PDA

View Full Version : Iran Captures Iraqi Oil Fields In Disputed Region



Equilibrium
18 Dec 09,, 15:11
DEVELOPING: Iranians have been launching attacks in a disputed Iraqi oil area over the past few days, Iraq's deputy minister said, Reuters reported.


Iranians Reportedly Launch Attacks in Disputed Iraqi Oil Area - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580560,00.html?test=latestnews)

rj1
18 Dec 09,, 15:24
Reading this on Stratfor, it looks like it was not so much "attack" but "took position" as the Iraqis had no one at the field and it was neglected.


Reports emerged Dec. 18 that Iranian forces infiltrated southern Iraq, occupied well No. 4 in the Fauqa Field in the Iraqi province of Maysan along the Iranian border and withdrew after several hours. Iraqi Border Guard Gen. Zaser Nazmi has claimed that Iranian forces positioned tanks around the well, dug trenches and remain in place.

A U.S. military spokesman also claimed an incursion occurred, but the Iraqi deputy interior minister is now claiming that an incursion never occurred, that Iraq would never give up its oil rights and that an official statement would be issued shortly. Deputy Interior Minister Ahmed Ali al-Khafaji told Reuters that “this field is disputed and now it is neglected by both sides. There was no storming of the field. It’s empty, it’s abandoned.” A U.S. military spokesman told AFP that “there has been no violence related to this incident and we trust this will be resolved through peaceful diplomacy between the governments of Iraq and Iran.” He added that the “oil field is in disputed territory in between Iranian and Iraqi border forts,” and that such incidents occur quite frequently.

And then two hours later the Iraqi Deputy Minister clarified:


Iranian forces took up position at Fauqa oil field in Iraqi territory, an Iraqi official confirmed Dec. 18, reversing earlier statements, Reuters reported, citing an Iraqi Interior Ministry official. Iraqi Deputy Interior Minister Ahmed Ali al-Khafaji said the incursion was the latest of several the week of Dec. 14. Eleven Iranian soldiers took position at 3:30 p.m. local time on Dec. 18, raising the Iranian flag, and remain there, al-Khafaji said.

Equilibrium
18 Dec 09,, 15:39
Either way, if the Iranian justification for the seizure is that borders are based on official government presence, then borders for them are irrelevant.

Teheran seems to be probing to see just how much its scope for action has improved with the US withdrawing and the Iraqi government increasingly taking responsibility for its sovereignty. It also looke like its trying to see how far the US will commit to its defense obligations to Baghdad.

Zinja
18 Dec 09,, 17:18
You will see the appeasing bootlicking response of the Iraq gvt to this.

rj1
18 Dec 09,, 17:28
Either way, if the Iranian justification for the seizure is that borders are based on official government presence, then borders for them are irrelevant.


STRATFOR: Already Iraqi Foreign Minister Zebari is downplaying the incident, claiming he is not surprised it happened since the border has yet to be demarcated. A U.S. military official in Iraq, Col. Peter Newell, has also characterized the event as somewhat routine, and one that both Iraqi and Iranian forces participate in: “What happens is, periodically, about every three or four months, the oil ministry guys from Iraq will go… to fix something or do some maintenance. They’ll paint it in Iraqi colors and throw an Iraqi flag up. They’ll hang out there for a while, until they get tired, and as soon as they go away, the Iranians come down the hill and paint it Iranian colors and raise an Iranian flag. It happened about three months ago and it will probably happen again.”


Teheran seems to be probing to see just how much its scope for action has improved with the US withdrawing and the Iraqi government increasingly taking responsibility for its sovereignty. It also looke like its trying to see how far the US will commit to its defense obligations to Baghdad.

I agree with you that Tehran is just testing the response. Stratfor has even claimed "a high-ranking Iranian official" as a source telling them what happened and even the general most likely in charge, so the Iranians aren't hiding they did it and are telling everyone.

Kermanshahi
19 Dec 09,, 09:41
What happens is, periodically, about every three or four months, the oil ministry guys from Iraq will go ... to fix something or do some maintenance. They'll paint it in Iraqi colours and throw an Iraqi flag up.

"They'll hang out there for a while, until they get tired, and as soon as they go away, the Iranians come down the hill and paint it Iranian colours and raise an Iranian flag.

"It happened about three months ago and it will probably happen again."

Al Jazeera English - Middle East - Iraq-Iran in oilfield dispute (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/12/2009121816934643863.html)

Zinja
20 Dec 09,, 00:44
What happens is, periodically, about every three or four months, the oil ministry guys from Iraq will go ... to fix something or do some maintenance. They'll paint it in Iraqi colours and throw an Iraqi flag up.

"They'll hang out there for a while, until they get tired, and as soon as they go away, the Iranians come down the hill and paint it Iranian colours and raise an Iranian flag.

"It happened about three months ago and it will probably happen again."

Al Jazeera English - Middle East - Iraq-Iran in oilfield dispute (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/12/2009121816934643863.html)


"Again, we ask Iran to be committed to the good relations that they announced with Iraq and its nation, and to withdraw its forces immediately," Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told Al-Arabiyah TV. "This is the demand of Iraq, and we call Iran to be committed with that."

Iran, however, appeared undeterred.

In a statement, the Iranian military denied it violated Iraq's sovereignty and cited a 1975 border agreement in claiming the oil well as part of Iran's territory.

"Our forces are on our own soil and, based on the known international borders, this well belongs to Iran," the Iranian military said in a statement to Iran's Arabic-language Al-Alam satellite television.
Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091219/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq)

But honestly Kermanshahi, why does your country do these such things which are so counter productive? Iraq is supposed to be one of your strongest allies, why risk tensions with them? Sometimes the way your leadership thinks is very buffling indeed. One cant help think your country is working very hard to be the world's most hated country.

Kermanshahi
20 Dec 09,, 08:50
Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091219/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq)

But honestly Kermanshahi, why does your country do these such things which are so counter productive? Iraq is supposed to be one of your strongest allies, why risk tensions with them? Sometimes the way your leadership thinks is very buffling indeed. One cant help think your country is working very hard to be the world's most hated country.

It's aimed at testing both America and Iraq. And Iraq isn't a very strong Iranian ally yet, it's because of the American occupation. Now the old Iraqi Government (2005-2006) was very pro-Iranian (this is the government which was elected by the Iraqi people), however in 2006 the US pushed for the appointment of a new government and they where allright at the beginning (2006-2007) but this Maliki is starting to follow in the footsteps of Saddam Hussein.
Ideologically he is starting to go from Shi'a Islamist to Arab Nationalist and he's been creating tensions with his former allies: the Shi'a Islamist Parties (which were elected by the Iraqi people), the Kurds, the Iranians and the Sy rians. Politically he is becoming more and more of a dictator, government censorship is being put on the media, political opponents are being imprisoned, people are being banned from joining elections, prisoners are bieng tortured...
Now today relations with Iran are still friendly but if things deteriorate any more and also depending on the outcome of the 2010 elections (which is being postponed so much that it might not even happen in 2010), the Iranians might start working on a coup to overthrow him. Iranian allies still have the security forces in hands, most police/soldiers are still militiamen and their commanders are parties and clerics loyal to Iran. To counter this Maliki has been trying to bring Sunnis in the military but it's not been succesfull because Sunnis in the security forces have been responsible for countless bombings and are constantly being found to have links to insurgents.
This recent move in the well is aimed both to show Maliki and America

pChan
20 Dec 09,, 12:12
It's aimed at testing both America and Iraq. And Iraq isn't a very strong Iranian ally yet, it's because of the American occupation. Now the old Iraqi Government (2005-2006) was very pro-Iranian (this is the government which was elected by the Iraqi people), however in 2006 the US pushed for the appointment of a new government and they where allright at the beginning (2006-2007) but this Maliki is starting to follow in the footsteps of Saddam Hussein.
Ideologically he is starting to go from Shi'a Islamist to Arab Nationalist and he's been creating tensions with his former allies: the Shi'a Islamist Parties (which were elected by the Iraqi people), the Kurds, the Iranians and the Sy rians. Politically he is becoming more and more of a dictator, government censorship is being put on the media, political opponents are being imprisoned, people are being banned from joining elections, prisoners are bieng tortured...
Now today relations with Iran are still friendly but if things deteriorate any more and also depending on the outcome of the 2010 elections (which is being postponed so much that it might not even happen in 2010), the Iranians might start working on a coup to overthrow him. Iranian allies still have the security forces in hands, most police/soldiers are still militiamen and their commanders are parties and clerics loyal to Iran. To counter this Maliki has been trying to bring Sunnis in the military but it's not been succesfull because Sunnis in the security forces have been responsible for countless bombings and are constantly being found to have links to insurgents.
This recent move in the well is aimed both to show Maliki and America

Source,links to back up your statements please.

Kermanshahi
20 Dec 09,, 12:16
Source,links to back up your statements please.

Which statements do you want a source for. Tell me and I will give it.

pChan
20 Dec 09,, 13:07
Which statements do you want a source for. Tell me and I will give it.

Never mind. Made a google search Maliki is no saint .....

Zinja
20 Dec 09,, 13:25
It's aimed at testing both America and Iraq. And Iraq isn't a very strong Iranian ally yet, it's because of the American occupation. Now the old Iraqi Government (2005-2006) was very pro-Iranian (this is the government which was elected by the Iraqi people), however in 2006 the US pushed for the appointment of a new government and they where allright at the beginning (2006-2007) but this Maliki is starting to follow in the footsteps of Saddam Hussein.
Ideologically he is starting to go from Shi'a Islamist to Arab Nationalist and he's been creating tensions with his former allies: the Shi'a Islamist Parties (which were elected by the Iraqi people), the Kurds, the Iranians and the Sy rians. Politically he is becoming more and more of a dictator, government censorship is being put on the media, political opponents are being imprisoned, people are being banned from joining elections, prisoners are bieng tortured...
Now today relations with Iran are still friendly but if things deteriorate any more and also depending on the outcome of the 2010 elections (which is being postponed so much that it might not even happen in 2010), the Iranians might start working on a coup to overthrow him. Iranian allies still have the security forces in hands, most police/soldiers are still militiamen and their commanders are parties and clerics loyal to Iran. To counter this Maliki has been trying to bring Sunnis in the military but it's not been succesfull because Sunnis in the security forces have been responsible for countless bombings and are constantly being found to have links to insurgents.
This recent move in the well is aimed both to show Maliki and America

Very interesting! I thought you guys were really warming up to each other with the Maliki gvt giving your Ahd'jad red carpet welcomes (against the US's advice), signing trading deals, Mailki's gvt refusing to acknowledge Iran's role in insurgency (at least not publicly). I really was of the impression that the current Iraq gvt was firmly with you, maybe im naive of the real game behind the scenes.

What is Iran's position to the Supreme Islamic Iraq Council? I know Iran is pro Sadr but what are their feelings towards Abdul Aziz al-Hakim.

Oh and finally, you say "Iranians might start working on a coup to overthrow him", isn't that interfering in another country's sovereingty, a charge which you are accusing the US?

tankie
20 Dec 09,, 13:49
What happens is, periodically, about every three or four months, the oil ministry guys from Iraq will go ... to fix something or do some maintenance. They'll paint it in Iraqi colours and throw an Iraqi flag up.

"They'll hang out there for a while, until they get tired, and as soon as they go away, the Iranians come down the hill and paint it Iranian colours and raise an Iranian flag.

"It happened about three months ago and it will probably happen again

;)


Reuters Mohammed Abbas



Iranian troops have withdrawn partially from a disputed oil well claimed by both Tehran and Baghdad, an Iraqi spokesman said on Sunday, possibly defusing a border feud straining the two countries' delicate ties. Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said a small group of Iranian troops who had taken over an oil well in a remote region along the Iran-Iraq border last week were no longer in control of the well, which Iraq considers part of its Fakka oilfield.

"The Iranian flag has been lowered. The Iranian troops have pulled back 50 metres, but they have not gone back to where they were before. The Iraqi government asked for the troops to go back to where they were," Dabbagh said.

Dabbagh said a joint committee would begin to look at demarcating the border in the desert area southeast of Baghdad.

The border flare-up kicked off a storm of emergency meetings and bilateral phone calls, with Baghdad calling for an immediate withdrawal of foreign troops yet also seeking to contain damage to its charged relationship with neighbouring Iran.

In a phone conversation on Saturday evening, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and his Iraqi counterpart Hoshiyar Zebari underlined the need for a meeting "with the intention of enforcing bilateral border agreements," Iranian state broadcaster IRIB reported.

Global oil prices climbed on Friday following initial media reports that Iranian troops had commandeered an Iraqi oil well.

The news was all the more worrisome as Iraq prepares to sign giant contracts with leading global oil firms, a milestone in its efforts to turn around its oil sector and secure foreign cash despite ongoing violence and other obstacles to investment.

Conflict with fellow Shi'ite Muslim Iran, a sometimes rival that shares deep historic and religious ties with Iraq, is an especially sensitive issue for Iraqi officials several months before parliamentary elections on March 7.

As the Iraqi government moves firmly out of the postwar U.S. shadow, even Iraqi officials friendly with Tehran cannot afford to be seen as bowing to any foreign powers, especially Iran.

Kermanshahi
20 Dec 09,, 13:49
Very interesting! I thought you guys were really warming up to each other with the Maliki gvt giving your Ahd'jad red carpet welcomes (against the US's advice), signing trading deals, Mailki's gvt refusing to acknowledge Iran's role in insurgency (at least not publicly). I really was of the impression that the current Iraq gvt was firmly with you, maybe im naive of the real game behind the scenes.

Well, he was pro-Iranian at first, he even spent his time in exile, in Iran, relations are still quite good but we can see they are deteriorating and if Maliki goes any further they might just turn bad.


What is Iran's position to the Supreme Islamic Iraq Council? I know Iran is pro Sadr but what are their feelings towards Abdul Aziz al-Hakim.

The Supreme Islamic Iraq Council (formerly known as the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq) was created in Iran, by the Iranian government. During Saddam all Shi'a political leaders fled the country, to Iran and there were also many Shi'a refugees who fled to Iran. In Iran, the Iranian government helped these political leaders set up the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and helped them recruit those refugees into their own militia, the Badr Brigades, which were trained, armed and funded by Iran aswell as stationed in Iran. During the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War both SCIRI and their militia (Badr Brigades, now known as Badr Organisation due to militia ban in Iraq) aswell as the Islamic Dawa Party (were Maliki belongs to, and their militia) fought alongside Iran, operating from Iranian soil, to fight Iraq.

Iranians are likely to want a government by the Supreme Council, they are also Iran's closest ally. Sadr only got alligned with Iran after 2003, when most Iranian allies chose to cooperate in America cause it would benefit them (to get more power in Iraq), Sadr chose to oppose America and fight them, therefore Iran choose to support him (rather than anti-Iranian/anti-Shi'a, Sunni Insurgents). Now relatiosn with Dawa have been good for decades (in the 60s and 70s Dawa was helping Khomeini against the Shah, during the 80s and 90s IR was helping Dawa against Saddam), during Jaafari relations were good, even during Maliki at first relations were good. However recently (08-09) we've seen Maliki fall out with SIIC and Sadr and we've seen Maliki creating hostilities towards the Kurds (which are also Iranian allies), we've also seen him taking more power towards himself.
Maliki's recent policies are neither pro-American nor pro-Iranian and they are not Shi'a Islamist or Arab Nationalist, he doesn't regards for freedom, human rights or democracy, that's why I say he's becoming new Saddam, this is all too similar to Saddam Hussein.


Oh and finally, you say "Iranians might start working on a coup to overthrow him", isn't that interfering in another country's sovereingty, a charge which you are accusing the US?

Let's not forget the current Iraqi government was put in charge by a US-invasion and that Nouri al-Maliki is far from the populair democraticly elected leader that Mohammad Mossadeq was.
And Iran does interfere with other countries, they've been taking actions against many governments (such as Saddam's regime, the Taliban when they were in charge of Afghanistan, Bahrain and Yemen's Sunni regimes, Israel's government, the Fatah dominated PLO) but Iran doesn't attack other countries like America does.

pChan
20 Dec 09,, 13:59
And Iran does interfere with other countries, they've been taking actions against many governments (such as Saddam's regime, the Taliban when they were in charge of Afghanistan, Bahrain and Yemen's Sunni regimes, Israel's government, the Fatah dominated PLO) but Iran doesn't attack other countries like America does.

With the exception of Afghanistan its probably because Iran can't. Saddam tried something to that effect and that didn't go very well.

Kermanshahi
20 Dec 09,, 14:17
With the exception of Afghanistan its probably because Iran can't. Saddam tried something to that effect and that didn't go very well.

Iran has a more powerfull military than any of it's neighbours. The last time Iran attacked another country was in 1743 and it was to re-take territories which Turks had invaded some 10 years earlier.

Zinja
20 Dec 09,, 15:37
The Supreme Islamic Iraq Council (formerly known as the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq) was created in Iran, by the Iranian government. During Saddam all Shi'a political leaders fled the country, to Iran and there were also many Shi'a refugees who fled to Iran. In Iran, the Iranian government helped these political leaders set up the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and helped them recruit those refugees into their own militia, the Badr Brigades, which were trained, armed and funded by Iran aswell as stationed in Iran. During the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War both SCIRI and their militia (Badr Brigades, now known as Badr Organisation due to militia ban in Iraq) aswell as the Islamic Dawa Party (were Maliki belongs to, and their militia) fought alongside Iran, operating from Iranian soil, to fight Iraq.

Iranians are likely to want a government by the Supreme Council, they are also Iran's closest ally. Sadr only got alligned with Iran after 2003, when most Iranian allies chose to cooperate in America cause it would benefit them (to get more power in Iraq), Sadr chose to oppose America and fight them, therefore Iran choose to support him (rather than anti-Iranian/anti-Shi'a, Sunni Insurgents). Now relatiosn with Dawa have been good for decades (in the 60s and 70s Dawa was helping Khomeini against the Shah, during the 80s and 90s IR was helping Dawa against Saddam), during Jaafari relations were good, even during Maliki at first relations were good. However recently (08-09) we've seen Maliki fall out with SIIC and Sadr and we've seen Maliki creating hostilities towards the Kurds (which are also Iranian allies), we've also seen him taking more power towards himself.
Maliki's recent policies are neither pro-American nor pro-Iranian and they are not Shi'a Islamist or Arab Nationalist, he doesn't regards for freedom, human rights or democracy, that's why I say he's becoming new Saddam, this is all too similar to Saddam Hussein.


Interesting. I think you are right about Maliki's kind of self serving tendencies. However what i fail to understand is why does that bother you if he is not threatening your country? Why should Iran take it upon itself to manage Iraq's affairs, are the Iraq's not entitled to their own destiny? It seems to me that because Maliki won't tow the Iranian line therefore he is a bad guy who should be removed. When you threatent a coup to remove a government of a sovereign nation is that not interfering with another nation's affairs? How is that different from America's stint in Iran in the 50s?



Let's not forget the current Iraqi government was put in charge by a US-invasion and that Nouri al-Maliki is far from the populair democraticly elected leader that Mohammad Mossadeq was.


I think here you are being disonest. Maliki's premier was a result of a legal due process in the Iraq system. Ibrahim al-jafaari's ouster was internally initiated, advocated by even your allies the Kurds. Due process through Iraq systems put Maliki in that position. To say the US put him there is simply not true. Also, are you aware that the US is actually keen to leave Iraq? Not even a single Iraq oil contract has been awarded to a US firm, bursting the myth that the US invaded for oil. The US is simply interested in a stable independant Iraq, which seems to be what Maliki is doing, albeit not to your liking .... ... don't you think?



And Iran does interfere with other countries, they've been taking actions against many governments (such as Saddam's regime, the Taliban when they were in charge of Afghanistan, Bahrain and Yemen's Sunni regimes, Israel's government, the Fatah dominated PLO) but Iran doesn't attack other countries like America does.

By your logic the US has never attacked Iran, so what is all the mantra about? Shouldn't Iraq, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Yemen, Israel, Fatah be also shouting 'death to Iran'?

Kermanshahi
20 Dec 09,, 16:28
Interesting. I think you are right about Maliki's kind of self serving tendencies. However what i fail to understand is why does that bother you if he is not threatening your country? Why should Iran take it upon itself to manage Iraq's affairs, are the Iraq's not entitled to their own destiny? It seems to me that because Maliki won't tow the Iranian line therefore he is a bad guy who should be removed. When you threatent a coup to remove a government of a sovereign nation is that not interfering with another nation's affairs? How is that different from America's stint in Iran in the 50s?

Well you know that this Maliki guy wasn't elected either. His party only has 13 seats in parliament, SIIC has 35, Sadr Movement has 30 and Fadhilla (another Sadrist Party) has 15, but Maliki was appointed President of Iraq.
Iran is interested in leading the regeon's Shi'a community and they don't want an Arab Nationalist Iraq, but Shi'a Islamist Iraq. Arab Nationalists have been historical enemies of the country.


I think here you are being disonest. Maliki's premier was a result of a legal due process in the Iraq system. Ibrahim al-jafaari's ouster was internally initiated, advocated by even your allies the Kurds. Due process through Iraq systems put Maliki in that position. To say the US put him there is simply not true. Also, are you aware that the US is actually keen to leave Iraq? Not even a single Iraq oil contract has been awarded to a US firm, bursting the myth that the US invaded for oil. The US is simply interested in a stable independant Iraq, which seems to be what Maliki is doing, albeit not to your liking .... ... don't you think?

Jaafari was removed due to American pressure, the Iraqis didn't want a new "unity government" they had elected a government, but the minority (who's parties didn't gain enough votes) wanted a new government. Majority of the UIA stood behind Jaafari, the voting went in favour of him over and over again but eventually those who backed him gave up as the Americans wouldn't budge.


By your logic the US has never attacked Iran,

Well, they attacking Iranian navy bases and ships during the War to help Iraq and shot down an Iranian civil airliner killing 290 Iranian civilians (and afterwards the commander who shot this plane down got a medal for it!).


so what is all the mantra about? Shouldn't Iraq, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Yemen, Israel, Fatah be also shouting 'death to Iran'?

You think the Shi'a majorities of Iraq and Bahrain like(d) living under an opressive Sunni dictatorship? Or that the Afghans liked living under the Pakistani backed Taliban? Yemen's Shi'as might be a minority but they are all but happy about how the American-backed Sunni dictatorship in Yemen is treating them and very happy for Iranian help. And if you checked Palestinian elections Fatah lost badly, they then used violence to try to seize power.

drhuy
20 Dec 09,, 19:01
but Iran doesn't attack other countries

they can't, put it simply.

btw, i honestly think u guys in Iran should mind ur own business first before even think of establishing a "great iran" in the region. The fact that the Shi'a dudes dont like to live under an opressive Sunni dictatorship doesnt mean that they want to be controlled by some guys in Tehran.

Oh, and if u guys hadnt desperately attacked the tankers then the US wouldnt have had to waste their missiles on ur pathetic boats.

Kermanshahi
20 Dec 09,, 19:05
they can't, put it simply.

They have a stronger army than all their neighbours


btw, i honestly think u guys in Iran should mind ur own business first before even think of establishing a "great iran" in the region. The fact that the Shi'a dudes dont like to live under an opressive Sunni dictatorship doesnt mean that they want to be controlled by some guys in Tehran.

They want their rights and if we dont' help them than who will? Iran as Shi'a state has a responsibility to help them.


Oh, and if u guys hadnt desperately attacked the tankers then the US wouldnt have had to waste their missiles on ur pathetic boats.

Iraqis were attacking our tankers, so than we attacked theirs. Than they let their oil be transported in Kuwaiti tankers, so we attacked them.

Kermanshahi
20 Dec 09,, 19:06
Besides, Americans are in no position to critisise anyone about minding their own business.

drhuy
20 Dec 09,, 19:13
They have a stronger army than all their neighbours

LOL, now even assume that your statement is correct, it still doesnt make sense. Having a stronger army doesnt mean you can invade another country. To do that, you need a MUCH stronger army.


They want their rights and if we dont' help them than who will? Iran as Shi'a state has a responsibility to help them.

hahah, now you sound nothing different from the US. Only the ability to act separates two cases.


Than they let their oil be transported in Kuwaiti tankers, so we attacked them.

lol, u attacked 3rd parties tankers just because they carried your enemy OIL. Very funny.

drhuy
20 Dec 09,, 19:14
Besides, Americans are in no position to critisise anyone about minding their own business.

lol, no no, i'm not american. I just look at your pathetic condition and think so :)

Kermanshahi
20 Dec 09,, 19:51
LOL, now even assume that your statement is correct, it still doesnt make sense. Having a stronger army doesnt mean you can invade another country. To do that, you need a MUCH stronger army.

Only 2 of our neighbours actually have a military which could fight a proper war with Iran, the rest woldn't even be able to hold out a few weeks.


hahah, now you sound nothing different from the US. Only the ability to act separates two cases.

Iranians have helped the Shi'a all over the Middle East but they didn't need to invade and occupy any other countries to do it.


lol, u attacked 3rd parties tankers just because they carried your enemy OIL. Very funny.

You call that 3rd party? Kuwait was giving bilions to Iraq and while Iraqis were attacking our oil tankers the Kuwaits were shipping Iraqi oil so that we wouldn't attack. Thinking we'd let Iraqi oil be exported freely but Iranian oil tankers be under constant attack.

Officer of Engineers
21 Dec 09,, 02:47
Only 2 of our neighbours actually have a military which could fight a proper war with Iran, the rest woldn't even be able to hold out a few weeks.Iran CANNOT march to any capital other than Tehran.


Iranians have helped the Shi'a all over the Middle East but they didn't need to invade and occupy any other countries to do it.You do it by proxy because you don't have the nerve to do it in person.


You call that 3rd party? Kuwait was giving bilions to Iraq and while Iraqis were attacking our oil tankers the Kuwaits were shipping Iraqi oil so that we wouldn't attack. Thinking we'd let Iraqi oil be exported freely but Iranian oil tankers be under constant attack.Nothing stopped you from hiring Filipino tankers.

Kermanshahi
21 Dec 09,, 08:49
Iran CANNOT march to any capital other than Tehran.

For one, Iran could reach Baku in 2 days, Ashgabad in 1.


You do it by proxy because you don't have the nerve to do it in person.

No, it's because we are not agressive like America and Israel but when our brothers go to war we will sent them help.


Nothing stopped you from hiring Filipino tankers.

Iran was isolated, everyone was helping Iraq.

Officer of Engineers
21 Dec 09,, 09:46
For one, Iran could reach Baku in 2 days, Ashgabad in 1.Try again. You will run out of water before you get half way to Baku and a Russian army is waiting for you in Ashgabak.


No, it's because we are not agressive like America and Israel but when our brothers go to war we will sent them help.Horse pucky! There were 3 battalions in Bosnia.


Iran was isolated, everyone was helping Iraq.Horse puckey again. Where the hell did you get Russian planes and Chinese tanks? Who was buying your oil?

Luke Gu
21 Dec 09,, 11:00
Where the hell did you get Russian planes and Chinese tanks? Who was buying your oil?
OoE,I believe it's more useful to get weapon from US.And China also sell weapons to Iraq.

No, it's because we are not agressive like America and Israel but when our brothers go to war we will sent them help.
Really,all the agressive words from Ahmadinejad just represent himself?

Iran was isolated, everyone was helping Iraq.
You’re isolated by US ,everyone is too exaggerating.

Kermanshahi
21 Dec 09,, 11:05
Try again. You will run out of water before you get half way to Baku and a Russian army is waiting for you in Ashgabak.

Russians don't protect either of these 2 states (although Azerbaijan is still officially in Russian alliance but they are very hostile), we can crush their tiny army in a matter of days, Iranian navy can enter the port of Baku and take it in the first day of war and in the moment Iranians cross the Southern border, Aliyev will be on his way too Georgia.


Horse pucky! There were 3 battalions in Bosnia.

So? ...


Horse puckey again. Where the hell did you get Russian planes and Chinese tanks? Who was buying your oil?

They were either bought after the war or captured from Iraq.

Officer of Engineers
21 Dec 09,, 12:30
Russians don't protect either of these 2 states (although Azerbaijan is still officially in Russian alliance but they are very hostile), we can crush their tiny army in a matter of days, Iranian navy can enter the port of Baku and take it in the first day of war and in the moment Iranians cross the Southern border, Aliyev will be on his way too Georgia.Try again. The Turkmenistani Army is Russian Officered and your navy don't know how to clear mines. And again, your army will run out of water.


So? ...Your "So?" means that your country has lost nerve.


They were either bought after the war or captured from Iraq.You really don't know about your own history, do you?

Soviet support for Iran during the Iran?Iraq war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_support_for_Iran_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Ir aq_war)
Israeli support for Iran during the Iran?Iraq war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Iran_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93I raq_war)
User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-Chinese support for Iran during the Iran-Iraq war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-Chinese_support_for_Iran_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war)

Kermanshahi
21 Dec 09,, 12:41
Try again. The Turkmenistani Army is Russian Officered and your navy don't know how to clear mines. And again, your army will run out of water.

Our army will run out of water? What a nonesense is taht.


Your "So?" means that your country has lost nerve.

No, you made an irrelevant comment.


You really don't know about your own history, do you?

Soviet support for Iran during the Iran?Iraq war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_support_for_Iran_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Ir aq_war)
Israeli support for Iran during the Iran?Iraq war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Iran_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93I raq_war)
User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-Chinese support for Iran during the Iran-Iraq war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-Chinese_support_for_Iran_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war)

These 3 countries sold us some weapons on small scale for their own benefits. It wasn't worth much, unlike the massive support Iraq got, which ketp them alive.

But the tanks and planes you talk about were all purchased afterwards. The licensed production of T-72s was signed in the 90s, the MiG-29s were ordered in 1991, the Su-25s were bought in the 2000s, the J-7s were bought after the war. And the Su-24s, most of the Su-25s were flown over from Iraq in 1991, were as the T-55s and T-62s were captured Iraqi tanks (though some of the T-55s were bought in the 90s).

Dreadnought
21 Dec 09,, 13:21
OOE, Sir, still trying to make sense to the sensless?;):))

TopHatter
21 Dec 09,, 13:38
OoE,I believe it's more useful to get weapon from US.And China also sell weapons to Iraq.

In the confined waters of the Persian Gulf, and especially the Strait of Hormuz, it's more useful to get weapons from China, such as the HY-2 Haiying (Silkworm)


Our army will run out of water? What a nonesense is taht.

Nonsense? Look if you want to constantly prove that you're a cluesless teenager, then great.

But in the meantime, why don't you look up the word "Logistics" and tell us what it means.

Then go look up the required amount of water intake for an active adult in a warm environment. (around 6 liters, I believe).

Then you can probably double that for soldiers involved in strenuous activity.

Then you can multiply it times the number of soldiers in your army marching away from it's permanent base of supply.

Then you can figure out a way to either transport that much water with your army.

Then you can figure out a way to protect that water supply.

Then the Colonel (because that's what Officer of Engineers is) can tell me how I've missed half a dozen issues of major importance with regards to supplying a large field army with water and then you can solve them too.

So there's your "nonsense". Because without water, your army can go look up the definition of "dehydration, death as a cause of".

Officer of Engineers
21 Dec 09,, 13:41
Our army will run out of water? What a nonesense is taht.Your stupidity, that's the nonsense. Water. A fighting man needs two litres a day just to have minimum survivable condition. Around 8 if you're under constant combat. Figure it out.


No, you made an irrelevant comment.Look, kid, Bosnia was the last time you've sent troops out. Now, why is that? Figure it out.


These 3 countries sold us some weapons on small scale for their own benefits. It wasn't worth much, unlike the massive support Iraq got, which ketp them alive.So, you were isolated. No one was willing to help you. No one was willing to transport your oil.

Horse Puckey!


But the tanks and planes you talk about were all purchased afterwards. The licensed production of T-72s was signed in the 90s, the MiG-29s were ordered in 1991, the Su-25s were bought in the 2000s, the J-7s were bought after the war. And the Su-24s, most of the Su-25s were flown over from Iraq in 1991, were as the T-55s and T-62s were captured Iraqi tanks (though some of the T-55s were bought in the 90s).Horse puckey!

Iranian Air Force in Iran?Iraq war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Air_Force_in_Iran-Iraq_war)

Parihaka
21 Dec 09,, 13:47
I'm not sure exactly what this puckey stuff is that horses produce but I'm damned sure I never want to run across any

TopHatter
21 Dec 09,, 13:59
Your stupidity, that's the nonsense. Water. A fighting man needs two litres a day just to have minimum survivable condition. Around 8 if you're under constant combat. Figure it out.

I was figuring around 12...thought sounded a bit excessive, but if it's a summer offensive, would 8 be sufficient?

Luke Gu
21 Dec 09,, 14:08
In the confined waters of the Persian Gulf, and especially the Strait of Hormuz, it's more useful to get weapons from China, such as the HY-2 Haiying (Silkworm)
Sir,I'm stupid in weapons.Can you explain it.I believe US weapon is more useful because it's more advanced.Thanks.

TopHatter
21 Dec 09,, 14:43
Sir,I'm stupid in weapons.Can you explain it.I believe US weapon is more useful because it's more advanced.Thanks.

No sir, Advanced weaponry is not always the better choice.

Advanced weaponry may have more capability, but it also (usually) means that there are more things that can go wrong with it, or break down.

A simple, classic example: The M16 is a far more advanced and accurate weapon than the AK-47.

But the M16 demands regular and thorough cleaning, but the AK-47 definitely does not. A dirty M16 probably will not function, but an AK-47 almost always will.

As far as the Silkworm goes, it's a simple and relatively inexpensive weapon. Which means that it's probably easier to maintain and deploy in large numbers.

And, in the Persian Gulf and it's doorway, the Strait of Hormuz, you are talking about point-blank range. So once it's launched, there are only minutes or seconds before impact. So sophisticated electronics and countermeasures against it are going to be severely limited.

"Perfect is the enemy of good enough".

So there is almost always a place for "unsophisticated" or "less advanced" weaponry.

On the other hand, your weapons and your army are useless without food and most especially without water.

Officer of Engineers
21 Dec 09,, 14:57
I was figuring around 12...thought sounded a bit excessive, but if it's a summer offensive, would 8 be sufficient?You plan on 8. There will be the front line platoons who would need more while HQs would require less.

Like ammo, there is never enough but you make do.

What's more, not only men need water but so does machines. You have to cool the tubes after sustained fire.

troung
21 Dec 09,, 16:06
But the tanks and planes you talk about were all purchased afterwards. The licensed production of T-72s was signed in the 90s, the MiG-29s were ordered in 1991, the Su-25s were bought in the 2000s, the J-7s were bought after the war. And the Su-24s, most of the Su-25s were flown over from Iraq in 1991, were as the T-55s and T-62s were captured Iraqi tanks (though some of the T-55s were bought in the 90s).

J-7s and Chinese army equipment (tanks, artillery, etc...) was bought during the war.


Russians don't protect either of these 2 states (although Azerbaijan is still officially in Russian alliance but they are very hostile), we can crush their tiny army in a matter of days, Iranian navy can enter the port of Baku and take it in the first day of war and in the momient Iranians cross the Southern border, Aliyev will be on his way too Georgia.

Their army is not tiny. Lot's of tanks, artillery and men actually.


For one, Iran could reach Baku in 2 days, Ashgabad in 1.

Pure banter. Iran would get ghetto stomped if it looked like it was thinking about either. Nationalistic banter aside Iran is in no position to project power, even in the totally unlikely absence of America or Russia getting pissed off.


Iran has a more powerfull military than any of it's neighbours. The last time Iran attacked another country was in 1743 and it was to re-take territories which Turks had invaded some 10 years earlier.

The Qajars attacked Herat twice. And BTW Nader Shah's romp into India and Uzbekistan was hardly to "re-take territory".

Dreadnought
21 Dec 09,, 16:39
Nationalistic banter aside Iran is in no position to project power.

Absolutely True words, Gentlemen, you have to realize what you are dealing with on this thread. Statistics, Facts and information mean nothing here, it is only chest pounding with some lower ranking Army and crackpot theologic rhetoric that can beat anyone's army in the middle east including those that posess even greater capabilities such as nuclear weapons, air superiority, navy and so fourth.

The mere fact of not even recognizing simple logistics of what it takes to make an army march with basic necessaties such as water itself should have given you a clue as to this persons mind set and experience within the military. In other words less the par.;)

JAD_333
21 Dec 09,, 16:53
And Iran does interfere with other countries, they've been taking actions against many governments (such as Saddam's regime, the Taliban when they were in charge of Afghanistan, Bahrain and Yemen's Sunni regimes, Israel's government, the Fatah dominated PLO) but Iran doesn't attack other countries like America does.

Your insight into the intricacies of Iranian politics vis a vis Iraq are very helpful in understanding the dynamics of the situation there now. So, I am surprised you would make a naive statement like Iran doesn't attack other countries like the US does. Iran's restraint isn't based on good intentions, but it's lack of military power. When Iran's military power is comparable to the US, then you can make that statement, provided of course, Iran does not react to attacks on its people and interests.

Kermanshahi
21 Dec 09,, 17:57
Your stupidity, that's the nonsense. Water. A fighting man needs two litres a day just to have minimum survivable condition. Around 8 if you're under constant combat. Figure it out.

This has never been a problem for Iran in the past and you think Iran has problems nobody else has?:rolleyes:


Look, kid, Bosnia was the last time you've sent troops out. Now, why is that? Figure it out.

Iranians just helped the Moslims to fight Christian paramilitants which were commiting genocide.


So, you were isolated. No one was willing to help you. No one was willing to transport your oil.

Horse Puckey!

Well, the entire Persian Gulf regeon are Arab dictators backed by America, so naturally they sided with Iraq.


Horse puckey!

Iranian Air Force in Iran?Iraq war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Air_Force_in_Iran-Iraq_war)

And every sentence in that article has a citation needed tag on it.

horse puckey


J-7s and Chinese army equipment (tanks, artillery, etc...) was bought during the war.

Some were bought during the war, but most of it was afterwards.


Their army is not tiny. Lot's of tanks, artillery and men actually.

200 second hand Ukrainian tanks and 60,000 soldiers, now we're frightened.:biggrin:


Pure banter. Iran would get ghetto stomped if it looked like it was thinking about either. Nationalistic banter aside Iran is in no position to project power, even in the totally unlikely absence of America or Russia getting pissed off.

What, you think it would take any more than 1 day to take Ashgabad which is as good as on the border and the Turkmens have just a few thousand men. And Aliyevbaijan would hardly hold on longer.


Herat twice. And BTW Nader Shah's romp into India and Uzbekistan was hardly to "re-take territory".

Herat was Iranian territory before collapse of Safavids, Nadir Shah went to re-take it and Uzbeks were plundering all of Northern Iran, that's why military action had to be taken. But the last war was with the Turks.


Your insight into the intricacies of Iranian politics vis a vis Iraq are very helpful in understanding the dynamics of the situation there now. So, I am surprised you would make a naive statement like Iran doesn't attack other countries like the US does. Iran's restraint isn't based on good intentions, but it's lack of military power. When Iran's military power is comparable to the US, then you can make that statement, provided of course, Iran does not react to attacks on its people and interests.

As if the fake WMD program of Iraq was a provocation or attack on American people. It was just a lie to use as excuse to go invade another country.

Dreadnought
21 Dec 09,, 18:09
As if the fake WMD program of Iraq was a provocation or attack on American people. It was just a lie to use as excuse to go invade another country.


:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Yeah, we wanted their oil.:rolleyes:

tankie
21 Dec 09,, 18:15
I'm not sure exactly what this puckey stuff is that horses produce but I'm damned sure I never want to run across any

Its the shit you put on flowers to make em grow Pari ;)

troung
21 Dec 09,, 18:16
Some were bought during the war, but most of it was afterwards.

+1 for me


What, you think it would take any more than 1 day to take Ashgabad which is as good as on the border and the Turkmens have just a few thousand men. And Aliyevbaijan would hardly hold on longer.

Iran's army is damn near worthless. Russia in the real world would more then merely guarantee Turkmenistan's sovereignty; Serbia had to commit genocide and earn the disgust of the civilized world for Russia to allow them to bombed. The Azeris all told could probably stomp them; they ain't Georgia and Iran sure as shit ain't Russia.

Iran took it on the chin from the Taliban after Mazar and the fall of the Hazarajat; a basement full of dead Iranian diplomats (followed by the lack of military response) and starving out the Hazarajat showed what the Taliban thought of Iran's alleged military prowess.


200 second hand Ukrainian tanks and 60,000 soldiers, now we're frightened.

On the defense ready to kick ass facing a parade/paper army. In the real world Iran could only move a handful of troops up there, because like the Herat invasions foreign powers would show up to teach Iran a lesson through clinical pistol whipings. So one gets a bunch of paper troops with some parade units thrown in, all of whom have grown lazy kicking around college kids, who wouldn't outnumber their opponents by much and the entire nation open for an ungodly American curb stomping.


Herat was Iranian territory before collapse of Safavids, Nadir Shah went to re-take it and Uzbeks were plundering all of Northern Iran, that's why military action had to be taken. But the last war was with the Turks.

Talking about 100 years later when Herat was part of Afghanistan and the Qajars blundered around twice and got ghetto stomped by the UK for their trouble. And Nadir Shah romped into India and made moves to take Ottoman territory; not merely land lost during the fall of the Safavids but stuff lost under Tashamp.

Kermanshahi
21 Dec 09,, 20:07
+1 for me

No because the J-7s were bougth afterwards and no Chinese tanks were ever bought.


Iran's army is damn near worthless. Russia in the real world would more then merely guarantee Turkmenistan's sovereignty; Serbia had to commit genocide and earn the disgust of the civilized world for Russia to allow them to bombed. The Azeris all told could probably stomp them; they ain't Georgia and Iran sure as shit ain't Russia.

Iran took it on the chin from the Taliban after Mazar and the fall of the Hazarajat; a basement full of dead Iranian diplomats (followed by the lack of military response) and starving out the Hazarajat showed what the Taliban thought of Iran's alleged military prowess.



On the defense ready to kick ass facing a parade/paper army. In the real world Iran could only move a handful of troops up there, because like the Herat invasions foreign powers would show up to teach Iran a lesson through clinical pistol whipings. So one gets a bunch of paper troops with some parade units thrown in, all of whom have grown lazy kicking around college kids, who wouldn't outnumber their opponents by much and the entire nation open for an ungodly American curb stomping.

Talking about 100 years later when Herat was part of Afghanistan and the Qajars blundered around twice and got ghetto stomped by the UK for their trouble. And Nadir Shah romped into India and made moves to take Ottoman territory; not merely land lost during the fall of the Safavids but stuff lost under Tashamp.

I really have no time to waste, talking to someone as moronic as that.^^

troung
21 Dec 09,, 20:12
No because the J-7s were bougth afterwards and no Chinese tanks were ever bought.

First J-7s arrived in 1987.


I really have no time to waste, talking to someone as moronic as that.^^

Let the record reflect, Troung won with a two hit combo.

TopHatter
21 Dec 09,, 20:19
I really have no time to waste, talking to someone as moronic as that.^^

The truth hurts doesn't it.

Officer of Engineers
21 Dec 09,, 20:27
This has never been a problem for Iran in the past and you think Iran has problems nobody else has?:rolleyes:And your wars in the past was dependent on controlling the waterwells. Yes, it was a problem then. It's a problem now.


Iranians just helped the Moslims to fight Christian paramilitants which were commiting genocide.Your guys were just plain mercs out for a good time. I was there.


Well, the entire Persian Gulf regeon are Arab dictators backed by America, so naturally they sided with Iraq.Boo hoo, nobody helped Iran. Who bought your bloody oil?


And every sentence in that article has a citation needed tag on it.Done

Iranian Air Force Equipment (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/airforce-equipment.htm)


horse puckeyAnd you're full of it.


Some were bought during the war, but most of it was afterwards.Nice backstepping here. First, Iran got no help, then a little help, and all the while ignoring the fact that the contract was signed during the heaviest of fighting in the Iran-Iraq War.

You're in a hole and getting deeper.


200 second hand Ukrainian tanks and 60,000 soldiers, now we're frightened.:biggrin:You should be. That is a Russian Army in training, doctrine, execution, combined arms, and more importantly, Officered by the Russian Army, everything your army dreams to be.


What, you think it would take any more than 1 day to take Ashgabad which is as good as on the border and the Turkmens have just a few thousand men. And Aliyevbaijan would hardly hold on longer.Because you have absolutely no clue on how a Russian Army fights. Before your army could even reach the border, the Russian Officers would have did their prep work waiting for you. Do you have any idea how long does it take to move a single division into hostile territory, esepcially when you've never read the map in the first place, never mind where the Russians would set up their defences.

Take a clue, this is a Russian Army in every sense of the world except one, the wrong flag.


As if the fake WMD program of Iraq was a provocation or attack on American people. It was just a lie to use as excuse to go invade another country.Read the Declaration of War for crying outloud.

Dreadnought
21 Dec 09,, 20:37
If this beating continues OOE Sir, I will be forced into contacting the Red Cross to facilitate the necessary measures needed to preserve this mis informed yet dillusional member of the Iranian high school football team before he bleeds out completely from ignorance of facts, experience and total lack of respect for those that do their homework and have had prior in the field experience. All of which he has not.

HERE FANG!:))

troung
21 Dec 09,, 20:44
The WAB community demands an apology for his 1740s comment when cleary as everyone here knows Iran under the Qajars attacked Herat several times in the 19th century and in 1826 invaded Russia.

Can't bring that weak game here. Expect us not to know and such.

JAD_333
21 Dec 09,, 23:25
As if the fake WMD program of Iraq was a provocation or attack on American people. It was just a lie to use as excuse to go invade another country.

You are playing a game here. Generalities suit you in describing the facts and circumstances of US actions, but when it comes to Iran's actions, you offer minutely detailed explanations and justifications.

You should know that WMD was a plausible pretext for going into Iraq and
that under the surface there were other reasons which made objective sense when seen in the light of US national interests. Now, I don't believe that you would reject the notion that a country must act to protect its national interests.

Surely, Iran is attempting to do so. Wouldn't you agree that Iran justified it's secret assistance to terror groups attacking US interests in the ME in the light of its own interests? Wouldn't you agree that if Iran had the military power of the US it would use it to project its influence over and beyond the region to enhance its security and protect its growing interests? If the obvious answer isn't yes, then you're wasting your time here.

Officer of Engineers
21 Dec 09,, 23:29
No because the J-7s were bougth afterwards and no Chinese tanks were ever bought.

Horse puckey!


North Korean support for Iran during the Iran?Iraq war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_support_for_Iran_during_the_Iran%E2%8 0%93Iraq_war)

Iran could not replace its tank losses during 1983 and 1985. As a result, Iran tended to use tanks largely as artillery or to support infantry, rather than in independent maneuver actions.[6] When it could, it bought more Soviet or Chinese-designed tanks, as well as purpose-built

Tanks, sold primarily to the Middle East in the early 1980s, produced the bulk of North Korean sales, principally to Iran. They sold Russian and Chinese tanks, as well as T-54/T-55 Soviet tanks made in North Korea.
The T-54 can be recognized by the dome-shaped ventilator on the turret roof, in front of the loader's hatch, which the T-55 lacks
A primary recognition feature of the T-62 is the progressively larger gap between sets of road wheels. The very similar T-54/55 has one wide gap between the first and second wheel.

Since the late 1970s, North Korea has produced an estimated 600 T-62 tanks, a 1960-vintage Soviet design. [7]It sold some to Iran.[6] It also bought T-62 and modern T-72 tanks from Libya or Syria.[6]

TTL
22 Dec 09,, 10:58
I would think a military as large as Irans would have enough water tankers. Is the problem getting enough of them (too expensive?) or protecting them and keep water flowing during a conflict?

pChan
22 Dec 09,, 11:55
I would think a military as large as Irans would have enough water tankers. Is the problem getting enough of them (too expensive?) or protecting them and keep water flowing during a conflict?

I had assumed (from the discussion) that the terrain has desert like conditions & that water source would not be available. So advancing Iranian army would need to carry water with them. This need not be a generic case as armies may have access to water sources depending on the region. To give a naive example the german army would have used volga when It was fighting in stalingrad instead of supplying water from germany.

Chunder
22 Dec 09,, 12:03
Can't bring that weak game here. Expect us not to know and such.

Im still waiting for any evidence whatsoever that the US embassy in Iran was plotting a coup. He repeatedly asserts it, yet never answers anyone when challenged.

It's borderline troll.

Though such a fanatical supporter of the Rev. Guard. It's no suprise that the BS continues through. Such a pity. I was really hoping for some remotely educated Iranian input.

Officer of Engineers
22 Dec 09,, 13:03
I would think a military as large as Irans would have enough water tankers. Is the problem getting enough of them (too expensive?) or protecting them and keep water flowing during a conflict?It's a question of keeping one within reach of the line platoons. The Iranians have never been known about keeping their front lines supplied.

Dreadnought
22 Dec 09,, 13:23
Im still waiting for any evidence whatsoever that the US embassy in Iran was plotting a coup. He repeatedly asserts it, yet never answers anyone when challenged.


There was no such coup, Iran both over runs and aggrivates any countries consul that disagrees with the crackpot regime and their flunkies thats in place. They have done it to others beside the US.

Watch them scream bloody murder though if anyone were to do it to one of their consuls. Fortunately for Iran we are ten times more civilized then their regime and paid extrememists will ever be now or ever. We even let that little hatred spewing bastard come to the U.N. in New York unmolested when everyone that looks upon him does so with distain and would think nothing of grabbing a hold of him and throttling him but good if given the chance.

Cowards are those that enjoy the safety and civilty of descient societies morals and yet treat their own people like trash and spew hatred towards others. Coward.

Officer of Engineers
22 Dec 09,, 13:25
What do you expect from a kid who has absolutely no clue about modern warfare. To suggest an Iranian foot army has a chance in hell attacking a Russian motorized army is just plain idiotic.

Dreadnought
22 Dec 09,, 13:27
What do you expect from a kid who has absolutely no clue about modern warfare. To suggest an Iranian foot army has a chance in hell attacking a Russian motorized army is just plain idiotic.

OOE Sir, Im sure you could find employment for the lad. Perhaps fetching the mail or driving your car for you. Definately keep him away from public relations and intelligence though:))

Zinja
22 Dec 09,, 14:19
What do you expect from a kid who has absolutely no clue about modern warfare. To suggest an Iranian foot army has a chance in hell attacking a Russian motorized army is just plain idiotic.

Sir, this is kind of off topic but i have always wanted to ask you this question: In another thread when you were debating this same Kermanshahi you mentioned Deep Battle. My question is what could the Israelis in the 2006 war have done differently to produce a much better result than what they achieved? Which tactics did the Israelis use in the war and how could they have done them differently?

troung
22 Dec 09,, 14:34
Watch them scream bloody murder though if anyone were to do it to one of their consuls. Fortunately for Iran we are ten times more civilized then their regime and paid extrememists will ever be now or ever. We even let that little hatred spewing bastard come to the U.N. in New York unmolested when everyone that looks upon him does so with distain and would think nothing of grabbing a hold of him and throttling him but good if given the chance.

The Taliban murdered a brace of Iranian diplomats during the second fall of Mazar.

Dreadnought
22 Dec 09,, 14:47
The Taliban murdered a brace of Iranian diplomats during the second fall of Mazar.

*What can I say but I stand corrected. It still does not excuse their actions though.

troung
22 Dec 09,, 16:00
One wonders how many "sorta trained' troops Iran could think about sending off on a foreign adventure with risk of an American punitive action to punish Iran for attacking whoever. Sending off includes keeping them supplied of course :)).

Much of the IRIAF would have to be held back to protect cities and infrastructure. An other troops would have to be send to their other borders, just in case. One assumes in such a situation America could conduct an aerial campaign aimed at Iranian supply lines, military bases and hitting regime targets.

TopHatter
22 Dec 09,, 16:31
One wonders how many "sorta trained' troops Iran could think about sending off on a foreign adventure with risk of an American punitive action to punish Iran for attacking whoever. Sending off includes keeping them supplied of course :)).Which is something that the teenage fanboys (not to mention quite a few of the adults) never seem to realize.

Shamus
22 Dec 09,, 17:06
OOE Sir, Im sure you could find employment for the lad. Perhaps fetching the mail or driving your car for you. Definately keep him away from public relations and intelligence though:))Some of us errrrrr.....how should I put this.......more chronologically advanced latrine diggers could use a break.......what say you Colonel?:rolleyes::biggrin:

tankie
22 Dec 09,, 17:18
Some of us errrrrr.....how should I put this.......more chronologically advanced latrine diggers could use a break.......what say you Colonel?:rolleyes::biggrin:

Tskkkk :rolleyes:

Shamus
22 Dec 09,, 17:25
Tskkkk :rolleyes:What???All I meant was that maybe it's time for a changing of the guard and to let the younger generation have the honor of performing such wonderfully character building work.

(Well,that and the fact that there's already a foot of frost in this d@mn ground up here....come on Colonel,have a heart will ya????:biggrin:)

tankie
22 Dec 09,, 17:47
What???All I meant was that maybe it's time for a changing of the guard and to let the younger generation have the honor of performing such wonderfully character building work.

Yea i know tee hee :biggrin:

troung
22 Dec 09,, 17:54
Kermit is going to come back here, maybe, and not know where to start...

sappersgt
22 Dec 09,, 18:33
OOE Sir, Im sure you could find employment for the lad. Perhaps fetching the mail or driving your car for you. Definately keep him away from public relations and intelligence though:))

Wait a minute, sure he's young and immature but He IS useful. He is NOT poor, stupid or uneducated (well, maybe undereducated). He is fairly articulate in a foreign language, has access to modern technology, has some education and a narrow exposure to political affairs. If nothing else we are getting a glimpse into the mindset into a least some of Iranian youth. Maybe he (or we) will learn something here.:rolleyes:

1980s
22 Dec 09,, 18:40
Wait a minute, sure he's young and immature but He IS useful. He is NOT poor, stupid or uneducated (well, maybe undereducated). He is fairly articulate in a foreign language, has access to modern technology, has some education and a narrow exposure to political affairs. If nothing else we are getting a glimpse into the mindset into a least some of Iranian youth. Maybe he (or we) will learn something here.:rolleyes:

What makes you think he is posting from Iran or that the opinion of one Iranian on the net is in any way reflective of the 'mindset' of any other Iranian out there?

He is an individual. His views are his own, and reflective only of his own 'mindset'. That should be quite clear to you.

Dreadnought
22 Dec 09,, 18:51
Wait a minute, sure he's young and immature but He IS useful. He is NOT poor, stupid or uneducated (well, maybe undereducated). He is fairly articulate in a foreign language, has access to modern technology, has some education and a narrow exposure to political affairs. If nothing else we are getting a glimpse into the mindset into a least some of Iranian youth. Maybe he (or we) will learn something here.:rolleyes:

*Sappr, We have already learned something from him. NEVER drink A-jads coolaid, it rots the brain, weakens the morals and shrivels the cahonies. It does however make your mouth extremely large with a flow of rhetorical diarhea consisting of hatred and puffy chestedness and gives one a penchant for poking crouching tigers with a stick and really dumb assed threats.:));)

Aryajet
22 Dec 09,, 19:51
Im still waiting for any evidence whatsoever that the US embassy in Iran was plotting a coup. He repeatedly asserts it, yet never answers anyone when challenged.

It's borderline troll.

Though such a fanatical supporter of the Rev. Guard. It's no suprise that the BS continues through. Such a pity. I was really hoping for some remotely educated Iranian input.
Not a single hint of coupe activity was presented to public after the seizure.
As a matter of fact U.S Ambassador to Iran had been instructed to maintain and improve the US/Iran relationship and U.S Ambassador had several conversation with khomeini himself.

Unlawful take over of US Embassy was plotted and orchestrated for one reason and one reason only. To make over popular and nationalistic interim government of premier Mehdi Bazargan to collapse and the thugs succeeded in that regard.
The event was the first covert operation conducted by islamists to consolidate power and Iranian population still paying for it today.

Aryajet
22 Dec 09,, 19:59
Im still waiting for any evidence whatsoever that the US embassy in Iran was plotting a coup. He repeatedly asserts it, yet never answers anyone when challenged.


There was no such coup, Iran both over runs and aggrivates any countries consul that disagrees with the crackpot regime and their flunkies thats in place. They have done it to others beside the US.

Watch them scream bloody murder though if anyone were to do it to one of their consuls. Fortunately for Iran we are ten times more civilized then their regime and paid extrememists will ever be now or ever. We even let that little hatred spewing bastard come to the U.N. in New York unmolested when everyone that looks upon him does so with distain and would think nothing of grabbing a hold of him and throttling him but good if given the chance.

Cowards are those that enjoy the safety and civilty of descient societies morals and yet treat their own people like trash and spew hatred towards others. Coward.

Why should US plot a coupe 8 month after the revolution when Carter administration with great advise from Zibi did all their best not hold back any possible assistance to make sure khomeini will be the victor of the revolution and Shah be ousted?
US Embassy seizure was designed to get rid the over popular nationalistic interim government of that time and the plot worked.

This kid is suffering from lack of common sense syndrome.:redface:

TopHatter
22 Dec 09,, 20:04
What makes you think he is posting from Iran or that the opinion of one Iranian on the net is in any way reflective of the 'mindset' of any other Iranian out there?

He is an individual. His views are his own, and reflective only of his own 'mindset'. That should be quite clear to you.

Well, yes of course he's an idividual. We're all individuals on this board.

That's what this board is, a collection of individuals. We have no government entities here nor any other kind of "group" representation.

So, we read his views, your views, Aryajet's views, other's views and we start to form an opinion of our own. One piece of the puzzle at a time.

And you're right, he's not posting from Iran. Neither are you and neither is Aryajet.

Aryajet
22 Dec 09,, 20:05
what makes you think he is posting from iran or that the opinion of one iranian on the net is in any way reflective of the 'mindset' of any other iranian out there?

He is an individual. His views are his own, and reflective only of his own 'mindset'. That should be quite clear to you.
x2

Dreadnought
22 Dec 09,, 20:20
Why should US plot a coupe 8 month after the revolution when Carter administration with great advise from Zibi did all their best not hold back any possible assistance to make sure khomeini will be the victor of the revolution and Shah be ousted?
US Embassy seizure was designed to get rid the over popular nationalistic interim government of that time and the plot worked.

This kid is suffering from lack of common sense syndrome.:redface:

*No offense taken my friend, Its quite obvious with his views that he is far different then average everyday Iranian people. The very same people that have been flooding the streets in protest of a vile regime.;)

Aryajet
22 Dec 09,, 20:49
Which is something that the teenage fanboys (not to mention quite a few of the adults) never seem to realize.
I'm an X Iranian military soldier, I was there before and during Iran/Iraq war.
Ever since the inception of sanctions Iranian military has long abandoned any ambition of projecting power beyond its borders.
Today's Iranian military encompasses itself around defense only doctrine, mostly asymmetrical warfare due to absence of sufficient mechanized army.

No beyond borders power projection will ever happen in foreseeable future simply because the power is not available, no matter what the regime fanboys say.;)

Parihaka
22 Dec 09,, 20:57
I'm an X Iranian military soldier, I was there before and during Iran/Iraq war.
Ever since the inception of sanctions Iranian military has long abandoned any ambition of projecting power beyond its borders.
Today's Iranian military encompasses itself around defense only doctrine, mostly asymmetrical warfare due to absence of sufficient mechanized army.

No beyond borders power projection will ever happen in foreseeable future simply because the power is not available, no matter what the regime fanboys say.;)

And there you have it. I wonder what Kermanshahi will say:))

tankie
22 Dec 09,, 21:02
And there you have it. I wonder what Kermanshahi will say:))

Bet the word moron comes into it ;)

TopHatter
22 Dec 09,, 21:46
I'm an X Iranian military soldier, I was there before and during Iran/Iraq war.
Ever since the inception of sanctions Iranian military has long abandoned any ambition of projecting power beyond its borders.
Today's Iranian military encompasses itself around defense only doctrine, mostly asymmetrical warfare due to absence of sufficient mechanized army.

No beyond borders power projection will ever happen in foreseeable future simply because the power is not available, no matter what the regime fanboys say.;)

Excellent summary, thank you :)

This is just idle curiousity, but I'm wondering what kind of preparations they've made since the end of the 80-88 war against another invasion from the direction of Iraq.

Chunder
23 Dec 09,, 01:06
*No offense taken my friend, Its quite obvious with his views that he is far different then average everyday Iranian people. The very same people that have been flooding the streets in protest of a vile regime.;)

You forgot to mention a regime that shoots and beats to death selected individuals of political opposition protest movements...

pChan
23 Dec 09,, 04:50
*No offense taken my friend, Its quite obvious with his views that he is far different then average everyday Iranian people. The very same people that have been flooding the streets in protest of a vile regime.;)

There is no homogeneous average everyday Iranian people. A-Jad has a lot of support among rural poor & the conservative. This guy brings the view from "the other side". Unless he cultivates respect for the knowledge & experience of the posters here he won't survive. (if he is not already booted out).

Officer of Engineers
23 Dec 09,, 05:03
Sir, this is kind of off topic but i have always wanted to ask you this question: In another thread when you were debating this same Kermanshahi you mentioned Deep Battle. My question is what could the Israelis in the 2006 war have done differently to produce a much better result than what they achieved? Which tactics did the Israelis use in the war and how could they have done them differently?Two options were presented. An amphibious landing at or north or Beirut ... or the Israelis build a road to Beiruit ... both with one strategic objective in mind ... to collapse the Hezbollah C2.

Not only did the Isaelis badly thought this out but they've never figured it out to collapse Hezbollah's C2 ... and airstrikes at empty buildings do not count.

Bigfella
23 Dec 09,, 06:42
I'm an X Iranian military soldier, I was there before and during Iran/Iraq war.
Ever since the inception of sanctions Iranian military has long abandoned any ambition of projecting power beyond its borders.
Today's Iranian military encompasses itself around defense only doctrine, mostly asymmetrical warfare due to absence of sufficient mechanized army.

No beyond borders power projection will ever happen in foreseeable future simply because the power is not available, no matter what the regime fanboys say.;)


Do you really think that all you silly professionals with all your irritating facts & experience are really a match for the blinkered certainties of the committed fanboy?

They say that amateurs talk tactics & professionals talk logistics. I would add a coda to that - fanbois just keep talking and talking and talking. They don't know enough to know what they don't know.

pChan
23 Dec 09,, 07:06
Two options were presented. An amphibious landing at or north or Beirut ... or the Israelis build a road to Beiruit ... both with one strategic objective in mind ... to collapse the Hezbollah C2.

Not only did the Isaelis badly thought this out but they've never figured it out to collapse Hezbollah's C2 ... and airstrikes at empty buildings do not count.

Sir, Even if they do that what about syria? Top hezbollah leaders could find refuge there & Israel would have to open an another front with syria.

citanon
23 Dec 09,, 07:31
Sir, Even if they do that what about syria? Top hezbollah leaders could find refuge there & Israel would have to open an another front with syria.

Sadr found refuge in Iran but lost control of the situation in Iraq. Could Hezbollah leaders do better from Syria?

pChan
23 Dec 09,, 08:26
Sadr found refuge in Iran but lost control of the situation in Iraq. Could Hezbollah leaders do better from Syria?

During the gaza war there was a Hamas faction in syria that had opposed a ceasefire with Israel. I believe they held sway for quite some time. There were a lot of power centres in shia Iraq which is not the case with shia part of lebanon.

Officer of Engineers
23 Dec 09,, 13:51
Sir, Even if they do that what about syria? Top hezbollah leaders could find refuge there & Israel would have to open an another front with syria.The leadership must abandon Lebenon in order to make good their escape. Same result, the collapse of their C2. Can they launch an inusrgency from Syria? Only if the Israelis stay in Beirut.

Can Hezbollah did what they did in the mini Lebanese civil war afterwards? No.

tankie
23 Dec 09,, 17:38
Our army will run out of water? What a nonesense is taht.



No, you made an irrelevant comment.



These 3 countries sold us some weapons on small scale for their own benefits. It wasn't worth much, unlike the massive support Iraq got, which ketp them alive.

But the tanks and planes you talk about were all purchased afterwards. The licensed production of T-72s was signed in the 90s, the MiG-29s were ordered in 1991, the Su-25s were bought in the 2000s, the J-7s were bought after the war. And the Su-24s, most of the Su-25s were flown over from Iraq in 1991, were as the T-55s and T-62s were captured Iraqi tanks (though some of the T-55s were bought in the 90s).

Kermanshahi take this as a gentle hint ;)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_IKcMl_a9A

Zinja
24 Dec 09,, 22:45
Two options were presented. An amphibious landing at or north or Beirut ... or the Israelis build a road to Beiruit ... both with one strategic objective in mind ... to collapse the Hezbollah C2.

Not only did the Isaelis badly thought this out but they've never figured it out to collapse Hezbollah's C2 ... and airstrikes at empty buildings do not count.

Well, since they did not do an amphibious landing i assume they then opted for the second option, to match through to Beirut. But still what did they do wrong which made them suffer such unusually high casualties? Some people say Israel relied on air power too much and inserted its ground troops too late, would you consider this an accurate assessment and could it be blamed for the casualties suffered then?

Finally, of the two options that Israel had which one would you have considered yourself if you were the one in charge?

Officer of Engineers
25 Dec 09,, 02:56
Well, since they did not do an amphibious landing i assume they then opted for the second option, to match through to Beirut.They didn't do either one of the proposed solution suggested by Deep Battle. The Israelis certainly did not have a strategic objective in mind which is what is required in order for Deep Battle to work.


But still what did they do wrong which made them suffer such unusually high casualties? Some people say Israel relied on air power too much and inserted its ground troops too late, would you consider this an accurate assessment and could it be blamed for the casualties suffered then?What the Israelis did wrong was to accept the battle offerred by the Hezbollah. It's not about relying on airpower or inserting troops too late. It's about fighting the kind of battle the Hezbollah wanted instead of the one the Israelis should have fought. The Israelis went up to Hezbollah fortifications one by one and took them head on one by one. It was armour against concrete. Most of the time, concrete will win, unless you make the concrete irrevelent ... by moving the battle away from it.


Finally, of the two options that Israel had which one would you have considered yourself if you were the one in charge?As an engineer, I prefer the second. I get to design the battle the way I wanted. I prefer to build a road away from Hezbollah fortifications, and thus bypassing them on my way to Beirut. That would force the Hezbollah to leave their forts in order to stop my road ... and when it is flesh against armour, armour always win.

This being said, I do realize there is a time constraint. I need weeks to build a road. An amphibious landing takes hours. However, Israeli sea legs supporting an amphib landing is lacking to say the least.

Maeda Toshiie
26 Dec 09,, 03:50
This is mainly directed at OoE.

Going back to the earlier topic of Turkmenistan's army, it seems to me that most sources of information on the web indicate that it is not in too great of a shape. The officer corps is mostly Russian/ Russian-trained but the rank and file is filled with conscript with relatively poor training. A conscript/ reservist army does not automatically imply a weak force but there is no indication that Turkmenistan conscripts are well-trained and motivated. Equipment is old (although not such a major issue if their opponent is the Iranians). If anything, the lack of funds seem to define their situation.

Officer of Engineers
26 Dec 09,, 03:58
And this is different from the regular Russian army how? The strength of the Russian army is two things. A fantastic understanding of the operational art and grunts who don't know when to give up. If you're looking for something in between, forget it.

This essentially means that if the allow the Russian Officer corps to set up the place and time for their battle, they'll steamroll you. The trick of course is to not allow them the battle of their choosing ... but that is well beyond the capabilities of the Iranians.

Maeda Toshiie
26 Dec 09,, 04:07
And this is different from the regular Russian army how? The strength of the Russian army is two things. A fantastic understanding of the operational art and grunts who don't know when to give up. If you're looking for something in between, forget it.

This essentially means that if the allow the Russian Officer corps to set up the place and time for their battle, they'll steamroll you. The trick of course is to not allow them the battle of their choosing ... but that is well beyond the capabilities of the Iranians.

Indeed it is true that the conscripts in the Red Army are mainly required to obey orders but at least the best divisions (Class A?) are well-versed in their battle drills. If the wiki is to be trusted, the average Turkmenistan conscript spends part of his time on "labour" and "self-improvement" outside of the military duties.

Officer of Engineers
26 Dec 09,, 04:41
Again, you're talking about an army with a history of using less than stellar troops. The Red Army was famous for using Penal Battalions and more Red Army troops spoke Turk than Russian.

The operational art allows the Russian staff to tailor the battle to the best strengths of their troops, even if it is to place a machine gun behind them and only allow them to go forward.

TTL
26 Dec 09,, 07:20
even if it is to place a machine gun behind them and only allow them to go forward.

Colonel, I am wondering how the world view of avarage conscript have changed since WW2. Can the russians (or other conscript armies) still drive their troops to combat with such brutality? After all they have TV and consumer capitalism for like 20 years now. Would the troops accept their fate as blindly as they did 60 years ago?

Zinja
29 Dec 09,, 16:46
They didn't do either one of the proposed solution suggested by Deep Battle. The Israelis certainly did not have a strategic objective in mind which is what is required in order for Deep Battle to work.

What the Israelis did wrong was to accept the battle offerred by the Hezbollah. It's not about relying on airpower or inserting troops too late. It's about fighting the kind of battle the Hezbollah wanted instead of the one the Israelis should have fought. The Israelis went up to Hezbollah fortifications one by one and took them head on one by one. It was armour against concrete. Most of the time, concrete will win, unless you make the concrete irrevelent ... by moving the battle away from it.

As an engineer, I prefer the second. I get to design the battle the way I wanted. I prefer to build a road away from Hezbollah fortifications, and thus bypassing them on my way to Beirut. That would force the Hezbollah to leave their forts in order to stop my road ... and when it is flesh against armour, armour always win.

This being said, I do realize there is a time constraint. I need weeks to build a road. An amphibious landing takes hours. However, Israeli sea legs supporting an amphib landing is lacking to say the least.

Thank you sir. Your wisdom and knowledge in these issues is as always, priceless. You have helped me understand something here.

astralis
04 Jan 10,, 16:38
col yu,


Two options were presented. An amphibious landing at or north or Beirut ... or the Israelis build a road to Beiruit ... both with one strategic objective in mind ... to collapse the Hezbollah C2.

Not only did the Isaelis badly thought this out but they've never figured it out to collapse Hezbollah's C2 ... and airstrikes at empty buildings do not count.


i had the opportunity to discuss this with one of the US observers, a now retired O-6 (Col Gary Anderson). he said that the amphibious landing at the north was the obvious method, and the US delegation recommended that to the israelis; however, the israelis ignored the advice because they were absolutely certain that hezbollah would collapse before the amphibious landing was completed.

i didn't know if i was more disturbed at their underestimation of the enemy or by israel's admitted lack of amphibious capability.

Officer of Engineers
04 Jan 10,, 19:22
The entire Israeli Officer Corps is a mystery to me. Fine, things started off bad and gone to worst. Ok, life happens. The enemy is stronger than you've anticipated and the 4 Rs, the most basic tenets that was drilled into a good officer (retreat, regroup, re-evaluate, re-committ) were as though they would rather sacrafice their units in blazes of glory than to have one step backwards.

Mihais
04 Jan 10,, 20:18
Sir,from what I got so far,many of the mistakes had the cause in the political interferences.Next the new doctrine was idiotic.Next,the top brass violated every known principle of war in an attempt to follow elements of that idiotic doctrine.The mid and low level had no idea what to do because they nobody told them in clear terms what was expected of them.Add the years of neglect of basic maneuver warfare training and voila.

Officer of Engineers
04 Jan 10,, 20:34
A lot of stars should have been fired ... I have yet to see retirement en massed though.

rj1
04 Jan 10,, 21:31
Two options were presented. An amphibious landing at or north or Beirut ... or the Israelis build a road to Beiruit ... both with one strategic objective in mind ... to collapse the Hezbollah C2.

Not only did the Isaelis badly thought this out but they've never figured it out to collapse Hezbollah's C2 ... and airstrikes at empty buildings do not count.

If this is a dumb question I apologize, but what's a C2? Headquarters, operational structure, lower-level command in the field?

rj1
04 Jan 10,, 21:46
A lot of stars should have been fired ... I have yet to see retirement en massed though.

I remember reading the official American military analysis of that war a couple years ago. It struck me as scathing (as much as a polite official document as that document is allowed to be) on the Israeli general that was in charge for the majority of the conflict.

Spagnostic
16 Jul 10,, 20:43
I know i'm kind of late for the discussion,but nevertheless,i believe these should be also considered for people who happen to take an interest on this debate:


Iran has a more powerfull military than any of it's neighbours.

Not a match for TAF by any means especially on an offensive.Even if your assumption about Iranian Army were true, Iran can not risk provoking Turkey ,in times like these.



Only 2 of our neighbours actually have a military which could fight a proper war with Iran, the rest woldn't even be able to hold out a few weeks.




For one, Iran could reach Baku in 2 days,



Well some of that "rest" is not alone by any means. So you could forget about reaching Baku in 2 days.That'd mean crossing Turkey,Russia and then EU,let alone US in order to mess with Azerbeijan.

Because for all of 3,despite the competition between Russia vs. EU/TR ,there is this:

Baku-Tiflis-Ceyhan-Pipeline ? Wikipedia (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baku-Tiflis-Ceyhan-Pipeline)

i'm quite sure that they'd unite in some way against any Iranian incursion on Azerbeijan.

Oh btw did i mention Turkish response in 2001?

IRAN CLASHES WITH TURKEY AND US OVER AZERBAIJAN (http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/aug_2001/iran_US_azarbaijan_dispute_28801.htm)

Iran Warns Against Turkish Warplanes' Visit to Azerbaijan (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/english/200108/23/eng20010823_78047.html)

" Tensions between Iran and Azerbaijan have been running high since an Iranian warship last month threatened to fire on an Azeri oil research ship in a sector of the Caspian Sea claimed by both countries.

...

The minister issued the warning following an Azeri announcement that the Turkish warplanes will arrive in Baku on Thursday to coincide with a visit by Hussein Kivrikoglu, chief of staff of the Turkish army.

Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi has warned against the scheduled arrival of 10 Turkish F-16 fighter jets on Azerbaijan's soil, the official IRNA news agency reported Wednesday."