Iranian Navy | News and Discussions

Oldman1 said:

Wow you are really mad about something. How many U.S. flagged tankers have you sunk? You still mad about the Iran-Iraq war? About the sinking of your ships and shooting down your planes? Don't need to start name calling. Usually they resort to such things when they are in the wrong.

Click to expand...

No I am just making sure and clear to people not buy in your big talk none sense. . We are just balancing book

JEskandari said:

All indication point that there was no hezboallah at the time of the attack.
You knew it founded in 1985.


Don't start with me on that incident .
All us ships and radar at the time decided that the plane was a passenger jet . He didn't followed USA protocol on such incident which was asking for a irrecoverable . More importantly he had no right to attack an Iranian f14 and he had no right to enter iran trinomial water . Also the plane was gaining attitude and did not flying in a typical attack profile. Also nobody better than US navy is aware of the fact that no f14-a has ground attack capabilities so don't repeat that scenario fulfilment nonsense.

Click to expand...

Hezbollah may not have been established back in 1983. However, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (Sepah) has penetrated the Lebanese Shia community before the "official" announcement or declaration of Hezbollah. They created their own war gangsters groups like all the parties that were involved in the war. Let's also remember that the Israeli conquest of southern Lebanon took place in 1982, triggering the revenge against the U.S and its allies. In fact, the Persian expansion project into Lebanon started even before the Lebanese war at the hands of Musa Sadir.

Full Moon said:

Hezbollah may not have been established back in 1983. However, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (Sepah) has penetrated the Lebanese Shia community before the "official" announcement or declaration of Hezbollah. They created their own war gangsters groups like all the parties that were involved in the war. Let's also remember that the Israeli conquest of southern Lebanon took place in 1982, triggering the revenge against the U.S and its allies. In fact, the Persian expansion project into Lebanon started even before the Lebanese war at the hands of Musa Sadir.

Click to expand...

All the groups in Lebanon had nothing to do with Iran they are the natural consequence of Israel adventurous actions in Lebanon and a lack of meaningful army in Lebanon to defend the country . Also many of those groups had roots in Lebanon civil war which had more to the actions of Arab countries rather than Iran actions.
By the way Hezbollah and the other group iran supported can boast that they never opened fire on Lebanese in Lebanon civil war..

By the way can you tell us what action of imam moosa sadr was against the interest of Lebanon or Muslim in general . (Specially the poor Muslims who were oppressed)

By the way for the record Imam Musa Sadr kidnapped 6 month before the iran revolution

I cannot believe you people are taking this exercise seriously -- that Iran can deter US.

It is deja vu Iraq all over. Iraq was battle hardened, Iraqi troopers are fanatics, yadda...yadda...yadda...

gambit said:

I cannot believe you people are taking this exercise seriously -- that Iran can deter US.

It is deja vu Iraq all over. Iraq was battle hardened, Iraqi troopers are fanatics, yadda...yadda...yadda...

Click to expand...

No way , Jose

Its not deja vu anything . are you really comparing 2003 iraq to 2003 iran ?

Or let me put it this way : are you really comparing 2003 iraq to 2015 iran ?

We like to see you guys trying . and please just be a man and do it already . 3 decades of non-stop threat is just booooooooring .

gambit said:

I cannot believe you people are taking this exercise seriously -- that Iran can deter US.

It is deja vu Iraq all over. Iraq was battle hardened, Iraqi troopers are fanatics, yadda...yadda...yadda...

Click to expand...

Deterring is different from winning. I think you are mixing the two up.

You don't know Iraq and you definitely don't know Iran. Iraq had a battle hardened army ( as you call it) having the absolute support of the west and all Arabian nations around the Persian gulf against Iran which had simply lost all of its senior military leaders after the revolution and was under complete military sanction but still could not defeat Iran. Iranian army was simply nonexistent when the war started.

Yes Iran has been successful in deterring US from attacking it especially during Bush era. Read the opening article in below thread and educate yourself. All of the claims in that article can be verified by a simple Google search.

Iran Military and Deterrence strategy

JEskandari said:

All the groups in Lebanon had nothing to do with Iran they are the natural consequence of Israel adventurous actions in Lebanon and a lack of meaningful army in Lebanon to defend the country . Also many of those groups had roots in Lebanon civil war which had more to the actions of Arab countries rather than Iran actions.
By the way Hezbollah and the other group iran supported can boast that they never opened fire on Lebanese in Lebanon civil war..

By the way can you tell us what action of imam moosa sadr was against the interest of Lebanon or Muslim in general . (Specially the poor Muslims who were oppressed)

Click to expand...

You do know how much weight the word "Imam" has in Shiasim. Obviously, Musa Sadir isn't an Imam, by the Shia standards. He was a Persian man with an alleged and unproven Hashmi ancestry. He spoke a "school learned Arabic" with an obvious Farsi accent (no blame). His mission was to revive the Shia community in Lebanon after centuries of different treatment and discrimination. Not without a price, but with a commitment to forge an alliance with the Persians to market their political agendas in the ME. If I were a Lebanese Shia, I would love him. Not being Lebanese nor Shia, make me consider him liable directly and indirectly for establishing 2 terrorist organizations:

(1) Amal Movement; and
(2) Hezbollah Lebanon.

janon said:

Could you tell me what was nonsensical in that post? Preferrably something substantial, rather than being abusive?

Click to expand...

What do you expect from these ignorant hotheads....

Full Moon said:

You do know how much weight the word "Imam" has in Shiasim. Obviously, Musa Sadir isn't an Imam, by the Shia standards. He was a Persian man with an alleged and unproven Hashmi ancestry. He spoke a "school learned Arabic" with an obvious Farsi accent (no blame). His mission was to revive the Shia community in Lebanon after centuries of different treatment and discrimination. Not without a price, but with a commitment to forge an alliance with the Persians to market their political agendas in the ME. If I were a Lebanese Shia, I would love him. Not being Lebanese nor Shia, make me consider him liable directly and indirectly for establishing 2 terrorist organizations:

(1) Amal Movement; and
(2) Hezbollah Lebanon.

Click to expand...

Well , imam mean many thing in shia and not all if them have so heavy implication .

And not all people have your definition of terrorism . And again Hezbollah founded 7 year after his kidnap and have nothing to do with him Hezbollah was the answer to occupying south Lebanon .

And if I understand correctly you think king of iran sent Imam Musa Sadr to Lebanon to establish a power Base between Lebanese shia !!!!!?

gambit said:

I cannot believe you people are taking this exercise seriously -- that Iran can deter US.

It is deja vu Iraq all over. Iraq was battle hardened, Iraqi troopers are fanatics, yadda...yadda...yadda...

Click to expand...

We believe we can make a confrontation with Iran costs enough that us think twice or thrice before attacking .

Full Moon said:

You do know how much weight the word "Imam" has in Shiasim. Obviously, Musa Sadir isn't an Imam, by the Shia standards. He was a Persian man with an alleged and unproven Hashmi ancestry. He spoke a "school learned Arabic" with an obvious Farsi accent (no blame). His mission was to revive the Shia community in Lebanon after centuries of different treatment and discrimination. Not without a price, but with a commitment to forge an alliance with the Persians to market their political agendas in the ME. If I were a Lebanese Shia, I would love him. Not being Lebanese nor Shia, make me consider him liable directly and indirectly for establishing 2 terrorist organizations:

(1) Amal Movement; and
(2) Hezbollah Lebanon.

Click to expand...

Imam musa al Sadr is arab from Jabal amel

He is better than Al salol the jews sons of mordukhai

Arminkh said:

Deterring is different from winning. I think you are mixing the two up.

You don't know Iraq and you definitely don't know Iran. Iraq had a battle hardened army ( as you call it) having the absolute support of the west and all Arabian nations around the Persian gulf against Iran which had simply lost all of its senior military leaders after the revolution and was under complete military sanction but still could not defeat Iran. Iranian army was simply nonexistent when the war started.

Yes Iran has been successful in deterring US from attacking it especially during Bush era. Read the opening article in below thread and educate yourself. All of the claims in that article can be verified by a simple Google search.

Iran Military and Deterrence strategy

Click to expand...

Yeah...I read the bit about the F-117 and I left. Nobody -- in his right mind, would take that single F-117 shot down seriously. The US have no problems letting everyone or anyone we believe are incompetent and that we are 'scared' of the Iranian military. Judging from the comments on this forum, the US is scared of everybody. Always have and always will be. We go in and beat the tar out of the enemy, but the critics will always say we are scared of said enemy. You are confused between true deterrence and the US does not want to do anything for political reasons.

Bottom line is this: If the US decide to go to war against Iran, just like the Iraqi military, the Iranian forces will NOT know the time and the place, and they will be struck blind, deaf, and dumb on the first day.

JEskandari said:

We believe we can make a confrontation with Iran costs enough that us think twice or thrice before attacking .

Click to expand...

We always think thrice before we attack. B41 thought, thought, and thought again before ordering Desert Storm. Going to war is costly but losing one is much more so.

gambit said:

Yeah...I read the bit about the F-117 and I left. Nobody -- in his right mind, would take that single F-117 shot down seriously. The US have no problems letting everyone or anyone we believe are incompetent and that we are 'scared' of the Iranian military. Judging from the comments on this forum, the US is scared of everybody. Always have and always will be. We go in and beat the tar out of the enemy, but the critics will always say we are scared of said enemy. You are confused between true deterrence and the US does not want to do anything for political reasons.

Bottom line is this: If the US decide to go to war against Iran, just like the Iraqi military, the Iranian forces will NOT know the time and the place, and they will be struck blind, deaf, and dumb on the first day.

Click to expand...

That's is how large empires fall: They become so confident that they just reject any other opinion that would challenge their idea of absolute supremacy no matter how rational it would be. Just like what you did above. It is not all about a single F-117 shoot down. It is a combination of items that shape a deterrence strategy.

Yes the questions is "IF" US decide to go to war against Iran. That's where deterrence comes to play making sure they will think twice before making any decision. You can attribute it to political reasons but the fact is all those political reasons didn't stop US from invading Iraq. Something that was disputed by all of your major allies. Reason? Iraq was an easy target and advantages of having a foothold in that country would offset its costs. Iran, not so much.

Arminkh said:

That's is how large empires fall: They become so confident that they just reject any other opinion that would challenge their idea of absolute supremacy no matter how rational it would be. Just like what you did above. It is not all about a single F-117 shoot down. It is a combination of items that shape a deterrence strategy.

Yes the questions is "IF" US decide to go to war against Iran. That's where deterrence comes to play making sure they will think twice before making any decision. You can attribute it to political reasons but the fact is all those political reasons didn't stop US from invading Iraq. Something that was disputed by all of your major allies. Reason? Iraq was an easy target and advantages of having a foothold in that country would offset its costs. Iran, not so much.

Click to expand...

every country is an easy "target" compared to US, and there were no political reasons to stop US from invading Iraq
US actually used the events during that time to get a political backing for an invasion.

Arminkh said:

That's is how large empires fall: They become so confident that they just reject any other opinion that would challenge their idea of absolute supremacy no matter how rational it would be. Just like what you did above. It is not all about a single F-117 shoot down. It is a combination of items that shape a deterrence strategy.

Click to expand...

It is never a single item. However, when the single item is something that was technically flawed in analysis and used as instruction on how to deter an enemy, we can only wonder about the value of those other items.

Arminkh said:

Yes the questions is "IF" US decide to go to war against Iran. That's where deterrence comes to play making sure they will think twice before making any decision. You can attribute it to political reasons but the fact is all those political reasons didn't stop US from invading Iraq. Something that was disputed by all of your major allies. Reason? Iraq was an easy target and advantages of having a foothold in that country would offset its costs. Iran, not so much.

Click to expand...

No, they did not. But you missed the point. No surprise there.

The point was that the military option was always available and the outcome -- the defeat of the Iraqi military -- was %99 certain. When the political options were rendered worthless by Iraq, the military option was exercised, and the result was that %99 certainty. You seems to think that if political options were available, rationality will prevail. History proved you wrong.

Iraq was an easy target ? That is a laugh...

You said that NOT because you have any inkling on what is militarily an 'easy' target but because you want to diminish the tactical lessons for Iran.