you still think USA will fight like Russia fight.
Iran's longer range missiles would have taken aim at the large static infrastructure underlying USA air power. Short range missiles could have fulfilled an auxiliary role against such an enemy.
the technology improved a lot since then , but those TELs technology didn't improved much.
* Iran responded by diversifying her BM launch options, including with the addition of platforms that are indestructible by conventional means.
* Iran's terrain offers much better opportunities for dissimulation and is thrice as vast as Iraq's.
* Iran has focused much more than Iraq on camouflaging TEL's, constructing (underground) hideouts from where they can be deployed speedily and where they can find shelter just as quickly.
* Iran has extensively trained its missile crews to enhance their mobility and enable rapid reaction.
* Iran has several times the number of advanced decoys than Iraq used to have.
* Last but not least, Iran has a far greater number of TEL's than Iraq ever did.
Given the above, even the USA military with its surveillance capabilities would find it hard to eliminate suffcient numbers of Iranian TEL's in time.
are you aware the target you mentioned are way outside the range of Fateh-110 and shahab-3 added to our arsenal in july 2003, and fateh-110 also mass produced in 2003-2004
so exactly what what missile was supposed to rain on those targets. unguided version of Zelzal, Shahab-1, Sjhahab-2 ? which one . i'm more intrested to knew which one was supposed to reach Tel Aviv and Haifa
It's preferable to take into account the ground reality rather than to reason in a theoretical vacuum. The USA regime chose to attack Iraq instead of Iran in late March 2003 because starting with the smaller and weaker countries and encircling Iran in the process made more logical sense for them. This strategy was observable from the outset of their West Asian military campaigns in late 2001.
From Iran's perspective the two main targets, where the bulk of USA air power would have been stationed (Al-Udeid air force base in Qatar and the naval support facility for their aircraft carriers in Bahrein) were within range of Shahab-2 ballistic missiles from as early as 1990. By 2003, Iran was fielding many hundreds if not thousands of these.
However, I'm focusing on the realistic scenarii. Concrete and plausible threat of a massive military aggression by the empire arose from around 2009, because asymmetric Iranian power had contributed to bogging the enemy down in Iraq. By the time the Iraqi insurgency had abated, Iran was in possession of hundreds of Shahab-3's including Shahab-3B and -3C variants with their triconic warhead sections and lower CEP.
Iran anticipated, developed and put into production her first MRBM at an accelerated pace and thus ensured her security for the succeeding years.
well i don't call that defeat , they preventing Israel reach its goals, but at the time of ceasefire Israel was inside Lebanon and was advancing. and after the ceasefire it was hezbollah that agreed to this clause in ceasefire
"No armed forces other than UNIFIL and Lebanese (implying Hezbollah and Israeli forces) will be south of the
Litani River"
also the Unifel forces are in lebanon not Israel
This - not kill ratios nor the respective amount of material destruction caused, is what constitutes defeat in warfare: failure to reach previously defined political objectives.
The zionists agreed to the ceasefire because remaining in Lebanon would have cost them unbearable casualties to the tune of over a hundred per month.
As for the UNIFIL mission, it did not represent so much of a setback for Hezbollah since Hezbollah units continue to move up to the border with Occupied Palestine as they wish (they demonstrated it several times), and their mission to protect Lebanon from zionist aggression hasn't been hampered by the presence of the Blue Helmets.
It's basically the damage control narrative put forth by the zionists which fails to call this a defeat for Isra"el".
we began producing fateh and Shahab-3 in 2003 . we had some Shahab-2 but the bulk of our missiles were zelzal which at the time was very inaccurate
The main regional hubs of USA air power were within range of the Shahab-2.
and no why go after a carcass, go after the one who can bite you later.
Because for the neocons in charge in Washington, quick victories were required to make the tougher challenge politically acceptable - both to their public and more importantly to elements within their political establishment whose preference goes towards pursuing the very same goals through means other than direct military aggression.
And because invading a country with the geographic depth of Iran via the Afghan border alone would have been more hazardous and would have stretched thin supply lines and logistics more than invading from two different directions.
the power of imaginary enemy is very strong , iraq was no use for them it was beaten , fallen on the ground and completely broken .they could not make a boogeyman of it . on other hand Iran was another thing , the best boogeyman to present to arab sheikhs as we saw in the next 20 years how much they benefitted by promote fear of iran in the region.
It's exactly as I announced in my first comment on the subject: questioning Iran's deterrence power leaves no option other than to try and suggest the zio-American empire's hostility against Iran has been weaker than its enmity towards Saddam or the Taleban.
Whilst in reality, Islamic Iran has been challenging and causing damage to zio-American imperialist interests in a far more intensive manner than the two above mentioned actors combined.
And whilst the bogeyman argument doesn't hold water. It's a talking point mostly produced by foreigners with a grudge against Iran (including on this forum). Fact is that PGCC arms imports from the USA had been on a steady rise for decades prior to the Islamic Revolution already. Client states will systematically tend to purchase weaponry from their imperial patrons, whether the spectre of a bogeyman is raised or not. Furthermore assuming they actually had the choice not to comply with Washington's expectations, PGCC rulers wouldn't be dumb to the point of getting fooled by a such a political maneuver.
Likewise, a glimpse at American conduct vis à vis Iran since the Islamic Revolution will illustrate the fact that an indisputable "regime change" agenda has been at work on Washington's part, exhibiting every trait of such a policy and quite often to historically unprecedented degrees. This goes for the colossal anti-IR propaganda and psy-ops Iranians are being subjected to day and night at the hands of media sponsored by the USA, EU, zionists and their regional allies, on a magnitude and with a vehemence hardly witnessed before. Washington is also seen propping up about every exiled Iranian opposition group there is, regardless of political orientation. Anti-Iranian separatist and terrorist groups are benefiting from American largesse, as do regional proxies of all kinds. The sanctions imposed on Iran, currently the toughest of their kind in the world, offer another piece of evidence as to the US regime's goals with regards to Iran.
we really had nothing to stop their air force at the time,
we had nothiong that could hit them , if we targetted their bases , th missile fall 1km beside it , probably on a city or village
Iran had an arsenal of ballistic missiles at her disposal which would have allowed her to interdict enemy use of air power. When CEP is lower, missiles are fired in salvos and will then score hits, especially on a structure as huge as a USA military air base (around 5x5 km). Even a single incoming BM will undermine normal levels of operation at an enemy air base. Especially given that their ABM shields used to be less advanced.
only the biggest missile have more range and we have one or two around persian gulf , you think how many 200km range missile at each time is ready in those area. and aalam-al-hoda is a radar , ti did say there is no problem in detecting the airplanes
Alam al-Hoda is also what the complete system (featuring the eponymous radar and Sadid-630 surface-to-air missiles) is usually called by analysts, for lack of official data.
Iran's air defences are fielding long range SAM's in sufficient amounts to be efficient. More importantly no hostile airborne raiding party can suppress Iran's retaliatory strike force before the latter successfully unleashes devastating strikes on the attacker's air bases.
when you leave the sky open to enemy they can bomb those exit thrice per day.
The area will be denied to the enemy by way of missiles and UAV's aiming at their airfields.
by the way usa is observing iran 24/7 from sky , you think they do not knew where the exit for those missile bases are?
To no avail. The missile cities are self-sufficient and can sustain themselves autonomously for remarkable periods of time. To neutralize them, nuclear strikes are the only option and even these would in all likelihood offer partial success rates only (not to mention their political and military fallout).
i didn't see any challenge at all. and also there was no will to attack iraq by foot
The Iraqi attempt to defend itself through classical means sealed that country's fate.
there is no such thing , if it was the case we saw the missiles . every missile target is calculated and feed into missile at the time of launch and the TELs are not in position , they are driven out of the base sent to a coordinate and then they fire the missile
Missile farms are in static positions, so are ballistic missiles inside subterranean mountain bases. There's no reason not to feed the missiles with coordinates of enemy air bases in advance. Calculations for these targets are invariable since air bases and their constitutive key elements are deprived of mobility.
