Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Radio War Nerd EP #142 — Iran War Scenarios (Patreon)

Published:
2018-07-27 15:31:21
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:

Downloads

Content

Recorded July 24, 2018

Trump and the DC War Party recently rolled out their big blustery marketing campaign for an Iran War. Are they bluffing, or are they just clinically insane?—the eternal question about Washington "experts"... In this episode, the War Nerd considers different war scenarios, and takes a rare look (for RWN) at how the two nations' hardware affects their strategies. It's a complete disaster, on top of being a crime, but when has that ever stopped DC fools?

At 1:40:00 the Nerd and Ames read and answer some RWN subscriber comments and notes . . .

* Map: Strait of Hormuz 

Total time: 2:07:32

Direct link to this episode's mp3 here 

Files

Comments

Paul Vd

Russia can't be the only balancer in the world. This is on China. Russia wanted to be unified with China on Syria and Iran but China chickened out. Putin is smart not to stand in the way of the US and Iran. China deserves to see all of its investments in Iran go up in smoke. Just like Libya.

Henry

Baltic States are easy to remember: they're in alphabetical order North to South.

Gengeros

Preparing my bunker for the end times.

Animals in Motion

It's 31 degrees Celsius here in Sweden as well! We've had plenty of fires too. I know you guys are joking about this being Putin and Russia, but the crazies here HAVE been saying that Russia wanted good weather for the football (fuck off with calling it soccer) world cup and messed with the weather!

Jed Hovey

The only Ezra Pound I ever read was "Hugh Selwyn Mauberley," which I have to admit I liked quite a bit. I did take some undergraduate courses in poetry, but Pound was someone they kind of glossed over. II had this professor who taught poetry and had grown up in the South during the twilight days of segregation. He spent most of his adult life carrying around guilt for it. I still remember his description of Pound, because by the early 00s the first thing out of any student's mouth was "Wasn't he a fascist?" He said something along the lines of "Pound is like the Alps. You can love him or hate him, but he's still there and you can't ignore him." He may have been responsible in some small way for my interest in Faulkner, who I know you don't like, but whom I'll defend straight to the death as one of the best authors of the 20th century. To take all those avant-garde trends in European literature and apply them to poor rural people. Maybe it's something you have to grow up in small towns to really appreciate. I had a British lit professor I couldn't stand talk about him too. I ended up dropping his class. You could drop a class almost halfway through the semester a total of 6 times during your entire undergraduate career. I came up with this policy of taking too many credits then dropping the class it looked like the worst grade was coming in to boost my GPA. It worked very well. That British professor was one of them. I was almost done with undergrad by that point, and my foolish and ridiculous dreams of getting an MFA somewhere were still alive. Maybe I didn't even believe it was possible back then. What I mostly wanted was to get out of becoming an engineer like my dad, which was what I'd been sent to college to do. What a fool I was. I should have at least have got a second major in something that would look good on a resume.

Declan

I'm a bit behind on the podcasts so apologies if this has already been discussed, but has anyone seen Jane Ferguson's work from Yemen? She makes an interesting point that the blockade doesn't overtly stop food getting in, it just wrecks the economy so no-one can afford it. <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/behnd-the-lines-in-yemen/10007334" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/behnd-the-lines-in-yemen/10007334</a>

Captain Lincoln F. Sternn

As a longtime supporter who always enjoys the Podcast, this is the first episode that covers ground that I have significant personal experience with and the result is utterly heartbreaking. As a US Naval Officer with multiple Gulf tours - I don't even know where to start, other than to say 'No. It doesn't work that way'. It didn't in 1988, it didn't in 1991, it didn't in 2003, and it doesn't work that way in 2018. Is asymmetric warfare a legitimate threat? It sure is. Mines are a real threat in the Gulf (USS Roberts, USS Princeton USS Tripoli). Sitting at anchor in Gulf ports is a real threat (USS Cole). Anti Ship Missiles are a real threat (USS Stark), especially if you allow attack aircraft to fly within 25nm of your ship. They can be a legitimate threat even when you don't (USS Mason). The Gulf is cramped and shallow. All true. But your concept that the US Navy is somehow victimized by its own size and technology (?) and that a 2002 training exercise (??) is a strong predictor of future events in 2018 (???) and that the natural result would be for the USA to 'go nuclear’ because it simply could not compete with the crafty Iranian military (!?!?!?). Jesus. What happened to my War Nerd?

Keith Grennan

I know that global finance is not the focus of this show but I'm curious about Mark's comments about Saudi oil money as a kind of lubricant for the global financial machine. Can anyone point me to more reading material on this topic? Thanks! I & E.

ukhc

Hi Keith, recommended viewing includes the Adam Curtis documentary Bitter Lake (youtube and other places). It's long but worth it. Admittedly, finance is one part of many things covered, but that's what Curtis does: weaves different threads together (usually in a way that horrifies!)

Charles Bolin

A question I have is does the Iranian Navy train on the Caspian Sea - far from the heavily surveilled Persian Gulf?

grey

LOL You don't have to be apologetic about not liking the caliphate podcast. Everyone seems to be terrified at causing offense these days.

Avery

Mark Twain was clearly the J. K. Rowling of his day

grey

If the scenario outlined by mark and gary is true where so many vessels are sunk so quickly and so many personnel are dead in a matter of couple of days, i very well could see the US panicking and overreacting and using nukes. For me the main lesson of millenium challenge isnt so much about how 100% accurate it is but how arrogant the Navy brass is about potential enemy tactics and strategy.

Captain Lincoln F. Sternn

Where, exactly, does the 'panicked Navy brass' drop this nuke? Tehran? Some uninhabited island in the Gulf? Perhaps the 'brass' thinks those massive desalinization plants (both on ships and ashore) filter out both radiation and salt from the precious water pulled from the Gulf? As importantly, do the 10,000+ American service members at the massive Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar get to munch popcorn and watch the 'Navy brass' fight those sneaky Iranian drones with..... a giant mushroom cloud? This fanciful silliness was entertaining when Gary breathlessly delivered his stemwinder on the imminent demise of the 5th Fleet. It would be a mistake to take any of this too seriously. The Gulf is a dangerous place, but don't be too surprised if the future looks similar to the past when all is said and done. Lots of interesting points of view on the shifting balance of power in the Gulf region. We covered some of the goofier ones on this go-round. Hopefully, they will blend in some voices with more experience on both sides of the issue. I think Gary would admit that Naval warfare has never really captured his detailed curiosity in the way the history and theatrical violence of land warfare has. When he is mesmerized by a topic, it really shows in his thinking and writing. The reverse is also true, of course.

Factory Troll

“Perhaps the 'brass' thinks those massive desalinization plants (both on ships and ashore) filter out both radiation and salt from the precious water pulled from the Gulf?" Perhaps, because that’s what desalination plants do – until they get blasted by Iranian missiles, of course. Besides, these Carl Sagan sadomasochistic fantasies about radiation fallout going everywhere, rendering huge areas like the Persian Gulf toxic and uninhabitable, belong in their entirety to the realm of fiction. The worst thing that could happen is that some percentage of returning soldiers dies from leukemia and inspires a Rambo remake. The tactical uselessness of nukes has been obvious for anyone who has eyes to see since the very first post-war nuke test. It is, and always has been, a weapon for angry goons who are looking for scenic explosions and/or lots of dead civilians, people like say Nixon, MacArthur or Trump.

Matthew C

I would love to hear you guys do a take down of sam harris' podcast. I hear a lot of people complain about ir but few have the foreign policy or middle eastern historical understanding to actually say why his ideas about islam are so asinine

Captain Lincoln F. Sternn

I think many of Gary's points are more thoughtfully presented in this piece, which is worth the quick read. Key take away: Bluewater fleets aren't naturally at home on inland seas. <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/25/is-the-u-s-navy-a-sitting-duck-yemen-houthis-china/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/25/is-the-u-s-navy-a-sitting-duck-yemen-houthis-china/</a> All of this is why American forces (Navy, Army, Air Force) in the Gulf are controlled by a regional unified combatant command (USCENTCOM) to blend their strengths. The challenge is broader than a simple naval question, and it should be no surprise that the solution is as well. Asymmetric warfare typically offers a high probability of a 'Bad Day' and a lower probability of a 'Bad Month'. Which is why the United States is so happy that the Iranian air force is still flying F-4s, regardless of what happens on the shallow waters of the Gulf. Time is on the side of the guy with sustainable air superiority, and there isn't much doubt as to how this looks after 60 days of open hostilities. Those tankers will sail through the Strait of Hormuz and the oil will flow, which is what this is all about anyway.

JoR

Not to discredit your experience, but your experiences against Iraq would be very different from a hypothetical conflict with Iran, no? Even if they're analysis on the naval aspect is bunk, and they US successfully lands enough troops (and even occupies the country successfully) I don't see how the rest of their argument is incorrect. How would the occupation of Iran be at all successful? If our country couldn't handle the losses in Iraq, how would we cope with an Iran insurgency when they've basically been preparing for one for almost 40 years. Like they also said though, this war will probably never happen, too many disruptions to the oil economy, too many consequences

4non06

Great episode guys, you always have great guests but sometimes It's really enjoyable to a hear Mark and Gary/John conversation. You are both great interviewers but it really comes across that you two intimately know each other and it really feels like your sitting in on a casual conversation between close friends. Any plans on having Yasha back on? I'd love to hear you three talk about Russia scare, fascists in Ukraine and hear Yasha's takes again on the private 'cyber' security stuff like EFF, TOR etc. He seems to be the only one exposing the private/state partnerships on this stuff. As a self loathing war nerd myself I feel like there are a couple things that I could add to your great discussion. You mentioned that Iran has experience in Iraq fighting a successful counterinsurgency campaign against daesh. Not a surprise as Iran seems to understand something that the US has decided to ignore about having a friendly local population to support. Something to consider is that Iran's version of the green berets, the Quds force has got a lot of practical experience in Iraq supporting a very successful insurgency against the United States. Training their allies in the construction and deployment of explosively formed penetrators and IED ambushes. The Quds force could probably give Hezbollah a run for their money in conducting insurgency campaigns and they would be one the same side in conflict against the US. And now to nerd out about hardware a bit (not as important as Quds and Hezbollah but whatever it's fun) It is doctrine that to protect USN ships against anti ship missiles that multiple (2-3 at least) anti air missiles are launched per enemy missile, Meaning of course you run out faster. last line of defense for USN against anti ship missiles is the Phalanx CloseInWeaponSystem <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS</a> If you look at this part of the article "Gun and ammunition handling system" you see that they all basically have 30 seconds of ammo before having to reload. Reloading 1k+ of 20mm rounds does not happen quickly when compared to the speed that an antiship missle can travel over the horizon and hit its target. This system is truly a last resort system, the physics are abit like trying to change the trajectory of a 25lb medicine ball by hitting it with a lot of explosive tennis balls. Newton is not on your side. The harpoon may have been the pinnacle of USN anti ship missile arsenal but it pales in comparison to what the Soviets developed. The USSR knew that in any naval conflict they would have to face numerically far superior NATO force that would start was within a few days striking distance from their bases in Europe and the UK. The Soviet equivalent of the NATO nightmare of hordes of tanks rolling west through the fulda gap took the form of an unchallengeable NATO surface fleet escorting an invasion force into the Baltic or northern Arctic To this end Soviet doctrine focused on swarms of supersonic, long range (well over the horizon 300+km) ASMs launched from heavy bomber aircraft on multiple bearings to the enemy naval group. A brief comparison, the AGM-84 harpoon introduced in 1977 has a paltry top speed of 537mph, thats not even breaking the sound barrier and a pathetic range of 124 km and an approximately 500 lb warhead. The P-270 Moskit introduced in 1978 has a roughly similar warhead at 600 lb. However is travels at Mach 3 or 2,280 mph and has a range of 250km. choice Wikipedia quotes about the p-270 "missiles reduce the maximum theoretical response time for the defending ship to 25 to 30 seconds" And "The missile can perform intensive anti-defense maneuvers with overloads in excess of 10g, which completed for 9 km before the target" In other words the odds of defeating even one when you throw as much as you possibly can at it is not good. The P-270 has variants that can be launched from aircraft, Russia's newer and larger land based ASMs are even scarier, they do cool stuff like talk to each other in swarms and can coordinate simultaneously reaching their target with disparate missile groups across satellite links. Iran's home grown missiles are scary enough but if there was to be a shooting war in the Persian Gulf between Iran and the USN I have no doubt that Russia would be drooling at the prospect to supply Iran for many reasons. They have already supplied Syria with the their newest p-800 ASMs along with their top of the line anti air systems. It's a point you bring up frequently but it bares repeating. In the game of war nerd hardware comparisons cheap electronics reign supreme. The United States cannot hope to project force without substantial risk of material and human loss against an adversary defending their territory current Russian or Chinese export armaments. There is a massive cost disparity in developing and deploying these systems compared to trying to successfully defeat them and military procurement in NATO has not been up to that task in the better part of 3 decades. As much as the beltway military industrial complex loves to wank off fantasizing about near-peer conflict against Russia or China the cold hard truth is that it's not winnable without tolerating Perl Harbor level loss of life and embarrassing defeats. I have more thoughts on this but thats probably enough for now.

Jack Firman

One perk of living in the Czech Republic. Three separate public holidays celebrating independence.

Griffin Mahon

The bit about the war game simulation where missiles took out all the US ships made me think of when I was on a cruiser. There was a firing exercise, testing out the missile defense stuff. One of the CIWSes wasn't working for some reason and none of the chaff canisters opened up in the air, they just plopped into the ocean. I looked around at the officers and they didn't look too concerned, even as I was asking myself "Uh... what if there was an actual missile coming?!"

Ellen Harold

I liked Pound’s “Spirit of Romance” back in the day. I’m sure he “knew” old Provençal, Old French, Italian, Spanish and French. I studied Old Provençal myself, for a semester. Enough to read poetry. Nobody speaks OP or Classical Latin or Ancient Greek. Or Classical Chinese for that matter. Pound loved this poetry, but he hated his stuffy, Victorian professors. Of course he was a nut case. Plus ca change.

grey

Can those 10,000 troops swim across the gulf? Air insertion? good luck. If 20k Serviceman are killed and that many ships are lost, you can bet your ass the "tactically useless" nukes will be considered. The other option is a massive invasion of Iran. We have seen the US before prefer to nuke a country twice rather than slug out an invasion with the prospect of heavy casualties. I myself don't believe that it is very likely the US will have that many losses that quickly but its best to prepare for the worst and hope for the best. If the US is going to invade Iran then a worst case scenario has to be considered and then a decision has to be made whether its worth it.

Captain Lincoln F. Sternn

No, Grey - those 10,000 troops won't be traveling very far, which is the whole point. Al Udeid is an Air Force Base; those 10,000 troops would be busy refueling fighter / bombers and reloading them with fresh bombs. 24 hours a day. 7 days a week. For as long as they wish.

grey

ill take your word for it but i dont think the US has the will to win a big war vs Iran. At most you'll get a focused and limited bombing campaign. There isn't going to be a giant fleet sent into the straits. I think if the US thought they could easily win, they would have done it a while ago. The truth is, the US has a glass jaw when it comes to casualties. Kill a couple thousand and you got protests and plummeting party popularity

Adrian Johansson

The Swedish air force could launch all our strike aircraft in radio silence. It was practiced all the time. On the ground hand signals was used and in the air predetermined rendevous points

Adrian Johansson

Its easier to make a stealth ship than a stealth aircraft because you can easilly disipate heat and you can hide in the wave clutter.

Jan Meyer

Has military procurement to NATO ever really been up to the task? I am not sneering, I am seriously asking. I have the impression that there are the occasional flashes of brilliance and happy accidents but that, in general, military considerations take a backseat to the fact that military spending is a good way to secure jobs in the military industrial complex (and that goes the UK, france and Germany as much as for the US).

Jan Meyer

Then you'd be a hero. ;)

Jan Meyer

The problem with the idea of air superiority winning the war is the different levels of war, i.e. the tactical, political and moral level. Bombing for ever and ever looks good on the tactical level (though the returns are dimishing fast and a few hand held SAMs can do bad things to low flying aircrafts) but it does little on the political level. Iranian assets all the way to Europe and the US, but mostly in the Middle East, can work whether Iran gets bombed or not but the US bombing for weeks on end is also likely to cost them political credit: war is bad for (most) business and the US will be viewed more and more as a reckless adventurer the longer it goes. But worst is the moral level: bombing somebody who doesn't defend themselves... that might actually be something that gets you a breakdown on the US domestic policy level. It is hard to justify a war for pure destruction on the current US self image (ever the benevolent imperialist) which means sooner or later boots on the ground are a necessity to stiffle domestic unease in the US... which will, ironically, only cement the unease.

Captain Lincoln F. Sternn

Agree. I think the expectation is that the United States will be the odds-on favorite to win the ‘tactical war’ and (long term) lose the ‘political war’ and ‘moral war’ in almost any conflict. Very little demonstrated improvement (or even awareness) in this over the years, sadly.

Captain Lincoln F. Sternn

Agree. Anyone who knows what 'wave clutter' is has a sense of just how unnerving bridge watch on a moonless night can be. Or the feeling you get in your stomach when you realize that cluster of small offshore oil platforms on you radar is masking a patrol boat. There are few simple & clear answers at sea.

Borvis

This is a great episode (among many greats!). While you mentioned potential reprisals in the United States, you didn't mention the Quds Force specifically by name. Do you have any thoughts on their effectiveness within the United States? Maybe this falls into your comments that "sleeper agents" and their locations or effectiveness is too difficult to gauge.

mark

Hi guys. I really appreciate you answering my comment for the previous episode regarding Idlib. Although I still believe you’re missing some important points. • The rhetoric from the Syrian officials is that idlib is next and the Syrians have become increasingly confident of their army. This is more prominent in Arabic language media. • The Turks have failed to keep their part of the non-aggression agreement in idlib brokered by the Russians. hts gangs are constantly raiding and shelling towns in lattakia and Aleppo city. They lately managed to infiltrate and overwhelm a forward base for the Syrian army in the northern mountains of Lattakia. Lattakia is the bastion of the Assad family lest we forget. • The Kurdish forces have declared they might assist the Syrian army in a future attack on idlib • The Russians probably won’t put up with the constant drone attacks on their air force base coming out of idlib and proving that the Turks are not able to control the enclave. • The Syrian army has already carved out a slice of idlib a few months ago in order to connect some supply roads, showing that they are capable of liberating areas when the political decision is made. • You want to strike while the iron is hot. The different jihadi groups in idlib have been trying to form a united front since the deraa campaign began. It’s been a failure so far although they’ve managed to maintain a ceasefire amongst themselves for a good while now. I reckon the Syrian army doesn’t want to give them too much time to organise themselves. • The besieged Kfarya and foua villages have been cleared of citizens leaving hts with no leverage and not much to threaten with. Granted the Turkish military outposts in the area are a major hurdle and Recep has proved to be unreliable time and again when it comes to agreements. But there could be some secret arrangement brokered with the Russians that will bring back idlib to the Syrian government’s side without any Turkish /Syrian confrontation. I’m just speculating but looking at Putin’s involvement in Syria he’s been quite the maestro when playing the different sides in the conflict. Notice that Turkey and Syria have not clashed in any serious manner although they’ve been extremely close to doing so on multiple occasions. I also think Putin’s long term plan in Syria is building a strong regional ally from where he can spread his influence. Considering how much he has invested in this war. From the look of things, after deraa they will probably comb the isis pocket in the Syrian desert and after that’s done I’d keep an eye out on northern lattakia and jisr al shoghour (the uygur enclave) to be exact. News is those are the next targets that will develop into a full idlib offensive.

Avery

I would say most people who have studied Classical Chinese become able to read it better than Pound did within the first six months of their study. He was making up stuff to appear erudite, exactly like John said

michiganpizza

thank you for the great assessment. cheap and effective missile and guidance technologies have already changed the game, as you pointed out. also, (second) nuclear strike capabilities are now accessible to physically small countries through submarines. much better batteries make (nuclear) missile capable subs more accessible. hypersonic weapons and drones (both in air and water) just increases the degrees of freedom available to commanders. i seriously hope delusional us policy types face and adjust to modern reality.

Payen

This is the stuff of my nightmares. trying to grow the balls to give this a listen

4non06

Jan Meyer, I would say that the military procurement that produced the F-16, F-15, A-10 and some of the other weapon systems during late cold war (1960 - 90 ish)were up to task. There was actual multiple competitive designs that addressed realistic needs. Compared to today with f35 and Zumwalt destroyer those procurements were a bargin and actually resulted in platforms that could be fielded in large numbers.

mt

Hi in general I think you should have a sort philosophical discussion with The Saker because whereas you guys are very calm about nuclear war in North Korea, Iran etc., he is a bit more alarmist. It would be really interesting to hear you hash out your difference in approach.

Martin Knutsen

Late subscriber: I was wondering about the thesis about cheap surface to air capacity: Why hasnt this knocked down more israeli aircrafts in Syria?

Martin Knutsen

Also, wouldnt Trumps answer to all this be to nuke certain sites in a Shock and Awe first strike? I remember van Riper and the Milennium, and as far as I can remember the only answer to it was irridating the battlefield *in advance*. The Mad Dog strategy. Then it comes down to irraditaion science, how much a massive small nuke first attack will also turn allies into wastelands. As if Trump would care. Do you not think John Bolton/Steven Miller are actually armageddonfreaks?

Martin Knutsen

Oh, and you should do a special about Herat, with Hekmatyar and all that. His crowd are not Taleban originally.

radiowarnerd

Honest answer is I don't know enough to say. Parallelling the advances in SAMs are those in stand-off ground attack missiles. IDF, like most first-tier AFs, uses a lot of those, which means you don't have to come within range. There's also choosing to use a drone rather than a manned fighter, which Israel has been doing effectively for a long time. Some of them are using these missiles. AIR, I was focusing on Iran's surface-to-surface missiles, but if we were talking about conventional ground combat, it might be necessary to use CAS manned planes, and there probably would be planes knocked down. This is all changing very fast, and it's hard to know where the advantage lies. SS missiles are a different matter. They're easy to launch and very difficult to bring down.

radiowarnerd

They might be, but you'd have to get JCOS consent, and those people are a lot saner than Trump's guys, real Peaceniks compared to most of the GOP. The taboo on nukes runs pretty deep. One of these years we'll probably find out how deep, but I don't think they'll cross it right now.

Martin Knutsen

Oh, absolutely agree with you in ground theory, even a concerted strike on the nuclear facilities by anything less than the whole western airfleet at once would be a fucking suicidemission. Carpetbombing with the ole B52s in a surprise wave might work, but the follow up would be... what? But Bolton and Miller.. brrrr. All hail Mattis.

Martin Knutsen

Its an interesting hardware story, especially now as the SR 300 is reportedly entering the Syrian battlescape.