About How the Iran-Syria defense pact may affect
|October 13th, 2008||#1|
| || |
How the Iran-Syria defense pact may affect info
According to my understanding that agreement provides for:
1) Iran subsidizing Syrian purchases from Russia with oil money.
2) Iran helping Syria pay of Soviet era debts to Russia in order to clear the
way for new purchases.
3) It provides for the stationing of Iranian revolutionary guards troops
and equipment in Syria in times of heighten tension with Israel
4) It provides for Syria to ratchet up support for Iran in the Arab league
and the Arab nations
5) It provides for Syria and Hezbollah to open up a second front in case war
6) It provides that Iran & Syria to coordinate their ballistic missiles,
chemical & biological weapon arsenal in case the 2 nations are
threatened with full fledged invasion or regime change.
What I want to know is if war breaks out between Israel and Syria, how will Israel react to thousands of trained, motivated, and willing IRGC troops taking part in actions against Israel alongside the Syrian army. Looking at how supposed Iranian training and leadership led to Hezbollah's unexpectedly brilliant performance in Lebanon. I believe that the presence of volunteer, well trained, and professional IRGC troops not the conscripts like the Syrian troops may level the playing field at the front for the Syrian army. IRGC troops in the front with the Syrian troops and IRGC troops taking over the air defenses of Syria can and may also help Syria perform better in a war.
What I want to discuss is the affects of an Iranian involvement in a conflict between Israel and Syria. I want to also discuss how Iran can effect the balance in such a war. I know you guys will bring up how Arab involvement in such previous wars didn't change much of the outcome, but one must remember many of those Arab nations like Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc that were providing troops to the front states such as Syria and Egypt had no experience in a war like Iran, they had ill equiped and ill motivated troops, they also had conscript force unlike the volunteer IRGC, those Arab troops also hated their governments unlike the IRGC who is willing to fight for their government to the death. Overall I believe an Iranian contribution can affect such as war more than the previous Arab contributions.
|October 13th, 2008||#2|
| || |
To be honest until Middle Eastern nations start to understand that air power is more important than armour and that quality is for the most part more important than quantity the balance of power will not change in the Middle East.
The whole of the Iranian defence forces can move to Syria and it will not change a thing until they ditch the 1970s equipment/thinking and put the time and money into training high quality soldiers in top class equipment.
We are more often treacherous through weakness than through calculation. ~Francois De La Rochefoucauld
|October 14th, 2008||#3|
| || |
Well the IRGC is a professional force and a volunteer force, they operate not in mass formations like the Basij paramilitary forces of Iran that was widely used in the Iraq-Iran war but in small independent units that can sustain to be self sufficient for long periods of times. They from my understanding don't operate with the Russian doctrine of mass formations and interdependent forces that so horribly failed Syria and Egypt. The IRGC operates similar to the way Hezbollah forces operated, their Qud force trained Hezbollah, at least that is what is purported.
The West states the necessity of a professional and volunteer military forces is paramount in today's wars, if this is true then IRGC fits that criteria, they are volunteer, professional, highly paid, motivated, well trained force. I think they can make a difference if they deploy alongside the Syrian army in a war with Israel as long as they have an adquate, portable air defense systems deployed with each independent IRGC unit that is fighting.
|October 14th, 2008||#4|
| || |
I have no doubt they are motivated, I have no doubt they are volunteer and they are probably well paid but it is about at that point I stop being charitable, T-55, 62 and 72s no longer cut it on a modern battlefield neither do MiG 23, 25, 27s or half a dozen MiG 29s.
Like most of the Middle East (Israel excluded) Syria is fighting wars with tactics and structures best suited to 1930 and to be be perfectly blunt Iran is no better.
It seems to me that the Middle Eastern armed forces are more designed to keep populations under control and than fight any type of war against a modern opponent.
|October 14th, 2008||#5|
| || |
Well from what I read up on and studied about them IRGC does not operate in mass formations and interdependent units that failed the Syrians and Egyptians horribly before, the problem with the mass formations with armor forces is that if they don't have proper aircover those heavy armor divisions can be destroyed from the air before they even have an impact on the battlefield. So the IRGC operates in small, independent, self sufficient units the same way Hezbollah did; they make use of quick movement and tageted attacks against the enemies flanks, rear, supplies and reinforcement routes. By operating in small units they reduce their signature; thus avoiding air bombardment, the small IRGC units also employ from my understanding portable SAMs for limited aircover during engagements.
I say if this is how they truely plan to operate in a war, its a tactic and a doctrine that may work well if they see action in Syria specialy when carried out by a volunteer and wel motivated force like the IRGC.
|October 16th, 2008||#6|
| || |
1) In Lebanon 2006 the IRGC already fought against Israel, infact aquite a few were killed. So, what you suggest is very possible.
2)The IRGC, as you say, will operate similar to Hezballah in 2006. This is similar to how the Syrian Commando are probably going to operate. There is no doubt that if there are a few thousand IRGC running around, it will make things more diffecult for the IDF, in the same manner thata few thousand Syrian Commando troops would.
3)All this said and done, there are still a few problems with using gurrila warfare in a conflict between Syria and Israel:
A) Israel has no intention of occupying Syria. The IDF might invade Syria and destroy its military and stratigic civilian assets, but it will not stick around in Damascus.
B) The Syrian regieme is un-stable as it is(Being a minority rulling the majority) and might colapse fast and hard if its military is not there to supress revolts. Gurrila units arnt built for counter insurgency.
C)Gurrila units can irritate and hurt the IDF but they wont stop it from completely destroying the Syrian military an regieme. Syria has power stations, damms, roads, govrenment buildings, military centers. Non of these can be saved by a gurrila effort.
D) Hezballa did not stop the IDF in Lebanon, and by all military measure it lost. I suffered a 5-1 or 8-1 casualty rate and lost most of its assets. To top that its been 2 years since and I assure you IDF has learned its lessons...
|October 16th, 2008||#7|
| || |
We do agree on the way IRGC will operate which is in small, independent, self sufficient units the same way Hezbollah did; they make use of quick movement and targeted attacks against the enemies flanks, rear, supplies and reinforcement routes.
What we disagree on is you calling that tactic guerrilla warfare, its not guerrilla warfare because they are not going to do hit and run tactic similar to the Iraq insurgency. The IRGC will operate like a professional arm not a ragtag militia; they will operate in small, self sufficient and independent units they will also employ Kornet, Milan and many other Anti-tank portable missiles which can wreck havoc on Israeli armor making Hezbollah look like punch of amateurs if IDF attempts to penetrate Syria in a ground offensive.
They will harass Israeli armor flanks, rear, supply and reinforcements making any ground invasion of Syria to costly for the IDF in terms of loss of armor and troops. It will be hard for Israel to employ their air power against the IRGC also because IRGC is not fighting in mass formations they operate small; thus, reducing their signature. Israel's key to warfare is air power not their ground units, and since Israel can't use their airpower against the IRGC, their armor units will fall victim to the hail of anti-tank missiles and such.
Also about your Hezbollah comment, if Hezbollah's total strength is 2-3 thousand, its not possible logically they could have lost 5-1 or 8-1, and most of the assets are still intact since they were hidden and they still have 15-20 thousand missiles and thousands of anti-tank missiles, most of the casualties you are calling Hezbollah casualties are the Lebanese civilians that died from Israel's fire bombing of Lebanese city centers, airports, highways, sea ports, etc. The Hezbollah ground troops themselves were not in these centers and only Lebanese civilians fell victim, the actual Hezbollah death toll is a lot lower.
Last edited by UnitedSomalia; October 16th, 2008 at 20:28..
|October 16th, 2008||#8|
| || |
|October 16th, 2008||#9|
| || |
Sherman from what I have been told by poeple who know Syrian infantry are pretty darn tough, it's every thing else that let's them down. Air, Armor, Artilery, and C2
Iran and Syria have a long way to go before they can hope to challenge Israel.
Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with minimum food or water, in austere conditions, day and night.
The only thing clean on him is his weapon.
Last edited by Topmaul; October 16th, 2008 at 21:45..
|October 16th, 2008||#10|
| || |