What's new

Iranian Nuclear Doctrine

in range of what , you think at the time we had more than 20 launcher for those missiles .

Sure do. And I always avoided foreign (especially western) estimates of Iranian missile arsenals.

The Fatehs would have been within range of enemy troop concentrations, forward logistic hubs or local field command centers among other things.

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.

They failed to detect and destroy many of them in Iraq - a country a third of Iran in terms of surface area, less mountainous, with fewer launchers and not as focused on camouflaging and dissimulating them.

Thus at the first cartridge shot at Iran, ballistic missiles would have rained down on Bagram air base, on the main American GQ's in Qatar and Bahrein... as well as on Tel Aviv and Haifa in all probability.

still very weak , what you say is just feel good talks.

It's reality, just as the Iranian-trained and advised Hezbollah of Lebanon inflicting the first military defeat on the zionist entity in 2006, using purely asymmetrical tactics against an overwhelming classical force was real. Iran would replicate this sort of experience on a much larger scale against American aggressors.

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 .

Iran's anti-tank missiles, armor, air force and larger navy vessels still don't constitute a deterrent against the USA; and truth be told they never will in the foreseeable future, no matter how much Iran invests in these types of armaments. It's Iranian ballistic missiles, UAV's, midget submarines, and allied guerilla forces that give them nightmares.

our missile were few and short range and longer range missile had a cep around 500-1000m

They couldn't have been this few because right after the conclusion of the Sacred Defence, Iran concentrated on building up its missile arsenals. A CEP of 500 meters and more can do the job for large air bases that measure almost five times five kilometers.

It made sense for the USA regime to start with easier targets first. But even this proved more complicated than what they had anticipated, thanks in no small part to Iranian asymmetrical warfare implemented through allied Iraqi groups. So the superpower came to be bogged down for several years. By the time the Iraqi insurgency diminished in intensity, Iranian missile power had expanded considerably.


No as in, there's not an inkling of doubt in my mind.

there was not that much high death toll at the time .

But had they attacked Iran their toll would have been significantly higher. Neither the American public nor the USA establishment could have come to terms with some > 25.000 dead G.I.'s in a massive Iranian quagmire, especially after the Iraq debacle. Nor with the economic bill of an estimated > 10 trillion USD.

Iran is thrice the geographic size of Iraq and had nearly three times the population in 2003, on top of being a functional state as opposed to the Iraqi failed state which had been subjected to twelve years of systematic and abusive strangulation by the empire. So we could safely have expected an invasion of Iran to produce casualty rates as well as financial costs more than three times those of the Iraq war.

and we are talking instead of attacking Iraq ,attacking iran

It's that USA policy makers would have had to be irrational to proceeded in that order.

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

S-300PMU2 has superior range compared to AGM-88. Iran's also fielding the still largely classified Alam ol-Hoda system with greater range even. Some units of these may well be deployed in the south. Plus Bavar-373, numbers and locations unknown.

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

An Iranian military official stated - multiple years ago, that Iran has constructed at least one missile city per province. That makes for over thirty missile cities, to which dozens of elementary hardened mountain bases and silos would surely have to be added. Without counting all the light and mostly mobile launching platforms.

The missile cities are eminently self-sufficient. Striking the exits will not interrupt their operations. Personnel in these bases is also equipped with tunnel boring machines (domestically produced in Iran for some time). Naturally, Iranian planners must have thought through all these aspects. Such a heavy, strategic-level investment would hardly make much sense otherwise. And it is into this category of assets that the bulk of the defence budget has been flowing during all these years.

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

It would still have needed to be preceded by more than half a year of intensive aerial bombings. Against a state which had committed the decisive miscalculation of trying to challenge the USA regime on an essentially symmetrical basis, with a classical type of military apparatus and defence doctrine. The Iraqi example goes to validate the point.

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

The feasibility shouldn't be open to question, frankly. Can there be any doubts that hundreds of solid fuel BM's are pre-positioned and pre-programmed with targeting data against major air bases of any potential enemy across the region, and pointing at the latter objects as we speak.
 
Last edited:
Sure do. And I always avoided foreign (especially western) estimates of Iranian missile arsenals.

The Fatehs would have been within range of enemy troop concentrations, forward logistic hubs or local field command centers among other things.
you still think USA will fight like Russia fight.
They failed to detect and destroy many of them in Iraq - a country a third of Iran in terms of surface area, less mountainous, with fewer launchers and not as focused on camouflaging and dissimulating them.

Thus at the first cartridge shot at Iran, ballistic missiles would have rained down on Bagram air base, on the main American GQ's in Qatar and Bahrein... as well as on Tel Aviv and Haifa in all probability.
the technology improved a lot since then , but those TELs technology didn't improved much.
Thus at the first cartridge shot at Iran, ballistic missiles would have rained down on Bagram air base, on the main American GQ's in Qatar and Bahrein... as well as on Tel Aviv and Haifa in all probability.
are you aware the target you mentioned are way outside the range of Fateh-110 and shahab-3 added to our arsenal in july 2003, and fateh-110 also mass produced in 2003-2004
so exactly what what missile was supposed to rain on those targets. unguided version of Zelzal, Shahab-1, Sjhahab-2 ? which one . i'm more intrested to knew which one was supposed to reach Tel Aviv and Haifa
It's reality, just as the Iranian-trained and advised Hezbollah of Lebanon inflicting the first military defeat on the zionist entity in 2006, using purely asymmetrical tactics against an overwhelming classical force was real. Iran would replicate this sort of experience on a much larger scale against American aggressors.
well i don't call that defeat , they preventing Israel reach its goals, but at the time of ceasefire Israel was inside Lebanon and was advancing. and after the ceasefire it was hezbollah that agreed to this clause in ceasefire
"No armed forces other than UNIFIL and Lebanese (implying Hezbollah and Israeli forces) will be south of the Litani River"
also the Unifel forces are in lebanon not Israel
They couldn't have been this few because right after the conclusion of the Sacred Defence, Iran concentrated on building up its missile arsenals. A CEP of 500 meters and more can do the job for large air bases that measure almost five times five kilometers.

It made sense for the USA regime to start with easier targets first. But even this proved more complicated than what they had anticipated, thanks in no small part to Iranian asymmetrical warfare implemented through allied Iraqi groups. So the superpower came to be bogged down for several years. By the time the Iraqi insurgency diminished in intensity, Iranian missile power had expanded considerably.
we began producing fateh and Shahab-3 in 2003 . we had some Shahab-2 but the bulk of our missiles were zelzal which at the time was very inaccurate
and no why go after a carcass, go after the one who can bite you later.
No as in, there's not an inkling of doubt in my mind.
at least you agreed on no
It's that USA policy makers would have had to be irrational to proceeded in that order.
the power of imaginary enemy is very strong , iraq was no use for them it was beaten , fallen on the ground and completely broken .they could not make a boogeyman of it . on other hand Iran was another thing , the best boogeyman to present to arab sheikhs as we saw in the next 20 years how much they benefitted by promote fear of iran in the region.
But had they attacked Iran their toll would have been significantly higher. Neither the American public nor the USA establishment could have come to terms with some > 25.000 dead G.I.'s in a massive Iranian quagmire, especially after the Iraq debacle. Nor with the economic bill of an estimated > 10 trillion USD.

Iran is thrice the geographic size of Iraq and had nearly three times the population in 2003, on top of being a functional state as opposed to the Iraqi failed state which had been subjected to twelve years of systematic and abusive strangulation by the empire. So we could safely have expected an invasion of Iran to produce casualty rates as well as financial costs more than three times those of the Iraq war.
we really had nothing to stop their air force at the time,
we had nothiong that could hit them , if we targetted their bases , th missile fall 1km beside it , probably on a city or village
S-300PMU2 has superior range compared to AGM-88. Iran's also fielding the still largely classified Alam ol-Hoda system with greater range even. Some units of these may well be deployed in the south. Plus Bavar-373, numbers and locations unknown.
only the biggest missile have more range and we have one or two around persian gulf , you think how many 200km range missile at each time is ready in those area. and aalam-al-hoda is a radar , ti did say there is no problem in detecting the airplanes
An Iranian military official stated - multiple years ago, that Iran has constructed at least one missile city per province. That makes for over thirty missile cities, to which dozens of elementary hardened mountain bases and silos would surely have to be added. Without counting all the light and mostly mobile launching platforms.

The missile cities are eminently self-sufficient. Striking the exits will not interrupt their operations. Personnel in these bases is also equipped with tunnel boring machines (domestically produced in Iran for some time). Naturally, Iranian planners must have thought through all these aspects. Such a heavy, strategic-level investment would hardly make much sense otherwise. And it is into this category of assets that the bulk of the defence budget has been flowing during all these years.
when you leave the sky open to enemy they can bomb those exit thrice per day.
by the way usa is observing iran 24/7 from sky , you think they do not knew where the exit for those missile bases are?
It would still have needed to be preceded by more than half a year of intensive aerial bombings. Against a state which had committed the decisive miscalculation of trying to challenge the USA regime on an essentially symmetrical basis, with a classical type of military apparatus and defence doctrine. The Iraqi example goes to validate the point.
i didn't see any challenge at all. and also there was no will to attack iraq by foot
The feasibility shouldn't be open to question, frankly. Can there be any doubts that hundreds of solid fuel BM's are pre-positioned and pre-programmed with targeting data against major air bases of any potential enemy across the region, and pointing at the latter objects as we speak.
there is no such thing , if it was the case we saw the missiles . every missile target is calculated and feed into missile at the time of launch and the TELs are not in position , they are driven out of the base sent to a coordinate and then they fire the missile
 
you still think USA will fight like Russia fight.

Iran's longer range missiles would have taken aim at the large static infrastructure underlying USA air power. Short range missiles could have fulfilled an auxiliary role against such an enemy.

the technology improved a lot since then , but those TELs technology didn't improved much.

* Iran responded by diversifying her BM launch options, including with the addition of platforms that are indestructible by conventional means.
* Iran's terrain offers much better opportunities for dissimulation and is thrice as vast as Iraq's.
* Iran has focused much more than Iraq on camouflaging TEL's, constructing (underground) hideouts from where they can be deployed speedily and where they can find shelter just as quickly.
* Iran has extensively trained its missile crews to enhance their mobility and enable rapid reaction.
* Iran has several times the number of advanced decoys than Iraq used to have.
* Last but not least, Iran has a far greater number of TEL's than Iraq ever did.

Given the above, even the USA military with its surveillance capabilities would find it hard to eliminate suffcient numbers of Iranian TEL's in time.

are you aware the target you mentioned are way outside the range of Fateh-110 and shahab-3 added to our arsenal in july 2003, and fateh-110 also mass produced in 2003-2004
so exactly what what missile was supposed to rain on those targets. unguided version of Zelzal, Shahab-1, Sjhahab-2 ? which one . i'm more intrested to knew which one was supposed to reach Tel Aviv and Haifa

It's preferable to take into account the ground reality rather than to reason in a theoretical vacuum. The USA regime chose to attack Iraq instead of Iran in late March 2003 because starting with the smaller and weaker countries and encircling Iran in the process made more logical sense for them. This strategy was observable from the outset of their West Asian military campaigns in late 2001.

From Iran's perspective the two main targets, where the bulk of USA air power would have been stationed (Al-Udeid air force base in Qatar and the naval support facility for their aircraft carriers in Bahrein) were within range of Shahab-2 ballistic missiles from as early as 1990. By 2003, Iran was fielding many hundreds if not thousands of these.

However, I'm focusing on the realistic scenarii. Concrete and plausible threat of a massive military aggression by the empire arose from around 2009, because asymmetric Iranian power had contributed to bogging the enemy down in Iraq. By the time the Iraqi insurgency had abated, Iran was in possession of hundreds of Shahab-3's including Shahab-3B and -3C variants with their triconic warhead sections and lower CEP.

Iran anticipated, developed and put into production her first MRBM at an accelerated pace and thus ensured her security for the succeeding years.

well i don't call that defeat , they preventing Israel reach its goals, but at the time of ceasefire Israel was inside Lebanon and was advancing. and after the ceasefire it was hezbollah that agreed to this clause in ceasefire
"No armed forces other than UNIFIL and Lebanese (implying Hezbollah and Israeli forces) will be south of the Litani River"
also the Unifel forces are in lebanon not Israel

This - not kill ratios nor the respective amount of material destruction caused, is what constitutes defeat in warfare: failure to reach previously defined political objectives.

The zionists agreed to the ceasefire because remaining in Lebanon would have cost them unbearable casualties to the tune of over a hundred per month.

As for the UNIFIL mission, it did not represent so much of a setback for Hezbollah since Hezbollah units continue to move up to the border with Occupied Palestine as they wish (they demonstrated it several times), and their mission to protect Lebanon from zionist aggression hasn't been hampered by the presence of the Blue Helmets.

It's basically the damage control narrative put forth by the zionists which fails to call this a defeat for Isra"el".

we began producing fateh and Shahab-3 in 2003 . we had some Shahab-2 but the bulk of our missiles were zelzal which at the time was very inaccurate

The main regional hubs of USA air power were within range of the Shahab-2.

and no why go after a carcass, go after the one who can bite you later.

Because for the neocons in charge in Washington, quick victories were required to make the tougher challenge politically acceptable - both to their public and more importantly to elements within their political establishment whose preference goes towards pursuing the very same goals through means other than direct military aggression.

And because invading a country with the geographic depth of Iran via the Afghan border alone would have been more hazardous and would have stretched thin supply lines and logistics more than invading from two different directions.

the power of imaginary enemy is very strong , iraq was no use for them it was beaten , fallen on the ground and completely broken .they could not make a boogeyman of it . on other hand Iran was another thing , the best boogeyman to present to arab sheikhs as we saw in the next 20 years how much they benefitted by promote fear of iran in the region.

It's exactly as I announced in my first comment on the subject: questioning Iran's deterrence power leaves no option other than to try and suggest the zio-American empire's hostility against Iran has been weaker than its enmity towards Saddam or the Taleban.

Whilst in reality, Islamic Iran has been challenging and causing damage to zio-American imperialist interests in a far more intensive manner than the two above mentioned actors combined.

And whilst the bogeyman argument doesn't hold water. It's a talking point mostly produced by foreigners with a grudge against Iran (including on this forum). Fact is that PGCC arms imports from the USA had been on a steady rise for decades prior to the Islamic Revolution already. Client states will systematically tend to purchase weaponry from their imperial patrons, whether the spectre of a bogeyman is raised or not. Furthermore assuming they actually had the choice not to comply with Washington's expectations, PGCC rulers wouldn't be dumb to the point of getting fooled by a such a political maneuver.

Likewise, a glimpse at American conduct vis à vis Iran since the Islamic Revolution will illustrate the fact that an indisputable "regime change" agenda has been at work on Washington's part, exhibiting every trait of such a policy and quite often to historically unprecedented degrees. This goes for the colossal anti-IR propaganda and psy-ops Iranians are being subjected to day and night at the hands of media sponsored by the USA, EU, zionists and their regional allies, on a magnitude and with a vehemence hardly witnessed before. Washington is also seen propping up about every exiled Iranian opposition group there is, regardless of political orientation. Anti-Iranian separatist and terrorist groups are benefiting from American largesse, as do regional proxies of all kinds. The sanctions imposed on Iran, currently the toughest of their kind in the world, offer another piece of evidence as to the US regime's goals with regards to Iran.

we really had nothing to stop their air force at the time,
we had nothiong that could hit them , if we targetted their bases , th missile fall 1km beside it , probably on a city or village

Iran had an arsenal of ballistic missiles at her disposal which would have allowed her to interdict enemy use of air power. When CEP is lower, missiles are fired in salvos and will then score hits, especially on a structure as huge as a USA military air base (around 5x5 km). Even a single incoming BM will undermine normal levels of operation at an enemy air base. Especially given that their ABM shields used to be less advanced.

only the biggest missile have more range and we have one or two around persian gulf , you think how many 200km range missile at each time is ready in those area. and aalam-al-hoda is a radar , ti did say there is no problem in detecting the airplanes

Alam al-Hoda is also what the complete system (featuring the eponymous radar and Sadid-630 surface-to-air missiles) is usually called by analysts, for lack of official data.

Iran's air defences are fielding long range SAM's in sufficient amounts to be efficient. More importantly no hostile airborne raiding party can suppress Iran's retaliatory strike force before the latter successfully unleashes devastating strikes on the attacker's air bases.

when you leave the sky open to enemy they can bomb those exit thrice per day.

The area will be denied to the enemy by way of missiles and UAV's aiming at their airfields.

by the way usa is observing iran 24/7 from sky , you think they do not knew where the exit for those missile bases are?

To no avail. The missile cities are self-sufficient and can sustain themselves autonomously for remarkable periods of time. To neutralize them, nuclear strikes are the only option and even these would in all likelihood offer partial success rates only (not to mention their political and military fallout).

i didn't see any challenge at all. and also there was no will to attack iraq by foot

The Iraqi attempt to defend itself through classical means sealed that country's fate.

there is no such thing , if it was the case we saw the missiles . every missile target is calculated and feed into missile at the time of launch and the TELs are not in position , they are driven out of the base sent to a coordinate and then they fire the missile

Missile farms are in static positions, so are ballistic missiles inside subterranean mountain bases. There's no reason not to feed the missiles with coordinates of enemy air bases in advance. Calculations for these targets are invariable since air bases and their constitutive key elements are deprived of mobility.
 
Last edited:
An other 500 of IR-6s are activated and the process of gas injection is done.

The total number of active IR-6 centrifuges reached 1000 SWUs.
 
2518737.jpg
 
Head of Iranian atomic energy organization: we are completely capable of developing nuclear/atomic bomb but its not among our priorities


Translation of Reuters:​

Iran nuclear chief: We have technical means to produce atom bomb, no intention of doing so​

 
Opening KSA airspace to Israel-sourced flights was one of the last pieces of the puzzle for the planned strike on Iran.



The Saudis are going to allow its airspace and possibly an airfield to be used for overflight and refueling by the Israeli Air Force.



This finally solves the issue of strike radius that essentially prevented Operation Netanyahooo Bloodlust for a decade.



THAT was what the trip was about. Not oil production.

I'm not here to say that it should happen, or who will come out victorious when it does. You have proven your technical prowess when it comes to ATG and ATA missiles, so you may very well knock every plane out of the sky.

But to pretend it isn't going to happen, is to be a terrible student of history.

Cheers.
 
Opening KSA airspace to Israel-sourced flights was one of the last pieces of the puzzle for the planned strike on Iran.



The Saudis are going to allow its airspace and possibly an airfield to be used for overflight and refueling by the Israeli Air Force.



This finally solves the issue of strike radius that essentially prevented Operation Netanyahooo Bloodlust for a decade.



THAT was what the trip was about. Not oil production.

I'm not here to say that it should happen, or who will come out victorious when it does. You have proven your technical prowess when it comes to ATG and ATA missiles, so you may very well knock every plane out of the sky.

But to pretend it isn't going to happen, is to be a terrible student of history.

Cheers.
We Shias are known for our Taqiyya according to many when it comes to our enemies. Look at that Fatwa from this POV.

According to Iranian military officials the Qaem satellite carrier is ready for launch. It is a prerequisitte for an nuclear capable ICBM. Be sure it will be armed with nuclear warheads and then aimed at Washington, New York, Boston etc.

Just follow the news and connect the dots, Qaem got prepared and all of a sudden head of aromic energy says we can make N bomb. Coincidence?
 
Opening KSA airspace to Israel-sourced flights was one of the last pieces of the puzzle for the planned strike on Iran.



The Saudis are going to allow its airspace and possibly an airfield to be used for overflight and refueling by the Israeli Air Force.



This finally solves the issue of strike radius that essentially prevented Operation Netanyahooo Bloodlust for a decade.



THAT was what the trip was about. Not oil production.

I'm not here to say that it should happen, or who will come out victorious when it does. You have proven your technical prowess when it comes to ATG and ATA missiles, so you may very well knock every plane out of the sky.

But to pretend it isn't going to happen, is to be a terrible student of history.

Cheers.
Assuming you're right, what would such an airstrike achieve though?

It's nearly impossible to destroy Fordow without unconventional warfare. We are talking about a large underground facility built under tens of meters of granite and reinforced concrete.
And even if so, the know-how of building centrifuges, laser isotope separation, and the results of the AMAD project won't go away.
So, what will be the achievement of such a mission? Besides giving Iran a valid reason to retaliate and go fully nuclear.
 
Analysis on the feasibility to destroy underground facilities:


There's theoretical technical feasibility viewed in isolation with complete disregard for practical implications and interrelated factors, and then there's reality, where dozens of hurdles of all types come into play, making the whole scenario less than realistic.

In reality, there's no possibility that US regime leaders will wake up one morning and order their forces to drop 60+ nuclear bombs on Iran in order to destroy her underground uranium enrichment facilities as well as part of her static BM retaliatory capability (missile cities and silos).

Assuming all these weapons will make it through Iran's IADS shield, assuming the regime in Washington will opt for a surprise attack even while Iran is still member to the NPT and that IAEA inspectors are in Iran, assuming that Iran doesn't have any undeclared and undetected enrichment facilities nor any undeclared fissile material kept aside for a scenario like this - in which case nuclear armament of Iran would ensue in rather quick order (otherwise it'd follow too but would only take a little more time), assuming that closure of the Strait of Hormoz, pummeling of US bases and of the zionist entity by Iran's thousands of remaining, mobile launchers and missile farms, plus about every Iranian ally from the Levant to the Hindu Kush attacking western and zionist interests at once, will be considered a price worth paying by the US regime.

In short, not going to happen. Welcome to reality.

Deterrence, or absence thereof can only be gauged in this multidimensional, interlocked context. Hence why Iran's asymmetric conventional strike and counter-strike force has achieved deterrence against the US regime. Had this not been the case, Iran would have been subjected to the plight which befell Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria only on a far more massive scale and not now but over ten to fifteen years ago already. Today Iran is even more off limits to any potential aggressor.
 
Last edited:

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom