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

funtz

New Member
So, essencially what are you saying:
Iran shouldnt be allowed a-bomb NOT becouse it will attack someone with it. No!
Iran shouldnt be allowed a-bomb becouse it will be able to hurt USA interests in the region...
And now, to protect its interests (NOT to protect over countries from invasions, becouse as you admitted Iran cant invade anyone...) USA is ready to kill hundreds thousand peoples outright, and let millions others starve and die without medical care (like in Iraq), and completely ruin pretty healthy (by middle east standards) country? And what is guilt of said country? Iran want protect its own interests?
I dont see any particular reason why i should prefer USA interests other Iran ones (unless i live in USA of course).
As such, only viable strategy for Iran will be the ones they employ now. Develop the country industry, take steps close to obtaining full-cycle nuclear technology, make a lot of noise in UN and other international organizations, keep busy USA in Iraq and Afganistan. Develop military in the way to make sure USA will pay dearly for invading - if not military losses, then economicaly (ruining Gulf ship traffic, burning oil fields, making terrorsts attack, etc).
The game is to get the bomb with out risking anything.

No one even during the cold war used a nuclear weapon on some one who also had one, and the capacity of delivering them. So yes Iran will be denied nuclear weapons because they will have a greater say in the region.

The only Interests i care about are my own (my god that sounded so selfish), what is it to me if Iran has nuclear weapons. This is only for discussion.

Yes the only interest that should matter to USA are her own, similarly Iran should also keep the interest of their people in mind, and death of their people, destruction of the infrastructure is not a interest.
You should also care about your own interests (just an advice, not dissing you).

Iran will not be allowed, and yet the nuclear deterrence (not just a single bomb) will provide them with a lot of power, power they need.

However they can not protect the development of that power right now, hence war-conflict will only result in Iran loosing the play, along with lot of dead Iranians.

They should get Russia and China involved with IAEA to make sure they stay safe while they build a military that can protect their nuclear weapons program, as opposed to say inviting a invasion and then attacking all their neighbors as a response (as was suggested in the start of the thread). The primary aim for the time should be to have enough nuclear scientists/engineers/technicians involved in a nuclear program which is strictly monitored by international observers, the main part is to make USA believe that there is no weapons program going on, what is happening right now resembles too much like Iraq before the invasion, which is not too good, which shows poor diplomatic moves.
 
Last edited:

Chrom

New Member
So you think that by Iran having nuclear weapons that this will protect them from whom the U.S or Israel.
Basically, yes. Certainly, Iran dont plan to bomb the shit out of Israel. But may be to free the hand to support anti-Israel forces e.g. in Lebannon, Syria or Palestina. It is of course no good, but not worse than what West do right now (e.g. support anti-Iran terrorists groups).
 

Chrom

New Member
The game is to get the bomb with out risking anything.

The only Interests i care about are my own (my god that sounded so selfish), what is it to me if Iran has nuclear weapons. This is only for discussion.

Yes the only interest that should matter to USA are her own, similarly Iran should also keep the interest of their people in mind, and death of their people, destruction of the infrastructure is not a interest.
You should also care about your own interests (just an advice, not dissing you).

Iran will not be allowed, and yet the nuclear deterrence (not just a single bomb) will provide them with a lot of power, power they need.

However they can not protect the development of that power right now, hence war-conflict will only result in Iran loosing the play, along with lot of dead Iranians.

They should get Russia and China involved with IAEA to make sure they stay safe while they build a military that can protect their nuclear weapons program, as opposed to say inviting a invasion and then attacking all their neighbors as a response (as was suggested in the start of the thread). The primary aim for the time should be to have enough nuclear scientists/engineers/technicians involved in a nuclear program which is strictly monitored by international observers, the main part is to make USA believe that there is no weapons program going on, what is happening right now resembles too much like Iraq before the invasion, which is not too good, which shows poor diplomatic moves.
Finally you making some sence :) Only one remark - no matter what Iran do, USA will not believe it what Iran dont want nuclear weapon. And USA is right here - intentions may change, capabilities will persist. It doesnt matter IF Iran indeed want nuclear right now. Iran MIGHT start wanting it in future - and only that matters.
 

funtz

New Member
That is where global power and relations come into the picture, Iran is not allowing full support from Russia, give the nuclear facilities to Russia and IAEA, let them run it with active Iranian manpower (so that in theory the science of making nuclear devices remains), and then simultaneously build a strong military capable of doing serious damage.

Only a heavy international presence will dissuade USA/Israel from an invasion.

Eventually a move towards nuclear weapons will be required, but not with the current state of economy and military.

And who knows by that time diplomacy might make nuclear weapons, not very high up on the list.

As of now, Iran is not doing any thing to secure the lives of its people, which should be its primary goal, instead of getting ready for a war, attacking its neighbors(as suggested in the threads initial posts), eventually becoming dependent on foreign nations for the funds to develop the petrochemical infrastructure which will be destroyed during the war. The move towards peace right now will also allow China, Russia and other nations to invest heavily in Iranian Petrochemical industry, the money can be used for making the military stronger than it is.

Iran warns it can fire 11,000 rockets in one minute if attacked

EHRAN: Iran has the capability to fire 11,000 rockets at enemy bases within one minute if the country is attacked, a top commander in the Revolutionary Guards Corps said on Saturday.

"Within the first minute of any attack by enemies against our country, the missile and artillery unit of the ground force is capable of firing 11,000 missiles and shells at targets that are known to us," Gen. Mahmoud Chaharbaghi, the top missile commander of the Revolutionary Guards, said on national TV.
Iran has precise data on the deployment of potential attackers' military bases in the region, he said.
source: http://www.defencetalk.com/news/pub...ockets_in_one_minute_if_attacked160013884.php

This is what i hoped Iran will avoid, my interpretation of the above news is that Iran is gearing up for an attack and probably all the missiles are ready to be fired (then again i know very little of getting a missile ready), how ever all this does is to help the potential attackers case, If they can beg/borrow/steal and come up with nuclear warheads to fit into these missiles and have the conventional resources to protect them, they can have a nuclear deterrence, right now all they are doing is ensuring an attack.
 
Last edited:

tomahawk6

New Member
I dont see an invasion of Iran by the US. There is the strong likelihood of surgical air strikes should diplomacy and sanctions fail.
 

Awang se

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
Iran are genuinely in need of massive electrical power supply. Busher nuclear power plant were originally build by the west for Shah's Iran. At that time, the west argue that Iran need nuclear power generation to sustain it's growth. now the Iranian population have tripled from what it is during shah time. so the power requirement are more demanding then it is during Shah reign. US argue that Iran have enough oil to generate electricity, but it is foolish to use oil exclusive for power generator. Oil are more valuable as a comodity then as a power source. it generate hard cash for the country's coffer.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
I believe the argument is that it is only a third of the cost of nuclear power to use natural gas for electrical power generation. This means that Iran would have to export three times the amount of NG to pay for the same energy from nuclear power.

I have not checked up on these numbers, though.

NG Iran has aplenty. Of course, this cannot be said wrt oil.

The issue is not one of nuclear power, but of nuclear weapons.
 

Chrom

New Member
Busher nuclear reactor in normal case cant help Iran to build nuclear weapon, as all nuclear fuel will be returned back to Russia. Some case with any nuclear research - i doubt iranian could gain anything from commercial reactor under heavy watch.

However, they could use this reactor as excuse to develop full uranium enrichment chain, and make West get accustomed with nuclear-capable Iran. Also, in case of real threat from West they could break the agreement and use nuclear fuel to produce nuclear weapon.

All in all, clever move IF Iran want to carry independent politic.
I pretty much agree what Iran want to aquire nuclear weapon, and they building Busher reactor with that aim. Economically, there are more attractive projects. ON the other hand, national securty and army funds are NEVER vialble economically - they are always a black hole.

But famous speech saying - "one who dont want to feed own army, will be forced to feed foreign army..."
 

sdeanov

New Member
U.S. triumph against Iran: Mission not so easy, if not impossible

I find most commentaries about U. S. military capabilities interesting and some true, but highly suspect when applied to a war plan against Iran. I tend to disagree with the notion that U. S. forces will prevail in any campaign against Iran due to their air superiority, hi-tech satellites, awesome C4 and or awe-inspiring Air force/Navy fire power. No doubt U.S has awesome military power when compared to Iran, but Iran can not be compared to Iraq for many practical reasons, and I can list few real ones.

1. Iraq had a potpourri armed forced beaten by 28 years of constant wars and internal strife. The force lacked intelligence gathering and had no functioning SAM systems, plus Iraq had no Navy at all. The Iraqi army was an empty shell incapable of any organized operation due to attrition and slow destruction by 13 years of isolation from the world, lack of training due to severe economic hardship “trade embargo and devaluation of the Iraqi Dinar”, lack of cohesion and most importantly lack of loyalty to the regime. Those adverse conditions rendered that force into national liability. Iraqi armed forces no longer had any stomach for fighting i.e. defending a tyrant who destroyed their homeland in two decades of constant internal and external reckless wars. Hence, that force was a police force kept under arms by constant regime terror “through many layers of secret police organizations” to protect the regime from internal revolution, but never a legitimate military force capable of defending the motherland even against a small regional force, let alone the mighty US of A.

2. Iraq’s armed forces were sitting ducks, as their formations, their weapons, their command and control and even the name of most of their low ranking officers were known by U.S. intelligence agencies, thanks to 13 years of UN weapon inspection teams “mostly U.S. spies”. Thus, the US army had a virtual Turkey-shoot and no real war. Iraq’s armed forces simply abandoned their weapons and went home, because they refused to fight, it was an effortless operation concluded in day one. So, the so-called Shock and Awe was nothing more than waste of U.S tax payer’s money to make a fire cracker show for Mr. Rumsfield.

Based on these facts, it’s ridiculous to compare Iran to Iraq. The following reasons “should” make US military planners very worry:

1. Iran possesses a collection of modern highly lethal anti-ship missiles in the world today. Their Navy arsenal includes large numbers of the Russian Moskit, Yakhont, and Alpha anti-ship missiles (ASMs). Iran may also have the updated Chinese Sizzler anti-ship missile in its arsenal. Iran also has the indigenously produced Noor ASM, which is based on the Chinese C-802. The Iranians version of the C-802 “NOOR” has an extended range of 200 kilometers--more than enough to span the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman. The Noor ASM, by the way, is what Hezbollah used to hit the Israeli missile corvette HANIT during Israel's invasion of Lebanon in July, 2006. In short, with their ASM capability alone, the Iranians have the capability to close the Strait of Hormuz. They may even have the potential to turn the entire Persian Gulf into a "killing pond" for sinking U.S. ships. SUNBURN, C-802, Yakhont and locally made HOOT cruise missiles, when combined with the vast array of sophisticated mines that could be laid within 48 hours along Iran’s sea shores in the Persian Gulf, sea of Oman and further south in the Arabia Sea transforming these areas to “don’t enter killing zones.”

2. The Iranians have real-time satellite recon/intelligence about
Ships entering western parts of the Indian Ocean, sea of Oman,
the Arabia Sea and the Persian Gulf. The Iranians could pinpoint
the coordinates of U.S. carrier strike forces and monitor U.S.
military chatter 24/7.
3. Iran has the most cohesive, highly developed spy network in the region with real-time intelligence on U.S. forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, Qatar, UAE, S. Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, Turkey and the Caspian Sea region. According to Iran’s former national security secretary Mr. Rohani: “we can not compete with America in quantity or quality of hardware, except we must surpass them in our intelligence gathering as a matter of national survival.” In contrast, U.S. has hazy “satellite based” intelligence about Iran’s military assets. U.S. Lacks accurate data or intelligence on Iran’s war fighting capabilities, so the U.S. military “especially the U.S. Navy” can get in serious trouble if Iran were to be attacked by the U.S. “God forbid.”

4. The state of readiness in Iran’s naval forces is top notch. The navy’s special-forces units are of the best trained and best equipped in the world. They are highly professional men and very motivated. The force conducts war games and exercises almost in by-weekly bases. The U.S. Navy is well aware of Iran’s naval assets, and most of these assets can not be destroyed by the U.S. Air force or the U.S. Navy unless they plan to spend the next 5 years hunting for those assets. Without getting rid of these highly threatening assets the U.S will be facing retaliation attacks all over the Gulf region and in Sea of Oman for a long time to come. It’s prudent for U.S. war planners to question the virtues of the so-called precision strikes against Iran’s infrastructure, since U.S. Air Force and Navy can not eliminate Iran’s so-called nuclear installations or stop Iran from pursuing nuclear technology, unless of course they embark on a all out war, which means bring up the draft and invade Iran with an overwhelming force and that requires a million man Army, and even then it’s merely a pipe dream since U.S. has no capacity to pacify the Iranian nation of 80 million people with a land mass exactly 4 times the size of Iraq.
 

Chrom

New Member
I find most commentaries about U. S. military capabilities interesting and some true, but highly suspect when applied to a war plan against Iran. I tend to disagree with the notion that U. S. forces will prevail in any campaign against Iran due to their air superiority, hi-tech satellites, awesome C4 and or awe-inspiring Air force/Navy fire power. No doubt U.S has awesome military power when compared to Iran, but Iran can not be compared to Iraq for many practical reasons, and I can list few real ones.
make a fire cracker show for Mr. Rumsfield.
.............
..............
Based on these facts, it’s ridiculous to compare Iran to Iraq. The following reasons “should” Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman. The Noor ASM, by the way, is what Hezbollah used to hit the Israeli missile corvette HANIT during Israel's invasion of Lebanon in July, 2006. In short, with their ASM capability alone, the Iranians have the capability to close the Strait of Hormuz. They may even have the potential to turn the entire Persian Gulf into a "killing pond" for sinking U.S. ships. SUNBURN, C-802, Yakhont and locally made HOOT cruise missiles, when combined with the
......
.......
, highly developed spy network in the region with real-time intelligence on U.S. forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, Qatar, UAE, S. Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, Turkey and the Caspian Sea region. According to Iran’s former national security secretary Mr. Rohani: “we can not compete with America in quantity or quality of hardware, except we must surpass them in our intelligence gathering as a matter of national survival.” In contrast, U.S. has hazy “satellite based” intelligence about Iran’s military assets. U.S. Lacks accurate data or intelligence on Iran’s war fighting capabilities, so the U.S. military “especially the U.S. Navy” can get in serious trouble if Iran were to be attacked by the U.S. “God forbid.”

4. The state of readiness in Iran’s naval forces is top notch. The navy’s special-forces units are of the best trained and best equipped in the world. They are highly professional men and very motivated. The force conducts war games and exercises almost in by-weekly bases. The U.S. Navy is well aware of Iran’s naval assets, and most of these assets can not be destroyed by the U.S. Air force or the U.S. Navy unless they plan to spend the next 5 years hunting for those assets. Without getting rid of these highly threatening assets the U.S will be facing retaliation attacks all over the Gulf region and in Sea of Oman for a long time to come. It’s prudent for U.S. war planners to question the virtues of the so-called precision strikes against Iran’s infrastructure, since U.S. Air Force and Navy can not eliminate Iran’s so-called nuclear installations or stop Iran from pursuing nuclear technology, unless of course they embark on a all out war, which means bring up the draft and invade Iran with an overwhelming force and that requires a million man Army, and even then it’s merely a pipe dream since U.S. has no capacity to pacify the Iranian nation of 80 million people with a land mass exactly 4 times the size of Iraq.
All this is true, but that wouldnt change outcome of the war. Remember, Iraq army was about on par with Iran army back in 1991 - and how it ended in 1st Gulf War. Sure, Iranian army somewhat developed since then - but USA army is also not frozen in year 1991...
 

sdeanov

New Member
U.S. triumph against Iran: Mission not so easy, if not impossible

Captain Chrom,
You got a point, but the idea of going to war is to impose a political remedy when all else fails. That’s not the case here. U.S. can not get into a major conflict of such great magnitude, just to prove a point that America is a hyper power that could turn any country to a parking lot “all glass, no dust”. Starting a conflict is easy, but who will have the last word i.e. who is the one who decides the end game?

You compared Iran and Iraq as having equal military strength in 1991, but that has no correlation to Iran’s military power in 2007.
The qualitative changes taken place since 1991 in Iran’s armed forces makes that comparison invalid. During early 1990s Iran had no deterrent capacity. The greatest improvements in Iran’s armed forces, which took over 17 years of procurement “from outside sources” and indigenous design & manufacturing of specific hardware and software, developing contingency plans, and most importantly training and mastering the new systems and newly devised war fighting doctrines boosted Iran’s defensive capacity to high professional levels comparable in efficiency to best militaries in the world. It’s noteworthy to mention that U.S. & Israeli threats throughout the 1990s to present compelled the Iranian national security apparatus to seriously revise Iran’s old school classic defense apparatus, which was mainly based on U.S. and western European paradigm. Due to Iran lack of access to sophisticated high performance Aircraft, MBTs and other conventional hardware by the virtue of the U.S. imposed arms embargo that made it almost impossible for Iran to have a viable state of the art Air Force, Navy or ground forces to defend a huge country measuring more than 1, 6 million square Kilometers area surrounded by hostile pro U.S. regimes and encircled from the east, south and eastern borders by U.S. forces, Iran needed huge Air Force, Navy and land forces to adequately put up a viable defense against potential attacks from U.S. or it’s many proxies in the region. Iran decided to allocate the lion share of its defense budget to create an asymmetrical defensive force based mainly on precision guided missiles “Ballistic and Cruise missiles” either imported from very limited sources e.g. Russia and China and formed a partnership with N. Korea starting in late 1980s to design and manufacture missile systems, Nuclear technology and sea based systems. In fact U.S. economic, political and military pressure on Iran during the past 27 years created a new self sufficient regime capable of producing high quality military systems that would have taken Iran few generations to achieve in normal peaceful environments, something Iran did not enjoy for the past 28 years due to Americas constant bullying and never ending intimidation of the Iranian regime to coerce changes in Iran’s political system, which did not happen. It’s also noteworthy to understand that Iran with over 8 thousand years of civilization and history will never surrender to the big bad US of A even if it becomes a nuclear attack target. That’s a reality worth remembering. Furthermore, in 1980 when Iraq started a full scale war against Iran “Iraq was a mere U.S. proxy”, that war was a global war against Iran since USSR, France, USA, UK, W. Germany, China, Japan and the entire Arab world were pouring hi-tech weapons to Iraq in addition to 280 billion Dollars of Bank credits to overwhelm Iran, which at the time did not have a functioning system yet, had a disorganized armed forces and no spare parts, but half of their U.S. made Air Force planes were sabotaged by U.S. technicians before departing Iran in 1979. Iran was subjected to constant chemical attacks “WMD that is” and despite Iran hopeless cries no Western country ever blinked an eye to protest Iraq’s illegal use of such weapons, which were provided mostly by U.S. and German companies. That was then, this is now. In actual terms Iran’s armed forces are at least ten folds more proficient and as many times more capable than Iran during 1979 and possess a much greater power and professionalism than Iran in 1991. Thus U.S can destroy Iran’s infrastructure, factories and anything in between in few weeks, but it can not defeat Iran in the battle zone and that’s a fact well known to US war planners, and that’s why they talk about possible use of NUCLEAR weapons against Iran, since that’s the only way they can do any real damage to Iran, which again does not grant U.S. a military victory, but a long protracting war causing prohibitive amount of damage on U.S. armed forces and making Vet Nam seem like a walk in a park. It’s good to know, that in war sheer numbers do not constitute superiority.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Don't think I've ever seen any credible source for Iran having supersonic anti-ship missiles. Just as real as Iranian S-300, which is also internet speculation.

Most agree that the naval mines and subsonic missiles would be a substantial problem. I think that too.

The US would never go nationbuilding or go occupation in Iran. Khuzestan and islands in the Gulf at the most. And that only for controlling the Straits and choking Iran of its entire oil income.

Then the Iranian Army would have to seek the US Army out.

Actually, hitting a few POL targets would take away most of the state income. That means no fuel for anyone, no export income, no money to subsidize the economy, no salaries to govt employees, no money for weapons, no money for debts to pay, no nothing.

The ballistic missiles is a real but marginal capaility, working mostly in the realm of psychology.
 
Bush want attack Iran before the 2008 Presidential Election. The U. S. economy would go into recession costing the Republicans the election. The Persians are a hyper nationalistic people, and a very religious people. The U.S. would have to launch a mass air campaign agianst Iran. Many wars spiral out of control. The U.S. is arming Sunni militias to balance out the shia militias. Some shia leaders may decide to attack the Sunnis after they get 20,000 IRGs, after an U.S. attack on Iran. The U. S. may be forced into nation building; the Iranian government may break during the naval blockade.
 

sdeanov

New Member
U.S. triumph against Iran: Mission not so easy, if not impossible

Grand Danois,
Very good point if you were watching an SIFI movie, but in the real world, US forces can not take over the Islands so don’t you worry, and let alone Khuzestan, because that’s pure fantasy. If US had such military prowess “read competency” to escape mortal Iranian blows it would have done so in late 1999 or early 2000s or even before the Iraqi fiasco in 2002 or 2003 as conditions and US-Iran relations did not change since then, it’s the same old Music about terror, WMD and terrorism 24/7. Moreover, there were far more reckless Guys around Mr. Bush and old trusty Rumsfeld and they had access to far greater military resources in their disposal. It’s rather amazing to brag about such grand projects, while poor US forces are functioning in Limp-Mode after 4 years of destruction and fighting in Iraq, the US armed forces still can not manage to take a walk in the streets of Baghdad “a country with no army”, so how on earth the US could take over Khuzestan, let alone controlling that province?

As to Iran’s inventory of Anti ship missiles or their line up of Ballistic missiles, it’s no secret that they are for real “not psychology”. Shahab-B has pin point 30 CEP accuracy at the 1000 mile plus distance, which makes that system a precision guided missile capable of reaching every US military base from the western Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean Sea, and no US ABM can stop it either, and US war planner know that quite well.

One must also bear in mind, that in real wars “Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.” So, US GIs have to fight a true army very unlike Iraq and that would spell the commencement of the end for the US Empire. Just wait and you shall see.
 

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
Grand Danois,
As to Iran’s inventory of Anti ship missiles or their line up of Ballistic missiles, it’s no secret that they are for real “not psychology”. Shahab-B has pin point 30 CEP accuracy at the 1000 mile plus distance, which makes that system a precision guided missile capable of reaching every US military base from the western Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean Sea, and no US ABM can stop it either, and US war planner know that quite well.

One must also bear in mind, that in real wars “Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.” So, US GIs have to fight a true army very unlike Iraq and that would spell the commencement of the end for the US Empire. Just wait and you shall see.
Forgive the one liner but :eek:nfloorl:
 
Last edited:

Chrom

New Member
Captain Chrom,
You got a point, but the idea of going to war is to impose a political remedy when all else fails. That’s not the case here. U.S. can not get into a major conflict of such great magnitude, just to prove a point that America is a hyper power that could turn any country to a parking lot “all glass, no dust”. Starting a conflict is easy, but who will have the last word i.e. who is the one who decides the end game?

-------------------
-----------------
way they can do any real damage to Iran, which again does not grant U.S. a military victory, but a long protracting war causing prohibitive amount of damage on U.S. armed forces and making Vet Nam seem like a walk in a park. It’s good to know, that in war sheer numbers do not constitute superiority.
Etc,etc. Again, while Iranain army had certainly improved since 1991, but so is USA army. USA army ALSO achieved whole new level of capability since 1991. So, i dont believe what Iranian army can do much against USA army. It is not the question of surrender (and btw, Iraq culture is about as old as Iran...). There is no doubt what Iranian insurgency will be much, much stronger that in Iraq. There is no doubt what it will be blood bath for USA army if said army want to control Iranian territory. But all this cant prevent USA army to obliterate Iranian army with relative small losses and killing (most of) Iranian goverement.

This is becouse in open fight USA army can employ all its powerfull toys specifically designed for THAT kind of opponnent - i.e. large mechanized enemy army. And we all know what Iran dont have enouth equipment and numbers to effectively fight full USA military.
\
Take for example airforce - while Iranian SAM's and fighters might protect Iran against small airforce, they surery cant do it against combined might of hundreds aircrafts and thousands cruise missiles. It is just overhelming superiority. While Iranian tanks are ok against other 3rd world tanks - they will not be able to penetrate USA modern tanks frontal armor. APFSDS rounds what Iran use is 1-2 generations behind the current trend... Same goes for ATGM's, artillery, and more importantly - for all FCS and surveillance control systems.

In essence, USA can destroy Iranian economic and regular army relatively fast and with relatively few losses.
I dont think anyone in USA can now convince Congress to occupy Iran - Iraq example is still pain in the ass. But bombing Iran and even starting land-based operation against Iran - is a whole another matter. That is possible if USA is crazy enouth.
 

Chino

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
The Iran army will fight the American invaders, and expectedly, they will lose.

Knowing this, the Iran army should have long-term guerilla warfare strategy and preparations in place before war develops.

Instead of surrender, the whole government and military structure should retreat underground or to the mountains to wage guerilla war.

Prewar preparations should include weapons cache, ammo dumps, underground or mountainous command centres, other logistics etc.

Iran should also stock lots and lots of mines as these caused a big proportion of US casualties in Vietnam and Iraq and is the most effective anti-tank tool.

When the Americans invade, Iran should throw open the amouries and distribute weapons to every family willing to fight. Therefore, the populace is in a fighting mindset from the start. Why should civilians suffer the indignities of being an occupied people like the Iraqis? Give them an RPG!

...

The resistance in Iraq is not as well organised as it could have been as the army and government just crumbled after conventional defeat. But even so, it is proving very hard to stamp out the insurgency, like Vietnam. You can killl lots of insurgents, but body count is irrelevant in a rebellion of this scale.

And after several more thousand body bags filled with young Americans are flown home, the USA will lose the will to fight and leave.

...

This is, unfortunately, the only strategy that weak countries can adopt in such a situation.

But Iraq is a picnic compared to Iran.
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The Iran army will fight the American invaders, and expectedly, they will lose.

Knowing this, the Iran army should have long-term guerilla warfare strategy and preparations in place before war develops.

Instead of surrender, the whole government and military structure should retreat underground or to the mountains to wage guerilla war.

Prewar preparations should include weapons cache, ammo dumps, underground or mountainous command centres, other logistics etc.

Iran should also stock lots and lots of mines as these caused a big proportion of US casualties in Vietnam and Iraq and is the most effective anti-tank tool.

When the Americans invade, Iran should throw open the amouries and distribute weapons to every family willing to fight. Therefore, the populace is in a fighting mindset from the start. Why should civilians suffer the indignities of being an occupied people like the Iraqis? Give them an RPG!

...

The resistance in Iraq is not as well organised as it could have been as the army and government just crumbled after conventional defeat. But even so, it is proving very hard to stamp out the insurgency, like Vietnam. You can killl lots of insurgents, but body count is irrelevant in a rebellion of this scale.

And after several more thousand body bags filled with young Americans are flown home, the USA will lose the will to fight and leave.

...

This is, unfortunately, the only strategy that weak countries can adopt in such a situation.

But Iraq is a picnic compared to Iran.
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.:rolleyes:
 
Top