the consequences of an attack on Iran

Iran has recently rejected the IAEA-backed proposal regarding it's nuclear program, with the major failure of nuclear talks (that started last October) from both sides.

Along with this Israel has been the biggest hypocrite of all time calling for the disablement of Iran's nuclear program by force "if required", whilst ignoring the fact that they themselves illegally possess nuclear weapons of their own.

A preemptive long range strike (probably primarily against the Nantanz enrichment facility) by the Israeli Air Force sadly still isn't a far cry from reality.



Which most likely will be in the former of an Operation Opera style attack primarily using Israeli F-15's and F-16's.

However regardless of how serious this attack is on the Iranian public (even if the attack is only meant to knock out a few compounds) I somehow doubt the current regime in Iran will treat it like the Syrians did on a recent Israeli air strike against them.

Iran geographically lies on in western Southeast Asia and most of it's eastern border is on the oil rich Persian Gulf, it is right in the centre of Eurasia which is as put by Dick Cheney "the fertile choke point of civilization."

If attacked for stupid and arrogant reasons by Israel, if Iran then chooses to prevail (rightfully so) this could result (very likely) in disastrous consequences.

The first response would probably be a retaliatory missile strike against Israel using Shahab 3 and Sejil 2 ballistic missiles.



These will probably be launched at neither Israeli air force bases where the attacking planes originated from or at Dimona where Israel's own nuclear weapons are stored rather than at major Israeli cities such as Tel Aviv and Haifa, however this could change regarding the circumstances of the Israeli attack.

However one has doubts that Iran will repeat recent history, such as the Scud strikes from Saddam Hussein's Iraq in 1991, which saw 32 missiles launched mainly at Tel Aviv and Haifa, two people were killed in these strikes, several were wounded and quite a lot of property was damaged, but in the end it was nothing compared to what it was built up to be.



The days following an Israeli attack (regarding what voices are speaking in Tehran) would probably see increased attacks from groups such as Hezbollah in the south of Lebanon against Israeli forces in the Shebba Farms.

Major attacks against British and American soldiers in their bases in the south of Iraq from Shia sympathizers (some 13,000,000 of them in the south of Iraq), several of whom are in underground groups just waiting for their moment to strike, this could see the American and British soldiers in the regions dying after fighting against unbelievable odds from the masses directly backed by their neighboring Iran.

And last but far from least.



If Iran feels continually threatened after a first strike and if the United States continually backs Israel after it's preemptive attack Iran will probably to the best of it's ability close off and burn the oil reserves in the Persian Gulf, along with devastating attacks that could destroy oil refineries in the Emirate countries, attacks against Saudi Arabia could be very likely if they turn a blind eye to Israeli F-16's flying through their air space to strike Iran!

Following such attacks oil at $100 a barrel would look like an unbelievable bargain!

At the end of the day western hypocrisy and one sided support for Israel will be to blame for the acts Iran will be forced to carry out to ensure it's self defence!

Chamberlain "appeasement" rhetoric is getting blunt

Neville Chamberlain Prime Minister of Britain 1937 to 1940 is known almost entirely in today's world for appeasing Adolf Hitler and letting the Nazi's have Czechoslovakia, before they went on to crush the rest of Western Europe, but what exactly was it that Chamberlain did wrong?

Is this rhetoric used by those against Obama or any other politician for that matter factual correct?



The interesting thing is that even after opting for peace before declaring war on Germany after the invasion of Poland in 1939 Chamberlain had this to say:

"We have a clear conscience, we have done all that any country could do to establish peace. The situation in which no word given by Germany's rulers could be trusted, and no people or country could feel themselves safe has become intolerable ... Now may God bless you all. May He defend the right. It is the evil things we shall be fighting against—brute force, bad faith, injustice, oppression, and persecution—and against them I am certain that the right will prevail."

After declaring war along with France the French Army dug in in the Maginot Line, Chamberlain ordered the Royal Navy to form a blockade to keep economic pressure on Germany, Chamberlain was reluctant to alter the British economy fearing that the emergency war budget would bankrupt the country.

When Germany attacked the Low Countries Chamberlain was soon replaced by Winston Churchill, he then stated they needed to stand united behind their new leader and fight the Nazi war machine, however one has to wonder if the Lend Lease given to Britain by the United States was too much, for ever cent worth of aid given by the United States was surely paid for, the equivalent of $500 billion in today's money was what the UK paid for it's war effort to eventually help to defeat the Nazi's (with help from several other major Allied powers), this hefty bill was only sorted out between Britain and the US in 2006!

Of course no cost is too great to be the pivotal defence against fascist expansion but in comparison to the geopolitical climate of today's wars there is truly no comparison to calling a British or American politician an appeaser like Chamberlain:



An interesting (if not so recent event) was George HW. Bush being called a wimp, before Saudi Arabia was directly bordered by (wasn't threatened by) Saddam Hussein's army after he invaded Kuwait in 1990, the Persian Gulf War that followed saw the entire country being disseminated by aerial bombardment, even though there was no proven plans that the Iraqi Army (who had dug in around Kuwait City) had planned to preemptively attack Saudi Arabia yet alone invade it!

So when the same is being said that the west should preemptively attack Iran before things "get out of hand" people have to ask themselves the question of whether or not a nuclear Iran merely justifies a major war fought 7,000 miles overseas!

is the whole world going mad?

NY Times

Yesterday in Fort Hood in Texas a United States army soldier opened fire and killed 13 of his fellow troops and wounded a further 30 more before being killed himself, several rumours have come about a handful suggesting that he had argued with military colleagues who supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and had tried to prevent his own deployment.

This follows more deaths of soldiers in the Afghan theater, no clear purpose of the war shown or a reason for deploying a further 80,000 American troops, whose enemy is clearly not the Taliban, but the general Afghan public!



Not only is the United States economy deep down in the dumps at the moment but Obama is sending more young men and women to die in Afghanistan, the graveyard of historical empires going back merely as far as the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 following their eight year bloody conflict with the Taliban of its day the Mujahideen.

And above all this Obama gets the Nobel Peace Prize, I don't know how anyone thought he was the most deserving but maybe that is just me.



Protests in Iran continue, Basij thugs beating the shit out of young Green Protesters doesn't seem to be even news worthy anymore along with that of Israeli threats to preemptively attack Iran which could spark a war that could kill hundreds of thousands if not millions seems to be the norm these days.

A new Cold War between India and China is growing but that isn't nearly as terrifying as the idea of Tony Blair being President of Europe without a referendum!



While not a believer of a singular European state it wouldn't surprise me if in a mere decade we will have a United States of Europe, but hopefully one with a president elected by the people he/she will be representing and one with blood free hands!

the 'Tomcat' ever used to its full potential?

The F-14 Tomcat was correctly dubbed the MiG killer in it's time, it was big and could host six large long range supersonic AIM-54 missiles that would kill any nimble MiG before it could even get close to any US position, built to defend aircraft carriers in the high seas the F-14 armed with the AIM-54 could hit airborne targets dead on 100 miles away, targets including fighter jets, supersonic bombers and even cruise missiles!

However this system was expensive, and apart from selling 79 F-14's and 285 AIM-54 Phoenix missiles to the Shah's Iran, following the revolution of 1979 it was rumored throughout the west that these missile systems were disabled by the Americans before they left, neither way it was an extremely expensive loss for the United States military.



The US Navy however throughout the 1980's made no use of the deadly system, the AIM-54 wasn't mass produced at all, as it had been during the late 1970's, instead during both incidents above the Gulf of Sidra against Libyan MiG's and Sukhoi's Navy Tomcats used short range AIM-7's and AIM-9's, which meant close quarter dogfights which misses the whole point in the missiles role in the long range defense for naval aircraft carriers.



However during the 1980's the Iranians did manage to press at least 55 of their F-14's into the newly founded Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force, only around six AIM-54's had been disabled by the Americans, the Iranians put the Phoenix missile into increased use throughout the first five years of the war against Iraq, in one instance in 1982 downing two Iraqi MiG-23's with just one AIM-54!



However the Iranian Tomcats had a problem with their faulty TF30 engines, although this didn't stop the IRIAF F-14's scoring over 100 air to air victories against Saddam's air force.

The US Navy in 2006 had the Tomcat fleet destroyed, the deadly AIM-54 system never got it's chance to prove its worth in the west.

Related Reading:

Persian Cats

Dez Iddon: Just in case

Book: Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat

was Iran better off under the Shah?

The electoral protests in Iran this summer showed Iran wasn't a backward country like the media led many Americans and Europeans to believe, this year also marks 30 years of Iran as an Islamic Republic, however during a summer focused closely on Iran a lot has been stated of Iran being better in the 1970's at one point promoting the Shah's son of all people!



But was Iran really better in the 1970's?

The second half of the 1970's saw the United States coming out of the Vietnam War and further militarize Iran, the Shah Reza Pahlavi was in power for a long time, after having all political opposition eliminated in a CIA and MI6 backed coup in 1953, the Shah was technically therefore a dictator over his people.

That being said the Shah's time as a dictator didn't mean his people weren't exactly that badly off, life in the big cities did see opportunity for the younger generation and through this Iran was becoming modernized and westernized very rapidly throughout the 1970's.



But the Shah had in turn alienated political and religious groups throughout the country, while he claimed that his women had shorter skirts than those in Paris, he was in turn attempting to sweep his real problems under the rug.

In the late 70's Carter had stated that Iran was a powerful and stable ally in one of the more troubled parts of the world his words reflecting how the Shah had secured Iran for America's use as a large buffer against the spread of communism.

While Khomeini was forced into exile (later to Paris) the Shah had his armed forces breakup his protests with his army (the fifth largest in the world at the time) at one stage slaughtering 100 people, this wasn't something that was to have been forgotten, but the people had a name to rally behind, Khomeini was representing everything those repressed wanted giving them a will that was near impossible to break.



The Shah had lived apart from his people, he was kept in power by a vicious security force, however Khomeini had bought the people behind him, after the Shah had fled leaving the army in command Khomeini returned promising the people freedom to religion and a republic, the revolution had then taken full swing, in Tehran police stations and military outposts were attacked, guerrillas gaining a large amount of arms, with the military in disorder and tatters former Shah generals and army officers were purged shortly after surrendering.



It took merely over ten days, after they were refused the return of the Shah (to trial and execute for treason) Islamic students who seized the US embassy were given the go ahead to continue with it leading to the 444 day hostage crisis with the United States, this showed the US to be literally powerless as proven by the ill fated Operation Eagle Claw, it destroyed any hope Jimmy Carter had of winning a second term as president.

However the Iranians did release the hostages in the first hour of Ronald Reagans presidency showing just for some time they were eager to once again open up relations with the United States like any other country.

However this was not to be!
Instead the US tried to break the will that rallied the Iranian people together to free themselves (sound familiar) by brutal economic sanctions bullying anyone that attempted to trade with Iran and now trying that on the ultimate scale.

The Iranian revolution had put to power a new government that represented the majority, even though some still say that tying religion and politics into government isn't a good idea, post revolution Iran (like Cuba) had increased literacy rates, a better health care system and the lowest ever infant mortality rates, calling Iran liberal under the Shah would be false, he was a brutal dictator behind the lines and did truly repress his people and their spirit.

The revolution was massively popular for mainly that reason.

Iran and the Taliban at war

The Taliban are of a different sect of Islam to the Iranians, having the Taliban a true force to be reckoned with bordering Iran was a serious threat, since 1996 on they controlled 95% of Afghanistan!

Following the Civil War in 1992 in which the mujahideen defeated the powerful Afghan government installed before the Soviets left in 1988 saw Afghanistan permanently torn to pieces by war, a real wild west.

Only two years after taking control over most of Afghanistan the Taliban launched a daring terrorist attack against the town of Mazari Sharif where Iranian diplomats were present, Taliban forces laid siege to the town cornering the diplomats in the basement of a building and murdering all of them, it was a horrible attack and one that saw Iran place it's forces on the border with Afghanistan.



Obviously the direct murder of diplomats was a direct attack on Iran.

And it was also obvious that throwing Iranian military men and machines into Afghanistan to fight the Taliban would have been a hopeless struggle, however there was a considerable buildup of Iranian troops and tanks on their border with Afghanistan, it was obvious they had to respond with considerable force to properly avenge the preemptive attack.



The Northern Alliance Iran's ally were huddled up in the Panjshir Valley, they used 19th century cavalry tactics in war, however they did have a handful of Mil Mi-35 Hind helicopter gunships with access to spares from their other ally the Russian Federation, they could have caused damage but would have thrown Iran into an un-winnable war, it seemed the best thing to do was to wait out the aftermath of the murder of their diplomats.

On September 10th 2001, al Qaeda put a clever sting operation in which the leader of the Northern Alliance Massoud was killed in a suicide bombing, Vladamir Putin suspected they were up to something and informed President Bush of his concerns.

The next day saw the 9/11 attacks and followed up starting on October 7th a month long bombing of Afghanistan, the US air campaign consisted of bombing caves, there was no real targets, Iran saw an opportunity and so did the US, bombing the Northern Alliance a route to Kabul they managed to liberate the city of Taliban forces, it was a rare incident of US and Iranian governments working together militarily.

However one has to wonder what would have happened if Iran with barely any allies would have had to take on the Taliban in a large scale border war or even a war which could have seen Iranian forces committed to fighting deep into Afghanistan!

if the USSR had directly invaded the Islamic Republic of Iran

Relations with Iran and the US since Ayatollah Khomeini stepped off of his plane in Tehran in 1979 showed Iran breaking all rules of diplomacy especially after it seized American hostages in the US embassy in Tehran.

Before the seizure of hostages however one man named Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Iran's current president) opposed the idea stating that it would boost the influence of the Soviets and that the real threat to them was not the Americans but Russia and the Marxists.



Saddam Hussein's Iraq was an alley of the Soviets and when over 70,000 Iraqi troops along with several divisions of tanks crossed the border into the oil fields of southern Iran the Soviets didn't condemn or oppose it and the UN Security Council called for a ceasefire but made no demand for Iraqi forces to withdraw from Iran, yes it failed to condemn a country that invaded another!

Right to the north of Iran was the Soviet border, the Shah's Iran had been America's most powerful ally, for it's strategic location and it's borders, and during the 1970's the Shah was buying up a lot of modern military equipment from the United States such as the 80 ordered (and 79 delivered) F-14A Tomcats which designed and built to defend US aircraft carriers from long distances, along with that ordered were over 300 F-16's but none were delivered, along with that already present were several different SAM networks and some very mobile but highly advanced army units would delay Soviet ground movements towards the south of the country to give the Americans time to defend Iran.



In 1980 that had all changed, the US Navy helicopters failed to reach Tehran to rescue the American hostages in the ill-failed Operation Eagle Claw and the Soviets ally Iraq had begun an invasion, after acquiring information on US estimates that doubted the present Iranian military were probably unable to properly operate it's tanks, SAM networks and fighter jets.

They were in one sense right but the Iranian military quickly rebuilt itself and had sent Iraq on the defensive in 1982 and resulted in a further six years of Iran on the offensive in a bloody war that would cost 1,000,000 lives on both sides!

Apart from that fact both the United States and the Soviet Union supported Iraq, the Soviets keeping open usual business with Saddam's government supplying them mainly with tanks and fighter aircraft as usual, while the US supplied Iraq (remember an ally of the Soviet Union) with thousands of assault rifles, and a handful of UH-1 Huey's for the Iraqi army after 1982 defending their vital oil interests in the Persian Gulf and Saudi Arabia.

However if the Soviet Union had invaded Iran in lets say the mid 1980's it would have been met with little opposition from the UN until they had crushed the Iranian regime and its accompanying military, it would have put them in a position with a massive eastern border to oil rich waters of the Persian Gulf and right in short striking distance of Saudi Arabia and the other smaller countries of the pro Western Emirates.

It would also have opened up the large strategic land that is Iran for use by the Soviet Army and Air Force as a base in their war against the rebels in Afghanistan which would further isolate Pakistan.



However a war with Iran with Iraq as an ally would have forced the Soviet Union into deeper economic turmoil as Khomeini had truly united the country together under religious ties, as proved by the amount of volunteers that fought off and demoralized the invading Iraqi forces.

However it would have been worth it in one sense in the long term considering that it would have given the Soviets a massive platform for military forces to influence and dictate how things work in the Persian Gulf, along with it's ally Iraq very evenly splitting both superpowers control over the oil rich region, and would have enabled the Soviets to close off America's oil shipping through the Strait of Hormuz which could have crippled several western economies, it was here where US Navy warships had to protect their tanker convoys during the 'Tanker War' phase of the Iran Iraq War.



It's an interesting scenario and one which I'm sure was considered by the Soviets and feared by the Americans.

the military encirclement of Russia.

= pro Western, American troop bases and new members of NATO.

= Iran and Russia.


A whole year has pasted since Georgian forces indiscriminately attacked Russian citizens in South Ossetia leading to a large rapid Russian response which saw men and tanks enter the field in a fairly conventional war, after a short enough exchange Russian forces pulled back after giving the Georgians a sound beating, however this was met by a lot of hypocrisy by the Americans at the time, and later saw an increase of US military presence in several ex USSR countries, many of which are joining NATO an organization that is spreading its influence into the Caucasus.

Imagine a scenario where Georgia (under the same leadership) as a NATO state did exactly what it did last August, that could have resulted in a much larger conflict that could have sparked World War III!

Now I know things aren't as bad as they were in the Cold War but that one spark could have ignited one hell of a fire!

The west shouldn't be spreading their influence militarily in that part of the world anyway!

Iran for example is completely surrounded by American forces on both sides of its border, if a war sparks between Iran and the US it will be very bloody, remember Iran is no broken backed country and a preemptive attack and invasion on a country Russia considers to be an ally would have major consequences, best case scenario would be they would simply close off ties with Europe and the United States and instead open up a better front with China.



Even though nuclear talks are underway Russia (rightfully so) would be more trigger happy on the nuclear button since former allies have joined NATO and its neighboring countries are allowing the United States military to set up bases there which shows a gesture of aggression on behalf of the Americans and Europeans.

Last years sneak attack on South Ossetia was directly perpetrated by Georgia, whether or not this attack was allowed or encouraged by the US I don't know but the present Georgian government did arise from a coup in 2004, something the Iranian government claimed to have been a victim of in this summers election protests.

The Russian reaction in that war did show that they are ready and their military is practical, over 4,000 modern T-72 and T-80 tanks in their inventory and several armored vehicles and an air force large enough to defend the sheer size and depth of it's air space.



Western presence in Eastern Europe is acceptable but acting as the aggressors and threatening to launch preemptive wars far from home is just plain wrong, the presence of Western military men and machines in the Caucasus right under Russia's nose is just unacceptable!

possible sources for new Iranian fighter jets

With continued Israeli threats to attack Iran's nuclear program Iran has a right to defend its skies against attackers, not many people are aware of how dangerous an attack as threatened would be.

For instance the attack on the Bushehr nuclear reactor would immediately kill thousands living in the surrounding areas and poison those as far away as the Qatar and the United Arab Emirates!

With Iran threatening to do the same to Israel this is indeed a dangerous game, Iran can counter Israeli aggression but does it have sufficient air power to defend against a massive Israeli strike.

Unfortunately not, the F-14A is still the top gun of the Iranian Air Force and the 25 or so still in service don't have AIM-54 missiles that made them such a deadly force in the 1980's, other aircraft they have worth mentioning would be handful of MiG-29's bought from Russia in 1983 and several ex Iraqi Air Force jets that crossed over during Operation Desert Storm, some of these (most notable examples being the a handful of Mirage F-1's and some Su-25's) are still in service today.

Venezuela offered to sell their fleet of 21 F-16's after the US introduced an arms embargo, only 12 remain in service today in the Venezuelan air force and the US strictly does not allow Venezuela to sell the fleet to a third country without written consent!


source

Since when did they have command over Venezuela?
They should be allowed do what they want, its for defence and Iranian engineers would surely be able to develop new parts for them like they did in the case for their F-14's and F-4's, hell they were even able to build a fighter from scratch based on components from the F-14 and F-5!

Next onto a country that doesn't have arms and economic sanctions against Iran.



That would be North Korea, Iran have already acquired a hand full of missiles off North Korea but I somehow doubt they will acquire many planes, most of the North Korean air force are older MiG's (Fishbeds, Floggers etc.) most of which probably don't even work, the best North Korea have are a rumoured 35 to 40 MiG-29 Fulcrums (see picture above) which are used to defend Pyongyang airspace.

I somehow doubt they will want to sell any of them to Iran or anyone else for that matter.

They could turn to someone else who isn't an ally or a friend, or anything really for that matter.

Russia.



Iranian citizens crying death to Russia recently didn't seem to strain relations, rumours of Russia delivering S-300 air defence batteries to Iran aren't yet verified, but if that is true that mean Iran could bolster one hell of an air defence against enemy aircraft.

The Jerusalem Post reported that Iran has signed an arms deal with the Russian Rosoboronexport arms group to buy 250 Su-30 MKM warplanes and 20 Il-78 MKI aerial tankers.
It was dismissed as propaganda, but still if it had been true it would have well evened the tide, it would have been over three times as big as the amount of F-14's delivered during the 1970's, but not just that, they would be able to import parts if they ever had to fight a long war, and spread out across the many tactical air bases presently existing in Iran would be the perfect defence for Iran's skies, (the old Khatami Air Base the ex hub for the F-14's built in the desert outside of Isfahan comes into mind as a great base of operations for this new fleet).

Anyway, back from Nevernever land the only hope of something like this happening in the near future will be long after the Russian president Dmitry Medvedev realizes nuclear talks will take little action on the other side and a militerization of Georgia might lead him to back Iran with just such enormous aerial defence logistics.

But for the moment Iran will just have to rely on what they have at the moment!

Iranian Revolution justified?

The below video shows a wonderful insight into the Iran of the early to mid 1970's before the (what it calls) the unintelligible revolution in 1979 that saw the founding of the Islamic Republic of Iran.



But was the revolution (unlike the video suggests) justified for the people of Iran, the country was becoming rapidly industrialized and the division between city and country was becoming debt as the Shah became more friendly with America.

He was also buying up in hi tech arms from the United States (the F-14 Tomcat one of if not the best fighter jet in the 1970's), whom were using Iran for oil and strategic purposes, this clip from The Grumman Challenge a documentary about the sale of 80 F-14 Tomcats shows exactly what the Americans were doing.



But the rapid industrialization did very little for the average Iranian, first of all the country wasn't a democracy and the Shah was a dictator since America helped him eliminate any Prime Minister elected by the people in a coup carried out by the CIA and MI6 in 1953!

And this rapid industrialization by the United States (paid with the rapid flow of Iran's oil of course) of Iran did little only divide city and country, only a small amount of people were enjoying the wealth was one of the many causes that slowly led to the revolution.

The celebration of the 2,500th anniversary of the founding of the Persian Empire at Persepolis in 1971 was organized by the Shah's regime, was attacked for its extravagance.

"As the foreigners reveled on drink forbidden by Islam, Iranians were not only excluded from the festivities, some were starving."

Tens of thousands of foreign workers were doing the work Iranians weren't allowed as private companies reaped the profits.



As the revolution begun several factors saw it expand until Ayatollah Khomeini returned, the Muharram protests saw up to 6 to 9 million anti Shah demonstrators march across Iran, this was probably largest protest event in history and a higher number of people than any other revolution in history.

That just tell you how this was the majority of the people getting what they wanted, after seizing American hostages in the US embassy and holding them for over 444 days the US weren't able to even rescue them, the failed Operation 'Eagle Claw' showed they couldn't even find a US friendly haven anywhere in Iran in which to launch their operation from, the RH-53D Sea Stallion choppers had to launch directly from the USS Nimitz and crashed before they could even reach Tehran!

The hostages weren't harmed showing that their takers weren't murderous savages and Iran was ruled by an Islamic government in which the people (the majority )wanted it to be.

However before leaving for the United States for cancer treatment and before the revolution exploded the Shah had ordered and paid for 160 US F-16 Fighting Falcons and other weapons , none of these had arrived and the deal which had cost millions had cost the Iranian people for nothing!

An Iran Saudi Arabian conflict

Saudi Arabia doesn't have an overly big army, it came under attack once in the 20th century from Iraq in 1991 at the opening of Operation Desert Storm when several conventional Scud missiles were launched at major cities including the capital Riyadh, while these resulted in only minor deaths the Saudis didn't have to exactly fight to defend themselves, since the vast amounts of oil in Saudi Arabia (and the fact Kuwait needed to be liberated) meant the US and Britain backed them to no ends to which they would do today.



That means they still buy up hi technology (mostly air power) and have even recently ordered 72 Eurofighter Typhoon F-2s, (simply enormous aerial defence logistics), but think about this, the last time Iran was buying high technology from the US was during the Shah's time in which he had paid for 150 F-16's which were canceled and transferred to Israel and Pakistan after the revolution.

Ayatollah Khomeini had proclaimed Saudi Arabia as well as Israel at certain points of time making Saudi Arabia a potential enemy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iran at the time was arranging its military forces executing many generals and 'Shah pilots' when Iraq attacked, several countries armed Iraq in its bloody eight year war against Iran.

Unlike the Saudi's limited (and heavily publicized) victories in Operation Desert Storm the IRIAF (Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force) got barely any recognition of its achievements, 300 engagements were fought alone over Khark Island with Iranian F-14 Tomcats and F-4 Phantom II's against Iraqi Dassault Mirage F-1's (bought from France) and several older MiG's, a ratio of 5 to 1 against Iran at the start of the war!



With no spare parts to keep the F-14 airframes intact several were cannibalized and only in the Iran Contra Affair in 1985 were spare parts for their AIM-54 Phoenix missiles acquired, because of these sanctions the Iranian Air Force was slowly being starved out of existence.



But early in the war they had proven their worth in Operation Kaman 99 and in other small instances (such as the Sultan Strike), it was in 1987 a week after the US (for the second time since 1984) stated that the Iranian Air Force was completely dead, that two F-14's using an F-4 as bait lured a strike package of Iraqi Su-22's heading for Khark Island led by two Mirage F-1's hit the lead Mirage from nearly 50 miles away with an AIM-54 head on killing their flight leader and recorded the other pilots scream in Arabic "F-14! Run! Run!" before doing just that!

You might be wondering where I'm going with this, well where I'm going with this is that Iran under heavy sanctions from the west (and only air defence and MiG-29's bought from the east) would inflict serious damage on Saudi Arabia which are backed by continue to buy the latest military hardware straight from Europe and America.

Iran pretty much relies on itself and has made hundreds of conventional ballistic missiles, air to air missiles for their F-14's and F-4's and have even managed to make several aircraft like the F-5 called the Saeqeh.

Through sheer determination they managed to defeat overwhelming odds they managed to become nearly completely self sufficient in their military (while Israel and Saudi Arabia rely completely on the United States and Europe) and you can be guaranteed if Saudi Arabia and Iran ended up fighting a war (probably air to air ship to ship across the Persian Gulf) Iran would stand it's own and again prove that self determination and courage will win them any war regardless of the odds against them!