What's new

Tillerson out, Pompeo in, this change is about Iran

We could simply sink an oil tanker in middle of strait accidentally ...o_O
that would do the job ..:D
When you see them flood the Persian Gulf with warships you will know something is up. Their first move would be to neutralize the coastal threats. I'm not a weapons guy but obviously, fixed missile sites would be in jeopardy, we need mobile batteries and lots of them. Question for the experts are there any manpad type missiles that can be fired from the coast that can target ships? Ideally, the asymmetric warfare I'm thinking would be roaming squads with MANPADS that can pop out fire a missile or two from the coast and disappear again. If the strait stays in jeopardy throughout the conflict the economic toll on the world would be the greatest deterrence/defense.
 
Last edited:
When you see them flood the Persian Gulf with warships you will know something is up. Their first move would be to neutralize the coastal threats. I'm not a weapons guy but obviously, fixed missile sites would be in jeopardy, we need mobile batteries and lots of them. Question for the experts are there any manpad type missiles that can be fired from the coast that can target ships? Ideally, the asymmetric warfare I'm thinking would be roaming squads with MANPADS that can pop out fire a missile or two from the coast and disappear again. If the strait stays in jeopardy throughout the conflict the economic toll on the world would be the greatest deterrence/defense.

I really would hope Iran would reach out to the Chinese and Russians to deter the US from doing anything.
 
There's a lot of hypothesis on going here, but its missing what Russia/ China would do to back both Iran or for that matter the DPRK.........the answer is obvious!

There's no way in hell the US or its NATO puppets have the audacity or the resources to take on Iran. A commitment that would require a million troops and practically their entire arsenals as a minimum to just face Iran. No operation against Iran guarantees success, unless it includes the physical invasion, toppling of the Iranian government and long term occupation of Iran.

And that is just not going to happen, which means nothing else will either.
 
There's a lot of hypothesis on going here, but its missing what Russia/ China would do to back both Iran or for that matter the DPRK.........the answer is obvious!

There's no way in hell the US or its NATO puppets have the audacity or the resources to take on Iran. A commitment that would require a million troops and practically their entire arsenals as a minimum to just face Iran. No operation against Iran guarantees success, unless it includes the physical invasion, toppling of the Iranian government and long term occupation of Iran.

And that is just not going to happen, which means nothing else will either.

They don't need million troops to fight Iran. They just need an air and naval campaign and they'll leave it at that. That is the greatest threat to Iran.
 
yeah but that air/ naval campaign won't achieve the desired result. Iran will retaliate in more ways then you can imagine. At the end of the day, the gloves would have come off and a far more emboldened Iran would totally exercise free will in retaliating, where it chooses to. A far more hostile regime in Tehran would still be there, the JCPOA would be in tatters, and Iran on a week/ month long nuke breakout status.The entire infrastructure in the Persian Gulf would be destroyed (yes in Iran too)........but oil would be $500 per barrel, with possibly the PG closed off by the IRGC.

Global economic pressure would stop any of this day dreaming rather quick. This is just a fantasy now that Iran can be attacked, with no consequences.......lol

My take on this is that in order to stop Iran, you either invade and occupy it, or you nuke it. And neither of these two scenarios have a snow balls chance in hell of happening.

They don't need million troops to fight Iran. They just need an air and naval campaign and they'll leave it at that. That is the greatest threat to Iran.
 
Last edited:
@Gomig-21's post is excellent. Bolton was who I was afraid of....

Came across this while reading about Hamas rocket drills and exercises triggering sirens and the Iron Dome in southern Israel yesterday.

Former Israeli Defense Chief Says Trump Adviser Bolton Pressured Him to Strike Iran

Shaul Mofaz says he doesn't think striking Iran's nuclear facilities is wise 'until this threat becomes real'


1.5938560.3871019182.jpg


U.S. President Donald Trump's newly appointed national security adviser, John Bolton, tried to convince Israel to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, former Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said on Sunday.

"I have known John Bolton ever since he was the U.S. ambassador to the UN," Mofaz said at a Yedioth Ahronoth conference. "He tried to convince me that Israel should strike Iran."

Speaking on a panel of four former Israeli military chiefs, Mofaz noted that he thought this was a bad idea. "I don't think this is a wise action – not on the part of the Americans but anyone else, until this threat becomes real."

>> Bolton pick is bad news for Iran, in good timing for Netanyahu

Mofaz, along with former IDF chiefs Benny Gantz, Dan Halutz and Moshe Ya'alon, said they are against nixing the nuclear deal with Iran.
Mofaz served as the IDF chief of staff during the second intifada. Shortly after he retired from the army in 2002, he was appointed defense minister by then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Bolton was the U.S. ambassador to the UN under President George W. Bush between 2005 and 2006.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...bolton-pressured-him-to-strike-iran-1.5938534


 
Came across this while reading about Hamas rocket drills and exercises triggering sirens and the Iron Dome in southern Israel yesterday.

Former Israeli Defense Chief Says Trump Adviser Bolton Pressured Him to Strike Iran

Shaul Mofaz says he doesn't think striking Iran's nuclear facilities is wise 'until this threat becomes real'

1.5938560.3871019182.jpg


U.S. President Donald Trump's newly appointed national security adviser, John Bolton, tried to convince Israel to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, former Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said on Sunday.

"I have known John Bolton ever since he was the U.S. ambassador to the UN," Mofaz said at a Yedioth Ahronoth conference. "He tried to convince me that Israel should strike Iran."

Speaking on a panel of four former Israeli military chiefs, Mofaz noted that he thought this was a bad idea. "I don't think this is a wise action – not on the part of the Americans but anyone else, until this threat becomes real."

>> Bolton pick is bad news for Iran, in good timing for Netanyahu

Mofaz, along with former IDF chiefs Benny Gantz, Dan Halutz and Moshe Ya'alon, said they are against nixing the nuclear deal with Iran.
Mofaz served as the IDF chief of staff during the second intifada. Shortly after he retired from the army in 2002, he was appointed defense minister by then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Bolton was the U.S. ambassador to the UN under President George W. Bush between 2005 and 2006.


https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...bolton-pressured-him-to-strike-iran-1.5938534

Too hawkish even for the Israelis.
 
You know something ain't right when the guy, who's itching and jonsing to attack you, is worst than the Israelis!

Bolton is a freakin nutjob.

The combination of his belligerence and Trump's ignorance is a dangerous combination.
 
When you see them flood the Persian Gulf with warships you will know something is up. Their first move would be to neutralize the coastal threats. I'm not a weapons guy but obviously, fixed missile sites would be in jeopardy, we need mobile batteries and lots of them. Question for the experts are there any manpad type missiles that can be fired from the coast that can target ships? Ideally, the asymmetric warfare I'm thinking would be roaming squads with MANPADS that can pop out fire a missile or two from the coast and disappear again. If the strait stays in jeopardy throughout the conflict the economic toll on the world would be the greatest deterrence/defense.
If a war happened there would be no American warships in Persian gulf, they would stay away.
The point is you just see Persian gulf front line while the entire region from israel to Afghanistan where ever you could find American assets is front line, if they attack us israel would be attacked , their military bases in region would be attacked their 5th fleet of navy in Bahrain would be attacked we are not gonna fight them in our lands.. many other things that I can not say.


Despite all, I am telling you there is no war coming, just a circus to put pressure on Iranian decision makers, it happened before and after JCPoA .. during negotiation to reach JCPoA back in 2001, 2003 , 2006 , 2007 , 2009, 2011~12, during and at the end of Iran-Iraq war ,what happened?
The fact is they want to achieve what they can not achieve through war by scaring people about it and its dangerous consequences for Iran. John Bolton was in office with the same mindset and he couldn't do a $hit.
We must be prepared for any possibility & meanwhile make it clear that even war is not gonna change our policy. what we didn't do about sanctions.
 
There's a lot of hypothesis on going here, but its missing what Russia/ China would do to back both Iran or for that matter the DPRK.........the answer is obvious!
.

while I agree with the rest of your post, id caution in putting too much (or any) hope on Russia/china incase of a serious iran-US war. at best they will verbally condemn the US, and veto 1 sided UN resolutions. its doubtful they would do much more beyond that.

If its a prolonged war, you could perhaps see Russia covertly shipping some critical equipment while maintaining plausible deniability (ex. s-300 missiles/hardware replacement, Tor replacements? )

neither of them have any sort allied obligations towards iran. and any iran US war that doesn't result in a government change in IRan will have benefits for them. It will be a war that both sides will take heavy damage in. which will result in a weakening of a rival, and a stronger market for their products in a rebuilding iran. IT would also guarantee at least another few decades of Iranian/US hostility (at a time when they were somewhat concerned iran might reconcile with the West)

It will also give them a chance to get a good look at how the americans fight against a serious opponent. all this benefits them greatly.
 
Last edited:
If a war happened there would be no American warships in Persian gulf, they would stay away.
The point is you just see Persian gulf front line while the entire region from israel to Afghanistan where ever you could find American assets is front line, if they attack us israel would be attacked , their military bases in region would be attacked their 5th fleet of navy in Bahrain would be attacked we are not gonna fight them in our lands.. many other things that I can not say.


Despite all, I am telling you there is no war coming, just a circus to put pressure on Iranian decision makers, it happened before and after JCPoA .. during negotiation to reach JCPoA back in 2001, 2003 , 2006 , 2007 , 2009, 2011~12, during and at the end of Iran-Iraq war ,what happened?
The fact is they want to achieve what they can not achieve through war by scaring people about it and its dangerous consequences for Iran. John Bolton was in office with the same mindset and he couldn't do a $hit.
We must be prepared for any possibility & meanwhile make it clear that even war is not gonna change our policy. what we didn't do about sanctions.

شما داری خود فریبی می کنی ، زمانی که اکثریت مطلق مسئولین ( همون 250 -300 نفری که قدرت رو بین خودشون می گردونند ) فرزندان و دارایی هاشون توی کشورهای غربی هست ، چیزی به نام جنگ وجود نخواهد داشت ...
اگه هم جنگی باشه ، اونقدر طول می کشه تا جواهرات ، طلاهای کشور و ... رو از کشور خارج کنند و بروند ...
 
janam, Putin is on the record for stating to Khamenei, in Tehran.......'I will not betray you'.......

The alliance is set in stone.

while I agree with the rest of your post, id caution in putting too much (or any) hope on Russia/china incase of a serious iran-US war. at best they will verbally condemn the US, and veto 1 sided UN resolutions. its doubtful they would do much more beyond that.

If its a prolonged war, you could perhaps see Russia covertly shipping some critical equipment while maintaining plausible deniability (ex. s-300 missiles/hardware replacement, Tor replacements? )

neither of them have any sort allied obligations towards iran. and any iran US war that doesn't result in a government change in IRan will have benefits for them. It will be a war that both sides will take heavy damage in. which will result in a weakening of a rival, and a stronger market for their products in a rebuilding iran. IT would also guarantee at least another few decades of Iranian/US hostility (at a time when they were somewhat concerned iran might reconcile with the West)

It will also give them a chance to get a good look at how the americans fight against a serious opponent. all this benefits them greatly.
 
Before I say what I'm about to say, I'm putting out a disclaimer: never would I want to see it come to blows, so any type of war against Iran is not something I would ever want to see. That being said, I'm sure you realize there are different types of wars, and if there will be any type of military action, it will only be in the form of 'round the clock' air strikes. There won't be any "Iraq invasion" type strategy here. There are certain "valued targets" as you well know that will be listed in order of importance. I wouldn't be surprised if the US plans an attempt at a regime change with a separate covert action after they take out the Mullah residences and probably target certain valued government buildings. There could very well be a plan for a certain group within Iran (whether it comes in from Iraq or even Syria) that would be poised to take control of the government and the people within the ensuing chaos of multiple and crippling air strikes.

People can rag on the US all they want, but those in the know realize that its aerial punch is nothing to laugh about, quite the opposite. I wouldn't even doubt if Israeli aircraft would be flying with American colors in separate but coordinated formations and strikes. US strike munition is the most precise and most powerful in the world, so it's no joke by any means. Not only that, coordination and mission planning will most certainly start with eliminating and suppression of air defense systems, something the US has been doing since 1947 and they refined it in 1966 in Vietnam. Now it excels at it with the most advanced technology out there. They've only been ahead of everyone else in SEAD missions since then and what's the most potent AD system in Iran, the S-300VM? Gonna need a minimum of 150 batteries and a stockpile of 8000 missiles without losing a single battery in the malay. Does Russia even have that number? Gonna have to take out what will most likely be a preliminary and overwhelming attack of maybe 5,000 tomahawks that will target all military airports and command centers. That's always been the US' modus operendi and they will be overwhelming attacks in a manner that's probably never been seen before. UCAVs strikes following the cruise missiles and then you'll see E/A-18G Growlers sending out all sorts of EW signals and jamming the entire coastal front where they'll be followed by E-2C Hawkeys and E-3 Sentrys backing up a slew of F-35s just lurking waiting for Iranian Tomcats to get within their radars and we know the Tomcats are probably not going to see the F-35s until they hear their own MAWS lighting up from AIM-120s coming at them. But prior to this point, they'll most likely fly two dozen B2 Spirits at a much higher altitude lobbing JDAMs to take out all the runways and towers and any aircraft that are exposed. Even ones in hangars will get bunker busters if the Tomahawks missed them. The B2s would probably drop $1B worth of munitions and there would still be 6000 times that stockpile left over. This is how scary this whole thing is. Follow any missed targets with B1-Bs dropping MOABs on certain hard targets and escaping at mach-3. This is almost impossible to defend.

By then, whatever aircraft they choose to perform the interdiction missions with to take out the "valued" targets will commence and won't stop no matter how many sorties it takes to accomplish all missions. While all of this is going on, there's also the threat of any number of Ohio and Virginia Class submarines firing their own slew of Tomahawks and harpoons which would more likely be the US' strategy to taking on the Iranian navy. The prospect of the damage that can be caused by those submarines is beyond what most distractors can imagine and are practically impossible to defend without an equivalent platform.

This is the scary type of war that the US (even without the help of the Israelis) can easily mount and wouldn't even make a dent in the budget. God forbid this ever happens, but when the craziest lunatic who said publicly on TV that he would've bombed Iran 5 or 6 years ago and who's headline in the newspaper the day before Obama made the deal with your guys was "to stop Iran's bomb, bomb Iran" just became the national security adviser ..... is frankly a very scary prospect. If there is ever a war mongering scumbag, this is him. The orange baboon couldn't have found anyone worst. And with the way Trump is sorely in need of some foreign policy victory with the looming meeting between him and Kim Jong Un which is bound to fail miserably since we know that an already nuclear NK is not giving that up in exchange for peanuts and more importantly this NSA change comes squarely after Netanyahu's visit to the US, I would never assume this is a bluff just because it hasn't happened yet.

My only question would be how and what will this clown of an administration uses as an excuse for going to war. Not living up to the spirit of the agreement won't cut the cheese. They'll need to come up with something much worst to blame on Iran and we all know that doesn't take much for the US to do so. So why would the aforementioned type of war not be a huge possibility with just the way things have developed in the last month and how's Iran going to defend itself against a barrage like that?
Bro see below topic for my estimation about American cruise missile number in first wave of attack
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/how-will-america-attack.509136/page-9#post-9727461
In short:
2. first wave of American attack
the under water swords of US to invade:

Tomahawk:

rms_tomahawek_hero_image_wide.jpg

base on wiki :
Unit cost : 1.8 m$ (block 4)
Warhead : 450 kg
Operational range : not more than 2500 km in longest range block

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Launch platforms:
Los Angeles-class submarine:
USS_Santa_Fe_%28SSN-763%29_VLS_doors_open.jpg

Active number : 36
Tomahawk fire power : 37
Total Tomahawk for all : 36*37 = 1332

Ohio-class submarine :
Ohio-class_submarine_launches_Tomahawk_Cruise_missiles_%28artist_concept%29.jpg

Active number : 18
Tomahawk fire power : 154
Total Tomahawk for all : 18*154= 2772

Seawolf-class submarine
seawolf2-1.jpg

Active number : 3
Tomahawk fire power : 50
Total Tomahawk for all : 3*50= 150

Virginia-class submarine
nssnvirginia_2.jpg

Active number : 13
Tomahawk fire power : 40
Total Tomahawk for all : 13*40= 520
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I personally do not believe that American would bring All of their submarines to attack Iran, in addition submarines do not carry only Tomahawk missiles. Submarines should bring torpedoes in torpedo room as well to protect themselves, so base on my calculation Americans are able to fire maximum 2000 Tomahawk cruise missiles from SubWater :-).

1332 + 2772 + 150 + 520 = 4774

if Americans bring half of them to attack Iran : 2387

considering torpedoes as well in tubes : 2000 Tomahawk
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
behind submarines would be Americans cruisers and destroyers for firing more tomahawk missiles

Arleigh Burke-class destroyer :

USS_Roosevelt_DDG-80.jpg

Active number : 64
Tomahawk fire power : this destroyer has 96, Mk 41 Vertical Launching System (VLS) and we assume just 50 of them are filled with Tomahawk
Total Tomahawk for all : 64*50= 3200

Ticonderoga-class cruiser :

USS_Lake_Champlain_%28CG-57%29.JPG

Active number : 22
Tomahawk fire power : this destroyer has 122, Mk 41 Vertical Launching System (VLS) and we assume just 75 of them are filled with Tomahawk
Total Tomahawk for all : 22*75= 1650

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
as result Americans are able to fire 4850 (3200+1650) tomahawk missiles, if bring all of their destroyers and cruiser which is impossible again to bring all of them for war with Iran.
we consider only half of these ships would come for war which this lead us to around 2000 cruise missiles again.

behind all of these ships would be American aircraft carriers which are able to carry F/A 18 and other planes

Nimitz-class aircraft carrier :
USS_Harry_S._Truman_%28CVN-75%29_flight_deck.jpg

Active number : 10
Aircraft carried: 85–90 fixed wing and helicopters
Total Aircraft for all : 10*85= 850

F/A-18 Hornet :
F-18C_with_SLAM-ER_missile_and_AWW-13_pods_in_flight.jpg

AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER under F/A 18

F/A-18 is able to fly from Nimitz aircraft carriers and fire AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER with 270 km range an also AGM-158 JASSM with more than 1000 km range.

JASSM_mockup_0048.jpg


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This won't exceed 4000 cruise missiles in first wave of attack.
 
janam, Putin is on the record for stating to Khamenei, in Tehran.......'I will not betray you'.......

The alliance is set in stone.

CSTO is set in stone...

what you are saying is at best a verbal promise.... And in what context and in regards to what was it given?


was it in regards to Syria? A blank cheque promise to intervene incase of American military action?

what exactly do you think putin meant, and what do you think Russia will do in case of war? physically intervene? try to intercept American cruise missiles? launch attacks against American military assets? do you really think this is what putin meant if he even said I wont betray you?
 
Back
Top Bottom