0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
895 $
6 DAYS LEFT UNTIL THE END OF SEPTEMBER

Iraq’s Resistance Announces Temporary Ceasefire Against Foreign Forces, Will Resume Attacks If No Progress In US Troop Withdrawal

Support SouthFront

Iraq’s Resistance Announces Temporary Ceasefire Against Foreign Forces, Will Resume Attacks If No Progress In US Troop Withdrawal

Iraq’s Hashid Shaabi (Popular Mobilization) have played a crucial role in defeating Daesh.

Iraq’s government and major political factions are scrambling to head off what seems to be an inevitable confrontation between resistance groups and the US occupation forces. The US is resorting to extortion and a threat to send the country into complete political and economic turmoil if the rocket attacks against US facilities and supply convoys do not cease. The resistance groups have announced a ceasefire to try to head off a destructive conflagration, but have also reiterated their determination to resume attacks if a definitive timetable is not set for the complete withdrawal of US military personnel.

On January 9 former Iraqi prime minister, Adel Abdul-Mahdi, called on Washington to send a delegation to Baghdad tasked with formulating a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops following the violation of Iraq’s airspace to carry out the assassination airstrike against Iran’s military commander Qassem Soleimani. The PM’s message to the US was in accordance with a resolution adopted unanimously by Iraq’s parliament.

However, the US has refused to comply. The latest US threat to pull out all remaining military personnel and close its embassy in Iraq is accompanied by the threat that if they do so, they will launch massive airstrikes against the resistance groups and impose wide-ranging economic sanctions against Iraq, both of which would have devastating consequences for a country struggling to regain a semblance of political stability and rebuild its shattered economy.

The US military and economic threats against Iraq have continued after the US withdrew another 2,500 troops from Iraq earlier this month. The decision to make additional reductions of US troop numbers in Iraq was announced during Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Kadhimi’s visit to the US, and was given more urgency following US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s threat to close the embassy and withdraw US military personnel from Iraq completely after US positions and supply convoys were repeatedly subjected to rocket attacks from Iraqi resistance militia groups. The US has also threatened to impose economic sanctions on Iraq, and has threatened to seize Iraq’s oil money held in bank accounts in the US.

According to officials in Baghdad, “US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo informed the President of the Republic, Barham Salih, Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kazemi, and Speaker Muhammad al-Halbousi of the need to stop all attacks immediately, particularly against the US embassy in Baghdad; otherwise, the embassy will close its doors in the Iraqi capital.”

“The US will impose sanctions on 36 Iraqi persons who will be placed under an international warrant for arrest. The US administration will adopt measures that prevent any form of economic aid to Iraq, including preventing it from exporting its oil. Military options will be considered against the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF), in particular, “Asaib Ahl al-Haq” and “Kataeb Hezbollah Iraq”. The US forces are expected to target their bases and offices in Iraq in retaliation to the several rockets launched against the US embassy in Baghdad. These attacks should stop immediately.” This was the content of Pompeo’s message that was delivered to the highest Iraqi authorities. LINK

A long list of military targets was outlined during the conversation.

The United States has drawn up a list of 80 sites in Iraq linked to Iranian-backed groups that it plans to target if it follows through with a threat to close its embassy in Baghdad, Middle East Eye has learned.

The sites include secret headquarters and shelters used by Hadi al-Amiri and Qais Khazali, the respective leaders of the Badr Organisation and Asaib Ahl al-Haq (AAH), as well as sites associated with Kataeb Hezbollah (KH).

All three are Shia armed groups supported by Tehran which are also part of the Popular Mobilisation Forces under the nominal control of the Iraqi government.

Political leaders and armed group commanders told MEE that US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo shared hundreds of satellite images of the 80 sites with Iraqi President Barham Salih during a phone call on 20 September.

Pompeo also informed Salih of Washington’s plans to close its embassy unless the Iraqi government took action to stop attacks targeting the Green Zone, where the fortified building is located, and convoys delivering supplies to US and international forces elsewhere in Iraq.

“The Americans’ message was clear. If you don’t react, we will,” a prominent Shia politician told MEE, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“Allowing this to happen means an open war in Baghdad, and America’s exit from Baghdad means that this war is imminent.”

In response to the US threats, Middle East Eye (MEE) subsequently reported on the reactions of some of Iraq’s resistance groups to the latest developments:

“We have not received any signals or messages from the Iranians regarding this matter,” a senior pro-Iran militia commander told MEE.

“The Iranians will not interfere in this, nor will they control all the armed factions. We would hear from them, but that doesn’t mean we do everything they say.

“We do not target diplomatic missions, except for the Americans, because they carry out security and intelligence activities. As for the convoys, they are military forces that represent the occupation and all the armed factions participate in attacking it.”

The commander of another Iranian-backed armed faction also dismissed the threatened closure of the embassy as part of a “political game” being played by Washington and “its local allies including Salih and Kadhimi”.

“In our assessment, the crisis is fabricated and the aim is to place the greatest possible pressure on the anti-American forces to give [the Americans] more space in Iraq,” the commander told MEE. LINK

Under immense pressure from all sides, the Iraqi government and parliament have created a new supreme military and security committee to investigate the persistent rocket attacks that have targeted diplomatic installations and other areas occupied by the US-led coalition as well as their supply convoys.

The PM stated that the committee is authorized to demand any information from any party, and is expecting to show results within 30 days. The committee includes representatives of the security services, and the Security and Defence Committee of the Parliament.

Kadhimi has also reportedly issued orders to evacuate all armed forces from the Green Zone and re-assigned security to the 54th Special Forces Brigade.

An analysis posted by the Middle East Institute last week notes several key aspects of the intractable dilemma the Iraqi government faces – the US determination to continue using Iraqi territory for its wider Middle East ambitions against Syria and Iran, and the corresponding determination of Iraqi resistance groups to force the US to comply with the unanimous demand of the Iraqi parliament and government to withdraw all military personnel from Iraq.

The Americans hint that they could move diplomatic and military assistance missions from Baghdad to more distant Iraqi locales, including Erbil in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Americans can’t entirely withdraw from Iraq since Erbil is a vital logistics base for U.S. operations in eastern Syria. The militias sent another message on Oct. 1 by launching rockets that landed near the Erbil airport. They also again ambushed a U.S. supply convoy coming up from Kuwait.

Early on Oct. 5 more rockets landed near the Baghdad airport, where U.S. military personnel are located, and also near the U.S. embassy. A complete halt to attacks against American interests is unlikely in the foreseeable future. Closing the U.S. embassy in Baghdad would mark a political defeat for Washington, and the question is whether the Iraqis can restrain the militias enough to satisfy the Trump administration… LINK

In a joint statement on Saturday, Iraqi resistance groups agreed on a conditional ceasefire with respect to US forces present in Iraq, saying they would halt their military operations, including rocket attacks, providing that Washington does not insist on maintaining their presence in Iraq.

They emphasized that the “conditional opportunity” was created “to respect the good efforts made by some national and political figures to draw up a clear and specific timetable for the implementation of the decision of the Iraqi people, parliament, and government on withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq.”

On Sunday, Muhammad Mohi, spokesman for Kata’ib Hezbollah, said in an exclusive interview with Reuters that Baghdad must implement the parliamentary resolution.

“The factions have presented a conditional ceasefire. It includes all factions of the (anti-US) resistance, including those who have been targeting US forces,” he said.

Mohi said that there was no deadline for Baghdad to implement the parliament’s resolution, but warned that “If America insists on staying and doesn’t respect the parliament’s decision then the factions will use all the weapons at their disposal”.

He also indicated that Katyusha rocket attacks on American forces and diplomatic compounds had merely been “a message that you’re not welcome in the country” and that worse attacks could follow. LINK

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

Support SouthFront

SouthFront

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
99 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ivan Freely

I’m surprised the resistance groups care what the quislings in Baghdad have to say.

Vox Populi

The quislings in Baghdad like the Vichy French also give the resistance plausible deniability. The US situation is untenable in any case as asymmetrical wars in the region and now Armenia are amply demonstrating. The resistance in Iraq is far more powerful than the US installed quisling government that can be overthrown anytime.

Fog of War

” The resistance in Iraq is far more powerful than the US installed quisling government that can be overthrown anytime. ”

This isnt about overthrowing the Iraqi government but taking out the zioAmericans. It seems the PMU’s are afraid however. What do they have to lose at this point, because Iraq will just continue as a failed state with the US there anyhow. ? If you get rid of the US you also get rid of ISIS and the Kurd question. Seems like a win win to me.

Great Khan

Fat American make ISIS and Kurd mamtus.

Jens Holm

Bagdads atleast is voted for with their corruption and like that. Iran ia not. So they have reconsidered.

You write it Yourself. Those public in elected are worrid for Americans leaving makes things worse.

And I agree about being a failed state, but You Turkey and Iran certaonly has not improved much. And I know for sure Iranians and the Iranian quistlings are just as bad and ineffecrive as most people there.

The mistake is Iraq. It should be divided to a Shiit State – And the rest – and parts of Turkey.

You Fog of War is in the dirty clouds Yourself. The main problems for any peace has been Shiits wont share oil and gas with the rest and those bilions are not even given to poor shiits. They are just as Assads in Syria and behave as Iraq is their own cow.

You wont get rid as well as some few from ISIS might return and You will not be able to leep them low.

StafJustice

You seem to have short sight….Iraq is not Iran. Iraqis cannot cope with devastated sanctions of the zioterror Americans.
Also countries like Russia and China don’t seem to be ready to fill the gap.
The power of the resistance is unmatched militarily, but uncle sam will retaliate through a devastating economic terrorism.
So the resistance have adopted to headache type of attacks that will make the Americans comply with troop withdrawal without getting too annoy to invoke and economic respond.

Dino

Why are you typing like a retard? Speak in your native language if you can’t speak English.

John

Hello Dino. Anybody can practice any language they desire. Besides, the english employed by StafJustice could pass muster in an english course given at a university. This seriously makes me wonder what the heck you are talking about. Go Staf!!

Vox Populi

It appears that Iran like the Taliban would prefer a Trump victory. However, both presidential contenders have said they would re-open negotiations with the feisty Islamic Republic. Trump has promised Iran would come out of these talks “a rich country:” Biden is an unknown quantity and considered too close to the war hawks associated with Hillary Clinton.

John

I do not think they are that afraid. They just attacked again, after announcing the ceasefire. I read what they were qouted as stating on another site. They promised to stop the rocket attacks at the bases. I do not recall anything stating IED´s. It is working like a charm for them, as in our discussion before and the results are clear. The US is freaking out. My take.

John

Hello Ivan. I think they are just playing along. It fits with the scheme they are pursuing; maximum aggrevation. They plegded a temporary hold on the rockets attacks, with the caveat that even more destructive measures would be employed if progress does not pass their muster. The IED attacks will be followed by more and more of them. My take on this stage of the game.

Paul

Seems the Persian paper tiger has worn out.NO ONE CAN DEFEAT UNCLE SAM.

Great Khan

Persian must teach dirty Hindu, sh it properly under mango tree.

Paul

Paul says you are a filthy Iranian rat who needs to be droned

Great Khan

hahaha stupid Hindu monkey, everyone Iranian to street novsh…..China brother kill you hahahha
“They hit our boys on the head with metal batons wrapped in barbed wire.
Our boys just ran to save their lives”comment image senior Indian military official
told the BBC.

Paul

Your Chinese masters were also fucked that’s what the bbc didn’t report idiot Chinese mutah troll

Great Khan

hahhaaa you stupid monkey….you liar too, Great Khan laugh at you monkey, China brother beat you with stick like dog….

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVEHZ5fVzeQ&feature=youtu.be

Paul

Paul knows China destroyed soon like Shia rats ;)

Paul

Better than being a loudmouth and then act like a mouse when one of your general dies.You know I am talking about soleimani

Great Khan

hahaha stupid Hindu monkey….

comment image

Paul

Filthy Shia rat.China soon destroyed just like soleimani ;)

Great Khan

You Hindu monkey just talk, China brother STRONK! beat you like bitch hahhahaa

Paul

Ya sure in your Shia fantasy dreams

paolinks

Are you for real? You look like a total moron. China destroyed? What movie are you watching? Oh, stop sniffing crack, it is bad for your health.

Vox Populi

Looks the Iraqi resistance is also endorsing Donald Trump like the Taliban. Trump is a useful buffoon who only barks, while Biden is corrupt and associated with the deep state or almost half a century. This temporary ceasefire will also give the US an opportunity to cut and run like Afghanistan.

Fog of War

Hope springs eternal. We heard this same talk for years now.

Jens Holm

Thats right. USA with Nato was asked in, because ISIS and lot of others things were for sale for nothing.

We actually had left. So Yes but I cannot see is a patiet feeling well and it can revover itself.

Too much firendly fire among shiits well assiste by the Pope in Qaum too.

Jens Holm

The deep self created state is You.

Its no matter of oppertunity but reconsiderations byBagdad – as I see the text.

Fog of War

This is a pretty pathetic development, but predictable . The spineless Iraqis are scared of the ZioAmericans. This doesn’t bode well for Iran either, as it will probably fold also. Major respect to North Korea the only country with balls left. Shame on you China, Russia, and Iran.

Paul

Do you really think North Korea is resisting uncle Sam?Uncle Sam wants to break alliance between North Korea and China that’s why it’s permitting north Korea.

Great Khan

hahaha you shit see North Korea….

Paul

How was soleimani killed?

Great Khan

hahhaa Khan enjoy too much Hindu rat liar.

Paul

Paul enjoy Shia rats bbqued by jews ;)

Great Khan

BBC – China suffered “no” deaths incurred by
India’s military in a clash on their border in the Himalayas in June,
the Global Times editor-in-chief said in a tweet, contradicting an absurd claim
made by India’s defence minister.

paolinks

How were dozens of american soldiers killed? Oh yes headaches…yes yes! Even now I remember the pale face of the general behind Trump.

paolinks

Huh? By going NK build up its nuclear arsenal, you break the alliance between NK and China!?!

How? Kim knows very well that is a nobody without the protection of China and Russia. Where do you think all those “never seen before technologies” come from?

StafJustice

I am not sure if you think through your testicles because you lack are common sense. Too many kids on SF

paolinks

It looks the other way around to them. They are saying: “Look, we have stopped our attack. So, if someone attacks you, it is a false flag from your CIAIsis goons”.

If they were really afraid, they wouldn’t even dared to start attacking US bases. And they are so afraid, that their patron Iran bombed to shit out of the americans, killing dozens of american soldiers ( oh yeah, headaches…right right ).

Fog of War

” They are saying: “Look, we have stopped our attack. So, if someone attacks you, it is a false flag from your CIAIsis goons”. ”

The attacks were faked by the Zios. They never did any substantial damage or kill any Americans. They wont stop and the Zios will use them as a pretext no matter what the PMU says. The occupation must end, might as well get it over with now.

Fog of War

Dont insult me pal. You have your opinions I have mine. Anyhow , your statement is ridiculous. The goal of a ” resistance ” is not to defeat the enemy ? Are you high ?

Blue In Green

Salam Ali-jan, postemo dideh to een comment section? Beh “The Objective” goftam, Yezeri bala tereh ageh khasti bebini.

Mikhastam nazareh toro bedonoam lol

Sauron

So there are negotiations?

Paul

A high level Chinese engines was killed in Bangladesh.I wonder who was behind it? ;)

Great Khan

hahaha China kill Hindu monkey, China #1 san.

Paul

Paul love israel coz they destroy mutah rats.Paul like uncle Sam coz they destroy China ;)

Great Khan

‘score’ was 80-0 as China kill Hindu dirty rat on mountain…hahha

All this while China brothers were victory of Han soldiers. The well fed superior Han soldiers could not
die at the hands of grabage eating filthy street shit Indians.

Paul

After that India killed many Chinese elsewhere;) Meanwhile Shia donkeys die like rats by istmrael.Enjoy the party China and Iran soon destroyed by uncle Sam;)

Great Khan

hahhah you angry monkey, Great Khan love make you angry, now go shit in your daddy lap.

Paul

Paul loves to make u Shia rats angry.Now go do mutah with your sister Shia asshole

Great Khan

:) Great Khan happy

<>

Israelis love Paul, Israelis don’t love the mutah Ashok xD

occupybacon

Taiwan numba wan

The Objective

We are looking at another civil war in Iraq soon, this time, a much bigger one than Syria. And the cause of this civil war is mainly Iran just like it caused the Syrian civil way by insisting on using Syria as a route to ship weapons to Hezbollah, thereby causing an American/Israeli attack on Syria to cut the Iran-Hezbollah link. Iran won’t tell their militias in Iraq to stand down or accept state authority despite claiming to be a part of the Iraqi armed forces. In essence, there are two armies in Iraq – one serving the interest of Iraq, and the other serves Iran’s interest – even teaching their followers Farsi.

The prime minister of Iraq is in a difficult position. He has to avoid a civil war in the country and still manage to exert control over all armed groups. This isn’t likely to happen without a war that destroys all militias that don’t come under state control.

It is important to note that Kadhimi assured Iran time and again that he won’t allow any attack on Iran from Iraq. That means the U.S cannot launch attack on Iran from Iraqi soil. Iran claims these militias are serving to prevent an attack on Iran. With Kadhimis assurance, Iran has no reason to prevent those militias from coming under government control. But of course, Iran wouldn’t agree to this. Cos it has a much bigger plan for the region than just preventing America’s attack on Iran.

Donald Trump isn’t likely to continue tussling with Iran in Iraq, trying to persuade Iran to let the militias come under state control. Let everyone have no doubt that should Trump win this election, Iran’s militias in the Middle East will be destroyed by an American war. Whether or not Iran steps in to save these militias is anyone’s guess. But I think Iran will back off from any overt support (striking American bases from Iranian soil will provoke an overwhelming U.S strike on Iran that WILL topple the regime).

The Mullahs must be panicking at the prospect of a Trump victory. But I think a Trump victory is good for Muslims and the Middle East despite his anti-Muslim personality. At least he’ll deal with one of the major sources of instability in the region.

RichardD

The Iraqi Parliament voted unanimously for the US to get out of Iraq without a single Sunni or Kurd legislator voting against it. What don’t you understand about that.

The Objective

The Sunnis boycotted that vote. They didn’t even show up on that day, because they do not support these militias trying to take over Iraq and impose Khomeini’s Shiism on Iraq. That is the reason Sunnis don’t want America to leave Iraq. The know the militias will take over the government and become a nuisance for anyone who does not agree with then.
Also, anti-government protesters were killed by Shiite militias, because those protests were anti status quo, and the militias were the ones maintaining the status quo. Hence, the protests were a threat for the PMU. Why would America kill people protesting against the PMU-led regime of Iraq?

Blue In Green

Jesus H. Christ… another stunning example of Dunning-Kruger effect on full display yet again on SouthFront lol. You really should change your name to The “Bias” instead of The “Objective”

What military accolades and or merits do you hold to so brazenly say that an American attack on Iran “WILL” just simply “topple” the government? You do realize how utterly childish and uninformed you sound when you say this do you not? It’s almost as if the Iranians don’t have their own contingency plans and means to operate in the face of an American onslaught. Idk where you’re getting this from but a conflict with America doesn’t bode well for the Americans in the region, whatsoever. This isn’t going to be some Hollywood type BlockBuster where the United States armed forces just fight for a little and win lol. A short-term high intensity conflict favors Iran, a longer one would favor America but Iranian leadership will be safe and sound from most if not all American munitions. I guess well-fortified and supplied underground facilities didn’t factor into your equation at all huh? Mind you that America does have other hegemonic obligations the world over and can’t dedicate all its forces to just dealing with Iran and its proxies/allies. Such an undertaking (which you’ve idiotically downplayed) isn’t, AT ALL a walk in the park. Thus far the Iranians and their friends haven’t decided to pull out the big guns and have limited their strikes to simple harassing shots here and there to get the Americans to change their stance. You can gloat on and on about America’s military superiority but that doesn’t change that neither the PMU or Iran has decided (politically) to unleash their full-power on American interest in the region. Pray that this doesn’t come to fruition, you American military nuts will get a sobering wakeup call…

Moreover, I love that the depth of your military knowledge is just “overwhelming U.S. strike”, and nothing more. Iran has war-gamed this EXACT scenario out and has plans in place for the transfer of power and the continuation of their internal structure during wartimes. They didn’t fold during the Iraq-Iran war, and they’re even less likely to fold now. We are dealing with a literal FORTRESS nation whose military doctrine and way of conducting war takes FULL advantage of their topography, natural defenses, weapons etc…. How America plans on dealing with such a threat given that their OWN war-games have concluded going against Iran would be a monumental military task, is beyond what you know. And saying “air-strikes” doesn’t answer jack as Iran’s means of counter-attacking are survivable and can withstand attrition, at least for some time.

In no version of this deluded fantasy you have consistently put forth here on SouthFront, will Iran just fold that easily. Why oh why you and your ilk decide that it is smart to say such a thing as if it some foregone conclusion is beyond me.

Ahson

he’s a pakestani punjabi jihadi. There’s plenty of them all over the forums, pumping out their toxic virulent muslim brotherhood/ taliban jihadi nonsense and propaganda. They’ve got no relevance to Iraq or Syria or Lebanon or NK but try to become relevant for no reason. Few months ago they were staunchly backing the Sawdi camel jockeys against Iran too, now they’ve gone mute on the Sawdi Iran conflict after the Sawdi showed them their ass in preference to hendu……lol. Don’t take these fools seriously. They are both bankrupt and irrelevant.

Blue In Green

There really isn’t any sort of data to back up the notion that an American attack on Iran would be the “end” of the Iranian state lol. Why so many think it’s okay to say this as if it’s some sort of educated rebuttal is beyond me….All we hear, incessantly mind you, is how America would just ‘win’ a war against Iran just cause’. This isn’t a scenario where the United States would be able to walk away unscathed let alone OPERATE in ideal conditions.

The real-world military threat Iranian precision munitions pose to U.S. military operational capabilities is a deadly one. America over relies on air-power to achieve its strategic and tactical goals. But when that capability is taken away, their military efficacy within the theatre of war is dramatically reduced. This would allow Iran and allies to operate under a regime that sees America on the back-foot due to inadequate air-support.

What we NEED to acknowledge here is that the U.S. armed forces and America as a whole is not operating in a vacuum against Iran and its allies. America cannot just get into an open-ended war with Iran without sacrificing other international goals. Further more, as stated numerous times in the past, such a war with Iran would spell utter disaster for American military infrastructure in the region. All large U.S. operated air-bases and relevant instillations would be OBLITERATED IN FULL within the first weeks to months of the conflict. Destruction at this level cannot be repaired quickly at all. Iranian missile doctrine, methodology and operational modus-operandi is meant to work under constant attack from the weapons America will employ. Iran’s overall strategy is survivable and would be able to withstand initial American air and sea launched munitions.

Iran’s underground missile bases, mountain missile infrastructures, buried tactical missiles, drones, regional allies/proxies, drone power, cruise missile inventory, coastal Anti-ship defenses, world-class air-defenses, Navy (focus on submarines) would drag America into a LONG resource intensive war.

It’s the equation that must be looked at here rather than who would ‘win’ or outright ‘lose’. The U.S. doesn’t want to fight a long winded war with Iran, we know this. But at the same a short high intensity conflict could go either way as Iran has enough raw firepower (that’s reliable and battle proven) to inflict an unfavorable win:loss ratio on American forces in the region. This is what we know has, thus far, deterred America from launching even more aggressive attacks on Iran proper.

If you choose to believe that America will win then fine, that is your prerogative. But don’t be surprised when Iran kills/wounds well in excess of 20-30,000 thousand U.S. service members and untold billions of dollars in damage to military and civilian resource infrastructure if a war went down.

Iran is not and will never be comparable to 91′ Saddam’s Iraq…

The Objective

I want you to go over what you wrote here to understand my reply. I know of all these things you mentioned and even more. But you tend to imagine the U.S would try to invade or militarily defeat Iran for the regime to collapse. Well, that’s why you get this wrong.

There is no need for an invasion. Already, there is serious opposition in Iran against the Mullahs. The 2019 violent protest was sponsored, but it shows that hundreds of thousands will willingly poor into the streets to protest the regime’s rule. And that’s where America’s opportunity lies.

Much of Iran’s military can literally go underground in the event of a war with America. But they can’t control the population if they are hiding in bunkers. Iran’s security infrastructure will be bombed from afar. Targets will include military bases, police stations, courts, prisons, electricity infrastructure, and much more. The US can mount sustained attacks from Diego Garcia – where Iran cannot hit targets WITH PRECISION.

Before launching an attack on Iran, America will withdraw much of the unnecessary equipment and personnel from the Middle East. Again, America’s new aerial-refueling capability allows the F22 and F35 to operate from ranges of 2000nm. That means the F22 and F35 can be stationed from far where Iran’s precision fire cannot reach.

Blue In Green

The idea that America will up and remove most of its equipment and personnel from the Middle-East just to engage in a bombing campaign against Iran using Diego Garcia and other longer range assets, both sea and land based, is simply preposterous. The United States can ill-afford to abandon critical regional missions just to fight a conflict with Iran. The term ‘holistic’ really applies here. You can’t leave multi-billion dollar bases behind, the countries you’ve sworn to protect, your mission in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria just because you fear Iranian precision munitions. That would be the perfect opportunity for America’s regional enemies to quickly come in and fill the tactical void left in the absence of US armed forces.

Also sortie-rates from naval and land-based assets from that far away would prove largely ineffective against hardened Iranian assets that can withstand such attrition. They’ve been designed to operate against such an aerial onslaught and will most-likely work as intending when the shooting starts.

As far as Iran’s internal situation goes, I guess I can’t really argue with you there. Iranians themselves have been through quite a bit given all the draconian sanctions placed on them by the United States coupled with internal corruption and mismanagement.

The Objective

I thought you were going to mention Israel in your answer, but you only seem to think America isn’t willing to to temporarily vacates its bases in the Middle East to fight Iran. Well, this process already started last year. Read here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/amid-tension-with-iran-us-air-force-shifts-middle-east-command-center-from-qatar-to-south-carolina/2019/09/29/67d93834-e216-11e9-be7f-4cc85017c36f_story.html

America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan is not about peace in Afghanistan.
Here’s another piece to give you a detailed idea of how the U.S intends to fight Iran: https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/CSBA_SWA_FNL-WEB.pdf

You don’t also seem to know much about America’s GBU-43/B MOAB bombs. Although these bombs might not succeed in destroying the underground nuclear and military facilities in Iran, they’ll certain damage the surrounding to such an extent as to render them temporarily unusable. For example, they can damage entrances to such facilities which will require heavy work to clear.

We are talking about a 21,600-pound bomb! That’s equivalent to about 10,000kg. Can you carry a 50kg bag of cement? Go try it. Then imagine 200 of such bags as a single explosive device. That should help you envision the extend of damage it can cause. As an easier comparison, take the Beirut port explosion in Lebanon as an example. There was only 4 tones of explosives which caused such massive damage in Beirut. In comparison, the GBU-43/B MOAB is a 21.6 tone bomb!

Again, the latest American aerial refueling tankers that will come into service in 2022 provides extended range for the stealth fighters that are very likely to defeat Iran’s AA systems. We see what Turkey’s TB2 drones did to Russian AA systems in Syria, Libya, and now Azerbaijan. The F22 is a far more formidable plane than Turkey’s TB2 drones. Faced with a sustained massive attack from America’s planes, Iran’s AA systems have no chance.

America will not try to invade Iran in an Iraq style. It’ll only bomb the hell out of it, slip in a scattered army of special forces to haunt other targets within Iran, and let the anti-regime elements take care of the rest. The IRGC and Basij will go underground to survive America’s air attacks emanating from where Iran’s precision fire cannot reach. There won’t be enough security personnel to restore order, and the country will most likely see factions of militias appear. The Azeris, Sunnis, and other groups will all not be loyal to the government.

There are currently 20 million Azeris and over 1 million Sunnis in Iran. Combine these with ISIS in neighboring countries and other Sunni militias from Iraq. It’ll a bloodbath on a scale never seen before in the region. Iran quickly slides into a failed state as the IRGC keep firing missiles at whatever American targets they can, including at the Gulf states and Israel. A question I often ask myself is: Will Iran risk raining missiles on Iran like it constantly threatens? I have no doubt Israel will use nukes in such a scenario. Will Iran’s IRGC be willing to commit national suicide by leveling Israel? Only God knows for sure.

We can discuss in more detail regarding what is likely to happen, especially taking into account the latest drone wars and what we can learn from them. But the fact remains that Iran has a disadvantage in range of PRECISION fire. The longer range missiles cannot hit targets with precision. That means Iran may wast over a hundred missiles before it succeeds in hitting one airbase in Europe.

When Trump assassinated Soleimani, America was ready for war. But the Iranians, being aware of all these things I’m telling you, decided to back out of the fight.

Blue In Green

I thought you were going to mention Israel in your answer, but you only seem to think America isn’t willing to to temporarily vacates its bases in the Middle East to fight Iran. Well, this process already started last year. Read here: https://www.washingtonpost….

I fail to see how the movement of such assets and personnel will change the larger picture. Iran plans on destroying much more than just Air-bases, runways, fuel-depots and the like. This conflict would be comprehensive in nature taking into account many different types of targets, not just purely military ones.

The plan itself revolves around more than just using missiles as well. I’m fully aware of Americas ability to move and use different military instillations around the world in order mitigate the damage they will sustain but that still doesn’t answer what will happen in the wake of their tactical withdrawal. If they leave, Iran and allies and Americas regional enemies will come in.

The United States fighting Iran from “Secure” positions far-away has yet to be seen in practice. We don’t know the efficacy of such an operating regime nor can we simply say America will be able to achieve its goals under such an environment. Sortie-rates from land and sea based assets will be drastically reduced allowing for Iran and allies to position themselves and enact operations knowing that any tactical bombing runs will be less frequent.

You don’t also seem to know much about America’s GBU-43/B MOAB bombs. Although these bombs might not succeed in destroying the underground nuclear and military facilities in Iran, they’ll certain damage the surrounding to such an extent as to render them temporarily unusable. For example, they can damage entrances to such facilities which will require heavy work to clear.

This is where many don’t actually know what the layout of Iran’s underground facilities actually look like or how they’re constructed. And yes, my answers to you are with full knowledge of America’s bunker busting munitions. I wouldn’t have been this confident in what I’m saying if I didn’t know what I was talking about.

Iran has built their fortified missile complexes to withstand attacks from all but the heaviest of ground-penetrating munitions and even then the bases themselves are so large that one multi-million dollar munitions (of which there aren’t many) might not be enough. You would have to strike each site, of which there are easily more than 100, of varying sizes, capabilities, in contested air-space with modern advanced AD systems popping in-and-out of hardened cover downing your best bombers and fighters. I’ll come back around to Iran’s air-defense capabilities a little later on.

Each Iranian underground missile complex is built in a way that allows for the most sensitive part of the facility to be under the heaviest and thickest amount of mountain rock. The entrances themselves are just long paved corridors leading to the Missile storage, staging and firing areas, meaning any attacks on the numerous false/real openings wouldn’t effect the operation of that base.

Furthermore, Iran has moved a lot of Earth moving heavy machinery into these same bases in order to dig themselves out in case of need. All of that on-top of the weeks/months of food, energy, electricity already in the base for long-term operations.

The best way to view Iran’s underground missile complexes is to think of them as Submarines not in the water but under rock.

We are talking about a 21,600-pound bomb! That’s equivalent to about 10,000kg. Can you carry a 50kg bag of cement? Go try it. Then imagine 200 of such bags as a single explosive device. That should help you envision the extend of damage it can cause. As an easier comparison, take the Beirut port explosion in Lebanon as an example. There was only 4 tones of explosives which caused such massive damage in Beirut. In comparison, the GBU-43/B MOAB is a 21.6 tone bomb!

I don’t know where you got the “only 4 tones of explosive” information from but that wasn’t the amount of explosive force that caused that damage in Beirut….

https://disasterphilanthropy.org/disaster/beirut-explosion/#:~:text=August%205%2C%202020-,Overview,port%20area%20of%20Beirut%2C%20Lebanon.

https://graphics.reuters.com/LEBANON-SECURITY/BLAST/yzdpxnmqbpx/

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54420033

All of these sources claim the raw blast tonnage to be in the hundreds to thousands of tons, not 4….

America will not try to invade Iran in an Iraq style. It’ll only bomb the hell out of it, slip in a scattered army of special forces to haunt other targets within Iran, and let the anti-regime elements take care of the rest. The IRGC and Basij will go underground to survive America’s air attacks emanating from where Iran’s precision fire cannot reach. There won’t be enough security personnel to restore order, and the country will most likely see factions of militias appear. The Azeris, Sunnis, and other groups will all not be loyal to the government.

Nope, no indication that Azeris (who are 100% Iranian themselves) will just up and take arms against their own country and people, the Sunnis are way too small in number to cause much problems as Iran’s internal security forces wont have enough manpower and experience in dealing with such events.

I’ve said this so many times in the past and I hate repeating myself but I will say it yet again.

IRAN IS NOT UNDER ANY SORT OF THREAT FOR BALKANIZATION. Such views almost always come from those less-informed or totally ignorant on the matter. Unless you yourself have been to Iran and have lived amongst its peoples, you cannot and should not definitively say such things.

Again, the latest American aerial refueling tankers that will come into service in 2022 provides extended range for the stealth fighters that are very likely to defeat Iran’s AA systems. We see what Turkey’s TB2 drones did to Russian AA systems in Syria, Libya, and now Azerbaijan. The F22 is a far more formidable plane than Turkey’s TB2 drones. Faced with a sustained massive attack from America’s planes, Iran’s AA systems have no chance.

Azerbaijans use of Israeli suicide drones along with the Turkish TB2 platform is nothing short of revolutionary where modern battle-field warfare is concerned but the quality of air-defense assets Iran has, as well as the quantity is a different level altogether.

Iran currently employs (8) 1,100km range Qadir Array VHF radars, with another one coming online soon for a total of 9 for now, and they plan on fielding more than 20+ for the near-future. Another even longer-range VHF radar called the Seperh 3000km one to be put into official service pretty soon as well.

These radars, coupled with myriad of other domestically produced radars, would give Iran the best pre-warning heads up to any potential American attack. All sites and equipment would be easily tucked away in their fortified housing once those long-range radars pick up the planes and their munitions. So an American attack on Iranian facilities, at least during the beginning waves, would be mitigated in terms of raw damage sustained.

Iranian IADS capabilities should be more than enough to deny America freedom to operate in ideal conditions.

– Third of Khordad 90-100km+
– 15th Khordad 50-70km mid-range
– Mersad 16, 40+ km SAM (Iranian heavily upgraded HAWK)
– BAVAR-373, 300-400KM system with max 220km engagement range
– S-300PMU2s, 300+km range, one of the worlds most advanced systems
– RA’AD 1/2 BUK style Iranian made defense systems Medium range
– Domestically upgraded S-200 SAMS (way too many of these systems)
– Yet to be revealed domestically produced SHORAD (Panstir equivalent)

And a lot more that i wont bother naming off since they were just meant to give you an example of what Iran can bring to the table. These systems are also a little different since Iran is using a different operating methodology when it comes to their radars and AD systems.

In recently released pictures, Iran has installed EO/IR (Electronic Optical) devices on its systems due to how they plan on counter-acting American air-superiority.

Quite simply, given Iran’s heavily dense, deep and mountainous terrain. These systems (of which there will be thousands) will be placed all over the country, mainly in mountainous regions. Ready to be used against American air-assets in an ambush style of engagement regime if they get through Iran’s larger ring of long range SAM systems.

America’s IMINT capabilities wouldn’t be enough to compensate for such widely dispersed assets on unforgiving terrain that looks all the same, covering an area the size of Europe itself.

On-top of just raw AD technical capability, Iran will employ the most liberal use of decoys in order to further lessen any-sort of American Counter SEAD operations. Quite frankly, it would be a shooting gallery.

There is more to the AD/IADS conversation but I think that’s enough for now.

We can discuss in more detail regarding what is likely to happen, especially taking into account the latest drone wars and what we can learn from them. But the fact remains that Iran has a disadvantage in range of PRECISION fire. The longer range missiles cannot hit targets with precision. That means Iran may wast over a hundred missiles before it succeeds in hitting one airbase in Europe.

Iranian precision munitions, even at the longer range has enough precision to get the job done. I don’t have any concerns with this at all.

The operation against Ayn Al-Assad was essentially Iran showing the Americans and Israelis that it indeed can launch only 15 missiles and have all hit their marks expect for two which didn’t. Given such an impressive ratio of hits:misses. We can easily deduct Iran’s longer-range missile assets, both Ballistic and Cruise. Would be able to easily carry out their objectives against enemy assets at range.

You must keep in mind, Iran’s missile inventory, as far as sheer missile count goes. Easily numbers within the 5,000-8,000 range, other estimated put that number at 10,000 plus. Any state possessing that many missile would pose a DIRE threat to any regional or international military.

To answer you question about Iran’s longer-range precision, all i need to bring up is the Hajj-Qassem Q-BM. This is FATEH class tactical Q-BM with the precision and reliability of a Zolfaqar.

It seems Iran can easily extend the range of its missile inventory by simply making a larger boosting section since the INS and targeting systems of the warheads themselves are advanced enough to accurately target whatever it is they’re meant to destroy, even at range.

When Trump assassinated Soleimani, America was ready for war. But the Iranians, being aware of all these things I’m telling you, decided to back out of the fight.

Wrong, just totally wrong…

Iran was ready to fire up to 100 extra precision missiles that night alone with 400 by the end of two days and around 4,000-5,000 within the end of week if need be. This wasn’t just an idle threat, it was a promise. The United States Armed forces would have been almost completely wiped out regionally if it wasn’t for America’s decision not to counter-strike.

It wasn’t Iran who decided to back off, it was America….

The Objective

I have read every single word in your comment. And I’m impressed. You surely know a lot about Iran and it’s impossible to think you are not a regime insider or a very informed citizen. I congratulate you on that.
However, you still missed plenty. And I think you didn’t read the CSBA link I sent you, which took into account all of what you said. That document was prepared to be valid for 2 decades. It’s just one decade since the publication.
I’ll start by highlighting the central assumption in your argument. YOU TEND TO THINK AMERICA WILL TAKE ON IRAN IN A SINGLE SWEEP. That’ll be recipe for disaster and a prohibitive price for the USA.
The idea is to degrade Iran’s defenses and weaken its ISR capacity from the extreme end. It’s like chipping away at a large piece bit by bit. That’s why the document is titled: Outside-In. You start from the extreme end, and move in gradually. Due to the range factor, this strategy denies Iran the ability to disrupt America’s air and sea operations, particularly the logistics. Iran’s longest anti-ship missiles are just about 500km in range. Carrier-based US bombers like the F-22 have a combat radius of 410 nautical miles. This range already outstrips any Iranian anti-ship missiles. With aerial refueling, this plane can have a combat radius of 1200 nautical miles, equivalent to over 2000 km.

Carriers will be stationed where Iran’s missiles can’t reach them with precision. Aerial tankers will take off from bases far away. The aerial tanker, Boeing KC-46 Pegasus, has a range of I think 6000 miles. These tankers can take off from thousands of miles away and refuel fighter planes over the Indian ocean – beyond range of any Anti-Aircraft missile Iran has currently. Besides, Iran cannot field the launchers at sea and the tankers will have fighter escorts. Unless Iran has a way of dealing with the aerial refueling tankers, it’ll not be able to deal with the stealth bombers. Iran’s best hope of dealing with these tankers is to have planes that can come within range and shoot at them. However, I can’t see how Iranian planes can go past the escorts or refuel after taking off from Iran to the Indian ocean.

I agree that sortie-rates will decrease compared to the Iraq war. But a good number of fighters will degrade much of Iran’s coastal defenses in a single salvo. A second and third wave of attacks will cripple the entire Iranian navy. These strikes will be augmented by missiles launched from warships and submarines at target in the Persian gulf.

Iran’s best hope of defeating America’s naval onslaught is the swarming tactics. They need to reach and disable those aircraft carriers and warships asap. But the U.S has successfully developed an antidoe for swarm attacks. They’ll use ship-based drones, directed energy weapons, helicopters, and specially-designed warships to sink the swarm boats, giving them no chance to reach the carriers. The U.S may not even use any airbase in the Middle East at all.

Iran’s credible deterrence will be threatening America’s puppets in the region. Should Iran launch severe attacks on Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other GCC puppets, the governments are likely to fall, and this causes a major trouble for America. This is the reason Iran is threatening a regional war if America attacks. Iran is telling the U.S that if we can’t reach your ships and active airbases, we can reach your puppets. America arming the GCC regimes is likely aimed at offsetting this threat.

You really need to read the CSBA file I shared and see how Trump is following the recommendations one after the other. The first recommendation is to arm the gulf states, which Trump did. His next move is to degrade Iran’s proxies in the region as these proxies will expand the battlefield and present challenges to America’s troop movements around Iran. Trump also promised Americans he’ll withdraw troops from the Middle East – this also fits in the recommendation to reduce America’s military footprint within range of Iran’s AA/AD threat ring. The hurried peace deal in Afghanistan should be taken as the ongoing efforts to reduce U.S military footprint in the region prior to a war with Iran.
So essentially, we are looking at three steps the U.S will take before starting a war with Iran:
1. Arming the gulf countries (it already did)
2. Destroying Iran’s proxies (it’s on the process currently. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen) are all in some kind of trouble.
3. Reducing U.S military footprint in the region (It’s doing it currently) the U.S will soon leave Afghanistan, Syria, and reduce its footprint in Iraq, Kuwait, etc.

When these steps are completed, then wait for the day that America initiates a war with Iran. Especially if Trump wins.

Your last statement that America backed off a fight in January is quite untrue because:
1. Iran notified the U.S of the time and location of the strike
2. Zarif hurriedly twitted that Iran has PROPORTIONATE COMPLETED retaliatory strikes and seeks no further aggression
3. Iran has not killed any American and PUBLICLY taken credit for it. Iran has not avenged Soleiman. Because the Iranian officials keep talking of revenge.
4. About 54 U.S bomber were circling over the Persian gulf.
5. Recent Iranian behavior shows it’s trying hard to avoid any confrontation with the U.S in Iraq. the supreme leader just ordered a halt to attacks on America in Iraq when he declared in January that America will be purged from the region for assassinating Soleimani.

About Iran’s air-defense network, I’ll discuss that some other time. But it does have a major flaw in that it could no tell friend from foe and ended up shooting down a passenger plane. Maybe the Iranians have fixed this issue.

Blue In Green

Due to the range factor, this strategy denies Iran the ability to disrupt America’s air and sea operations, particularly the logistics. Iran’s longest anti-ship missiles are just about 500km in range. Carrier-based US bombers like the F-22 have a combat radius of 410 nautical miles. This range already outstrips any Iranian anti-ship missiles. With aerial refueling, this plane can have a combat radius of 1200 nautical miles, equivalent to over 2000 km.

Iran’s AshBM (Anti-ship Ballistic Missile) capabilities easily go up to 2,000km with shorter-range Khalijeh-Fars Q-BMs making up the bulk of their up to 500km range A2/AD ring. Iran employs a 700-750km Zolfaghar style AshBM (Zolfaghar E-BASIR) with another yet to be declassified anti-ship BM with a range of 2,000km. They’ve also yet to show off their long-range supersonic AshCM that they have been working on for quite some time now. The future of Iran’s Anti-ship weaponry is shaping up to quite deadly and capable.

Clearly they have the ability to target American assets at sea, but the efficacy of these longer-range missiles is yet to be seen. Personally I’m actually skeptical about the longer range claims since targeting sea-born vessels is a completely different ballgame compared to static assets on land. You would have to account for target drift, background radiation, a moving object, global positioning, jamming EW, AD systems etc…

You do realize the F-22 doesn’t launch from carriers since the runway on the flight deck isn’t long enough to accommodate the F-22s minimum runway clearance length for takeoff. Now variants of the F-35 (F-35C) can launch from carriers though, I think you might have just mixed up the F-22 with some other version of the F-35.

Your last statement that America backed off a fight in January is quite untrue because:
1. Iran notified the U.S of the time and location of the strike
2. Zarif hurriedly twitted that Iran has PROPORTIONATE COMPLETED retaliatory strikes and seeks no further aggression
3. Iran has not killed any American and PUBLICLY taken credit for it. Iran has not avenged Soleiman. Because the Iranian officials keep talking of revenge.
4. About 54 U.S bomber were circling over the Persian gulf.
5. Recent Iranian behavior shows it’s trying hard to avoid any confrontation with the U.S in Iraq. the supreme leader just ordered a halt to attacks on America in Iraq forgetting he declared in January that America will be purged from the region for assassinating Soleimani.

I don’t expect to change your view on this matter, so I wont bother at all further explaining why it is I think it was the Americans, not the Iranians, that backed off from further confrontation.

Agree to disagree.

Your other points I agree with in general although i do have my reservations regarding some of them.

The Objective

Hi there,
I still feel like correcting you about who actually backed down between America and Iran after the missile strike on US bases. I’ll refer you to a quotation of a top adviser to the Iranian government and the head of an Iranian think Tank. His name is Diako Hosseini. This is what he wrote: “If Iran didn’t want to separate the American people from vicious [Donald Trump] it would have carried out a more deadly attack on US military bases,” There’s more. you can read here: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-news-crisis-trump-election-impeachment-war-missile-strikes-iraq-a9275891.html

Separating Americans from Trump means depriving him of their support. The statement also implies that Iran DELIBERATELY avoided killing Americans. Not to give Trump a way to de-escalate as others claim, but to avoid angering the U.S public into supporting a war.

If this still does not show you that Iran backed off first (because Iran actually lost a top figure), then I’ll make a few more points:
1. America pulled out of the nuclear deal and re-imposed crushing sanctions.
2. On top of that, America assassinated Iran’s top general
But despite all these, Iran still hangs onto the nuclear deal. I have one simple question to ask: Can you explain what Iran stands to gain by hanging onto the JCPOA despite sanctions have ravaged its economy and its military commander murdered in cold blood? To me, if not the fear of war, there could be no logical explanation. I may be wrong. You correct me.

About the weapons of war you mentioned, I can’t say anything to that. We’ll see how they perform in a real war. Because I have no doubt a real war is coming.

Blue In Green

I wont go too much into detail and I’ll just leave you with this as I fear I might be given too much info away for those well inclined in picking up on OSINT trails if they dig hard enough, hopefully you understand.

On the night that Iran conducted the strike against Ayn Al-Assad, my own friend (who is currently deployed in Iran’s military, namely IRIAF) had said, quite bluntly, that Iran was fully-prepared to go the distance if the Americans were to strike Iran back that very night. I’m talking about a full on, large-scale open ended shooting war where in the first two days alone, Iran was going to expend well over 200-300 precision Ballistic Missiles, activate (in full) regional allies/proxies and hit whatever American asset they could. Every Iranian military base, from the smallest to the largest was on the highest of alert levels waiting for the Americans to attack. By that very same weeks end, Iran would have easily expanded the strikes to over 5,000 missile launches just aiming to destroy regional American presence (where ever it may be). How this translates to fear in your mind is beyond me, I can’t quote or cite any figures to you since i don’t find it necessary in this case. All I will say is that Iran was ready to give it all, whether you believe Iran “backed out” due to fear is on you, I wont be explaining myself further on this subject as again, you seem to want to believe, despite real-world evidence, that Iran is too weak and afraid of the Americans.

Moving on: he had relayed the info to us (small group of close friends) about the attack and we all held our breath in anticipation. Up until then, nobody really knew what Iran was going to do, and many speculated Iran would have just ended up doing ‘nothing’ due to American being “too” strong for them. But the attack came and American air-assets were in the air 24/7 ready to hit-Iran but there wasn’t an attack. He followed up by telling us there was intent, on the part of the Americans, to hit back but they backed down due to multiple different reasons, not just purely military related ones. Clearly there was frantic talks behind the scenes through intermediaries trying to desperately defuse the situation

You’re quite sadly mixing up “fear of war” with strategic long-term thinking on the part of the Iranians. Although Iran did a daring move by openly striking American assets and soldiers in the Middle East, they weren’t outright hoping for a war with the U.S. More like if a war erupted, they’d be ready and willing to go through the paces. I really don’t know how else to word this to you, this is what happened.

Quoting a political think-tank figure like Diako Hossein doesn’t mean much when looking at what Iran has being doing to the U.S. in region for well over 30+ years. If Iran has been actively supplying arms to regional forces that have killed scores of Americans, that doesn’t count as fear. Neither does making an American military win in Iraq into an Iranian political victory a sign of fear, nor does sending weapons and oil to both Syria and Venezuela count as fear either.

Iran is a very strong and capable nation both in-terms of military power and projection (regionally) as well as internationally albeit to a significantly smaller extent.

The Objective

Don’t sound so disappointed with my reasoning. I know that Iran intended to fight if America attacked Iran proper. Because Iran shot down a passenger plane, if follows that they would have shot down an American plane if it entered their airspace even without first dropping any bombs on Iran.
Again, Iran will fight with all it’s got and level all American assets within its range. Every other country would do the same in a time of war.
I’m not calling Iran weak. But I’m pretty certain the regime in Tehran is in fear of war. It’ll certainly fight is war comes. But so would any regime – even Saddam fought the best he could.
You seem to not understand one thing: IRAN NEVER INTENDED TO KILL ANYONE IN THAT MISSILE STRIKE AND IT DIDN’T. The Question Is: Why?
Would you care to answer that?

Blue In Green

The attack was meant to send a message regarding Iran’s current capabilities if a war were to break out. A small but somewhat comprehensive show of force but, as far as I understand it, Iran isn’t done with America over the murder of Soleimani, I wont divulge anything more on this topic for security reasons. America knows its officials are now under the crosshairs of Iran, that’s all I’ll say, you have probably read the reports of increased security threats, in the U.S. no-less, against Pentagon officials.

To put it bluntly, Iran was going to attack the base whether the Americans moved the troops from the targeted areas or not, the heads-up call to Iraq which they further relayed to the Americans was all Iran gave as a pre-warning: it was up to the Americans to move their men out of harms way because the missiles were going to come no matter what. This is the primary point of contention between you and I on this issue.

Although Iran’s EXPRESS INTENT was not to “kill” they wouldn’t have really cared if they did kill any American personnel at the base since Iran was prepared that night to fight a high-intensity conflict with US regional armed forces. On this point I cannot really elaborate any further since all we would be doing is arguing semantics over what you thought Iran was doing and what I know Iran was doing.

Apologies if I come off as too brutish, I’ve elucidated on this subject for far too-long now and we’re getting nowhere.

Agree to disagree, I really don’t know what else to add.

The Objective

Okay, like you said: Agree to disagree.
Although you haven’t answered my question regarding what Iran aims to achieve by sticking with a deal Iran isn’t benefiting from. That is the biggest sign of Iran’s fear.
But we can end this argument here. See on another post.

The Objective

If Trump hadn’t moved troops out of harms way, the information would have leaked that he deliberately let US soldiers die just to get a justification for war. That would be consequential for him.
The Mullahs are very calculative and unless you’re really smart, you won’t know what they are up to until it’s too late.
Iran is nuclear armed, but it’s keeping this secret so the Sunnis don’t find out. Because it knows once the Sunnis realize it’s nuclear-armed, they’ll get their won nukes and Iran won’t be able to lay hands on the Hejaz. In an all-out war with Sunnis of the Middle East, Turkey is the only country that can prevent Iran taking the Hejaz. Imagine how frightened Turkey will be to discover at the last minute that Iran is nuclear-armed.
This is mainly the reason why the Mullahs are keeping their nukes a top secret, not just to hide it from America and Israel. In fact, they’ll prefer to show Israel and America as that would immediately force them to ease any attempt at regime change by war. But then, doing so will expose it to the Sunnis who’ll pursue their own bombs.
I would have liked a US war with Iran because it’ll force Iran to reveal its nukes and then the Sunnis can get theirs too – especially Turkey.
Believe it or not Iran has imperialistic designs for the Middle East and then Muslim world.

Blue In Green

Time for some educating.

This is what America’s airforce looked like during desert storm, parked right next to Iraq:

comment image

Saddam had no access denial capability. He could do nothing about these vast, many months long buildup of USA and her allies right on his door step. In a potential conflict with Iran, every single one of these airbases will look like this x100

comment image

comment image

The above attack on US airbase in Iraq by Iran was a pre-warned deliberately limited attack as a warning to the US. And this is a capability that Saddam could only dream about.

When it comes to Iran and Iraq, the only similarity is the first 3 letters of their English name. After that, everything changes, greatly. Anyone that actually believes a war with Iran will be qualitatively and quantitatively similar to Iraq, either:

1) Generally knows little about warfare
2) Specifically knows very little about Iran’s capability and its war waging methodology.

Point 2) is very common and should not surprise people that many fall in that category. If I had not been following Iran’s military development/doctrine for the past decade, I would have also fallen into it. Why? because it’s easy to see conflicts only in terms of conventional might. I.e Nations A and B are fighting in a vacuum, if nation B has less advanced fighter jets than A, then it will be lose. In the real world however, conflicts are not dictated by such factors alone. They’re not some conventional battle in a vacuum. A country like Iran will not fight the US in the same way Iran fought Iraq, or how Iraq fought the US, only fools would fight the enemy in a domain they’re strongest if they can avoid it.

I advise people to look into Iran’s Mosaic defence doctrine to get a general idea of what I am talking about.

Now some other points to note, the US was not alone and had an entire coalition of nations with it and Iraq’s landscape is completely different to Iran. War is all about: Who you are fighting, why, where and how. The “where” is extremely important, when one is considering an actual invasion. Iran’s terrain is even more unforgiving than Afghanistan. Moreover, the US, will neither have the build up opportunity like it did against Iraq given how vulnerable you are to Iranian systems, nor will you have the coalition. Frankly, I do not think there is any American defence official that would consider an actual ground invasion of Iran as anything except something they would experience in a nightmare. America lacks the military, economical and social mettle to ever invade Iran. At most you would see a short term air attack, however in reality, the only war the Americans can and are willing to wage against Iran is economical warfare.

I’ll leave you with this Israeli (ex) head of intelligence agency and a former military official with regards to the American shortcomings relating to a potential invasion of Iran.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XVnuoKCfP8&feature=emb_title&ab_channel=VestiNews

Willing Conscience (The Truths

Does the average Iranian really want to go to war against Israel and the US or would they prefer to find a peaceful solution, maybe we should ask them and see what they say, and not just listen to their leaders who aren’t that popular with the people anymore.

Blue In Green

I’d say that the average citizen around the world, no matter the country, would much rather prefer a peaceful solution to problems between nations but that question is irrelevant given the unique position Iran finds itself in.

Unlike like other countries who can easily choose to just be a vassal state to larger hegemonic powers such as the United States. Iran has actively chosen to go on the path of independence from America’s sphere of influence (or anyones for that matter), deciding to rule itself based on what it deems to be right. Iranians have a saying, “Neither East, Nor West, Only Iran”. This very basic line of how the Iranians view themselves in relation to the rest of world is why things are the way are they are right now.

The average Iranian citizen is beholden to the circumstances set-forth in front of them. That being WAR IS BEING THRUSTED ON THEM, not the other way around. And before the inevitable example of the support of Hezbollah or other groups is brought up, Americans, Israelis, Saudis, Chinese, Russians X, Y, and Z all do the same yet Iran is always unjustly singled out. A nation supporting its national interests and allies is not “warmongering” by any means.

Furthermore, lest you forget, it was Iran and the P5+1 that signed the JCPOA, a landmark multinational diplomatic agreement that saw the United States and Iran establish a working relationship, only for Zionist ruled Trump to come in and blow it up all for Israel’s sake. Iran wanted peace and chose diplomacy but it was the United States who decided that going for conflict/war is the better option. Whatever transpires next WILL BE ON THE HEADS OF THE AMERICANS and ISRAELIS who pushed it this far.

Willing Conscience (The Truths

The average Iranian citizen is beholden to the direction its government takes, so judging from all the protest they had in Iran before the corona virus hit them, I’d say most of them aren’t too happy with their governments current direction.
Your right to say Iran has a right to defend itself and counter any aggressive actions by unfriendly nations [I used to say even become nuclear capable], my only beef with Iran is their desire to include Syria in the potential battleground and their tyrannical treatment of the Syrian Sunni population, especially the Syrians who oppose an Iranian presence.
And although I do like most of Trumps foreign policies I won’t try to defend his policy against Iran or Palestine, you win there with no argument.

Blue In Green

Do note, I only take issue with your shallow military opinion the matter. I’m not the biggest supporter of Iran’s current governmental system either (don’t like the Iranian government tbh) but to simply say what you said with the unsubstantiated surety that you said it in, ticked me off.

The Objective

Time shall tell, but I see a war coming in Iraq, unless the militias disband or come under full state control.

Degrelle

Iran did not cause anything. Hostile foreign powers illegally attacked Syria and Iraq. The stated “reason” for the attack such as “Iran helping Hezbollah” is irrelevant. The powers that invaded Iraq and funded the Syrian terrorists are solely responsible for those actions. Iran is allowed to have mutual relations with other willing countries, and they are certainly allowed to aid an organization that defends its country from the illegal invasion of it’s neighbor. If the west chooses to not like that, that’s too bad. Its not Iran’s fault that evil countries choose to do illegal and immoral things in “response” to Iran doing perfectly legal and moral actions with its allies.

If you go to the store and buy a book, then someone shoots you because they don’t like that book, its not your fault that you got shot. Its the person’s fault that shot you, because you did nothing wrong, but they did.

The Objective

Did Iran ship weapons to Hezbollah through Syria or not?

Willing Conscience (The Truths

There’s actually 4 armies operating in Syria excluding the US coalition, 2 Kurdish factions as well, the KRG and PUK are also separate armies even though they operate under one banner.

RichardD

Iraq arguably has as much oil as Saudi Arabia, or close to it. The lesson that Saddam learned the hard way was not to use a zioblock designed and built integrated air defense system. Even if it did include non NATO equipment.

In this day and age, as the Syrian war has shown. Non NATO integrated air defense system Satcom capability is mandatory. Iran has it, and so do Russia and China. Putting a no fly zone in place over Iraq now needs to be part of the equation in light of the unfortunate declaration of war against Iraq by the Jew infested Trump administration.

This matter needs to brought in front of the UNSC. It’s an egregious escalation of the security environment in the middle east being pushed by the vermin Jew.

Iraq needs to upgrade it’s air force and air defense force with modern non NATO equipment to mitigate the US declaration of war. And move ahead with putting a preemptive no fly zone in place. So that the US declaration of war doesn’t proceed to Gulf War lll. Joining the SCO and agreeing to SCO basing should also be considered.

The Objective

Your claim about the security challenge facing Iraq is grossly misleading. America is to blame for destroying a somewhat stable Iraq under Saddam. But Iran is responsible for the current chaos that has divided the Iraqi state between pro-Iran and pro-Iraq forces. Because of this, there is bound to be a civil war in Iraq.

Do you know just how much power the pro-Iran militias have gained in Iraq over the years? They own institutions teaching Farsi and Iran’s brand of Shiism, They’re involved in almost every financial business in Iraq, they have members installed in government and parliament, they do not obey the Prime Minister or Minister of Defense, they recruit as they see fit, they have areas in Iraq where no one is allowed to visit – not even the government, and they do many other things that suggest these guys intend to slowly take over the Iraqi state.

RichardD

The US just declared war on Iraq. What is it that you don’t understand about that?

The Objective

They declared war on Iran not Iraq. America is not fighting the official Iraqi army. America is fighting Iran’s foot soldiers in Iraq who won’t accept state authority.

Most Sunnis in Iraq oppose these pro-Iran militias.

Can you answer one question: Why does the pro-Iran militias in Iraq refuse to come under state control?

RichardD

You’re an idiot. Iraq isn’t Iran.

The Objective

Well, I guess you aren’t fooling anyone here except your Iran propagandists

RichardD

Fooling them about exactly what?

<>

He has no idea about ME issues Objecive, don’t waste your time on him he doesn’t worth talking to. Let him live in his own illusion, Israel and the Sunni states are working closely to keep Iran at their place.

Leif Oskar Zetterstrøm

Israel, ISIS, and the Sunni states are working closely to keep Iran, Syria at their place!?
War of religion?
Is very dangerous for Israel if there is peace in the Middle East. Then the Islam / Arab League will look at the Palestinian problem and find a solution.

Willing Conscience (The Truths

The only thing the Arab League have been saying lately is they want the Muslim Brotherhood to get out of Iraq Syria Yemen and Libya, and they’re also all making a bee line to re establish diplomatic relations with Israel, but I haven’t heard any of them do very much to support the Palestinian cause lately [except for Qatar], that’s been Erdogan and the Muslim Brotherhoods job.

John

Hello Iron. They are not doing so hot, it seems.

Willing Conscience (The Truths

I can, for the same reason they won’t allow themselves to be controlled by the Syrian Government, Iran tells them what to do because Iran pays them.

John

The Persians have been hanging around an area we know today as Iraq, for probably over 5,000 years. How are you going to turn back that clock?

Degrelle

Iraq is not divided between “pro-iran” and “pro-iraq”.This is western propaganda designed to destabilize the country. Iraqis are not fighting each other, and all Iranian-backed groups are only pro-iraq. All Iraqis are unified against the United States, and Iran doesn’t only help certain Iraqis. Iran legally aids Iraq as a whole and the Iraqi state is a willing participant in all interactions Iraq has with Iran. These two countries are allied, and unified with several common goals.

The Objective

Are all the militias under control of the government of Iraq? Is Kataib Hezbollah under control of the government or not? What happened at the prime minister’s residence when he ordered the arrest of a number of militias accused of planning an attack on the US embassy?

Willing Conscience (The Truths

Iran is financially ripping off both Syria and Iraq and causing increasing sectarian conflict in both countries, Russian Syrian and Iranian news might not say that but just about every other independent news source does.

Doom Sternz

Not just Iran but the world has an absolute imperative to arrest Trump. Trump threatened to murder the PM of Iraq, ordered the Marines to murder protesters and ordered the murder of Soleimani. Crimes don’t get worse than this and why Abdul Mahdi resigned. Arrest Trump and present him to the Hague.

Trump previously used his ISIS proxies to escalate, as he had threatened, by attacking K1. What led to the US Attacks on Iraqi Military and PMU Hundreds of Miles from the “Incident” at K1 base? The attack Trump claimed to be retaliating against was against an Iraqi base, not an American base, an attack by ISIS where an American oil worker was killed on an Exxon oil facility…where oil has been stolen from Iraq for years.

carlo cozzarin

All threats, resource thefts, fugitives and terrorists in Iraq and the Middle East are the result of the poisoned tree of the Yankee and Anglo-Zionist pirates
Iraq must withdraw all its money from bank accounts in the US and kick them out and then make new agreements with the EU and China along with Iran, have the necessary support from the UN General Council
The US, UK, Israel, and the Troglodyte Monarchies of the Gulf must be isolated from the civilian world until they decide to return to the legality, morality and respect for human rights and sovereignty of other countries
France and Turkey are also part of the problem in more global terms
They also have to realize that the world today is no longer willing to suffer the foul play and wet dreams of imperial colonialists who play with the blood of the innocent

John

I wonder how much shit Sec. Pompeo threw around the room after the news of this crossed his desk, having thought he might have gained ground and only to see the show goes right on.

99
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x