Iranian Missiles | News and Discussions

[Surenas]

Al-Assad is an Iraqi military base NOT US military base, you should probably learn the difference. US military bases are sovereign territory, Al-Assad is still an Iraqi military base.

It is laughable to inject notions of sovereignty when discussing American military presence in Middle Eastern countries. Issues of legality hardly apply to the region.

The US is blatantly violating Syrian sovereignty in relation to its military base at al-Tanf, yet the reality is still that the United States is de facto operating a military base/outpost on the Syrian-Iraqi border.

The Iraqi parliament recently voted to end the presence of American forces on their soil, which the US subsequently rejected.

Etc.

 

[TheImmortal]

If it's limited, why are they bringing Patriot SAMs now?

And you should probably learn that even embassies are not sovereign territory. Stop making up things out of your ***. LOL Al-Assad was a US base and it was hit. Period.

Do you know what limited means? After the base was attacked the US removed batteries from one location and put it in another. It does this routinely. It has removed batteries from Turkey and Saudi Arabia in recent times.

You are correct, embassies are not sovereign territory. The correct term would be immunity from the other countries laws and regulations.

Case in point, when Saudi Arabia murdered that dissent in its Turkish embassy. It did so knowing full well the immunity the embassy property has from Turkish law. The investigation was also stalled because to enter the embassy and search it requires permission.

After all everyone knows embassies are den of spies, so any country before placing an embassy in another country first agrees to the “terms” of that embassies protection and usually its very high (immunity). But yes you are correct The protection itself wouldn’t make the embassy sovereign territory.

It is laughable to inject notions of sovereignty when discussing American military presence in Middle Eastern countries. Issues of legality hardly apply to the region.

The US is blatantly violating Syrian sovereignty in relation to its military base at al-Tanf, yet the reality is still that the United States is de facto operating a military base/outpost on the Syrian-Iraqi border.

The Iraqi parliament recently voted to end the presence of American forces on their soil, which the US subsequently rejected.

Etc.

Absurd or not the matter still holds True. That doesn’t mean that the US like any empire doesn’t skirt the rules and violate them when it sees fit. It is just the way the world has worked since the first empires.

That doesn’t mean that laws are not valid or don’t apply. In case of US it has no legal basis for its bases in Syria nor has it signed a contract with Syria leasing that Land for its control. In case of Iraq, the resolution was non-binding. And also another weak country.

 

[QWECXZ]

Do you know what limited means? After the base was attacked the US removed batteries from one location and put it in another. It does this routinely. It has removed batteries from Turkey and Saudi Arabia in recent times.

You are correct, embassies are not sovereign territory. The correct term would be immunity from the other countries laws and regulations.

Case in point, when Saudi Arabia murdered that dissent in its Turkish embassy. It did so knowing full well the immunity the embassy property has from Turkish law. The investigation was also stalled because to enter the embassy and search it requires permission.

After all everyone knows embassies are den of spies, so any country before placing an embassy in another country first agrees to the “terms” of that embassies protection and usually its very high (immunity). But yes you are correct The protection itself wouldn’t make the embassy sovereign territory.

Fair enough. So, you're saying that the US is relocating its Patriot batteries from KSA and Turkey to Iraq now? Is that what you're saying? Is there a proof?

Yeah. The Vienna Convention gives diplomatic missions immunity, not sovereignty. Another example is the US Embassy Siege after the 1979 revolution. If the US embassies were sovereign territories, the US could've used that as a casus belli in the UNSC to not only attack Iran, but impose serious UNSC sanctions on Iran.

 

[Surenas]

Absurd or not the matter still holds True. That doesn’t mean that the US like any empire doesn’t skirt the rules and violate them when it sees fit. It is just the way the world has worked since the first empires.

That doesn’t mean that laws are not valid or don’t apply. In case of US it has no legal basis for its bases in Syria nor has it signed a contract with Syria leasing that Land for its control. In case of Iraq, the resolution was non-binding. And also another weak country.

The matter does not hold true in the face of reality. That is the only relevant factor in this whole discussion.

 

[TheImmortal]

Fair enough. So, you're saying that the US is relocating its Patriot batteries from KSA and Turkey to Iraq now? Is that what you're saying? Is there a proof?

Yeah. The Vienna Convention gives diplomatic missions immunity, not sovereignty. Another example is the US Embassy Siege after the 1979 revolution. If the US embassies were sovereign territories, the US could've used that as a casus belli in the UNSC to not only attack Iran, but impose serious UNSC sanctions on Iran.

Regardless, imagery that The War Zoneexclusively obtained from Planet Labs of Al Asad in the immediate aftermath of the Iranian ballistic missile strikes on Jan. 7 confirms the Pentagon's own statements that there were no Patriot missile systems at the base at the time. At least as of the end of 2018, the Army was still operating land-based versions of the U.S. Navy's Mk 15 Phalanx close-in weapon system in Iraq in the counter-rockets, artillery, and mortars, or C-RAM, role, including one at Al Asad. These systems would not have been capable of engaging incoming Iranian ballistic missiles.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...ng-us-troops-in-iraq-and-why-they-still-arent

Where the exact patriot batteries came from is not known. But US has redeployed batteries from other theaters.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...me-patriot-missile-batteries-from-middle-east

https://www.defensenews.com/home/2015/10/11/us-begins-removing-patriot-missiles-from-turkey/

US did “attack” Iran in 1979 in attempt to rescue hostages but the helicopters failed in a sand storm in Iranian desert.

Also forceful entry into an embassy and harm to its staff is enough casus belli to declare war. See Iran v Taliban embassy incident in Afghanistan.

But anyway the point is military bases have sovereign like protections in place and that is mostly to protect the foreign country from sudden changes in the eyes of the host countries government. Hence why securing a military base is deemed such an achievement because the contract is pretty iron clad with protections.

 

[QWECXZ]

Regardless, imagery that The War Zoneexclusively obtained from Planet Labs of Al Asad in the immediate aftermath of the Iranian ballistic missile strikes on Jan. 7 confirms the Pentagon's own statements that there were no Patriot missile systems at the base at the time. At least as of the end of 2018, the Army was still operating land-based versions of the U.S. Navy's Mk 15 Phalanx close-in weapon system in Iraq in the counter-rockets, artillery, and mortars, or C-RAM, role, including one at Al Asad. These systems would not have been capable of engaging incoming Iranian ballistic missiles.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...ng-us-troops-in-iraq-and-why-they-still-arent

Where the exact patriot batteries came from is not known. But US has redeployed batteries from other theaters.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...me-patriot-missile-batteries-from-middle-east

https://www.defensenews.com/home/2015/10/11/us-begins-removing-patriot-missiles-from-turkey/

US did “attack” Iran in 1979 in attempt to rescue hostages but the helicopters failed in a sand storm in Iranian desert.

Also forceful entry into an embassy and harm to its staff is enough casus belli to declare war. See Iran v Taliban embassy incident in Afghanistan.

But anyway the point is military bases have sovereign like protections in place and that is mostly to protect the foreign country from sudden changes in the eyes of the host countries government. Hence why securing a military base is deemed such an achievement because the contract is pretty iron clad with protections.

Fair enough.

As for the US Eagle Claw operation, the US didn't declare war on Iran. Moreover, attacking a UNSC permanent member's territory won't go unpunished. I'm not sure whether legally the US could invoke a casus belli. As for the Taliban incident with Iranian diplomats, Iran didn't attack Afghanistan at the end. Did we?

 

[Arminkh]

Success of the Ain Al-Assad strike by Iran, considered air defense failure according to Rand Inst. U.S has adamantly denied the presence of any air defense a Ain Al-Assad during that time. Interesting.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1262566684004683779

That is exactly what it is saying: the Al Assad had air defence relevant to the type of attack the happened otherwise it was pointless to mention it.

 

[sha ah]

Back then, Iran should have launched airstrikes on the Taliban, wiped out their very minor airforce quickly and then perhaps some bases or weapons depots. I'm not sure why Iran didn't take action ? From what I heard the Taliban apologized ? Perhaps there was some deal under the table ?

Perhaps Iran didn't want to get embroiled in another war so soon after the Iran-Iran war when the economy was in recovery mode ? In any case, even then Iran could have completely decimated the Taliban. Even without sending in ground troops, continuous airstrikes would have probably led the Taliban losing a substantial amount of territory and clout. With a limited amount of elite units, Iran could have easily replicated what the US did in 2003. The issue is what would come afterwards ?

Sending in troops into Afghanistan has been disastrous for the Soviet Union and now the USA. Perhaps Iran was afraid of the instability that would surely follow in the aftermath ? Perhaps they were afraid that it would lead to an unstable border and an influx of more Afghan refugees ?

Remember back then the Taliban were on the verge of banning the Opium trade ? Perhaps that had something to do with Khamenei's decision not to retaliate ? In any case I still think Iran should have responded firmly and decisively to the Talibans heinous act against Iran's embassy. Again who knows what happened behind closed doors.

Fair enough.

As for the US Eagle Claw operation, the US didn't declare war on Iran. Moreover, attacking a UNSC permanent member's territory won't go unpunished. I'm not sure whether legally the US could invoke a casus belli. As for the Taliban incident with Iranian diplomats, Iran didn't attack Afghanistan at the end. Did we?

 

[TruthHurtz]

Back then, Iran should have launched airstrikes on the Taliban, wiped out their very minor airforce quickly and then perhaps some bases or weapons depots. I'm not sure why Iran didn't take action ? From what I heard the Taliban apologized ? Perhaps there was some deal under the table ?

Perhaps Iran didn't want to get embroiled in another war so soon after the Iran-Iran war when the economy was in recovery mode ? In any case, even then Iran could have completely decimated the Taliban. Even without sending in ground troops, continuous airstrikes would have probably led the Taliban losing a substantial amount of territory and clout. With a limited amount of elite units, Iran could have easily replicated what the US did in 2003. The issue is what would come afterwards ?

Sending in troops into Afghanistan has been disastrous for the Soviet Union and now the USA. Perhaps Iran was afraid of the instability that would surely follow in the aftermath ? Perhaps they were afraid that it would lead to an unstable border and an influx of more Afghan refugees ?

Remember back then the Taliban were on the verge of banning the Opium trade ? Perhaps that had something to do with Khamenei's decision not to retaliate ? In any case I still think Iran should have responded firmly and decisively to the Talibans heinous act against Iran's embassy. Again who knows what happened behind closed doors.

Iran did retaliate. And Soleimani payed the price 20 years later. Never work with Americans.

 

[TheImmortal]

Iran did retaliate. And Soleimani payed the price 20 years later. Never work with Americans.

What does one (Iran helping in 2000) have to do with the other (Solemani)?

Solemani helped in Afghanistan then killed servicemen in Iraq years later. And Gahani worked the Afghanistan file not Solemani. Solemani Quds Force killed hundreds of US servicemen through covert Quds force operations. He was well known in Marine circles.

Solemani knew when the US wanted him off the board they could take him at anytime. I mean the dude carried cellphones on him, compare that to Nasrallah that hides in a fortified bunker in Lebanon.

Let’s not act like the man didn’t have blood on his hands. He was a patriot and did what needed to be done in the messy world of geopolitics and war. A necessary evil that had to exist for his country. But let’s not whitewash his crimes or that of America either.

Everyone’s hands have blood on them in this game, eventually the Reaper comes knocking for everyone.

 

[ashool]

What does one (Iran helping in 2000) have to do with the other (Solemani)?

Solemani helped in Afghanistan then killed servicemen in Iraq years later. And Gahani worked the Afghanistan file not Solemani. Solemani Quds Force killed hundreds of US servicemen through covert Quds force operations. He was well known in Marine circles.

Solemani knew when the US wanted him off the board they could take him at anytime. I mean the dude carried cellphones on him, compare that to Nasrallah that hides in a fortified bunker in Lebanon.

Let’s not act like the man didn’t have blood on his hands. He was a patriot and did what needed to be done in the messy world of geopolitics and war. A necessary evil that had to exist for his country. But let’s not whitewash his crimes or that of America either.

Everyone’s hands have blood on them in this game, eventually the Reaper comes knocking for everyone.

what do you mean by evil is solaimani goto cuba or canada to kills americans to beacame evil yes he ordered to kill usa army but its not like he kill them bic he liked it its bic they are evil and he like angle kill these little satans so he is not blood on his hands its its about what are you r\thinking and howand for what .i dont think you born in iran or even know about our culture

 

[Philosopher]

Just been revisiting the videos around the Iran missile strike on US air base and the statements by the soldiers. The theme is them being utterly horrified and feeling helpless. The devastation by these ballistic missiles is obviously large but then I was reminded these were caused by "only" Fateh-313 and Qiams. Now you can imagine what something like Khorramshahr with its 1800 Kg warhead traveling at mach 12-15 would do.

 

[raptor22]

Anyone knows anything about this? every single missile has one of this? or it launch all if them?

 

[raptor22]

Anyone knows anything about this? every single missile has one of this? or it launch all if them?
View attachment 634699 View attachment 634701

No one doesn't know?

 

[PeeD]

Its the launch control of the TEL.

The crew always leaves the TEL to safe distance since there is always the risk of malfunction or attack.