Army News, opinions, editorials, news from Iraq, photos, reports - Army Times

Analysts: Iranian military obsolete

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates — Iran’s outdated military presents little current threat to its neighbors, despite the fierce rhetoric from its hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, military analysts said Monday at a security conference here in the Persian Gulf.

Iran has exaggerated its military capabilities, while U.S. and Israeli leaders have engaged in “provocative rhetoric” that overstates the Iranian threat, said Anthony Cordesman of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.

In reality, Iran is more focused on national defense than using military power to boost its influence in the region, he said.

Cordesman, addressing military leaders from the U.S.-allied Gulf Arab states, said Iran’s disputed nuclear program could someday pose a danger, but said any looming threat lies a decade or so away, leaving time for diplomacy.

Iran represents “a force that has to be taken seriously in the defense of its country, but it has very little capacity to project outside the country,” Cordesman said. “Iran cannot seriously engage the U.S. for any length of time. In an asymmetric capacity perhaps, but not in conventional warfare.”

Many U.S. officials have, however, have worried exactly about such asymmetric capacity, such as Iran’s ability to temporarily disrupt oil flows in the Gulf.

Cordesman told the Arab defense officials — many of whom harbor deep suspicions of Iran’s intentions in the region — that Iran’s army musters 1,600 mainly obsolete tanks and armored vehicles, and its air force would be unable to keep its aging fleet of 260 warplanes in battle very long.

Iran’s ballistic missiles employ 1960s technology that makes them only accurate enough to “probably” strike a large city, where their small warheads might only damage a few random buildings, Cordesman said.

Iran’s most sophisticated weapons system is defensive: the Russian-made TOR-M1 air defense systems just purchased from Russia, he said.

Washington and its allies accuse Iran of secretly developing atomic weapons, but Tehran insists its program is for peaceful purposes such as generating electricity.

Cordesman said Iran’s primitive missiles make more sense delivering nuclear or biological weapons than conventional ones. The worst-case scenario would be a broad Iranian nuclear arsenal tied to missile systems, not just a few bombs kept as a deterrent, Cordesman said.

But that scenario, to become reality, would have to be pushed by multiple Iranian regimes for as long as 15 years, he said.

“One bomb in the basement isn’t a threat,” he said.

An Iranian expert in international relations, Mahmood Sariolghalam, agreed that Iran’s conventional military has exaggerated its capabilities. But he also urged Arab defense leaders and others to engage Iran diplomatically to influence its insular military and defuse tensions.

“Maintaining your distance from Iran will only foster the current inertia in the security apparatus. Iran’s policies can be changed through engagement,” said Sariolghalam, of the National University of Iran.

Both Sariolghalam and Cordesman warned that the bombastic speeches by Ahmadinejad — who has called for Israel’s destruction — amounted to posturing and were not backed by credible threats.

Cordesman also contended that tensions in the Gulf were being worsened by U.S. and Israeli leaders overstating the Iranian threat.

Though the U.S. has said it hopes to resolve its issues with Iran diplomatically, it has not ruled out a military assault on Iran.

But Cordesman noted that no possible set of targets had been definitively identified as possible nuclear weapons installations. He also warned that an invasion of Iran would probably trigger a nationalist defense of the country and “turn into a bloody and pointless war of attrition.”

“You do not need to consider a military response at this point. You’re better off waiting until targets are visible and there’s less political controversy,” Cordesman said.