Hypothetical war with Iran

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by HurricaneDitka, Apr 26, 2020.

  1. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's where I think you're wrong. I don't think Trump wants a war with Iran. I think his track record proves it.

    I think Trump most definitely will respond to Iran - such as the Soleimani hit - but I don't think he wants a war with Iran. And I definitely don't think the U.S. public wants a war with Iran either. Iran would have to do something really major to inspire that kind of public support for a huge response from the U.S.

    I don't think the Iranian leadership is suicidal. We could see some limited, low level incidents, like blowing a boat out of the water that's harassing one of our naval ships, from time to time. But I don't think Trump wants a war with Iran, and I don't think the Iranian leadership really wants to deal with a truly pissed off U.S.
     
  2. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If someone really proves me wrong, I will thank them because I will have learned something. Unlike some here, I have no interest in insisting on anything and don't suffer from the need to prove myself to anyone here.

    The Iranian weapons I am alluding to would include these:
    https://www.wearethemighty.com/why-are-houthis-rebelling
    https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/houthi-rebels-destroy-m1-abrams-tanks-with-basic-irania-1726478735
    Houthi Rebels Destroy M1 Abrams Tanks With Basic Iranian Guided Missiles

    And what was used to this:

    And what was used to do this:
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    And this:

    And this:
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  3. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    IMO, you are both wrong about Trump. Trump has chosen to surround himself with some of the most anti-Iran figures in the US, while he has his most intimate links to pro Israeli and Israeli figures who want nothing more than to see Trump take the US to war against Iran. Even the most reasonable and sane among them, such as General Mattis who left Trump, were mostly noted for being anti-Iran hawks. Even when he got rid of Bolton, he replaced him with a lesser known clone with the same basic views on Iran. And Pompeo is (like Guiliani, Trump's personal 'attorney'), an anti-Iran neocon who has worked closely with an an Iranian terrorist group, the MEK aka "National Council of Resistance" -- a disgusting cult of liars and fabricators (with a history of real terrorist deeds) which was in the US list of terrorist organizations before they changed from relying on Saddam as their patron to working with the Israelis and the neocons, which has now made them a darling of FOX and the usual suspects.

    But unlike these figures, some of whom are really itching for a war with Iran, Trump prefers to bully Iran into submission without having to go to war. Ultimately, however, because Trump follows their lead, it may not make a difference at the end. Going down the route he is going, trying to raise the volume, pressure, and stakes each time, unless Iran is amenable to being 'bullied' and decides to capitulate (not likely), regardless of intent, war becomes something quite possible and even at some future point, likely.
     
  4. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh my, "damaged and destroyed structures".

    Iran launched 5 expensive missiles, and destroyed a bunch of tents. Color me impressed.

    Let me know when they can do something of real importance. I have seen more damage done during routine Texas storms.

    I might have even been impressed if they had at least damaged anything of real importance. In that photo I can definitely identify 2 command posts, and what appears to be a motor pool and what appears to be a chow hall, none of them damaged. If those were the targets, they did not even come close to hitting any of them.

    As I said, crude inaccurate terror weapons of no real accuracy. The most important structures were not hit a single time, not even close. But they damaged a bunch of tents literally scattered all over the place. And you expect that to impress me?
     
  5. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you are one of those who doesn't let facts get in the way of your opinions, then there is little I can do about it. In the particular attack you are focused on, Iran hit 6 hangers directly and with pin point accuracy, destroyed the command and control center which had operated the US drone involved in the assassination of General Soleimani (leaving up to 100 US drones stranded for more than an hour, before the US was able to take back control over them, possibly with the Germans helping the US), as well as the housing unit of US troops. And, yes, some tents.

    Now, if your point is that even 1,000 kg conventional munitions carried by these missiles doesn't really destroy protected and hardened facilities and bunkers, even when hit them directly, and the damage they cause isn't irreparable (particularly if you have advanced warning), you are right. That is why all the bombs the US drops on protected military facilities including in Desert Storm, like the bombs the Israelis dropped on Hezbollah facilities (or now on Syrian facilities linked to Iran), like the ones the Saudis drop on Houthis facilities, don't have the impact people imagine. But if you are trying to dispute what any expert who has bothered to study the issue closely will claim about these attacks, then you are wasting my time.

    In the meantime, if you want to know what happens to building which aren't hardened to protect against aerial bombardment, and to people who don't have advanced warning of any attack, ask this guy. He can tell you all about it since his father was killed in one such attack that had already showcased the precision of Iran's missiles before the attacks on the Aramco facility (albeit using cruise missiles and drones) and the one against the Al Asad airbase showed.

    https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/iran-missile-strike-kurdistan/
    The Messages Behind the Iranian Missile Strike in Iraqi Kurdistan
    November 20, 2018
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2020
  6. HurricaneDitka

    HurricaneDitka Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2020
    Messages:
    7,155
    Likes Received:
    6,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Regarding your points above:

    a) I believe Iran has at least some missiles with the range to hit US forces, but, particularly in the case of naval vessels, I'm not sure they have the precision nor ISR capabilities needed to do so. Iran needs to know where to fire its missiles so they'll have at least a small chance of hitting, say, an American carrier maneuvering out at sea. That's the first challenge, and it's a significant one for Iran. What does Iran have that can locate the American carrier(s)? How will those things survive in an aggressively-hostile environment like the sea and airspace around an American carrier strike group at war? How would you rate Iran's maritime surveillance capabilities anyways? Please note: I'm sure the Iranians have a decent eye on traffic in the Persian Gulf proper, but that's one of the reasons why an American carrier isn't going to be hanging out in the Persian Gulf during a war with Iran. They are perfectly capable of striking Iran from farther out in the Arabian / Mediterranean Seas. How would Iran locate the platform that is launching scores of sorties each day? That's problem #1.

    Once they've located it, somehow, they've got to get warheads on target. What if they find out that the carrier is hanging out ~250 miles south of the southern tip or Iran (conveniently for my argument, that's basically where the Eisenhower CSG is right now), merrily launching fighter jets all day and night while surrounded by a ring of escorts? What missiles does Iran launch at the carrier? From what / where? How are those missiles guided to their target? What is the missile's flight time and how far has the carrier sailed from it's starting point in that time. Is it even still within the missile's detection range when the missile gets there? How does the missile distinguish between an American CVN vs DDG vs civilian shipping? Or is Iran's approach more of a fire-and-forget and Inshallah it might hit the right ship, if it's not shot down first?

    b) I certainly claim that the US military is more capable than any other organization in the world at detecting, tracking, and defeating incoming missile fire. That doesn't mean they're perfect at it, but they're pretty good, and getting better every year. THAAD and PAC-3 may play a role, but if we're talking about trying to hit the Eisenhower, currently underway in the northern Arabian Sea, it's accompanied by a number of cruisers and destroyers, at least some of which are equipped for BMD. Ike is, itself, equipped with a variety of kinetic close-in weapon systems and electronic defenses. How would Iran's anti-ship missiles, if they had the range, fare against these defenses? Well, nobody knows for sure, but I'm confident it would be the most challenging target any Iranian missile launch has ever gone after.

    c) A lot has changed for the US military in terms of their ability to detect and track targets in the intervening almost three decades since Desert Storm. Today, the American Air Force and Navy have the F-35 at their disposal, which has probably the most sophisticated sensor system being flown anywhere in the world. Here, read the brochure, or watch the movie. Now, maybe Iran can launch a salvo of anti-ship missiles and get away without having their launch platform detected and destroyed, but with F-35s prowling around in the skies above / near Iran, I wouldn't bet on it.

    d) Regarding "take the hits on the chin", the plan would certainly not be to sit back and absorb missile hits (we'd be doing our level best to prevent hits), and no ship that eats a missile is having a good day, but American naval forces place a particular emphasis on damage control, and I doubt there's a navy out there that could do a better job of 'taking the hits' than America's.
     
  7. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks. We are now getting to the kind of discussion that I find useful and fruitful. I will come back and respond to your posts in detail, one by one, once I carefully read them and consider what points I would dispute and which ones I agree with. Give me about an hour as I am doing something else right now.
     
  8. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Several points here:
    1- Iran has plenty of missiles with the range to hit US bases in the region. We are talking about many thousands of such missiles. I will come back to this if you need me to.

    2- You had asked, and I gave you in response, the current assessment and estimates on the precision of Iran's missiles (under 10 meters). These ballistic missiles, in particular, are developed and built to hit naval vessels: the Khalij Fars, Hormuz 1 and Hormuz 2, and the Fateh Mobin. I usually don't find this site useful as it contains too much of what I consider 'propaganda' in the mix of real information it provides, but while I am not sure you will agree with my caveat on what I have called their propaganda, at least the site will give you a sense of the anti-ship ballistic missiles Iran had revealed until then (with videos showing them hitting naval vessels in drills).
    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/b...rans-missiles-they-could-strike-us-navy-57832
    3- Ballistic missiles aren't the only missiles or weapons Iran has to hit at US bases and naval vessels. Iran also has cruise missiles (including ones that can be launched by submarine) and those cruise missiles include both long range ones (similar to the cruise missiles that hit the Aramco facilities in Saudi Arabia) and shorter range ones (similar to the ones fired from both on-shore and sea/under sea platforms. Besides that, Iran also has drones and its fighter aircraft also carry missiles that can hit such targets from a distance.

    4- Iran's ability to detect, locate and identify US naval vessels is a good question if we are talking about vessels outside of the Persian Gulf. While Iran does have reconnaissance aircraft and drones (a lot of such drones), they have their limitations. Identifying US aircraft carriers and naval vessels far away from Iran to hit them will be a difficult challenge for Iran.
    As I alluded to, this is a problem for Iran when talking specifically about naval vessels outside of the Persian Gulf (not so much when talking about US bases, plenty of which are within Iran's range). Iran will mainly rely on long range drones for reconnaissance purposes, but until it develops its military satellite capabilities sufficiently (and even then, given that satellites can be taken out too), this problem will give US naval vessels operating further away from Iran a degree of confidence they won't be hit.
    Other than the point about identifying the target (which I conceded above), I don't think your point is valid. Iran's missiles have good guidance systems and, in fact, what makes Iran unique in this regard, is that it has anti-ship ballistic missiles that can either go after a ship's radar (the only country known to have 'anti-radiation' anti-ship ballistic missiles is Iran) and, alternatively, if the radar is off, the vessel is blinded and can't use its defenses against other missiles which have different guidance systems.
    All true to some extent. However, the closer they are to Iran, the more ways Iran can go after them and not just through missiles alone. Swarming tactics throwing thousands of small speedboats armed with anti-ship missiles by themselves can overwhelm these ships defenses. Add to it Iran's fleet of mini-subs, and their very unique cruise missile launching system (the launch takes place from a capsule, away from the submarine, allowing the submarine to still hide without its location being discovered), and other assets Iran has (drones, aircraft) the challenge will be for both sides.
    Anyway, the US will, in fact, take almost all of the naval assets it has out of the Persian Gulf in case of war. For this reason, unless we have a sudden flare up, I don't think most US naval vessels will be kept close enough for Iran to reliably take out.
    We disagree on this point. Iran is a huge country and the US won't be able to fly over the country in any manner you imagine for several weeks at a minimum. Even after establishing air superiority, I don't think the US would be able to find mobile launchers nearly as easily as you imagine.
    Neither here or there. The problem with your analysis, however, is that it only focuses on naval vessels. The US has a lot of bases in the region with thousands of US servicemen and personnel (in Bahrain, in Qatar, in Kuwait, in Saudi Arabia, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Jordan, etc). Also, besides US bases, there area many infrastracture facilities crucial to global trade which can be hit reciprocally as the US hits Iran's infrastracture: ports, oil refineries, water desalination plants, even the Suez Canal (and closing the Straits of Hormuz through a combination of mines and missiles and more). And there is more to it still.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2020
  9. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I can think of some things that could trigger a war with Iran, but all of those things would require an Iranian military initiative. Absent an Iranian military initiative, Trump will not go to war with Iran.

    Trump isn't even assured of reelection, and it is quite possible that future U.S.-Iranian relations - good or bad - will move on to the responsibility of some other president.

    While Trump is very pro-Israel, he is also fairly independent, and he would much rather work a deal with Iran than to go to war with Iran. As an example, look at what he has tried to do with North Korea. This is a president that isn't afraid to try to find peace with anybody, and that includes Iran. If and when a new administration takes over in Washington, it is hard to say what their attitude will be. And it could be that Iran will look back and wish that they had been willing to open up to President Trump and work with him while they had the chance.
     
  10. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    While Trump's unorthodox actions and rhetoric make him distinguishable from other US presidents to some extent, ultimately Iran doesn't care who is elected president in the US. For Iran, there is little difference between a Democrat or a Republican as the special interest groups which are pushing the agenda against Iran have influence over both. I know Trump supporters think Obama was some great friend of Iran, but for Iran, he was worse than Bush -- under whose watch, Iran was able to expand its nuclear program, expand its influence into Iraq and elsewhere in the region, who wasn't able to rally the Europeans and the UN to impose the kind of sanctions imposed against Iran under Obama, and whose threats against Iran proved empty. It was during the Bush years, in the meantime, that Iran saw a huge windfall from high oil prices that enabled Iran to start a lot of military projects which have been bearing fruit since then. But while Trump has been worse for Iran than Obama, and probably the only US president to have taken steps which have landed some punches against Iran, ultimately Iran doesn't think the next president (Democrat or Republican) will necessarily make a difference. The political dynamics in the US are such that once a policy against an 'enemy state' like Iran is established, it is almost impossible for anyone to overturn it. And as bad as Trump has been for Iran in many ways, it is always possible that Hilary might have proved more effective and, hence, worse.
     
  11. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Those are not hangars, those are tents.

    And here is my question. If they were able to hit with such "pinpoint accuracy" as you claim, why did they blow up a bunch of tents? I already stated that there are 2 easy to identify command posts right there in the photograph. Why not hit those? One is an obvious reinforced structure that I doubt those inside would have even blinked if it got head on, but hitting it would have been really impressive. Nope, not even close.

    Then the other is a mobile field CP, and it is also just a bunch of tents, why not hit that and do some real damage because it is guaranteed it was manned 24-7. Nope, instead of going for the very obvious things with "pinpoint accuracy", they shotgunned the area and as Kirk said to Khan "but like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target!"
     
  12. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Iran took out the the command and control center for the US drones, leaving over 100 stranded for more than hour until the US was able to resume control over them. Anyway, those who aren't here trying to engage in polemical arguments, and have looked carefully at what Iran hit, realize the import of those strikes.
    [​IMG]
     
  13. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,423
    Likes Received:
    51,236
    Trophy Points:
    113
    KSA may spend more, but they are so afraid of revolution that commands go to family members rather than the best choice. As a result, their forces are not likely to be as effective as Iranian forces which can be expected to have much better leadership and execution.

    Deadline Looms On Iran Deal: “Snapback of Sanctions Is Being Eyed.”

    You mentioned several things, like more satellite capability and ICBM's that are likely to be very expensive. That could require some very difficult choices for your leaders.

    Mr. Pompeo’s attempt to extend the arms embargo could fail, but then America just might get even more bold, using Resolution 2231’s self-destruct mechanism. Known as the “snapback” option, the resolution provided such a path to help the Obama administration sell it at home.​

    President Obama knew he had no way of turning his plan of action into a treaty. He couldn’t muster the necessary Senate majority to approve it. Instead, he took the deal to a much more sympathetic audience, the United Nations, where he inked it despite the fact that both houses of Congress were against it — overwhelmingly so in the opinion of the New York Times.​

    If Iran were ever to cheat on its obligations, promised top officials in the Obama administration, we’d at any time be able to end the deal and reimpose full sanctions. Further, they added, no one at the UN could stand in our way.​

    Hence the “snapback” mechanism that, according to the UN resolution, allows any of the original parties to the JCPOA to “reimpose unilateral and multilateral nuclear-related sanctions in the event of Iran non-performance,” as Secretary of State Kerry told the Senate at the time.​

    Further, and uniquely in the context of UN traditions, neither Russia nor Communist China nor any other Iran-friendly permanent member of the Security Council would be able to veto the snapback clauses.​
     
  14. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I honestly don't have the energy right now to address the ridiculousness of the US invoking a deal it scrapped, to argue for 'snap-back' sanctions on Iran. Except to say that it won't make much of a difference regarding what we are talking about here. The US is trying to stop the lifting of the arms embargo against Iran (which will begin to expire in some of its provisions, not all, shortly under the JCPOA), but as far as the economic sanctions, the US has already managed to force its will on the rest of the 'international community'. There isn't much else left for anyone to 'sanction' Iran on, as none are engaged in any trade with Iran.

    But on the comparison between Iran and Saudi Arabia (or the rest of the pack in the ME), there is a lot more to it than you mention. These videos will tell you some of those things.



     
  15. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    @Zorro,
    You might also read between the lines of this report by a propaganda organ of the US government. I cite, not for thje spin and propaganda, but to let you know how the the Iranian stock market is doing despite sanctions and threats against Iran? And to do so without citing a report from an Iranian site whose facts and figures you are likely to dismiss and say are fake/ or "photo-shopped":).

    Somehow, it doesn't seem investors in Iran are worried about things in Iran as much as the US government and people like you would like them to be?

    https://en.radiofarda.com/a/governm...while-investors-risk-everything/30585537.html
    Government In Iran Touting A Rising Stock Market While Investors Risk Everything
     
  16. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,310
    Likes Received:
    6,668
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The U.S. government doesn't have "propaganda organs".

    Just like Iran does not have an effective military if facing the United States. I mean come on, if we're going on naval engagements alone the U.S. Navy virtually massacred the Iranian navy in Operation: Praying Mantis in 1989.

    Sure, that was 31 years ago but its the only operational experience Iran has versus the U.S.
     
    Mushroom likes this.
  17. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are clueless, but I can't help with that more generally. In the specific context of my message, the site I was quoting from, is "Radio Farda":
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Farda
    LOL
    Just because the only "operational experience" you like to hark back on is from 33 years ago (1987, not 1989), and the US has been backing down and taking hits on the chin in many other incidents and engagements between the two sides, doesn't mean that is the only "operational experience" Iran has had versus the US. The list of engagements between the Iranian military and the US military would include, inter alia, Iran's missile attack against the Al Assad air base; Iran's shooting down of the US Global Hawk drone; the capture of the US vessels and marines who had ventured into Iranian territorial waters; and, indirectly, numerous 'proxy wars' between the two sides all around the region.

    p.s.
    In the 1980s, Iran was not yet producing any military equipment and had just come out of the Iranian revolution with an armed forces who had previously been equipped and trained by the US and other foreign countries. The Iran at the time couldn't yet build a speedboat, much less solid fueled missiles which carry satellites into space.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2020
  18. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Incidentally, during Operation Praying Mantis, the US sunk the Iranian frigate Sahand.

    This is the Sahand frigate the US sunk:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_frigate_Sahand
    [​IMG]


    This is the new Sahand frigate built by Iran in its memory:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_frigate_Sahand_(2012)
    https://www.militaryfactory.com/shi...=irin-sahand-f74-frigate-warship-iranian-navy
    [​IMG]

    The only other sizable vessel the US managed to sink was the Joshan.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_missile_boat_Joshan
    [​IMG]
     
  19. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,423
    Likes Received:
    51,236
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is amazing! P/E has expanded 8.33 to 10.93 so 31%, in the midst of a 400% run up, that looks great.

    https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/iran/pe-ratio

    Since your stock market is priced in local currency, let's see if your currency is depreciating: Now 71,095k / oz gold. A year ago, 53,911k. That's about 32% currency depreciation in terms of gold, so at a 400% gain, you are still way way ahead of the game.

    https://www.goldbroker.com/charts/gold-price/irr

    Inflation looks to be 33-34% over the last year.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=inf...ome..69i57.19072j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

    That just validates what we saw with the currency priced in gold, as a cross check of the inflation number, low 30's looks like a solid measure.

    I was unaware of your stock market gains. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. That is a terrific performance.
     
  20. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The stock market is not the only 'booming' sector of the Iranian economy. Domestic industries in Iran, more generally, have been helped (not hurt) by US sanctions which allow them to compete in an environment where imported good are no longer affordable to most ordinary people. Iran's economy was already quite self-sufficient due to all the measures (particularly the financial restrictions that cut it off from the global banking system) that have been imposed against it. Now, event those industries that may have been losing ground to cheaper imports from places like China, or more expensive but supposedly better quality good from other markets*, are beginning to do well. And Iranian tech companies and start ups have also done very well in this environment.

    Anyway, my main point is this: the US (and the Israelis and pro Israeli folks who are pushing the US in this direction) aren't landing nearly the 'punch' they had imagined from Trump's campaign of "maximum pressure". Besides the fact that these sanctions have simply driven a lot of economic activity underground, and the GDP figures which are often cited to show how effective US sanctions have been miss much of the activity I allude to, the GDP projections by the IMF/World Bank aren't consistent with the projections by Iran's central bank. Iran expects (even with the Covid-19 pandemic doing more damage than the US sanctions) positive growth in 2020.

    But that doesn't mean all is well. As you alluded to, inflation is a real problem in Iran. It has been for a while and US sanctions make it worse. In fact, if you want to know what most Iranians consider to be the 'real problems' in their country, you just need to look at the polls that have been taken on the issue.
    [​IMG]

    From the University of Maryland poll of public opinion in Iran.
    https://www.iranpoll.com/publications/maximum-pressure
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2020
  21. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,423
    Likes Received:
    51,236
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's the same discussion we are having in this country. Sure, the imports are (were) inexpensive, but that means supply chains to protect outside of your borders and someone other than your own people are making a living producing that product. Whatever you are doing, the results are impressive.
    I'm sure your well educated population is your strongest asset.
    I'm sure that sanctions produce a lot of growth in the difficult to measure areas, like barter, gray market and smuggling, which probably, in terms of the effective delivery of goods and services, competes very well against the centrally planned areas of the economy. I don't know about Israel, but I assure you in America that the conflict is with the Government, not the people of Iran.
    That top line inflation number as the number one concern makes sense to me. With your growth rates, it looks to me like you are outrunning it, but, it's a challenge to keep track of where you are at with a currency that is depreciating at that rate (and that is what inflation really is, is currency depreciation).

    In addition to what tops your list, it's interesting what's on the bottom: There is little sense in this poll of folks feeling a sense of Discrimination/Injustice, or that civil rights are being violated.

    It's always interesting to me how rapidly situations change, and therefore require agile and intelligent people to rapidly adjust their posture in order to remain in the most advantageous position.

    Not long ago, what pulled America into the Persian Gulf was maintaining international shipping lanes that global commerce and our own economy relied on. The Iranian government saw nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them as the means to protect themselves from us applying force to them, and I'm sure they wouldn't be unhappy at all if we packed up and left.

    Now that we are self-sufficient in terms of oil, while we have an intellectual agreement with the need for international shipping lanes to remain open, we really no longer need that oil, though China does, and needs it very badly. I don't think Trump is too thrilled with putting US lives and assets at risk to protect shipping lanes that Beijing needs, so what keeps us engaged now is the concern over weapons development that if exchanged could leave an entire area of the world uninhabitable.

    This leaves us in the interesting position that while your nuclear program may have been originally intended to expel us, it's now actually keeping us engaged.

    I bet a handful of Kissinger level diplomats from the respective involved nations could work out a set of solutions where everyone comes out ahead and deeply committed to the process, for their own respective self-interests.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2020
    Iranian Monitor likes this.
  22. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,392
    Likes Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The only thing that makes Iran a threat is the assorted traitors and racists in the Democratic Party winning the White House and majorities in the House and Senate.They win in 2020, then Iran, along with every other dictator and criminal syndicate running a country has a free hand to murder millions more people in the ME and Europe as well. I doubt even an attack on the U.S. would make Democrats look out for their own country; they thrive on death and oppression, and they especially admire Obama for his active support and financial aid to the terrorist criminals running Iran now.
     
    Dayton3 likes this.
  23. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And this is exactly why I also laugh at the Chinese DF-21D missile, the "Aircraft Carrier".

    Ballistic missiles are really not maneuverable, and are "fire and forget" weapons. You fire them up at a trajectory where you believe the target will be at when it comes down. And for a weapon with the CEP that is as wide as the flight deck is (or larger), that means the odds are not great at hitting one even if it is sitting still in port.

    Add to it the fact it is moving. And at the first sign of a missile launch, they are going to immediately make a hard turn and drastically increase speed. Which means that even if you were able to determine where it was with a high degree of accuracy, that attack profile just went entirely out the window.

    Not a single nation that claims to have a ballistic missile that can hit a ship at sea (and there are 2 of them) has actually ever put it to the test. Literally all they have done is fired it into the desert where the outline of a ship was painted. Big deal, it does not move. That is no more impressive or proof of concept than them aiming at any other fixed object.

    Want to prove to me this is real? Really test it. Take something like a large cargo ship, and fire at that while it is under way. With it being remotely controlled by somebody not connected to the launch center so they have absolutely no idea where and when it is going to turn, and what speed it will operate at. If they come reasonably close to such a ship I will start to admit they actually have the start of a concept.

    What I find most amazing is that neither country that has such a weapon has apparently never thought that was needed. Neither China nor Iran has never fired at anything but lines in the desert that are not moving. Therefore I still and will continue to consider the entire concept a complete and utter joke, made for propaganda purposes.

    I find it as realistic as a steerable bullet, and those actually go slower than ballistic missiles.
     
  24. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    *laugh*

    Actually, if such a location exists that was not it.

    Notice, I stated very clearly about the 2 "Command Posts" I identified. They are distinct in the photos, and the buildings hit are not it. We would not have such a facility sitting in the middle of nothing with absolutely no security of any kind around them. But did you not also tell us those were all hangars not all that long ago?

    I love how you can not even keep your propaganda lies straight.
     
  25. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have posted these videos of Iranian anti-ship ballistic missiles before. Now, some might view these same videos and imagine they are hitting desert sand and sheep, but others will notice the target at sea that they hit.


     

Share This Page