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.

 

Unclassified Report to Congress on the Military Power of Iran - Report Released April 2010

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   
April 2010

Section 1245 of the Fiscal Year National Defense Authorization Act requires the Secretary of Defense to submit an unclassified and classified report to Congress on the current and future military strategy of Iran. Below is the unclassified report, in response to the congressional direction.

The report shows Goals and Trends of Iranian strategy, Size and Capabilities of Iranian Conventional Forces, Military Doctrine, and Iranian Support to Terrorist and Regional Military Groups, as well as other topics.



For anyone who is interested in studying this report, as presented to Congress go here:

www.offnews.info...







[edit on 8-6-2010 by manta78]




posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Thank you for the report, it was extremely interesting actually. I read the whole thing.

One part I found very interesting especially was the section on "Military Doctrine", which describes the major doctrine of Iran to be Defensive.

Their strategy is based upon "Delay and Attrition".

Basically their military is defensive in nature, and the goal is to DELAY an invading army, and then to make the War of Attrition so costly a stale-mate, that it will force diplomatic solutions.

The report states that Iran does not have the air power or logistical capability to project power outside of their own borders. They are not even capable of confronting Israel or Turkey yet, regionally speaking.

The report also states they are no match for the US military and it's allies.

Now, I WANT to see the CLASSIFIED report PLZ!???

I wanna know what part was taken out due to secrecy!



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Thank you for the report, it was extremely interesting actually. I read the whole thing.

One part I found very interesting especially was the section on "Military Doctrine", which describes the major doctrine of Iran to be Defensive.

Their strategy is based upon "Delay and Attrition".

Basically their military is defensive in nature, and the goal is to DELAY an invading army, and then to make the War of Attrition so costly a stale-mate, that it will force diplomatic solutions.

The report states that Iran does not have the air power or logistical capability to project power outside of their own borders. They are not even capable of confronting Israel or Turkey yet, regionally speaking.

The report also states they are no match for the US military and it's allies.

Now, I WANT to see the CLASSIFIED report PLZ!???

I wanna know what part was taken out due to secrecy!


the classified part was most likey our capabilities to confront Iran when the time is right and how many kia's



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Iran's support for terrorists, LOL. I think the US is the biggest supporter of terrorism. We arm them, we create them and based solely upon conjecture, we fund them. My pet peeve is hypocrisy.

--airspoon



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Originally from source

Iran's total defence spending is about 2.8 percent of GDP -approximately $9.6 billion in FY200809.


However, we do not have precise information on how much funding is allocated to each branch of Iran's military or to special forces operations
Quotes from "Military Funding" headline, under section 6

I think if any European country was in Iran's, international position, our defence spending would be at least in the 8.4% region of GDP. After all the US defence spending is 4.3% of GDP according to Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org...
or 4.7 percent according to this source.
washingtonindependent.com...
Even the United Kingdom spends 2.5 percent on Defence (according to Wikipedia) and 2.5 percent seems a lot, given we have: Our own nukes, the support of the US, NATO, and anything that's likely to come out of a European military, not to mention a permanent, U.N seat.

Iran has none of this, none of it all. And yet they're spending isn't much greater than 2.8 percent? Maybe they really are as crazy, as the Israelis say they are?
Either the 2.8% figure is at least 100% below reality, or these Iran's leaders, must be displaying the cultral differences between East and West. If so no wonder why East makes such a good target, for what they (often) describe, as "Western imperialism". I wonder if they're actually, literally doomed (in the one way, future, passage of time)?

In fairness, Iran does seem to get very good value for money. But (TV news reality) would have us believe it is either weird Iran spends less GDP than the United States; or odd that the U.S spends about 1.5% more than they.
I tend to go with the latter. I've often thought the US wouldn't be in e.g. as nearly many economic problems, if defence spending was made more cost effective (i.e. brought down to Iranian GDP levels) so the borrowing Deficit could be, much smaller.

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Glad you enjoyed the read. I found it to be informative as well.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if one ties in the section that you mentioned from the Defense Dept. Report to Congress here:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Their strategy is based upon "Delay and Attrition".

"Basically their military is defensive in nature, and the goal is to DELAY an invading army, and then to make the War of Attrition so costly a stale-mate, that it will force diplomatic solutions. "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and connect the dots to a theory I posted in another thread here:


reply to post by manta78

"Was just surprised at the relationship between the two countries, and as stated here:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"As a British company, BP's expanding operation in Iran reflects symbolically the quiet growth of British-Iranian relations after about two decades of difficulties. Particularly, it indicates the British government's efforts to expand its ties with Iran to catch up with other EU countries with large and expanding political and economic relations with that country, namely France, Germany, Italy and increasingly so Spain. "

"Given its close cooperation with Iran's arch enemy, the United States, seeking to weaken Iran economically and politically, such efforts demonstrates the British government's recognition of Iran's importance as a rising regional power." - Asia Times
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find the analysis interesting, but personally don't happen to share the view of Iran as a rising regional power; and since BP maintains such an active interest in Iran today, I was wondering if someone from BP might have made an informal/formal suggestion to Iran to offer its help to the U S in the gulf oil spill.

There are always reasons/motivations behind these kinds of offers, and I am always interested in exploring all avenues of thought on same.

From a military standpoint, can you think of a better way to deflect
American interests away from the possible invasion/bombing of Iran which was gaining strong support about the same time the explosion occured, than to cause a catastrophe of such a magnitude that the attention of the U S, and the world for that matter is focused on, and away from Iran?

And to possibly use a company, or an individual who is working within that company who's interests are mutually shared with yourself, such as B.P.?

And then, as a possible shield, throw out an offer to help the U S in
this crisis, assuming that there is a chance that it is discovered that
the accident was actually sabotage, and the finger points to Iran.
Iran in turn could then say, we are not responsible, we even offered to
help the U S in this matter. Why we would offer such a thing if we were involved?....etc.

I think the president of Iran is clever, no question, but I trust him about as far as I can throw him."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Considering all of the above, my theory is not so improbable as some may think, as to who may have set up the BP "accident" and their possible motives for doing so.

And if I am right, their plan has succeeded even beyond their wildest
expectations.









[edit on 9-6-2010 by manta78]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Neocon4life
 


I think you are probably right.




top topics



 
4

log in

join