• Thursday, April 2, 2020

Iran has military advantage over US and allies in Middle East

Discussion in 'Iranian Defence Forum' started by mohsen, Nov 9, 2019.

  1. mohsen

    mohsen SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    5,306
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2012
    Ratings:
    +1 / 11,493 / -2
    Country:
    Iran, Islamic Republic Of
    Location:
    Iran, Islamic Republic Of
    Iran has 'military advantage over US and allies in Middle East'

    Thinktank says third parties such as Shia militias are more important to Tehran than nuclear plans

    [​IMG]

    Members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, one of them covering his chest with a portrait of Lebanon’s Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah. Photograph: Behrouz Mehri/AFP/Getty
    Iran now has an effective military advantage over the US and its allies in the Middle East because of its ability to wage war using third parties such as Shia militias and insurgents, according to a military thinktank.

    In one of the most detailed assessments of Iran’s strategy and doctrine across Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, the 217-page report titled Iran's Networks of Influence in the Middle East published by International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) concludes Iran’s “third party capability” has become Tehran’s weapon of choice.

    The 16-month IISS study called Iran’s Networks of Influence claims these networks are more important to Iranian power than either its ballistic missile program, putative nuclear plans or its conventional military forces.

    Overall, conventional military balance is still in favour of the US and its allies in the region, the report concludes, but the balance of effective force is now in Iran’s favour.

    Despite US sanctions, the report says, Iran has met little international resistance for its strategy, even if it is now facing a fresh challenge from anti-Iranian nationalist protesters within some of the countries in which it wields influence. The findings are likely to strengthen the position of Western diplomats who argue that any new nuclear deal with Iran will have to include not only updated constraints on the country’s nuclear program, but also commitments on its regional behaviour.

    The network, operating differently in most countries, has been designed, resourced and deployed by Tehran as its principal means of countering regional adversaries and international pressure, the IISS says. The policy “has consistently delivered Iran advantage without the cost or risk of direct confrontation with adversaries”.

    The report finds “Iran is fighting and winning wars ‘fought amongst the people’, not wars between states. Iran avoids symmetrical state-on-state conflict, knowing it will be outgunned. Instead, it pursues asymmetrical warfare through non-state partners.”

    The report claims the application of conventional force cannot counterbalance Iran’s sovereign capability over the past 40 years, since most conflicts in the Middle East are not defined by state-on-state warfare involving parity of forces subject to international law, “but are instead complex and congested battle spaces involving no rule of law or accountability, low visibility and multiple players who represent a mosaic of local and regional interests”.

    No state has been as active or as effective as Iran in regional conflicts in modern times. The total cost to the Iranian economy of its activities in Syria, Iraq and Yemen is $16bn (£12bn), the report calculates, while Lebanese Hezbollah receives $700m annually from Iran.

    Iran has developed its capability through the extraterritorial al-Quds force and enlistment of various militia – amounting to 200,000 fighters – and engaging in a “grey zone” of conflict that maintains hostilities below the threshold of state-on-state warfare.

    The report argues that Iranian ideological and strategic thinking was exemplified in a speech given just after the September 2019 Abqaiq oil facility attacks by the supreme leader’s representative in the Razavi Khorasan province, Ahmad Alamolhoda.

    He said: “The Iran of today does not have the geographical constraints of the past. Today, Iran is also the Popular Mobilisation Forces of Iraq, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Ansarullah in Yemen, Syria’s National Front, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas. All of these have come to represent Iran and therefore Iran is no longer just us. The sayyid of the resistance [Hezbollah secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah] declared that the region’s resistance has one leader and that leader is the supreme leader of the Islamic Revolution of Iran.”

    The IISS report says Iran’s tactics to gain influence have been different in each country.

    In Iraq, Tehran used insurgents to attack the US army. In Syria, the al-Quds force commander, Qasem Suleimani, bolstered the regular Syrian army to fight multinational insurgents supported by the US.

    In Lebanon, Hezbollah’s relationship with Tehran has evolved. Iran’s rocket, anti-tank and missile inventory, and 25,000 reservists given to Hezbollah have made the Lebanese group an expeditionary force in its own right.



    Hezbollah, now the largest party in parliament, has grown because of a weak state lacking legitimacy, a mostly homogenised Shia community, a sectarian distribution of power that allows a united sect to block policy-making and the threat of Israel.

    Countering Iranian influence requires not only local responses but also an understanding of its sovereign capability as a whole, which has become the cornerstone of the regime’s regional security strategy.

    The report warns against simplistic labelling the third parties as “proxies”, pointing out Tehran does not expect an economic return from its partners, but – on the contrary – finances them.

    The authors argue that Iran is resilient enough to resist the wave of anti-Iranian protests, but faces difficulties since “its influence relies on groups that either do not want to directly rule (as in Hezbollah in Lebanon) or are not capable of and equipped for governance (as in Iraq)”.

    Iran has 'military advantage over US and allies in Middle East' | The Guardian


    -------------
    Few lies here and there, article avoids to address the real cause of influence, yet at least admits to it's advantage for Iran.

    also this phrase "Iran avoids symmetrical state-on-state conflict" was interesting, perhaps they don't recognize the Zionist or Saudi regimes as real states too :)

    Still we need few years (perhaps a few more raids or shot downs) till they admit the extent of Iran's conventional military power too!
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 7
  2. Arsalan 345

    Arsalan 345 SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    3,417
    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2016
    Ratings:
    +0 / 2,979 / -3
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Yes they have advantage through third parties but remember,americans have Arabs as it's own proxy and America itself is very powerful so I believe in peace.peace is the way forward for Iran.
     
  3. Imran Khan

    Imran Khan PDF VETERAN

    Messages:
    51,717
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Ratings:
    +48 / 95,759 / -39
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    yes iran have upper hand on USA :lol:
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  4. SABRE

    SABRE FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    668
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2007
    Ratings:
    +5 / 822 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    In terms of military equipment the U.S. and its Middle Eastern allies, especially Israel, are significantly superior to Iran. But Iran does have proxies that can be game spoiler if not game changer for the U.S. and allies. It will be a hot mess if both sides exchange blows.
     
  5. Arminkh

    Arminkh SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    2,873
    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2014
    Ratings:
    +15 / 6,716 / -0
    Country:
    Iran, Islamic Republic Of
    Location:
    Canada
    I wanted to say the same. These reports are outdated because they review the reasons behind current status quo.

    However, I'd like to argue contrary to this report, Iran's conventional force strengths to date is very real. Iran's network of allies were not able to stop Israel's sneak attacks. It took only a small show of technological might in attack to KSA oil facilities to not only stop those attacks but also make both Ben Saw and US think twice about their illusions of winning an easy war with Iran.

    Whether they like to admit it or not, Iran's military might today is a stronger deterrence than its network of allies.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 6
  6. BATMAN

    BATMAN ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    27,391
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Ratings:
    +15 / 18,253 / -34
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Why does public on pdf has to be constantly fed with a notion that Iran and US are some sort of foes, who will go into war!
    While ground reality is totally opposite, and sufferings and losses are only inflicted upon so called US allies.
    However, brain dead are helpless. They can even swear that US is going to attack Iran, completely ignoring, Iran is developing sabotage arms and is doing all sort of $hit under US watch.
    If it was not US help, Iran's reach would be very limited.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  7. mohsen

    mohsen SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    5,306
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2012
    Ratings:
    +1 / 11,493 / -2
    Country:
    Iran, Islamic Republic Of
    Location:
    Iran, Islamic Republic Of
    US wont attack Iran cause can't win such a war, those who say otherwise are fed with American delusion.

    Iran is the sole country in ME which is standing against American's new ME plan.

    US spent $8 trillion in ME, yet today Iran dominates here, so contrary to your claim, US is the biggest looser.

    Loosing that $300 million prototype drone (MQ4C) was nothing against the rest of the damage which Iran has inflicted on them.

    Dictatorship regimes like Saudi Arabia are created with one goal, to serve their masters in West, that's why regardless of their investments they can't even win over bare foot Yemenis, these investments are to help the masters, not the puppets.

    Inatead of bombarding, Saudis could invest in Yemen to bring welfare to them, then they could gain the influence which they say Iran has today, yet master's weapon factories would loose their job.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 9
  8. Hack-Hook

    Hack-Hook ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    10,905
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Ratings:
    +3 / 12,093 / -0
    Country:
    Iran, Islamic Republic Of
    Location:
    Iran, Islamic Republic Of
    Not can win it can but the price of winning the war is such that their wealthy are not willing to pay and their politician can't survive it . so hence there will be no attack on iran now if something like pearl harbor happen that's something else .

    You expect some countries see two meters ahead of their nose ?
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  9. mohsen

    mohsen SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    5,306
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2012
    Ratings:
    +1 / 11,493 / -2
    Country:
    Iran, Islamic Republic Of
    Location:
    Iran, Islamic Republic Of
    If the super power US won Vietnam war, if Saudi Arabia won Yemen war and if Israel won 2006 war, then the current broken US can win over Iran too!

    Dr Abbasi estimated $50 trillion as the cost of 6 months war with Iran for Americans. simply they don't even have enough money to hold such a war, let alone winning it.


    They are not allowed to think, don't see how Trump humiliates MBS in public, he is nothing more than a puppet, at his expiration date, Americans will remove him like he never existed!
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  10. jamal18

    jamal18 SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    2,200
    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Ratings:
    +1 / 2,178 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    What has surprised me is that it's not Iran backing out of war, but the US.
     
  11. skyshadow

    skyshadow SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    3,409
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2017
    Ratings:
    +2 / 8,591 / -0
    Country:
    Iran, Islamic Republic Of
    Location:
    Iran, Islamic Republic Of
    because it's our neighborhood and frankly our survival is dependent on it you can be sure Iran will not back down until the last soldier so tell me which one will give up sooner Iran which is fighting to survive or US that is fighting for money 11,000 KM away from there home????
     
  12. DoubleYouSee

    DoubleYouSee FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    386
    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Ratings:
    +0 / 759 / -0
    Yea,
    They made a mistake,they must wrote pakistan instead of IRAN
     
  13. BATMAN

    BATMAN ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    27,391
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Ratings:
    +15 / 18,253 / -34
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    That's not in context to my post.
    I wrote, US have helped Iran to reach out to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and does all the sabotage on behalf of US and India.
    Imagine a scenario, US is no more in Iraq and Afghanistan, who is going to help you in your evil plans?
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2019
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  14. Battle of Waterloo

    Battle of Waterloo BANNED

    Messages:
    864
    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2019
    Ratings:
    +0 / 1,595 / -1
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    So Iran-allied militias in Iraq didn't kill hundreds of American soldiers during the US invasion (and occupation) of Iraq from 2003 (using Iranian IEDs etc)?

    Have a day off Batman!

    LOL I mean I agree the cost would be huge for the US and prohibitive, but $50 trillion for 6 months is hilariously ridiculous. Can you send the link so I can see what mental gymnastics and delusions he employed to arrive at such a ludicrous number please?

    20 years of regime change war and occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan cost $6 trillion, how would 6 months in Iran cost almost 10x this?!
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  15. mohsen

    mohsen SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    5,306
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2012
    Ratings:
    +1 / 11,493 / -2
    Country:
    Iran, Islamic Republic Of
    Location:
    Iran, Islamic Republic Of
    It wasn't 20 years, for example in Iraq the so called fight was over after 3 months, but these weren't war, just a childish playing, and yet costed them $8 trillion. a fight in which their soldiers die in masses, their carrier sink and their aircrafts fall like mosquitoes is way more expensive.

    it was one of this years speeches, I don't have time to search through all of it, you can do it yourself.
    their think thank has ran a simulation.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2019