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

[nahtanbob]

truth is American sailors would shit their pants if they know a Russian fighter jet fired a KH-31 toward them, now imagine a Persian gulf missile with twice that speed and warhead...
only keyboard warriors on PDF can say PG missile is nothing.


lol we can launch missiles at European bases from Syria, nowhere to hide.

you will be crying war crimes when USAF hits you back

 

[Sineva]

I think that it would be better to rephrase the question at the heart of this thread as:
Could the us forces SUCCESSFULLY execute an amphibious assault against iran?
I personally think that they could certainly attempt an amphibious operation,but,that the chances of successfully pulling it off would very likely be slim to none.

 

[nahtanbob]

I think that it would be better to rephrase the question at the heart of this thread as:
Could the us forces SUCCESSFULLY execute an amphibious assault against iran?
I personally think that they could certainly attempt an amphibious operation,but,that the chances of successfully pulling it off would very likely be slim to none.

Iran has a long coastline. it is easy to pull one.

the real question is what is the purpose of amphibious landing. i do not see any point

Keep in mind Iranian reinforcements will be pounded from the air

 

[zartosht]

Way more staging areas, more ships, more planes, more cruise missiles. Pretty much more everything.
Do you actually believe Iran would come out victorious in a war between Iran and NATO? Even Russian can't.

if victory means Iran successfully defending its territory, and completely shredding any invading American/euro force?? then yes. Iran will be victorious.

it will only be a matter of time before they get bogged down in a bloodbath and retreat.

That is true. But by extension of that common sense, Iran could not lob missiles at Israel, which is what Iranians on PDF are advocating, if Israel do nothing in this US-Iran war scenario.

If Iran is attacked. Nasarallah has already declared it to be a regional war. Hezbollah will almost certainly attack Israel in such a scenario. and if Iran and the US are going at it and Israel attacks Syria/Lebanon.... then tiny, densely populated Israel will almost certainly be eating missiles.

Iran has invested ENORMOUSLY in its long (medium) range ballistic missile program for this precise reason. one of Irans biggest detterences is its ability to flatten Israel. its a simple math game. Tiny, densely populated state vs. hundreds/thousands of accurate ballistic missiles. in addition to what Hezbollah and Syria will be unleashing.

if things really get ugly, there wont be much infastracture left in Israel by the time its all set and done.

 

[gambit]

If Iran is attacked. Nasarallah has already declared it to be a regional war. Hezbollah will almost certainly attack Israel in such a scenario. and if Iran and the US are going at it and Israel attacks Syria/Lebanon.... then tiny, densely populated Israel will almost certainly be eating missiles.

But why Israel? You posited that only countries that hosts US forces will be targeted, which under the Geneva Convention, you are correct. So if US forces are not in Israel, Iran attacking Israel would violate YOUR declaration.

 

[zartosht]

But why Israel? You posited that only countries that hosts US forces will be targeted, which under the Geneva Convention, you are correct. So if US forces are not in Israel, Iran attacking Israel would violate YOUR declaration.

Iran and Syria have an official defence pact. Iranian forces are embedded in Syria and likely be directly engaging Israeli forces if the big one broke out. If Israel attacks Syria then Iran can claim casualties on its troops as justification for retaliation for Israel.

While I agree the technical legal ground may be shaky if Israel openly declares neutrality in case of a war and proclaims it will not attack Iran.

in such scenario the legal grounds would be a little murky. but it would be for lawyers to deal with....

saddam randomly starting attacking Israel unprovoked in 91. you really think Iran is going to refrain when it has invested so much in it?

I cannot see how Israel would stay out of such a regional conflict. the only question would be to what extent would Iraq, and Afghanistan get involved?

and if Iran will take out Persian gulf arab expensive petroleum infastracture to really bring the world economy to its knees?

you can begin to sense how messy and suicidal any war with Iran is going to be...

 

[gambit]

Iran and Syria have an official defence pact. Iranian forces are embedded in Syria and likely be directly engaging Israeli forces if the big one broke out. If Israel attacks Syria then Iran can claim casualties on its troops as justification for retaliation for Israel.

While I agree the technical legal ground may be shaky if Israel openly declares neutrality in case of a war and proclaims it will not attack Iran.

in such scenario the legal grounds would be a little murky. but it would be for lawyers to deal with....

saddam randomly starting attacking Israel unprovoked in 91. you really think Iran is going to refrain when it has invested so much in it?

I cannot see how Israel would stay out of such a regional conflict. the only question would be to what extent would Iraq, and Afghanistan get involved?

and if Iran will take out Persian gulf arab expensive petroleum infastracture to really bring the world economy to its knees?

you can begin to sense how messy and suicidal any war with Iran is going to be...

In other words, Iran will attack Israel no matter what. Should have stated that in the first place. That is all we need to know.

 

[Mithridates]

And get NATO involved lol?

so??

you will be crying war crimes when USAF hits you back

there is not gonna be a USAF in air in the second day of conflict, possibly some B-2 from EU bases gonna fly and hit some targets and then Iran gonna hit those bases back. the only part of iranian military doctrine which use to suck was it's defensive role and thanks god we changed it to offensive one. it means in case of war we gonna see our ground forces outside of our borders...

 

[nahtanbob]

so??


there is not gonna be a USAF in air in the second day of conflict, possibly some B-2 from EU bases gonna fly and hit some targets and then Iran gonna hit those bases back. the only part of iranian military doctrine which use to suck was it's defensive role and thanks god we changed it to offensive one. it means in case of war we gonna see our ground forces outside of our borders...

you cannot claim you were not warned. hopefully there won't be a war

 

[Mithridates]

you cannot claim you were not warned.

so you are trump??
I'm sure that I'm not rouhani either.

iran does not want war, we just react.