Iran will counter 'any threat'
 

How serious do you think Iran is ?
Are they capable of being a threat to the awesome array of firepower lying off their coastline ?

Mostly hot air. Offcourse they will fight, if it is a ground invasion, air and sea is of limits to them. They will probably attack in Iraq and Afganistan. If they are feeling suicidal, they might use biological/chemical weapons. Maybe terrorism towards countries participating in the attack. Thats it, but maybe enough, they think that westerners are weak. If they are right, remains to be seen sometime in the future.

Untill they get a nuke they're only a nuisance that can, nevertheless, cause alot of trouble by messing with Oil supply.

I don't think the Israelis will allow that somehow :hmm:

The Kilos could be a pain in the arse, particularly to merchant shipping, their Hoot Skhvals could be a problem close range against shipping, they might use it as an underwater missile from a small torpedo or missile boat, rapid approach to target, fire and leg it. Unlike a missile the Skhval can't be shot down and if fired close enough there's virtually no reaction time.
But, this depends on the firing platform getting close enough to fire as you can hear a Skhval several miles off so it's primarily a close-in knife fight weapon. So to get to the target you either need the target to have no radar or a very old and useless radar set (which ditches out the US/UK Navy) or some kind of stealth ability...and I don't think the Norweigans have sold that to Iran.

Their missile boats shall be an annoyance, and I imagine one or two stray Sunburns might get through and cause damage, we may even lose a ship or two, no fleet is invincible, the Falklands showed that, and the Argies didn't have the SS-N-22 back then...and admittedly it didn't help that we built our ships out of aluminium too...but even so, no part of the force is invulnerable.

In retalliation however, you can kiss goodbye to Bandar Abbas and every visible naval facility, and their nuclear plant will be gone if it wasn't hit in the strike which prompted the conflict. Iranian airfields will be pummelled next by B-2s, cluster bombs on the runways, bunker bombs in the command posts. They'll be pretty much out of action for a week or two....but if Iran is smart they'll have back-up airfields out in the deserts with mobile radar and SAM sites (IIRC didn't they buy a load of new SAM systems off the Russkies a year or so ago?) to protect them. Iranian casualty rates will be high but they will inflict some damage on attacking craft, I'm thinking a couple of F-18s may get got by ground SAMs, the Iranian AF seems to have a lot of modern fighters, MiG-29s, 31s, Frogfoots, and F-14s with their Phoenix missiles which may catch someone unawares...but it is hard to judge such things on a basic numerical scale.

Which leaves the ground forces, their Zulfiqar series of tanks seem to have some interesting design implementations which rumour has it, have been put in place from the studies of M1 Abrams wreckage in Iraq. It has elements of a T-72 and M60, and some resemblance to the M1, monkey see, monkey do. But I doubt their ground forces (except the SCUD and AA branches) will see much use...there will probably be some border skirmishes on the Iran/Iraq zone, but I doubt very much that Iran will launch a full scale invasion of Iraq, not while so many Allied forces are in it...some strike missions on prime targets perhaps, but not a full-scale invasion...although I may be proved wrong. Chemical and standard SCUD launches will probably drop over the border, some may even hit their targets, which'll undoubtably be civilian. It's also possible that some of the Iranian missile boats shall strive to get into a position to drop LAMs on coastal targets. Minefields in the Straits of Hormuz will probably also hinder naval operations in the area until the minesweepers are brought in.
I would imagine Irans SOP would be to harry and harass, get in, launch and get out sharpish before the Allies can react. The Allies on the other hand will be focusing on hamstringing the Iranians C&C ability, taking out command centers, communications arrays, radar facilities...and I should imagine Iran knows this, it's not exactly a well kept Allied secret...so their defence will likely be fluid, if an airfield gets hit and destroyed, then retreat to a hidden airfield elsewhere, if that gets hit, then move again, keeping their command equipment mobile will help hinder accurate intelligence, for a time anyway. Irans AF will probably be decimated eventually, the fleet mauled beyond most repair, the ground forces damaged but if they stay out of Iraq they probably will be the least hurt, particularly if they disperse when the fighting starts. Being mobile and quick about it is the key to good defence, by the time the B-2s arrive you're no longer there, melting into the desert, having large rigid base structures is akin to painting a large Bullseye on every roof in the base with a little sign saying "Rockeye goes here."
It's the opening few days that'll be the decider, by the end of that the naval strike ability of Iran will have been reduced severely, probably down to a few ships and those Kilos who if they play their cards right, can survive for some time if they take it slow and steady...if they go crazy and have to recharge, they're P3 bait, if they have to go and find a resupply boat, then by the time they'll get there, they'll be trying to refuel from a burning wreck. So it's slow, steady and hitting merchants and clearing the datum before the cavalry arrives, in that way they can scare the merchant fleets and tie up fleet ability in escort duties to the tankers, as well as send the environmentalists mad with oil slicks and the media on overload with protests. That's really the main thing, kill enough Allies, do enough damage and it'll turn the public against the Allies and force them to curtail any long term plans, like has happened and is happening in Iraq. It's not just a physical war anymore, it's a media war as well, and the media is already warm to the side which isn't Bush and if the Iranians show enough pictures of carefully positioned childrens corpses and hits on 'Baby milk factories' then the media war is already swaying in their favour... the US may have talked about winning 'Hearts and Minds' in the Iraq strike, and while at first it may have succeeded, now the 'Hearts and Minds' are beginning to sway the other way, and a strike on Iran would probably only serve to push them even further, with extreme organisation recruitment levels soaring, the Allies have to be prepared for this and the backlash at home and abroad that will occur....it may not be immediate, but it will happen eventually.
So what Iran is saying is similar to a Puffer Fish puffing itself up, it can cause damage, that's for certain, but it's not 'The mother of all battles' that Dinnerjacket may reckon it is, and that's why Iran is testing us, unless it's not a major Ace up its sleeve that we don't know about, it's bluffing...until it finishes its nuke program...then all bets are off.

Dear god, I've done a Skybird...still, I do enjoy a bit of speculation. :rock:

Yes.

Modern missiles can do a remarkable ammount of damage to ships - and they have plenty of these, plus mines, and a small handful of reasonable subs. Expect to see some modern types of anti-ship-missiles in their arsenal too that nobody previously had on his list, if it becomes a hot war.

Steering two aircaft carriers through the street of Hormuz, hm? Well, if the US Navy tries that during wartime, it will have two aircraft carriers less and two floating platforms more in it's arsenal.

I was in Iran for months. I can only warn everybody of underestimating their determination to defend themselves. The national sentiments amongst Iranians are extremely high, no matter the social class, no matter the age, no matter what people's opinion on religion and political freedom is. Patriotism runs extremely high in Iran. Maybe, better: probably commandos doing some local infiltration operations. But a land invasion of ground forces - forget it.

The greater threats are not for the US fleet anyway, but for iraq, the Israeli area of the ME and Lebanon, Europe, Afghanistan, oil markets, and a massive shift in poloticial baöances concerning oil trade partners (China, India, and strategically: Russia).

It makes me sad a bit that people here usually do not see the many sides of Persian culture and mentality, and reduce it only to "Ahmadinejadh'S Iran", further enflamed by the witness crisis in the 70s. But it remains a fact for me that amongst all Muslim countries I was in, in Iran I found the most reasonable mindset in many people. The educational standard is higher than in most other muslim countries. Amongst apostates from Islam who live as immigrants in the West, Iranians by far form the greatest group. the clerics and Ahmadinejadh only represent a part of the Iranian population, by far not all. I was not in Afghanistan, but on rare occasions met Afghans in Pakistan (were we also stayed only very short only), which also were very different (and in their way very impressive) from the Arab (and Pakistani) Muslims in other places.

Maybe it will come to a war in the future, and maybe, maybe not, I will support that (currently I oppose it completely). but I will always consider it to be a great tragedy.

If you think I am queer or I contradict my usual anti-Islamic statements, then you haven't understand so far what I am talking about in all those months. That the Ayatollahs now are so strong only illustrates what immense tragedy Islam means for the people and cultures it subjugates. Maybe we will fight them one day, and if I see a need for that, I will demand a far tougher going than politicians in the West are willing to accept, including the Americans, becasue peace and war is a black-white affair for me only. But I will never feel triumphant or excited about it.

SO this is where Comical Ali went to! I always wondered!

-S

Probably the only real threat Iran represents is for the world economy. Iran has the power to make the Strait of Ormuz and the entry to the Suez channel very hot, plus it is the fourth oil producer. I would say that skyrocketing oil prices would not be welcomed anywhere, and such a blow to the world economies added to the cost of engaging in a new war (Though hopefully lessons from Irak are learnt and a very different approach is made) would be enough to disuade the US and UK politicians from starting it. The chances of Israel starting it on its own are not to be underestimated, however:hmm:

Well, you can't blame them for a bit of posturing considering they have far more right to be concerned about what is going on in Iraq than most other countries.

Put yourself in their shoes: Imagine a coalition of Arab nations nipping over to Canada and suppressing the place and occupying it. Do you think that the Yanks over the border would just sit quietly and let it happen?

Or to put it another way:

Yes there are indeed some terrorists in Iran, and a lot of religious radicals too, as there are in quite a number of countries where Islam is the main religion. But then again, there are a lot of religious radicals and terrorists in Ireland and many other countries besides, yet you don't see the Syrian Air Force nipping over there and bombing Belfast claiming that they are fighting for peace and a war on terror, and not giving a crap about civilians being hit in 'collateral damage'.

We may not agree with their politics or their religion, but your average everyday Iranian citizen who's going out to work, paying the bills etc, can hardly be blamed for thinking 'Hey, we've got just as much right to have a Nuke as anyone else, especially with an occupying army over the border that thinks we're all a bunch of terrorists'.

An extreme example, I know. But everyone has the right to defend themself. And one man's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter. It just depends on your point of view.

But back to the main point of this post: Yes, I think that the Iranians could put up quite a fight. If you relate it to my extreme example, who do you think is going to be more dedicated to such a fight, a US or British soldier who's been sent over to some country he doesn't really know or care about, or someone who is fighting for their homeland and has nothing else to lose?

:D Chock

It's hard to say how serious they are because they aren't really making any explicit statements in this article. "If you attack us we will fight back" ...well, that's pretty much a given. Iran must lay out their terms before we can start weighing in on deterrence. Both U.S. and Iran are just rattling their cages right now; they both probably know that a strike in the next years or so (or as long as troops are still in Iraq) will disintegrate any remaining support for the American administration.

Yep. Skybird answered this best. Shore-to-ship missiles, submarines, mines, etc etc.

Iran is shia Islam. Most Arabs are Sunni Islam. Shia islam in recent years have shown to be a bigger troublemaker. This together with the strengthening of Iran in recent years is the reason why all Gulf states and Saudi Arabai are seriously concerned about them. The Iran-remote-controlled Hezbollah in Lebanon is Iran tool to bring sunni influence in the Palestinian region into trouble - that is the reason why many Sunni politicians remained relatively silent when Israel tried to bomb the hell out of Hezbollah in the last Lebanon war - if successful, Israel would have done them a favour that way. There are some conclusive thoughts that the current battle of the Lebanese army in those camps is an attempt to crack down another raidcal organization, which was supported by Saudi-Arabai and was meant to counter Hezbollah in the region. Since Hezbollah is in the Lebanese government, they tried to use their influence to make officially "neutral" Lebanese army taking care of their rival, whi9ch then would be in the interest of Iran, and Syria, although Syria'S interests again are slightly different and they realized that they cannot afford to let Iran interfere in Lebanon the way it did in the past years, not without this happening at the cost of ongoing future Syrian chances to dominate Lebanon, like it used to do in the past years. All these factions nevertheless are Arabs, while the Iranians are Persians. It is a clash between Sunnis and Shias, Arabs and Persians, Iran and the gulf states, Saudi Arabia, and other sunni states. Compared to that kettle of boiling water, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict gets overestimated time and again. The Palestinian problem is the less important of the two.

Schwierig, hm? :)

This only to put your remark back into perpective that Iran only is interested in Iraq from a position of self-defence. It's exactly the opposite.

Their attempt to gain nukes, whcih I take as granted, is also a split affair. Ironically, Iran NEEDS alternative energy, since currently it uses too much of the oil it produces for it's own needs, loosing to many incomes from oil it just burns, but does not sell. That way, it cannot push economical develoepemtn like they want and try, their finances and incomes remain too weak. At the same time they have learned by the example of Iraq 2003, that if you are in the way of US policies, you will get accused of developing nukes, and when you reject it, you will be called a liar and get attacked. So you need those damn nukes for real, to prevent being attacked, that way prooving that the accusation is true - you grab for nukes indeed. And finally, nukes are a wonderful tool to gain prestige in the Muslim world, and become a stronger player and be able to act with more determination amongst muslim states, and towards the world as well, since you have become very much invulnerable to military attacks.

So, the interest of Iran to want nukes is logical and easy to understand. One should not expect them to act against their interests, or to act stupidly.

The point of this discussion was to debate whether Iran could feasibly have some sort of war with (presumably) an American-led coalition force. And the point of the announcement from the Iranian Defence Minister (apart from gaining public support from waverers with a rallying cry) was that it was a response to the gathering military 'show of force' in the region, ostensibly as part of the coalition efforts in Iraq. So that was what I was responding to, by pointing out that such a statement was probably geared towards garnering the support of the populace as much as it was 'trying to sound like a badass' on the international stage.

With that in mind, their interest in Iraq and the coalition efforts is hardly 'exactly the opposite'. The US political hawks have been sabre-rattling and mooting some sort of military action against Iran for a long time. I never said it was the only reason Iran were interested in Iraq, just that the leaders and more militant religious heads in Iran can co-opt more soft-line members of their populace with a 'backs against the wall' attitude to the US threats.

This has been a proven tactic of leaders throughout history. Most notably in Nazi Germany, where the Allied bombing of civilian population centres actually had the effect of stiffening people's resolve to fight, even if they had no great love for the Nazi leaders and what they had brought the country to. As evidenced by the fact that even as the Second World War drew to a close, production rates for fighter planes etc actually went up.

That was my point.

:D Chock

Why can't we all just get along?

...

:rotfl:

They have to feel safe to sail these in.

http://www.navy.mil/management/photo...-8157C-240.jpg
Description: (from foreground) USS Nimitz (CVN 68), USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) and USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) transit the Gulf of Oman.

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=29585

Reminds me of the Maori Haka :hmm: