Iran-Syria (Algeria?) and IAF-USN snowball?

[obrescia]

Israeli engineers worked extensively with the Iranian on Project Sky Hawk in 1986. Project was to modify MIM-23B I-Hawk SAM missiles to fire from Iranian F-14A-GR Tomcats during the Iraq-Iraq war (1).

Last year Syria began taking deliveries the Mig-31E Foxhound Interceptors, reportedly with Iranian assistance. This may have been facilitated by Moscow's frustration w/NATOs proposed missile defense system in Poland. I don't see how pulling out of the anti-ballistic missile treaty with Russia, early in the current administration, and placing batteries in Poland, fits into any of this, neither do the French or the Germans?

The Israelis did indeed by all accounts; have difficulty dealing with Hezbollah rocket fire in 2006. Whether this is due to Syrian Mig-31E, Mig-29 or even Flanker disrupting IAF sorties on Hezbollah launches I can only speculate.

Iran and Syria have a joint defense pact:
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iran...Agreement.html

As uncomfortable as a nuclear armed Iran might be, won't MAD (mutually assured destruction) keep the peace as it did in the Cold War? The MAD model seems to be working regarding VX nerve gas use in the region?

Now enter Algeria. The Algerians made available their aircraft to other Arab air forces during the Arab-Israeli conflicts on the 1970. The Algerians are in the midst of a massive arms modernization/build-up including Mig-29, Mig-35 and Su-30.

If the Iranians intelligence services decide (again…the Iranians intelligence services decide) that hostilities are immanent, they simply hold an enormous air and naval exercise that turns into an attack on the USN surface fleet?

An engagement with the Iranian could certainly result in ~ ½ of our surface ships ablaze in the person gulf.

Once one ship is struck by an Exocet class weapon, the ships combat power is effectively reduced to zero (in the fire, smoke and confusion). This has a snowball effect in the sense of reducing the battle groups ability to counter in-bound anti-ship launches elsewhere. Remember this will/would be a frightening and fluid (and rapidly changing moment-to-moment) combat situation. Then another is hit...and so on, even if some in-bound missiles are destroyed.

Anit-ship missiles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_missile

Mirage F1 (Iran):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_F1

Sukhoi Su-24 (Iran):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-24

Phalanx (See combat record!!):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS

Is this whole Iranian nuclear issue may be about denying Iranian political leverage, (Palestinians?)...not its military options?

(1): Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units In Combat- Cooper, Tom; Bishop, Farzad; Osprey Publishing, 2004

[gabi765]

1.MAD doctrine was between 2 equal nuclear powers, ruled by secular governments. Iran is a fundamentalist religous state, while Israel definetly isn't. One of Iran's declared primary goals is the destruction of Israel(probably the only state in the world with such doctrine).
2. About the new weapons Algeria and Syria might have, look back at the Yom-Kippur war and how well equipted, trained and numerous the Egyptian Army was, still they did great tactical errors and they were driven back.
3. For a possible outcome of a naval battle between Iran and US we should look back in the year 1988, operation Praying Mantis, and that was a limited engagement not a full-raging conflict.

[sicsok]

I dunno the high and mighty mysteries of the crazed world of politicians. But I just read (artofwar.com) that the Kuznetzov and a few cruisers plus unnamed numbers of subs left Murmansk to be stationed in the Mediterranian, after having been invited to use Syria's ports.