Snip:

The Leader of the Islamic Revolution has responded to repeated US military threats against Iran, saying that the weapons that can sink the American carriers are “more dangerous” than the warships.

“The American president [Donald Trump] repeatedly says that their military is the strongest in the world. The strongest military in the world, however, can sometimes be struck so hard that it cannot even get back on its feet,” Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said on Tuesday while addressing thousands of people from East Azarbaijan Province.

“They keep saying, ‘We have sent an aircraft carrier toward Iran.’ Fine—an aircraft carrier is certainly a dangerous piece of equipment. But more dangerous than the carrier is the weapon capable of sending it to the bottom of the sea,” he added.

Trump’s remarks that Washington has been unable to eliminate the Islamic Republic for the past 47 years is “quite an admission,” Ayatollah Khamenei said.

  • JoeByeThen [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    8 days ago

    ngl, it would be pretty hilarious if the US’s Navy fleet just kinda disappeared over night. Like with enough planning, I don’t doubt that it would be possible. I did some time in the USN many years ago, when I was much younger and slightly dumber, and I shit you not there was a fire on my ship AT LEAST every other day. These ships are not well maintained, all that MIC money isn’t going to the crew or equipment maintenance. In many ways the military itself is run like a business, which means your infrastructure divisions are worried about balancing budgets and cutting costs as much as any private company.

    Plus, back when 911 happened it always struck me how little came afterwards. My friends and I were expecting the weeks following to be filled with car bombs and attacks of the power infrastructure. Crickets. We’re wholly unprepared for an enemy that would be willing to take the fight to us.

  • Johnny_Arson [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    8 days ago

    Remember when they ran that wargame and Iran sunk a fuckload of Navy ships using small inflatable craft, so the US rewrote the wargame to ensure a NATO victory?

    Cuz I sure do lol.

      • MarmiteLover123 [comrade/them, any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        Key point:

        Since the war game allowed for a ship-to-shore landing of ground troops at some unknown point during the 14 day exercise, and because their naval force was substantial, the Blue force was positioned on the shore-side of the region’s active shipping lanes to keep them from impacting commerce during the exercise. This placed them near the Red shore rather than at a “standoff” distance.

        The region being the Persian Gulf. So the US had their aircraft carrier and ships basically on the Iranian coastline. This is not representative of the current situation, the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier is about 700km from Iranian shores currently, and the the US is not going to attempt an amphibious landing. Iran is not going to launch a speedboat assault over 700km of open ocean. Iranian options are limited to long range anti ship cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. Long range kill chains are difficult.

        If you look at it another way, the US learnt that you can’t just sail through the Persian Gulf unopposed at the beginning of a conflict, due to the capabilities of Iranian short range anti ship missile swarms, and their speedboats, through this exercise. Though that is a massive waste of money and time to reveal the obvious. Hence restarting the exercise to ensure US victory under scripted conditions, so it doesn’t appear to be a huge waste of money and time. The whole concept of such an exercise was inherently flawed based on incorrect assumptions of both US and Iranian military capabilities. A better exercise would have the US start further away and inch closer under air cover after airstrikes have already commenced, to test US left of launch defeat capabilities and if it’s possible to sail a ship through the Persian Gulf or launch an amphibious assault if you hunt down the missile launchers and speedboats first. Or if such is always impossible without heavy losses given latent Iranian capabilities that survive initial airstrikes.

  • larrikin99 [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    Sweetie, it’s called revolutionary optimism, don’t point out that Iran didn’t manage to shoot down any manned aircraft in June, or that the houthis didn’t sink a single coalition ship. We should instead look to the greatest revolutionaries, the boxer rebellion, who knew that those of pure heart are immune to bullets.