Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
My guess is US will do everything they can to involve NATO, UK already itching to join.USA invading Iran will NATO join them if they do ?
Even if NATO sends they full forces, they wouldnt be able to keep Iran for very long, - war cost would bankrupt many countries, massive casualties would enrage people of attacking countries, etc. Vietnam would look like walk in the park compared to Iran IMO.Ground Invasion however will be much harder now a country will 80 million people, they fought of Saddam Hussein much superior force, invasion would just Unite the Iranian people to fought off the USA, also How many troops Would it take to hold Iran ?
My guess is US will do everything they can to involve NATO, UK already itching to join.
Even if NATO sends they full forces, they wouldnt be able to keep Iran for very long, - war cost would bankrupt many countries, massive casualties would enrage people of attacking countries, etc. Vietnam would look like walk in the park compared to Iran IMO.
Your first mistake - assuming Iran would launch a missile here and there only, thats not how it works, and thats not what Iran is preparing for (if they would be capable of only that - it would be a major failure of their strategy).
In other words - look up Millennium Challenge 2002. Van Riper equipped with a crap and employing Iranian strategy sunk entire US Navy fleet. Still think only China and Russia capable of it?
Then imagine what can do over 2000 speedboats equipped with missiles + trucks on land with more powerful cruise and ballistic missiles + over 20 subs + mines. Surely it will be hard to coordinate and time everything, thats why Iranians are doing drills over and over again, while constantly improving their tech.
Of course it would be all out war, or you think Iran is sinking US Navy ships for the fun? And again - if war starts and US warships are anywhere near Iran, most of them (if not all) wont survive till war ends, common sense.
Yes you can. Ever heard of coastal cannon batteries against ships? This was the way things were done from 17th century to WW2, before anti-ship missiles were invented.You can't close a water channel with artillery and rockets. Probability of the artillery shells or rockets hitting moving targets in the channel are very bleak. Moreover, it is very easy to neutralise those guns/batteries. The only option Iran has of closing the Strait of Hormuz is by carrying out extensive mining, it is too late for that now. The other way is to actually sink one or two merchant ships using whatever means thereby scaring away other merchant ships/oil tankers. This will not only antagonise all remaining friends of Iran but can be negated very easily by the USN in the area.
Yes you can. Ever heard of coastal cannon batteries against ships? This was the way things were done from 17th century to WW2, before anti-ship missiles were invented.
You use your binoculars to spot the ships and order artillery to do their job. 45 km out is doable. Artillery shells would rip through unarmored civilian ships easily. Of course, USN would not be so close to Iranian shores, they would launch missile and air strikes from Gulf of Oman.
The opposite is true, US never ever allows to be defeated in practices, even if they have to fake the outcome. Thats their mentality. Look up Van Riper's commentary, he was disgusted with US faking the results of exercise.
About "propensity to show their adversary as tough" few US officials do that, and when they do, its to justify war against that adversary. For example, Iran is shown as the evil menace who can take down the World, thats why "Iran has to be attacked first". But when they speak how long it would take to defeat Iran, its "few weeks tops" (or look what US fanboys say here ). Its politics. Some dare to speak of the actual consequences of the war, but they are the minority.
When you look for examples, pick those who have some similarities, Iran and Iraq in this case have nothing in common.
Here is example with at least some use - 2006 Lebanon war. Would you agree Israel has one of the best militaries in the World? Hezzbolah is just 1000 members and 6000 volunteers, trained and armed by Iranians. War happened in a relatively small area, and still Israel couldnt do anything, despite huge disparity in power. Why? Good training, Iranian weapons appeared to be pretty good, and they fought with a great spirit on their homeland.
Surely US has much greater arsenal of weapons compared to Israel, but same can be said about Iran. Israel couldnt defeat few thousand people, yet Iran has over million trained soldiers, over 12 mln. trained volunteers, with a vast and extensive stockpile (spread everywhere) of weapons for guerrilla warfare. Whole NATO forces cant beat ~15.000 cavemans in Afghanistan (who control 50-70% of territory), and yet some under illusion US would beat millions dedicated and well armed Iranians on their home turf in guerrilla war? Not going to happen, period.
I am sick and tired of the Afghan Caveman theory.Please read about Unconventional Warfare,Mindset of Islamic terrorism.
Iranian Navy no match for US battle group - Russian military official
According to a high-ranking Russian naval official, the combat potential of a US naval group that has entered the Strait of Hormuz is more powerful than the Iranian Navy and coastal forces in the region.
The Iranian Navy's combat resources are incomparable with the potential of the US aircraft carrier group that has entered the Strait of Hormuz and are incapable of opposing it. No, certainly no," Deputy Navy Commander Adm. Ivan Kapitanets told Interfax on Thursday.
The aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis and escort ships have entered the area of an Iranian naval exercise east of the Strait of Hormuz.
Kapitanets said the US naval force would smash the Iranian coastal installations.
The Iranian Navy is coastal and can protect the country's interests in the coastal waters. As for the Americans, they have full-scale oceanic naval forces, the Russian naval commander said. Therefore, there can be no comparison here. An aircraft carrier with its deck fighters and escort ships can smash Iranian coastal installations and surface ships.
The Iranian naval commander disagrees.
Seyyed Mahmoud Musavi, the Iranian Navys deputy commander for operations, said that the Iranian Navy was ready to confront foreign naval groups that could enter the area of its military exercises, where it is holding maneuvers.
Despite the tense situation and militant rhetoric on both sides, Kapitanets believes both sides will show restraint.
"The US's actions are certainly provocative, but the matter is unlikely to go as far as direct military confrontation, he said. Certainly, the situation in the region is very complicated, but it is unlikely to grow into military actions.
The Iranians say the exercises are within the norms of international law and should be respected.
"We are ready to confront the violators who disregard the security perimeters set for the drills in line with international law," Musavi said.
Iranian Navy no match for US battle group - Russian military official RT