A one-time incident? A similar situation had happened to the British navy too. Although, I agree that the Americans acted smartly and didn't escalate it into something more, but that's only because they knew that they wouldn't like the consequences of further escalation.Calm Down. This was a one off incident. Americans were smart enough not to escalate it but there was nothing stopping them from sending a strike force and retrieving these soldiers with Force. A single USN Carrier Group has more firepower then the entire Iranian Navy and Air Force combined.
You seriously will claim that the Iranians have a military powerful enough to challenge the might of the US. The US just took out their most beloved General, constantly carry out Air Strikes against Iranian Militas in Syria.
IRGC commander general Naghdi referred to recent explosions in Israel and indirectly accepted the responsibility.this version is confirmed? lots of speculations up until now...
I'd have to strongly disagree with this. Iran has developed alot in the field of missile technology.I believe Iran is weaker today than pre-gulf war Iraq.
You have mentioned Iran needing a ICBM many times on this thread. What I dont get is what is the point of Iran having ICBMs when it does not posses nuclear weapons? We cant know for sure, but Iran has denied having nukes many times. An ICBM without a nuclear warhead? Makes no sense.I like how you are signaling the moderator, when you are here fantasizing about the killing of millions.
Again, you are so thick headed that you don't realize, this precise talk is why Iran needs nuclear ICBMs.
I have a better chance of winning the lottery than your nuke dream from coming true.
The guy is a troll. It's a surprise that his title is Analyst on this forum.I'd have to strongly disagree with this. Iran has developed alot in the field of missile technology.
You can read the IISS reports for yourself, the proliferation of precision guided missile is something Iran only acquire 10 years ago. Iranian missiles were too inaccurate to be of significant military use and that is all Iran had as deterrence. If the US were to attack, they could've done it years ago when it was easier with little death. Not to mention, Iran only had HAWK SAMs 10 years ago as well.
And Pre-gulf war Iraq had just finished 8 years of combat against Iran. It was Iraq at it's lowest, but experienced form
I'm still wondering, if the US possibility of using nukes is so high in your calculus. Why didn't they use them in Korea or in Vietnam. Surely those wars intensive and costly. They could've used nukes to win those war in totality.
I mentioned ICBMs assuming a nuclear warhead would be available to specifically deter the USA because in the worst case scenario , Iran can become a victim of a nuclear attack like JapanYou have mentioned Iran needing a ICBM many times on this thread. What I dont get is what is the point of Iran having ICBMs when it does not posses nuclear weapons? We cant know for sure, but Iran has denied having nukes many times. An ICBM without a nuclear warhead? Makes no sense.