U.S. Will Not Let Iran Buy Arms When U.N. Embargo Ends: Pompeo

[Surenas]

There is analysis by professionals in think tank Stratfor who modelled Iran-Saudi war (with Iranian forces crossing Kuwait) and despite superiority of Iranian ground forces, came to conclusion that Saudi air force of some 225 fighters, that practiced high-rates of sorties in Yemen, will pound invading Iranian army and stall the entire invasion....And Iran according to Stratfor "doesn't have airforce worthy of the name"

You are making a joke out of yourself by inserting Stratfor in this discussion. It is a think-tank for wannabe strategists that make all kinds of bold- and far-fetched claims that are out of touch with reality. The owner of Stratfor is George Friedman, who has been wrong on pretty much every international development. Here he claims that the next world war will occur between Turkey and Poland. It tells you much about the level of 'professional' analysis of the company.

Want to hear a real expert? Here you go:

Watch from 06:50 onwards.

 

[GWXP]

You are making a joke out of yourself by inserting Stratfor in this discussion. It is a think-tank for wannabe strategists that make all kinds of bold- and far-fetched claims that are out of touch with reality. The owner of Stratfor is George Friedman, who has been wrong on pretty much every international development. Here he claims that the next world war will occur between Turkey and Poland. It tells you much about the level of 'professional' analysis of the company.

Want to hear a real expert? Here you go:

Watch from 06:50 onwards.

You know nothing about Stratfor...

Turkey is a country whose population will hit 100 mln people by 2050 and has a GDP and growing economy that will make it a leading power in the future....it is a potential future hegemon not only in the Caucasus, Black Sea region, Balkans, and East Mediterranean, possible even in Sunni parts of the ME.

Friedman was right when he predicted conflict with Russia over Ukraine long before it happened...and american reaction to resurgent Russia is arming Poland and Romania and creating a local counterweight to Russia in Eastern Europe.

BTW no one in this world is capable of providing 100% intelligence and prediction. Even CIA

You are making joke out of yourself by dismissing intelligence firms and think tanks like Stratfor who have millions of clients including in US government and military and goverments all over the world.

Even Iranian government once invited their expert Komran Bokhary to Tehran where he was able to meet top Iranian officials

And stop offering me endlessly interview by fearmongering Uzi Rubin who overestimates things just to get more funds for his anti ballistic missile program

 

[Philosopher]

This Idée fixe of the absolute crucial nature of a large airforce is clearly not mirrored by all those in the military. If indeed it was, then you would see Iran going for an airforce development in an aggressive manner. I find that some people are too fixated on the old ways of doing war. This is what the likes of Uzi Rubin are trying to say, i.e if you can do the job by using missiles, then why use a more risky method of using fighter jets? The ways wars can be fought are not fixed and change constantly, this is a crucial fact you have to keep in mind. For a nation like Iran with limited resources to spend billions upon billions building this fantasy airforce it would have to truly transform Iranian power. This is clearly not the case by Iran's calculations and it is not hard for us here to see why.

 

[Surenas]

You know nothing about Stratfor...

You are exactly sounding as the wannabe strategist that Stratfor applies to.

Turkey is a country whose population will hit 100 mln people by 2050 and has a GDP and growing economy that will make it a leading power in the future....it is a potential future hegemon not only in the Caucasus Black Sea region Balkans and East Mediterranean, possible even in sunni parts of the ME.

Turkey's economy is struggling today, and has enormous structural problems that could jeopardize its growth and size in the foreseeable future. Moreover, the argument that Turkey, due to its economic projection, is going to fight a world war with Poland is just sheer ludicrous.

Friedman was right when he predicted conflict with Russia oven Ukraine....and american reaction to resurgent Russia is arming Poland and Romania and creating a local counterweight to Russia in Eastern Europe.

When did he make that claim, and by which words did he argue that?

BTW no one in this world is capable of providing 100% intelligence and prediction.

It is one thing to make a number of predictions and scenarios based on credible indicators; but making all kinds of far-fetched claims out of a grotesque sense of geopolitics and pseudo strategism is another.

You are making joke out of yourself by dismissing intelligence firms and think tanks like Stratfor who have millions of clients including in US government and military and goverments all over the world.

Even Iranian government once invited their expert Komran Bokhary to Tehran where he was able to meet top Iranian officials

See. You are an intellectual baffoon. You are trying to make your case by inserting fallacious arguments, like ad populum and ab auctoritate.

And you don't need to tell me anything about intelligence. Unlike you, I completed a minor Intelligence Studies and got educated by former and current intelligence analysts with regards to proper analysis and all kinds of other stuff such as counter-intelligence. I don't need to go to sites such as Stratfor that make a living out off wannabe strategists such as you.

 

[GWXP]

And you don't need to tell me anything about intelligence. Unlike you, I completed a minor Intelligence Studies and got educated by former and current intelligence analysts with regards to analysis techniques.

Then you should know more than me about Stratfor and not ask me questions like "where and when did Friedman predict it"

Some of their predictions are indeed bold----especially when they try to predict the next 40-50 years.

Regarding Turkish economy--short term problems means nothing in the long run--I thought as an "intelligence man and and a person who " got educated by former and current intelligence analysts" you should understand this better than me----however you do the opposite which raises questions about your intelligence level

BTW, Stratfor at least offers some sort of intelligence backed by interesting facts which is better than sea of ignorance many people are drowning at (including in this forum).

I don't need to go to sites such as Stratfor that make a living out off wannabe strategists such as you.

Living off like wannabe strategists like me....look...US government branches and US army is among their client...Foreign governments are among their clients and Pakistani generals are among their clients....and certainly not self proclaimed "intelligence officers" like you

 

[Surenas]

Then you should know more than me about Stratfor and not ask me questions like "where and when did Friedman predict it"

Some of their predictions are indeed bold----especially when they try to predict the next 40-50 years.

You made a claim that Friedman predicted something before it occurred, so I asked you when he exactly made that claim.

Regarding Turkish economy--short term problems means nothing in the long run--I thought as an "intelligence man and and a person who " got educated by former and current intelligence analysts" you should understand this better than me----however you do the opposite which raises questions about your intelligence level

Read again what I wrote. I said structural problems, which means that it could have serious long-term repercussions for the Turkish economy.

BTW, Stratfor at least offers some sort of intelligence backed by interesting facts which is better than sea of ignorance many people are drowning at (including in this forum).

If you are going to use this forum as some kind of intellectual standard for knowledge acquirement, then you have a very limited standard for intelligence. But whatever pleases you. It is just amateurish gibberish that sounds strategic wise by inserting grotesque claims and pretentious language.

 

[GWXP]

You claim George Friedman is for wannabee strategists...However even Erdogan met and talked with Friedman, which shows the level of Stratfor...it seems like it is actually you who "got educated by former and current intelligence analysts" is a true wannabee strategist

 

[Surenas]

You claim George Friedman is for wannabee strategist...However even Erdogan met and talked with Friedman, which shows the level of Stratfor...it seems like it is actually you who "got educated by former and current intelligence analysts" is a truy wannabee strategist

Still having reading comprehension problems, I see. Which part of my you are using 'fallacious arguments' part of my comment did you not understand?

Of course Erdogan met with Friedman; the latter claims that Turkey is going to become a quasi superpower in the future, which applies to Turkish sense of grandeur and Erdogan's geopolitical schemes. And Friedman wouldn't be the first nutcase Erdogan has met in his political career. You are not going to impress anyone with this argument.

 

[QWECXZ]

You are exactly sounding as the wannabe strategist that Stratfor applies to.

Turkey's economy is struggling today, and has enormous structural problems that could jeopardize its growth and size in the foreseeable future. Moreover, the argument that Turkey, due to its economic projection, is going to fight a world war with Poland is just sheer ludicrous.

When did he make that claim, and by which words did he argue that?

It is one thing to make a number of predictions and scenarios based on credible indicators; but making all kinds of far-fetched claims out of a grotesque sense of geopolitics and pseudo strategism is another.

See. You are an intellectual baffoon. You are trying to make your case by inserting fallacious arguments, like ad populum and ab auctoritate.

And you don't need to tell me anything about intelligence. Unlike you, I completed a minor Intelligence Studies and got educated by former and current intelligence analysts with regards to proper analysis and all kinds of other stuff such as counter-intelligence. I don't need to go to sites such as Stratfor that make a living out off wannabe strategists such as you.

The problem with GWXP is that he thinks he understands Iran's affairs and military history better than us Iranians and he only repeats what he knows, never listens to what he doesn't know to learn a new thing and correct his calculations.

He talks about an Iranian ground invasion of Saudi Arabia! I explained to him that Iran and Saudi Arabia share no ground borders. Thinking about a ground invasion of Saudi Arabia by Iran is only possible for a non-Iranian who doesn't understand the politics and dynamics of the Middle East. Even if Iran can invade Saudi Arabia, the sectarian division and security implications of such an adventure is definitely not worth it. Both Saudi and Iranian leaders and generals understand this perfectly well. That's why Iran and Saudi Arabia try to avoid a direct conflict by using proxy wars in the region. The US is an extra-regional player. The US doesn't care if the whole Middle East collapses and people swarm in shit, but Iran lives here.

He mentions Stratfor, but he doesn't understand that the US strategy in the Middle East has been a total failure compared to Iran due to their lack of understanding of the unique fiber of the region. They invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, spent trillions of dollars, lost thousands of soldiers only to pave the way for Iran's influence in Iraq. The US miscalculations made the idea of having ground access to the Mediterranean Sea possible for Iran. Otherwise Iranians could've never dreamed of something like that with Saddam in power.

 

[wali87]

Iran does produce some military weapons, but apart from their missile systems, the rest of their indigenously produced weapons fall awfully short of the international standrds and trends. For example the submarine program, the aircraft program, the air defence program, all seem to lack the cutting edge to take on a modern army. Frankly speaking they are at the mercy of the US from all this time. Iran needs to have a massive armament program in place, sukhois, s400s, t90s, s20 subs. Awac. If it want to actually protect itself from a future threat. Morale alone is not going to protect you.

 

[Surenas]

The problem with GWXP is that he thinks he understands Iran's affairs and military history better than us Iranians and he only repeats what he knows, never listens to what he doesn't know to learn a new thing and correct his calculations.

He talks about an Iranian ground invasion of Saudi Arabia! I explained to him that Iran and Saudi Arabia share no ground borders. Thinking about a ground invasion of Saudi Arabia by Iran is only possible for a non-Iranian who doesn't understand the politics and dynamics of the Middle East. Even if Iran can invade Saudi Arabia, the sectarian division and security implications of such an adventure is definitely not worth it. Both Saudi and Iranian leaders and generals understand this perfectly well. That's why Iran and Saudi Arabia try to avoid a direct conflict by using proxy wars in the region. The US is an extra-regional player. The US doesn't care if the whole Middle East collapses and people swarm in shit, but Iran lives here.

He mentions Stratfor, but he doesn't understand that the US strategy in the Middle East has been a total failure compared to Iran due to their lack of understanding of the unique fiber of the region. They invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, spent trillions of dollars, lost thousands of soldiers only to pave the way for Iran's influence in Iraq. The US miscalculations made the idea of having ground access to the Mediterranean Sea possible for Iran. Otherwise Iranians could've never dreamed of something like that with Saddam in power.

GWXP is the kind of a guy you see lingering around on forums in which topics such as history, geopolitics and military affairs are discussed by people who in reality have no idea what they are talking about. These are the kind of people who probably have played virtual games in which war and strategy where the main themes, and have deluded themselves to have a logical sense of strategy and military developments in the international arena. That is why they feel comfortable by inserting 'ground invasion' projections into the discussion, because they truly believe that these grotesque scenarios make someone strategic wise and informed.

The funny thing is, these kind of people have no notable education in the fields their amateurish gibberish is speaking off. They don't have the slightest idea of what qualitative analysis techniques means, what logical thinking truly is, etc. It is just the fantasies of an armchair general that plays mental war games out of delusion.

 

[GWXP]

GWXP is the kind of a guy you see lingering around on forums in which topics such as history, geopolitics and military affairs are discussed by people who in reality have no idea what they are talking about. These are the kind of people who probably have played virtual games in which war and strategy where the main themes, and have deluded themselves to have a logical sense of strategy and military developments in the international arena. That is why they feel comfortable by inserting 'ground invasion' projections into the discussion, because they truly believe that these grotesque scenarios make someone strategic wise and informed.

The funny thing is, these kind of people have no notable education in the fields their amateurish gibberish is speaking off. They don't have the slightest idea of what qualitative analysis techniques means, what logical thinking truly is, etc. It is just the fantasies of an armchair general that plays mental war games out of delusion.

When having a choice between such amateurs like you who claim to "complete minor intelligence study" while still wasting his time in online forums-------and 100 professionals in Stratfor, who know better what they are doing---I side with Stratfor

BTW it seems that you are also that kind of "missile guy" we have in this forum--BIG LOL at that

 

[Surenas]

When having a choice between such amateurs like you who claim to "complete minor intelligence study" while still wasting his time in online forums-------and 100 professionals in Stratfor, who know better what they are doing---I side with Stratfor

BTW it seems that you are also that kind of "missile guy" we have in this forum--BIG LOL at that

I might be wasting my time over here (I have hardly been active the past few years), but at least I know what I am talking about.

 

[Philosopher]

fall awfully short of the international standrds and trends. For example the submarine program, the aircraft program, the air defence program, all seem to lack the cutting edge to take on a modern army.

On what basis are you claiming Iran's submarines fall awfully short of international standards? Iran's Fateh submarine for example, despite being 600 ton is extremely well equipped and armed. As for air defence, Iran is one of the few nations that produces long range air defences. Fighter jets is the only area Iran has yet to fully master, everything else, from Missiles, UAVs, air defence and submarines, Iran is doing extremely well.

 

[Mithridates]

For example the submarine program, the aircraft program, the air defence program, all seem to lack the cutting edge to take on a modern army.

fateh has 12 different sensors to detect enemy, in aircraft program we just lack a powerful engine to build our own 4th/+4th generation and our bavar-373 is way better than US patriot as it uses 3 different radars with 3 different frequencies.

people missile can't replace an air force. for example what if military planners for a military reason decide to target a toilet even if it is undefended?? are gonna use ballistic missile for it?? how you gonna target a convoy?? how you gonna stop a marching enemy Armour?? how you gonna stop low flying fighter jets of enemy from bombing us??
also people talk about billions of maintenance cost like the the f-14s,f-4s,f-5s,f-1s,f-7,mig-29s,su-22s and the rest of the fleet fly by the grace of god. do you know how much it costs to fly those 4-5 fleet (which will be replaced by su-30) of jets?? billions of dollars.!!! and they can contribute very small to our overall firepower.