Skip to comments.Can Iran Successfully Deter A Military Attack?
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 ...
No, they can’t.
Yes, if Obama/Biden win in November. They can deter an attack merely by asking Obama nicely.
Probably not. When a country depends on something like religious ardor, rather than more mundane things like weapons, it risks serious embarrassment in wartime.
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?
“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).
The key question is can their nuclear and missile facilities be destroyed in a strike. Unknown.
This writer is trying to design a theoretical blueprint for Iranian Jihad. I suggest he might be expendable.
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...
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.
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!
Can Iran Successfully Deter A Military AttackSure, just get rid of their dictator.
“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.
“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.
It would end up like the Bakaa valley turkeyshoot. A bunch of outdated Russian crap being pnwed by modern american made hardare.
They can, but it may require nuclear weapons. The US could probably accomplish this with conventional weapons.
***No, they cant.***
Easily defeated by JDAMs and Special Forces, respectively.
Turkeyshoots are great
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?
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.
Still under $5/gallon
***Can Iran Successfully Deter A Military Attack?***
All depends who’s attacking.
Swiss Guards? Maybe.
Israel? Doubt it.
That assumes the current regime actually wants to avoid dying.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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)
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?
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!!
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.
Whoo Hoo ! LOL
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>
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.
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.
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.
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.