What's new

The U.S. Stands to Lose Much More Than a War With Iran

Not open for further replies.
Hahahaha. Please feel encouraged to talk to me like a friend or brother. :-):turkey::pakistan:
in that case please unban me from IRIAF and IRIN threads lol. :lol:
The ban really serves no purpose other than forcing me to post the same information in improper threads
Last edited:
in that case please unban me from IRIAF and IRIN threads lol. :lol:
The ban really serves no purpose other than forcing me to post the same information in improper threads
Nice tactic, turkish flattery is best
They stayed there 20 years before pulling out, if you're content with getting invaded for 20 years then your logic makes perfect sense.
how long US stayed in Afghanistan (with support from ENTIRE NATO, including Muslim Turkey that backstabbed Muslim Afghanistan by joining NATO's illegal invasion of Afghanistan) doesnt matter, what US achieved in Afghanistan after 20 years of blood sweat lives and money matters, and US didnt achieve much, even US generals admit that now.
lol wtf is this

View attachment 954497

Go take your inferiority complex on someone else
Why do you Turkish people on PDF start attacking my identity after i attack your useless points? its a pattern i notice and its pretty pathetic, but it confirms my points are good, so thank you.
"Death to America/Israel" is literaly something only said by Americans and westerners themselves lol, very nice proof of how language, linguistic deliberate distortion propaganda works on westerners, can make them eat any subtitles and translations they fabricate

An answer to a threat isn't the same thing as a direct threat which only emerges from Israel with their imaginary "Plan B" and invisible + invincible US F-35, zionist shills seems to not be able to understand that and keep reading NYT but funnier, distorting by themselves in their own thoughts already distorted pieces of toilet paper articles

Zionist shills also have a hard time to look at themselves and think why all their "neighbors" and a huge part of world population hates them, this is always the fault of the mUlaHs sHiA mUsLiM aRaBs tEwOwiSt eXtwEmiSt

"F*ck Israel" and "Free Palestine" is literaly said worldwide including in the US and EU countries, multiple ethnics, white, blacks, asians, zionist shills trying to convince themselves only arabs muslims thinks this way, Israelis are bullied at every post on any social media, even with biased admin ones (twitter, wikipedia etc) with either antisemitism, straight insults, mockery, threats, dark jokes, innocent Jews beaten in the streets all over the world, this is of course the fault of the sHiA teWoWisT uNgA bUnGa sHiA, f*cking shills never able to question themselves.

Sleep with the risk of a big alarm telling them to get into an hardened bunker with pee and poo and odor of sweat in it to pass the night in or even die in it collectively at any moment in their sleep or insomnia

What a comfortable, secure "country" to live in and be proud of in real life!

More than that, they are absolute winners!

- The mission: Invade every single country in the region, slice Iran in 50 parts, make oil pipeline and gas supply into Israel and Europe etc

- Funds: Trillions of dollars, thousands of propaganda medias, channels, pathetic forcing think tanks, satellites, intel, weapons

- Result: Two US military bases serving as robbery s**toles and damned to disapear, barely any influence in the region, resumed to propaganda airstrikes on ice cream trucks, so desperate with color revolutions which didn't even make it nationwide, pathetic footages during 2006, mercs getting blown up, oil facilities blown up with what their zionist think tanks calls "civilian useless terror drones", a museum of Israeli and American drones shot down, a stealth drone grounded and reversed, "innocent" settlers eliminated, acknowledges themselves there is no need for a nuke to bring the hammer down on Israel

Basically relies on "soft power" and propaganda, dog barking, can't even deal with Hamas even by carpet bombing, no influence anywhere near Iran, all relied on propaganda

Absolute winners
US would wipe the floor with garbage Iranian air defenses lmao
1. If you're talking about Iranian air defenses from 1995 - 2010, maybe,but,
2. Not today.
3. In a hypothetical scenario where US is able to penetrate and execute operations in relevant and deeep Iranian airspace, this is possible.
4. Today's reality suggests the opposite is more likely- US generally keeps its military aircrafts away from Iranian borders, because several UAVs+ aircraft flying too close to Iran got shot out over the past several years. You weak azz IDF sorry IAF that cant even defeat Hamas gave Iran more than enough time to develop complex, solid, mobile, potent, air defense systems it could manufacture a ton of and deploy all over the country, within a networked system of air defense systems and equipments. There are holes in Iranian defenses most likely, Iran is huge and national air defense coverage is a tough art and feat for a large country, but the chance today of aircraft from Israel and US spending good time in Iranian airspace without detected is low, but there is some chance, but its looow. US and Israel would have to first do a campaign to target and destroy air defense systems in Iran before its air craft will be able to fly freely in Iranian airspace, but their airforces are too tired, too broke, too low on ammunition and too low on motivation - paper tigers. Hamas beat Israel twice and US military is unable to execute large public deployment of troops anywhere.
1. If you're talking about Iranian air defenses from 1995 - 2010, maybe,but,
2. Not today.
3. In a hypothetical scenario where US is able to penetrate and execute operations in relevant and deeep Iranian airspace, this is possible.
4. Today's reality suggests the opposite is more likely- US generally keeps its military aircrafts away from Iranian borders, because several UAVs+ aircraft flying too close to Iran got shot out over the past several years. You weak azz IDF sorry IAF that cant even defeat Hamas gave Iran more than enough time to develop complex, solid, mobile, potent, air defense systems it could manufacture a ton of and deploy all over the country, within a networked system of air defense systems and equipments. There are holes in Iranian defenses most likely, Iran is huge and national air defense coverage is a tough art and feat for a large country, but the chance today of aircraft from Israel and US spending good time in Iranian airspace without detected is low, but there is some chance, but its looow. US and Israel would have to first do a campaign to target and destroy air defense systems in Iran before its air craft will be able to fly freely in Iranian airspace, but their airforces are too tired, too broke, too low on ammunition and too low on motivation - paper tigers. Hamas beat Israel twice and US military is unable to execute large public deployment of troops anywhere.
Only idiots like you think Hamas beat someone😂 we can wipe out everyone in Gaza in 2 hours conventionally. We wait to use this ability for Lebanon, no need for sanctions right now.

And only idiots like you think Iran will survive, F-35s alone would destroy all of your air defenses in 3 hours. Your poor *** 3rd rate technology country will have no chance lol
Only idiots like you think Hamas beat someone😂 we can wipe out everyone in Gaza in 2 hours conventionally. We wait to use this ability for Lebanon, no need for sanctions right now.

And only idiots like you think Iran will survive, F-35s alone would destroy all of your air defenses in 3 hours. Your poor *** 3rd rate technology country will have no chance lol

If Iran wishes it can have more nuclear weapons than Pakistan and India (self-sufficiency)

Even today Russia is offering Iran nuclear weapons

Go ask your papa how much was the heat of nazi ovens certainly the heat of nuclear weapons are several several times more

Only one missiles is enough to wipe off Zionist rats
Last edited:
The zionist rat isn't necessarily wrong behind his obnoxiousness. Unless Iran has S500 equivalent they will be overwhelmed with a massive missile strike wave and fleets of incursions. You have to ask yourself what Anglosaxons are prepared to do and they're paranoid about losing. They'll move to their unmanned aircraft within 10 years.
If Iran wishes it can have more nuclear weapons than Pakistan and India (self-sufficiency)

Even today Russia is offering Iran nuclear weapons

Go ask your papa how much was the heat of nazi ovens certainly the heat of nuclear weapons are several several times more

Only one missiles is enough to wipe off Zionist rats
It will get nuked before ever getting a nuke

The zionist rat isn't necessarily wrong behind his obnoxiousness. Unless Iran has S500 equivalent they will be overwhelmed with a massive missile strike wave and fleets of incursions. You have to ask yourself what Anglosaxons are prepared to do and they're paranoid about losing. They'll move to their unmanned aircraft within 10 years.
Russia has the S500 and S400 and that didn't help their submarine from getting blown up by a cruise missile

Western technology will always be superior
NOTE: My responses in this thread should be taken as an attempt to establish facts. I am not trying to judge Iran or others on moralistic grounds or taking an ideological stance in this debate. Treat my statements as information. Thanks.


There is an article adapted from that book, which answers the question.


In it, we read:

In other terms, if the team representing American forces came out on top it was because the outcome had been scripted.
These are American internal squabbles that independent observers are not in the position to resolve. What can I do about this issue? My observation is that American simulation(s) are known to cast a grim picture for Blue Team in a specified operational scenario but this is not reality.


The F-111’s long range and its ability to launch laser-guided bombs could knock out command and control and key air defense sites. However, in computer simulations run before the war, about half of the F-111Fs and A-6s were lost to Iraqi air defenses, even when standard electronic countermeasures were employed.

Source: Rebecca Grant


F-111 Turning in an outstanding performance, the F-111 again proved itself to be a workhorse not only in the interdiction and strategic attack roles but across the spectrum of ground attack missions. With its FLIR (Forward Looking Infrared) and laser designation system, the F-111F attacked key military production facilities; chemical, biological, and nuclear sites; airfields, bunkers, C3 assets, and portions of the integrated air defense system with great success. Attacking bridges, hardened aircraft shelters, and individual tanks, armored vehicles, and artillery, it was a stellar performer. In what became known as "tank plinking" the F-111s were credited with over 1500 verified armor kills. In over 4,000 sorties, the 84 deployed F-111s had a mission capable rate of over 85% --- approximately 8% higher than peacetime rates. One Wing Commander reported that his unit flew over 2100 sorties with no maintenance non-delivers. These platforms delivered the precision munitions on the manifolds which stopped the oil Saddam was dumping into the Gulf. Overall, the F-111 proved to be a versatile, precise, survivable platform which made significant contributions to the success of the air war.

Emphasis mine: pre-war American simulation(s) cast doubt on F-111 to do well in war with Iraq but it exceeded all expectations in Operation Desert Storm.

Additional pre-war American simulation(s) predicted heavy losses of US forces in war with Iraq:

One scenario, which includes an overland drive to Baghdad, projects as many as 10,000 Americans dead and 35,000 wounded. Others place the figures much lower, although one Pentagon projection went as high as 30,000 Americans killed in the first 20 days of war, according to a news report, a figure so large that a military historian said it was "full of inaccuracies and misunderstanding of the realities of modern armed conflict."

- but US forces lost only 147 troops in Operation Desert Storm.

You get my drift now?

MC02 simulation cast doubt on US Navy to do well in war with Iran but this is not reality. More importantly, US Navy has significantly improved the technology and survivability of its ships in subsequent years. So forgive me for not wasting my time on American internal squabbles on the issue of MC02 - this is meaningless distraction.

I focus on the ability to leverage global connections, demonstrations in actual battles, information in reliable sources and publications, planning considerations, operational considerations, technology, training regime, and weapons testing regime to understand these matters. A country that has better ability to leverage global connections, technology, training regime, weapons testing regime, planning considerations, and operational considerations - is very likely to be superior in conduct of war.

One should regard combat simulation(s) and arguments of dissidents like Scott Ritter (a man whose very reputation is in question) with caution when it comes to evaluating American war machine.

USA regime claim, not corroborated. Also doesn't prove lack of Iranian motivation, competence and skill in conduct of war.
You expect from Iran to confirm this incident? Come on now. This incident does not fit into the Iran Stronk image cultivated by Iranian establishment for domestic consumption.

Propaganda based on fake news.
Source is trustworthy for independent observers. Iranians will deny of-course.

As opposed to the US Navy admiral who ordered the downing of an Iranian passenger plane - for that person ended up being decorated instead.


Your air defense system could not distinguish a passenger aircraft from a jet fighter? This is the point.

Again a unilateral face-saving claim by the USA military with no evidence offered to substantiate it.

The wedge-shaped Sentinel drone was part of a tag-team surveillance effort over Iran that began as early 2006 and also involved the CIA, the communications-intercepting National Security Agency, the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency that analyzes satellite imagery and the spy bureaus of America's closest allies, the Post reports. The major finding of the ongoing effort: that Iran is still a year away from producing a nuclear weapon -- if that's Tehran's intention. "Certain things are not being done," an intelligence source says of Iran's nuclear initiative.

It took Iranian forces 4 years to understand what was going on and how to bring down this drone. This drone crashed or was brought down in broad daylight (see images in here) - drone operators were not thinking clearly on this fateful day. Stealthy aircraft are best used in dark conditions.

US has not lost this type of drone in any region since. See this and this.

The SM-6 SAM, associated radars and supporting systems have been taken into account by Iran.

From Iranian standpoint but claims are not proof.

Houthi claimed that Burkan-3 cannot be intercepted but it was.
Russians claimed that Kinzhal cannot be intercepted but it was. See this and this.

SM-6 is cutting edge and can be used to defeat hypersonic threats.

"Today, the SM-6 missile is the only weapon in the country’s arsenal capable of engaging highly-maneuverable hypersonic threats." - CRS Report RL33745

I pointed out the possibility back in 2018 in here. I figured out this reality several years ago.

The question however was not how a specialized institution would assess Iranian missile power, but rather what Washington's PR strategy for broader audiences looks like.

And here, we had an administration official, the aforementioned Brian Hook clearly attempting to downplay the capability of Iranian missiles the very same year as the DIA report was published.


Thence, the USA has not been hyping the strength of Iranian military forces.

Brain Hook = underestimate
DIA = Realistic
MC02 = overestimate
Scott Ritter = overestimate

Given that Ritter is a dissident ex-officer who fell out with the USA establishment, this by definition is not a case of the USA regime overstating an adversary's power.

As for his explanations, they seem realistic to me.
See above.

Very - he did not get much right about the ongoing Ukraine - Russia War either.

To those who predicted collapse of Ukrainian forces, I pointed out that this is erroneous assumption on September 14, 2022 in here and on January 24, 2023 in here. But I had correctly predicted back in April 14, 2022 that Ukrainian forces will take their chances in Donbas and face heavy resistance in this region:

"It looks like Ukrainian forces will find it difficult to challenge Russian forces in Donbas because its terrain favors mechanized thrusts and Russians still have numbers, Air Power and standoff munitions to throw at Ukrainians for the needful. Ukrainian forces will take their chances nevertheless."

Many were making tall claims as usual, but I was on the mark. At present, Ukrainian forces are keeping Russian forces busy in Bakhmut (diversion) and using this tactic to push through Russian defenses in Zaporizhia oblast.

I do not think Scott Ritter is ignorant, I think he is trolling American establishment. And you fell for it.

The USA was defeated in various battles and wars as well.
Vietnam is the only region where American leaders did not take advantage of achievements of US forces such as President Johnson did not take advantage of American military victory in Operation Apache Snow in 1969 and his successor President Nixon did not take advantage of American military victory in Operation Linebacker II in 1972. US was in the position to conclude this war on its terms by continuing Operation Linebacker but President Nixon chose to withdraw US forces from Vietnam instead. This was a political debacle.

War in Afghanistan was also fought in a manner that defense contractors could benefit from this campaign. Afghanistan was used as a test bed for new technologies (experiments) while Afghans were pitted against each other. It is true that a number of high profile terrorists had found shelter in Pakistani cities and it took a while to retrace/nab/kill them. Pakistan wanted to preserve Taliban groups so Trump administration made a deal with them to conclude the war on the condition that they will not allow Al-Qaeda types to use Afghanistan as a base of operations to plot attacks on American assets in 2020. Biden administration scrapped the Intra Afghan Dialogue and settled for the deal with Taliban groups by previous administration. The war was concluded with elimination of high profile terrorists to dismantle Al-Qaeda Network and understanding with Taliban groups. This decision was in view of regional realities and dynamics. Pakistan was making it possible for US to operate in Afghanistan so US was not in the position to make bold decisions.

War in Afghanistan is not a good indicator of how it can be fought in other countries.

US can build a case against Iran if it wants to. US does not have to depend on another country to attack Iran. US can a number of countries into confidence for this matter. Pakistan will not be a party in this matter at most. However, Biden administration is showing restraint. The ball is in the court of Iranian leadership - it can avert crisis.

Iran didn't go beyond the missile strike because the martyrdom of a general, be it a legendary one like shahid Soleimani, wouldn't suffice to generate a strategic setback to Iran's regional position. Had the USA taken a measure conducive to actually threatening Iran's position in a serious way, then Iranian retaliation could have been expected to be heavier, in accordance with and proportional to the hypothetical reversal suffered.
Your side has quiet a threshold for tolerance - like mine.

...if Ritter was speaking on behalf of the USA regime. He is not, in fact the opposite holds true.
Be it may, this man is not trustworthy. I have pointed out a number of issues in his positions - up to you now.

You want to trust this man, be my guest. I will stick with common sense and conventional wisdom.

Air defences weren't the only types of sites bombed by the USA and allies. In fact Iraq's infrastructure was struck in general, not limited to military sites.

In both areas Iran is more developed than Iraq used to be, with several times the amount of facilities and equipments.

At this stage numbers come into play and in a country the size of Iran, with the industrial and human development levels attained by Iran, said numbers are staggering.
There is no need to attack every building and individual out there. The idea is to cripple command and communication systems of the enemy to take away its capacity to fight a war as a cohesive force - US understands this game well enough. The opposing forces are exposed and easier to defeat consequently. Infrastructure is attacked in phases subject to importance and relevance.

Precision munitions have made it much easier to engage a large number of targets from a distance. There is no need to drop multiple bombs on one spot to achieve desired outcome. US also have a fleet of bombers - each bomber can produce battlefield effects that would take multiple aircraft to produce.


The B-2 is one of the most game-changing aircraft ever built and one of the most cost-effective. It has a 172-foot wingspan, 20 feet wider than the Boeing 767 airliner, but unlike the 767, the B-2 has the radar signature of an insect—an amazing technical and manufacturing feat. Beyond the ability to use its low observability to penetrate enemy air defenses, the combination of the B-2’s large payload and precision delivery means its cost per effect is dramatically better than past or present power projection alternatives.

During World War II it took a thousand B-17 or B-24 bombers with 10,000 men and 9,000 weapons to attack a single target. Today the B-2 can attack 80 separate targets thousands of miles away with precision weapons in a single mission in a single day using two people. An aircraft carrier battle group with thousands of people, taking weeks of positioning time from thousands of miles away, and dozens of fighter-attack flights, can potentially achieve the same effects, but not with the same level of stealth, and at multiple orders of magnitude more cost both in terms of dollars and personnel.

- Costs are reduced.
- Complexity is reduced.
- Probability of suffering losses is reduced.

Case in point:

During Allied Force, the air war over Serbia, six B-2s conducted 45 sorties out of 9,211 Air Force fighter and bomber sorties in the entire war—less than a half of one percent—but they struck 33 percent of the targets in the first eight weeks of combat.

Yugoslavian air defenses were modeled to counter stealthy aircraft in view of Operation Desert Storm but B-2A degraded them to the point of being utterly useless - Yugoslavian air defenses were able to shoot down only 2 aircraft in the entire war (F-117 = 1; F-16 = 1). B-2A delivered significant blows to Yugoslavian air defenses in opening phase of the war and made it much safer for the other aircraft to operate over the country by extension.

When B-2A are flying above, all those JUICY radar systems among other things shall be granted their last rites.

US literally emerged in war and has spent much time fighting a war from time to time. US has come with impressive solutions to counter existing and emerging threats from around the world. Iran is an amateur in comparison.

From the quoted RAND report:

The exact opposite to Iran's approach, which stresses autonomy of AD units. Among other things Iran developed and mass produced sophisticated 'all in one' mobile SAM systems such as the Third Khordad, which brought down the USA's latest generation RQ-4A Global Hawk BAMS-D surveillance drone over the Persian Gulf in 2019.


Indeed Iran has been studying past wars waged by the Americans in minute detail, and drawn the right conclusions.
Take a look at Iraqi command centers and arrangements in 1991:


ADOC -> SOC -> IOC -> Iraqi air defense systems

Iraqi air defense systems were allowed to function independently in case of loss of communications - a number of these units were able to engage and down Coalition aircraft in war on their own even though Iraqi C2 infrastructure was crippled early on. The operators were skilled but loss of communication, cohesion, and direction led to nowhere.

There has to be a central command to issue orders and manage war. You cannot count on individual units and lower level commanders to decide what to do in war - lack of coherence will lead to defeat in conventional war.

Decentralization is suitable for producing insurgency but not conventional war. Cohesion is important even in the case of insurgency; Iraqi insurgency (2004 - 2011) is noted for its intensity and ferocity but it was decentralized and it failed to overcome US-led forces on the ground due to this reason.

But the point is this: US has the capacity to attack country-wide infrastructure in war - there is no stopping this. There is just one option and it is to defeat US Navy and USAF in war but no country is up to the task.

Third Khordad is impressive for you but not for Americans:

On Thursday, Islamic Revolution Guards Corps officials declared that they had shot down the drone with an Iranian-made Khordad-3 air defense system. Given the RQ-4’s usual operating altitude, the interceptor missile was likely a TALASH 2B. A representative from U.S. Central Command declined to confirm the missile type, but did say that Iran did not use its most sophisticated air-defense system, the Russian-made S-300, in the engagement.

In other words, the U.S. military lost one of its most advanced intelligence drones to a mediocre radar and missile.

The author Patrick Tucker is right - a number of American drones are suitable for COIN missions and not built to survive in well-defended spaces. Iran saw an opportunity when it noticed an RQ-4A operating close to Iranian border at an altitude of 22,209 feet to monitor IRGC activity in the Gulf of Oman. You took your shot but you are teaching Americans in the process.

In addition to making RQ-170 more reliable, US is developing and testing RQ-180.

RQ-180 is a huge leap from other ISR platforms and built to survive in well-defended spaces. Nevertheless, US does not rely on ISR drones to attack air defense systems. US has developed an assortment of very advanced and stealthy missiles and aircraft to do the needful.

WE are witnessing destruction of S-300 and S-400 systems in Ukraine. Russian ground forces are credited for destroying a number of Ukrainian S-300 launchers or systems. This might be true since Russian VKS is lacking in SEAD/DEAD technology and options. Ukrainian Air Force is in the same boat but Ukrainian forces have exposed shortcomings of S-300 and S-400 systems in other ways. Ukrainian forces used HIMARS to damage/destroy S-400 systems when within range but US has not given longe range HIMARS munition to Ukraine yet. Ukrainian forces used a combination of drones and S-360 Neptune cruise missiles to damage/destroy an S-400 system in Crimea August 23, 2023. These developments show that American weapons are more than up to the task.

Wake up call, brother. You are expecting miracles from Iranian air defense systems.

Russia has had a tacit understanding with the zionists and the USA to tolerate their attacks on Syrian forces - as long as these attacks would stop short of threatening the stability of the Syrian government and give armed opposition groups the upperhand. So long as this condition is respected, it makes no sense for Moscow to escalate.
This is correct - I accept what is correct. But Assad regime is opposed to all manner of American and Israeli activity on Syrian soil and Russia did not welcome attacks on Syrian military bases and units either.

US Navy attacked Syrian al-Shayrat Airbase in 2017 in such a way that Russian S-400 systems could not do anything and Russian EW systems could not jam Tomahawk Block IV cruise missiles (rare admission from Russians in here). This missile can mask itself in ground clutter, is very difficult to jam, and can be programmed to bypass threat zones in its pathway to reach designated target. The window of opportunity to detect and intercept this cruise missile becomes very small, and a volley is virtually impossible to stop in any case.

NATO attacked some assets of Assad regime again in 2018. Both Russia and Assad regime claimed to have shot down a total of 71 cruise missiles but did not provide a shred of evidence.

US used F-35A to strike at ISIL positions in sectors under control of Assad regime in 2020 without informing Russians. Both Russia and Assad regime could not figure out what happened.

Israel has tested Syrian defenses on a frequent basis on the other hand. Israel has struck targets in Damascus, let alone other sectors.

Let's have a look at Syrian defenses. Syrian air defenses as in 2010 was based on Soviet technology including P-18 in large part. But Assad administration acquired Chinese Type 120, JYL-1, and YJ-27 radar systems to modernize Syrian air defenses in subsequent years. Assad administration also requested Russian assistance during the Syrian Civil War and Russian forces created a network of S-400 system, S-300 system, and Nebo-M technology to protect Syrian airports and military bases from airborne threats. Not bad at all but did not work.

Those S-300 and S-400 batteries destroyed in Ukraine were essentially hit by ground-based artillery rather than fighter jets. In an intensive ground war, literally any SAM battery could be suppressed in such a way, no matter its origin or specifications. The long-range and high-altitude S-300 / S-400 aren't designed to intercept artillery rockets.
See above.

Has been the case since 2003 and the illegal USA invasion. Iran however turned the threat stemming from American military occupation of a next door neighbour into an opportunity by successfully managing to entertain close relations with scores of political actors across Iraq, as well as with an entire corps of the Iraqi military, the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) which is armed by Iran and whose commanders are ideologically aligned with the Islamic Revolution.

Continuous attempts by Washington to disrupt this relationship have failed.
This is correct - I accept what is correct.

There is another aspect to this. Iran has spiritual significance for Shia around the world and it can leverage this significance to its advantage in countries where a substantial population of Shia exist.

Americans were also supporting Shia and Kurd in Iraq but they underestimated the potential of Iran to influence Shia groups in Iraq. Iran could match American strength with its spiritual significance in Iraq to have a say in Iraqi affairs.

Iran continues to use Syria as a transit route towards her allies in Lebanon.

The western and zionist attempt to remove the Iranian-allied government of Damascus through war was defeated.

Iran now enjoys direct military presence in Syria, which was not the case prior to the war. What's more, Iran has moved in allied paramilitary forces from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and has also built similar units recruited from local Syrian communities. Many of these are stationed along the boundary with Occupied Golan, offering Iran yet another instrument of deterrence against the zionist regime.
That I can see, but Iranian footprint in Syria has motivated Israel to attack Iranian supplies, troops, Hezbollah, and assets of Assad regime across Syria since 2017 - a new chapter of violence in the country. Israel continues to control Golan Heights and have changed its demographics as well. The forces stationed near Golan Heights provide bragging rights to Iranian clerics but cannot change the statusquo - not that I approve of Israeli occupation of Golan Heights, just pointing out the obvious. Golan Heights were lost to Israel in war in 1967 - ironic. More war = more problems for Syria.

Zainabiyoun Brigade is a corrupt organization and not popular in Pakistan. These people were involved in killings in Karachi. You hire criminals to do your bidding in other countries? WE do not appreciate this. Pakistani should stay away from corruption and mischief in other countries.

Syrian Civil War broke out because Assad regime does not respect public sentiments - United Nations (UN) has also pointed out this fact. Millions of Syrians are displaced and many were forced to flee the country. A number of countries including US supported Syrian rebels but US shifted its focus to dismantle ISIL movement in 2014 (Operation Inherent Resolve). US did not attempt to topple Assad regime, therefore. Assad regime would not have lasted a month otherwise.

The sensible thing to do was to let Syrians decide what is better for them and not get involved in their internal problems, but nope. Opportunists of all shapes and sizes arrived on the scene.

It was easy for Iran to establish its footprint in Syria. This is a place where even NATO members do not get along - Turkey and US disagree on the matter of whom to support in Syria. Turkey supports original Syrian rebels while US supports Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) group in Syria. Turkey consider SDF a terrorist organization due to involvement of PKK in its cadre. US is helping SDF overcome ISIL in lands under its control (Operation Inherent Resolve).

Assad regime reached out to Iran and Russia to help defeat Syrian rebels. More like to crush other Syrians who disapprove of Assad regime dictatorship. But even Assad regime is concerned about not escalating matters with Israel beyond its control:

In 2022 it was reported that Syria asked Iran and its proxies not to carry out attacks on Israel from its territory, in order to reduce the number of aerial attacks that disrupt the regime’s reconstruction efforts. Indeed, there was no Iranian response (since 2018 there have been no attacks from Syria aimed at Israel). On the one hand, it appears that Assad is restricting Iranian activity in a way that prevents Tehran from implementing its plan to make Syria the scene of friction with Israel and another front in the struggle. In recent years the CBW has managed to severely curtail the extent of Shiite militias in Syria, estimated at around 20,000 fighters, and to thwart a plan to establish a branch of Hezbollah on the Golan Heights.

Fight against "zionists" cannot be won by siding with tyrants and criminals. No camp has the moral high ground in this war. You expect from Allah Almighty to reward this enterprise? Syria does not have a good reputation even in the End Times Islamic eschatology - it will be under control of a tyrant and will continue to burn.

Iran's ally, HezbAllah, maintains its standing in the Lebanese political landscape, having overcome several western-backed plots aimed at sidelining the party, disarming it etc. Better yet, HezbAllah's military capabilities haven't ceased expanding since it successfully kicked out zionist aggressors in the 2006 war.
And Hezbollah has fixed Lebanese more pressing issues?

Lebanon is broke due to factionalism and Iran contributes to this end. Hezbollah is celebrated for giving tough time to Israel in war in 2006 but it is like a state within state in Lebanon.

The notion of "resisting zionists" has its appeal to clerics even though Lebanon has become a broke banana republic in the process. In your moral high ground, you forgot that you have turned Lebanon into a broke banana republic. Congratulations.

Hezbollah started the war in 2006 - thanks to this experience, Israel woke up from its slumber and has developed new technologies to fight a war. Trophy APS is a trend setter in particular.

The Palestinian people have adamantly been resisting occupation and struggling for their rights for nearly three quarters of a century, against all odds. As long as they're here, they will continue to resist and Iran will continue to make sure that their ability to retaliate does not deteriorate but improves steadily as in the past.
Attempts to wipe out Israel have only added to misery of Palestinians. UN settled this issue in a reasonable way in 1948:

Under the resolution, the area of religious significance surrounding Jerusalem would remain under international control administered by the United Nations. The Palestinian Arabs refused to recognize this arrangement, which they regarded as favorable to the Jews and unfair to the Arab population that would remain in Jewish territory under the partition.

But Arabs thought that they could settle this issue the other way by wiping out Israel. The outcome was opposite: Israel managed to take more Palestinian lands including Jerusalem by force:


Israel managed to take even more lands in the next war:

Between June 5 and June 10, Israel defeated Egypt, Jordan, and Syria and occupied the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights.

Israel called off its occupation of Sinai in exchange from recognition from Egypt in 1982:

Israel called off its occupation of some Palestinian lands courtesy of the Oslo Accords in 1994:

Despite attempts by extremists on both sides to sabotage the peace process with violence, the Israelis completed their withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and Jericho in May 1994. In July, Arafat entered Jericho amid much Palestinian jubilation and set up his government–the Palestinian Authority. In October 1994, Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin, and Shimon Peres were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts at reconciliation.

You will find related information in following post:


Israel shows flexibility in the face of diplomatic efforts.

Better solution is to put pressure on Israel to accept Palestinians through diplomatic channels and push for recognition of the Al-Aqsa site as a world heritage site. Good for peace in the region.

Your solution will not work but lead to destruction of Gaza and other Palestinian lands at some point. Egypt have a hand in holding Israel back through its diplomatic efforts in case you do not know.

Try this for a change.

Sanctions did not prevent Iran from progressing on all relevant fronts.

Plus, as emerging powers boost their bilateral ties and secure an ever increasing share of the global economy, the relevance of USA- and EU-imposed sanctions is beginning to dwindle by the day.
Iran has oil, which is still in demand around the world. This will change in the coming years.

Sanctions have limited impact because US does not try to impose them to the letter. US has not considered blocking Iranian shipping activity for instance - something it can do if it gets tough on Iran. You assume that your ASBM can prevent this situation but Americans have prepared for this eventuality on a technical level as noted above. Just saying.

I do not know of many governments and nations cherishing and commemorating martyrs amongst their own but also among their allies' ranks as fervently as Iran does.

The zionists want Iranian forces and pro-Iranian movements out of Syria. They sought to severe the geographic contiguity of the Resistance Axis via toppling of President Assad's government, instead they have to cope with Iranian-led forces stationed directly along their northeastern boundary.

The air strikes they launch are merely the least bad option they can fall back on. However these attacks do not affect the status quo with regards to the Resistance Axis. Namely, they fail to dislodge entrenched pro-Iranian paramilitary units from Syrian territory; and, they also fail to halt the modernization of HezbAllah's weaponry in Lebanon.

Much is made in western- and zionist-dominated media about strikes on alleged Iranian shipments of advanced armament to HezbAllah, however truth is that they have kept upgrading their inventory since 2017. Video clips released by the party's military wing furnish a glimpse into this reality.
I have covered Syrian chapter above - do not feel the need to repeat myself.

So has HezbAllah's military capability, as acknowledged by zionist sources themselves.

As for whether Iran will succeed in its confrontation with the zionist entity, decades before their downfall most observers did not predict the collapse of the USSR nor that of the apartheid regime in South Africa either. Keeping alive Resistance to zionist aggression is key, and this is precisely what Iran is accomplishing.

Iran does not initiate inter-state conflicts. It would be completely inconsistent with the Iranian modus operandi.
Iranian method is to use proxies to do its bidding, this helps in terms of maintaining plausible deniability.

But it takes just one incident that might not sit well the other party to start a war...

I have to repeat this periodically in discussions here, but tag me when they actually take those types of measures rather than emitting hot air.
Yes, Sir.

The issue arose as a consequence of the Aliyev regime threatening to change international borders to the north of Iran through force, namely by annexing parts of the Syunik province in Armenia proper, which would amount to an illegal act of aggression. This is what Iran defined as her red line.

Iran would be highly unwise not to step in to prevent such a dangerous move, which other than constituting a gross violation of fundamental principles of international law, would also heighten the threat posed to Iran's territorial integrity by a regime in cahoots with Tel Aviv.

Absent such a provocation by Baku however, Iran will not engage in any battles there. As usual, Iran is proceeding in a level-headed, calculated and sound manner.

This is all based on official statements from Tel Aviv - not the kind of source to be taken at face value when it comes to alleged battlefield successes. No evidence has been shown to support the veracity of these claims.

Also Iran has long moved to transfer technology in lieu of finished products to her allies, whenever possible. Today HezbAllah, AnsarAllah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are far more self-sufficient than they ever used to be.

In 2022 it was reported that Syria asked Iran and its proxies not to carry out attacks on Israel from its territory, in order to reduce the number of aerial attacks that disrupt the regime’s reconstruction efforts. Indeed, there was no Iranian response (since 2018 there have been no attacks from Syria aimed at Israel). On the one hand, it appears that Assad is restricting Iranian activity in a way that prevents Tehran from implementing its plan to make Syria the scene of friction with Israel and another front in the struggle. In recent years the CBW has managed to severely curtail the extent of Shiite militias in Syria, estimated at around 20,000 fighters, and to thwart a plan to establish a branch of Hezbollah on the Golan Heights.

On the other hand, Israeli deterrence against Iran has led to the formation of a new Iranian response equation, which intensified in 2022. While the Iranians have refrained from attacking Israel, they are not deterred from attacking US forces in Syria in response to Israeli actions. In 2022 there were five attacks on US bases and troops of the international coalition attributed to Iranian militias in Syria, apparently in retaliation for Israel’s aerial strikes – including the al-Tanf base in southern Syria, the al-Shedadi base, the US Consulate in Irbil, and the US base at the Amar oilfield in Deir ez-Zur. These rules of the game continued, when in early 2023 there were four attacks with UAVs and rockets, attributed to Shiite militias supported by Iran, on the al-Tanf base and the US base in Deir ez-Zur. As of now, there have been no casualties, but the attacks illustrate the price the United States is paying for its involvement in the region. This could potentially lead to cutbacks in this involvement, if not withdrawal from Syria – which is contrary to Israeli interests. The United States supports Israel’s fight against Iran's military presence and activity in Syria and gives full backing to the CBW, but further attacks could raise a question mark over continued US backing for the Israeli campaign.

One of the leading achievements of the Israeli campaign is the destruction of most Iranian weapons in Syria. According to the data, only a small number of attacks (9 percent) were intended to thwart transfers of weapons, but the attacks reveal the routes of transfers and often prevent further use of these routes, thus forcing Iran to look for alternatives. An additional 8 percent of attacks in 2022 were intended to damage arms factories on Syrian soil – factories that serve Iran and Hezbollah as well as the Syrian army. Thus the campaign disrupts Hezbollah acquisition of weapons originating in Iran, and also works to disrupt the manufacture of future weapons in the northern arena. However, these actions are not sufficient to prevent all weapons transfers or manufacture. The transfers reportedly continue, and Israel lacks the operational ability to stop them. Often weapons are moved without the approval or knowledge of President Assad, so that pressure on the regime is not an effective way of preventing Iran’s buildup efforts, and they also increase tension between the parties. In addition, over the years the nature of the aerial campaign has encouraged Syria and Iran to look for ways of defending themselves against the attacks, while they continue to build their own strength. Their self-defense includes the establishment of underground weapons production facilities, to create long term resistance to aerial attacks.

In 2022 attacks against Syrian regime targets, particularly those on the international airports, aggravated the tension between Israel and Russia. The war in Ukraine intensified the position of Syria as the scene of a struggle between two multinational blocs – Russia and the eastern camp against the West, led by the United States. In the first months of the war Israel expressed concerns over the restriction of its aerial freedom over Syria and damage to Israeli interests in the area. Although its freedom of action is currently maintained and it appears that the operational coordination between Israel and Russia is still in place, a number of developments over the past year could be evidence of the potential for change, above all, the apparent launch of rockets from Russian S300 air defenses against Israeli planes, strong Russian condemnation in the UN General Assembly of attacks on airports in Syria, and closer relations between Iran and Russia, as shown by the sale of Iranian weapons to Moscow. Iranian military aid to Russia could demand a quid pro quo from Moscow in the Syrian arena, and the Russians could be asked to limit Israel’s aerial freedom, or unfortunately to allow Iran to strengthen its grip and influence on the country.

In addition, recent years have seen a number of strategic processes that increase Iran’s influence in Syria in a way that is not addressed by the CBW. Iran is working to reinforce its civilian entrenchment, infiltrating many aspects of Syrian life – the economy, education, culture and tourism. In 2022 Iran worked tirelessly to extend economic cooperation, including increasing trade between the countries, launching joint economic projects, and removing regulatory restrictions. According to Tehran regime, Iranian exports to Syria doubled last year, and Iran is exploiting the economic crisis in Syria to increase Syrian dependence. It has reinforced cooperation in the field of energy and electricity, implemented joint construction projects, and promoted the involvement of Iranian companies in the rebuilding of Syria. Moreover 2022 saw the revival of the “resistance axis” to Israel, which includes Iran, Hezbollah, Syria, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas. Renewed relations between the Assad regime and Hamas strengthen Syria’s status as an important element in the radical axis. Iran regards all these activities as strategic processes designed to exploit the civilian and political situation in Syria, while hardly being affected by the air attacks of the CBW, which are focused on preventing Iran’s military empowerment in Syria.

Granted that Iran and Syria have every right to have bilateral relations, but to use another territory of another country to fight your battles with Israel? Others are expendable in this calculus, right? Why don't you fight your battles directly since you have the strongest army in the world? One thing I respect about Russians - they fight their battles themselves.

Secondly, attacking US-led forces in Syria is a good idea? ISIL can benefit from this dynamic. ISIL posit a threat to much of the world. Iraqi are correct to point out that Syria exported terrorism to Iraq - Iran should know better than to be an enabler.

For Washington the whole point of extending consequential support to the anti-government insurgency in Syria was to try and disrupt the Iranian-led Axis of Resistance. USA policy in the region is largely bent on supporting zionist strategic goals, and expulsion of Iran from the Levant is a key aspect thereof.

This is echoed by long-standing American attempts to coerce Iran to the negotiating table about her regional system of alliance (formerly envisaged as a prospective JCPOA II or III). As well as by Pompeo's infamous twelve-point list of demands from Iran. It is thus a constantly pursued objective by successive USA administrations.

Iran not only safeguarding her close ties with Damascus but gaining a direct foothold in Syria as a result of the conflict is a strategic victory for Tehran, and a strategic defeat for its enemies i.e. the USA, EU and Isra"el".
I do not see US even trying to oust Iran from Syria. All that firepower that was directed towards dismantling ISIL in the region, could be directed towards Iranian assets in Syria otherwise.

If anything, US has been very accommodating to Iranian moves. Surprisingly so.

Walking away from JCPOA was a controversial decision - accepted. But deals can be re-negotiated.

As opposed to the USA regime, the Islamic Republic does not launch wars.

In the event of an American aggression against Iran however, Iranian allies throughout the region are likely to target USA forces and American interests (which are not limited to troop deployments) in their respective geographic areas. This in turn will pose a challenge Washington can't solve through a limited air campaign. The PMU for instance are deeply intertwined with parts of the Iraqi political establishment and are rooted in a genuine, mainstream social basis. Furthermore they'll be enjoying steady streams of supplies and other state-level support from across the border with Iran.

It will be more akin to the post-invasion years rebellion in Iraq than to bombing rogue, clandestine elements such as "I"SIS or the Al-Nusra Front over some limited stretches of land.
The moral high ground?
- Iran supported Houthi in Yemen even though Houthi overthrew internationally recognized Yemeni government. Saudi Arabia attempted to restore the overthrown Yemeni government to power in Yemen but failed to do so because Saudi army cannot fight. UAE-led forces were making some gains but they stopped due to pressure of United Nations (UN).
- Iran also supported a dictator in Syria to suppress his own people.

Any country that meddle in affairs of another country finds itself in the "50 shades of grey" situation. War is dirty business.

There is a limit to what extent other countries will fight your battles. Even Assad regime has its limits. Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq - the most powerful Shia cleric - is not on a blind follower of Iran either. One must have realistic expectations.

US also has allies in the region.

I do not think so, and real life absence of military aggression against Iran goes to vindicate this conviction.

Iran is fielding an AD network more elaborate and advanced than both the Iraq of 1991 and the Yugoslavia of 1999, including in its anti-stealth components.
Sure, but Americans have developed technologies to defeat Russian and Chinese air defense systems, let alone Iranian.





These images are very telling if you can understand.
There is also a limit to posting visual contents in a post but these will do for now.

Iran understands how the USA military operates, and how to maximize the survivability of her air defence shield.
There is a limit to what Iran can learn and understand from a distance. American military secrets are not public knowledge or open book. For perspective, people are surprised to learn what SR-71 Blackbird is capable of after its information was declassified recently - a jet that was created in the 1960s. Imagine.

Indian Air Force (IAF) knows much about Pakistani Air Force (PAF) as well but have a look at the outcome of Operation Swift Retort. PAF had technological superiority and professionalism.

I am not focusing primarily on numbers. The types of armaments developed by Iran, that is her missile (ballistic / cruise) as well as UAV forces are the weapons of choice for an asymmetric A2/AD strategy designed to deny the USA military a free hand in its air force-centric approach.
In theory.

The Iranian Missiles thread in this sub-section contains all the necessary, publicly released data about types and range of Iranian ballistic (and other) missiles.

It's safe to posit that in proportion to Iran'd size and resources, there is no equivalent anywhere to such a wide variety of ballistic missiles designed and developed over a relatively brief period of time (roughly three decades) - whether range, type of fuel, body materials, engine, flight characteristics, warhead, guidance, launch method etc is concerned.

Which shows that Iran has pretty much proven to be innovative in terms of defence doctrine. The function ascribed to conventional ballistic missiles by Iran, their importance within the overall strategy has no precedents. While other countries such as the Soviet Union or Iraq did use ballistic missiles with conventional warheads in a tactical role, and while they acquired relatively large quantities of these, their focus on said weapons as well as the share of their defence budgets dedicated to BM procurement didn't come remotely close to Iran.
I requested you to provide statistics. Claims like Iranian arsenal is vast, huge, too much, is an excercise in exaggeration. Have you checked American ballistic missile arsenal? It happens to be large, very advanced, accurate, and reliable. Americans are far ahead of Iran in rocketry.

Let's have a look at the situation in Ukraine. Russia has used hundreds of ballistic missiles in Ukraine to limited effect. Heck, Russia has used over 5000 different types of standoff munitions in Ukraine to limited effect. Ukrainian forces have managed to intercept a large number of ballistic missiles and continue to fight and inflict heavy losses on Russian forces.

Ukraine has reported downing nearly 80 percent of air and ground-launched ballistic missile attacks nationwide and 100 percent of ballistic missiles attacking areas where ballistic missile defenses (Patriot) are present. Ukraine only has two Patriot batteries. As such, most of Ukraine lacks any protection from ballistic missiles, as shown by the June 10 Iskander-M strike in Poltava and the June 22 Kh-47 strikes around Dnipro, which Ukraine could not stop.

This is the situation in a country that is absolutely lacking in advanced air defense systems outside Kyiv. Tactical ballistic missiles have their uses but not able to produce battlefield effects on the level of other more useful options. Russian forces have failed to defeat Ukrainan forces because Russian Aerospace Forces (Russian Air Force or VKS) has failed to establish air superiority over Ukraine. Ukrainian S-300 systems forced Russian jets to fly at very low altitudes where they were vulnerable to MANPADS such as stinger. Russian military weaknesses were noted in Syria as well:

But Syrian rebels were not equipped to exploit Russian military weaknesses - absolute lack of air defense systems for instance. I have repeatedly pointed out the fact that US did not equip Syrian rebels to fight a war with Russia and even Assad regime. US shifted its focus to dismantle ISIL in Syria with support of SDF in 2014 (Operation Inherent Resolve); Russian forces arrived in Syria in 2015. US and Russia had an understanding in this case.

Russia seems to be using Iranian strategy to fight in Ukraine and the outcome is in front of you. Ukraine is also lacking in Air Force but its army can fight unlike Saudi army.

When speaking of interception, numbers become relevant. Considering how stunningly affordable the estimated price tag is of mass-produced Iranian BM's, versus the cost of an ABM system and associated projectiles, Iran has the upper hand from an economic perspective even when factoring in the revenue and budget gap.
This argument can hold when up against another regional power but WE are talking about US here.

Yes, known Iranian BM's have ranges of up to 4000 km. Also, if I remember correctly some sources speculate Iran might have discretely stationed mid-range missiles on Iraqi soil. Lastly Iran can attack USA troops in Syria via local allied forces.
US will build its defenses in the Middle East and in Arabian Sea before taking its chances with Iran. This is common sense.

This ability drives up the expectable cost and complexity of all out war against Iran.
If Iran attacks US forces in other countries, some might decide to support US and retaliate.

I'm referring to doctrinal fundamentals rather than incremental adjustements or iterations. The former are not as flexible nor as adaptable on an ad hoc basis.
Combat at operational and tactical level continues to change with technology.

Perhaps Iran did not invent an entirely new category of weapon, but everything else in the Iranian defence doctrine, namely the way in which key equipment would be used, is as original as it could get. Thinking outside the box has been an elementary guideline of Iranian planners, especially of the IRGC, spurred on by two important factors:

- One, the need to rely as much as possible on domestic research and manufacturing, given the enmity of the USA and subsequent obstacles in accessing global arms markets but more importantly, given the Islamic Revolution's ideological emphasis on self-sufficiency, often making original solutions inevitable.

- Two, the fact that Iran's main adversary is the USA regime. Attempts to protect Iran from hypothetical USA aggression in symmetric ways would have been suicidal, because of the existing resource gap.

I alluded to the originality of Iran's missile-centric concept. But the novelty in Iranian defensive power extends to other sectors as well. At this point a quick reminder might be in order that Iran actually pioneered modern unmanned aerial combat. Iranian forces experimented with the idea as early as during the 1980-1988 Sacred Defence (or Iran-Iraq war), when they flew the very first armed UAV missions. Rudimentary as the RPG-armed drone might have been, it serves as a reminder that since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, the Iranian military has focused on walking off the trodden path.

The USA never had to contend with the particular way of warfighting crafted by Iran.
It will be sensible to assume that Iranians can be innovative. Iran seems to have learned from its combat experiences and revisited its military capability and tactics to significant extent. Iran might have some surprises in store for an enemy and this is why I assume that Iranian forces can inflict losses on US forces in war but the contention is about "to what extent."

US forces operate around the world to observe various developments. US has created a global surveillance system to observe military experiments and collect sensitive information from around the world. US has created a global software ecosystem and Big Data processing tools to collect information from around the world. Can WE assume that American intelligence community is lacking in knowledge and ideas? Americans also have a vivid imagination - they tend to imagine and assume what the enemy can do. They propose outside the box solutions as well. Case in point: Ghost Fleet. Americans also learn from others and come up with new battle doctrines. This is not difficult to understand.

Russia attempted to apply American AirLand Battle doctrine in Ukraine and failed - not due to Ukraine being a military juggernaut (it wasn't), but Russia does not have the required level of technology, professionalism, operational exposure, and combat experience to pull it off. I pointed out these weaknesses above. This is not to say that Russia is weak and cannot fight a war - Russian forces can learn from their combat experiences and adjust their tactics - this happened in Ukraine. But Russian experience turned out to be far more costly and much less effective in comparison to American experience in Iraq.

US demonstrated the capability to defeat a regional power in conventional war with minimum losses (Operation Desert Storm; Operation Allied Force). US also demontrated the capability to handle one of the most brutal insurgency experiences and reshape political landscape of a regional power (Operation Iraqi Freedom). US has come up with new battle doctrine based on its experiences in the War On Terror and in view of emerging threats from China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia.

Iran is simply not in the position to keep up with US in arms race and doctrinal shifts. As for your level of self-sufficiency, here is something:

Those two rocket failures — one that Iran announced on Jan. 15 and the other, an unacknowledged attempt, on Feb. 5 — were part of a pattern over the past 11 years. In that time, 67 percent of Iranian orbital launches have failed, an astonishingly high number compared to a 5 percent failure rate worldwide for similar space launches.

Some of the Iranian ballistic missiles failed to work in Operation Martyr Soleimani - can you be certain about how many Iranian ballistic missiles will work in war? Your drones contain Western components. Your country is not a manufacturing hub of cruical components for use in the entire world. What you have built, if it is exhausted in war, what then?

Even though US defeated Iraq in war, there were lessons to learn from this campaign. US is closely monitoring Chinese, Iranian, North Korea, and Chinese military advances. US is closely monitoring Ukraine - Russia War up close: this war is very instructive. One of the lessons US learned was to walk out from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty with Russia and build defenses against ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones. US has produced over 60 Patriot systems and 8 THAAD systems and is making these systems interoperable. US has absolutely revisited and modernized its Patriot systems as well. US does not have to deploy so many air defense systems in the Middle East because US Navy brings its own defenses to a conflict zone. These forces are networked and have the capacity to intercept a variety of Iranian missiles but, more importantly, American Air Power will be in motion and attacking and degrading Iranian forces while at it. Other American assets such as the National Security Agency (NSA) will be involved as well to sabotage Iranian military activity in relatively unknown ways. No side can take this much pressure - Iranians are not superhumans and Iranian military technology is not magic.

Asymmetry is precisely there to compensante for a nominal power differential. That's the essence of the idea behind it. And Iran implemented the concept to perfection.

Iran would be a wholly different pair of shoes (as in: different in nature) compared to anything Washington has faced to date.
See above.

It's not Ritter imagining that scenario, he is citing a contingency plan authored by the Pentagon.

Its unrealistic take on Soviet capabilities at that time isn't an issue, since it's a purely theoretical exercice meant to be improbable.

The plan operates on the hypothesis of the USA Marine Corps acting alone, without assistance from Pakistan nor Afghan mojahedin. Given this, the intensive challenges identified (in no small part induced by geography) are instructive with respect to how an attempted invasion of Iran would play out.

Therefore an attack on Iran from Washington's own perspective would be anything but unnecessary. It's just that under prevalent conditions they don't think they can do it at an affordable political cost, that's all.
I pointed out the following fact to you:

Organization and Readiness

Fiscal year 1984 marked a shift in the composition of the United States Army force structure. The Army refined many of the 16 active and 10 reserve component division designs through the Army of Excellence design initiatives to accommodate force structure needs within a constrained active Army end strength. These initiatives helped to develop a light division tailored for the low-intensity threat that the Army forecast into the twenty-first century, while retaining the capability to fight on the mid- to high-intensity battlefield when properly augmented. Light divisions, through their relative improvement in deployment, permit the timely application of combat power to stabilize or neutralize the situation at minimal force levels. In addition to the light infantry division, the Army of Excellence placed increased emphasis on providing the corps commanders with the means to conduct the AirLand Battle. This included shifting artillery, intelligence, and combat aviation assets from the division to the corps. The Army of Excellence recognized the efficiencies that could be gained from new and emerging technologies.

Chapter 3: Operational Forces - DAHSUM FY 1984

You are too focused on Scott Ritter's ramblings to see other realities. The simulation in question might not be aimed to replicate American options on a bigger scale in the 1980s due to costs involved. A complex simulation is not cheap to execute.

I never claimed the USA would launch an assault on Iran for the sake of contradicting naysayers.

But that whatever (illegitimate) reasons Washington had to attack Iraq and Libya, those same reasons also apply to Iran, and several times more so actually.
Americans continue to show soft corner for Iran:

Not that I wish harm to Iran, but it is interesting to see Democracts in HOPIUM PHASE about how to handle Iran in view of the Iranian plot to destroy the "zionists."

No, we do not desire war.

However we do not believe that if Washington refrained from attacking Iran to this day, it's simply by luck or accident of calendar. Nor do we share the notion that Iran wouldn't fare incomparably better than Iraq in this regard.
In my previous response, I pointed out why Reagan administration refused to attack Iran based on scholarly works and sources. What is the point to this debate if you do not pay attention to well-researched works?
Only idiots like you think Hamas beat someone😂
Sorry it hurt you that your vaunted Israeli military cannot defeat a low tier militia that Iran didnt even give its best to develop it.
we can wipe out everyone in Gaza in 2 hours conventionally.
so genocide? because you cant defeat them conventionally? LOL- youre butt hurt bro
We wait to use this ability for Lebanon, no need for sanctions right now.
i can understand that, because ISrael cannot win in Lebanon anymore, especially since 2006. YOur defense industry is for making profit, not winning wars- when was the last war Israel won actually?
And only idiots like you think Iran will survive,
TIme and reality says otherwise- over 40 years of Iran getting stronger and expanding its military power and allies military power and you talk this rubbish?
F-35s alone would destroy all of your air defenses in 3 hours.
in what video game?
Your poor *** 3rd rate technology country will have no chance lol
sure- 3rd world Afghanistan wiped NATO's butt after 20+ years and NATO RAN away, 3rd world HEzbollah and Hamas have beaten the Israeli military within the past 2 decades- willpower ultimately wins wars, not military technology- now NATO countries dont wnt to talk about the Ukraine war in their media despite Russia being another "3rd rate technology country"..what happened? LOOOOL.
Sorry it hurt you that your vaunted Israeli military cannot defeat a low tier militia that Iran didnt even give its best to develop it.

so genocide? because you cant defeat them conventionally? LOL- youre butt hurt bro

i can understand that, because ISrael cannot win in Lebanon anymore, especially since 2006. YOur defense industry is for making profit, not winning wars- when was the last war Israel won actually?

TIme and reality says otherwise- over 40 years of Iran getting stronger and expanding its military power and allies military power and you talk this rubbish?

in what video game?

sure- 3rd world Afghanistan wiped NATO's butt after 20+ years and NATO RAN away, 3rd world HEzbollah and Hamas have beaten the Israeli military within the past 2 decades- willpower ultimately wins wars, not military technology- now NATO countries dont wnt to talk about the Ukraine war in their media despite Russia being another "3rd rate technology country"..what happened? LOOOOL.

In this one

They managed to bomb Mewrabad and Tewran, destroy all SAMs, destroy all aircrafts with their F-18

Israelis works as the same as tribesmen, with a sense of victimization, aggression towards outsiders, self worship (and i mean only themselves in the world) and a sense of divine purpose, elevated to a religion.

Unfortunately our zionist friend has more chances to die sooner than any Iranian inside Iran, without even it being the cause of any Iranian strike

Israeli military hasbara is the worst on earth working on the self-worshipping DNA, laser weapons, invisible wonder weapons, invincible F-35, invincible air defense, PR stunts with ""undisclosed methods"", ""tEwoWiSt arReStEd iN cYpRuS"" "30 SAM sotes destroyed", there are whole articles, even books on this subject because this is so fascinating of how they managed to do everything only using hasbara and nothing else beside carpet bombing and genocides for the past two decades, zero long term damage and have barely any influence in the region. Being even lied by their own chieftain about internal security so that people does not leave the apartheid until something serious happens.

And they still wonder why a huge part of the world hates them! This is of course because of the Shia and mUlAHs, alone in their paranoid schizophrenia on social medias and real life.

Or getting into a public shelter filled with sweat odor and insomnia and either die in it collectively, what a martyrdom for our zionist armchair general!

The Iranian Navy of then had nothing much in common with Iran's present one. Not just in terms of size and technology, but first and foremost in terms of how it was structured and used.

During the 1980's all Iran had at her disposal was a rather small western-style naval force inherited from the toppled shah regime, typically designed for classic warfare against similarly equipped (near-)peer adversaries. This was almost completely lacking the deeply asymmetric element (not just in materiel but also in training and tactics) characterizing the current Navy of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The IRGC's own naval branch, essentially a naval guerilla force, had just been founded back in the day and its fleet consisted mostly of a few crude speedboats armed with nothing but a non-stabilized heavy machine gun and in the best case with some 107 mm rockets. Truly a far cry from the much larger, potent force of dozens of missile- and torpedo-armed FAC's, Shahid Soleimani class low observable catamaran corvettes and other assets it has evolved into. The regular Navy was also lacking its most important weapon of asymmetric warfare, namely around twenty Qadir midget submarines as well as the newly inducted Fateh class mini submarine.

Not to mention thousands of mobile coastal anti-ship cruise and anti-ship ballistic missile batteries, complete with hardened underground shelters in mountainous terrain.
I am not oblivious to Iranian naval evolution, but thanks for your input. Even in its current form, Iranian Navy has limited capacity to fight a war in the Arabian Sea because much of the focus is on creating missile boats that can be a threat in the Gulf of Oman where US seems to conduct Freedom of Navigation patrols to give the impression that that this is where the fight will take place - highly unlikely.

However, US Navy dispatched a total of 3 warships to Yemeni waters to see what an Arleigh Burke class destroyer can do when exposed to costal batteries and cruise missile attacks.

Incident 1: Two sea-skimming cruise missiles failed to engage USS Mason / defeated
Incident 2: One sea-skimming cruise missile failed to engage USS Mason / defeated
Incident 3: Five sea-skimming cruise missiles failed to engage USS Mason / defeated

Houthi strike package included C-802 cruise missiles - defeated. The Arleigh Burke class destroyer turned out be survivable in a near-shore high threat environment where other ships were getting knocked out. Sea-skimming cruise missiles can approach a ship without much warning in advance and the window of opportunity to intercept them is very small in a near-shore high threat environment.

Arleigh Burke class destroyer can also engage and neutralize supersonic cruise missiles:

Arleigh Burke class destroyer can also engage and neutralize ASBM:

Midget submarines will be useless:


"The AN/SQQ-89A(V)15 is an undersea combat system that uses active and passive sonar to enable Navy Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and Ticonderoga-class cruisers to search for, detect, classify, localize, and track underwater contacts; and to attack or avoid enemy submarines, floating, tethered, or bottom-attacked mines, and torpedoes. This contract combines purchases for the U.S. Navy and Australia."

American naval technological advances are not a shot in thin air but in response to evolution in Iranian and Chinese anti-ship threats. American warships such as destroyers and cruisers are equipped with much better sensor package and munitions in current times in comparison to configurations that were involved in MC02 simulation.

Iran is definitely a serious military power in current times, although I would not use the term superpower.

A status resulting mainly from Iran's ability to project forces regionally in cooperation with allied paramilitary formations, as well as from Iran's ability to sufficiently withstand and thereby deter all out aggression against her territory by any foe, thanks to Iran's ability to decisively reduce the cost-effectiveness of such an undertaking.

So it depends on what kind of conflict is being considered. The Iranian military isn't tailored for offensive war of conquest nor for power projection beyond the region for example. For the formerly mentioned two types of situations however, Iran is definitely up there.
Yes, Iran has become a serious military power, not denying this. A number of countries have serious military power. But US is at the top for a reason.

In a way yes, given that Iran as a state is several milennia old whilst the USA has only existed for some two and a half centuries.

Yes, as discussed above.

Take a good look at Ukraine - Russia war to understand why Iranian model of war will not work.

None of that has helped Washington's efforts to bring Iran to her knees, obviously.
US has not even tried, obviously.

To what end? Conflicts are waged exclusively with the aim of meeting underlying political objectives, as shown by von Clausewitz.
To do what was done in Iraq, if necessary.

If you think that having a large population base is good enough, think again. Case in point:



It would be nothing like the 1991 war on Iraq though.
Does not change the fact that US can defeat Iran in war.

Iran is equipped with multiple OTH radars and more to provide early warning.

The Iranian stockpile of defensive munitions employable against cruise missiles exceeds 616 by a huge margin.
OTH radars cannot be destroyed? This was the first thing that US destroyed in Operation Desert Storm.

Do show me an Iranian air defense system that has shot down a sophisticated cruise missiles.

They would have to fly far into Iran's AD umbrella to target assets all over Iran's vast territory (three times that of Iraq).
So what? Show me an Iranian air defense system that has shot down a sophisticated cruise missiles.

Addressed above.
See above.

We are also looking at up to thousands of ballistic missiles raining down on potentially every USA military installation in reach, and there are many of those in the vicinity.
Based on? These are ballistic missiles or bullets? What are the statistics of Iranian ballistic missiles including launchers for each type? Russia could not demonstrate this level of firepower in Ukraine in spite of having a large stockpile of ballistic missiles.

I shall drop a hint: Iran has about 3000 ballistic missiles but TEL would be much less in count. USAF and US Navy - together - can attack a huge number of targets in a short span of time. Your ballistic missile force will be finished before you realize it.

They bring over too much of that, they'll leave open flanks. Which rivals such as China and Russia will be happy to exploit.
US has fought World Wars before. Iran does not require a huge amount of resources to tackle.

They'd need to quasi overfly their targets. Also Iranian underground facilities are reinforced by mountainous granite rock. Buried up to 500 meters (>1640 feet) deep. Nuclear weapons would have to be used to destroy them, a politically hazardous choice.
Recheck video marked as (1) above. Underground complexes this deep can be turned into tombs.

You have posted often on American weapons. And Iranian users have addressed it too.
With exaggerated claims and lack of evidence...

This doesn't mean everything will be successfully detected and tracked. The ability to disguise various TEL's as civilian trucks, of which there are tens of thousands, further complicates things for the aggressor.
Do you have any idea how many surveillance assets US can commit to a conflict zone? US can detect missile launch plumes using the Defense Support Program (DSP) and Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) satellites.

Although SBIRS was designed primarily for missile defense purposes, its short- and mid-wave IR sensors can detect any significant infrared event on the globe, including explosions, fires, and plane crashes. SBIRS provides satellite IR data on thousands of non-missile related events every year. The National Air and Space Intelligence Center keeps “a catalog of signatures—electromagnetic and IR—of aircraft, missiles and other military hardware operating globally.” This can be used to understand what’s going on in crowded operational theaters where there are many actors at play.

In January 2020, SBIRS detected over a dozen Iranian missile launches targeting U.S. personnel in Iraq. The U.S. Space Force revealed SBIRS’ role in detecting these launches in September 2020.

These are spaceborne assets.
US have a large number of airborne surveillance assets as well.

I see no particular reason why the USA would withhold systematic assistance in this field.
US does not provide all manner of surveillance support to any ally - this level of capability is reserved for US forces only.

Mattis said the US assistance, which includes limited intelligence support and refueling of coalition jets, was ultimately aimed at bringing the war toward a negotiated, UN-brokered resolution.

Cuba is not considered a major threat by the zionist regime, whose lobbies play a major role in shaping Washington's policy in West Asia.

Cuba has little influence in her immediate neighborhood and poses therefore no significant challenge to American hegemony.

On a sidenote, the USA regime tried to invade Cuba using proxies once, it failed miserably. So did numerous CIA assassination attempts against Fidel Castro. And prior to 1991 Cuba was under the protection of the USSR.
Cuba brought USSR at the doorstep of US in 1962 - this was sufficient level of provocation and reason to intervene and reshape its political landscape from American standpoint at the time. But USSR negotiated a deal with Kennedy administration to spare Cuba in exchange for withdrawal of its forces from Cuba. Fidel Castro respected President Kennedy for this reason and more.

It was a failure of Cuban exiles.

Nevertheless, I accept that Cuba has little influence in her immediate neighborhood and does not posit a significant threat to American interests in the present.

Still, my point is that US has not invaded every country for having differences with it. This is not a sound foreign policy. US could not have so many allies by acting like Mongols. Nobody wants to fight all the time. Other countries also play a role in diffusing tensions at times.

As for Iran, it wasn't deemed a significant threat to American interests before 2007.

- Saddam regime was regarded as a more pressing threat to American interests than Iran in the Middle East - US took its time to neutralize this threat (1991 - 2011).
- ISIL movement was regarded as a more pressing threat to American interests than Iran in the Middle East - it took a while to defeat this movement in war (2014 - 2022). But there are scores of ISIL prisoners to account for and how to resettle ISIL women and children in the region.

It is now that Iran will draw attention from US and its allies in the Middle East.
Iran should not take its strengths for granted and pick fights with so many countries. This is not good for your country.
Iranian reputation is not as positive as you assume it to be - Iran should revisit its approach to foreign policy for its own good.

Threatening is one thing, mustering the courage to 'destroy' a nuclear armed country, which would probably have resulted in retaliatory obliteration of either Seoul or Tokyo in a thermonuclear blast with several millions of victims, an entirely different one.

Causing millions to die unnecessarily on a whim under blatantly unprovoked aggression in peacetime, is not something Trump would have gotten away this easily, even in a questionable environment such as the USA establishment.
North Korea was testing ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs at the time - set a new record in the process. Kim Jong-un exchanged harsh words with Donald Trump as well.

War with a well-established nuclear power is a not an easy decision of-course. It can claim a huge number of innocent lives.

But US forces are trained to fight all types of war. Even biological war, if necessary. This might surprise you but US forces have a contingency plan for addressing threats like zombie apocalypse and aliens.

One does not become a superpower with mere talks and empty threats. US can wipe out entire countries and continents in war. Russia is second to US in this capacity but it has shown admirable level of restraint at times. For the first time in Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 and for the second time in Soviet Union nuclear false alarm incident in 1983. This is a matter of having discipline, focus, and strong nerves.

All is in the hands of Allah Almighty of-course.
But Allah Almighty have instructed believers to be humble and not be arrogant and corrupt. How many have studied Holy Quran properly?

Excuse invoked once the fiasco behind the illegal invasion of Iraq became known to the public at large.

Case in point, USA foreign minister Rumsfeld had set up a special office which was feeding false information to other institutions about non-existing Iraqi WMD, including through "testimonies" of bogus witnesses such as one going by the pseudonym "Curveball".

September/October 2006 Issue

Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq​

Mushroom clouds, duct tape, Judy Miller, Curveball. Recalling how Americans were sold a bogus case for invasion.


Therefore Washington hadn't been misled by anyone, they knew perfectly what they were doing since they themselves were busy making such stories up (the notion that some obscure, second tier Iraqi dissident could have single-handedly fooled the entire USA intelligence apparatus and political system is unrealistically far fetched onto itself).
I am not asserting that neocons are innocent in this matter. I pointed out a fact that Iraqi defectors and exiles have a hand in building a case against Saddam regime and reaching out to Bush administration to act. This was a behind-the-scenes development and came to light at a later stage.

Iraq did had a chemical weapons program and these stockpiles did not vanish one fine day.

Americans bungled their narrative due to political infighting between Democrats and Republicans.

The Reagan regime had no sympathies for Iran.

Hence why it backed Saddam in his war of aggression against Iran, including by directly entering the conflict on Iraq's side in 1988.


So you're telling me the USA regime could easily invade and defeat Iran, but that two comparatively small scale insurgencies were enough for Washington to backtrack?

Iran would have been and is capable of inflicting much greater pain on the Americans. Which confirms that Iranian deterrence power is what averted such an attack. QED.
Look - Iran wasn't deemed a significant threat to American interests in the 1980s - not to the extent to call for invasion and regime change in the country at the time. But US was not on good terms with Iran either at the time - US would not have stopped Iraq from fighting a war with Iran due to this factor. US made sure that Iraq would be able to sustain a prolonged war with Iran in view of the Iranian military capability and level of motivation to fight a war.

Two small scale insurgencies? Are you high or something? Iraq produced one of the most brutal insurgency situations in modern times. Taliban groups in AfPak were not a joke either. Both developments have claimed many lives in war. Close to 5000 American troops died in Iraq while trying to defeat multiple insurgent groups that had popped up suddenly in the country with Syrian and Iranian assistance. These insurgent groups also claimed over 100,000 innocent lives in Iraq. Iraq was on the verge of disintegration but US-led forces managed to overcome insurgent groups in the country by 2008 and restore order in the country. Obama administration had promised to bring American troops home so he called for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq in 2011. Iraq looked fine for a while but bad elements were still there and regrouped to establish ISIL movement. These developments surprised American planners because US forces had suffered minimum losses in major combat operations such as Operation Desert Storm in 1991, Operation Allied Force in 1999, and Operation Anaconda in 2002.

Your celebration is premature because US has developed a new generation of vehicles that can withstand mines, IEDs, and ATGMs to prevent loss of lives. US have also made its tanks more survivable than ever before. Funny.

I'm not shocked, Obama like Bush understood there's no cost-effective enough military option against Iran.
Sure, bro. If this makes you content and happy.

Ah so four years in office are not enough to launch a war? This isn't luck, it's the opposing party's refusal to attack.
Fools rush to war - smart decision makers wait for the right time and draw a better plan, if necessary.

Iranian enrichment capability and technology kept improving. Stuxnet didn't prevent any of it.
Recovery took time. You have a habit of making irrational claims instead of understanding how things work.

Inconsequential. Did not decrease Iranian power and influence, did not destabilize the Iranian government.

Why won't the USA regime take a measure that will have such a decisive impact, for a change?
Iran should try some more and see how it goes.

Attacks on Iranian troops in Syria are very scarce. Iran continues to arm HezbAllah, has gained unprecedented presence on the ground in Syria, Iran continues to position forces along the border with Occupied Golan, another novelty zionist haven't been capable of reversing.

You remind me of Iraqi comedian Saeed al-Sahha - nothing is going on - all is well.

Israel has stopped short at attacking Assad regime and its allies in full force in Syria but it is creating a cost for these elements in the country. This is not a joke or an amusing development but you are too drunk in nationalism to realize that people are dying in the process. Iran does not feels the heat because it is not being bombed, others are expendable.

At the least, have the decency to not be amused at what is going on.

So does Iran's nuclear program. Ditto other Iranian research efforts.
Best of luck. I will not comment on this matter.

American inability to stomach the expected costs of full fledged war with Iran continues to prevent use of decisive military options.

Adopt a fundamentally asymmetric doctrine and force structure far better suited to resist the American onslaught.
Easy for you to make this claim but Iraqi military advances looked good enough at the time. Iraqi military capability had exceeded that of Vietnam at the time where US was assumed to be defeated.

Too many accidents of calendar. If Washington thinks it can use military means to neutralize an adversary it is seeking to neutralize, then it will not wait for >44 years.
American power was aptly demonstrated in Operation Desert Storm. Most of the observers were shocked to see that US-led forces had defeated one of the strongest countries of the time with minimum losses in war. Chinese were shocked too. Chinese observers disclosed that application of Air Power was in Operation Desert Storm was 4 times more intense than in Vietnam War and 10 times more intense than in Korean War. Go figure.

Iraq also ruined itself with that war, which had been funded by the PGCC sultanates. PGCC refusal to forego the colossal accumulated Iraqi debt was one of Saddam's main motivations for invading Kuwait.

Furthermore, those multiple countries which supported Saddam against Iran ended up ditching him once his usefulness expired - including by citing against him an act his regime had committed during that exact same conflict (the chemical bombing of the Kurdish-populated village of Halabja, one of the charges which ultimately got him hanged). Governments that operated a u-turn on Baghdad included even the USSR, which participated in the 1991 war on Iraq.

In short, Saddam was played, badly. He should have known better.

Also Iran is not going to invade any of her neighbors.
Iraq has oil and could repay its debt slowly if it wanted to but having a big stick was more tempting to use.

Invasion of Kuwait spooked Gulf Council Cooperation (GCC). The bloc could not hope to liberate Kuwait, if it tried. Other allies such as Egypt, Turkey, and Pakistan could not do much in this regard either.

UN gave Iraq 1 year to change its decision but Saddam regime was in hubris.

It depends on how much power you have.

Same as above. Iraq was instrumentalized and was not realizing it. Which contributed to its demise.
All regional powers are susceptible to be played. Iran is not being instrumentalized and not realizing it? Who benefits from using Iran as a pawn in Cold War? I stress on the importance of having a sound foreign policy in which you do not treat any side as holy but work with all sides to your benefit when it suits you.

Iraq does not wield the option of undermining global energy supplies as a defensive measure. To do that one needs to straddle the narrow chokepoint at the Strait of Hormoz similar to Iran.
Iraq used its Air Power to struck a large number of ships that were found to be carrying Iranian supplies.

This did not provide Iraq with the types of armed allies Iran is endowed with, a feature contributing to Iranian deterrence power.
How many are deterred to be honest?
- Saudi stopped bombing Yemen due to international pressure - this conflict led to a significant humanitarian crisis in Yemen and murder of Jamal Khashoggi did not help.
- Israel continues to bomb your allies in Syria.
- Trump administration killed a famous Iranian general in 2018.

Your "armed allies" are not as intimidating as they sound in Iranian discourses. These groups are intact and can fight but others are not afraid to fight either.

The same Isra"el" which failed to replicate such an operation in Iran, because Iran is a different ballgame, in addition to being intelligent enough not to concentrate her nuclear program at one spot, a relatively easily attackable one to boot.

Result's the same at any rate, Iraq was deprived of a latent nuclear break out capability but Iran isn't, something which will make any potential aggressor think twice.
Iranian nuclear program is more survivable - true.

Iran being thrice the size of Iraq and having almost five times the population Iraq had in 1991, it does make a difference to potential aggressors.
More than half of the population is composed of women, elderly, and children in like any society.

Population size contributes to the capacity to fight a war but it is not a foolproof metric for stopping aggression. Refer back to (2) above. Military strength is more important factor.

Iraq also took its chances with Iran in 1980 even though Iran is a much bigger country.

Let war happen and see how quickly protesters will side with the motherland.
I am not sure but those who are poor or lacking in rights, will lack in motivation as well.

Had a cursory look at the full RUSI report, but unless I missed something I am not finding any reference to their sources, which would be troubling for a report like this.

In particular am I not seeing any Russian official quoted to that effect. My objection stands.

Colonel Mikhail Khodarenok was the only Russian officer who had a realistic take on war in Ukraine before it commenced.

You think that I am joking or making things up? You must know better by now.

Iran survived eight years of war at a time when her economic development and self-sufficiency amounted to but a small fraction of what they are now - this is while Iranian oil exports were often impeded and while Iran did not resort to foreign loans like Iraq.

Also Iran will surely benefit from Moscow and Beijing's support under such conditions, Russia not being short of essential commodities such as grain. Both these countries can supply Iran freely through the Caspian Sea, with NATO unable to cut off the flow.

You are expecting a bit much from Russia and China.

Ukraine has received weapons and other forms of aid from NATO exceeding 100 billion USD in cost by now. This is beyond shopping spree of many.

I believe I have demonstrated my point in this and previous posts.
You conveniently overlooked the details of why Reagen administration ruled out the possibility to invade Iran in the 1980s.

Won't happen though.
Good then.

Except that Iran has been tackling the issue in a more astute manner than Arab governments between 1949 and the 1980's. First major difference being, again, Iran's asymmetric approach. Whereas Egypt and its allies during the Arab-Isra"el"i wars tried to match the zionists on the latter's strong points and thus they established a classic military force.

Also and as oft repeated, the Islamic Republic is not going to initiate an inter-state conflict. She will only defend from aggression and lend support to liberation movements. Moslems have a duty to stand together in solidarity particularly in situations of adversity. While this may take on different forms, Iran cannot be faulted for assisting the oppressed people of Palestine, quite the contrary.
You have a point in this case but your approach is not helping either - this matter is discussed above so I do not feel the need to repeat myself at this stage.

I hope that Palestine - Israel conflict is settled peacefully and Muslims and Jews are able to accept each other in this region.

Iranian foreign policy isn't driven by misconceived eschatological interpretations à la "I"SIS.

Active messianism in Iran is understood as a permanent effort to improve oneself and to enjoin virtue. Not as a green light for trigger happiness nor for starting apocalyptic wars.
Are you sure?

An Ideological Army

In establishing and equipping the defense forces of the country, it shall be taken into consideration that faith and ideology are the basis and criterion. Therefore, the Army of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Revolutionary Guards Corps will be formed in conformity with the above objective, and will be responsible not only for protecting and safeguarding the frontiers but also for the ideological mission, that is, Jihad, for God’s sake and struggle for promoting the rule of God’s law in the world ("And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know but whom Allah knows." [Quran 8:60]). -The Iranian Constitution, Preamble

in what video game?

sure- 3rd world Afghanistan wiped NATO's butt after 20+ years and NATO RAN away, 3rd world HEzbollah and Hamas have beaten the Israeli military within the past 2 decades- willpower ultimately wins wars, not military technology- now NATO countries dont wnt to talk about the Ukraine war in their media despite Russia being another "3rd rate technology country"..what happened? LOOOOL.
You have a funny take on these matters.

Perhaps you can understand some facts from my response above, but you might be lacking in willpower as well.
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom