Iran Super Thread- Merged

[The Bread Guy]

@NavyShooter @Halifax Tar

For those of us with experience in this, I think this is where we stop talking about ships' load-outs and capabilities.

Not in detail, but there's a case to be made to look at what's been said about this particular situation.

Do any of us actually believe those ships were unarmed? Honestly that sounds more like social media BS that’s taken on a life of its own. I read elsewhere that the ex even had a live fire component.

Might be that their posture was visibly lower, but I donmt imagine many countries would send their ships out defenseless…

Can't read the hearts of those involved, but here's a bit of what's out there in the interwebs.

Regional media (here, here and here), quote IRN officials saying the ship was "unarmed," without quoting IND government/mil officials explaining how "unarmed" ships were expected to be.

IND government's info-machine says part of the sea phase of Ex MILAN 2026 (usual Wikipedia caveats) included, "Live firings as part of surface gun shoots and FPM drills as well as anti-air firings were also undertaken. Emphasis was placed on real-time coordination, joint mission planning and logistical support at sea," so if the IRN ship took part, we can at least assume there had to be some ammo above the zero level.

In case you're intrigued, here's Wikipedia's list o' ships participating:

List of ships present at International Fleet Review 2026 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If someone asked me as a land-lubber old-fart lay person, I'd say that subject to evidence to the contrary, I find it highly unlikely ANY warship of any country would travel almost anywhere with zero arms of any kind on their ship, even to/from an exercise that included "surface gun shoots" and "anti-air firings".

I leave the LOAC considerations to those who know more about that and how they apply at sea.

 

[Lumber]

I think the whole purpose of all these exercises is to convince the authoritarians of the world that the US can be as ruthless as them and put the fear of God back into them. It started with using large bombs to obliterate drug runners on prime-time. By the time the target shifted to blockade running tankers there wasn't a skipper who wasn't convinced that the Americans would shoot when they demanded he heave-to.

Now the sights have shifted again to naval vessels.

Stay home and stay safe.

America rules the waves.

In the video @NavyShooter posted, he mentioned that it is unusual that submarine had a "beam-on" (side view) aspect of the ship. He said that in typical ASuW tactics, a submarine will fire from ahead/on the bow of the target, in which case the video would have shown the bow of the ship. He opines that its possible the torpedo missed and had to circle around and come back, which gave the submarine time to close with the ship and end up on its beam.

I would opine that perhaps the submarine was told to get footage from the beam so that the US could show the world what the US is prepared to do.

I still don't believe they "targeted" the stern specifically, however...

 

[McG]

In WWII, the French fleet was given the option to switch sides or be sunk.

So? The French Navy had been an ally until France capitulated, and it represented a significant fighting capacity to be weilded by one side or the other. So the fleet was given an invite to stay on the side of the free nations of Europe. The Iranian Navy has never been an ally, and the US does not need its frigate.

We need the Iranian military to switch side, if we want success in this war.

No. The US does not need the Iranian Navy to switch sides, and it definitely does not need a single frigate. The US needs Iran to have no influence at sea.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Symbolic stuff is important to win a war like this. An Iranian ship switching sides would help convince other Iranian force to do the same. That is the real goal of this conflict. If we finish this war with a rump of the Islamic Regime left still in power and strong enough to keep a death grip on the people, then we have lost the war and just prolonged the conflict for another decade. If we can get a new government led by the Iranians themselves with the regular military supporting that transitionary government, then we have won and the ME will start to stabilize as the Houthi, Hamas and Hezbollah wither. There are two simultaneous conflicts here, one is a internal civil war/rebellion and the other is a international conflict between the US/Israel and the Islamic Regime and its proxies.

 

[Kirkhill]

I am wondering about the effect of a precision campaign, verging on an assassination campaign, if, at the end of the effort the local populace sees a constant overhead presence of F15s armed with SDBs and APKWS.

They have seen their tormentors targeted. And so have their tormentors.

Will they feel encouraged to take to the streets? Will their tormentors feel inclined to oppose them suspecting that a narrowly contained, precisely targeted explosive device heading their way might be the result?

The wet dream of every air force has been freedom of the skies and the ability to hit what they aim at.

It has only taken 120 years of experimentation to bring that objective in sight.

 

[McG]

Symbolic stuff is important to win a war like this.

I fear you have been ruined by COIN. "Hearts and Minds" is not how you win large scale combat operations against a conventional military. Other Iranian warships are giving up. So "effective symbolism" box seems to have been checked. The Iranian military will to fight has been successfully struck. They have figured out for themselves they can survive by turning their backs on the regime.

An Iranian ship switching sides would help convince other Iranian force to do the same.

An Iranian warship being handed an opportunity to give a big middle finger to the US before being sunk would have been much more effective symbolism for Iran that what actually happened.

Why do so many people in this thread think wars can be won by handing opportunity to the other side?

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I fear you have been ruined by COIN. "Hearts and Minds" is not how you win large scale combat operations against a conventional military. Other Iranian warships are giving up. So "effective symbolism" box seems to have been checked. The Iranian military will to fight has been successfully struck. They have figured out for themselves they can survive by turning their backs on the regime.


An Iranian warship being handed an opportunity to give a big middle finger to the US before being sunk would have been much more effective symbolism for Iran that what actually happened.

Why do so many people in this thread think wars can be won by handing opportunity to the other side?

Bang on. And given that the newly announced (truthed) end state is the unconditional surrender of Iran, some hearts and minds recalibration may be in order.

Two to the heart, one to the mind.

 

[NavyShooter]

Ponder if you will the Moskova and Snake Island's defenders.

That radio conversation became a legend and gave strength to the Ukrainians in their struggle.

What kind of response would the Iranian Corvette have likely given if contacted by the US? Something similar I would imagine, which would have had the opposite effect to what was desired.

I said I felt bad for the crew in a previous post. I still feel bad for the crew, but at no point did I state that they were not a valid target. They were a warship, under way, in a potential threat environment, in international waters.

Was a Mk. 48 ADCAP torpedo overkill?

I think it was just kill.

 

[QV]

I fear you have been ruined by COIN. "Hearts and Minds" is not how you win large scale combat operations against a conventional military. Other Iranian warships are giving up. So "effective symbolism" box seems to have been checked. The Iranian military will to fight has been successfully struck. They have figured out for themselves they can survive by turning their backs on the regime.


An Iranian warship being handed an opportunity to give a big middle finger to the US before being sunk would have been much more effective symbolism for Iran that what actually happened.

Why do so many people in this thread think wars can be won by handing opportunity to the other side?

The risk adverse nature of today's CAF.

 

[QV]

Bang on. And given that the newly announced (truthed) end state is the unconditional surrender of Iran, some hearts and minds recalibration may be in order.

Two to the heart, one to the mind.

Or a pivot - He's been known to adjust on the fly - which I'm good with. I like a leader that can adjust quickly.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Why do so many people in this thread think wars can be won by handing opportunity to the other side?

A lot of people have gotten accustomed to the idea of carrots rather than sticks, and forgotten that utterly breaking the enemy's will and/or capability to fight is a viable path to surrender (unconditional or otherwise).

The images of the sinking are useful, in the same way images of Russian-built tanks ejecting their turrets and occupants explosively are useful.

 

[Eaglelord17]

A lot of people have gotten accustomed to the idea of carrots rather than sticks, and forgotten that utterly breaking the enemy's will and/or capability to fight is a viable path to surrender (unconditional or otherwise).

The images of the sinking are useful, in the same way images of Russian-built tanks ejecting their turrets and occupants explosively are useful.

There is different ways to achieve the same result. The same water which softens the potato hardens the egg.

If the goal is to keep the public turned against the government and want to overthrow them with someone that is in the US interest, excessive or cruel acts aren’t necessarily the best way forward. You’re trying to convince them you aren’t the bad guy and you are liberating them.

The question is which is the best path forward? Is Iran the potato or the egg?

 

[brihard]

Can’t vouch for authenticity, but this is being described as an impact filmed at Prince Sultan airbase in Saudi Arabia. A brown trousers moment if I’ve ever seen one.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2029971533817413760

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I fear you have been ruined by COIN. "Hearts and Minds" is not how you win large scale combat operations against a conventional military. Other Iranian warships are giving up. So "effective symbolism" box seems to have been checked. The Iranian military will to fight has been successfully struck. They have figured out for themselves they can survive by turning their backs on the regime.


An Iranian warship being handed an opportunity to give a big middle finger to the US before being sunk would have been much more effective symbolism for Iran that what actually happened.

Why do so many people in this thread think wars can be won by handing opportunity to the other side?

Invading Iran is not on the table, and even if it were on the table, there are not enough troops on the ground to do so. Air campaigns will not be enough to topple the regime. So what's the plan once you run out of IRGC and Cleric related targets?

The ship was not anywhere near being able to strike anything at position of intercept, a P8 messaging them, giving them a couple of hours to decide, does not give the sub away and allows the sub to still sink it with ease.

 

[ytz]

No doubt, but how is this connected to thread you posted it in ?

Wrong thread. Ooops.

Deleted.

 

[PuckChaser]

Wrong thread. Ooops.

Deleted.

 

[Lumber]

You know, it's funny; I've spent the last two days on here arguing that I think the torpedoing of the Dera was unnecessary, and now I'm in an argument with my sister trying to convince her that the sinking was legal and that the ship was a valid military target and that her sinking isn't some example of the cruelty and illegality of the US military. (She had just read a post by some sensationalist claiming that the sinking and especially the not-picking-up of the survivors was an abject act of cruelty... The post also claimed Tehran was being carpet bombed so that tells you something about them)

 

[McG]

Invading Iran is not on the table, and even if it were on the table, there are not enough troops on the ground to do so. Air campaigns will not be enough to topple the regime. So what's the plan once you run out of IRGC and Cleric related targets?

The ship was not anywhere near being able to strike anything at position of intercept, a P8 messaging them, giving them a couple of hours to decide, does not give the sub away and allows the sub to still sink it with ease.

Dude, we're going in circles. So ... just don't lead troops in war. Your grasp of military ethics will see you compromise surprise, surrender the initiative, expend effort on the extraneous, put your troops in danger, and hand "symbolic" opportunities to the enemy. If Canada finds itself at war, go do something with Health Canada or PSPC.

 

[Lumber]

Dude, we're going in circles. So ... just don't lead troops in war. Your grasp of military ethics will see you compromise surprise, surrender the initiative, expend effort on the extraneous, put your troops in danger, and hand "symbolic" opportunities to the enemy. If Canada finds itself at war, go do something with Health Canada or PSPC.

Jesus man, was Arthur Harris your grandpa?

 

[McG]

Arthur Harris bombed cities. That's not the same as calling out professional members of an armed service clutching pearls over a combatant cleanly killing a combatant. There is no winning if every legitimate use of lethal force is going to result in hand wringing.