[jedrider]

As if no US generals didn't have blood on their hands. If he was meeting with a secret terrorist organization, I could at least see the, hey, we caught a terrorist. However, he was on a very public diplomatic mission to Iraq. So, we basically violated the sovereignty of two nations simultaneously. Sort of a kill two birds with one stone, but actually, making two outright enemies in one ill-considered move.

[Newfie]

Cupertino,

Welcome aboard.

[Newfie]

I’m posting the entire article below because i had a lot of trouble getting it to load.

A review of the Iranian Navy.

America Must Not Underestimate Iran's Navy (Or Else)
Key point: Just because Iran is woefully outmatched in pitched combat doesn’t mean that it can’t be used to challenge US power in other, more asymmetric ways.

As Washington and Tehran descend further down an escalatory spiral, the prospect of armed conflict with Iran is increasingly treated as an inevitability by its supporters. Meanwhile, detractors are urging the Trump administration to avoid what they see as an avertable military quagmire.

Media coverage of the ongoing Iran issue has largely focused on domestic and international ramifications, but what would a war with Iran actually look like? In particular, what are Iran’s military capabilities on the ground, in the air, and on the sea? The answer is more nuanced than it may appear. The National Interest previously looked at the state of the Iranian air force (IRIAF). We now turn to Iran’s surface navy.

A cursory overview of Iran’s surface vessel inventory suggests that the Iranian navy is in dire straits, and appearances are not wholly misleading. The situation has only worsened over the past several years; Iran’s modernized Damavand destroyer, laid down in 2013, sank in 2018 after colliding with the jetty of the Iranian Bandar Abbas harbor where she was stationed. Meanwhile, the two ancient Babr destroyers that Iran procured from the US Navy during the 1970’s were wisely taken out of action by the turn of the 21st century.

The frigate roster is only slightly more functional. Three Alvand-class frigates from the late 1960’s are nominally active, though likely far too degraded to be used in high-intensity conflicts, if at all. The Moudge-class frigates are much newer on paper, having been laid down in the 2010’s. In practice, they are little more than close derivatives of the roughly six-decade-old Alvand design. Coming in at a displacement of only 1,500 tons, the two active Moudge vessels are on the small and light end even for the typical frigate, let alone to qualify as destroyers, which is how Iranian state media insists on presenting them.

If there is any silver lining to found, it would in the form of Iran’s new Sahand-class frigate. Sahand seems to be a genuine step forward in Iranian vessel design, integrating the latest Iranian “Qader” anti-ship missiles, SM-1 surface-to-air missiles, and a relatively modernized onboard electronics suite. One advanced frigate, however, cannot compensate for what is otherwise an overwhelming Iranian deficit in surface military vessels.

Iran’s past naval scuffles with the US have gone exactly as one might expect. In Operation Nimble Archer, a US carrier and several destroyers faced little to no Iranian resistance in wiping out two defunt oil platforms that had been converted into military speedboat bases for the Revolutionary Guards. Iran’s surface navy was dealt an even more embarrassing blow during Operation Praying Mantis, when a US Naval strike force sank the Iranian destroyer Sahand (not to be confused with the 2018 frigate named in its honor) and inflicted a mortal wound on the Sabalan frigate later that day.

Whereas whispers of recent S-300 deliveries would provide the Iranian air force with at least some means of imposing costs on US fighter activity over Iranian airspace, there is little question that the Iranian surface navy lacks any serious military means to resist a US naval offensive.

However, just because it is woefully outmatched in pitched combat doesn’t mean that it can’t be used to challenge US power in other, more asymmetric ways. In particular, Iran’s heavy concentration of speedboats and minelayers could prove indispensable in a broader anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) campaign to seal the Hormuz Strait or ambush US forces in the Persian Gulf. That, of course, comes with its own set of stark risks for Iran.

Mark Episkopos is a frequent contributor to The National Interest and serves as research assistant at the Center for the National Interest. Mark is also a PhD student in History at American University. This article first appeared earlier this year.

Image: Reuters.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... lse-109106

[Newfie]

And on the Iran Air Force

Iran's Old Air Force: Can It Fight America in a War and Survive?
The geopolitical struggle between Washington and Tehran is anything but new, stemming back to the 1979 Iranian Revolution and subsequent overthrow of the US-backed Shah. The past several years have seen Iran and the US locked into a new cycle of escalation, fed by openly belligerent rhetoric and increasingly divergent strategic visions for the Middle-East region.

As the two powers teeter on the edge of open conflict, US media outlets are awash with commentary on the international and political ramifications of war with Iran; rightly so, given what’s at stake. Surprisingly, much less attention has been devoted to the question of what a conventional war with Iran would look like. There are, of course, countless variables at play: who would attack first, what would Russia and China do, would it escalate into a nuclear conflict, and so on.

There is, however, one persistent factor that is sure to dictate the flow of any possible conflict: Iran’s conventional military capabilities. In particular, how would the Iranian air force fare in the event of war with the United States? Here is what we found.

Iran’s air force has long been, and remains, Tehran’s weakest military link. The Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force (IRIAF) roster is dense with aging 3rd and 2nd generation fighters, including the F-4 Phantom II, F-6, and “Saeqeh” F-5 derivative. It is unknown how many of these have fallen into disrepair over the prior decades.

The functioning, relatively operational core of the IRIAF’s inventory is the dozen Su-24MK and 18 MiG-29 fighters purchased by Tehran in the mid 1990’s. While perfectly serviceable in low-intensity regional conflicts with Iran’s neighbors, the Su-24 and MiG-29 are exceedingly unlikely to perform well in pitched conflict with carrier strike groups like the one that Washington recently sent to the North Arabian Sea. Even Patriot missile systems-- which the US is now actively transferring to the Middle East-- would pose a grave danger to Su-24’s and similar aircraft operating in Iranian airspace. It has long been speculated that Iran is on the cusp of modernizing its air force with an infusion of Russian-bought Su-30 fighters, but serious internal and geopolitical problems stand in the way of any such deal being signed in the near future.

Even barring these crippling quality issues, the IRIAF roster simply lacks the number of aircraft necessary to secure Iran’s vast airspace against a full-scale US offensive. Any potential military value from Iran's air force would have to come in the form of a preemptive strike; specifically, a surprise attack against America’s Gulf forces in the hopes of locking NATO out of the Hormuz Strait. That, however, comes with its own set of stark risks for Iran.

If Iran lacks a way to meaningfully challenge the US Air Force on the sky, does it have any means at all of securing its airspace against an American offensive? As it stands, the closest that the IRIAF can come to credibly threatening American airpower is the S-300 missile system. The S-300PMU-2, the latest S-300 variant, and popular import choice boasts a range of up to 150 kilometers and can track six enemy aircraft simultaneously. Assuming-- and it’s important to highlight that this remains an assumption-- that Iran is, in fact, able to deploy S-300 systems, the IRIAF is still unlikely to overcome the USAF, but can at least raise the costs of American victory with an effective anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) campaign.

The common theme emerges that the IRIAF is patently incapable of defending the entirety of Iran’s airspace with conventional means. But provided that they have access to the right anti-air equipment and are able to use it proactively, They stand a good chance of dragging out the conflict and thereby preventing a repeat of what the USAF managed.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... vive-58847

[EnergyUnlimited]

In war with Iran US would obviously win, but if war *do* proceed (what I consider unlikely at this point) then it may involve many additional actors on the top of US and Iran.
Such wars have unpredictable outcomes.

[Newfie]

Here is a final one from the same source, i found it thoughtful.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/middl ... pen-111211

[asg70]

Don't mistake concern for the ramifications of this act as saying the guy didn't deserve death. Saddam deserved death. Gaddafi deserved death. All of the Mullahs in Iran deserve death. The question isn't about meting out justice. It's about long-term cost/benefit assessments. WW1 started after the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand. That alone is proof positive that taking out an influential enough guy can touch off a war. I doubt Trump even knows that important bit of history. Taking out one guy in exchange for blood and treasure via a subsequent war that we can no longer afford simply isn't worth it. For instance, a big part of the current federal debt that monopolizes discussion on this board was incurred via GW Bush's adventurism. We should be very judicious about how we use the military. A lot of Trump's current rhetoric seems to revolve around settling grudges from 40+ years ago. Those are totally misplaced priorities. I don't think anyone in the US gives two sh*ts about Iran as long as they don't take potshots at us, and even if they do, as long a things are limited to skirmishes, then leave it be.

The bottom line is Trump has completely wasted the diplomatic progress Obama was able to achieve. It was imperfect but it was a hell of a lot better than being on the precipice of war as we now are. Trump is an expert at blaming others for his own stupidity and this is just another example. Plant will no doubt continue to side with him no matter how bloody this gets. It didn't have to go this way, not considering the fact that long-term demographics in Iran strongly favors democratic reforms and normalized relations with the West. The majority are not as backwards as Iraq or Afghanistan. The mullahs are in the minority and their hold on power is tenuous. All we had to do was wait them out.

[Newfie]

Here is the way I’m looking at it, right or wrong. Please let me know if I’ve got some fact wrong, as if I could stop you guys!

The Iran nuclear deal was a bad deal because it did not provide any long term solution. It was a short term deal that then let the Iranians nuclear develop proceed in the near future.

Trump saw it as a short sighted deal that sold out Israel so he pulled out and imposed sanctions to get a better deal.

The Iranians being pressured pushed back the only way they could by harassing maneuvers. Including the various attacks they say they were not responsible for, yeah, right.

So from the beginning Trumps goal was to remove Iran’s nuclear capability, to secure Israel. But he did not have an excuse to force my deny Iran their nuclear capability.

By making such a bold move in killing this high official he is taunting Iran to strike back in mind which would then give him the excuse he needs to take out their nuclear production facilities.

The alternative would be to allow Iran to develop their nuclear capability and then have a confrontation which could have had disastrous consequences.

As always trying to make sense out of a tangled web.

[asg70]

You're giving him too much credit. Trump can't think more than two minutes into the future.

The nuclear deal wasn't perfect but it was the least bad option at the time. You have to walk before you can run. But where we are now is a heck of a lot worse. NK is also a tinderbox. Would you like to see Trump start pushing NK to the brink and see if they bluff on invading SK? Trump has to learn that you can't just strong-arm every country into submission. He's supposed to be all about the art of the deal but it hasn't served him well in international diplomacy.

[Plantagenet]

If he was meeting with a secret terrorist organization, I could at least see the, hey, we caught a terrorist.

??????

Sulemanni was a terrorist himself and Al Quds...the organisation Sulemanni headed up, IS on the US State Department list of terrorist organizations. Why don't you know that?

And the people who picked him up at the airport where the same ones who attacked our embassy compound in Baghdad and who killed an American contractor and wounded others in a terror attack a few days earlier. They were also terrorists.

Sulemanni is the man who sent Iranian soldiers in to fight with Assad the butcher in Syria. He is the guy who arranged for Hezbollah to fight in Syria, and then he smuggled thousands of Iranian missiles and other weapons into Hezbollah in Lebanon, setting the stage for massive attacks on Israel.

Back in the 2000s Al Sulemanni was in charge of the Iranian program to kill US soldiers in Iraq, and he ran the program that supplied the IEDS that killed and maimed thousands of American soldiers, for heaven's sakes.

Why don't you know that?

Why are you making excuses for this terrorist killer who has the blood of thousands of Americans on his hands?

AND now he was planning new attacks on US diplomatic facilities. Thank god he was killed and hopefully these attacks on US personell won't happen now. But if they do, at least Sulemanni won't be around to gloat over his evil plan.


Good Bye and good riddance to General Sulemanni.

Cheers!

[jedrider]

Iraq’s Worst Fears Have Come True: a Proxy War on Its Doorstep
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/01/06/iraqs-worst-fears-have-come-true-a-proxy-war-on-its-doorstep/

Wars are reputedly won by generals who make the fewest mistakes. General Soleimani made a bad mistake over the last three months by turning a modest protest into something close to a mass uprising. Trump may have made an even worse mistake by killing General Soleimani and making Iraq, a place where Iran has far more going for it than the US, the arena in which the rivalry between these two powers will be fought out.

Back to the future in 2001. Some wars just never finish, such as Afghanistan. Glad the Vietnamese just outright whipped us so we got our butts out of there. Now, the American people lose by paying for expensive bombs dropped on mostly desert but, of course, some civilians. IMO

[rockdoc123]

From 10,000' the one aspect I see a bit differently Newfie is that Iran had already been pushing the envelope, first with the attacks and seizing control of ships from the Gulf and then (presumably) with the attacks on Saudi oil facilities and most recently with killing of a US contractor. Iran was becoming more emboldened and was continuing to taunt the US on an almost a daily basis. Given all that is at stake in the Middle East (Israel, Saudi Arabia, other Gulf states, Russia) the US may have let this go too far before pushing back. I guess you could argue maybe the response was over the top but 1. he was responsible for the death of many US soldiers previously, 2. there was intelligence suggesting he was responsible for the latest attacks as well as the protests at the embassy and 3. intelligence indicating he was planning something worse. If anything else it is a clear signal from the US (don't frig with us) and now one has to see how far Iran wants to take this. Sometimes you have to punch the bully in the face...and the bully this time was clearly Iran.

What a lot of people fail to realize is that Iran is not "the Middle East" it is a country that is collectively hated by almost every other Arab country in the region. The Saudis hate them, the Qataris have been nearly at war with them over offshore boundaries for decades, The UAE hates them because of issues in the offshore and the Kuwaitis think they are going to invade at any moment. They also are not universally loved in Iraq. There are more Shiites in power in southern Iraq now than in the days of Sadam which means they can side with the Iranians and get the US ousted but in northern Iraq or Kurdistan the Shiites are not well-liked, Iranians hated and that hatred ignores the fact that both were anti-ISIS. Just because ISIS is generally Sunni in its membership doesn't mean they are supported by all Sunnis and Kurdistan is a good example. The Peshmerga are skilled and tough, Iran has not really wanted to take them on even though they share a border. I guess my point is that if Iran suddenly went on a war footing they wouldn't have a lot of support in the region other than perhaps southern Iraq. The Russians and Chinese are more than willing to give them some verbal support but if push comes to shove I suspect they almost certainly will value their relationship with Saudi Arabia more and hence sit this one out.
But the US I believe would want to avoid any full out war with Iran regardless of support in the region. The country is vast and mountainous in many parts and the US would be able to make some quick headway taking out major targets via air strikes etc but longer-term it runs the risk of this being America's Afghanistan. The Russians learned that fighting a battle in the mountains with groups who could easily disappear was a no-win situation and the same could happen in Iran. It would not be like invading Iraq where basically there was no place to run and hide.
Just my two bits worth from having spent years in the region but being admittedly unskilled in the way of politics.

[jedrider]

What a lot of people fail to realize is that Iran is not "the Middle East" it is a country that is collectively hated by almost every other Arab country in the region.

Said about a region that has been home to zealotry before Christ was born. How does that select out Iran from the rest? Who bombed the Twin Towers BTW?

[rockdoc123]

Said about a region that has been home to zealotry before Christ was born. How does that select out Iran from the rest? Who bombed the Twin Towers BTW?

what does that have to do with support for Iran?
Your comments strike me as being common to many folks who haven't any idea about the culture or political differences in the Middle East but can't stop themselves from pointing at each and every state as somehow being "terrorists". There are rogue elements in every country whether it be the Far East, Middle East or West. Confusing that with the political goals of a country isn't very wise.

And many in the Middle East and North Africa would point to the Crusades as being one of the longest runs of religious zeolotry...from the Christian faith. Nobody is without stains I'm afraid.

My point was about Iran not having a lot of support amongst its neighbouring countries who largely see them as enemies. You on the other hand seem to think they are all the same. No wonder we have wars.

[Cog]

Informed Comment
https://www.juancole.com/

Has a lot of useful information on US/Iran/Iraq and Juan Cole just gave an interview on KPFA.

So, the Iran General was on a diplomatic mission in Iraq to meet with Saudi officials on the invite of Iraqi Prime Minister to calm tensions in the region -- all very public, no snoops required to figure that out.

Evidently, the US war machine doesn't like that.

Trump got a two for one out of this. He killed the number one terrorist in the world and got the left and the Democrat party to shower love on this terrorist. 87D chess move.

You know you can hate Trump without licking the taint of General Salami. I know it's difficult for you.

[jedrider]

Bright person, tell me how Iran is the cause of instability in EVERY Middle Eastern nation? As I recall, there were problems there when the Shah was our friend. Again, the Twin Towers were bombed through rivalry from another sect entirely. Iraq was no fault of Iran. The US has just messed things up through regime change wars as far as I can tell. It's obviously a volatile and important region that needs cool heads and not an inflammatory dick calling the shots

Well, listen to this. I see nothing wrong with Tulsi's opinion on this. https://youtu.be/LeSSQZMqov4

So, final words is that 'Trump is a Bully and not very good at his job'. I have to wholeheardedly agree with that assessment.

[Plantagenet]

Trump ... killed the number one terrorist in the world and got the left and the Democrat party to shower love on this terrorist.

Its the ultimate sign of the pervasiveness of Trump Derangement Syndrone among the Ds.

[Cog]

When Trump announced we were leaving Syria the left said "Oh my God, we are abandoning our allies and terrorism will prevail". Then when Trump kills the Number #1 terrorist in the region the left says "Oh my God Orange Man is starting WW3."

TDS indeed. Comical how the hate for Trump lives in their head 24/7. The reality is the Iranian leadership is pissing their pants right now wondering if they are next on the kill list.

[Newfie]

Roc,
Your noting Iran’s escalation is in line with my thinking. Once USA pulled out and out tight sanctions in the Iranians had little they could do except to annoy through their silly attacks.

Trump showed restraint but was ultimately pushed to a point where he needed to respond.

He put the ball back in Iran’s court. If they loose their cool and do something significant the Trump will have the green light to take out their nuclear production facilities.

Now think about that. The leaders have been pushing for the bomb for years. Obama nearly let them have it, just in 2023 or thereabouts. But Trumps sanctions have hurt the people and leadership, they are wondering what they are suffering for. And if after all that suffering then to have the bomb denied to them? That might push regime change.

“I suffered 4 years of sanctions and all I got was this lousy T shirt!”

They might be pissed.

It’s all conjecture, no one knows, surely not I. But it’s fun to play pundit.

[jedrider]

One does have to ask oneself who the terrorist is? "We will bomb cultural sites. 52 of them." Reminds one of virgins in heaven, doesn't it?