Iran's tactic in case of a war with the US seems rather clear to me, especially as it relates to the Persian Gulf theater of operations. Essentially, in that theater, Iran would close down the Straits of Hormuz, sinking a couple of tankers, mine the waters especially the entrance and exit routes through the straits, lock US naval forces within the Persian Gulf, and proceed to take them out. In the process, exports of oil from the area would come to a halt as well. In this equation, some had argued that US carriers (viewed by Iran as sitting ducks) are immune from being sunk by anything except a nuclear weapon. That idea is false. There are a variety of conventional missiles that have shown capable of sinking aircraft carriers. One of them is the missile Iran tested yesterday. http://english.people.com.cn/200702/09/eng20070209_348772.html
While Iran's nuclear program is focused primarily on meeting the future energy needs of Iran, there is little doubt in my mind that the capability that arises from that program is also meant to make sure Iran cannot be blackmailed by those brandishing nuclear weapons. As long as there are deranged extremists in countries like US, Israel or even Pakistan, as well as some others which have nuclear capability, Iran's national security interests require that it have a nuclear surge capability. And, thankfully, that is a capability that Iran either has already, or even if its entire program is what it has shown the IAEA (assuming a naiviete that is not typical of Iran), it will have in rather short order. In the meantime, Iran has a host of other capabilities to deter any form of aggression against it. It would require a totally deranged individual to take hold of power in the US to not realize how foolish it would be to mess with Iran, and even if Bush makes a good imitation of a deranged individual, he still not completely insane.
What happened to the IM that was at least semi-rational? For the 10,000th time, Iran in no way wants to have a military showdown with the US. Their saber-rattling is like a black snake that shakes it's tail in the leaves so that it will appear to be more dangerous than it is. I can GUARANTEE you that noone, and I mean noone in the cabal that runs the Iranian military consider the US carriers as "sitting ducks". No rational military man would. If civilians want to think this, or if civilian leadership want to broadcast this, then they can do so. But it doesn't make it true. Those carriers are better a power projection than any other system ever built, and they aren't just sitting still, out there by themselves, just waiting to be the receiver of your missiles. The bottom line is that all of your saber rattling does no good-you don't have the means to back it up. Launching a missile doesn;t make you a superpower. Iran couldn't put up a good fight against a second-tier military power-they certainly don't want to take on the world's only military superpower. If Iran wants to make a difference, stop infiltrating terrorists into Iraq, stop acting like you are a world power, but mostly stop acting like a child that isn't getting enough attention. The only possibility for Iran to be a player on the world stage is diplomatically. You don't have the resources, either natural, financial or human to do otherwise. I suggest that you may want to consider these things before your next presidential election.
Your guaranty is not worth much. You don't know what Iran's military leaders think. As it happens, according to Iranian military leaders, one of the surest signs that a war with the US is imminent is if the US pulls out its naval forces out of the Persian Gulf. That is because Iran's leaders believe US forces are vulnerable to Iranian attacks, and their belief is actually consistent with the views of experts that simulated an Iran-US war for Jane's. As for your comments about Iran more generally, my response is going to be rather short. Mind your own business; worry about the US potential and who you elect to lead your country. Whether you like it or not, as it relates to Iran, Iranians are the ones who will decide those issues for themselves.
What you have said here is a LOOOOOONG way from the way you typified the US carriers as "sitting ducks". Maybe you should read your own posts more often. Your military leaders are not stupid, at least that is my only assumption. A weapon as powerful as an aircraft carrier cannot be assumed to be a sitting duck and no military person would make this assumption. Your entire lack of military background shows when you say dumb stuff like that. Really? I had no idea! Iranians decide Iranian elections? Wow. Whod'a thunk it. Oh, and you misspelled "guarantee". I know it's not worth much, but there it is.
I would like those who question what I wrote about Iran's tactics and naval doctrine, to compare what I wrote in my message which started this thread, with the following quotes from articles dealing with Iran's naval doctrine. This first article comes closest to discussing the issue by relying on Iranian sources, reviewing Iranian manuevers and tactics, and not focusing so much on conjecture by (often clueless) outsiders. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2548 This second article is posted on a website financed by the US State Department. Note that it talks about Iran using subs to try to hit US carriers outside of the Persian Gulf, implicitly acknowledging that those carriers would not operate from within the Persian Gulf. http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/04/ecc7cc43-5786-4faf-a4ef-5d093184a90a.html That implication may not be all that clear from the passage. The best analysis of the military dynamics in this regard, however, is found in a series published by Jane's Defense Weekly. You need to be subscriber to read the those articles in full, although I have posted some excerpts from those studies here previously. Those articles point to the vulnerability of US naval forces in the Persian Gulf, and the huge force protection issues the US faces in this regard if there was a war with Iran. For a less serious but probably more entertaining analysis, one that was written by the 'war nerd" (Gary Brecher), you could read the following article: U Sunk My Carrier! It deals specifically with the vulnerability of the US aircraft carriers, although his colorful understanding regarding Iran's military doctrine needs to be updated.
So your entire lecture was because I said "sitting ducks" instead of saying that Iran views them as 'vulnerable'? From all that you wrote, that is actually the one thing that does embarrass me. I don't know why I spelled guarantee the way I did, but in my case and given my profession, that is not easily forgivable. But I forgive myself anyway
Iran has nothing that can sink a US Carrier. First off nothing they have would get through the Aegis net, and second, their missiles lack the power to do any real damage. I don't think people realize the size of a US Carrier. They displace over 98,000 tons. They have dual hulls. And the US Damage Control teams are the best in the world. The only sitting ducks in the region are any iranian planes or ships that attempt to engage the vastly superior US Navy. Hell our LA Class subs will be sinking that frigate navy in the first mins of any war.
Once again, I'll bet that your naval staff does not look at them as vulnerable either. That is why they are going to all these great lengths to have something that they can htrow at the carriers. They recognize that even if they can bottle the carriers up in the Gulf, it will take a massive effort to incapacitate them. Good. I wouldn't want your blood on my hands!
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/nimitz/ Pretty impressive not only in size, but the ability to launch superior aircraft. As you can plainly read, the ship is far from defenseless. The US is very aware of missile capabilities, after all we have the best missiles in the world. As you can clearly see, the US aircraft carrier by itself is a complete weapons system that can easily defend itself as well as strike anywhere in the world. We haven't even talked about the CVBG that goes along with the Carrier itself. These include Aegis Cruisers, destroyers, subs, etc...
They do. Not only the carriers, but the US naval armada in the Persian Gulf is viewed as entirely vulnerable. They worry mostly about the US pulling those forces out of the Persian Gulf, a point they (and Ahmadinejad) made when confronted with Iranian reporters asking them about the implications of the dispatch of the new US carrier to the Persian Gulf. There is an article that had detailed commands from Iran's naval commanders, indicating just how vulnerable they see US naval forces in the region. I will try to find that article for you. For now, however, let me post this article from several months. Given your claimed 'expertise', lets see if you can figure out how this article is relevant to the issue we are discussing? (Here is a hint: what are the two greatest obstacles in terms of taking out a aircraft carrier, or at least rendering it practically useless before taking it out?) http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iran_Uses_UAV_To_Watch_US_Aircraft_Carrier_On_Gulf_Patrol_999.html
As for what Iran's naval commanders think, this is from a report published within the past hour. It captures their overall view pretty accurately. http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.asp?aid=353181&sid=WOR
you, however, must realize that nowhere in that quote it's implied that US Naval ships are sitting ducks or some easy targets.
Yesterday the White House said it was not going to invade Iran. Not sure if it's in reaction to this missile test. I think Bush is fully aware of the downside of starting an Iran war. But the problem is if the Iraq situation deteriorates further he may find the idea of getting another "victory" to gloss over the Iraq problems attractive.
My assumption of Bush not wanting a war with Iran unless he's completely cornered or the assumption that he said yesterday the US was not invading Iran was a reaction to Iran's missile test? If it's the latter, I didn't assume it I was simply asking if there's a possiblity that it was indeed an reaction.
Concider the war as a boxing fight. Saddam went to the ring with Iran, fought 8 years... No winner Iran exit the ring to recover in 88 Saddam stayed in the ring, even that he was beaten and tired, he started a fight with small kuwait, but all of the sudden, Mike tyson(U.S) entered the ring and kicked the shit out of a tierd Hussein. Bam bam.. Saddam hits the flour... Before Tyson leaves, he tieds Saddams hands and feeds (the noflying zones both in north and south Iraq durring 90's) And he denies food and drink to a tierd beaten and tied Saddam.. Weak Saddam stayes in that situation for more then 10 years... He is hungry, thursty...with hands end feets tight up.. leying on the flour.. almost finished, but still in the ring... Untill Tyson Jnr (Bush) comes in and kickes a man wich is already down... Woow... what a big deal... Just remember this... back in 88 Iran went out of the boxing ring to recover, and belive me iran HAS recoverd.. I'm not saying that U.S. wouldn't kickes Irans ass, if a war broke out, But Iran won't be an easy meal...walk over.. what ever... Iran WILL give back...
I hope you're right. If they have as little regard for a CVBG as you do, it will be a very short fight indeed, with no American casualties. But there is no doubt that once they are out of the Gulf, Iran does not have the kind of long-range ISR capabilities to find them, except by dumb luck. Let me ask you this. Do you think finding it is as easy as killing it? I hope you and your countries naval staff do (although I'll bet they know better-they are probably not that incompetent). Also, if that film were not such poor quality (about a NIIRS 3 or so) I would be glad to tell you which ship that is. But I still couldn't kill it with that knowledge.
I honestly am not interested in this kind of nonsense. You can pretend anything you wish, but war with Iran has been analyzed by experts all over the world, including the US, DIA, CIA, America's war colleges, military officers, independent experts, as well as Jane's. I can reports about it here and none would suggest anything remotely in line with your views. What I have said, on the other hand, is almost verbatim from what they have offered as their conclusions. Depends how far out of the Persian Gulf/Sea of Oman they operate from? Indeed, that is why Iran would be much more concerned once the US fleet leaves the area, then when it operating within its sights and within the range of its missiles. Being able to have real time information regarding the location of the carriers is considered as the most serious obstacle to taking them out. For a country with Iran's multitude of missile and other attack capabilities, the rest is not as hard. In Iran's case, in several incidents, Iran has however showed more: it has showed it can even get very close to the carriers, without being detected. Let me wrap this up by saying that war with Iran would involve many theaters of operation; the Persian Gulf is merely one of them, albeit one of the most important ones. In that theater, as with several others, Iran feels it has the upperhand against US forces. If war erupts, we have various opinions on the issue here, and we will be able to adjudge which ones were more reasonable or accurate. Of course, some like to pretend they are in position to judge the issue in their favor by themselves, assigning 'reasonableness', 'knowledge', and 'competence' to their viewpoints and the reverse to others!