No offense, but I think we're yet to see anything resembling accurate Iranian ballistic missiles of the magnitude you good fellas have been touting to over a decade now.
The 2 or 3 launched into Syria
7, of which 5 were the terminally guided Zolfaqar, and 2 were the less accurate Qiam. From UAV footage, we estimated the Zolfaqars to have an accuracy of about 50 metres. And there are plenty more missiles with similar accuracy - the Fateh-110/313, Emad, and Khalije Fars.
Khalije Fars missile impact on a floating target
And anyway, the accurate missiles in Iran's inventory aren't meant for strategic damage. Iran has a large number of missiles like the Shahab series, the Qiam (which has been messing with Saudi missile defences as recently as yesterday), Ghadr and other types that, while they have relatively large CEPs of around 500 metres, are more than enough to cause significant disruption to large installations like oil production facilities, airports etc.
The other issue is the extreme danger to Iran of any retaliation against any other host country. What happens then is you open the door for a coalition to come to the defense of these countries. Let's say you launch a couple missiles toward the US base in Qatar; you strike the base or near the base that's one thing. You start hitting Doha or any other city and now you've invited all the powers that have a share or stake in Qatar. The Brits will be the first to come flying in now that you've opened the door wide. That's a very dangerous strategy that I think many folks just use out of the need to show Iran's retaliatory level, but don't consider the magnitude of that side effect. Besides, the US is not that stupid to put certain nations at risk for something like that. It has options to extend the base distance besides Qatar, Iraq or even the Gulf/Indian ocean.
If we're already being attacked by the US, the 5-10% extra damage that a limited British contingent or symbolic Arab response (let's be honest, they'll let the US do most of the work, seeing as they started it) is not a high cost compared to the deterrent value.
Again, though, for the sake of a retaliatory strike you're risking opening the door to a much larger contingent that might not have been keen on joining the initial strikes. But now that their interests are at stake, they'll be more than glad to jump into the fray and that's the last thing Iran would want. The Brits come to mind as well as China. That's a brutally frightful thought for Iranians. Imagine a Chinese fleet working with an American one to clear out the SoH? Ooof, bro. I wouldn't even count out the Indian Navy getting involved now that India/US relations are warming up like never before, and let's not forget the Indian/Israeli love affair that's gotten to a touchy-feely stage now! lol.
Firstly, I completely refute that the Chinese or Indians will do anything. Neither nations' navies are geared towards expeditionary warfare, and both have good relations with Iran. They would not blame us for fighting back against the Americans (especially not the Chinese... Chinese-US joint naval taskforce lol).
As for the issue of closing the SoH - this is like Iran's very own nuclear deterrent. Remember, in 2012 when it was more likely than ever that Iran and the US would go to war, Iran was threatening to close the straits in the event that it was attacked. Everyone knows that using it will invite massive retaliation upon Iran. But it's mutually assured destruction. Just the sheer amount of damage closing the straits could do is a huge deterrent to the west. Remember, it is a DETERRENT. The very power of it means that no-one will risk it being used on them. It doesn't matter how much damage it could do to Iran if we use it
, so long as we
never have to.
Plus, do you know how many times the US has exercised mine clearing drills just in the SoH? When you say Iran has been preparing for exactly this type of attack or war, the same exact thing can be said about the superpowers at hand, right?
I invite you to read the following articles:
Millennium Challenge 2002 - a US military exercise simulating an attack on Iran. The result was 19 US ships sunk.
https://warontherocks.com/2015/11/m...a-corrupted-military-exercise-and-its-legacy/
In a mine-clearing exercise in 2012, less than half of the 29 mines were detected. Bear in mind that Iran has up to 5000 sea mines.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/us-iran-mine-warfare-persian-gulf_n_1304107.html
This I will give to you any day of the week and you know that this is essentially the main issue that has this whole situation brewing for all these years. The fear that Iran can spread its tentacles not just into Syria, but especially Lebanon. Essentially why we're at this point. Unfortunately many civilians in Lebanon will feel the pain of this.
We helped Lebanon kick out the Israeli invaders, I'm sure they will help us. Similar to how Syria was Iran's only Arab ally when Saddam attacked, and we repaid it by helping it fight terrorism. But the main point is that the US will have to deal with its troops in Iraq and other places being targeted.
How many groups are poised to take over the Iranian Mullahs within Iran?
None. There are some groups that would certainly
want to overthrow the government, but they are weakened and have no presence in the country. These are groups like the MEK, PDKI etc. And all officers loyal to the shah are long gone.
but there is always the danger that some inner struggle takes place during a war and a change is made, or at least attempted, especially if the war is going badly. So I'm not sure there isn't a chance.
Like I said, there were previous attempts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nojeh_coup_plot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_Kurdish_rebellion_in_Iran
All failed, and at a time when the revolution was at its most unstable and fragile.
Here's the thing that worries me: this guy currently has the approval rating of a rotten sardine here in the US. He wants to get reelected without a doubt. What is the best way to ensure he stays in power amidst a not so popular presidency? The same exact thing that helped GWB get reelected and besides that, Trump needs a big foreign policy victory and after the Jerusalem embassy move, the shameless Netanyahu visit that had nothing but Iran written all over it (and he's most likely going to be facing corruption charges in Israel so he also needs a boost that will help him as well) and the slow replacement of all those close to Trump who have been advising against war on Iran are being replaced by ones who not only favor it, but scream it out loud. Everything is pointing in that direction. This is what's scary about this current scenario. There is no level-headed Barack Obama anymore. We have a crazy bastard lunatic who will do whatever it takes to ensure his status continues and is doing everything that points in that direction. It sucks.
The war actually has to be a success for those approval ratings to go up. For the reasons I've outlined above, I don't think it would be. Mattis as SecDef doesn't think so either.
