Irans Military Might

#1
Iran is in the hot topic of the moment, but should be go to war (stanger things have happened) what sort of threat would the country pose?

What is there military might, have they got air superiority?

Are there ground forces well trained?

Would we be facing another iraq, the ground war and air war could be won within days/weeks, but the insurgency will be the real problem?

Im interested in this subject, as i beleive that this problem could well escalate into something very serious, or on the other hand, if we start imposing embargoes on their oil, they may well back down very quickly !
 
#3
From what I've read they've got a LOT of SAMs, especially around their key installations. Also got some gucci new steyr sniper rifles. Beyond that it looks like your typical russian equipped middle eastern country
 
#5
Zolfaquar 3 (sic) looks a bit capable.

Upgunned and uparmoured Chieftains too. Also an increasing reliance on 'throwaway' light anti-armour vehicles. Those could case a few dramas in hit and run attacks, if their supply chain remains anywhere near intact.

One thing is evident, there is nothing wrong with Iran's reverse-engineering capabilities.
 
#6
They'd have to be pretty quick of the mark to reverse engineer Brimstone as it pops through the top armour....


(That remark was toungue in cheek and jingoistic. I am aware of this).
 
#7
Shed loads of mines, quite a few decent AShMs, 3 Kilo SSKs but the real problem on water is the fleet of very fast small patrol craft that would swarm any naval forces and quite probably overwhelm a ship's defence systems, especially Type 23s (according to a RN friend).

Airpower is pretty old and knackered but a few types that could conceivably cause a problem or 3

In terms of land forces, they are (I think) the only nation in the region to have the capability of producing indiginous MBTs and armoured vehicles, as well as buying in lots of Russian and Chinese stuff, but the real issue here is size. They have lots of the buggers and some will have quite a lot of foreign training and they might even have a few with experience from the Iran-Iraq war left over. On top of that, they're smart and they're sneaky.

BAsically, it wouldn't be a cake walk winning the firefight and the insurgency would be unstoppable.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#8
They can have as many gucci snipers rifles, souped up chietains and ugly wimmin with explosive vests on as they want.

Nuke them. That'll shut them up. And everytime some loony blows himself up in a bus queue...........nuke 'em again. They'll get bored with it all before we do.
 
#9
They would fight , even the 50% who didn't vote in the current incumbent. They would fight because they were invaded and they didn't kick it off , so they would feel that morale right was on their side.

As they did in the last unpleasantness. They also showed they were prepared to sacrifice hundreds of thousands to repulse any invader.

On top of that Ahemenhad (sic) is getting a shed load of money in right now , to both improve the Military capability and standard of living of the average Iranian. I could almost guarantee the production lines in IrAI are glowing red hot in the dark making HK3's Saggers and Sams and they're getting paid too.

So , we have a nation that are mostly happy with their boss , have a newly restored national pride and determination, more money on the hip come Friday night , and enough weaponry to make insurgency sustainable.

Time for the Shrub to act like the Texan he pretends to be , get his arrse on AF1 and fly straight there for direct talks.
 
#11
If you want I have the current Military Balance, it has all their force strength. How ever it is their policy of asymmetrical warfare the worries me. PM me and I can send it to you it’s a PDF.
 
#12
They also have no qualms about deploying child soldiers. Most western troops will be unhappy at the prospect of targeting kids, its a serious morale issue.
 
#13
http://www.fas.org/main/content.jsp?formAction=297&contentId=161

Total Military Force
Active: 540,000
Reserves: 350,000

Army (350,000)
5 Corps HQ
4 Armored Divisions with 3 Armored 1 Mechinized Brigade, 4-5 Artillery Battalions
6 Infantry Divisions with 4 Infantry Brigades, 4-5 Artillery Battalions
2 Commando Divisions
1 Airborne Division

Navy (18,000)
Bases: Bandar-e Abbas (HQ), Bushehr, Kharg Island, Bandar-e Anzelli, Bandar-e Khomeini, Bandar-e Mahshahr, Chah Bahar

Air Force (52,000)
including 15,000 Air Defense

Forces Abroad and Foreign Forces
Independent:
Lebanon (150): Revolutionary Guard, Sudan (Military Advisers)
UN:
UNMEE (Ethiopia/Eritrea): 2 observers

Currently about 400 military technicians staff from China, North Korea, and the Russian Federation are stationed in Iran.

Paramilitary (40,000 active)
Basij: 300,000
Law Enforcement Forces: 40,000

Strategic Force
There are ongoing investigations by the International Atomic Energy Agency concerning Iran's compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. At the end of August 2003, the IAEA stated in a confidential report leaked to the media that trace elements of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) were found in an Iranian nuclear facility. In June of 2003, a IAEA Director General report stated that Iran had not met the obligations required of it by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. A November 2003 report identified further violations. In February 2004 it was discovered that Iran had blueprints for an advanced centrifuge design usable for uranium enrichment that it had withheld from nuclear inspectors. In December 2003, Iran signed an additional protocol authorizing IAEA inspectors to make intrusive, snap inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities. The protocol was signed as an addition to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Continued uncertainties surrounding Iran's uranium enrichment activities were addressed in the IAEA's June 2004 report.


^ Information is two years out of date. Hope it helps.
 
#14
Just as an aside
I was in a meeting will a US general from centcom who was talking about the future of the Middle East. He talked about how the War on terror was evolving into a war against ideology (sight Huntington’s clash of civilisations). He took a very aggressive stance against Iran. He also commented that the US had the military capability to fulfil any threat of force it made against Iran. I have never seen so many British generals gulp at the same time. To the US the threat posed to the international peace and stability is very real, enough for them to site Chapter VII of the UN charter. If you are looking for a UK spin on this I was invited to an IISS address by Jack Straw Very interesting and you don’t even have to read. Can be found at www.iiss.org/ entitled Iran the path ahead.
 
#15
Biscuits_AB said:
They can have as many gucci snipers rifles, souped up chietains and ugly wimmin with explosive vests on as they want.

Nuke them. That'll shut them up. And everytime some loony blows himself up in a bus queue...........nuke 'em again. They'll get bored with it all before we do.
I like the way you think!!
 
#16
If we find ourselves in Iran for whatever valid reason. the consequence of us turning up will be to have three Formerly islamic sovereign nations under the rule of quasi elected western backed governments.

how this will be accepted by the rest of the Islamic nations will determine the stability of the Middle east. The Islamic superstate that AQ longs ofr mightnt be so hard to achieve if it can suck the strength from the coalition forces in a three nations simoultaneously. the Coalition need to support a war miles form home whereas every presently moderate and uninvolved Islamic nation is right on the doorstep.

Iran can be justified as a target (and doubtless will be) but Justifying three sequential conflicts in neighbouring countries in the heart of the oil rich middle east might be more difficult!
 
#17
Pillager said:
If we find ourselves in Iran for whatever valid reason
I do not belive there is currently any valid reason to invade the sovereign nation of Iran, at a push airstrikes may be justified but invasion is another matter entirely.

I would suggest that the current situation in Iraq would of been fully supported by most nations if it had not of been a preemptive nature.

If invasion was in reaction to substantial military action on Irans part then I could justify it in my mind, otherwise I suspect many people and nations would see it as an agressive act.

Bottom line, they've gotta fire first or support will not be forthcoming.
 
#20
Pillager said:
I tried to say "find ourselves" as an effort to remian ambiguous.
Having read your post and the first post of this thread it becomes obvious that you are quite correct.

I apologise. I am in fact talking cr*p

forget my last....... :oops:
 

Latest Threads