Iran Super Thread- Merged

[Furniture]

You were quoting me, so I’ll set you straight. I’m not ‘declaring a loss’, kindly don’t make things up and pretend I’ve said them. What I’m saying is that thus far things are recognizably on a track that’s become fairly familiar by this point in history and that doesn’t usually leave things in better shape than they were found in. Maybe America will do better in Iran in the long run than they have elsewhere. I won’t pretend to be optimistic about that of course.

Just so you're not under the impression I didn't see this, I will respond.

I stated what you were implying, if you don't want people to imply what you're implying, change your wording.

In 1940 Lord Halifax was quite reasonable in suggesting that the UK surrender, because up until that point, and in fact for many months beyond that point, the UK was actively losing. In 1940, by your estimate the UK should have surrendered to Germany, because history had proved Germany was winning.

Iran is a much harder problem set than Afghanistan or Iraq were. While their ability to hit back is being attrited, unless their government collapses and is replaced, and unless that replacement abandons their weapons development, a strategic victory will take lots more than what we’re seeing now.

Iran is a different problem set, but not necessarily harder. Iran has a long history of protest and rebellion against the regime. Giving the locals the realistic ability to rise up in the following weeks isn't nothing.

Fundamentally this is about whether the U.S. and Israel can stop Iran from digging really deep holes in mountains and building lots of weapons in them. In the past year they’ve shown Iran how deep to dig.

So some things are still missing before this can be said to be going particularly well in light of the very clear economic and political harm being done.

This is about whether the US and Israel, along with their partners in the gulf, can find a way to peace on acceptable terms. We are 6 days in... We have no idea what the regional powers will do, because they don't know what they will do in the new reality that Iran is not the strong man of the gulf.

I'd have more faith in the pessimistic views if they weren't so clearly on partisan lines... I can predict with 100% certainty how someone feels about Trump based on their reaction to this war. If this wasn't a partisan issue, that number would be very different.

 

[Fabius]

Taking an angle of pure pragmatism here: does Canada stand to learn or validate anything by contributing to a collective air defence in the gulf? Is it worth our while to send a six pack of CF-188s to shoot down drones to that our guys and girls can practice doing that and learn some lessons that only come from doing? Maybe we do a fast acquisition of 70mm APKWS?

Low and slow mass produced drones are here to stay. Maybe Canada should take the opportunity to put some RCAF crews in harm’s way and practice killing them before it’s Canadians on the receiving end.

I doubt Canada can make the decision quickly enough nor deploy quickly enough to gain experience before the threat is mostly removed.

Looking at the the Times of Israel, it seems Iran has fired 500 ballistic missiles and over 2000 drones, but the ballistic missile launches are already down over 90%, drone launches down over 83%.

The below article offers some operational insights.
The IDF has dropped over 5000 munitions as of 5 March in 11 strike waves.

US and IDF forces are deconflicting by terrain and tgt types. US responsible for the Gulf coast and the Iranian Navy. IDF responsible for western Iran and Tehran.

Both US and IDF forces are planning on several more weeks with more strike assets coming from the US, to include a higher tempo for the strategic bombers ( likely mostly B2?).

https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-planning-for-at-least-1-2-more-weeks-of-iran-ops-over-5000-bombs-dropped/?utm_campaign=most_popular&utm_source=website&utm_medium=article_end&utm_content=3

 

[Brad Sallows]

I'm still not sure you understand how policy is made.

I understand how policy is being made in the Trump administration. A little bit is being made by Trump; a lot is being made by the people staffing the WH and those well-connected a little further out. My point is that administrations dump people, or convince people to dump themselves, all the time.

And now I'm not sure you understand why an independent, non-partisan public service is important. Or why avoiding groupthink is important.

I understand that, too. I also understand that the "public service" isn't as non-partisan as it has to be to claim that mantle.

Groupthink is a problem. So are obstructionism and dumb insolence.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Not in Naval warfare you don't. The aim (typically, but not always) is to mission kill enemy platforms, not outright sink them, and the killing of actual sailors in that conduct of that action is not a consideration.

A sub doesn't have a lot of options. "Shoot them in the leg?"

 

[Furniture]

A sub doesn't have a lot of options. "Shoot them in the leg?"

It's a reflection the the RCN not actually being in a war since 1945... The Wardroom pretends war is a theoretical game to be played out on a maneuver board.

I ran into this same problem during force protection exercises. RCN Officers have a weird "gentleman's" view of fighting completely detached from reality. In the case of the FP ex, the boat that had been shooting at us had turned slightly away, which to the weirdroom indicated they were now "hors de combat" despite still being armed and only slightly moving away... It's the kind of academic idiocy only tolerated in services that get to ignore reality and dwell on past glories.

 

[ytz]

I understand how policy is being made in the Trump administration. A little bit is being made by Trump; a lot is being made by the people staffing the WH and those well-connected a little further out. My point is that administrations dump people, or convince people to dump themselves, all the time.

I understand that, too. I also understand that the "public service" isn't as non-partisan as it has to be to claim that mantle.

Groupthink is a problem. So are obstructionism and dumb insolence.

And maybe if they didn't mistake advice they didn't like for "obstructionism and insolence" they wouldn't be stuck desperately trying to manifest a Kurdish insurgency through the media "leaks". You know.... If they actually had any regional specialists left who could actually negotiate with the Kurds.

There's a consequence to firing everyone you disagree with and surrounding yourself with yes men. We're starting to see it.

Also, you still don't apparently understand how policy made and the difference between public servants and political staff.

 

[ytz]

It's clear the RCN hasn't been in actual naval combat since WWII by this response... This sort of silliness will see RCN sailors killed, just so some NWO can feel like Nelson while they sit in a life raft.

Somehow I don't think this is doctrine. I don't know of any service that teaches "shoot to wound" when in actual combat. The only reason to do that is exceptional intelligence value.

Whatever one thinks of the war, once the shooting starts the onus is on the crew to make decisions quickly. They left Visakhapatnam in India on the 25th. They stopped at Hambantota in Sri Lanka on the 26th. On the 28th when they found out hostilities at commenced they were at sea. They were camping near shipping lanes. They were a day from Diego Garcia. They were 2-3 days from Iran. They had to have known this made them a target. But they didn't return to Sri Lanka and surrender. Another ship just did that. Presumably the sinking of Dena made the consequences clear.

 

[PrairieFella]

Im seeing media reporting from Ryan Grim (awesome journalist) that the Iranian ship that was struck was unarmed from the exercise and fleet review and when torpedoed the Americans did not render aid to survivors. Im no sailor but isnt that a requirement for naval warfare to render aid to defenceless sailors?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Im seeing media reporting from Ryan Grim (awesome journalist) that the Iranian ship that was struck was unarmed from the exercise and fleet review and when torpedoed the Americans did not render aid to survivors. Im no sailor but isnt that a requirement for naval warfare to render aid to defenceless sailors?

I’m reading reports that both the US and Iran participated in India’s MILAN 2026 Naval Exercises.
The US sent a P8 aircraft but no warships.
One of the stated rules in the exercise was that NO warship carry ANY weapons. So the US knew that the Iranian ship was unarmed.

The Most Chilling Detail in the U.S. Attack on an Iranian Naval Ship

The Iranian warship was taking part in an international exercise with many other countries—including the United States.

www.yahoo.com

 

[Czech_pivo]

Im seeing media reporting from Ryan Grim (awesome journalist) that the Iranian ship that was struck was unarmed from the exercise and fleet review and when torpedoed the Americans did not render aid to survivors. Im no sailor but isnt that a requirement for naval warfare to render aid to defenceless sailors?

In addition to this the USS Pinckney was to attend this same exercise - but it didn’t because ‘it had some unexpected maintenance issues’ and went to Singapore for repairs…..

From the MILAN 2026 list of ship participating-

The ship departed Singaporefollowing a repair and maintenance exercise on 11 February.[15][8] The ship's participation was cancelled due to "emergent reasons"

That same is now back on station.

As of early March 2026, the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Pinckney (DDG 91) is deployed to the U.S. 5th Fleet area of operations, which covers the Middle East, including the Arabian Sea, to support maritime security and stability. The ship previously conducted exercises in Singapore in January and February 2026.

 

[OldSolduer]

Not sure what we have can be spared from Latvia? They could go hot fast.

Two - and officer and a WO . Seeing what works and doesn’t work

 

[Halifax Tar]

My apologies, I must have missed your concession somewhere up thread. This threat is growing fast and it's hard to keep up.

Not in Naval warfare you don't. The aim (typically, but not always) is to mission kill enemy platforms, not outright sink them, and the killing of actual sailors in that conduct of that action is not a consideration.

Yea I wouldn't expect a submarine to expose itself. I wouldn't even expect a submarine to render aide after the fact. But the submarine could of trailed it and reported its PCS, and sunk it if it looked like it was actually going to pose a threat.

Respectfully, @Lumber its obvious that our careers have had wildly different paths. And why I hope never have to go to war with the RCN.

If the CO of REG put her to sea the CO is signing the ship's company up for the war. That's why the CO's make the big bucks. If you don't want to make decisions, be a killick and deal with not having a servant wash your cloth napkin...

We dont have stewards anymore

 

[Czech_pivo]

Just a bit of humour to lighten the day.

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[KevinB]

Somehow I don't think this is doctrine. I don't know of any service that teaches "shoot to wound" when in actual combat. The only reason to do that is exceptional intelligence value.

Whatever one thinks of the war, once the shooting starts the onus is on the crew to make decisions quickly. They left Visakhapatnam in India on the 25th. They stopped at Hambantota in Sri Lanka on the 26th. On the 28th when they found out hostilities at commenced they were at sea. They were camping near shipping lanes. They were a day from Diego Garcia. They were 2-3 days from Iran. They had to have known this made them a target. But they didn't return to Sri Lanka and surrender. Another ship just did that. Presumably the sinking of Dena made the consequences clear.

I’m not sure how old you are, but those of us who served in from the 80’s to 2000’s will remember the rather Byzantine JAG interpretation of Self Defense ruling for FYR operations. Enemy Combatants who dispersed firing positions were deemed to no longer be a threat unless they had resumed firing. Now some of that was clearly knee jerk reactions to Somalia perceptions, but the CA was really gun shy (effectively hiding the incredible bravery and determination of 2VP’s combat actions in the Medak Pocket).

It wasn’t until Afghanistan that enemy combatants were viewed properly.

The RCAF had a lot of issues as well with peacetime issues being attempted to be enforced in operational areas in the 90’s and don’t really shake that until a few years into GWOT.

I suspect the RCN for a large part (outside of NBP stuff) is still wrapped up in the misconceptions of combat.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I suspect the RCN for a large part (outside of NBP stuff) is still wrapped up in the misconceptions of combat.

You can loop the NBP into that.

I predict some severe beatings in the next conflict before the RCN will shed its cocktail party and diplomatic engagement focused mentality.

Our service tends to forget that emulating Nelson means more than neat quotes and a nostalgic view of the age of sail. Nelson was an amazing and aggressive tactician that strode toward the sound of cannons and understood his primary job was the employment of violence and destruction of the enemy at sea.

 

[Lumber]

If the CO of REG put her to sea the CO is signing the ship's company up for the war. That's why the CO's make the big bucks. If you don't want to make decisions, be a killick and deal with not having a servant wash your cloth napkin...

Ok, if I were the CO, and there was literally zero chance of us having any impact in helping save Canada, I would chose not to put to sea. I'd look at perhaps relocating to NZ our Australia, but first I'd look at whether or not there was an US assets between Fiji and Aus/NZ.

It's clear the RCN hasn't been in actual naval combat since WWII by this response... This sort of silliness will see RCN sailors killed, just so some NWO can feel like Nelson while they sit in a life raft.

Bitter, much?

If you're willing to put a NSM or harpoon into the ship, then you're willing to put a MK48/heavy torpedo into it. War isn't some gentleman's game of fencing/HEMA where first touch is a "win". It's about killing the enemy/removing their ability to kill you. Approaching war with an attitude of anything less is just throwing away the lives of your sailors.

What sailors lives are being put at risk by having a P8 put a Harpoon into it from outside their AD envelope? If anything, using a submarine may have been the more dangerous option.

You'd be living in a fairyland... If we are at war, we are at war everywhere. If Iran can land a missile in Baltimore, or San Diego, that's fair game. It's a war, not a game of tummy sticks...

I'm not sure what Iran's ability to put a missile into Baltimore or San Diego (new flash, they cant) has to do with bombing a training mission of lightly armed infantry in Sudan thousands of miles from the conflict zone?

 

[Lumber]

A sub doesn't have a lot of options. "Shoot them in the leg?"

Agreed. If a submarine is firing, it's only real option is total destruction of the target (except maybe against something really big). Hence, my arguing that an ASM would have been a better choice.

 

[McG]

So the US knew that the Iranian ship was unarmed.

A combatant is still a combatant even when carrying neither weapon nor ammo.
A warship is full of weapons even when it has no ammo.
A warship is a combatant unless it is sinking, sunk, or surrendered.

 

[Lumber]

Respectfully, @Lumber its obvious that our careers have had wildly different paths. And why I hope never have to go to war with the RCN.

Hey don't lump me in with the nancies who are to shy to engage in combat. My motto as an ORO was "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!".

 

[Halifax Tar]

You'd be living in a fairyland... If we are at war, we are at war everywhere. If Iran can land a missile in Baltimore, or San Diego, that's fair game. It's a war, not a game of tummy sticks...

Can I ask what tummy sticks is, and how one plays it ?

What sailors lives are being put at risk by having a P8 put a Harpoon into it from outside their AD envelope? If anything, using a submarine may have been the more dangerous option.

Are you making the statement that a harpoon hitting that ship wouldn't have caused casualties ?

Hey don't lump me in with the nancies who are to shy to engage in combat. My motto as an ORO was "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!".

Could have fooled me.