War Talk: Could U.S. Forces Execute an Amphibious Assault against Iran?

[undercover JIX]

Strategy of causing large number of casualties and economic harm is not a deterrence?

Understand now.
But can America lock on to Iranian missile sites and take out before actual attack? How Iran will know, if USA plan this.

 

[Blue In Green]

You are comparing incompetent Arab armies with a competent Iranian one. Saudi shows the same intrinsic weaknesses now: the over overabundance of equipment does not make for its societal, industrial and scientific defincies of these states. Iran on the other hand has a fairly professional scientific and military industry.

There is a reason why Iran is left alone, despite confronting major powers in the region.

LeGenD is an out-and-out American fanboy complete with FIERCE jingoistic fetishization of the American military that creates one of, if not the strongest American bias I've come across on this site bar none. There is no counter-argument one can make for him to see or think otherwise.

to LeGenD, America will win any fight with anyone, anytime, anywhere, anyplace under any conditions cause, 'Murica...

 

[WinterNights]

I think some in this thread are missing an important point. A nation does not need to be able completely defeat another nation on paper to obtain deterrence. Let's use Iran's air defences as an example. Iran integrated air defence (IAD) does not need to be able to destroy the whole USAF, it needs to be enough to potentially cause enough casualty to make the US not think about such a conflict. Iran's IAD is capable today to cause such damage to USAF and it is growing at an impressive rate. Keep in mind, In above scenario I only focused on air defence, obviously there will be many other factors to consider in an actual conflict, such as Iran's vast missile forces.

Understand now.
But can America lock on to Iranian missile sites and take out before actual attack? How Iran will know, if USA plan this.

First of all, you do realise Iran has dozens and dozens of vast underground missile bases that are 100's of meters below ground and in some causes mountains? US has no hope in hell to destroy these. This is not Hollywood. Furthermore, another chunk of Iran's missile are highly mobile and are always on the move (to avoid satellite intelligence).

Furthermore, Iran is keeping an eye on everything in this region. If US coughs, Iran will know it. US has no chance of a surprise attack on Iran. Not in a conventional military sense anyway.

 

[Blue In Green]

I think some in this thread are missing an important point. A nation does not need to be able completely defeat another nation on paper to obtain deterrence. Let's use Iran's air defences as an example. Iran integrated air defence (IAD) does not need to be able to destroy the whole USAF, it needs to be enough to potentially cause enough casualty to make the US not think about such a conflict. Iran's IAD is capable today to cause such damage to US air damage and it is growing at an impressive rate. Keep in mind, In above scenario I only focused on air defence, obviously there will be many other factors to consider in an actual conflict, such as Iran's vast missile forces.



First of all, you do realise Iran has dozens and dozens of vast underground missile bases that are 100's of meters below ground and in some causes mountains? US has no hope in hell to destroy these. This is not Hollywood. Furthermore, another chunk of Iran's missile are highly mobile and are always on the move (to avoid satellite intelligence).

Furthermore, Iran is keeping an eye on everything in this region. If US coughs, Iran will know it. US has no chance of a surprise attack on Iran. Not in a conventional military sense anyway.

BUT NO 91' SADDAM WAS STRONK AN 'MURICA BEAT HEM EASILY!!! IRAN IS SAME DAN'T YOU SAEA THAT?!?!?!

 

[Surenas]

Understand now.
But can America lock on to Iranian missile sites and take out before actual attack? How Iran will know, if USA plan this.

You are assuming that the US knows the location of every Iranian missile site. Look at previous and current examples. Israel had difficulties to stop Hezbollah from firing rockets into its territory despite enjoying complete aerial superiority. Saudi now is failing to stop a semi-professional force as Ansarullah (Houthis) from firing suicide drones, cruise and ballistic missiles on its airports and other strategic infrastructure despite the fact that the US and UK assist the Saudis with intelligence.

Iran has early detection capabilities and likely also automatically counter-firing installed if its detects an American attack.

 

[undercover JIX]

I think some in this thread are missing an important point. A nation does not need to be able completely defeat another nation on paper to obtain deterrence. Let's use Iran's air defences as an example. Iran integrated air defence (IAD) does not need to be able to destroy the whole USAF, it needs to be enough to potentially cause enough casualty to make the US not think about such a conflict. Iran's IAD is capable today to cause such damage to US air damage and it is growing at an impressive rate. Keep in mind, In above scenario I only focused on air defence, obviously there will be many other factors to consider in an actual conflict, such as Iran's vast missile forces.



First of all, you do realise Iran has dozens and dozens of vast underground missile bases that are 100's of meters below ground and in some causes mountains? US has no hope in hell to destroy these. This is not Hollywood. Furthermore, another chunk of Iran's missile are highly mobile and are always on the move (to avoid satellite intelligence).

Furthermore, Iran is keeping an eye on everything in this region. If US coughs, Iran will know it. US has no chance of a surprise attack on Iran. Not in a conventional military sense anyway.

True,
I remember USA used some bombs during Afghan Air raids, which penetrated caves and mountains, and i am remember seeing some satellite videos of inside caves etc.

these are simple questions just asking. For me whoever teaches USA a lesson I am on that side.

 

[Blue In Green]

True,
I remember USA used some bombs during Afghan Air raids, which penetrated caves and mountains, and i am remember seeing some satellite videos of inside caves etc.

these are simple questions just asking. For me whoever teaches USA a lesson I am on that side.

If we wanna be completely honest with ourselves and just call a spade a spade then we need to just say that in a vacuum the American military will beat Iran's military conventionally 9 times out of 10. Luckily we don't live in a vacuum and this war will be more than just America VS Iran. I don't care what anyone has to say, this is the reality of the situation no matter what.

Hearing that the U.S. will just win and that's that infuriates me to no end because that assumption is bereft of holistic thinking and only chooses to focus on one aspect in the potential war between Iran and the U.S.

Hezbollah, Iraqi militia, Oil prices, world economy, large scale destruction across the board, China and Russia won't sit idly by, etc...

 

[WinterNights]

BUT NO 91' SADDAM WAS STRONK AN 'MURICA BEAT HEM EASILY!!! IRAN IS SAME DAN'T YOU SAEA THAT?!?!?!

I always facepalm when these people talk about saddam's military. His military was even using NATO based coding system . This fact alone gave NATO such an advantage against him.

As for his air defence, most of them were old air defences and virtually all of them were highly susceptible to jamming. Good luck trying to do that to Iran. An Iranian official said that if the Americans want to jam our radars electronically, they would have to send so many different frequencies, that they would end up jamming their own systems too.

Iran is vastly superior to saddam's Iraq both in quality and quantity of advanced air defences. There is simply no comparison. It's like trying to compare Iran's ballistic missiles to what he had.

 

[skyshadow]

Understand now.
But can America lock on to Iranian missile sites and take out before actual attack? How Iran will know, if USA plan this.

too deeply buried to be taken out, 500 m under ground

 

[Surenas]

LegenD is an out-and-out American fanboy complete with jingoistic fetishization of the American military that creates one of, if not the strongest American bias I've come across on this site bar none. There is no counter-argument one can make for him to see or think otherwise.

to LegenD, America will win any fight with anyone, anytime, anywhere, anyplace under any conditions cause, 'Murica...

The problem with that mentality is that if a all-out conflict truly breaks out, Iran will be unquestionably the strongest nation the US has faced ever since WW2. I mean, there isn't a nation on earth which has anticipated an American attack more than Iran has, for at least a couple of decades now. Its whole military strategy and capability has been formed around this prospect, and it has acquired significant conventional and assymetrical assets that is obviously deterring the Americans, while also providing Tehran with the means to significantly hurt the US if the latter is foolish to ignite war.

It will be the mother of all wars in the Middle East, and frankly the US hasn't really got a great track record of strategic successes in this region. There is a reason why the Pentagon right now is the least enthusiastic institution in the US government to put pressure on Iran or to confront it, while the White House and State Department are full with non-military civillians that aren't aware of the risks and repercussions. It says a lot when the most professional guys in the US administration like General Dunford and previously Mattis are trying to prevent a conflict from arising. These men know the consequences.

Or as Mattis previously told its subordinates:

But others worry that he might be to eager to get into a fight. “Back when he was Centcom commander,” the senior Marine officer says, “Jim was really focused on Iran, and was well aware that any kind of confrontation with them could easily spin out of control. He once did a study of it, and completely shut down Navy officers who told him the Iranian military was no match for the Americans. He just rejected that. Totally.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/james-mattis-iran-secretary-of-defense-214500

 

[TheImmortal]

Artillery, rockets, and missiles won't be raining on invading troops when USAF + USN are active above and/or have softened defensive positions beforehand.

Tell that to Israel who absorbed hundreds of rocket attacks a day with 24 hr survilleance of a TINY area of south Lebanon.

Tell that to Saudi Arabia.

How is USAF going to find preemptively find an Iranian Missile in ALL OF IRAN.

You been watching way too much sci-fi movies.

US will suffer minimum 5,000 casualties attempting a beachhead. Let alone keeping and holding it and expanding outward.

It’s suicide.

 

[The SC]

You are comparing incompetent Arab armies with a competent Iranian one. Saudi shows the same intrinsic weaknesses now: the overabundance of equipment does not make up for the societal, industrial and scientific defincies of these states. Iran on the other hand has a fairly professional scientific and military base.

There is a reason why Iran is left alone despite confronting major powers in the region.

How competent Iranian forces are in Syria?

 

[Surenas]

How competent Iranian forces are in Syria?

A small detachment of Iranian forces and advisors managed to turn the tide of the war in favour of government forces. I mean, at most, Iran did not have more than a couple of thousand fighters on the front lines, while it had to assist an incompetent, demoralized and fractured Syrian army. The fact that Iran has managed to prevent the Assad government from falling is an accomplishment in itself. There is a reason why rebel forces feared any front under the guidance of Iranian forces/advisors, while speaking poorly of government forces.

 

[Blue In Green]

Tell that to Israel who absorbed hundreds of rocket attacks a day with 24 hr survilleance of a TINY area of south Lebanon.

Tell that to Saudi Arabia.

How is USAF going to find preemptively find an Iranian Missile in ALL OF IRAN.

You been watching way too much sci-fi movies.

US will suffer minimum 5,000 casualties attempting a beachhead. Let alone keeping and holding it and expanding outward.

It’s suicide.

He unfortunately cannot and willfully won't see Iran as anything other than a nation with a shit-military that can't protect itself against the U.S. It's as simple as that with LeGenD.....

It's such a shame since he carries himself so diligently and with relative grace when he engages in conversations on here which surprises me. You'd think that someone who can argue with such a good grasp on english can't seem to comprehend simple realities that always escape him.

LeGenD's logical is as follows:

Iraq 91' = Iran now

Iraq 91' air defense = Iranian air defense now

Iraqi military capabilities and deficiencies therein = IRAN NOW!!!

He's not the only ignorant/arrogant pompous member on PDF that takes this asinine position. The always illustrious Gambit also views Iran with the same sentiment.

 

[Pakistansdefender]

Yes they can ....
But chances of winning are very less.
As Russia would come in and then things would get to stalemate .
Trumo would decide it after withdrawal from Afghanistan and after checking his polls for the next election .
He may actually not attack but then he would loose the support of isreal and money of the Arab in the next elections.