Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Can Iran Successfully Deter A Military Attack?
Payvand ^ | September 11, 2008 | By Renad Ihab

Posted on 09/11/2008 9:24:09 PM PDT by Fennie

The public discussions of US/Israel attack scenarios and evidence from U.S. invasion of Iraq suggest that the initial stage of an attack on Iran will include hundreds and perhaps thousands of rockets and bombs which will not only target Iran's nuclear assets but also its missiles and military command. As a result Iran will only be able to launch only a portion of its rockets. For sake of argument lets assume that 50% of rockets will be successfully launched.

One must also keep in mind that both Israel and the U.S. will shot down at least 50% of Iran's rockets with their anti-missile defense system. Therefore for every 1000 Iranian missiles chances are that at most 250 of them will reach their targets.

Furthermore since Iran's military assets are limited it might decide to use its missiles slowly similar to the way Saddam was using it. For every one hundred American bombs or rockets Iraq was able to fire no more than five rockets. Therefore the U.S. and Israel might conclude that the damage from Iran's initial rocket retaliation will be limited...

(Excerpt) Read more at payvand.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Israel; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: axisofevil; congress; energy; geopolitics; globaljihad; iran; iraq; islam; israel; jihad; mccain; mohammedanism; nucleariran; obama; proliferation; russia; wot

1 posted on 09/11/2008 9:24:09 PM PDT by Fennie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Fennie

No, they can’t.


2 posted on 09/11/2008 9:25:53 PM PDT by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

Yes, if Obama/Biden win in November. They can deter an attack merely by asking Obama nicely.


3 posted on 09/11/2008 9:31:28 PM PDT by DieHard the Hunter (Is mise an ceann-cinnidh. Cha ghéill mi do dhuine. Fàg am bealach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

Probably not. When a country depends on something like religious ardor, rather than more mundane things like weapons, it risks serious embarrassment in wartime.


4 posted on 09/11/2008 9:34:03 PM PDT by popdonnelly (I'll tell you a little secret: we're smarter and more competent than the Left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

Not from a first rate power like the US or Israel. Do the Russians really want to be embarassed again when US built weapons humiliate another of their clients?


5 posted on 09/11/2008 9:37:06 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: popdonnelly

“rather than more mundane things like weapons”

It is our reliance on elevated things like science and free-markets which gives us the advantage (and the weapons).


6 posted on 09/11/2008 9:43:21 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

The key question is can their nuclear and missile facilities be destroyed in a strike. Unknown.


7 posted on 09/11/2008 9:44:44 PM PDT by PC99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

This writer is trying to design a theoretical blueprint for Iranian Jihad. I suggest he might be expendable.


8 posted on 09/11/2008 9:45:50 PM PDT by FastCoyote (I am intolerant of the intolerable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

Another point of discussion - a conflict scenario with Iran does not necessarily include a land war.

Airborne annihilation of their nuclear power, military, and command components combined with a complete and total sea-borne blockade (stopping their cash flow) would bring Iran to her knees.

Oil prices would be impacted in the short term of course, but it is a situation which could be stabilized in short order.

... We let your ships move along and carry your oil out as soon as you sign this little piece of paper...


9 posted on 09/11/2008 9:45:54 PM PDT by BlueNgold (... Feed the tree!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

NO - Iran is a fraud. but it has little air-force or navy. It’s economy is in shambles. It run a trade deficit in Petroleum products! There is anecdotal evidence that 10% of Iran women 18-40 are working as prostitutes in the Gulf States to get-by. It has a dysfunctional, unpopular Government. We should have learned long ago that in the Mid-East that the more they talk in blood-curdling tones, the weaker they are.


10 posted on 09/11/2008 9:48:19 PM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

Thats if you assume that all of their rockets are loaded onto launchers. I would bet they aren’t. And their AA defenses can be overwhelmed by shear numbers. They would be in for some night of chaos!


11 posted on 09/11/2008 9:50:47 PM PDT by Always Independent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fennie
Can Iran Successfully Deter A Military Attack
Sure, just get rid of their dictator.
12 posted on 09/11/2008 10:27:32 PM PDT by lewislynn (What does the global warming movement and the Fairtax movement have in common? Disinformation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

“Not from a first rate power like the US or Israel. Do the Russians really want to be embarassed again when US built weapons humiliate another of their clients?”

In airpower they are hopelessly outclassed even with their newly rebuilt F-14’s flying around.

Tank v tank they are outclassed.

The only thing they would have going for them are the massive human wave attacks, and their terror cells.


13 posted on 09/11/2008 10:30:54 PM PDT by 2CAVTrooper (Democrats: Supporting America's enemies since 1824)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Always Independent

“And their AA defenses can be overwhelmed by shear numbers.”

IIRC, didn’t iran buy the same AA defense system that syria had defending that secret reactor they were trying to build?

I seem to recall that the “advanced” defense system syria bought didn’t do so great.


14 posted on 09/11/2008 10:35:29 PM PDT by 2CAVTrooper (Democrats: Supporting America's enemies since 1824)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

It would end up like the Bakaa valley turkeyshoot. A bunch of outdated Russian crap being pnwed by modern american made hardare.


15 posted on 09/11/2008 10:40:51 PM PDT by Proud_USA_Republican (We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. - Hillary Clinton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PC99

They can, but it may require nuclear weapons. The US could probably accomplish this with conventional weapons.


16 posted on 09/11/2008 10:46:02 PM PDT by John Robie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Fennie; ASA Vet; Grampa Dave; LonePalm; Doohickey; SmithL; FARS
Weigh in on this one guys.

The Mullahs and Ahmadinejad only control through military force.
17 posted on 09/11/2008 11:01:43 PM PDT by BIGLOOK (Keelhaul Congress! It's the sensible solution to restore Command to the People.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ozzymandus

***No, they can’t.***

Ditto


18 posted on 09/11/2008 11:15:45 PM PDT by wastedyears (Single dudes for hockey moms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2CAVTrooper

Easily defeated by JDAMs and Special Forces, respectively.


19 posted on 09/11/2008 11:18:19 PM PDT by wastedyears (Single dudes for hockey moms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Proud_USA_Republican

Turkeyshoots are great


20 posted on 09/11/2008 11:18:42 PM PDT by wastedyears (Single dudes for hockey moms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

They can’t deter us militarily, but they can deter us economically. Imagine gas at $200/barrel. What president is going to want to risk that?


21 posted on 09/11/2008 11:38:11 PM PDT by elmer fudd (Fukoku kyohei)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlueNgold
“We let your ships move along and carry your oil “

That is a nice thought but it is mostly NOT THEIR SHIP'S. Those ships are owned by other persons, residing in other countries.

Nothing like starting an international diplomatic incident with several other countries.... like maybe China, maybe France, maybe the UK.

We will not do it that way.

22 posted on 09/11/2008 11:46:31 PM PDT by JSteff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: elmer fudd
Imagine gas at $200/barrel.

Still under $5/gallon

23 posted on 09/12/2008 12:32:21 AM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

***Can Iran Successfully Deter A Military Attack?***

All depends who’s attacking.

Swiss Guards? Maybe.

Israel? Doubt it.


24 posted on 09/12/2008 3:44:51 AM PDT by Gamecock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

That assumes the current regime actually wants to avoid dying.


25 posted on 09/12/2008 3:51:49 AM PDT by RichInOC (Mahmoud, the good news is the Mahdi's coming back soon. The bad news is He's Jewish.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

“Israel? Doubt it.”

Well Hezbollah pretty much achieved that in 2006. They are as I understand it an Iranian affiliate. Furthermore Iran itself achieved under The peanut farmer’s watch.

It depends on the scale of the attack doesn’t it.


26 posted on 09/12/2008 5:10:29 AM PDT by Dave Elias
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

I think Iran’s most likely response to any Israeli attack will be to unleash suicide bombers, blow airliners out of the sky and asassinations of political figures.


27 posted on 09/12/2008 5:21:34 AM PDT by reagan_fanatic ("And how can this be? For I am the Kwisatz Haderach! " - Barack Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw; Cachelot; Nix 2; veronica; Catspaw; knighthawk; Alouette; Optimist; weikel; Lent; GregB; ..
If you'd like to be on this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. or WOT [War on Terror]

----------------------------

28 posted on 09/12/2008 5:34:57 AM PDT by SJackson (as a black man, you know, Barack can get shot going to the gas station, Michelle O)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FastCoyote

I took the article as the writer making the argument that his country’s Nuclear/Biological/Chemical program needed to focus on weapons development.

For the most part, the author made rational arguments. I think in the scenarios he mentioned he gives the Iranian military a bit more credit and tended to err on the side of Iran doing a bit more damage that I think they could actually do, but I would agree with his overall conclusion that Iran would not be able to stand up against the US should the two countries go to war and that the likelihood of Iran getting outside help would be slim.

His bias/brainwashing showed through however in that every mention of the US was tightly tied with Israel as if the “US/Israel” were a single entity joined at the hip. His reference to US presence in the ME as ‘hegemony’ was also telling of his bias. He didn’t seem to let that bias override his overall logic though.


29 posted on 09/12/2008 6:44:25 AM PDT by contemplator (Capitalism gets no Rock Concerts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PGR88
NO - Iran is a fraud. but it has little air-force or navy. It’s economy is in shambles.

This is why I maintain we should ignore the nuke plants (just disable the power plants that feed them) and go strait after the mullahs and the Republican Guard.

Make sure that the Iranian people know we are not targeting them or their general infrastructure.

The nuke plants represent billions of dollars of investment but they are not the problem, the government is. If we can take them out the nuke plants will not be a problem. If we fail to bring down the government we can always target the plants at our leisure.

30 posted on 09/12/2008 8:20:50 AM PDT by usurper (Spelling or grammatical errors in this post can be attributed to the LA City School System)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PGR88; ASA Vet; BIGLOOK
"NO - Iran is a fraud. but it has little air-force or navy. It’s economy is in shambles. It run a trade deficit in Petroleum products! There is anecdotal evidence that 10% of Iran women 18-40 are working as prostitutes in the Gulf States to get-by. It has a dysfunctional, unpopular Government. We should have learned long ago that in the Mid-East that the more they talk in blood-curdling tones, the weaker they are."

If the insane Islamofacists in control of Iran, really had the firepower to take out Israel and our military bases in Iraq. They would have done it without talking about it!

31 posted on 09/12/2008 8:21:42 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (I do not want to know the type of person, who does not like Sarah Palin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears

JDAMs cost too much.

Carpet bombing with the basic Mk-82 slicks with altimeter fuzes set to go off 10 meters above the ground is more effective in open terrain.


32 posted on 09/12/2008 10:30:55 AM PDT by 2CAVTrooper (Democrats: Supporting America's enemies since 1824)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BlueNgold
a conflict scenario with Iran does not necessarily include a land war.

Not so sure about that. Iran is a huge land mass, more than twice the size of Western Europe. Its command and control structures are scattered, and probably hardened. A few would survive for a while, as would a few missile sites aimed at Israel. They fire 20, 4-5 get through?

(stopping their cash flow

Couple of young Russki fellows I know might handle their oil for them. And we had better make sure the Saudis make up the difference in crude supplies (piece of cake if they are willing)

We let your ships move along and carry your oil out as soon as you sign this little piece of paper...

Technically, that's war.

I am not defending these worthy oriental gentlemen, however they do have a few cards to play. E.G. There was a Persia before there was the oil business, and the natives are not used to living very high on the hog to begin with.

There's a theological point not to be missed here, too. The Iranian Shiites would actually welcome a nuclear Armageddon. If the entire world were to blow up tomorrow, they would be pleased. You see, all the dead Shiites would go straight to Firdous, there to be served by all the infidels and bad Muslims for all eternity, or until Allah the All Wise sounds the all-clear. (Honest, I am not making that up. These are not Kansas Methodists we are dealing with.)

And then there's the most interesting question of what we do with them after we pound the bejesus of them, which as I said may not be as easy as it might seem. So what do we do? Easy. Whack Ahimanutjob and change their government with a covert coup? I don't know. Used to work. Worth a try before we roll out the cruise missiles? (Of which we'll need about 25,000)

33 posted on 09/12/2008 1:26:50 PM PDT by Kenny Bunk (Drill. Double Refining Capacity. Make METHANOL from Coal, NG, Nuclear ..let's roll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Fennie; gonzo
Good evening.

Can Iran Successfully Deter A Military Attack?

Methinks the theory should be tested. Proper scope, sample size, confidence level, etc... May I suggest the reactor at Busher to be include in the sample population?

When is the next full moon over Tehran?

5.56mm

34 posted on 09/12/2008 6:45:46 PM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M Kehoe; gonzo
Ok, I'm looking out the back lanai. I meant NEW MOON! Sheesh...

5.56mm

35 posted on 09/12/2008 6:48:00 PM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: PGR88; Grampa Dave; ASA Vet
A while back the Iranians had had upwards of 10 fully laden tankers parked at Bandar e Abbas. Another Freeper noticed it too and thought it might have been an Iranian con-tango, driving up the price of crude. I thought it might have been preparation for blocking the Strait of Hormuz.

You're spot on about the saber rattling fraud that is Iran, but don't put some terrible incident blocking the Strait or causing a horrific oil spill past them. They're not rational.....not the ones who are in power anyways.
36 posted on 09/12/2008 9:38:27 PM PDT by BIGLOOK (Keelhaul Congress! It's the sensible solution to restore Command to the People.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PGR88; Grampa Dave; ASA Vet
A while back the Iranians had had upwards of 10 fully laden tankers parked at Bandar e Abbas. Another Freeper noticed it too and thought it might have been an Iranian con-tango, driving up the price of crude. I thought it might have been preparation for blocking the Strait of Hormuz.

You're spot on about the saber rattling fraud that is Iran, but don't put some terrible incident blocking the Strait or causing a horrific oil spill past them. They're not rational.....not the ones who are in power anyways.
37 posted on 09/12/2008 9:40:46 PM PDT by BIGLOOK (Keelhaul Congress! It's the sensible solution to restore Command to the People.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: M Kehoe; Matchett-PI; oldglory; MinuteGal; mcmuffin; Guenevere; The Right Stuff; Bob Ireland; ...
"...Methinks the theory should be tested. Proper scope, sample size, confidence level, etc... May I suggest the reactor at Busher to be include in the sample population?

When is the next full moon over Tehran?..."

I think you mean 'New-Moon', noob ... try to get it right. Y'now, I can't be your Gunney forever, bub!

Shit-man - there's damn few of us guys left here.!

The Amazon-Brigade owns the place now.

I'm not complaining, y'know - they're beautiful women, and I love to see them, but we gotta get more testosterone in this Mid-Florida Chapter.

Hey - it's been about eight years, People!

Let's get our show on-the-road! Let's kick some ass! .................................... GONZO!!

38 posted on 09/12/2008 10:14:17 PM PDT by gonzo ("Shall Not Be Infringed" - use it now! While you still can ... FRegards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
ROTFLMAO!!!!

Great photoshop pic there!!

I especially like the 2 near the top left which are headed towards each other!!

Since these are of the Iranian missile firings I get a good laugh outta it, however if this was of our USA military then I do know that we have more than enough of the technology, money and the means to do this.

39 posted on 09/12/2008 10:17:47 PM PDT by prophetic (God, let Obama speak utter foolishness and confound the wisdom of his counselors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: gonzo

Whoo Hoo ! LOL


40 posted on 09/12/2008 11:21:11 PM PDT by Matchett-PI (Cure your electile dysfunction - vote Sarah-cuda! "O is for Obama, Oprah, and Over" ~polymuser)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: gonzo
noob

Queue theme for "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly:"

Call me a "noob" in front of a quarter million people!? I say notify your Seconds and heirs. It will be pistols at 40 paces. Sundown tomorrow in Tarpon Springs on Main St.

< /Theme music>

5.56mm

41 posted on 09/13/2008 8:06:32 AM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: gonzo; M Kehoe; Matchett-PI; oldglory; MinuteGal; mcmuffin
I have the following report from a generally reliable source:

United States Consul-General Jacob Walles has told an Arab newspaper that the Olmert-led Kadima government has agreed to commence negotiations based on the 1967 lines and a divided Jerusalem.

['negotiations' with the PLO, natch] Bebe Netanyahu seems to add credibility to this report. This could be a ploy by the current unpopular Israeli govt to try to appease Iran rather than carry out a pre-emptive strike - prior to the fall of the Olmert govt.

If true, this could prove serious - seriously flawed by Olmert and his band of Clintonista-type weasels.

42 posted on 09/13/2008 12:50:03 PM PDT by Bob Ireland (The Democrat Party is a criminal enterprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: reagan_fanatic

This would bring the largest air and ground campaign the world has ever seen, and the largest by NATO. And it would result in the destruction of Iran.


43 posted on 09/15/2008 8:20:59 PM PDT by Thunder90
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: 2CAVTrooper

No. The Iranians bought the SA-15 Tor. The systems that the Georgians used against Russian forces recently. The SA-15s had some success before being overun/destroyed/captured.

It was the likes of Debka that gave Syria the Pantsyr air defense system. The Pantsyr is a short-range system. The Syrians took the gamble of not deploying SAM systems around the site. Deploying SAMs and defences around it would have highlighted its importance. Even if you look at the sat imagery of the site it doesn’t even have a layered security fence. The Syrians wanted to keep it as unassuming as possible and not draw attention to it. They took the gamble and lost.


44 posted on 09/16/2008 4:48:28 PM PDT by Tommyjo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tommyjo
According to my sources, the SA-15 “Gauntlet” with the 9M330 missile has an engagement range up to 12 km with a minimum range varying between 100-2000 m depending upon version. Effective altitude is 10-6000 m. The system can track targets while on the move but has to stop in order to launch.

The Pantsyr fitted with the 57E6 (SA-22 GREYHOUND) missile has an engagement range of 18 to 20 km and an altitude of 10 km. This system has full fire on the move capability unlike the 2S6 Tunguska that it's replacing.

Iran also supposedly received 10 Pantsyr systems from Syria, and according to reports KBP has orders for 50 systems to an unlisted customer.

These two systems are relatively small thus making them highly mobile and easy to hide and don't always have to be in fixed locations to defend a given site.

45 posted on 09/17/2008 1:16:27 PM PDT by 2CAVTrooper (Democrats: Supporting America's enemies since 1824)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson