Will Iran enter to the war against Israel?

[_killuminati_]

And I don't think Houthi have a navy that can interdict Saudi Transport, that is if they choose to go south to begin with.

Navy is not needed. Houthi missiles and drones are reaching Eilat, 1600km away, despite dozens of air defense systems enroute. Bab el Mandeb is just 16km wide and in Yemen territory.

 

[Mehdipersian]

That's bullshit. You have a proxy force right on Israel's border. You have IRGC soldiers in Syria. Nobody will force you to act. But at least, keep your mouth shut until you are ready. It takes time to prepare for war. But you should prepare silently like Turkiye is doing. You can't just wake up one day and liberate Palestine.

OK, we will shut up and stop helping the Palestinians. Of course you can defeat Israel from Nigeria.

 

[jhungary]

Navy is not needed. Houthi missiles and drones are reaching Eilat, 1600km away, despite dozens of air defense systems enroute. Bab el Mandeb is just 16km wide and in Yemen territory.

.You do know US navy just intercepted Houthi missile a couple of days ago? Right?

Saudi uses the same launcher and missile.....

So yes, you will need a navy to interdict the channel

 

[_killuminati_]

.You do know US navy just intercepted Houthi missile a couple of days ago? Right?

Saudi uses the same launcher and missile.....

So yes, you will need a navy to interdict the channel

I do know that Houthi missiles got through all defenses and struck Eilat multiple times.

Loading…

x.com

Loading…

x.com

Loading…

www.timesofisrael.com

That was at 1600km distance. Interception at short range of less than 20km is even more difficult.

So, no, navy is not needed.

 

[Enigma SIG]

You can't just wake up one day and liberate Palestine.

With all those Nigerian princes in full supply I feel you can buy the Jews outright no?

 

[jhungary]

I do know that Houthi missiles got through all defenses and struck Eilat multiple times.

Loading…

www.timesofisrael.com

That was at 1600km distance. Interception at short range of less than 20km is even more difficult.

So, no, navy is not needed.

You do know you fire at something and that is the intercept point, right? It doesn't matter if it fire from 1600, as long as you are using them to target the port or the ship, you can position ships that take those missile out

How US destroyer shot down Houthi missiles and drones in Red Sea

Last week, on the 19th of October, 2023, the USS Carney detected and intercepted a number of cruise missiles and drones in the Red Sea.

interestingengineering.com

Again, Saudi uses the same SM-2 missile with Mk41 launcher.......if US destroyer can do that, Saudi ship can too.

 

[Darius77]

Iran has to weigh its options carefully. The best deterrent is to test a nuke. This is the ideal time as the US warmongers and their Zionist child killers are too busy killing Palestinian babies and unarmed defenceless civilians with JDAMS to be able to do anything to Iran.

 

[Deez Nutz]

At the end of the day, when it is all said and done, why would Iran (Persian-Shia) enter a war for the cause of Sunni areb Palestinians when their own sunni areb brothers are either looking the other way as Gaza gets stripped to the bone, or silently became IZrael's Abraham brothers?

 

[Darius77]

At the end of the day, when it is all said and done, why would Iran (Persian-Shia) enter a war for the cause of Sunni areb Palestinians when their own sunni areb brothers are either looking the other way as Gaza gets stripped to the bone, or silently became IZrael's Abraham brothers?

Also please do not forget the same Sunni puppet regimes with full western and Zionist support attacked Iran in 1980 and we lost half a million of our people. These western hypocrites even encouraged and provided the idiot Saddam with chemicals to gas the Iranians.

 

[Danjuma Musa]

Ive been thinking iranian is using their 3000year history of diplomacy to always stay a step ahead of other countries and their plans. Bit like China always knows how to deal with the West and does not come out empty handed or sucked into a stupid war.

Iran's goal makes it impossible for the country to totally avoid direct conflict - or at least it's unachievable without the direct use of military force. Iran wants to mold the region in its own image (forget the bluster about Israel). Iran's first targets are the Sunnis of the region, then the Sunnis of the world. Iran has NO intention of fighting any direct wars against another country. These are the steps it has taken and continues to take, which is leading it nowhere:
1. First, it wants to insulate the regime from a direct military attack. It is trying to do this by stockpiling missiles and building a nuclear arsenal.
2. Secondly, it tries to hijack countries from within by creating a state within a state through proxies like Hezbollah
3. Thirdly, these proxies will gradually accumulate military and economic strength with the ultimate aim of taking over the country or ensuring that the government pursues only Iran-friendly policies. Any attempt to dismantle these proxies lead to a civil war in that country.
Iran does this while trying to bolster its image in eyes of less critical Sunnis via its bluster and hot air against Israel and America.
But things aren't working out well for the Mullahs due to the following reasons:
1. They assumed that by not using direct force, hostile governments like America and Israel won't employ direct force on Iran. They got this wrong: Saddam Hussein used force against Iran. America used limited force against Iran (praying mantis). Israel assassinated Iranian scientists, covertly bombed Iran's nuclear facilities, sank Iran's naval ships, assassinated IRGC officers, etc. America assassinated Soleimani while at the same time heaping sanctions on Iran and warning the Mullahs not to go for nukes.
2. Iran underestimated America's determination to protect its petrodollar system (the backbone of America's power both military and economy). Iran's strategy of gradual but hostile expansion is easy to dissect despite its denials. This is why the Mullahs find themselves on the back foot now. They are trying to survive not expand. To limit its losses, the US doesn't want to topple the regime via direct military action if possible. It wants to use colour revolutions and ISIS to accomplish this but Iran is a harder target for these operations. Trump went further by assassinating Soleimani - thus, daring the Iranians to openly draw American blood. Expectedly, the Mullahs backed down.
3. America is now more termined than ever to topple the Iranian regime. It knows that Iran won't take any direct military action against America or Israel for fear a US military response. So, the US created conditions for a civil war in Iraq and Lebanon. The US wants a civil war in Iraq that destroys Iran's militias and fosters the growth of terrorists that threaten Tehran. The first attempt with ISIS faile, but I'm sure the US is preparing a second one. If America wanted stability in Iraq, it would have long installed a puppet Sunni dictator to rule Iraq with an iron fist. But there's no guarantee that a stable dictatorship in Iraq would willingly go to war with Iran just to appease Washington. So, better to leave Iraq destabilized and without a stable government to impose order.

It appears the Americans want to first weaken Iran's proxies severely, especially Hezbollah, before sparking a civil war in Iraq. It's not a coincidence that both Lebanon and Iraq are close to descending into full chaos.

I have to stop here for now.

 

[_killuminati_]

You do know you fire at something and that is the intercept point, right? It doesn't matter if it fire from 1600, as long as you are using them to target the port or the ship, you can position ships that take those missile out

No, I don't know that. What I do know is that neither the Saudis, nor the Americans, nor the Israelis were able to intercept this:

Loading…

x.com

Loading…

x.com

I also know that the ground battery first needs to detect the incoming threat with its radar beam, calculate its trajectory, and shoot a missile at an estimated intercept point, all of which is NOT instantaneous.

I also know the entire topography of the Red Sea corridor, Hejaz province, Jordanian highlands and Araba Valley (Eilat) manifest physical obstacles in the form of elevated and depressed terrains that restrict long-range detection and tracking.

I also know that an object that doesn't use a straight line flight trajectory cannot be intercepted by American air defence systems.

Again, Saudi uses the same SM-2 missile with Mk41 launcher.......if US destroyer can do that, Saudi ship can too.

Obviously you aren't aware of the number of times Saudis have been struck with Houthi missiles all across their country.

 

[HGV]

And I don't think Houthi have a navy that can interdict Saudi Transport, that is if they choose to go south to begin with.

Ansarallah can easily target massive oil tankers (huge and slow civilian ships that use transponders to report their location in real time)

Entrance to Bab el Mandeb strait is c. 175km from Ansarallah controlled territory south of Hodeidah and only c. 75km from Ansarallah controlled territory south-west of Taiz

That's if those ships manage to get through the Red Sea adjacent to Ansarallah strongholds in central/North Yemen (the Red Sea is 150-200km at its widest point adjacent to coastal west Yemen)

Ansarallah possess huge quantities of anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles with that range (and some far beyond). Such a small range also makes such shipping vulnerable to drone boats and mines (although these are more indiscriminate and ought to be avoided as only Saudi ships attempting to circumvent the Persian Gulf would be valid targets in this scenario)

Saudi Navy would have to send a large military escort with/to every oil tanker while they travel down the Red Sea and through the Bab-el-Mandeb strait, it's not very feasible

Ive been thinking iranian is using their 3000year history of diplomacy to always stay a step ahead of other countries and their plans. Bit like China always knows how to deal with the West and does not come out empty handed or sucked into a stupid war.

Correct analysis.

 

[Deez Nutz]

Daddy of everyone is USA. That should be accept it now.

If they will fully support anyone and openly state they will not spare if anyone going against them

... No big country will fight against them including Pakistan, Iran etc.... All nukes are waste.. No one can dare to use it.

People are just hoping and expecting, IRan will act as seagoat and will sacrifice herself, people watch them from seating at ac rooms and do the lip services.

The hell....... Why should they do so?

"All nukes are waste.. No one can dare to use it." LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

They are not made to be used necessarily, but as a deterrence to preserve your independence against those who own nuclear stock pile, and want to impose their will on you. It's called MAD.
Moreover, as a hindu, if you really believe in such gabeli goop, that nukes are useless, why on hell's creation India is making them, curry breath?

 

[CIA Mole]

More power to Iran.
I wish other arab muslim countries surrounding Israel had the balls as big as Iran.
Israeli population must feel what Palestinians are feeling now.
Their buildings should also be destroyed. They should also feel thrist and hunger.

not rly possible for the other arabs since they use american weapons systems

 

[jhungary]

No, I don't know that. What I do know is that neither the Saudis, nor the Americans, nor the Israelis were able to intercept this:

Loading…

x.com

Loading…

x.com

I also know that the ground battery first needs to detect the incoming threat with its radar beam, calculate its trajectory, and shoot a missile at an estimated intercept point, all of which is NOT instantaneous.

First, you are talking about a missile struck a port, you don't know

A.) How many missile was fired
B.) What is the intercepting point
C.) How are the missile travelled.

On the other hand, you are talking about a complete interdiction of naval traffic at sea. Do you even see the difference here? Just because you can send some missile and hit some static target, DOES NOT MEAN you can totally control the sea, now, you may be able to kill a few ship, but then it wouldn;t be 100%, hell, I would consider a success if missile can intercept 20% of Saudi Shipping.

I also know the entire topography of the Red Sea corridor, Hejaz province, Jordanian highlands and Araba Valley (Eilat) manifest physical obstacles in the form of elevated and depressed terrains that restrict long-range detection and tracking.

And yet you refused to answer me the question why you think Saudi would head south in the first place?

On the other hand, you also failed to notice doing said thing is going to draw Saudi into a war in Yeman, now, considering this, would it be easier for Saudi to go to war with Iran when they close the Hormuz? Or would it be easier for them to go to war with Houthi rebel in Yemen. And that's before any potential US reaction in the question, I mean it's one thing US may or may not have a go at Iran, the same limit does not applies when you are talking about Houthi rebel. The 2 carrier group would make mince meat of these rebel and their missile launcher.

I also know that an object that doesn't use a straight line flight trajectory cannot be intercepted by American air defence systems.

You know wrong. US Destroyer SM-2 projectile can intercept NLOS missile...

Obviously you aren't aware of the number of times Saudis have been struck with Houthi missiles all across their country.

And you obviously did not factor in when Saudi ONLY income was threaten by said group.

It's one thing for Saudi to play around with Houthi in Yemen, do you really think Houthi will face the same Saudi of they are threaten their only export??