Iranian Nuclear Doctrine

[fitpOsitive]

Dear iran, just press the button. We will see who dares to come forward...

 

[QWECXZ]

That's kinda like dealing with a runway, it can always be repaired eventually, although they should be using Ballistic to create big craters.
They can still truck them over the border, so I am not sure what they can really do about that, besides attacking any warehouse they can find.

Problem with Russia seems to be they do not have any ballistic missiles that are non-nuclear with a long range beyond the Iskanders, Repeated bombing of the main border roads, and railways would cause large craters that are difficult to repair, that Kalibrs don't do. Your picture pretty much proves it. And they don't have the right tools for the job frankly. Another major oversight.

What would repeated Emad strikes do?

Well, maybe it's a cost analysis issue? I mean if that's all a 5 million dollar missile with a 500 kg warhead can do, it's not surprising that Russia hasn't invested much in their non-nuclear B/C missiles.

My point is that as long as our combat drones cannot carry large amount of ammunition, we either need an air force or unconventional capabilities to compensate.

Repeat Emad strikes would work fine, but at what cost? I'm thinking about a war that lasts for months and we all know that in such a scenario, their first priority will be to completely shut down the already fragile Iranian economy. There's only so much you can do with a weak economy and repeated missile strikes are costly compared to what a decent air force can deliver.

 

[Stryker1982]

That's kinda like dealing with a runway, it can always be repaired eventually, although they should be using Ballistic to create big craters.
They can still truck them over the border, so I am not sure what they can really do about that, besides attacking any warehouse they can find.

Problem with Russia seems to be they do not have any ballistic missiles that are non-nuclear with a long range beyond the Iskanders, Repeated bombing of the main border roads, and railways would cause large craters that are difficult to repair, that Kalibrs don't do. Your picture pretty much proves it. And they don't have the right tools for the job frankly. Another major oversight.

What would repeated Emad strikes do?

Example:

Fateh-313 Crater - Decent, certainly hampers the job alot, but still repairable within a decent time frame.

Highly likely a Qiam Crater - Good luck fixing this one

With a max 500km range, I can see why they have no been able to stop the Arms flow to Ukraine via roads and rail.

 

[SalarHaqq]

Are you afraid of quoting me, Salar jan?

Copying and pasting a message bit by bit is tedious. But so be it.

1) It is not about the Ukrainian Air Force.

It partially was in your initial post:

In a war between Iran and the USA or some potent regional player, it will all be about neutralizing their air power from the very outset.

Russia's lack of air superiority has allowed Ukraine to import huge amounts of weapons from NATO. If Russia had established air superiority over Ukraine, NATO wouldn't have been able to arm Ukraine in this extent. It's not like Russia has not tried to cut Ukraine's arms transfers. They just have failed in doing so.

Air superiority doesn't offer a magical solution in this regard.

2) The US sees no reason to attack Iran.

Of course it does. Much more than it saw reason to attack Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya directly and others like Syria through proxies.

Needless to say, that the US is fully capable of imposing huge damage on Iran's vital infrastructure.

Not at a politically (if not economically) bearable cost.

It took the US only 24 hours after Khamenei told Trump "you can't do a damn thing" to assassinate Iran's most respected and highest ranking general, namely General Soleimani for which Iran has not been able to come up with a proper response even 3 years later.

Assassinating a general is incomparable to wreaking havoc on nationwide infrastructure, let alone to bringing about the effective destruction and territorial disintegration of a nation-state - which is what Iran has successfully deterred the US regime from accomplishing.

A general no matter how charismatic, competent and influential will be replaced / compensated for (not necessarily by a single person though) as long as the system under which he had been operating is left intact. And in Islamic Iran's case, the system is entirely unscathed.

More to the point, Iran's regionwide network of alliances - shahid Soleimani's primary area of responsibility, is not only as solid as it used to be, but gained in strength since January 2020.

In short, the assassination did not result in a concrete achievement for the US regime on the ground. Iran's geostrategic standing was not affected. Washington merely scored a temporary psy-ops point.

 

[Stryker1982]

Repeat Emad strikes would probably work fine, but at what cost? I'm thinking about a war that lasts for months and we all know that in such a scenario, their first priority will be to completely shut down the already fragile Iranian economy.

I'm purely speaking on hypotheticals, obviously we have many issues that need to be dealt with, especially regarding inventory and economy, but within this case, Russia doesn't have a long range non-nuclear BM and it's quite bad, as China and the US are aspiring for these systems.

Emad's shouldn't cost an absurd amount like the Iskander would. I think they figured their CM stocks would be able to handle anything that requires range. Cratering something is a very specific issue because those Kalibrs will certainly destroy a building it is targeting. I think it just wasn't really useful for them to make a dedicated BM platform to do a cheaper CMs job, just to hit something harder. Iran's case seems to be, they needed something to strike far, and a BM was the available option and it also has the benefit of large craters.

 

[Muhammed45]

If we are to believe radical religious people here on the forum, when the supreme leader makes a fatwa then that's it, there is nothing that could be done anymore and that the fatwa is real and there to stay.

We have also people saying that this could be a wartime deception tactic and perfectly legal according to the islamic rules of warfare. Now which is it? I am leaning on the first option, that is more believable and typical of how the supreme leader acts in the strategic and political/religious sphere.

But perhaps his opinion will change if mainland of Iran is attacked (Iraq shock and awe style). They seem to be happy with the current situation as long there is no huge war waged on the mainland.

Search for Tobacco protest Iran.

 

[QWECXZ]

View attachment 864402

Copying and pasting a message bit by bit is tedious. But so be it.



It partially was in your initial post:

View attachment 864401

In a war between Iran and the USA or some potent regional player, it will all be about neutralizing their air power from the very outset.



Air superiority doesn't offer a magical solution in this regard.



Of course it does. Much more than it saw reason to attack Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and others like Syria through proxies.



Not at a politically (if not economically) bearable cost.



Assassinating a general is thoroughly incomparable to wreaking havoc on nationwide infrastructure, let alone to bringing about the effective destruction and territorial disintegration of a nation-state - which is what Iran has successfully deterred the US regime from accomplishing. A general no matter how charismatic, competent and influential will be replaced (and not necessarily by a single person) as long as the system under which he has been operating is left intact. And in Islamic Iran's case, the system is entirely unscathed.

More to the point, Iran's regionwide network of alliances - shahid Soleimani's primary area of responsibility, is not only as solid as it used to be, but gained in strength since January 2020.

In short, the assassination did not result in any concrete achievement for the US regime on the ground. Iran's geostrategic standing was not affected. Washington merely scored a temporary psy-ops point, nothing more.

You have already taken a picture of my post which very well explains why I am saying that and then you move on to overlook it. I hear a lot that our missiles will cripple the air forces of our enemies at the beginning of the war, probably thinking about a scenario similar to the 6 day war, concluding we don't have to worry about their air forces destroying a large part of our vital military and civilian infrastructure. It seems not to be true when you look at the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. If Russia hasn't been able to do that to a weak Ukraine, why do you think Iran will be able to do it to countries like Turkey or Saudi Arabia? Both countries are better equipped than Ukraine was at the beginning of the war.

You have to understand that a full invasion of Iran is very costly due to many factors, including the terrain and large young population, and it can backlash which is why they are not willing to attempt it. However, given proper motivation, the US can actually destroy Iran's vital infrastructure. One should never underestimate the military power and the stupidity of the American presidents. Trump is still much less psychopathic compared to the likes of Pompeo or Bolton, or many other hawks in the US system and it seems almost certain, with the general dissatisfaction with Biden, that the next president of the US will be someone like Trump or worse.

Assassination of General Soleimani, only 24 hours after Khamenei told Trump that Iran would do whatever it wants and they couldn't do a damn thing about it, was a huge victory for the US. Anyone who looks at the situation objectively can see it. Also, unlike what you say, Iran's influence in Iraq has been declining since the assassination of General Soleimani.

 

[Stryker1982]

You have already taken a picture of my post which very well explains why I am saying that and then you move on to overlook it. I hear a lot that our missiles will cripple the air forces of our enemies at the beginning of the war, probably thinking about a scenario similar to the 6 day war, concluding we don't have to worry about their air forces destroying a large part of our vital military and civilian infrastructure. It seems not to be true when you look at the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. If Russia hasn't been able to do that to a weak Ukraine, why do you think Iran will be able to do it to countries like Turkey or Saudi Arabia? Both countries are better equipped than Ukraine was at the beginning of the war.

You have to understand that a full invasion of Iran is very costly due to many factors, including the terrain and large young population, and it can backlash which is why they are not willing to attempt it. However, given proper motivation, the US can actually destroy Iran's vital infrastructure. One should never underestimate the military power and the stupidity of the American presidents. Trump is still much less psychopathic compared to the likes of Pompeo or Bolton, or many other hawks in the US system and it seems almost certain, with the general dissatisfaction with Biden, that the next president of the US will be someone like Trump or worse.

Assassination of General Soleimani, only 24 hours after Khamenei told Trump that Iran would do whatever it wants and they couldn't do a damn thing about it, was a huge victory for the US. Anyone who looks at the situation objectively can see it. Also, unlike what you say, Iran's influence in Iraq has been declining since the assassination of General Soleimani.

My only concern is inventory. Rate of fire would be high, inventory depleted fast.

UAV's are the only follow up, but a strong enemy airforce would deny these UAVs if they are still in tact, or if they are not intact, they can be resupplied by others. Stockpile needs to be large enough to deny it completely, and for that to work, you'd need money, and an economy both of which are Iran's weakpoints.

 

[SalarHaqq]

I am not trying to come across as rude, but I dont understand why certain Iranian members like to claim that Iran does not need to have a modern air force since it has lots of ballistic missiles and UCAV's. You still need a air force.

China with the largest conventional missile force in the world is spending hundreds of billions of dollars on its air force. If you can have a strong air force+large ballistic missile/UCAV inventory why not?

You can't compare the sheer size of China's economy with Iran's, brother.

About your inquiry, I'd recommend taking a look at contributions such as the following, which will certainly shed more light on Islamic Iran's out of the box thinking in the military doctrinal arena, including on why air power is deliberately being relegated to an auxiliary position at best:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/iriaf-news-and-discussions.358559/page-92#post-9861825

IRIAF | News and Discussions

Ramjet. Iran hasn't developed a reliable ramjet yet. all irans anti-ship missiles are subsonic, which is kind of a problem in terms of probability of defeating enemy systems

defence.pk

In fact the entire debate is highly instructive, you may scroll up and read more into it.

Truth is, had Iran actually diverted large sums of money towards her air force and away from missile and air defence procurement, today she'd be in a state worse than Syria (as highlighted by PeeD as well). For the USA such a reorientation of the Iranian defense posture would be a dream come true. They wouldn't hesitate to initiate some major military aggression if Iran's defense had leaned towards air power. For a country like Iran (and say, Pakistan if she was in an existential type of confrontation against the USA regime), there's simply no other option than full fledged asymmetry if effective (non-nuclear) deterrence is to be achieved against an enemy with access to overwhelming resources like the USA.

Now of course, if you believe Washington isn't interested in subjecting Iran to even greater levels of destruction than other nations on their list of targets leaked by Wesley Clark, then that's a different matter, which I can address as well if required. Otherwise however, the above links should offer a good starting point.

 

[QWECXZ]

My only concern is inventory. Rate of fire would be high, inventory depleted fast.

UAV's are the only follow up, but a strong enemy airforce would deny these UAVs if they are still in tact, or if they are not intact, they can be resupplied by others. Stockpile needs to be large enough to deny it completely, and for that to work, you'd need money, and an economy both of which are Iran's weakpoints.

Which is why Iran needs unconventional capabilities to properly defend itself against regional/global adversaries.

If the news about Iran delivering 300 drones to Russia turns out to be true, we will be able to test many of our theories in practice.

 

[Stryker1982]

Which is why Iran needs unconventional capabilities to properly defend itself against regional/global adversaries.

If the news about Iran delivering 300 drones to Russia turns out to be true, we will be able to test many of our theories in practice.

Yes would be interesting to see.

Nuclear militarization makes sense in this context.

We saw from latest Sat images of missiles bases, Iran is building a very safe, and very aggressive offensive BM fires capability, probably not seen anywhere else in the world. Quite a achievement, but say you fire 350 BMs near simultaneously. How quickly will this stockpile be used. Quite fast.I think you'd need something like 20,000 Qiams and Emads to have a solid inventory, which is pretty hard to see.

 

[drmeson]

Yes would be interesting to see.

Nuclear militarization makes sense in this context.

We saw from latest Sat images of missiles bases, Iran is building a very safe, and very aggressive offensive BM fires capability, probably not seen anywhere else in the world. Quite a achievement, but say you fire 350 BMs near simultaneously. How quickly will this stockpile be used. Quite fast.I think you'd need something like 20,000 Qiams and Emads to have a solid inventory, which is pretty hard to see.

If need arises, Iran would not need to exhaust its entire stockpiles. We have a strategic doctrine at place for decades. Iran got into CBRN in late 80s and 90s I.e. Chemical in 80s and Nuclear warheads somewhere between late 90s to 2000s.

- Chemical

WashingtonInstitute https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/media/2799 and US CENTCOM head Gen. Tommy Franks estimated Iranian Chemical warfare capability to be one of the largest in the world.

"In March 2001, General Tommy Franks, head of U.S. Central Command, testified before the U.S. House Armed Services Committee that Iran was "the holder of the largest chemical weapons stockpile" in his area of responsibility."

https://www.iranwatch.org/our-publications/weapon-program-background-report/history-irans-chemical-weapon-related-efforts

- Nuclear

"Iran has conducted a cold test or built nuclear weapon prototypes, as called for by Fakhrizadeh in 2003. Based on the available information and residual Amad Plan capabilities, either or both may have occurred".

https://isis-online.org/uploads/isi...ursuit_of_Nuclear_Weapons_August_25,_2021.pdf

.... Fatwa crowd are illogical people.

 

[SalarHaqq]

I hear a lot that our missiles will cripple the air forces of our enemies at the beginning of the war, probably thinking about a scenario similar to the 6 day war, concluding we don't have to worry about their air forces destroying a large part of our vital military and civilian infrastructure. It seems not to be true when you look at the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. If Russia hasn't been able to do that to a weak Ukraine, why do you think Iran will be able to do it to countries like Turkey or Saudi Arabia? Both countries are better equipped than Ukraine was at the beginning of the war.

This was addressed in my response, how am I the one who's been overlooking content.

The Ukrainian air force is hardly making a difference in this conflict. So why would Russia waste more missiles on it? These missiles are better used to strike other infrastructures. Case in point, this is what Russia has been doing. Iran however will pretty much have to concentrate on neutralizing air bases because unlike Ukraine, Iran's enemies are deploying air power as their primary offensive tool.

Iran is also better prepared than Russia for this particular sort of warfare. The Iranian military infrastructure largely revolves around the concept in question. In comparison, is Russia fielding the staggering variety of (mission-specific) ballistic missiles that can be found in the Iranian inventory? Is the Russian BM arsenal as numerous as Iran's? With regards to launch methods, where are Russia's 30+ hardened underground missile cities, its missiles farms and revolving multiple BM launchers? Is Russia blessed with Iran's extensive mountain ranges, tens of thousands of decoys and thousands of unmarked TEL's mounted atop civilian-looking vehicles which will melt into the landscape and contribute to making "missile hunt" endeavours mission impossible?

Ballistic missiles forces of the two militaries aren't organized and equipped in the same manner for an analogy to be very meaningful.

You have to understand that a full invasion of Iran is very costly due to many factors, including the terrain and large young population, and it can backlash which is why they are not willing to attempt it. However, given proper motivation, the US can actually destroy Iran's vital infrastructure. One should never underestimate the military power and the stupidity of the American presidents. Trump is still much less psychopathic compared to the likes of Pompeo or Bolton, or many other hawks in the US system and it seems almost certain, with the general dissatisfaction with Biden, that the next president of the US will be someone like Trump or worse.

And yet they've never proceeded with any of the above. Which offers the most valid confirmation there could be for the viability of Iran's asymmetrical defensive doctrine. The question should be, would they have hesitated this much if Iran had settled for another kind of philosophy and had allocated her limited resources to other branches of the armed forces? Iraq, Syria, Libya, these are examples hinting at the response.

As for underestimating the enemy or its madness, I'm not one to do so nor is the Iranian leadership. The choice of asymmetry itself is proof that the enemy's overwhelming superiority in firepower and economic resources have duly been taken into account because Iran will not attempt to compete with them in their areas of strength.

Assassination of General Soleimani, only 24 hours after Khamenei told Trump that Iran would do whatever it wants and they couldn't do a damn thing about it, was a huge victory for the US. Anyone who looks at the situation objectively can see it. Also, unlike what you say, Iran's influence in Iraq has been declining since the assassination of General Soleimani.

Yes, a psy-ops victory in essence. The kind of which they're scoring on a daily basis (although on a less bombastic scale) due to their superiority in information warfare, which is hard to challenge. As for Iran's standing in Iraq, I disagree. It is an unfounded impression which western- and zionist-controlled mainstream media are tirelessly generating. By definition, Iran-friendly factions will be comparatively undemonstrative, make much less noise, be less visible, operate more at the grassroots level (which ultimately is what counts most) because on the media and PR front, the Resistance Axis cannot equal the enemy beyond its own social support base.

 

[Hack-Hook]

I mean look at what little damage a Russia caliber missile did to the Zatoka bridge in Odessa, for example.
Or another photo that is apparently from a Ukrainian railway hit by a Kalibr missile. This is not something that can't be repaired in a few days/weeks and it's quite disappointing for a missile that can deliver a 500 kg warhead and costs over $5 million.

days, Week !!? that's 3-4 hours of work maybe even less

 

[Hack-Hook]

Truth is, had Iran actually diverted large sums of money towards her air force and away from missile and air defence procurement, today she'd be in a state worse than Syria (as highlighted by PeeD as well). For the USA such a reorientation of the Iranian defense posture would be a dream come true. They wouldn't hesitate to initiate some major military aggression if Iran's defense had shifted more towards air power. For a country like Iran (and say, Pakistan if she was in an existential type of confrontation against the USA regime), there's simply no other option than full fledged asymmetry if effective deterrence is to be achieved against an enemy with access to overwhelming resources.

Salar nobody claim iran must reduce its investment in missile or drone force. we say they must prioratize the money better.
we have a lot parallel drone program, we could easily half the type of drones we had and by the mean the cost to acquire them , for example if there was Shahed 129 program then Kaman 22 didn't make that much sense or instead of producing Shahed-149 they must have focused on Fotros or they must decide which one they one Kaman-12 or Mohajer-6 or Ababil-5 having all of them don't make much sense or air-force if retired half its fleet that have no practical use
by doing mentioned measures and also such measure in other branches of army and IRGC used the money they use for keeping the circus airplane flight worthy or have 2-3 similar projects for each thing used that money on producing domestic light/Medium fighter . we were in a lot better situation there