Iranian Nuclear Doctrine

[SalarHaqq]

what value of asset , consider it .
you see on sepehr radar suddenly see 150 KSA airplane fly toward Iran how the air defense system want to cope with it
the airplanes are consisted of F-15se and Eurofighter . those f-15 have 6 pylon it means each can carry up to 10t of weapons
those Eurofighters are equipped with AGM-88 and Brimstone
on Persian gulf they divide to 3 group one smaller group go toward Bushehr , one toward Bandar Abbas and one bigger group move some how westward then move north toward central Iran, suddenly your radar took another group of fighters taking of from UAE around 100 probably F-16 and Mirage - 2000 they fly north north west toward Bushehr and suddenly they become two group one go toward (about 25 continue toward Bushehr and 75 move north and go toward Shiraz.
at the same time your early warning radar pick up some missile launch and you conclude the target is somewhere in central and western Iran and south Iran (in hormozgan province)

Yes, and during all this time Iran's SAM batteries will be sleeping and will refrain from firing missiles at them.

wonder how your defense plan against them would be without any air forceI?

There's nothing that sort of a strike group can achieve other than a single sortie resulting in non-consequential damage to Iran, after which it'll be grounded or destroyed, not to mention the jets that will be shot out of the skies during that same sortie.

Iran's asymmetric, non-air power based defence posture has deterred the US regime from launching hostile air raids and here's someone arguing about the Saudi and Emirati air forces.

It's simple, Iran is never going to revise her approach in this regard, no matter how often it is decried by a handful of PDF users. And this will continue to prove opportune, since it will keep shielding Iran from military aggression, whereas an air power based doctrine would already have led to Iran's complete destruction several times over.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Yes, and during all this time Iran's SAM batteries will be sleeping and will refrain from firing missiles at them.

your plan is firing missile at them , interesting , you turn on the radar for the system to engage them . some E-3 sentry that flying behind over UAE pick up the signal and instruct the Eurofighters to fire several AGM-88 toward them as soon as they become in range then the E-3 and Euro fighter and F-15 turn on their E-warfare system and start to engage those radars electrically. meanwhile the target of the fired missile become more clear it seems the target is early warning radars in west and south of Iran . by the way the air plane right now are 130km away from Iran and still outside engagement reach of S-300 or 3rd and 15th of khordad .
the shalamcheh air defense in Iran Persian gulf islands already is targeted by AGM-88 and can't engage enemy , what's your solution now. as a result of severe electronic warfare 3rd of khordad had to rely on its E/O system to engage enemy.

 

[SalarHaqq]

your plan is firing missile at them , interesting , you turn on the radar for the system to engage them . some E-3 sentry that flying behind over UAE pick up the signal and instruct the Eurofighters to fire several AGM-88 toward them as soon as they become in range then the E-3 and Euro fighter and F-15 turn on their E-warfare system and start to engage those radars electrically. meanwhile the target of the fired missile become more clear it seems the target is early warning radars in west and south of Iran . by the way the air plane right now are 130km away from Iran and still outside engagement reach of S-300 or 3rd and 15th of khordad .
the shalamcheh air defense in Iran Persian gulf islands already is targeted by AGM-88 and can't engage enemy , what's your solution now. as a result of severe electronic warfare 3rd of khordad had to rely on its E/O system to engage enemy.

No need to get lost in endless fictive scenarii. I only need to cite one reality to prove the superiority of Iran's non-air power based defence doctrine: it has successfully deterred the USA from attacking Iran for several decades in a row. Whereas countries that tried to counter the USA military in its own fields of strength were obliterated. End of story.

Iran is not going to fall for the trap that would consist in aping western concepts, which is exactly what her enemies are hoping for.

 

[Hack-Hook]

More Hollywoodesque fantasy. I only need to cite one reality to prove the superiority of Iran's non-air power based defence doctrine

come on it is a credible strategy a heavy first strike scenario , in operation focus Israel used 188 jet to attack Egypt in first wave of war.
in 22 and 23 September 1980 Iraq used 166 aircraft to attack Iran. in n23 september 1980 Iran retaliated by 148 fighter/bomber + 60 fighter and tankers .(the result was reduction of Iraqi aerial efficiency by more than 50%)
in 1991 USA & Co fly over 100,000 sortie in 42 day and drop around 85000t of bombs over iraq
that's around 2350 flight per day.
so no its not hollywood fantasy its what we must be ready for. now tell me what's your solution to the scenario

 

[SalarHaqq]

come on it is a credible strategy a heavy first strike scenario , in operation focus Israel used 188 jet to attack Egypt in first wave of war.
in 22 and 23 September 1980 Iraq used 166 aircraft to attack Iran. in n23 september 1980 Iran retaliated by 148 fighter/bomber + 60 fighter and tankers .(the result was reduction of Iraqi aerial efficiency by more than 50%)
in 1991 USA & Co fly over 100,000 sortie in 42 day and drop around 85000t of bombs over iraq
that's around 2350 flight per day.
so no its not hollywood fantasy its what we must be ready for. now tell me what's your solution to the scenario

The USA, the potential adversary Iran needs to be able to defend against, is not Iraq and today's Iran is autonomous in decision making and no longer has her hands tied by a military structure inherited from an American client regime.

The idea that the Saudis and Emiratis will gain the upper hand against Iran using their air forces is of Hollywoodesque caliber.

Iran has deterred the USA (let alone midgets like the above mentioned) with non-airpower based asymmetric thinking. This thinking is not going to be abandoned, get over it.

 

[Hack-Hook]

The USA, the potential adversary Iran needs to be able to defend against, is not Iraq and today's Iran is autonomous in decision making and no longer has her hands tied by a military inherited from a USA client regime.

The idea that the Saudis and Emiratis will be able to gain the upper hand against Iran using their air forces is on Hollywood level.

Iran has deterred the USA (let alone comparative midgets like the above mentioned) with non-air power based asymmetric thinking. This thinking is not going to change, get over it.

the detection here is not the problem , i said you detect the missile the second they fired and the airplane as soon as they took off . Iran don't use classic warfare good . but KSA and UAE do that . what i said is the first stage of classic warfare the airplanes are not even entered Iranian territory or fired a missile toward Iran , both country were at peace with Iran but you ordered air defense to open fire on them , you did not even opened a channel to ask their purpose . simply just started a war with KSA and UAE , what you want to do then . what's your strategy against them , they follow a classic military doctrine , they goaded you into a war . how you want to manage it.in 4-5 minute those ballistic missile fired reach their targets which is Iran early warning radaes . also those AGM-88 have locked in the radar of your airdefence and even turning those radar off won't make the loose their lock . let not because of the heavy electric warfare of both side its nearly impossible to see them on radar.
you say you detect them , good but how and at what distance? again detecting them is not the question how you deal with them thats my question . please don't tell me you use Majid Air defence to counter them the missile has around 2300km/h in its attack phase , majid can engage cruise missile , drones low flying subsonic airplane but not such small missile with so much speed its also the case for TOR

 

[SalarHaqq]

the detection here is not the problem , i said you detect the missile the second they fired and the airplane as soon as they took off . Iran don't use classic warfare good . but KSA and UAE do that . what i said is the first stage of classic warfare the airplanes are not even entered Iranian territory or fired a missile toward Iran , both country were at peace with Iran but you ordered air defense to open fire on them , you did not even opened a channel to ask their purpose . simply just started a war with KSA and UAE , what you want to do then . what's your strategy against them , they follow a classic military doctrine , they goaded you into a war . how you want to manage it.in 4-5 minute those ballistic missile fired reach their targets which is Iran early warning radaes . also those AGM-88 have locked in the radar of your airdefence and even turning those radar off won't make the loose their lock . let not because of the heavy electric warfare of both side its nearly impossible to see them on radar.

This is your justification for multi-billion investments in the air force? A completely unrealistic scenario involving hundreds of Saudi and Emirati fighter jets flying towards Iranian airspace but not intending to attack, which the Iranian AD would mistakenly fire at?

you say you detect them , good but how and at what distance? again detecting them is not the question how you deal with them thats my question . please don't tell me you use Majid Air defence to counter them the missile has around 2300km/h in its attack phase , majid can engage cruise missile , drones low flying subsonic airplane but not such small missile with so much speed its also the case for TOR

None of this will achieve to dodge the obvious: Iran's present constellation of forces has deterred the USA from launching military aggression. Reliance on air power, however, would have invited such attacks. Proof is in the pudding.

 

[Hack-Hook]

This is your justification for multi-billion investments in the air force, a completely unrealistic scenario involving hundreds of Saudi and Emirati fighter jets flying towards Iranian airspace but not intending to attack, which the Iranian AD would mistakenly fire at?

that's how everybody air force start a war , well except Russia everybody else will do that

Walls of text will never succeed to dodge the obvious: Iran's present constellation of forces has deterred the USA from launching military aggression. Reliance on air power, however, would have invited such attacks. Proof is in the pudding.

USA after the war when had his alliance in 1991 and we literally had nothing to counter him didn't attacked us.
in 2003 they didn't attack us and then we had no drones or precise missile. so don't attribute they don't attack us to our magnificent asymmetric warfare . that's an strategy and each strategy have its weakness and strength . there is nothing magical about it .

 

[SalarHaqq]

that's how everybody air force start a war , well except Russia everybody else will do that

No war has been triggered due to one party misunderstanding the other's intention in this specific situation.

USA after the war when had his alliance in 1991 and we literally had nothing to counter him didn't attacked us.

The USA regime's policy to forcefully remodel the political landscape in West Asia through serial "regime changes" followed by dismantling of nation-states, was initiated in 2001.

in 2003 they didn't attack us

They didn't attack Iraq in 2001 either. They won't do all at once.

we had no drones or precise missile.

Iran had ballistic missiles.

so don't attribute they don't attack us to our magnificent asymmetric warfare . that's an strategy and each strategy have its weakness and strength . there is nothing magical about it .

Iran's asymmetric doctrine is the main reason behind the fact that the USA regime has not launched military aggression against Iran as of yet. Of course this must be (and is actually) attributed to Iran's unique doctrine.

 

[Dariush the Great]

come on it is a credible strategy a heavy first strike scenario , in operation focus Israel used 188 jet to attack Egypt in first wave of war.
in 22 and 23 September 1980 Iraq used 166 aircraft to attack Iran. in n23 september 1980 Iran retaliated by 148 fighter/bomber + 60 fighter and tankers .(the result was reduction of Iraqi aerial efficiency by more than 50%)
in 1991 USA & Co fly over 100,000 sortie in 42 day and drop around 85000t of bombs over iraq
that's around 2350 flight per day.
so no its not hollywood fantasy its what we must be ready for. now tell me what's your solution to the scenario

they have no solution. they want to do a human wave attack again and lose hundreds of thousands of men.
these people really lack any sense of logic and understanding.
ahan paare nemikhaym, eghtesad maale khar hast.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Iran had ballistic missiles.

with cep better not to talk about , we are talking about 20 years ago not today that we point a camera toward a tent and say the missile hit that tent.
then our missile was just barely better than saddam scuds

They didn't attack Iraq in 2001 either. They won't do all at once.

they attack Afghanistan , if that's a concern .Iraq had nothing at the time , everybody knew it , we also had programs in infancy they didn't get result till 8-9 year later , they had an excuse to attack Iran in 2003 but they didn't do that , why?

Iran's asymmetric doctrine is the main reason behind the fact that the USA regime has not launched military aggression against Iran as of yet. Of course this must be (and is actually) attributed to Iran's unique doctrine.

no its not that , the asymmetrical warfare can be dealed with. it has its own caveats but its not impossible

and I'm still waiting how you want to deal with the scenario i mentioned without air force.
in that scenario 50-60 multirole aircraft in interceptor role data linked with each other and backed by an airborne radar was more than enough to inflict heavy damage to incoming airplane in bombing role with limited air to air capability , break their formation and make them escape. you could have stationed 50 3rd of Khordad in Persian gulf area and that was not enough to deal with that scenario.

 

[SalarHaqq]

with cep better not to talk about , we are talking about 20 years ago not today that we point a camera toward a tent and say the missile hit that tent.
then our missile was just barely better than saddam scuds

In superior quantities. And this, not Iran's airforce, is what the Americans feared.

Also the timeline is slightly different than suggested above. Fateh-110 has been in service since 2002, and has always been far more accurate than Saddam's SCUD's.

Moreover, the US regime got bogged down in Iraq. There was no way they'd invade Iran before 2008-2009, having had their plate full with Iraq up until that moment. By that time Iran was fielding an impressive BM arsenal including upgrades such as the Shahab-3C.

they attack Afghanistan , if that's a concern .Iraq had nothing at the time , everybody knew it , we also had programs in infancy they didn't get result till 8-9 year later , they had an excuse to attack Iran in 2003 but they didn't do that , why?

In 2003 Iran was many magnitudes more powerful than Iraq. Iraq had just been battered into oblivion by 12 years of an extreme sanctions regime - without Iran's vast domestic industrial basis to compensate for it, had had its key infrastructures periodically bombed during the same period, while its entire military capabilities were an open book to the USA due to more than a decade of intrusive inspections.

Therefore only a fool would have chosen to target Iran prior to Iraq. The idea was to steamroll nations one by one, Iran being the big prize. Having hundreds of thousands of units stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq simultaneously was designed to encircle Iran in view of an upcoming military aggression. As the motto of American troops went: "Real men go to Tehran". And this was not just a figure of speech nor a hollow propaganda slogan, but the reflection of a very real political agenda in Washington.

Iran was slated to be next after Iraq. Her asymmetric defence doctrine, including missiles and network of allies (which contributed to jeopardizing American plans in Iraq) caused the USA neocons to hold back. Iran owes her survival to her perfectly conceived asymmetric outlook, not to classical tools and concepts of warfare.

That's why.

the asymmetrical warfare can be dealed with. it has its own caveats but its not impossibl e

Not at a politically (if economically) bearable cost, even to the most radical warmongering USA administrations. They never thought they could make it.

and I'm still waiting how you want to deal with the scenario i mentioned without air force.
in that scenario 50-60 multirole aircraft in interceptor role data linked with each other and backed by an airborne radar was more than enough to inflict heavy damage to incoming airplane in bombing role with limited air to air capability , break their formation and make them escape. you could have stationed 50 3rd of Khordad in Persian gulf area and that was not enough to deal with that scenario.

These sorts of scenarii represent red herrings deflecting from the gist.

Those incoming aircraft would face multiple limitations to the conduct of their mission, because of the powerful Iranian IADS. A good portion of them would get shot down.

Since Iran's game-changing high value assets enjoy multilayered redundant AD coverage and are thus particularly well protected against such a limited raiding party, whatever damage the aggressors may succeed to inflict would be so negligible that it would do nothing in averting the inevitable aftermath, namely vital support infrastructure of enemy air power coming under sustained, continuous fire and making follow-on operations impossible in required sortie rates, while enemy air defences would be neutralized so that hundreds of UAV's and cruise missiles can comfortably finish the job.

 

[Hack-Hook]

In superior quantities. And that's what the Americans feared, not Iran's air force.

Also the timeline is slightly different than that. Fateh-110 has been in service since 2002, and this has always been much more accurate than Saddam's SCUD's.

Moreover, the US regime got bogged down in Iraq. There was no way they'd invade Iran before 2007-2008, having their plate full with Iraq up until that moment and by then Iran was fielding impressive types of BM's including upgrades such as the Shahab-3C.

the question is why instead of attacking Iraq they didn't attack Iran , Iraq was defanged and even could not threaten Bahrain any more. you say it was fear , I say Iran didn't have anything fearful at the time.
fateh-110 was indeed more precise at the time than scud , but the first generation still had a cep above 100m and it was short range , it could not reach any American base in region. some other calculation made American not to attack Iran at the time.

Iran was many magnitudes more powerful than Iraq in 2003. Iraq had just been battered by 12 years of an extreme sanctions regime - without Iran's vast domestic industry to compensate for it, had had its key infrastructures periodically bombed during the same period, and its entire military capabilities were an open book to the USA after more than a decade of intrusive inspections.

Therefore, only a fool would have chosen to go for Iran prior to Iraq. The idea was to steamroll nations one by one, Iran being the big prize. Having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq simultaneously was meant to encircle Iran. As the motto of American forces went: "Real men go to Tehran". And it was not just a figure of speech or a hollow propagandistic slogan, but the reflection of a very real political agenda.

Iran was slated to be next after Iraq. Her asymmetric defence doctrine, including missiles and network of allies (which contributed to jeopardizing American plans in Iraq) caused the Washington neocons to hold back. Not any sort of a classic military tool in Iran's possession.

That's why.

we still only had short range missiles , we had no useful radar , no useful air defense , we didn't have any meaningful armor. at the time the only difference between Iran and Iraq was we had some weapon program at its infancy , Iraq didn't have those programs, but USA did attack Iraq that was no threat , but didn't attack Iran that was no threat and don't talk about asymmetrical this and that . our asymmetrical capabilities then were very limited

It's totally that.

no

Not at a politically (if economically) bearable cost, even to the most radical warmongering USA administrations. They never thought they could make it.

as if war in Iraq , Libya , Afghanistan , made anybody bat his/her eye. as if in the west , anybody cried for the people who died in those countries or Vietnam or Korea.
your argument is only applicable in places that there is one human right not our human right and your human right.
have you forget Lebanon in 2006 , every one in west condemned Hezbollah for 60 Israeli civilian dead while they killed 2 Israeli soldier for each civilian
on the other hand have you heard anybody ask Israel why you killed 5 Lebanese civilian for each Hezbollah fighter you killed?
no sir your logic is not applicable in this world.

Scenarii like these represent a red herring deflecting from the gist.

Those incoming aircraft would face multiple limitations to the conduct of their mission stemming from Iran's IADS. A good portion of them would get shot down.

Since game-changing high value assets in Iran enjoy multilayered redundant AD coverage and are thus particularly well protected from such a limited raiding party, whatever damage the aggressors may succeed to inflict would be so negligible that it would do nothing in averting the inevitable aftermath, namely vital support infrastructure of enemy air power coming under sustained, continuous fire and making follow-on operations impossible in required sortie rates, while enemy air defences would be neutralized so that hundreds of UAV's and cruise missiles can finish the job.

no you are wrong on that as i said agm-88 will lock on those air defense asset at a range beyond the range of 3rd of-khordad or 15th of khordad . even without e-warfare and with using it the range of the system will be reduced to the range of E/O system which is around 75km.
and what you consider high value asset , the first wave of attack is designed to be against what really matter which is radars and air defense system, air planes, ships and ..... known missile bases , who care about Natanz or Fordoo or some power planet , they can be attacked in next phase when air superiority achieved then they attack again against the missile bases and make sure that you can't fire enough missiles . also now they can go after facilities like natanz or fordo or steel industries . but be assured it won't happen in first week.

and unlike what you think we can't magically fire missiles at will , it take time to use them

 

[SalarHaqq]

the question is why instead of attacking Iraq they didn't attack Iran , Iraq was defanged and even could not threaten Bahrain any more. you say it was fear , I say Iran didn't have anything fearful at the time.

She did: her ballistic missiles, and a few other things.

I explained why it was logical for the USA regime to start with Iraq.

fateh-110 was indeed more precise at the time than scud , but the first generation still had a cep above 100m and it was short range , it could not reach any American base in region.

Invading forces on a hypothetical frontline would have been in range.

we still only had short range missiles , we had no useful radar , no useful air defense , we didn't have any meaningful armor. at the time the only difference between Iran and Iraq was we had some weapon program at its infancy , Iraq didn't have those programs, but USA did attack Iraq that was no threat , but didn't attack Iran that was no threat and don't talk about asymmetrical this and that . our asymmetrical capabilities then were very limited

The difference between Iraq and Iran was already huge, as explained previously.

The Islamic Republic's asymmetrical capabilities were developed enough to make any invasion of Iran immensely more challenging than Iraq in 2003. The USA acted rationally by attacking Iraq first, got bogged down in no small part thanks to Iranian asymmetrical capabilities, and Iran put this period to good use by expanding her asymmetric power even more.

no

Yes.

as if war in Iraq , Libya , Afghanistan , made anybody bat his/her eye. as if in the west , anybody cried for the people who died in those countries or Vietnam or Korea.
your argument is only applicable in places that there is one human right not our human right and your human right.
have you forget Lebanon in 2006 , every one in west condemned Hezbollah for 60 Israeli civilian dead while they killed 2 Israeli soldier for each civilian
on the other hand have you heard anybody ask Israel why you killed 5 Lebanese civilian for each Hezbollah fighter you killed?
no sir your logic is not applicable in this world.

The cost I'm referring to has nothing to do with compassion for the victims of USA military aggression, but with the fact that the western public can no longer stomach significant casualty rates among the ranks of its own military forces, especially if people tend to perceive it as a war of choice.

Secondly, it has to do with domestic power play between factions within the American deep state and the globalist oligarchy. The relevance of this criterion to USA decision making in matters of war and peace is proven by the Project for a New American Century's own admission that they (i.e. neocons) would lack the political legitimacy required to implement the remodeling agenda for West Asia and North Africa unless a "new Pearl Harbor" (quote/unquote) were to occur (which conveniently took place 9-11, 2001). And the momentum generated by such an incident tends to wear off with time.

no you are wrong on that as i said agm-88 will lock on those air defense asset at a range beyond the range of 3rd of-khordad or 15th of khordad . even without e-warfare and with using it the range of the system will be reduced to the range of E/O system which is around 75km.

Iran has longer range AD to cover highest tier assets. These are all firmly under the multilayered IADS umbrella, there's no AGM variant that can strike them from outside the range of the air defence.

and what you consider high value asset , the first wave of attack is designed to be against what really matter which is radars and air defense system, air planes, ships and ..... known missile bases , who care about Natanz or Fordoo or some power planet , they can be attacked in next phase when air superiority achieved then they attack again against the missile bases and make sure that you can't fire enough missiles . also now they can go after facilities like natanz or fordo or steel industries . but be assured it won't happen in first week.

Good luck trying to disable let alone destroy Iran's 30+ hardened missile cities (basically immune to anything but nuclear weapons due to the very nature of these mega-bases), her hundreds or thousands of buried missile farm canisters, her thousands of mobile TEL launchers disguised as civilian trucks and spread over a large mountainous terrain, as well as key radar and IADS facilities - using 50-60 fighter jets (or 500 for that matter) which will essentially have only one go at it - the surviving ones, that is.

NATO powers themselves needed to subject Iraq to high intensity bombing for six full months during operation Desert Storm in 1990-1991, then on and off over twelve long years, and finally again for a month in 2003 to be able to invade it. A country with a target list a fraction of what it would amount to in the case of Iran.

and unlike what you think we can't magically fire missiles at will , it take time to use them

No, the sheer size of Iran's missile forces mean that employment at will and on short notice is possible.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Invading forces on a hypothetical frontline would have been in range.

in range of what , you think at the time we had more than 20 launcher for those missiles .
attck line i assure not a single usa soldier would have come near those frontlines prior of one mounth continius bombardment and and destruction of all of those missile launchers.

The difference between Iraq and Iran was already huge, as explained previously.

The Islamic Republic's asymmetrical capabilities were developed enough to make any invasion of Iran immensely more challenging than Iraq in 2003. The USA acted rationally by attacking Iraq first, got bogged down in no small part thanks to Iranian asymmetrical capabilities, and Iran put this period to good use by expanding her asymmetric power even more.

still very weak , what you say is just feel good talks.
our best anti tank missiles were TOWs 1 , we had no modern armor , our airforce was largely on the ground, our navy was consist of several boat that we had see how effective are in prying manitis operation and our bigger ships had no weapons .
our missile were few and short range and longer range missile had a cep around 500-1000m

Yes.

no

The cost I'm referring to has nothing to do with compassion for the victims of USA military aggression, but with the fact that the western public can no longer stomach significant casualty rates among the ranks of its own military forces, especially if people tend to perceive it as a war of choice.

Secondly, it has to do with domestic power play between factions within the American deep state and the globalist oligarchy. The relevance of this criterion to USA decision making in matters of war and peace is proven by the Project for a New American Century's own admission that they (i.e. neocons) would lack the political legitimacy required to implement the remodeling agenda for West Asia and North Africa unless a "new Pearl Harbor" (quote/unquote) were to occur (which conveniently took place 9-11, 2001). And the momentum generated by such an incident tends to wear off with time.

there was not that much high death toll at the time . and we are talking instead of attacking Iraq ,attacking iran

Iran has longer range AD to cover highest tier assets. These are all firmly under the multilayered IADS umbrella, there's no AGM variant that can strike them from outside the range of the air defence.

in Iran south those are the longest and if im' not wrong one S-300 around bushehr and please don't mention S-200 .

Good luck trying to disable let alone destroy Iran's 30+ hardened missile cities (basically immune to anything but nuclear weapons due to the very nature of these mega-bases), her hundreds or thousands of buried missile farm canisters, her thousands of mobile TEL launchers disguised as civilian trucks and spread over a large mountainous terrain, as well as key radar and IADS facilities - using 50-60 fighter jets (or 500 for that matter) which will essentially have only one go at it - the surviving ones, that is.

i just hit the exit of missile bases , why waste ammunition on destroying them. and then would have hit anybody who tried to clean those exits and they are not 30 missile base

NATO powers themselves needed to subject Iraq to high intensity bombing for six full months during operation Desert Storm in 1990-1991, then on and off over twelve long years, and finally again for a month in 2003 to be able to invade it. A country with a target list a fraction of what it would amount to in the case of Iran.

NATO could attack in 1991 , if wanted . and could do it easier at the time.
they wanted to milk arab countries and cement their presence in persian gulf area that was why they didn't attacked in 1991

No, the sheer size of Iran's missile forces mean that employment at will and on short notice is possible.

no its not possible , see how it take to us to answer an attack with missiles