What can Iran do?

[isr agent]

I was just wondering, since several people say to attack XXX country or whatever, in the current situation in what means can iran attack a country for example israel which is pretty far away and do not share a border.
Please keep it civil i just want to know what can the iranian army do since i do not know it at all.

[4X-IL]

Iran's only option is IRBM.
Operating the Hizbollah and the other terror organization doesn't threat on us.

[Aimster]

Iran's only option is IRBM.
Operating the Hizbollah and the other terror organization doesn't threat on us.

Iran can do a lot.

What can Israel do? Not like they can do a lot either. Their warplanes can barely even get to Iran and back if that. Without the U.S Israel cannot attack Iranian nuclear sites and this is a fact. Sure they can go to Iran. Good luck getting back home.

*Iran has plenty of missiles capable of hitting Israel. They can easily strike Israeli targets on a daily basis.

*Iran controls Hezbollah which has over 15,000 rockets/missiles capable of hitting Israel. All that needs to be done is the command to fire those weapons. I guess that isnt a threat to Israel. Israel must have some magic sheild over their country....

Israel will then be forced to invade Lebanon which will cause a serious middle east situation.

If Israel attacks Iran, Iran will simply attack U.S forces in Iraq which will then force the U.S to invade Iran. The U.S economy/people/military is not up for a war like that. It will hit the govt of the U.S hard (Bush).

[Zolfaqar]

[QUOTE=Aimster] Israel cannot attack Iranian nuclear sites and this is a fact. [QUOTE]

very true, if israel decides to carry out such a foolish move, iran will just return the favor, and bomb israel's nucluear reactor in the negev.

[korosh_kabir]

ok guys
i have never write in thos forum
and if my engelish is not so good, you have to apolagize me.
do you really think that israel would attack iran, or do you really think iran would attack israel. no one of them would attack because whey would lose much power and i am sure that the mulla khameney dont want lose his power because of some palestinian. and israel dont want fight with a country like iran. in 26 six years they have theretan echather. but it has always been only talk. even if iran had niclear bobm they would never bomb israel because it is a holy land for muslim to, specially jerusalem. remember that during the iran and iraq war iranian shout out death to israel but actullay israel was iranians ally. neither israel is a therat to iran and iran is not a therat ti israel. both of them are super power in medel east and they play chess. and the whole medel east are their chess board.

[isr agent]

Thanks guys for the answers but i didnt said anything about a war between iran and israel and bombing nuclear sites but thats ok if you added that too lol.
Can any balistic missile iran have penetrate a bunker?

[Azadiii]

Iran can do a lot.

What can Israel do? Not like they can do a lot either. Their warplanes can barely even get to Iran and back if that. Without the U.S Israel cannot attack Iranian nuclear sites and this is a fact. Sure they can go to Iran. Good luck getting back home.

*Iran has plenty of missiles capable of hitting Israel. They can easily strike Israeli targets on a daily basis.

*Iran controls Hezbollah which has over 15,000 rockets/missiles capable of hitting Israel. All that needs to be done is the command to fire those weapons. I guess that isnt a threat to Israel. Israel must have some magic sheild over their country....

Israel will then be forced to invade Lebanon which will cause a serious middle east situation.

If Israel attacks Iran, Iran will simply attack U.S forces in Iraq which will then force the U.S to invade Iran. The U.S economy/people/military is not up for a war like that. It will hit the govt of the U.S hard (Bush).

Allah Akbar

[Rich]

First off, and lets keep this as a purely theoretical exercise, Iran is capable of creating a lot of trouble. They dont have a bad plan to do so, they just dusted off Saddam's old plan of hegemony in the oil rich region of the gulf. You might even say they are better placed geographically to do so.

To begin with, the nukes. Should they be allowed to develop nuclear weapons the entire picture changes. Thats why they are lieing thru their teeth in order to gain time to perfect the weapon assembly capability, they just aren't building a few nukes and calling it a day. They are developing an entire manufacturing capability for WMDs from A to Z.

Once they can arm enough mobile IRBMs, with enough nukes, everything become more difficult. From then on your basically playing "who blinks first" with a bunch of religious fanatics. They also realize that to have /regional worldwide influence they only need to control the straights of Hormuz. Thats where the oil goes thru.

Its a complex problem militarily. The USN is unstoppable in blue water operations but our navy wasn't designed to fight in littoral, contained waters. Iran is basically one big mountain range on the periphery with a central plain in the interior. This geological reality favors the land based forces. Can we still attack and delay the Iranian nuclear infrastructure?? Yes! But the nuclear pipeline of Iran is so big, so spread out, and so heavily defended, its doubtful the IAF can do so with a couple of dozen LR f-15s and F-16s, operating far from their bases. They may be able to slow down Iran getting nukes.....maybe!

Only the USA can deliver the requisite attack package needed to significantly delay Iran going nuclear. And it would be a major attack package. One that resembles the opening days of the Gulf War instead of the attack on Osiraq. Since we'd have to attack well defended sights we'd also have to take out their air force and air defense network, since were doing that why not take out their navy as well, and since were going that far why not send 250 cruise missiles to postal addresses of the leadership? In other words "shock and awe"!

I believe there's no question that they will launch what IRBMs they can at Israel in the event of any attack by the US . They might even arm them with nerve gas, which means a few Iranian cities will be incinerated. You see?? Its the same cold war game only this time around the Russians figured out why not make money off of it instead of going bankrupt trying to match American system for system.

So whatever anyone else says there's a potential for a real regional conflagaration here.

[4X-IL]

First of all, Aimser, you say iran can launch missiles on daily bases.
what about israel?
can't we launch at iran nuclears on regular bases? i think you forgot israel have about 400 nuclear bombs + neutron bombs, and much more sophisticated things iran can even think abot.
what about OUR ICBM'S?


""""""""""""""
Although Israel has often said that it would not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the region, Israeli officials have often publicly implied that certain circumstances - especially the use of chemical weapons by their enemies - would elicit a nuclear response. In fact, evidence indicates that Israel might launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike under certain conditions. A critical part of Israel's nuclear strategy is the Jericho 2 missile, and some insight can be gained into the Jericho 2 and its employment by studying satellite imagery of the missile base at Zachariah, several miles southeast of Tel Aviv. Off-nadir viewing by satellites like the high-resolution Indian IRS-C allows the development of three dimensional scenes, which highlight the geological structures that house the missile bunkers. Combined with other imagery and advanced enhancement techniques, significant intelligence can be gathered concerning Israel's nuclear strategy.

The Jericho 2
Several satellite images showed the massive Jericho 2 transporter-erector-launcher (TEL) during training exercises on a small pad north of the nuclear weapon bunkers at the missile base at Zachariah (which in Hebrew means 'God remembers with vengeance'). The resolution makes accurate measurement difficult, but the best estimate obtainable suggests the missile transporter is about 16 m long, 4 m wide and 3 m high (according to reports, the missile is 14 m long and l.5 m wide). There is no indication of whether the TEL is wheeled or tracked, but there is no evidence that it is on rails. The missile transporter also has three support vehicles around it. Adjacent to the TEL and probably connected to it by cables is a guidance programmer and power vehicle approximately the size of a truck. On the other side of the pad, about 10 m away, are two other vehicles: probably a firing control vehicle and a communications vehicle. Such a configuration would mirror that of the Pershing II missile system deployed by the USA in Europe and then dismantled under the INF Treaty. This would confirm reports that Israel was very interested in the design of the Pershing missile and aggressively pursued US technology to build the Jericho. Although the range of the Jericho 2 is unconfirmed, scientists have estimated its maximum range as 5,000 km with a warhead of 1,000 kg: enough for a nuclear weapon.

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

don't you think we're stupids.
israel have more then 10 missiles bases all over the country
and dozens and dozens of anti ballistic missiles including patriots and arrows.



Rich,
of course you're right,
but the point is, and what is fear us here, is that iran's president doesn't care what'll happen to his country, because after all, all of them will be in heaven after that, so why wont kill all jews, and if Iran will be destroyed... so what? they're going to heaven!!! and he will be wroten in the history of the islam as the one who destructed israel, so why not?
israel cares about her cetizens, he does not!

[isr agent]

Hmm this is what can iran do, not other countries, this went off topic very fast as i was afraid, oh well i guess flame on?

[4X-IL]

flame on!!!!!!!! :>
relese your implement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Aimster]

flame on!!!!!!!! :>
relese your implement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Of course you bring no facts to the table

you just ramble on and on
and on and on..

and did I say on?

I don't even know what your point is here. All you do is nag.

[4X-IL]

oh look
you have nothing to say to my last point aren't you.

and i'm the nagger..

[Rich]

Theres no question Israel has the capability to destroy Iran. Both as a modern country and as a people. Israel has the capability to kill millions of Iranians. She has a sophisticated nuclear triad, meaning IRBMs, aircraft delivered, and submarine deliverable nuclear cruise missiles, "popeye turbo". Its widely suspected Israel even figured out how to mount nuclear warheads on their short range Harpoon anti-ship cruise missiles.

Heres the problem however. The Iranians are developing a version of the Shahab missiles that incorporates an advanced guidances system, including GPS and Laser gyroscope. Even worse the warhead bus separates from the missiles and will be capable of changing course in flight using its own rocket engine. This is going to be a very difficult missile for the ARROW system to shoot down, far worse then Saddams cheap scuds which the Patriot had a lousy record of hitting.

And now add to this that Israel, for security reasons, and because of its small size, can only base their fighter bombers and IRBMs at a few bases only and its very possible that only one or two submarines may survive an Iranian first strike. The misfits running Iran may consider this level of counter strike "acceptable losses" because their country is so big, their population so large, and whats a few million more martyrs to them anyways.

Now do you see why this situation is so dangerous and destabalizing? Israel, as a democracy, has to play by rules while the mullahs running Iran dont! There is a very real chance these people will actually use their nuclear weapons in a first strike. Far more a chance then North Korea because just one of our "many" Ohio class SSBMs could anhiliate every inch of North Korea and we'd have the bulk of our strategic forces left over to incinerate any country insane enough to start a war over some deranged midget with a bad hair piece stupid enough to launch nukes against American forces.

Just one of these submarines can deliver 24 D5 missiles, each containing 8 warheads, each warhead blowing at 450 kt "Hiroshima was 16 kt". And we can launch them from dockside at Pearl Harbor, while drinking gin and tonics on the deck, and put each of the 192 warheads into a soccer stadium from 6,900 miles away.

[4X-IL]

Well, the arrow design for the EXACT! same reason you said above.
evreytime they speak about the arrow in the news, they said that exact thing, that the war head is seperated, and the missile can change his course, and the Arrow 2 design for that reason!.
leave the fact that the israeli policy is to launch 2 arrows at each ballitic missile, I truly believe the arrow can succeed in any kind of shutting down missiles.

and yes, the israeli harpoon missiles can carry nuclear warheads as well.
and the popeye turbo is ready to be armed on the dolphins.

most of the bomb israel had in the 80's was 10 times stronger then the hiroshima bomb, that's what vaanunu said, there were some that was much bigger, and some were smaller, i guess by now we're making them even larger, and with our great laser technology to make plutonium ^^ :>

[Arman]

But what will the Arrow kill probability be if there are hundreds of dummies at the same time incoming?

[Arman]

Also stop talking about nukes because they will not be used in any case.

[4X-IL]

Iran doesn't have the abillity to send hundernd ballistic missiles to israel, and in that case...
well
we got about 70 arrows batteries, each got 4 in it.
and we got the old patriot, alot of it, so let us hope they'll work ^^ :<>.

I don't know about it wont go nuclear, i don't think your goverment cares what the type of the bomb ,as long as it killing as many as possible.

[rezza]

cmon u guys. how old are all of ya? there wont be any war, even if this is hypothetical noone knows what Iran and Israel has got under the belt. stop being kids bleh ;

[isr agent]

Also stop talking about nukes because they will not be used in any case.
I agree with arman on this one, if any kind of nuclear weapon will be used it will mean an envolvment of the entire world and will probably create WW3, i dont want to even think about this.....
One thing i do not understand though, assuming a nuke will hit israel it will kill alot of arab muslims that live in israel and the palestinian authortiy as well, it will also effect the sorrounding countries if not the whole middle east as the fallout will spread by winds and currents.

[rezza]

I agree with arman on this one, if any kind of nuclear weapon will be used it will mean an envolvment of the entire world and will probably create WW3, i dont want to even think about this.....
One thing i do not understand though, assuming a nuke will hit israel it will kill alot of arab muslims that live in israel and the palestinian authortiy as well, it will also effect the sorrounding countries if not the whole middle east as the fallout will spread by winds and currents.

depends on the type of nuke i mean the power and its design accuracy etc. One like hiroshima would be enough for medium sized city. And yes the aravs will die too, but thats just war for you. This what happens in a war.

[Rich]

First off, the Patriot was a failure in the Gulf war. An almost 100% failure. Our Govt.'s lied to us! Most of the hits we claimed as kills were actually only hit on the broken up parts of the Iraqi scuds. They broke up due to welded on extra fuel tanks attached to them, plus they were garbage in the first place.

There is no TABM system able to intercept a IRBM with the characteristics of the advanced Shahab-lllb Im talking about. Not the Patriot, certainly not the Patriot, not the ARROW, the ARROW-ll, and not the American THAAD or Airborne laser. This IRBM will fly higher, faster, the warhead will separate and during its entry/plasma stage will be very hard to track, and even if TABM systems can the warhead can change course in flight. And if theres ever been a test of ARROW against such an IRBM please do tell me where and when. And all this assuming cheap easy to use decoys arent in the picture. Our Govt.'s dont set these "tests" up for the systems to fail you know.

Did I scare any of you with my assessment? Good, I meant to! You had better believe all this is possible. By simple laws of probability the more countries that field these kinds of weapons the more probable they will be used. Especially when Dicatorships and Theocracys like Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran, are added to the club. Its more then possible that nuclear weapons will be used again. I would put it at "probable".

Which is why I say we should attack Iran now! Its stupid to wait.

[4X-IL]

You didn't scared me at all actually.
If you'll look to history you'll know that jews, specially israelis, are freaking smart people.
don't you think we have dozens of spy in Iran to tell us what they're capable of and what they cannot?
would you think we will put our lives is a missile that DOES NOT WORK?!
the Black Sparrow missile, is much more manoeuvreable missile than the Shihab, any kind of shihab, because it is MUCH MUCH smaller missile that it is hard to hit on, and car manoeuver almost the same as Air-air missile, and the arrow had no problem to take it down, WHILE manouevers.
I really doesn't afraid from iranian missiles, i trust my country.

[khak-2-sar]

Israel is actually wise not to attack, it will bring too much trouble! it's really not worth it, they are under the protection of USA and know if they are attacked America is ready to retaliate on their behalf at any give moment. However if they attack Iran, it's a different story, America really can't be seen as supporting Israel in a war against Iran and keep Iraq and Afghanistan stable.

don't you think we have dozens of spy in Iran to tell us what they're capable of and what they cannot?


Sure they do, but they still don't know what Iran is capable of, remember iran had a hidden nuclear program for 20 odd years till it was leaked by an Iranian group! If they are incapable of finding such a big program all over Iran, i doubt very much they are capable to finding out much about Iran's military capabilities. All they can do is turn their tv on and watch the military exercises and flight shows like the rest of us.

;)

[Highsky]

those argument's is just Theorie.Rich has some of good informations but it looks to hollywood films "the american general's says against the president we can belowe the whole world up".
and4X-IL is trying to say we has that and Iranian has nothing, we are smart and the rest are stupid.We heard about Vietnam , and we saw gulf wa in kuwait and ,Iran-Iraq war. so dont discuss about us can do that or Israel is able to hurt Iran like that.
but dont forget an real war is so far of your theories and hollywood action dreaming films.
we fought 8 years without shahabs, f15, f16 or what u are proud to have. and we fought not just against Saddam but against more then 48 counteris.
the point is al what you are talking about is just theorie.but in real war you see alot of surprises.

[isr agent]

Perhaps then khak-2-sar, there are certain things that worth riskying?

[isr agent]

You fought 48 countries? wow very impressive! who are they exactly?

[khak-2-sar]

In reality Iran fought (had military confrontation) with 3 countries who were supported by over 30-ish countries!

(IRAQ, USA, UAE) (http://www.irandefence.net/iran-iraq-war-2.wmv)

[isr agent]

So let me tell you this, fighting actuall 48 countries is much more difficult than when they use as support, if a decision will made by the US to end iran's nuclear capabillity they will do it, infact they dont even need to invade so any type of scenario wont equal the current iraq or the vietnam conflict.

[khak-2-sar]

America has far too many troops under potential Iranian fire, in Iraq, Saudi, and Afghanistan. If they do attack Iran say via missiles, Iran will hit back causing serious death tolls! Tbh they really have no choice but to stay put! Also the Iranian missile or nuclear program is no threat to America, only to Israel!



Any attack would only be seen as another favour for Israel done by America!

[4X-IL]

Look, in the end, when it'll came to a serious condition, our head chief said it will be around 2008+, israel will have to act in this way or another
because we wont allowed a nuclear iran without a good fight before that.
if it'll get serious, and iran wont let her nuclear program by then, israel wont need to use in the F15, nor F16, not subs, nothing besides missiles.
and then we have war, but it is better to have this war NOW than have it in 15 years while iran have active nuclears.
get our mind?

[4X-IL]

U.S. allocates more funds for Arrow missile

U.S. Congress approves allocation of USD 133 million for development of Arrow missile project, joint Israel Aircraft Industries – Boeing company production line in Mississippi, Alabama. Also approved – funding of new missile to intercept short-range missiles apparently in possession of Hizbullah
Yitzhak Benhorin




The U.S. Congress has approved Friday the allocation of USD 133 million for the further development of the Arrow missile project and for a joint Israel Aircraft Industries – Boeing company production line.




Boeing manufactured the Arrow missile in its Mississippi and Alabama factories.



Congress approved a total of USD 600 million for security-related deals with Israeli companies that cooperate with American manufacturers.

Anti-Missile System

Israel successfully tests Arrow / Hanan Greenberg

Israel Defense Forces carries out a successful test of Arrow anti-missile system; Arrow batteries intercept, destroy long range ballistic test missile in what army describes as most complicated maneuvers
Full Story





Moreover, Congress has approved funding for the research and development of a new missile that will provide an answer to short-range missiles, which, according to Israeli and international intelligence sources, Hizbullah is in possession of.



The sum, which was approved by Congress in the framework of the Pentagon’s annual budget, is USD 150 million higher than that which the White House requested for joint security projects with Israel.



Millions more to upgrade drones



The funds approved for security deals and the Arrow missile program constitute an addition to the USD 2.28 billion in security aid the U.S. is set to transfer Israel in 2006.




Of the USD 133 million approved for the Arrow program, USD 63 million will be invested in developing the missile so it may provide an answer to future threats, while an additional USD 60 million will be funneled to the joint Israel Aircraft Industries –Boeing production line in Mississippi and Alabama.



Another USD 10 million dollars were set aside for the development of a missile capable of intercepting missiles with a range of several dozen kilometers; USD 37.4 million of the approved sum will be allocated for the purchase of a system that directs missiles toward their targets; the system was developed by RAFAEL (Leading R&D authority in the Israeli Defense Ministry).




In addition, USD 22 million will be used to purchase reactive protection systems, also developed by RAFAEL, for U.S. armored vehicles in Iraq.



Also, USD 17 million of the approved sum will be used to purchase anti-radar systems in fighter jets, and millions more will help upgrade Israel Aircraft Industries- produced Hunter and Pioneer drones and purchase special night-vision systems and helmets produced by Israeli Elbit Systems Ltd.


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3189269,00.html



why do you think the US give us more money? ALOT OF MONEY to this project, if it is ain't because they relize that maybe they can't BUT WE CAN!.


GO ARROW!

http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/5937/arrow9ai.jpg

[Highsky]

Iranian does nt give a sh*t of what Israel said lol
You could just kill civilian be proud of you.
In your place i had listinig to european's advises(Millitery action against Iran is unresonsible),and if i gonna translate what it means(Dont **** with Iran ).
The biggest poltician in this world were British and are birtish untill know.If they say dont **** with Iran they are meaning :)

[Highsky]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3189269,00.html



why do you think the US give us more money? ALOT OF MONEY to this project, if it is ain't because they relize that maybe they can't BUT WE CAN!.


GO ARROW!

http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/5937/arrow9ai.jpg

Good Quastion.why they give you somuch money? because without their aid Israel is too weak to exist.

[rezza]

Look, in the end, when it'll came to a serious condition, our head chief said it will be around 2008+, israel will have to act in this way or another
because we wont allowed a nuclear iran without a good fight before that.
if it'll get serious, and iran wont let her nuclear program by then, israel wont need to use in the F15, nor F16, not subs, nothing besides missiles.
and then we have war, but it is better to have this war NOW than have it in 15 years while iran have active nuclears.
get our mind?

then be prepeared for an armageddon if the israelis think that way, if you really want stuff to happen now.

[4X-IL]

That's the point,
It does not make any difer to us if it happen now or 15 years from now, only that then it will be much more hard for us.
iran can't be compared to us at any part of our military, and her only options is missiles.
this is now, but by the years, who knows?
maybe you'll purshace long distance AC's that can get here, improve your subs, i don't know, but it is better to have it now.

And you're stupid if you think a country can win a war with only ballistic missiles.
Maybe you can win like that againts 3rd world countrys, not againts israel.

[Arman]

let's be real here... NO ONE can win a war with anything other than troops on the ground.

[rezza]

That's the point,
It does not make any difer to us if it happen now or 15 years from now, only that then it will be much more hard for us.
iran can't be compared to us at any part of our military, and her only options is missiles.
this is now, but by the years, who knows?
maybe you'll purshace long distance AC's that can get here, improve your subs, i don't know, but it is better to have it now.

And you're stupid if you think a country can win a war with only ballistic missiles.
Maybe you can win like that againts 3rd world countrys, not againts israel.

first of all i am not stupid by even thinking that the war wd be only with ballistics, Israel has only the option by aircrafts or missiles( ballistics or others) for a war with iran anyways. So for iran these two options are there too.

[4X-IL]

you think?
Didn't Shldag ( IAF Elite Ground Unit ) gone to Iraq in 1981 to help the F16's with the targets?

the Elite units of the IDF \ IAF \ INF, is within the best elite unit in the world, Matcal entering Lebanon daily, and i doubt that in time of war they wouldn't go to the country we fighting with, its not a problem for them either.
And that is one of the bad thing for you to be a giantic country, it is no problem to enter Iran without any one to notice it, specially for israeli units.


And you said israel have aircrafts and missiles, and iran got those two option either?
Iran have aircraft that can go 1000km and come back? hermmm? wich one? even if your planes will be strong enough to cross 1000km + and come back, you'll need to refule them, and i doubt any of your C-130's can even cross te country without cooling his engines and get refule, maybe you need to take one of the Iran Air 747 and transform him to a refuler. ^^.
And even, evennnn, if your planes reach israel, c-o-m-o-n
It'll be one of the lamest defeats of the Iranian air force \ republic, whatever.
And i didn't said you're stupid, it's a way of speech, who was to clearfy the fact that iran can't win againts israel with missiles.

[rezza]

you think?
Didn't Shldag ( IAF Elite Ground Unit ) gone to Iraq in 1981 to help the F16's with the targets?

the Elite units of the IDF \ IAF \ INF, is within the best elite unit in the world, Matcal entering Lebanon daily, and i doubt that in time of war they wouldn't go to the country we fighting with, its not a problem for them either.
And that is one of the bad thing for you to be a giantic country, it is no problem to enter Iran without any one to notice it, specially for israeli units.


And you said israel have aircrafts and missiles, and iran got those two option either?
Iran have aircraft that can go 1000km and come back? hermmm? wich one? even if your planes will be strong enough to cross 1000km + and come back, you'll need to refule them, and i doubt any of your C-130's can even cross te country without cooling his engines and get refule, maybe you need to take one of the Iran Air 747 and transform him to a refuler. ^^.
And even, evennnn, if your planes reach israel, c-o-m-o-n
It'll be one of the lamest defeats of the Iranian air force \ republic, whatever.
And i didn't said you're stupid, it's a way of speech, who was to clearfy the fact that iran can't win againts israel with missiles.

Israel cant even execute intelligence operations properly in present times, lets not just jump to Sayerat Matkal yet, when every now and then we see in news papers bungled Mossad intelligent operation and then getting caught. First execute your lower level intel ops properly. The americans tried this sort of special OPs in 80s their crew was caught and paraded by a bunch of sandal wearing villagers in the desert. Now dont say that your out of the league compared to US in special ops. Time will only tell in how much water Matkal really is when it comes to iran.

[isr agent]

Argh i said this topic is only about what iran can do.... anyway i got my answer, balistic missiles and perhaps air force.

[khak-2-sar]

A country the size of Israel can be defeated by missiles alone. It's very possible. The problem for Israel is it's screwed if America one day stops giving them free money, their military will deteriorate to a very weak level! They can't rely on America's hand outs all the time which they have done ever since their existence. All they have done was with western support or money. You maybe proud of having a big fleet of F15i and F16's but the day America is no more interested in supporting you when it's people finally find out enough giving to Israel is enough, no more and you will end up like Iran cannibalising your own planes.... It's really funny since virtually all your planes were meant for Iran anyways!

As for army, iran is far more likely to be able to send armed forced to Israel than vice versa, because no arab country would allow Israeli forces in their country (maybe except Egypt and Jordan who are being paid off in mass by America to stop being so anti-Israel)

[Zolfaqar]

the newly formed alliance between syria iran and iraq (also lebanon) will also faciliate an iranian ground invasion of the Jewish state

[isr agent]

A few minor corrections there:
1. USA started to support us since 1967.
2. we have built air crafts too do not forget, we built the lavi which is very similar to the chinese j-10, USA ordered us to shut that project because they feared the challange and gave us f-16's insted, we can just return to the drawing table again and start planning new air crafts.
3. USA is giving us 3bil a year, without that i doubt we will not survive, yes it helps us alot but unlike in our first years we now have a good enough army to take care of its own in hard times and can woop most of our neighbour's @ss.
But ofcourse thats the overall opinion here, that we wont survive without USA, you think they give us life potion or something but its far from being so, we gained enough knowledge to build most of the millitary hardware by ourselvs but it is cheaper to buy it from the US because of their aid, it will probably take us double the time to restore ourselvs after a war or a conflict but i'd say we are pretty based to just collapse after the USA will shut down the funding.
And do not forget USA is giving money to rebuilt our economy so in the future we wont have to depend on the US for aid, so in some time that excuse of many of you will disappear, maybe you should start thinking of a new one.

[isr agent]

the newly formed alliance between syria iran and iraq (also lebanon) will also faciliate an iranian ground invasion of the Jewish state
I would like to note israel is in negotiations to join NATO.

[Zolfaqar]

Agent, that is very unlikely, how can they join a international MILITARY alliance, when they can't even join a international medical association (Red Cross)

[isr agent]

Hmm we just joined the Red Cross too? although because of whining people we had to change the symbol, still looks cool though.

[khak-2-sar]

3 billion per year is wrong!

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html

If it wasn't for America's support over the years Israel wouldn't have it's own planes, they would be flying mig's instead of F16's !



I personally think the west supported Israel right from the moment the British backed down for no apparent reason giving up Israel! Zionism has existed for a long time and no doubt infiltrating the western society in a way that they can influence decisions. It's very smart indeed i must say!

The problem is most American's really don't know how much money is given to Israel, they just think Israel is an ally of America in the war against terror, Israel is good, muslims are bad! (this really is the thinking frame of most Americans!)

[isr agent]

I saw this link too many damn times its pissing me off, lol no offense though.
3bil is the official number supplied by the congress for the year of 2006, i dont trust those kind of sites- sorry.
Also, i would like to think we're influencing but i dont think 6 million can do any difference, on the other hand i and others think the muslim control the media, but that just sound too much of a propoganda speaking so i avoid saying that anyone is controling anything and its all for the good of man kind, i wish it was this way but sadly it aint.

[isr agent]

lol khak dont edit your posts so much, ok for the thing you said in the last line; i must tell you i have met americans that were outraging they give money to israel. they, and i assume you too dont know what we really give america but thats a topic for an other thread.
But from my own expreince americans do consider us important ally (4th by a poll committed a while ago), yes some of them dont really like islam since 9/11 which sadness me that just because of some fanatics actions an entire religion is being stained. However, most of the muslims (again, from my own expreince) say USA and israel are bad an evil because we fight the palestinians which is far from being truth and its a harsh twist of the reality in here. i only wish for better times....

[Heavyarms]

No, Khak, that amount by that article is direct US aid, mainly economic and military. Anything additionally granted is indirectly granted. I can't honestly say that should be counted, as the US isn't supplying it.

[khak-2-sar]

Does the $2 billion for the gaza moveout count in this $3 billion per year aid? how many more of these "extra" aids were given to Israel?

[isr agent]

The 2bil was'nt approved yet i think.

[Highsky]

We do anything that even World cant imagine to defend our countery.
Report: Syria agrees to hide Iran nukes
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/front2453724.9659722224.html

[isr agent]

Nothing new there highsky, we already metioned iran's missiles.

[4X-IL]

I don't remember Iran have border with Syria,
how're you going to transfer those missiles? launch them at them? it will be better idea i guess.

[hurdy]

I was just wondering, since several people say to attack XXX country or whatever, in the current situation in what means can iran attack a country for example israel which is pretty far away and do not share a border.
Please keep it civil i just want to know what can the iranian army do since i do not know it at all.


To be frank, any pre-emptive attacks by Iran whatsoever would not make any sense, they have more to lose than to gain.. And Iran hasnt invaded a country in centuries or pre-emptively for that matter.

Iran might be waiting for US/Israel to bite though and then you will witness the world in crisis for atleast a year, that is if WWIII hasn't kicked off yet.

[rezza]

To be frank, any pre-emptive attacks by Iran whatsoever would not make any sense, they have more to lose than to gain.. And Iran hasnt invaded a country in centuries or pre-emptively for that matter.

Iran might be waiting for US/Israel to bite though and then you will witness the world in crisis for atleast a year, that is if WWIII hasn't kicked off yet.


You are right. It is not small country like iraq or afghanistan. USA cant change the regime in IRAN like it did by occupying iraq and afghanstsan . Iran is a massive country in area. They coudnt even finish ragtag Taleban in 5 years of presence. Plus the missiles iran possess could become a problem even if the US does manage to occupy parts of iran and make some bases etc. There are missile bases scattered all over Iran and IRan itself would become a battle field within. US would definitly need neighbouring countries to give then their bases if it wants a regime change. Also it would be an opppurtunity of a life time for people like Al qaida, Hezballa and islamic guerrillas to engage in activities against USA by entering Iran from pakistan afghan and iraq borders.

[isr agent]

lol who said they are goint to invade and change regime? they are worried mainly of the nuclear issue right now, trying to force another type of rulling has already been proved in the past as not so succesful, US should let them continue with their fanatical regime only without any nuclear capability.

[hurdy]

lol who said they are goint to invade and change regime? they are worried mainly of the nuclear issue right now, trying to force another type of rulling has already been proved in the past as not so succesful, US should let them continue with their fanatical regime only without any nuclear capability.

Problem is that attacking them pre-emptively with intent on invading OR just bombing their nuclear facilities to slow down or end their process will still have the same outcome and consenquences which is that Iran will strike back and the attackers will face world condemnation, even by their own people.

[isr agent]

Trust me we here prefer world condemnation much more than the fact that iran will have nuclear capabillity. and dont forget the entire world condemned us back in 1981 and later in 1991 they all witnessed the real intentions of saddam and that we were right.
Lets say the US air force will attack adding some cruise missiles to the party, you think iran will attack the US? now THAT will be stupid because USA will have the right to now attack the rest of iran, thats without including israel as i still dont know if we'll do anything.

[hurdy]

Trust me we here prefer world condemnation much more than the fact that iran will have nuclear capabillity. and dont forget the entire world condemned us back in 1981 and later in 1991 they all witnessed the real intentions of saddam and that we were right.
Lets say the US air force will attack adding some cruise missiles to the party, you think iran will attack the US? now THAT will be stupid because USA will have the right to now attack the rest of iran, thats without including israel as i still dont know if we'll do anything.

Why wouldnt Iran attack back? Alot of people assume they will use their nuclear weapons once they acquire them and then say they wont do "anything" if the US attacks their facilities, kinda contradicting isnt it?

1981 was then and this is now, in 1981 Iran was all for bombing the Osirak reactor, media isnt the way it used to be then and by world condemnation I dont mean just slapping Israel/US on the wrists but actually consenquences that will escalate.

Bassically if Iran kept its nuclear intentions a secret for 18 years, why didnt US/Israel just take out the sites? I mean it would have been alot easier cause it would have been in its early stages, why would they wait this long?

My opnion, either Israel/US cant do anything about it they know the reprucssions outweight the advantages of bombing them or they infact know Iran is not going for Nuclear weapons and simply use it as a tool to justify an attack or more sanctions so Iran wont go ahead with the Iranian oil bourse..
It says Iran is planning on launching the oil bourse in March 2006, and the Israeli airstrike is meant to be around that time, coincidence? In times of conflict there is no such thing as coincidences.

And tbh, comparing Iran and Iraq is like comparing apples and oranges... Iran isnt being run by an dictator and they aren't mass murdering their own people, unlike Iraq the country is actually advancing in their own time.
We all know what the US has done to that country for the past 50 years so its kinda hard to trust them on this one

[isr agent]

Why wouldnt Iran attack back? Alot of people assume they will use their nuclear weapons once they acquire them and then say they wont do "anything" if the US attacks their facilities, kinda contradicting isnt it?
When you think about it its not since iran's only option to strike hard at the US is missiles with nuclear war heads, if at all. when that option is earsed what can they do? well they can do minor damages i assume but that will make US to attack more massivley and i dont think iran want that.

1981 was then and this is now, in 1981 Iran was all for bombing the Osirak reactor, media isnt the way it used to be then and by world condemnation I dont mean just slapping Israel/US on the wrists but actually consenquences that will escalate. possibly, but still not a good enough reason for israel to risk with nuclear iran.

Bassically if Iran kept its nuclear intentions a secret for 18 years, why didnt US/Israel just take out the sites? I mean it would have been alot easier cause it would have been in its early stages, why would they wait this long? no idea, i didnt know anything about iran's nuclear capabillity before it poped on my newspaper, so i cant answer that question.

My opnion, either Israel/US cant do anything about it they know the reprucssions outweight the advantages of bombing them or they infact know Iran is not going for Nuclear weapons and simply use it as a tool to justify an attack or more sanctions so Iran wont go ahead with the Iranian oil bourse..
It says Iran is planning on launching the oil bourse in March 2006, and the Israeli airstrike is meant to be around that time, coincidence? In times of conflict there is no such thing as coincidences.
Really? you already have a date to when israel is going to attack? i thought thats supposed to be secret.... unless you heard it from the media or words thrown in the air, no one can really know when israel is going to attack if at all.

And tbh, comparing Iran and Iraq is like comparing apples and oranges... Iran isnt being run by an dictator and they aren't mass murdering their own people, unlike Iraq the country is actually advancing in their own time.
We all know what the US has done to that country for the past 50 years so its kinda hard to trust them on this one
Yes i know there are big differences and i didnt try to compare i merely gave an example.

[Rich]

I have news for some of you. America will always support Israel. Whatever minute chance that ever had of ending evaporated on 9/11, with all "your" street dancing and candy tossing. And you can tell yourselves as much as you want its because "the jews run everything" but thats a load of horse manure.

For the same reason we wont turn our backs on an insignificant Island off the coast of China we will never turn our backs on Israel. Its for an "Idea", get it? An Idea! God help you if you ever use or give away those nuclear weapons you are developing.

[hurdy]

When you think about it its not since iran's only option to strike hard at the US is missiles with nuclear war heads, if at all. when that option is earsed what can they do? well they can do minor damages i assume but that will make US to attack more massivley and i dont think iran want that.

For one (if they feel attacking or surrendering is their only option) they will strike US troops in the region and call for the Shia's to engage Coalition troops in Iraq (currently its mostly the Sunni's that are fighting back and they are the minority in Iraq), they can invade Iraq with several hundred troops and force the US to retreat..
They can and probally will close the Strait of Hormuz with their kilos and domestic submarines where 90%(?) of Persian gulf oil flows through which will put the world in another oil crisis such as the one in 1973.


Really? you already have a date to when israel is going to attack? i thought thats supposed to be secret.... unless you heard it from the media or words thrown in the air, no one can really know when israel is going to attack if at all.

It has been reported all over the news lately, I cant verify its accuracy ofcourse but alot of sites are reporting it.. Thought it was posted in this forum too.


America will always support Israel

In the end the US will have to put itself first, always has been and always will be.

[Highsky]

I have news for some of you. America will always support Israel. Whatever minute chance that ever had of ending evaporated on 9/11, with all "your" street dancing and candy tossing. And you can tell yourselves as much as you want its because "the jews run everything" but thats a load of horse manure.

For the same reason we wont turn our backs on an insignificant Island off the coast of China we will never turn our backs on Israel. Its for an "Idea", get it? An Idea! God help you if you ever use or give away those nuclear weapons you are developing.
That's not a wonder because Us+Uk had made Israel for their intrest.first handle what u done in Iraq then dream about bigger dreams :)

[Rich]

You are right. It is not small country like iraq or afghanistan. USA cant change the regime in IRAN like it did by occupying iraq and afghanstsan . Iran is a massive country in area. They coudnt even finish ragtag Taleban in 5 years of presence. Plus the missiles iran possess could become a problem even if the US does manage to occupy parts of iran and make some bases etc. There are missile bases scattered all over Iran and IRan itself would become a battle field within. US would definitly need neighbouring countries to give then their bases if it wants a regime change. Also it would be an opppurtunity of a life time for people like Al qaida, Hezballa and islamic guerrillas to engage in activities against USA by entering Iran from pakistan afghan and iraq borders.

Sure we could. But it would be messy, fairly prolonged, the terrain is more difficult, and the amount of civilian casualties would just be to high for the op to be worth it. Like the Iraqis the Iranians just dont understand modern war,tho to be fair , Irans soldiers fight bravely. But your war with Iraq was hardly a model for a modern war fighting machine.

Besides, and Ive said this a hundred times, Syria should have been next on the hit list. With Israeli and American armored divisions invading from east and west we would have eviscerated the Syrian armed forces within a week or two.

Roll back to 1945 and see what were capable of. Berlin, Dresden, Osaka, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Cologne.................

But frankly Americans wouldnt support anything that brought massive civilian casualties. Unless we had to. And along these lines let me say that Israel has been far more balanced then we would be if our kids parties, cafes, stores full of woman and kids, were getting blown up by terrorists. If we could tie a country to such acts we would go absolutley ape! Far worse then Israel has.

If we could tie a country like Iran or Syria to such acts there would be a massive counter strike.

[Rich]

""""""""'In the end the US will have to put itself first, always has been and always will be."""""""""""

No, that was the world before 9/11.

[hurdy]

No, that was the world before 9/11.

And where did you get this idea?
Did the pentagon come forward and announce this, that whatever happens they will stick with Israel?

Wonder why the US hasnt officially allied with Israel then if this is the case..

[rezza]

Sure we could. But it would be messy, fairly prolonged, the terrain is more difficult, and the amount of civilian casualties would just be to high for the op to be worth it. Like the Iraqis the Iranians just dont understand modern war,tho to be fair , Irans soldiers fight bravely. But your war with Iraq was hardly a model for a modern war fighting machine.

Besides, and Ive said this a hundred times, Syria should have been next on the hit list. With Israeli and American armored divisions invading from east and west we would have eviscerated the Syrian armed forces within a week or two.

Roll back to 1945 and see what were capable of. Berlin, Dresden, Osaka, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Cologne.................

But frankly Americans wouldnt support anything that brought massive civilian casualties. Unless we had to. And along these lines let me say that Israel has been far more balanced then we would be if our kids parties, cafes, stores full of woman and kids, were getting blown up by terrorists. If we could tie a country to such acts we would go absolutley ape! Far worse then Israel has.

If we could tie a country like Iran or Syria to such acts there would be a massive counter strike.


hehe are you serious bro. No really? Have u ever seen the geographical map of Iran. Go first make afghanistan and Iraq secure. 5 years and still ragtag taleban are whacking US soldiers in afghanistan. You think you can invade Iran. And as far as I know 2nd world war Germany was raping all yall asses from all the fronts. then the coalition finally managed to defeat Germany. It wasnt not USA all alone.

If regime change is on the agenda forget about it. Plus sites are all over the country specially in the desert regions in the east and north if you are after possible nuke sites. Only a complete invasion would be required to flush any nuke sites in the country if you manage to get proper intelligent this time.

The world hasnt forgottan the inelligence failure "mishap" in Iraq, ahem or was it really a mishap? :D

[phoenix80]

Perhaps Nothing?

[Rich]

hehe are you serious bro. No really? Have u ever seen the geographical map of Iran. Go first make afghanistan and Iraq secure. 5 years and still ragtag taleban are whacking US soldiers in afghanistan. You think you can invade Iran. And as far as I know 2nd world war Germany was raping all yall asses from all the fronts. then the coalition finally managed to defeat Germany. It wasnt not USA all alone.

If regime change is on the agenda forget about it. Plus sites are all over the country specially in the desert regions in the east and north if you are after possible nuke sites. Only a complete invasion would be required to flush any nuke sites in the country if you manage to get proper intelligent this time.

The world hasnt forgottan the inelligence failure "mishap" in Iraq, ahem or was it really a mishap? :D

Yes, Ive seen the geographical map of Iran. I agree the Terrain would be difficult but we arent a military that attacks 10 miles, the squats and takes a dump and builds trenches.

We would control every inch of space of the country we are invading from land to atmosphere, control all the information, and we would surround your armies with unbeatable weaponry, and we would kill you off. The last invasion of Iraq was not the largest attack package we can deliver, by far. It was "enough" to get the job done.

True about WW2, but were now in 2005 Einstein.

We wouldn't be after nuke sights. We'd be after your armies. We would completely destroy your infrastructure from the air, your ports, your air fields, your centers of power, your navy, communications, electricity.................. A Yank attack package in 2005 would consist almost entirely of precision munitions. The nuke sights wouldn't be going anywhere, they can be disabled from the air and could wait.

I believe such a scenario however would see heavy casualties. Mostly on your side, but Irans soldiers would fight bravely and would cause plenty of casualties on our sides too. Even with precision munitions there would be heavy civilian casualties. But the outcome would be academic.

And yes, the only way to get close to 100% verification would be with inspectors combing the country that aren't obstructed and messed with for 10 years. Like Saddam did. OR! An invasion, as WE did! To verify or not verify.

We should have annihilated Saddams entire army in 1991 when we had it dead in our sights.

[phoenix80]

iran can cry before the useless UN security council about the Israeli attacks

looool

[Killur]

The only thing Iran can do against the US is to fight guirla style :] just like all the other terrorist groups (In Irag FE).

[The War Is Near]

What can Iran do ?
Iran can do alot of things !

Here is some examples :

Kicking your ass
Dicking some females
The islamisation of your town
Renaming your little province : Israelistan
Puting a palestinian governor in the provice
Destroying the wall of apartheid
Opening a groceries in Televiv
Building some roads
Renaiming Telaviv : Goy-estan
Closing the whore houses
Reducing the price of the cloths
Prohibiting alcohol and drugs
Selling some falafel
and of course
Making money with taxes

[rezza]

Iran can do alot of things !

Here is some examples :

Kicking your ass
Dicking some females
The islamisation of your town
Renaming your little province : Israelistan
Puting a palestinian governor in the provice
Destroying the wall of apartheid
Opening a groceries in Televiv
Building some roads
Renaiming Telaviv : Goy-estan
Closing the whore houses
Reducing the price of the cloths
Prohibiting alcohol and drugs
Selling some falafel
and of course
Making money with taxes


Hahah. man ur funny as hell. keep it coming.

[phoenix80]

looooooooooooool

he isnt funny, he is simply an idiot

[isr agent]

lol @ the war is near, wish we could do something like that in iran, but the situation is already so fu**ed up in there that everything we'll do will make it much better!

[Rich]

Most of our support for Israel is kept off the front pages for a reason. America is trying to appear balanced in its efforts for mideast peace. You'd be surprised at the amount of compassion Americans also have for the downtrodden Palistinians, "those that arent terrorists", the innocent Iraqis, the innocent Afghanis.

We could have been fools, like the Soviets, and gone into Afghanistan and made war against its people. We werent that stupid and had noi legal right to do so anyway. The idea was "regime change". And we actually accomplished that quite easily and with a small military contingant. Yes its true we are, and will be, fighting the remnants of the Taliban tyrants. We also will lose soldiers. "That" is the price of freedom and a soldier choose his/her life.

Its important to acknowledge the many victorys against terrorism weve accomplished since 9/11. We simply knocked the snot out of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Many thousands of them are dead or in cages. Saddams Hussein and his cronies are either dead or in cages, and shortly will be swinging from the gallows. Millions of formerly oppressed Afghanis, Kurds, and Shias , are rejoicing in newfound freedom and self determination. The Israelis have tightened the screws on the many armed mobs in Palistine and there are signs of hope in that conflict.

Worldwide, Police agencys have stopped much of their stupidity and the cracks are closing on the terrorists. The seeds of freedom are being sown in an area that never had any and it will spread. Already there are cracks in the control of the oppressive Iranian Theocracy. One day Iran will have the freedom it deserves.

In short we are winning the battle against terror.

I dont think I'll live to see all this. Sadly its going to take a long time and I'll be fighting terrorism my entire life. But remember me saying this. Iran will change and that change will come from within.

[admin]

War against terrorism is abit heavy handed coming from America tbh! the countries the invaded were the exact ones they were supporting years before. America's vision of making the middle east stable will never happen! It's sad but Arabs and Jews don't get along, will not get along!



Again, the oppressive theocracy is abit heavy handed coming from America considering the theocracy regime came into power as a direct result of America's actions! Iran would be democratic if it wasn't for America... They would still be democratic after the revolution if it wasn't for agents killing presidents and America supporting Iraq to invade Iran, infact not supporting rather PUSHING!



I find it funny, the America being a "world police against terrorism" considering throughout all their history they have been a supporter of terrorism and terrorism regimes. Making America look like an angel will never work!

[hurdy]

War on Terrorism is like War on Drugs, its endless and nothing but a big moneypit for those that gain from it, *cough* haliburton *cough*

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

I was just wondering, since several people say to attack XXX country or whatever, in the current situation in what means can iran attack a country for example israel which is pretty far away and do not share a border.
Please keep it civil i just want to know what can the iranian army do since i do not know it at all.

I'm no expert on this issue, but let's look at what happened a while back:

WARNING: This may appear to be off-topic at first, but bear with me:

1980-1988: A war between Iran and Iraq, in which both sides pretty much lost out equally.

1991: A war between Iraq and the rest of the world... no, no, let's say a war between Iraq and the United States, in which one side lost 150 troops, while the other lost somethign between 15 000 and 150 000 people.

2003: A war between the same contestants with similar results.

If the 1991 war hadn't taken place, but the 2003 war had, wouldn't America simply have lost about twice as many people as they did, while Iraq would have lost the same amount?

Now, to my knowledge, Iran has been under severe sanctions since the Islamic Revolution, while Iraq has only been sanctioned since 1990.

Therefore, I doubt Iran would be able to put much of a fight against a hypothetical war with the US. If there was a non-nuclear war with Israel, it would be low intensity and both sides would stop fighting soon, as neither country is known to have much power-projection. AFAIK, all of Israel's big wars were against countries bordering it, while they only carried out some airstrikes, and special forces ops in countries further away.

The "experts" say that at the current rate, Iran won't have any nukes for another decades, while Israel and the United States are working on anti-missile laser weapons, which may be ready by the time Iranian nukes are.

I think if Iran is really threatened by a potential invader, they should train their troops in guerilla warfare and develop weapons systems adapted for this kind of combat, rather than hope for their conventional forces to fight off the invader:

"Soldier Systems" (like the Land Warrior, FÉLIN, or FIST)
powerful man-portable anti-armor missiles, preferably remote controlled
tunnel networks and fake tunnel networks (okay maybe these don't work in urban or desert environments)
sniper rifles
armored vehicles that appear to be civilian
Combat Cycles (fast motorcycles with weapons attached to them)
anti-air missiles that can be launched from building windows
roadside bombs
automated machine gun turrets in key positions

They should also train their troops with this equipment and for this type of warfare. If units are based in specific districts, they should bond with the local population so that they'll receive aid and intel (and the enemy receives false intel) in the event of a successful enemy invasion.

[Arman]

The current Iranian defence minister has put most of our defence money on Air defence (1), and ballistic missiles (2). This is very good, and it needs to stay like this for at least a few more years.

PS: I believe that no country in the world can beat Iran in guerilla tactic, this is the reason we won against the world imo.

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

PS: I believe that no country in the world can beat Iran in guerilla tactic, this is the reason we won against the world imo.

You won against the world? I heard that during the war against Iraq, Iran used human wave tactics, in which shitloads of troops and militia-people died.

[Rascal]

instead of the word "gurilla tactics" ,you should use the word "suicide tactics".

[Arman]

You won against the world? I heard that during the war against Iraq, Iran used human wave tactics, in which shitloads of troops and militia-people died.
The whole world supported Iraq in any way they could. A few days ago a Dutch guy got sentenced to 15 years prison for supplying Saddam with chemical weapons with which he killed 100.000+ Iranians and kurds, etc. Very hypocritical of the government, but I guess they need to show that they didnt help and blame one guy for it. The ******* countries sent tens of billions of dollars to him (each country).

We used guerilla tactics, and many just sacrificed themselves in their attacks.

[hurdy]

You won against the world? I heard that during the war against Iraq, Iran used human wave tactics, in which shitloads of troops and militia-people died.

Those human-wave tactics were not just soldiers, it also included kids as young as 9 year old and women. They were used mainly to clear landmines so the tanks wouldn't be useless.
Now this may sound extreme but its war (desperate times call for desperate measures), it was either die for your country or die under Saddam, Iran which at that time suffered a militarily collapse in which a majority of its army was purged (most pro-shah officiers killed), US personell and Shah supporters in the military took everything they could to cripple the airforce.

Yet Iran held out for 8 years against the 4th largest army (you might call em poor-equipped or whatever but 900,000 soldiers is still 900,000 soldiers (especially if the countries are bordered).

Iran would have won the war if it wasnt for the chemical attacks that Saddam resorted too, Iran had no choice but to accept the UN peace treaty because they didnt have a detterent to Saddam's chemical weapons.

Comparing the Iraqi military of then and the Iranian military of now, its obvious that Iran is more advanced and more capable to fend off an invasion considering the size of its country and the population.

[Rich]

The Mullahs destroyed the Iranian military after the Nov. '79 revolution. Most of all the Air Force. Many of whom were put up against walls and shot, after show trials, or put into jails. When Iraq attacked them they actually had to empty the jails of pilots just to staff the war planes they had available.

But America and the Shah destroyed your military right? Lol, at least the Jews arent being blamed for once.

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

Iran would have won the war if it wasnt for the chemical attacks that Saddam resorted too, Iran had no choice but to accept the UN peace treaty because they didnt have a detterent to Saddam's chemical weapons.

Comparing the Iraqi military of then and the Iranian military of now, its obvious that Iran is more advanced and more capable to fend off an invasion considering the size of its country and the population.

But the United States have made even greater progress in military technology. It would be even easier for them to invade now then back in '91.

[lulldapull]

These hillbilly's can't even handle Iraq...and are being killed off left and right, and they wanna invade Iran??? heh...what a tasteless joke... :rolleyes:

please ppl...refrain from having hollow wet dreams....

[Arman]

But the United States have made even greater progress in military technology. It would be even easier for them to invade now then back in '91.
Iran has been standing still?

[hurdy]

But the United States have made even greater progress in military technology. It would be even easier for them to invade now then back in '91.

I agree about US military advancment but invading is never easy when it comes to these countries.. US has a weakness, its people.. They will not tolerate many casualties and invading Iran will do just that.
The Military can do alot of things but they are controlled by the politicians and the power of the polticians depends on what the majority of the people think.

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

Iran has been standing still?

I did not say that. All I'm saying that America has probably made more progress in the past 15 years than Iran has, partly because it has more funds and partly because it is not hindered by sanctions.

I agree about US military advancment but invading is never easy when it comes to these countries.. US has a weakness, its people.. They will not tolerate many casualties and invading Iran will do just that.
The Military can do alot of things but they are controlled by the politicians and the power of the polticians depends on what the majority of the people think.

The American public's (or indeed the public of any state that endeavors in a war) willingness to tolerate casualties is related to the perceived usefulness of the war (usefulness to the people, that is). So I think that, if the majority of Americans believe Iran is threatening American soil, they will support a war against Iran even if it takes more casualties than their Iraqi adventure.

So a not too unrealistic scenario:

-America's leaders manage to convince the Americans that Iran is a direct threat to American forces in the Middle East.
-America invades Iran.
-Iran uses the tactics and technologies I mentioned earlier to inflict heavy casualties on American troops without suffering too many themselves
-The American public becomes increasingly dissatisfied with the war forcing the US troops to pull out.

[Rich]

No, the American people wouldnt tolerate massive casualties of Iranian innocents. The casualties to your soldiers however would be enormous. Invasion isnt an option, I was just speaking as an intellectual exercise. We have no right to force any kind of Govt. on the poeple of Iran.

Unless..........they are a clear and present danger to Americans. Like say you used a WMD against us, or one of your terrorist proxies did.

If that happened then God help you.

[Arman]

No, the American people wouldnt tolerate massive casualties of Iranian innocents. The casualties to your soldiers however would be enormous. Invasion isnt an option, I was just speaking as an intellectual exercise. We have no right to force any kind of Govt. on the poeple of Iran.

Unless..........they are a clear and present danger to Americans. Like say you used a WMD against us, or one of your terrorist proxies did.

If that happened then God help you.
According to a Dutch report I once read 95% of people that die in most wars are civilians.

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

According to a Dutch report I once read 95% of people that die in most wars are civilians.

I'm not surprised by this.

[Arman]

PS: If the Americans ever put their foot on Iranian soil we'll gass them with every chemical weapon we have. :) If you attack us we will put the creation of nukes on num#1 in our priority, and then we'll get you for it. :)

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

PS: If the Americans ever put their foot on Iranian soil we'll gass them with every chemical weapon we have. :) If you attack us we will put the creation of nukes on num#1 in our priority, and then we'll get you for it. :)

The Americans have Chem suits, you know. Sure they'll sweat a little, but the vehicle-borne troops won't lose much of their fighting ability. Even if Iran does put nukes on #1 priority, it'll still takes many months if not years to actually complete one. By that time, it would have long since been conquered by a determined US enemy.

[Arman]

The Americans have Chem suits, you know. Sure they'll sweat a little, but the vehicle-borne troops won't lose much of their fighting ability. Even if Iran does put nukes on #1 priority, it'll still takes many months if not years to actually complete one. By that time, it would have long since been conquered by a determined US enemy.
Imagine having to fight in suits while your area is being gassed and there are hundreds of mortiers incoming from the mountains, lol. That'll be nice.

At best an invading force could sefearly damage our military forces and facilities..... there is no way imaginable that any force can occupy iran..

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

Imagine having to fight in suits while your area is being gassed and there are hundreds of mortiers incoming from the mountains, lol. That'll be nice.

At best an invading force could sefearly damage our military forces and facilities..... there is no way imaginable that any force can occupy iran..

If you're in an American M1A2 Abrams tank you'll laugh at incoming mortar shells, then call in air support.

[Arman]

So all their soldiers will be in the tank ey? They dont have enough transportation vehicles even, let alone enough armored vehicles to keep everyone safe.

I guess it would be a good time to test our new anti-tank rockets that are said to go through 1200mm....

[isr agent]

Wow you actually try to analyze a war if USA will invade iran and you actually give chances to iran! if only the US wishes to invade iran with their true army then as rich said may god help you, all of the analyzes you do wont come close to what can happen, you have no true idea what the US army on its full power can do, jeez i dont even want to know...

[lulldapull]

Wow you actually try to analyze a war if USA will invade iran and you actually give chances to iran! if only the US wishes to invade iran with their true army then as rich said may god help you, all of the analyzes you do wont come close to what can happen, you have no true idea what the US army on its full power can do, jeez i dont even want to know...

yeah we see a lot of what the U.S. army can do every day in next door camel jockey Iraq! :) ...I am so fukking impressed man! :rolleyes:

Buaaahaaaahahahaaaa :D :D


P.S. If that is a fore taste of whats to come, then it ain't happening! my suggestion to these Neo-thugs would be to first try controlling and holding on to piss ant Iraq, let alone Afghanistan where only 4-5 million Sunni's, and the harami pukhtuns have given a run for the money to these stupid hillbilly's. The U.S. has already lost this hoky ass war on terror! Trust me. ;)

[Rich]

When I make my military assessments I do so objectively.

For instance once the Iranians activate their SA-15 missile batteries things become much more problematic. In my opinion they become target #1. They are a very dangerous missile, made more so by their ability to operate either linked to a system or independently. I believe they will be ringed around their nuclear infrastructure and use as independent point defense.

As good a system as they are they still have to turn their radars on to work. Once that's done they are vulnerable, especially to nape of the earth aircraft or stealth, or a combo of both. In my opinion the most dangerous system the Iranians have are their Kilo submarines, "this assuming they've learned how to use them".

But there real weakness is their military leadership isn't allowed flexibility to changing battlefield conditions. That's how the Jews beat the Arabs so many times. Western armies are actually taught to change plans as conditions allow and are given great flexibility to form attack plans.

Most Arabs soldiers fought quite bravely. Its a myth the Israelis just walked over them easily, especially in '73.

But the Israelis understand modern war and we Americans pretty much invented it. That would be Iran's real weakness. They wont be able to use their assets to project power, and their commanders will not have a meaningful picture of the battlefield,or the leniency to adopt to changing battlefield conditions.

Iran's soldiers are very brave, but again, the outcome is assured.

[lulldapull]

When I make my military assessments I do so objectively.

For instance once the Iranians activate their SA-15 missile batteries things become much more problematic. In my opinion they become target #1. They are a very dangerous missile, made more so by their ability to operate either linked to a system or independently. I believe they will be ringed around their nuclear infrastructure and use as independent point defense.

As good a system as they are they still have to turn their radars on to work. Once that's done they are vulnerable, especially to nape of the earth aircraft or stealth, or a combo of both. In my opinion the most dangerous system the Iranians have are their Kilo submarines, "this assuming they've learned how to use them".

But there real weakness is their military leadership isn't allowed flexibility to changing battlefield conditions. That's how the Jews beat the Arabs so many times. Western armies are actually taught to change plans as conditions allow and are given great flexibility to form attack plans.

Most Arabs soldiers fought quite bravely. Its a myth the Israelis just walked over them easily, especially in '73.

But the Israelis understand modern war and we Americans pretty much invented it. That would be Iran's real weakness. They wont be able to use their assets to project power, and their commanders will not have a meaningful picture of the battlefield,or the leniency to adopt to changing battlefield conditions.

Iran's soldiers are very brave, but again, the outcome is assured.

Rich, in all honesty an attack on Iran is becoming less likly every year. With the wrong intel. on the iraq war, to the negative fallout from the Iraqi occupation, and this deadly insurgency.....if you ask my opinion, it is the courtesy of Iran that the U.S. is still in Iraq! Otherwise, it'd been a 'Skidaddle' a long time ago. ;)

The only way to defeat/ disarm Iran now (literally) is to use sub-kiloton low yield nukes on all suspected Iranian weapon sites/ reactors and military installations, like suggested in my article that I have posted. But even that doesnot gaurantee a 100% success either! The Neo-crazies are contemplating using them as a quick means to an end, but that will set a horrible precedent for our country. We will become an international pariah State. its the only way left for the neocons to continue with their agenda of dominating the middle East.

[Highsky]

Newsmax | January 2 2006

TEHRAN -- Iran warned Sunday of a "crushing" response if its nuclear and military facilities are attacked by the United States or Israel.

Top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said, however, talk of such an attack most likely is "psychological warfare."
"Iran has prepared itself...they will get a crushing response if they make such a mistake," Larijani said on Iranian television late Sunday.
Larijani said Israel would "suffer greatly" if it launched an attack.
"If there is any truth in such talks, Israel will suffer greatly. It's a very small country within our range."
"Our (defense) preparedness is a deterrence," he said.
He also said a Russian proposal the two countries enrich uranium on Russian territory could not ignore Iran's right to carry out enrichment at home.
"It's not logical for a country to put the fate of its nation at the disposal of another country, even if it's a friend. You can meet part of your fuel needs from abroad."
But is there a guarantee that nuclear fuel producers won't play with you over price or other things? History and experience show that if you don't have technology, you will damage your independence," he said.
Larijani's remarks coincided with Tehran's announcement it had produced equipment for separating uranium from its ore, a fresh development in Tehran's drive to control the whole nuclear fuel cycle - from mining uranium to enriching it for use in atomic reactors.

European news media have indicated in recent days the United States is preparing its allies for a strike against Iran's nuclear and military facilities with the aim of curtailing Iran's nuclear program.
Reports of a strike escalated after comments by Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who called Israel a "disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the map" and his call to relocate Israel to Europe or North America.

Recent visits to Turkey by CIA Director Porter Goss, head of the FBI, NATO General Secretary Jaap De Hoop Scheffer and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have increased speculation about a possible military strike against Iran. NATO member Turkey is Iran's northwestern neighbour.
President George W. Bush has said his administration would not exclude the possibility of using military force against Iran over its nuclear program, which the United States believes is aimed at producing weapons.
Pulitzer Prize-winning writer Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker magazine in Janurary last year the Bush administration had been "conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran" to gather intelligence and targeting information. U.S. Defence Department officials said the article was filled with mistakes but did not deny its basic point.
Israel fears Iran is reaching a point of no return in nuclear technology. Iran has openly said it has already achieved proficiency in cycle of nuclear fuel, a technology that can be used to produce fuel for reactors to generate electricity or materials for a bomb.

The United States and European Union have backed a Russian proposal to move Iran's uranium-enrichment program to Russian territory. The proposal aims to ensure Iran cannot use uranium enrichment to build nuclear weapons. Enrichment is a key process that can produce either fuel for a nuclear reactor or the material for a warhead.
Larijani said Iran needs talks with Moscow to clarify what he described as "ambiguities" but said the proposal can't deny Iran uranium enrichment at home.
"The proposal is too general. If it talks about denying Iran of its rights, no. We have no right to do it," he said.
"But we have to study it and see if Iran's interests can be met. It can be a complimentary."
"There is no reason to reject it before discussions and accurate study," he said.
Larijani is secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body that handles Iran's nuclear talks.
He said the Russian proposal will have nothing to do with nuclear talks among Iran and Britain, France and Germany. The talks last month made little progress and are to continue later this month.