US Attack on Iran Would Turn Into Protracted Conflict, Engulf Mid East – Scholar

[zectech]

It's not a choice though. Iran has to afford something like the Su-57 in enough numbers. If 200 is not possible, then 100. Apart from Su-57, Iran also needs 200+ Gripen E class fighters.

Not to mention a full tier air defence capability from Pantsir and Tor to Buk and S-400.

Of course, you will need to properly train your personnel or you will only have a glass force, like the rest of the Middle East.



Nothing's gonna work without air power. This is the US we are talking about.

Once hypersonic weapons come online, Iran's airfields will be targeted. Better to invest in S-500s to first protect the airfields holding 20 billion in merchandise.

In the mean time, stock up on long range cruise missiles and long range anti-ship missiles. And MRBMs, and nukes prevent wars.

 

[Tokhme khar]

Yeah the US power worked great in the SyRaq?...........lol

Iran has thrown the US out of the northern ME, in case you haven't noticed.

It's not a choice though. Iran has to afford something like the Su-57 in enough numbers. If 200 is not possible, then 100. Apart from Su-57, Iran also needs 200+ Gripen E class fighters.

Not to mention a full tier air defence capability from Pantsir and Tor to Buk and S-400.

Of course, you will need to properly train your personnel or you will only have a glass force, like the rest of the Middle East.



Nothing's gonna work without air power. This is the US we are talking about.

 

[Persian Gulf 1906]

Once hypersonic weapons come online, Iran's airfields will be targeted. Better to invest in S-500s to first protect the airfields holding 20 billion in merchandise.

In the mean time, stock up on long range cruise missiles and long range anti-ship missiles. And MRBMs, and nukes prevent wars.

US will not have hypersonic cruise missiles for a very long time.

even if they attack iran's airfields with them once they get them (seems implausible but regardless) airfields can be rebuilt in days. the BMs are spread across iran in underground silos so hypersonic cruise missiles can't do anything.

American soldier was killed everywhere, in fact, American soldier exist when there are US embassy, if you have a US embassy in Iran, then you will have US Marine in Iran. There are only around 8000 US troop in Afghanistan, mostly special force and administrative duty, compare to the number before drawn down, it's 1/8 to 1/10 (depends on which figure you use) of is ISAF strength, I would say that is a "Departure"

As I said before, the goal for the US is not to kill every last one of the Taliban, you can't do that, unless you want to kill the whole Afghan population, and as I said before, you cannot stay in Afghanistan forever either. What you can do is to pick a point where you cannot gain anything from it anymore and move out, unless US wanted to Annex Afghan into its 51 states, Taliban is not exactly US problem.

25,000 contractors + 10,000 US troops ≠ departure.

If Taliban is not US problem what was the US objective in the invasion?

You are running around in circles trying to avoid admitting US failure in Afghanistan, it's quite funny to watch in fact.

 

[Han Patriot]

Not won, but did not lose either.

There are no stakes for the US in Syria. Nor enough troop to actually start a war that count, not like ISAF/NATO level.

All we can say is that US achieve their objective in Syria, much like they did in Afghanistan.

US lost both political and physical war bro. That's a fact, as much as you love the US military, they do lose wars. They might win some battles, overall they lost a war. No stakes? The whole Syria shit was started by the US to topple Assad and overthrow Shiite-influenced governments in Arabia. US is now nothing but a paid mercenary of the Judeo-Saudi hegemon. Guess who created ISIS? It was created when US wanted to fund 'moderate' rebels in Syria, you have no idea how much suffering and destruction US is doing in the world.

Crimea and Syria taught us one thing, US will not dare attack another nuclear super power.

 

[zectech]

US lost both political and physical war bro. That's a fact, as much as you love the US military, they do lose wars. They might win some battles, overall they lost a war. No stakes? The whole Syria shit was started by the US to topple Assad and overthrow Shiite-influenced governments in Arabia. US is now nothing but a paid mercenary of the Judeo-Saudi hegemon. Guess who created ISIS? It was created when US wanted to fund 'moderate' rebels in Syria, you have no idea how much suffering and destruction US is doing in the world.

Crimea and Syria taught us one thing, US will not dare attack another nuclear super power.

All of Obama's zionist advisors told Obama to arm ISIS:

Google wiped clean the search results on ISIS and Washington funding ISIS, so I have to go to ''white' nationalist' neo-nazis RT for the source:

Iran has said the same. And all Obama's advisors in the Pentagon and white house advisors said to arm ISIS, so we can be sure that ISIS's rise was a Washington operation.

Jewish zionist media is silent on Erdogan's accusations and/or joogle is not allowing finding any search results.

That is how quickly information 'disappears' from search results in the West.

What google does is spam your search results in sensitive areas (like Erdogan accuses US of arming ISIS) with the same five stories from different sources over and over again. Zionist jews run google like they do facebook.

 

[Han Patriot]

All of Obama's zionist advisors told Obama to arm ISIS:

Google wiped clean the search results on ISIS and Washington funding ISIS, so I have to go to ''white' nationalist' neo-nazis RT for the source:

Iran has said the same. And all Obama's advisors in the Pentagon and white house advisors said to arm ISIS, so we can be sure that ISIS's rise was a Washington operation.

Jewish zionist media is silent on Erdogan's accusations and/or joogle is not allowing finding any search results.

That is how quickly information 'disappears' from search results in the West.

What google does is spam your search results in sensitive areas (like Erdogan accuses US of arming ISIS) with the same five stories from different sources over and over again. Zionist jews run google like they do facebook.

Actually I realize this too, the media is like one big creature, the message blurted out is the same across the board. It is not as free as we thought it was supposed to be. Normally, you can get the real picture from these hidden US voices in RT.

 

[Tokhme khar]

The Zionist project in the N middle east is kaput! Behind the success of the resistance sit Russia/ China/ Iran.

 

[Hack-Hook]

We will leave whatever 'aftermath' for the region to deal with.

With the Iranian air force and navy decimated, Iran's leadership will use the army as an even more extension of state sponsored terrorism. Let the region deal with that.


If we refuse to meet on land, what can the Iranian land forces do, invade Iraq? Please do so.

you have some bases around us , you knew what we can do

 

[gambit]

Will it just be the region that has to deal with it? Similar thinking led to the abandonment of Afghanistan after the Soviets left, we know what happened there in a power vacuum.

The Soviets wanted a vassal state. The US does not.

We left Afghanistan alone after the Soviets left. All Omar had to do was not get involved with Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. We were no 'bull in a china shop'. Afghanistan was hardly anything worthwhile for US. But now the region is clear on one thing, china shop or not, the US will bulldoze everything in our path when we put the will to task.

When we leave, the Taliban can have Afghanistan and the Muslims will cheer the usual 'graveyard of empires' nonsense. But behind closed doors, everyone knows that what happened was a lesson hard taught to the region. First it was Afghanistan, then it was Iraq, and we broke no sweat in both. We also learned our lesson, that from now on, it is futile to engage in nation building, especially in the ME. We will not leave the ME as we have interests there, but those who are hostile to US and are stateless will not find allies like Al-Qaeda did find with Afghanistan because of what we did to the Taliban. The next generation of the Taliban -- am willing to bet -- is not the same as the time of Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden. They will not be interested in spreading their version of Islam but content to rule Afghanistan.

Regarding IS, while it is a threat to states, the US and Europe would be the last on its list of targets, except maybe for the isolated incidences of terrorism, so what this means is that if IS continues to be a threat, it will be up to the regional powers to treat any state that sponsors IS the same way that the US treated Afghanistan. This also means we maybe looking at yrs of internal strife if not outright civil wars in the Muslim states.

 

[The Accountant]

Well, you are talking about a military operation, which is a jungle sport. Unless you are expecting fighting a war is just you go walk up the enemy and shake hand, then yes, what you said is right. But in reality is, you do whatever you can to survive in a war. You can only talk about human right when you are alive, otherwise, it's just all BS.

Agreed war is a dirty game ... But starting a war in the name of human rights not by soldiers but politician is a hypocrisy ... Once was is there then of course blood will spill ... A bullet cannot differentiate between an infant and enemy soldier but before a starting a war US made so much hue and cry that we are the most peaceful country and champion of human rights but in reality US is the biggest terrorist nation on the face of earth ...

Be it Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya ...

 

[Jlaw]

USA does not need to defeat any ideology. The goal in Afghanistan is to ensure that that region cannot be used a a staging ground for any future attacks on the homeland, that is all. The rest Afghans can figure out among themselves.

But the 9/11 bombers were from Saudi Arabia. US attacked the wrong country. Which comes down to the point Americans suck in geography.

 

[The Accountant]

The Soviets wanted a vassal state. The US does not.

We left Afghanistan alone after the Soviets left. All Omar had to do was not get involved with Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. We were no 'bull in a china shop'. Afghanistan was hardly anything worthwhile for US. But now the region is clear on one thing, china shop or not, the US will bulldoze everything in our path when we put the will to task.

When we leave, the Taliban can have Afghanistan and the Muslims will cheer the usual 'graveyard of empires' nonsense. But behind closed doors, everyone knows that what happened was a lesson hard taught to the region. First it was Afghanistan, then it was Iraq, and we broke no sweat in both. We also learned our lesson, that from now on, it is futile to engage in nation building, especially in the ME. We will not leave the ME as we have interests there, but those who are hostile to US and are stateless will not find allies like Al-Qaeda did find with Afghanistan because of what we did to the Taliban. The next generation of the Taliban -- am willing to bet -- is not the same as the time of Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden. They will not be interested in spreading their version of Islam but content to rule Afghanistan.

Regarding IS, while it is a threat to states, the US and Europe would be the last on its list of targets, except maybe for the isolated incidences of terrorism, so what this means is that if IS continues to be a threat, it will be up to the regional powers to treat any state that sponsors IS the same way that the US treated Afghanistan. This also means we maybe looking at yrs of internal strife if not outright civil wars in the Muslim states.

Well militarily you definitely won ... but where are you economically? When you were wasting trillons on war china was building its economy and now she is projected to be world no1 economy in a decade ...

Your debts are at its peak and most of them are owned by your real true enemy China ... So yes you won the battle but at the cost of war ... US is loosing its economic might faster then ever ... All the military might is based on economic power ... So on a bigger picture US is bleeding ,,, bleeding fast and US cant do anything about it ...

 

[gambit]

Well militarily you definitely won ... but where are you economically? When you were wasting trillons on war china was building its economy and now she is projected to be world no1 economy in a decade ...

Your debts are at its peak and most of them are owned by your real true enemy China ... So yes you won the battle but at the cost of war ... US is loosing its economic might faster then ever ... All the military might is based on economic power ... So on a bigger picture US is bleeding ,,, bleeding fast and US cant do anything about it ...

Ah...Another US 'collapse' thread.

 

[zectech]

But the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. US attacked the wrong country. Which comes down to the point Americans suck in geography.

For your viewing at your leisure:

(watch all 3 parts)

(for your eyes only)

This one following video blames the 'muzzies', so it is fit for RT, so if you want a lower quality explanation that blames the fake Saudi hijackers - not reality of the drone planes, watch this:

 

[The Accountant]

Ah...Another US 'collapse' thread.

Is this my projection or projection of world biggest western financial institutes?