War with Iran- Study

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Rumpelstiltskin, Aug 30, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://www.rawstory.com/images/other/IranStudy082807a.pdf

    I have to say, it seems a very synthetic account, drawn mainly from open-source news articles. But someone might be interested...
  2. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    Dodgy dossier anyone? I thought the original dossier for war with Iraq was drawn up by some student using open-source material. Be careful for what you wish for!!!!
  3. Today's Indie:


    Detailing how Bush is probably going mad, and how both he and Dinnerjacket need each other, like drowning men clutching a log.

  4. Interesting piece, but i can't help think it underplays the Iranian capabilities. It seems to suggest the US could fight a war and be back in time for coffee and muffins.

    I have to say i've always reckoned the recent 'troop surge' has more to do with possible action against Iran than stabilising Iraq.

  5. It would be interesting to see what our resident matelots think of the paper's naval angle ('silkworm: easy come, easy go').
  6. Incredibly short sighted and not aware of the simple facts of maritime and littoral warfare is my initial estimate. Far too reminiscent of dodgy dossiers, home by Christmas and sundry other military miscalculations for comfort.
  7. That's why I don't get why SOAS have prepared it- SOAS being the leftiest and most Islamophile of all lefty Islamophile places.
  8. Indeed, I was rather surprised by that as well.
  9. Agreed, it certainly does underestimate Iranian capabilities.

    I've only scanned through it quickly, but the authors do seem to equate Iran with Iraq. The section on the Iranian Navy and Iranian naval defences stood out as being particularly flawed; comparing one Iraqi Silkworm destroyed by HMS Gloucester in 1991 with the Iranian ability to blacken the sky with substantially better anti-ship missiles; completely disregarding Iranian submarines and their Hoots; and the understatement that the 'US is somewhat reliant on allied navies for anti-mine operations' - the USN is a bit more than 'somewhat' reliant.

    The authors also seem to be under the impression that neighbouring countries would be willing to give them access to the Caspian Sea and so face the threat of Iranian retaliation, or that launching the invasion from Iraq and/or Afghanistan would be straightforward - who would want to mount an invasion when surrounded by OPFOR?

    I've got a sneaky suspicion that they've watched one too many of those 'Ultimate Scary Weapons That The US Has Considered' programmes on channel Five. Extracts of it certainly read like a copy of Jane's and US defence firms sales brochures - eg. the repetition of the 10,000 targets in one mission nonsense.

    I give them 3/10, it's not as good as the Dodgy Dossier.
  10. Bouillabaisse

    Bouillabaisse LE Book Reviewer

    They skipped over the submarine threat rather lightly, although I'm a little doubtful about Iranian claims to have regularly penetrated a US carrier screen undetected. It seems a far more dangerous game to play than Soviet subs doing the same in the Cold War. At least everyone felt they understood the ROE then.

    I would suggest that elimination of the Kilo's would be a pre-requisite for an attack.
  11. Like Ottar, it was the comments about MW and the declaration that the Strait is an 'broad and deep waterway' that really nailed it for me as an incredibly badly informed and rather dangerous piece. The kilos are a large threat to the USN whose ASW skills and on a par with MW, but it is the prospect of large numbers of pre-laid mines, AShMs and FACs that should really be worrying them.
  12. He added that the regular presence of Russian ships and submarines from the North, Baltic, and Black Sea Fleets in the Mediterranean Sea is "intended to outline Russia's foreign policy interests."


    Russian bombers had been making increasingly frequent flights toward US territory in the lead-up to Putin's announcement, while Britain and Norway had repeatedly scrambled jets to intercept Russian planes near their airspace.


    Russian Navy Chief Admiral Vladimir Masorin announced Friday in a televised address to journalists that Russia would return warships to the Mediterranean, marking the first military presence outside Russia since the breakup of the USSR. While Masorin did not mention Syria as the host of any bases, the Arab state has two ports, Tartus and Latakia, that hosted Soviet bases until 1992,


    the paper from SOAS, does not mention the russians at all (no wonder), except for the teheran air defence system (29 TOR-M1) and the mildest sanction path, and i'm sure they'd like to be, how does one put it, reliably involved?

    The danger with Russia-West relations is not the current diplomatic expulsions, but the broader tensions and rhetoric involving U.S. missile bases, Russian energy supplies and the redistribution of global power.

  13. 8) Suppose it will happen if Iran gets to up themselves and gets control of Iraq, starting with the southern part of Iraq 8)
  14. Yes, as badly as they have underestimated Iraq's capabilities, I think they are underestimating Iran's even more. Iran right now is filled with a majority of moderates, I suspect. They aren't sold on the islamic rule and are biding their time for a change. But, given an attack from the west, I think they will unite and cause more trouble than the Iraqis. Their navy and air force will be no match but they do have missiles, and lots of them. They can also flood Iraq and Afghanistan with insurgents. They also have an impact on the price of oil. Besides the direct affect, cutting off China from their source of oil will have repercussions, at least for the US.