Iran's attack response

If, or as seems increasingly likely, WHEN Iran is attacked by American or allied forces in the near future, what weapons would the Mullahs use in response?
If the attacks are strikes at nuclear facilities and military infrastructure by air, carried out over a period of a few hours or days, which of the following events would be likely?

1. A massive campaign of car bombing and related terror attacks at soft targets in Iraq and the rest of the middle east, possibly Europe.

2. A co-ordinated suicide attack on American warships by Iranian naval and missile assets.

3. An attack on Israel by Hezbullah and Syrian forces.

4. A strike at all shipping in the gulf aimed at closing the straits of Hormuz.

5. An all-out offensive accross the Shat-Al-Arab waterway into Iraq.

6. A bombing and hostage taking campaign in the United States itself.

All of the above?

I've got a feeling the first conventional attack will be anti ship missiles. They have these Soviet 'Sunburn' missiles.

Link for sunburn info only glanced at that, looks pretty capable tho.

Originally posted by aaaaa
If, or as seems increasingly likely, WHEN Iran is attacked by American or allied forces in the near future, what weapons would the Mullahs use in response?

I don't know where you get your information that an attack is likely, because it is VERY unlikely. An attack against Iran just will not happen and all these people who want war clearly do not have children.

Iran could not survive militarily more than a couple of days.

Regards

I think US want to attack, for whatever reason.

The most dangerous leaders in modern history are those (such as Hitler) equipped with a totalitarian ideology and a mystical belief in their own mission. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fulfills both these criteria, as revealed by his U.N. comments. That combined with his expected nuclear arsenal make him an adversary who must be stopped, and urgently.

link This one mostly.

And Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believs conflict will hasten the 'coming' of Mahdi who apparently will work with Jeasus (of all people!) to turn the world into an Islamic paradise

Unfortunatly you couldn't make this stuff up

Originally posted by paraphi
[I don't know where you get your information that an attack is likely, because it is VERY unlikely. An attack against Iran just will not happen and all these people who want war clearly do not have children.

Iran could not survive militarily more than a couple of days.

Regards

That is very National Socialist, meaning the celebration of the family and hte implicit assumption that those with children are "more" citizens or have "more" of a interest in determining our national security.

You are right. I don't have children. However: My father is in the military. My brother (and best friend) is in the military. My sister is in boot camp. My brother-in-law is in the national guard. In addition, I've got two cousins and and uncle in the military.

Trust me, I don't like the idea of losing any of these people, but I am also against allowing a country to kidnap the citizens of our only true ally, developing nuclear weaponry while at the same time spewing antisemitic vitriol. Believe it or not, some people have broader perspectives than just "their children."

Originally posted by aaaaa
1. A massive campaign of car bombing and related terror attacks at soft targets in Iraq and the rest of the middle east, possibly Europe.

2. A co-ordinated suicide attack on American warships by Iranian naval and missile assets.

3. An attack on Israel by Hezbullah and Syrian forces.

4. A strike at all shipping in the gulf aimed at closing the straits of Hormuz.

5. An all-out offensive accross the Shat-Al-Arab waterway into Iraq.

6. A bombing and hostage taking campaign in the United States itself.

1. Not really q problem. US Army could simply leave urban areas and insurgents will do no real harm to them.

2. Possible, but Iranian Navy is overrated IMHO. They might score some hits, but not much.

3. Least concern. Hezbollah cannot defeat Israel, all they can do is launch few rockets and cause maybe 50 deats. Syria will NEVER directly attack Israel.

4. That's the most serious problem. Such actions may drive the price of oil higher. However in 80ties US Navy showed they can handle such situation relatively well.

5. Possible. 2nd most serious problem. However even if Iranians sucesfully invade Iraq, they will become stuck there. US can bomb the bridges over Tigris and Euphratus and Iranian logistics would soon become nightmare. Also most oil producing areas are in west of Euphratus and I don't think Iranians could get there. Also Sunnis and Kurds would definitely not be happy with Iranian presence in Iraq so Iranians might fight themselves in the same position as US today.

6. I don't think there's enough terrorist cells in US to cause real problems.

Originally posted by longbow

Originally posted by aaaaa
6. A bombing and hostage taking campaign in the United States itself.

6. I don't think there's enough terrorist cells in US to cause real problems.

Remember there are plenty of US / UK personnel all over the world. Of course there are the 15 UK pers held ATM - also a plot was reported about a month back where UK Muslims were going to kidnap Muslim members of the armed forces on leave from Iraq - that one was UK main land.

Also - must be difficult to even begin to estimate sleeper cells in any country unless they are infiltrated at every level.

AAAAA,

If, or as seems increasingly likely, WHEN Iran is attacked by American or allied forces in the near future, what weapons would the Mullahs use in response?

Kill the mullahs. Mobs without leadership quickly become herds again. The notion that they can stage pinpoint attacks on OUR assets and forces while maintaining their own security behind a notional border is one of the key psychologies we would need to defeat in the Iranian leadership.

If the attacks are strikes at nuclear facilities and military infrastructure by air, carried out over a period of a few hours or days, which of the following events would be likely?

Why? Why not make it tit for tat? Bucky, we will never 'convince' them that the Brits were in international waters. The ROW will watch until they are bored, lacking the ability or the vested interest to do more. And every damn day we sit on the point of our thumbs and 'protest vehemently' that we were wronged will be another day that the Iranians win the psychology war by which _failure to act on our convictions_ means we are not in fact 'sure' that we are right.

So. Ass-u-me'ing that the whole world is actually divided up into three camps:

A. Those who know we are right and wonder why we are taking so long to do anything about it.
B. Those who know we are right and are happy to see us swung by the nuts by a mouse-that-roared wannabe.
C. Those who don't care either way.

Why not simply SKIP the 'legalities' part and take enough of their parliament to make it clear that they will GIVE US our soldiers back. Or suffer exactly parallel destruction of their own.

In this, the argument that: "If they break the law, so can we." is OUR best defense. Because they cannot hide all their leadership. And if we make it a pinpoint _focussed_ attack, we make it clear that this is 'not an excuse for general war'. But rather specifically about teaching a bunch of social adolescents who the real adults are. We can always go back and start leveling the country when they decide to execute the hostages.

What you and others fail to realize with all your grandiose words later on is that those hostages (and our unwillingness to be swayed by their fates so much as the principles of piracy at sea and kidnapping in general) are now the focus of a policy issue. Not a human one. THEY became that way as soon as they agreed to put on a uniform.

We can either leave them to rot and make sure that the next attempt is lethally futile. Or we can punish the Iranian LEADERSHIP for not doing the right thing, now.

But we cannot make it about the lives of the hostages perse. Or their will simply be more, elsewhere.

1. A massive campaign of car bombing and related terror attacks at soft targets in Iraq and the rest of the middle east, possibly Europe.

Which will marginalize not only the Iranians but all those who support them. Including the Russians and Chinese who are very much interested in remaining 'our friends' so long as their hands are closed around our wallets.

2. A co-ordinated suicide attack on American warships by Iranian naval and missile assets.

It might work, once. But it will be frigates and destroyers who take the brunt of things because we will destroy their 'navy' in-port immediately thereafter. The only thing the Iranians can do here is pop a nuke under a CVBG and that would mean the end for them.

3. An attack on Israel by Hezbollah and Syrian forces.

The Israelis would welcome an excuse to finish what they started last year. The UN would lose all credibility for stopping them (since Israel not only STILL has not received her troops back nor is any part of this mess) and Iran would be seen as the agency of unwarranted escalation even as Syria would be further laughed at as a nation who cannot control the agents of a foreign power living amongst them and thus CHOOSES to be a part of the chaos rather than be left out.

That was Saddam's 'master plan' and look what it bought him.

4. A strike at all shipping in the gulf aimed at closing the straits of Hormuz.

And lose all their street cred for starting something up that they cannot finish? You cannot 'close water'. You can only give letimacy to attacking your own landscape as a function of obliterating the landbased AShM, artillery and mine deployment craft which could possibly attempt to kill shipping as it goes thru.

5. An all-out offensive accross the Shat-Al-Arab waterway into Iraq.

If you mean by irregular forces then the simple fact of the matter is that such a war is already underway and it is, ironically, the Brits own fault for 'maintaining accords' in Basra and elsewhere which let Iranian Intel in the back door in setting up such an illicit entry system. We've known and complained about this since 2003 and it's just not on the cards to harden the border. In any case, aside from more munitions, it would be unwise for Iran to expose her extra-national desires by throwing her Al Quds terror troops into the battle any more than they already are. Such would clearly prove our case for taking the 'consulate' Iranians to begin with and cross border operations on our part would quickly follow at a level which could not be countered by simple capture of isolated snake eaters. Indeed, we would simply sterilize a DMZ kill zone 100km across and dare them to complain about it.

6. A bombing and hostage taking campaign in the United States itself.

The end of Iran.

This is their weakness. They WANT to be a super power. Ahmadinejad /wants/ to be the next Cyrus the Great. And if the Arabs could be convinced of this, no amount of force would be too great to 'change their minds'. So long as the Iranians have to plea innocence while pushing as hard as they can, covertly, to get us out, there is a chance that they can play vacuum-fillers in the chaotic aftermath using their own puppet regimes which nobody will dare question 'because after all, they beat the U.S.'.

But if they become overt, then the fact that WE are being threatened, again, at home, will override any perception that this is a 'just cause' defense of pan-Islamic brotherhood. Because it's not happening in the heart of Islam.

There is a saying in that part of the world which basically covers the spectrum of the PG culture's exploitationalist, craven, natures:

Myself before my Brother. My Brother before my Cousin. My Cousin before my Tribe/Township. My Tribe before my Country. My Country before my Islam.

Any one of these has multiple if-then-else conditional copouts. But combine two or more as a powerbase and it is increasingly likely that the 'next most outward' of threats will be turned upon in a way that seeks less victory than spoilage of conquest. Saddam knew how to defeat such a system, by hostaging the lives of the families and shaming the men into realizing that no amount of stubborn pride would let them off the hook for ANY infraction of a laid-down-law. We are not so smart.

Like hyenas Arabs in particular will persistently attack points of perceived weakness looking for an eventual as much as easy kill. But they WILL NOT band together the defend a notion of nationalism until and unless they are faced by 'total outsiders'. And the Iranians, by their own decree, are not Arab. The Iraqis are.

Thus, while it is in the best interests of the Arabs to have our asses out of there, lest they be seen as weak (and thus takeable) by their own people. It is equally NOT in their interests that the Iraqi regime collapse (much as the Afghan one did, shortly after the Russians left) only to be replaced by a Persian followon.

Because 'as they know Islam' they know that an Iranian backed peace plan would involve such bloodshed among the weakest (Sunni, also the sect of most of the Western side of the PG) elements of Iraqs society as would put that country forever beyond the pale of a balanced condition of power.

In this, it is also most definitely against OUR best interests to let Iran hide behind any presumptive notion of 'not us!' innocence, whether we can prove it or not.

Because Iran with Iraqs oil will become an uncontestible major player in OPEC and Iran is in China's back pocket (see the recent agreement to sell China oil priced in Euros). Increasing Eastern influence is something even the EU and Russia fears so the UN would also be out of the picture.

i.e. Iran cannot afford to give an excuse by which they are justifiably attacked directly. And any further assault on the U.S. will make it 'convenient' to simply steam roll them without further ado. For both Arabs and Western powers alike.

Equally, Iran cannot afford to be trumped as a mouse that got casually crushed by the paw of the silent lion. And taking their leadership on a 'give as you get' basis of traded hostages is something by which we can FORCE the Iranians to either ennoble themselves by changing the regime before the regime gets back to complain. Or to make a stupid move which gives us (UK/US) the collective excuse to /flatten/ them anyway.


mod edit: added quote tags
Quote Reference (review link)

[edit on 1-4-2007 by UK Wizard]

And it would only take the utter destruction of their atomic energy program and the execution of their leadership for kidnapping and murder of foreign nationals to put the Iranians sufficiently far back on their heels as to shame them in front of the very Islamists whom they are most desperately trying most to 'impress'.

The difference for us is that we have to recognize that POWER is it's own justification. As the Arab cultures, ruled for so long by iron fisted tyrants, most certainly understand, instinctively. If we have to find a moral reason to respond to Irans taughts and escalatory windups, we will forever be lagging their 'leadership' in a part of the world for which group-ethics (as nationalism really espouses) has no meaning. Only strength and the initiative to use it.


KPl.

Originally posted by ch1466
And it would only take the utter destruction of their atomic energy program and the execution of their leadership for kidnapping and murder of foreign nationals t
KPl.

Can you really do that?
I doubt it..
Really..
Not conventionally at least..

Originally posted by Now_Then
All of the above?

I've got a feeling the first conventional attack will be anti ship missiles. They have these Soviet 'Sunburn' missiles.

Link for sunburn info only glanced at that, looks pretty capable tho.

I keep hearing claims that Iran has the Sunburn, the Sizzler etc etc..
Do they really?
I haven't had any concrete info on the same..

Infact I doubt they have any operational AShCMs except for the AM-39 Exocet Missile

[edit on 1-4-2007 by Daedalus3]

And it would only take the utter destruction of their atomic energy program and the execution of their leadership for kidnapping and murder of foreign nationals

And the same can be said about the present US administration for kidnapping and torture of foreign nationals

Originally posted by aaaaa
2. A co-ordinated suicide attack on American warships by Iranian naval and missile assets.

So what you're saying is Iranian naval ships will be loaded with exlosives and manouvered into the US warships instead of using their guns, and suicide bombers will ride the missiles into their targets

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

Regards,
Maestro

I would remind you of what happened to the U.S.S. Cole with no more than a rubber raft full of explosives.

Attackers have the advantage of choosing the time and place of thier assault, I would not "lol" about the potential of such a strike.

If you think that such a blow hasn't been planned, I'd think again.

Originally posted by longbow

1. Not really q problem. US Army could simply leave urban areas and insurgents will do no real harm to them.


3. Least concern. Hezbollah cannot defeat Israel, all they can do is launch few rockets and cause maybe 50 deats. Syria will NEVER directly attack Israel.

Leave the urban areas?! The US Army toppled the old goverment along with any sense of order in the country, and now are going to leave the people to tear each other to shreads is what you're saying? That's a ridiculous statement. Plus the reactions it would spark around the world.

Now as for #3 and Hezbollah defeating Israel. The worry here is not weather the word Israel disappears from your atlas. The worry is the bloodshed that will be sparked between the two all over again. Mind you Hezbollah put up quite a fight for Israel, much more than was expected anyways. As for launching fifty rockets and "causing maybe fifty deaths", tell that to the families and friends, hell even the witnesses. I'm sure people in Israel's cities can all live peacfully now knowing Hezbollah can kill "maybe fifty people" and that's it. Now if these two were to go to war again and if that was to escalate to a much higher lvl than befor...think of the bloodshed then. Then again, to you that would be nothing more than a show on TV, just something else to sit down and discuss over the internet knowing your life is completely unaffected.

Regards,
Maestro

Originally posted by aaaaa
I would remind you of what happened to the U.S.S. Cole with no more than a rubber raft full of explosives.

Attackers have the advantage of choosing the time and place of thier assault, I would not "lol" about the potential of such a strike.

If you think that such a blow hasn't been planned, I'd think again.

No no no man, you got me all wrong man, I'm just poking fun at the wording of the sentence. I understand perfectly what is being said, just laughing at the way it's phrased.

Regards,
Maestro

Here's a radical thought..
If US strikes Iran (without the use of bases in gulf state's because they won't allow it) whats to stop Iran from pummeling US air bases in Iraq with hundreds of simple scud type missiles, thereby neutralizing US close air support, there would then be nothing to stop a much larger Iranian Army (with far superior numbers of artilery and rocket pieces) to start flowing over the Iraqi border which is lightly defended, considering those 200,000 coalition troops are dispersed all about the country??

US tanks are superior, their artilery more accurate..but in the absence of close air support I can't see them holding off those kinds of numbers.

case in point: The 1973 Yom Kupper War, in the early stages of the war Egypt put up this 'SAM shield' over their forces on the other side of the canal, they then decimated the Israeli side with a massive artilery barrage and walked over, the only thing that turned the tide in the war was eventually they ran short of sams and Israel was replenished directly by the USAF ($$ talks), it was the IAF and only the IAF that turned the tide of the war.

Did Hezbollah really have those sophesticated russian anti-tank missiles that destroyed or disabled 50 Merkava tanks? Was there any concrete info that suggested they had them? it certainly surprised the hell out of israel.. I think it's safe to say that Iran has anti-ship missiles that are at least better than the exocet, and (see other thread) IMO the exocet is good enough in such narrow waters as the Persian gulf.

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Originally posted by Now_Then
All of the above?

I've got a feeling the first conventional attack will be anti ship missiles. They have these Soviet 'Sunburn' missiles.

Link for sunburn info only glanced at that, looks pretty capable tho.

I keep hearing claims that Iran has the Sunburn, the Sizzler etc etc..
Do they really?
I haven't had any concrete info on the same..

Infact I doubt they have any operational AShCMs except for the AM-39 Exocet Missile

[edit on 1-4-2007 by Daedalus3]

I believe that Iran would be the most likely to use biological or chemical weapons as a strike against the US, and would be a fairly easy weapon to deploy. Then the question is how do we respond? Not well, I'm shure.

Originally posted by ch1466

Kill the mullahs. Mobs without leadership quickly become herds again. The notion that they can stage pinpoint attacks on OUR assets and forces while maintaining their own security behind a notional border is one of the key psychologies we would need to defeat in the Iranian leadership.

So. Ass-u-me'ing that the whole world is actually divided up into three camps:

A. Those who know we are right and wonder why we are taking so long to do anything about it.
B. Those who know we are right and are happy to see us swung by the nuts by a mouse-that-roared wannabe.
C. Those who don't care either way.

Why not simply SKIP the 'legalities' part and take enough of their parliament to make it clear that they will GIVE US our soldiers back. Or suffer exactly parallel destruction of their own.

I never thought I'd say this but.......WELL SAID ch1466.

Your assertions are completely valid and I find myself in total agreement with you.