Ignore Iran’s comments/sentiments and any other ments about Israel, should US or some sorta “coalition” invade Iran? Why?
NOTE: Ignore Iran’s stance against Israel… keep Israel out of thread/equation then discuss why should Iran be attacked/invaded.
Re: Should Iran be attacked?
NOTE: Ignore Iran's stance against Israel... keep Israel out of thread/equation then discuss why should Iran be attacked/invaded.
So what you are saying is: Pretend Iran is not made up of the lunatics that are running it and that in fact Iran is a reasonable/respected member of the international community. So, you are asking, basically, should Germany be attacked for conducting nuclear research.
Re: Should Iran be attacked?
^ no, I'm only saying to ignore what Iran says about Israel then think whether Iran should be attacked or not, is it too much to ask?
Re: Should Iran be attacked?
taali do haath say bajit hai (it takes two......). If Iranian maulanas keep on raising their hands and fists in US's face, well then what do you expect?
Re: Should Iran be attacked?
To attack Iran can involve two things.
1 - Aerial and Naval Bombardmentment and Missile Strikes
2 - Ground Forces to defeat Iran
Lets look at 1.
Recent defense analysis studies has shown that Iran has over 600 targets. 99% of them are non-nuclear related. That means if USA or NATO targets Iran, most of the destruction will fall on the Iranian Military as well as the complete destruction of Iran's Nuclear Program. Iran's Air Force is obselete, Iran's Navy can be annhiliated by the U.S. 5th Fleet in Bahrain. In essence, USA can hit over 100 Targets in 1 Day in Iran. 2-3 Days will be needed to neutralize the Iranian missile threats, and another day to take out their Air-Force and Navy. So at the most in 5 days, Iran's Navy and Air-Force and Missiles will cease to exist. I would say in about 11-12 Days all 600 hundred targets can be taken out. Leaving Iran's Military totally destroyed and their Nuclear program in utter shambles.
Lets look at 2.
To invade Iran will require a three pronged approach. Three massive armored, mechanized infantry, infantry spearheads approaching from three differnt sides to capture the cities. The invasion and the capture of Iran could take around 3 months. 600,000 Ground troops will be needed. But after the Iraqi Insurgency, I doubt this option is on the table.
So should Iran be attacked?
Iran is a menace. Its a terrorist sponsoring nation. Attacking Iran will de-stabilize the world oil market. Iran could counter by using terrorist cells to attack american interests around the world.
In my opinion, after the Iraq mess, Iran should not be attacked. Best way to neutralize Iran is by Sanctions, aerial and naval bombardment to take out their nuclear sites. As well as an all out war on Hezbollah and thier sanctuaries from Syria to Argentina.
Re: Should Iran be attacked?
The challenge of Iran is that :
If US bomb only Iranian sites, Iranian will respond by bombing with SCUD but also much more precise ballistic missiles they have developped, all oil terminals, off shore oil platform and refineries, airforce bases plus mining Ormuz straight and firing as much antiship missiles on any US boat around. Moreover they would enforce rebellion in Iraq and even attack with commandos or infantry.
Iran has housands of ballistic missiles and hundred of thousands of sea mines.
Moreover I guess that they would use their subs against US commerce outside gulf area.
Cost will be astonishing high for world economy and for US with a strong decline of gulf oil for many months or even years.
It is perfectly possible they attack Afganistan or an other country allied with the west in reprisal.So US forces will have to treat many targets on various front.
What Iranian have is a lot of infantry with correct AT weapons, some night vision and manpads and artillery.
Much more efficent than the T55/dowgraded T72 of Saddam supplemented by a poor infantry without decent weapons and unmotivated officers.
Moreover US are not sure that they would destroy Iranian programm as facilities are not all known and some equipement have been dispersed.
If US go also ground then it will be costly and I doubt US have enough troops.
BUT
Iran has no weapons that could sink a carrier [going nuclear aint an option]; with the missiles they have they´d need a dozen hits or something like that.. and Silkworms and their derivatives are too slow and have too little range. Even hitting a carrier can be said to be a huge challenge, hitting something else is more probable but even then the succeed rates will be low. Aegis + air superiority + close defence = very small chances for anything flying that tries to get thru. The outer line of the defence will get the beating if someone.
And talking about Kilos.. It would a suicide attack for them, it could lead into few hits if they are lucky and well trained, but I believe that they can count only on lady Fortuna [unless someone shows other evidence]. At best, they could disable a carrier with their Kilos, but I believe that the only challenge for USN is to keep Kilos far enough from their other assets. Carriers are too well guarded and besides that can take a lot of punishment without being sunken. Anyway, I believe that Iranians will use their Kilos to disrupt the sea traffic; a lot better way to use their rather limited assets and could lead even into a interesting submarine hunting... Sending them against USN would mean a certain loss with very little chance to achieve something really big [ok, they could manage to sink something and hit a carrier, it would be tremendous boost of moral for them, but are they stupid enough to play against odds that are like 1:100 or worse?] Send them after tankers and then we may see something interesting and that´s how they could cause some grey hair to USN. But their endurance is short, so regardless of their luck or skill they have to reveal themselves rather soon. [never to mention the fact that Kilos must be among the top targets when US military sets loose the dogs of war]
Re: Should Iran be attacked?
If aerial and naval bombardment of nuclear sites is not an "attack" then what is ? :)
Re: Should Iran be attacked?
yes, taali do haath se nahi bajti, agar US danda dikhana band kar de to mujhe yaqeen hai Iran bhee mukka nahi dikhaye ga :)
Re: Should Iran be attacked?
sorry bad choice of words
not attack but invasion:)
Re: Should Iran be attacked?
i think iran already has nukes.....i think they will not hesitate to use them, if attacked. I hope my sentence remains just an "exaggeration".
Re: Should Iran be attacked?
Iran does not have nukes...
Nor will I want Iran to have nukes
Iran is being lead by a messianic type zeal same as Hitler...
**NOTE: I said don't bring Israel into equation!
Re: Should Iran be attacked?
There is also evidence that the US has an effective EMP bomb. This bomb emmits an Electro Magnetic Pulse, destroying electronic equipment. A large enough pulse can penetrate ground structures, roasting virtually every semiconductor, from scientific equipment to centrifuge control units.
This type of bomb is air burst above the target, and would cause minimal fatalites, but maximum destruction to crucial electronics. This would set back the Iranian effort by years, but would avoid Al-Jazeera-friendly huge smoking holes. If a second strike were needed later on, it would have to be massively kinetic...
Re: Should Iran be attacked?
^ OG thank you for informing us about US weaponry, now can you comment anything towards topic?
Re: Should Iran be attacked?
Sure.
"Diplomacy" will fail, Russia and China will try to protect their economic interests, Iran will continue their hostile belligerence, and the US will step up and use the least lethal weapon available in an effort to minimize world opinion against the US while delaying the Iranian program.
The way Iran is acting now, they are almost asking to be attacked. There is some plan in their mind to ignite a conflict. The US will not back down from that challenge. Next stop North Korea.
Re: Should Iran be attacked?
"Diplomacy" will fail, Russia and China will try to protect their economic interests, Iran will continue their hostile belligerence, and the US will step up and use the least lethal weapon available in an effort to minimize world opinion against the US while delaying the Iranian program.
The way Iran is acting now, they are almost asking to be attacked. There is some plan in their mind to ignite a conflict. The US will not back down from that challenge. Next stop North Korea.
What do you mean by that? Did they throw some missiles here and there already?
Re: Should Iran be attacked?
No, but the way they are acting, defying world opininon, claiming the holocaust is a myth, wiping israel off the map...
Are these the words of a government which wants peace?
Iran has become very beligerent since US forces are tied up in Iraq...
But Iran is solely mistaken
US ground troops may be tied up in Iraq
But US Special Foces, Air and Naval forces are not..
They can take out Iran in less than 2 weeks
As for a Shia uprising and Hezbollah terrorist attacks should they attack Iran...
I much rather have Hezbollah blowing up a building with a truck bomb than Iran giving Hezbollah nukes...
As for the Mehdi Army, they got annhiliated when they rose up against US troops in Najaf and Karabala, and the same would happen again...
And if Iranian Regular forces join the fight in Iraq, then USA will use its Air Force to take them out before it uses its Ground Units to do the job to lessen civilian casualties...
Iran thinks it has USA by the ropes but its the other way around
Re: Should Iran be attacked?
ssingh might be rite, i mean look at Pakistan, for how many years Pakistan had their eggs ready. Until 1998 they really tested those eggs.
same can goes for Iran...
Re: Should Iran be attacked?
Elaborate further on that. Iran is only dodging UN regarding nukes, what else did they dodge UN/world about? Then again, getting nukes to them is buying security.
If they really didn’t want peace, I’m sure they would have already invaded some country, no? 
Re: Should Iran be attacked?
Iranian maulanas raising their hands and fists in US’s face, hardly gives any validity whatsoever for the US to attack Iran.
Re: Should Iran be attacked?
This is hardly any justification to attack a country.
What do you mean by “defying world opinion”? If there is any state who defied world opinion and attack another country illegitimately then it is not Iran but America, who invaded Iraq even though the world opinion was against it totally. They built their case on lies and falsehood, but even then could not muster world support.
Again in case of Iran, there is no proof whatsoever that Iran is building any nuclear weapon.
And why are you poking in Israel into this thread, you Zionist mercenary. The question is about the validity of the attack on Iran.