Isreal And Iran

**bigfootedfred** · December 03, 2005, 03:19 AM

Last year
Iran announced it could mass produce its Shahab 3 meduim range ballistic missile.

Originally Posted by bbc

Iran is now able to make large numbers of its medium-range Shahab-3 ballistic missile, Iranian Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani says.
He said Iran had mastered the technology and there were no limits on the volume of production.
The missile was recently upgraded to increase its range to 2,000km (1,250 miles), making it capable of travelling beyond Iran's borders.

source

And in may this year

Originally Posted by bbc

Iran's defence minister says it has successfully tested a new missile motor using solid-fuel technology with a range of 2,000km (1,250 miles).
Such an engine would enhance the capability of medium-range Shahab-3, which already has the ability to hit Israeli and US bases in the region.
The new engine would give the missile a greater range and increase its shelf life, Ali Shamkhani said.
Iran has taken huge steps in ballistic missile technology, experts say.

and yesterday, isreal announced a succesfuls test of its arrow missles system

Israel has carried out a successful test of its Arrow missile defence system, military officials have said.
An Arrow missile intercepted and destroyed a target similar to Iran's long-range Shahab-3 missile.
The test was launched from an air force base in the centre of Israel and stuck a target over the Mediterranean.
Israel considers Iran its greatest threat and has been working to counter the Shahab missiles, which Tehran says can reach Israeli territory.
The Israeli military began developing the Arrow anti-ballistic missile system after coming under attack by Iraqi Scud missiles during the first Gulf War.
The Shahab-3 is believed to have a range of 2,000 km (1,250m).
Correspondents say nearly US $2.5bn has been invested in developing the missile defence system - two thirds of it paid by the United States.

with the all the noise on the political scene about nuclear ambitions.
isral already sitting pretty with 200 or so nukes.
and The US close by in iraq.

are we heading towards yet another middle eastern conflict?

if i were iran, id be getting all the weapons i could get my hands on, with a country as agressive as the US on your border and all.

**Richard the Lionheart** · December 03, 2005, 04:01 AM

Originally Posted by Bigfootedfred

are we heading towards yet another middle eastern conflict?

Hopefully not. Right now it would probably be political suicide. Furthuremore, our military is stretched far too thin as it is. So if another war starts then they'll definitely start drafting.

A war with Iran would also be much more difficult. Iran is twice the size of Iraq, and it's population is also much greater. Iran also has a more organized military than Iraq. So a war with Iran would probably turn out very bloody for both sides...and so it might very likely turn out like another Vietnam.

So in the end, I don't think the U.S. wants to get involved in another armed conflict right now, seeing the current military and political difficulties associated with Iraq.

Right now, our best bet would be to solve this "Iran issue" diplomatically.

**Polemides** · December 03, 2005, 04:57 AM

You actually believe that Iran would give America trouble in a conventional war? Come on now. It might be more bloody that Iraq, but that was a cake walk. We lost all of two hundred troops during the invasion. If we went to war with Iran, their army would cease to be a coherent force after three months at the most.

Originally Posted by CIA Factbook

Military Iran
Military branches:
Islamic Republic of Iran Regular Forces (Artesh): Ground Forces, Navy, Air Force (includes Air Defense)
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (Sepah-e Pasdaran-e Enqelab-e Eslami, IRGC): Ground Forces, Navy, Air Force, Qods Force (special operations), and Basij Force (Popular Mobilization Army)
Law Enforcement Forces: (2004)
Military service age and obligation:
18 years of age for compulsory military service; 16 years of age for volunteers; soldiers as young as 9 were recruited extensively during the Iran-Iraq War; conscript service obligation - 18 months (2004)
Manpower available for military service:
males age 18-49: 18,319,545 (2005 est.)
Manpower fit for military service:
males age 18-49: 15,665,725 (2005 est.)
Manpower reaching military service age annually:
males: 862,056 (2005 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$4.3 billion (2003 est.)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
3.3% (2003 est.)

They spend 1/100 the amount we do on military. They had such a hard time against Iraq that they had to resort to conscripting children. They wouldn't have a chance.

**Richard the Lionheart** · December 03, 2005, 05:07 AM

Originally Posted by Polemides

You actually believe that Iran would give America trouble in a conventional war? Come on now. It might be more bloody that Iraq, but that was a cake walk. We lost all of two hundred troops during the invasion. If we went to war with Iran, their army would cease to be a coherent force after three months at the most.

It's quite clear that Iraq has not been a "cake-walk".

Are aware of what happened in Vietnam? You must never under-estimate the opposition.

We have to be realistic. Occupation of Iran would be significantly more difficult than Iraq. The country is much bigger, the population is much greater, and occupation would require a significantly greater number of soldiers and resources. And the mentality of the Iranians is not like that of the Iraqis, which means that if they are attacked most people will probably willingly enlist into the organized army.

So yes, at our current state, we would have a difficult time fighting against Iran.

Originally Posted by Polemides

They had such a hard time against Iraq that they had to resort to conscripting children. They wouldn't have a chance.

Well that was because the U.S. was helping Iraq at that time.

**Polemides** · December 03, 2005, 05:32 AM

Perhaps you should take what I said in context. The invasion of Iraq was a cakewalk. The occupation has been a bit difficult, but it isn't as bad as most people here like to make out. If anything, it could be much, much worse. Comparing what is going on in Iraq right now to Vietnam is preposterous. We lost 58,000 troops there.

Originally Posted by http://thewall-usa.com/stats/

YEAR TOTAL
1957 1
1958 0
1959 2
1960 5
1961 16
1962 53
1963 118
1964 206
1965 1,863
1966 6,144
1967 11,153
1968 16,589
1969 11,614
1970 6,083
1971 2,357
1972 640
1973 168
1974 178
1975 160
1976 77
1977 96
1978 447
1979 148
1980 - 1995 66
TOTAL DEATHS 58,178

As you can see, the amount of KIA we had grew significantly as we deployed more troops. The amount of KIA in Iraq is at a pretty steady rate. There is no national army that is opposing us either. In Vietnam, the NVA were our main problem, the VC were just a harassment force.

You seem to ignore the fact that I said conventional war. In a conventional war, Iran doesn't stand a chance against America. You also conveniently didn't comment about how our military spending is one hundred times more than theirs. The terrain is PERFECT for our military doctrine, which is still based around fighting a land war on the steppes of eastern Europe against Soviet equipment, which not surprisingly, makes up most of what they have. There are not vast swaths of rocky, mountainous terrain, or dense jungles in Iran. There is no large country backing Iran militarily or financially as in Vietnam.

I seriously doubt if Iran attacked American forces in Iraq at this moment, that our goal would be to occupy them as well. Instead, we would take the opportunity to hamstring their military and nuclear program. Perhaps we would back a revolutionary group, but actual occupation? I think we have learned our lesson in Iraq. We don't have the stomach to do what's necessary to quell an insurection, nor do we have the stomach to deal with the consequences of our inability. We do, however, have the stomach to kick the hell out of a bunch of persian conscripts.

**Richard the Lionheart** · December 03, 2005, 05:36 AM

Yes, of course the U.S. military will defeat the Iranian military....but at what cost? Also keep in mind the current heated political situation. I don't think the American people will want to be involved in another conflict anytime soon.

Originally Posted by Polemides

I seriously doubt if Iran attacked American forces in Iraq at this moment, that our goal would be to occupy them as well.

Iran isn't going to attack U.S. forces in Iraq. They're not that stupid.

**~~Ummon~~** · December 03, 2005, 05:47 AM

Originally Posted by Honor&Glory

Yes, of course the U.S. military will defeat the Iranian military....but at what cost? Also keep in mind the current heated political situation. I don't think the American people will want to be involved in another conflict anytime soon.

If it happened, very low cost: the Iranians would be annihilated. The problem would be unconventional warfare.

Originally Posted by Honor&Glory

Iran isn't going to attack U.S. forces in Iraq. They're not that stupid.

I am more on the lines of Iran isn't going to mess with the US beyond a certain limit until it has nuclear weapons.

**Tom Paine** · December 03, 2005, 05:49 AM

Originally Posted by Ummon

If it happened, very low cost: the Iranians would be annihilated. The problem would be unconventional warfare.

Which is exactly what it would be, Iran wouldn't go head-to-head with the US conventionally, because that would be suicide and they know it.

I am more on the lines of Iran isn't going to mess with the US beyond a certain limit until it has nuclear weapons.

I am of another opinion; it isn't going to do more than rhtoric until this nebulous nuclear weapons point, which as I say, is uncertian in the extreme.

**Richard the Lionheart** · December 03, 2005, 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by Ummon

If it happened, very low cost: the Iranians would be annihilated. The problem would be unconventional warfare.

Low cost? I don't think so. War is always costly. If anything a war with Iran will cost more than that with Iraq. And like I said, another war right now would be political suicide.

@Polemides: The Iranians aren't going to attack us. Like I said, they're not that stupid. The only way we would go to war with Iran would be if we attacked.

**~~Ummon~~** · December 03, 2005, 05:56 AM

Originally Posted by Honor&Glory

Low cost? I don't think so. War is always costly. If anything a war with Iran will cost more than that with Iraq. And like I said, another war right now would be political suicide.

You were talking about a defensive war. If Iran attacked Iraq. Weren't you saying this?

Said this, Iranian army, in all situations, doesn't have the capabilities to face US army. In an offensive scenario (Iran attacks US forces in Iraq) no Iranian attack would succeed and the toll would be unbearable for the Iranians, with insignificant losses for the US; in a defensive scenario (US attacks Iran), the US might lose a few hundred men, then start suffering more heavily from guerrilla and terrorism. The second scenario would be a political suicide as well for the US. The first for Iran.

In any case: no army in the world has chances against the US today, except China, Russia and India in conditions of numeric superiority.

**Richard the Lionheart** · December 03, 2005, 05:59 AM

Originally Posted by Ummon

You were talking about a defensive war. If Iran attacked Iraq. Weren't you saying this?

Nope. We were talking about the U.S. attacking Iran.

**Tom Paine** · December 03, 2005, 05:43 AM

Iran had a hard time against Iraq thanks to chemical weapon usage sa well, which no-one seems to have remembered.... I rather think the US wouldn't follow suit in that. It still has some internaitonal credibility.

**Richard the Lionheart** · December 03, 2005, 05:45 AM

Originally Posted by Squeakus Maximus

It still has some internaitonal credibility.

Yeah, that too.

**Polemides** · December 03, 2005, 05:50 AM

At a low cost for the destruction of their military. As I said, the most likely possibility would be if Iran attacked us. The defender always has a significant advantage over the attacker. We already have a much better military than theirs. Add all the factors together, and it would be a slaughterhouse for them.

The American people wouldn't have a choice if our forces were attacked.

You seem to be under the impression that the only way to win a war is by invading the enemy country and occupying them. Not so. If Iran attacked our forces, all that would be required is to handicap their military so they cannot launch offensive operations. You think that would be a bloody task? We waged an offensive war upon Iraq and lost two hundred soldiers. If we waged a defensive war against Iran, we would lose perhaps a thousand at the most, and that is being extremely generous to the Iranians.

During the first war with Iraq, it was predicted that we would have heavy losses. The DoD had 10,000 bodybags shipped to the Gulf to prepare for the carnage. They were terribly wrong. There is a value in not underestimating your enemy, but there is also a value in not overestimating them either.

**Tom Paine** · December 03, 2005, 05:53 AM

Originally Posted by Polemides

At a low cost for the destruction of their military. As I said, the most likely possibility would be if Iran attacked us. The defender always has a significant advantage over the attacker. We already have a much better military than theirs. Add all the factors together, and it would be a slaughterhouse for them.

............................

During the first war with Iraq, it was predicted that we would have heavy losses. The DoD had 10,000 bodybags shipped to the Gulf to prepare for the carnage. They were terribly wrong. There is a value in not underestimating your enemy, but there is also a value in not overestimating them either.

And yet that requires them to send a large number of military personnel to attack you; you can't hamstring the military or the nuclear program if the bulk or wole of it is inside Iran without invading, and that is where it becomes hellishly costly.

**~~Ummon~~** · December 03, 2005, 05:51 AM

I don't think it is uncertain, I think it is yet not complete though. When they have it done, we will know.

**Tom Paine** · December 03, 2005, 05:58 AM

It would start with one and go to the other; is hard to defeat a foe who simply legs it back across the border at the first sign of real trouble. Thus the cost would be too high for both.