Iran Super Thread- Merged

[KevinB]

Do we (US) have the capability to have loitering ammunition circling above known or suspected areas and if they detect a launch vehicle, either after launching drones or somehow before, engage the vehicle?

Realistically we had it GWOT - just not in the availability we do now.

I'm not sure how die hard the Iranians are about launching drones but if the US started busted launchers and operators at significant numbers it might change tbeir behavior maybe?

You can whack a mole the launchers (both system and operator) to infinity - and it really doesn't break the system.

Anecdotally if you remember the rockets in Afghan, there was more than one site that was repeatedly hit - each day someone would carry a rocket up the mountain, he'd get shwackted by an Sniper Team while setting up the rocket - one day at a site, little Omar was carrying his rocket up - and came to the site he was supposed to launch at and there where 17 dead guys there, he put his rocket down and started walking down the hill, eventually one of the team went out and grabbed him -- turns out he was being paid $200 USD (well promised) to bring the rocket up - point it and ignite a time fuze --- in a severely economically depressed area you will have no shortage of potential folks who would do that.

Now using some of the drones and missiles that are being launched require a lot more training (and infrastructure as a v notch in a rock won't suffice like it sort of did for the 107's), so there is a great deal less potential users.

The only real fix is to wipe out the manufacturing sites.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

The only real fix is to wipe out the manufacturing sites and / or the leadership that directed their production

FTFY

 

[Cloud Cover]

Fire onboard USS Gerald Ford

• at least 2 injured
• under control or extinguished
• not battle damage

https://news.usni.org/2026/03/12/carrier-uss-gerald-r-ford-suffers-fire

 

[brihard]

Fire onboard USS Gerald Ford

• at least 2 injured
• under control or extinguished
• not battle damage

https://news.usni.org/2026/03/12/carrier-uss-gerald-r-ford-suffers-fire

Clean your lint traps, troops.

 

[armrdsoul77]

Navy's Kilby signals USS Ford could see 11-month deployment, approaching record length - Breaking Defense

"While the Navy’s carrier deployments are slated to last seven months, the Ford’s current deployment has been extended and could break previous records set during the Vietnam-era."

 

[Kirkhill]

Realistically we had it GWOT - just not in the availability we do now.


You can whack a mole the launchers (both system and operator) to infinity - and it really doesn't break the system.

Anecdotally if you remember the rockets in Afghan, there was more than one site that was repeatedly hit - each day someone would carry a rocket up the mountain, he'd get shwackted by an Sniper Team while setting up the rocket - one day at a site, little Omar was carrying his rocket up - and came to the site he was supposed to launch at and there where 17 dead guys there, he put his rocket down and started walking down the hill, eventually one of the team went out and grabbed him -- turns out he was being paid $200 USD (well promised) to bring the rocket up - point it and ignite a time fuze --- in a severely economically depressed area you will have no shortage of potential folks who would do that.

Now using some of the drones and missiles that are being launched require a lot more training (and infrastructure as a v notch in a rock won't suffice like it sort of did for the 107's), so there is a great deal less potential users.

The only real fix is to wipe out the manufacturing sites.

Iran and Pakistan were to Afghanistan as Cambodia and Laos were to Vietnam. Safe havens from where the war could be sustained indefinitely.

Nixon went after Cambodia. Right target. Wrong hammer.
Trump is going after Iran. Right target. Better hammers.

1991 a No-Fly Zone was established over the Kurds in Northern Iraq until 2003 - 12 years
1992 another No-Fly Zone was established over the Marsh Arabs in Southern Iraq until 2003 - 11 years
2001 an effective No-Fly Zone was established over Afghanistan until 2021 - 20 years

Add in the time the USAF spent patrolling Iraq skies after 2003 until today (on and off) and the US has a demonstrated capacity to influence events on foreign ground that the US taxpayer accepts.

They don't like troops on the ground but they will accept air power and the occasional SF trooper.

...

The American voters are barely tolerating this intervention - roughly 45 for, 45 against and 10% malleable.
But if ground troops are considered the toleration disappears and 75% are opposed.

What Americans think about the war in Iran, according to recent polls

Americans are divided along party lines on U.S. military action against Iran, according to polls conducted since the war began, with most polls showing opposition is higher than support.

apnews.com

...

If that No-Fly Zone ends up policed by the US, Israelis and Sunni Arabs of Saudi and the GCC then I think it could be continued indefinitely. As long as, in the case of the earlier No-Fly Zones, it stays out of the news.

And with loitering UAVs, not just LAMs but Reapers armed with LAMs, and the Arabs paying for the gas and maintenance, it would only be more effective and cheaper, and more enduring.

 

[brihard]

Iran and Pakistan were to Afghanistan as Cambodia and Laos were to Vietnam. Safe havens from where the war could be sustained indefinitely.

Nixon went after Cambodia. Right target. Wrong hammer.
Trump is going after Iran. Right target. Better hammers.

1991 a No-Fly Zone was established over the Kurds in Northern Iraq until 2003 - 12 years
1992 another No-Fly Zone was established over the Marsh Arabs in Southern Iraq until 2003 - 11 years
2001 an effective No-Fly Zone was established over Afghanistan until 2021 - 20 years

Add in the time the USAF spent patrolling Iraq skies after 2003 until today (on and off) and the US has a demonstrated capacity to influence events on foreign ground that the US taxpayer accepts.

They don't like troops on the ground but they will accept air power and the occasional SF trooper.

...

The American voters are barely tolerating this intervention - roughly 45 for, 45 against and 10% malleable.
But if ground troops are considered the toleration disappears and 75% are opposed.

What Americans think about the war in Iran, according to recent polls

Americans are divided along party lines on U.S. military action against Iran, according to polls conducted since the war began, with most polls showing opposition is higher than support.

apnews.com

...

If that No-Fly Zone ends up policed by the US, Israelis and Sunni Arabs of Saudi and the GCC then I think it could be continued indefinitely. As long as, in the case of the earlier No-Fly Zones, it stays out of the news.

And with loitering UAVs, not just LAMs but Reapers armed with LAMs, and the Arabs paying for the gas and maintenance, it would only be more effective and cheaper, and more enduring.

The ‘no fly zone’ already effectively exists. Iran’s Air Force has been pretty much wiped out. But it’s not the 90s anymore, and tactical fighters and bombers aren’t the whole ball game. A ‘no fly zone’, declared or not, is only as good as the IADS that actually enforces it against that the other guy actually puts in the sky.

Overall the air defence in the Gulf seems to be pretty good, but they’re also clearly batting short of a thousand, so some still make it through. There’s no additional political or diplomatic capital to be had in declaring a ‘no fly zone’ as if that will stop the portion of missiles that don’t get shot down.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

No Fly Zone can also be used to limit civilian air traffic (All flights have to be registered prior to departure and approved), not that they get shot down, but they have no insurance and it would make it difficult to have commercial flights in and out. Just adding another twist to the thumb screws on the regime.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Iran and Pakistan were to Afghanistan as Cambodia and Laos were to Vietnam. Safe havens from where the war could be sustained indefinitely.

Nixon went after Cambodia. Right target. Wrong hammer.
Trump is going after Iran. Right target. Better hammers.

1991 a No-Fly Zone was established over the Kurds in Northern Iraq until 2003 - 12 years
1992 another No-Fly Zone was established over the Marsh Arabs in Southern Iraq until 2003 - 11 years
2001 an effective No-Fly Zone was established over Afghanistan until 2021 - 20 years

Add in the time the USAF spent patrolling Iraq skies after 2003 until today (on and off) and the US has a demonstrated capacity to influence events on foreign ground that the US taxpayer accepts.

They don't like troops on the ground but they will accept air power and the occasional SF trooper.

...

The American voters are barely tolerating this intervention - roughly 45 for, 45 against and 10% malleable.
But if ground troops are considered the toleration disappears and 75% are opposed.

What Americans think about the war in Iran, according to recent polls

Americans are divided along party lines on U.S. military action against Iran, according to polls conducted since the war began, with most polls showing opposition is higher than support.

apnews.com

...

If that No-Fly Zone ends up policed by the US, Israelis and Sunni Arabs of Saudi and the GCC then I think it could be continued indefinitely. As long as, in the case of the earlier No-Fly Zones, it stays out of the news.

And with loitering UAVs, not just LAMs but Reapers armed with LAMs, and the Arabs paying for the gas and maintenance, it would only be more effective and cheaper, and more enduring.

Would that no fly zone include commercial aircraft traversing Iranian airspace? I'm not sure that the commercial air sector would be keen on an open ended no fly zone over Iran. There are 2 huge bottlenecks right now over Egypt and Azerbaijan that I'm not certain are sustainable long term.

 

[Kirkhill]

Would that no fly zone include commercial aircraft traversing Iranian airspace? I'm not sure that the commercial air sector would be keen on an open ended no fly zone over Iran. There are 2 huge bottlenecks right now over Egypt and Azerbaijan that I'm not certain are sustainable long term.

How do we manage the highways? We police them. We discriminate between those we accept on the highways and those we keep off the highways. Likewise, although more imperfectly, on the seas.

If the US can secure the skies and establish an aerial police force then that police force can arbitrate who gets to use the skies and then, as a result, the activities on the ground.

It sounds as if they are off to a good start if they are starting to pick off vehicle check points from the air.

And it concerns me not if the term No-Fly Zone is used. One thing where I find myself agreeing with those of a more doctrinaire persuasion than myself, along with Orwell and Dodgson (author of Alice in Wonderland as Lewis Carroll), is in finding that words are malleable. They mean different things to different lawyers and again to the general public.

Peace must have broken out in 1945 because we haven't had a war since. At least not officially.

A de facto No-Fly Zone has been largely established (over both Iran and Venezuela for that matter).

Yes there are squirters. Yes there are speeders on the highways and occaisional drive-by shootings that harm by-standers.

That is what the police are for.

 

[CBH99]

Other than targeting their naval, air, drone, and ballistic capabilities, has the US/IDF been attacking any ground forces? Tank battalions and the like? I ask because, if one goal is Regime change, wouldn't the land component of the Iranian military and IRGC not be an important force to neutralize? They have hundreds of tanks and thousands of other vehicles. Seems like they've left their ground forces relatively intact, or else maybe those strikes just aren't sexy enough to make it into the news.

Fair question.

Hopefully the Americans learned from their 2003 Iraq invasion that destroying a country's armed institutions (military, police, etc) is not the way to go & are applying those lessons learned?

It doesn't seem like America wants anything to do with a ground war. They haven't activated or deployed massive numbers of troops yet - and those forces would need some time to get themselves pre-positioned first...

So maybe the plan is to leave the ground forces mostly intact, and hope the new regime is better behaved??

...

Israel can't really 'invade' Iran with ground forces.

America could, sure...but it's a huge logistical undertaking getting that many troops deployed. It would take months to get the necessary forces deployed to a staging area, kitted out appropriately, and organized + all of their enablers.

It's also incredibly expensive.


Trump also campaigned on 'no new wars' and is REALLY causing a lot of his supporters to take pause because of this Iran situation. I don't think the POTUS had this on his bingo card - I think Israel is dragging America into this by the balls

For these reasons I don't think American or Israeli ground forces will be used, and this won't look like Iraq all over again.

...

Personally, I think Trump is trying to do his best to manage a house of cards that's on fire & collapsing fast.

I think he's trying to advance the American interest and secure future assets & resources that America needs, assert American presence where needed, amd stabilize America both domestically and internationally in the hopes that the latter helps make the former more possible.

But economically I don't think America is salvagable unless there is some sort of MAJOR economic reset...which is what we are witnessing the beginning of.

 

[CBH99]

How do we manage the highways? We police them. We discriminate between those we accept on the highways and those we keep off the highways. Likewise, although more imperfectly, on the seas.

If the US can secure the skies and establish an aerial police force then that police force can arbitrate who gets to use the skies and then, as a result, the activities on the ground.

It sounds as if they are off to a good start if they are starting to pick off vehicle check points from the air.

And it concerns me not if the term No-Fly Zone is used. One thing where I find myself agreeing with those of a more doctrinaire persuasion than myself, along with Orwell and Dodgson (author of Alice in Wonderland as Lewis Carroll), is in finding that words are malleable. They mean different things to different lawyers and again to the general public.

Peace must have broken out in 1945 because we haven't had a war since. At least not officially.

A de facto No-Fly Zone has been largely established (over both Iran and Venezuela for that matter).

Yes there are squirters. Yes there are speeders on the highways and occaisional drive-by shootings that harm by-standers.

That is what the police are for.

I THINK the last time armed intervention was authorized under the UN was in 1999 during the Kosovo campaign? (And MAYBE in 2001 for Afghanistan, just because it was immediately post 9/11?)

Ever since then, I don't believe the west has officially declared war, and instead have proceeded under 'counter terrorism operations' and such.



No lawyer here, and I suspect I will be corrected before long.