Hypothetical war with Iran

No, it’s delusional to think Iran can indefinitely close the straight of Hormuz.

 

I will only say this one -- and then you can believe what you wish.

If Iran ever decides to close the Strait of Hormuz and live with its consequences, which it will in case of an all out war with the US, the Strait of Hormuz will be closed. And while the US military (before having a better appreciation of Iran's capabilities) used to estimate they would be able to reopen the Strait of Hormuz in a few weeks, the idea that the US would be able to do so in a few weeks depends on a host of assumptions that are speculative. But Iran will definitely be able to shut down the traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. No one claiming otherwise, or pretending otherwise, is telling the truth or, alternatively, they have no clue.

The real issue that is more interesting is whether and to what extent Iran would be able (in case of an all out war) disrupt and close traffic through the Suez Canal. That would be a much more serious issue to debate than the nonsense I read on what Iran would or wouldn't be able to do with traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

 

Yeah, you’re seriously underestimating the most powerful military in the world, and over estimating Iran’s capabilities. That’s flawed logic if I’ve ever seen any. Seems like you’re cheerleading for the Iranian regime, instead of taking a objective look at a scenario, that I’m pretty sure both of us doesn’t want to happen.

 

You are entitled to believe what you wish. I am confident on this point and don't feel the need to even debate it.

 

I hate to break it to you, you had nothing to debate to begin with. How unfortunate.

 

Unlike the US, which is generally clueless about Iran's capabilities, Iran has had a close up view of US military capabilities in several wars and conflicts in the region which have involved the US military directly.

The US is only beginning to learn about Iran's capabilities. Even now, it has to first clear a mountain of false assumptions to get to understanding the most obvious and basic facts.

On the latter, you you don't need to go very far from the points discussed in this thread: many of the same 'experts' who used to claim the CEP of Iranian missiles were 2,500 meters, or 500 meters, with even the Fateh missile said to have a CEP of 250 meters(!!), now that they have had the opportunity to study these missile used in some recent incidents (including against the Al Asad air base), have revised their estimates for the CEP of these missiles to "under 12 meters" or between "5-10 meters". We aren't talking about minor adjustments to previous estimates! We are talking about estimates which were so off that they were nothing but clueless. And this is not AT ALL an isolated example.

Everything Iran produces, 'experts' line up to link to some foreign system they know a little more about, even when (as often is the case) there virtually no evidence to connect the system to such 'foreign systems'.

Here is one example, with regard to Iran's Bavar 373 anti-missile/aircraft system developed to counter the threat posed by long range US bombers etc:

https://t-intell.com/2019/08/26/analysis-of-irans-bavar-373-sam-indigenous-design-or-s-300-copycat/
TECHNICAL EVALUATION:

What is the foreign assistance??? I am sure Iran didn't invest the wheel all over again, but:

But, even when the evidence and analysis belies the idea that the system can be linked to any 'foreign system, the assumption that it would have been "impossible" for Iran to develop it on its own, persists!

 

You want to know about the efficacy of US air power, you can compare the damage done to Iraq's electricity grid by the US through its 'aerial vandalism' (serious enough so that to this day Iraq is dependent on Iran for much of its electricity), to the ability of the US air force to take out Saddam, Saddam's generals, or his command and control. Or Iraq's puny Scuds. (The main success the US enjoyed in compromising Saddam's command and control wasn't through air power, but through its 'intelligence assets' and their ability to bribe many of his generals).

You want to know about the efficacy of US air power, you can look at how successful it was to even take out the leadership of the Taleban in Afghanistan -- or even the leadership of Al Queda!

Of more immediate relevance, the efficacy of US air power is hinted by Israel's war against Hezbollah in 2006 and the Saudi war against the Houthis which is still waging. Both Israel and Saudi Arabia enjoy a one-sided air superiority against Hezbollah and the Houthis, respectively, that the US will need to work very hard and for a long time before it can establish against Iran. Yet, neither was able to do all that much damage to the actual, military, capabilities of either group, even if the damage to Lebanon was substantial while the damage done to northern Yemen is almost genocidal.

America's air power is real, but the nature of that power is very different than what is presented in propaganda. The nature of that power is to inflict what I have called "aerial vandalism". As with America's nuclear weapons, American air power is a weapon of terror. Otherwise, not that much has ever been accomplished against military targets merely relying on air power. Certainly, not against protected, military targets as opposed to air support against particular units engaged in ground combat or, obviously, against units which have been misled to march to their deaths (e.g., the 'highway of death' turkey shoot of Saddam's forces leaving Kuwait).

I don't underestimate America's military capabilities. I realize fully that the US can destroy much of Iran's civilian infrastructure, economic and industrial assets, and hurt Iran as badly as the Mongols hurt the country during the Mongol invasions many centuries ago. All without having to set foot into the country. That is well understood by me and by Iran. That is America's actual 'trump card' against Iran.

Against that, Iran's trump card is ability to close the Strait of Hormuz, visit 'aerial vandalism' on oil installations, ports, and other civilian infrastructure and facilities in US allied countries in the region, while being able to hit, damage and disrupt US bases and naval assets in the region. Besides, Iran has some tricks up its sleeves such as its ability to engage in cyber warfare and some other things. But, overall, it is very true: in case of war with the US, regardless of who is 'winning' in the 'theater' of battle, the US isn't going to be losing much at home. While Iran will be losing a lot.

Almost everything that tries to give the above a different spin or import, is ultimately propaganda. Or the product of ignorance and delusion.

 

We might as well get our war with Iran out of the way. It's about time we nuke them. Their people are completely brainwashed and support the Aloha Snackbar religious leader. They want to taunt our naval ships? I say we let them fire the first shot, and then turn that place into a piece of glass.

The world has no use for Iran. Oil? I guess that's the only thing Iranians will claim they are useful for. lol

 

The U.S. does not use nuclear weapons against non nuclear powers. at least in the modern era.

 

Iran has no ability to close he Strait of Hormuz long enough to make a difference. Modern Warfare magazine did an in depth analysis of Iranians capabilities versus western countermeasures in that regard and factoring in national oil reserves by western nations and non middle eastern oil sources.

 

At this point, I do not care. If they claim they will take down the US with overwhelming force (as they claim)...let's show 'em what overwhelming force is.

Iran is useless to the world. All they have to claim is their oil. We can turn the heat on the Saudis lol

 

It matters because no matter what war we fight we still have to live in this world afterwards.

 

Post or link the article you are referring to and I will tell you why it is clueless (or engaging in typical, ignorant, propaganda). Or maybe the "analysis" you are referring to is dated and based on what was known about Iran's capabilities when little was actually known?

Anyway, for me, the issue is so obvious and clear that I don't care what you might imagine.

 

In the meantime, instead of propaganda, chest beating, and lies about Iran, the US would do well to listen to people who have actually visited Iran and know the country well beyond the nonsense that Americans are fed. For instance, while I am not going to agree with Roger Cohen (former Wall Street and then NY Times correspondent) on some things for sure, these words he wrote in an opinion piece for the New York Times are worth repeating here. Read the words carefully as they say what I am going to tell you as well.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/08/opinion/trump-iran.html

 

Even with much of Iran's historic heritage destroyed by a long list of foreign invaders (of which I will speak a bit), what remains in Iran is still one of the world's greatest collection of sites (from historic architecture which is almost without parallel anywhere else in the various eras covered, to modern architecture in Iran), sounds (music), tastes (food) and senses (poetry and philosophy). And -- as I have shown in the videos I have posted from Iran's youngsters and their accomplishments in academic competitions such as the various academic Olympiads (where they have earned more Gold medals for Iran than all of the countries in ME combined -- or all of the countries in Africa, Latin America, and the Indian subcontinent combined) -- Iran is also a place where the sciences are finding their foothold once again. A place that played a huge role in advancing learning and the sciences in the past, but which had fallen sleep in more recent times before the Iranian revolution.

Unlike the uncultured buffoons (ancestors of only recently clothed people) who like to threaten Iran with destruction and worse, anyone with the slightest sense of culture who has visited Iran, is captivated by it. That includes people who hail from political backgrounds which would mark them otherwise as Iran's enemies.

As for the foreign invaders who tried to destroy Iran, long before US/Israel began such dreams, here are a few that came closest (while many more, such as the Romans, never even came close);

1- Alexander the "not so great": in pure spite and out of jealousy, with the visible manifestation of the superiority of Persian culture undeniable in the majesty, architecture, and libraries of the ancient world's greatest city, he burnt down "Persepolis" (Parsa). But even burning it down, Persepolis endured.


2- The Arabs: while the Arabs didn't actually destroy as much as some imagine or claim, they were still uncultured Bedouins who had managed to overrun one of the greatest empires of their time, namely the Sassanian empire, and found its great wealth and achievements now at their disposal. The Persian civilized these Arabs, accounted for much (almost all) that later became known as "Arab" contributions to science, philosophy and learning in the middle ages, and eventually sidelined the Arabs and had them rule of their desert homelands in the Arabian peninsula. From then on, during the Golden Age of Islam under the Abbasid caliphate, the Arab empire had become an Irano-Islamic empire under huge Persian influence (and direction).


Many in the region chose to associate themselves with this great civilization which was superior to those of its contemporaries, by not only becoming Muslim but Arab as well, but in Iran, the "Islamic" civilization was accepted because it now represented more Persian influences than those of the once Bedouin Arab tribes that had conquered Iran. But almost unique among the nations that the Arabs conquered (who only only became Muslim, but Arab too -- e.g., the Egyptians, the Syrians, the people of modern day Iraq, or ancient Mesopotamia, etc), the Persians preserved their separate identity. And with the Persian renaissance, the Persian language and culture became the dominant culture of all of the Islamic regimes that would ensue. Including those which then fought Iran for centuries, such as the Ottomans in Anatolia or the Mughals in India. They had all become Persianate societies regardless.


3- The Mongols: the Mongols, much like Trump and company, has no use for real culture or civilization. In fact, they hated any manifestations of cultured life which struck in deep contrast with their nomadic origins and practices. No where did the Mongols destroy as much as in Iran. But these Mongols, eventually, were tamed by the very culture they had hated so much. So much so that the Ilkhanate of Iran itself became eventually one of the places where Persian culture once again resurfaced with its great vigor and energy.

Even if Iran is nuked, as I have heard so many Americans and pro Israeli figures advocate, Iran will not be destroyed. Iran will endure. And if you are curious enough and want to know why, I can explain that too.

 

Not every article has a link. Like I said it was in the magazine Modern Warfare in the last decade. And it took into account all aspects of Iranian military power including their missile programs and asymmetrical warfare programs.

You're getting really snippy about people running down Iran.

 

Even a decade ago, Iran could close the Strait of Hormuz. But a decade ago, Iran couldn't keep it closed for more than a few weeks probably. In any case, a decade ago, Iran didn't have the same precision guided ballistic missiles, the myriad of platforms it now has, or anything else that would be relevant today in understanding how Iran could easily close the Strait of Hormuz -- and keep it closed. There might be people who will tell you otherwise, but they are either clueless or engaging in wishful propaganda. In any case, it doesn't matter: for Iran, this is not something that can even be disputed and Iranian military doctrine takes this as something that can be counted on.

I don't know what you are referring to precisely, but of course, Most people 'running down Iran' aren't qualified to opine about it. And know next to nothing about it, other than a collection of nonsense, propaganda and myths peppered with the occasional facts meant to mislead and not educate them.

 

That was quite the rant. And you are incorrect. When Iran is nuked, there will not be any Iran left. Except for the deformed children born after the radiation.

 

@Iranian Monitor

Earlier you maintained the position that the Aramco attack was executed by the Houthis, but since they were supplied with Iranian missiles, it was a good showcase of the high quality of Iranian missiles.

As a counterpoint to that, the Houthis, also using Iranian-supplied missiles, repeatedly tried and failed to hit the USS Mason with anti-ship missiles in October 2016. Shouldn't that failure, likewise, be taken as evidence of the poor quality of Iranian missiles?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Mason_(DDG-87)#Attacks_off_the_coast_of_Yemen

If your guys can't even scratch the paint on a single USN DDG with 9 missiles, and lost three radar sites in the process, what makes you so confident that "Iran could easily close the Strait of Hormuz -- and keep it closed"?

 

What would you consider someone qualified to express an opinion regarding the military capabilities of Iran? What sources do you have? Are any of them non Iranian?

Didn't think so..

 

Because of differences in the missiles used and how they would be used in a conflict with the US. The NOOR missiles and such are a 'dime a dozen' in Iran: in case of war with the US, they will be fired in large numbers to overwhelm US defenses. Otherwise, I have already mentioned: a few NOOR missiles (even if we assume the reports you mention are accurate) not being able to hit US warships isn't the same as a large number fired at them from all sources of platforms. With those less sophisticated type missiles augmented by more sophisticated types, such as anti-ship ballistic missiles, torpedoes and such.

 

I have hardly cited in any Iranian sources here. I have, however, cited a good many US sources and could do so on this subject as well. It doesn't matter really, since the debate and argument about matters of opinion aren't going to matter much either way to me. I am mostly interested in making sure the factual basis for the comments isn't entirely fictitious. Otherwise, whatever conclusion you like to draw without butchering the facts along the way, it doesn't make a difference to me.

 

In the meantime, I think even AIPAC has discovered that its typical propaganda lines about Iranian capabilities aren't going to do them any good (The original video is in English, from an interview with an AIPC official, but with Persian subtitles posted in an Iranian media source).

 

1) How many missiles do you think would be necessary to overwhelm the defenses of U.S. warships?

2) What makes you think the Iranians would be able to launch that many missiles? IIRC standard U.S. naval tactical doctrine is to destroy as many launch platforms and launch sites as possible BEFORE they can launch their missiles.

3) You do know that if you are suggesting that Iran launch against U.S. warships preemptively that Americans would regard such an attack as the equivalent of a Pearl Harbor type attack. American response would no doubt be similar as it was against Japan.

4) Using ballistic missiles against moving targets (ships) is a completely unproven tactic. No one is sure even the Chinese have actually perfected it (despite their claims).

5) Torpedoes are extremely short range weapons which is why they are only considered a viable weapon for submarines. And getting a submarine within torpedo range of a U.S. ship is not something that any nation can do on a routine (war winning) basis. Sure our NATO allies have accomplished it now and then as have the Chinese once or twice.

But "now and then" and "once or twice" does not win a war for you.

 

I wouldn't say that. I think that if the U.S. hit Iran with a serious nuclear attack that it would probably kill no more than 5-10 million Iranians at worst. Including long term radiation deaths and deaths related to the mass destruction of infrastructure and food supplies.