What's new

The US military assesses it could cripple the Iranian Navy in minutes and destroy it in 2 days

Its an try for white washing of Trump. You can see it clearly here

"But on this, nearly every U.S. official agrees: It was mostly luck that not a single American died, and the missile attack represented a huge gamble by Iran. Had they killed even a single U.S. soldier, Trump might have felt compelled to respond with a counterstrike."

This article is for US-internal use. To make the us citizens to believe all is ok and US is great and any war against any other country will be always a summer picknic with good tasting apple pie and a great budwiser.

You're cherry picking...


  • Minutes before the attack was to proceed last summer, Trump called it off, to the relief of some U.S. military officials who worried a strike inside Iran could escalate quickly into a wider conflict, according to the officials.
That doesn't sound like a "summer picknic with good tasting apple pie and a great budwiser" to me. In fact, that sounds like genuine worry, if not out right fear of a war that US military planners do not want.

How did you get white washing from that?

If an American had actually died, Trump WOULD have launched another strike against Iran.

Trump killed Iran's top general, do you really think he wouldn't do so again?

US military planners do NOT want a war with Iran. The US can win a war with Iran, but the war would take around 1.6 million US soldiers to do so, which is something they don't want to do.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/20/war-with-iran-would-be-mother-all-quagmires/
 
.
The Ameritards have fought a bunch of defenceless countries, murdered women and children, and made moovies glorifying their armed forces..... their problem is that they thought Iran is also a defenceless country...... after getting bitch slapped by Iran, they are going to put their Holywood system into overdrive to try to get back some of their lost pride.
an how is it bitch slapped by iran???? dude they turned your general into barbeques
 
.
So Iran can target your expensive F-35 aircrafts parked in Saudi and UAE Air bases with precise ballistic missiles which will rain down cluster munitions (covering 200m x 200m area) on top of your F-35s and runways.

Ballistic missiles with unitary warhead will target fuel depots with pinpoint precision.
Pinpoint? :lol:

I think it is hilarious that Americans are accused of thinking waging a war is like playing video games or watching movies when am reading the definitive outcome of a US-Iran war written by those who were not around when I got orders to deploy to Desert Storm.

And this will bring to global recession....if you don't believe me...believe renowned Nouriel Roubini
https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...e-to-iran-tensions-by-nouriel-roubini-2020-01

Quotes:
" a full-scale war and the ensuing spike in oil prices and global recession would lead to regime change in the US, "

"According to an estimate by JPMorgan, a conflict that blocks the Strait of Hormuz for six months could drive up oil prices by 126%, to more than $150 per barrel, setting the stage for a severe global recession."

"Finally, a full-scale war could drive the price of oil above $150 per barrel, ushering in a severe global recession and a fall of over 30% for equities markets."
Before the shooting started, we read the same predictions about what a war with Iraq will result -- global economic depression. You are not spouting anything new.
 
.
When the military carried out President Donald Trump’s order to kill Iran’s top general, some hardened veterans of the decadeslong U.S.-Iran shadow war were troubled.

"Gobsmacked," was the single-word reaction of a former CIA officer who spent a career working against the targeted general, Qassem Soleimani, an Iranian spy master who helped kill hundreds of Americans.


The immediate concern was that Trump's move — the first known targeted killing of a foreign government official in recent decades — could set in motion a full-scale war, one that could crater the global economy, kill untold numbers of people and leave the United States stuck in yet another Middle East quagmire.

That hasn't happened — at least not yet.

An NBC News review of the events surrounding the Soleimani strike and the Iranian response, based on interviews with more than a dozen participants, shows that Washington and Tehran were closer to war than was generally understood. The officials provided new details, including that U.S. intelligence platforms observed the Iranians moving ballistic missiles and scattering their naval forces after Soleimani was killed, potential signs of an impending attack. Officials said the Americans were bracing for strikes on U.S. troops in Iraq by bomb-laden drones.

The U.S. opted not to thwart the Iranian attack officials saw coming, and in the end, no Americans were killed when Iranian missiles struck U.S. positions, defusing the situation temporarily. But the two sides remain in a dangerous boxer’s clench, in which the smallest miscalculation, some officials believe, could lead to disaster. And American intelligence officials fully expect that Iran will pursue a further response, likely some sort of terrorist attack or assassination that doesn’t have obvious fingerprints.


This week, Brian Hook, the U.S. special representative for Iran, warned Soleimani’s replacement that he "will meet the same fate" if he kills Americans, and a top Iranian general responded that the U.S. will "definitely regret it" if the threats don’t cease.

Multiple current and former U.S. military commanders expressed concerns to NBC News that Trump — who campaigned on bringing American soldiers home from Middle East wars — may have become emboldened by the successes of the limited strikes he has ordered. Two former military officials said they worried that Trump — after the commando raid that killed the Islamic State militant group's leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, in Syria and the drone attack on Soleimani — may now become increasingly willing to pull the trigger, believing that military force can always be swift, decisive and relatively cost-free for the U.S. White House officials say Trump remains averse to commitments of ground troops, plans to bring many of them home and is determined to avoid a wider war.

A very small group of the most senior leaders had been looped into the plan to kill Soleimani, according to officials directly familiar with the matter. The consensus was that he presented the perfect target of opportunity — a middle-of-the-night missile strike in Iraq, not Iran, with a very low chance of civilian casualties. Military leaders knew the move would inflame tensions, but they believed Iran did not want a war. They saw this as a punch in the mouth that might just stun Iran into standing down, the officials said.

Trump agreed, a White House official said. In the president's mind, he was doing everything he could to avoid war.


"Believe it or not, we viewed the Soleimani strike as de-escalatory," the official said. "He was one guy, and the Iranian leaders knew what he was doing. They knew he was planning attacks on Americans."

A senior European intelligence official concurred, telling NBC News the strike "reset the calibration for the Iranians about the cost of doing business," and therefore may have reduced the risk of war, at least in the short term.

Following Soleimani's killing, Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley said, "We would have been culpably negligent to the American people had we not made the decision we made."

Trump believed he had to act to reestablish deterrence, the White House official said, because the Iranians had come to believe he would not use force. In December, rockets fired by an Iranian-backed militia killed an American contractor in northern Iraq. When the U.S. responded with airstrikes, Iranian-backed protesters swarmed the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, forcing diplomats into panic rooms.

On Dec. 29, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and Milley flew to Trump's Mar-a-Lago club for a meeting, at which the president authorized the U.S. response, officials said.

The president signed off on a number of targets. Soleimani was the most significant, but Trump also authorized a strike against Abdul Reza Shahlai, an Iranian operative in Yemen. That strike was not successful.

Trump also authorized the bombing of Iranian ships, missile launchers and air defense systems, officials said. Technically, the military can now hit those targets without further presidential authorization, though in practice, it would consult with the White House before any such action.

Military officials say they knew the Soleimani strike was a gamble that could lead to war, and so the Pentagon made preparations.


For the first time since the 1980s, a special rapid reaction force (now called the Immediate Response Force) of the fabled 82nd Airborne Division was deployed. Another group of paratroopers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade was activated and prepared to deploy to Lebanon. The USS Bataan was on hand in the Mediterranean Sea to be ready in case American civilians had to be evacuated from Lebanon.

Perhaps the most dangerous moments came three days after Soleimani was killed, when U.S. intelligence detected signs that Iran was preparing to launch ballistic missiles, multiple U.S officials said. Trump had already been given an intelligence assessment that one of Iran’s likely responses to the Soleimani killing would be to launch missiles at Iraqi bases hosting American troops, bases that were unprotected by any missile defense systems, current and former officials said.

"There was no means to intercept those ballistic missiles," said Bradley Bowman, of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington think tank that takes a hard line on Iran.

As a result, Bowman said, the U.S. was forced to send the troops to bunkers. “The Department of Defense made the decision that these Patriots were better utilized elsewhere," Bowman said, referring to the air defense missiles. He added that wasn’t necessarily a bad idea because the U.S. military was conducting a counter-ISIS mission and the threat from ISIS was not missiles.


Three current and one former American officials said the U.S. has requested sending Patriot missiles back to the bases in Ain al-Asad and Irbil.

With no option to intercept the Iranian missiles, the other possibility would have been to preemptively attack the missile launchers inside Iran. Yet, the Pentagon never presented Trump with an option to bomb the launchers, an official directly familiar with the matter said — a move that would have ensured the weapons could not be used to kill Americans but might have prompted a wider conflict.

Another concern, officials said, was that Iran would send bomb-laden drones against U.S. forces in Iraq.

The U.S. also observed that Iran was scattering its navy ships, a move designed to make them harder to hit, several officials said. Iran frequently disperses its ships when it is preparing to attack or to defend against an attack. The U.S. military assesses it could cripple the Iranian navy in minutes and take it out completely in less than two days, according to three current and former military officials.


Killing Soleimani may have brought the U.S. closer to conflict with Iran than it has been in years. But tensions were very high between the two nations last summer, too, after Iran shot down a U.S. drone in June.

Hours after that shootdown, Trump decided to retaliate by striking military targets inside Iran. After a White House meeting in which Trump was briefed on retaliatory strikes, the president called Gen. Joseph Dunford, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to multiple officials briefed on the meeting. Trump asked Dunford how many people could die if the U.S. struck inside Iran. Dunford said the estimates ran as high as 150. Trump said he believed that was too high a death toll in response to the destruction of an unmanned drone, the officials said.

Minutes before the attack was to proceed last summer, Trump called it off, to the relief of some U.S. military officials who worried a strike inside Iran could escalate quickly into a wider conflict, according to the officials.

After the Soleimani strike, which also killed other members of his convoy including the deputy head of an Iraqi anti-American militia, the U.S. sent a message to Iran through Swiss diplomats, threatening an overwhelming response if Iran went through with the retaliatory missile attacks, two U.S. officials said.


As they braced for possible missile or drone attacks by Iran, Americans took cover in bunkers at bases throughout Iraq, officials said. For several hours, military officials believed Iran would send drones to crash into bases, so they kept troops and civilians under cover and in body armor.

U.S. commanders in Iraq also were prepared for the possibility that bases could come under ground attack by pro-Iranian militias. To guard against that possibility, soldiers at the base said, some troops at Ain al-Asad stayed out of bunkers and instead patrolled the base. They faced significantly greater risks than those hunkered down in the concrete bunkers, which included heavily fortified shelters built during the era of the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

American early warning systems, including a special National Security Agency monitoring center, detected the Iranian missiles as they launched, so when the missiles hit, most troops had taken cover and there were few casualties. Some of the missiles landed in open fields. And while 64 service members suffered brain injuries, no American was killed, and Trump declared that "all is well."

Whether the Iranians intended to kill Americans is a matter of debate within the government. The CIA assesses that the missile strike was designed to minimize casualties, U.S. intelligence officials said. Analysts believe Iran knew the U.S. would see the preparations and detect the launch, and for good measure, Iran warned Iraq that the missiles were coming. CIA analysts believe the strike was a move by Iran’s rulers to show their people they had hit back, without further escalating the situation.

Military officials are less sure. They believe Iran did hope to kill some Americans, and that it was only because the early warning systems worked that nobody died, Milley has said.

But on this, nearly every U.S. official agrees: It was mostly luck that not a single American died, and the missile attack represented a huge gamble by Iran. Had they killed even a single U.S. soldier, Trump might have felt compelled to respond with a counterstrike.

In a statement, an Iranian government spokesman said its response was proportionate and no further escalation of hostilities is expected.

"Iran's response to the unlawful, brutal, and extrajudicial assassination of General Soleimani, a high ranking member of the official military apparatus of the Islamic Republic of Iran (that is not at war with any other nation), and a well-known anti-ISIS hero in the region, was proportionate and in accordance with international law in particular our inherent right to self-defense as enshrined in the U.N. Charter," the spokesman, Alireza Miryousefi, said.

"Iran, as a sovereign member nation of the U.N., does not anticipate any further escalation of hostilities, but is fully committed in defending its sovereignty, citizens and interests against any possible aggression.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/milita...braced-iranian-drone-missile-strikes-n1126556

lol... Another self bragging article. Can't even dare to retaliate when Iran directly declared war on US with ballistic precision strike attack. You want us to trust this trash article? Why not claimed it can destroyed Iran in 1 second? Talk is cheap. Cant believe US has decline to this stage. :lol:

P.S
US military can't do a damn thing against Iranian missiles, that's why during Iran's strike on US base in Iraq, their ships stayed 1000 kilometers away.

We should also check the US assessments on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and the conclusion that Iraq had WMD) and see how reality turned out VS what they thought.

Iran is very, very different from Iraq and Afghanistan and the US is still obsessive about conventional wargaming scenarios, whereas in reality the proxy and unconventional (or "subconventional") realm would take an unacceptable toll on US assets and soldiers.
 
.
Am USAF veteran. F-111 (Cold War) then F-16 (Desert Storm). And yes, I am very much a fanboy. But I am fanboy with knowledge and experience.


The thing is...Desert Storm changed warfare the way the Mongols, the machine gun, or the airplane, changed warfare -- irrevocably.

Definition of 'irrevocable': not able to be changed, reversed, or recovered; final.

It means that if you do not have the same technical capabilities and effective execution of those capabilities, you WILL lose the war. That is the context of 'irrevocably' in this situation. Just like the machine gun or the airplane.

For US...Yeah, you can hit back. But we WILL hit hard enough that you cannot hit back. Or even if you can, whatever you mete out will not be enough.

As an air force guy, so am going to give you a bit of air force wisdom...

Air Dominance. The ability of an air force to compel other air forces to rearray themselves. Usually into subordinate postures.

Air Superiority. The ability of an air force to take control of contested airspace. To repeat as necessary. And if there are losses, those losses would not pose a statistical deterrence to that ability.

Air Supremacy. He flies, he dies.

You can bet whatever annual salary you make that our air warfare planners already have Iran mapped out. Back in Desert Storm, allied airpower stayed in 'Air Superiority' status only in hours. Not days or weeks like in the past. We had no viable contest from the Iraqi Air Force. Swiftly, any Iraqi pilot flew -- died. US air supremacy over Iranian airspace is a given, even the Iranian air force leadership knows it.


It is relevant. Too bad you are not living up to your forum handle. Better change to something else less intellectual.

Even after Ain Al-Assad you remain in you 1991 world... sad.
 
.
You're cherry picking...


  • Minutes before the attack was to proceed last summer, Trump called it off, to the relief of some U.S. military officials who worried a strike inside Iran could escalate quickly into a wider conflict, according to the officials.
That doesn't sound like a "summer picknic with good tasting apple pie and a great budwiser" to me. In fact, that sounds like genuine worry, if not out right fear of a war that US military planners do not want.

How did you get white washing from that?

If an American had actually died, Trump WOULD have launched another strike against Iran.

Trump killed Iran's top general, do you really think he wouldn't do so again?

US military planners do NOT want a war with Iran. The US can win a war with Iran, but the war would take around 1.6 million US soldiers to do so, which is something they don't want to do.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/20/war-with-iran-would-be-mother-all-quagmires/

Here we go!

"...to the relief of some U.S. military officials who worried..."

Thats white washing too. So not Trump is to address, but "some US military officials".

I think it is hilarious that Americans are accused of thinking waging a war is like playing video games or watching movies when am reading the definitive outcome of a US-Iran war written by those who were not around when I got orders to deploy to Desert Storm.

So how does it came to desert storm? Wasnt there the US who grow up Saddam and send him into a war against Iran? Well, that comes out if US citizens look to much movies.
 
.
Except Iran will first disable US air bases with precise ballistic missiles with cluster munitions destroying closely parked F-35s and fuel depots on the ground and with high precision
How many TELs you have? What if USAF is given the nod to preempt and attack all TELs as well as Iranian military bases?

Do not rush to judgement here. Iraqi military bases are an easy target for Iran because they are lacking in defenses and Iraq is not in the position to retaliate by itself.

Attacking GCC states is much different. They are all prepared for Iran in their respective ways.
 
.
Here we go!

"...to the relief of some U.S. military officials who worried..."

Thats white washing too. So not Trump is to address, but "some US military officials".
You realize that you're literally making a useless point, that literally has no meaning, and making up your own context, right?

Trump does not want war, he never has. He ran his election campaign on ending US involvement in various conflicts around the globe. Never the less, domestic politics would have forced him to strike Iran again, if Iran had killed a US soldier during the missile attack.

Your point only works if Trump is being an active warmonger. Trump has a lot of flaws, and there are a lot to criticize him for, but being a warmonger is not one of them.

The only thing I see here is a certain someone just being anti-American, for the sake of it, to the point of ignoring reality.
 
.
How many TELs you have? What if USAF is given the nod to preempt and attack all TELs as well as Iranian military bases?

First establish air superiority and identify mobile TELs---not an easy task as it was shown during TEL hunt in Desert Storm.

Assuming 6 missiles per TEL and 8 hours reload period---Iran can fire all of its missiles in 2 days destroying thousands of targets way before US establishes air superiority

Do not rush to judgement here. Iraqi military bases are an easy target for Iran because they are lacking in defenses and Iraq is not in the position to retaliate by itself.

Attacking GCC states is much different. They are all prepared for Iran in their respective ways.
Even if US bases in Iraq had protection----Patriot as ABM defense is a disaster as proven by history

Before the shooting started, we read the same predictions about what a war with Iraq will result -- global economic depression. You are not spouting anything new.
Nouriel Roubini is one of the best economists in the world. So you want people to believe you rather than JPMorgan and Nouriel Roubini?

In 1991, world economy was several times smaller than today and only Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil went offline

This time, world economy is several times bigger and Iraqi/Kuwaiti/Saudi/UAE/Qatari/Iranian oil will go offline and this will generate as Roubini and others say "severe global recession"

Anyway, you can continue living in your 1991 world.
 
.
Nouriel Roubini is one of the best economists in the world.
Opinions, really. The title of 'best economist' comes and go. In the end, listening to a 'best economist' is just slightly better than playing the green tables at Las Vegas.
 
.
You realize that you're literally making a useless point, that literally has no meaning, and making up your own context, right?

Trump does not want war, he never has. He ran his election campaign on ending US involvement in various conflicts around the globe. Never the less, domestic politics would have forced him to strike Iran again, if Iran had killed a US soldier during the missile attack.

Your point only works if Trump is being an active warmonger. Trump has a lot of flaws, and there are a lot to criticize him for, but being a warmonger is not one of them.

The only thing I see here is a certain someone just being anti-American, for the sake of it, to the point of ignoring reality.

Trump IS a warmonger! All the "no more wars" and "bring the troops back home" he trashtalked didnt happen! On the contrary there are more US troops in Europe (even biggest maneuver since more than 25 years direct at russian border!), more US troops in Afghanistan, and more US troops in Irak, Cruise missile attacks against e.g. Syria, and still drone killings around the world!

It has nothing to do with "anti american"! It is just the reallity! A reallity you dont want to see!
 
.
First establish air superiority...
You are in no position to tell US how to conduct wars. Am not saying that to be mean to you. Desert Storm is mandatory reading in all the military academies. You can bet your life on that.

Army A have no machine gun. Army B have just one machine gun. A machine gun is very much a force multiplier. Army A cannot predict what Army B can do in terms of battlefield tactics. There is no telling how fast Army B can move that one machine gun around and how many casualties it can produce in a fixed period of time.

A landlocked country, like Mongolia, cannot even imagine what a sea battle is like.

Hitler could not invade England because of radar even though half the time, the RAF was sent to empty airspace and many German bombers made it to England.

Iran do not have satellites the extent the US have. Iran's F-14s will be shot down without their pilots knowing where the shooter(s) came from. The uncertainty of US cruise missiles and bombers will mentally wear down Iranian air defense.

You used the word 'pinpoint'. Here is true 'pinpoint' over 20 yrs ago, probably when you were still a child.

5nB2WPK.jpg


Six bombs rendered an airbase inop and the base's occupants did not know where the bombs came from. Now try to imagine what we are capable of doing today.
 
.
You are in no position to tell US how to conduct wars. Am not saying that to be mean to you. Desert Storm is mandatory reading in all the military academies. You can bet your life on that.

Army A have no machine gun. Army B have just one machine gun. A machine gun is very much a force multiplier. Army A cannot predict what Army B can do in terms of battlefield tactics. There is no telling how fast Army B can move that one machine gun around and how many casualties it can produce in a fixed period of time.

A landlocked country, like Mongolia, cannot even imagine what a sea battle is like.

Hitler could not invade England because of radar even though half the time, the RAF was sent to empty airspace and many German bombers made it to England.

Iran do not have satellites the extent the US have. Iran's F-14s will be shot down without their pilots knowing where the shooter(s) came from. The uncertainty of US cruise missiles and bombers will mentally wear down Iranian air defense.

You used the word 'pinpoint'. Here is true 'pinpoint' over 20 yrs ago, probably when you were still a child.

5nB2WPK.jpg


Six bombs rendered an airbase inop and the base's occupants did not know where the bombs came from. Now try to imagine what we are capable of doing today.
Everyone agrees that US has a superior firepower.

But war with Iran will be a tactical victory and strategic defeat for US----destroying Iranian airforce, navy and infrastructure BUT having Iran destroy entire regional oil production and do enormous damage to global economy and US economy in particular---and having entire region destabilized with US getting into another ME quagmire for decades to come---and FOR WHAT?

Your massive air campaign doesn't even have a final goal.
 
Last edited:
.
You are in no position to tell US how to conduct wars. Am not saying that to be mean to you. Desert Storm is mandatory reading in all the military academies. You can bet your life on that.

Army A have no machine gun. Army B have just one machine gun. A machine gun is very much a force multiplier. Army A cannot predict what Army B can do in terms of battlefield tactics. There is no telling how fast Army B can move that one machine gun around and how many casualties it can produce in a fixed period of time.

A landlocked country, like Mongolia, cannot even imagine what a sea battle is like.

Hitler could not invade England because of radar even though half the time, the RAF was sent to empty airspace and many German bombers made it to England.

Iran do not have satellites the extent the US have. Iran's F-14s will be shot down without their pilots knowing where the shooter(s) came from. The uncertainty of US cruise missiles and bombers will mentally wear down Iranian air defense.

You used the word 'pinpoint'. Here is true 'pinpoint' over 20 yrs ago, probably when you were still a child.

5nB2WPK.jpg


Six bombs rendered an airbase inop and the base's occupants did not know where the bombs came from. Now try to imagine what we are capable of doing today.

Ah, the breaching international law war against Serbia, based on a lie as always. Thats USA. Massmurderers.
 
.
You used the word 'pinpoint'. Here is true 'pinpoint' over 20 yrs ago, probably when you were still a child.

5nB2WPK.jpg


Six bombs rendered an airbase inop and the base's occupants did not know where the bombs came from. Now try to imagine what we are capable of doing today.
And this is precision of Iranian missiles
3.jpeg


9 Perfect hits by a missile that takes 3 minutes to reach its target from 500km away and hit it with a speed of Mach 5

Now imagine your F-16 in the air base is targeted by a precise ballistic missile with cluster munitions.

US never dealt with a threat of precise ballistic missiles.
 
Last edited:
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom