Hypothetical war with Iran

Spurred by this exchange:

Spoiler

This thread is for the detailed discussion of a hypothetical war with Iran. All are welcome to participate, but I ask that your posts be thoughtful and add value to the discussion. Please try to avoid one-liners and the back-and-forth insults that are so regularly a part of online discussion.

I'll be writing a more detailed follow-up of the opposing forces and their capabilities, all based off what is known / suspected publicly, but even that's not going to be comprehensive, and I would welcome any additional information you might have to offer.

 

While I wait for your post, let me start by going over some of the ground I have covered in a post in that thread. If you dispute any of these points, you can identify it and I will try to give you what informs my assessment. Similarly, if there is something specific in what you write that I feel needs to be disputed or corrected, I will point it out.

 

Here is what Iran mainly relies on to deter the US from going overboard with its bullying:

1- Use of its missile arsenal (both ballistic and cruise missiles) to target US bases, naval assets, and US allies in the region. Iran can visit a similar 'aerial vandalism' the USAF can visit on Iran, quite effectively for targets of interest to the US (US bases, naval vessels, and allied facilities and infrastructure such as oil refineries, ports, airports, military installations etc) within a 2,000 km radius of Iran -- and even more effectively for those closer (under 700 km) as Iran has more shorter range missiles with the capability to deliver precise munitions than the longer range ones.

2- Use of its UAV/drones to do some of what I mention above, but much more for purposes of providing it aerial reconnaissance and intelligence. Like its ballistic and cruise missiles, Iran's drone forces are both tested in battle and among the best in the world.

3- Use of its mini-submarines and smaller fast attack boats, equipped with anti-ship cruise missiles, to use the geographic advantages of the narrow confines of the Persian Gulf to Iran's advantage, relying on them to engage in 'hit-and-run' tactics as well as 'swarming tactics' to overwhelm US naval forces. Combined with Iran's longer range, ballistic anti-ship missiles, these forces do present a serious danger to US naval forces in case of war. And unlike larger warships and submarines (which Iran does produce and have in its inventory), these smaller submarines and fast attack boats (both of which Iran has in large numbers) make for less easy to reach targets for the USAF and US navy. The US has been working on ways to handle potential swarms of speedboats destroying its naval forces, but the combination of things Iran can throw at the US, makes it unlikely that the US would be able to counter this danger without suffering huge losses.

4- Use of longer range air-to-air missiles (up to 240 km) developed by Iran to better enable its aging air force fighters to engage US and allied aircraft, with Iran focused mainly on improving the BVR capabilities of its manned aircraft as opposed to improving its platforms and their ability to engage in things like 'dog fights'. In this regard, the F-14A-I fighters in Iran's arsenal are equipped with Fakour-90 air-to-air missiles which give them a good chance of taking out even more advanced US fighters so long as Iran is capable of identifying those fighters despite their stealthy qualities. (Iran has done an excellent work to counter the threats posed by US forces given what they US had when some of these projects in Iran were started, but of course, the US has improved its own forces and some of its newest aircraft such as the F-22 Raptor and F-35 might not be ones Iran is able to adequately counter). In any case, Iran is working on equipping its other aircraft with the necessary radar and avionics to go along with this Fakour-90 air-to-air missiles. While Iran's air force is unlikely to go AWOL like Saddam's did in a war with the US, ultimately the US will certainly be able to establish air superiority over Iran, not in days, but in a few weeks. But during that time, the combination of Iranian air defenses (very good) and Iranian manned aircraft, will do their part to prevent the US from enjoying as much free reign over Iranian skies as some imagine. And that two-week window is enough to give Iran plenty of time to do a lot of damage to US interests without having to simply rely on 'hide-and-seek" for its activities.

5- Rely on so-called proxy forces, especially Hezbollah in Lebanon, allied forces in Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen, to act as 'forward deployed' forces for Iran. How reliable these forces will prove to be is not entirely settled, since while Iran has invested a good deal on these forces, its actual control over them can be exaggerated. Their loyalty to Iran is, in some cases, offset by a good bit of anti-Iranian propaganda and sentiment in many of these Arab states, with the US/Saudi Arabia/Israel doing their part to fan anti-Persian/anti-Shia sentiments among the local populations. For Hezbollah, the overt threats by Israel to destroy the country if Hezbollah uses its arsenal against Israel, means that other communities in Lebanon (even those allied to Hezbollah, like some of the Christian factions there) aren't going to be keen on seeing Hezbollah act as Iran's forward deployed force. Similar dynamics are at play with regard to the Shia militia Iran has supported in Iraq.

 

No war is winnable without a clear objective. What is the objective in this hypethetical scenario?

 

The US objective, I assume, would be to force Iran to 'cry uncle'. The issue for the US has always been: at what cost? And for what real purpose?

 

'Cry uncle' isn't a very clear objective.

 

Well, as best as I can understand it, besides the push by Israel (and Saudi Arabia) to see Iran cut to size for their own purposes and interests (and their influence on the US), that has been the predominant 'objective' behind US actions against Iran. Including any that would lead to war between the two sides.

 

Ok, lets try it this way. Here's some examples of clear objectives.

-Force their political leadership out of power
-Military Occupation
-Force terms of surrender
-Total Annihilation

This discussion about how war with Iran might go depends entirely on whether the objective is both acheivable and acceptable. Total Annihilation, for example, would not be accepted by our own citizens or the rest of the world, so while its probably acheivable from a strategic perspective, its not achievable from a political one.

Without a clear objective, Iran becomes the next Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam.

Also without a clear objective, this discussion becomes something similar-a bitter slug fest with no purpose.

 

Once the shooting starts, the answer IMO would be: It depends on what it takes to force them to cry uncle? That is before Iran has caused such damage to US forces, that the US might then go for "total annihilation".

The US is not interested in "military occupation" of Iran. That is simply not in the cards. And, for that reason, "force their political leadership out of power" wouldn't be the main objective (but part of the wish list).

The US would like to 'force terms of surrender', but that too would take a 'military occupation' and not absolutely necessary for US purposes.

What the US wants is for Iran to 'cry uncle'! To agree to act the way the US tells it to act. To stop developing its own industries and military equipment, and instead do what others in the region are told to do, namely buy US made products. To stop supporting groups that fight against US hegemony in the region. These (and the well publicized demands re Iranian nuclear and missile programs) would be less than 'terms of surrender' but they constitute the things the US would want to force on Iran.

 

I doubt the US (or anyone) cares if they build their own tanks and jets. I've not seen any evidence that Iran is being prevented from building anything but nukes.

 

The US hasn't succeeded in preventing Iran from building anything but nukes, but that doesn't mean it isn't trying! Especially when it comes to Iran building up its missile force. But it is not just that: Iran is prevented from acquiring any technology that can be useful even in building tanks and aircraft (which along with submarines, destroyers, drones et all, Iran does anyway). Do you even know the lengths, for instance, the US went to prevent Iran from even finding ways to purchase spare parts for the F-14 on the black market?

 

Why does Iran need to buy spare F-14 parts if they build their own jets?

 

Iran's avionics industry is still in its relative infancy.

The US scrapped its own F-14 fleet completely to prevent Iran from acquiring spare parts for a plane that no other country in the world, besides the US and Iran, own. Decades later, Iran's F-14s still fly. And they are much improved over the originals.

 

The country with the 3rd largest military budget in the world, larger than even Russia's, behind only the US and China, is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are the leading arms importer in the world. Not trailing them that far behind are a host of mini-states and sheikdoms like the UAE. They purchase hundreds of billions of dollars of US military hardware and equipment. Even though, together, led by the Saudis, a 12-nation coalition supported by the US and UK, hasn't been able to defeat a rag tag army in Yemen allegedly supplied by Iran, namely the Houthis. Much the same way Israel wasn't able to defeat Hezbollah in 2006.

Not everything Iran builds looks good for military parades. But they do the job. The Iranian-made anti-aircraft missile that brought down America's most expensive drone, namely the Global Hawk, didn't cost a fraction of what that drone cost. But it took out a drone flying an altitude the US fought made it immune to Iranian anti-aircraft missiles.

The anti-tank missiles Iran supplies to the Houthis are very cheap, but they have been taking out expensive US made Abrams A1/M1 tanks by the dozens.

The drones and missiles by Iran, in the meantime, when used, have hit their targets with absolute precision. The examples go way beyond what you have seen and involve many other attacks carried even before on enemy targets in Syria and Iraq. But the attacks on the Aramco facility in Saudi Arabia, and then the Al Asad air base in Iraq, should have made the point for those who didn't know better.

As for Iranian fighter aircraft and tanks, they are the subject of the same type of propaganda much of these other Iranian systems used to be as well. But the propaganda, as irritating as it gets, and occasionally helped by nonsensical propaganda by Iran, can't hide the fact that while MBTs aren't all that useful in modern warfare, one of the best ones in the world is being built by Iran.

As for Iran's navy, Iran's is building a host of platforms (destroyers, submarines, other vessels) all of which are more useful for its real defense than what the US would prefer to sell to Iran.

 

If true, that sounds like a great reason to invest more heavily in domestic avionics.

I don't think it makes a lot of sense to start a war with someone with inferior technical capabilities to coerce them into buying more advanced technical capabilities...

 

Iran has invested enough and its reaping its rewards. Which is why its F-14s are still flying!

But Iran's overall defense posture is that it can do better developing an 'alternative' to manned aircraft. It relies on missiles and drones to do what manned aircraft do for the US.

 

Ya, a lot of militaries are going the Skynet route these days...

 

First off, in broad strokes, I see a war with Iran sort of like a game of football. Part of the time, Iran will be on offense, attacking American / allied positions and forces, and another part of the time, Iran will be on defense, trying to protect their assets from the American coalition's strikes. I don't see any significant ground invasion of Iran being part of the war. I think it suits American interests well to neuter Iran's abilities to threaten its neighbors / us, and avoid any messy peace-keeping / 'nation-building' follow-on mission. Iran's goal seems obviously to cause enough pain and havoc to get the American forces to pull back before they've accomplished their goal of destroying Iran's offensive capabilities. So, here we go:

First Half (Iran on offense, America on defense)
America has won the coin toss, and elected to defer. In this phase of the game, I submit that Iran's naval and air forces are largely useless / irrelevant, as well as their conventional ground forces (although feel free to chime in if you think I'm wrong on this point), and they really have two or three weapons to try to use to harm American interests:

1) Missiles & Drones - These seem like the primary tools Iran will use to reach out and touch someone. They've developed a series of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles (both solid- and liquid-fueled) largely based off North Korean technology, as well as some anti-ship variants. They've also got some cruise missiles and drones they've used. I imagine we'll spend a lot of our time discussing these, and it's late so I don't want to write up too much about them just yet. Here's a visual recounting of some of their real-world applications in recent years:



2) Proxy forces - While the US was engaged in counter-insurgency efforts in Iraq, Iran's supplying weapons to proxy forces / militias there contributed to a significant portion of American casualties. I'm not sure how effective such a strategy would be now, but there are still embassies and bases in the region that loyal proxies might rocket / mortar / attempt to assault directly.

3) Commandos - Iranian commandos don't have the global reach that American special forces do, but they've shown themselves to be competent, for example seizing a UK-flagged tanker last year. They could be used to try to cause trouble in the region.

I'm not sure if Iran would attack American allies in the region, seeing them as targets of opportunity when they can't do much to hit America directly, and risk adding more enemies to their fight, or ignore them and try to focus their attacks on American assets such as bases, embassies, ships.

To defend against these latter two threats, the US has their standard force protection measures. I'm not sure how much could be said about them without knowing specifics of where an attack might occur. As to the ballistic missile threat, the US Navy has 45-ish Aegis BMD-capable warships, but those are spread around the world in various deployments or undergoing maintenance / repairs, so only a portion of the total could be dedicated to defending against Iran's ballistic missile attacks. They've also got an Aegis Ashore deployment in Romania and another one coming online in Poland in a couple of years. There are various THAAD and PAC-3 batteries deployed throughout the region. It would be interesting to see how well America's BMD systems performed against barrages of Iranian missiles. I suspect American warships would be the safest, with Iran's limited ISR capabilites. Fixed locations ashore can be known and targeted, and that's where I see real battle between missiles and anti-missile systems. There are also laser and electromagnetic railgun systems in the early stages of development, but I don't believe there are anything but a handful of experimental weapons that could even potentially be deployed. Probably not a factor in our hypothetical war.



Second Half (Iran on defense, America on offense)

If a war were to go hot with Iran, America would certainly want to target Iran's missile launchers, to put a stop to barrages of missiles targeting American interests in the region. This article says:

When they're not playing offense, Iran's defenses will probably be focused on keeping those launchers safe from prying American eyes and airstrikes. The first goal for the Americans is to locate / detect the launchers. To do so, they've got a sophisticated satellite network as well as advanced radars on ships, aircraft, and ground stations. The F-35 is probably the most sensor-rich aircraft the world has ever seen, and owing to its stealth capabilities, can likely loiter over / near Iran largely unmolested.

Beyond that, American forces would probably seek to disrupt command and control nodes and target military equipment, supplies, and suppliers. I'd expect a combination of TLAMs and guided weapons launched from aerial platforms such as the F-35 or B-2, at least until Iran's aerial defense systems had been degraded significantly. There are reports that the F-35 has already penetrated Iranian airspace undetected.

To defend against these threats, Iran has a handful of aging fighter aircraft, some older Russian air defense systems, and some newer home-grown versions.

 

I like to first to rant about something that I see often repeated, which is false, and is part of a propaganda narrative that I find irritating, namely Iran's "missiles being based on North Korea Technology". This is really irrelevant except it is also patently false when it comes to ,most of Iran's missiles, including its best ones that the US would need to worry about the most.

While Iran does have some older missiles which appear similar to some North Korean designs, fundamentally, none of the missiles the US would need to worry about the most have anything to do with North Korea or any other country in the world. They are indigenous Iranian designs unique to Iran. The Fateh-110 shorter range class of missiles (Iran's most accurate family of missiles), and the Sejil longer range missiles, are both solid fuel missiles, among the best missiles in Iran's arsenal, and have nothing to do with any foreign design. They are totally unique designs and not only they aren't similar to anything in the North Korean arsenal, they aren't even remotely in the larger "Scud" family missiles based on which many other Iranian missiles were developed at one point. Or anything produced anywhere in the world. Read HERE regarding the Sejil family of missiles, including the assessment by Uzi Rubin, the father of the Israeli Arrow anti-defense missile system, unveiled in 2009. Read Here regarding the Fateh-110 family of missiles (which are also what Iran's anti-ship ballistic missiles are based on which the US needs to worry about the most).

Even the Qiam-2 and Qiam-3 missiles, which are part of Iran's family of liquid fueled missiles which are traced back to the Scud family of missiles and there many derivatives, including some built in North Korea, are ultimately vastly improved systems of Iranian design. They have nothing to with anything produced anywhere else. Hence, even though Iran did use (besides the solid-fueled, totally indigineous, Fateh-110 family of missiles) also the Qiam-2 missile in its attack against the Al Assad airbase, ultimately even that missile is also not related to anything N.Korea has. As noted in THIS detailed study of even those Iranian missiles which are part of the Scud family of missiles (and Iran's solid fueled missiles aren't in that family), and the missiles used against the Al Asad air base, all these missiles been vastly improved and none of them resemble any of the original Scuds nor anything in N.Korea's arsenal. In fact, just to quote: "There are no known DPRK equivalents to either the Qiam-1 or the Qiam-2."

Now why does this often repeated and false propaganda something that bothers me? Because it is meant to convey a larger propaganda point that is equally false and insulting. Lets be clear: Iran ranks among the top countries in the world in terms of science, especially in purely technical subjects including fields such as aerospace engineering. You can go HERE and find the rankings in different subjects and overall. Iran has produced 2 mathematicians who have won the the equivalent of Nobel prize in mathematics (the Fields award) (ranking among the top 6 in the world in this regard) the past few years (see HERE), and has more gold medals in math Olympiads (and many other science fields such as physics, chemistry, astronomy etc) than all of the countries in the Middle East (including Israel) combined (see HERE for medal count per country). In fact, more medals than almost any other country in western Europe, with only Germany and UK among all the countries in western Europe having just a few more gold medals than Iran (Germany has 51 and UK 48, while Iran has 45 Gold medals). France (24 gold medals), Italy (15 gold medals), Spain (no gold medals) and every other country in Western Europe has fewer (often far fewer) gold medals than Iran. Just a few days ago, a 16 year old Iranian kid defeated the world's chess champion. (See HERE).

The whole insistence on the false narratives in western reports by people to link Iran's missile (or other products) to some foreign technology smacks as propaganda and is insulting. Iran has more money, more scientists, more top rated scientists, and a lot more, than North Korea. We don't need "North Korean technology" for any of our missiles, even if we did use their help a long time ago when Iran was just emerging from its technological servitude to the US et al after the revolution and had not yet developed its own independent arms industry. Iran, even under a virtual embargo on any kind of trade, normal ordinary trade, much less in any sensitive technologies which have been banned for sale to Iran for the longest time, has been doing alright on its own, as shown recently by the launch of a military satellite in orbit (Iran first successful satellite launch was more than a decade ago, but this satellite is different).

If we are going to have an honest assessment, we need to stay away from propaganda that is irrelevant, false, and insulting. No matter how often the propaganda appears in accounts which, until it was beyond dispute, still insisted that the CEP of Iranian missiles was 500 meters or (at best) 100 meters!

 

None of your links supposedly supporting your claim of Iran's scientific and military superiority seem to work?
I'm having a hard time believing that Iran could eclipse the rest of the worlds 100's of years of missile technology in less than a decade.

I seriously doubt Iran's missile technology anywhere near rivals that of China. Yet from reading your posts, Iran is the nation to fear, not China.
I believe the US military could completely neuter iran's in a matter of days, if not hours. I see no credible threat from Iran that couldn't be quickly defeated.
If Iran was so advanced, would they still be sending small fast boats as their primary response to US Navy vessels?

Now that Trump has issued a destroy order, we may soon find out. So far Iran seems to have suddenly quieted down.

If the US can't decisively and quickly win / end a war with Iran, it has absolutely no business taunting China or Russia.

 

I'm genuinely curious, what's the source for this claim? Has there been any independent verification?

 

Verification? Iran has already demonstrated the issue as a matter of fact, including in the attacks you cited. And it is now widely acknowledged by many who had argued differently, including:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-s...e-capabilities-in-missile-barrage-11578529058
https://www.economist.com/science-a...n-iraq-shows-how-precise-missiles-have-become

See also:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/b...n-bases-showcases-its-weapons-accuracy-114616
How Iran's Missile Attack on American Bases Showcases Its Weapons' Accuracy
Stratfor Worldview
https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/iran-missile-strike-kurdistan/
The Messages Behind the Iranian Missile Strike in Iraqi Kurdistan
https://www.armyrecognition.com/jun...upersonic_ballistic_missile_to_8.5_meter.html
Iran increases precision of the Khalij Fars Persian Gulf supersonic ballistic missile to 8.5 meter

But to tie this in to another post:

First, you should read my post for what it says, which is not what you say regarding who the US should fear or anything that implies Iran is, overall, even near the level of China in terms of its military strength. BUT, in terms of its ballistic missile accuracy and precision, Iran has demonstrated things which China has not.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinio...-tell-us-chinas-missile-program/#.XqWpyGgzY2w
What Iran's attacks on American bases tell us about China's missile program

 

On the CEP of Iran's Fateh 313 missile, even CSIS (one of the ringleaders in claiming that Iranian missiles aren't that accurate) has gotten the message!
https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/fateh-313/

p.s.
Since "many observers" used to simply cite this group, and since this group used to estimate the CEP of Iranian missiles at ranges like 500 meters (!!), they may be forgiven giving a CEP of "at least 12 meters" for the Fateh 313 (a variant of the Fateh-110). The actual CEP of the Fateh 110 family of missiles is between 5-10 meters. In fact, and to be precise, the CEP has long been reported by Iran to be around 8.5 meters.

 

an oil war with iran would aid the world economic recovery from covid or corona virus

the profits from taking their oil and putting it on the petrodollar would help the people of both countries.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/petrodollars.asp

 

Bottom line.

The Iranian army and the Iraqi army fought each other to a standstill for eight years in the Iran-Iraq war.
The US destroyed the same Iraqi army in a matter of days.

That's all you need to know.