What's new

Iranian Ground Forces | News and Equipment

Russia had signed a treaty with Armenia as well, but where were they to defend Armenia?
They were involved against Armenia. Armenia is possibly the weakest country in the entire region. Armenia has power, let alone regional power

The Russian treaty only extended to proper Armenia not Nagorno-Karabakh. Yes the war will be destructive that is why Iran will avoid attempting to break the status quo there but Turkey is under obligations and bound by treaty to it's brotherly nation hence wavering in their stance is not how geopolitics work. If Iran was to set a foot inside Azerbaijan it would be a war declaration against Turkey as per geopolitics language and treaties. Defensive pacts and treaties are not mere papers but real state obligations. Turkey has veto powers to block Russian offensive hence treaties are even effective against Russia or anyone in that matter
 
Last edited:
The Russian treaty only extended to proper Armenia not Nagorno-Karabakh. Yes the war will be destructive that is why Iran will avoid attempting to break the status quo there but Turkey is under obligations and bound by treaty to it's brotherly nation hence wavering in their stance is not how geopolitics work. If Iran was to set a foot inside Azerbaijan it would be a war declaration against Turkey as per geopolitics language and treaties. Defensive pacts and treaties are not mere papers but real state obligations
Hey guy, i am an Azeri and i assure you that conquest of Azerbaijan would take around 1 to 2 hours for Iran. Turks can do whatever they want, they will be smashed with iron fist.

People of Azerbaijan on the other hand won't resist the Azeri faction of Iranian army/IRGC. It is much easier than what you have imagined. The only thing that stops Iran from absorbing its former lands is the political atmosphere of the region.
 
Hey guy, i am an Azeri and i assure you that conquest of Azerbaijan would take around 1 to 2 hours for Iran. Turks can do whatever they want, they will be smashed with iron fist.

People of Azerbaijan on the other hand won't resist the Azeri faction of Iranian army/IRGC. It is much easier than what you have imagined. The only thing that stops Iran from absorbing its former lands is the political atmosphere of the region.

You will come in but end up losing further lands inside your territory. We know how you have folded miraclously thru out history and holding the must military upsets in human history. You are the least worrying element in the region. Watch Tehren go in such scenario this is an unknown territory and you are taking on unknown elements..

 
Last edited:
The Russian treaty only extended to proper Armenia not Nagorno-Karabakh. Yes the war will be destructive that is why Iran will avoid attempting to break the status quo there but Turkey is under obligations and bound by treaty to it's brotherly nation hence wavering in their stance is not how geopolitics work. If Iran was to set a foot inside Azerbaijan it would be a war declaration against Turkey as per geopolitics language and treaties. Defensive pacts and treaties are not mere papers but real state obligations. Turkey has veto powers to block Russian offensive hence treaties are even effective against Russia or anyone in that matter
It was only an excuse for Russia not to get involved in the war. The CSTO Pact does not explicitly exclude Nagorno-Karabakh. Article 4 of the treaty states that if one of the parties is subjected to aggression by any state or group of states, then this will be considered an aggression against all parties of the treaty. It was only an interpretation of Russia to stop Armenia from invoking it. How convenient for them! The CSTO Pact has not prevented other members from supplying weapons to Azerbaijan either. Just one more reason that proves the Russians are not trust-worthy. But is that a surprise?

In fact, one of the reasons that Armenia felt confident about Nagorno-Karabakh and did not spend enough to modernize their army for a potential aggression by Azerbaijan is the very idea that they were backed by the Russians.

And I do not understand what you mean by Turkey's veto power. If it's Turkey's interests and territorial integrity against Azerbaijan, the choice seems very clear to me.
 
It was only an excuse for Russia not to get involved in the war. The CSTO Pact does not explicitly exclude Nagorno-Karabakh. Article 4 of the treaty states that if one of the parties is subjected to aggression by any state or group of states, then this will be considered an aggression against all parties of the treaty. It was only an interpretation of Russia to stop Armenia from invoking it. How convenient for them! The CSTO Pact has not prevented other members from supplying weapons to Azerbaijan either. Just one more reason that proves the Russians are not trust-worthy. But is that a surprise?

In fact, one of the reasons that Armenia felt confident about Nagorno-Karabakh and did not spend enough to modernize their army for a potential aggression by Azerbaijan is the very idea that they were backed by the Russians.

And I do not understand what you mean by Turkey's veto power. If it's Turkey's interests and territorial integrity against Azerbaijan, the choice seems very clear to me.

CSTO doesn't get triggered in Nagorno-Karabakh has never been recognized by the UN as Aremenian territory hence the CSTO couldn't come into play. It is not because the Russians are untrust worthy it just didn't come into play
 
CSTO doesn't get triggered in Nagorno-Karabakh has never been recognized by the UN as Aremenian territory hence the CSTO couldn't come into play. It is not because the Russians are untrust worthy it just didn't come into play
Nagorno-Karabakh is a disputed territory that at the time of the incident was administrated by Armenia. If you want to say that the UN recognizes it as Azerbaijani territory because of a 2008 vote by the General Assembly, I have to kindly remind you that resolutions passed by the General Assembly are non-binding and are just worthless papers. UN General Assembly has passed hundreds of such worthless resolutions against Israel, for example. The UN Security Council had not issued any resolution in support of the Azerbaijani claims about it. And the CSTO Pact did not exclude Artsakh explicitly.

But if you still have doubts, let's suppose that Turkey hypothetically fails to honor its treaty with Azerbaijan. What can Republic of Azerbaijan do about it? Open a case against Turkey in the Court of Justice and Arbitration? What can that achieve for Republic of Azerbaijan besides losing their most powerful partner? On the other hand, even if they win the case, Turkey will have to pay them a sum of money which will be surely much less than the cost of a deadly war with a regional power like Iran and they can take that money back by exerting pressure on Republic of Azerbaijan through political means. Turkey will not jump in a devastating war that can send them decades back just because of a piece of paper.
 
Hey guy, i am an Azeri and i assure you that conquest of Azerbaijan would take around 1 to 2 hours for Iran. Turks can do whatever they want, they will be smashed with iron fist.

People of Azerbaijan on the other hand won't resist the Azeri faction of Iranian army/IRGC. It is much easier than what you have imagined. The only thing that stops Iran from absorbing its former lands is the political atmosphere of the region.
Assuming is Iran's biggest drawback hocus pocus is only limited to movies, not actual military affairs. I assume you're an Iranian Azeri, still, it does not give you the leverage to throw about your mental masturbation about Azerbaijan and its populous. Fighting a war in the 21st century is no walkover even minor factions can damage vaster invaders.

Thinking realistically and accepting the sovereignty of neighbouring countries is best for Iran.
 
Turkey will not fire a single bullet at Iran no matter what. The only thing that prevents Iran from occupying Azerbaijan and adding it to our territory is the UN Security Council and a US coalition against us like what happened to Saddam after invading Kuwait.
His analysis is always no-good. Just ignore him. He confuses his own wishes with what he likes to see than what is really happening on the ground. Alas, I don't think their will be any invasion or anything, but I wouldn't rule out a scuffle as a impossibility. Don't engage with these people. He has no technical knowledge about military affairs and confuses his wishes with reality. This is called brainwashed. Look at the ridiculous thing he said about Tehran, if such war existed between Azerbaijan and Iran, people in Isfahan wouldn't even know if they didn't check their phone lol.

Just let them rant about Iran, you can't change their mind. He has some obsession with Turkey and Turkic people when the average Turkic person look down on him.
 
Last edited:
Germany just released design concepts and semi-prototype ...

nice.

germany-unveils-its-gsd-luwa-light-air-transportable-armoured-fighting-vehicle.jpg

germany.jpg
 
His analysis is always no-good. Just ignore him. He confuses his own wishes with what he likes to see than what is really happening on the ground. Alas, I don't think their will be any invasion or anything, but I wouldn't rule out a scuffle as a impossibility. Don't engage with these people. He has no technical knowledge about military affairs and confuses his wishes with reality. This is called brainwashed. Look at the ridiculous thing he said about Tehran, if such war existed between Azerbaijan and Iran, people in Isfahan wouldn't even know if they didn't check their phone lol.

Just let them rant about Iran, you can't change their mind. He has some obsession with Turkey and Turkic people when the average Turkic person look down on him.

Hate to break it to people, but I have to say ... TURKEY has some serious financial issues as well as internal military issues. It can do great actually, IMO, militarily for a short period of a time, but then they will run into problems. Not my assessment, but someone whose job it is to know these things. Turkey and France (each in their own way) are very good at 'some' things, but somehow have been losing every war for 300+ years. Their calculations are often seriously flawed possibly due to over inflated ego. I have many Turkish friends, many others I have worked with for the past few decades. I like Turkish people. But then they have a trigger in their brain that is hard to explain or associate to logic or rationality. In fact, one of my best friends from aerospace college is a Turk, have been to his house a 100 times, was there for him when his mom died of breast cancer, dad of Alzheimer, helped him through college, and got him a job afterwards. Lovely person. But has one single screw loose there. That screw has been missing since birth.

Not sure I want to say that I associate this to their national defense capabilities but just an indication of their psyche. They rush in like an incoherent bull in a china shop. The longer they go in a position of power display, (war and conflict) the more they over exert themselves. It has been said, that is how they lost WW1.
 
It should be signed by the heads of our states in front of TV cameras. That would send a stronger signal to Baku than arranging our military equipment along the border when they know that we won't cross the border because of the reasons I mentioned earlier.

Yet Iran's present military deployment is far from useless. As per the "Tweet" shared by Stryker1982, Keyhan warned of a possible imminent plan by the so-called Republic of Azarbaijan to invade Armenian territory in Syunik province. The deployment of Iranian armed forces along the border will serve as a strong deterrent against precisely this eventuality (among other possible benefits).

- - - - -

Iranian Azeri’s make up a significant part of the population of Iran and Iranian Armenians a much smaller portion.

Iran was so self conscious of this that Iranian clerics and lawmakers were quick to reference solidarity with Iranian Azeris over the Azeri-Armani conflict.

For crying out loud, Iran’s SL is Azeri and speaks Azeri and said Azeri lands should be liberated.

Iran's choice not to intervene on behalf of Armenia in the recent Karabakh war was strictly unrelated to ethnic considerations. The notion that Iran backed down due to "ethnic" issues has in fact been promoted by Iran's enemies who have been trying hard to "ethnicize" the social and political fabric of Iran as a preulde to territorial balkanization - whereas in reality, "ethnicity" is of no relevance to politics in a nation as integrated as Iran. So narratives like these shouldn't be entertained.

They are as unjustified as Zahra Rahnavard's contention that Ahmadinejad coming out on top in East Azarbaijan province at the 2009 presidential election was supposedly an indication for "fraud" given that her spouse Mir Hossein Mousavi is Azari - this argument was extensively debunked back then by referencing former election results in various Iranian provinces: Iranian citizens don't vote for candidates because of their "ethnicity", but due to their political program. The Iranian polity is not fragmented along linguistic lines, and common citizenship supersedes other factors.

Iran's stance during the latest conflict in the south Caucasus was grounded in other criteria: first and foremost the Pashinyan government's marked rapprochement with the US and Isra"el"i regimes, second the fact that international law actually vindicated the Azari side, then you also had Iran's relationship with Turkey including with regards to the Syrian situation, and also a desire not to get involved in yet another front unless absolutely necessary, given economic circumstances and simultaneous Iranian presence in several other theaters, etc.

Iran’s SL would, the most powerful man in Iran. nd he has final say. Unless Israel attacks Iran from Azerbaijan or Azerbaijan attacks Iran very overtly (not a mere border guard skirmish/scuffle), then there is almost 0% chance he will betray his lineage.

So-called "ethnic" considerations play no role in the Supreme Leader's decision making. He will definitely order any type of action considered necessary against the so-called Republic of Azarbaijan.

Iran generally speaking does not and will not launch wars of aggression independently of the target.

Also Iran's hostility is never directed against peoples nor nations per se, but exclusively against oppressive regimes as well as elements which assist said oppressors. Resisting such regimes is not seen as betrayal. And Iran has pretty much been countering the pro-zionist regime of Baku, for example through its support of religiously-minded Islamic local forces such as the grand social movements based off Nardaran (a religiously-inclined suburb of Baku) challenging the ultra-secularist and authoritarian rule of the Aliyevs, protesting the hijab ban and the jailing of Muslim clerics by the regime etc.

Another way Iran could step in would be to extend support to representatives of linguistic minorities of Aran, mainly but not limited to the Talesh community, some of whose prominent members faced repression at the hands of Baku authorities.

Then there's the not often talked about Hoseinyun Brigade which consists of citizens of the Republic of Azarbaijan trained by the IRGC who joined the Resistance in Syria. In case of an exacerbated crisis between Iran and Baku, we might be hearing of the Hoseynyun.

So Iran under Supreme Leader Khamenei has taken various measures indeed to keep in check threats emanating from Baku. Offensive war however is never in the cards.

- - - - -

Persians and Kurds are over 75% of Iran's population. Both of them wouldn't mind supporting Armenia. I doubt Arabs, Lurs or Baluchis would give a f*ck either.

Same as above, Iranians do not determine their political positioning on the basis of so-called "ethnicity". Which when it comes to Iran happens in fact to be a largely bogus concept to begin with.

First because genetically speaking, almost all so-called "ethnicities" in Iran are practically identical to each other. Second because the shared national cultural heritage of Iranians is simply undeniable and massive.

Third and most importantly, because over 50% of Iranians have mixed linguistic origins. Indeed, the largest "ethnic" group in Iran is neither Persian, nor Azari, nor Kurdish nor any of these, but mixed Iranian. By mixed I do not mean that there is foreign, non-Iranian influx but am referring to Iranians whose ancestors belong to more than one of the country's existing linguistic groups.

We could test this right here, by putting the question to the 20-25 active Iranian users of this forum - just how many of these can honestly claim that all their four grand-parents have their roots in one single linguistic community? Aryobarzan already mentioned he is of both Azari Iranian and Persian Iranian lineage. My Iranian family is very mixed as well, with roots in at least three different linguistic groups. 2:0.

Most Iranians cannot be artificially squeezed into a so-called "ethnic" sub-category. This is a fact which enemies attempting to divide Iranians along "ethnic" lines must be slapped with again and again. It is the single most powerful objective argument against hostile separatist and "ethnicist" discourse.

Iranian citizens across all linguistic lines would overwhelmingly back their motherland against any foreign adversary, no matter the identity of said adversary. To the Iranian people Islam and Iran come first, not so-called "ethnicity".

there are doubts about Khamenei's lineage. Some say that he is in fact from the Khorasan region of Iran and his father lived in Khameneh only temporarily. Nevertheless, Khamenei is a practical man.

There has been a local Azari-speaking community in Mashhad for centuries. They chose to settle in the vicinity of the holy shrine for mostly religious reasons. However it wouldn't make a difference either way since so-called "ethnicity" has no bearing on policy making in Iran.

- - - - -

Thinking realistically and accepting the sovereignty of neighbouring countries is best for Iran.

And also for the regime in Baku. Tolerating zionist-sponsored separatist incitement or hosting Mossad and "I"DF elements on their soil against Iran will not help enhance bilateral relations.
 
Last edited:
Hate to break it to people, but I have to say ... TURKEY has some serious financial issues as well as internal military issues. It can do great actually, IMO, militarily for a short period of a time, but then they will run into problems. Not my assessment, but someone whose job it is to know these things. Turkey and France (each in their own way) are very good at 'some' things, but somehow have been losing every war for 300+ years. Their calculations are often seriously flawed possibly due to over inflated ego. I have many Turkish friends, many others I have worked with for the past few decades. I like Turkish people. But then they have a trigger in their brain that is hard to explain or associate to logic or rationality. In fact, one of my best friends from aerospace college is a Turk, have been to his house a 100 times, was there for him when his mom died of breast cancer, dad of Alzheimer, helped him through college, and got him a job afterwards. Lovely person. But has one single screw loose there. That screw has been missing since birth.

Not sure I want to say that I associate this to their national defense capabilities but just an indication of their psyche. They rush in like an incoherent bull in a china shop. The longer they go in a position of power display, (war and conflict) the more they over exert themselves. It has been said, that is how they lost WW1.
Fully agree...When two peer powers go at each other such as Iran vs turkey ..what will matter is ENDURANCE...who can last longer will win the game..Iran can go on almost unlimited time in war of attrition ..turkey will run of material (western parts) and fuel and money (already in heavy debt with negative trade balance).. money and fuel are the key (Iraq went in debets $70 billion dollars after eight years of war..Iran came out with no debt). About that loose screw!...I have noticed that too.:undecided::undecided:
 
Iran's stance during the latest conflict in the south Caucasus was grounded in other criteria: first and foremost the Pashinyan government's marked rapprochement with the US and Isra"el"i regimes, second the fact that international law actually vindicated the Azari side, then you also had Iran's relationship with Turkey including with regards to the Syrian situation, and also a desire not to get involved in yet another front unless absolutely necessary, given economic circumstances and simultaneous Iranian presence in several other theaters, etc.
well I can't agree with this part , if the war was with a country which was opposed to USA and Israel then that was acceptable reason but the war was with Azerbaijan Republic which had deeper and more involved relation with both USA and Israel
Then there's the not often talked about Hüseynyin Brigade which consists of citizens of the Republic of Azarbaijan trained by the IRGC who joined the Resistance in Syria. In case of an exacerbated crisis between Iran and Baku, we might be hearing of the Hüseynyin.
I doubt they will do anything against Baku interest
 
Also Iran's hostility is never directed against peoples nor nations per se, but exclusively against oppressive regimes as well as elements which assist said oppressors. Resisting such regimes is not seen as betrayal. And Iran has pretty much been countering the pro-zionist regime of Baku, for example through its support of religiously-minded Islamic local forces such as the grand social movements based off Nardaran (a religiously-inclined suburb of Baku) challenging the ultra-secularist and authoritarian rule of the Aliyevs, protesting the hijab ban and the jailing of Muslim clerics by the regime etc.

Another way Iran could step in would be to extend support to representatives of linguistic minorities of Aran, mainly but not limited to the Talesh community, some of whose prominent members faced repression at the hands of Baku authorities.
That's something I'd have done ,increase the security at the borders by deploying forces at the borders under various guise such as war games and then made Baku understand messing with Iran interest is not in its interest and far too costly for them by conducting such operation
 
well I can't agree with this part , if the war was with a country which was opposed to USA and Israel then that was acceptable reason but the war was with Azerbaijan Republic which had deeper and more involved relation with both USA and Israel

When two countries with ties to the zio-Americans are at war, logic would dictate that Iran observe neutrality.

However what makes the point specially relevant in this case is the fact that Pashinyan's administration was the one which initiated this policy of rapprochement with the zionists in Armenia. So Baku's offensive offered Iran a perfect opportunity to let Armenia experience first hand how the zionists and Americans will abandon it in times of need despite all measures it took to please them, namely limiting expansion of ties with Iran. Now Iran can tell Armenia: you see what one gets from bowing to zio-American directives or from trying to accomodate them?

If Pashinyan insists on maintaining the same approach despite his bitter experience of betrayal by the US and zionists, Iran can then reach out to Armenian civil society as well as to Pashinyan's political rivals and back them against the current Prime Minister.

It was brilliant tactical play by Iran vis a vis Erevan insofar as it may encourage the Armenians to rebalance their relations in Iran's favor and away from the zionists.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom