Iranian Navy | News and Discussions

[TheImmortal]

My friend, do you really think that's the measured option? That's the nuclear option! The option that can cause absolute havoc for every country in the world, that can easily multiply the oil price, that will push everyone in the west to act against you. That's what Iran does if it thinks the US is going for the jugular.

What are you talking about. Iran has already done that before in the Iran-Iraq tanker oil wars. Thus there is precedent and the world would run to get a ceasefire and stop the bleeding because there is nothing short of invasion that would stop Iran from harassing oil tankers and Saudi oil fields. Thus the world will look at the least confrontational option which is to broker a ceasefire.

On the other hand if you even cause 100 US troop casualties attacking a single navy Destroyer then NO and I repeat NO US president since Jimmy Carter will back down for fear of looking “weak” against Iran. Iran would be bombed into the Stone Age.

So yes the most realistic option for Iran is one where it causes damage to Arab infastructure (Saudi oil fields, pipelines, storage) and causing severe economic pain to the West while at the same time avoiding causing direct casualties to US military.

Once a ceasefire is implemented at Russia and China insistence on behalf of Iran, then Iran will pull out of NPT and race to aquire nuclear weapons.

I can’t believe some members here think Iran will wage all out war against the US. Some of you have read too many IRGC propaganda press releases.

Iran’s entire current war doctrine is about limited and confined skirmish and becoming a nuclear power if is attacked.... not a massive war it has no hopes of winning.

 

[AmirPatriot]

Iran has already done that before in the Iran-Iraq tanker oil wars.

No we didn't. We didn't close the straits. We sunk Iraqi tankers and tankers carrying Iraqi oil. There is a great distinction between the two. 40% of the world's oil passes through the straits. Whereas there was barely any upward change in the oil price at the start of the tanker war.

On the other hand if you even cause 100 US troop casualties attacking a single navy Destroyer then NO and I repeat NO US president since Jimmy Carter will back down for fear of looking “weak” against Iran. Iran would be bombed into the Stone Age.

That's the plan.

Well, the plan isn't that Iran is bombed to the stone age. The plan is that Iran says to the west, essentially, it's all or nothing. If you want to fight us, you have to land on our beaches, fight your way to Tehran, and then occupy 80 million people.

What US President would want to do that? None since Vietnam, I don't think. So why stop at a destroyer? Try and take out a carrier. Choke off the world's oil supply. Shoot missiles at every US ally in the region. Get Hezbollah to attack Israel. Raise hell.

This is the same theory that MAD goes by.

Once a ceasefire is implemented at Russia and China insistence on behalf of Iran, then Iran will pull out of NPT and race to aquire nuclear weapons.

And end up like North Korea? No thanks.

Iran’s entire current war doctrine is about limited and confined skirmish

Iran doesn't have a war doctrine. Iran has a deterrence doctrine. Our entire military, from the army to the navy up to the missile forces, is designed to be as much of a bitch and a pain in the *** and a quagmire as possible.

We don't want war with the US. We want the exact opposite of that. So we have to make the US not want to attack us as much as possible.

 

[Oldman1]

I assume you meant Britain. because the fear of getting mighty Bahrain involved....lol. especially considering the fact they are enemy state, and host major military assets designed to confront iran. let me put it simply for you my friend. if the US is attacking iran. then iran will respond to any state or entity that is helping them.

if its brits, Bahrainis, Saudis etc... anybody who lets their territory be used for military ops against iran has already declared war.

There is no guarantee because some host nations may refuse to allow any possible attacks on another country. For example Turkey not allowing the U.S. to invade Iraq from there. Attacking Bahrain or other countries that may not be involved risk getting more countries to join forces against you.

this topic has been widely covered already. There is no question in my mind iran can and would anahilate the 5th fleet incase of any American aggression.

and praying mantis is as relevant as the ww2 photo you posted.

iran developed its entire strategy based on the lessons of preying mantis and studying American tactics. to even mention preying mantis tells me how little you know about the subject to be honest.

last thing I want to point out is the motivation factor. For the US their presence in the Persian gulf is a matter of ambition. They see themselves as the kings of the world and see it as their right to be hegemons everywhere.

For iran this is a matter of survival. this is our home, we have nowhere to go. The americans could leave tomorrow and nothing would happen to them. If iran and the US were border countries and both fighting for survival then you could say yes iran might be in trouble.

that is why its a miscalculation to assume that iran will be intimidated by the US/Britain if its homeland was getting bombed. In such a scenario all the gloves would immidiatly come off and iran would slaughter any American/western assets troops close to Iranian territory.

that is why nobody has dared directly attack iran. They know what iran is capable of, and how it will respond to such aggression. and for them its simply a war that's not even close to being worth it.

Sorry but there is no guarantee that Iran can and will destroy the 5th Fleet. Your crazy thinking that you can destroy all the bases in the Middle East because you don't have enough missiles or the platforms to do so. You really don't. Don't try to do what Saddam did and have the Mother of All Battles mentality.

 

[skyshadow]

 

[Stryker1982]

View attachment 466753

Do these teach trigger discipline in Iran?

 

[Bahram Esfandiari]

Do these teach trigger discipline in Iran?

They do. This is one of the very few pictures I've seen of Iranian troops with their fingers on the trigger. Considering their ranks this is totally unacceptable!

 

[skyshadow]

Do these teach trigger discipline in Iran?

Yes, they teach and it is very important for the them. And violating this law is punishable for the soldiers.

 

[sanel1412]

Do these teach trigger discipline in Iran?

Thats what soldiers do for photo shuting..not only Iranian soldiers but everywhere..I don't know why but but they mostly put finger on trigger ...also their weapons are empty(probably disabled also).... weapons used on ceremonies are disabled for security reason...you can see wholes on weapons on ejection ports because charging/bolt handler is got stucked when last shell/bullet was ejected...it means there is no bullets in magazine, and after magazine is reloaded soldier needs to release charging handle ...on it's way back this handler will also put bullet in barrel from magazine.Now in most armed forces,weapons used on parade and ceremony are not only empty but also disabled.Any way, like I say you can see this all the time even with loaded weapons when soldiers are picturing themselfs.In Iranian case on all weapons used by soldiers on parades you will alway see charge/bolt handler in this position even you can close it on empty weapons manualy..

 

[sahureka2]

Yes, some civilian images from 12 days ago says the same:

https://twitter.com/x/status/978511315672150017

They cut the ship and transfered to factory for repair.
View attachment 464406

View attachment 464408

View attachment 464409

photo posted yesterday
the bow of the Damavand has been removed
the crane seems to work on the stern

 

[N_Al40]

Maybe Iran can take something from this

https://twitter.com/x/status/986312628443254785

Much better than simply waiting for US Warships to hit a naval mine that can be detected and possibly destroyed

 

[Tokhme khar]

What did NATO's month long round the clock bombing of Serbia achieve?......lol

Are you old enough to answer this, or would you have to read up on this one?

What are you talking about. Iran has already done that before in the Iran-Iraq tanker oil wars. Thus there is precedent and the world would run to get a ceasefire and stop the bleeding because there is nothing short of invasion that would stop Iran from harassing oil tankers and Saudi oil fields. Thus the world will look at the least confrontational option which is to broker a ceasefire.

On the other hand if you even cause 100 US troop casualties attacking a single navy Destroyer then NO and I repeat NO US president since Jimmy Carter will back down for fear of looking “weak” against Iran. Iran would be bombed into the Stone Age.

So yes the most realistic option for Iran is one where it causes damage to Arab infastructure (Saudi oil fields, pipelines, storage) and causing severe economic pain to the West while at the same time avoiding causing direct casualties to US military.

Once a ceasefire is implemented at Russia and China insistence on behalf of Iran, then Iran will pull out of NPT and race to aquire nuclear weapons.

I can’t believe some members here think Iran will wage all out war against the US. Some of you have read too many IRGC propaganda press releases.

Iran’s entire current war doctrine is about limited and confined skirmish and becoming a nuclear power if is attacked.... not a massive war it has no hopes of winning.

 

[yavar]

 

[N_Al40]

https://twitter.com/x/status/987563465266139136

 

[sha ah]

Maybe Iran can take something from this

https://twitter.com/x/status/986312628443254785

Much better than simply waiting for US Warships to hit a naval mine that can be detected and possibly destroyed

In any case the enemy can just wait 12 hours & then destroy this expensive toy

 

[yavar]