The Attack on the Ain al-Asad Base in Iraq

Discussion of current events
User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 3845
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

The Attack on the Ain al-Asad Base in Iraq

Post by Sertorio » Mon Jan 13, 2020 4:51 am

DANISH TROOPS TESTIFY TO GREATER DAMAGES AT US BASE IN IRAQ

On January 8th, Danish sergeant John and the other Danish soldiers waited for several hours for the Iranian attack on the Ain al-Asad military base in the Al Anbar province in western Iraq.

“It was terrible. It cannot be described and it should not be experienced. We could do nothing; we could just accept it. So, we couldn’t use our training in that situation,” the sergeant said.

A correspondent for Danish TV 2 interviewed him, after most of Denmark’s 133 soldiers, part of Operation Inherent Resolve were evacuated from the base and to Kuwait.

Several sources tell TV 2 that about six hours before Iran targeted the two military bases in Iraq with ballistic missiles, the Danish government and the Defense Force knew about the impending attack.

Thus, John and the other soldiers at the base were notified of the attack several hours before it happened, and they waited for hours in a bunker for the attack to happen.

“We really sat down for a while and waited for them to finish, so we could return to everyday life again. I don’t know how long we waited, but it was several hours,” John said.

The attack came and it still surprised them.

“Suddenly, the first wave came, that’s what I call it. Nine rockets at barely a ton each. It cannot be described. I’ve never experienced anything like it, and I hope to never come to it again,” the sergeant said.

The entire bunker shook, and there was dust falling from the ceiling.

“We had to keep scarves on our faces just to be able to breathe,” John said. According to him and the other Danish soldiers, it was the ignorance and powerlessness that were the worst.

“Not knowing how close the next attack is or when it may come. After all, down in the bunker we had no idea. We could just sit and wait. We couldn’t use any of what we had trained for. We could just wait,” John described.

When the attack was done, the Danish soldiers were surprised that the damage was not so great. They initially expected to go outside and see a desert, with everything destroyed.

“The first strikes were so severe that we were sure we were going to a golden desert and nothing would be left. We were really surprised that everything hadn’t fallen on top of our heads. I would estimate that the nearest rocket hit 300 yards from us, and as we walked around afterwards, there were halves of helicopters, and there were holes so big that you could park a van in them,” the sergeant said.

Psychologists are now on their way to Kuwait to help the Danish soldiers recover from the experience.

“We really need them. This was a situation we were not trained for,” John said.

Two things can be concluded from the report by the Danish television and the weeps of the Danish soldiers that can be seen in the video above:

Damages were actually much greater than the US admitted, with even helicopters being destroyed and not just several buildings damaged and hitting open territory in the camp.

The second, is a question: What did the Danish soldiers (and potentially others part of Operation Inherent Resolve, there to allegedly fight terrorists and train the Iraqi army in specifically fighting terrorists) train for, if not being under attack by the “enemy forces,” be it from machine guns, shelling or even missiles? Did they train to fight civilians, or wait for an airstrike to eliminate the enemy and then rush in, simply detaining (or eliminating) any survivors, incapable of resisting?

The report is quite showing of the state of NATO troops and the actual level of combat readiness of the troops that allegedly defeated ISIS, sitting in a bunker, and then in need of a psychologist after surviving a missile strike that they knew hours in advance was coming.

https://southfront.org/danish-troops-te ... readiness/
For those who think this is just another piece of Russian propaganda, and can understand Danish, please go to:

https://nyheder.tv2.dk/udland/2020-01-1 ... magtesloes

Meanwhile CNN has shown the damage caused to the base, and it is a lot greater than I had expected:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/13/midd ... index.html

Those who think that defeating Iran would be easy, better think again...

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 4131
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: The Attack on the Ain al-Asad Base in Iraq

Post by cassowary » Mon Jan 13, 2020 5:04 am

They expected the Attack. This supports the view that Iran did not want to kill anybody. This means they just wanted a face saving response and not a real war.

Sorry Sertorio.
The Imp :D

User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 288
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:46 pm

Reinforcing the Iranian deterrent

Post by Alexis » Mon Jan 13, 2020 5:33 am

Actually, it's far less the size of the blasts than their precision which comes as a reality check regarding Iranian strike capabilities.

Photo analysis of the damages at Al Asad yielded the following data:
- Missiles over Al Asad base were striking precise target points, with CEP in the vicinity of 10 meters
- Reduced damages is indicative of reduced explosive yield, or no warhead at all - damages would have been larger had the full warhead been installed

Together with large, domestically produced arsenal of ballistic missiles, and taking into account that preventive destruction of numerous, dispersed, hidden and protected missiles is not realistic, this means that Iran has the ability to visit destruction within the whole Middle East on military bases, energy infrastructure, command assets and the like.

While some persons have described the Iranian attack on Al Asad as feeble or weak, generally the more knowledgeable about missile technology and Gulf military balance, the more impressed with the strategic consequences of precision of these missiles an analyst will be.

That also may help to explain why President Trump, contrary to his previous public proclamations, did not react to Iran striking a US military asset by bombing "52" targets in Iran. He must have been strongly warned against such bombings by US military leaders.

In effect, the Iranian deterrent which is not nuclear but economic has been starkly reinforced by the attack on Al Asad.

Food for thought:
A second point of surprise is that the accuracy of Iranian ballistic missiles seems to be much higher than that expected by the West. Analysis of satellite photos after the attack on the Al Asad base shows that all the missiles hit hangars or crossroads important for the normal operation of the base. It even appears that in two places more than one missile hit the same target. Unless there is extraordinary luck, such a spread of impacts is impossible if the accuracy of Iranian missiles was not less than 10 metres. This type of precision is only possible for a ballistic missile by coupling inertial navigation with satellite positioning guidance, such as the Russian GLONASS or the Chinese BEIDOU.

(...) While these two observations are already sufficiently problematic taken individually, taken together they significantly alter the perception of the balance of forces in the Middle East. Indeed, having a large number of short- and medium-range ballistic and cruise missiles, Iran would be in a position to strike with precision and effectiveness the entire regional strategic infrastructure if it were to be cornered, for example, by an American or Israeli air attack. Even without nuclear weapons, Tehran would thus have sufficient means to destroy all the region's energy production, as well as the main communications, political and military infrastructure within a radius of 2 000 km.

Such a military capability is, in itself, a highly effective deterrent tool, since it would make a potential aggressor face the possible destabilisation of world energy exchanges, with major economic and political risks on a global scale. This may explain in part the radical change in the attitude of the American President towards Tehran following this episode...
Last edited by Alexis on Mon Jan 13, 2020 5:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4486
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

“We are children of war. Fight with us, we will fight back.”

Post by Doc » Mon Jan 13, 2020 5:34 am

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/13/iran-po ... tdown.html
Iran police shoot at those protesting plane shootdown
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4486
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: The Attack on the Ain al-Asad Base in Iraq

Post by Doc » Mon Jan 13, 2020 5:37 am

https://www.foxnews.com/media/muslim-sc ... -shot-down
Muslim scholar on Iranians protesting shot down plane: 'This regime, for the first time ever, is seriously threatened'
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 288
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:46 pm

Scorecard of Suleimani + Al Asad episode = 5-2 for Iran

Post by Alexis » Mon Jan 13, 2020 6:46 am

USA

- President Trump demonstrated that he was willing to answer with open, direct and forceful military retaliation on Iran's asset
- killing of a top general - either killing of even one American citizen (contractor on K-1 Air base) or attack of an US embassy without any human loss, even without direct Iranian involvement but only Iran's allies

- Iran accepted to play within the rulebook defined by Trump's deeds
- as opposed to his words, e.g. the threat to bomb "52" Iranian sites in case of any Iranian reprisal on any US asset - and to take pains to not kill a single American even when effecting a reprisal on a US base


Iran

- US killing of a general popular for his reputation of having defeated ISIS in Iraq led to scandal among Iranians of many political persuasions and even opponents expressing solidarity with the regime.
That consequence may be somewhat, however not necessarily fully cancelled by IRG's accidental downing of a civilian airliner

- US demonstrated contempt of Iraqi sovereignty increased will among Iraqis to see US and allied presence in Iraq terminated,
which is a strategic objective for Teheran. Such desire may not lead to quick withdrawal of US troops since Washington refused to obey Iraqi parliament and Iraqi PM request to leave, however it will anyway make US presence more difficult and costly

- Iran demonstrated that it could neglect Trump's declarations and react to his deeds only
Although Trump's order to refrain from killing any US person nor attack any US embassy was followed - it had been demonstrated through action - his threat to attack Iran in response to reprisal on any US asset was neglected, which did not result in any US attack

- Iran demonstrated that it had the ability to destroy very large number of fixed target within 2,000 km,
meaning it could destroy the Gulf's energy production, resulting in global economic destabilisation, as well as destroy military and/or civilian infrastructure in Saudi Arabia, Israel and other countries

- President Trump confirmed that the US would retaliate only in case of attack against US persons and embassies, not if a regional ally is stricken no matter how badly
The attack on Abqaiq last September, resulting in 5% of global oil production being taken down for months, by far the most dangerous attack in all of Saudi history, has been and remained unanswered by Riyad's supposed protector. This tends to demonstrate regional States that the US not only won't protect them, it may endanger them by risking a regional war where they would be badly stricken. All going towards Iran's strategic objective of expelling the US from the Gulf region


===> I'd say it's 5-2 for Iran to date.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4486
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Scorecard of Suleimani + Al Asad episode = 5-2 for Iran

Post by Doc » Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:15 am

Alexis wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 6:46 am
USA

- President Trump demonstrated that he was willing to answer with open, direct and forceful military retaliation on Iran's asset
- killing of a top general - either killing of even one American citizen (contractor on K-1 Air base) or attack of an US embassy without any human loss, even without direct Iranian involvement but only Iran's allies

- Iran accepted to play within the rulebook defined by Trump's deeds
- as opposed to his words, e.g. the threat to bomb "52" Iranian sites in case of any Iranian reprisal on any US asset - and to take pains to not kill a single American even when effecting a reprisal on a US base


Iran

- US killing of a general popular for his reputation of having defeated ISIS in Iraq led to scandal among Iranians of many political persuasions and even opponents expressing solidarity with the regime.
That consequence may be somewhat, however not necessarily fully cancelled by IRG's accidental downing of a civilian airliner

- US demonstrated contempt of Iraqi sovereignty increased will among Iraqis to see US and allied presence in Iraq terminated,
which is a strategic objective for Teheran. Such desire may not lead to quick withdrawal of US troops since Washington refused to obey Iraqi parliament and Iraqi PM request to leave, however it will anyway make US presence more difficult and costly

- Iran demonstrated that it could neglect Trump's declarations and react to his deeds only
Although Trump's order to refrain from killing any US person nor attack any US embassy was followed - it had been demonstrated through action - his threat to attack Iran in response to reprisal on any US asset was neglected, which did not result in any US attack

- Iran demonstrated that it had the ability to destroy very large number of fixed target within 2,000 km,
meaning it could destroy the Gulf's energy production, resulting in global economic destabilisation, as well as destroy military and/or civilian infrastructure in Saudi Arabia, Israel and other countries

- President Trump confirmed that the US would retaliate only in case of attack against US persons and embassies, not if a regional ally is stricken no matter how badly
The attack on Abqaiq last September, resulting in 5% of global oil production being taken down for months, by far the most dangerous attack in all of Saudi history, has been and remained unanswered by Riyad's supposed protector. This tends to demonstrate regional States that the US not only won't protect them, it may endanger them by risking a regional war where they would be badly stricken. All going towards Iran's strategic objective of expelling the US from the Gulf region


===> I'd say it's 5-2 for Iran to date.
I would say the situation is rapidly evolving. This is all yesterday's news. It seem a large portion of the Iranian population is sick and tired of endless war against the West and others.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 2693
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: The Attack on the Ain al-Asad Base in Iraq

Post by Milo » Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:32 am

Sertorio goes on about war again.

User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 288
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:46 pm

Re: Scorecard of Suleimani + Al Asad episode = 5-2 for Iran

Post by Alexis » Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:34 am

Doc wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:15 am
I would say the situation is rapidly evolving. This is all yesterday's news. It seem a large portion of the Iranian population is sick and tired of endless war against the West and others.
This was all structural news :)

Not all that is fresh and new is important, no matter how spectacular.

Regarding the recent demonstrations in Iran following the airliner's downing, time will tell if they are a deep seated movement against the regime, or an anger focused at those responsible for the error.

If I was in Trump's shoes, I wouldn't hold too much hope.

Jim the Moron
Posts: 1883
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:51 pm

Re: Scorecard of Suleimani + Al Asad episode = 5-2 for Iran

Post by Jim the Moron » Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:38 am

Alexis wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 6:46 am
USA

- President Trump demonstrated that he was willing to answer with open, direct and forceful military retaliation on Iran's asset
- killing of a top general - either killing of even one American citizen (contractor on K-1 Air base) or attack of an US embassy without any human loss, even without direct Iranian involvement but only Iran's allies

- Iran accepted to play within the rulebook defined by Trump's deeds
- as opposed to his words, e.g. the threat to bomb "52" Iranian sites in case of any Iranian reprisal on any US asset - and to take pains to not kill a single American even when effecting a reprisal on a US base


Iran

- US killing of a general popular for his reputation of having defeated ISIS in Iraq led to scandal among Iranians of many political persuasions and even opponents expressing solidarity with the regime.
That consequence may be somewhat, however not necessarily fully cancelled by IRG's accidental downing of a civilian airliner

- US demonstrated contempt of Iraqi sovereignty increased will among Iraqis to see US and allied presence in Iraq terminated,
which is a strategic objective for Teheran. Such desire may not lead to quick withdrawal of US troops since Washington refused to obey Iraqi parliament and Iraqi PM request to leave, however it will anyway make US presence more difficult and costly

- Iran demonstrated that it could neglect Trump's declarations and react to his deeds only
Although Trump's order to refrain from killing any US person nor attack any US embassy was followed - it had been demonstrated through action - his threat to attack Iran in response to reprisal on any US asset was neglected, which did not result in any US attack

- Iran demonstrated that it had the ability to destroy very large number of fixed target within 2,000 km,
meaning it could destroy the Gulf's energy production, resulting in global economic destabilisation, as well as destroy military and/or civilian infrastructure in Saudi Arabia, Israel and other countries

- President Trump confirmed that the US would retaliate only in case of attack against US persons and embassies, not if a regional ally is stricken no matter how badly
The attack on Abqaiq last September, resulting in 5% of global oil production being taken down for months, by far the most dangerous attack in all of Saudi history, has been and remained unanswered by Riyad's supposed protector. This tends to demonstrate regional States that the US not only won't protect them, it may endanger them by risking a regional war where they would be badly stricken. All going towards Iran's strategic objective of expelling the US from the Gulf region


===> I'd say it's 5-2 for Iran to date.
" . . . Iran's strategic objective of expelling the US from the Gulf region."

The US should oblige. Let the Persians and the Arabs and the Turks declare victory. And then watch as they turn on each other. The most telling indicator was when the Saudis failed to respond to Iran's attack on Saudi oil production facilities. Why should the US have to take up the cudgels?

And Israel? If existentially threatened, can it be supposed that their nukes are poised to strike? Hopefully one is programmed for Mecca . . .

Post Reply