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

merocaine

New Member
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.
The long term goal was most certainly not the occupation of Iraq to put pressure on its neighbours to cooperate in the GWOT.

Since the neighbouring countries in the region were cooperating in the first place (yes even Iran) this make no sense.

What the long term goal was, is a matter of some debate, not least among those who advocated the war.
A/ Destruction of WMD/ Later WMD programmes.

B/ Securing Iraqi Oil / future American supplies.

C/ Securing a complient Iraq which would then allow the US forces to move out of (potentally hostile) Saudi and into friendly democratic Iraq.

D/ Creating a domino effect where a new dawn of democracy spreads throughout the middle east and Iran.

If I was a betting man I'd go for a combination of B and D as the longterm goals, and A as the short term goal.
 

funtz

New Member
Right on, I bet the intelligence service offices in US are already flooded with data from many sources and that they are keeping as close a tab on all of those missiles as they possibly can and the western coalition will find plenty of targets to fire those million dollar missiles, it will be a regular action for them, just look at the last 30 years.

However it has been a long time since the scuds were produced, and North Korea has been actively involved in selling all the technical details they could, these would be on the level with North Korean and Chinese technology, how good is the North Korean guidance technology?

Well Al Qaeda will benefit from a US attack on Iran, there will be more requirement and funding for who ever wishes to raise it in the name of Al Qaeda from Iran.

The most important thing for any organization is men, money and weapons, without funding and a weapons supply chain insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot function, and this proposed military action will only increase the supply, get more people to join any group that wants to harm America in any way possible.
 

DarthAmerica

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
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 pact among GCC members to defend each other?
Yes they did in 2000 IIRC. I'm not sure about the specific lanquage used in the Pact. The mambers of this Pact are very interesting from the point of view of military integration, sponsorship and host nation status. It would be a terrible mistake to attack these nations. I could cut off the one support channel Iran actually does have.


-DA
 

DarthAmerica

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
The long term goal was most certainly not the occupation of Iraq to put pressure on its neighbours to cooperate in the GWOT.

I respect your opinion but I strongly disagree. I will not debate the merits of the Iraq War because they are too misunderstood and I want to stay on topic. I will say though that we didn't plan on it being as difficult as it is. Rather than occupation, we planned on being hosted by a Pro-USA Iraqi government. It turned into an occupation.

We still got what we wanted in terms of local pressure and basing. Being here puts us in a very commanding geographical position and is an absolute nightmare to Iran. This is one of the primary reasons Iran got involved in the Iraqi political system and supplied weaponry to the insurgents. THAT WAS THE COUNTER TO A U.S. MILITARY STRIKE.


-DA
 
IMO, there is no military solution for the issues of Iran. I think most of the posts in this thread if not all are refering to air strikes on Iran. After the strikes what do you do?
 

merocaine

New Member
I respect your opinion but I strongly disagree. I will not debate the merits of the Iraq War because they are too misunderstood and I want to stay on topic. I will say though that we didn't plan on it being as difficult as it is. Rather than occupation, we planned on being hosted by a Pro-USA Iraqi government. It turned into an occupation.

We still got what we wanted in terms of local pressure and basing. Being here puts us in a very commanding geographical position and is an absolute nightmare to Iran. This is one of the primary reasons Iran got involved in the Iraqi political system and supplied weaponry to the insurgents. THAT WAS THE COUNTER TO A U.S. MILITARY STRIKE.


-DA
Since when did this turn into the merits of the Iraq War? You said

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
I refuted that by giving my reasons, as collaborated by among others, President Bush, Condi Rice, Donald Runsfeld, Richard Pearl Wolfi, and most recently Alan Greenspan, for the Iraq Invasion/occupation and what its longterm goals were.

What the long term goal was, is a matter of some debate, not least among those who advocated the war.
A/ Destruction of WMD/ Later WMD programmes.

B/ Securing Iraqi Oil / future American supplies.

C/ Securing a complient Iraq which would then allow the US forces to move out of (potentally hostile) Saudi and into friendly democratic Iraq.

D/ Creating a domino effect where a new dawn of democracy spreads throughout the middle east and Iran.

If I was a betting man I'd go for a combination of B and D as the longterm goals, and A as the short term goal.
I repeat, the longterm goals of OIF never had anything to do with the GWOT.

Anyway my original point was the Iranians (esp the current Pres and his backers) arent taking the US threat seriously.
There thinking runs along the lines of
"the US would be crazy to attack us so they are full of it when they make threats"

Me, I can understand why they are thinking like that. But that doesent mean I agree with there analysis.
 

funtz

New Member
D/ Creating a domino effect where a new dawn of democracy spreads throughout the middle east and Iran.
The only problem is in a neighborhood like Iran, citing democracy to Iran would be a bit like that one time Mr. Bush told Russia that Iraq is a good example to follow.
 

merocaine

New Member
D/ Creating a domino effect where a new dawn of democracy spreads throughout the middle east and Iran.

The only problem is in a neighborhood like Iran, citing democracy to Iran would be a bit like that one time Mr. Bush told Russia that Iraq is a good example to follow.
I did'ent say they had any basis in reality! ;)
 

DarthAmerica

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
IMO, there is no military solution for the issues of Iran. I think most of the posts in this thread if not all are refering to air strikes on Iran. After the strikes what do you do?
Air strikes buy time. Iran will spend the better part of a decade recovering.

-DA
 

Khairul Alam

New Member
IMO, there is no military solution for the issues of Iran. I think most of the posts in this thread if not all are refering to air strikes on Iran. After the strikes what do you do?
Well, the air strikes will only make things worse. Iran's proxies such as Hizbullah and Hamas will spark a face off with Israel, while shite insurgents in Iraq will bring hell to the country. Iran itself will try its best to use its Revolutionary Guards and its paramilitary groups (e.g. the Quds) to carry out assymetric attacks on neighbouring US interests. Let your imagination do the work ;)
 

Viktor

New Member
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...

I agree US has formidable ASM defences but do you think US would enter persian gulf with its ships and tried to secure oil shipin .... less likely .. no matter the skillfull defences sea mines and mobile ASM lounchers poses great threat. And to even close Hormuz straight for a month would be Iran success because of skyrocketing oil price that would make cost of the war hudge.

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...
I think you can find all sorts of Iranian made weapons in Iraq today so little or none has being done to secure the border. Iran has hudge border with Iraq and thats something you can not control so easily .. and best evidence of that is Iranian weapons killing US troops in Iraq. Because of that I have no reason to belive US would in event of war menaged somehow to close boreder for good. Metis-E/Kornet/igla-S would at least find itself path to Iraq in great numbers ... and that would mean massacre.


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...
I did not say Iranian army would last long. of course it wouldnt. But Iranians are not preparing itself for conventional but asymetric warfare. Witch means ne methods of dealing with threats should be implemented as destroying conventional forces just wont do. And how can you prepare for something you dont know what you are up to? Thats why I think posible war (althrow I dont belive it will heppen) can have its ups and downs and last longer than most people expect.Either way I think we can agree that land operations are out of the question witch was my point.


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...
I agree with you up to a certain point, but you aree missing one point here. Irans missiles are (at least from what I have read) old Iraq SCUDs. Iran has being extensevly coorperating with N.Korea on BM programs and they have more updated missiles with mutch improved CEP (200m CEP) according to western sources based on last meassurment from last Iraq rocket excercises witch means they can strike their targets more accurately and besides they have mutch mutch more of them than Iraq.
For the search part half of US airforce and special forces did no menaged to find mobile SCUD lounchers in desert, tell me what are their chances in rouged terrain of Iran? And if they can not find it what does it matter that refuling the rocket last 1 hour?
Besided Iran has thousend of missiles (some of witch are solid fuled - later Sahab-3 and some others) and no Patriots stand chance against it. So with thousends of missiles with enought accuracy what chanches do US solders have in Iraq or Afganistan?

And what protection else that patriot US posseses that can protect US bases in Iraq you are talking about?


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...
Again with iniabillity to destroy those missiles and enought accuracy (SCUD-D according to western officials have 50m CEP) Iran has means to destroy oil facilities if choses to.



Just like they rose up against the West when America attacked Iraq?
Perhaps but in either cases it is something you can not underestimate.


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...
And jet asymetric warfare is the basis of Iran defences and has coused in Iraq death of nearly 4000 US troops and 30 000 wounded. I think you are under-estimating situation.. like its all black and white.


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...
And would they love conventional fight with revoulutionary guards after massive balistic missile bombardment on every one of US bases in Iraq?


-> I want to explain myself on the 6 point I made since I noticed many people understend wrongly what I meant to say. I did not mean to say Iran will atack Pakistan in order to destabilisate it as it is futile and counterproductive but mearly to further radicalise situation and create critical masses of Iran suporters in the event of war mearly to avert US attention to another serious problem ... what would happen if radical muslim take over Pakistan. Thats serious issue and in event of war would further complicate situation as it is not to rosy right now either ... **** solders being found dead/kidnapped/throats cut etc etc
 
Air strikes buy time. Iran will spend the better part of a decade recovering.

-DA
Buying time is not a solution. You are assuming that we have the intelligence on all of their military/nuclear facilities. Intelligence has been wrong on many occasions as we have seen from the past.
 
Last edited:

gulfsecurity

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #54
The army is the strongest institution in Pakistan, they are moderate and pro-West especially the top tier.


Gentlemen,

The imperial Iranian army during shah's reign was the strongest institution in Iran, they were moderate and pro-West especially the top tier.

Who is in power now?


The Turkish army is the strongest institution now, they are moderate and pro-West especially the top tier.

Who is in power now?

So don’t count on the army in Pakistan or anywhere else, things change very dramatically in this part of the world.
When I posted Iran's new strategy to counter U.S. military strike.

Gentlemen,

I was looking for opinions with or against that theory .I ended up reading something else.:nutkick
 
The imperial Iranian army during shah's reign was the strongest institution in Iran, they were moderate and pro-West especially the top tier.
There is no comparision. Do some research and see why the Shah was topple.


The Turkish army is the strongest institution now, they are moderate and pro-West especially the top tier.

Who is in power now?
The military is still very influencial in Turkey. The current govt. in Turkey was elected by the people. They have good relations with the West.
 
Last edited:

gulfsecurity

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #56
There is no comparision. Do some research and see why the Shah was topple.
The military is still very influencial in Turkey. The current govt. in Turkey was elected by the people. They have good relations with the West.

my point was that the army on any country in the Middle East could be pro western today and anti western tomorrow regardless of the reasons ,the speed of the change is the point .
 

merocaine

New Member
So the Iranian military could go pro Western tomorrow? Interesting
Don't want to put words in his mouth but I think he was trying to say the even if the regime in a certain country is pro western it doesent mean the majority of the country is.
So with any regime change things can go south very quickly.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Don't want to put words in his mouth but I think he was trying to say the even if the regime in a certain country is pro western it doesent mean the majority of the country is.
So with any regime change things can go south very quickly.
Yes, I did take it too literal. ;)
 
Top