Iran v US confrontation

berbatrick said:


I understand missile defence sytems have hard times with unpredicatable, small, low-flying drones. But isn't a cruise missile exactly what they are supposed to stop? Either that Patriot system is a bunch of shit or ...
Click to expand...

It seems as though all the relevant actors haven't sat down to smooth out their story. The low flying slow drones evading the patriot missile systems could be accepted to an extent but cruise missiles?:lol: plus the fact that a missile fired from Iranian territory would physically have to pass Bahrain. fecking clowns trying to engage in subterfuge.
 
RedTiger said:
It seems as though all the relevant actors haven't sat down to smooth out their story. The low flying slow drones evading the patriot missile systems could be accepted to an extent but cruise missiles?:lol: plus the fact that a missile fired from Iranian territory would physically have to pass Bahrain. fecking clowns trying to engage in subterfuge.
Click to expand...

Bahrain is the new Belgium.
 
Last I looked Iran wasn't to the North-West of Saudi Arabia, as per the original story, but to it's North-East. They can't make their mind up whether it was drones or cruise missiles, or what direction it came from, but they are certain that it surely was Iranian.

At least Saudi has invited UN to investigate, let's see if the White House can wait for that. Not that it has anything to do with them anyway.
 
OohAahMartial said:
Last I looked Iran wasn't to the North-West of Saudi Arabia, as per the original story, but to it's North-East. They can't make their mind up whether it was drones or cruise missiles, or what direction it came from, but they are certain that it surely was Iranian.

At least Saudi has invited UN to investigate, let's see if the White House can wait for that. Not that it has anything to do with them anyway.
Click to expand...
If it was missiles the US would have no difficulty proving it. Clearly it wasn't.
 
Yeah, Iran launched a missile over Bahrain and into SA and only the US knows this. Get the feck out.
 
I still have a very very hard time believing the US is actually interested in a war with Iran. It won't be the cakewalk Iraq was by any means (and even that in some regards wasn't one) - plus you risk alienating large swats of the population there who probably think more western than many other parts of the middle east.
 
Redplane said:
I still have a very very hard time believing the US is actually interested in a war with Iran. It won't be the cakewalk Iraq was by any means (and even that in some regards wasn't one) - plus you risk alienating large swats of the population there who probably think more western than many other parts of the middle east.
Click to expand...
I don’t think as well US wants to be involved in a war but between Iraq and Iran is a difference , US invaded Iraq but Im sure they wouldn’t invade Iran because Trump doesn’t want to be involved in any war (2020) and probably they would completely destroy all the military bases and government buildings which would cause a bigger disaster to the 80 million people, also the attack if came from Iran was in the right time because again elections next year and they are afraid if Trump wins then.....
 
barros said:
I don’t think as well US wants to be involved in a war but between Iraq and Iran is a difference , US invaded Iraq but Im sure they wouldn’t invade Iran because Trump doesn’t want to be involved in any war (2020) and probably they would completely destroy all the military bases and government buildings which would cause a bigger disaster to the 80 million people, also the attack if came from Iran was in the right time because again elections next year and they are afraid if Trump wins then.....
Click to expand...
I don’t think the US know what it wants at the moment. Their actions are incoherent. All they have done is strengthen both Iran and Saudi Arabia at the expense of the US.
 
barros said:
I don’t think as well US wants to be involved in a war but between Iraq and Iran is a difference , US invaded Iraq but Im sure they wouldn’t invade Iran because Trump doesn’t want to be involved in any war (2020) and probably they would completely destroy all the military bases and government buildings which would cause a bigger disaster to the 80 million people, also the attack if came from Iran was in the right time because again elections next year and they are afraid if Trump wins then.....
Click to expand...

We should not be in this situation in the first place.

Iran was complying with the agreement.

Moron -in-chief broke the agreement.
 
barros said:
I don’t think as well US wants to be involved in a war but between Iraq and Iran is a difference , US invaded Iraq but Im sure they wouldn’t invade Iran because Trump doesn’t want to be involved in any war (2020) and probably they would completely destroy all the military bases and government buildings which would cause a bigger disaster to the 80 million people, also the attack if came from Iran was in the right time because again elections next year and they are afraid if Trump wins then.....
Click to expand...

And if the attack didn't come from Iran?
 
Iran will release our tanker, at some future unspecified date. Hooray. I like the way they've waited a couple of weeks to show the UK and US who's boss. Or wait until their tanker got to it's destination, although that's the same thing I suppose.
 
Lots of potential for escalation here:

 
barros said:
I don’t think as well US wants to be involved in a war but between Iraq and Iran is a difference , US invaded Iraq but Im sure they wouldn’t invade Iran because Trump doesn’t want to be involved in any war (2020) and probably they would completely destroy all the military bases and government buildings which would cause a bigger disaster to the 80 million people, also the attack if came from Iran was in the right time because again elections next year and they are afraid if Trump wins then.....
Click to expand...

When it comes to war. There are deeper.state that orchestrated this. I dont believe a president alone can decise such thing as a full scale invasion.

Probably not a real deep state but a network of really influencial people will be pulling some strings.
 
Sky1981 said:
When it comes to war. There are deeper.state that orchestrated this. I dont believe a president alone can decise such thing as a full scale invasion.

Probably not a real deep state but a network of really influencial people will be pulling some strings.
Click to expand...

The Military-Industrial Complex you mean?
 
sglowrider said:
The Military-Industrial Complex you mean?
Click to expand...

Probably. But if america decided to go to war it wont be down to just the potus. He'll have people behind the screen orchestrating, instructed, or at the very least made into the final decision of going to war with a web of lies and misinformation.

I really doubt even the potus are given cold bare facts on conflicts around the world.
 
Sky1981 said:
Probably. But if america decided to go to war it wont be down to just the potus. He'll have people behind the screen orchestrating, instructed, or at the very least made into the final decision of going to war with a web of lies and misinformation.

I really doubt even the potus are given cold bare facts on conflicts around the world.
Click to expand...

Its an old concept -- suspect since Eisenhower who coined the phrase.
 
Redplane said:
I still have a very very hard time believing the US is actually interested in a war with Iran. It won't be the cakewalk Iraq was by any means (and even that in some regards wasn't one) - plus you risk alienating large swats of the population there who probably think more western than many other parts of the middle east.
Click to expand...
The occupation no, the wars though were considered 2 of the most one sided wars in history. Iran would be the same, people forget just how powerful the US military is,
 
Gambit said:
The occupation no, the wars though were considered 2 of the most one sided wars in history. Iran would be the same, people forget just how powerful the US military is,
Click to expand...
Agreed. It all depends how far the US want to go. If it's purely the US flattening the place, it can be done real quick.
 
Gambit said:
The occupation no, the wars though were considered 2 of the most one sided wars in history. Iran would be the same, people forget just how powerful the US military is,
Click to expand...

Kinda, yes. Though I believe Iran's military is less of a paper tiger than Iraq's was. There's no way they can beat the Americans, obviously, but with enough modern hardware they can make it hurt a little bit. It also has more than twice the population, is four times the size, and is quite mountainous.
 
Gambit said:
Leaving nuclear weapons aside, the US would destroy the Iranian regime and military with around the same ease as they did Iraqs. As an occupational force that's a different matter. Sorry this isn't even a contest. People really do underestimate the power of the US military. It would be target practice for them. I have no interest or want to see such a thing, its just the facts.
Click to expand...
Talking about UK here - that's why I bolded that part.
 
The Firestarter said:
If talking about a conventional conflict and leaving nuclear options aside, in a prolonged conflict they will prevail, but not as easy as you expect.
Click to expand...
Tend to agree... It wouldn't be that straight forward

Though if Saudi chose to get involved and throw loads of troops into the mix that might change the balance as I doubt there is the political capital to loose a lot of USA troops in the early stage of an invasion
Prolonged airstrikes (with Potentially high civilian death toll) would seem more likley... Probably hoping it triggers a regime change (not sue the usa end up with a regime they are happy with if that happens)
 
The Firestarter said:
Talking about UK here - that's why I bolded that part.
Click to expand...
Oh in terms of the UK it would last a bit longer but they would have air dominance in less than a week and would have destroyed our bases and capabilities in that time. Then they wouldn't have to invade, they could just starve us out from the sea cutting off all incoming supplies. The only weapon that would last that long would be our submarines but once the dominance is asserted its too small a force to last out. We would give them a bloody nose for their efforts for the first day or two but the inevitable would happen and again with ease. The scary part is they could do it to us with only their Atlantic Navy.
 
Gambit said:
Oh in terms of the UK it would last a bit longer but they would have air dominance in less than a week and would have destroyed our bases and capabilities in that time. Then they wouldn't have to invade, they could just starve us out from the sea cutting off all incoming supplies. The only weapon that would last that long would be our submarines but once the dominance is asserted its too small a force to last out. We would give them a bloody nose for their efforts for the first day or two but the inevitable would happen and again with ease. The scary part is they could do it to us with only their Atlantic Navy.
Click to expand...
Your subs will be crucial indeed - the only hope against the carrier groups.
 
The Firestarter said:
Your subs will be crucial indeed - the only hope against the carrier groups.
Click to expand...

The US would achieve subsurface supremacy by taking out any Iranian subs and/or mines before putting any surface assets in the area. Similar to how above the surface, the Air Force achieves air supremacy before clearing the way for Army and Marine assets to launch ground invasions.
 
Raoul said:
The US would achieve subsurface supremacy by taking out any Iranian subs and/or mines before putting any surface assets in the area. Similar to how above the surface, the Air Force achieves air supremacy before clearing the way for Army and Marine assets to launch ground invasions.
Click to expand...
Still talking about the UK here :lol: . Sorry, we micro derailed the thread a bit.
 
Gambit said:
Oh in terms of the UK it would last a bit longer but they would have air dominance in less than a week and would have destroyed our bases and capabilities in that time. Then they wouldn't have to invade, they could just starve us out from the sea cutting off all incoming supplies. The only weapon that would last that long would be our submarines but once the dominance is asserted its too small a force to last out. We would give them a bloody nose for their efforts for the first day or two but the inevitable would happen and again with ease. The scary part is they could do it to us with only their Atlantic Navy.
Click to expand...
Think it would take a bit longer... But yeah... In many ways invading UK would be easier than Iran
 
Raoul said:
The US would achieve subsurface supremacy by taking out any Iranian subs and/or mines before putting any surface assets in the area. Similar to how above the surface, the Air Force achieves air supremacy before clearing the way for Army and Marine assets to launch ground invasions.
Click to expand...
Sorry there's secondary conversation that s happened to illustrate the power of the USA and that response was to a hypothetical US UK which the US would easily win as well. I'll stop that so as to not confuse the thread,
 
Right, some of my posts are jumping between this thread and the US embassy one. What's happening?
 
sun_tzu said:
Think it would take a bit longer... But yeah... In many ways invading UK would be easier than Iran
Click to expand...

Problem with those vids I find is it never takes into account the USA ability to attack all targets at once through shock and awe tactics continously or total war tactics when facing enemy forces. While the terrain in Iran is tricky they would be able to bypass it as they did in Afghanistan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.