Monday, December 31, 2012

Velayat-91 Iran Navy and Marine exercise (4)

By Mark Pyruz

Nasr AShM fired from Parvin class coastal patrol craft

Nasr AShM scores hit against target vessel

IRINS Jamaran (76) Moudge class frigate

IRINS Larak (512) Hengam class landing ship
with Agusta AS-61 A-4 (Sikorsky SH-3D) Sea King transport helicopter

Yunes class diesel-electric submarine at sea

OTO Melara 76mm Super Rapid gun fired from possibly IRINS Naghdi (82)

Ghadir midget submarine at sea

Photos: IRINN
Iran TV stills by M-ATF @IMF


Anonymous said...

It is interesting that Iran has mastered the miniturization of missiles and even armed a 70's vintage Parvin class coastal patrol craft with NASR AShM that can pack a lethal punch even against a modern naval fighting vessel. The Hovercraft are armed with similar systems and I believe that the NASR is also helicopter launched. A few years ago IRIN tested it from a MI-17sh. I believe Iran missile power is unmatched in the Persian Gulf and the region. The frigate fleet is also growing rapidly. It is good to see the navy being modernized, it is about time.

Iran should also be seriously negotiating with Russia on IRIAF replacements, probably SU-30 or 34. India just signed a 4 bilion deal as it and China are very pleased with the performance of SU-30 and MIG-29 naval variants. Russians are a bit vary of China because of instant copying problem and naming them J-11, but now are more favorable to Iran considering the synergy of views on Syria and the region. The recent visit of a Russian destroyer to Bandar Abbas is a welcome development.

Anonymous said... --- Naval drills --- C-704 missile produced by Iran found onboard the Victoria. --- Zafar Anti-Ship missile. --- Iran test-fires Qader AShM. --- Qader again. --- Khalije Fars ballistic missile. (notice the pin point accuracy, rare for this type of missile)

Anonymous said...

the OTO Melara gun can fire a specialised round that can take out anti-ship missiles.

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:12 PM

Forget it,Iran is not going to receive any type of modern fighter planes as long as the regime with its attitude is in power.
China and India are both countries that have no hostile policies towards other countries throughout the region.Something that can't be said of Iran and its hostile policies towards Israel and the West in general.
It's this self destructive policy that has plagued Iran in the past 34 years and causing it to slowly slip into the abyss.
You can call me anything you like but end of the day that's the truth and it stinks.

mat said...

"The Navy of the Islamic Republic of Iran has equipped all of its surface and sub-surface units with these systems (electronic warfare systems).” Senior Iranian commander Rear Admiral Amir Rastegari said on Monday.

Rastegari added that the maneuvers involved conducting operations to detect enemy signals, including communication systems and radar signals, analyzing and processing them and tracking down the emission source of the signals.

Anonymous said...

I see that Iran's mighty Navy has chased the American Navy out of the PERSIAN Gulf!

Well Done my friends!

The world will soon see our full powers!

Anonymous said...

To Anon 11:29,

Iran holds hostile policies towards the west by arming its proxies against them ? true.

Israel has waged ALL the most devastating wars of aggression against its neighbors since 1982, killing 1500+ people in the 2 most recent wars it conducted, first in 2006 against Lebanon, and then against Gaza in 2009. I don't even count the second bombing campaign that killed a couple hundred people, and every time civilians bore the biggest burden. + Israel is blatantly breaking every UN resolution by continuing aggressively its settlement policies in the occupied territories and still gets state of the art weaponry with it.

Russia attacked and partly invaded Georgia, and installed two bases into annexed territories after that, peaceful attitude according to you ?

These are also stinking truths...

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:32 AM

Yeah,they are stinking truths.But you must realize that in Iran's case under the Islamic regime they have left no room for movement.In end of the day Israel is a reality that the West and in particular the US excepts and protects.Nothing can be done about that and in so far as us making it our business as regards the Palestinians,I would say it should be left as an Arab affair.Iran is paying a high price because of a minority clique in power in our country.Iran can't afford to worsen an already dire situation in our country because of some so called religious agenda of the regime.
You can't compare Iran to Russia! Russia is still a powerful country and did invade Georgia but Georgia is not Israel because the West feels guilty towards what happened to the Jews during WW2 and feel they owe them.
As long Iran with the regime in power with its hostile policies towards Israel and the USA the country will remain under siege and economic sanctions.
So you pointing a finger at me and accusing me and saying "peaceful attitude according to you?" wont change the reality of the situation which is Iran is cornered and in economic trouble,with mass unemployment and a bankrupt currency.
I didn't cause those problems for Iran but the present regime did.So don't try to put down the person that tells you the reality but question the people in actual power why they lead us up the garden path all these years with their propaganda and lies.

Anonymous said...

the power of willful self-deceit is your greatest.

Anonymous said...

How come Israel keep the war in Syria going? I thought Iran would destroy Israel very soon, but they let Israel defeat Mr Assad. We must stand against Israel they are hurting us.

Anonymous said...

Iran has the power to blow up a couple of hundred civilians who aren't expecting it, friend, not the power to actually attack and destroy much more than that.

The people who are driving the Assad dictatorship from power most certainly aren't Israelis, my well-informed friend.

Anonymous said...

Your argument has one big fallacy! So-called Isreal is a western creation in Palestine and the Brits created this entity after the Balfour declaration, and then the US used this mostly eastern European populated outpost as an extension into the Arab/Muslim world for strategic and OIL PLUNDER.

US and UK hostility to Iran's independence began in 1950's after Dr.Mossedgh's (popularly elected democratic government) nationalization of Iranian OIL assets from BP and American concerns. Any nationalistic government in Iran would have faced the same animosity from the plundering "west". It is about hegemony and loot of natural resources, specially now as west faces decline as the east rises. The Zionists occupying Palestine are fully supported by US puppet Arab states in the Persian Gulf and the big daddy of petro-pimps Saudi-Arabia. The side-show in Syria is a part of the OIL & US/Zionist hegemony quest.

In any case, I agree with the premise that the Arab issues including Palestine are none of Iran's concerns. The Akhoond that were created by Shah Ismail and the Safavid's pushed these black turbans into power by making Shiaism the Iranian state religion and brought many of the Shia clerics in from Iraq (Nejaf and Kerbala) and Lebanon. Only a democratic and nationalistic government can advance Iran into the modern world.

Anonymous said...

You are right about Israel but wrong about Russia. The truth is that Georgia attacked and partly invaded two nations that want to be free of Georgia. It attacked Russian troops and other Russian citizens in the process. Russia had no choice but to respond to that act of aggression and defend its citizens, as well as the independence of two, other nations.

Anonymous said...

1- I agree about Russia, you are right they didn't draw first blood, i was intending to show that other powers in the region aren't as peaceful as i thought you were trying to portray them, when pushed to the limit of their geopolitical integrity and associated interests.

2 - You are also right about a minority holding the keys to Iran's current policies, including the one towards Palestinians. That Iran today is a mullah-dominated entity run by the former mafia-style in all opacity and total lack of accountability is secret to none. And I actually despise the selective ways they tend to support only the most fanatical fringe of Palestinian factions on every occasion(such as the Islamic Jihad or Hamas) rather than promoting more progressive elements like the PA or the PLFP. But your post suggested that Iran brought all its current problems on itself by being a hostile state surrounded by peaceful ones in a virtual geopolitical vacuum devoid of any hegemonic agendas outside of its own, and here i disagree. Western powers, and in particular the US take Iranian extremism and its indefensible stances as opportunities to slow the country's progress at any cost, and with that any chance the country might have of developing its indigenous capacity to progress on industrial fields. Now the mullahs are guilty of favoring military advancement on top of everything else and maintaining a state of decay in other fields like petrochemicals, but that is an internal Iranian issue, separate from the Sanctions that have been plaguing the country in an ever-increasing fashion since the Revolution, way before the nuclear issue became top news. I bet you they will find something else after and if the enrichment issue is ever resolved, if Iran doesn't give way to a more docile posture in the region globally. I support the above post that their hostility dates back to the 1953 coup when it became clear that a free, democratic, independent AND prosperous Iran is a combination they would simply never accept outside of any sphere of influence. Either it's a stooge of their policies and submit to their bidding unconditionally, open itself up as a huge market for foreign products and doesn't develop a capacity to produce on its own, or it gets taken down with the greatest possible amount of pressure at a given time through the available levers (i.e. nowadays it is economic strangle, short of being able to afford a full-blown war). So yes i agree with you that the Palestinian issue should be left to whoever is actually fighting that fight on the ground (and the same should be told to Israel's most fervent supporters whom openly take part on one side of the conflict, just as Iran does), but no, the Iranian govt is not the sole, exclusive responsible of its current situation and the burden its people has to carry (even though it certainly holds a lot of responsibility in the dire economic situation on a larger scale) the same way it wasn't the case when it became the target of an international arms embargo in a war it didn't start, while witnessing helplessly its opposing aggressor get all the support it could hope and get, and pound its cities with chemical-tipped, german-supplied warheads on Soviet-supplied missiles thanks to Americano-Saudi-funneled funds, we all know these sad and stinky stories as well, no need for an history lesson. And here again, yes, Khomeini's extremism and madness also played its part of provoking terribly high human and material losses by dragging its feet to end the conflict, but it doesn't change the way the world behaved against the country when attacked.

3- Western support of Israel has never been, is not and will never be an affair of guilt whatsoever, it is a very long story involving major lobbies and influence on a gigantic scale and spectrum, and arms, commercial & construction contracts. Nothing more, nothing less.

4-Come on dude, i didn't point fingers at you, nor did i call you names...

Anonymous said...

And fortunately, Israel cannot do much more to Iran, short of a nuclear-armed action. So these two countries will not go to war with each other anytime soon.

Anonymous said...

Very well-put synopsis of the Iranian and regional situation. Intelligent debate is the very reason for posting on this blog. The west is only interested in puppets not friends in the region that satisfy their short-term economic agenda and geo-strategic goals in the "great game". The fact is that an independent Iran i not in their interest and they want to maintain a isolated, insular looking and backward Iran dominated by the mullah curse.

In reality Iran and perhaps Turkey (both non-Arab, non-semitic)Eurasian and mostly Caucasian nations are the only large Asia-Minor nations that have potential to be great powers and are also heirs to great civilization, unlike the "petty fueding barabaric bedouin Arabs" as the British spymaster Colonel T.E. Lawrence put it, as he set the Arabs upon the Ottoman Turks. The situation in Syria and the region is very similar to the same great game and this time the NATO/US and Zionists are using the Turks and fundamentalist Salafi idiots to promote anarchy.

It is not very difficult to conclude that the corrupt Mullahs, whose only aim is to stay in power suit the west as they impede Iran from achieving its true potential. The mullahs deliberate effort to erase Persian history and nationalism and replace it with an alien Arab failed desert cult is part of their tactic to keep Iranians spiritually and intellectually enfeebled. In reality it was the Persians who gave the world the FIRST MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION under Zoroastrianism.

The Arabs since the days of Mohammed have been conspiring and killing each other over petty disputes and rivalries over sectariansim, icluding the mass slaughter of Mohammed's own family from Ali down to Hosein. No wonder these ignorant savages who are beheading people in the 21st century and are putty in the manipulative west's hands.

Iran needs to stay clear of Arabs fratricides and let the Jews and the Arabs sort out their own mess. I also believe that the Turks under the moronic egomaniac Erdogan are in for a disaster again as they get sucked into the Arab vortex. I guess the Turks have not learnt much from history either, since the Brits destroyed their corrupt Ottoman Empire at the hands of bedouins.

Anonymous said...

I didn't say Israel wasn't a creation of the West! I said the West thinks it owes the Jews because of their guilt in what happened in WW2.I know the history of Middle East.

OK then,you are implying there was full democracy under the monarchic system under Mohammad Reza Pahlavi?
So Dr Mossadegh was elected into power when the young Shah was the monarch of the country before 1953.Don't forget Mohammad Reza Pahlavi became constitutional monarch after Reza Shah abdicated in 1941.

But bare in mind that Mossadegh was chosen by the young Shah and then approved by Parliament.So there was no democratic elections per say Western style by the people.This is a constant repeated fallacy when mentioning 1953 and the Shah.As if the Shah was parachuted down after 1953 and made into a monarch by the West.These old arguments belong to the knackers yard because these are used by the mullahs to justify their present rule.

My verdict on both the Young Shah and Mossadegh is that they are both to blame for what happened and I refuse to discuss this further because this is a road that leads to nowhere and used by certain people to grind the opponents of the theocracy down with a lot of false propaganda.(I wasn't referring to you).

As for your explanation of the dark turban wearing mullahs brought into power by the Saffavids. I one hundred percent agree with you on this.

It's interesting at least we have some things in common as regards Saudi Arabia and other Persian gulf states.

One more thing,I noticed you mentioned Zoroastrianism. Are you interested in this highly original religion and do you think it has a chance in the future of our country as a main religion?

And last but not least.Do you want regime change by the people of Iran? What I mean by that is regime change with the removal of the mullahs from political power as well as secularization of civil laws in Iran with equal rights for women as well as the removal or recognition of the Muslim or Shiite faith as a state religion?

Anonymous said...

and let us be happy that they will not. Israel could, but will not finish off Iran, but Iran could no very little to Israel....all that will result is a lot of death and suffering and no great result.

Anonymous said...

We have consensus of views on many of the issues you listed. I have traveled widely in Iran, particularly in rural areas and Islam is quite entrenched in the Superstition based population and an entrenched culture of pilgrimage to shrines and holy men etc. Even the Shah and Farah Diba did this occassionaly to appease the clergy and financially supporting the Ayatollahs in Qom, even SAVAK had its own favorite mullahs, so I think erasing Islamic influences in Iran overnight or even in the long run may not be possible. As far as regime change, it can only come from within and with an emerging civil society despite suppression, there are rumblings everywhere against the mullahs corruption and mismanagement of the economy, but with overt US and western interference an externally imposed or instigated regime change or support for opposition will backfire. Iranians are educated and proud people and don't like foreigners manipulating them (past experience with Brits, Russians and then American is not very pleasant) and resent foreign interference, so a change has to come from within.

Khamenei has accumulated a lot of power over the years and has no obvious successor so the theocracy is fragile and they have only kept public resentment in check by harsh repression. However, idiotic US policies as sanctions and trying to economically choke-off Iran, largely dictated by the Zionist lobby, only plays into the hands of the mullahs as they paint a picture of Iran under threat. Iranians are nationalistic people and as we saw in the Iran-Iraq war, they tend to rally around the flag when attacked by foreigners. US policy towards Iran is self-defeating. The sanctions will only strengthen the mullahs hand and also suit their isolationist views.

As far as Zorastrianism making a comeback in Iran is concerned, I think it is perhaps not possible as over 1400 years of Shiasm (unique Iranian adaptation of Islam) is too well entrenched. The progressive and democratic forces can pnly hope to dilute it and push Iran towards a more tolerant and secular path and that may happen over time if the country is left to its own devices. Religion is a personal choice and simply cannot be enforced or pushed down peoples throats, and the mullahs with their harsh edicts and dress codes are only alienating more people. Iranian population is stabilizing and even ageing as the birth rate is low, so the rural support base of the regime is weakening as urban educated face a slow economy and lack of opportunities despite the nation's great wealth. Inflation alone is causing huge problems, not to mention the rampant corruption and isolation from global commercial system. So the next few year are going to be interesting and hopefully a peaceful transition can take place, considering the destructive US imposed "Arab Spring" which frightens most Iranians as they daily watch the carnage from Egypt, Iraq to Syria. No sane person would want such destruction and violence in Iran and the situation in the region and US destructive policies also help the mullahs retain power.

Anonymous said...

i really don't understand why one could possibly consider shared responsibilities on en equal footing between the shah and Mossadegh, the former being the main beneficiary of the CIA-backed Operation Ajax, and the latter being the one overthrown. No matter his degree of involvement in the hands of the monarchist regime he was factually part of. And i don't subscribe to any messianic perception of his person either contrary to a lot of nostalgic people, in case you're wondering, since he was certainly not an outsider, being an integral part of the system in place at the time, i agree. But what was interesting with him was that he was actually the first iranian leader falling short of having been appointed by blood, but rather by a free and democratic process, no matter the angle you're looking at. The elections were indeed conceded as a cosmetic measure by the regime to appease the people at a time of a tense political context and fear of unrest, while unexpectedly yielding favorable results despite widespread allegations of fraud, so something definitely had to be done about this rising star of a potentially new era, and his critical idea of rightfully nationalizing oil & its revenue for the country soon sealed his political fate for good. You cannot decently be more forgiving to western meddling than the former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright who acknowledged key American intervention and support for the coup that followed and officially apologized to the Iranian people for that back in the days. The very same way you are absolutely right by denouncing the Islamic regime's systematic disqualification of criticism by waiving the "threat of the Big Satan infiltrator/subversive propagandist", you cannot keep you current stance of constant dismissal of any idea that Iran's overall situation has actually a lot to do with both historic and contemporary western pressure and interference in its affairs, directly or indirectly, on top of the regime's mismanagement and rampant corruption.

Anonymous said...

Have you read the 1906 Iranian constitution? In that constitution it says that the king has the right to ask for the dismissal of a prime minister.In that constitution it also mentions that the prime minister has not got the right to order the closure of parliament.Now that is very important because Mossadegh ordered the closure of parliament which is against the constitution.
Mossadegh also wanted to be the head of the armed forces but the Shah rejected this because again in the 1906 constitution it clearly says that the king is the head of the armed forces not the prime minister.So that was the second constitutional law that the prime minister of the Shah broke.
It was the Iranian armed forces and security units as well as many concerned citizens with the recent Soviet invasion of northern Iran in mind that they had to act.I ask you,could the prime minister of England or Japan go against their monarch like Dr Mossadegh had done? And one more thing,the secret services of the West take too much credit to inflate their over bloated egos and consider a Eastern nation like Iran incapable of taking matters into their own hands.Madeleine Albright once said she didn't know she was of Jewish background! Until she looked deep into her family history which dated back only 50 years during WW2. This women lied that she didn't know she was Jewish. So she will lie to satisfy a regimes ego and score brownie points for the liberal left political establishment of the USA which just so happens helped and encouraged the communist/Islamist cause in Iran. This very liberal/left political movement in the USA is still encouraging and supporting the regime elements by inviting their members to the USA as members of the green movement of Mousavi.They are given all the air time on VOA and BBC to broadcast their lies back to Iran.So by that very act the BBC and VOA have a proven record of interference in Iran.Just like they did when they helped Khomeini to broadcast his lies to Iran in 1978/79.
This regime in Iran is simply there because it benefits the West,Russia,China and the regional countries and guarantees Iranian nationalists from emerging to make Iran an industrial military and regional super power.Don't forget that after the collapse of the Soviet Union Azarbaijan (Baku republic) and other northern Iranian bordered states would have fallen into the Iranian sphere of influence if it wasn't for the creation of the Islamic "republic" by the Western powers.
And now these swines are talking about the breakup of Iran itself into a thousand pieces with the encouragement of some stupid members of the Islamic regime when they call a Azari a stupid donkey or when an earthquake happens in the country the regime lets those people freeze to death while they give the money to the Palestinians and Hezbollah.

Anonymous said...

The very liberal leftist supporting the Green Mouvement ? you gotta be kidding me... the very reason why this mouvement of pseudo-reformists never got any real support at home and didn't manage to become a grassroots movement within the country's borders, but rather quasi-exclusively successful among the many diasporas artifically inflating it in a frenetic fashion , was precisely that there wasn't a single line in their official program regarding social issues whatsoever... instead, Karoubi and particularly Mousavi and his million-strong youth from the wealthy northern regions of Tehran fed us non-stop with slogans of freedom, liberties, democracy through tweets, facebook pages and SMS without even touching the the concept of Supreme Leader, or any notion that the Islamic Regime must be overthrown altogether (and sometimes even actively forbidding it and openly declaring they SUPPORTED IT, all of a sudden)... while most of the iranian people didn't even have access to that kind of media... and only wanted something to fill their empty stomach for starters, before having any other kind of considerations... these people rightfully viewed those nice western virtues as totally secondary, if not hypocritical... I for one won't blame them for that even if i would love the concepts of liberty be something else than a distant dream far, far away from our history... but when it comes to survival, you only look for the essential, and you certainly don't have any other luxury in mind such as a fight for moral emancipation, even if this is of course at the core of any complete, civilized society at the apex of its establishment, but in Iran we are generations away from that...

The vast majority of the radical left want a revolution in Iran, plain and simple, like it or hate it, that's just the way it is since they became the privileged target of Islamic repression along with their former foes the monarchists, and of course what is now the MKO, specially after the Iran Iraq war and the great purges started. There are indeed elements within leftist ranks who supported the Green Movement on the basis that it can potentially be a legitimate way of putting pressure on the governing class as some sort of way of initializing something more radical, but they do certainly not constitute a very representative proportion of liberal-driven parties or individuals...

Anonymous said...

Classical overestimation of Israeli capabilities and underestimation of Iranian retaliatory abilities. By saying that, you disregard both Israeli and US intelligence reports repeatedly stating that the air force's limited projection capability (devoid of direct American support) would mean no more than 80 attack planes could take part in a strike against Iranian facilities, and would probably suffer 30 to 40% losses due to a severely limited margin of maneuver with very little fuel in a hostile airspace both defended by several air squadron and doubled with multiple layers of air defenses, including notable modern, Russian supplied TOR-M1s for sensitive sites that can target both aircraft and PGMs, and newly disclosed Buk-M2 copies (and other upgraded legacy systems such as modernized HAWK batteries and FM-80s, but i personally don't give them too much credibility as of now, while they will also contribute to additional attrition of the Israeli attacking force). Plus, Iranian ballistic missiles do pose an actual and recognized threat to Israeli military and civilian infrastructure. I advice you to read Uzi Rubin's comments on a determined, all-out Iranian retaliatory strike against Israeli sites. He is the former head of the IDF's ABM defense program, so i think it is safe to assume that he knows what he is talking about better than any of us here, when he openly states that he fears both the Shahab-3s and the Sejil-2s fired in salvos in the event of a total war with Iran. Leon Panetta himself recently signed a declassified Pentagon report to congress stating the increasing effectiveness of Iran's growing ballistic arsenal. I say again, the only scenario in which Israelis would indeed be capable of finishing off Iran (if not wiping it out of the surface of the earth) would be through the use of its nukes, which will never happen since they need top-level American approval for that too. And i agree, this will lead to a lot of death and suffering and no great result. There is no other possible outcome in case their cold war goes hot, so i'm really happy some sort of equilibrium prevents both sides from taking action against each other. Israeli's top cabinet is divided 50/50 on the decision of a strike, and a go-ahead for an operation by Netanyahu in 2010 got cancelled at the last minute. All that point out to the fact that the IDF knows better than to take on a foe too big for its available forces to swallow. If they could do it, they would have done it for now, being able to attack Iran would offer them a lot of strategic and moral relief considering their current geopolitical situation, not doing so is not by wisdom or restraint, is by lack of actual capability, otherwise they would have done it Osirak style or like in 2007 when they did not hesitate to flatten a Syrian site.

Anonymous said...

Come on, they barely have enough planes to take on every Iranian nuclear sites... one of the hotted debates within the Israeli top brass was about choosing which site to attack in priority in a single strike with their limited options, since it has long be deemed impossible to attack all the sites at once, and a second strike was out of the question since the air corridors would be watched closely afterwards. Taking on Bushehr and Qom alone would mean near maximum attrition already... if by "finishing off Iran" you mean the Israeli air force destroying a large part of the country like the US did to Iraq during its "shock and awe" campaign, you're simply totally delusional, and fortunately so... I wouldn't imagine an instant Israel having conventional abilities to do that. At most their officials say they could do enough damage to 2-3 specific sites in Iran to delay the nuclear program by a year or two. And that's it, that's the maximum damage they can do to the country (which would provoke lots of suffering through the massive radioactive fallout it would incur even beyond Iranian borders, so thank God it probably won't happen). They would have performed such an aggression thousand times already if they could pull it off, since they are not renowned to restrict the use of force around them when they can hammer a neighbor, are they... and now all of a sudden they would sit by and let go Iran because they are kind and don't want to hurt while they could do it, huh ? Very doubtful to me.

Anonymous said...

Gentlemen, take it from someone who knows a thing or two about airforces and flying, the Zionists are full of hot air and usual bluster. They simply do not have the capability or reach to attack Iran with at most 60 aircraft that they have and are mission capable at the end of their endurance.

Their US donated F-16I do not have the range (without extensive aerial refuelling)to attack over 100 Iranian nuclear sites (most are deep underground and with heavy air defences)and make it back alive. Let's remember that Iran is over 1.64 million sq kilometers and not a tiny country. If they could have they would have. So let's put this 34 year old speculation for rest.

Anonymous said...

They don't have the logistical capacity to strike even 10 in a single operation, let alone a hundred... they state it themselves, at most their most optimistic estimate is that they "could" be capable of inflicting a 1-2 year delay to the Iranian nuclear program by striking 2-3 different sites , within grasp of their F-16I Sufas' ferry range (albeit with significant potential losses, which is the core issue explaining their decade-long hesitation to accompany the walk with the talk), and that's it, end of story, we don't even need to argue here, this is their own official stance, short of the nuclear strike option, of course. It has simply never been about punishing Iran or reducing half its country to rubble, Beirut style... some people should definitely stop equating Israel's position towards Iran and Lebanon/Palestine/Syria in the event of a military conflict, since obviously each and every single of these countries/people have a totally different military balance and internal wartime mechanisms towards the IDF (or any other foe for that matter). In our specific case, that means we cannot just discount every Iranian capability in both defensive and offensive option just like that and assume a total, swift, brutal, perfectly orchestrated, hollywodian IDF strike with Chuck Norris as the wing leader slowly fading into the sunset after mission success at the end...