Iranian response to a limited airstrike against nuclear facilities and infrastructure

[2007yellow430]

I guess the real question is going to be: how good is their intelligence? If hey know of an attack, why wouldn't they launch at the same time? I think one reason we are upset over their missile program is that it provides them with intelligence capability to do just that.

Art

 

[STURM]

At the moment, the Iranians are probably more concerned about the situation in Syria than about a possible Israeli strike. The Muslim month of Ramadham started today and the Israeli's, for political reasons, are unlikely to strike at Iran during this period. Should the situation in Syria worsen, to the extent that Assad is forced to flee or is disposed or killed, the Iranians will be very effected as they would lose their only Arab ally and it would effect the situation in Lebanon which is an area of strategic importance to them.

 

[LloydTasiD]

cancel

 

[LloydTasiD]

So far the scenarios given are pretty good, but in the defense of Iran there are a few key things that should be considered.

If this war is going to be started then the US will probably resort to shock and awe T-Hawk missile surgical attacks to take out first priority targets, while the 2 aircraft carriers will make sure that the skies are being kept clean.
However what most people forget is that Iran's key installations will be hardened and some goes for most of their most of their radar and static defense positions.
So the US will have a very hard time getting to those installations and making sure they are destroyed.

If you look at Iraq and Afghanistan then you see that the casualties on US side started to pile up after the initial Shock and awe and after the swift air attacks.
Iran could wait and hide most of their assets under ground where no weapon within the US arsenal can reach them.
The danger for this scenario is very real and with the small pockets of troops around the nation Iran can put up a strong defense against US assets in the region.

In short said Iraq and Afghanistan would be easy compared to what Iran can trow into the fight.

“If this war is going to be started then the US will probably resort to shock and awe T-Hawk missile surgical attacks to take out first priority targets, while the 2 aircraft carriers will make sure that the skies are being kept clean.
However what most people forget is that Iran's key installations will be hardened and some goes for most of their most of their radar and static defense positions.
So the US will have a very hard time getting to those installations and making sure they are destroyed.”

The US would ramp up production of the MOP, a 30,000 lbs bunker buster. That bomb, combined with US air superiority and the B2 would be able to severely damage or disable almost all of Iran's hardened targets.

“If you look at Iraq and Afghanistan then you see that the casualties on US side started to pile up after the initial Shock and awe and after the swift air attacks.
Iran could wait and hide most of their assets under ground where no weapon within the US arsenal can reach them.
The danger for this scenario is very real and with the small pockets of troops around the nation Iran can put up a strong defense against US assets in the region."

Casualties went up first, because troops on the ground actually started engaging, and second, because they were no longer fighting the military. They had defeated the country's military and therefore "won" the war. After that they were fighting an occupational struggle against insurgents. Basically, rebels to the new (temporary) government. But in an Iranian invasion, it would be as temporary as Germany in WWII except even less.

“In short said Iraq and Afghanistan would be easy compared to what Iran can trow into the fight.”

This is actually true. Iran's military and military position in such a conflict would be much more potent than the past two military conflicts. Like I said, in both countries the hard fight wasn't the country, but the insurgents.

 

[the concerned]

I'm not so sure if you took out Iran's power facilities and then targeted his revolutionary guards, you might empower people to make a stand against the regime.

 

[STURM]

Like I said, in both countries the hard fight wasn't the country, but the insurgents.

What led to the disaster that Iraq later became was flawed planning and the failure to learn from history on the part of the Bush admistration. The main players in the Bush admistration were under the very mistaken impression that all they had to do was just go in, overthrow Saddam and the country would get back to its feet again, ignoring the advice given that Saddam was the glue that held the Sunni's and Shia's together. As a result the Iraqi's paid the price, the country was plunged iunto a civil war and thousands were killed and displaced.

In Afghanistan, a great opportunity was squandered in the 2002/2003 period when the Taliban was very weak and the majority of the population welcomed the presence of foreign troops in the hope that this would bring change. Instead, of building on the local support it had, the Bush administration adopted a policy of supporting various warlords [it saved costs and avoided the need for bringing more troops in but went down very badly with the locals] and failed to adopt a nation building plan aimed at improving the standard of living of the local population. Too much emphasis was placed in firepower and an attrition based strategy against the insurgents was adopted, without conducting a parallel nation building programme. And the U.S. only brought the EU and the UN after things started to go very wrong, despite these 2 organisations wanting at an early stage to get involved. Then came Iraq which lead to a diversion of attention and resources....

With Iran the main difference is that no foreign troops [with the exception probably of SF units] will be comitted to the ground. In theory, devastating air strikes will cause irreparable damage to Iranian nuke installations and the Iranian leadership will see the error of its ways, and capitulate to Western demands, by 'behaving'. There is also hope on the part of the Americans that an enraged Iranian population might overthrow the current government and in its place, a 'friendly' government will be formed - in reality what will happen is that, irrespective of their political affiliations, the majority of Iranians as a result of an attack on their country will unite behind their leadership. Like Iraq and Afghanistan things might well turn out to be very different than planned and the U.S. might get more than it can handle.... And that's why Obama appears to be in no rush to initiate airstrikes or let the Israeli's drive American policy - which is exeactly what would happen if the Israeli's attack Iran, as the Iranian's would retaliate on Israel and Uncle Sam would have to respond. The Iranian's know fully well that in the face of a sustained air campaign, their air defence network would collapse and they are banking on the fact that the knowledge that Iran can create trouble in other places, will deter Uncle Sam.

 

[2007yellow430]

We keep hearing talk that if we attack, there is the potential that the Iranian citizens would overthrow their government. Frankly, I think just the opposite would occur. If we really want to see a united Iran, attacking them is one way to silence any dissidents. If indeed we do end up at war with them, it will be something that we initiated, and there will be quite a few dead on both sides of the conflict. We may have the ability to destroy their air defenses, but given what we've seen in Syria, and the renewed efforts on the part of Russia and China to hold their own in the arena, I wouldn't be surprised to see some very advanced Russian equipment on the ground there, if it's only for defensive purposes.

The US tends to rely upon it's Stealth planes and cruise missiles to strike the first blow. If indeed, the advanced Russian ground to air defenses are able to "see" those units, there could be a very intense few weeks or months. In short, if the Russians are so inclined, they could literally reverse what we did to them in Afghanistan, and frankly, I don't see them missing that opportunity.

Without an understanding of what we would be facing this could either be very easily or a total mess. I suspect the latter.

Art

 

[STURM]

We keep hearing talk that if we attack, there is the potential that the Iranian citizens would overthrow their government. Frankly, I think just the opposite would occur.

As it is, many Iranians see Western attempts at slapping sanctions on Iran as smacking of double standards and hypocrisy, given that Israel is known to have nukes and that no serious attempt is being made by anyone to impose similar controls on Israel. Some Iranians also feel that as Pakistan and India, got away with developing nukes, in the event that Iran felt that it was a matter of importance to its national interest to get nukes, that the U.S. should not have the right to choose who is allowed to have nukes and who isn't. Iranians haven't forgotten how for 8 years, numerous countries, including the U.S. aided and abetted Saddam in his war against Iran, which led to thousands of Iranians being killed. Irrespective of the political differences, most Iranian would unite in the face of yet another external atttack on their country. Like was the case with Iraq, no doubt there are Iranian dissidents/exiles who are painting a rosy picture as to how Iranians are just waiting for the chance to overthrow the 'hated' regime and to esatablish a democracy...

As I mentioned before, the situation in Syria is of the utmost importance to Iran and should it get worse, will also determine how Iran is 'dealt' with by the West. There is also the possibility that should Assad fall, the Iranians might soften their stance.

 

[the concerned]

its a bit rich how the Iranians remember who helped Saddam in the Iraq-Iran war but conveniently forget who helped them.(Israel)

 

[gf0012-aust]

/politics off

 

[surpreme]

As Commander in Chief I will prepared the country for hard times that is about to come. Knowing is half the battle to begin long term operational plan with the para-military to began training for airstrikes and begin making plan to hide equipment and ordered the nation to be for prepared for airstrike. Since Israel has already threaten to attack make mobile missile unit ready to be operational and set alot dummies missiles near Iraq border Next would sent undercover SF units to Lebanon especially the Jesusalem (Quds) forces where they will remain in hidden until called apon. When the Israelis airstrikes come launch some missile at Israel but not US forces. Also knowing that Syria is my only allied would sent Revolutionary Guard SF to assist the Syrian Army in fight against Syrian Free Army or rebels. Secretly have operative in the Golan Height in Syrian uniforms. Begin training now to do secret operation in Syria to test the Israelis forces. Study plan to get units ready to move rapidly in Syria since things are not good in Syria right now. Overall must get all the commander from the top to the bottom to understand what airpower can do and what it can't do.

 

[STURM]

Assad is fighting for his very survival and has much better things to do than allow Iranian operatives, dressed in Syrian uniforms, to create mischief on the Golan. The Pasdaran have had a presence in the Bekaa Valley since the 1980's, it is not inconceivable that there may be elements already in Syria, not to 'test' the Israeli's as you suggested as this would be counter productive but for other reasons. Iran will NEVER openly send the Pasdaran to aid in the fight against the FSA or other rebels, as this would lead to more criticism being directed at it and would effect its standing with the Arab world. As to Iranian counter moves and asymmetric tactics, has it not occurred to you that these would already have been factored into Israeli planning?

 

[surpreme]

Assad is fighting for his very survival and has much better things to do than allow Iranian operatives, dressed in Syrian uniforms, to create mischief on the Golan. The Pasdaran have had a presence in the Bekaa Valley since the 1980's, it is not inconceivable that there may be elements already in Syria, not to 'test' the Israeli's as you suggested as this would be counter productive but for other reasons. Iran will NEVER openly send the Pasdaran to aid in the fight against the FSA or other rebels, as this would lead to more criticism being directed at it and would effect its standing with the Arab world. As to Iranian counter moves and asymmetric tactics, has it not occurred to you that these would already have been factored into Israeli planning?

Sturm did u hear about there could be a Revolutionary Guard with the hostages that the Free Syrian Army has. There's not enough information coming out about this story so far its just something to look in. There are so much secret stuff that is going on in Syria right now you have alot foriegn intell services in Syria because of the unrest. And don't be surprise to hear more stuff coming out of Syria its opening warfare in Syria right now and you have lots of players involved secretly.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Thread closed pending Mod discussions

This is supposed to be a forum for serious discussion, it's not meant to be "Fawlty Towers guide to Tactics"