Iran Assessment

[Stu Pidasso]

These things only have a range of 129 kilometers. To counter them is simple, just stay out of their range.

Stu

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
This article makes it seem like our whole Navy will be wiped out by Iran's supply of Russian made anti ship missles - I find it quite hard to believe our Generals are that stupid and haven't planned a counter to this.....

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle7147.htm

[/ QUOTE ]

This actually brings up another interesting angle to this whole Iranian thing, which is international competition in the sale of arms. The best way to demonstrate your product is superior is to show its ineffectiveness in combat.

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]
These things only have a range of 129 kilometers. To counter them is simple, just stay out of their range.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

according to the article, the iranians can cover pretty much the entire Gulf with them, and close the strait of hormuz if we try to get out.

EDIT: assuming they're using mobile launchers and have pretty good distribution along the north shore of the gulf, there are some areas in the south-east of the Gulf that are well out of range, but if they can launch from planes as well it could be really bad. plus they can presumably close off the strait and prevent our carriers from leaving the gulf.

[NT!]

it seems that some of the folks who are in favor of an israeli strike expect the iranians to basically step up aid to hezbollah, destabilize iraq as much as possible and reconstitute. is the presumption that the iranians won't fire on US warships in the gulf?

i'd be interested in hearing some opinions on that. if iran DID have the capacity to basically wipe out our naval assets in the gulf, and chose to do it, one has to expect that the US response would be vicious. they must know this. if their hope is to reconstitute a nuclear program and ensure their regional supremacy / protect sovereignity, would they perhaps be wiser NOT to strike our warships, and thus incur the kind of attacks that could severely weaken their regime? especially if they expect a change in the US regime in 2008 that would be more favorable to their situation?

on the other hand, are we being foolish in expecting them NOT to spring a trap, if they are capable of doing so? if the assessment of their anti-ship missiles is accurate, would they view such a demonstration as evidence enough of their regional dominance? would they underestimate its costs, or be willing to pay them?

the other possibility, of course, is that the Navy does have some way to counter these anti-ship missiles. one can expect the site hosting this article to put out a 'worst case' type military analysis given the content on the front page - is there any evidence or information to the contrary about our anti-anti-ship (LOL) capabilities?

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
the other possibility, of course, is that the Navy does have some way to counter these anti-ship missiles.

[/ QUOTE ]

One would hope so, and when it comes to organized conflict we seem to be pretty good at our [censored], its the after-party where we crash and burn...

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
it seems that some of the folks who are in favor of an israeli strike expect the iranians to basically step up aid to hezbollah, destabilize iraq as much as possible and reconstitute. is the presumption that the iranians won't fire on US warships in the gulf?

i'd be interested in hearing some opinions on that. if iran DID have the capacity to basically wipe out our naval assets in the gulf, and chose to do it, one has to expect that the US response would be vicious. they must know this. if their hope is to reconstitute a nuclear program and ensure their regional supremacy / protect sovereignity, would they perhaps be wiser NOT to strike our warships, and thus incur the kind of attacks that could severely weaken their regime? especially if they expect a change in the US regime in 2008 that would be more favorable to their situation?

on the other hand, are we being foolish in expecting them NOT to spring a trap, if they are capable of doing so? if the assessment of their anti-ship missiles is accurate, would they view such a demonstration as evidence enough of their regional dominance? would they underestimate its costs, or be willing to pay them?

the other possibility, of course, is that the Navy does have some way to counter these anti-ship missiles. one can expect the site hosting this article to put out a 'worst case' type military analysis given the content on the front page - is there any evidence or information to the contrary about our anti-anti-ship (LOL) capabilities?

[/ QUOTE ]

By spring a trap are you referring to a first strike? Thats the worse thing Iran can do. The people of the United States would veiw it as a second Pearl Harbor, we would go to war with Iran in a very big way.

Stu

[NT!]

stu,

what i meant was, if the israelis take out their nuclear facilities with US support (tacit or explicit), will the iranians use their anti-ship missiles to attack the US Navy in retaliation? i wouldn't call this a 'first strike' per se, but i don't disagree with you that the US would respond by dropping some serious firepower on them.

i am wondering two things

1. how likely people think it is that Iran would attack our naval assets in this scenario, given the likelihood of a devastating response

and

2. our actual preparedness for such an attack

i personally don't think the iranian regime is as crazy as they are made out to be in the US media. however i don't know what THEY think about their ability to attack US Naval assets and withstand the response, or what their intelligence is regarding our capabilities in the region.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
1. how likely people think it is that Iran would attack our naval assets in this scenario, given the likelihood of a devastating response

and

2. our actual preparedness for such an attack

i personally don't think the iranian regime is as crazy as they are made out to be in the US media. however i don't know what THEY think about their ability to attack US Naval assets and withstand the response, or what their intelligence is regarding our capabilities in the region.

[/ QUOTE ]

If hostilities break out between Iran and the US they will make every attempt possible to destroy the US Navy in the gulf.

If Iran believes a full scale invasion is imminent they will pre-emptively strike the US Navy.

If Isreal bombs Iran, Iran will retaliate against the US asymmeticrally. There response will be carefully measured however.

The US navy is not going to place key Naval assets in a position where the Iranians can strike them

Stu

[NT!]

that's inline with what my intuition would be as well, stu. i just don't know

1. what the real deal is with these exocet-class anti-ship missiles

2. what iran's intelligence perspective is on the whole thing... surely they know we can't mount a ground invasion, but beyond that it's somewhat murky

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
stu,

what i meant was, if the israelis take out their nuclear facilities with US support (tacit or explicit), will the iranians use their anti-ship missiles to attack the US Navy in retaliation? i wouldn't call this a 'first strike' per se, but i don't disagree with you that the US would respond by dropping some serious firepower on them.

i am wondering two things

1. how likely people think it is that Iran would attack our naval assets in this scenario, given the likelihood of a devastating response

and

2. our actual preparedness for such an attack

i personally don't think the iranian regime is as crazy as they are made out to be in the US media. however i don't know what THEY think about their ability to attack US Naval assets and withstand the response, or what their intelligence is regarding our capabilities in the region.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't put a lot of weight into that long article. Yes, cruise missiles are hard to defend against and they could reek quite a bit of havoc, but not to the extent it was presented. However, Iran is not Iraq. They probably have 400 or so scud variants that could easily reach U.S. bases in Iraq and 50 or so long-range nodong's that could hit Israel. So it's not like shooting fish in a barrel.

It's really hard for me to say how it might play out, but I think an attack from Israel would be met with a significant retaliatory attack from Iran. I agree that the response would be vicious, but Iran knows the only way they could survive would be turning to asymmetrical warfare. So I'd imagine if they feel it's time to go, or they'll eventually need to go to war, this might be their best hope to inflict the most damage.

The problem, is Israel's probably thinking if they'll eventually need to go to war against Iran, this might be their best opportunity also. They're pretty confident in their Arrow missile defense system, and their ability to hold up against what Iran can throw at them - now. The bottom line with Israel, is that if a war starts with Iran - they'll exhaust all their resources before they'll lose. We can pullout, they can't. It's a win or perish scenario for them.

But even though there's a lot of "drum beating" and the proverbial "show of force" going on right now, I'm not concluding a war is completely inevitable. I think the determining factor is if Israel and the U.S. believe Iran will make some sort of gesture to curtail their nuclear program. And the reason I say, "believe," is because we could probably put enough pressure on Iran, as to imminent war, to provoke a regime change in their next election. So to me it all comes down to who Ahmadinejad really is. The next time you see him on TV - take a good look at him and ask yourself if he thinks he's Napoleon, or not. If he does, and the Iranian people don't stop him, then we'll probably have to. My gut feeling on him is - he thinks he's the Great One. My gut feeling on the Iranian people is - they'll stop him. Unlike what's happening in Iraq, the Iranians have experienced peace and prosperity (pre-Shah) and it's in their minds. I'm hoping they want it back.