Hypothetical war with Iran

Israel's nuclear capability isn't exactly a secret. Iran has had many years to worry about finding ways to handle it. If it ever comes to that, it will be 'a lot worse' for more than just Iran.

 

There is no way for Iran to handle Israel nuking them. It'll will just be catastrophic for Iran. Very simple. Nuclear fall out may effect neighboring countries- all the more reason for them to convince Iran not to keep being so naive thinking they could win a war. Especially since Iranians have called for the nuclear bombing of Israel if they have the capability.

 

it depends, because America has the nuclear codes for Israel's nuclear arsenal.

iran should get on the petrodollar so as not to upset America.

 

This report underlines the basic tension relating to Iran that has existed for some time between the professional and career military officers in the US, on the one hand, and the neocons. The latter folks who don't care about anything but advancing the agendas of PNAC and its main beneficiaries (the pro Israel lobby, the military industrial complex (contractors and such), and the Christian Zionists who are in some ways the most deranged of them all).

https://news.yahoo.com/u-general-throws-mike-pompeo-165900814.html
U.S. General Throws Mike Pompeo’s Iran Policy Under the Bus

 

Christian Zionists, the Military Industrial Complex, and the Oil Industry will all be awaken soon.

iran should fear the sleeping giants and adopt the petrodollar before its too late.

 

You don't know I suppose that the top military officers in the U.S. since the Vietnam War are ALWAYS AGAINST the U.S. taking military action. One reason being that they like the idea of the U.S. military being the most highly regarded public institution in the United States.

 

https://twitter.com/i/status/1273691792207159298

I don't know how to post tweets on this site, but while the videos in that tweet show a lot more, I found this video separately on youtube.

 

This is only effective if the US and her allies are willing to be deterred by the damage these weapons can cause.
If the US and her allies are willing to pay whatever price these weapons can charge, their capacity to deter action against Iran evaporates. This also does not account for the ability of the US and her allies to effectively operate against Iran from facility outside the range of these weapons.

UAVs have virtually no survivability in an actively defended airspace that is alert to their presence.

These assets are rendered ineffective the moment US and allied forces go 'weapons free".

Citation, please.

Citation, please.

Yes. Bring Israel into the fight. Please.

 

In general, that is true. But Iran's policy is to stick by what is within its rights and count on the fact that the US will not want to pay a huge price for merely being a bully. If that calculation fails, then we have an actual war.

As for everything else you say in the rest of your post, it has been covered in enough detail in all the reports I have already cited in this thread. I am not going to rehash them once again.

 

No. It's true, period.
If the US and her allies decides to go to war with Iran, then the US and her allies are willing to accept whatever damage Iran can inflict.
Thus, the best course of action for Iran is to not give the US and her allies sufficient reason to go to war.

Respond to the points I made and provide the cites I asked for, else your claims mean nothing - "look it up" doesn't cut it.

 

What cuts it for you isn't the issue to me. I do want to inform people who are interested in learning. And I have done my part in this thread. But while I am in no mood to rehash the arguments and debates once again, I will do your homework and provide you some (there are many more in this thread) of the citations (and videos to boot) for the things you asked, namely (a) Iran's anti-ship ballistic missiles, and (b) one of Iran's air-to-air missiles, namely the Fakour-90, with a range of 240 km (reports by Iran claim its maximum range is 300 km).

Iran's Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles:
1- Khalij-Fars

2- Hormuz I and Hormuz II

https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/fateh-110/

That was in 2014. More recently:
https://www.newsweek.com/iran-missile-400-miles-faster-ships-us-1499298
Iran Says Its Missiles Can Hit Ships More Than 400 Miles Away, Has Boats Three Times Faster Than U.S. Navy

Besides its anti-ship ballistic missiles, Iran also has anti ship cruise missiles of several different type and variety. The one recently tested is this one, which can hit naval ships 300 km away.


As for Iran's air-to-air missile, the Fakour-90 is one of them, here hitting a cruise missile/drone in mid air:

p.s.

Iran also has long range cruise missiles that it is fitting on its aircraft. Even the Su-22 planes that were once flown to Iran by Saddam during Desert Storm, have been refurbished in Iran and being equipped with these kind of missiles.

https://ifpnews.com/irgc-to-equip-su-22-fighter-jets-with-long-range-cruise-missiles

 

Thank you for providing at least some source, however dubious, to back up your claim that Iran has a shadow of the capacity the US had decades ago.
Now, why do you think the US cannot effectively operate against Iran in face of this "capacity"?

And, again: How will Iran seize a ship that is willing and able to defend herself and unwilling to surrender?
Oh wait - you backed off that claim. My bad.

 

I have not backed off any claims regarding Iran's ability to seize US vessels operating in the Persian Gulf/Sea of Oman area. And what happens if they resist.

And while I agree that the US defense department and its reports on Iran are "dubious" in nature, I only cite them because I imagined they carry more weight with you than merely the Iranians reports I could have cited instead.

 

Ok then - how, specifically, will the Iranians seize a ship defended by a platoon or so of weapons-free Marines that is unwilling to surrender?
Demonstrate their capacity to do so.

You missed this part:
Why do you think the US cannot effectively operate against Iran in face of the "capacity" you cited?

 

Iran is relying for its defense at least in part on ancient Soviet built aircraft that were not that combat effective even when they were new?

Kind of says it all.

 

I do not need to demonstrate more than what I have said. If any vessels, however defended, resists, Iran could sink them. And the US has no ability to prevent that. What the US has an ability to do is to 'threaten Iran" with "obliteration", to bring about the "official end of Iran", to use 'devastating force", and such other things. But once Iran ignores these, the US left with the option of starting a war that would have severe consequences and costs for it. Or to pretend "all is well". And as long as Iran isn't really doing anything outside its rights and the US is merely trying to be a bully, it will be the US that will back down. Not Iran.

The US cannot take out mobile launchers or many other systems that carry these missiles. Ultimately, while buried in euphemisms and propaganda, the dynamics in the 'game of chicken' between Iran and the US is what America's Centcom commander alluded to in his recent comments. Just read "nukes" for the what comes in the ultimate "escalatory ladder".
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...force-us-hand-in-troop-drawdown-general-says/

 

What makes you think that? The U.S. has had decades of experience hunting mobile launchers.

 

The US and its allies have decades of failed experience doing so. And Iran has an arsenal with more such weapons and missiles, ones which include solid fueled missiles that can be quickly launched, that the US has never faced.

 

You can't seriously think that the U.S. Navy doesn't have the ability to prevent its vessels from being sunk by Iran's piddly ass forces.

Iran would be lucky to damage a U.S. ship or two.

 

Oh please. All American missiles are solid fueled, so the U.S. has practiced against such weapons for decades.

 

It doesn't matter what you practice. It cannot be done. Even non-solid fuel missiles launched from mobile launchers, like the ones Saddam had and used during Desert Storm, like the ones Hezbollah used against Israel in 2006, and the ones the Houthis use against the Saudi "coalition" (which is assisted by US reconnaissance and more) have proven outside of the US capabilities to effectively detect and take out in a timely manner. Solid fueled ones are impossible because, unlike liquid fueled missiles that take up to a day and give some advance notice time, they can be quickly fueled, fired, and then taken safety, all before the minutes it takes for their warheads to hit their targets.

 

It actually says a lot more than you imagine. It says that platforms aren't important and you shouldn't waste your money on platforms to launch weapons as the 'era of dog fights' and such are over. What matters is the kind of missiles and munitions these platforms carry and what radar and avionics they have.

Ultimately, however, the best air force is one that doesn't risk pilots' lives. Iran can hit any target it wants, with a precision (as it relates to ballistic missiles) that no other nation has demonstrated, without risking any pilots lives. By firing missiles from hard to detect non-aerial platforms (mobile launchers, submarines etc) or unmanned ones like drones and unmanned vessels and submarines.

 

You don't know much about missiles obviously. Solid fueled missiles are NOT "fueled" at all. They are manufactured with the solid rocket fuel packed in and ready and can thus be stored safely for years at a time.

If you don't know something so basic then obviously nothing else you claim can be taken seriously.

 

Talking about unmanned vessels and submarines, besides the unmanned speedboats Iran has developed that can fire anti-ship missiles, it has also developed some unmanned mini-submarines as well. Unlike Iran's manned submarines which can fire missiles, the unmanned ones have not yet been shown to be able to fire missiles. But that is one of the things you will see soon as well.

Reports about Iran working on unmanned submarines go back almost a decade:
https://www.navyrecognition.com/ind...igned-an-unmanned-underwater-vehicle-uuv.html
Iran reportedly designed an Unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV)

Recently, among a fleet of 100+ small vessels Iran showcased, was one that was more noticeable than others.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutt...a-major-new-capability-for-iran/#5a2008511a80
Mystery Submarine May Reveal A Major New Capability For Iran

I admit the ones the US has been working on look nicer in pictures.

 

War is going to risk pilots (and a great many other peoples lives) no matter what. Everyone loves to claim that the "era of dogfights are over" but that never proves true.

And you should know that one thing has been proven: The moment that the first missile is launched from any platform the platforms location is revealed and it can be attacked and destroyed.