It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How would Iran react and fight back

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by aria
But Iran is something else. They will fight. Iranians do not tolerate any invasion or attacks on their homeland. And the Iranian pilots will defend their air space till they die.


Which probably won't take long since the iranians will be fighting tomorrow's weapons with yesterday's weapons. Like others said, after that it will be a guerrilla war with iranian ground forces slinking around at night to avoid being exterminated during the day. But wait, U.S. forces own the night, too!


[edit on 12/7/2005 by centurion1211]



Sep

posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Quote a reliable source for this statement or admit for all here that what you posted is pure B---S---.


My friend, please mind your tone. You sound aggressive.


Ayatollah Khomeini was threatening to spread revolution to the rest of the Middle East, even though Iran was militarily hardly in any position to do so, as most of the Shah's army had already been disbanded.


en.wikipedia.org...
www.answers.com...
www.reference.com...

It is a well known fact that after the revolution the majority of the Shah's senior military personnel were killed and most of the sections of the army were disbanded, and the professionals and pilots were imprisoned at the beginning of the war.


Edit: fixing some mistakes.


[edit on 8-12-2005 by Sep]



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by aria
But Iran is something else. They will fight. Iranians do not tolerate any invasion or attacks on their homeland. And the Iranian pilots will defend their air space till they die.


Which probably won't take long since the iranians will be fighting tomorrow's weapons with yesterday's weapons. Like others said, after that it will be a guerrilla war with iranian ground forces slinking around at night to avoid being exterminated during the day. But wait, U.S. forces own the night, too!


[edit on 12/7/2005 by centurion1211]






The superior american armed forces, the ones you seem so sure about, seem to be chasing their tales now in a divided iraq, all 180,000 of them. Let alone a unified Iran. Let's not forget the "shia crescent". Goes to show, all the technology
in the world can be useless when fighting an underground resistance. I think the only true possible long term success here is to win the "hearts and minds" of the people. I think america will be bighting off more than they can chew by attacking Iran.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 12:28 AM
link   
An invasion of Iran is simply not in the cards.
Firstly, as others have pointed out, Iran is not Iraq, we could expect far more determined resistance than we saw in Iraq, and far more US casualties.
Secondly, politically, if you think the American public is divided now, wait until we start another "preemptive" war...

I'm sure the people running the country now would love to invade Iran.
But I don't think even the people Colin Powell labeled "crazies" are crazy enough to think they could get away with it.

If military action against Iran comes, it will almost certainly be limited to airstrikes agains Iran's nuclear facilities. The Iranians will almost certainly attempt to retaliate in some fashion, probably against US forces in the Gulf region, probably in a rather limited fashion.

More importantly, such an attack will unify the a signifigant portion of the Iranian population against the US, keeping the mullahs in power indefinitely. Patriotism and the unifying power of an attack from the outside are not characteristics exclusive to the US. Which is why I have come to suspect that the Iranian government is deliberately attempting to provoke such a strike.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Well hypothetically, its highly unlikely that the US would just waltz right in and invade without enough cause after learning their lesson from the outcries and criticism over the Iraq war. Sure the US public would not support this. HOwever, don't prejudge the public support change if Iran makes a bad move with its Nuclear findings. Iran has already threatend Israel to be wiped from the face of the earth. Europe is starting to change their stance on Iran, which puts Iran in a very sticky situation with the west. Any invasions that come will be entirely up to the actions that Iran decides to take.

As far as a war starting and how Iran will fight back. I agree with the several people that stated "They would at first". During the Original Gulf War, Iraq was a very capable army ranked 5th in the world. They were overrun within a matter of weeks. Iran nowadays i admit would not be a cake walk, however conventionally face to face, they woul still fall quickly. Sure they have a much better organized and larger military then the recent Iraq military,.........however, that doesn't mean the US wouldn't plan for this. We are talking a superpower aligning all its international tools in place and upsizing as necessary to deal with Iran in particular. You don't think that 160,000 soldiers in Iraq is anywhere close to the full military of the US do you? Just as the Us should not underestimate Iran, Iran should not underestimate the abilities of the US.

Also it really is dumb founding to me when people use the policeing of insurgence and terrorists in Iraq as an example of the US military might. These soldiers are primarly helping rebuild, police the ountry, train Iraqi guards, and all the while trying to protect their backs from suicide bombers and snipers walking out from behind women and children. Like others said, a conventional war and Iranian military trounce would not take long. Holding Iran after that during a gorilla war is what will be the challenge

Carburetor



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 02:51 AM
link   
well, if there is EVER going to be an invasion of Iran, it has to be RIGHT NOW before US goes ahead with a pullout.

once all US troops are pulled out of Iraq then there is no chance of deploying a large number of us troops to Iraq,

cuz an Iranian friendly iraqi government will certainly not allow the US to invade Iran from Iraq.

That's why a US-Iran showdown is much closer than you think.



RESPECT



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 02:54 AM
link   
I say sometime in mid-2006.

The likely Scenario:

Iran is referred to UNSC, Iran pulls out of NPT, and starts its enrichment program

UNSC imposes minor sanctions on Iran (electronics imports, non_oil exports etc.), no sanction on Oil exports

OIL prices jump high over 100$. Sanctions will not hurt Iranian economy much since the rise in oil price will pay for sanctions on non-oil exports.

Israel/US decide to go ahead and bomb the nuke facilities using the Iraqi airspace
successful or not,

Iran will launch its new solid-fuelled shahab 3, long-range cruise missiles (in development stages, possile reverse-engineered kh-55 with Chinese assistance)
hitting Israeli nuke facilities, reactors and assassination of political figures
(I really don't think Iran has a Nuke warhead)

People of iran will rally behund their leaders

Iraqi government with close ties to iranian regime step down, calling for a quick US troops withdrawal.

Shia clerics throughout the region call for a jihad against Americans, Israelis.
the 50,000 strong Iranian-trained Badr army will launch a guerilla war against Britons, Americans.

Iran closes the Hormuz Strait, seeking international condemnation of Israel.
Oil prices jump to as high as 400$.

World in energy crisis, passes a resolution comdemning Israel but thanx to US veto power, another resolution against Israel is vetoed.

Israel retaliates by launching an airstrike against Hezbollah and iran.

Pres. Ahmadinejad goes on TV, seeks arab world help to fight the little devil, arguing that Israel has to be stopped now.

A whole new Arab-Iran alignment against Israel would take shape in the aftermath of an Israeli strike against Iran, compared with the relatively benign relations between the two sides now.

Hezbollah launch a full-scale guerilla war against Israel

Israel under attack, American death toll rising, US starts deploying a new series of reserved troops from all around the world to the region.

CHINA/RUSSIA warn against any military engagement

US goes ahead, RUSSIA/CHina jump in, and all of a sudden WW3 has started.

Scary, haa?


[edit on 8-12-2005 by proprog]



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 02:58 AM
link   
This is another scenario I found .

IS IRAN PREPARING FOR A US WAR?
www.benadorassociates.com...


RESPECT



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 03:12 AM
link   
Seekerof


after massing troops on the border , Iran nuke them - enough tanks/ mobile forces in one place an woompth there they go.


same with the mini subs - slide one under a carrier and suicide the nuke charge onboard.


I , honestly believe that they have at least 1 device of there own , and could well get more at ultra short notice from either PAK or CHINA if needed.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 03:50 AM
link   
I'm quite curious here... Other than oil, what are the benefits of anyone invading Iran? I honestly don't think taking action against rhetoric is a reason to do anything. After all, sticks and stones.........



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shaker
I'm quite curious here... Other than oil, what are the benefits of anyone invading Iran? I honestly don't think taking action against rhetoric is a reason to do anything. After all, sticks and stones.........


Another example of "those that forget history are doomed to repeat it".

Before world war II, Hitler, Mussollini and many others made a lot of statements that people chose to ignore by saying much the same as what you just did. As we all know, the results of ignoring these people can be horrific - if that word is even strong enough. Plus, the people that originally urged ignorance are often the first ones to ask why something wasn't done sooner after something bad does happen - if they're still alive, that is.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   
The difference is that Hitler (and to a far lesser extent Mussolini) actually had the industrial and miitary capacity to act on their threats, and Iran does not and will not anytime soon.

It's amazing how people pull WW2 out of their hat to justify every single war they want to start. Even when the comparison is not even remotely apt. Iran is in no position to go rampaging across the Middle East in a war of conquest, their military is sufficient to defend Iran, but totally incapable of projecting power far beyond their borders. And they don't have the industrial capacity to build an offensive force even if they wanted to.

"Saddam is the new Hitler!" "Ahmadinejad is the new Hitler!"
Errr, not quite.

The psychology of the war-perv (thanks sminkeypinky) crowd is really beginning to interest me. The constant repetition of the WW2 meme is particularly fascinating. People desperately want to revive the unity of purpose the US found in WW2, and the feeling of being in an epic struggle of good vs. evil. So they not only distort current events to try to bring it back, but they distort the history of WW2 as well.

I also find it interesting that a guy with a clear Roman Empire fetish would be going on about the evils of the Fascists of WW2, given that Fascism (especially Mussolini's brand) was essentially an attempt to recreate the "glory" of the Roman empire.

[edit on 12/8/05 by xmotex]



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
Seekerof

after massing troops on the border , Iran nuke them - enough tanks/ mobile forces in one place an woompth there they go.

I , honestly believe that they have at least 1 device of there own , and could well get more at ultra short notice from either PAK or CHINA if needed.


I can respect your belief that Iran may have a nuclear device.
I, myself, doubt such.
If Iran does have a nuclear device, then what you indicate would be a valid counter point.

Again, that is based on the speculative assumption that Iran has such a device available for use.

EDIT: one thought struck me after posting this: If Iran opted to use such a device(s), they would simply be devastated by a US nuclear response. The use of nukes is a last alternative [desperation, etc], in most cases.





seekerof

[edit on 8-12-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   
and speculating is the stuff of conspiracy



but , say they do have a bomb , then shipping it to CONUS and setting it off in , say , DC , would be better for them (touch us and we touch you) than hitting the massed troops.


but for that plan to work , it would have to be at sea. now.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   
No-One can stop the USA any country that tries will be destroyed with just 1 submarine. thats what I think anyway. easier to declare war on USA then surrender and be looked after by USA. big macs all round !!

[edit on 8-12-2005 by paul762]



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 12:48 PM
link   
and if iran have a scud (type) missile on say an oil tanker (with launcher) who will detect that??



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 12:53 PM
link   
The US Navy? The Coast Guard?
The US military is not entirely composed of heedless fools, you know.
They do keep an eye on shipping coming into the States.

You don't think a tanker coming from Iran headed towards the Mid-Atlantic coast is going to get a little careful attention? Especially considering the US doesn't buy oil from Iran?

[edit on 12/8/05 by xmotex]



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   
erm yes they do actually


and what if it stops over in saudi?


or changes it flag to say , paraguay?


then sales for the usa coast??



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by proprog
I say sometime in mid-2006.

The likely Scenario:

Iran is referred to UNSC, Iran pulls out of NPT, and starts its enrichment program

UNSC imposes minor sanctions on Iran (electronics imports, non_oil exports etc.), no sanction on Oil exports

OIL prices jump high over 100$. Sanctions will not hurt Iranian economy much since the rise in oil price will pay for sanctions on non-oil exports.

Israel/US decide to go ahead and bomb the nuke facilities using the Iraqi airspace
successful or not,

Iran will launch its new solid-fuelled shahab 3, long-range cruise missiles (in development stages, possile reverse-engineered kh-55 with Chinese assistance)
hitting Israeli nuke facilities, reactors and assassination of political figures
(I really don't think Iran has a Nuke warhead)

People of iran will rally behund their leaders

Iraqi government with close ties to iranian regime step down, calling for a quick US troops withdrawal.

Shia clerics throughout the region call for a jihad against Americans, Israelis.
the 50,000 strong Iranian-trained Badr army will launch a guerilla war against Britons, Americans.

Iran closes the Hormuz Strait, seeking international condemnation of Israel.
Oil prices jump to as high as 400$.

World in energy crisis, passes a resolution comdemning Israel but thanx to US veto power, another resolution against Israel is vetoed.

Israel retaliates by launching an airstrike against Hezbollah and iran.

Pres. Ahmadinejad goes on TV, seeks arab world help to fight the little devil, arguing that Israel has to be stopped now.

A whole new Arab-Iran alignment against Israel would take shape in the aftermath of an Israeli strike against Iran, compared with the relatively benign relations between the two sides now.

Hezbollah launch a full-scale guerilla war against Israel

Israel under attack, American death toll rising, US starts deploying a new series of reserved troops from all around the world to the region.

CHINA/RUSSIA warn against any military engagement

US goes ahead, RUSSIA/CHina jump in, and all of a sudden WW3 has started.

Scary, haa?


[edit on 8-12-2005 by proprog]



Damn scary. Unfortunatly almost probable. Especially after Ahmadinejad's latest inflamatory statements..... www.aljazeera.com...

Tensions are heating up!


Mod Edit: Fixed Link.

[edit on 8/12/2005 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by kojac
Wiped off the map within 2-4 weeks? My friend, even if the u.s could viably raise another invasion force of size to be able to invade Iran,


Even if? US active duty forces are at 1.7 million. There were less then 200,000 in Iraq.


the iranian army has a fighting force (including militia) of over 9 million soldiers. I understand that the u.s would have overwhelming air superiority, but wiping out 9 million soldiers in 2-4 weeks?? unless we're talking w.m.d, that's highly improbable.


The problem isn't in Irans numbers, it is in their ability to wage conventional war with the US.

9 million doesn't mean a thing if every time they get involved in head to head matchups they get butchered (which is exactly what would happen).

All of Irans heavy equipment (tanks, aircraft, artillery) and logistical ability (weapons factorys, food delivery, etc) would literally be gone in a matter of days.

So after that, how many of these 9 million are going to want to fight?


Iran would definatly not be as easy as iraq.


I agree with that.


For one, Iran is not burdened by such a melting pot of cultures and tensions, ie.arab, sunni, kurd, shia etc. With a majority persian shia population, and a strong sense of nationalism, i think we'de find iran a very tough nut to crack.


Actually, I would argue that Iraqs segmented population is a hurtle rather then something that helps our cause.

In Iraq, you have a lot of different religious groups power grabing.

In Iran, because of that national unity (which did not exist in Iraq), I think that the transition would be much simpler. I think where the US would have problems is in the sheer size differences in the nations. Iran is what - 3 times the size of Iraq?

In response to the original question...

1) If it is an Isreali attack - Iran doesn't really have any options. They can fire cruise missles over Syrian airspace, but thats about it. No way would Syria allow them to stage an attack through their boarders, with the US at their doorstep.

2) US stages airstrikes - I think Iran would really just take it on the chin publically, and then ramp up support for Iraqi insurgents.

Militarilly, they just can't hope to do any real damage to Isreal, much less the US.

Not even going to mention the power iran can have over chaotic iraq, afganistan, lebanon and palistine. If Israel and the coalition think the've got a handfull now...
......just invade Iran and see what happens.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join