Iran has seized a British oil tanker

[RoofGardener]

12 minutes ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

...With recent developments in US stance towards Israel (Trump doing so much for Israel) i would not be surprised if Israel actually does something wild and attacks Iranian installations, government there doesn't resist the temptation easily  But i do hope they won't because it would be beginning of the end for current geopolitical picture....

Hmm... I dunno @Sir Smoke aLot. Iran is a LONG way away from Israel. I don't think their aircraft can fly that far with bombs. They would need mid-air refueling... including over Iraq and possibly even over Iran itself. 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Actually, I was thinking Russia secreted information to the Iranians. 

If you read the article, Russia held back selling its top end system to Iran for fear of ramifications from the US. Russia and Iran get along fine, at least as trading partners. As good as the S-300 with modifications that are in the S-400 system...? I'm a bit suspicious.

[Sir Smoke aLot]

39 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmm... I dunno @Sir Smoke aLot. Iran is a LONG way away from Israel. I don't think their aircraft can fly that far with bombs. They would need mid-air refueling... including over Iraq and possibly even over Iran itself. 

Both Iran and Israel have such capability, i have no doubt about it. My concern are rockets with high yielding payloads, in such exchange, well... Better not to go into such discussions but concern is real, based on reality.

On this LINK we can see distance between the countries with nice graphic.

Nothing too far for Iranian weapons. Israel is known to have fly warplanes over large distances before (like their Iraq missions in 1980's) so i believe that technology of today is present to accomplish such mission over Iran. While i do not believe in the story it is bragged about on Israeli press how F-35 was flying over Tehran.

Major concern, by my opinion is so called resistance crescent involving Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and finally Iran as starting point. It would be too risky move by Israel to attack. Region would be in flames. I hope that we won't have to talk about such developments, ever. That is why we need responsible politicians especially responsible politics in Israel because they are too tiny to confront large nations.

Saddam managed to hit Tel Aviv with scud missiles which are inferior to modern weapons?

44 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

As good as the S-300 with modifications that are in the S-400 system...? I'm a bit suspicious.

Modernized S-300 doesn't fall too much behind S-400 with it's factory original model. But i might be wrong. It's electronic system, tracking system too which has profited greatly from technology advancements so if Iran managed to do good job on that part - they 'only' have to make quality missiles in order to have reliable domestically produced AA system.

I remember reading about S-300 (which has many models) back when Russia sent some to Syria. It's like factory S-400 gets shadowed by totally modernized S-300, aside from some design and rocket differences, but again i am very outdated about the subject.

[Setton]

1 hour ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

With recent developments in US stance towards Israel (Trump doing so much for Israel) i would not be surprised if Israel actually does something wild and attacks Iranian installations, government there doesn't resist the temptation easily  But i do hope they won't because it would be beginning of the end for current geopolitical picture.

You mean like they have been in Iraq for the past month? 

[Setton]

57 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmm... I dunno @Sir Smoke aLot. Iran is a LONG way away from Israel. I don't think their aircraft can fly that far with bombs. They would need mid-air refueling... including over Iraq and possibly even over Iran itself. 

They don't need to reach Iran, just Iraq. 

Which they clearly can. 

[Sir Smoke aLot]

Just now, Setton said:

You mean like they have been in Iraq for the past month? 

If we assume that Israel is behind those attacks on PMU and other affiliated installations in Iraq then yes, why not. But it's not confirmed, far from it. Surely comes good for public relations of government in Israel.

Current suspects are either US drones, Israeli drones used by the US or local militant groups who pledged their allegiance to the Zionist cause (there are plenty of those in Iraq).

It seems that US using Israeli made drone is currently only story which might be supported by evidence.

[Sir Smoke aLot]

On 8/6/2019 at 12:11 AM, and then said:

Israel is a totally secular government.

How did i miss this  

''Jewish state'' man. That ain't merely parfume with the note of secular spirit 

I am not sure that ethnocracy based on religion could fit ''democratic and secular''. But let's not go into discussion about ''the only democracy in the region'' let me ask you what is secular about the Holy Land? Let's be serious and objective for a while.

Being Jewish state is not problem, everyone has the right to self determination but the problem arises when one's self determination denies self determination for others and also undermines the historical importance of Holy Land as representative and essential place for spiritual belief of two other religions Judaization of Jerusalem is not secular process and Palestinian Christians are almost out of Holy Land with only traces of Christianity being left by most stubborn Christians who chose to stay there.

[Sir Smoke aLot]

1 hour ago, Setton said:

You mean like they have been in Iraq for the past month? 

It seems that you are correct, if this is authentic that some unnamed US officials confirmed that Israel was behind the attacks, after days of speculations. Reported by New York Times, LINK. Story was further promoted on many news agencies but it is not for certain just jet i believe. Another media stunt? This kinda undermines US work and interests in Iraq.

It is alarming since Iraqi officials vowed to reply with harsh measures if Israel was behind the attacks. By harsh measures it could imply removal of US troops and presence in Iraq, turn from which Iran directly profits and it surely endangers certain US interests in Iraq, especially things related to certain parts of transitional constitution of Iraq, related to economy.

I do not believe in ''where there is smoke there is fire'' kind of reasoning because such logic can be abused to great extent but it seems that speculations are not far from truth. If Israel was indeed behind these attacks it was suicidal move when their interests are concerned. Quite entertaining, if nothing else.

 

[DarkHunter]

4 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmm... I dunno @Sir Smoke aLot. Iran is a LONG way away from Israel. I don't think their aircraft can fly that far with bombs. They would need mid-air refueling... including over Iraq and possibly even over Iran itself. 

Looking at the Iranian airforce it seems that Iran only has 7 to 8 plane models, 7 if one wants to be realistic or 8 if one wants to believe Iran's almost certainly false statement on capability.

The planes Iran has that could reach Israel are the F-14 (40 to 44), Mig 29A (45), F-4 (64), J-7 (24), Su-22 (20), Su-24 (30 to 36), and Su-25 (6).  There is also the Iranian made Saeqeh of which Iran has 30 and they claim has a range of 1,864 miles but the problem is that the Saeqeh is about the same size and shape of an F-5 and with pictures showing F-5 components being used in the Saeqeh so more then likely the Saeqeh is just a heavily modified F-5 and probably has a combat range closer to an F-5 which is 140 miles.

All of that is assuming Iran would make/use an airbase right on the Iraq border and fly the shortest path to Israel.  If an airbase further in would be used then more then likely their F-4s and Su-24s probably wouldnt be able to reach Israel.

As for air to surface weapons it seems Iran doesnt have anything with a range greater then about 60 miles so they would have to get dangerously close to Israel to do anything.

For perspective Iseael has the F-15 (58), F-15E (25), F-16 (224), and F-35 (16).  The F-16 has the shortest combat range at only 339 miles which would barely make it to Iran but if armed with delilah cruise missiles they would be able to strike targets 155 miles into Iran which would put most airports that could stage planes that could reach Israel in range.

Ultimately Israel can strike Iran far more easily and far more frequently them Iran could do to Israel.

[Setton]

30 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

All of that is assuming Iran would make/use an airbase right on the Iraq border and fly the shortest path to Israel.  If an airbase further in would be used then more then likely their F-4s and Su-24s probably wouldnt be able to reach Israel.

You're equally assuming they wouldn't start from inside Iraq... 

[RoofGardener]

4 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

Both Iran and Israel have such capability, i have no doubt about it. My concern are rockets with high yielding payloads, in such exchange, well... Better not to go into such discussions but concern is real, based on reality.

 

Ummm... no ? 

Both side have medium-range rockets. But Israel has the ability so shoot them down. And as for Iran... it has the sheer size to absorb them. 

Remember the V-2 rockets in WW2. They where a terror weapon, because they could explode in London in random areas, and there was no defense against them. 

But in terms of strategy.. they didn't reduce the UK's defensive posture one iota. 

[DarkHunter]

7 minutes ago, Setton said:

You're equally assuming they wouldn't start from inside Iraq... 

You honestly believe Iraq would allow Iran to stantion military troops within their borders to attack Israel.

Even if that was the case then Iran did do that then they get 23 Mirage F1s and maybe 60 F-5s.  The Iranian airforce is simply just not a threat to Israel in any meaningful way.  

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

5 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmm... I dunno @Sir Smoke aLot. Iran is a LONG way away from Israel. I don't think their aircraft can fly that far with bombs.

Israel has come out long ago and said they can reach Iran with their bombers, but the bombers could not make it back.

Needless to say, USA was not selling them any such bombers that could go the distance, but with Trump in office, who knows?! 
And I too am suspicious about Israel flying two new stealth F-35's over Teheran. They say it but....

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

3 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

You honestly believe Iraq would allow Iran to stantion military troops within their borders to attack Israel.

Even if that was the case then Iran did do that then they get 23 Mirage F1s and maybe 60 F-5s.  The Iranian airforce is simply just not a threat to Israel in any meaningful way.  

Not while US is in charge of Iraq, hell no.  But.. the Iraq military may exhibit a careless, inept look aside. LOL

[Setton]

23 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

You honestly believe Iraq would allow Iran to stantion military troops within their borders to attack Israel.

Even if that was the case then Iran did do that then they get 23 Mirage F1s and maybe 60 F-5s.  The Iranian airforce is simply just not a threat to Israel in any meaningful way.  

Iran, of course, already has forces inside Iraq... 

[Setton]

19 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Not while US is in charge of Iraq, hell no.  But.. the Iraq military may exhibit a careless, inept look aside. LOL

That's cute. The US hasn't been 'in charge' of Iraq for years. 

[DarkHunter]

7 minutes ago, Setton said:

Iran, of course, already has forces inside Iraq... 

Besides from local Iraqi militias loyal to Iran and a handful of Quds to oversee them what Iranian military troops are stationed in Iraq.  

[+and-then]

9 hours ago, Setton said:

Like hell you are. 

'I don't care if it was a false flag so long as it gives us a reason to go to war' 

- and then 

Care to cite that post number, Poindexter?  

[Setton]

49 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

Besides from local Iraqi militias loyal to Iran and a handful of Quds to oversee them what Iranian military troops are stationed in Iraq.  

Exactly those ones. 

[+and-then]

6 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

While i do not believe in the story it is bragged about on Israeli press how F-35 was flying over Tehran.

Funny, apparently Khamenei did.  He fired his air force chief.

[DarkHunter]

Just now, Setton said:

Exactly those ones. 

So local Iraqi troops, have to emphasize these are Iraqi citizens, and a handful of Quds forces to fight ISIS are equivalent to Iran stationing hundreds to thousands of Iranian military members along with the corresponding military equipment to attack another nation to you.  

[Setton]

5 minutes ago, and then said:

Care to cite that post number, Poindexter?  

Post 88, This thread:

Quote

 I have no idea if this was a FF.  Frankly, I don't care. 

As an aside:

Poindexter: a boringly studious person. 

It says so much about your intellect that you think studious is an insult. It's also why I'm able to keep showing you to be the warmonger you are. 

You're just plain boring. 

[+and-then]

6 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

How did i miss this  

''Jewish state'' man. That ain't merely parfume with the note of secular spirit 

I am not sure that ethnocracy based on religion could fit ''democratic and secular''. But let's not go into discussion about ''the only democracy in the region'' let me ask you what is secular about the Holy Land? Let's be serious and objective for a while.

Being Jewish state is not problem, everyone has the right to self determination but the problem arises when one's self determination denies self determination for others and also undermines the historical importance of Holy Land as representative and essential place for spiritual belief of two other religions Judaization of Jerusalem is not secular process and Palestinian Christians are almost out of Holy Land with only traces of Christianity being left by most stubborn Christians who chose to stay there.

The Temple mount was captured 50 years ago and under Jewish control, Muslims seem to be the ONLY faith group that is allowed to pray there.  Go figure...

[Setton]

6 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

So local Iraqi troops, have to emphasize these are Iraqi citizens, and a handful of Quds forces to fight ISIS are equivalent to Iran stationing hundreds to thousands of Iranian military members along with the corresponding military equipment to attack another nation to you.  

Local 'Iraqi' (in name only), troops that receive all their funding from Iran, equipped by Iran, who swear loyalty to the supreme leader of Iran (not the Iraqi PM), many of whom belong to groups which far predate ISIS and have been killing western soldiers since 2003?

Yes, that would be them. 

The PMF is supposed to be something like 100,000 strong. At least half of those will jump to do Iran's bidding (or just what they guess it might be). 

Edited August 23, 2019 by Setton

[+and-then]

3 minutes ago, Setton said:

Post 88, This thread:

As an aside:

Poindexter: a boringly studious person. 

It says so much about your intellect that you think studious is an insult. It's also why I'm able to keep showing you to be the warmonger you are. 

You're just plain boring. 

I see.  Thanks for pulling that post.  I did in fact say essentially that I didn't care if if was FF.  I won't bother explaining why because it's a waste of effort with you but there is a large difference between wanting to crush the head of a regime that will someday soon threaten the whole planet and being willful in desiring the suffering of innocent Iranians.  I had a good friend many years ago who was Iranian American.  He was a great guy and a good friend.  I don't see the people there as collateral damage or hindrances nor do I consider most of them to be enemies of America.  

If you were representative of Britons maybe we should reassess that relationship.  But you don't represent Britons other than yourself and whatever circle of Prog Brits you hang with.  To a coward's way of thinking and a servile man's deliberations, "warmongering" is the word that other men call courage.  Courage to stand against threats against those they love.  But I guess you'd have to care about something beyond yourself to understand that.