IRIAF | News and Discussions

[SalarHaqq]

They can cross into Iraq and reach Iranian border in 2 hours. The chance is very low, but technically possible.

The statement I was responding was factually incorrect. USA troop concentrations would get hit before they could move in any direction. In Iraq, the PMU will intercept them.

Some of you guys here have a bit of a delusion when it comes to US military. They have alot of capability and full control of the escalation ladder.

We know what Iran's limits are, and destroying bases in the initial phase does not mean the end of US military power. They still have alot of strategic bombers. Once these bases are leveled, their are no more targets, i.e. they will just continue using strategic bombers from long ranges without any recourse directly on Iranian mainland. Can Iran respond to the US mainland? (no). This by default means, Iran will lose decades worth of infrastructure that will take billions to rebuild, while the US only takes military and equipment casualties. This is what the end of the escalation ladder leads towards.

If the USA regime resorts to continuous strikes with strategic bombers from outside the range of Iranian missiles, Iran will have the possibility to exit the NPT and manufacture nuclear weapons in a matter of days. Outright defeating the purpose of such a campaign of aggression.

Also the quoted comment is not properly reflecting the ratio of valuable infrastructure in Iran to the kind of long range air-to-ground munitions USA bombers would have to fire. Given the limited number of such aircraft and the limited number of relevant munitions at the disposal of the USA military, it would take them decades to incapacitate the innumerable infrastructures of Iran.

Last but not least and as user mohsen pointed out, as long as the USA has a presence and concrete interests in regions surrounding Iran, Iran and her allies will have targets to strike at. This includes the zionist entity, which will come under fire.

Therefore Iran will have viable escalation options under any scenario.

limit needs to be removed, and has dire consequences and hopefully they've already removed it secretly years ago.

Been lifted openly already with the Khorramshahr BM.

Longer range missiles would add another retaliatory option, but Iran's security does not hinge upon them. Current capabilities are deterrent enough.

They will fire 10,000 missiles at Iran. Iran will fire 10,000 missiles back. The difference is that infrastructure inside Iran will be destroy, and bases 8000km from their borders will be destroyed. This is completely unfavorable.

Imagine the impact it would have on the USA's status as gobal hegemon if they were to lose all their regional bases in a war with Iran.

The cost of such a confrontation onto itself itself is beyond their threshold of tolerance, so the equation definitely favors Iran not the Americans. Which in essence is the reason why no military aggression has taken place to this day.

Also 10,000 missiles won't destroy Iran's infrastructure, the number needed would be in the hundreds of thousands because their target list would be at least five to six times, probably tens of times greater than it was against Iraq in so-called Operation Desert Storm, during which they dropped no less than 29,199 bombs as well as launching hundreds of cruise missiles. That's without counting the destruction they caused in 1991 and in-between the two wars, which Iraq never got the chance to repair.

---

In the Gulf War, the U.S. military dropped 88,000 tons of bombs on Iraq in just 42 days, destroying the entire country.
Complete destruction of all electrical infrastructure, vital factories, oil-related facilities, oil tankers, and military centers.
Iraq has literally fallen back to medieval levels as civilization has collapsed.
This is the equivalent of 170,000 Russian Kalibr cruise missiles!!.
That is more than 300 times the bombing Russia has done over the course of a year, or 4,000 times the pace per month.
This is the destructive power of the U.S. military, and we must face reality.

In the 2003 invasion of Iraq, 3,000 missiles and guided bombs were dropped on Baghdad on the first day alone.
This is not ten times more than the attack that took the Russians a year to carry out.
The Iraqis instantly lost the will to fight and became irresistible.

Moreover, today, there are many fighter aircraft with powerful ground attack capabilities, such as the F-15E and F-35.
The order of magnitude of attack capability is different from those days when we had to rely on old and poor attack aircraft.
It is no exaggeration to say that the U.S. military claimed it could completely destroy Iran in three months.

To reiterate: they will have no bases, no runways to conduct those strikes from. Iran unlike the Iraq of 2003, has what it takes to make sure of that.

You keep repeating the same line while presenting such a hypothetical conflict as a one-sided affair, as if the defender wasn't capable of retaliating. Any analogy with the so-called "Gulf Wars" would be perfectly detached from reality.

 

[HGV]

In the Gulf War, the U.S. military dropped 88,000 tons of bombs on Iraq in just 42 days, destroying the entire country.
Complete destruction of all electrical infrastructure, vital factories, oil-related facilities, oil tankers, and military centers.
Iraq has literally fallen back to medieval levels as civilization has collapsed.
This is the equivalent of 170,000 Russian Kalibr cruise missiles!!.
That is more than 300 times the bombing Russia has done over the course of a year, or 4,000 times the pace per month.
This is the destructive power of the U.S. military, and we must face reality.

In the 2003 invasion of Iraq, 3,000 missiles and guided bombs were dropped on Baghdad on the first day alone.
This is not ten times more than the attack that took the Russians a year to carry out.
The Iraqis instantly lost the will to fight and became irresistible.

Moreover, today, there are many fighter aircraft with powerful ground attack capabilities, such as the F-15E and F-35.
The order of magnitude of attack capability is different from those days when we had to rely on old and poor attack aircraft.
It is no exaggeration to say that the U.S. military claimed it could completely destroy Iran in three months.

There are many major differences which make your attempted comparison relatively worthless.

The US achieved that impressive sortie rate by attacking from six carrier strike groups situated in the Persian Gulf and from bases in neighbouring Saudi Arabia. For obvious reasons, none of this will be possible against Iran.

Iraq was qualitatively outmatched by US AirPower and not prepared for asymmetrical warfare at all. By contrast, Iran has been imposing its asymmetric military doctrine for decades, learning the lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan and adapting so the Americans cannot use the same methods in Iran. For example, underground missile bases, underground drone and air bases, underground air defence tunnels, mobile and survivable AD systems, underground missile launch canisters, ballistic missile silos - all dispersed widely across Iran (4x the size of Iraq with far more mountainous terrain).

While it wouldn't be as simple, quick or clear-cut as you and others suggest, it is indeed true that no one should doubt the ability of the US military to cause large-scale devastation of military and civilian sites in Iran. Military-induced regime change, however, would require an ungodly number of troops (> 1 million) and short of Iran launching a direct strike on the US mainland, is not plausible.

 

[SalarHaqq]

While it wouldn't be as simple, quick or clear-cut as you and others suggest, it is indeed true that no one should doubt the ability of the US military to cause large-scale devastation of military and civilian sites in Iran. Military-induced regime change, however, would require an ungodly number of troops (> 1 million) and short of Iran launching a direct strike on the US mainland, is not plausible.

Every military effort is designed to serve a pre-defined political goal. The US regime may pursue two plausible objectives in a military aggression against Islamic Iran: toppling Iran' political system and/or depriving Iran of her potential nuclear break-out capability. In both cases, the cost-benefit calculus is unfavorable for the enemy.

 

[Muhammed45]

In the Gulf War, the U.S. military dropped 88,000 tons of bombs on Iraq in just 42 days, destroying the entire country.
Complete destruction of all electrical infrastructure, vital factories, oil-related facilities, oil tankers, and military centers.
Iraq has literally fallen back to medieval levels as civilization has collapsed.
This is the equivalent of 170,000 Russian Kalibr cruise missiles!!.
That is more than 300 times the bombing Russia has done over the course of a year, or 4,000 times the pace per month.
This is the destructive power of the U.S. military, and we must face reality.

In the 2003 invasion of Iraq, 3,000 missiles and guided bombs were dropped on Baghdad on the first day alone.
This is not ten times more than the attack that took the Russians a year to carry out.
The Iraqis instantly lost the will to fight and became irresistible.

Moreover, today, there are many fighter aircraft with powerful ground attack capabilities, such as the F-15E and F-35.
The order of magnitude of attack capability is different from those days when we had to rely on old and poor attack aircraft.
It is no exaggeration to say that the U.S. military claimed it could completely destroy Iran in three months.

Hey genius, have you ever heard of A2AD?

It's simple logic.

They will fire 10,000 missiles at Iran. Iran will fire 10,000 missiles back. The difference is that infrastructure inside Iran will be destroy, and bases 8000km from their borders will be destroyed. This is completely unfavorable.

I know IRGC fully technologically ready to make ICBMs, the question is how many? You should also remember what Hajizadeh said as well. He said full scale war with USA will throw everything back atleast 20 years. This is why I've always been infavour of nuclear missiles, so that these costs do not have to be paided.

Spend $300 million dollars to build an ICBM fleet of nuclear warheads, to avoid having to spend billions in just repairing infrastructure and re-arming military after a fight.


One of the key differences was the simple fact that US had completely control of the air, and smooth operations in airfields. This will not be the case with Iran. Iran will kill their ability to smoothly operate in the air. But what this does tell you is that if the USA has full access and full smoothness of operations without disruption, it can use vast amounts of munitions that cannot be countered.

Nuclear war with USA is suicide. Iran won't use nuclear warheads against USA. Question is, what is your purpose of a possible conflict with USA?

In any case, USA will be the aggressor with no doubt. This will provide Iran with an excuse to limit any war scenario to Conventional conflict. Iranian nuclear threshold is about a couple of weeks. If they use nuclear warheads then Iran will respond in the same way. Wall street and white house would be enough.

Hajizadeh is right. You cannot expect Iran to remain untouched after war with USA.

But its going to be a suicide for USA too. Iran will cut their arms in middle east and beyond. They will completely lose their oily Arab lackies.

Solution to countering American threats has always been maximizing cost of attacking Iran. Till Iran makes itself free of economic chains. That's when you can expect big things from Iran.

 

[HGV]

Every military effort is designed to serve a pre-defined political goal. The US regime may pursue two plausible objectives in a military aggression against Islamic Iran: toppling Iran' political system and/or depriving Iran of her potential nuclear break-up capability. In both cases, the cost-benefit calculus is unfavorable for the enemy.

There are other plausible military objectives, such as military reprisals designed to punish or military strikes designed to degrade Iran's ability to defend itself or to retaliate.

That aside, I mostly agree with what you said, especially with regard to regime change. The latter is unfavourable only to the extent the US believes Iran would respond by withdrawing from the NPT and making the decision to produce nuclear weapons. The US (or more likely, Israel) may well infer from Iran's extreme reluctance to proceed to that objective to date that it would not do so even in response to a major strike, thus they would be less inclined to refrain from doing so.

The pace of Iran's responses to Trump's withdrawal from the JCPOA, the pace of 60% enrichment and installation of IR-6 centrifuges today, Iran's response to the assassination of Soleimani and other top IRGC generals, Iran's unilateral concessions to the IAEA whilst under total economic warfare recently and many other events indicate that Iran may not react so severely.

 

[sanel1412]

Iran defense minister 2 days ago: "Iran expecting delivery of SU35,as till now,Iran didnt recived yet any..but more impoetantly,He said Iran doesnt need S400 ..."

 

[jauk]

It's simple logic.

They will fire 10,000 missiles at Iran. Iran will fire 10,000 missiles back. The difference is that infrastructure inside Iran will be destroy, and bases 8000km from their borders will be destroyed. This is completely unfavorable.

I know IRGC fully technologically ready to make ICBMs, the question is how many? You should also remember what Hajizadeh said as well. He said full scale war with USA will throw everything back atleast 20 years. This is why I've always been infavour of nuclear missiles, so that these costs do not have to be paided.

Spend $300 million dollars to build an ICBM fleet of nuclear warheads, to avoid having to spend billions in just repairing infrastructure and re-arming military after a fight.


One of the key differences was the simple fact that US had completely control of the air, and smooth operations in airfields. This will not be the case with Iran. Iran will kill their ability to smoothly operate in the air. But what this does tell you is that if the USA has full access and full smoothness of operations without disruption, it can use vast amounts of munitions that cannot be countered.

Your entire conclusion based on your first sentence is incorrect. Iran WILL overwhelmingly win the ‘fire war’. Man up and don’t be such a negative ninny.

 

[SalarHaqq]

The US (or more likely, Israel) may well infer from Iran's extreme reluctance to proceed to that objective to date that it would not do so even in response to a major strike, thus they would be less inclined to refrain from doing so.

The pace of Iran's responses to Trump's withdrawal from the JCPOA, the pace of 60% enrichment and installation of IR-6 centrifuges today, Iran's response to the assassination of Soleimani and other top IRGC generals, Iran's unilateral concessions to the IAEA whilst under total economic warfare recently and many other events indicate that Iran may not react so severely.

Well, they don't seem to be so sure about that. I see no other reason for their reluctance to launch military aggression.

Such an action would fall into a different category altogether. It's arguably not so much in Iran's interest to escalate massively at the military level in case of assassinations, sabotage and economic warfare so long as these don't prove too detrimental in the overall geostrategic balance.

A contrario mild response to any serious aggression would encourage the enemy to initiate a cycle of measures guaranteed to be fatal. Hence why Iranian retaliation can be expected to be overwhelming under such a scenario. There've been numerous statements from Iranian officials to that effect.

 

[HGV]

Well, they don't seem to be so sure about that. I see no other reason for their reluctance to launch military aggression.

Such an action would fall into a different category altogether. It's arguably not so much in Iran's interest to escalate massively at the military level in case of assassinations, sabotage and economic warfare so long as these don't prove too detrimental in the overall geostrategic balance.

A contrario mild response to any serious aggression would encourage the enemy to initiate a cycle of measures guaranteed to be fatal. Hence why Iranian retaliation can be expected to be overwhelming under such a scenario. There've been numerous statements from Iranian officials to that effect.

Agreed, but it's a question of judgment and those factors I indicated can sway one's judgment in a particular direction (which would not be favourable to Iran).

The more Iranian officials box themselves in by promising great responses, the more likely that will be, of course. But Iranian generals also promised a strong response to the assassination of Fakhrizadeh and nothing happened. Indeed, Trump promised an almighty response targeting 52 Iranian sites (including historical and cultural sites) but did not follow through. So not all claims are worthy of being taken seriously.

 

[Stryker1982]

Your entire conclusion based on your first sentence is incorrect. Iran WILL overwhelmingly win the ‘fire war’. Man up and don’t be such a negative ninny.

Forgive me that I am pessimistic lol.

 

[sanel1412]

Iran’s Mission to the United Nations confirmed to Semafor that it has finalized a deal with Moscow to purchase advanced Sukhoi SU-35 fighter jets — the first official confirmation of a high-stakes transaction with implications from the front lines in Ukraine to the delicate balance of power in the Middle East.

Tehran’s statement follows my Monday story that detailed secret efforts by Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates to lobby the Kremlin against making the sale

Iranian official says purchase of Russian fighter jets complete | Semafor

Iran has completed its purchase of advanced Russian SU-35 fighter jets, a high-stakes transaction with implications from the front lines in Ukraine to the delicate balance of power in the Middle East.

www.semafor.com

 

[tsunset]

The Saudi and Emirati military, owning a whole fleet of USA and western advanced fighters and helicopters, is worried by Iran purchasing 24 Su-35 and helicopters.

The west cannot lobby against sales anymore and Russia is facing lobbying from meaningless states such as Israel and other western protectorates.

The west, which leads AWACS patrols every day around Russia and Ukraine, telling the Ukrainian army what to do, assisting with satellites and having direct contact and order Ukraine what to do, also being on the ground inside Ukraine with instructors and secret agency officers, cannot make a distinction between selling weapons and being involved in the war on the battlefield.

The west is comparing Iran selling drones to Russia with themselves being inside Ukraine, around Ukraine and Russia and completely assisting the Ukrainian army being their proxy.

The western regime are hypocrites in white collars.

 

[sanel1412]

The Saudi and Emirati military, owning a whole fleet of USA and western advanced fighters and helicopters, is worried by Iran purchasing 24 Su-35 and helicopters.

The west cannot lobby against sales anymore and Russia is facing lobbying from meaningless states such as Israel and other western protectorates.

The west, which leads AWACS patrols every day around Russia and Ukraine, telling the Ukrainian army what to do, assisting with satellites and having direct contact and order Ukraine what to do, also being on the ground inside Ukraine with instructors and secret agency officers, cannot make a distinction between selling weapons and being involved in the war on the battlefield.

The west is comparing Iran selling drones to Russia with themselves being inside Ukraine, around Ukraine and Russia and completely assisting the Ukrainian army being their proxy.

The western regime are hypocrites in white collars.

Not 24,it is 64 in total...but this include 24 for Egypt with some changes,and it seems those changes are reason why they could not deliver it before...I dont know why some sources claim it 24,but 64 is total order. I hope we will get more information,since what I hear,Iran-Russia military cooperation is getting huge priportion,just tracking air and sea traffic in last 3 months can give some picture. Any way will see,but I heard just in first stage Iran will purchase 10 bilion worth weapons,considering cooperation goes both way,now is best time for Iran to make trade

 

[glablo]

After the revolution, the U.S. immediately launched a war of aggression against Iraq.
After that war was over, the U.S. invaded Iraq, and next became eager to seize territory in Yugoslavia.
Soon after 911, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, then Iraq, and the situation became a quagmire.
Without a break, it was busy invading Syria and Libya, and then overthrew an elected government in Ukraine.

In other words, the U.S. was simply too busy invading other countries to have time to attack Iran.
We would do well to remember that.

North Korea took advantage of this time to boldly become a nuclear power, but Iran remains dangerous because it has no time on its side.

Once the war in Ukraine is over, the only country left for the U.S. to target is Iran.
I believe that this is the last period of time given to Iran.
Su-35, better than nothing, but not enough.

 

[tsunset]

After the revolution, the U.S. immediately launched a war of aggression against Iraq.
After that war was over, the U.S. invaded Iraq, and next became eager to seize territory in Yugoslavia.
Soon after 911, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, then Iraq, and the situation became a quagmire.
Without a break, it was busy invading Syria and Libya, and then overthrew an elected government in Ukraine.

In other words, the U.S. was simply too busy invading other countries to have time to attack Iran.
We would do well to remember that.

North Korea took advantage of this time to boldly become a nuclear power, but Iran remains dangerous because it has no time on its side.

Once the war in Ukraine is over, the only country left for the U.S. to target is Iran.
I believe that this is the last period of time given to Iran.
Su-35, better than nothing, but not enough.

Are you an US/NATO shill? All of your posts say that the US and NATO are the best and that Iran would get invaded in 1 month and Iran escaped invasion, that GBU-28 would destroy any Iran underground base

You really think US was really willing to launch a direct military attack on Iran in the late 2000s and get away with it? Iran is not Lybia or Syria, look since 40years spending trillions in propaganda, psyop and covert operation, they cannot at all remove the current government

When Soleimani was killed, the people were unified against the perceived white US threat, you think Iranian people will surrender and side with the US?

The west is currently printing trillions of money and sending billions of aid to skinheads in Ukraine, you do really think they are going to step foots or send their air force inside Iran and get away with it? They wouldn't even step a foot in Tehran and get all their bases, protectorates and US homeland and European cities struck, Iran has currently more than enough firepower to respond to western threats and invader and inflicting huge personnel and infrastructure damage.

If anyone thinks like Saddam, that Iran would get invaded and captured in 1 week by the mighty unstoppable US air force, that everyone will surrender and jump on the white American savior either overrestimate the US army or advocate for the use of nuclear weapons.

The US and its allies (South Korea, Japan, Brits, France) launched 7.7million of tons of bombs including chemical agent on Vietnam, yet they lost with more than 50000 US soldiers eliminated/executed.

The only thing that the west would surely do in case of war is to nuclear blackmail Iran, the west cannot stand huge personnel losses since the WW2 trauma, their technological assets won't matter since it would not be an assymetrical war and something like a B-2 sortie each costs tens of millions dollars, neither their mighty CAS propaganda such as AC-130s and A-10, Apaches, which are only effective against ISIS wahhabis would be used, like in Iraq when one of the AC-130 was shot down with a Strela manpads and ridiculously in Yemen. The money printing machine would be satured.

The US and Europe will undoubtedly be facing anothrr huge wave of terror attacks with the Ukraine support, just like when they put their nose inside Syria and Lybia.

the North Korea comparison is worthless, Lybia and Syria are currently and were weak, insignificant states, just like North Korea.