tenets of war: concentration of forces. What possibly can Iran achieve by dispersing its tanks and make them sitting ducks for air attacks, rather than sending them to battle?? Moreover, the small number of modern SAMs that Iran possesses are for point defence..so spreading them around wouldnt make sense either as key installations will be left open for air attacks. In short, its better if Iran focuses on using its available resources to fight the war (if its actually imposed), rather than worrying about saving its war machines, which will eventually fall prey to the US air supremacy.



Well there wont be any significant involvement of land forces in case of any attack on Iran now. With US forces tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, and its army overstretched, i dont think the US can stomach another large scale deployment. Any assault would mainly be in the form of aerial bombardment, with limited special force activities within Iran for providing target information and for sabotage of infrastructure. The air strikes wud aim to cripple Iran's forces while they are still on the ground, so that they can never manage a counterattack. But of the possible springboards of the air strikes that you have mentioned (airfields of Iraq, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait), UAE, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have already refused to aid the US in any sort of attack on Iran. So US has to rely on its carriers and Iraqi airfields. But i wonder if the predominantly Shiite government in Iraq will allow US to use its bases to attack Shiite Iran.

Has there been any public statements from the Arabic States publicly denying US forces any room to operate from there facilities? I apologize for the lack of knowledge on the issue; however there is nothing I could find online.

If Iran concentrated all its forces to defend key sites, they will become a target under a heavy American air assault as much as they will be if they are distributed, however if they are distributed the number of sorties required to neutralize them all might be doubled or tripled.

The statement about distributing resources like tanks was attempted sarcasm – as US AF/N might end up using missiles and ammo delivered from a combat aircrafts, and the combined cost of the operation might be more expensive than the tank it self. As such if and when these tanks will be needed, without air cover they will serve no purpose.

I doubt that US military will risk attacking a nuclear facility which possess a threat of radioactive contamination, and Special Forces might very well be used for lacing targets and disrupting communication lines, however for them to actually try and get inside Iran and launch a overt attack on well defended targets, for example a nuclear facility will be unlikely due to the casualties involved.

Hence for actually doing anything more than destroying Iranian roads, bridges, airfields, aircrafts, tanks, refineries etc. etc. USA will have to send Land forces especially as there aim will be to make sure the hotly debated nuclear material and facilities are captured, assessed, and dismantled without the possibility of nuclear material falling into the hands of rouge elements or causing a contamination.

The nature of the initial combat can only be a very heavy air action against Iranian air defense infrastructure followed by crippling the army, there is no doubt about that, it is hard to say what will happen after the initial attack. Will USA bomb the nuclear installations?

As i see it if USA decides against sending Land forces and securing these sites all it will do is rise up world oil prices, increase the risk of nuclear contamination and leave in power a government dedicated to a single purpose, harming us interests, civilians and military in any way they can.

 

[Izzy1]

Diego Garcia?

Hmm. The USA has considerable freedom to use Diego Garcia as it wishes, but their permit to use the place does impose some constraints. The public information is vague - I believe deliberately so - but I am sure that the USA is not permitted to use DG to attack countries regarded by the UK as friendly, & is probably required to tell us in general terms what they intend to do in such a case, e.g. "We're going to bomb Iran", not supply a list of targets or times of raids.

Granted. But lets face it, I doubt Whitehall would object to any such proposed attack either. Our relations with Iran are far from cordial and if diplomatic initiatives on Iraq and Tehran's nuclear programme failed, then I have no doubt the UK would fully support a US-led strike option if there were one.

 

[Izzy1]

Even if Qatar and Bahrain have strained relations with Iran, i doubt if they will provide bases for an attack on Iran. They are well within the reach of Iran's missiles (even the short range). They can expect quite a barrage from Iranian missiles if they comply with the US..that fear may keep these small countries out.

Saddam's Iraq had similar missile strike capacity in GW-1 and they supported operations against that country.

Such an Iranian response would also undoubtedly force a pan-Arab response and even greater US retaliation.

Quite simply, Tehran would have to decide if such an escalation was worth it.

 

[Izzy1]

The majority of the population in Bahrain is shia, i believe around 70 percent. Wouldn't they cause problems for the govt.(which is sunni) If US planes were allowed to use its territory to launch raids on Iran?

Your absolutely right and it is probably the one factor that would I believe cause pause for the Bahraini Government.

However, that same Government openly believes Iran is formenting insurgency on that island today. Economically, diplomatically and militarily it will never be able to deter Iran on its own. Thus, supporting the US is the only effective measure Bahrain has.

Thus, I trully do believe nations like Bahrain and Qatar, who's very survival rellies on their security relationship with Washington, would support such operations.

 

[DarthAmerica]

The problem is the Iranians think the Americans are bluffing, they are confident that there will be no attack on Iran.
This could lead to some major miscalculations on both sides.

I'm not so sure of that. There is a lot more to that assessment than what you see in public statements. I would say that the Iranians thought the USA would not attack them up until about mid September. But that calculous went out the window following the report on the surge to congress. Now they have to decide on new strategies to achieve their short term goal of a stable shia Iraq under their influence. They will settle for an independent non threatening Iraq without U.S. Troops.

They are well aware of the war criteria IMHO. They know how far they can push the nuclear issue and how directly involved they can get with internal Iraqi affairs. The Iranians have to make a choice on if its worth being bombed very badly to achieve this short term goal at the risk of their long term regional ambitions. At the end of the day Iran is a minor power competing against a super power. The Iranians have much more to lose. If the United States loses Iraq, it can just pull back to bases elswhere in the region and still menace Iran. If Iran loses, they will be bombed which will set their military industrial complex back and possibly destablilize the regime. Iran needs something to balance the cost benefit equation. To achieve its goals, Iran needs a benefactor.


-DA

 

[DarthAmerica]

Saddam's Iraq had similar missile strike capacity in GW-1 and they supported operations against that country.

Such an Iranian response would also undoubtedly force a pan-Arab response and even greater US retaliation.

Quite simply, Tehran would have to decide if such an escalation was worth it.

I'm glad you made this post. While IMO Irans missile forces are a little more sophisticated than Saddams. The majority of the missiles are primitive battlefield weapons with HUGE CEPs. The few that could possibly have more accurate guidance are not operational in significant enough numbers to do anything but inflict temporary damage or in some cases make it through the missile defenses which are substantially better than in 1991.

Also, people like to mention Iran striking neighboring states. I think people should pay more attention to some of the recent U.S. arms sales. Do you really want to provoke a infinately rich Arab or Jewish nation who has JDAMs on their shopping list when you are a Persian? No. If Iran takes on the USA it's going to need all the support it can get. PROVING to the world that you are an aggressive regime with ballistic missiles will not help their case. Its going to increase pressure if nothing else. Again, Iran needs a benefactor to effectively strike back even if it's by proxy.

-DA

 

[merocaine]

I'm not so sure of that. There is a lot more to that assessment than what you see in public statements. I would say that the Iranians thought the USA would not attack them up until about mid September. But that calculous went out the window following the report on the surge to congress. Now they have to decide on new strategies to achieve their short term goal of a stable shia Iraq under their influence. They will settle for an independent non threatening Iraq without U.S. Troops.

They are well aware of the war criteria IMHO. They know how far they can push the nuclear issue and how directly involved they can get with internal Iraqi affairs. The Iranians have to make a choice on if its worth being bombed very badly to achieve this short term goal at the risk of their long term regional ambitions. At the end of the day Iran is a minor power competing against a super power. The Iranians have much more to lose. If the United States loses Iraq, it can just pull back to bases elswhere in the region and still menace Iran. If Iran loses, they will be bombed which will set their military industrial complex back and possibly destablilize the regime. Iran needs something to balance the cost benefit equation. To achieve its goals, Iran needs a benefactor.


-DA

The thing is the Iranians feel they are on the verge of winning in Iraq.
They feel that Iraq is going to disintergrate (I think there right) The smart Oil money is betting on the Kurds, not on the Iraqi goverment.
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/09/1...rials and Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists/Paul Krugman

The Iranians look at the situation and think there is no way the US could be crazy enough to attack us.
And on one level they are right.
They have the ablity close the straits ( how ever briefly)
They have tact backing in the S.C
They have the ability to Hit American bases all over the middle East.
There are a large number of American troops tied down in Iraq and Afganistan, who would be in a difficult security position if the Iranians started to fight a proxy war in earnest.
Then there is the reaction of US oil suppliers such as Chavez.
Those are just some of the factors that might encourage the Iranians to contiue there game of Superpower chicken.

Personally I believe the US will launch airstrikes unless the Iranians climb down.

And that is not going to happen.

Possible outcome
3rd round of sanctions have no effect. Predictable split in the security council
over threat of force, the US launches Airstrikes.

Unless something gives in Tehran, cause its not going to give in Washington.

A possible reading of the report to congress in Tehran, the US is looking for someone convenient to blame. Just the same political manovering in Washington, Bush trying to delay a pull out in till after the next Presidential election.
Don't over estimate the Iranian's, they have a bit of a herd mentality in Theocrasies!

 

[DarthAmerica]

A possible reading of the report to congress in Tehran, the US is looking for someone convenient to blame. Just the same political manovering in Washington, Bush trying to delay a pull out in till after the next Presidential election.
Don't over estimate the Iranian's, they have a bit of a herd mentality in Theocrasies!

That's not at all the case IMV. Notice the silence following the report especially from traditional opponents? The President's Surge Strategy worked for its true purpose. Essentially the USA told Iran that the Troops aren't going anywhere and in fact they would be around long after his term is up. Remember the long term purpose of OIF. The USA was establishing a strategically located base of operations from which to pressure or force if necessary nations in the region to cooperate with the GWOT. That meant Iraq and a U.S. Garrison. Iran's worse nightmare considering its goal of regional hegemony.

In fact Iran never even though a "Surge" was possible. And the French/EU reaction has been bewildering from a historical perspective. Now they have to wonder whats next. They know the USA can pound them hard. They know what the war criteria are. What they don't know if how likely is conventional wisdom to be right. There is still plenty of time left for the President to strike them.


Another thing. Why do people assert...

(1) Iran can massively strike U.S. Bases theater wide.

(2) Iran can shut down the the Gulf.

Where is the supporting evidence for this?


-DA


P.S. I'd ask that everyone put yourself in Irans position and consider the options suggested so far. Does it read like suicide to you? It reads the same way in Farsi.

 

[Aussie Digger]

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.

Oil will skyrocket anyway and just like during the "tanker wars" of the 80's, America's ability to defend against ASM attack FAR outweighs Iran's ability to launch said attacks. In addition to which the US's ability to target such assets obviously exceeds Iran's ability to defend itself...

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.

I think you'll find the American's ARE facing such threats already, but certainly MUCH tighter border security would have to be a factor in this war...

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).

I don't think anyone is contemplating such an operation, however what precisely makes you think the Iranian's would last any longer than the Iraqi Army? Fact is America couldn't find ENOUGH targets during GW2 to actually strike...

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.

Indigenous missile systems in the Middle East don't have a particularly great record from what I've seen. They generally prove to be weapons of terror, rather than usable tactical systems.

Who exactly they are going to fire at I find interesting though. Do you think US troops and major installations in Iraq wouldn't be protected? Israel perhaps? Possibly, but you can be assured that Iran's offensive missile capabilities will be a prime target for the US attack. Personally I think the Iranians would be too busy trying to hide them, to fire too many.

As with Iraq's SCUDS, these missiles require TEL's to fire from and such are easily detected prior to launch. These missiles are also liquid fuelled, which has to be done on the TEL as I understand such things and again this takes time and is rather obvious to those who look for such things (ie: J-STARS etc).

Like Iraq, it will be a matter of how many missiles Iran can fire, before said are destroyed by American air power undertaking time sensitive targetting missions above them...

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.

Again, US anti-missile capability isn't just PAC-3 Patriot and AEGIS class cruisers. It'll destroy far more missiles on the ground than will ever launch in my opinion. Hitting an oil refinery with a ballistic missile for Iran seems a bit ambitious to me. Certainly hitting many of them...

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).

Just like they rose up against the West when America attacked Iraq?

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

Al Qaeda is nothing more than a terrorist organisation. They have to conduct assymetric attacks because they cannot stand up to a conventional military force. They have to run and hide when faced with modern warfare capabilities. Thinking they'll be anything else, is a bit much for me...

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.

....

As opposed to the "Paradise" it is now? You've got 165,000 US ground forces in Iraq. I think they'd love a conventional fight right about now actually...

 

[merocaine]

(1) Iran can massively strike U.S. Bases theater wide.

(2) Iran can shut down the the Gulf.

I said they can shut down the Gulf Briefly

I never said they can strike massivley, but they can strike at US bases across the middle east.

The surge has worked? the fact that Bush has wrong footed his opponents in congress is not proof that the surge has worked?
I hate the term surge, let call it what it is a troop reinforcement.

Remember the long term purpose of OIF. The USA was establishing a strategically located base of operations from which to pressure or force if necessary nations in the region to cooperate with the GWOT

nfloorl:

Ok I can see this ones going nowhere.

Good Day Sir

 

[DarthAmerica]

As opposed to the "Paradise" it is now? You've got 165,000 US ground forces in Iraq. I think they'd love a conventional fight right about now actually...

you just motivated me to take all my M4 & M9 magazines apart again for cleaning!

-DA

 

[DarthAmerica]

I said they can shut down the Gulf Briefly

I never said they can strike massivley, but they can strike at US bases across the middle east.

Yes but then people do that to us all the time. Without precision weapons and very good intelligence its not likely to be anymore effective than SCUDs were in GW1

The surge has worked? the fact that Bush has wrong footed his opponents in congress is not proof that the surge has worked?
I hate the term surge, let call it what it is a troop reinforcement.

Well no, its actually a surge. Thats the official discription of it and the surged forces don't represent the planned sustained U.S. footprint. And on the ground it has been very successful. Cooperation with the locals has been much improved. Entire provinces are quiet. In fact, some soldiers are complaining because there is no one to shoot at as opposed to before. I'm in no way suggesting that Iraq is out of trouble. But things on the ground are remarkably improved.

Ok I can see this ones going nowhere.

Good Day Sir

If you have a different interpretation I'd be delighted to read it. I'd be curious to read what it looks like from the outside.

-DA

 

[Aussie Digger]

you just motivated me to take all my M4 & M9 magazines apart again for cleaning!

-DA

I don't believe a weapon can EVER be too clean...

 

[radiosilence]

.

However, that same Government openly believes Iran is formenting insurgency on that island today. Economically, diplomatically and militarily it will never be able to deter Iran on its own. Thus, supporting the US is the only effective measure Bahrain has.

I see your point, putting aside the US for a minunte wouldn't the GCC come their aid if they were attacked by Iran? Isn't there collective security pact among GCC members ?