Is Netanyuhu nuts?

[Orignal Earl]

I was challenging Lemon Law's oft-repeated assertion that Iran could close down the gulf with shoulder-mounted rockets on the straights of Hormuz.

That would be pretty stupid of LL, but I'm thinking he probably did not say that.
The Iranians would probably first attempt something with their anti-ship missiles.
Maybe some suicide runs on some of those bases

 

[irishScott]

That would be pretty stupid of LL, but I'm thinking he probably did not say that.
The Iranians would probably first attempt something with their anti-ship missiles.
Maybe some suicide runs on some of those bases

Oh come on you've been here since 2005. We've had this discussion before:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=330261&highlight=lemon+law+shoulder+mounted

And even with the vast military strength and firepower in the US arsenal, even the USA is not strong enough to mount a grown based offensive on Iran. Failing that, Iran has the missiles and manpower to completely shut down the Persian gulf for decades.

Which would result in instant depression for every oil based economy in the world.

The only entity I can think of bat shit crazy enough to surprise attack Iran is Israel. And even if Iran fails to kill a good part of the remaining Israeli population in a retaliatory strike(s), they can also simple sit back, open up their weapons stockpiles, and donate some of their really good stuff to every anti-Israeli terrorist on the planet. We got a sneak peek at what some of the Iranian not so good stuff could do to the best Israeli tanks, and Israel should think long and hard about having the whole zone get flooded on all sides.

Unlike Iraq and Syria, Iran is no paper tiger.

Gamingpreek is deluding only himself in not understanding by saying, "As for your claim of apparent Iranian dominance in a ground based military confrontation against the US- you're kidding yourself."

No you miss the point, Iran is somewhat the arsenal of Islam, the USA does not have the tanks and equipment to permit a ground based offensive against Iran. And failing that US ability to clear a 500 mile swath away from the Persian Gulf, Iran will shut down the Persian gulf, and Iran will get their revenge against the USA in that way.

In tank warfare, the well armed defender has a huge advantage. The defender is dug in and the one on the offensive has to come to the teeth of the defenders defensive. Unless the USA is willing to nuke 75 million Iranians, air power can wound but not kill the Iran easy ability to totally shut down the Persian Gulf.

Iran can easily switch to a natural gas technology, can you afford $200.00+/gallon gasoline? Shut down the Persian gulf and you too can find the answer to the question, if you feel as froggie.

But Common Courtesy point taken, Iraqi terrain is almost perfect for tank warfare, and Saddam's obsolete tanks were no match for US tanks, but Iranian terrain more resembles Lebanon, and the Iranian battle will not be tank on tank, but tank vs shoulder fired missiles. And basically the same missiles that can take out a tank, can take out a oil tanker, and unless a ground based offensive against Iran can root out small detachments of Iranian troops dug into natural defenses in the terrain, and equipped with land to sea missiles, nothing floating above water can move on the Persian gulf without Iranian leave.

Predicting exactly how Iran would react if Israel tries to sucker punch it is not the point, my point is and remains, the wide range of
powerful Iranian viable options would be almost infinite.

Nor does an Iranian radar system need to be big and powerful to see a big ole oil tanker. And with spotters in boats and on shore on both sides of the Persian gulf, simple radio communication or even smoke signals give the Iranians ample warning of course of speed of said tankers. Then the radar can turn on for less than 10 seconds, giving precise targeting co ordinates to dug in rockets that may be 10 of miles away. The US may be able to later take out a few fixed radar systems per tanker sunk, but the rational tanker owner will not risk sailing. Meanwhile small Iranian fishing boats and outboard powered rubber rafts will be sowing mines all over the Persian gulf.

You can bet Iran has thought long and hard about the logistics of this, after losing two generations of men to the Saddam Hussein attack on Iran. And have had 20 years to build up their defenses since.

For one of the biggest delusions, its hard to beat the Common Courtesy one of " The US does not need a tank battle or a land invasion. We are not interested in controlling land; just ensure a sterile strip that forces the Iranian forces to keep their heads down.

Even if we only assume that sterile strip is only 200 miles wide times 500 miles of Iranian coastline, that is 100,000 square miles to patrol 24/7/365. That is a huge area and the US simply does not have that much thermal imaging equipment for that big of an area. And you think small Iranian detachments can't reach caches of pre buried missiles or decoy down US planes into the teeth of shoulder fired ground to air missiles. The Israelis tried that air support thing against Hezbollah fighters with little success, and in far fewer number of square miles in 2005. And Hezbollah did not even have ground to air missiles. And if Iranians were willing to march into the machine gun fire of Iraqi tanks armed with only rifles, they will be willing to risk their lives to take out 1000 ft oil tankers armed with much better missiles.

I could go on, but you get the idea. It sounds legit until you do some basic research and figure out how it's laced with bullshit.

 

[Lemon law]

I see Israeli fab clubbers have little vision or understandings of tactics. As they envision the entire Iranian navy coming out in a set piece battle to the death with the US 5'th fleet, and when the smoke cleared, the Persian gulf would be totally open.

Which simply not going to happen, nor is it the definition of keeping the Persian gulf open because the targeted shipping would be oil tankers. Just one hit with a mine, missile, or even heavy machine gun fire and its going to result in a blazing wreck. Add in the fact that Iran has 500 miles of coast line in the Persian gulf, a large supply of ground to ship missiles, a rocky coastline with terrain suitable for hiding missile emplacements, plus enough dedicated military personnel to use them all adds up no rational tanker owner willing to risk their ships trying to run the Persian gulf gauntlet.

 

[Orignal Earl]

It must be pretty tight in there.
Ships keep bumping into each other.

"On January 10, 2007, the nuclear submarine USS Newport News, traveling submerged, struck M/V Mogamigawa, a 300,000-ton Japanese-flagged very large crude tanker, south of the strait"

On March 20, 2009, United States Navy Los Angeles-class submarine USS Hartford (SSN-768) collided with the San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock USS New Orleans (LPD-18) in the strait. The collision, which slightly injured 15 sailors aboard the Hartford, ruptured a fuel tank aboard the New Orleans, spilling 25,000 US gallons (95 m3) of marine diesel fuel"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz#Iranian_threats

I think since the US Naval Intelligence has worried about it happening there might be something to it.
Maybe...

 

[irishScott]

I see Israeli fab clubbers have little vision or understandings of tactics. As they envision the entire Iranian navy coming out in a set piece battle to the death with the US 5'th fleet, and when the smoke cleared, the Persian gulf would be totally open.

Which simply not going to happen, nor is it the definition of keeping the Persian gulf open because the targeted shipping would be oil tankers. Just one hit with a mine, missile, or even heavy machine gun fire and its going to result in a blazing wreck. Add in the fact that Iran has 500 miles of coast line in the Persian gulf, a large supply of ground to ship missiles, a rocky coastline with terrain suitable for hiding missile emplacements, plus enough dedicated military personnel to use them all adds up no rational tanker owner willing to risk their ships trying to run the Persian gulf gauntlet.

No, I'm picturing hundreds of cruise missiles and over 100 fighter jets, and drone strikes from land bases, sinking each and every hostile ship the moment it's position is reported, and escorts for tankers.

But I'm not going to debate tactics with you LL. If you actually knew the specifics you claim to know about Iranian defenses or US capabilities you wouldn't be allowed to talk about it or you'd be writing for some military site somewhere. Instead you're posting in a p&n sub-forum about it for some unknown, probably psychological reason. So stop acting like you're doing anything other than spouting assumed shit based on your own fantasies.

 

[brencat]

This is why Netanyahu is all fired up... could be him trying to incentivize Allies to take action in lieu of the IAEA report due out next week which will supposedly show evidence that Iran has been doing work that could only be related to atomic weapons development:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/uk-military-iran-attack-nuclear

 

[Ninjahedge]

Sometimes I feel like a Netanyuhu.....

Sometimes I don't....

 

[Nebor]

I see Israeli fab clubbers have little vision or understandings of tactics. As they envision the entire Iranian navy coming out in a set piece battle to the death with the US 5'th fleet, and when the smoke cleared, the Persian gulf would be totally open.

Which simply not going to happen, nor is it the definition of keeping the Persian gulf open because the targeted shipping would be oil tankers. Just one hit with a mine, missile, or even heavy machine gun fire and its going to result in a blazing wreck. Add in the fact that Iran has 500 miles of coast line in the Persian gulf, a large supply of ground to ship missiles, a rocky coastline with terrain suitable for hiding missile emplacements, plus enough dedicated military personnel to use them all adds up no rational tanker owner willing to risk their ships trying to run the Persian gulf gauntlet.

What you're talking about is an act of war against the United States. The Iranian military would have to decide if they want to fight the mightiest military in the world, in which case they would be deprived of fuel, ammunition and food in short order, or they can take off their uniforms and go home. We saw which one Iraq chose.

 

[Lemon law]

Irish Scott states," If you actually knew the specifics you claim to know about Iranian defenses or US capabilities you wouldn't be allowed to talk about it or you'd be writing for some military site somewhere."

No, I make no such claim, but it takes little brains to realize the tactics are simply land based guerrilla war tactics transferred over to a limited and predictable naval sea bound area. Sure the defender trying to keep the Persian Gulf open can concentrate on any given area they desire, but no defending force is large enough to dominate everywhere.

And we can also point out that Iran would only resort to the tactic of shutting down the Persian Gulf as a last ditch Samson option. But if Israel attacks Iran with US aid, what other option would Iran have? Iran would not even have to totally shut down Persian Gulf or keep it up very long, because the price of oil would sky rocket and so would the consequent world wide economic damage.

As for Israel and the USA, or anyone complicit in attacking Iran for no real reason, its the aggressor nations that are going to catch the blame and not Iran

 

[Pulsar]

I was challenging Lemon Law's oft-repeated assertion that Iran could close down the gulf with shoulder-mounted rockets on the straights of Hormuz.

Now if Israel did pull a preemptive stike on Iran yes it would be a shitstorm, but there wouldn't be much Iran could do about it. They could invade Iraq I guess, but to what end? The Iraqis certainly don't like them enough to welcome them (understatement) and it wouldn't get them to Israel.

There is zero possibility that Israel would do this. They are raising the threat to both distract from other issues, AND to push their allies into considering increasing their sanctions, AND to get certain folks not thinking about the palestinian vote that just occurred.

The folks who don't understand that are naive. Or, in Lemon Law's case, willfully ignoring the facts so that he can talk more smack about Israel.

 

[irishScott]

There is zero possibility that Israel would do this. They are raising the threat to both distract from other issues, AND to push their allies into considering increasing their sanctions, AND to get certain folks not thinking about the palestinian vote that just occurred.

The folks who don't understand that are naive. Or, in Lemon Law's case, willfully ignoring the facts so that he can talk more smack about Israel.

There's zero possibility right now. I'm just saying that's because of potential international political fallout, not due to any tactical advantage on the Iranian side.

 

[Lemon law]

What you're talking about is an act of war against the United States. The Iranian military would have to decide if they want to fight the mightiest military in the world, in which case they would be deprived of fuel, ammunition and food in short order, or they can take off their uniforms and go home. We saw which one Iraq chose.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, if Israel bombs Iran, the USA will be assumed automatically complicit, and probably will be. hardly a matter of Iran attacking the USA when its the other way around.

Then we can ask how the mightiest military in the world did in Vietnam. Or for that matter, is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The USA may be due to pull out Iraq, maybe mission accomplished at the end of 2011, but if Iran gets attacked, chances are, a Shia majority Iraq will side with Iran. As for the US mission in Afghanistan, both Pakistan and Afghanistan would almost certainly be in open rebellion as the USA would almost certainly lose its supply route into Afghanistan. Not to mention the fact that Egypt, Turkey, and even Saudi Arabia might side with Iran.

Its a little hard to be bullish on the mightiest army in the world when just Iraq and Afghanistan almost exceeded its capacity for a decade.

I would also consider the possibility that Israel attacking Iran as a remote possibility, if not
for the link I submitted and the fact there are now strong indications that the UK may join the Israelis.

 

[Lemon law]

What you're talking about is an act of war against the United States. The Iranian military would have to decide if they want to fight the mightiest military in the world, in which case they would be deprived of fuel, ammunition and food in short order, or they can take off their uniforms and go home. We saw which one Iraq chose.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry accidental double post/

 

[conehead433]

Yep

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, if Israel bombs Iran, the USA will be assumed automatically complicit, and probably will be. hardly a matter of Iran attacking the USA when its the other way around.

Then we can ask how the mightiest military in the world did in Vietnam. Or for that matter, is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The USA may be due to pull out Iraq, maybe mission accomplished at the end of 2011, but if Iran gets attacked, chances are, a Shia majority Iraq will side with Iran. As for the US mission in Afghanistan, both Pakistan and Afghanistan would almost certainly be in open rebellion as the USA would almost certainly lose its supply route into Afghanistan. Not to mention the fact that Egypt, Turkey, and even Saudi Arabia might side with Iran.

Its a little hard to be bullish on the mightiest army in the world when just Iraq and Afghanistan almost exceeded its capacity for a decade.

Have you actually been paying attention for the last decade? We obliterated Saddam's military in a matter of days. We tore through the Taliban. You are confusing the subsequent nation building with military action.

The US would beat down Iran's military like a bad dog. They wouldn't stand a chance against the US alone, let alone a combined force consisting of the US, Israel, and the UK. If you actually think otherwise you are even more deluded than you lead most in here to believe.

 

[MotF Bane]

I see Israeli fab clubbers have little vision or understandings of tactics. As they envision the entire Iranian navy coming out in a set piece battle to the death with the US 5'th fleet, and when the smoke cleared, the Persian gulf would be totally open.

Which simply not going to happen, nor is it the definition of keeping the Persian gulf open because the targeted shipping would be oil tankers. Just one hit with a mine, missile, or even heavy machine gun fire and its going to result in a blazing wreck. Add in the fact that Iran has 500 miles of coast line in the Persian gulf, a large supply of ground to ship missiles, a rocky coastline with terrain suitable for hiding missile emplacements, plus enough dedicated military personnel to use them all adds up no rational tanker owner willing to risk their ships trying to run the Persian gulf gauntlet.

Really, just stop trying to prognosticate anything, but especially with regards to warfare. You have always been wrong.

 

[Nebor]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, if Israel bombs Iran, the USA will be assumed automatically complicit, and probably will be. hardly a matter of Iran attacking the USA when its the other way around.

Then we can ask how the mightiest military in the world did in Vietnam. Or for that matter, is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The USA may be due to pull out Iraq, maybe mission accomplished at the end of 2011, but if Iran gets attacked, chances are, a Shia majority Iraq will side with Iran. As for the US mission in Afghanistan, both Pakistan and Afghanistan would almost certainly be in open rebellion as the USA would almost certainly lose its supply route into Afghanistan. Not to mention the fact that Egypt, Turkey, and even Saudi Arabia might side with Iran.

Its a little hard to be bullish on the mightiest army in the world when just Iraq and Afghanistan almost exceeded its capacity for a decade.

I would also consider the possibility that Israel attacking Iran as a remote possibility, if not
for the link I submitted and the fact there are now strong indications that the UK may join the Israelis.

Are you really so simple as not to realize the difference between fighting an organized military (the kind that would try to shut down the Persian gulf) and fighting an insurgency while trying to build infrastructure and win the hearts\minds of the people? We stomped the shit out of the Iraqi military, twice. Their anti-ship missiles didn't even come into play. We obliterated the Taliban military too.

If Iran targets US ships (or any oil carrying ships for that matter) they will get militarily stomped. Who gives a shit what the civilians in Iran (or Iraq) think about it? Don't shoot at our oil supply.

You're either too stupid to understand the situation or too deluded to puzzle it out correctly. I'm going with too deluded, since you haven't taken off your palestine tinted glasses in about a decade.

 

[Lemon law]

Now MothF Bane says, "Really, just stop trying to prognosticate anything, but especially with regards to warfare. You have always been wrong."

But if you look at the actual record of my writings on this forum, what I have written has been the actual end results on the ground.

I can well remember a US nation over 90% united behind GWB as he sold the Iraq war using a pack of 29 rather obvious lies in 2002- 3, none of which turned out to be true. Now here we are in 2011, still in Iraq, with Iraqi stability more likely an illusion any strike on Iran would remove. And when the end US costs of the GWB war in Iraq likely to exceed two trillion, as both the Iraqi people and coalition forces both have buyers regret, its hard to understand a world where the American sheeple will be sucked into another phony war that can't be won in the end.

MothF Bane is right, the US military can quickly win any war and occupy any world capital, in the classic sense of winning a war.

But that is sadly just an illusion in a modern world, but because winning a war is worthless unless we can win the end peace.

Because that is what the USA sucks at is winning the end peace, we flopped on Vietnam, we did rather badly in Iraq as the history is not yet written, and we are in worse shape now in Afghanistan and Pakistan than when we started in late 2001 and early 2002.

Yet brother here we go again, as the war profiteers are trying to sell us another war, we can't possibly win in the end.

So I have just one thing to say to you MotF Bane, you have a lot of damn gall to say my predictions don't come true, when I have been right in the end almost 100% of the time. Just because you think in only one or two month time frames, you imagine yourself correct, but people like me think in terms of decades.

The USA is my country too, and who is the greater patriot, the idiots who want sell wars we cannot in the end win for short term profits, or the people who fight with the written word, to discredit idiots like you who can only bring us to a series of disasters that will bring this country to an end result of economic and military collapse?

 

[SamurAchzar]

I don't want to spoil this discussion with some facts but I'll do so anyway:

Fact #1:
IAEA is going to come out with solid evidence of an Iranian WMD program, most likely backed by solid evidence gathered by US and Israel. The Chinese and Russians know this and have pressured for this data not to be exposed as they understand it will be very difficult to back down from that point.

Fact #2:
Despite stalling the Iranian program for years using various methods, Israel simply can not stop this program on its own. Israel can cause awful chaos and maybe take some infrastructure points out, but the Israeli Air Force is not designed in any way for prolonged bombing campaigns so far outside its borders. It can do a precision strike anywhere within refueling range - which is pretty far - but it can't grind a country so far out for weeks as required to stop the Iranian program. All Israel has are F16 and F15, and no aircraft carriers to position nearby.

Fact #3:
Nethanyahu is well aware of Fact #2 and thus just spewing out the rhetoric in the open to pump the other coalition countries up.

Fact #4:
This is a key point for the free world; like the debt crisis, we need to decide whether the Iranian problem is taken care of now, or do we leave our children a world where terrorist-sponsoring Islamic Mullahs, including one who's just convinced he's the coming of the Hidden Imam, have weapons that can wipe out countries with a push of a button.

Fact #5:
The only country that can take care of the Iranian program is the USA, using non-stop Tomahawk and B2/B52 bombing runs that will take weeks to complete. While this happens, Israel will root Hizballah - an Iranian proxy - out of Lebanon, and possibly go at Hamas in Gaza (which is why Israel is so quiet despite ongoing rocket attacks).

I used to think Obama and the guys will just let this one slide and hope for the best - as they always do - but there's a good reason the IAEA is coming out with this report. They want to get the public opinion on their side and only an international agency has the reputation needed to pull this off, following the Bush WMD debacle.

 

[Nebor]

It'd be worth bombing the shit out of Iran just to see LL melt down in here. If Israel launched operations in Gaza simultaneously? His head might explode with palestinian rage.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

But if you look at the actual record of my writings on this forum, what I have written has been the actual end results on the ground.

lol. Do I really need to go back and requote all of your failed predictions concerning Iraq and Sadr?

The members in here already know your predicition record. It's pathetic and based on delusions, much like your post above.

 

[Greenman]

Irish Scott states," If you actually knew the specifics you claim to know about Iranian defenses or US capabilities you wouldn't be allowed to talk about it or you'd be writing for some military site somewhere."

No, I make no such claim, but it takes little brains to realize the tactics are simply land based guerrilla war tactics transferred over to a limited and predictable naval sea bound area. Sure the defender trying to keep the Persian Gulf open can concentrate on any given area they desire, but no defending force is large enough to dominate everywhere.

And we can also point out that Iran would only resort to the tactic of shutting down the Persian Gulf as a last ditch Samson option. But if Israel attacks Iran with US aid, what other option would Iran have? Iran would not even have to totally shut down Persian Gulf or keep it up very long, because the price of oil would sky rocket and so would the consequent world wide economic damage.

As for Israel and the USA, or anyone complicit in attacking Iran for no real reason, its the aggressor nations that are going to catch the blame and not Iran

Guerrilla warfare is basically "hit and run". You set up, strike your target, and clear out fast. Those tactics don't work well when everyone knows what the target is, what the weapons will be, and where they can be fired from. Add limited mobility to the mix and I would expect the ground forces to sustain very heavy losses.
Given all that, I could still see ground forces being able to take out a tanker or two, simply because an oil tanker is a pretty easy target. I could also see the US sterilizing the entire coast if it happened.

 

[Craig234]

I think it's very bad that 90% of our election discussion seems to be about who's going to win instead of who should, and 90% of our war talk is who can win, not who should.

 

[Craig234]

How about we get rid of the nuclear weapon potential for ALL countries in the Middle East, including Israel?

 

[davmat787]

No, I make no such claim, but it takes little brains to realize the tactics are simply land based guerrilla war tactics transferred over to a limited and predictable naval sea bound area. Sure the defender trying to keep the Persian Gulf open can concentrate on any given area they desire, but no defending force is large enough to dominate everywhere.

How do you envision Iran successfully using guerrilla warfare in the Persian Gulf against the US Navy?