Why Iran wouldn't last a few days against US

[925boy]

@VEVAK

1. The financial aspect is totally ignored. The US is already bankrupt, a war with Iran will push it over the edge.

2. If Iran closes the supply of oil, whether by shutting the straits of Hormuz or targeting Arab oil production, the economic recession and international uproar will be massive. Even the US will not be able to withstand it.

For both reasons, the longer the war lasts, the better for Iran. The collapse of the US dollar, caused by this crisis, will be the final defeat for the US.

Harsh realities detected. So many dont think like you here.

Looking though this Topic makes me realise how naive and childish some people can become. Anyways one must realise this is no Afghanistan or Iraq or Libya that we're talking about. Iran is on a level of it's own. Iran is being Ranked at 14 out of 137 Nations in Military Might. Now that is power and no small feat. Iran's Topography is another challenge which poses no easy and quick solution.

Here are some facts for you guys:-

1. Iran's total military personnel is believed to amount to an estimated 873,000 people, with 523,000 of them active and the rest believed to be reserve personnel.

2. The total number of Iranian military aircrafts amounts to 509, including fighter jets, attack aircraft, helicopter and transporters.

3. Iran’s land strength is overwhelmingly composed of 2,345 armoured fighting vehicles and 1,634 combat tanks.

4. Tehran can also count on 570 self-propelled artillery, 2,128 towed artillery and 1,900 rocket projectors.

5. Lastly, Iran has a naval asset counting 398 ships. Among the vessels available to Tehran, there are six frigates, 34 submarines and three mine warfare ships.

Currently there seems to be no end as far as wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq are concerned. One would hope that at the end both sides shall exercise maximum restraint and that common sense shall prevail...

Source: https://www.express.co.uk/news/worl...ran-military-strength-us-military-middle-east

Very nice, logical, objective analysis. Only hard "nuts" left to crack.

But still not comparable to world's strongest military US is technologically supperior to any other country of the world
and technology is what wins not emotions or bravery

Once again, you show us that you dont actually understand how our world world today.

1st of all, willpower and motivation are almost as important as technology. 2nd of all, technology doesnt guarantee a win in a war, WHEN WILL U LEARNT THAT? just like the PDFers who think whichever counrry has the best air force is going to win, and we are seeing wars in the 20 years where the better air force and technology didnt win the war.
3rd of all, you are using black or white logic with regards to role of technology in US militarty performance. Offcourse technology has helped the US alot, but technology doesnt stop any country from: 1) losing lives 2) going bankrupt 3) taking damage to national interests 4) making things bad for allies..on and on and on. You forget this is the 1st time in US's existence that a non-white country shares the super power table with the US? You're thinking like we are in year 2000.

Sure its a sitting duck being that close. But its daring Iran to attack it. Similar to send the carriers between China and Taiwan in 1996. Been done like this for many decades when sending carriers to intimidate. .

The US has not sent an aircraft carrier through the Taiwan strait in over 11 years! Facts.

 

[Hack-Hook]

You guys were also dismissing the revelations of the Houthi having C-802 ASCM in their possession until another member (Russian) jumped in and provided further documented evidence, therefore, your credibility is SHOT. Sorry, I stick by my every word.

we said we didn't gave c-802 to anybody and the evidence that shown here proved our point the origin of Al-Mandab 1 is not Iran and the missile look visually different from our c-802 , our missiles ae designed to be able to be fired from helicopter , Ansar-Allah missile cant be fired in such manners

 

[The Accountant]

You don't know what you are talking about. Even US generals don't claim such a thing.

They r coming for destruction of iran ... if you want to win over ashes and destroyed building then sure the war will take years and eventually Iran might win as no one love US in Iran but they will mainly target Irans key installation using cruise missiles and then they will establish air superirority by taking out the fighter aircrafts and SAMs ... they will not set the foot unless they r sure your formal forces r no more a threat

 

[LeGenD]

we said we didn't gave c-802 to anybody and the evidence that shown here proved our point the origin of Al-Mandab 1 is not Iran and the missile look visually different from our c-802 , our missiles ae designed to be able to be fired from helicopter , Ansar-Allah missile cant be fired in such manners

Fair enough. Now this is the type of response I welcome, appreciated.

 

[Arminkh]

They r coming for destruction of iran ... if you want to win over ashes and destroyed building then sure the war will take years and eventually Iran might win as no one love US in Iran but they will mainly target Irans key installation using cruise missiles and then they will establish air superirority by taking out the fighter aircrafts and SAMs ... they will not set the foot unless they r sure your formal forces r no more a threat

Iran has watched how US fights when they first hand attacked Iran in 80s and later when they attacked Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and etc. They have studied their techniques and have come up with asymmetric countering measures.

There is no doubt that war would be devastating for Iran, but Iran will make sure it will be devastating for any invader as well. Many US military people, those who can speak freely, already compare a war with Iran to war in Vietnam or worse.

And finally, I'm not sure what people like you are trying to convey here? Ok, lets say they are coming for Iran's destruction, then....? Your proposed solution? Submit? Give up our ambition? Become a vassal state?

 

[Bahram Esfandiari]

From the comments of some of the Pakistanis here on this forum, it seems to me that if Pakistan was in Iran's shoes today Pakistan would have already surrendered without a shot fired!

 

[The Accountant]

From the comments of some of the Pakistanis here on this forum, it seems to me that if Pakistan was in Iran's shoes today Pakistan would have already surrendered without a shot fired!

First of all Pakistan ia the only country that has effectively defeated terroisim and has kicked out USSR and now America from Afghanistan to safeguard her own interest ... so we have our own methods and its Pakistan who is in top 5 threat list of USA and not Iran ... so whatever you think about Pakistan currently Pakistan is one of those countries of which USA dont even dare to threat they r openly claiming us to be responsible of their loss in Afghanistan but cant do shit in open ...

You better worry about your country rather than us ...

The reason Pakistani are mad at you is your affair with our enemy India ... your relationships with terrorists in Pakistan and your support for separatist movements in Balochistan ... you shoild look into your ownself before beinh mad at us ...

Iran has watched how US fights when they first hand attacked Iran in 80s and later when they attacked Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and etc. They have studied their techniques and have come up with asymmetric countering measures.

There is no doubt that war would be devastating for Iran, but Iran will make sure it will be devastating for any invader as well. Many US military people, those who can speak freely, already compare a war with Iran to war in Vietnam or worse.

And finally, I'm not sure what people like you are trying to convey here? Ok, lets say they are coming for Iran's destruction, then....? Your proposed solution? Submit? Give up our ambition? Become a vassal state?

No ... we dont want you to be vessel state but alao dont want you to spread terrorism ... stop supporting terrorists activits in yemen syria and iraq ... Iran and KSA are rrsponsibile for killing of thousands of musloms in the middle east ... you want us to be friend then stop killing other muslims

 

[Arminkh]

No ... we dont want you to be vessel state but alao dont want you to spread terrorism ... stop supporting terrorists activits in yemen syria and iraq ... Iran and KSA are rrsponsibile for killing of thousands of musloms in the middle east ... you want us to be friend then stop killing other muslims

Let's see who is terrorist:
- People who fought ISIS in Syria and pushed them back? We don't call them terrorists
- People who ousted a KSA puppet in Yemen because they wanted to be independent? We don't call them terrorists either.

I guess the definition of terrorist depends on which side you are at.

 

[Blue In Green]

Let's see who is terrorist:
- People who fought ISIS in Syria and pushed them back? We don't call them terrorists
- People who ousted a KSA puppet in Yemen because they wanted to be independent? We don't call them terrorists either.

I guess the definition of terrorist depends on which side you are at.

You don't really have to guess Armin, one mans rebel/freedom fighter/hero/soldier is another mans terrorists/enemy/demon/militant etc...That's how it's always been for humanity and will most likely be long after we're dead.

 

[bosanski vojnik]

I think if this goes hot, the US will not attempt to occupy Iran. Simply turn Iran into a mess and contain it using naval and aerial forces. Bombing them to the beginning of the iron age basically.

Yes the NATO Operation in Libya in 2011 has pretty much set the blueprint for further western intervention in the world. You have plenty of dissatisfied people around the world. You no longer need 100,000 + troops to invade a country when all you need to do is destroy key enemy assets from the air and let their dissatisfied populace do the rest of the work for you.

It might be true that Libya is in a bit of a mess today but it is not a problem the West has to deal with and quite frankly no where near the scale of the mess Iraq was after 2003.

These anti-war leftist fanatics keep blabbering on about Iraq but the forget that airpower is the key nowadays.

Iran has watched how US fights when they first hand attacked Iran in 80s and later when they attacked Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and etc. They have studied their techniques and have come up with asymmetric countering measures.

There is no doubt that war would be devastating for Iran, but Iran will make sure it will be devastating for any invader as well. Many US military people, those who can speak freely, already compare a war with Iran to war in Vietnam or worse.

And finally, I'm not sure what people like you are trying to convey here? Ok, lets say they are coming for Iran's destruction, then....? Your proposed solution? Submit? Give up our ambition? Become a vassal state?

For the last time the US are not going to send 100,000 troops to invade Iran so you can relive some 12th Imam Mahdi army fantasy

They will send spec-ops force of 2,000 at most to guide local anti-mullah regime forces and the rest of the work will be done by United States superior and technologically advanced Air Force, electronic warfare, cyber warfare, drone warfare, cruise missiles, navy etc..

The regime sits on thin foundations. Once the IRGC is taken out there will be nobody to protect them and the question is who will remove them from power first - the hungry Iranian army conscripts or the Iranian general populace at large?

 

[Arminkh]

Yes the NATO Operation in Libya in 2011 has pretty much set the blueprint for further western intervention in the world. You have plenty of dissatisfied people around the world. You no longer need 100,000 + troops to invade a country when all you need to do is destroy key enemy assets from the air and let their dissatisfied populace do the rest of the work for you.

It might be true that Libya is in a bit of a mess today but it is not a problem the West has to deal with and quite frankly no where near the scale of the mess Iraq was after 2003.

These anti-war leftist fanatics keep blabbering on about Iraq but the forget that airpower is the key nowadays.



For the last time the US are not going to send 100,000 troops to invade Iran so you can relive some 12th Imam Mahdi army fantasy

They will send spec-ops force of 2,000 at most to guide local anti-mullah regime forces and the rest of the work will be done by United States superior and technologically advanced Air Force, electronic warfare, cyber warfare, drone warfare, cruise missiles, navy etc..

The regime sits on thin foundations. Once the IRGC is taken out there will be nobody to protect them and the question is who will remove them from power first - the hungry Iranian army conscripts or the Iranian general populace at large?

Ok, ….. If you say so. Let's just wait until US invades Iran or Iran collapses under its own weight and then we can talk. Sleep tight.

 

[jamal18]

 

[Oldman1]

The US has not sent an aircraft carrier through the Taiwan strait in over 11 years! Facts.

Facts are U.S. warships go through the straits all the time. And near the artificial islands. Facts!

Did the US carriers stop the Iranians from attacking the tankers in the region? Didn't think so.

Hitting an embassy or attacking tankers not going to deter the U.S. at all.

Look up Operation Praying Mantis. Lets see if they try to attack a U.S. warship again.

 

[The Accountant]

Let's see who is terrorist:
- People who fought ISIS in Syria and pushed them back? We don't call them terrorists
- People who ousted a KSA puppet in Yemen because they wanted to be independent? We don't call them terrorists either.

I guess the definition of terrorist depends on which side you are at.

In Syria, Bashar-ul-Asad is not puppet as you are supporting him?
Yemen ruler was puppet as KSA was supporting it?

No the above definition of terrorist is your own and incorrect. Everyone who is involved or responsible for mass murder of innocents is terrorist ...

Bashar-ul-Asad could have stepped down in favor of any other Syrian ruler and they could have fought against ISIS as one nation but you and KSA for your ego satisfaction divided the nation ... Distributed weapons, financed the terrorists, who were killing innocent indiscriminately including Bashar ...

Similarly in Yemen the situation is reversed but the issue is same ... One terrorist is in government and other is freedom fighter ...

By the way who the hell give you the license to get involved in other nation's business?

Anyways, you can tell me here that you are on the right side of the business but real judgement is to be done later and he knows everything... If we can't stop it atleast we should accept that this is terrorism ... Both governments of KSA and Iran are directly involved in murder of hundreds of thousands of Muslims and supporting Zionist and American agenda of Civil war of Muslims

 

[GWXP]

There is also another video

Nice when non-Jewish US generals always wonder WHY they had to go to war in the Middle East...

Many non-Jewish American politicians and generals never supported the idea of invading Iraq.

American major interest in this region is OIL and US usual attitude towards Middle East was to act as offshore balancer---maintain local balance of power in the ME to prevent anyone from dominating OIL--that's all...

The idea of reshaping the region by toppling regimes and Balkanizing local countries comes from Jews-neocons back in 1990s...the idea has nothing to do with US National interests and is designed to secure Israel's long-term survival in the Middle East...

3 Jews --Douglas Feith, Richard Perle and David Wurmser --instead of being busy thinking about US National Interests, were busy thinking about the future of Israel.....As early as in 1996 they wrote a policy recommendations to the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu---document called A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. According to the document Israel must do everything to topple regimes in Iraq and Syria and reshape the region by creating the New Middle East.

Just think about it----US high ranking officials of Jewish origin are busy thinking about the national interests of another sovereign country- Israel- they write documents and recommendations to Israeli leaders.

Jews-neocons pressed Clinton administration to topple Saddam but failed.

When Bush came to power the authors of the "Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" became high ranking officials in Bush administration:

Douglas Feith became Undersecretary of Defense for Policy for United States president

Richard Perle became Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs, Chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee

David Wurmser- -chief adviser on Middle East to US Vice President Dick Cheney-----his Jewish wife Meyrav Wurmser is an Israeli national and together with Mossad's Col. Yigal Carmon is a founder of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) that spreads propaganda presenting Arabs in a highly negative light.

Other high ranking Jews-advocates of the Iraq War:

Paul Wolfowitz- Jew, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense---Architect of the Iraq War

Scooter Libby-Jew, former Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs, Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States and Assistant to the USA President -Strong and influential advocate of the Iraq War

Bernard Lewis- Jew, influential historian and intellectual, advocate of the Iraq War, provided advise on Iraq to Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush

Elliott Abrams- Jew, former Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East , former Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy---Key architect of the Iraq War

Bill Kristol- Jew, influential political analyst, advocate of the Iraq War

Eric S. Edelman- Jew, former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, former Principal Deputy Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs- advocate for the Iraq War

Abram Shulsky- Jew, former Director of the Office of Special Plans-provided wrong intelligence about danger from Iraq, weapons of mass destruction and terrorism

Michael Ledeen-Jew, former consultant to the United States National Security Council, the United States Department of State, and the United States Department of Defense. Advocate of the Iraq War---said that USA should bring democracy and that destruction and casualties in Iraq doesn't matter and that USA should destroy 1-2 Muslim countries every 5-10 years.

Charles Krauthammer- Jew, influential political commentator, advocate of the Iraq War

+ influential Jews in the media: David Frum, Max Boot, Lawrence F. Kaplan, Jonah Goldberg, and Alan Wald

+ AIPAC's influence of Congress and media

According to the plan to "bring democracy":
They toppled Saddam and Iraq collapsed into ISIS in Sunni regions, Shias in the South and Kurds in the north.

They nearly toppled Assad and Syria collapsed into Nusra controlling the North, Kurds controlling the North East and Assad controlling the South

They toppled Qaddafi and Lybia collapsed into Bengazi and Tripoli being de facto independent from each other

But since they failed to attack Iran (because of the Strait of Hormuz), Iran reunited both Syria and Iraq by sending troops and reinforcements...